> 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]