====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/13/magazine/tm-filmschool28 Lights, Camera, Action. Marxism, Semiotics, Narratology. Film School Isn't What It Used to Be, One Father Discovers July 13, 2003|David Weddle | David Weddle last wrote for the magazine about comedy. "How did you do on your final exam?" I asked my daughter. Her shoulders slumped. "I got a C." Alexis was a film studies major completing her last undergraduate year at UC Santa Barbara. I had paid more than $73,000 for her college education, and the most she could muster on her film theory class final was a C? "It's not my fault," she protested. "You should have seen the questions. I couldn't understand them, and nobody else in the class could either. All of the kids around me got Cs and Ds." She insisted that she had studied hard, then offered: "Here, read the test yourself and tell me if it makes any sense." I took it from her, confidently. After all, I had graduated 25 years ago from USC with a bachelor's degree in cinema. I'd written a biography of movie director Sam Peckinpah, articles for Variety, Film Comment, Sight & Sound, and written and produced episodic television. On the exam, I found the following, from an essay by film theorist Kristin Thompson: "Neoformalism posits that viewers are active--that they perform operations. Contrary to psychoanalytic criticism, I assume that film viewing is composed mostly of nonconscious, preconscious, and conscious activities. Indeed, we may define the viewer as a hypothetical entity who responds actively to cues within the film on the basis of automatic perceptual processes and on the basis of experience. Since historical contexts make the protocols of these responses inter-subjective, we may analyze films without resorting to subjectivity . . . According to Bordwell, 'The organism constructs a perceptual judgment on the basis of nonconscious inferences.' " Then came the question itself: "What kind of pressure would Metz's description of 'the imaginary signifier' or Baudry's account of the subject in the apparatus put on the ontology and epistemology of film implicit in the above two statements?" I looked up at my daughter. She smiled triumphantly. "Welcome to film theory," she chirped. Alexis then plopped down two thick study guides. One was for the theory class, the other for her course in advanced film analysis. "Tell me where I went wrong," she said. (clip) ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
