1

Scene Analysis Directions, Rubric, and Tips ENG2102 – Spring 2021

Deadlines Proposal due: Tuesday, January 19 Discussion post due: Tuesday, January 19 Discussion replies due: Thursday, January 21 Rough draft due: Tuesday, February 1 Final paper due: Thursday, February 11 Submission checklist due: Thursday, February 11 Topic Requirements Choose one of these movies—either Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Help (2011), Hugo (2011), or Total Recall (1990)—and find the related analytical article below on Academic Search Complete. Your paper must analyze a scene from the movie through the lens (or perspective) of that article, and you must choose a scene NOT already discussed in the article. I recommend you use a scene (or part of a scene) from 2-6 minutes long. You must include supporting details from the chosen scene and include the required number of quotations (see below) from the movie, the analytical article, and 2 reviews of the movie. Example papers are posted under Modules in Canvas. Analytical Article Choices • “Celebrity, Cinema, History: Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, Bonnie and Clyde, The Highwaymen” by Ian

Dennis • “Black Women’s Memories and The Help” by Valerie Smith • “Georges Melies and the Mystery of the Automaton in Martin Scorcese’s Hugo” by Kurt Cline • “Totally Recalling Arnold: Sex and Violence in the New Bad Future” by Fred Glass Submission Requirements □ Your paper must be at least 1400 words (suggested max of 1800 words). A paper less than 1400 words will

receive a grade of zero. □ Highlight or underline all quotations from the movie, the analytical article and the 2 reviews. □ Submit your paper to Turnitin.com. □ Complete the Submission Checklist on Canvas. Content Requirements and Tips I will use a rubric that evaluates the six areas below, ranking each one as either Excellent, Competent, Marginal, or Below Expectations. A paper that is below expectations in one or more areas may not earn a passing grade. Each area is introduced with a general summary and is followed by important tips and requirements. 1) Introduction and Focus Your paper’s focus is on topic, sufficiently limited, and unified. The introduction effectively identifies the key elements of the paper (movie, scene, and analytical article) and properly quotes the thesis of the analytical article. Your thesis is positioned emphatically at the end of the intro and effectively sums up your main argument.

□ Your thesis should be analytical (not factual). Basically, your thesis should sum up what your analysis proves about the chosen scene and clearly relate to the thesis statement of the analytical article.

□ Do not quote in your thesis, except if you need to emphasize a key phrase from your analytical article. □ Reference your analytical article by identifying the author(s) by full name, giving the full article title and

subtitle (if any), and quoting the article’s thesis statement. 2) Organization Your paper’s organization progresses logically, appropriately dividing into 2-3 body sections, and incorporates effective topic sentences and transitions.

□ Analyze some aspect of the chosen scene in each body paragraph. You may include brief references to other scenes from the movie (or other movies) when relevant and useful.

2

□ Each body paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that sums up what you prove in that paragraph, identifying the unique subtopic that this paragraph explores.

□ Do not quote from a source or summarize the movie in your topic sentences. □ Each section should consist of 1 or more paragraphs. Avoid paragraphs longer than a page. □ You don’t have to organize details chronologically. Perhaps divide into types of symbols or themes. □ Include a conclusion, but do not count it as one of the body sections.

3) Supporting Evidence Your paper has sufficient and relevant supporting evidence from the analytical article, 2 movie reviews, and the movie itself following the quoting parameters below. Appropriate theoretic and insightful quotations from sources are chosen. Use of additional sources is prohibited.

□ General summary of the movie or scene is not needed. But description of supporting details that relate to your thesis are needed.

□ Discuss aspects of the scene (props, symbols, dialogue, etc.) that support your thesis, especially easily overlooked and obscure details viewers are likely to miss.

□ You do not need to analyze specific film techniques, unless they are relevant to your argument. □ Avoid using quotations from sources that simply summarize the movie. Instead, choose quotes that provide

insightful comments about the movie. □ Quoting limits:

o Include 4-7 quotes from the analytical article. o Include 1-2 quotes each from 2 reviews of the movie. o Include 2-4 quotes from the movie.

