Final Essay

FILM 2400: Film Theory
Final Essay (due May 25, by 12pm) Leave your essays in one of the envelopes on my office door (CFT 215).
7-10 pages (double-spaced, 12pts Times New Roman) + Works Cited Page (following MLA style)

Sources: You are required to use at least 5 print sources in your paper. At least three of the sources MUST be from our syllabus. You cannot use any Internet sources (unless the source is a valid online academic journal: check with me first).
Choose ONE of the following topics:

1. What is queer theory? What are its premises? What are its objectives? What are some of the tensions/contradictions within this theory? What are the advantages of this theory (e.g. how does it contribute to our understanding of film or what can it tell us about film that other theories can’t; what aspects of film that remain ignored in other film theories are illuminated or explained by queer theory)? On the other hand, what are the disadvantages of queer theory (e.g. is it applicable to all films; does it ignore certain important aspects of film that other theories deal with in greater detail or more successfully)? How does Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (Howard Hawks, 1953) function as a queer text? How does the film reflect, illustrate or perhaps challenge some of the key premises of queer theory?
2. What is ‘postmodern cinema’? What is a ‘postmodern approach to cinema’? Is there such a thing as a ‘postmodern theory’ of film? What are some of the difficulties in defining ‘Post-Structuralism’, ‘Deconstruction’ and ‘Post Modernism’? What are some of the tensions/contradictions within this approach to cinema? What are its advantages (e.g. how does it contribute to our understanding of film or what can it tell us about film that other theories can’t; what aspects of film that remain ignored in other film theories are illuminated or explained by the postmodern approach to film)? On the other hand, what are the disadvantages of post-structuralist and deconstructivist readings of film? How does Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999) function as a postmodern text? How does the film reflect, illustrate or perhaps challenge some of the key premises of postmodernism, post-structuralism and deconstruction?
3. How does cognitive/analytical theory challenge “Grand Theory’? What are the premises of cognitive/analytical theory? What are its objectives? What are some of the tensions/contradictions within this theory? What are the advantages of this theory (e.g. how does it contribute to our understanding of film or what can it tell us about film that other theories can’t; what aspects of film that remain ignored in other film theories are illuminated or explained by cognitive/analytical theory)? On the other hand, what are the disadvantages of this theory (e.g. is it applicable to all films; does it ignore certain important aspects of film that other theories deal with in greater detail or more successfully)? How do films like Un Chien Andalou (Luis Bunuel, 1929) and Following (Christopher Nolan, 1998)—or any other film screened in class— reflect, illustrate or perhaps challenge some of the key premises of cognitive/analytical theory?
4. What is postcolonial theory? What are its premises? What are its objectives? What are some of the tensions/contradictions within this theory? What are the advantages of this theory (e.g. how does it contribute to our understanding of film or what can it tell us about film that other theories can’t; what aspects of film that remain ignored in other film theories are illuminated or explained by postcolonial theory)? On the other hand, what are the disadvantages of this theory (e.g. is it applicable to all films; does it ignore certain important aspects of film that other theories deal with in greater detail or more successfully)? How does How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman (Nelson Pereira dos Santos, 1971) function as a postcolonial text? How does the film reflect, illustrate or perhaps challenge some of the key premises of postcolonial theory?
5. What does it mean for a film to be ‘philosophical’? What is ‘philosophy of film’? What are its premises? What are its objectives? What are some of the tensions/contradictions within this theory? What are the advantages of this theory (e.g. how does it contribute to our understanding of film or what can it tell us about film that other theories can’t; what aspects of film that remain ignored in other film theories are illuminated or explained by philosophy of film)? On the other hand, what are the disadvantages of this theory (e.g. is it applicable to all films; does it ignore certain important aspects of film that other theories deal with in greater detail or more successfully)? What does it mean to approach Eclipse (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1962) as a philosophical text? What are the philosophical limits of Michelangelo’s film? What are the limits of a philosophical approach to his film? (Note the distinction between ‘the philosophical limits of film’ and ‘the limits of a philosophical approach to film’.)
6. What does it mean to talk of ‘avant-garde cinema’, ‘experimental cinema’, ‘visionary cinema’ or ‘underground cinema’? Do these terms refer to the same type of cinema? How do avant-garde filmmakers and theorists like Maya Deren and Stan Brakhage challenge established ideas about the nature of film as an art form? Why do some film theorists argue that avant-garde cinema can be seen as a return to the aesthetics of early cinema? In addition to the films screened in class, you may refer to any other films by Deren and Brakhage.