Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "john adams" <nospam@nospam.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
References: <BC56C26F.1105B%a-moss@online.no> <403291CE.6F35@perfectOMITmail.com> <BC597A15.111D9%a-moss@online.no> <4033F095.FCE@perfectOMITmail.com> <CRh_b.8348$J84.5401@fe1.texas.rr.com> <403A02A0.1030905@citilink.com> <h3s_b.10029$J84.6025@fe1.texas.rr.com> <403E4087.281D172B@cloud8.net> <40411A9E.2060203@citilink.com> <csJ0c.22956$OH4.20138@fe2.texas.rr.com> <40436E9A.6080503@citilink.com> <gqK0c.23027$OH4.2777@fe2.texas.rr.com> <40441BEE.700@citilink.com>
Subject: Re: Best surrealistic directors / movies?
Lines: 35
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <OaV0c.18292$qo.6165@fe1.texas.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 05:44:14 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.25.163.13
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: fe1.texas.rr.com 1078206254 66.25.163.13 (Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:44:14 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:44:14 CST
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:1107
"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 |
|