Print

Print


 mike writes:
 
>but i'm still puzzled . . . i can see how these factors might be of interest
>to those who want to invest in films or otherwise consider them as "product"
>but that discourse has not, so far as i can tell, ever really played a role
>on SCREEN-L . . . it seems to me that something more is at stake here,
>something more personal than the financial interests of investors, and i'm
>curious to know what to make of it or what others make of it
 
I'm sure we would all like to look at cinema as a "pure" art form;
unfortunately, it's inextricably bound to economics.  Positing film as
"art" or "product" is futile- it's both.  Also, the "product" discourse of
film has always played a role on Screen-L, however indirectly.  For
example, look at the current dialogue on here concerning the two cuts of
"Blade Runner."  There never even  would have been two different cuts to
talk about if some studio exec hadn't decided Ridley's original version was
not economically viable.
 
Jerry
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]