SCREEN-L Archives

March 1996, Week 1


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
El Amante Cine <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 02:04:05 -0300
text/plain (27 lines)
Tony Williams wrote:
> Surely, there needs to be a distinction between Welles himself and an
>actor (Vincent D'Onofrio) playing Welles in an ideological perspective in
>a film where very little discrimination is made between a director who
>undoubtedly made bad films and one with talent who was ruined by the
>system in Hollywood.
>  In this sense ED WOOD is an ideal conservative postmodernist film, a
>drooling homage by a director who sees little difference between Welles
>and Wood - a real questionable equivalence.
What kind of discrimination should be made after you've seen a single shot
from a film by Wood? (and you see plenty of that kind in Burton's film).
Maybe the opposite is true. Maybe there is no deepest conservatism than
thinking that the system should only be blamed for its effect on talented
people. Wood (the character) is a victim of the ideas of fame and genius,
which are stressed by the system. Conservatism is an ideology that tries to
keep hierarchies intact, and that seems to be the main point of Tony=B4s
reply. Could you expand yor comment?
El Amante Cine Magazine
Buenos Aires
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]