In response to the mail from M. Frank,
 
To clear up any misunderstandings I absolutely believe that instructors owe
their students many things.  Including a certain level of instruction,
professionalism, general respect and time.  What I was refering to in terms of
the instructor not "owing"  his students was that I felt it was clear he was
already planning on addressing these issues through the investigations of his
proposed topics and course outline.  In teaching a contemporary film course you
would naturally be engaging both form and content. It's obvious that film and
literature are different mediums of communication.  However, in both cases the
form impacts on the content and vice versa.
Are you suggesting that we study the mechanics of a film without also addressing
their ideological implications?  If so why?
 
BTW. Mike Frank wrote,
"is it important to be "up to date," especially when -- in academe as in other
>fields -- there is so much fashionable posturing, and things that are hot today
>may well seem silly tomorrow? . . . "
 
First I wonder how many widely accepted theories we use/teach today were once
thought of as simple "posturing" at the time they were introduced.  Secondly, in
academia it is important to investigate the reasons why certain theories
("posturing") are popular when they are.
 
Angela Keenlyside
 
 
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 11:49:02 -0400 (EDT) [log in to unmask] wrote:
 
>angela keenlyside says that
>
>" any investigation of your topics would naturally engage many
>of these debates. The texts themselves will open up discussion and critical
>debate surrounding the use of the gaze, gender theory, ideology, spectatorship
>(etc). I do not think you have to worry about "owing" anything to your
>students, by organizing your course in the way you propose."
>
>but i'm afraid that "the texts themselves" cannot do the work on their own . .
>for more reasons than one i regret to say that i know wll too well how a
>discussion of these "topics," which were all defined thematically rather than,
>say, discursively or generically,  can be very interesting and perhaps even
>valuable without dealing with anything specifically or even remotely
>cinematic . . . as someone who came to film studies from a literature
>background in which i specialized in narrative fiction i spent more time than
>i care to remember talking about movies as if they were really books, as if
>the medium-- however defined --really made precious little difference . . .
>but questions of narrative p-ov, of montage, and [especially] of spectatorship
>(to choose just some obvious examples) are dramatically and significantly
>different in cinema than in the novel . . . and yes, i do indeed think i "owe"
>my film students some understanding of those differences, and it embarrasses
>me now to realize that when i first taught film i was derelict in that
>responsibility
>
>
>mike frank
>
>
>
>BTW, i wonder why angela, who seems to believe that the idea of the instructor
>owing the students something doesn't wash, herself believes that it's
>important for the instructor to include recent publications in order "to
>ensure a contemporary approach,"
>
>is it important to be "up to date," especially when -- in academe as in other
>fields -- there is so much fashionable posturing, and things that are hot today
>may well seem silly tomorrow? . . .  i can't remember who said "he maintained a
>international reputation by continually being fifteen minutes ahead of his
>time, or even about whom it was said, but i really don't know that it's
>critical for us to get involved in that kind of game
 
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]