"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:40441BEE.700@citilink.com...
>
>
> john adams wrote:
> > "Dale Houstman" <dmh7@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > news:40436E9A.6080503@citilink.com...
> >
> >>>I'm gambling that Elag meant in spite of instead of "in light of"
> >>>up above.
> >>
> >>Possibly. But one point still remains: nobody was saying they wouldn't
> >>see Cocteau's films because of his "lifestyle" only that it was
> >>impossible to consider him a surrealist because of same. After all,
> >>surrealism is more than the "product" and Cocteau's celebrity-baiting
> >>and war activities preclude his consideration, even if he had wanted to
> >>hang with such a bunch of poor people. The films can be viewed on their
> >>own merits, but his surrealist "credentials" cannot.
> >
> >
> > And I suppose that was the point: to view the films on their own merit.
> > There are things "surrealist" that can be found anywhere, high and low.
That
> > he wasn't in the good graces of Surrealists - for good reasons - is
> > established and understood.
> >
> >
>
> Then what was the discussion about in the first place, since nobody ever
> said the film shouldn't be viewed upon their own merit?
Hell if I know!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |
|