This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
------------=_1067002473-9394-45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ori.rl.ac.uk id h9ODZGr15893
Hello
I would like to unsubscribe please. Thank you.
=A0
Damian Kozak
=A0
=A0
U=BFytkownik Automatic digest processor napisa=B3:
>There are 10 messages totalling 353 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
> 1. horror (4)
> 2. self-conscious film and The Horror
> 3. Film on film and self-conscious film (2)
> 4. interracial sex in hollywood films. (2)
> 5. Films on Filmmaking
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:30:53 +1000
>From: Katy Stevens
>Subject: Re: horror
>
>>
>> Recently I caught a glimpse of the old Texas CM, which was just stupid.
>
>Such an astute and nuanced response. Your following comments
>certainly did nothing to support your already reductive position on horr=
or.
>
>I\'m not interested in a slinging match here as clearly we are going to =
get
>nowhere particularly interesting considering your blind bias toward the
genre
>(assuming the only valuable elements/films within horror are those which
>"transcend" it) but I wanted to at least be counted as another voice in
support
>of the value of horror (and I\'m talking \'pure\' horror, not \'thriller=
\'
diversions
>which water down the viscerality and affect). That you could so solidly
reject
>such a large and (aesthetically, politically, culturally...) diverse gen=
re
in
>spite of the body of theoretical work exploring its significance and
import(as
>diverse as this also is and well noted by another member of the list) is=
a
>pretty clear signal that your preconceptions are unsusceptible to the
influence
>of debate.
>
>And me being such a fervent fan and attendant scholar... ;)
>
>Katy
>>Exorcist\' and all other horror cinema which wakes me up and creates an
artistic
>and intellectual stir>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 08:31:32 -0400
>From: Susanna Chandler
>Subject: self-conscious film and The Horror
>
>It is difficult to imagine what it is about TCM which *stirs* someone in=
to
a state which transcends stupidity, if not horror. Yet, an emotional
stimulation, is an emotional stimulation, is an emotional stimulation.
Perhaps the ultimate in hack movies is what it takes to counteract agains=
t
the culturally deadening effects of consumerism on art, or just plain old
entertainment.
>
>An excellent film about horror films is Gods and Monsters. It speaks to =
our
poetic Vietnam Veteran, the relationship of materialism to horror, and ho=
w
the destruction of love creates monsters. James Whale brought monsters to
the screen who were far more memorable and moving than any of the *normal=
*,
otherwise happily domesticated, people. The Dr. Frankenstein\'s of this
world, worked as the dark link between our twisted ambitions and psyches,
and the terrible outcomes this can bring about.
>
>Have just discover Whale Rider is still playing in town, will definitely
see that over Kill Bill.
>
>Best, Susanna Chandler
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:43:50 -0700
>From: "Rutger H. Cornets de Groot"
>Subject: Re: Film on film and self-conscious film
>
>-Hollywood Ending
>-C\'est arriv=3DE9 pr=3DE8s de chez vous
>-Blair Witch Project
>-Snake Eyes=3D20
>-In the Soup
>
>And there are many oldies too: The Last Tycoon, and
>the one cited in the beginning of Scorsese\'s journey
>(I forgot the title).
>
>Rutger
>--- Nader Tubbeh wrote:
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Hi. I\'m writing a paper on films that deal with
>filmmaking itself, or the nature of filmmaking, such
>as Fellini 8 1/2 or Godard\'s "Contempt". If anyone
>could help me to gather some titles, be it text on the
>subject or examples of films in this small category, I
>would be thankful. I\'m also interested in finding
>films that are self-conscient, that disengage from the
>story to show that the viewer that what they are
>seeing is pure text. Thanks.
>
>Nader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan
>Online=3D20
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:47:14 -0700
>From: "Rutger H. Cornets de Groot"
>Subject: Re: Film on film and self-conscious film
>
>--- Patricia Molloy wrote:
>> I\'d also include Haneke\'s Funny
>> Games come to think of
>> it.
