SCREEN-L Archives

February 1994


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
Sandy Dwiggins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 9 Feb 1994 12:27:10 EST
text/plain (31 lines)
> to forgive the little-girl-in-the-red-dress thing, choosing to view it as
> that Spielberg touch on an otherwise very uncharacteristic film. The movie
> was not a perfect piece of storytelling, and Spielberg is not the ideal
> filmmaker -- whoever said he is?  And, of course,since when do the most
> deserving win Oscars?  Perhaps a more appropriate topic is why those who win
> Oscars win them, e.g. why Schindler's List will likely win Best Picture this
> year, why so many critic groups have given it their Best Picture awards also.
>  Why is that?  How does one win Best Director?  What exactly does it take?
> To me this is a more interesting topic.
> Sandra Barton
> [log in to unmask]
The little-girl-in-the-red-dress thing made me gag...I couldn't believe
he could be that tasteless....but then again..yes I can!
Yes, the burning question is: why have so many so-called film critics
given this film their Best Picture award?  What is the job of a critic
these days?  That's quite a question...who are they working for, really?
What about that phrase I've often heard..."I'm glad I only paid $3.25
to see that film, rather than the full $6.00/6.50/7.00"?  Who do we
believe when we read popular criticism and why?
+  Sandy Dwiggins               Internet: [log in to unmask]        +
+  Building 82, Room 111        Phone: (301) 496-7406                    +
+  Bethesda, Maryland 20892     Fax:   (301) 480-8105                    +