Comments on: Another Close Encounter http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/2005/07/22/another-close-encounter/ A blog for film fanatics Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:19:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Harry Honiley http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/2005/07/22/another-close-encounter/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Harry Honiley Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:13:06 +0000 http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/?p=65#comment-28 This article/rant begins with the interesting submission that "I’d like to think that a) I’m qualified to talk about film theories and b) I know what I’m talking about". Well, we'd all hope that, wouldn't we? I mean, what would be the point of starting a rant with, "I am not qualified to talk about this and I don't know what I'm talking about" ? Mind you, that question could bre asked, of course. If one were clever enough one could prove Pythagoras' Theorem about the square on the hypotenuse - but you'd still have more trouble with aliens. Unless of course you had met some. Or even just one would do. Best not admit to this sort of thing: "To be fair they were fighting an uphill battle with me. Having studied the subject and been force-fed one or two things by my lecturers over the years, I am slightly jaded about film theory" - it spoils your case. Study the history of art - you'll find the "great" artists (whatever that means) worked to order and to pay the bills. It has always comes down to cash. When you're hungry enough you'll do anything. It's a dog's life. This article/rant begins with the interesting submission that “I’d like to think that a) I’m qualified to talk about film theories and b) I know what I’m talking about”.
Well, we’d all hope that, wouldn’t we?
I mean, what would be the point of starting a rant with, “I am not qualified to talk about this and I don’t know what I’m talking about” ?
Mind you, that question could bre asked, of course.
If one were clever enough one could prove Pythagoras’ Theorem about the square on the hypotenuse – but you’d still have more trouble with aliens. Unless of course you had met some. Or even just one would do.
Best not admit to this sort of thing: “To be fair they were fighting an uphill battle with me. Having studied the subject and been force-fed one or two things by my lecturers over the years, I am slightly jaded about film theory” – it spoils your case.
Study the history of art – you’ll find the “great” artists (whatever that means) worked to order and to pay the bills. It has always comes down to cash. When you’re hungry enough you’ll do anything.
It’s a dog’s life.

]]> By: Ross Wilson http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/2005/07/22/another-close-encounter/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Ross Wilson Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:38:08 +0000 http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/?p=65#comment-3 Whilst anyone who offers an opinion cannot indeed be wrong, I though it rather sad that the doctor basically went on to tell Lee that his own opinion is more valid and correct as if somehow this was Animal Farm for academics. All opinions are backed up by research and facts and therefore, all opinions being equal, those of the doctor and his peers are no more correct or valid than those of anyone else. How can an academic possibly think that the whole reason for his being is to please his peers? That obviously would create a group of narrow minded, self-aggrandising, pompous delusionals; rather like a family of hillbillies who continuously inbreed creating a self-defeating and ultimately self-annihilating way of life. This is not genuine academics. This is celebrity academics, propped up by those like the professor who seek self validation for their opinions. This is not a form academics of any real value. If then this is the extent of the doctor's answer to Lee's article then it's the most pathetic defence of a theory I've ever heard. Even more so because he's a doctor. Why did you bother saying anything at all!? Perhaps if the doctor jumped up and down and said "my daddy says it's so too" would make his theory more true!! POOR SHOW MR. Lincoln Geraghty. Whilst anyone who offers an opinion cannot indeed be wrong, I though it rather sad that the doctor basically went on to tell Lee that his own opinion is more valid and correct as if somehow this was Animal Farm for academics. All opinions are backed up by research and facts and therefore, all opinions being equal, those of the doctor and his peers are no more correct or valid than those of anyone else. How can an academic possibly think that the whole reason for his being is to please his peers? That obviously would create a group of narrow minded, self-aggrandising, pompous delusionals; rather like a family of hillbillies who continuously inbreed creating a self-defeating and ultimately self-annihilating way of life. This is not genuine academics. This is celebrity academics, propped up by those like the professor who seek self validation for their opinions. This is not a form academics of any real value. If then this is the extent of the doctor’s answer to Lee’s article then it’s the most pathetic defence of a theory I’ve ever heard. Even more so because he’s a doctor. Why did you bother saying anything at all!? Perhaps if the doctor jumped up and down and said “my daddy says it’s so too” would make his theory more true!! POOR SHOW MR. Lincoln Geraghty.

]]> By: Dr. Lincoln Geraghty http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/2005/07/22/another-close-encounter/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Dr. Lincoln Geraghty Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:58:51 +0000 http://www.ascreennearyou.co.uk/?p=65#comment-2 A brave attempt I am sure at trying to offer a critical comment on academic work, however, the author of this comment needs to be aware that one cannot be "wrong" if they are not, as stated in the piece, participating in an "exact science". While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the author of the above comment must remember that the article is a form of opinion, backed up by research and analysis, which is then revised and accepted by a peer-reviewed academic journal. A Film Studies graduate, although given the tools to learn and write about films for their degree, would then have to go on to understand how one goes about writing a critical analysis for publication before dismissing them as "wrong" because they think what they know about sf and films is more than the original authors. P.S. The whole point about E.T. is that we are meant to distrust all adults, whether they are scientists who say they want to keep E.T. alive or those who hunt him with guns and bloodhounds. We can see that pretty much as a recurring theme in all of Spielberg's films. A brave attempt I am sure at trying to offer a critical comment on academic work, however, the author of this comment needs to be aware that one cannot be “wrong” if they are not, as stated in the piece, participating in an “exact science”. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the author of the above comment must remember that the article is a form of opinion, backed up by research and analysis, which is then revised and accepted by a peer-reviewed academic journal. A Film Studies graduate, although given the tools to learn and write about films for their degree, would then have to go on to understand how one goes about writing a critical analysis for publication before dismissing them as “wrong” because they think what they know about sf and films is more than the original authors.

P.S. The whole point about E.T. is that we are meant to distrust all adults, whether they are scientists who say they want to keep E.T. alive or those who hunt him with guns and bloodhounds. We can see that pretty much as a recurring theme in all of Spielberg’s films.

]]>