i've stayed out of the ongoing depp exchange/controversy because a. it seems to me extraoridnary trivial b. i think i've only seen one dpp film ["ed wood"] c. until his recent fame/notoriety i'd never even heard of depp--knwoing nothing at all about his teeny-bop stauts--so i had no investment in him or his career BUT . . . i find the length and intermittment intensity of the responses to the original query almost as astonishing as the original query itself . . . why in the world should an actor's decision to appear in indie/small/offbeat films make anyone "sick"? . . . and why does the shape of depp's career [as opposed to his acting ability or the quality of his performances] matter so intensly to so many people? . . . the whole episode puzzles me . . . so i'm very curious what others on the list think, NOT about depp or his films but about the issues raised and traced in the contributions of the various correspondents . . . what exactly is at stake here? . . . and why? . . . in the meantime maybe i should go back and reread dyer's STARS mike frank ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]