Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in the Age of Video

Rating:
Summary: Read the 1star critic below for a slob's guide to an opinion
Review: on anything that he/she cannot comprehend. I am writing this review primarily to combat the effect that embittered incompetence can have on the artist/intellectual's fair chance to be heard by someone willing to put in a little effort. That said, I now confess I haven't purchased this book or read it in it's entirety. What I have read gave me a run for my money in trying to follow it's over all point. This does not mean something is wrong with the book, thought, or the theory. It means I was challenged by it. (This is a good thing!) What i was able to glean proved to be a fascinating look into the relationship(s) between man and reality, and man and cinema's reality. NOT a casual once-in-a-while read.

Rating:
Summary: More pointless film theory puke
Review: You can't follow the thread of Catherine Russell's argument; you can only pretend to, whether you're posturing for stuck-up film theory boyz or forced to "identify the central concepts" in film class. Just read one of her sentences, and then ask yourself, "What is she trying to say?" I'll start you off: "Viola's use of video is informed by an existentialist theory of medium specificity. His treatment of possession is thus ontological and in many ways a more successful version of the 'cine-transe' imagined by Rouch" (234). Over 300 pages of such absurd drivel make this book unreadable. Don't read it passively--question every word, every invented phrase, every name she drops. Her goal is to sound creative and learned ("the cartography of modern culture" *is* a neat phrase), but are we really impressed? No. Well-written books give you plenty of ideas for your time. This crazy offal just gives you one: film theory is utterly pointless.

Rating:
Summary: More pointless film theory puke
Review: You can't follow the thread of Catherine Russell's argument; you can only pretend to, whether you're posturing for stuck-up film theory boyz or forced to "identify the central concepts" in film class. Just read one of her sentences, and then ask yourself, "What is she trying to say?" I'll start you off: "Viola's use of video is informed by an existentialist theory of medium specificity. His treatment of possession is thus ontological and in many ways a more successful version of the 'cine-transe' imagined by Rouch" (234). Over 300 pages of such absurd drivel make this book unreadable. Don't read it passively--question every word, every invented phrase, every name she drops. Her goal is to sound creative and learned ("the cartography of modern culture" *is* a neat phrase), but are we really impressed? No. Well-written books give you plenty of ideas for your time. This crazy offal just gives you one: film theory is utterly pointless.