> I am interested in looking at current perceptions of film theory among film
> scholars (where they think 'its at' and what direction it is currently
> taking).  My own view is that there appears to be little, if any, consensus
> of opinion about where film theory is headed.  This is not a criticism, and
> in fact may represent the maturing of a discipline where a whole variety of
> approaches are being used to look at issues of filmic representation in
> depth, rather than attempting  to write an all engulfing theory of how film
> 'works'/what it is/should be doing etc.  But I am also interested in
> responses to cognitivist film theory, which has been adopted at many levels
> in film theory courses (I'm thinking mainly of Bordwell et al's writings),
> and whether this suggests an implicit acceptance of this model.
 
> Kay Weaver
 
I think an interesting alternative to Bordwell's cognitivist approach
can be found in Allan Casebier's phenomenological approach. One of
Casebier's key criticisms of much of contemporary film theory is that
it is based on a nominalist/idealist  philosophical approach. I think
he overstates his case and doesn't give enough credit to theorists
like Seymour Chatman, who are sensitive to this philosophical issue
and try to find a balance between the two polarities in their
thinking. It's also worth noting Casebier received a positive review
in 'Film Quarterly'.
 
Chris Garbowski
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  C. Kay Weaver.  Film and Television Studies.  University of
> Waikato,    Private Bag 3105.  Hamilton.  New Zealand .
>  Tel&FAX:+ 07 8384543.  e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----
> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]