Xixax Film Forum

I might have asked this in another thread but can't remember or find it...

Why is it that when studying filmhistory in school you always start at the beginning with Eisenstein etc and move your way forward instead of starting with the movies that excites you today and move backwards and find out who those filmmakers were inspired by etc?

Now that I wrote this I'm sure PTA had the same thought.

Quote from: kotteinstead of starting with the movies that excites you today.

Because this is subjective, and syllabus-based programs can't allow for individual preference when the education of a group is concerned.

Quote from: Ghostboy

Quote from: kotteinstead of starting with the movies that excites you today.

Because this is subjective, and syllabus-based programs can't allow for individual preference when the education of a group is concerned.

It doesn't have to be specific movies but I can with some certainty say that most of the kids in filmschool today are there because of films from directors like Tarantino, PTA, Scorsese, Kubrick etc...
Why not start there and move backwards?

Film history moves from past > present.

So it makes sense that you would learn from past > present.  It is also easier to kknow who came first and who influenced who when you move this way.

because you're studying "film history", not "what great old movies inspired Paul Thomas Anderson."

I think it makes more sense to start with what brought the kids to love film than start them off with something that's not even film.

If you have a kid who loves Scorsese, if you show him who he learned from and was inspired by I'm sure this kid want to find out more...and so on.

EDIT: Pete, I'm not saying that teachers should start with Paul Thomas Anderson but with the generation of movies that inspired them to make films.
And I know it's film history but there are more than one way to learn. would never have learned about Howard Hawks, Sam Fuller, John Ford, Coppola if it we'ren for Tarantino and PTA and guys from that generation. I mean isn't that how it works when you find something interesting? You dig deeper to find out more.

Yeah, but isn't it at the point that you want to dig deeper that you usually decide you want to take the class in the first place?

I don't know, personally, since I've never taken a film class.

Quote from: kotteI think it makes more sense to start with what brought the kids to love film than start them off with something that's not even film.

Something that's not even film? What are you referring to?

Ghostboy, I see what you're saying and it makes sense. But I still feel there's something in what I'm saying.

Quote from: UncleJoey

Quote from: kotteI think it makes more sense to start with what brought the kids to love film than start them off with something that's not even film.

Something that's not even film? What are you referring to?

I'm talking about the early 'train arrives at the station' type flicks that I would not call a movie...though it technically is.

It allows the class to be progressive is the main point.  When learning about anything it is necessary to start at the beginning, learn the fundamentals, and go from there.  Also, try showing The Great Train Robbery after Pulp Fiction.  It could go your way, which is what you are trying to say.  Sure.  Deconstruction is great.  It is just not as effective in teaching film history.

 I've been in film classes that have gone both ways.  It is better to build a picture of film than to take a picture of film and point out its parts.

EXCUSE ME, PARDON ME, COMING THROUGH...  (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=3360)