SCREEN-L Archives

March 1991

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:
82 Malcolm Dean 213-5-5676 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Mar 91 10:12:00 PST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
> I have to side with M.  If you can't say it simply, it's probably because the
> world isn't a simple place.  And to conflate the collapse of European
> Marxism/Leninsm with an imaginary *collapse of Marxist credibility* on the
> academic front is a sad mistake.  Neo-Marxist critical theory is about as far
> from iron curtain ideology as you can get, and its one of the best tools we
> have for understanding *obscure* things like semiotics and film.  Once you giv
> a jargon a chance, it often (but regrettably, not always) allows you to see
> things with surprising clarity.
>
> J. Berkley
> Harvard Business School
 
I respectfully differ ... on all counts. The world IS a simple
place, but clearly our understanding of it is not, hence the
smokescreen of jargon, especially in the humanities.
Marxism/Leninism DID collapse, and if academics do not clearly
comprehend the magnitude of that mass shift away from jargon
(i.e. b.s.), THAT is a sad mistake on their part.  Neo-Marxist
critical theory is rooted in the delusionary origins of that
mistake, and has nothing concrete or practical to offer.  Film is
not obscure, but semiotics is deliberately so. Let's see some
objective, apolitical research from this crowd, then perhaps we
could all join in and jargon ourselves into collective silliness
...
 
... we still wouldn't be making great film ...
 
Malcolm Dean

ATOM RSS1 RSS2