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]