Just to defend Jeremy's description of the article - I tried posting it to

the list initially (but ran into computer limitations - thanks to Jeremy for

reposting more effectively) with a far more derogatory heading...



I think the article is more than snide - it's a textbook case on how to do

hatchet "journalism."  Note the negative personal physical descriptions of

the Theory side (dandruff?!?), while no attempts to paint a visual of Ebert

or other holders of the Film as Film flame.  The excerpted comments portray

the theorists as detached not only from history (which I don't think the

people he mentions are - certainly Walker, Wolfe, Everett & Parks all do

history!), but from film as well, reading like they teach theory without

actually using film in the class.



Another interesting thing is that the article conflates all theory together,

so cognitive neo-formalism (Branigan) is treated equally to (if not more

suspiciously than) psychoanalysis & poststructuralism.  I guess if it

considers anything outside of watching & making film, its theory...



Seemingly, if only they taught critical studies classes that taught students

to memorize film encyclopedias and synopsize films using their thumbs, all

would be well...



Grrrr...

-Jason



P.S.  Could anyone who regularly reads the LATimes be willing to post any

letters to the editor that appear in reaction to the list?  Thanks!



----

For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:

http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html