Sujet : Re: Don't come back, Shane
De : arthur (at) *nospam* alum.calberkeley.org (Arthur Lipscomb)
Groupes : rec.arts.tvDate : 12. Feb 2025, 06:00:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <voh9u6$26o3m$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2/11/2025 10:52 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
I saw the movie once. It didn't leave much of an impression on me. I don't really remember it. That being said, whenever I see "Shane" I always immediately think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8pC5gaUibM