SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


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
Robert Withers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 5 Jun 1994 12:32:20 EDT
text/plain (20 lines)
On Thu, 2 Jun 1994 22:06:16 -0500 Patrick B Bjork said:
>I defer to your more experienced judgment, Robert; I have a colleague who
>uses _Understanding Movies_ in his Freshman Composition Class, and
>students find it fairly accessible. However, the poster did write
>"in-depth" and "I.A. Richards" in nearly the same sentence, so I assumed
>she could handle something, well. . . a little more in-depth. As to any
>college text being inexpensive--forget it these days.
      Ah, Patrick, I must now defer to *your* more experienced judgement since
I am not really familiar with the I.A.Richards book. Can you clue me in?
BTW, I just stumbled across (in my bookshelf) another of those now-dated but
so readable anthologies, _Film:An Anthology_, ed by Daniel Talbot, and
subtitled "A diverse collection of outstanding writing on the film," which it
really is, with pieces by the likes of Panofsky, Pauline Kael, John Grierson,
James Agee, Pudovkin, Cocteau, Rene Clair, Ben Hecht, Kracauer, and even
Henry Miller.  A real grab-bag, but such an enjoyable mix.  Why is no one
publishing this type of thing nowadays?  I'm convinced it has something to do
with the establishment of film studies in the academy since the seventies,
which has led to both gains and losses.