Mike Frank wonders: > 1. can a film be "conventional" despite its unconventional > use of the medium? > > 2 if so, what are the DETERMINING characteristics in a film, > those decisive enough to lead one to call it "truly" unconventional > or revolutionary or radical or whatever other term of praise > one wants to use? Doesn't the very notion of "conventionality" by definition depend on what is accepted as more or less standard within any medium? Henry James' novels were "unconventional" in their use of limited focus but that approach went on to become a major convention of the twentieth century novel. The re-appopriation of the 18th-century narrative conventions (eg., the epistolary novel) becomes unconventional two centuries later. It would seem to follow that a film can be conventional or unconventional in narrative form, stylistic uses of the medium, or thematic issues being engaged and that any of those areas could be at odds with the others. The notion of convention would also seem to be bound by practices at a particular moment. In film classes, students justly wonder why anyone raised a fuss about CITIZEN KANE or the Italian Neo-Realists when so much what they (and many others) did have become so conventional. On the other hand, the most conventional silent films strike them as strange because of the lack of sound. Don Larsson ----------------------------------------------------------- Donald F. Larsson, English Department, AH 230 Minnesota State University Mankato, MN 56001 ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu