re: david bordwell / neo formalism

by noel carroll, from prospects for film theory

"what makes something film theory is that it is a general answer to a general question that we have about some phenomenon which we think, pretheoretically, falls into the bailiwick of film. such inquiry is theoretical because it is general, and it is film theory because it pertains to filmic practice. furthermore, sice we can ask so many different kinds of general questions about film, there is no common feature that all of our answers should be expected to share. some theoretical questions about film--for example, about cinematic perception--may have answers that primarily advert to cinematic forms and structures, whereas other different answers to different questions might refer to economic forces. that is, some theories may be formal, while others may be social. our collection of film theories may very well compromise a mixed bag. there simply is no reason to think that every film theory will have something to tell us about the same subject--such as the way in which each and every aspect of film figures in the oppression or emancipation of the film viewer" (engaging the moving image, 362).