query: director or society or ?

Michael Hirohama kamesan
Sun Oct 19 14:55:30 EDT 1997

I have not studied film, so this may appear to be a simple question to the
more knowledgable on this list.  I would appreciate becoming enlightened.
The next paragraph contains a collection of thoughts which lie in the
background of my pondering.  Question: Is it valid to draw conclusions
about the development/maturation of an individual director upon viewing his
or her collected works?  Or is it more valid to make a conclusion about the
collective development/maturation of the director's society?  Or should I
not assuming that the content of films usually reflects the nature of the
film maker and his/her society.

I attend screenings at the Berkeley UAM/Pacific Film Archives (PFA).  In
their bi-monthly calendar and on their ticket stubs, films are listed by
title, director, country and year.  I suspect that this is done because it
is a simple way to uniquely identify a film.  On occasion, the PFA shows a
series of films on specific themes, eg. "War" in Japanese film, which cross
a directorial boundry.  More frequently, however, the PFA usually presents
a series of films by the same director instead of grouping films by
screenwriter, photographer, or leading players.  When the creation of a
modern Hollywood film requires the collective efforts of hundreds if not
thousands of individuals and organizations, is the PFA biased in
emphasizing the director's influence?

For information on the PSYCHOHISTORY (historical motivation) forum,
send a request to <psychohistory-request at home.ease.lsoft.com>.

More information about the KineJapan mailing list