On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Rolf W. Brandis wrote: > Aside from the practical reasons (inflation, population growth, etc.) I > would posit that 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. Ah, but a careful study of the most popular films can reveal much about the state of societal mores at the time each was released. Just as novels can reflect certain identifiable currents of the time in terms of values, sense of self (and society), and desires, so does film - in a more immediate way. It's a question of what kinds of stories the public finds interesting, and what kinds of heroes or antiheroes we find interesting. Or what types of advertising appeals most (no need to fall back on the old action hero/beautiful girl combo - we have films like E.T. to combat that image). As for the practical problems of inflation and population growth, this could be simply solved by studying the most popular films for different periods of time - each year, each decade, or other measures such as wars, presidencies, whatever seemed appropriate. The actual today-dollar amount would be less important than the fact that each film was a top grosser for its time. > 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. Not to make the too-obvious point, but what's wrong with teaching a class based on best sellers? Clearly Literature is no longer a stable body of classics - all kinds of writing merits intellectual investigation (this is what makes interdisciplinary arenas like Comp. Lit. and American Studies tick). From the incredibly popular crap churned out by Rosamund Pilcher, Danielle Steele and the like, to the equally popular psuedo-mysticism of Deepak Chopra and L. Ron Hubbard, all kinds of interesting and disturbing things are happening out there. It seems this discussion teeters on the verge of becoming a classics v. pomos argument. I respect your statement of frustration with the idea of placing pop culture on a par with Serious Intellectual Study. It's a matter of taste. Incidentally, I wonder what you (or anyone out there) might say about the popularity of Emma Thompson's rendition of Jane Austin? Extremely popular, well-made, and offering audiences two hours of wonderful escape (though I overheard someone on a bus referring to _Persuasion_ as the "sequel" to S&S. Ha!). Isn't that worth looking into? > I strongly believe that creating an environment in which curiosity flourishes is > more conducive to eventual maturation of taste and intellect than any > exposition of colosal money-makers. It's all a matter of _what_ you are curious about, isn't it? -------------- J.F. ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]