1
Contemporary American Cinema: Final Paper
Each student is required to submit a 2,000 response to ONE of the following questions:
1. As both King and Newman argue, the Indiewood films of the mid-to-late 1990s and the
2000s were seen to balance elements primarily associated with Hollywood cinema with
markers of distinction that, from an Anglo-American perspective, tend to be associated with
“art cinema” or “quality cinema”. Explain the commercial logic driving this key aspect of
“Hollywood” output, and how it takes unique form in an Indiewood film that has not been
screened on this course.
2. While most scholars frame the twenty-first century blockbuster as a culmination point for
the high concept mode that developed across the contemporary period, this period also
witnessed a return to the “internationalized” ultra-high-end cinema of the 1950s and
1960s.Thus, since the late 1990s, and especially since the year 2000, the content of most of
Hollywood’s calculated blockbusters has been deliberately tailored to make them both
marketable and appealing to key non-US audiences, as well as the “domestic” North
American market. Explain why this is the case and how it is reflected in the content and
themes of ONE twenty-first-century calculated blockbuster that has not been screened on this
course.
With respect to both prompts, you may use any film of your choosing so long as that film has
not been screened on this course.
I strongly advise students contact me regarding their choice of film.
Presentation
The paper is to be typed in size 12 Times New Roman (or a similar, easily readable font). It is
to be double-spaced or 1.5 spaced, with 2.5 cm margins at either side of the page. Each page
is to be numbered. US or UK spellings are accepted. Titles of films, TV series, books etc. are
to be italicized with the year of original US release included in parentheses after the first
citation only (e.g. Jaws (1975); thereafter Jaws). All quotations are to be placed in double
2
inverted commas (e.g. Smith describes the period as a “golden age for Stephen Spielberg”).
Imbedded quotations are to appear in single inverted commas (e.g. Smith goes on to suggest
“Spielberg knew the ‘good times’ were over by 1991”). For quotations of 40 words or longer,
omit commas, single space, and indent at either side by 2cm (additional to the 2.5 cm
margins) on a separate line.
Footnotes
References should be in Oxford Style. Please use an automated numbering system.
Book:
John Caughie, Television Drama: Realism, Modernism and British Culture (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
Edited book:
Jonathan Bignell, Stephen Lacy and Madeleine Macmurraugh-Kavanagh (eds), British
Television Drama: Past, Present and Future (New York, NY, and Houndmills: Palgrave,
2000).
Article in own book:
Dai Vaughan, ‘Rooting for Magoo: a tentative politics of the zoom lens’, in On
Documentary: Twelve Essays (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), p. 144.
Article in someone else’s book:
Bruno Latour, ‘The Prince for machines as well as for machinations’, in Brian Elliot (ed.),
Technology and Social Process (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988), p. 33.
Article in journal:
3
Madeleine Macmurraugh-Kavanagh, ‘The BBC and the birth of “The Wednesday Play”,
1964-70: institutional containment versus “agitational contemporaneity”’, Historical Journal
of Film, Radio and Television, vol. 17, no. 3 (1997), pp. 67-84.
Translation:
Michel Ciment, John Boorman, trans. Gilbert Adair (London: Faber and Faber, 1986), p. 45.
Follow-on references:
Ciment, John Boorman, p. 47.
Macmurraugh-Kavanagh, ‘The BBC and the birth of “The Wednesday Play”’, p. 59.
Latour, ‘The Prince for machines’.
Bignell et al. (eds), British Television Drama.
Or, if referring to directly previous footnote, use ‘Ibid., p. 59.’ Just ‘Ibid.’ if page reference is
the same.
Internet references:
Address in angle brackets; access date in square brackets.
The Deanna Durbin Page,
<http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/5228/ddpage.html> [accessed 7 April
2001].
See Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the Al Quds Force, and other
intelligence and paramilitary forces’ (rough working draft), 16 August 2007, Centre for
Strategic and International Studies,
<www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070816_cordesman_report.pdf> [accessed 24 September
2008], p. 10.
Details
4
Value: 50% of Final Grade
Deadline: Midnight CET Sunday 8 December 2013
(Please send as PDF or Word file to richard_nowell@hotmail.com)
Penalties for Late Submission of Work
On the day following the due date – 5 marks out of 100 deducted
On the 2nd
day following the due to date – 10 marks out of 100 deducted
On the 3rd
day following the due date – 15 marks out of 100 deducted
On the 4th day following the due date – 20 marks out of 100 deducted
After the 4th
day following the due date – all marks deducted
Grading/Evaluation: Grades from 1-4 will be awarded based on the following criteria:
Argumentation/Understand
ing
Sources/Evidence Communication
1
70<
Insightful, vigorous, and
demonstrating considerable
depth of understanding and a
significant amount of original
thought; addressing question
directly through a wholly
coherent synthesis of ideas;
demonstrating a degree of
mastery over subject;
demonstrating a deep and
thorough understanding of
key concepts.
A wide range of sources
consulted; sources
employed with
significant
discrimination and
sound judgment;
thorough assessment of
evidence; use of a broad
range of examples.
Near-Faultless
typography and
layout; near-flawless
turns of phrase and
expression;
sophisticated and
precise vocabulary;
clear structure;
exemplary citation
and bibliography.
2
55–69.9
Perceptive and insightful;
some evidence of original
thought; for the most part
addressing question directly;
mainly coherent synthesis of
ideas; thorough and
somewhat critical
understanding of key
concepts.
A fairly wide range of
sources consulted; solid
assessment of evidence;
sophisticated use of a
fairly broad range of
examples.
Very Solid
typography and
layout; few errors in
grammar; mainly
sophisticated turns of
phrase and
expression; mostly
clear structure;
strong citation and
bibliography.
3
40–54.9
Solid understanding
addressed, for the most part,
to the question; good
synthesis of ideas; reasonably
solid understanding of key
Several sources
consulted; evidence of
some assessment of
evidence; use of mostly
workable examples.
Good typography
and layout;
comprehensible and
largely error-free
grammar, turns of
5
concepts; evidence of gaps in
knowledge and some minor
misunderstandings of key
concepts.
phrase, and
expression;
reasonable clearly
structured; some
attempt to provide
citation and
bibliography.
4 (Fail)
<40
Barely if it all addressed to
question; no real synthesis of
ideas; mainly descriptive
rather than analytical; weak
and patchy understanding of
key concepts; significant gaps
in knowledge and
misunderstanding of key
concepts.
Restricted range of
sources consulted;
superficial
understanding of
evidence; limited range
of examples, many of
which are
inappropriate.
Poor typography and
layout; numerous
errors of grammar;
limited vocabulary;
ambiguous or
inaccurate turns of
phrase; weak or
missing citations and
bibliography.