>>
>Patricia,
>
>Can you explain why?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rutger
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:14:42 -0700
>From: ramesh
>Subject: Re: interracial sex in hollywood films.
>
>I find that the 1950\'s were very frank in the dialog about interracial =
sex
>in American films. Sirk ( Imitation of life, All that heaven allows)
pointed
>at interracial love as a laudible way of becoming a social norm. Films l=
ike
>cassavetes shadows were also very normal about the existance of and
>attitudes towards interracial love. Even the southerners got into the ac=
t
>with films like To kill a mockingbird.
>
>I guess it reflected the attitudes of the post war Beat generation and t=
he
>jazz clubs of harlem.
>
>I then see a concious movement in popular films in the sixties (that
>coincides with the beatles generation and the fall of phil spector...or
>louis armstrong/ miles davis from pop culture grace) towards justifying
race
>based love (ie gentle or active discouragement of love between the US
>concept of race(white/black) while simultaneously glorifying "intra race=
"
>love as an all pervading force..ie, the WASP falls gloriously in love wi=
th
>an Italian on the wrong side of the tracks in a show of rebellion in Lov=
e
>Story..,The scions of the jets and the sharks go at it in The West Side
>Story, A middle class WASP falls in love with Michael Corleone in The
>Godfather ).
>
>It\'s difficult to say wether the industry thought it was taking baby st=
eps
>in racial reconciliation by doing this or if it was sublimating the impu=
lse
>of people to fall in love outside (what are really) artificial and mutat=
ing
>racial boundaries in the US(after all the meditteranian "races" were jus=
t
>recently "white" in the sixties), by starting relatively close to the
shades
>of "white" in the spectrum. Maybe it tried to do both, thus effectively
>postponing debate until the society was willing to show more maturity.
> The effect however was to put the elephant in the room amidst a deafeni=
ng
>silence on the issue of race in film.
>
>Ramesh.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:01:33 -0400
>From: "Shaw, Dan"
>Subject: Re: interracial sex in hollywood films.
>
>UmFtZXNoOg0KIA0KICAgIFVubGlrZSBIYXluZXMnIGhvbWFnZSAiRmFyIGZyb20gSGVhdmVu=
Iiwg
>U2lyaydzIG9yaWdpbmFsICJBbGwgVGhhdCBIZWF2ZW4gQWxsb3dzIiB3YXMgc29sZWx5IGFi=
b3V0
>IGFnZSBhbmQgY2xhc3MuLi53aXRoIHVwcGVyIGNsYXNzIHdpZG93IEphbmUgV3ltYW4gZmFs=
bGlu
>ZyBmb3IgaGVyIHlvdW5nZXIgZ2FyZGVuZXIgaHVuaywgUm9jayBIdWRzb24uICBJIGRvbid0=
IGV2
>ZW4gcmVtZW1iZXIgYSBwZXJzb24gb2YgY29sb3IgaW4gaXQuDQogDQpEYW4gU2hhdyAgDQoN=
Cgkg
>DQoNCg=3D=3D
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:13:16 -0400
>From: Andrew Lesk
>Subject: Re: horror
>
>Quoting Katy Stevens :
>> > Recently I caught a glimpse of the old Texas CM, which was just stup=
id.
>>
>> Such an astute and nuanced response. Your following comments
>> certainly did nothing to support your already reductive position on
horror.
>
>And thank you, Katy, for your reductive judgement.
>
>> I\'m not interested in a slinging match here as clearly we are going t=
o
get
>> nowhere particularly interesting considering your blind bias toward th=
e
>> genre (assuming the only valuable elements/films within horror are tho=
se
which
>> "transcend" it) but I wanted to at least be counted as another voice i=
n
>> support of the value of horror (and I\'m talking \'pure\' horror, not
\'thriller\'
>> diversions which water down the viscerality and affect). That you coul=
d
>> so solidly reject such a large and (aesthetically, politically,
>> culturally...) diverse genre in spite of the body of theoretical
>> work exploring its significance and import(as diverse as this also is =
and
>> well noted by another member of the list) is a pretty clear signal tha=
t
>> your preconceptions are unsusceptible to the influence of debate.
