I'm currently researching the progress of film history from the development of photography through to the experimental cinema of the last thirty years, with a very Deleuzian perspective. I teach units in photography, and Gender and Ethnicity in Media Studies at Southampton Institute, and am reading for my PhD at Southampton University. I have a couple of questions which subscribers might like to answer? Why do Deleuze's theories on cinema ( in Cinema 1: the movement-image, and Cinema 2: the time-image)not figure more prominently in film theory, particularly in the UK, when they provide a strong (if truncated, 1917-80) historical trajectory? Why do courses insist on psycho-analysis as a basis of theoretical study, rather than a phenomenological, or Bergsonian approach? And as a theorist with strong interests in the intertextuality of media culture: Why does film history as taught in colleges not develop some of the links made by Bazin, Kracauer and Barthes in discussing semiology from film to photography and vice versa? (I find a propensity for rejection, from film students, of discussions of other media, especially photography) ---------------------- Damian Peter Sutton [log in to unmask] ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite