>While I'm writing, am I the only one who doesn't CARE if Elizabeth Taylor
>is viewed as beautiful?  Or that someone's head is large?  Or that
>someone is short?  I don't think this kind of information forwards film
>scholarship.  With all due respect, I think these issues are not
>appropriate for discussion on this site.


     though i'm in principle sympathetic to maureen's
     plaints, i think it gets more complicated than she
     seems willing to allow . . . to the extent that some
     package of glamour and star power is one of the
     driving forces of mainstream cinema, any responsible
     account of how that cinema works will have to allow
     room for such issues . . .  though i find myself usually
     very resistant to the appeal of such as LT,  someone who
     considers how the camera deals with her "beauty" is, i
     expect, doing something no less  valid than i am doing
     when i conisder how terence malick's camera deals
     with landscape

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