SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Tony Williams <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:11:13 CST
In-Reply-To:
note of 10/27/94 00:08
Comments:
Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
From: Tony Williams
English
SIUC
 I think you are right about the dangers of categorization and cross-over.
To regard Hawks, Hitchcock and Ford as "movie-makers" as opposed to "film-
makers" raises so many questions as to fill our respective cylinders even
more than the prolific PULP FICTION debate. Despite Spielberg's good
intentions in SCHINDLER'S LIST, he cinematically uses and abuses the
Holocaust - an adolescent playing with matches as dangerous as Graham
Greene's Alden Pyle in THE QUIET AMERICAN in terms of the representations
he chooses in several scenes such as the suspense gimmick with the showers
and the appalling voyeuristic shots of unclad female bodies. As Rod Steiger
once said concerning THE PAWNBROKER, you can't starve your actors to represent
actual concentration camp victims but this can not excuse Speilberg from using
attractive well-fed female bodies for a gratuitous kino-eye scene.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2