SCREEN-L Archives

March 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 Mar 1993 11:23:36 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
        If I follow Henry correctly, he sees TR as a sendup of a
genre, i.e. although innovative SFX-wise, it is a quintessential--wrong
word??--action flick because of its exaggerated sexism, violence and
racism(I find that point a little stretched, but I do see Henry's
meaning nonehteless).  I have not read BSOM, but I also have heard
friends who have read it complain that yes, the film did stray towards
violence a bit much.  I like the idea of a film within a film.
I think the concept originated with Shakespeare--play within a play--
yet TR seems to me more like a reality within a reality.
                                Buck
                                [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2