Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!citrin
From: citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Movie Flame - (nf)
Message-ID: <1237@ucbvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 09:35:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1237
Posted: Tue Jul  3 09:35:59 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 05:00:18 EDT
References: <1683@tekig1.UUCP>, <5100030@uok.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 16

David Whitney seems to think that entertaining movies, which the average
American working stiff (presumably including him) must be mindless escapism.
I just can't understand this inverse snobbery. (That's what it is.)
I think that he does an injustice to many (I hesitate to say most)
moviegoers.  Filmmakers (including those in Hollywood) are fully capable
of producing entertaining films of substance, and they don't have to resort
to cute aliens and laboratory special effects.  I consider all of my
favorite films to be both entertaining and with intellectual content,
otherwise I wouldn't have enjoyed them.  As examples I give 
"The Stunt Man," "M*A*S*H," "Local Hero," and "The Third Man."

So before you proclaim the virtues of mindless escapism, consider some
alternatives.

Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)