Re: the question on financial success and the relative "importance" of a
film.
 
I think one could assume that a financially successful film indicated some-
thing about the tastes of the society and time in which it was made and
consumed.  Some writers have always been somewhat aware of this, but there's
a new level of that kind of self-awareness as everyone from Bob Dole to the
folks on this list weigh in on the "meaning" and "relevance" of FORREST
GUMP and PULP FICTION.  This kind of discussion *is* important but it easily
leads to hasty over-generalizations (see the egregious Mr. Dole for a start
there!).
 
*Artistic* importance is another matter--but our decisions about what is
"art" and what isn't have their own social implications.
 
It does seem clear that the media encourage us to think of success strictly
in financial terms.  Consider the weekly listings and debates about whether
Dave is doing "better" than Jay, what the top-grossing film of the week is,
and so forth.
 
This kind of thinking was exemplified beautifully last week in a 1/2 hour
"tribute" to the "most successful" comedies of all time on Fox (where else?).
 
Really a shameless plug for the new Hugh Grant film (here's a scary thought--
did Grant engage that hooker on purpose to promote the film?), the show
of course said nothing about Chaplin, Keaton, the Marx Brothers, SOME LIKE IT
HOT or Woody Allen.  It was all about the *top-grossing* comedies (and even
then somewhat loose in definition).
 
I hope that *some* viewers noticed!
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]