Print

Print


In message  <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] writes:
> The answer, I feel, lies in what happened to P during the period 1946-60.
>  During the war, he
> vociferously attacked his former colleagues, including H, who had gone to
>  America, denoucing
> them as "traitors", and suggesting they had "gone with the wind up" to the
>  safety of California
> shortly after (or in some cases before) 3/9/39 (Daily Mail, 2/1/40, p. 17).  P
>  was one of the
> direct beneficiaries of the huge increase in institiutional support (from the
>  Ministry of
> Information) and financial support (from the Rank Organisation) which turned
>  British film
> production around during the war, just as H was able to exploit the production
>  facilities of
> Selnick's company.
 
 
The problem with this is it ignores the text.  Whilst the background
detail to their careers is a useful contextualising element, surely
you're not suggesting that the extreme textual differences between
both of the films, and in a broader sense the filmmakers, isn't
the main elelment in a discussion of the film's reception?
 
 
--
Morgan
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]