>
>Thank you for avoiding "slinging matches" by stating that I have "blind
bias"
>and am "unsusceptible to the influence of debate." But then again, I
presume
>that you haven\'t actually read what I\'ve written or you would be as
willingly
>negligent.
>
>For those of you, like Katy, who wish to dismiss my comments again, I wi=
ll
>state them again:
>
>1) I have seen horror films (Halloween, TCM etc). I think they are, by a=
nd
>large, worthless entries. And why? Well....
>2) The supposed "art" of such films is not to be confused with "craft",
that
>is, the putting together of such films (the people who work on the sets,
etc).
>3) People are beholden, in their arguments supporting the study of schlo=
ck
>horror films, by volume. It seems to me that if such films were few, the=
y
>would end up largely ignored. They may indeed constitute, by their very
>numbers, a genre. Fine. Yet that it is a genre and a subject of study do=
es
>NOT mean that schlock horror films yet have any merit *simply because of
those
>academic studies.* The argument for study-means-merit puts the cart befo=
re
the
>horse. This ties into the volume argument: one might argue that McDonald=
\'s
>makes might good food based on "billions sold." (And indeed, that is wha=
t
>McDonald\'s does.)
>4) Arguments that mistake the thrill-of-it-all as meaning that it does h=
ave
>worth is really misleading. Being able to respond to something emotional=
ly
>does not mean that the object of such a response constitutes "art." I co=
uld
>get hit in the head by a rock; the pain and anger I would feel does not
>constitute the makings of "art."
>5) I don\'t consider "The Exorcist" and "Alien" to be horror films. I am
>speaking largely of slice-and-dice films that attempt to dress themselve=
s
up as
>something they are not. They are repetitious, formulaic, and dull. They =
are
>made solely for profit.
>6) I am well aware of theory, as I majored in it. I am also aware that
theory
>has a tendency to create objects of study in a fashion not unlike self-
>fulfilling prophecy. Like the repetitious studies of repetitious horror
films.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>Andrew Lesk
>
>http://courses.ece.utoronto.ca/eng252yl0101
>http://www.andrewlesk.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:23:00 -0400
>From: "Shaw, Dan"
>Subject: Re: horror
>
>Dear Andrew:
>
> What you seem to decry, then, is films in the "slasher" subgenre of =3D
>horror...which, with a few exceptions (like Halloween), I agree are =3D
>cheap and exploitative. While Ridley Scott\'s "Alien" can be classified =
=3D
>as sci-fi (though its sequel, James Cameron\'s "Aliens" is certainly of =
=3D
>the Bug Eyed Monster type), all major lists of good horror films feature=
=3D
>"The Exorcist" as an archetype. =3D20
>
>Dan
>
>
>5) I don\'t consider "The Exorcist" and "Alien" to be horror films. I am
>speaking largely of slice-and-dice films that attempt to dress =3D
>themselves up as something they are not. They are repetitious, =3D
>formulaic, and dull. They are made solely for profit.
>
>Andrew
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:15:30 -0400
>From: Andrew Lesk
>Subject: Re: horror
>
>Quoting "Shaw, Dan" :
>> What you seem to decry, then, is films in the "slasher" subgenre of
>> horror...which, with a few exceptions (like Halloween), I agree are ch=
eap
and
>> exploitative. While Ridley Scott\'s "Alien" can be classified as sci-f=
i
>> (though its sequel, James Cameron\'s "Aliens" is certainly of the Bug
Eyed
>> Monster type), all major lists of good horror films feature "The
Exorcist" as
>> an archetype.
