SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994


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
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
James Tichenor <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:12:00 -0500
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (26 lines)
>It is intuitive, but also somewhat correct.  One can argue that there's
>been far more continuity in Hollywood style than not, but some changes
>did occur in a noticable way.  For a starting point see the conclusion of
>the last chapter of THE CLASSICAL HOLLYWOOD CINEMA by Bordwell, Thompson
>and Staiger.  They point out that industry-watchers noticed a change
>setting in around 1960 because Hollywood had reached a certain "maturity"
>of institutions and because of outside influences such as the art cinema
>coming from Japan, Europe and so forth.  We could also point to the collapse
>of the studio "stable" of actors, directors, etc. and the concurrent
>collapse of the Production Code.
>I suppose 1963 is resonant just because for many of us it seemed to be the
>Year When the World Changed (JFK's death, Beatles and Dylan's first hits,
>etc. etc.), but it is as arbitrary a point as any other.
>--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN
Thank god I'm not completely alone :-)
Starting to feel a little paranoid there for a moment. Thanks to Don
for helping me see a little clearer.