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...


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: