In response to Thomas Morsch, I think I might advocate a different sensibility at least. I try to give clear information about the content of upcoming films, and students very occasionally feel that they must make the choice to miss that class, whether out of religious, ethical, political or simply visceral squeamishness. What I've learned is that there are diverse viewing positions from which even the most formulaic romance may be shattering to someone -- a student dealing with experience of domestic violence, for example, may find Sleeping With the Enemy quite unbearable. So I've come to feel that it's congruent with my support of academic freedom, to support students in making choices informed by their ethics and experience, and not mine. Obviously, you don't have to look very far to find equally useful alternatives to formula films which could be too close to home for some students, but for me this discussion has raised a more interesting question. Is there an underlying supposition here that there is another category of "important" films which film scholars *ought* to teach and film students *ought* to see, and that this overrides any possible personal objection? The analogies with literary students and Shakespeare, or medical students and burns victims, seem to propose this. In which case, if there's a canon of essential texts for film scholarship, should it (does it?) include economically significant movies like Deep Throat, or are there already tacit exclusions being made? I chose recently not to include Happiness in a course about film and cultural taboo, even though I'm confident of its historical-cultural significance in this context. The decision still worries me a little. So I'd be interested to know whether there are "important" or relevant films which others choose not to teach. Kate Bowles Communication & Cultural Studies University of Wollongong Kate Bowles Communication & Cultural Studies University of Wollongong >Actually, a student who complains about including films into a course >that display graphic violence, nudity or that contain explicit language >(the majority of movies beloning to one category or the other) seems to >be the equivalent to a medical student who refuses to treat burnt >victims, because it is "too gross". This would be ridiculous. > >This may sound a bit naive and it certainly shows that, up to now, I have >been largely unconcerned with this issue. But I would like to hear other >opinions advocating a greater sensibility concerning these issues. ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html