I'm currently researching the progress of film history from

the development of photography through to the experimental

cinema of the last thirty years, with a very Deleuzian

perspective. I teach units in photography, and Gender and

Ethnicity in Media Studies at Southampton Institute, and am

reading for my PhD at Southampton University.

 

I have a couple of questions which subscribers might like

to answer?

Why do Deleuze's theories on cinema ( in Cinema 1: the

movement-image, and Cinema 2: the time-image)not figure

more prominently in film theory, particularly in the UK,

when they provide a strong (if truncated, 1917-80)

historical trajectory?

 

Why do courses insist on psycho-analysis as a basis of

theoretical study, rather than a phenomenological, or

Bergsonian approach?

 

And as a theorist with strong interests in the

intertextuality of media culture:

 Why does film history as taught in colleges not develop

some of the links made by Bazin, Kracauer and Barthes in

discussing semiology from film to photography and vice

versa?

(I find a propensity for rejection, from film students, of

discussions of other media, especially photography)

 

 

----------------------

Damian Peter Sutton

[log in to unmask]

 

----

Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite

http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite