Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Answers should be drawn from the M.A. filmography
and bibliography (attached below) ,text books (attached below), or refer to major texts in the field published since the bibliography was last revised. You are
not restricted to the bibliography/filmography unless the question explicitly requires it.
USE THEORIES AND FILMS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS !!!! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!! Use primary source for the theories on database and cite properly.
CHOOSE ONLT TWO of the following question to answer. Each answer should be 9 to 10 pages long.
Answer options:
1. In recent decades, the study of film, media, performance, and visual culture has been enriched by a growing recognition of the generative power of failure–mistakes, glitches, useless efforts, bad performances, incomplete or unfinished projects–both as a creative logic and an analytic frame. What does a scholarly focus on failure teach us to see? How does the concept of failure, in all its myriad forms, expand or challenge existing paradigms in our field? Draw on readings and screenings from your coursework (or, if appropriate, outside of it) in preparing your response.
2. Drawing on readings and screenings from your coursework, analyze the film The Clock (Christian Marclay, 2010’s temporal structuring of spectatorship.
3. Genre studies has become more than merely a taxonomic devotion to static categories. With reference to the work of Rick Altman, Steven Neale, and James Naremore, how does the conception of genre as discourse expand the critical possibilities of the field? Answer the question with attention to at least 3 contemporary films that challenge the classical study of genre.
4. In the 1970s, theorists such as Baudry and Metz described the film viewing experience as a psychological regression, augmented by viewers’ stillness in a darkened theater, that enabled a sense of perceptual mastery. As viewers identified with larger-than-life characters on the screen, their primary identification with the camera lent them movement and omnipresence. The camera’s perspectival lens provided them a (ideologically problematic) transcendental subject position that was structured into the cinematic apparatus. How much can this description of film viewership hold/offer cinema studies when films are viewed on furniture-sized televisions in lit rooms and on hand-sized screens held by mobile viewers? Does a sense of perceptual mastery still obtain in new viewing situations, and, if so, how is it now to be described? Do new instantiations of “moving pictures” enlist viewers in new apparatuses, and, if so, are they ideologically problematic? Does/can psychoanalysis have a role in theorizing contemporary film/new media viewership?
Please make sure to underline any sources used beyond the one I provided on the citation page. Additionally, kindly ensure that you use actual and reliable sources from reputable databases; otherwise, I will have to return the work for revision. Also, please let me know which two questions you have chosen to answer ASAP.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.