|
Screening:
T, 12:30-3:20
Class:
Th, 12:30-2:20
Room:
CMU 120
Instructor
Kimberlee
Gillis-Bridges
Padelford
A-305
543-4892
Hours
TTh
10:30-12:00
and by
appointment
Last Updated:
2/7/02
Comments
or queries
|
Clip Exam Scale and
Discussion
Exam Scale
| 30=4.0 |
20=3.0 |
10=2.0 |
| 29=3.9 |
19=2.9 |
9=1.5 |
| 28=3.8 |
18=2.8 |
8=1.3 |
| 27=3.7 |
17=2.7 |
7=1.1 |
| 26=3.6 |
16=2.6 |
6=1.0 |
| 25=3.5 |
15=2.5 |
5=.7 |
| 24=3.4 |
14=2.4 |
4=.6 |
| 23=3.3 |
13=2.3 |
3=.5 |
| 22=3.2 |
12=2.2 |
2=.3 |
| 21=3.1 |
11=2.1 |
1=.1 |
Exam Discussion
Clip responses that
received ten points not only described technical elements at play in a
particular clip, but also discussed the significance of those elements
in terms of the film’s narrative or themes. Moreover, successful
responses provided evidence for arguments made about the symbolism, thematic
associations, or narrative importance of formal elements. Clip responses
that did not receive a full ten points exhibited one or more of the following
characteristics:
-
Clip was not identified.
-
Response contained a careful
description of the scene’s technical elements—sometimes with each camera
angle and lighting technique explained. However, the writer failed
to analyze the significance of the techniques described; he or she did
not address or paid little attention to how the techniques communicated
particular themes or highlighted aspects of the narrative.
-
Writer discussed the importance
of the scene, but paid little or no attention to the scene’s formal elements.
-
Response lacked depth of
analysis; the writer noted particular patterns or techniques, but the discussion
of the elements’ significance concentrated on superficial effects (example:
Minnelli’s use of bright lighting in the “Summer 1903” segment depicts
a hot summer day).
-
Writer made arguments about
the clip’s significance, but provided no evidence to support the argument
(example: lighting in Jeux Interdits makes Paulette appear angelic).
-
Evidence of the clip did
not support the writer’s argument.
Although I endeavor to
keep my comments brief, I generally try to engage in a dialogue with you
about your ideas (one of the pleasures of reading exams is that I get the
chance to see a variety of readings, some of which I haven’t previously
considered). My comments tend to fall into the following categories:
-
Praise for strong analysis.
-
Questions that point to
the need for you to discuss the significance of technique, cite evidence
or provide more explanation.
-
Expansions/discussion/questions
connected to provocative, gutsy, or interesting readings you’ve proposed.
-
Calls to take a point further,
to explore it significance in more depth.
-
Discussion of how the scene’s
evidence supports or runs counter to your reading.
-
Jokes—if you took Tuesday’s
“extra study time” to draw a picture or advise me as to what your grade
should be, I responded in kind.
|
