>Does anyone else have much trouble with the very act of trying to make this
>distinction? Implicit in your definition is the notion that "some people"
>won't appreciate films while movies will be below "some people." That type
>of class/ education/ race/ gender/ etc. distinctions can do no good, only
>harm by helping to keep people in their little categories of definition and
>jajasoon tlitteu ([log in to unmask])
I knew I shouldn't have posted the definitions.
It comes from a story Quenten told in this month's Premiere Magazine, where
Oliver Stone said QT was a "movie" maker and he (Stone) was a "film" maker.
Whether it's right or not is one thing, but is interesting to consider.
One can never expect a system where 35,000+ pieces of work are divided into
two group will work. But I think there is something to look at...
Many of my friends cannot watch a film made before 1960 or so. They find is
shallow, fake and strange. Anything after 1960, well that's easier. What is
it that happened around this period to cinema? The new Wave, I suppose? The
new generation of filmmakers who had the ability to reference back in time
to the last 30+ years of film and consciously study and use, quote and
I guess, also, the 60's was a time of "innocence lost" that the cinema had no
choice but to follow...
I wish I could explain further but I haven't figured it out myself. I know
there is something there, and whether it's the "film/movie" argument, or
something else, or a million things, I don't know. But there is a difference.
As for the racial/class/education point, please, that is so far out of my
mind I don't even think it's fair to bring it up. Movies and film are personal
preference, and whether you're a genius or an idiot, black,red, green or blue,
male or female, you're tastes will be different from mine and everyone else's.
This isn't a taste issue, but a style issue, a content issue. Someone who loves
Stallone may or may not like 8 1/2. We can't tell. And that's not what I'm