> I can really understand what Michael said, it's fun to read the
> Truffaut Hitchcock book, but it is frustrating how Hitchcock very
> often retreats from debating his work. But you have the same problems
> with most of the books from the 60s. I have recently read the Ford
> book by Bogdanovich, ant it is so useless in understanding what Ford
> did, because he almost never refers to anything considering his
> approach to film making and is more interested in telling anecdotes. I
> could never tolerate that macho-attitude of the Hollywood auteurs, but
> it would be interesting to ask at what point and under which condition
> that attitude has changed.
Herbert
> *
> *
> 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 online: 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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|