SCREEN-L Archives

May 1996, Week 4

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:
Mark Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 22 May 1996 15:52:29 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
> . . . and why does the shape of depp's career [as
>opposed to his acting ability or the quality of his performances] matter so
>intensly to so many people? . . . the whole episode puzzles me . . .
>
>so i'm very curious what others on the list think, NOT about depp or his
>films but about the issues raised and traced in the contributions of the
>various correspondents . . . what exactly is at stake here? . . . and why?
>
 
Since this is a list of people who are interested in films and Depp is an
actor who by his mere attachment to a film can make that a "go picture",
I'd say it is certainly worthy to note why we get more interesting films as
a result of Depp's box office draw than we do from, say, Kevin Costner's
box office draw.
 
As frustrating as it is, "stars" motivate people to see movies and thus
motivate distributors to accept star vehicles and investors/studios to pay
for them.  So, Depp's choices are extremely integral in the discussion of
what films we are watching just as much as what films we watched.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark Allen
Xantherboy
 
****XANTHER
****http://www.directnet.com/~xanther/
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2