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.