From: "Lita Coucher" <lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: lost dawg
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:01:43 -0500


very nice Paul.

Now, this might be a bit out of the blue, and maybe too "movie" disucssion,
but I was thinking about "Hannibal" last night.  I had mentioned that the
character had seduced me, in a way that I find very distrubing.  Any
aspiring screenwriters or directors out there who have any idea WHY this
character is so alluring?

My guess is that he combines power with a sensitivity to those he finds as
"equals."  Were there techniques in the film (Silence...) that made us see
this?
Jenna
----- Original Message -----
From: <BUDGRANT-AT-aol.com>
To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: lost dawg


> It seems that I missed the responses to lost dog that were embedded in
hugh's
> e-mail, where'd they go? But I wanted to respond, so I will. There is
> something to what this guy is saying, even if it comes off a bit caustic,
> because it is a film theory list and not a movie discussion list (or is
it?)
> Certainly I don't want to impose some sort of fascistic order, and luckily
I
> can't as this is something akin to an egalitarian format. In defense of
the
> general opinion style discussion, I add: when it comes to simply talking
> about stars and opinions I tend to hide out, as I know that at some point
a
> film will be thrown into the discussion that stirs up some fast, furious
and
> biting theoretical dialogue. A few months ago we went on a couple of weeks
in
> response to a posting that began with: anyone see eyes wide shut? The
thread
> died somewhere between the kantian noumenal and the lacanian real. So be
> patient there are some intense minds on this list, and perhaps it is up to
> you to incite the theoretical debate you were hoping to find.
> Waiting patiently in cyberbia,
> Paul
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>


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