I have not followed all messages from this thread, but
I would like to offer one possibility with regard to
texts. David Bordwell's chapter on Psycho in Making
Meaning ("Rhetoric in Action: Seven modes in Psycho")
is a wonderful attempt to view one canonical film from
multiple theoretical/ideological positions. While it
still may be inpenetrable for intro film students, I
think Bordwell's writing is concise enough that they
will not totally sink. Also, Greg Smith had a piece in
Cinema Journal (41(1)Fall 2001, 127-134) a few years
ago, entitled "It's Only a Movie: A teaching essay for
introductory media students". It is the first reading
I assign my intro classes because Smith sets up
arguments such as aesthetic and formalistic cues,
studio system politics and hints at theoretical
readings as all viable possibilities. In short, Smith
argues eleoquently that films are rich texts which may
be examined through a variety of lenses.
--- James Monaco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bravo, Mike!
>
> You have eloquently hit the nail on the head.
>
> The descent into jargonistic echolalia began thirty
> years ago. It may
> take another generation to restore reasoned
> discourse. That is likely
> too long to save us.
>
> If the know-nothings still know nothing the
> educators bare at least
> some responsibility.
>
> What you outline here is worth a book -- and it's
> own listserv.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to describe this
> desperate situation.
>
> (As for feminism, start at the beginning with Molly
> Haskell's "From
> Reverence to Rape."  Haskell was sane then and has
> -- somehow --
> managed to retain her good sense.)
>
> James Monaco\
> Card-carrying member of the east coast elite
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2004, at 11:46 AM, [log in to unmask]
> wrote:
>
> > Do we have to talk to each other this way?
> >
> > Do we have to talk to each other this way?
> >
> > This message is a follow up on one I sent last
> week in which I asked
> > for
> > bibliographical suggestions that could help
> introduce feminist film
> > criticism and theory to bright but totally
> uninitiated young
> > undergraduate
> > students.  As has happened in the past when I
> asked similar questions
> > there were very  few responses, and of those few
> most were patently
> > unsuitable [such as asking them to read Camera
> Obscura].
> >
> > One of the better suggestions was to use the
> volume on Feminist Film
> > Studies by Janet McCabe in the Wallflower Press
> series of introductory
> > texts, and
> > it's true that this volume at least tries to
> accommodate readers with
> > no
> > previous experience of film theory.  But I have to
> emphasize "tries"
> > because, at least from my point of view, it is
> only partially
> > successful
> > in this effort.  Here, for example, are some
> phrases chosen from just
> > the
> > first two pages of Janet McCabe's introduction,
> that part of the book
> > that, presumably, should work hardest at inviting
> in the uninitiated:
> > "new
> > knowledges concerned with deconstructing
> representation";
> > "de Beauvoir genderises transcendence and
> immanence"; "self-confirming
> > parameters that institute gender hierarchies."
> It's not at all clear
> > to
> > me how I can expect my students to make any sense
> at all of these
> > locutions.  These pages also seem to take for
> granted that the reader
> > will
> > have some familiarity with such concepts as
> post-structuralism,
> > post-colonialism, queer theory, transnationalism,
> to say nothing of
> > ideology.  My students, usually eager to learn,
> struggle with these
> > terms
> > and concepts,  but sooner or later they give up,
> for without lots of
> > help
> > this stuff ultimately becomes impenetrable to
> them.
> >
> > This raises three questions for me, and it is
> these questions that I
> > want
> > to share with the list.  First and most immediate,
> is there anything at
> > all out there that will ease my students into this
> stuff?  Perhaps in a
> > course introducing feminist theory, or even film
> theory, I could devote
> > lots of class time to talking about this.  But my
> courses are usually
> > much
> > more broadly based and I can barely find the time
> to explore such
> > things
> > as the studio system, continuity editing, and
> auteur politics.  Film
> > theory, not just feminist theory but theory in
> general, has to get
> > whatever little time is left over after working on
> more fundamental
> > matters.  So when some students, picking up on the
> little we can do in
> > class, want to go further in this direction, where
> can I send them?
> > [To avoid misunderstanding let me be more explicit
> about the audience I
> > have in mind.  Imagine that you're trying to
> explain your work to
> > someone
> > whom you like and whose intelligence you respect,
> but who has
> > absolutely
> > no experience of the kind of discourse we take for
> granted ? including
> > such things as using the term "discourse" to talk
> about what I'm
> > talking
> > about now.  Think of a teen age cousin,  or your
> significant other
> > whose
> > moves in entirely in non-academic circles, or your
> jogging partner,  or
> > your grandfather.  Think of someone who has
> probably heard the term
> > "patriarchy" but isn't sure what it means; someone
> for whom
> > "intervention"
> > is anything but a discursive act; someone who
> perhaps, on hearing the
> > word
> > "argument," immediately thinks of an angry dispute
> and not of a
> > reasoned
> > exposition of an idea.  This is the audience I
> mean to address.]
> >
> > Second, if?as I suspect?there is little out there
> that systematically
> > introduces these terms, premises, concepts, and
> arguments, then it
> > would
> > seem most students and scholars in the field [and
> I suspect this may
> > well
> > mean you] learned this stuff the way I had to,
> more or less piecemeal,
> > on the fly,
> > improvising as we went along, hoping to get it
> right but often unsure.
> > The
> > result is?and here let me speak only for
> myself?that while I can talk
> > the
> > talk I sometimes find that I can't really walk the
> walk.  I can
> > certainly
> > sound as if I know what I'm talking about,  but
> while I usually have a
> > pretty good idea of what's going on in any
> theoretical discussion, too
> > often I find that my understanding is not as
> solid, not as
> > comprehensive,
> > not as clear as I want it to be?and, not
> coincidentally, not as clear
> > as I
> > expect my students' understanding to be when they
> write papers for me.
> > [And this may well account for a peculiar and
> ironic pattern I've
> > repeatedly discovered in young scholars over the
> years:  as a member
> > of my
> > department's hiring committee, I often get to
> interview job candidates
> > with sterling credentials, candidates who?judging
> from their CVs?seem
> > to
> > have a far more acute understanding of the issues
> that concern me than
> > I
> > do.  Reading the applications I find myself
> thinking,
=== message truncated ===


=====
Harper Cossar
[log in to unmask]



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu