Rolf Brandis writes: [one of the reasons we teach is our aesthetic, as well as knowledge, enthusiasm and unbridled love of cinema, its history and its influence on the mores of our society. In my opinion it would be akin to teaching Literature based only best sellers or Art History on any era's best selling reproductions. Popularity and box-office grosses more often, than not, attest to notoriety and/or marketing acumen rather than more solid intellectual criteria.] This seems to me like a reiteration of Ivory Towerism, that anything that is popular is beneath serious study. While I have an Ivy League PhD (sociology) I have not been an academic, just a "regular person." I did take two film courses in college, on Hitchcock, and Politics in Film. The former was one of the best courses I ever had, in any subject. It seems to me that students can learn a lot from studying the "best sellers/box office winners"--like what do their popularity say about the contemporary culture? Students also could learn to critically analyze these films for what they "lack" from the standpoint of film theory, the same way you can learn about advertising from studying ads that you like, or don't like. The point is: as my design prof says, a good designer can turn s--- into gold. A good teacher can educate (to draw out) with any material. To dismiss certain materials as too beneath critical thought seems elitist to me. IMHO. Chris Raymond ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]