On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, gloria monti wrote: > So, this becomes *Krin's* mistake. Interesting. It was also *my* > mistake, when I first subscribed to the list--in 1993. I don't think the > mistake is ours, BTW. I think that rather than > accomodating the needs of those "non-academically trained individual with > an interest in film" (in the words of Katie Hawks) who feel alienated by > theoryspeak, they should be redirected to another kind of film discussions, > such as Cinema-L. Actually, no one has expressed alienation by "theory speak". Rather, I was commenting on what appeared to be a rather unconstructive response to a genuine question (ie, what's the big deal about may of 68). There were many helpful responses -- both in the form of synopsis and references to books that interested parties could consult. Krin's dissatisfaction, however, struck me as symptomatic of larger interests that are important -- to me anyway. The question remains -- what about people with an interest in film scholarship? I don't claim to me a film scholar or a film historian, but film scholarship is important to me at a variety of levels. In fact, it was the *screen* of the 70s that initially turned me on. I'm on this list to engage with people who have knowledge and experiences different than mine. If I wanted to talk to someone that shared my intellectual history, I'm sure the mirror and I could have a lively debate <grin>. > CINEMA-L, a lively list also devoted to film, provides an entertaining > forum for folks wanting to chat more informally about the movies. Its > address is [log in to unmask] What about "untrained" (or, perhaps trained in other ways) people who want to *interact* with film scholars/historians and cultural theorists? Critical theory slowly trickles outside of academic circles along various conduits -- through students in undergrad classrooms, legal studies, and artists in different fields (to name a few examples). However, these days, it seems like the trickle-down effect of critical theory makes Reaganomics look like democratic socialism :) > Are you invoking some kind of popularizing strategy? Leave that to > Siskel&Ebert. :-) > It would depend, ultimately, on what you mean by "popularizing strategy". I'd like to think that there's an enormous terrain of discourse between Siskel and Ebert and, say, Critical Inquiry. Anyone who manages to translate a bit or peice of critical theory -- from whatever tradition they choose -- to someone new has provided something really extraordinary. I'd like to do more of that, outside of an academic setting. And frankly, my discursive bag of tricks seems to have grown smaller as it became more technologized. I'd like to deterritorialize my mind a little of my academic training, of all the "theory speak" I've learned, so I can engage with many people, at many levels. --Katie Hawks ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama.