SCREEN-L Archives

July 1997, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Katharine Hawks <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:12:37 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<l03010d00afff644ca28a@[130.132.159.47]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (62 lines)
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, gloria monti wrote:
 
>         So, this becomes *Krin's* mistake.  Interesting.  It was also *my*
> mistake, when I first subscribed to the list--in 1993.  I don't think the
> mistake is ours, BTW.  I think that rather than
> accomodating the needs of those "non-academically trained individual with
> an interest in film" (in the words of Katie Hawks) who feel alienated by
> theoryspeak, they should be redirected to another kind of film discussions,
> such as Cinema-L.
 
Actually, no one has expressed alienation by "theory speak".  Rather, I
was commenting on what appeared to be a rather unconstructive response to
a genuine question (ie, what's the big deal about may of 68).
 
There were many helpful responses -- both in the form of synopsis and
references to books that interested parties could consult.  Krin's
dissatisfaction, however, struck me as symptomatic of larger interests
that are important -- to me anyway.
 
The question remains -- what about people with an interest in film
scholarship?  I don't claim to me a film scholar or a film historian, but
film scholarship is important to me at a variety of levels.  In fact, it
was the *screen* of the 70s that initially turned me on.  I'm on this list
to engage with people who have knowledge and experiences different than
mine.  If I wanted to talk to someone that shared my intellectual history,
I'm sure the mirror and I could have a lively debate <grin>.
 
> CINEMA-L, a  lively list also  devoted to film, provides  an entertaining
> forum for  folks wanting to  chat more  informally about the  movies.  Its
> address is [log in to unmask]
 
What about "untrained" (or, perhaps trained in other ways) people who want
to *interact* with film scholars/historians and cultural theorists?
Critical theory slowly trickles outside of academic circles along various
conduits -- through students in undergrad classrooms, legal studies, and
artists in different fields (to name a few examples). However, these
days, it seems like the trickle-down effect of critical theory makes
 Reaganomics look like democratic socialism :)
 
>         Are you invoking some kind of popularizing strategy?  Leave that to
> Siskel&Ebert. :-)
>
 
It would depend, ultimately, on what you mean by "popularizing strategy".
I'd like to think that there's an enormous terrain of discourse between
Siskel and Ebert and, say, Critical Inquiry.
 
Anyone who manages to translate a bit or peice of critical theory -- from
whatever tradition they choose -- to someone new has provided something
really extraordinary. I'd like to do more of that, outside of an academic
setting. And frankly, my discursive bag of tricks seems to have grown
smaller as it became more technologized. I'd like to
deterritorialize my mind a little of my academic training, of all the
"theory speak" I've learned, so I can engage with many people, at many
levels.
 
                --Katie Hawks
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the 
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2