1. Introduction:
The visual and narrative elements of philosophy have been with the discipline since the beginning. See Plato's Cave. (Thanks to Winston). These narratives have been used to explicitly illustrate philosophical ideas in a different/more understandable way. Aesthetics has also been a part of philosophy since the beginning, which seeks to explore questions of art and, in so doing, asks what philosophical content is expressed by works of art. Film is a new and a self-conscious art. That is, it is an art that has consciously attempted to justifiy its status as art since its inception. In this attempt, a body of theory has developed about film that has evolved into its own discipline. Film theory has evolved as something distinct from philosophy or aesthetics (or philosophy of education).

2. What is the panel doing? (Heavily influenced by Carl Plantinga's "Film Theory and Aesthetics: Notes on a Schism")
We're not really engaging in film theory, at least as film theory has traditionally been understood. Contemporary film theory draws heavily upon continential thinkers (Lacan, Saussure) and their accompanying activities (psychoanalysis, semiotics, deconstruction). Our film analyses are not explicitly political. We are not approaching these films with a feminist, Marxist, or other political framework or analysis. Nor are our analyses "cultural" in the contemporary film theory sense of that word. For film threorists, then, our work at best, probably doesn't count. At worst, it engages in dangerous hegomonic practice, that marginalizes the important cultural content of film.
Nor is the panel really engaging in Anglo-American aesthietcs, as understood traditionally/contemporarily. In pedigree, we don't reference Danto or other contemporary aesthetic scholars (except Shusterman, actually). In activity, the typical aesthetic issues of beauty, representation, and the like are not explicitly considered.
The difference, I believe, between what this panel is up to and those two broad categories of scholarship is the explicit concern with the pedagogical content of film. This is expected, given our background, but it is an approach that situates us between these two sides of Plantinga's schism. It also puts our sort of analysis in what I will call a Deweyan aesthetic vein (except, no one really mentions Dewey).

3. A short explanation of the Deweyan aesthetic, it's relation to pedagogy, and film analysis in that vein.
Forthcoming