Category talk:Film theorists

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This article is a little loose in my opinion. I would have thought that having the moniker 'film theorist' would require a substantial body of published, and ideally per reviewed and published work. I don't think ordinary media reviews of films, opinions offered to journalists or on DVD extras or even tributes to other film makers warrant the title 'film theorist'. Consider the difference between someone like Bazin and someone like Spielberg. One formulated an entire approach to cinema and co-founded Cahiers du Cinema. Spielberg directs and produces movies, writes prefaces and introductions, and explores his understandings through interviews and other commentary - however valid his opinions might be, they do not qualify as scholarship, and certainly not a 'theory'. By the same measure, others who should not be mentioned are Lucas, and even Scorsese (do any of these film makers ever even mention Lacan or Formalism?). Unless some kind of formal criteria is adopted, you may as well throw in any film maker that has offered an opinion on their industry. Examples of people who I think definitely qualify are: Eisenstein, Kuleshov, Jamieson, Vertov, Zizek, who do appear on the list. People like Maltin and Corman should not appear either, and I'm not sure how the self-help writing gurus deserve a flag for 'theorist'. 118.210.112.238 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)