Xixax Film Forum

because i agree  

Quote from: in his sig, pete"...for academia is the death of cinema. It is the very opposite of passion."

--werner herzog

also i'm conflicted about it. i think academia can be mediocre, but no more than passionless cinema. am i misunderstanding herzog's statement,  is he negating all institutional intellectual pursuits? is he talking strictly about the community which imposes a standardized form of learning or ppl who study at the institutes as well? it would help to see the quote within its original context.

i wouldn't mind a life as an academic, i've considered it as a way to avoid getting a real job. worked for malick right?

apart from JB, is anyone else undertaking -- or has undertaken -- tertiary education other than to study film? there are so many film school threads, but no "actual university for actual learning" threads. depending on responses, this can either be a signature or actual-learning (academic) discussion thread, or both. but mostly i wanna know what herzog meant..

hey pubrick, maybe stop posting your personal thoughts.

I just got my own Herzog on Herzog book and it's pretty clear.  he thinks films are like circus acts, they're results of physical efforts and should literally come from the hip.  they're the medium of the illiterate.  they're not supposed to be about thinly veiled ideologies.
he distrusts goddard, for example.  he actually said "Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film."  this is a guy who's travelled to and island where the volcano's about to erupt to make a film.  he's been through civil wars, famine, cannibalism...etc. just to make his films.  he doesn't not believe in filmmakers as "Artists" in this day and age, but more like artisans.
I dunno, the book is huge.  the imdb page has a lot of good quotes though (which inspired me to get the book):

http://imdb.com/name/nm0001348/bio
and more recently
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050828/PEOPLE/50828001

I dunno, I got a bachelor's in film and took some graduate-level courses in film and, just like how Freud says sex in dreams is not really sex in real life--films in academia are not actual films.  we're not talking about discussing a film critically like we do here on xixax, we're talking about mostly writers who write just to prove that they're more knowledgeable about the films than the filmmakers who made them.  we're talking about concluding that incest is at the root of every horror movie made.  logic has become somewhat of a religion in the land of scholars and academics--it's the only common currency, and quite understandbly so.  but alas, logic is not a belief, it's just an approach, a method to draw conclusions (by linking facts together).  with enough imagination, free time, footnotes, and career incentives, people can dedicate books and conferences to draw any conclusion they want about any film.
and in the end, it just seems very petty and pointless, this film academia.  unlike other fields such as economics or sociology or even visual art, the growth of the film academia has grown so out of proportion with the growth of film industry (and I use that term extremely loosely) that it's become this very petty, self-referencial group of people all saying pretty much the same thing.  they're very rarely insightful an their voices are very rarely heard by anyone other than their colleagues, which renders their existence and their profession in this world kinda useless.  virtual impacts are fun for a little bit (like me right now), but to dedicate your life to it is kinda embarassing.  I hope God agrees with me.

My interpretation of Herzog's statement is that cinema should not be used to express ideas, not to create essays, but rather to evoke some sort of emotion.  Academia can't do that.

So there's your answer, that's what he meant, in my opinion.

It reminds me of Greenaway.  Been reading up on him a bit lately, because I watched a bit of Tulse Luper (never did finish it though).  Greenaway is all about using the cinematic medium differently.  His films are like essays, though, stripped of emotion, and concentrating on information.  At the same time, they are rich and colorful -- a very interesting juxtaposition.  He's said that cinema is dead -- an idea I disagree with -- and the CD-ROM is the next step.  It is a medium that allows user interactivity and a branching off instead of the linear path film limits one to.

I disagree with Herzog and his thinking that film has to be a circus act.  It can be.  But there's nothing like a film that has some thought put into it.  What is Eyes Wide Shut, if not an essay on marriage and fidelity?  Still, though, Herzog's personality makes any opinion he presents compelling and somewhat valid, and definitely makes that book worth checking out.

You have a point, pete, about the whole film intellectual thing.  Most film criticism isn't criticism, as godardian is fond of pointing out.  I still love Ebert, but not as much as I used to.  He doesn't really tickle my brain anymore.  I know godardian is critical of him, and I know his reason (and maybe if I say his name a third time, he'll appear... godardian?  no?  dammit.).  Anyway, there are critics worth reading, and they're nowhere to be found in academia.  Sontag is one, if I recall correctly.  Ted G (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0643062/comments-index?start=0&order=date) (hi cine), off of IMDb, is my favorite.  Every single review of his I've ever read has had something to offer, has made me think about film in a whole new way, because of his approach to the matter.  His theories may come totally out of left field, and may have no correlation with what the filmmaker has in mind, but he approaches film as art from an academic standpoint, and his writing is so rich, you can actually feel new wrinkles forming in your brain from the experience of reading his work.

As for the other tangent about academia, I recently finished a bachelor's degree in communication studies.  And the work world is life-sucking torture.  Very depressing for anyone with any sort of ambition, and I don't wish to get attached to that any time soon.  It's an existential thing, I think.  My plan in college was to simply get a degree.  That it was for communication studies, the closest thing my school had to film, was incidental, though really, no other subject interested me enough to where I could survive through four years of it (well, only two, really, once the core stuff is out of the way).  I learned way much more on my own, reading books, and reading Xixax, than I could ever in a classroom.  Colleges don't work like that.  You have to take an interest in whatever it is you're doing to excel in it, and the way material is presented in most colleges tends to kill some of the interest.

So my plan is to stick to academia for a while, as you've thought of doing.  I'm going to work, and write, and make a film in my spare time with money from my job.  Prolly DV, as 16mm or whatever is too much overhead for the way I like to work.  Yeah, I realize you get more attention if you shoot on film, but if the script is good, and the production values are there, people will take note.  This is just a foot-in-the-door, calling-card sort of thing, and though I'm not gonna kid myself too much, there are a lot of decent DV films out there.  Then after that, more academia: either a masters or doctorate, depending on who will take me.  Probably a masters in some sort of film study.  Then, I can teach film if I don't succeed in making them.

I was so burnt out on school during my last year.  It was invigorating, but really, looking back on high school, I've been burnt out since then, always thinking that there should be some better way than how colleges do it.  Self-education is rewarding.  Academia can be in small doses.  But most people haven't figured that one out yet.

Herzog's quote, I think, is very true - although I also think it is important to be very considerate of academia, as there is a lot that can be gained from it. As a filmmaker, I've come to realize (at this point, although I know I'll continue to come to realization that may change this realization in the future) that it's important to be able to shoot from the hip. All the times I've tried more formal approaches to filmmaking, I've been dissatisfied. When I improvise, so to speak, the results are more honest, the product better overall, and lo and behold, the formal aspects show up anyway, completely unplanned. It's the nature of art.

I think it's important to distinguish between criticism and criticial study - while not mutually exclusive, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably when they shouldn't be. The difference between them can be illustrated by onamataviva's disenchantment with Ebert in favor of writers like Sontag.

What Pete said, about how the growth of film studies in proportion to the films themselves, is also true, but consider that films is still an art form barely out of its infancy, and film criticism of a serious sort is only fifty or sixty years old, at best. It's still finding its footing. Superfluous interpretation will always be an issue, but I think a stronger, more definitive concept of film studies will eventually emerge.

In one of my classes right now, we're analyzing Dante line by line, and one of the thing the professor said yesterday is that we're not discovering anything that hasn't been discussed ad inifitum before - and yet it's still exciting to find correlation and meaning within the text, because it is, in fact, there. This is true of film, too - of any artform, really. In the case of the Divine Comedy, centuries of critical discussion has not defused the excitement of studying the work on an extremely close level.

It's the same with film; the approach to studies may be refined, but the thrill of academia, and the satisfaction it can provide, will not become dismissable.

Onamataviva, your thoughts on education called to mind one of my favorite (and most inspiring) Kubrick quotes:

"I never learned anything at all in school and didn't read a book for pleasure until I was 19 years old...I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker. "

Specifically that last sentence.

Quote from: GhostboyInterest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker. "

Specifically that last sentence.

I agree so much in theory. The problem is that kids are not interested in learning to read or count or whatever, and if they never learn, they will never discover any interest. The fear is inherent because nobody has a passion for the early stages of knowledge, yet they are absolutely necessary to discover other academic passions.

exemple : a friend of mine was a real math buff. He was going to do an engineering degree. He hated french so much. All we did was grammar and orthograph. Then in college he had to take a course in redaction. He loved it and is now studying to be a journalist and he wants to work for scientific magazines and stuff.

He learned french out of fear and it's now it's main interest.

A few things:

First off, Ono, Ted G has a site, didn't know if you were aware of it: www.filmsfolded.com.

Secondly, I can't really work this into an argument so here's a Herzog quote that I love and another quote that I'm not sure where it came from:

"Your film is like your children. You might want a child with certain qualities, but you are never going to get the exact specification right. The film has a privelege to live its own life and develop its own character. To suppress this is dangerous. It is an approach that works the other way too: sometimes the footage has amazing qualities that you did not expect."

(paraphrased) "If you want to criticize a film, make another film." I have no idea who said this, but I love it.

I don't like criticism in the overdone written form, the kind Pete talks about. The only true way to talk about films is similar to what Ghostboy says, by sitting there and discussing it. I've gotten more out of open discussions in class, than by reading some goddamn obtuse paper. Reading these people is like wading through bricks, so I just don't do it anymore if it's assigned. The film's right there, it's saying all it needs to say.

I've said it before, but I've ruled out grad school because i feel i could put that money towards actually making a film. I would love to start up a production company with my friend who goes to a school in Savannah, mostly because we have drastically different backgrounds now, his is in production and mine's history and theory/criticism. We both have a lot to learn from each other, like the one time he said at his school he'll "never have to know who that guy [we were talking about Buster Keaton] is." That made me sad, but I didn't dismiss it because he's probably learning more about the craft than I have.

To tie this back to Herzog, I disagree that academia is the death of cinema, but I do think it's a carcinogen. From ono's interpretation, I think cinema should be used as an essay and to evoke emotion, much in the same way literature does. It can be intellectual and/or emotional. Why would one want to limit the medium? They're both stimulating, I think we take Herzog too seriously.

goddard said that second line about the best way to criticize a film is to make another one.  that's a cool dare and all, but I'm so not into films about films, on any level (except those 80s hong kong chopsocky movies when in the period of 5 years every stunt team is trying to outdo each other in crazy stunts).
however, I don't think that's what herzog meant.  that line is also from his book--but I know he's been re-interating the same points over the last three decades when confronted by the media.  he was talking about editing in the first quote--about after shooting, he must forget everything he did and had in mind during the shoot in order to edit, that's the ruthlessness an editor must have.
herzog does have a very specific way of viewing the cinema, but it all makes sense, and though that's not how I operate at all (I'm very logical when writing a script, basically everything is structured like a farce with the buildup and the payoff...right socket?) it really is what I aspire to.  I realize that most of my favorite filmmakers--Jackie Chan, Christopher Doyle, Parajankov, David Gordon Green, Gobahdi, even Stephen Chow, are all quite visceral and love to script things as shooting goes along and improvise that way...I don't think that means it's counter-intelligence, but I think the act of filmmaking ie. capturing something that's happening in real time, can be better served through this "visceral" approach (not that there is an amazing separation between what is "visceral" and "cerebral"), but the whole "essay" approach popularized by Goddard just seems a lot less soulful, and I can usually tell between films that are meant to be intellectual and films that are meant to move.  Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" I think is the only one that has both aspects perfectly balanced.

thanks all for the replies. it cleared up the herzog quote and more, but now i'm confused about other things.

moving this to News & Theory cos no one here goes to college/university for anything other than Film School. feel free to continue the discussion in the new location.

Quote from: Pubrick
moving this to News & Theory cos no one here goes to college/university for anything other than Film School.

I'm going for English Lit. But I agree with the move.

Quote from: Pubrickmoving this to News & Theory cos no one here goes to college/university for anything other than Film School.

Well, I do (Philosophy)... or, I will when I leave for college tomorrow (ah!)

My feeling is that academia is a good place to start, but not to work from.  It takes a lot of time and effort to get to a place where you can work from the hip and not end up with total crap.  But those that try to make "rules" about this art form are just being ridiculous.

