SCREEN-L Archives

March 1999, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date:
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:06:20 -0700
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Sharon Knolle <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
Kazan is still vilified because he never apologized OR showed remorse.
(Unlike, say, Sterling Hayden). He still stands by the ridiculous
"communist menace"
defense. Considering that he already won his Best Director Oscar for On the
Waterfront, he should not have been singled out for additional awards.
He's already been recognized by the Academy for his artistic merit.
My 2.

Sharon Knolle
Entertainment and Technology Writing
http://www.projectionmag.com/projection/sknolle.htm


At 10:36 PM -0700 3/23/99, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Paul Wiener was right that Kazan would say nothing to undo any damage.
>This would seem to indicate he is unrepentent about naming names.
>
>My question is why he seems a particular target for hatred by leftist
>intellectual whereas, unless I have missed something, other "friendly
>witnesses" to the hearings like Sterling Hayden, Robert Rossen and Jerome
>Robbins (to name a few) seem rarely villified in print.  Does anyone know
>if Kazan behaved considerably worse than some of the others?
>
>Mark Netter
>[log in to unmask]
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2