----------------------------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]