>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
>"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.
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])
"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."