SCREEN-L Archives

March 1995, Week 2


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]>
Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:39:50 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (28 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Sorry about the Topiv  Topic, Im having some difficulties here/
I wanted to make two statements here about Directors, analysis etc.
1) There needs to be one head, one focus, making a film, play, almost
   any important deed.  If each person comes to the table with his own
   agenda the end product will come off a little confused.  Often
    The most acclaimed directors are control mongers, they have to be.
   Back in my college days, I found that over thinking by the actors
   lead them to want to 'do it their way', which could cause conflict.
   Method actors- my fave- often brought agendas no one could follow.
2) Letterman-ising.
   I do resent a lot of your ideas here.  Its a great relief to take things
   suimply at face value.   Thats what we see in a lot of humor, and he at one
   time did well.
   David Letterman doesn't see the humor in his ways any more.  Its quite
   evident if you've been in the studio for a taping.  He looks at people
   who laugh as if they've lost their minds.  very insulting.
   The new station has at least let him take the view its a job rather
   than a nut fest.
   Thought you'd like to know the view of the man you've iconized.