> though i'm in principle sympathetic to maureen's > plaints, i think it gets more complicated than she > seems willing to allow . . . to the extent that some > package of glamour and star power is one of the > driving forces of mainstream cinema, any responsible > account of how that cinema works will have to allow > room for such issues . . . though i find myself usually > very resistant to the appeal of such as LT, someone who > considers how the camera deals with her "beauty" is, i > expect, doing something no less valid than i am doing > when i conisder how terence malick's camera deals > with landscape > Just for the record, I understand that issues of reception are important, as are the aesthetics of various aspects of film and television (landscape, etc.). My recent book, Art in Motion: Animation Aesthetics, is (obviously) all about aesthetic issues. It includes a chapter on audiences and reception, though not exactly related to 'beauty'. It's just that the messages I've been seeing on Screen-L tend to lack the analytical component that (in my opinion) would make them more appropriate for this list. I think the original question was something like, "Am I the only person who thinks Liz Taylor isn't beautiful, except in a textbook sort of way?" Fine -- it's a question. However, I then find that my mailbox is being filled with messages going into different directions about issues of beauty that are seemingly detached from any analytical aspect and really (apparently) just reflections of a person's personal standards of beauty and 'the norm' (short men, people with big heads). I haven't seen a lot of female members of SCS posting these messages and, not to suggest that there is a gender issue involved, I'm wondering about that aspect as well. If this thread were to continue, that might be an subject to explore. I've elicited a relatively strong reaction from some people, so perhaps I'm wrong in my opinion that these messages aren't appropriate for Screen-L. I have the option to drop this list, which I've done several times in the past, so it's up to me to exercise that right. I do find messages about 'call for papers', 'open positions' and research questions, for example, to be useful and of interest in terms of scholarship. I'm not saying that messages have to be 'dry' -- whatever that means. I also enjoy lists which are less scholarly in nature, including several about animation, which attract a lot of fans. However, I run an Animation Journal list which has low traffic and, except for the occasional personal letter accidentally sent to the whole list, contains messages I feel are more scholarly in nature -- and, no, I don't moderate the list. When a thread starts to get a bit off target, other members let the posters know. Anyway, I hope that explains my response in a bit more detail. BTW, no follow up messages are needed, unless you've got a burning desire to question and/or ridicule my beliefs ;) -- after all, I do want this thread to die out. I just wanted to clear the record so, at the next SCS conference, I don't walk past people and hear them whispering, "there's the one who doesn't care about issues of beauty in film and television . . ." (note: sarcasm is being applied here). Maureen Furniss ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite