SCREEN-L Archives

September 1991


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Cal Pryluck <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 8 Sep 1991 18:15:22 EST
text/plain (16 lines)
My skepticism about vo-tech film training is not a concern for "film studies" w
hich the litterateurs among us will keep flourishing.
Rather it is a concern about whether the United States needs yet another conser
vatory to supply the "film industry."  If there is a need for such a facility,
perhaps the industry could (should) support it.  Every once in a while, I fanta
size about how well AFI and UCLA could be supported with, say, one-tenth of one
 percent of annual film grosses.  The phenomenally successful films would not m
iss it while the amount would not make any difference to recoupment for the les
s successful films.
It is more than a little ironic   that Howard Suber who is leading the charge w
as trained and built his reputation in academe as a critic-historian.
As they say -- That's Show Business.