Comments on: “Film Theory Has Nothing to Do With Film.”* http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/film-theory-has-nothing-to-do-with-film/ falling indelibly into the past Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:31:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Lola http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/film-theory-has-nothing-to-do-with-film/#comment-2211 Lola Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:52:06 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=906#comment-2211 <p>I’m sorry that neither David Weddle nor his daughter were able to make sense of the question posed on her final exam, especially after spending such exorbitant sums to insure her academic success.  But, as a student in the UCSB film studies program, I can tell you that the question makes perfect sense to anyone who actually did the readings and attended lectures.  Perhaps little Alexis ought to spend more time on her studies and less time encouraging her father in justifying her mediocrity. </p> I’m sorry that neither David Weddle nor his daughter were able to make sense of the question posed on her final exam, especially after spending such exorbitant sums to insure her academic success.  But, as a student in the UCSB film studies program, I can tell you that the question makes perfect sense to anyone who actually did the readings and attended lectures.  Perhaps little Alexis ought to spend more time on her studies and less time encouraging her father in justifying her mediocrity.

]]> By: chuck http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/film-theory-has-nothing-to-do-with-film/#comment-2210 chuck Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:53:42 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=906#comment-2210 <p>This article was reactionary, anti-intellectual crap.  The description of Penley as being caught up in a “religious fervor” only reinforces the notion that film theorists are New-Age cultists. </p> <p> Another gem from Ebert: <i>“No one with any literacy, taste or intelligence would want to teach these courses, so the bona fide definition of people teaching them are people who are incapable of teaching anything else.”</i> </p> <p> I think that one of the things that bothers me most about the article is the sense of entitlement this guy has about his daughters grades, etc.  I also noticed that the author played up the “Marxism” slant while completely glossing the feminist, anti-homophobic, and anti-racist tendencies of film theory of the 70s.  Lots to think about here. </p> This article was reactionary, anti-intellectual crap.  The description of Penley as being caught up in a “religious fervor” only reinforces the notion that film theorists are New-Age cultists.

Another gem from Ebert: “No one with any literacy, taste or intelligence would want to teach these courses, so the bona fide definition of people teaching them are people who are incapable of teaching anything else.”

I think that one of the things that bothers me most about the article is the sense of entitlement this guy has about his daughters grades, etc.  I also noticed that the author played up the “Marxism” slant while completely glossing the feminist, anti-homophobic, and anti-racist tendencies of film theory of the 70s.  Lots to think about here.

]]>