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
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 27 Oct 1994 14:20:11 -0400
text/plain (47 lines)
On Wed, 26 Oct 1994, James Tichenor wrote:
> >I still don't
> >understand the difference between film-maker and movie-maker put by James
> >Tichenor ([log in to unmask])
> I think, in broadest terms, this means (a la Oliver Stone quotes in the
> article about QT in this months "Premier"):
> Movie maker - one who makes movies generally for entertainment, escape,
> thirlls, chills, basing their work on the films of the past, quoting,
> mimicing and tributing what they love about the cinema - "the pictures"
> These I'd include are Steven Spielberg (except "Schindler's List"),
> George Lucas, James Cameron, James Brooks, Rob Reiner, Howard Hawks,
> Hitchcock, Ford, QT, etc. I think many of the films made before 1963 would
> count - when movies were primarily stories with morals. Where the story is
> more important than the message. Movies about movies.
> Film makers - one who makes films to teach, to show a wrong, to state
> a political or spiritual position, comments on society, etc. Experimental films,
> "artistic pieces". I'd include Powell, Stone, Welles, Fellini, etc. Where the
> message is more important than the story, where the film is very self aware
> of it's intentions. Movies about life.
> This is so absolutely vague, so please do not flip out. I think there
> is a seed of truth to it, but one certainly can't catagorize every movie
> in these slots, and more often than not, there is some amount of cross-over.
> James
Uh.. James, you can't be serious.  This is one of the silliest
dichotomies I have ever seen proposed.  I think every film-maker that you
listed in the  A. group would argue you into a hole.  All of them would
probably at least like to think they were making some kind of
political/spiritual statement (of course with the execption of the Mighty
Ducks II).  Oh yeah, you better rewatch John Ford's stuff before pigeon
holing him, he was one of the most self aware (as well as one of the
first of these) directors to ever make films.  Just because many films
have the hi-pro glow doesn't mean there wasn't an exessive amout of
thought that went into them.  And on the other side, if you work on a
couple sets you'll see, that no matter how ignorant the film's creator
may actually be he/she still attempts to have a solid rational basis for
what they're doing.