SCREEN-L Archives

October 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
Jajasoon Tlitteu <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 28 Oct 1994 01:23:21 -0500
text/plain (24 lines)
Ian said:
>I agree full-on with Don. Tarantino has relied on devices that are
>guaranteed to have an affect. The point is *anyone* can use these and
>end up with the shock value he has obviously obtained.
So when is your Palme D'Or coming round, Ian?
You call PF cheap but entertaining. So what's an "expensive" film? What
type of movie is more legitimate? What are your requirements for a film
for it to qualify as something above something you could do? Do you really
feel, as the word "guaranteed" implies, that QT didn't take any risks in
this film? You think this was a hack job?
This type of argument is too similar to the film/movie distinction that
seems to do nothing but say "Hey, I'm better than the people who think
that's good." Pointless and counterproductive.
jajasoon tlitteu ([log in to unmask])
"Academic training was instrumental. You have to understand the language
of society before you can start stretching and subverting it and ripping
and tearing it and burning it and watching the plastic drip on the ants."