Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Covey writes:
>>"I'm a bit confused by this "Generation X" topic.  Aren't "X" films a
subset
>>of a generic category that is already in place--that of so-called YOUTH
FILMS?
>>If this is not the case, what criteria is used to define RUMBLEFISH (which
was
>> mentioned) as an X film when it was released before the general use of the
>>term and stars many young men who qualify as "tail-end" baby boomers, and
is
>>directed by Francis Ford Coppola from a book by S.E. Hinton?
>>Might this argument work better if you examined what defines an X film and
how
>>such a film might differ from the vast array of preexisting youth films?
 Jon
>>Lewis's recent Routledge book might be of some help too.
>>Have I somehow missed the original definition of a Gen X movie?"
 
>And what about retro-X movies?  I understand the kids these days are still
>wild about that James Dean!
 
What's the definition of Generation X anyway? What's the class division
inserted in the concept? I don't think concepts created on a specific time on
the present can be used to define any historic past. The relations that bring
up the concept of Generation X - that for me are only market related and the
rest is just masturbatory formulas - are specific to it's existence. Any
attempt to call any other youth film made in different conditions
(technically, socially, and economically altogether) is a cheap trick of
ideology.
 
Otherwise, how about the anti-post-retro-classic-modern-X+Y=$-%&* movies?
 
- Claudio Fernandes - [log in to unmask]