i very much appreciate jeff apfel's thoughtful and shrewd comments re: depp's stardom, especially his summation: > I suspect, despite our artistic > and spiritual pretensions, we are animal enough in our makeup that it is > impossible to contain human sympathy to the screen, and that its spillover to > non-formal considerations is just inevitable. In trying to get rid of > *celebrity*, one might well be forced to jettison the baby of human sympathy > with the bathwater of odious stardom. > > Jeff Apfel but this answer, which i find convincing, kinda forces the issue in a slightly new and i think important direction . . . for if it's true that our personal investment in the off-screen personae of movie stars is an integral part of the kind of exchange that takes place between screen and viewer, then how can i [we??] ever hope to get our students to respond to movies that have totally unfamilair--not to say long dead or even foreign--casts . . . increasingly i find that a crucial hook for student interest is the identify of the "stars" -- and like a good academic i try very hard to wean them away from this kind of investment in the film so that they can read it more accurately and with greater disinterest . . . but jeff's comments make it seem that this agenda is not only doomed to failure, it may itself be academic in the worst sense: narrow, irrelevant, self-absorbed, ignorant of the very issues that are really most important . . . . . . so now i find myself wondering: do others on the list [among those who teach] a) find that star power is an essential ingredient in student response, and--if so, b) what can and/or should be done about it? . . . or should we revise our theories of cinema to take stardom into account as being at least as important as, say, montage? . . . there may be some important larger issues lurking in these ostensibly trivial questions 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]