"Show Me the Money!": Final Presentation Schedule

ENG 3115: Film Theory & Criticism

Undergraduate Academic Mini-Conference

(a.k.a., Final Presentations)

Schedule of Presentations: Monday April 23, 2012 in ROLFS # 115

Group 1: “‘I wanted to see you, to see if I'd want to see you’: Love & Art Meet at the Movies”

11:50	Danielle Dobies	“A Single Cinephiliac (Wo)Man”	Breathless
11:55	Thomas Macowski	“Cinephilia & CFK”	Citizen Kane
12:00	Phil Kunzig	“A Cinephiliac Approach to The Departed”	The Departed
12:05	Doug Yablun	“The Best of Both Worlds: David Fincher & The Social Network”	The Social Network
12:10	Andy Oram	“Film, Culture, Billy Elliot”	Billy Elliot
12:15	Radha Allard	“The Coen Brothers & Auteur Theory”	The Coen Brothers
12:20	Patrick Hart	“Adaptation, Originality, and an Exception to the Auteur Theory”	Adaptation
12:25	Question/Answer Session

Group 2: “‘For the First Time in My Life I Can’t See My Future’: Romance & Doom at the Movies”

4:10	Aliza Breznick	“Film: The DeLorean of Reality & Its Many Partners”	Melancholia
4:15	Hailun Zhu	“Marxist Elements in Melancholia”	Melancholia
4:20	Kiran Sonty	“Romance in Paris: Her Name is Cinephilia”	Midnight in Paris
4:25	Keishla Rivera-Estrada	“God in the Details”	A Single Man
4:30	Lacey Booth	“A Different Kind of Auteur”	A Single Man
4:35	Chance Crevler	“Cinephiliac Interpretation Gives New Meaning to Tom Ford’s A Single Man”	A Single Man
4:40	Logan Stallings	“Black & White: An Essay on A Single Man”	A Single Man
4:45	Sherrinette Wong	“Did You See That?”	A Single Man
4:50	Question/Answer Session

Group 3 à “‘It's like a puzzle. When you put it together, something's going to happen’: Finding Purpose in Hugo”

5:05	Brett Passa	“Combining Past with Present: Historicism & Martin Scorsese’s Hugo”	Hugo
5:10	Summer Ceraolo-O’Donnell	“Communication & Technology in Films”	Hugo
5:15	Jesse Moss	“Marxism in Hugo & Metropolis: Is the American Dream Really Possible?”	Hugo/ Metropolis
5:20	Zac Hudson	“A Formalist Approach to Hugo”	Hugo
5:25	Joe Morgan	“What is film?: How Cinephilia in Hugo Defines It”	Hugo
5:30	Nicole Deck	“Hugo: The World as a Machine”	Hugo
5:35	Luis Velasco	“Smokescreens & Magic: A Return to the Cinema of Attractions”	Hugo
5:40	Craig Cummings	“‘The Decay of Cinema’ Revitalizes Cinephiliac Criticism”	Hugo
5:45	Jonathan White	“Cinephilia: Finding the Real”	Hugo
5:50	Question/Answer Session

Group 4 à “Give them enough reason to doubt it’: A Closer Look at Christopher Nolan’s Magical Cinema”

6:25	C.J. Wittus	“Hans Zimmer’s Musical Twist in Time”	Inception
6:30	Jared Guidroz	“Inception: Cinema as a Dream”	Inception
6:35	Ben Elliott	“Memory in Memento”	Memento
6:40	Philip Allcott	“How to Hide in Plain Sight”	The Prestige
6:45	Sean Warfman	“Art”	The Prestige
6:50	Daniella Majia	“Under the Spell of the Magic Wand: Female Representations in The Prestige, in Cinema, & in Early Theatre Spectacle”	The Prestige
6:55	Lindsey Jones	“Are You Watching Closely?”	The Prestige
7:00	Question/Answer Session

Blog Assignment #7: The Stuff Films are Made of

The Cinephiliac Approach to analyzing film can be defined as the fetishizing of fragments of a film, either individual shots or marginal (often unintentional) details in the image, especially those that appear only for a moment. A cinephile’s objective is to retain the pleasure found in the emotional response to a film, and more importantly, to make that pleasure productive instead of repressing it. According to Susan Sontag, the act of interpreting a film (“de-coding” it) removes the pleasure from the cinematic experience and transforms the text into something it is not. She asserts that by beginning with a concentration on cinematic form, and describing the particular response to a given detail in the form of an anecdote, the critic can retain his/her special love for the cinema without trying to "uncover" the film's true meaning.

