SCREEN-L Archives

July 1999, Week 2


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
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 12:19:20 -0400
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
paul wiener <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
text/plain (38 lines)
Richard Gere comes to mind as a small guy. Oscar Werner too? So I believe
is Kermit.

Let's not forget the plain fact that film enlarges any object ("I look so
fat" etc), and that audiences love stars for their faces/heads, and for the
shape and relative size of their bodies (Arnold ain't so large either, but
the Terminator is. And look at poor Far Wray.....). Krin, are you going to
entitle your study "Size Doesn't Matter?"

By the way, am I the only man on earth who doesn't think Eliz. Taylor was
or is beautiful, except in a textbook kind of way?

It's only a matter of time before computers permit filmmakers to create
digital "actors" from accurate records/photos and pics of other (and dead)
actors, down to the last detail - sort of the Zelig concept in reverse. I
would imagine that within 20 years stardom and celebrity will be all but
finished as we know it, though the need for and concept of celebrity will
always need to be satisfied somehow. Perhaps someday the ubiquity of the
net and of digitization will restore the notion that people are born and
remain unique individuals, (even if they all look alike). But that's a
Luddite concept, isn't it?

Question: do big guys come off better on the small screen than small guys
come off on the big screen?

Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
Melville Library
fax: 516/'632-7116
[log in to unmask]

Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite