Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 14:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pablo Bellon <pablob-AT-coopext.cahe.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Film Theory/Jargon
To: film-theory-AT-world.std.com


> > There's quite a lively thread going here. Thought I would add my two cents
> > worth.
> > 
> > I'm not really grounded in theoritical discourse, but it seems to me that
> > if film was to be accepted as a "serious" art form, or to be viewed as
> > having intellectual significance -- then it would be important to develop
> > models and language reflective of academic paradigms  that would withstand
> > critical analysis. Unfortunately, that also included the co-option of all
> > its evils... intellectual elitism,  contrived psychoanalytic constructs
> > enigmatic terminology, et cetera.
> 
> What you're suggesting here, that criticism/theory give credence to art 
> has no basis in historical reality. Although much has been made of the 
> singular value of theory, I doubt very much if it could survive without 
> the spector of art as an ongoing presence.  

Exactly. Can we approach films from a theoretical approach that
only examines a work as entertainment? Can such an approach be included in
academon jargon? 

> 
> 
> > So what's the pragmatic application of all this?
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "pragmatic." Theory can be easily 
> appropriated in the classroom; for instance, in my own lit. classes 
> reader-response is an ongoing paradigm although not overtly so. Also, 
> theory can viewed as a commodity,

Right. Here we go with the materialist aspect of (film) theory.

> although unlike the legal profession ,
> its language does not guarantee the same exclusionary position. It is 
> understood, however, in  academe that appropriating this commodity is 
> valuable in relation to publishing, although at least in the fields of 
> language and literature, there are isolated attempts to counteract the 
> value of appropriating certain theoritical writing styles.  
>  


> > It's quite useful for impressing folks at various cheese and wine
> > escapades, or, defending bad films that only you happen to like.
> > -pablo
> > 
>  You may be confusing theory and criticsm here; often theory appears more 
> akin to philosophy; Derrida, as you may know, is not a film or literary 
> critic, but a philosopher. So, although the two intersec oftentimes 
Derrida, derrida, derrida, errida, rrida, rida, ida, da! God! I am so
tired of French Wankers.

 theory place more emphasis on how we may approach a work of art, and more 
> often we may use a particular theory to open out a text without a 
> prescribed  hierarchial value  which, in many cases, is merely 

> subjective anyway.
Yes!    

Do you frequent cheese and wine parties? :-)


You're right. I thought theory was a product of critical thinking
(therefore, the two weren't mutually exclusive).  And this was my
experience of never being able to find a way to appease the aca-demons with 
a film criticism that didn't justify itself according to some currently
acceptable theoretical construct.
Isn't this whole discourse underpinned by western ideological practices,
born out of a Judeo-Christian monothestic pedagogy?
Of course it is. What else is there? My thoughts are held captive by
ancient Romans, Greeks, and others mind parasites.
 "Subjective" in what manner, then I ask.
"Subjective" in what manner, I then ask.

And what does all this mean to a mixed-blood working in a reservation
community where academic theoretical explorations are considered a waste
of time and paper?

Pablo L. Bellon

------------------------------------------------------------+---------------
                                                          + | +
pablob-AT-coopext.cahe.wsu.edu                                \|/  
work: (206) 273-5911   fax: (206) 273-5914           <<<+-=|+|=-+>>>
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Nation                 /|\
WSU Cooperative Extension                                 + | +
____________________________________________________________+_______________