>
>You may be right, Dan, but then I would have to call into question the
basis
>for this: how can one compare a film like "The Exorcist"--finely directe=
d,
>acted, edited, produced, scored...intelligent, nuanced, "about"
something--to
>(to use my favourite current whipping boy) the new TCM? UNLESS...unless
those
>studying/classifying the horror genre are one of two minds: (1) They are
>attempting a study of the "subgenre" slasher flicks and need to drag in
quality
>films in order to bolster their claim to study; or (2) They realize that
films
>like "The Exorcist" are really more of a serious drama study but don\'t
know how
>to account for some of the special effects. I would tend to put "TE" in =
the
>same category of American films such as "Raging Bull" or "The Ice Storm.=
"
That
>the girl in "TE", in her state of possession, is violent etc does not me=
an
that
>the film either revovles around or is wholly dependent upon such moments
(in
>perhaps the way that slasher films are). The "Alien" saga I would group
with
>thrillers such as "Starship Troopers."
>
>Andrew
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:56:30 EDT
>From: Richard Armstrong
>Subject: Films on Filmmaking
>
>--part1_134.269614f1.2cc41c3e_boundary
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Nader,
>Day for Night (Truffaut),
>Living in Oblivion (DiCillo),
>Film Johnny (Chaplin),
>The last C Breillat?
>Richard
>
>--part1_134.269614f1.2cc41c3e_boundary
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>>=3D3D"Arial" LANG=3D3D"0">Nader,
>Day for Night (Truffaut),
>Living in Oblivion (DiCillo),
>Film Johnny (Chaplin),
>The last C Breillat?
>Richard
>
>--part1_134.269614f1.2cc41c3e_boundary--
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 19 Oct 2003 (#2003-326)
>*******************************************************
>
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]
***
------------=_1067002473-9394-45
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ori.rl.ac.uk id h9ODZGr15893
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-885=
9-2">
<META name=3D"GENERATOR" content=3D"onet.poczta">
<STYLE TYPE=3D"text/css"><!--P {margin:0px}--></STYLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<P>Hello</P>
<P>I would like to unsubscribe please. Thank you.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Damian Kozak</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>U=BFytkownik Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>napis=
a=B3:<BR>>There are 10 messages totalling 353 lines in this issue.<BR>=
><BR>>Topics of the day:<BR>><BR>> 1. horror (4)<BR>> 2. s=
elf-conscious film and The Horror<BR>> 3. Film on film and self-consci=
ous film (2)<BR>> 4. interracial sex in hollywood films. (2)<BR>> 5=
Films on Filmmaking<BR>><BR>>------------------------------------=
----------------------------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 =
19:30:53 +1000<BRR>>From: Katy Stevens <[log in to unmask]><B=
R>>Subject: Re: horror<BR>><BR>>><BR>>> Recently I caug=
ht a glimpse of the old Texas CM, which was just stupid.<BR>><BR>>S=
uch an astute and nuanced response. </SARCASM>Your following comments<BR>=
>certainly did nothing to support your already reductive position on h=
orror.<BR>><BR>>I\'m not interested in a slinging match here as cle=
arly we are going to get<BR>>nowhere particularly interesting consider=
ing your blind bias toward the genre<BR>>(assuming the only valuable e=
lements/films within horror are those which<BR>>"transcend" it) but I =
wanted to at least be counted as another voice in support<BR>>of the v=
alue of horror (and I\'m talking \'pure\' horror, not \'thriller\' divers=
ions<BR>>which water down the viscerality and affect). That you could =
