SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
James Tichenor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 28 Oct 1994 16:48:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
>Uh.. James, you can't be serious.  This is one of the silliest
>dichotomies I have ever seen proposed.
 
Thanks! I'll relay that to Oliver.
 
 
>I think every film-maker that you
>listed in the A. group would argue you into a hole.
 
Maybe, maybe not.
 
>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).
 
Well, I'd didn't say anything about not making statements. What is a good
film without a statement, a premise, and I listed some of the best
film makers in the "movie" list. What I should have pointed out is
intent. The movies makers intent is to entertain, first and foremost.
The film maker's intent is to... teach? I can't think of a better word
right now. Sure, one can do both, but _most_ (not all) times there is
a weight to which they do more, whether they intend to or not.
 
I suppose if I'd have stuck to contemporary movie makers, I'd have been
ignored. But you start messin' with the masters and the hot water flows :-)
 
 
>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.
 
_Man Who Shot Liberty Valence_ is one of the best FILMS of all time, IMHO.
Very, very self aware and very wonderful. It is a film. _The Searchers_ is
gorgious, but the politics are... dicey. I know many, many Ford films
and sometimes he was on, and sometimes he has these scenes that just
make you cringe.
 
 
>Just because many films
>have the hi-pro glow
 
Has nothing to do with it.
 
>doesn't mean there wasn't an exessive amout of
>thought that went into them.
 
Has nothing to do with it. It's intent, thoughful or not.
 
>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.
 
I'll send you my resume if your interested in seeing how many film sets
I've worked on, and they key word in your argument is _attempts_. There
is more to film making than making films, sadly...
 
>
>Later,
>Ian.
>
 
Cheers
 
James

ATOM RSS1 RSS2