SCREEN-L Archives

June 1998, Week 2

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:
William A Goodman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:48:58 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
I'm gonna have to agree with Patricia on this one.  I think the reason
that action films are not offered their own genre by scholars is a
general dismissal of such films as worthless escapism. Action films
generally have no inherent message, weak characterization, and plots that
only serve to set up the next stunt. However, I would not dismiss these
films because they fail to touch the inner soul. That's not the
intention of the film. The way to critique these fims is to compare the
technical prowess that goes into each stunt. The more exciting the
stunts, the better the movie. The quality of the screenplay is another
way to evaluate an action movie. Again, one should not expect anything
poignant out of the screenplay, but it shouldn't take away from the
picture either (Die Hard 2, Eraser). Bad jokes and corny dialogue can
hurt or ruin an action flick. Does anyone have anything else to add to
this?
 
 
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2