Rolf Brandis writes:

[one of the reasons we teach is our aesthetic, as well as

knowledge,

enthusiasm and unbridled love of cinema, its history and its influence on

the mores of our society.

In my opinion it would be akin to teaching Literature based only best

sellers or Art History on any era's best selling reproductions. Popularity

and box-office grosses more often, than not, attest to notoriety and/or

marketing acumen rather than more solid intellectual criteria.]

 

This seems to me like a reiteration of Ivory Towerism, that anything that is

popular is beneath serious study. While I have an Ivy League PhD (sociology)

I have not been an academic, just a "regular person." I did take two film

courses in college, on Hitchcock, and Politics in Film. The former was one of

the best courses I ever had, in any subject. It seems to me that students can

learn a lot from studying the "best sellers/box office winners"--like what do

their popularity say about the contemporary culture? Students also could

learn to critically analyze these films for what they "lack" from the

standpoint of film theory, the same way you can learn about advertising from

studying ads that you like, or don't like.

 

The point is: as my design prof says, a good designer can turn s--- into

gold. A good teacher can educate (to draw out) with any material. To dismiss

certain materials as too beneath critical thought seems elitist to me. IMHO.

 

Chris Raymond

 

----

To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L

in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]