The literature on remix as a scholarly endeavor is emerging but incomplete. In "A Taxonomy of Digital Video Remixing: Contemporary Found Footage Practice on the Internet," Eli Horwatt enumerates several types of political remix, though his scope is limited to footage found online, not scholarly projects.  Steve Anderson sketches numerous genres that have emerged from the Honor in Multimedia Scholarship program at the IML, a program he directed before I took over in 2007, and these are illuminating in terms of categorizing digital projects: argumentative, essayistic, game, encyclopedic. Yet we also need to focus on the formal elements a single project's visual and aural syntax. As I have argued elsewhere, this syntax is important for large scale literacy in the 21st century, although I am still uneasy about vulnerability to the charge of lack of academic rigor when deploying the practices of film, given its origins in the entertainment industry. The notion that this work is little more than the "Disneyfication" of scholarship is never far from my mind. However, in recalling Gregory Ulmer's argument that the technological shift from literacy to electracy began in the 19th century with the invention of photography and later the phonograph and the telegraph, then it is "easier to appreciate that the institution most responsible for the practices of digital memory is entertainment" (42). Thus, I suggest, we can appropriate the often-complex discursive practices of Hollywood film, and bring them to bear on scholarship, endeavoring to apply the same type of polish and criticality to digital texts that we would use in more traditional academic discourse.