4) Analysis Your paper demonstrates an understanding of the analytical article by analyzing specific details of the chosen scene, with more analysis than quoting and description. The analysis effectively relates each supporting detail to the thesis and explains the significance of all passages quoted or referenced.

□ Include analysis in each body paragraph. □ Analyze the significance of each supporting of detail from the chosen scene. □ Analyze the significance of all quotes from the analytical article and the reviews. □ Analysis might explore these types of questions:

o How does this quotation or detail relate to your thesis? o Why did you choose this quotation or detail? o How does this quotation or detail relate to other quotes you have included? o Why do you agree or disagree with the author’s interpretation?

□ Effective analysis often comprises 2/3 of a paper, with only 1/3 being quoting and summary. 5) MLA Format Your paper follows MLA rules for paper format, quotations, signal phrases, page references for the article, and a works cited section for all sources.

□ Each time you quote, you need to include a signal phrase. □ It is optional to include time-stamps for quotes from the movie. □ Quotes from reviews published online do not need page references. □ A works cited section is required, but for this paper, I will not penalize errors in works cited format. □ Include a URL address in each works cited entry for the 2 reviews.

6) Grammar / Standard Conventions Your paper follows standard rules for diction, syntax, and grammar as well as conventions for titles, names, and tense. There are few major errors and a limited number of minor errors.

□ Properly format titles: movie titles are italicized; article titles are in quotation marks. □ When detailing specific aspects of the movie’s plot, use the names of the characters (not the actors’ names).

Only name the actors when discussing their acting performance. □ Use present tense when describing the plot of the movie and in signal phrases.

Research Paper: Architectural Historiography in the 20​th ​Century

historiography is the writing of history, as well as the process by which historians analyze and interpret historical evidence. Therefore, the writing of history is, by nature, interpretive, and as such it is highly influenced by the author-historian’s agenda, bias, cultural context, research method, knowledge (or ignorance) of source material, selective editing, etc. To this end, for this research project you will choose a subject relevant to twentieth century architecture, and you will compare/contrast various historians’ interpretations of this subject.

First, you will choose one architect, event, movement, period or theory relevant to twentieth century architecture. Some possible topics might include: the Deutscher Werkbund, the Case Study House Program, Japanese Metabolism, the Bauhaus under Hannes Meyer, the New York Five, the 1932 exhibit at the MoMA entitled “The International Style”, Mies van der Rohe’s work at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Rem Koolhaas in the 1970s, etc. If you choose to focus on the work of one architect, you should narrow your research down to an important period in that architect’s life (e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright in the 1930s), or a specific theory developed by that architect (e.g. Louis Sullivan’s brand of Rationalism). Your task is NOT to report on the building, architect or event, but rather to compare/contrast various historiographic interpretations of it.

You will consult a minimum of five historiographic accounts of the topic (see the list of examples of historiographic accounts below), from different author-historians who express different viewpoints. As you read and reflect on these accounts, you should ask yourself

• ​What evidence does each historian cite, and what evidence does each historian leave out? Why? How does this decision influence this historian’s narrative of the topic?

• ​How does each author-historian use and interpret the evidence? • ​What distinct conclusions has each historian drawn about this subject? • ​How do these conclusions differ? How are they similar?

• ​How does each historiographic account reveal the historians’ own bias and/or agenda? ​• ​How have perceptions of this subject been affected by the various historiographic accounts of it? ​• ​How does the author-historian contextualize the topic in the broader narrative of the history of twentieth century architecture?

• ​In what ways does the author-historian’s account of this subject reveal her/his broader approach to the history of architecture?

• ​How have historians affected our understanding of this topic?

Topic Proposal

After choosing a topic, list and analyze each account of the topic. List the similarities and differences that you discover between accounts (i.e. as listed above). Be specific. Then, conduct research on the author of each account to determine how they chose to include some information while excluding other information. Your proposal should also consider/discuss each author’s bias. I recommend that you organize this information in table format.

Finally, write a thesis statement and 1-2 paragraphs that summarize(s) the overall trend, trajectory, etc. of the historiography of the subject. Do the authors fall into various “camps”? Do you notice an evolution over time in the ways this topic has been presented? Are some authors’ biases more evident than others?