SCREEN-L Archives

July 2008, Week 2


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
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:01:16 -0400
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
text/plain (1 lines)
i want to weigh in with a strong endorsement of the central claim of the e-mail copied below, particularly the opening sentence [now highlighted] . . . opera is a performance art, cinema is not, and this will necessarily lead to fundamental differences in the way a “basic repertoire” is established and defined . . . it’s also worth pointing out that opera certainly has the  most narrowly defined standard repertoire or any art form, much more so than theater. for example . . . to get a sense of how narrow one need merely note that if the royal national theater used a model similar to that employed by the royal opera house it would do HAMLET every third season, more than half of its performances would be of plays by shakespeare, ibsen, checkov, shaw and o’neil, and a new play – especially by a new playwright – might with luck get done twice a decade . . . all of which means that the notion of a standard repertory, as seen from within the world of opera, is notoriously bizarre  [though i have to add that many of us love it that way]




-----Original Message-----

From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]

Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:05 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [SCREEN-L] universal standard film curriculum


I think this is CONFUSING A BASIC REPERTOIRE WITH A CANON, IN OTHER WORDS PERFORMANCE WITH STUDY.  Performing arts, or at least collective ones, do have shared repertoire so that the elements and types of performance can be learned whether it's rock bands learning "Louie Louie", lieder singers tackling Schubert or actors doing O'Neill.  Of course it varies - I knew somebody who performed commedia dell'arte who said that here in the US this is pretty esoteric but more common in Europe.  As far as film having a "basic curriculum" or canon there clearly is one whether you view it by person (Lumiere, Melies, Griffith, Welles, Bergman, etc), style (silent melodrama, slapstick, musicals, neo-realism, noir, etc) or some other method.  The catch is that there isn't, and can never be, any agreement on exactly what goes into that canon - trends & tastes change, some works become overly familiar, entire genres may lose appeal (Westerns) and even commerce plays a role (I'd imagine it's tricky to teach Viaggo in Italia or Magnificent Ambersons when there's no DVD or VHS available and your library doesn't have it).  In fact there isn't even "a" canon but several, for different functions.  Isn't it in White Noise that professors play a game of trying to one up each other with what major book they have not read?  




-----Original Message-----

>I'm often asked, especially because I have worked with small opera companies 

>both as singer and crew where most of the people are voice majors and have a 

>standard repertoire of familiarity, what films make up the basic curriculum, and 

>I generally say that aside from _Citizen Kane_ that there really is not one, and 

>then generally shock saying that I have never seen _Gone with the Wind_ in its 

>entirety.  It doesn't seem like a favorite film to teach in the film studies 



>After _Citizen Kane_, it seems to me that _Triumph of the Will_ and _Breathless_ 

>are tops, followed perhaps by _Bicycle Thieves_, _2001:  A Space Odyssey_, and 



>Am I far off the mark here?  I'm not a professor yet--I'm looking into Ph.D. 





>Scott Andrew Hutchins





Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite