Just to defend Jeremy's description of the article - I tried posting it to the list initially (but ran into computer limitations - thanks to Jeremy for reposting more effectively) with a far more derogatory heading... I think the article is more than snide - it's a textbook case on how to do hatchet "journalism." Note the negative personal physical descriptions of the Theory side (dandruff?!?), while no attempts to paint a visual of Ebert or other holders of the Film as Film flame. The excerpted comments portray the theorists as detached not only from history (which I don't think the people he mentions are - certainly Walker, Wolfe, Everett & Parks all do history!), but from film as well, reading like they teach theory without actually using film in the class. Another interesting thing is that the article conflates all theory together, so cognitive neo-formalism (Branigan) is treated equally to (if not more suspiciously than) psychoanalysis & poststructuralism. I guess if it considers anything outside of watching & making film, its theory... Seemingly, if only they taught critical studies classes that taught students to memorize film encyclopedias and synopsize films using their thumbs, all would be well... Grrrr... -Jason P.S. Could anyone who regularly reads the LATimes be willing to post any letters to the editor that appear in reaction to the list? Thanks! ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html