Page 1


 
 



 


FL5005­20:
Popular
 Cinema
and
Culture



 Academic
Year
2012­13
 
 



 Department
of
Film
&
Media
 


School
of
Humanities
and
Cultural
Industries
 Still:
Toy
Story
2
(John
Lassetter,
Ash
Brannon
&
Lee
Unkrich,
USA,
Pixar/Disney,
1999)



Timetable
 
 Seminar

 CE.G01
Friday
9‐11
weekly*
 
 *NB:
To
accommodate
film
playing
time,
the
five
sessions
in
which
screenings
take
place
 are
timetabled
for
an
extra
hour
(i.e.
9‐12)
in
the
same
room
–
see
Introduction
and
 Weekly
outline,
below,
for
details.
 
 Module
tutor
 Dr
Richard
Stamp
–
Newton
NE.202
–
01225
876393
–
r.stamp@bathspa.ac.uk

 Twitter:
@stampman29
 Scribd:
richardstamp
–
see
also
weekly
links
on
Minerva
(>Schedule)
 
 Office
hours
 Tuesday
2‐3;
Wednesday
3‐4
 Please
book
tutorial
slots
via
my
public
Google
calendar
only
–
see
link
on
Minerva
 (>Tutors)
 
 Introduction
 This
module
analyses
the
various
places
from
which
we
experience
contemporary
film
 cultures,
whether
as
spectators,
consumers,
collectors
or
‘connoisseurs’.
It
begins
from
the
 premise
that
‘film’
is
not
as
separate
and
distinct
entity,
but
is
embedded
within
a
realm
of
 products
–
magazines,
reviews,
toys,
games,
music,
fashions,
breakfast
cereals…
Drawing
 on
recent
work
in
cultural
and
film
theories,
we
will
examine
contemporary
popular
 cinema
as
both
a
social
and
an
aesthetic
practice,
with
particular
emphasis
on
the
 formation
of
‘taste’
cultures
across
fields
of
cinematic
production,
distribution
and
 consumption.
We
will
be
studying
five
films
in
order
to
explore
some
of
these
key
debates:

 
 Casino
Royale
(2006):
the
reinvention
of
movie
franchises

 (Screening:
Week
5
–
2
November,
9­12)
 
 Star
Wars
Episode
I:
The
Phantom
Menace
(1999):
the
impacts
of
digital
imaging
 technologies
and
the
rise
of
convergence
cultures

 (Screening:
Week
8
–
23
November,
9­12)
 
 Toy
Story
2
(1999)
and
relation
of
animation
and
‘film,’
synthetic
stars

 (Screening:
Week
12
–
11
January,
9­12)
 
 Spirited
Away
(2001):
global
markets
and
audiences
for
animation

 (Screening:
Week
16
–
8
February,
9­12)
 
 Eternal
Sunshine
of
the
Spotless
Mind
(2004):
the
cultural‐political
contexts
for
 the
emergence
of
so‐called
‘new
indie’
or
‘Indiewood’
film

 (Screening:
Week
19
–
8
March,
9­12)
 
 Learning
resources
–
what
do
I
need
to
buy?
 Nothing.
All
of
the
set
texts
on
the
module
are
available
online
in
a
'private'
Scribd
 collection,
and
embedded
in
Minerva
(>Schedule).
 


2



Learning
and
teaching
methods

 This
 module
is
divided
into
five
 sections,
each
of
which
is
based
around
a
particular
film
 and
 a
 general
 heading:
 audience,
 technologies,
 animation,
 globalisation
 and
 genre.
 The
 module
comprises
a
 weekly
 2‐hour
 seminar‐workshop,
which
will
feature
a
 combination
 of
the
following
kinds
of
activities:

 
 • Introductions
to
key
theories,
concepts
and
methodologaical
approaches
 •

Discussion‐based
exploration
of
the
history,
context
and
development
of
the
 relevant
approaches
and
arguments


Analysis
of
the
principal
arguments
from
each
week’s
primary
readings


Application
of
theoretical
ideas
to
examples
using
prepared
clips
from
key
films


This
 module
 consists
 of
 a
 weekly
 2‐hour
 workshop,
 which
 may
 include
 short
 lectures,
 seminar
 discussions
 and/or
 screenings,
 in
 addition
 to
 your
 own
 study
 time
 for
 reading
 and
research.
These
seminar
workshops
will
also
include
 sessions
dedicated
to
reflective
 self‐
and
peer‐evaluation
of
key
study
skills,
class
test
revision,
and
essay
tutorials.

 Preparing
for
the
workshop…
 Before
coming
to
the
your
seminar
you
are
expected
to
have
read
the
Primary
reading
for
 that
week.
Knowledge
of
this
reading
is
assumed
as
the
basis
for
every
seminar
activity,
 giving
the
whole
group
the
same
points
of
reference
in
common
for
discussion.

 
 However,
this
is
the
minimum
of
reading
expected
from
you
and
it
is
also
expected
that
 you
will
have
followed
up
at
least
one
of
the
suggestions
for
Further
reading
each
week.
 (These
bibliographies
are
also
intended
as
recommendations
for
researching
your
 assignments.)
The
Bibliography
in
this
handbook
also
gives
indications
of
useful
general
 introductory
textbooks
(and
more
advanced
texts)
across
Film
and
Cultural
Studies.
The
 basic
rule
is:
The
more
widely
you
read,
the
more
you
will
get
out
of
this
module.
 
 Learning
outcomes

 On
successful
completion
of
this
module,
you
should
be
able
to:
 
 1. Identify
and
explain
connections
between
cultural
studies
and
film
studies
for
analysis
 of
recent
popular
cinema
 2. Select
and
apply
theoretical
approaches
to
develop
their
own
critical
perspectives
on
 contemporary
film
cultures
 3. Demonstrate
and
interpret
the
place
of
popular
cinema
within
a
range
of
cultural
 practices
 4. Devise
and
execute
increasingly
independent
work
which
combines
reflection
on
the
 module
with
further
research

 5. Assemble
and
present
a
piece
of
collaborative
research
using
a
diverse
range
of
visual
 media
and
sources.
 
 
 
 


3



Weekly
outline
–
at
a
glance
 
 Week


Session


Reading


1
 05.10


Introduction


Module
handbook
/
Minerva


2
 12.10


Cinephilia
–
past
and
present


Thomas
Elsaesser,
‘Cinephilia
or
the
Uses
of
 Disenchantment’


3
 19.10


Cinema
cultures
and
the
‘digital
 shift’


Janet
Harbord,
‘Digitalisation
and
its
 discontents’


4
 26.10


Cinema
cultures
projects
 Assessment
workshop


Martin
Barker,
’News,
Reviews,
Clues,
 Interviews…’


5
 02.11


Screening:
Casino
Royale
(2006)


6
 09.11


Bond,
rebooted:

 ideology,
fantasy,
spectatorship


Audrey
D.
Johnson,
‘Male
masochism
in
 Casino
Royale’


7
 16.11


Consuming
007:

 pleasure
and
commodification



Toby
Miller,
‘James
Bond’s
penis’


8
 23.11


Screening:
Star
Wars
Episode
1:
The
Phantom
Menace
(1999)


9
 30.11


The
cinema
of
attractions:

 the
special
effects
blockbuster


Geoff
King
&
Tania
Krzywinska,
‘Case
study:
 Star
Wars
Episode
1:
The
Phantom
Menace’


10
 7.12


The
cinema
of
transactions:
 marketing,
fandom,
convergence


Will
Brooker,
‘The
Fan
Betrayed’


11
 14.12


Project
progress
tutorials
 Christmas
and
New
Year
break


12
 11.01
 13
 18.01


Screening:
Toy
Story
2
(1999)


Animated
stars


Paul
Wells,
‘To
Affinity
and
Beyond’


4



14
 25.01


Leon
Gurevitch,
‘Buzz
Lightyear
to
the
Sales
 Floor!’



Animated
commodities


15
 01.02


Submit
Project
/
Peer
review
workshop


16
 08.02


Screening:
Spirited
Away
(2001)


11.02‐ 15.02


Reading
week


17
 22.02


Orientalism
and
fandom


Susan
Napier,
‘The
disappearing
shõjo’
/
 
 Project
feedback
tutorials
(office
hours)


18
 01.03


Global‐national
cinema


Rayna
Denison,
‘The
global
markets
for
 anime’


19
 08.03


Screening:
Eternal
Sunshine
of
the
Spotless
Mind
(2004)


20
 15.03


Welcome
to
Indiewood!


Geoff
King,
‘Being
Charlie
Kaufman’


21
 22.03


Cinematic
mind‐games


Carolyn
Jess‐Cooke,
‘Narrative
and
 Mediatized
Memory
in
Eternal
Sunshine…’
 Easter
break


22
 19.04


Making
sense
at
the
‘end
of
 cinema’


23
 26.04
 24
 03.05


Elsaesser
&
Hagenar,
‘Digital
cinema:
the
 body
and
the
senses
reconfigured?’


Essay
check
tutorials



Conclusions


Submit
essay


25
 10.05


Marking


26
 17.05


Marking


27
 24.05


Essay
feedback
tutorials


5



Assessment
 There
are
two
forms
of
assessment
on
this
module:
 1. Cinema
Cultures
Project
(2,500
words
per
member
of
group;
50%
of
mark)
 Learning
outcomes:
2,
3,
4,
5.
 
 The
deadline
for
submission
is
6pm
on
Monday
1
February
2013
(Week
15).
 Project
groups
and
topics
are
set
up
in
Week
4;
and
progress
check
tutorials
in
Week
11.

 
 The
Cinema
Cultures
Project
is
a
group
assignment,
which
will
comprise
a
range
of
 information
(texts,
data,
clips,
images,
etc.)
on
a
film
that
you
have
chosen
to
research,
 together
with
your
analyses
of
these
sources.
The
purpose
of
this
assignment
is
to
explore
 and
evaluate
the
different
kinds
of
knowledge
that
we
might
have
about
popular
cinema,
 whether
it
be
personal
or
academic,
commercial
fan‐based
or
theoretically
informed.

 
 What
should
it
look
like?
 This
assignment
is
entirely
web‐based,
using
the
wiki
software
on
Minerva,
which
allows
 you
to
work
collaboratively
as
a
group,
both
simultaneously
and
‘asynchronously.’
Each
 group
will
make
their
own
wiki‐based
project,
which
allows
you
to
add
images
and
video
 clips
(from
YouTube,
for
example)
to
write
about.
The
Week
4
seminar
will
include
a
 workshop
covering
the
use
of
Minerva‐based
wikis.
 
 What
should
go
in
it?
 Your
project
should
aim
to
cover
the
following
elements:
 • How
the
film
was
produced
(personnel,
studio,
locations,
etc)
 • How
the
film
has
been
marketed
(advertising,
websites,
competitions,
packaging,
tie‐in
 products,
DVD/Blu‐ray
releases,
etc)

 • How
 the
 film
 has
 been
 presented
 in
 various
 forms
 of
 media
 coverage
 (reviews,
 interviews,
news,
commentaries,
etc)
 • How
 different
 audiences
 have
 responded
 to
 it
 (fan
 pages,
 blogosphere,
 customer
 reviews,
fan
tributes
and
films,
etc)
 NB.
All
of
your
analyses
should
include
these
example
documents,
clips
or
images
where
 relevant
–
such
as
DVD
or
video
game
packaging,
a
poster,
websites
or
other
publicity
 material
–
but
remember
to
give
full
references
for
your
sources.

 
 How
do
we
do
it?
 In
small
groups
(up
to
three
people),
you
will
be
assigned
a
recent
film
(list
to
be
 confirmed)
in
the
Week
4
seminar.
As
a
team,
you
should
divide
up
the
tasks
indicated
 below
and
work
collaboratively
to
put
the
various
elements
together.
The
Minerva
wiki
 tool
allows
you
to
view,
edit
and
comment
on
each
other’s
work,
and
it
allows
me
to
see
 (and
therefore
mark)
what
each
individual
has
contributed
to
the
final
project.
 
 How
am
I
being
assessed?
 Although
this
assessment
is
a
web‐based
project,
it
remains
an
academic
piece
of
work,
 which
means
that
although
you
are
expected
to
make
use
of
a
range
of
online
resources
 and
the
forms
of
presentation
they
offer,
your
work
will
be
primarily
assessed
according
 to
the
same
scholarly
qualities
and
standards
of
more
‘traditional’
assessments.
Is
your
 analysis
of
your
chosen
texts
coherent
and
well
structured?
Is
it
supported
by
textual
(and
 other)
evidence?

 6



The
purpose
of
this
assessment
is
to
develop
your
skills
of
critical
analysis,
your
 awareness
of
film/cinema
cultures
as
a
set
of
diverse
and
sometimes
conflicting
contact
 zones
between
producers,
marketeers/distributors
and
consumers/fans.
In
addition,
it
 aims
to
develop
your
collaborative
and
project‐planning
skills.
 More
specifically,
this
essay
will
enable
you:
 • • • • •

to
identify
and
explore
in
detail
relevant
‘satellite
texts’
of
a
chosen
film
 to
find,
select
and
analyse
a
wide
range
of
different
online
media
that
help
illuminate
 and
contextualise
a
particular
film
 to
reflect
on
the
importance
of
wider
contextual,
cultural
and
institutional,
factors
in
 the
formation
of
cinema
cultures
 to
develop
the
skills
of
independent
research
and
critical
analysis
of
film
texts
and
 scholarship

 to
become
proficient
in
the
basic
elements
of
website
design
and
communication



 Are
we
being
assessed
on
our
website
design
skills?
 You
are
not
required
to
design
your
own
online
content,
such
as
Flash
animation
or
 Javascript;
but
you
are
expected
to
incorporate
images
(either
online
or
your
own
scans),
 sound
or
video
media
(such
as
YouTube
videos)
and
provide
hyperlinks
to
online
 resources.
In
each
case,
it
must
be
made
clear
where
the
image
or
file
comes
from.

 In
addition,
you
should
give
careful
consideration
to
the
structure
and
layout
of
your
wiki
 essay
–
e.g.
the
division
of
themes
or
topics,
number
of
required
pages,
a
page
for
 references,
choice
of
headings,
placement
of
images
and
so
on.
This
does
not
have
to
be
a
 flashy,
sophisticated
piece
of
design
–
and
it
is
much
more
likely
that
excessively
fussy
and
 overcomplicated
work,
with
lots
of
fonts
and
colours,
will
lose
you
marks.
Your
layout
 should
focus
on
the
text,
not
distract
the
reader
from
it.
Keep
things
clear,
simple
and
the
 finished
work
will
be
the
more
elegant!
 
 How
are
marks
allocated
for
a
group
project?
 In
Week
15,
as
soon
as
all
the
projects
are
submitted
(6pm
on
Monday
1st
February)
they
 will
all
be
accessible
to
the
entire
group
so
that
we
can
conduct
a
peer
review
of
the
work
 in
that
week’s
session
(Friday
5th
February).
This
feedback
will
inform
the
following
 distribution
of
marks
for
each
project
group:
 • •

overall
group
mark
for
the
project
(50%)
 individual
mark
for
each
member’s
contribution
(50%)


You
will
receive
initial
(oral)
feedback
on
the
project
in
Week
15
–
and
written
 feedback
in
Week
18
(tutorial
slots
to
be
available
on
Monday
25
February).
 
 2.


Essay
(2,500
words;
50%
of
mark)
 Learning
outcomes:
1,
2,
3,
4
 
 The
deadline
for
submission
is
6pm
Friday
3
May
2013
(Week
24).
 
 The
essay
is
an
individual
assignment.
You
must
choose
one
question
from
the
following
 list.
The
questions
correspond
to
the
key
concepts
and
themes
of
the
module.
You
are
 expected
to
undertake
detailed
research
into
your
chosen
topic,
and
you
essay
should
 demonstrate
clear
evidence
of
further
reading
and
engagement
with
a
range
of
sources,


7



including
examples
of
films
or
other
cinematic
‘texts’
–
you
are
not
limited
to
the
films
we
 have
studied
on
this
module.
 
 1. ‘Cinephilia
in
an
era
of
DVDs
is
associated
with
ownership
in
the
home
space,
rather
 than
with
spectatorship
in
the
theatrical
space.’
(Hudson
&
Zimmerman)
How
have
 digital
transformations
in
the
distribution
and
consumption
of
film
affected
our
 relation
to
popular
cinema?
 2. ‘By
establishing
a
critical
vocabulary
and
appropriate
frames
of
reference,
reviews
do
 not
tell
“audiences
what
to
think
so
much
as…
what
to
think
about.”’
(Barbara
Klinger)
 How
important
are
film
reviews
amongst
all
the
other
‘satellite
texts’
that
circulate
 contemporary
films?
 3. ‘Bond
is
the
first
screen
action
hero
to
employ
and
address
the
new,
fragile
pleasure
of
 the
commodity.’
(Toby
Miller)
What
does
the
evolution
of
James
Bond
tell
us
about
the
 relation
of
commodification
and
cinema?
 4. ‘It’s
not
the
real
world,
but
cinematic
representations
of
the
world
which
have
become
 our
ground
of
comparison.’
(Scott
McQuire)
What
are
the
consequences
of
this
shift
for
 our
understanding
the
problem
of
representing
the
‘real’
in
contemporary
cinema?
 5. ‘Fan
digital
film
is
to
cinema
what
the
punk
DIY
culture
was
to
music.’
(Henry
Jenkins)
 Is
he
correct?
 6. Answer
Barbara
Creed’s
question:
‘What
difference
will
it
make
if
the
spectator
knows
 that
the
actor,
or
composite
actor,
who
appears
to
be
a
figure
of
flesh
and
blood
was
 “born”
in
a
virtual
world?’

 7. Paul
Wells
argues
that
the
animated
nature
of
CGI
stars,
such
as
Woody
and
Buzz,
 ‘changes
the
nature
of
how
the
idea
of
acting,
performance
and
art
may
be
 reconfigured’.
Do
you
agree?
 8. As
‘animation’
technologies
become
increasingly
a
routine
part
of
‘live‐action’
 cinematic
production,
do
you
agree
with
Lev
Manovich
(2001)
that
all
film
is
now
a
 kind
of
animation?

 9. What
forms
of
‘Japaneseness’
do
the
films
of
Hayao
Miyazaki
and/or
Studio
Ghibli
 project?
 10. Critically
examine
and
evaluate
the
techniques
and
strategies
employed
in
the
cultural
 translation
of
a
single
film,
or
genre,
from
one
national
popular
cinema
culture
to
 another.
 11. In
what
ways
have
‘new
indie’,
or
‘Indiewood’,
films
drawn
upon
contemporary
social
 concerns
about
the
meaning
and
portrayals
of
masculinity
challenge
codes
of
gender
 representation
from
previous
decades?
 12. ‘[Puzzle
films
help
us]
to
reflect
on
the
different
ways
in
which
the
past
is
given
to
us
in
 its
traces
in
the
present’
(Stephen
White).
Why
do
you
think
so
many
contemporary
 popular
films
seemingly
preoccupied
with
the
fragmentation
of
narrative
and
 memory?
 
 You
will
find
relevant
and
useful
journals
in
the
Library
and
further
resources
available
via
 the
LIS
web
pages.
Lists
of
recommended
academic
journals
and
non‐academic/online
 resources
are
given
at
the
end
of
this
handbook.

 8



You
will
receive
feedback
on
the
essay
in
tutorials
that
take
place
in
Week
27.

 
 Feedback
 Feedback
on
the
progress
of
your
learning
is
regularly
embedded
in
your
course
activities
 throughout
the
year.
Only
by
knowing
what,
how,
and
how
much
progress
you
are
making
 in
your
learning
can
we
as
tutors
understand
the
impact
of
our
various
teaching
activities
 on
you
and
adjust
these
to
optimize
your
learning.
So,
you
will
be
asked
to
undertake
 assignments
of
various
kinds,
these
will
then
be
marked
and
you
will
be
given
various
 sorts
of
feedback
so
that
you
may
develop
your
skills
and
work
techniques
for
the
next
 assignment
or
in
other
courses.

 
 Your
feedback
in
this
module
will
take
place:
 • during
regular
seminar
discussion
(orally,
individually)
 • during
the
peer
review
workshop
in
Week
15
(orally,
as
a
seminar
group)
 • on
the
project
wiki
comments
page
(written,
as
a
group)
 • in
project
feedback
tutorials
in
Week
18
(orally,
as
a
group)
 • on
the
coversheet
of
your
essay
(written,
individually)
 • in
essay
feedback
tutorials
in
Week
27
(orally,
individually)
 
 
 Referencing

 Referencing
for
all
assessments
in
Cultural
Studies
can
follow
either
the
Harvard
System
 or
the
numeric
systems,
whichever
you
are
more
familiar
with.
You
can
download
a
short
 guide
to
both
systems
from
the
Minerva
[>Assessment].

 
 Submission
of
coursework

 Submitting
your
project
 This
is
very
easy
indeed.
You
don’t
need
to
do
anything
to
‘submit’
this
assessment,
since
 the
Minerva
wiki
software
will
simply
close
for
editing
after
the
deadline.
 Submitting
your
essay
 You
must
submit
a
paper
and
electronic
copies
of
this
assessment.
Please
put
the
paper
 copy
of
your
essay
in
the
Cultural
Studies
submission
dropbox
outside
NE.G04.

 Before
submitting
your
essay,
please
run
through
this
checklist:
 1. Is
it
word‐processed,
printed
clearly
in
11pt
or
12pt
Times
New
Roman
(or
similar),
 1.5
or
double‐spaced
and
numbered
pages?
 2. Is
the
essay
question
(or
assignment
title)
indicated
at
the
top
of
the
first
page?
 3. Is
it
referenced
throughout
(using
a
recognized
referencing
system)
with
a
complete
 bibliography
of
sources?
 4. Have
you
securely
attached
a
completed
and
signed
assessment
cover
sheet
–
 including
the
module
code
(FL5005)
and
title,
the
assignment
title,
your
seminar
 group
–
and
covered
over
your
name?
(Please
DO
NOT
include
your
name
or
student
 number
anywhere
else.)
 5. Finally:
have
you
also
submitted
your
assignment
via
the
TurnItIn
dropbox
on
 Minerva?
(>Assessment>Essay>Dropbox)


9



NB.
Useful
guidance
on
how
to
submit
your
coursework
via
Minerva
can
be
found
on
the
 BSU
IT‐Help
pages
here:

 http://it‐help.bathspa.ac.uk/onepage_jisc_plag_minerva_student_quickguide.html

 If
you
have
any
questions
about
the
assessments
on
this
module,
please
let
me
know
as
 soon
as
possible.
Remember
to
make
use
of
my
available
tutorial
times
to
discuss
and
plan
 your
assignments.

 Tutorials
–
If
you
have
any
questions
about
these
assignments,
please
come
to
see
me
for
 a
tutorial.
Remember
that
my
office
hours
are
there
for
you
to
use
to
discuss
and
plan
your
 assignments.

 Remember
to
back­up
your
work
–
You
can
use
a
back‐up
device,
such
as
a
'memory‐ stick',
but
also
make
use
of
your
'S­drive'
on
the
BSU
network.
(You
can
get
help
from
 support
staff
in
Computing
Services
about
this,
or
see
the
posters
in
PC
rooms.)
 
 Grade
descriptors
 
 Grade
 Knowledge
 1


 Outstanding





 80+
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Exceptional





 75
 
 
 
 
 
 Excellent









 70


Presentation/expression


Argument


Work
whose
 argument
is
well‐ structured
to
reflect
a
 process
of
thought
 and
enquiry
that
 combines
into
a
whole
 to
reach
a
conclusion
 that
is
persuasive
and
 may
be
surprising.
It
 shows
ability
to
read
 and
interpret
primary
 
 sources
sensitively
 
 Work
that
shows
 and
critically
in
order
 Work
that
follows
the
 comprehensive
knowledge
 to
develop
its
 appropriate
academic
 of
primary
texts
and
their
 argument.

It
reads
 conventions
accurately.

Its
 relevant
context.

This
 secondary
sources
 tone
and
register
are
 knowledge
extends
in
 sceptically
and
 flexible
and
well‐judged,
 some
directions
well
 critically,
entering
 and
it
presents
 beyond
what
is
 debate
with
them
and
 sophisticated
and
complex
 ‘prescribed’
by
the
module
 using
them
as
a
 ideas

confidently,
clearly
 documentation,
lectures
 springboard
to
launch
 and
engagingly.
 and
seminars.
 its
own
 interpretations.
It
 demonstrates
a
 sophisticated
critical
 interrogation
of
the
 assigned
 question/topic.

 Outstanding
work
will
 throw
a
new
and
 original
light
on
the
 issue/text(s)
under
 discussion.


10



Grade


Knowledge


Presentation/expression


2.1
 Very
good







 65+
 
 
 
 Work
that
shows
a
good
 
 knowledge
of
the
primary
 
 text(s)
and
the
relevant
 context.

It
has
a
good
 
 
 foundation
in
the
 
 prescribed
reading
and
 Good












60+
 builds
on
ideas
put
 forward
in
lectures
and
 seminars.

It
shows
 evidence
of
reading
in
 relevant
and
worthwhile
 secondary
sources.


2.2
 Competent



 55+
 
 
 
 Acceptable



 50+


3
 Poor















 45+
 
 
 Barely

 Competent




 40+


Argument



 Work
whose
 argument
is
well‐ structured
and
leads
 
 to
a
clear
conclusion.

 Work
that
follows
 It
supports
its
 appropriate
academic
 argument
with
 conventions
well.

It
is
 quotation
and,
where
 fluently
written
and
 appropriate,
close
 expresses
arguments
and
 reading.
It
recognises
 ideas
clearly
in
an
 the
existence
of
 alternative
points
of
 appropriate
academic
 register.

It
is
properly
 view
and
debates
with
 paragraphed
and
integrates
 and
develops
points
 quotations
correctly
.
 made
in
secondary
 sources.

It
shows
 evidence
of
real
 critical
engagement
 with
texts.
 
 
 
 Work
that
shows
 Work
that
follows
academic
 Work
that
contains
 familiarity
with
the
main
 conventions
well
and
 relevant
but
basic
 features
of
the
primary
 without
systematic
errors.

 points
that
 text(s).

