Our Little Showcase :) (1 Viewer)

[nick1048]

This is the first part of my crit response please have a look and give criticism as i'm a little stuck at the moment.

stylistically requires a fair amount of work. Footnotes? Evidence of research? Justification? Solid concept, just back it up

 

[VonDavis]

This is my intro .... any constructive critcism/feedback welcomed?

 

[Sweets]

all my fellow EE2'ers you guys are all so talented. We will all (except for me) do fabulously .

 

[glycerine]

This is my intro .... any constructive critcism/feedback welcomed?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure 'contradictoriness' isn't a word.
'unambiguous' is spelt as one word without the hyphen.
I don't think you should introduce examples from Hamlet etc at the beginning as you're just confusing yourself. Stick to the parameters you've set out.
If you're talking about amorality and immorality, you need to explain the difference between the two concepts and show that you understand the significance of the distinction.
'The moral thinking of the audience was done for it by the director.' <-- done for them, not it. And I think that sentence is kind of clumsy.
In fact, I think your structure is kind of clumsy. It's not terrible or anything, but I think it would be so much easier to follow your train of thought of it if you left an extra line between paragraphs. Simple, yeah, but it makes it so much more obvious that you're trying to establish a thought.
Honestly, I dislike terms like "this paper" and just addressing yourself directly, I think you should be able to tell them what you're addressing without breaking the fourth wall so to speak.
"This paper has chosen to analysis film fiction because of its significant influence on the general public’s vision of the world." To be honest, this doesn't make sense. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're saying it in a grammatically incorrect way. An EE2 student shouldn't do that. Also, I just think it's phrased simplistically anyhow.

Are you planning to read Hannibal, out of interest? Because they changed the ending significantly and also there's some stuff that they obviously didn't put in, about his childhood and all that. Personally I think the book shits all over the film, and so do 99.9999999% of people who've seen the movie and read the book. So I guess maybe you could reference things like how the limitations of mainstream cinema means that ideas of good and evil become simplified by default. For example, in the book, is Clarice still 'good' if she runs off with Lecter? Is he still 'evil' if he has the capacity to love her? That idea would probably be too much for commercial audiences to bear in the eyes of the director.
(Although Scott has definitely raised ideas about goodness and all that before, like in Blade Runner, so I'd suggest researching their motivation for changing the ending of Hannibal if you haven't already).

Hope this helps.

 

[jaihson]

I think perhaps the word "literature" is used a bit too fequently in the opening. Interesting topic tho. I'd love to read it when ur finished

 

[zahid]

Believe it or not...my mojor work was triggered by reading erins work...and i shall acknowledge that in my Reflection st.

 

[glycerine]

Woo hoo! Go Team Erin!

but seriously, that's so flattering

 

[zahid]

heheh its cool......wohaaaa who is that sexy female in yo avater?

 

[glycerine]

rachael mcadams

i luv luv luv her

 

[VonDavis]

Are you planning to read Hannibal, out of interest? Because they changed the ending significantly and also there's some stuff that they obviously didn't put in, about his childhood and all that. Personally I think the book shits all over the film, and so do 99.9999999% of people who've seen the movie and read the book. So I guess maybe you could reference things like how the limitations of mainstream cinema means that ideas of good and evil become simplified by default. For example, in the book, is Clarice still 'good' if she runs off with Lecter? Is he still 'evil' if he has the capacity to love her? That idea would probably be too much for commercial audiences to bear in the eyes of the director.
(Although Scott has definitely raised ideas about goodness and all that before, like in Blade Runner, so I'd suggest researching their motivation for changing the ending of Hannibal if you haven't already).

Hope this helps.

Thank you that is very good feedback, My teacher told me not to reference to much of the book as I am trying to present the arguement that the evil depicted in film is pre-determined and one-dimensional. My main point is that with the use of cinematography the audience are provided with what is "evil" whereas in Shakespeare characterisation, language and complexity of the writing provide the audience with "evil" ....
I know what you are saying because I found the book much better then the film. And I respect all that you are saying because I felt the exactly the same as you prior to being beated down by my teacher.
Thank you ... if you have any more suggestions i'm open to hearing them

 

[glycerine]

Yeah, I can see what your teacher means.
Personally I would still reference it, like I said, like maybe talk about how that's one of the limitations of mainstream cinema... and analyse why that wasn't the case for Shakespeare? I dunno, I disagree that you should ignore the book, although putting it in as much more than an afterthought would complicate things too much.
I kind of had the same issue with mine, like I could've referenced Angel as a show as well but it was a different universe and would've made things too hard.
I have a trial tomorrow so I really shouldn't even be on here now, haha. Umm, if you need help in the future feel free to email me drafts, I'm a procrastinator from way back. erin dot carolan at gmail dot com

 

[nick1048]

Here is my critical response, I hope you like it :

 

[Porcia]

what mark did you get for it? i think its too philosophical and would better be submitted as a speech or something but not a crit resp.

 

[glycerine]

umm no people submit ficto-critical pieces for ext2 all the time, it's up to them what they define it as

 

[noobymcnoob]

Define: 'Ficto-critical' for me. I want to do something similar to 'Time - As a concept' except about something completely different.

Mine would definately get 100%for originality, but that may be all if something like the above isn't marked very well or meet the course requirements etc.

Mine would be extremely philosophical, is this a bad idea?

What mark did you get nick?