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.

Blog Assignment #2: Plato's Cave or the Trick's On Us?

Have all the critics completely missed the point of this film, or has Woody Allen been swallowed by Hollywood?

Group Two: Due by Friday at 3:00 pm

According to Braudy, the "illusion of reality" depends on our belief in the reality created by the filmmaker. He suggests that the spectator returns to an infantile state of naive belief when watching film. If this is Woody Allen's purpose in Midnight in Paris, then we can just take the film at face value and be "entertained." However, when examining the ironies within Allen's film, it appears that this particular film is more complicated than it first appears. Using the "moment" approach, pick one moment from the film that stood out to you to discuss this question: Do you believe that Allen is suggesting that we embrace the illusion of Hollywood filmmaking, or that we should question the subversive illusions presented within even the most banal films?

Group One (due Sunday by noon):

After group two has posted their entries, your job will be to play devil's advocate. Choose one post to address; read it, asking yourself, "What is s/he not considering here?" Your post will not be on your own blog, but in the comments section of the person to whom you are responding. Posit a counter-argument, using either the film or something we have read for class to support your point. Add your name or initials to the bottom of your comment so I will know who posted it.