From: Carla Barroso Carneiro <CARLA-AT-mre.gov.br>
Subject: RE: whole-list vs private mailings
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:40:55 -0300



Dear Sirs,
(First of all, let me apologise for my English...)
>From what I could understand, this debate on the contents of the messages to
the list began with the reply messages to the book about "people you
admire".
I know the polemics on the limited subjects of specific lists is a much more
broad debate, but I shall concentrate on this last topic.
I would like to begin by making a brief review on how the theme evolved.
Although the original message about the book on "people you admire" asked
for personal replies, there have been some public ones. From what I
remember, the objective was to begin some discussions on the "admirable
people" about whom the answers focused.
After that, there has been, as often happens on these lists, some mot
d=B4ordre
about refraining from using the list for the discussion of topics not
directly linked to "film-theory".
Apart from disliking authoritative reactions and restrictions, I could not
think of a topic more intimately related to film-theory!
As far as I know, most of recent American mainstream movie production has
focused on what Joseph Campbell would call "heroic figures". He has some
very interesting books about it, and, although he is not originally a
"film-theorist", but a philosopher, I know of some American filmmakers who
quote him frequently - Spielberg is among those. (and although I personaly
don=B4t like his films, I am aware that no discussion on film-theory could
wisely discard a mainstream film maker as a "non movie maker", as some
Frankfurter theorists would have liked to do). Following Campbell=B4s theory
(whom I have read a long time ago, so my remembrance might be a little
cloudy), it is precisely those "people you admire" who tend to transform,
during a long and complex process after which they are deprived of most of
their original characteristics, into heroes. And those heroes are often the
leading roles on those mainstream American movies I was talking about. (and
sorry for being too simplistic - does that word exist in English? - about
it)
That=B4s why, after replying to a message about a second class Brazilian
writer who, curiouslly enough, seems to be acquiring a mythic status abroad
(his esoteric adventures, at least, tend to be well known), I asked rather
ironically, whether someone thought his story wouldn=B4t be "good stuff" for a
movie.
To end that long enough message, I would like to respond by the critics
about the dispersion on the list by saying that, although some focus is
always necessary, I always hope that the restriction does not limit
imagination.
Sincerely,
Carla Carneiro
P.S. I think XXF0XY=B4s (sic) sugestion is a very good one. If anyone does not
like a specific debate, just refrain from opening the messages having those
specific subjects...

> ----------
> De: 	XXFOXY40XX-AT-aol.com[SMTP:XXFOXY40XX-AT-aol.com]
> Responder: 	film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Enviada: 	Sexta-feira, 27 de Agosto de 1999 03:18
> Para: 	film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Assunto: 	Re: whole-list vs private mailings
>
> hello all
> how is everyone? i'm good, thanks
>
> i was on another list where people wouldn't use the list as the correct
> subject of conversation, web monkey, webmaster site.
> someone, forget, so can't give him or her credit, they suggested [objunky]
> as
> opening and closing tags in subject line. this was a very, very, very,
> active
> with list with broad topics in the webmastering world.
> it is a suggestion for this list
> take care
> jason
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>


     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---