>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:56:23 -0400
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>From: John Daigle <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: pacifist monks
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>>The problem is when you say: 'but Hollywood, in a financial sense, IS world
>>film.' Why this appeal to 'financial sense'? Where are you looking at cinema
>>from?
>>
>>Michael Chanan
>>
>>
>
>From the position of the people... all I'm saying is that world wide,
>Hollywood Films traditionally make tons of money, which means that people
>all over the world like them. So Hollywood is "world film" in the sense
>that people all over the world really like to watch Hollywood films. Box
>office is more than just finances, of course, its also a crude audience
>analysis tool. Whats important? What the critics like--or what people
>like? I would venture to say "both." But I would put the emphasis on the
>people... becuase critics lie to themselves and those around them when its
>in their interests to do so, and most people don't pay good money to see
>movies that they don't think they'll like... and they don't pay twice to
>see a movie they didn't like the first time.
>
>j.daigle
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|