SCREEN-L Archives

March 2001, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:56:46 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
I very much appreciate hearing Professor Bordwell's perspective on this
issue.

It is well to remember, however, that postings to list-serv's are generally
done from memory and not based on careful study and research: this is both
their strength and their weakness. They are generally a form of social
interaction more than a form of publication.

Nevertheless, although it is easy to be chatty and casual on a list-serv, a
strongly stated and thoughtful statement serves a useful purpose in
reminding us to take our chit-chat seriously.

But there was another thread or aspect of this topic which Professor
Bordwell does not address and which I, for one, would like to hear him
address.

This is the question of the rationale for using much-appreciated
masterpieces, as opposed to popular cinema with which students would surely
already be familiar.

Is there a complete antithesis between these approaches, or might a work
like _Film Art_ profitably include examples which students could recognize,
to link them to great films of the past?

And even if the text itself did not include such examples, would Professor
Bordwell be antagonistic to using well-known contemporary films in this
way--or is that quite against the point of teaching film as an art?

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Nell
Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow
Bryn Mawr College

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2