Murray Pomerance comments: "I'm referring to a "popular"--I don't know a better word, and the quotes count--notion that film is something absolutely everybody, and anybody, can make sense of just by seeing it. The other night at dinner, long after reading the debate on BR, I argued with a student of mine who had spent 30 minutes watching Antonioni's BLOW-UP, decided it was "sexist bullshit," and just switched it off; *AND THEN WANTED TO KNOW WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND TO ARGUE ABOUT ITS MERIT.* I'm perfectly aware people can do this, but I think they shouldn't. Whether or not I am what a friend has called me, an "unregenerate auteurist," I believe an artist like Antonioni in making a film like BLOW-UP was commiting an act of art; and an act of history; and an act of social consciousness and intellect. And to understand the film it helps very much to consult, through their texts, with those who have read it and studied it largely. Some have published on it. Others--like me--have merely written and taught. I have, surely, seen it 25 times or more. And if it is my vanity, so be it, but I want to feel I can talk about it in some kind of depth with people *who have at least seen it once* without predisposition against it. The attempt to plug into analysis without the prerequisite experience must be one of our most pervasive curses. . . . " I won't disagree with the symptoms Murray cites. I just finished explaining to a student why her paper on South Africa that used two sources that were more than ten years old wasn't, uh, adequate. "Well, It's what I wanted to say!" she responded. I think I finally persuaded her to try to at least alter her approach! But I also think there are two other issues involved with what Murray describes: 1. The status of some of us as "professional" film viewers. Thus, from time to time, not just students but colleagues will ask "What did you think of [movie X]" in the way that a doctor might be told about a persistant itch or a lawyer engaged with a question about divorce settlements. Most of the time, I'm happy to pontificate (in abbreviated form) but it can become annoying--especially when some individuals always approach you on that basis! 2. The status of film itself as an artform and a popular medium. Most discussion of film takes place at a fairly superficial level. When we get into academic discussion of film, it is not unreasonable to expect that people are at least aware of some of the critical background of the work or issue in question, but on an e-mail list (even one devoted to "serious" discussion of film like this one) there are--as some respondents have pointed out--a range of discussants whose awareness of that background may be limited by age, geography, or other factors. In such cases, we don't need to keep reinventing the wheel, but we can--to paraphrase some posters--gently point out that there's a wheel shop just down the street and invite people to come back once they' ve gotten one! The situation Murray cites conflates points one and two. The setting of his conversation, at dinner, was informal; the respondent was semi-(at least!) hostile to BLOW-UP, so I can understand Murray's irritation. Depending on the character of the respondent, I might have tried to pass the buck or say I didn't want to play that game--or I might have tried to give the respondent a few reasons to give the film another chance. I have in fact tried this sometimes with other controversial films from THE COOK, THE THIEF HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER to FARGO. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! On another list, I was chatting about a set of letters in two issues of PMLA about the language used in an article published in an earlier, third issue. While I felt the author of the original article became increasingly hostile and offbase in his responses to the people who said he was just too darned hard to read, the protestors who gave up after the first sentence were arguing in bad faith with him. And none of the letters or responses engaged with the substance of the article! It was like watching an e-mail flame war in very slow motion. In other words, intellectual laziness comes in many forms! Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN) ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]