I am annoyed with the people who just grab a camera and start shooting.  That might sound great and passionate, but the end result is crap.

Perhaps there's a difference between "academia" and what I mean.  What I mean is that some serious, serious studying is required.  However, I feel that learning about film in a class is not so great (and if that it all that is meant by academia, then I agree with Herzog's quotation).  This is why I'm not very interested in majoring in film (even though I am enticed by the prospect of watching movies for credit).

I also believe in studying to be technically well-skilled, because amatuer movies with crap sound and picture turn me off.

But one must remember at all times to work from the heart, and realize that there is no one way to do anything--as long as the end result works.

"Academia" is mainly only dangerous in that it produces students, and not artists.

I'm not really making great points here, and I'm rambling a bit.  If you'll remember, I'm moving tomorrow, I've been packing, I'm tired and nervous, and so I'll talk to you guys later.

Quote from: matt35mmI am annoyed with the people who just grab a camera and start shooting.  That might sound great and passionate, but the end result is crap.

Perhaps there's a difference between "academia" and what I mean.  What I mean is that some serious, serious studying is required.  However, I feel that learning about film in a class is not so great (and if that it all that is meant by academia, then I agree with Herzog's quotation).  This is why I'm not very interested in majoring in film (even though I am enticed by the prospect of watching movies for credit).

couldn't agree with you more on your first statement.

most people think the best way to learn about film is simply done by watching films.  true, but this must be done with a critical and analytical eye.  so in essence, i agree with the fact that someone could teach themselves the grammar of moving images.  it's really like any occupation;  for example, if you take out enough law books from the library,  you could write your bar exam and still become a lawyer.  being able to practice law is a license like anything else.  you can also teach yourself to drive a car and you don't need to go to school for it.  it's just not the standard.  a very small percentage of the population is capable of being self taught, while others need school to teach them the fundamentals.  I must say I am thoroughly impressed by the first group, because they show a higher level of autonomy (something that i strive for).

the problem arises when the next group of individuals (those people inspired by these self taught filmmakers) go "fuck, if tarantino and PTA did it, then i don't need that shit!" and they're saying this not because they have the ability to teach themselves and work better by that method, but rather, it's because they're lazy bastards who just want to pick up a camera and start shooting without any thought put to pre-production.  also the story of the guy who didn't need film school is a great sound bite because it veers from the norm.  they sensationalize that anomaly of education independence and project it as the "everyman" approach.  a cinderella story in which anyone reading it gets to feel like they could be that guy.  there are so many other factors but the lazy group only ends up thinking they naturally have the same innate talent and ability.  some do, but not nearly close to a fraction of a percent.

However, i don't think it makes you any more of a genius by being self taught.  look at spike lee, Scorsese and countless others that make brilliant films who all came from academia.

more on point with Herzog, i dislike over analysis of a film as much as the next guy.  it's pretentious and shows insecurity of one's own creativity, and i think that's what he's talking about...

                   Good taste is the defense of the uncreative,
                   and the artist's last ditch-stand.

...but at the same time, some analysis is needed.  and i've been prone to be as pretentious as the next guy because i want to sound like a professional on the issue/film.

i've always thought the practical aspects of filmmaking (camera, lights, shots etc.) teaches you the grammar of the tangible and the theoretical represents the infusion of themes into the script.  one without the other is not complete within itself.  the lack of this synergy is a surefire recipe for disaster.

i've always really liked how on this site people gave their scripts for one another to read.  it educates us on the follies of narrative and plot like any kind of screenwriting class.  that is academia, because we're learning shit from each other and trust the opinions of others who love the medium.  education and the subjective word academia comes in all shapes and sizes, and is very important.

-sl-

Since this topic is so old, I cannot directly reply to anyone. Who knows if what anyone said here is still believed by them, but I'm sad I missed this topic. It's an excellent one. I'll just make a general statement instead.

First off, I don't believe academia is essential for all filmmakers. Most up and coming filmmakers I know want to film personal stories. They have ambitions to stylize their work in the shadow of their favorite filmmakers, but they still want to tell their own stories. They do not have serious ambitions to make films that compare and contrast different cinemas and histories. All they want to do is develop a good understanding of the approaches to the filmmakers they like. You can read general criticism and watch a lot of movies to achieve that. The major questions for these filmmakers is how good they are as a filmmaker, storyteller and commentator on life. That isn't something you find in a class or a "how to" book.

But, academia is essential to film as an art. Academia is prevalent in every other major art and has been the reason that many of them have carried over to still have resonance today. People over estimate the value of public perception for doing this, but it's academia. The value of thought and the relationship a work of art has to theoretical ideas gives it a better chance to carry over into the next century and still be meaningful. That's true because theories develop and advance, but many new films and works of art are still being looked at under some very old terms of critical thinking. The fact that many films are able to be understood in the context of how other arts is being judged is what is making it be considered a legitimate art form. Of course the details of how films are judged is different, but there are basic theoretical similarities.

Bernard Shaw said a work of art was only meant to be meaningful to the public for a hundred years. I think that basic idea has a special relationship to film. Films like Casablanca and It's A Wonderful Life are considered classics, but will they be as acclaimed as they are today in 500 years? The reason these movies still survive has more to do with public sympathy and memory, but generations of people are dying and the next generations are being further removed all the time. The disparity will only continue to grow. The chance that these movies drop off the face of the movie world becomes even more likely considering numerous films are made to replicate the emotions in those films. The newer films will have a better chance to carry over because they will be made for that generation and time period. This also takes into account many accomplished dramas and independent films. They too have as many things about them that are just made for the time period that can later become irrelevant.

If a filmmaker does open himself up to academia, he can make films that are conscious of the history of art like other artists have done. In literature, James Joyce's Ulysses will survive until the end of the novel itself does. Not because it was just the best work of its era but because it had the greatest structural innovations ever found in a novel. It's not studied for what it had to say about Joyce the man or his time period, but for its revolution to the novel. Academia is the main area for study of an art. Most filmmakers aren't interested in those details, but some are. Many of those filmmakers were prevalent in the 1960s and still making films in different pockets around the world. The filmmakers ambitious to make their films studies of its own art.

That being said, it's a crap shoot what films will be truly remembered. Not all good films by filmmakers conscious of film art will be remembered and not all films made for public emotion will be forgotten, but luck will have more to do with that process. By true remembrance I mean the films that can be easily identified by everyone as a known film. But, great works by filmmakers who are ambitious to challenge the bounds of their art will help forward ideas for future filmmakers and film artists. Even if God doesn't exist, Robert Bresson gave himself an everlasting life with the books and articles he wrote. He will always be studied and known. And a film like Citizen Kane has no chance to be forgotten.

I also hate that quote by Werner Herzog. It is stupid because it makes the word passion resonate only to emotion. As I figure, passion has as much to do with the mind as it does the heart. Does Werner Herzog believe filmmakers who aspire to make academically sound films are passionless? Hans Jurgen Syderberg makes films that are tough for everyone relate to, but he attacks his subject with as much fervor as anyone else. He just so happens to have an academic brain and relates his subject back to its theoretical and societal roots.

People want to pigeonhole films by saying the methods of their favorite filmmakers is the only way to make a great film, but there are many ways to make a great film that involve both logic and emotion. Academia is helpful to understand many different filmmakers and films. It also isn't reducing some films to look at them from an academic perspective. For many great filmmakers, that was the intention in the first place.

QuoteBut, academia is essential to film as an art. Academia is prevalent in every other major art and has been the reason that many of them have carried over to still have resonance today.

really?  I haven't seen too much academia in miming, comedy in general, clowning, acrobatics, choreographed fighting, and street performance in general.  there must be scholars dedicated to each of these disciplines, but I don't believe academia had much impact on their popularity.  I also don't believe it decides the importance of art in the public sphere.
now is the hard part, part of me really believes that academia is a detractor for the cinema, except I don't really know how to coherently argue it, it has been a long day today, I got heckled a bit while in a dress chaperoning children for halloween, just experienced a 5.6 earthquake at home, and found out robert goulet had died.  so here we go, norman mailer said in a recent interview about his critics that made life-changing impact on him, he said the best ones were like titans to him but they were also unequivocally his peers.  I don't believe film academia has this type of relationship with the filmmaking community.  It seems almost entirely one way and does not offer much to filmmaking or even film watching.  maybe academia's limit is popular entertainment or even sub-popular entertainment or anything market-based, and cannot engage with those who don't participate in academia (ie. the less educated).  now, as for death of cinema, I will attempt it with this: those who associate with film academia, a world almost completely disassociated with actual filmmaking, stands little chance when the filmmaking world/ real world do not materialize through the ways assumed by the academia.  I have rarely read essays that take the basic physical obstacles into regard when discussing film.  in this way it is different from academia in painting or architecture (but very similar to economics).  the study of film doesn't have to cause cinema much damage, but how it is studied right now proves to be a great hindrance to a great many impressionable but potentially talented filmmakers.  unless they have perfected a theory for people giving a shit, figuring out a movie based on passive observations will always be an extra backwards hurdle.

I'm not sure where my point is in the next paragraph but I'll start it up anyways, maybe it'll lead to something.
I'll also take an asshole like Von Trier, who is a filmmaker's theorist, over an asshole like Godard, a theorist's filmmaker, any day.  One of the two devises theories from making his movies and the other is generally the opposite, respectively.  von trier's filmmaking led him to his silly experiment, which resonated around the world beyond anyone's expectation.  both of them have made a dent in filmmaking, and godard's is way bigger and more significant.  however, I think dogme95 is more interesting and engaging to filmmakers, because his take of the filmmaking process is very physical.  he's still an asshole though.

Quote from: pete on October 30, 2007, 11:25:57 PM
really?  I haven't seen too much academia in miming, comedy in general, clowning, acrobatics, choreographed fighting, and street performance in general.  there must be scholars dedicated to each of these disciplines, but I don't believe academia had much impact on their popularity.  I also don't believe it decides the importance of art in the public sphere.

Those fields have areas of discussion, but the fact they aren't established in academia takes nothing away from the importance that academia has to other arts like literature and theater.

Quote from: pete on October 30, 2007, 11:25:57 PM
I don't believe film academia has this type of relationship with the filmmaking community.  It seems almost entirely one way and does not offer much to filmmaking or even film watching.

First, you forget academia does have subgroups for cinema that do specialize in how people watch films. They are communications based and relate back to numerous theories that involve social theories and such. It shows how far the study of film has grown.

Second, you're relating too much of your argument on your personal preference. The films you like and want to make have little to do with Marxist or Constructionalist theories, but other films by other filmmakers do. Those filmmakers take regard of those theories. The fact they do doesn't demote what they do on screen.

Quote from: pete on October 30, 2007, 11:25:57 PM
now, as for death of cinema, I will attempt it with this: those who associate with film academia, a world almost completely disassociated with actual filmmaking, stands little chance when the filmmaking world/ real world do not materialize through the ways assumed by the academia.  I have rarely read essays that take the basic physical obstacles into regard when discussing film.  in this way it is different from academia in painting or architecture (but very similar to economics).

Why do you care if academia is interested in the filmmaking process or not? I think since academia isn't making condemnations of filmmakers for using the wrong camera or set up, it's a non-issue. Obviously you have no interest in the academic world. That is your deal. Some filmmakers do and realize the development of a theory in their work is different from physically making the film. It's two different processes.

Quote from: pete on October 30, 2007, 11:25:57 PM
the study of film doesn't have to cause cinema much damage, but how it is studied right now proves to be a great hindrance to a great many impressionable but potentially talented filmmakers.  unless they have perfected a theory for people giving a shit, figuring out a movie based on passive observations will always be an extra backwards hurdle.

Seems like some muddled sentences, but academia is suppose to make people care about what it has to say? Academia is at fault for most people's non-interest in it? I say people have different interests and whether people like academia or not is just personal interest. Nothing more. 

