Comments on: Make yourself criticism-proof: become a critic!

By: Allison

Allison — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:27 +0000

Well, it was in the beginning of the semester and we talked about what film theory is, and how important it is to understand film. However, we also discussed the “over-reading” of film and how dangerous or silly that can be. You earlier blog on criticism actaully sounded a lot like the discussion we had and that’s why it attracted my attention. Reading too much in to mainstream/Hollywood film is the worse and my instrcutor advises against it. But it is important to look at history and current events and how that effects what we are watching on the silver screen. We have a lot of great and interesting discussions in that class. The instrcutor lets us present the artcle and then discuss them. She contributes minimally, which is great because we all have a chance to talk. Our last interesting conversation was on Marx and capitalism. I would never have thought how much this can effect film, but it all really makes sense. So in the end we are being trained to criticize, yet with a certain amount of knowledge and discretion.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:32:50 +0000

Thanks, Allison!

I’d be curious to hear what the “limits of criticism” were that your film class defined and/or discussed. It’s something I often think about.

By: Allison

Allison — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:06:58 +0000

This post goes great with my current Film Theory class. We have been talking about how much you really should analyze a film. I only glanced over your post, but it makes sense to me on a whole different level these days. This idea can, also, be applied to art school and art in general. Oh yea! And I loved 300, just for the cinematic experience. I didn’t even pay attention to the typical “Mainstream America worships Greek mythology” plot line, because the cinematography was so beautiful. Anyway, I’m not in the habit of doing this and I hope I don’t sound like a total idiot on your wonderful blog. I just like to read your stuff and was letting you recognize that.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:24:25 +0000

Topher: I’m aware that most undergrad degrees in the humanities aren’t going to adequately provide the backing for good criticism. The point is, that’s what most of the aforementioned critics are drawing upon. I think that the foundational works in the humanities teach you skills that you can use to really train yourself to have a keen eye. I would also like to think that I’ve gone through enough self-motivated education to be able to spot this kind of bullshit when it’s there. Naturally, I can’t be certain. That uncertainty puts me above the typical critics, though, if we’re giving any credit to our postmodernists

As far as my hostility to Foucault…yes…well…you know how I feel about his scholarship.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:34:59 +0000

Your hostility to Foucault aside, I think you can insert any favorite scholar found by a typical liberal arts student who fits the criteria.

That is another problem you seem to sidestep - an undergraduate sampling is not enough - most undergraduates who get a sample undergraduate liberal arts degree don’t pursue their degree to completion in the doctorate track, rather they go on to professional school.

What you touch on briefly is the fact that our thirty second culture produces twenty second “critics” armed with their Foucault.

Of course the true irony is that you and I fall into this camp as well.

By: adrshepard

adrshepard — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:13:23 +0000

I agree with you for once, and I take back what I’ve said about you losing your touch with the posts at the site.

You could have dropped the first paragraph, though, as fascinating as it is to hear about such great Frenchies and Slavs.