SCREEN-L Archives

December 1992

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:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Dec 1992 17:04:01 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
I teach introductory filmmaking classes and build a critical component right
into the syllabus i.e. they must participate in critiques of each other's work
orally before I say a word about it; they have to write a 3 page critical
evaluation of an appropriate film; and among all the techno mumbo-jumbo I
strategically place units on alternative narrative, documentary of varying
types and experimental film in which we examine the techniques and structures
at work. This helps to get them out of the lock-step, classical narrative,
David Lynch and MTV are the only visual styles mode--if you know what I mean.
And I deliberately bring in examples of things that I know they'll hate, and
make them explain why. (Kenneth Anger's SCORPIO RISING is always good for
getting them riled up, as is Gorris' A QUESTION OF SILENCE (just because my
classes are 90% young, white, males who haven't been exposed to much feminist
thought). Being provocative seems to work better than being "PC" when it
comes to getting them to examine their own work both thematically and
 structurally. And when absolutely necessary, I have a little performance piece
 I do
about banal film ideas (basically anything involving dormitory rooms, bongs,
graveyards, suicide, toilets, optical point of view shots, and their best
friend. I have actually seen all of these combined in one film....) Do
television students have these tendencies? Hope this helps.
 
Carol Beck, Keene State College (way up north in New Hampshire...)
(603) 358-2764

ATOM RSS1 RSS2