SCREEN-L Archives

March 1991

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:
Ian Jarvie <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Mar 91 13:13:54 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (9 lines)
And I have to side with F and X.  There is no "theory" in discourse theory,
hence starting in on it is a good idea.  The point of talking about a
complex world is to make it simple, to make it undrstood.
JB thinks "neo-Marxist critical theory" is one of the best "tools" we have
for understanding semiotics and film.  A tool is supposed to be labour
saving not labour consuming.  If you talk in critical theory speak there
is no way to tell if you understand what you are saying never mind if I do.
icj

ATOM RSS1 RSS2