Ed: I must admit that tho I've printed out the Salon: Hurley on Bordwell,
I have yet to read it. I did, however just read your review of the review.
One paragraph particularly struck me:
"I find that kind of absolutist approach less
helpful--although not entirely without value. For me it is
a political and ethical question of how to conduct oneself
in relation to others rather than an epistemological
question of who is right and who is wrong."
Concise, precise and sooooooo well written. Bravo! We sometimes get caught
up in our own research agendas and fail to see the usefulness of
intellectual cross pollination. Thanks for the insight. m.
At 12:41 PM 9/13/98 -0700, Edward R. O'Neill wrote:
>I for one would like to applaud James Hurley's review of
>Professor Bordwell's recent book for what might be called
>its even-handed severity.
>
>That is: Hurley may end up saying some rather damning
>things about this particular book, but he does this because
>of particular details rather than a general prejudice
>against an entire theoretical school or method.
>
>E.g., Hurley praises highly one of Bordwell's other books
>(_Making Meaning_), and he calls attention to the new book's
>strengths (such as breadth of knowledge) and praises
>admirable qualities like concision.
>
>But Hurley also points out omissions and inaccuracies, and
>he quite rightly criticizes the book for falling prey to the
>tendencies the book itself criticizes elsewhere.
>
>Thus Hurley measures the book according to both his own
>criteria and the book's own.
>
>For me this makes a sharp contrast to writings which tend to
>polarize the entire field of film studies into two camps:
>useful and intelligent works (by whoever's writing and those
>s/he takes to be like-minded) and fatally-flawed and useless
>works of absolutely no value to anyone (by everyone else).
>(This approach is not limited to any one theoretical
>vantage, either.)
>
>I find that kind of absolutist approach less
>helpful--although not entirely without value. For me it is
>a political and ethical question of how to conduct oneself
>in relation to others rather than an epistemological
>question of who is right and who is wrong.
>
>I for one found the review very informative. I got a sense
>of things in this book that would be extremely useful to me,
>such as Bordwell's portrait of general approaches to film
>history, and his detailed discussion of the issue of staging
>in depth. But I also got a sense of argumentative
>limitations.
>
>Thus even if I disagree with Bordwell's judgments, much of
>what he writes can still have value--especially in a
>pedagogical context: I may be able to teach material from
>the book even if I disagree with it.
>
>Sincerely,
>Edward R. O'Neill
>UCLA
>General Education Program/Sociology Department
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|