August 3, 2003
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LA TIMES
Film Theory: Elitist Nonsense or a Critical Life Lesson?
I wish to clarify that, despite a clear implication to the contrary,
I did not teach the class in film theory that David Weddle's daughter
took and which led to his dismay over wasted tuition dollars
('Lights, Camera, Narratology?' July 13). Considering Weddle's
good-spirited attempt to capture my lecturing style, I should say,
'It was NOOOOT! my class.' In my theory classes, however, I am trying
to expose young adults to a comprehensive range of ideas to stimulate
their curiosity, interest, critical thought and, eventually, their
informed participation in the political process. In 10 weeks,
students read 54 articles and 32 handouts covering the period of 1916
to the 1970s.
Weddle's battle is with the theoretical paradigm of the 1970s, which
he considers excessively obscure, of no practical value and
anti-humanist. Still, his definition of the 'humanist tradition' is
far too narrow. After all, there are only humans telling themselves
stories to believe in. As for film theory, it is deeply concerned
with the factors that influence a film, and which make it be that
film and no other. Meanwhile, I believe that was chalk dust, not
dandruff, on my glasses. But I'll check.
Edward Branigan
Department of Film Studies
UC Santa Barbara
*
As a graduate of UC Santa Barbara's film studies program, I was
shocked and appalled to read Weddle's condemnation of the UCSB
faculty, the course of study and film theory itself. I was fortunate
to have taken courses by Edward Branigan, Charles Wolfe and Constance
Penley, all of whom opened my mind to the world of cinema in ways
that my production courses never could have.
Adam Weissler
Senior segment producer, 'Extra'
Glendale
*
As a recent graduate of the UCSB film studies department, I
wholeheartedly reinforce Weddle's claims! For four years I endured
the elitist approach to film and was hindered because I did not
subscribe to the same nonsensical garbage as the others. My only
solace comes from the knowledge that I will use my film studies
degree to get a real job while many of my colleagues will flounder,
complaining about the injustice of the industry. Thank you!
Joe Balice
Via the Internet
*
I have to thank film critic Roger Ebert for setting me straight about
that 'cruel hoax' also known as film theory. I guess I wasted the
last 20 years of my life earning my PhD in film studies and teaching
aspiring young filmmakers different ways to look at and think about
film. Perhaps I should follow Ebert's lead and teach my students how
to write screenplays such as 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls' or how
to hold their thumbs up and down in the air.
Stephen Tropiano
Los Angeles
*
If UCSB administrators feel that this sort of 'education' has merit,
why don't they try to fund it with grants from the industry rather
than from taxpayers? The answer is they can't. Because it is not
education. It is not meaningful to students who wish to pursue a
career in the film industry. It is not helpful to the industry and
the product that it produces. It is only helpful to a handful of
professors with an agenda who have found a way to manipulate the
university system for their own benefit.
Robert Lloyd
Valley Glen
*
As someone who received a PhD in film studies from Northwestern
University's School of Speech in the '70s, and who suffered through
the then-emerging fog of semiotics, I'd like to congratulate Weddle
on his clear-eyed exposé of such self-serving, over-intellectualized,
pretentious nonsense. I thought it would have died of its own
flatulence long ago.
Garner Simmons
Westlake Village
|