Eduardo's mailing is a good exploration of his view of problems inherent within this debate. But Murray never proposed either forcing somebody to watch a film 20 times or instilling "forced respect." It merely emphasized that an informed debate on a particular film can not occur if a viewer finished watching after 30 minutes and exclusively leaned upon an easy attitudinal position - "This is sexist bullshit." Maryann also made some really valid points. The debate is not about revering old classics and former attitudes but analyzing their structures according to the relevant depth required. Next semester I have to teach a horrendous 100 level class on The Western Tradition. After reading Dane's INFERNO for the second time, I've come to the conclusion I can not stomach much of it. This is not just due to my position as an atheist but the recognition of sadistic attitudes inherent in the text particularly against D's political rivals many of whom he condemns as gays without any evidence (the charge often led to burning at the stake at the time) as well as his grotesque depiction of Mohammed's punishment. Really great if any followers of Islam are in class! It is about the same as teaching BIRTH OF A NATION without recognizing its racist attitude. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Murray's posting never implied reverence for a great classic nor forcing students to study something twenty times over. It merely suggested examining the text again for a relevant informed debate. Eduardo's points about the popular appeal of film are well made. But after a while do we not go beyond the impressionist- ic stage and attempt further analysis? That's what they do in the legal profession (or should do): examine all the precedents and make a cogent argument which, hopefully, should result in a new interpretation from the available evidence. Tony Williams ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]