All entries for Wednesday 27 February 2008
February 27, 2008
Here's a quote that is making me think:
I hope to convincingly argue that there is a place in film studies for defining and defending important films. What I mean by important films probably does imply something like a canon of great films, of films that are important because they are great films. As such, important films are ones that require defense on the grounds of taste: a great film is important because it is a great film, not because it is popular, not because it presented the first application of a new technology, and not because it responded to a particular historical moment - though, of course, a great films might include any or all of these elements as a measure of its greatness.
Richard Rushton, 'The New Film Studies and the Decline of Critique', Cineaction 72 (2007), p. 4.
I feel that this idea unwittingly plugs into the emerging discourses of cinephilia (e.g. Christian Keathley, Thomas Elsaesser, Rosenbaum/Martin) that I have been exploring recently. The question, I suppose, is: are ideas about the 'great-ness' of the film really the stuff of an academic discipline? Can you imagine accepting undergraduate essays entitled 'Why is Cloverfield a great film'? Or would that take film studies to a place that is unsuitable for a university?
I've arrived at this juncture whilst contemplating why my project about the digitalisation of cinema should focus on Richard Linklater. This is a question that I haven't quite resolved in my mind yet.
Here's some other stuff:
* Steve Richards, 'Don't let a row over the Speaker obscure the value of what takes place in the Commons'
* My Life is Choked with Comics, 'Hideshi Hino: Panorama of Hell'
And I'm currently amused by the Sarah Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel video exchange, and the Seth Rogen parody that has followed.