so solidly reject<BR>>such a large and (aesthetically, politically, cu=
lturally...) diverse genre in<BR>>spite of the body of theoretical wor=
k exploring its significance and import(as<BR>>diverse as this also is=
and well noted by another member of the list) is a<BR>>pretty clear s=
ignal that your preconceptions are unsusceptible to the influence<BR>>=
of debate.<BR>><BR>>And me being such a fervent fan and attendant s=
cholar... ;)<BR>><BR>>Katy<BR>><IN \?The<BR \?Suspiria\?, \?Hall=
oween\?, Massacre\?, Chainsaw \?Texas of defense>>Exorcist\' and all o=
ther horror cinema which wakes me up and creates an artistic<BR>>and i=
ntellectual stir><BR>><BR>>------------------------------<BR>>=
;<BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 08:31:32 -0400<BR>>From: Susanna Chand=
ler <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: self-conscious film and Th=
e Horror<BR>><BR>>It is difficult to imagine what it is about TCM w=
hich *stirs* someone into a state which transcends stupidity, if not horr=
or. Yet, an emotional stimulation, is an emotional stimulation, is an emo=
tional stimulation. Perhaps the ultimate in hack movies is what it takes =
to counteract against the culturally deadening effects of consumerism on =
art, or just plain old entertainment.<BR>><BR>>An excellent film ab=
out horror films is Gods and Monsters. It speaks to our poetic Vietnam Ve=
teran, the relationship of materialism to horror, and how the destruction=
of love creates monsters. James Whale brought monsters to the screen who=
were far more memorable and moving than any of the *normal*, otherwise h=
appily domesticated, people. The Dr. Frankenstein\'s of this world, worke=
d as the dark link between our twisted ambitions and psyches, and the ter=
rible outcomes this can bring about.<BR>><BR>>Have just discover Wh=
ale Rider is still playing in town, will definitely see that over Kill Bi=
ll.<BR>><BR>>Best, Susanna Chandler<BR>><BR>>----------------=
--------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:43:50 -0700<BR>&g=
t;From: "Rutger H. Cornets de Groot" <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: =
Re: Film on film and self-conscious film<BR>><BR>>-Hollywood Ending=
<BR>>-C\'est arriv=3DE9 pr=3DE8s de chez vous<BR>>-Blair Witch Proj=
ect<BR>>-Snake Eyes=3D20<BR>>-In the Soup<BR>><BR>>And there =
are many oldies too: The Last Tycoon, and<BR>>the one cited in the beg=
inning of Scorsese\'s journey<BR>>(I forgot the title).<BR>><BR>>=
;Rutger<BR>>--- Nader Tubbeh <[log in to unmask]>wrote:<BR>><BR>&g=
t;---------------------------------<BR>><BR>>Hi. I\'m writing a pap=
er on films that deal with<BR>>filmmaking itself, or the nature of fil=
mmaking, such<BR>>as Fellini 8 1/2 or Godard\'s "Contempt". If anyone<=
BR>>could help me to gather some titles, be it text on the<BR>>subj=
ect or examples of films in this small category, I<BR>>would be thankf=
ul. I\'m also interested in finding<BR>>films that are self-conscient,=
that disengage from the<BR>>story to show that the viewer that what t=
hey are<BR>>seeing is pure text. Thanks.<BR>><BR>>Nader<BR>><=
BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>--------------------------=
-------<BR>>Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan<BR>&=
gt;Online=3D20<BR>><BR>><BR>>__________________________________<=
BR>>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved prod=
uct search<BR>>http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>><BR>>--------------=
----------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:47:14 -0700<BR>=
>From: "Rutger H. Cornets de Groot" <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject=
: Re: Film on film and self-conscious film<BR>><BR>>--- Patricia Mo=
lloy <[log in to unmask]>wrote:<BR>>> I\'d also include Hanek=
e\'s Funny<BR>>> Games come to think of<BR>>> it.<BR>>>=
<BR>>Patricia,<BR>><BR>>Can you explain why?<BR>><BR>>Than=
ks,<BR>><BR>>Rutger<BR>><BR>><BR>>________________________=
__________<BR>>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with im=
proved product search<BR>>http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>><BR>>---=
---------------------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:14:4=
2 -0700<BR>>From: ramesh <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: Re: =
interracial sex in hollywood films.<BR>><BR>>I find that the 1950\'=
s were very frank in the dialog about interracial sex<BR>>in American =
films. Sirk ( Imitation of life, All that heaven allows) pointed<BR>>a=
t interracial love as a laudible way of becoming a social norm. Films lik=
e<BR>>cassavetes shadows were also very normal about the existance of =
and<BR>>attitudes towards interracial love. Even the southerners got i=
nto the act<BR>>with films like To kill a mockingbird.<BR>><BR>>=
I guess it reflected the attitudes of the post war Beat generation and th=
e<BR>>jazz clubs of harlem.<BR>><BR>>I then see a concious movem=
ent in popular films in the sixties (that<BR>>coincides with the beatl=
es generation and the fall of phil spector...or<BR>>louis armstrong/ m=
iles davis from pop culture grace) towards justifying race<BR>>based l=
ove (ie gentle or active discouragement of love between the US<BR>>con=
cept of race(white/black) while simultaneously glorifying "intra race"<BR=
>>love as an all pervading force..ie, the WASP falls gloriously in lov=
e with<BR>>an Italian on the wrong side of the tracks in a show of reb=
ellion in Love<BR>>Story..,The scions of the jets and the sharks go at=
it in The West Side<BR>>Story, A middle class WASP falls in love with=
Michael Corleone in The<BR>>Godfather ).<BR>><BR>>It\'s difficu=
lt to say wether the industry thought it was taking baby steps<BR>>in =
racial reconciliation by doing this or if it was sublimating the impulse<=
BR>>of people to fall in love outside (what are really) artificial and=
mutating<BR>>racial boundaries in the US(after all the meditteranian =
"races" were just<BR>>recently "white" in the sixties), by starting re=
latively close to the shades<BR>>of "white" in the spectrum. Maybe it =
tried to do both, thus effectively<BR>>postponing debate until the soc=
iety was willing to show more maturity.<BR>> The effect however was to=
put the elephant in the room amidst a deafening<BR>>silence on the is=
sue of race in film.<BR>><BR>>Ramesh.<BR>><BR>>--------------=
----------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:01:33 -0400<BR>=
>From: "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: Re: interracial se=
x in hollywood films.<BR>><BR>>UmFtZXNoOg0KIA0KICAgIFVubGlrZSBIYXlu=
ZXMnIGhvbWFnZSAiRmFyIGZyb20gSGVhdmVuIiwg<BR>>U2lyaydzIG9yaWdpbmFsICJBb=
GwgVGhhdCBIZWF2ZW4gQWxsb3dzIiB3YXMgc29sZWx5IGFib3V0<BR>>IGFnZSBhbmQgY2=
xhc3MuLi53aXRoIHVwcGVyIGNsYXNzIHdpZG93IEphbmUgV3ltYW4gZmFsbGlu<BR>>ZyB=
mb3IgaGVyIHlvdW5nZXIgZ2FyZGVuZXIgaHVuaywgUm9jayBIdWRzb24uICBJIGRvbid0IGV2=
<BR>>ZW4gcmVtZW1iZXIgYSBwZXJzb24gb2YgY29sb3IgaW4gaXQuDQogDQpEYW4gU2hhd=
yAgDQoNCgkg<BR>>DQoNCg=3D=3D<BR>><BR>>--------------------------=
----<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:13:16 -0400<BR>>From: An=
drew Lesk <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: Re: horror<BR>><BR=
>>Quoting Katy Stevens <[log in to unmask]>:<BR>>> >=
Recently I caught a glimpse of the old Texas CM, which was just stupid.<=
BR>>><BR>>> Such an astute and nuanced response. </SARCASM>Yo=
ur following comments<BR>>> certainly did nothing to support your a=
lready reductive position on horror.<BR>><BR>>And thank you, Katy, =