Quote from: pete on October 30, 2007, 11:25:57 PM
I'll also take an asshole like Von Trier, who is a filmmaker's theorist, over an asshole like Godard, a theorist's filmmaker, any day.  One of the two devises theories from making his movies and the other is generally the opposite, respectively.  von trier's filmmaking led him to his silly experiment, which resonated around the world beyond anyone's expectation.  both of them have made a dent in filmmaking, and godard's is way bigger and more significant.  however, I think dogme95 is more interesting and engaging to filmmakers, because his take of the filmmaking process is very physical.  he's still an asshole though.

See, I don't know why you prefer Von Trier over Godard. I have to imagine it's because Dogme's naturalistic approach is more relevant to your methods of filmmaking. So again it just seems like a personal choice for you. I'm not finding a real argument. I think your dislike of academia is just based on personal bias. I said academia isn't for every filmmaker, but it is essential to film as an art form. If you deny the legitimacy of academia to having any importance then you disregard large portions of accepted thinking into literature and theater. It becomes a Charles Bukowski argument for saying something is too educated. He didn't believe in legitimacy of a writer unless he emotionally connected to them. That makes art meaningless because someone can get away with saying anything.

I'd be open to arguments against academia, but I see long posts that profess personal interest over actual arguments. Academia isn't for most people so it's more likely to get condemnation instead of indifference. If academia isn't for you then it that's fine. It doesn't make anyone smarter. It's just hard to disregard the long history of academia to other arts and the good it has done for those arts.

first of all, give me some examples of what good the academia has done to the other arts.  how have they ushered the said arts into the new millennium?
secondly, your liking that film that I haven't seen is also just based on your taste.  you still don't have good argument on why academia makes any contribution to filmmaking.  how is making a films that compare and contrast different cinemas and histories more beneficial or even worth giving a shit?  how are the academics' taste for the movies enabling their ability to last?  how is their favor engendering the survival of cinema in any way?  why is it the main area for studying filmmaking?
the earlier example you've given about james joyce was ass backwards.  he wrote a brilliant novel that is still being read, the academia loved his novel, and somehow joyce had the academia thank?  I would imagine an institution that is dedicated to studying the works of others would need to thank Joyce instead. 

QuoteFirst, you forget academia does have subgroups for cinema that do specialize in how people watch films.

yeah, and they suck.

it is pretty okay for a group of people to talk about cinema, I mean I'm part of that right now.  however, the academia does have a hand in ruining cinema because it is part of the film school establishment and it does go on to produce studio heads, executives, and worst of all, aspiring filmmakers who come out of that school thinking they know how to make movies and deciding for the rest of the world how films should be viewed and should be made.  the problem is, they were taught by people who had as much say on the subject matter as a magazine editor or a message board junkie.  it's what bruce lee would call an "organized despair."  it's more despairing when the academics refuse to inform themselves on the art they were supposed to know so much about.  is academia merely the science of appreciation?  I can take it if it is.

I can't believe I'm going to seriously reply to this post. I swear my original post was ignored except for two lines.

Quote from: pete on October 31, 2007, 02:13:28 AM
first of all, give me some examples of what good the academia has done to the other arts.  how have they ushered the said arts into the new millennium?

Like I've said, academia gurantees the survival of major works. Films made for public appreciation are at the mercy of the whims of the public, but academia establishes critical benchmarks that will allow works from hundreds of years ago to be studied and given significant analysis today. That is also true of literature. What was considered popular hundreds of years ago may be found nowhere on our radar today. Academia gurantees the survival of people like Shakespeare and the application of his work to modern interpretations. The new analysis of his work makes it grow.

Quote from: pete on October 31, 2007, 02:13:28 AM
how is making a films that compare and contrast different cinemas and histories more beneficial or even worth giving a shit?

It extends film to the critical methods used for analysis of literature and a few other arts. Literature has become so important that it has influenced how some other arts. The poet Mathew Arnold created benchmarks that became widespread. Of course modifications have been made to represent the uniqueness of film, but basic moral ideas prevail in film.

This isn't a new idea that was created last week and is still open to debate. It's an established benchmark of artistic analysis that extends hundreds of years and is continued to be referenced today. Either you believe in this or you don't. I'm guessing you don't, but if you want me to detail it further, I shall. The point is that it represents a large history of artistic analysis. It should be at least considered important.

Quote from: pete on October 31, 2007, 02:13:28 AM
how are the academics' taste for the movies enabling their ability to last? 

Alright, I'll give a new perspective for understanding.

Consider Silent film. It had a lifespan of 30 plus years going back to 1895. Silent Cinema (meaning feature filmmaking) goes back only to 1915. The period ended in the early 1930s so a major period of our Cinema died out in under twenty years. Some ideas about film art that were created then still exist to this day. An example is basic narrative storytelling and the three act plot structure, but other ideas don't. They are ideas that are entrenched in the period and pretty much forgotten today. Academics make sure those ideas still exist in theoretical studies.

See, film is a unique art form. It develops as technology does. That means a major period of film is likely to be condensed into a small period of history. My film professor said five years in film history was equivalent to a hundred years in literature because of how important technology was to film. This means that the narrative cinema we know now may not always be the prevelant method of storytelling.

In the 1970s, Umberto Eco theorized that film and television were moving to become more interactive with the audience. He said this had the best chance to change the face of cinema because it would change the structure of story in films. Audiences would no longer go to cinemas to watch a story being told, but interact with the start of a story and allow their decisions to make up what happened in the film. I'm giving the general explanation, but it is the heights of the "Open Work" and the possibilities of storytelling.

Does that sound like science fiction? Not necessarily. Consider the importance of video games. If it's going to be considered an art, it will be considered so in exactly that way. It is open storytelling. The popularity of technology and video games could make for major changes in film. I'm not talking about twenty years done the road, but a hundred or two hundred years. Slowly but surely the narrative film we know could be dead. Stanley Kubrick wanted his last film to be a film that completely broke from standard storytelling. He didn't have the creative genius to do that to his satisfaction. The fact is technology is more likely going to do it.

See, if film establishes itself as an art form in academia the whole art form has a better chance for survival. Film is tied too much to money and popularity to hope the public will always want to see films. Nickelodeons were once the most popular thing on the block. They brought in huge profits, but demand sizzled once the best new thing was available with epic feature films. There is a reason that huge epics like Birth of a Nation and Cabira were made immediately instead of later. It was to sell the feature length film as the best product for mass consumption. It made people forget about nickelodeons the quickest. Simple feature length stories wouldn't have done that.

Even if you cannot imagine a future where films don't look desirable, your great grandchildren's generation might be able to. They also may be able to imagine a version of film that has little similarity with the film we know today. Technology might have too many new innovations and wonders that our version of film could just look like hallmarks of a previous time period. I'm not saying the world will change like this, but it's certainly possible. Most people didn't think sound would mesh well in a silent film world, but it did. Academia establishes film as respectable art and makes sure that what we identify as cinema is at least considered of moral importance even if the world doesn't consider it of entertainment or financial importance. Academia keeps major parts of cinema history in good memory.

Quote from: pete on October 31, 2007, 02:13:28 AM
the earlier example you've given about james joyce was ass backwards.  he wrote a brilliant novel that is still being read, the academia loved his novel, and somehow joyce had the academia thank?  I would imagine an institution that is dedicated to studying the works of others would need to thank Joyce instead. 

Thanks. You make my point. You still say the importance of that novel is tied to academia. The only point you make is a clarification. And that's still wrong. I never said academia made Ulysses great. That would omit my words of "[Ulysses was great] not because it was just the best work of its era but because it had the greatest structural innovations ever found in a novel". That still gives credit to Joyce himself. The academic world just assisted by continuing to study Joyce's work. Joyce didn't invent academia, but wrote a novel that encompassed the entire history of literature. He was challenging established academic standards. When he wrote Finnegans Wake, he said his intention "was to keep the critics busy for the next five hundred years."

The point is, even if you think I am not giving enough credit to Joyce, what still remains is the fact that he is a fundamental part of academia.

Quote from: pete on October 31, 2007, 02:13:28 AM
it is pretty okay for a group of people to talk about cinema, I mean I'm part of that right now.  however, the academia does have a hand in ruining cinema because it is part of the film school establishment and it does go on to produce studio heads, executives, and worst of all, aspiring filmmakers who come out of that school thinking they know how to make movies and deciding for the rest of the world how films should be viewed and should be made.  the problem is, they were taught by people who had as much say on the subject matter as a magazine editor or a message board junkie.  it's what bruce lee would call an "organized despair."  it's more despairing when the academics refuse to inform themselves on the art they were supposed to know so much about.  is academia merely the science of appreciation?  I can take it if it is.

Are you talking about film academics in general? Or Social theorists?

Quote from: pete on October 31, 2007, 02:13:28 AM
is academia merely the science of appreciation?

i think that its an excuse for profit. mostly theyre interested in standardizing everything, they pretend their overanalytical obsessions are out of passion for the artform but its because they see themselves as shit. its a church, it employs desperate people craving attention, authority, and approval.

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 04:37:38 AM
i think that its an excuse for profit.

Explain. That's too general for me to understand.

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 04:37:38 AM
mostly theyre interested in standardizing everything

Is that really a problem? See, theoretical discussions features as much new analysis and different looks at filmmakers as what critics and commentators give. Academics love to align films and filmmakers to represent certain theoretical credences, but theoretical discussion changes so quickly that an analysis of one film in a specific context can be wiped out the next year with a new analysis. The fact is that film theory is changing so quickly that while people on the outside believe it is a stagnant, it is always changing and always evolving. Theorists within the academic field may have numerous problems with certain ideas and beliefs. They will then work to apply new methods. People on the outside are always critical of academics, but they don't realize work is always being done to change and evolve the studies. Classes teach the major theories, but journals and publications always feature essays that give new looks at different cinemas in ways that havent been written about before.

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 04:37:38 AM
, they pretend their overanalytical obsessions are out of passion for the artform but its because they see themselves as shit. its a church, it employs desperate people craving attention, authority, and approval.

The best part about the 1960s is that everybody saw themselves as able to contribute seriously to art cinema. The appetite to read journals and books was there. They weren't reading thicker versions of Movie fan magazines, but thick theoretical works by commentators and filmmakers alike. Michelangelo Antonioni and Jean-Luc Godard, among other people, contributed to this. Godard even loved to make a point he was rejected by film school and always was an amateur instead of a professional, but yet he contributed to serious ideas to film art. The environment of the time allowed for people to want to be part of that world. There hasn't been any new gates that have come up to keep people away, but a new public disdain that grew against academia.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on October 31, 2007, 05:10:11 AM

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 04:37:38 AM
i think that its an excuse for profit.

Explain. That's too general for me to understand.

the criterion collection does what you say academia does. the criterion collection is a company, not an institution. people in companies want to sell because theres a demand. institutions decide what is important for the consumer.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on October 31, 2007, 05:10:11 AM

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 04:37:38 AM
mostly theyre interested in standardizing everything

Is that really a problem? See, theoretical discussions features as much new analysis and different looks at filmmakers as what critics and commentators give. Academics love to align films and filmmakers to represent certain theoretical credences, but theoretical discussion changes so quickly that an analysis of one film in a specific context can be wiped out the next year with a new analysis. The fact is that film theory is changing so quickly that while people on the outside believe it is a stagnant, it is always changing and always evolving. Theorists within the academic field may have numerous problems with certain ideas and beliefs. They will then work to apply new methods. People on the outside are always critical of academics, but they don't realize work is always being done to change and evolve the studies. Classes teach the major theories, but journals and publications always feature essays that give new looks at different cinemas in ways that havent been written about before.

but all of that is being done by idiots like us.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on October 31, 2007, 05:10:11 AM

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 04:37:38 AM
, they pretend their overanalytical obsessions are out of passion for the artform but its because they see themselves as shit. its a church, it employs desperate people craving attention, authority, and approval.

The best part about the 1960s is that everybody saw themselves as able to contribute seriously to art cinema. The appetite to read journals and books was there. They weren't reading thicker versions of Movie fan magazines, but thick theoretical works by commentators and filmmakers alike. Michelangelo Antonioni and Jean-Luc Godard, among other people, contributed to this. Godard even loved to make a point he was rejected by film school and always was an amateur instead of a professional, but yet he contributed to serious ideas to film art. The environment of the time allowed for people to want to be part of that world. There hasn't been any new gates that have come up to keep people away, but a new public disdain that grew against academia.

but is there a need for an actual institution? it seems to me like "academia" is just some pathetic middle-man

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 05:39:45 AM
the criterion collection does what you say academia does. the criterion collection is a company, not an institution. people in companies want to sell because theres a demand. institutions decide what is important for the consumer.

They aren't the same thing. A Criterion DVD might have an essay or commentary by a scholar, but that isn't the equivalent of a full length book. If you didn't notice, these books are written by small press companies. They barely sell to any large demand and make so little money that even the author only gets (likely) 50% off his book. If an online store bought too many copies and wants to get rid of the books, a better deal may be offered to the consumer than what is even offered to the author. That person is given such a shit deal because their books really won't sell many copies and the company that published his book knows that was always the situation.

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 05:39:45 AM
but all of that is being done by idiots like us.

To a point. There certainly are differences between how this board and academia criticizes films, but one of the notions earlier on this thread is that people have learned more coming to this board then they have in any classrom. That's true. Self education is always the quickest route to a better education. See, further study of academic methods doesn't just bring up different textbooks that say the same thing, but new journals, essays and books that say many new things.

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 05:39:45 AM
but is there a need for an actual institution? it seems to me like "academia" is just some pathetic middle-man

I'm not sure I follow, but I say yes. See, I mean an institution as an establishment that is defined by basic beliefs and certain moral standards. There are challenges and modifications to this institution, but never a dismissal of it. See, in the 1960s, one of the first ways Godard was presented to the public was by amateur theorists who said his films and arts went beyond older moral ideas of art. There no longer was a battle between highbrow and low, but an equalization of all things we take in life as important. The main person in this notion was Susan Sontag and she believed a completely new approach to how we judge art was being created. Things went well for this in the film community for a while, but Sontag begin to become sad about some bad movies being released that tried to spout these beliefs. Then in the late 1970s it became obvious this method opened up all kinds of bad filmmakers that had little regard for anything so Sontag formally went against ideas she established in the 60s and said the basic moral establishment of art was still the best.

It's kinda like Winston's Churchhills summation of democracy being the worst social government ever created, except for all the others.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on October 31, 2007, 01:21:41 PM

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 05:39:45 AM
but is there a need for an actual institution? it seems to me like "academia" is just some pathetic middle-man

I'm not sure I follow, but I say yes. See, I mean an institution as an establishment that is defined by basic beliefs and certain moral standards.

so admit that its a church! you cant defend its existence saying its doing the moral good of preserving this film over that film... the 3 act structure is used because it works, meaning there is a demand for it, people enjoy the films that use this method, not because some institution went "AHA! see this is important. and unless WE point it out, filmmakers will still do one shot 3 minute type films thinking thats all that can be done." theyre full of themselves

Quote from: The Sheriff on October 31, 2007, 11:51:37 PM
so admit that its a church! you cant defend its existence saying its doing the moral good of preserving this film over that film... the 3 act structure is used because it works, meaning there is a demand for it, people enjoy the films that use this method, not because some institution went "AHA! see this is important. and unless WE point it out, filmmakers would still be doing lumiere brothers type films thinking thats all that can be done." theyre full of themselves

I think I understand your point now. I'll try to respond to it.

Yes, the three act structure began out of a cultural phenomenon. In the 1900s, theater was growing past its bounds and its basic structure showed up in film because it was the easiest transgression for a new art form that already had a lot in common with theater. the public warmed up to it easiest because vaudeville and plays were popular amongst people. It didn't begin with grand theories by academia.

Academia made sense out of this phenomenon by responding to it with studies and discussions of the common attributes among all early films. Their jobs was to make sense out of the films in different areas of discussion. One of the most important theorists was a psychologist who interpreted edits in a movie to passages of time and events within a common dream. So, yes, a lot of film theory in the beginning was a responce to a cultural phenomenon.

While academia did not make film, they did help to create some of the most important theories that would revolutionize how films would be made. It's said that only three films changed the way we watch films. One is Citizen Kane and the other is Breathless, but the first was Battleship Potemkin. Battleship Potemkin was made by Eisenstein, an important academic of many theories that would become the basics of film art. Many theorists were writers, but many were also filmmakers. The Soviet School in the 1920s testifies to that.

You can say the three act structure exists to this day because of public demand, but identifying films by only mentioning that structure barely describes films as they exist today. Academia helped to create many methods of filmaking and film art that we see today. And it wasn't done by just professors in universities, but also by filmmakers. Even filmmakers who were outside of university work (Godard). The combination of all the above makes for a relationship too complex to say one party is responsible.

Academia is important because it records the evolution of thought and theory for film art.

look at it this way: if you write an essay on lets say scorsese, do you sign it GT (i dunno your real name) or do you sign it "academia" or "film school" or "voice of god?"

i know YOU exist. and if youre talking to me you know that you exist and that i exist too. an institution doesnt exist, its a group of people. so why do they say "we are not a group of people like you, we are academia?" how does one become an academic? by getting hired by the same group that calls themselves the academics? it means nothing.

if i go to church and hear a story about forgiveness and it inspires me to patch things up with an old friend, i cant turn around and say "church is good" because ANYONE can give their 2 cents about morality. church had nothing to do with it. hell, i might have come to the same conclusions by seeing a bridge with water under it

the reason why academics are evil is because deep down they know this. theyre angry at cinema and they want to harm it. thats why i dropped out, i couldnt stand it. they are disgusting people.

I'm fascinated with this subject. My ears are glued to this thread for any updates.

I guess my experience and yours is different then. I've met numerous professors and writers who write in the field of academics and all of them are vastly different from each other. Not only in personality and ideas of academia, but in approaches to how they write about their subjects. I know professors who write dense studies of a writer or filmmaker and I know others who write about personal interests and do so in a mannered and down to earth way. I read a fascinating and fun study of 1950s and 60s Western genre by an English professor who was doing it out of personal curiosity. Some writers do this in their own fields as well.

I'm going into the field of academia, but my interest is to write about personal subjects. I want to write about people and filmmakers who have little or no recognition in book form (at least in this country). I doubt I'd make my books an exercise in jargon, but rather a study that mixed criticism with personal fondness. Do I really find every academic book that references twenty films and filmmakers in one page to be quality work? No. My whole purpose has been to argue for the importance of academia in general. Even if you are put off by the stuffiness, it's an essential evil to the art form.

One element of academia that I do think is ridiculous and only speaks to how highly professors and writers think of themselves is conferences. Some people may not realize this, but colleges and institutions around the world set up conferences to invite professors to for discussion about a cinema or filmmaker. A few professors will give speeches, but most go to congregate and just talk about great they are. I was actually recommended to get myself an invite to one of these things and use it as a reference for graduate school applications. I happily declined.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 01, 2007, 03:33:59 AM
it's an essential evil to the art form.

but thats like saying religion is an essential evil for humanity. the problem is that people want easy answers to the big questions. its not essential at all, its a crutch.

its not the stuffiness that bothers me, its the corruption. basically what pete said about how it ruins the industry is spot on, but it cant be the science of appreciation at the same time then. would you destroy the things you appreciate? obviously the vast vast majority of people involved in this HATE cinema.

of course this isnt a huge agency of murder like the government... its possible to be a spy like you say and write about personal interests from the inside.

wow this debate took a turn.  I don't have a problem against other forms of academia.  the doctors who do research and shit, for example, sometimes heal people.  it is because their dialogue is organized that allows them to converse with each other in such a rapid and somewhat competitive environment.  but film academia, as I've mentioned before, encourages no such interaction.  it observes what is going done by people who receive no benefits from the film scholars, and articulates what they've observed mostly in forms of essays, and then in schools students are made to read those essays and with the hope that they can extrapolate future films from words about past films.  a clumsy process, no?  that is my problem with film academia.  the format is all wrong.
and I still disagree, no matter how many times you re-phrase it, that the academia preserves great works.  again I see your attributing the academics to the survival of shakespeare's works to be self-important and a little insulting.  but whatever, you might be right and I've just been ignoring this Free Mason Society for the Schooled all my educated life.  It still has problems translating to film, which is a completely different form.  In all of the essays I've read, none of it has ever taken the physical act of filmmaking seriously.  Susan Sontag wrote some childish proses from time to time I suppose, but the theories have neglected the hardest and the most vital part of filmmaking, which is capturing images on film and creating illusions through any means necessary.  It is a much more complicated feat to understand than painting or typing, and this process is very rarely discussed with dignity, and very few filmmakers - amatuer ones, hacky ones, or masters, have actually agreed with the scarce observations.  That's point number two in this post.
The third one is also an elaboration of an earlier idea.  Even if these academic journals are taken seriously by the "right" people, that is, talented people who are already making films a certain way who can really benefit from the symbiosis and help facilitate some kind of evolution for modern cinema, why should they give a fuck about making these films based on histories and theories?  What is the actual benefit of making movies in ways that academics recommend?  I mean, the obvious downside to making films according to academics, as so many people out there have set out to do (fuck you arcs) is that it actually limits a lot of people from thinking about and making films that are moving or unique or truly exploratory.  Instead, "film" becomes an opaque entity trapped and bounded by backwards expectations; people begin making films that they hope could be observed by the academics in such a way that they'd be written about similarly in their future essays.  People then choose to be irrelevant.  People then neglect the most exciting part of filmmaking, or creativity in general, which is its heavy reliance on accidents.
you cannot reach truth by criticisms and theories.

I don't understand this link that everyone's making between people doing film studies and then going on to make films themselves, or being involved in the film industry in any capacity. I've been in film academia for five years (I'm doing my PhD now), and I haven't known anyone who's studied film go into the film industry. This vision of film studies:

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 04:43:55 AM
it observes what is going done by people who receive no benefits from the film scholars, and articulates what they've observed mostly in forms of essays, and then in schools students are made to read those essays and with the hope that they can extrapolate future films from words about past films.

just isn't the case, as far as I've seen. Film studies (as opposed to film school, which teaches you craft, etc.) is not intended as a precurser to filmmaking: it's the art of appreciation of film. Some people might misguidedly take it, thinking that it will help them get their films made, but - while I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to know some film theory - this is by no means the norm. Film studies is about the aesthetics, politics, sociology, philosophy and history of film, practised by scholars who want to find ways of better explaining the power and importance of the medium. Some of it is wonderful and enlightening, some of it is dull or just plain misguided. It's like literary studies - most people who study or teach literature have no desire to write literature themselves: it's an entirely different skill, and entirely different field of interest.

Since a lot of people on this board have ambitions to become filmmakers, I can understand the antipathy towards film studes (particularly if the general conception of it was that it's a preparation for filmmaking), but the two are very separate indeed. Thus, one has no chance in hell of ruining the other.

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 08:11:17 AMone has no chance in hell of ruining the other.

well, no. parasites dont wanna kill off the host.

and petes third point is still very important

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 09:34:25 AM
petes third point is still very important

Not really, because it presupposes a stronger link between film studies and filmmaking than actually exists. Pete asks, "What is the actual benefit of making movies in ways that academics recommend?", but film scholarship is very rarely prescriptive: it's not in general offering models for how films could be made. In fact, I can't think of any school of thought within film studies that does that (though I'm sure some people do - but they would tend to filmmaker/film-theorists, of which a few do exist). 

The function of film studies is rather to respond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences. Film academia has certainly not promoted the idea of, say, the 3-act structure, or character arcs, etc., and if filmmakers have picked up this approach from anywhere its likely screenwriting manuals, definitely not film studies.

I think there's probably a bit of confusion going on here between film studies (i.e.: the academic critical and theoretical discussion and study of film - entirely separate from filmmaking) and film school (of which I have no knowledge, but presumably teaches you the craft of filmmaking - maybe acts, arcs, etc.?). I'm sure the latter can be damaging to film in a very real sense (I've heard as much), but not the former.

let me explain it this way: i dont have a problem with the concept of studying film. harry knowles "studies" cinema his way, you can have different approaches at studying cinema, and talking about it. it could be a bunch of fanatical geeks or fine wine admiring posh folks each sitting around in their different settings discussing film, some having access to huge libraries or original prints, others just renting shit out of the video store, thats just the company you keep. and anyone can publish anything anytime they want, without censorship. its called the internet. ideas just flow free

but you cant say theres no link between film academia and film school... where the fuck do you think these loser teachers get their "info" on how to make films? do film scholars take time to discredit the film school system? of course not. they dont care. it gives them more shit movies to "reject" over the "better" ones.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 10:49:30 AMyou cant say theres no link between film academia and film school... where the fuck do you think these loser teachers get their "info" on how to make films?

Speaking from the film studies side, I'm not aware of any link between my field and film school. I don't know where these loser teachers get their "info" on how to make films, but I would guess it's probably not from film studies because film studies doesn't tend to write that sort of material. I'm sure there are "academic" articles and books written by film school teachers on filmmaking practices, but this is NOT film studies in the sense that I'm talking about and am involved in. I suppose it's possible that some misguided film school teachers might take academic film writing and try to turn it into a prescriptive formula about how to make cinema (I have no idea - someone who's gone to film school would have to confirm that), but that is generally not what the work is intended for at all.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 10:49:30 AMdo film scholars take time to discredit the film school system? of course not. they dont care. it gives them more shit movies to "reject" over the "better" ones.

That really is not the responsibility or the remit of film studies, though I'm sure you might find the odd academic who has taken it upon themselves to do so anyway. If you want to argue that, by some strange indirect means, this makes film studies guilty of ruining the film industry, so be it - but it sounds like your beef is really with film schools.

while in most schools, cinema studies never cross over to the productions department, almost all of the production kids have to take some kind of film studies requirement (unless you're in the schools with the year-long certificate programs), but in theory I agree: people who study about cinema can be as wrong as they choose to be and they will have no impact on filmmakers and the people they have to collaborate with.
perhaps arcs was a bad example, maybe I should've namedropped the gaze or whatever.
my beef, and my quote, had to do with film schools and its products that ultimately bondaged a lot of talented souls with attitudes and thoughts that don't matter/ apply in the physical world.

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 04:43:55 AM
People then neglect the most exciting part of filmmaking, or creativity in general, which is its heavy reliance on accidents.
you cannot reach truth by criticisms and theories.

Children With Angels accurately said academia is its own literature, but I still believe filmmakers can deal with theories and criticisms in their films. I also believe they can make those films with as much creativity and inspiration as any other filmmaker.

See, any filmmaker who approaches a subject or story will have to do research before shooting. The research could be about a historical period or it could be about a character and place. It could be about numerous things. Research, though, is part of every process before shooting a film. It's just the physical making of a film is based on a mixture of planned management and creative inspiration. As Stanley Kubrick said, "I don't know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." Pre-production, filming, and editing is a process of trial and error to find the best elements to make a great final product.

A filmmaker dealing with theories or criticisms could go about it the same way. Their research before could be about theories, but when filmmaking begins, they take the same trial and error process to make the finished product. I suspect when you think of academic films, you think of examples like the remake of Psycho, but those films are rarities. Not many filmmakers who want to challenge theories are just replicating what they have read. The idea of challenging theories wouldn't allow it in the first place. You think the filmmaking is more regimented, but it's not necessarily the case at all. Filmmakers who were about emotional subjects like Ingmar Bergman believed in detailed planning, but other filmmakers like Oliver Stone who have critical subjects in mind, are much less planned and believe in the creative process.

Experimental jazz ensembles deal with all points of music history in one piece of music and call it "improvisation". Since they are dealing with the history of music in different structures and arrangements, they are asked what their idea of improvisation means. The responce isn't just randomly putting things together, but making music that takes from years of experience with the forms of music. A film of critical value could be made from similar a regard and be as inspired by any other filmmaker because of the similarities of the process. The focus of subject is what is different.

you're going to have to
1) find me a good example of what you mean with a film that is bursting with creativity and inspiration that are direct results of academic theories.  good luck.
2) you're now making theories about theories.  you're theorizing that there could be one filmmaker who can make one great film that comes from all of his exciting academic research.
3) experimental jazz musicians are musicians.  I'm glad you've used them as an example over other types of experimental musicians because I actually respect jazz theorists.  I respect most of them for their solid musicianship that are lacking in other types of experimental musicians.  however, they are musicians who make music, so I don't know what business they have in serving as your defense for the film academia, which is also different from its peers in other fields, but in a bad way.

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
that is generally not what the work is intended for at all.

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
That really is not the responsibility or the remit of film studies

okay, so what is the work intended for?

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 10:02:47 AM
The function of film studies is rather to respond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences.

so why do you study film if it isnt because you love cinema? and if you love cinema wouldnt you feel obligated to defend it? what is the voice of film academia now? what do we, the ones on the outside, see coming out of this institution? thats why i pointed to criterion collection, because they do exactly thisrespond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences. they even have micheal bay films. this form of "film preservation" or "film study" is much more beneficial to everyone involved. if the scholars are interested in the audience, arent they curious about what they want to put their money on?

the individual is lost in the bigger picture of the institution. clearly the corrupted are dominating these fields. youre saying 'the purpose of film studies is X Y Z and my job is only to perform task A B C, you have a beef with people who do D E F, thats not my department or concern.' thats not what im saying, we are all just consumers. so if the purpose of academia is to respond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences... whats your conclusion? i mean YOU personally i dont know any of your particular views on film but whatever they are they count for one vote, one individual. what is the voice of film academia? what is it saying to the world and to cinema?

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 09:57:36 PM
1) find me a good example of what you mean with a film that is bursting with creativity and inspiration that are direct results of academic theories.  good luck.

When Michelangelo Antonioni made Blow Up, he didn't have a prepared script at all. He based the film off a short story from Julio Cortazar and all he would do is new give pages of the short story to actors each day, telling them "these are tomorrow's scenes". Antonioni made up the filming as he went along. The academic tie in is that he was continuing studies of spacial relations between people and their environment. Blow Up is one of the last films by him that is a direct relation to L'Avventura, L'Eclisse, La Notte and Red Desert. By the time his made this film, his writings on the topic were considered academic equivalent and all the films became used for study on both the subject of spacial relations and Antonioni's art.

before a full rebuttal, please tell me more about his studies and their academic ties.

Quote from: pete on November 02, 2007, 01:50:39 AM
before a full rebuttal, please tell me more about his studies and their academic ties.

Somehow I doubt I'll ever convince you because this conversation is getting long winded, but give me a day. I have to look up a few books because I don't want to confuse or half ass the specifics.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMokay, so what is the work intended for?

It's intended to help us understand the meanings and significance of existing films and filmic aesthetic practices more fully. It's not - as you were saying earlier - intended as a blueprint for filmmaking.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMthats why i pointed to criterion collection, because they do exactly thisrespond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences.

Really? From what I've seen of the Criterion Collection (I'm from the UK, and poor, so I don't tend to buy them) there's nothing in the short essays, etc., included in their packages that comes anywere close to providing the kind of detail needed to convincingly interrogate much at all (except for maybe the occasional piece written by a film scholar). To do that takes much more precision and specificity, which is what film studies can provide through its essays, books, etc. I can see that Criterion is offering a valuable service as regards preservation, availability, and market research, but I don't see how it can help us understand cinema in a comparable sense to film studies. I'm not saying one is superior to the other - I'm saying it's nonsensical to compare them.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMclearly the corrupted are dominating these fields.

I don't understand what you're saying here - some kind of conspiracy? Yeah, film studies has economic and political imperatives like any other field, and often people will get funded who I don't agree should get funded. But "corrupted" implies something else.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMwhat is the voice of film academia? what is it saying to the world and to cinema?

Forgive me if I sidestep the question, but it's a ridiculous one. How can you honestly expect an entire worldwide field of study to have a coherent voice? It's a constantly evolving area - like any field: it has many, many different approaches, practices, methods, beliefs, and conclusions.

What you seem to be edging towards, however, is a more interesting question: what is the impact of film studies beyond those who study and teach it? This is something I am often troubled by myself, and is something I'm willing to debate. It's a similar problem for most fields of study without direct scientific/ industrial (etc.) applications: is it read by or benefitting anyone other than those involved in the field? For the most part, likely, no - or at least, not directly, or not outside people in other academic fields. Does that make it pointless? No, since we're still struggling to reach a deeper understanding about aspects of the medium than any other area is aiming for - when conclusions are reached, it thus makes it worth it. Is a film pointless if no one sees it? However, it is definitely a shame that it's not read and debated by a wider audienece, and I do object to the limited readership, which is sometimes caused by the isolationist tactics used by some writers and publishers. My ideal form of film criticism would lie somewhere between the academic and the journalistic: detailed, precise, informed by the best approaches and theories of film studies, but also relatively accessible, and read by an interested public. That's why I've set up my own site, which tries to practise this approach.

Basically, though, we've strayed far from the path that caused me to originally jump in. You were saying that film studies is ruining cinema - I hope I've proved that it isn't, and couldn't really be. Whether you think it's a pointless choice of career is really beside the point, and a very long way from the point you were trying to make first. It is a more interesting question though.

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 09:57:36 PM
you're going to have to
1) find me a good example of what you mean with a film that is bursting with creativity and inspiration that are direct results of academic theories.  good luck.

First off that's a ridiculous thing to ask, because unless the director speaks directly of his intention we'll never know how he was conceptualizing the project. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of that. The classic example of a director working directly out of theory is Sergei Eisenstein. I'll even point you to the famous essay he wrote on montage as it relates to Marxist ideology. http://interactive.usc.edu/members/akratky/W6_Film_Form.pdf (http://interactive.usc.edu/members/akratky/W6_Film_Form.pdf)
Or what about anything from the French New Wave?

I've always found these arguments that theory kills the industry absurd. How could it, by creating new levels of meaning with which to read films other than gut reaction? Film and theory will always be inseparable, as with any other art form. Sure, it's been argued that film is the art for the masses (as opposed to the intellectual elite), but guess what: that's theory. Walter Benjamin wrote the same thing back in the twenties in one of the theoretical cornerstones for photography and film, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Film and theory, like with any other art medium, are inseparable, and reacting against theory is just as much engaging in the dialogue as is openly embracing it.

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMokay, so what is the work intended for?

It's intended to help us understand the meanings and significance of existing films and filmic aesthetic practices more fully. It's not - as you were saying earlier - intended as a blueprint for filmmaking.

my position isnt that the intention of film studies is to make a filmmaking blueprint, im saying the results of these studies are crudely used for marketing reasons. economics is everything, so marketing affects the entire industry. im not anti-capitalist, im not saying that the mechanics are wrong. but film studies influence filmmaking for sure. (criterion has essays written by scholars).

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
From what I've seen of the Criterion Collection (I'm from the UK, and poor, so I don't tend to buy them) there's nothing in the short essays, etc., included in their packages that comes anywere close to providing the kind of detail needed to convincingly interrogate much at all (except for maybe the occasional piece written by a film scholar). [...] I'm saying it's nonsensical to compare them.

they both influence humanity, by presenting/selling/being involved in cinema. thats what i meant by the voice of academia, what influence it has.

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMclearly the corrupted are dominating these fields.

I don't understand what you're saying here - some kind of conspiracy? Yeah, film studies has economic and political imperatives like any other field, and often people will get funded who I don't agree should get funded. But "corrupted" implies something else.

exactly, but its not a conspiracy. this is the result of political involvement in economics. criterion is a company, they sell directly to the consumer. thats not how an institution works. but they both have an influence on society.

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMwhat is the voice of film academia? what is it saying to the world and to cinema?

Forgive me if I sidestep the question, but it's a ridiculous one. How can you honestly expect an entire worldwide field of study to have a coherent voice? It's a constantly evolving area - like any field: it has many, many different approaches, practices, methods, beliefs, and conclusions.

same as something like christianity. but the different sub-sections have all the same thing to say: be like us or youre wrong. im not saying film studies is morally disgusting the way religion is, but that the results of film academia today, because of political involvement as opposed to free market non-descrimination methods of operation, influences cinema in a destructive way.

i live in montreal, i consider myself to be part of the americas, like its one big partnership, which it is, and it affects films and everyhting else as well. so the movies coming out are complete garbage that have nothing to do with the reality of the world, because the market today here in the americas ssays "we want to numb ourselves while brown people get blown up with equipment funded by our own money." it also says things like "im fuckin afraid of change, i have the self esteem of a hooker."