Refers
to
relevant
 It
is
clearly
expressed
and
 accumulate
to
reach
a
 secondary
sources.
 shows
an
intention
to
 point
of
view
about
 emulate
an
appropriate
 the
question/topic.

 academic
register.
It
is
 Its
points
are
 properly
paragraphed.


 supported
by
 There
may
be
weaknesses
 quotation,
but
do
not
 in
expression
and
 demonstrate
a
very
 presentation.
 penetrating
critical
 response.
 
 
 
 Work
that
shows
faulty
 Academic
conventions
 Work
that
addresses
 and
inaccurate
knowledge
 poorly
observed.

Difficulty
 the
question/topic
in
 of
the
primary
text(s).

 in
expressing
ideas
in
an
 an
elementary
way
 Secondary
sources
are
 appropriate
register.

 and
with
little
 unreliable
and
of
little
or
 Frequent
errors
in
 understanding.

Little
 no
academic
value.
 punctuation
and
syntax.

 or
no
relevant
 Quotations
improperly
 reference
to
the
 integrated,
leading
to
 primary
text(s)
or
 syntactic
chaos.
 supporting
evidence
 from
them.


11



Grade


Knowledge


Presentation/expression


Argument


F
 
 
 
 Unacceptable

0
 Work
that
shows
little
or
 Work
that
makes
little
 Work
that
has
no
 ‐
39
 no
first
hand
knowledge
of
attempt
to
observe
the
 structured
argument
 
 the
texts
and
what
has
 academic
conventions
for
 and
shows
little
 [Work
can
also
 been
argued
about
them
 the
type
of
assessment
 evidence
that
the
 fail
for
rubric
 by
others.


 concerned.

It
shows
a
poor
 student
can
 infringement,
 command
of
written
English
distinguish
between
 non‐submission
 (syntax,
register,
 points
that
are
 or
submission
 punctuation
and
spelling)
so
relevant
and
those
 after
cut­off
date
 that
it
fails
to
communicate
 that
are
irrelevant
to
 or
without
an
 effectively.


 the
requirements
of
 agreed
 the
assessment.

It
 extension,
non‐ shows
little
or
no
 submission
on
 understanding
of
how
 Turnitin,
or
 either
primary
or
 because
of
 secondary
texts
 unfair
practice.]
 should
be
used
in
 constructing
an
 argument.
 
 Notes
 Column
1
gives
the
main
grades
and
rough
definition
of
different
levels
within
the
grade
 band.

The
other
columns
describe
the
characteristic
attainment
at
the
given
grade
in
 terms
of
knowledge,
expression/presentation,
and
argument.

 In
any
given
case
it
is
possible
for
work
to
fit
different
grade‐bands
in
these
three
aspects,
 and
this
will
affect
its
final
mark.

In
general,
however,
unless
there
are
particular
 problems
(such
as
those
caused
by
dyslexia),
discrepancies
are
likely
to
be
minor,
and
the
 work
will
conform
pretty
closely
in
all
respects
to
the
combined
description
of
the
grade‐ band
it
is
awarded.

The
three
aspects
in
general
have
roughly
equal
weighting,
but
are
not
 numerically
assessed
separately
from
each
other.
 
 General
bibliography
 You
can
find
more
specific
recommendations
for
further
reading
listed
on
Minerva
 (>Schedule).

 
 Austin,
T.
(2002)
Hollywood,
Hype
and
Audiences:
selling
and
watching
popular
film
in
the
 1990s.
Manchester
University
Press.
 Austin,
T.
&
Barker,
M.
eds.
(2003)
Contemporary
Hollywood
Stardom.
London:
Arnold.
 Barker,
M.
&
Austin,
T.
(2000)
From
Antz
to
Titanic:
Reinventing
Film
Analysis.
London:
 Pluto
Press.

 Betton,
J.
ed.
(1996)
Movies
and
Mass
Culture.
London:
Athlone
Press.
 Branston,
G.
(2002)
Cinema
and
Cultural
Modernity.
Maidenhead:
Open
University
Press.
 Braudy,
L.
&
Cohen,
M.
eds.
(1999)
Film
Theory
and
Criticism:
Introductory
Readings.
Fifth
 edition.
New
York
&
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
 Brooker,
W.
(2003)
The
Audience
Studies
Reader.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.


12



Burton,
J.
ed.
(2006)
‘21st
Century
Film
Studies:
A
Scope
Reader’
[online].
Scope:
an
online
 journal
of
film
studies.
University
of
Nottingham,
UK.
Available
at:
 http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/reader/index.php
 Byrne,
E.
&
McQuillan,
M.
(1999)
Deconstructing
Disney.
London:
Pluto
Press.
 Cartmell,
D.
et
al.,
eds.
(1997)
Alien
Identities:
Exploring
Differences
in
Fiction
and
Film.
 London:
Pluto
Press.
 ‐‐
eds.
(1997)
Trash
Aesthetics:
Popular
Culture
and
its
Audience.
London:
Pluto
Press.
 Charney,
L.
(1998)
Empty
Moments:
Cinema,
Modernity,
and
Drift.
Duke
University
Press.
 Collins,
J.
et
al.,
eds.
(1993)
Film
Theory
Goes
to
the
Movies.
New
York
&
London:
Routledge.
 Constable,
C.
(2005)
Thinking
in
Images:
Film
Theory,
Feminist
Philosophy
and
Marlene
 Dietrich.
London:
BFI.

 Corrigan,
T.
(2001)
A
Short
Guide
to
Writing
About
Film.
Fourth
edition.
Longman.
 Cubitt,
S.
(1991)
Timeshift:
On
Video
Culture.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.

 ‐‐
(1993)
Videography:
Video
Media
as
Art
and
Culture.
London:
Macmillan.
 ‐‐
(2004)
The
Cinema
Effect.
Cambridge,
MA
&
London:
MIT
Press.
 Deleuze,
G.
(1989)
Cinema
2:
The
Time­Image.
London:
Athlone
Press.
 Derrida,
J.
(1996)
Archive
Fever:
A
Freudian
Impression.
Chicago
UP.
 Dixon,
W.
W.
(1999)
Disaster
and
Memory:
Celebrity
Culture
and
the
Crisis
of
Hollywood
 Cinema.
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press.

 Doane,
M.
A.
(2002)
The
Emergence
of
Cinematic
Time:
Modernity,
Contingency,
the
Archive.
 Harvard
University
Press.
 During,
S.
ed.
(1999)
The
Cultural
Studies
Reader.
Various
editions.
London
&
New
York:
 Routledge.
 Dyer,
R.
(1986)
Heavenly
Bodies:
Films
Stars
and
Society.
London:
Macmillan.
 ‐‐
(1999)
The
Matter
of
Images:
Essays
on
Representation.
2nd
edition.
London
&
New
York:
 Routledge.
 Ellis,
J.
(1992)
Visible
Fictions:
Film,
Television,
Video.
Revised
edition.
London
&
New
York:
 Routledge.
 Elsaesser,
T.
&
Hagener,
M.
(2010)
Film
Theory:
An
introducton
through
the
senses.
New
 York
&
London:
Routledge.
 Fiske,
J.
(1991)
Reading
the
Popular.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 Frampton,
D.
(2006)
Filmosophy.
London:
Wallflower.

 Friedberg,
A.
(1994)
Window
Shopping:
Cinema
and
the
Postmodern.
University
of
 California
Press.
 Fuery,
P.
(2000)
New
Developments
in
Film
Theory.
Macmillan.
 Giroux,
H.
(2000)
Impure
Acts:
The
Practical
Politics
of
Cultural
Studies.
New
York
&
 London:
Routledge.

 Gledhill,
C.,
ed.
(1991)
Stardom:
Industry
of
Desire.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 Gledhill,
C.
&
Williams,
L.
eds.
(2000)
Reinventing
Film
Studies.
London:
Arnold.
 Gormley,
P.
(2005)
The
New­Brutality
Film:
Race
and
Affect
in
Contemporary
Hollywood
 Cinema.
Bristol:
Intellect.
 13



Gray,
A.
(1992)
Video
Playtime:
The
Gendering
of
Leisure
Technology.
London
&
New
York:
 Routledge.
 Hartley,
J.
(1992)
Politics
of
Pictures:
The
Creation
of
the
Public
in
the
Age
of
Popular
Media.
 London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 Hermes,
J.
(2005)
Re­Reading
Popular
Culture.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
 *
Hill,
J.
&
Church
Gibson,
P.
eds.
(1998)
The
Oxford
Guide
to
Film
Studies.
Oxford
University
 Press.
 Hills,
M.
(2002)
Fan
Cultures.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 Hollows,
J.,
Hutchings,
P.
&
Jancovich,
M.
eds.
(2000)
The
Film
Studies
Reader.
London:
 Arnold.

 *
Hollows,
J.
&
Jankovich,
M.
eds.
(1995)
Approaches
to
Popular
Film.
Manchester
 University
Press.
 hooks,
b.
(1996)
Reel
to
Real:
Race,
Sex
and
Class
at
the
Movies.
London
&
New
York:
 Routledge.
 Jameson,
F.
(1996)
‘Postmodernism
and
Consumer
Society.’
Movies
and
Mass
Culture.
Ed.
J.
 Belton.
London:
Athlone,
185‐202.
 Jenkins,
H.
(1992)
Textual
Poachers:
Television
Fans
and
Participatory
Culture.
London
&
 New
York:
Routledge.
Esp.
Chapters
1‐3.
 ‐‐
(2000)
‘Reception
theory
and
audience
research:
the
mystery
of
the
vampire’s
kiss.’
In:
 Gledhill
&
Williams,
eds.
Reinventing
Film
Studies.
London:
Arnold,
165‐182.
 King,
G.
(2002)
New
Hollywood
Cinema:
An
Introduction.
London
&
New
York:
I.B.Tauris.
 King,
G.,
ed.
(2005)
The
Spectacle
of
the
Real:
From
Hollywood
to
Reality
TV
and
Beyond.
 Bristol:
Intellect.
 King,
G.
&
Krzywinska,
T.
(2002)
Tomb
Raiders
and
Space
Invaders:
Videogame
Forms
and
 Contexts.
London
&
New
York:
I.B.Tauris.
 King,
G.
&
Krzywinska,
T.,
eds.
(2002)
ScreenPlay:
Cinema
/
Videogames
/
Interfaces.
 London:
Wallflower
Press.
 Kuhn,
A.
ed.
Alien
Zone:
Cultural
Theory
and
Contemporary
Science
Fiction
Cinema.
Verso,
 1990.
 ‐‐
 Alien
Zone
II.
Verso,
1999.
 *
McDonald,
P.
(2000)
The
Star
System:
Hollywood’s
Production
of
Popular
Identities.
 London:
Wallflower
Press.
 Maltby,
R.
&
Stokes,
S.
eds.
(1999)
Identifying
Hollywood’s
Audiences:
Cultural
Identity
and
 the
Movies.
London:
BFI
Publishing.


 Manovich,
L.
(2002)
The
Language
of
New
Media.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
 *
Monaco,
J.
(2000)
How
to
Read
a
Film:
Movies,
Media,
Multimedia.
Third
edition.
Oxford
 University
Press.
 Morley,
D.
(1992)
‘Private
Worlds
and
Gendered
Technologies’.
Television,
Audiences
and
 Cultural
Studies.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 Mullarkey,
J.
(2009)
Refractions
of
Reality:
Philosophy
and
the
Moving
Image.
Basingstoke:
 Palgrave
Macmillan.
 Neale,
S.
&
Smith,
M.
eds.
(1998)
Contemporary
Hollywood
Cinema.
London
&
New
York:
 Routledge.
 14



Phan,
M.‐H.
T.
(2004)
‘The
Asian
Invasion
(of
Multiculturalism)
in
Hollywood’.
Journal
of
 Popular
Film
and
Television,
32:3
(Fall):
121‐31.
 Prince,
S.
(1994)
A
New
Pot
of
Gold:
Hollywood
Under
the
Electronic
Rainbow,
1980­1989.
 University
of
California
Press.
 Rombes,
N.
(2005)
New
Punk
Cinema.
Edinburgh
University
Press.
 Sardar,
Z.
&
Cubitt,
S.,
eds.
Aliens
R
Us:
The
Other
in
Science
Fiction
Cinema.
London:
Pluto
 Press.
 Schneider,
S.
J.,
ed.
(2004)
New
Hollywood
Violence.
Manchester
University
Press.
 Shaviro,
S.
(1993)
The
Cinematic
Body.
Minneapolis:
University
of
Minnesota
Press.
 Stacey,
J.
(1994)
Star
Gazing:
Hollywood
cinema
and
female
spectatorship.
London:
 Routledge.
 Staiger,
J.
(2000)
Perverse
Spectators:
The
practices
of
film
reception.
New
York
University
 Press.
 Stam,
R.
(2000)
Film
Theory:
An
Introduction.
Oxford:
Blackwell.

 Stokes,
M.
(1999)
Identifying
Hollywood's
Audiences:
Cultural
identity
and
the
movies.
 London:
BFI
Publishing.
 Storey,
J.,
ed.
(1994)
Cultural
Theory
and
Popular
Culture:
A
Reader.
Brighton:
Harvester
 Wheatsheaf.
 Tasker,
Y.
(1998)
Working
Girls:
Gender
and
Sexuality
in
Popular
Cinema.
London
&
New
 York:
Routledge.
 Tinkcom,
M.
&
Villarejo,
A.
eds.
(2001)
Keyframes:
Popular
Cinema
and
Cultural
Studies.
 London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 *
Turner,
G.
(1999)
Film
as
Social
Practice.
Third
edition.
London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 Weber,
S.
(1996)
Mass
Mediauras:
Form,
Technics,
Media.
Stanford
University
Press.
 Williams,
L.,
ed.
(1994)
Viewing
Positions:
Ways
of
Seeing
Film.
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Rutgers
 University
Press.
 Willis,
H.
(2005)
New
Digital
Cinema:
Reinventing
the
moving
image.
London:
Wallflower.
 Žižek,
S.
(1992)
Looking
Awry:
An
Introduction
to
Jacques
Lacan
through
Popular
Culture.
 Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
 ‐‐
(2001)
Enjoy
Your
Symptom!
Jacques
Lacan
in
Hollywood
and
out.
Second
edition.
 London
&
New
York:
Routledge.
 ‐‐
(2001)
The
Fright
of
Real
Tears:
Krzysztof
Kieslowski
between
Theory
and
Post­Theory.
 London:
BFI
Publishing.
 
 Recommended
academic
journals
 
 Animation
Journal
[SH
only]
 Cineaste
 Convergence
 Cultural
Critique
 Cultural
Studies
 15



Film­Philosophy
[online].
Available
at:
http://www.film‐philosophy.com/

 Journal
of
Popular
Culture
 Journal
of
Popular
Film
and
Television
 New
Media
and
Society
 Particip@tions:
Journal
of
Audience
and
Reception
Studies
[online].
Available
at:
 http://www.participations.org/


 Scope:
an
online
journal
of
film
studies
[online].
Available
at:
 http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/index.php


 Screen
 
 Recommended
non­academic
/
online
resources
 
 Box
Office
Guru
‐
www.boxofficeguru.com/
 Bright
Lights
Film
Journal
‐
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/
 British
Film
Institute
‐

www.bfi.org.uk/
 Cinefiles
database
‐
www.mip.berkeley.edu/cinefiles/film_query.html

 Frames
Per
Second
(animation
magazine
blog)
‐
 http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blog/index.php

 Images:
A
Journal
of
Film
and
Popular
Culture
‐
http://www.imagesjournal.com/

 The
Internet
Movie
Database
(IMDb)
‐
www.imdb.com/

 Jump
Cut:
A
Review
of
Contemporary
Media
­
http://www.ejumpcut.org/home.html

 Senses
of
Cinema
[online].
Available
at:
www.sensesofcinema.com/
 Sight
&
Sound
[in
Library
&
online]
‐
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/


16


Popular Cinema and Culture 2012-13  

Module handbook for FL5005

Advertisement