for your reductive judgement.<BR>><BR>>> I\'m not interested in =
a slinging match here as clearly we are going to get<BR>>> nowhere =
particularly interesting considering your blind bias toward the<BR>>&g=
t; genre (assuming the only valuable elements/films within horror are tho=
se which<BR>>> "transcend" it) but I wanted to at least be counted =
as another voice in<BR>>> support of the value of horror (and I\'m =
talking \'pure\' horror, not \'thriller\'<BR>>> diversions which wa=
ter down the viscerality and affect). That you could<BR>>> so solid=
ly reject such a large and (aesthetically, politically,<BR>>> cultu=
rally...) diverse genre in spite of the body of theoretical<BR>>> w=
ork exploring its significance and import(as diverse as this also is and<=
BR>>> well noted by another member of the list) is a pretty clear s=
ignal that<BR>>> your preconceptions are unsusceptible to the influ=
ence of debate.<BR>><BR>>Thank you for avoiding "slinging matches" =
by stating that I have "blind bias"<BR>>and am "unsusceptible to the i=
nfluence of debate." But then again, I presume<BR>>that you haven\'t a=
ctually read what I\'ve written or you would be as willingly<BR>>negli=
gent.<BR>><BR>>For those of you, like Katy, who wish to dismiss my =
comments again, I will<BR>>state them again:<BR>><BR>>1) I have =
seen horror films (Halloween, TCM etc). I think they are, by and<BR>>l=
arge, worthless entries. And why? Well....<BR>>2) The supposed "art" o=
f such films is not to be confused with "craft", that<BR>>is, the putt=
ing together of such films (the people who work on the sets, etc).<BR>>=
;3) People are beholden, in their arguments supporting the study of schlo=
ck<BR>>horror films, by volume. It seems to me that if such films were=
few, they<BR>>would end up largely ignored. They may indeed constitut=
e, by their very<BR>>numbers, a genre. Fine. Yet that it is a genre an=
d a subject of study does<BR>>NOT mean that schlock horror films yet h=
ave any merit *simply because of those<BR>>academic studies.* The argu=
ment for study-means-merit puts the cart before the<BR>>horse. This ti=
es into the volume argument: one might argue that McDonald\'s<BR>>make=
s might good food based on "billions sold." (And indeed, that is what<BR>=
>McDonald\'s does.)<BR>>4) Arguments that mistake the thrill-of-it-=
all as meaning that it does have<BR>>worth is really misleading. Being=
able to respond to something emotionally<BR>>does not mean that the o=
bject of such a response constitutes "art." I could<BR>>get hit in the=
head by a rock; the pain and anger I would feel does not<BR>>constitu=
te the makings of "art."<BR>>5) I don\'t consider "The Exorcist" and "=
Alien" to be horror films. I am<BR>>speaking largely of slice-and-dice=
films that attempt to dress themselves up as<BR>>something they are n=
ot. They are repetitious, formulaic, and dull. They are<BR>>made solel=
y for profit.<BR>>6) I am well aware of theory, as I majored in it. I =
am also aware that theory<BR>>has a tendency to create objects of stud=
y in a fashion not unlike self-<BR>>fulfilling prophecy. Like the repe=
titious studies of repetitious horror films.<BR>><BR>>Andrew<BR>>=
;<BR>><BR>>Andrew Lesk<BR>><BR>>http://courses.ece.utoronto.c=
a/eng252yl0101<BR>>http://www.andrewlesk.com<BR>><BR>>----------=
--------------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:23:00 -0400=
<BR>>From: "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: Re: horror<BR>=
><BR>>Dear Andrew:<BR>><BR>> What you seem to decry, then, is=
films in the "slasher" subgenre of =3D<BR>>horror...which, with a few=
exceptions (like Halloween), I agree are =3D<BR>>cheap and exploitati=
ve. While Ridley Scott\'s "Alien" can be classified =3D<BR>>as sci-fi =
