SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


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

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

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Constance Atwill <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 16 Jun 1994 15:13:13 -0700
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (16 lines)
Geena Stavis,
        I find it interesting that you have written so many messages
about this film in the last few days, and must conclude from that that
you have some sort of regard for it - But does the general acceptance,
of, say, Basic Instinct, mean that we can, in future, laud it formally,
without examining the cultural attitudes and fears it represents?  Again,
I am not so stuck on Griffith being the 'Master Innovator', which is the
only justification I could think of for insisting on the necessity of
screening this film in a film history course.  Have you seen Cabiria,
which I believe I mentioned yesterday?  A far more dynamic and complex
film, both narratively and formally.  Or are we focusing of Griffith in
the same way that we focus on Thomas Edison, rather than the Lumieres, or
others, simply because they are American?  I guess I'm wondering why you
think BOAN is SO important, and so remarkable formally.  To me, that is a
judgement call, not a fact.