SCREEN-L Archives

November 2004, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Ramaeker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:07:10 +1300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
On the issue of how to go about introducing difficult theory to
students, I think Amy Holberg's response to Mike's points is a
valuable one. There is only so much any one course can do
effectively. I teach an intro course here, and in it I teach film
style, narrative and other formal structures/principles, authorship
and genre. And that's it. I can't imagine how I would fit history
or theory into it. My students just about get how to describe and
analyse editing patterns after one full week only on that (each
stylistic system- editing, mise-en-scene, cinematography, sound- gets
one week). But then, I need not try to imagine how to do this: I
know that by graduation, they'll have had plenty of history and
theory.

I do think there's a danger with an intro course that gets too
ambitious, rather than one that does a specific thing (though this
may include gestures toward other concerns, whatever they may be,
that get explored with detail and rigor later on) within the larger
context of a program's required courses. But then, Mike, I have no
idea what your institutional context is, and what's expected of you,
so my point could be moot.

I do think, though, that an intro course can only ever be an intro
(with or without what we are calling theory in this particular
discussion), and that may mean it has to be enough to say, there is a
feminist critique of media, and Haskell and Douglas, for instance,
represent in themselves a couple of fairly distinct ways to talk
about this (simple readings demonstrating markedly different
approaches or assumptions could be helpful in indicating there's a
whole other terrain out there for the more committed or the ongoing
student).

But of course there's another issue here, and one that has to do with
jargon. The use of jargon in academic work is one debate in itself,
but maybe another is: where are the public intellectuals in film or
media studies, who can translate these ideas in some way for a
general audience without abusing them? Susan Douglas is one of them,
I suppose, at least in some of her work, but after her I am hard
pressed...

pbr

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2