<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Scholarly analysis.
Review: "...on a primary text level, history may embody an idea that gives a general definition to the vision of the film and points in a general way toward the other levels of textuality of the film - its subtexts and/or metatexts (self-reflexive discourses). If history is a holograph, then so is film because film is also composed of different layers of textuality. The surface texts of most films are constructed out of a limited number of conventional mass modes of discourse (plots), whereas the subtexts of films consist of a variety of sociohistorical discourse contests (themes) such as politics, social consciousness, revisionist history, moral messaging and existentialist themes. " (The "score" rating is an unfortunately ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not "score" books.)
Rating: 
Summary: More Fun than One Might Guess
Review: Dr. Palmer's scribblings on film are NOT so uselessly DRY as the mysterious quoting review implies, though the guy can (& does) stoop to SOME jargonic postmodern deconstruction, plus at least one hilariously terrible actual diagram. I swear! Fortunately, the empty academic professionalism is nicely balanced by passages of plain readable screed, tips on good commercial flops, etc. The professor seems to be some sorta quasi-Dickensian crypto-feminist at heart, best as I can guess from this filmcrit & a very sketchy bio. He is overkind to Oliver Stone, who does not NEED (or even want) kindness, but otherwise fair. Or almost fair. If one elects to concoct a sub-heading called "Ensemble Weepies" for categorizing bathetic chick flicks, what about "Baseball Hokum" for the inverse, or obverse, or obtuse? Doctor?
Rating:
Summary: More Fun than One Might Guess
Review: Dr. Palmer's scribblings on film are NOT so uselessly DRY as the mysterious quoting review implies, though the guy can (& does) stoop to SOME jargonic postmodern deconstruction, plus at least one hilariously terrible actual diagram. I swear! Fortunately, the empty academic professionalism is nicely balanced by passages of plain readable screed, tips on good commercial flops, etc. The professor seems to be some sorta quasi-Dickensian crypto-feminist at heart, best as I can guess from this filmcrit & a very sketchy bio. He is overkind to Oliver Stone, who does not NEED (or even want) kindness, but otherwise fair. Or almost fair. If one elects to concoct a sub-heading called "Ensemble Weepies" for categorizing bathetic chick flicks, what about "Baseball Hokum" for the inverse, or obverse, or obtuse? Doctor?
<< 1 >>
| 
