1
Title: KEY TRENDS IN AMERICAN FILM
Language: English
Semester: Fall 2014
Time: Every Second Thursday, 14:10-17:25 [comprising film screening and lecture/seminar]
Location: TBA
Coordinator: Dr. Richard Nowell
Contact: richard_nowell@hotmail.com
Course Description and Purpose
This course offers students insights into the ways in which socio-political discourses have
shaped the production, content, and themes of American motion pictures. The course
encourages students to take up more nuanced and pragmatic positions to the relationships
between these two phenomena than those posited by the preeminent socio-symptomatic and
ideological analyses, both of which have been guilty of reducing the commercial and creative
forces behind films to mere ciphers of the irresistible force of the zeitgeist. Rather than
considering films to be simply signs of the times or unwitting witnesses to the mores and
values of American society, this course invites students to think about how the American film
industry uses and appropriates socio-political discourses in a rational and strategic fashion in
order to make its products attractive and relevant to targeted audiences. Students will explore
these issues in relation to six of Hollywood’s most high-profile topical production trends of
the last forty years: the Blaxploitation cycle of the early-to-mid 1970s, women-in-danger
films of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the New Cold War Cinema of the mid-late 1980s,
Gen-X cinema of the early-to-mid 1990s, the Family Film of the 1990s (and beyond), and the
Post-9/11 cinema of the mid-to-late 2000s.
Course Goals and Student Learning Objectives
Key Trends in American Film aims to facilitate students’ deeper understanding of the
relationships that exist between, on the one hand, the content and themes of American
mainstream cinema, and, on the other hand, certain prominent social, cultural, political
discourses circulating the public (and private) sphere. In doing so, the course will seek to
familiarize students with important and transferable critical tools, frameworks, approaches,
2
and skills that will serve to deepen their capacity to engage with, and to read, audiovisual
texts critically both on, and hopefully outside of, the course. Key Trends in American Cinema
aims to enable students to appreciate that the interplay between texts and contexts is more
than a simple “sign of the times” but is characterized by complex processes of mediation,
selection, and interpretation at the levels of production, promotion, and reception.
By the end of the course, students will be expected to posses: the critical abilities to produce
insightful analysis of film texts; the skills necessary to conduct sound contextual analysis; the
demonstrable capacity to synthesize original ideas in a lucid and coherent manner, both
verbally and in writing; a solid understanding of the complex social, cultural, historical, and
political relationships that have shaped important aspects of American cinematic output (and
by implication different forms of audiovisual media produced both inside and outside of the
US); and solid understanding of debates circulating the case-studies that comprise the course.
Texts and Resources
Students are expected actively to contribute to seminar discussions, which will center on the
mandatory film screenings, the mandatory readings, and critical analyses thereof.
Accordingly, students are required to study all of the relevant set readings before each class.
All of the readings will, well before the first day of the semester, be available in PDF form to
download from the course website. Students are advised to bring to class hard copies of the
relevant readings as use of electronic devices will not be permitted during seminars.
One-on-One Tutorials
All students are invited to arrange one-on-one tutorials to discuss assignments and/or any
issues arising from the course. Meetings can be arranged by email and can take place at a
location and time of mutual convenience.
Assignments
Mid-term Paper
3
Value: 40% of Final Grade
Each student is to submit a 2,000 word essay in based on a topic introduced in sessions 1–3.
A choice of three prompts will be announced on Friday 17 October 2014.
Deadline: 12:00 CET Sunday 26 October 2014
Final Paper
Value: 60% of Final Grade
Each student is to submit a 2,000 word essay in based on a topic introduced in sessions 4–6.
A choice of three prompts will be announced on Friday 28 November 2014.
Deadline: 12:00 CET Friday 12 December 2014
All Essays are to be submitted in PDF or word format to richard_nowell@hotmail.com
Late Submission of Work
Penalties
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
Exemptions
Penalties are waved on medical and compassionate grounds (e.g. familial bereavement) only;
please do not enquire about the waving of penalties on other grounds incase refusal offends.
Feedback
Each student will be emailed individually with detailed personal feedback on his or her midterm
paper and final paper. This feedback is designed to be constructive so will spotlight
strengths and any possible shortcomings.
Grading/Evaluation:
4
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.
1.5
(65-69.9)
Perceptive and insightful;
some evidence of original
thought; mainly addressing
prompt 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.
2
(60-64.9)
Strong understanding
addressed, for the most part,
to the prompt; a synthesis of
ideas; solid understanding of
key concepts; evidence of
minor gaps in knowledge,
and minor misunderstandings
of key concepts.
Several relevant 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
phrase, and
expression; clearly
structured; solid
citation and
bibliography.
