a quick down and dirty comment on M.A. Holmes' own comment wondering why ther
was so much energy devoted to "l'affaire depp" . . . fo i think he misses the
real point, a point which is, in fact, cogruent with his
 
the exchange on depp, and its various spin-offs, focused--after a brief flurry
on the actor himself--precisely on the question of WHY and HOW a star's persona
is or might be seen as important to the expereince of cinema, or, more
technically, how the fact of "stardom" has meaning within the expereince of
spectatorship . . . in short, this question quickly resolved itself into a
larger question currently also being considered in the "yesterday, today. tom"
thread, the question of exactly what matters in movies, and how to isolate, and
discuss the things that do matter . . .
 
and after all this is the inescapably essential question of all discussion of
movies [which, like it or not, is always a kind of film theory, however
innocent it may be of its own discursive character] and the question addressed
quite self-consciously in the new Bordwell and Carroll anthology from wisconsin
 
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]