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]>
hanemann <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:37:47 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (26 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
   When I submitted Analysis, Analysis, I did not mean to suggest that
movie analysis is not useful, desirable, or even just fun. But academic
analysis is, by nature, ex post facto, and by inclination often personal,
subjective, and sometimes dogmatic. Eibert and Siskel can't agree if a
movie is good or bad, Screen-L subscribers can't decide if Tarantino is a
rising, shooting, or falling star.
   To imply that film analysis is in any way definitive is presumptuous
and naive. Perhaps if a film was the product of only one "Filmaker", we
could get a better handle on quantifying and qualifying it. On the set,
the writer's work is amended by the director, the director's work is
subject to the actors' interpretations, time and budgetary constraints,
serendipity, etc., and the film editor enjoys enormous sway over all of
the above.
   And, of course each of these contributors "analyzes" his/her
responsibilities, but not as a single organism and in a much more
pragmatic way than some would suggest.
   Rex B. Hannah wrote, rather personally, I thought:
> I don't know Danny H. or what he does...
   He is a professional TV/Movie actor.
>I won't be seeing him around any day soon.
   Too probably already have.
Perhaps I should have prefaced this whole shooting match with IMHO.
I was merely trying to stimulate discussion, not foment acrimony.
                Danny H.