Mike Frank wonders: " but the fight over depp had nothing whatever to do with art or meaning or value or even with movies as such; it concerned nothing more than an actor's decision to pursue his career in one way and not another . . . i hardly want to minimize the role of $$$$, only to find out why some people care about such matters as these" Some of it may have to do with "false aura" of the star system that Walter Benjamin complains about; undoubtedly, there are other factors. But one thing that may be involved in such matters is the extent to which a star's performance matches or fails to match our expectations of the type of portrayal he or she makes in other films. When Mel Gibson played Hamlet, a good deal of critical (and probably audience) attention was on whether he could carry off the role at all. One has come to expect Johnny Depp to play idiosyncratic roles in off-beat pictures (which is to the taste of some and not others). When he's in more standard fare, many might wonder if he's selling out (or, alternately, finally coming to his senses). When Lawrence Olivier appeared in THE ENTERTAINER, some critics thought the role beneath him; ditto his appearances in THE JAZZ SINGER and THE BETSY, but for different reasons. We might bring similar expectations, concerns and objections to someone appearing in a play or an opera, but those performances are of necessity ephemeral, while film performances are inscribed for the duration of the negative (or tape). These are just some observations, hardly conclusions. It is a topic worht further thought. 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]