2.5
(55-59.9)
Addressed to prompt; limited
synthesis of ideas; too much
description compared to
analysis; general
understanding of key
concepts; some
misunderstanding of key
concepts.
Restricted range of
sources consulted;
superficial
understanding of
evidence;
Solid typography
and layout;
comprehensible and
largely error-free
grammar, turns of
phrase, and
expression;
reasonably clearly
structured; some
attempt to provide
citation and
bibliography.
5
3
(40-54.9)
Loosely addressed to the
prompt; little synthesis of
ideas; mainly descriptive
rather than analytical; patchy
understanding of key
concepts; some major gaps in
knowledge and some
misunderstandings of key
concepts.
Few relevant sources
consulted; limited range
of examples, some of
which are poorly
chosen.
Patchy typography
and layout;
numerous errors of
grammar; somewhat
limited vocabulary;
some ambiguous or
inaccurate turns of
phrase; weak or
missing citations and
bibliography.
4 (Fail)
( <40)
Barely if at all addressed to
the prompt; no real synthesis
of ideas; mainly or entirely
descriptive significant gaps in
knowledge and major
misunderstanding of key
concepts.
Few if any relevant
sources consulted; very
limited range of
examples, many of
which are poorly
chosen.
Poor typography and
layout; countless
errors of grammar;
limited vocabulary;
myriad ambiguous or
inaccurate turns of
phrase; weak or
missing citations and
bibliography.
6
Session 1 Blaxploitation 2 October 2014
This session’s focuses on one of the most prominent and controversial production trends of
the early-to-mid 1970s: the Blaxploitation cycle of circa 1970 to 1975. Comprising tens of
mainly low-budget crime pictures featuring black protagonists, these films boasted a
surprising combination of sex, violence, and criminality, and thought-provoking commentary
on some of the changing social and economic aspects of urban black life. Students will take
up the implications of this blend of sensation and social critique, with reference to two of the
most thoughtful contributions to the cycle: Cotton Comes to Harlem (1971) and Superfly
(1972).
Readings:
Eithne Quinne and Peter Kramer, “Blaxploitation”, in Linda Ruth Williams and Michael
Hammond (eds.), Contemporary American Cinema (New York: Open University Press,
2006), pp. 184–185, 188–198.
Jan Kraszewski, “Recontextualizing the Historical Reception of Blaxploitation: Articulations
of Class, Black Nationalism, and Anxiety in the Genre’s Advertisements”, The Velvet Light
Trap 50 (Fall 2002), pp. 48–61.
Home Screening: Superfly (1972)
In-Class Screening: Cotton Comes to Harlem (1971)
7
Session 2 The Hollywood Women-in-Danger Film 16 October 2014
More so than any other production trend of the late 1970s and early 1980s, a series of thrillers
about women encountering misogynist maniacs attracted the attention of American publicsphere
elites – leading to an unusual alliance of left-wing feminists and right-wingers and to
deeply entrenched discourses about the nature of filmic violence and misogyny. Yet, despite
their vilification as part of a “backlash” against increasing levels of female social, economic,
and professional upward mobility, these films were usually made for, and pitched to, mature
females as well as male audiences. This session considers the complex gender politics of
these films, with Brian De Palma’s polarizing 1980 film Dressed to Kill and the glossy Eyes
of Laura Mars (1978) providing principal referents.
Preparatory Readings:
Charles Lyons, The New Censors: Movies and the Culture Wars (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1997), pp. 53–80.
Robin Wood, “Returning the Look: Eyes of a Stranger”, in Gregory A. Waller (ed.),
American Horrors: Essays on the Modern American Horror Film (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1987), pp. 79–85.
Home Screening: Dressed to Kill (1978)
In-Class Screening: Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)
8
Session 3 New Cold War Cinema 30 October 2014
American cinema’s engagement with important geopolitical issues has been a reoccurring
feature of film history, and it is perhaps nowhere more apparent in the last quarter of a
century than in a high-profile, politically-engaged, strand of mid-late 1980s output known by
most cultural historians as New Cold War Cinema. Often proclaimed to be the quintessence
of this right-wing, hawkish mode of filmmaking was a series of late-Cold War fantasies that
supposedly showcased American patriotism and military might in the face of dangerous, inhuman
enemies, especially those from the Eastern Bloc. This session will consider whether
these films were quite as simplistically reactionary as they are often suggested to have been
or whether they also delivered quite forceful critiques of American political, economic, and
social systems. Case-studies will be provided by Red Dawn (1984) and Rocky IV (1985).
Preparatory Reading:
Stephen Prince, Visions of Empire: Political Imagery in Contemporary American Film
(New York: Praeger, 1992), pp. 49–80.
Home Screening: Red Dawn (1984)
In-class Screening: Rocky IV (1985)
9
Session Four Gen-X Cinema 13 November 2014
The 1990s is widely thought to have seen the rise to prominence of a youthful cohort that was
characterized by irony, cynicism, an outward rejection of consumer-capitalism, and hyper
media-literacy: Generation X. This session will consider how Gen X was courted as an
audience through on the screen by films that depicted – and attempted to reshape – this
audience. We will examine the tensions that lay in both the representation of the group and
the fraught cultural politics of reaching out to a discerning, ostensibly anti-consumerist, antiestablishment
demographic through that most “mainstream” of late capitalist entertainment
forms: the Hollywood motion picture. Helping us to do so will be two films quite distinct
Hollywood Gen-X pictures the largely despised Reality Bites (1994) and the cult favorite
Mallrats (1995)
Preparatory Readings:
Michael Z. Newman, “Indie Culture: In Pursuit of the Authentic Autonomous Alternative”,
Cinema Journal, vol. 48, no. 3 (2009), pp. 16-34.
Jonathon I. Oake, “Reality Bites and Generation X as Spectator”, The Velvet Light Trap, No.
53, (Spring 2004), pp. 83–97.
At-Home Screening: Reality Bites (1994)
In-Class Screening: Mallrats (1995)
10
Session 5 Family Films 27 November 2014
This session examines one of the most prominent – and enduring – production trends of the
last quarter- century: family films. We will consider why this type of film rose to prominence
in the 1990s, and why it has remained central to Hollywood’s operations. Central to this
session will be an examination of how the industry positions these films as the glue binding
families together, and how this form of “family therapy” derives less from an inherent social
conservatism – of which Hollywood has oft been accused – than from efforts to cultivate
long-term consumer loyalty. Helping us do these things will be Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory (2005), and one of the biggest family films in history, Finding Nemo (2003)
Preparatory Readings
Robert C. Allen “Home Alone Together: Hollywood and the ‘Family Film’”, in Melvyn
Stokes and Richard Maltby (eds.), Identifying Hollywood’s Audiences: Cultural Identity and
the Movies (London: BFI, 1999), pp. 109–134.
Peter Krämer, ‘Would you take your Child to see this Film? The Cultural and Social Work
of the Family-adventure Movie’, in Steve Neale and Murray Smith (eds.) Contemporary
Hollywood Cinema (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 294–311.
At-Home Screening: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
In-Class Screening: Finding Nemo (2003)
11
Session 6 Post-9/11 Cinema 11 December 2014
Critics and commentators have exerted considerable energy thinking about the ways in which
American cultural products might engage with the events, aftermath, and repercussions of
September 11 2001. In some respects then, post-9/11 cinema is more a series of reading
strategies than a coherent industrial practice. The films in question are grouped together
because they are seen to dramatize or thematize the more divisive aspects of the BushCheney
administration’s domestic and international policies, including a strict division
between good and evil; valorization of hyper-masculinity; justification of pre-emptive
violence, US overseas interventionism, surveillance, and torture. We will consider the
manner in which individual instances of post-9/11 cinema use this popular vision of the
Bush-Cheney era. Helping us do so will be V for Vendetta (2006) and Taken (2008).
Preparatory Reading
Douglas Kellner, Cinema Wars: Hollywood Film and Politics in the Bush-Cheney Era
(Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 163–199.
At-Home Screening: V for Vendetta (2006)
In-Class Screening: Taken (2008)
12
Journals
Some excellent work on American cinema is published in the following English-language
peer-reviewed journals, which are, to the best of my knowledge, in the most part accessible
through on-line resources such as Ebsco, J-Store, and Project Muse:
Cinema Journal
Film Quarterly
Journal of Film and Video
Journal of Popular Film and Television
New Review of Film and Television Studies
Quarterly Review of Film and Video
Scope: An Online Journal of Film and Television Studies
Screen
Periodicals
To access historical reception of recent American cinema, see the following on-line archives:
www.time.com
www.nytimes.com
www.rogerebert.com
See also LexisNexis and newspapers.google for additional popular press articles.
Disclaimer about Securing Films
With the exception of the in-class screenings, it is the responsibility of each student to ensure
that s/he views each of the films assigned for mandatory at-home viewing. It is also strongly
encouraged that each student “views around” each of the set topics by watching topic-related
films including, but not limited to, those highlighted above. Both the instructor and the
department strongly discourage students from sourcing films from illegal downloading and
streaming websites. Instead, both the instructor and the department encourage the purchase or
rental of films from legal video-on-demand websites and/or from legitimate retailers.