tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post116511670942800889..comments2024-03-21T04:11:40.462-07:00Comments on Category D: A Film and Media Studies Blog: Film Criticism as SubfieldChris Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11896423565458620046noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-1165574997637753132006-12-08T02:49:00.000-08:002006-12-08T02:49:00.000-08:00Well, even in the NYT they merely comment and anal...Well, even in the NYT they merely comment and analyze the plot and eventually the subtext, rarely do they get into a study of the form or the auteur's stylistic identity...<BR/>Anyway, the good critics in the weekly press are the exception. The general consensus is to give star recommendations, and subjective opinions. <BR/>I only find substance in specialist revues. It's probably because the deadline is less urgent.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-1165503774711654842006-12-07T07:02:00.000-08:002006-12-07T07:02:00.000-08:00Andy - I've been meaning to tackle the Lopate volu...Andy - I've been meaning to tackle the Lopate volume - perhaps an upcoming break activity.<BR/><BR/>Terabin - I tend to resist personal and evaluative writing in film scholarship proper, but there are many venues where that contributes to our understanding of film and the over all film culture - what's inappropriate for <I>Screen</I> (for good reason) is appropriate, possibly, for <I>Cineaste</I>.<BR/><BR/>Harry- Bordwell's none too optimistic about film scholarship either, at least in that essay. I agree with him that there's probably no equivalent of Sarris, Sontag and Rivette today, but there was something special in the air in 1950s and 60s as people were discovering newer dimensions of a relatively new art. Meanwhile, the median of journalistic criticism has become more film-literate: I'll take A.O.Scott and Manohla Dargis over Vincent Canby and Bosley Crowther.Chris Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11896423565458620046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-1165416760190174092006-12-06T06:52:00.000-08:002006-12-06T06:52:00.000-08:00You sound more optimistic than Bordwell's cinemasc...You sound more optimistic than Bordwell's cinemascope piece "Against Insight"...<BR/><BR/>I'm also interested in a "solid historical study of film criticism as cultural practice in the twentieth century", let us know if you tackle the issue one day.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-1165352387835782172006-12-05T12:59:00.000-08:002006-12-05T12:59:00.000-08:00Chris, I am very much impressed by your encouragem...Chris, I am very much impressed by your encouragement of the burgeoning online film community! <BR/><BR/>I have to say that often I am daunted by the scholarly knowledge one needs in order to do film criticism. It seems to me that extensive knowledge of film history and theory are almost necessary elements for offering any signifcant contribution to the film criticism. Many bloggers, though classified as "amateurs," are able to do offer valuable additions in film criticism because of their almost omniscient knowledge of film. <BR/><BR/>What I would ask you is this: What place is there for personal, and perhaps to some extent, uneducated, voices in the study of film? In my case, I took as many film classes as I could in college, but there was no film major, and my return to school for film studies in grad school is a couple years off. I do not really consider myself knowledgeable in key areas where truly assessing the state of film is needed. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, I want to think that, before really delving into the scholarly side of film when I go back to grad school, that my writing is still valuable, significant, etc. to the wider film community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-1165120248452977222006-12-02T20:30:00.000-08:002006-12-02T20:30:00.000-08:00Chris, I'm absolutely delighted to have you on boa...Chris, I'm absolutely delighted to have you on board! I too have hungered for that solid historical study of journalistic film criticism. I'm grateful to the anthologizers like Stanley Kauffmann, David Denby, and most recently (and arguably most especially) Phillip Lopate for laying the foundation for such a work, but this truly is <EM>just</EM> a foundation. And as I slowly work my way through the history of American film criticism I find myself with an ever growing pile of questions that no one seems to have any answer for!<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, those with an interest in the history of film criticism like Peter Keogh spend their time on what I'm not convinced isn't an imaginary break between the followers of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris.<BR/><BR/>Oh well, if a serious film scholar like yourself is interested in the subject, then I guess there's hope! Thanks for joining in!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com