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
What you seem to be edging towards, however, is a more interesting question: what is the impact of film studies beyond those who study and teach it? This is something I am often troubled by myself, and is something I'm willing to debate. It's a similar problem for most fields of study without direct scientific/ industrial (etc.) applications: is it read by or benefitting anyone other than those involved in the field? For the most part, likely, no - or at least, not directly, or not outside people in other academic fields. Does that make it pointless? No, since we're still struggling to reach a deeper understanding about aspects of the medium than any other area is aiming for - when conclusions are reached, it thus makes it worth it. Is a film pointless if no one sees it? However, it is definitely a shame that it's not read and debated by a wider audienece, and I do object to the limited readership, which is sometimes caused by the isolationist tactics used by some writers and publishers. My ideal form of film criticism would lie somewhere between the academic and the journalistic: detailed, precise, informed by the best approaches and theories of film studies, but also relatively accessible, and read by an interested public. That's why I've set up my own site, which tries to practise this approach.

thats what i like to hear. whats your site? http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/? ill check it out

Sheriff, you seem to be talking about a very specific branch of film studies, that being the mainstream critic. While what they do is important for the business, it's also the least intellectual form of analysis there is. When I think of film theory/academia I think of essays written about the medium itself, the kind of stuff everyone interested in film should be reading if only to understand the theoretical models that make up film's history. Walter Benjamin, Laura Mulvey, Christian Metz, Roland Barthes, Slavoj Zizek, etc. It's also just interesting stuff to read.

no.

heres something that only those with balls will answer: if im doing woman studies because i think that women are so beautiful and that i love them so much that i want to study every specific way they are beautiful and how they influence males, and then i see that all men out there think that loving women equals raping them, wouldnt i feel obligated to say 'hey you people are fucking crazy?' unless of course i was afraid for my life because if all men were crazy motherfuckers raping women constantly in the streets in daylight id WANT TO JUST HIDE IN MY QUATERS AND CONTINUE STUDYING THE BEAUTY OF WOMEN. but defending cinema in that sense is not the same as confronting a society of psychotic raping men, so if film academia is not objecting to the film school process, its because they either dont give a shit or are afraid of the political consequences. convince me otherwise.

the usual cop out. surprise surprise.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 04, 2007, 08:40:09 AM
the usual cop out. surprise surprise.

hahahaha. are you serious?

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 03, 2007, 01:58:11 AM
heres something that only those with balls will answer: if im doing woman studies because i think that women are so beautiful and that i love them so much that i want to study every specific way they are beautiful and how they influence males, and then i see that all men out there think that loving women equals raping them, wouldnt i feel obligated to say 'hey you people are fucking crazy?' unless of course i was afraid for my life because if all men were crazy motherfuckers raping women constantly in the streets in daylight id WANT TO JUST HIDE IN MY QUATERS AND CONTINUE STUDYING THE BEAUTY OF WOMEN. but defending cinema in that sense is not the same as confronting a society of psychotic raping men, so if film academia is not objecting to the film school process, its because they either dont give a shit or are afraid of the political consequences. convince me otherwise.

can you maybe rephrase your point so it MAKES SENSE and doesn't sound like the ravings of a COMPLETE WACKO?

look at the logic since you wanna play dumb ill explain it point by point:

1) if i choose to study something, its because i love the subject matter (in this case "cinema").

i wouldnt go into film studies if i wasnt passionate about cinema over other things i can do with my life. right? does that make sense so far? yes or no?

2) if the state of filmmaking today is 98% horseshit, wouldnt those that are passionate about cinema be angry at this? yes or no?

i think this site is the perfect example, everyone has their own opinion and tastes of course, but there is a shared hatred for lets say bret ratner, which represents i think how the people here hate evil filmmakers who dont give a shit about the medium, who just use cinema by raping it.

3) what is going on in film academia today? what is coming out of these studies? is it "we conclude that 98% of films are hoseshit" or somehting like that?

but then it isnt their jobs to comment on these things is it?

but it isnt your job to dislike bret ratner either, you do it automatically because he represents something that is evil towards what you are passionate about.

so film academia either: sees nothing wrong with the rape of cinema, or they dont think cinema is being raped

so now, why dont you think 2 minutes about the condition of cinema. who are the dominant artists? the herzog type or the bret ratner type?

ok, you smug jerk, let me break down what's wrong with your "logic", starting with a preliminary point-by-point:

one: your main problem, let's get it out of the way, is you think you're revealing some grand truth to everyone and the reason no one is replying must be that we are too scared to deal with your scary truth. that's you being a nut, ok?

two: you haven't attempted one single moment to accomodate anyone else's points, however calmly or logically argued. instead you reply with "no." then pose a ridiculous scenario with a laughable metaphor that indicates you are either on (more likely OFF) medication and have never had to argue a point outside of an internet message board.

three: this is the specific problem
children with angels is part of film academia and has explained repeatedly that what you think it is, it is not. and yet you continue to create your idea of what it is, then position it against something else that you assign your own qualities to -- in this case cinema, which conveniently is diametrically opposed to the evil academia that haunts your dreams at night.

four: "convince me otherwise" is an absurd thing to say.
you're opinion is wrong, CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE
you suck, CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE
you're guilty, CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.

gimme a break.

-- ok enuff of that, there's too much wrong with the way you argue to even begin to respond to your "points". but here goes:

you want film academia (FA) to save cinema. possibly the world. you think FA is capable of doing this, otherwise you wouldn't complain that it's not being done. Children with Angels is saying that is NOT what FA is. i'm gonna say now that what you describe doesn't require anyone special to point out, you're doing it yourself, you're pointing out that 98% of cinema is shit, every CRITIC knows this. they're the ones that are interacting in the "marketing" section of academia, if you can still call it that. and still it changes nothing. 

cinema has ALWAYS been "raped". but it's not even rape, it's mediocritization. mediocrity is the norm in cinema, as in everything else. (oooh grand sweeping unsupported statement, i'm you now). and is a symptom of the market (another "you" statement -- identity theft imminent!). ppl accept mediocrity, and there's nothing academics, critics, filmmakers, or your neglectful father can do about it.

you have way too many issues with "institutions" for this discussion to be fruitful. you make ridiculous statements about religion that have nothing to do with anything. you equate the study of film with "women studies" which you then misrepresent. that's just completely ignorant, there's no other word for it. that metaphor was grossly flawed and that's why no one responded.

the voice of film, and therefore the voice of CHANGE IN FILM, is not academia. it's much bigger and complicated than that. it's closer to what mos def says about hip hop:
Ppl be askin me "yo mos, what's gonna happen with hip hop? Where do you think hip hop is goin?"
I tell em, "you know what's gonna happen with hip hop? whatever's happening with us"
If we smoked out, hip hop is gonna be smoked out
If we doin alright, hip hop is gonna be doin alright
People talk about hip hop like it's some giant livin in the hillside comin down to visit the townspeople
We are hip hop
Me, you, everybody, we are hip hop
So hip hop is goin where we goin
So the next time you ask yourself where hip hop is goin
Ask yourself.. where am I goin? How am I doin?
Til you get a clear idea
So.. if hip hop is about the people
And.. hip hop won't get better until the people get better
Then how do people get better?

that's some shit i just pulled out of my ass. but it's a far more reasonable, decent, logic than anything you've offered. CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.

okay, so people just accept mediocre products, i agree with that. and if you wouldve read my other posts to GT you wouldve seen that i say the consumer/individual is important and that an "institution" doesnt exist. but then children with angels came in saying that there is no link with film studies and making a blueprint for filmmaking. im saying that even though it isnt the intention of film studies to make a blueprint, it still has a voice, it has an affect on filmmaking, even though the link isnt direct.

why would i WANT film academia to save cinema, im saying they are unpassionate people who only care about standardizing the form. that was the beginning of my posts on the subject. arrogant bitch

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 04, 2007, 12:09:44 PM
why would i WANT film academia to save cinema, im saying they are unpassionate people who only care about standardizing the form. that was the beginning of my posts on the subject. arrogant bitch

Standardizing the form? Are you kidding me?

1.) Film academia is a reaction to cinema. It is commentary and evaluation of the different norms and trends in films. The fact that academics exist for all levels of cinematic interpretation and that range is growing all the time only helps cinema. It gives us new perspectives from which to look at film. Umberto Eco said the life of a work of art was based on how many levels it was able to interpreted and commented on. That includes both aesthetic and personal interpretation. You can't talk about an institution interpreting cinema with standard methods because there have become too many numerous levels on which to interpret cinema. If you are an accomplished writer and have a good idea in which to interpet cinema, you can be published. You don't need the typical requirements. My film professor tells me of a man who went to school for everything but film but is always printed in academic journals for film and dedicates himself to writing about film without a position at any university. 

2.) You seem to be against film school. You seem to be against academic thought. Well, both are useful tools to become a professional filmmaker. They teach you have to make films at a high level of competence. They make your first film look a lot better. Do you have to dedicate your career to replicating that success? No. You grow from it and apply new ideas in which to make your later films. The creativity begins to take more effect and you start coming into your own, but the fact is you need how to become a professional before you can deviate from the standard path. I know too many filmmakers who think creative inspiration alone will make them grow. I doubt it. It happens in a rare blue moon, but even most filmmakers who go without film school still emulate the standard film processes. If the institution does exist, it exists for a good reason.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 04, 2007, 01:50:00 PM
1.) Film academia is a reaction to cinema. It is commentary and evaluation of the different norms and trends in films. The fact that academics exist for all levels of cinematic interpretation and that range is growing all the time only helps cinema. It gives us new perspectives from which to look at film. Umberto Eco said the life of a work of art was based on how many levels it was able to interpreted and commented on. That includes both aesthetic and personal interpretation. You can't talk about an institution interpreting cinema with standard methods because there have become too many numerous levels on which to interpret cinema. If you are an accomplished writer and have a good idea in which to interpet cinema, you can be published. You don't need the typical requirements. My film professor tells me of a man who went to school for everything but film but is always printed in academic journals for film and dedicates himself to writing about film without a position at any university. 

okay, so not literally everyone involved is completely evil.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 04, 2007, 01:50:00 PM
2.) You seem to be against film school. You seem to be against academic thought. Well, both are useful tools to become a professional filmmaker. They teach you have to make films at a high level of competence. They make your first film look a lot better. Do you have to dedicate your career to replicating that success? No. You grow from it and apply new ideas in which to make your later films. The creativity begins to take more effect and you start coming into your own, but the fact is you need how to become a professional before you can deviate from the standard path. I know too many filmmakers who think creative inspiration alone will make them grow. I doubt it. It happens in a rare blue moon, but even most filmmakers who go without film school still emulate the standard film processes. If the institution does exist, it exists for a good reason.

so you admit that film academia influences filmmaking? are you saying film academia is better than film school? anyway i said a page ago that i think academia is an EXCUSE FOR PROFIT. its an excuse to make money. they offer some positive insight on film and art but that comes from the occasional individual who rises above the rest. so the institution is irrelevant. is that more clear?

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 04, 2007, 02:06:49 PM
so you admit that film academia influences filmmaking? are you saying film academia is better than film school? anyway i said a page ago that i think academia is an EXCUSE FOR PROFIT. its an excuse to make money. they offer some positive insight on film and art but that comes from the occasional individual who rises above the rest. so the institution is irrelevant. is that more clear?

Film school and film academia are two different things. I'm saying a filmmaker, on his way to become a professional, should take some notice of academia. They just don't need to operate from it. I said this in my first post and I say it again, academia isn't essential for a filmmaker. Academia is a literature. Filmmakers can make theoretical films and invest more time with academia, but that's their choice. It isn't academia's doing.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 04, 2007, 02:20:12 PM

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 04, 2007, 02:06:49 PM
so you admit that film academia influences filmmaking? are you saying film academia is better than film school? anyway i said a page ago that i think academia is an EXCUSE FOR PROFIT. its an excuse to make money. they offer some positive insight on film and art but that comes from the occasional individual who rises above the rest. so the institution is irrelevant. is that more clear?

Film school and film academia are two different things. I'm saying a filmmaker, on his way to become a professional, should take some notice of academia. They just don't need to operate from it. I said this in my first post and I say it again, academia isn't essential for a filmmaker. Academia is a literature. Filmmakers can make theoretical films and invest more time with academia, but that's their choice. It isn't academia's doing.

exactly, but academia, as you say

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 04, 2007, 01:50:00 PMis a reaction to cinema. It is commentary and evaluation of the different norms and trends in films.

which means that those who want to revolutionize the form (or go against standardization), will only pay as much attention to film academia to see how people interpret the past. but again i point to criterion, i know you think they dont offer the same amount of insight, but i disagree. the reason why academia exists is because certain artists are ahead of their time.

i prefer your explanation that  "academia is a literature." but its not the science of film appreciation, thats absurd.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on October 31, 2007, 05:10:11 AM
theoretical discussions features as much new analysis and different looks at filmmakers as what critics and commentators give. Academics love to align films and filmmakers to represent certain theoretical credences, but theoretical discussion changes so quickly that an analysis of one film in a specific context can be wiped out the next year with a new analysis. The fact is that film theory is changing so quickly that while people on the outside believe it is a stagnant, it is always changing and always evolving. Theorists within the academic field may have numerous problems with certain ideas and beliefs. They will then work to apply new methods. People on the outside are always critical of academics, but they don't realize work is always being done to change and evolve the studies. Classes teach the major theories, but journals and publications always feature essays that give new looks at different cinemas in ways that havent been written about before.

can you give me some examples of theories written on films and then replaced the next year? is there really that much work to do and discuss other than what idiots like us do?

can you give me an example of a modern theory about a style or a film that might change in the future?

Structuralism/Poststructuralism is an easy example.

The auteur movement has been critiqued for some years now. Barthes wrote in 1968 "The Death of the Author," writing that the idea of the Author is an imposition of ultimate meaning from an authorial figure, when meaning actually comes from the Reader.

Chest Rockwell is accidentally becoming my research assistant so I'm grateful, haha. I understand the differences on this board between myself and others. It's mainly a filmmaker and moviegoer board, but it's great that other members have significant knowledge of theories. I'm still getting into the field and will have a lot to learn in the next coming years, but it is an exciting field. My thesis for my Masters will be a modern look at an older theory. The whole point of theories is based on their ability to evolve over the years and continue to have signficance for each new generation.

if the ideas or theories were presented on the internet and grew that way, i think it would just make more sense because then they can grow accordingly with every consumer involved or die, when its being profitable to "discuss" ideas and theories within a school or institution, its like... whos checking up on you? where does the funding come from? even if filmmakers team up to advance academia, its still a secluded field with like-minded people associating, so... i dont understand how you can think that the results of this are for the benefit of cinema... they are an excuse for jobs, thats it. if you dont think that these institutionalized ideas can have a stagnating affect on cinema because those who choose if they are relevant or not are those being paid to discuss if theyre relevant or not, well whatever. i think its the promotion of nonsense, it will not DESTROY the industry, it slows down ACTUAL film studies, which to me would be to illiminate the institution in the involvement.

and then i get told that the intention of film studies is not to make a blueprint, but the examples given to me (eseinstein, mulvey) oh no they dont talk about that in film school. pff of course not. whatever

Sherrif, have you ever taken a film theory course?

i didnt go to university, but i read some of what people i knew were reading while in film studies. i would compare it to classical music, or opera or something like that whereas im like going "what about punk, what about rock n roll?" i dont know how else to explain it, not that film academia needs to be more "cool" but that its just... its not even saying anything i can find enlightening or useful as a filmmaking, just a bunch of marxists explaining their theories.

as for the more modern or new theories, things written recently... i dont have any examples

I spent an hour writing a responce to Sherriff's post, but I erased it. P's right. It looks useless to respond anymore.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 05, 2007, 10:17:06 PM
i didnt go to university

ok. i'm not bashing you or talking down to you for not going to university but...
find another thread to bullshit in please. i don't know why i keep checking this

i would still have appreciated that response GT, not because i want to be convinced of what acedemia is or what the purpose is, but because ive seen half of zabriskie point and i own blow out, so ive been waiting for your response on that to pete, antonioni is an interesting filmmaker. and i dont know what your hour long response was a response to exactly, if it was about any current theories you find interesting or that you think i would have found interesting, i wouldve appreciated that. im not gonna be convinced that an institution in this case is useful or that its about appreciating film. science is another thing.

Quote from: squints on November 05, 2007, 10:54:04 PM

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 05, 2007, 10:17:06 PM
i didnt go to university

ok. i'm not bashing you or talking down to you for not going to university but...
find another thread to bullshit in please. i don't know why i keep checking this

i went to cegep though, film theory was discussed there (but it wasnt a class, just part of film1, film2). i dunno if it makes a difference

i think the problem more lies in the person, schooling can be a crutch, and so could lack of it.

on one side of it, some people that really don't have any art to express, yet feel passionate about an artform, end up going to great degrees of schooling to understand it.  on one side that is a nice thing, they want to discover it as much as possible, yet on the other hand it can be an easy way for the person to never put his/her heart on the chopping block and make something themselves.  they become so obsessed with what "was" (history/techniques) that they become so inundate with those structures.  or it also fills the gap for the fact that they aren't making art on their own.

on the other hand, not going to school can free someone of the confinds that institutions set up.  because many directors/artist/writers did their art without any formal education.  they are self taught, and more importantly they adopt the "original things come from original places" school of thought; whether they know it or not.  however, people with this mentality also can fall victim to a crutch.  they can justify never doing anything with this mode of thought.  they keep telling themselves that they don't need conventions, when really that's just a facade for the fact they're lazy fucks themselves.  also, people telling them that learning certain fundamentals is beneficial, yet they are ignorant and feel superior.

i think herzog was self taught, and he's explaining why he is so while not getting that everyone works a little different then the next.  some people like tarantino, scorsese, kubrick etc get passion from studying art.  herzog is motivated and gets passion from different things, and more power to him.  some people feel passion from art, and talking about it, searching the semantics to find deeper meaning, something that a school, even though rarely, supplies people.  i've learned just as much going over film theory and conventions with my friends as much as any school could do.

i went to film school, and in my experience it was a great way to be able to make movies that fuck up.  you keep making them until you get better.  i did learn from teachers, but not as much as the average person would think.  it buys you 4 years to do w/e the hell you wanna do, and learn it.  you could do it on your own, but maybe it's a way to get your parents off your back at that time of your life.  either way, you are either creative or not, no one can teach you that.  they might be able to help bring it out, but i don't know if i even buy that, it all comes down the the person and their talent.

-sl-

I'm disappointed I haven't seen this thread until now. I wish I could have followed the whole thing, because it's gotten too long to go back and read the whole thing. So I apologize if anything I say is redundant or irrelevant, probably both.

When I saw Herzog speak a couple of weeks ago, he was asked about his views on Academia. he clarified that he doesn't just outright denounce academia altogether, but moreso the aspect of it that is over analytical and deconstructive. He hates that so much time is spent in universities analyzing history, influence, structure, form, etc. that the inherent emotion often ends up being ignored.

So what he's basically trying to say to me is that he doesn't really car how a story is told, as long as it is a good story told by someone who passionately wants to share it with the world.

I thought this passage from the introduction of Slavoj Zizek's Fright of Real Tears (which is a response to "Post-Theory") seems relevant. Pardon any typos.

"Kieslowski is often (mis)perceived as a director whose work is falsified the moment one translates its contents into the terms of a (social, religious, psychoanalytic) interpretation - one should simply immerse oneself in it and enjoy it intuitively, not talk about it, not apply to it the terms which irreparably reify its true content ... Such a resistance to Theory is often shared by artists who feel hurt or misunderstood by the theoretical explanations of their work, and who insist on the distinction between doing something and describing it, talking about it: the critic or theorist's discourse about the anxiety or pleasure discernible in a work of art just talks about them, it does not directly render them, and in this sense it is deeply irrelevant to the work itself. However, in all fairness, one should bear in mind that the same distinction holds also for Theory itself: in philosophy, it is one thing to talk about, to report on, say, the history of a notion of subject (accompanied by all the proper bibliographic footnotes), even to supplement it with comparative critical remarks; it is quite another thing to work in theory, to elaborate the notion of 'subject' itself. The aim of this book is to do the same apropos of Kieslowski: not to talk about his work, but to refer to his work in order to accomplish the work of Theory. In its very ruthless 'use' of its artistic pretext, such a procedure is much more faithful to the interpreted work than any superficial respect for the work's unfathomable autonomy."

I'm ready for round two.  like mike tyson on keyboard, I'm only gonna take jabs.
before any jab though, I feel like my fundamental beef still hasn't been properly addressed: film theory/ academia differs from other theories because it is a world populated by folks ENTIRELY removed from the filmmaking process.  the theory of film theory is alright in theory.  but that's all anyone's been defending, is why in theory why a film theory can be useful today or 400 years down the line or two other film theorists.  they neglect the overwhelming dominance of ignorance that empowers their field today.  I bet most of them don't even agree with the majority of the works put out there, and consider as much percentage of theories they've come across as total bullshit as I do, which is 100%.

I have no problems with filmmakers like eisenstein or jon jost or von trier who spew truisms or accidental truths about filmmaking.  But film academia is much different from the other fields of academic literature because the folks are making assumptions about parts of the insane and complicated process that is completely off-limits to them.  At least theologians have the Bible or the Q'ran, these poor theorists have NOTHING.  they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected.  the process is so long, tedious, and involving, that even experienced filmmakers have to take blind stabs at the results, nevermind people who just grew up watching the images.  But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.  I mean, they don't even hang out on sets, nevermind sit in during the pre- or post-production process, and have no clue how locations are determined, schedules are compiled, or new processes such as 2k/ 4k DIs are applied.  they have an okay handle on how films are distributed though, I'll give them that.  how dare they, then, give each other degrees and salaries, for a subject they are so ignorant about?  I'd leave the field alone if the folks change their names to film-watching academia.  its insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions.  however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
I'm ready for round two.  like mike tyson on keyboard, I'm only gonna take jabs.
before any jab though, I feel like my fundamental beef still hasn't been properly addressed: film theory/ academia differs from other theories because it is a world populated by folks ENTIRELY removed from the filmmaking process.  the theory of film theory is alright in theory.  but that's all anyone's been defending, is why in theory why a film theory can be useful today or 400 years down the line or two other film theorists.  they neglect the overwhelming dominance of ignorance that empowers their field today.  I bet most of them don't even agree with the majority of the works put out there, and consider as much percentage of theories they've come across as total bullshit as I do, which is 100%.

I have no problems with filmmakers like eisenstein or jon jost or von trier who spew truisms or accidental truths about filmmaking.  But film academia is much different from the other fields of academic literature because the folks are making assumptions about parts of the insane and complicated process that is completely off-limits to them.  At least theologians have the Bible or the Q'ran, these poor theorists have NOTHING.  they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected.  the process is so long, tedious, and involving, that even experienced filmmakers have to take blind stabs at the results, nevermind people who just grew up watching the images.  But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.  I mean, they don't even hang out on sets, nevermind sit in during the pre- or post-production process, and have no clue how locations are determined, schedules are compiled, or new processes such as 2k/ 4k DIs are applied.  they have an okay handle on how films are distributed though, I'll give them that.  how dare they, then, give each other degrees and salaries, for a subject they are so ignorant about?  I'd leave the field alone if the folks change their names to film-watching academia.  its insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions.  however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

The assumption of film theory since the advent of structuralism and semiotics is that a film is a text that can be "read," meaning that the genesis of the work is of lesser importance compared to what the work actually does. I don't think that idea really developed until the structuralists started becoming post-structuralists; namely Barthes who, like I wrote in an earlier post, contradicted the auteur theory (in the same year Andrew Sarris brought it to the U.S.) with the idea that meaning can never be inferred from the creation or biographical context of a work. Since then it's always been "what's in the text," allowing for multiple interpretations based on the specific reader. As Nelson, Treichler and Lawrence put it in "Cultural Studies," textual analysis in literary studies carries a history of convictions that texts are properly understood as wholly self-determined and independent objects."

Now what you seem to advocate is post-theory (or neoformalism), which I believe was first (or at least, most famously) discussed in detail by David Bordwell. This is a relatively modern outlook (late 80s), and basically he argued that one must study film style in historical context to understand it (so an example might be the shakiness of the camera New Wave films, where it could be understood in terms of technological advancements, i.e. lightweight camera equipment developed around the time, or in terms of contemporary philosophy of the time, or whatever). And I agree with this to an extent - it should be factored into the discussion. I also think that reading a film can be organic as time passes rather than being stuck in the particular history that resulted in its creation. Of course, the irony is that what you and Bordwell both argue for is just as much theory as anything else: it's all about how to interpret films.

First, to the Sherriff,

Sorry I took so long. I really did stop looking at this thread until recently, but I couldn't find anything from Michelangelo Antonioni about Blow Up. I found theoretical essays by others about Blow Up, but nothing from Antonioni himself. While I believe something does exist, I can't continue on the position any longer. If you do want examples of a filmmaker dealing with academia in both print and film, the easy reference is Notes on the Cinematographer by Robert Bresson. Filmmakers like Bresson do exist but are in the minority.

Now onto the ridiculous....

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
I bet most of them don't even agree with the majority of the works put out there, and consider as much percentage of theories they've come across as total bullshit as I do, which is 100%.

No theorist believes their main idea explains all parts of cinema. They choose a subject that they believe highlights the most important realm of cinematic study or is just closest to their field of interest. Many commentators of fields outside of film have bridged their studies to incorporate comment on cinema.

They don't believe other theories are bullshit. In fact, they take large pride in all the different voices that are available about numerous subjects. I took what you said to my film professor who himself is a published scholar and he was very much outraged by your bad assumptions. 

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
At least theologians have the Bible or the Q'ran, these poor theorists have NOTHING.

What a silly argument. Theologians have the Bible and the Q'ran, but they have those texts after they've been written. They don't have close contact with their writers to ascertain the original context. Your points after are that film theorists are clueless to the filmmaking process. Considering Theologians are commenting on texts written hundreds to thousands of years ago, I kinda think film theorists have a better chance to make sense of the process of how films were made. Though that's not even important.

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected.  the process is so long, tedious, and involving, that even experienced filmmakers have to take blind stabs at the results, nevermind people who just grew up watching the images.  But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.  I mean, they don't even hang out on sets, nevermind sit in during the pre- or post-production process, and have no clue how locations are determined, schedules are compiled, or new processes such as 2k/ 4k DIs are applied.

Last time I checked film theorists weren't writing books about the filmmaking process, so don't get too worried. What they are doing is commenting on the art of a film. Umberto Eco, a theorist and novelist, said that the best thing for an author to do after he wrote a novel was to die. (refence notes after The Name of the Rose). He said that the life of a work of art was to get as much comment and study as possible. Doing so would extend its meaning.

Filmmakers aren't the sole commentators on their films. Their purpose after the film isn't to gage and control discussion about their work. In fact, it is the complete opposite. It is to step back and not lead the commentary in one direction or another.

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions. however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

First, I hope you are joking about Plato hanging out in caves, but what are you talking about? What is the truth? Haven't you ever heard about the idea of multiple interpretations?

Pete, i agree with you that a lot of criticism can seem reductive and too far removed from the work to assert certain points... intentionality in particular tends to really turn me off. It has been a rare occurrence in my study of film, though, that I've come across anyone who has said this is THE way to read a given film or this is THE truth, or any theorist who would prefer that film study remain a culturally isolated field within the US. for the most part, I've encountered film theory as a means of unpacking processes of perception, thought, identity formation, and cultural systems.

your view of academic criticism is pretty clear, but i'm curious... how do you feel about theories of spectatorship? 

Quote from: reinhold on December 02, 2007, 10:44:04 AM
PIt has been a rare occurrence in my study of film, though, that I've come across anyone who has said this is THE way to read a given film or this is THE truth, or any theorist who would prefer that film study remain a culturally isolated field within the US.

I agree with your (and GT's) post. I haven't seen that attitude at all, actually. I don't think film theory is at all insular, in the first place. Ideas are taken from as diverse fields as linguistics, architecture, literary criticism, and of course from previous film theorists. Theories are constantly evolving and replacing old ones/being replaced by new ones.

Also, what did you mean by "theory of spectatorship"? I thought most all of film theory was concerned with the spectator to some extent.

ah reinhold, chesty, and GT--all people I like.

reinhold: I never said film theorists make points about filmmaking, or that they think they hold the ultimate truth.  the problem is that they shun themselves, almost on purpose, from the filmmaking world, thus making them far from the truth.  I am not a silly person who claims the truth to be something easily conveyed in a sentence, and there might even be different versions of it for everyone, but you should believe that you are pursuing the truth in your studies and your digging, and should do most of everything you can to get there sooner rather than later.

GT: first of all, theologians pray.  Do you pray?  You probably have to look at films the way you do right now, I've realized, because you're in school.  theories are probably like your jenkim and I understand it's useless to urge you to swear off of it right now.  so I'll just leave you with this little challenge: if you're so proud of the pieces of you've written on the things that you love, try putting in just a little bit more of yourself in there.  try projecting your fear, your pride, your beliefs, and most importantly your sense of humor, not only will your piece then stand out amongst the others, you'll also become a more honest person.  film watching should not be an escape, and writing about film watching should definitely not be an escape.  your life is too precious to run from it.

Chesty: you countered my anti-theory stance by throwing out two theories, one for you and one for me.  the one for me says deep down somewhere I'm a theorist, the one for you says embracing ignorance is okay because such and such says so.  don't enshroud yourself in theories man, talk to me like a real human being.  it's like trying to talk to a Mormon brother about life, and all he can do is quote scriptures.  Set yourself free, brother.  You've got a much longer life ahead of you than the rest of us.  Oh, come to think of it, you probably will.  You'll probably graduate, like me, and realize that your intuitions about academia were true, and that good grades mean nothing.

First I just want to make one point clear: there are other areas of film studies other than film theory. I myself am not at all a fan of Theory (the capital T is actually how it refers to itself) in the sense of all-encompassing theories about filmmaking drawn from, say, psychoanalysis or philosophy. They are so often misconceived, hyperbolic, self-fulfilling prophesies that claim universality but are only relevant to a small percentage of films - if even then. Thankfully, Theory actually seems to be going out of style, in the UK at least (though there're still plenty who pratice it). What should, by all rights, be left in its place is intelligent academic film criticism, which may be informed by philosophy, psychoanalysis, sociology, politics, etc., but is not subservient to them. What's most important (to me at least, and to those in general who reject Theory) should be giving accurate, sensitive readings of films themselves, not the meaning-making structures that get applied to them like semantic hop-scotch by someone like, say, Zizek. (Then there's also film history, reception studies, etc.: more fact-based scholarship like that).

I also just wanted to address a couple of Pete's points. Some of this has been sort of said already in different ways...

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
film theory/ academia differs from other theories because it is a world populated by folks ENTIRELY removed from the filmmaking process.

I'd again point to literary studies: I would presume that you wouldn't dismiss those who study literature because they have never written a novel? Maybe you would. But I think that this might essentially come down to the fact that you're an artist yourself, working in this medium, and you don't like the thought of critics misunderstanding your work because they don't understand everything that went into making it. It's a fair enough fear, but I don't think it's a rational objection to the study of film by people who don't themselves make films, because...

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected... But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.

It doesn't usually really matter to someone watching a film what went into the making of it - what's important is what the finished product communicates. Besides, very little film studies (or, at least, that which I myself like) is concerned with hypothesising about why a film is the way it is or (as I said before) prescribing where it should go next. You make it sound like film studies makes guesses at how films are made, or comes up with elaborate theories about how films are made, and that's just not the case - or at least certainly not in the work I'm interested in. Or maybe you're just saying that it ignores how films are made: in some areas of films tudies that's true; whether this is actually a problem is another matter: as I said, film studies tends to be about the meaning the finished film makes, regardless of process or intention. But you're right in aligning film Theory more with this impulse, rather than film criticism (which is what I would call my work), but even here though, if you look at these theories in depth, I doubt hardly any of it is really doing what you're charicaturing it as doing. Plus, I'd reiterate what GT, Chest and Rheinhold all said already: multiple interpretation is just bound to be a fact in the making and experiencing of any art - to deny that would be futile (I don't actually think you are, but you almost may as well be through your emphatic stress on one 'truth' being the aim of analysis).

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
how dare they, then, give each other degrees and salaries, for a subject they are so ignorant about?

Even if many film academics are ignorant of the filmmaking process (and some, in fact, aren't), they are certainly not ignorant about the medium of film itself, i.e.: that which you can learn without needing to shoot a frame - its aesthetic properties, its history, its political implications, its philosophical implications, etc. These are different areas of expertise to what you're talking about. You don't need to know how or why a shot was filmed in order to talk about the effect it has on the viewer, which tends to be the focus of film studies.

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
I'd leave the field alone if the folks change their names to film-watching academia.

Haha - fair point, maybe it should. Although, to be fair, it does call itself film studies, as opposed to filmmaking studies: it's the study of finished films, not the processes by which the films came to be.

Quote from: pete on November 30, 2007, 02:54:04 AM
its insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions.  however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

What do you actually mean when you say truth? You bring it up again in your last post too. It sounds like you mean the truth of why a particular film is like it is, and that academics are invariably wrong about this because they don't know about filmmaking. But then you admit later to reinhold that there are in fact different truths about any given thing, and also that you don't think that theorists actually claim to hold the one ultimate truth at all. If you believe the former, then I'd just replay the multiple interpretations card (and the inconsequetiality of the whys of filmmaking), but if you believe the latter then I don't think you have any beef with film studies at all.

Lastly, on the point in your last post that "you should believe that you are pursuing the truth in your studies and your digging, and should do most of everything you can to get there sooner rather than later" - I think everyone in film studies, even those doing things I don't agree with, probably thinks this way too; the only thing is that there are so many different truths: first there is the truth as far as a filmmaker was concerned, but then the truth for all those who watch (and study) that film. Different people obviously have different understandings of a film, though some will be more convincing than others; objecting to individual interpretations makes total sense, but to object to the entire field dedicated to these interpretations, to me, doesn't.

You did a bad thing, Children With Angels. You gave a logical, thought out argument. Pete will now respond by badly articulating what is inherently wrong with you.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 03, 2007, 04:12:00 PM
You did a bad thing, Children With Angels. You gave a logical, thought out argument. Pete will now respond by badly articulating what is inherently wrong with you.

You both are being pretty fucking dumb right now. You guys had a great friendship offline, it's not worth throwing it all away over some dumb comments. Bury the hatchet or at least arrange to meet in person and settle the score!

Quote from: Stefen on December 03, 2007, 05:29:40 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 03, 2007, 04:12:00 PM
You did a bad thing, Children With Angels. You gave a logical, thought out argument. Pete will now respond by badly articulating what is inherently wrong with you.

You both are being pretty fucking dumb right now. You guys had a great friendship offline, it's not worth throwing it all away over some dumb comments. Bury the hatchet or at least arrange to meet in person and settle the score!

I'm glad my dumb comments didn't stop you from proclaiming the other thread "the best ever". It was a personal disagreement that turned harsh. I have no remorse for anything said and no regret for anything left behind. I have little interest to make the subject a continous one so consider it over. Unless, of course, you or someone else has interest in an affair that is none of their business.

You gotta be kidding me. What's the deal, man?

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.

Quote from: pete on December 03, 2007, 11:05:39 PM
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).

Quote from: pete on December 03, 2007, 11:05:39 PM
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.

Quote from: pete on December 03, 2007, 11:05:39 PM
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.