I would have thought film studies was massively influenced by Eng Lit,
even before it went on an academic footing -- cf. Robin Wood's New
Critic/Leavisian readings of Hawks and Hitchcock in the '60s, which
both draw on notions of the profound, or something like it.

Institutionally film studies grew up under the wing of English
departments (on the whole), and the shift toward structural
linguistics in both occured more or less simultaneously. I don't know
if English teachers talk about books in terms of profundity now either
-- too 'impressionistic' and too personal.

On 11/16/07, bill harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Finding profundity is as easy as going to the zoo and seeing all of the
> non-elephants. Now substitute "Hollywood" for pachyderm...
>
> In the French intellectual journal called "Perspectives", some 12 years ago
> Agnes Peck wrote "For a European Cinema". Her exemplar was Kieslowski, and
> her larger point was to advocate a cinema of questions--rather than an
> American version of trite answers.
>
> It's really that simple: deepness begins with the desire to question. This,
> ostensibly, is the beginning of the terror of which Rilke spoke.
>
> Bill Harris
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Frank, Michael
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:29 AM
> Subject: "Profound" films
>
>
>
>
>  i think this may be a dangerous question to ask, but let me go out on a
> limb . . .
>
> for many of us who study film, movies play a role similar to that which
> literature used to play [a complicated transference to be sure, but let that
> go for the moment]  . . . as a result film criticism for more than half a
> century has had to problematize the burden of the traditional art of
> literature inescapably borne by the new art of cinema . . . we've had some
> success in doing this, with the result that the terms we bring to our
> discussions of films are significantly different than those traditionally
> employed in discussing verbal art, the new frames of reference being
> anchored, variously, in issues of the cinematic mechanism, in the process of
> mass mediation, and in the differences between symbolic [verbal]
> representation and iconic [pictorial] representation
>
> important as all this has been, it seems to me that perhaps in the process
> something has been lost . . . those of us who come to film from a literary
> background will remember [with affection, disdain, or maybe a yawn]
> discussions of "profundity" in literature . . . we were often told
> [admittedly by teachers who routinely failed to interrogate their own frames
> of reference] that novel X, play Y, or poem Z was worth reading because it
> was "profound" . . .
>
> now, granting without hesitation the likelihood that this view was deeply
> rooted in cultural biases that are questionable, it still seems to me that
> some verbal texts were [are?] able to engage us on a level more complex [and
> perhaps thereby "deeper"] than that afforded by most [all?] films . . . it's
> hard for me to think of films that can engage us as "profoundly" as, or that
> can even begin to do what the divina commedia, king lear, crime and
> punishment, or even a lighter work such as emma manage to do to, with, or
> for us . . .  citizen kane, which seems to have assumed the role of "the
> greatest film of all time" in perpetuity, may have a great deal going for
> it,  but i don't think it can be argued that it's especially "profound" . .
> .   [admittedly  some movies occasionally find themselves accused of
> "profundity," but these are likely to be those that use the cinematic medium
> in ways that call attention to the medium itself – so while they may thereby
> offer a "profound" commentary on cinema, they seem to offer no comparable
> insights about larger human frames of reference]
>
> so here's my question:  can anyone suggest films, preferably narrative
> films, that in your judgment qualify as "profound," as engaging in rich and
> complex ways with the most compelling questions that shape our lives, movies
> that as a result will reward the most careful and thoughtful and sensitive
> scrutiny? . . . one last thing: if you do have some films to nominate,
> please don't merely provide a list of names, but add a few comments
> explaining how and why the films you name might count as profound
>
> many thanks
>
> mike
>
>  * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the
> salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact:
> [log in to unmask] **
>  * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the
> salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact:
> [log in to unmask] **

*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**