Well, here we are, #200. It feels like there was less time between 100 and 200, but I think the reverse is actually true (I don't particularly care to go back and look it up). Either way, it's been a good ride, and one of these days I'll get back to posting more regularly, but today is just another day to celebrate. Speaking of celebrate, I had a birthday and turned 23 this weekend and have had enough cake to kill 3 diabetics in the last 3-4 days so I'm barely alive as it is, so give me a few more days.
While I continue my extended respite, and we dive full on into a summer movie season replete with sequels and threequels, I recommend you take a look at this defense of movie sequels (conceptually) from David Bordwell and a group of other film historians/researchers/professors.
Michael Newman writes: "Sequels exist in all narrative forms–novels, plays, movies, television, videogames, comics, operas. What is the Bible but a series of sequels? Didn’t Shakespeare follow up Henry IV with a part II? What of Wagner’s Ring Cycle and Updike’s Rabbit novels? Many novelists of high reputation have written sequels, including Thackeray, Trollope, Faulkner, and Roth. There is nothing intrinsically unimaginative about continuing a story from one text to another. Because narratives draw their basic materials from life, they can always go on, just as the world goes on. Endings are always, to an extent, arbitrary. Sequels exploit the affordance of narrative to continue."
No comments:
Post a Comment