For this blog post, you will experiment with the cinephiliac approach, choosing a moment, a detail, or a shot that stands out in your memory from Tom Ford’s A Single Man. It is not important that you begin this exercise with an understanding of the moment, but rather that you begin there and work to uncover its significance according to your own background knowledge and what you are able to uncover doing preliminary research into the moment. For example, Craig mentioned the owl at the end of the film. Recalling this image, you might look into possible connections that can be made. You might discuss the owl imagery in Psycho or research Hegel’s The Owl of Minerva. If there is a connection to be made, discuss the importance of the moment and how it allows you to think deeply about A Single Man. But, keep the objective in mind…you are not trying to make the film into something it is not (i.e., don’t say “this film is about…”) but to discuss how YOU made connections that are present within the film. So, if you are going to discuss the Owl of Minerva, you must relate HOW the film speaks to this idea as a whole (for you).

Group TWO: 300 words minimum; due Friday by 3:00 pm.

Group ONE: Respond to someone's post by either commenting on or building from the moment discussed by the author. OR, if the moment discussed reminds you of another moment from the film or a moment from a different film, you may post your thoughts on these types of connections. 300 words minimum, due Sunday by noon.

Blog Assignment #6: The Magic of the Cinema

In class, we discussed the three major questions explored by film scholars:

1. What is film? (theory)

2. What has film been? (historicism) or What has film language been? (semiotics)

3. What is the significance of this film and its relationship to others? (criticism)

Choose one of the above questions, title your blog accordingly so we all know which one you chose, and briefly describe how you think Christopher Nolan's The Prestige (2006) contributes to your thinking re: the question at hand.

We also discussed the different approaches that attempt to answer the three questions. Discuss ONE thing you noticed about the film that one of these approaches would explore. For example, if you choose a Marxist approach, you could discuss a particular scene which speaks to the class structure of Western societies. OR, if you choose a historical approach, you might discuss how magicians have been represented on screen in the past and what Nolan's representation suggests about contemporary cinema.

Group ONE: 300 words minimum; due Friday by 3:00 pm.

Group TWO: Respond to (agree or disagree with) someone's post using a DIFFERENT moment from the film to either build on or contradict the position presented, 300 words minimum, due Sunday by noon.

Blog Assignment #5: Melancholia & Mourning: the Death of Cinema

Numerous critics and scholars have lamented the impending death of the cinema as we (or they) know it. There seems to be a fear associated with the change around the corner. For Susan Sontag, the fading of the cinephiliac experience (both due to changing film techniques that inhibit scanning and to a declining love for the cinema in younger generations) has resulted in a highly commercialized cinema that lulls its spectators into inattention. For Geoffrey Cheshire, the digital technology associated with television will result in a change in the cinematic experience, wherein the cinema that was once a place of immersion will become a place for live interaction and, thus, distraction. Both insinuate that spectators today lack the ability to notice the details within the visual image. Whether this is due to a change in film style (faster cutting, less long shots) or a change in attention span (why can't I have my cell phone on during the movie?), it does appear that the cinematic experience is changing.

Scholars and critics usually have one of two responses: to fear and denounce technological (and experiential) change OR to embrace it, asking...what can this do for the cinema? Your job is to offer your opinion on this topic. How has the cinema changed in the last decade, and is this a good or a bad thing?

