Print

Print


Dear colleagues

For anyone interested in the 'Solipsistic Film Criticism' debate, you may
like to know that I have posted a reply to Alex Clayton and Andrew Klevan
on my webpage:

http://warrenbuckland.com/announcements.html

Here are the opening paragraphs, to give some context (all references are
to be found on the website):


Revisiting 'Solipsistic Film Criticism': Reply to Clayton and Klevan
Warren Buckland

Alex Clayton and Andrew Klevan (C&K) have written a 'Reply' to my review
essay 'Solipsistic Film Criticism', published in the 'New Review of Film
and Television Studies'. My essay, a review of their edited book 'The
Language and Style of Film Criticism', presented the opportunity to discuss
in some detail the different assumptions underlying textual analysis and
film criticism. However, to consider further these differing assumptions,
we also need to address a few of C&K's errors.

C&K ask in the opening paragraph of their 'Reply': 'It is difficult to see
why a reviewer (who is also the journalís editor) devotes ten pages to
criticising, polemically, what he takes to be three ineffectual, and
sometime incompetent, essays'. In other words, C&K are wondering why a
reviewer would be disappointed with their book. At the end of their
'Reply,' C&K recommend the reader consult a different review of 'The
Language and Style of Film Criticism', by Nicholas Forster. It is easy to
see why. Forster writes: 'each essay elegantly dances with unique style';
'rarely does a thought fade into the ether', etc. I must admit I failed to
praise C&K's 'elegantly dancing style' in my review essay. Instead, I
critically interrogated and engaged with their arguments and underlying
assumptions. ...

Warren Buckland
Reader in Film Studies
Oxford Brookes University

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
https://listserv.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html