from the lack of significant response on either side of the question, i get
the distinct sense very few on the list share my concern with these matters,
but maybe they're worth pursuing just a little further
 
in response to my puzzlement at the contretemps over depp's choice of roles
jerry writes:
 
> I'm sure we would all like to look at cinema as a "pure" art form;
> unfortunately, it's inextricably bound to economics.  Positing film as
> "art" or "product" is futile- it's both.  Also, the "product" discourse of
> film has always played a role on Screen-L, however indirectly.  For
> example, look at the current dialogue on here concerning the two cuts of
> "Blade Runner."  There never even  would have been two different cuts to
> talk about if some studio exec hadn't decided Ridley's original version was
> not economically viable.
 
true enough, but the cases are hardly parallel . . . the converstaion about
BR, whatever one thinks of it, is still motivated by concern about the
quality and/or meaning of the movie, no matter what factors might be seen as
responsible for the results we find . . . but the fight over depp had nothing
whatever to do with art or meaning or value or even with movies as such; it
concerned nothing more than an actor's decision to pursue his career in one
way and not another . . . i hardly want to minimize the role of $$$$, only to
find out why some people care about such matters as these
 
m
>
> ----
> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]