Thompson's "Neoformalist Film Analysis"

I like theory. As a Communications and English major, I kind of have to. I also like Kristin Thompson's writing - I find our textbook she wrote with Thompson extremely useful and clear. I don't know why, then, I'm having so much trouble with certain parts this essay. I can't seem to pin down the distinction between approach and method, other than that I think method might be more narrow, and that approaches have methods within them. As Thompson elaborates on her point I only get more and more lost and bogged down in the examples she provides. I'm also having trouble making the distinction between Formalism and Neoformalism, aside from the fact that the former is Russian and from the early 20th century, and the latter has made a comeback in the last few decades as the writings of silenced Russian thinkers begin to be translated into other languages. Perhaps the only distinction is that one is newer - explaining the Neo- prefix - than the other.

Details aside, I do find the majority of Thompson's ideas valuable and interesting. I love the notion of having to work for art, having to be an active participant in the experience, of aesthetic perception being an entirely different activity from everyday general awareness, an exercise in defamiliarization and analysis. Her discussion of connotative (implicit) ideas and denotative (explicit) ideas is familiar and easy, yet applied well to her argument. Many of the concepts in this essay Thompson covers in the textbook as well, but there's nothing wrong with a little reinforcement.