Like we discussed in class, you will use the film to DO theory. In other words, begin from a moment in Melancholia (von Trier, 2011) that resonates with you. The implications of this moment within the film's plot don't necessarily matter; what is more important is what you DO with the knowledge you create from it. (Something like this: There was a moment when....and it made me wonder how this applies to my reaction as a spectator...or how it applies to the drastic responses of critics in relation to the 'death' of the cinema...) Remember, this is YOUR theory, your opinion. You can reference the articles we discussed, but your post is about what YOU think about how cinema is changing/dying/coming to life/morphing into something new.

Group TWO: 300 words minimum; due Friday by 3:00 pm.

Group ONE: Respond to (agree or disagree with) someone's post using a DIFFERENT moment from the film to either build on or contradict the position presented, 300 words minimum, due Sunday by noon.

Reminder: Essay #1 Due Friday 2/24/12 in class.

*See "Essay Assignments" Tab for writing prompt and instructions.
*Staple the Rubric Handout to the front of your essay.

Blog Assignment #4: Like a Shooting Script, but for an Essay

For this blog assignment, you will post a partial outline for essay #1. Keep in mind that this is a working outline and is in no way set in stone. As you begin developing your claims, they are likely to change, which is a legitimate part of the writing process. But, you have to begin somewhere, and an outline is a good place to start. Please post the following elements:

(1) Main Argument [complete sentence(s)]

(2) Claim #1 [complete sentence(s)]

(3) Support for Claim #1 (ex: Tom Gunning quote)

(4) Claim #2 [complete sentence(s)]

(5) Support for Claim #2

(6) Claim #3 [complete sentence(s)]

(7) Support for Claim #3

**Remember, your argument should be an "umbrella statement," meaning that it should cover EVERYTHING your essay discusses. In addition, each claim should be a smaller, more specific part of your overall argument.

Post MUST be live by 3:00 pm on Friday February 17th for both Group 1 and Group 2.

**If you would like to run additional elements by me (how you plan on answering the "So what?" Question, for example) feel free to include them in your outline and I will respond to all elements posted.

Blog Assignment #3: To betray, or not to betray, that is the question."

"Betrayal is the only truth that sticks." -Author Miller

In "A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema," Truffaut attacked the state of the French Cinema in the post WWII period. While filmmakers Aurenche and Bost claimed to adapt material through "invention" in style "without betrayal" of the original source's spirit, Truffaut argues that their films demonstrate "a constant and deliberate care to be unfaithful to the spirit as well as the letter." He goes on to explain, "Talent, to be sure, is not a function of fidelity, but I consider an adaption of value only when written by a man of the cinema. Aurenche and Bost are essentially literary men and I reproach them here for being contemptuous of the cinema by underestimating it." Truffaut would later write about his "la politique des auteurs," arguing that a true cinema auteur has distinct styles and themes that permeate all of his/her films.

In 1962, Andrew Sarris coined the term "auteur theory," bringing Truffaut's "la politique des auteurs" to the attention of American critics. As he explains, "Over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain characteristics of style, which serve as his signature. The way a film looks and moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels." We can locate an auteur when we can find the "inner meaning" of a film, what Sarris describes as a kind of tension between the material and the way the director approaches it (his découpage).

In The Grapes of Wrath (1940), John Ford and Gregg Toland, at times, remain faithful to the spirit and letter of Steinbeck's novel. At other times, they clearly depart from both letter and spirit of the original text.

Group One (due Friday by 3:00 pm):

For this blog post, answer the following questions, each in a separate paragraph:

(1) Pick one moment from the film adaptation and describe how it either departs from or remains faithful to Steinbeck's novel. Is this moment "cinematic," and, if so, does it make Ford & Toland auteurs?

(2) Most critics today dismiss auteur theory for various reasons. Do you believe it is a valid area of study in film studies? Why or why not?

Group Two (due Sunday by noon):

For this response, you may either agree or disagree (or some combination thereof) with a point made by someone in group one. Use your response to expand on the original post. Support your claim with an example from the film.

**Both Group 1 and Group 2 MUST post responses that are 300 words or longer.