Realism or ‘realisms’? Realism and the Cinema Defining Social Realism
There is some good paraphrasing of the source text here demonstrating a solid understanding of the reading material. The problems of the critical phrasal term “social realism” are outlined. The presentation draws our attention to the problematical association of the term “social realism” with other terms such as “working class realism” and “kitchen sink realism”, but falls short of clarifying why these terms are not synonymous. A good historical background is delivered which explains the social-cultural developments which paved the way for the realism movement. Carroll’s suggestion that the critical term ‘realism’ should always have a prefix should be explored with examples (neo-realism etc.). Kracauer ‘s idea was not as you write that ‘film was capable of representing the real with as little discretion as possible’: you need to go back and correct this. You detail two criteria used to differentiate between Hollywood films and realist texts which were posited by Branston and Stafford: you need to refer to these critical theorists by name. Your reference to Haywood is inaccurate. Her claim is that the makers of social realist films incorporate a self-reflexive recognition that realist texts suppress certain truths and while producing others. This claim could be discussed. The breakdown of criteria used by Williams to qualify a text as realist is better.
Try to use more of Prezi’s features. You could use Prezi’s resizing tool to conceal subsidiary text and graphics within primary text enabling you to annotate. The framing tool can be used to group ideas and analysis as well as for framing blocks of text. The insert tool can be used to incorporate graphics and video.
1 comments:
Social Realism in the British Context
Realism or ‘realisms’?
Realism and the Cinema
Defining Social Realism
There is some good paraphrasing of the source text here demonstrating a solid understanding of the reading material. The problems of the critical phrasal term “social realism” are outlined. The presentation draws our attention to the problematical association of the term “social realism” with other terms such as “working class realism” and “kitchen sink realism”, but falls short of clarifying why these terms are not synonymous. A good historical background is delivered which explains the social-cultural developments which paved the way for the realism movement. Carroll’s suggestion that the critical term ‘realism’ should always have a prefix should be explored with examples (neo-realism etc.). Kracauer ‘s idea was not as you write that ‘film was capable of representing the real with as little discretion as possible’: you need to go back and correct this. You detail two criteria used to differentiate between Hollywood films and realist texts which were posited by Branston and Stafford: you need to refer to these critical theorists by name. Your reference to Haywood is inaccurate. Her claim is that the makers of social realist films incorporate a self-reflexive recognition that realist texts suppress certain truths and while producing others. This claim could be discussed. The breakdown of criteria used by Williams to qualify a text as realist is better.
Try to use more of Prezi’s features. You could use Prezi’s resizing tool to conceal subsidiary text and graphics within primary text enabling you to annotate. The framing tool can be used to group ideas and analysis as well as for framing blocks of text. The insert tool can be used to incorporate graphics and video.
A reasonably good homework. C--
Post a Comment