Dear Mr. Blowhard,

It's me again.

I have to question your reasons of attacking intellectuals. An intellectual is not some malicious being who looks down on those who didn't get some fancy education. I consider myself an intellectual but most importantly I consider myself rather well-informed. If that makes me worthy of demonizing, then go crazy, big boy.

Since you say I don't make a point, and perhaps, you are right, let me illustrate it.

Film theory is not the whole of film studies. It is one small part. Think of it as an equilateral triangle. (That means a triangle with three equal sides, with each angle measuring 60 degrees, and each inner side faces each other.) I was never good at doing ASCII art, so I'll have to use words. Bear with me. The sides are as follows: 1 on the bottom, 2 on the left, 3 on the right.

1. Film history. This is on the bottom because it is the foundation--the base if you will--of a film studies education. It presents names, dates, and titles of films produced since the first time someone decided to charge admission for seeing a moving picture projected on a screen to a few years back. That's a lot of films but we try to highlight as many as possible. In addition to this vast amount of information, film history is the relationship film has to other institutions of its time. For example, Hollywood formed a monopoly circa 1908 by putting together a patent pool. As you know, other industries did the same thing (e.g. steel, railroads, and even incandescent lamps). If you know how and why certain films and filmmaking cultures existed at a particular time, you understand film history.

2. Film criticism (aka film analysis). Here we understand the elements of film narration. Sure, words such as 'fabula' and 'syuzhet' are alienating, but Russians came up with it so they got to name those elements of story structure. (The French call Paris "Paris" and who are we to disagree?) Film criticism asks us to consider a film in its entirety. There is an underlying premise here: every part of a film must address some common theme. Once you learn that you can look at any film and decide how well it did what it set out to do. Pick your favorite movie and notice how it does do all those things.

3. Film theory. Theory is an attempt to define what all films are, do, and, perhaps, should be. Early theories saw films saw them as extension of human cognition about the everyday world. More contemporary theories view film as an inherently political force. There are left-wing theories and there are those that are right-wing. They all kind of make sense if you know about film, but none are presented as the gospel truth. That is the biggest misperception of theory. It may guide but it does not dictate. If it does for some, that's wrong.

The triangle metaphor works well because it puts theory and criticism face to face. They both do very similar things but one is specific and the other is general. Neither can exist without a basis of film history. One must knowledge the extant variety of films and acknowledge that outside factors have influenced them. But most importantly, it represents a goal for a film studies education. It is a balanced model for what a film studies student should have at graduation or try to achieve once this educational foundation has been set.

My prinicipal complaint with Weddle is that neither he nor his daughter could understand this as the goal. He instead misrepresented the aims of film studies to where only one piece of my triangle was the entire structure. If the goals of his or his daughter were different, they should have done something more proactive than wait until graduation.

I bought a pair of shorts the other day. They kind of chafed some so I took them back to store the next day. Even with the restocking fee, I knew I didn't want to keep paying for something that didn't fit me.

P.S.
With the exception of "big boy," I did not ever engage in name calling.

Love, Me.

Posted by: Juan M on July 22, 2003 9:34 PM

Pseudo-intellectual Defense?
1.dumb it down
2.set up straw man
3.shoot down straw man
4.pat self on back for good shot
5.congratulate self for refraining from namecalling
6.first true statement Love ME.

Posted by: paul s. on July 23, 2003 3:33 AM

Dear Mr. Blowhard,

As much as I enjoy blowhards such as David Weddle and many of your respondents on this page, I can’t help but note that if you’d like to talk about plot and story and character you can easily go to any community college, or remedial high school class and take a literature or film studies course to talk about rising action and falling action and the ubiquitous denouement. Granted, there are a few people out there doing interesting work with narratology (such as Seymour Chapman), but on the main it’s pretty high school stuff. The exact phenomenon many of you cite as the primary reason for film studies (the effusive love of cinema) just kind of peters out after a few classes and you need to find innovative ways to talk about how Citizen Kane is the greatest work in the history of the universe.

Thankfully, just like any reputable academic discipline, film studies came to recognize that there was much more to film than story and technique. There was a whole world of possible permutations of analysis. That level of critical complexity requires a ‘jargon,’ or terms specific to a discipline in order to function efficiently otherwise authors would be forced to retread the same long, drawn out principles over and over. Why not codify them with specific terms. But wait! Isn’t the introduction of jargon a part of EVERY academic study. Do you take Psychology and not study its jargon? How about economics? David Weddle may have not understood his daughter’s essay questions, but sweet Jesus, if you read Christian Metz its pretty frigging obvious what the question is saying. Perhaps instead of bitching about his daughter’s professors he should ask is daughter if she actually read the course material before writing the exam.

To attack film theorists for using jargon and moving away from director/hero worship is a bit like going after scientists for those goddamn ridiculous names they give to everyday phenomena, and critizing them for not talking about the great scientists more…all the time, in fact. Why do we need to comment on science at all without talking about Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Currie… hero worship has its place, but so does theory. It hasn’t taken over all of film; it’s just a predominant aspect of its academic discourse.

Posted by: markrw on July 28, 2003 7:48 PM

Weddle does more than misunderstand UCSB's curriculum; he misrepresents it, and does so deliberately.

By pulling brief statements from extensive interviews completely out of context, Weddle goes out of his way to portray the professors and students as fanatical Marxists, when nothing could be further from the truth. Chris Scotten, who Weddle interviewed for well over an hour, was outlining the views of various theorists, one of them a Communist, when he described that particular theorist's Marxist take on film--a view Weddle then twisted to portray it as Scotten's own. Likewise with Professor Branigan, who made a passing reference to that same theorist in a 90-minute lecture.

Incidentally, that lecture was *not* the lecture that Weddle attended with Walker; Weddle came back later, in search of anything he could use to paint the school as the Marxist training camp it's never been.

Also consider that most of Weddle's quotes from other experts don't apply here. One expert discusses the field of literature, not film. Another condemns teaching irrelevant languages, while the language of film is highly relevant to those who study the craft.

Don't believe everything you read, especially when the author wears his agenda on his sleeve.

Posted by: Ryan on August 1, 2003 1:57 PM

I have a question. Can anyone tell me if Branigan, Wolfe, Penely or Walker, of UCSB, ever produced a noteworthy film, or any film for that matter? For the purpose of my question, student film projects do not count. I am only concerned with their achievements in the film industry itself.

Thank you,
John Malecki

Posted by: John Malecki on October 7, 2003 9:24 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?