Abstract
The october 1999 job list prepared by the society for cinema studies has just appeared: fifty-one teaching positions involving film. What does it mean that only ten of these are situated in designated film programs, while thirty-six are hosted by departments of literature, primarily English? It means, among other things, that departments of literature are redefining and deregulating themselves. They may have cautiously welcomed film for a half century but hardly at this scale: fifty-one open positions suggest hundreds of positions permanently in place and thousands of students studying this subject each year. The confidence the humanities shows in this field is shared by most of my students, who are younger than cinema studies and must sense it to be, if not august, at least well established, rather as English seemed when I majored in it and assumed it to be as old as England. However, any census of course catalogs reveals cinema's uncertain location and function from campus to campus, posing questions of general expectations and standards—indeed, putting in question the definition of cinema studies. Evidently universities want to offer film. Bravo! But in what manner and for what purpose? What “qualifies” the hundreds of applicants applying for these fifty-one positions? Where did they gain their expertise or self-confidence?
Publisher
Modern Language Association (MLA)
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Cited by
20 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. A Study on MUBI’s Economic and Symbolic Capital as a New Cinephile Space in the Digital Age;Erciyes İletişim Dergisi;2024-01-30
2. Japanese Film and the Challenge of Video;MEDIA CULT SOC CHANG;2023-04-24
3. Scholars, Canons, and Videotape;Japanese Film and the Challenge of Video;2023-04-24
4. Cinephilia goes global;The Routledge Companion to World Cinema;2017-09-27
5. Sharks, Aliens, and Nazis;A Companion to Steven Spielberg;2017-02-17