Author Topic: i am troubled by pete's signature (academia nuts)  (Read 13843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7778
  • smh
  • Respect: +193
Re: i am troubled by pete's signature (academia nuts)
« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2007, 09:46:02 PM »
0
You gotta be kidding me. What's the deal, man?
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5555
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +453
    • my site
Re: i am troubled by pete's signature (academia nuts)
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2007, 11:05:39 PM »
0
children with angels - I don't mean truth like you've assumed, as in, there is only one thing you can say about one movie.  I mean, whatever it is for whoever is seeking, it's probably more useful to understand more, not less, about film.  I also have beef with the literary scholars, I've witnessed, both in print and in person, some really silly dialogues between fiction writers and scholars as the scholars completely miss the ballpark in their conversation, but since this is not a literary forum, and since literay people seem to interact with the scholarly world way more than the film Theorists and filmmakers, I won't say much about them.
I think I'm gonna take back a tiny portion of my point to make whatever I'm saying even more incomprehensible...you do not have to necessarily make films in order to make their words more relevant or truthful- they, like, other scholars, would probably really benefit just from living a wonderful life - maybe train in mixed martial arts, or trap lobsters, or build a well...etc., it's just kinda shitty when a field so prevalent with humorlessness get their hands on couple of handsome movies.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

children with angels

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Respect: +7
    • The Lesser Feat (blog)
Re: i am troubled by pete's signature (academia nuts)
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2007, 07:19:39 AM »
0
children with angels - I don't mean truth like you've assumed, as in, there is only one thing you can say about one movie.  I mean, whatever it is for whoever is seeking, it's probably more useful to understand more, not less, about film.

Okay. Well maybe, in a very general sense; but I would still suggest that it's not necessarily relevant if what you're trying to do is write about the effects that the film has on, and the meanings it makes for, the viewer (as I am, and as the best film studies does, in my opinion).

I think I'm gonna take back a tiny portion of my point to make whatever I'm saying even more incomprehensible...you do not have to necessarily make films in order to make their words more relevant or truthful- they, like, other scholars, would probably really benefit just from living a wonderful life - maybe train in mixed martial arts, or trap lobsters, or build a well...etc.,

Well, yes. Everything a critic does in life will contribute to the words and ideas they write. But of course that is, as you realise, pretty irrelevant to the specific thing you were talking about.

it's just kinda shitty when a field so prevalent with humorlessness get their hands on couple of handsome movies.

Yeah, but only if they give a shitty interpretation. When I read a bad critic give a bad reading of a great film I get really annoyed; but then I'll read another critic who is sensitive, perceptive and responsive, and manages to express precisely in words some of the subtle, beautiful things in the movie that I could have never explained by myself. For me, that's what makes reading (and writing) academic film criticism worthwhile.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy