Some responses to a recent posting I made on this topic make it sound like I was suggesting only showing _Titanic_ and Adam Sandler films to introduce cinema to undergraduates. Nothing of the sort. So I'm re-sending one of my postings from two weeks ago on the subject. It gives a clearer picture of where I stand. My apologies for in effect repeating myself, but the memory of a listserv tends to be quite short. --Edward R. O'Neill > > I'd like to add a few points to the question of showing _October_ vs. > _Titanic_ as part of an intro film course. > > I think both approaches have their uses and their problems. Often the > decision is a question of how the course fits into the curriculum, rather > than about an abstract ideal. Thus there are practical pedagogical > questions and questions of one's values. > > While it is indeed difficult to get students into the mindset of past worlds > and art forms, that is part of what education is about: learning that > things were different in the past, and that these past worlds were not > simply ignorant or trivial but as profound and rich as our own, but > different. And that they are *our* past, and thus tell us about who we are. > This is where the practicalities connect to our educational values. > > If we truly love film and what it can do, we owe it to our students not just > to show these clips but to make them vivid and meaningful. After all, if > these shots are so influential and so often quoted in other films, there > must be some reason why, and getting the students to see why can be a > meaningful and personal experience that is different for each and every > student. > > If we show only films that appeal to students already and that they have > probably already seen, we run the risk of not broadening their worlds. But > if we don't meet the students halfway, we run the risk of simply being > elitist and treasuring cultural masterpieces for no good reason. > > I find it wrong-headed, however, to frame a debate about contemporary vs. > canonized masterpieces as an issue of anti-intellectual vs. intellectual. > One can construct a thoughtful context for _Titanic_ OR _American Pie_, or > one can approach _Citizen Kane_ in a shallow, naive and uninformed way. The > date of the film does not determine whether one's response is intellectual > or anti-intellectual. > > Constructing a meaningful context, however, requires knowledge of histories > and traditions--the long take, disaster films, changes in filmmaking > technology, or the conventions of comedy, e.g.--which may not be gleaned > only from looking at recent films, and thus history is constantly calling to > us to be made useful and fresh again. > > (If your student listens to the audio commentary of _American Pie_ on the > DVD, he or she may find that the team that made it thought long and hard > about this type of film and the choices and values involved. It is not a > thoughtless shallow work in the least. And knowledge of _The Graduate_, at > least, might help.) > .... > > Thus I think the question comes back to (first) your pedagogical goals and > (second) your values about education itself. Only sorting out how we feel > about these questions can we get a good sense of how to raise the issues > with our students. > > Sincerely, > Edward R. O'Neill > Bryn Mawr Colllege > > ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]