 |
 |
>> However, we can say we study film, or that we are film scholars, if we decide that we only can or want to teach/study certain types of film and can't or won't teach/study certain other types of film. If we did, we wouldn't be film scholars but we would be 'certain-types-of-film-and-not-certain-other-types-film scholars'. So it's the universal or axiomatic use of the idea of film studies that is a problem if it chooses some films over another. would that mean that the literature departments at the great universities have to include comic books, say, or assembly line pornography in their curriculum?? does a student of literature, then, have to be a student of everything that counts -- or may count - as literature? . . . or is it just in cinema that the very presence of a moving image makes it part of the territory that the student must explore? . . . and even there would she have to study TV commercials, especially if they have actually been recorded on 35mm film so that they satisfy all the "material" requirements? just asking m -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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **