Yes, but what does the buzz/hype appeal to or consist of? If none of
the three factors below are involved, do people really bother seeing a
film? Well, sometimes, I guess, with 'must-see' movies. I remember
watching Titanic for that reason (without liking it much). Style and
form might be criteria, too (when not associated with a particular
filmmaker). And perhaps we should also mention - in a romantic vein
which nouvelle vague auteurs would have appreciated - weather
conditions: It's raining, so let's go to the cinema...
Henry
> Sorry to respond to this so late, but I'd have thought
> 'buzz' (or marketing hype) played a more substantial
> role in turning a film viewer's head..
>
>
> --- "Henry M. Taylor" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From the POV of film as culture and filmgoing
>> history, I agree with
>> Frank. Traditionally, viewers - not specifically
>> cinephiles, film
>> scholars or filmosophers - choose to go and see a
>> film for reasons in
>> the following order: 1. Star(s) featured; 2. Story
>> type or genre; 3.
>> Director. So stars play an important role, even if
>> it is the task of
>> the scholar/filmosopher to question and even
>> 'deconstruct' this
>> phenomenon of what used to be called identification.
>>
>> H
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> my understanding of cavell is that the actor’s
>> material presence
>>> carries more “meaning” than the work of the
>> director – [of course
>>> the director is necessary to the process of
>> making that presence
>>> available . . . but so is the cinematographer, the
>> executive
>>> producer, and so on]
>>>
>>> From: Film-Philosophy Salon
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Steven Taylor
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:44 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: from Heath to where?
>>>
>>> The question was whether an actors contribution
>> was *as* valuable as
>>> the directors.
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2008, at 23:38, Frank, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> for one example of philosophical writing on film
>> that stresses the
>>> importance of the figure of the actor, see stanley
>> cavell . . .
>>> certainly there is no a priori reason for assuming
>> that directors
>>> matter and actors don’t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy salon
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text
>> of the message you are replying to.
>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy
>> to: [log in to unmask]
>> Or visit:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>> For help email:
>> [log in to unmask], not the
>> salon.
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy journal:
>> http://www.film-philosophy.com
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For
> Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy salon
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
> you are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> .
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> *
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|