(though its sequel, James Cameron\'s "Aliens" is certainly of =3D<BR>>=
the Bug Eyed Monster type), all major lists of good horror films feature =
=3D<BR>>"The Exorcist" as an archetype. =3D20<BR>><BR>>Dan<BR>&g=
t;<BR>><BR>>5) I don\'t consider "The Exorcist" and "Alien" to be h=
orror films. I am<BR>>speaking largely of slice-and-dice films that at=
tempt to dress =3D<BR>>themselves up as something they are not. They a=
re repetitious, =3D<BR>>formulaic, and dull. They are made solely for =
profit.<BR>><BR>>Andrew<BR>><BR>>----------------------------=
--<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:15:30 -0400<BR>>From: Andr=
ew Lesk <[log in to unmask]><BR>>Subject: Re: horror<BR>><BR>&=
gt;Quoting "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]>:<BR>>> What you seem to dec=
ry, then, is films in the "slasher" subgenre of<BR>>> horror...whic=
h, with a few exceptions (like Halloween), I agree are cheap and<BR>>&=
gt; exploitative. While Ridley Scott\'s "Alien" can be classified as sci-=
fi<BR>>> (though its sequel, James Cameron\'s "Aliens" is certainly=
of the Bug Eyed<BR>>> Monster type), all major lists of good horro=
r films feature "The Exorcist" as<BR>>> an archetype.<BR>><BR>&g=
t;You may be right, Dan, but then I would have to call into question the =
basis<BR>>for this: how can one compare a film like "The Exorcist"--fi=
nely directed,<BR>>acted, edited, produced, scored...intelligent, nuan=
ced, "about" something--to<BR>>(to use my favourite current whipping b=
oy) the new TCM? UNLESS...unless those<BR>>studying/classifying the ho=
rror genre are one of two minds: (1) They are<BR>>attempting a study o=
f the "subgenre" slasher flicks and need to drag in quality<BR>>films =
in order to bolster their claim to study; or (2) They realize that films<=
BR>>like "The Exorcist" are really more of a serious drama study but d=
on\'t know how<BR>>to account for some of the special effects. I would=
tend to put "TE" in the<BR>>same category of American films such as "=
Raging Bull" or "The Ice Storm." That<BR>>the girl in "TE", in her sta=
te of possession, is violent etc does not mean that<BR>>the film eithe=
r revovles around or is wholly dependent upon such moments (in<BR>>per=
haps the way that slasher films are). The "Alien" saga I would group with=
<BR>>thrillers such as "Starship Troopers."<BR>><BR>>Andrew<BR>&=
gt;<BR>>------------------------------<BR>><BR>>Date: Sun, 19 Oc=
t 2003 12:56:30 EDT<BR>>From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]
M><BR>>Subject: Films on Filmmaking<BR>><BR>>--part1_134.269614f=
1.2cc41c3e_boundary<BR>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII"=
<BR>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<BR>><BR>>Nader,<BR>>Day =
for Night (Truffaut),<BR>>Living in Oblivion (DiCillo),<BR>>Film Jo=
hnny (Chaplin),<BR>>The last C Breillat?<BR>>Richard<BR>><BR>>=
;--part1_134.269614f1.2cc41c3e_boundary<BR>>Content-Type: text/html; c=
harset=3D"US-ASCII"<BR>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<BR=
>><BR>><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"<BR" size=3D3 F=
AMILY=3D'3D"SANSSERIF"'>>=3D3D"Arial" LANG=3D3D"0">Nader,<BR><BR>&g=
t;Day for Night (Truffaut), <BR><BR>>Living in Oblivion (DiCillo),<BR>=
<BR>>Film Johnny (Chaplin),<BR><BR>>The last C Breillat?<BR><BR>>=
;Richard<BR><BR>></FONT><BR>>--part1_134.269614f1.2cc41c3e_boundary=
--<BR>><BR>>------------------------------<BR>><BR>>End of FI=
LM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 19 Oct 2003 (#2003-326)<BR>>*******************=
************************************<BR>> </FONT></P>
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]
***
------------=_1067002473-9394-45--
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]
***
|
