Print

Print


> Ironically, during the time the film
> was released in Britain, virtually all of Wood's movies gained huge publicity
> in terms of 35mm and video release. O.K. But this is at the cost of denying
> audiences access to the huge diversity cinema is capable off, fuelling the
> tendencies within certain sectors to regard cinema as merely being a trivial,
> harmless, inessential quality as insubstantial and camp as Wood and his films
> were.
 
I'll disagree with you on this point; particularly about "Glen or
Glenda".
 
With Woods's first film, we have a cross-dresser who scripts and
directs a feature film about his own lifestyle and problems he faces
by society.  As "bad" as his own directorial style was and as
incompetent as his story-telling techniques were, it still stands as
unique little quirk of history that says much more about post-WWII
American than any Welles film ever did.
 
At least that one film isn't "campy and inconsequential"; it may
prove to be the one of the most unique and personal directorial
statements ever done on film.
 
Randy
(who's _really_ expecting to provoke discussion on the list with this
one)
 
-------------------------------------------------
Randy A. Riddle, Winston-Salem, NC
[log in to unmask] -- http://www.infi.net/~rriddle
-------------------------------------------------
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]