In message <[log in to unmask]>, Paul Stone
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>>I was one of the ones who asked the question - I am a film scholar.
>>Should I get myself fired? ;-)
>
>What is a film scholar. I mean, what qualifies you as one?
>I think I might be one too, even though I have no formal education in such
>endeavours.
 
 
My personal answer would be that a film scholar is someone who
investigates moving image -  questions, theorises, applies thought and
deliberation to the solutions of any problems the investigation reveals.
Who can look at moving image as a prism to see the world around us, both
as a singular object of beauty and human expression, and as part of a
complex dance of social, political and economic interactions between the
individual, the society, and even the State.
 
And by that, I mean in addition to actually getting a thrill from just
watching films. This from the person who'd seen Jurassic Park about
thirty times... ;-)
 
Oh yes, and someone who *enjoys* all of the above, with a passion,
exhilaration, love.  Excitement when the lights dim, adreneline when the
titles start.
 
Passion, above all else, passion.
 
In response to the post, I was stating I was a film scholar in the terms
of the excluding/including argument.  I'm a postgraduate student of
film, having studied moving image througout the course of my academic
career.  So I suspect I 'count' as a 'real' scholar in some minds.
 
'Course, I beleive we're all real scholars, just by being in here - and
I certainly know non-academic trained thinkers and theorists who can
knock socks off me.
 
Couple of them even knew what was being reffered to by the 1968 comment.
 
;-)
 
--
Morgan
 
"Nunc demum intellego," dixit Winnie ille Pu.  "Stultus et
delusus fui," dixit "et ursus sine ullo cerebro sum."
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the 
University of Alabama.