(1) Brief summary of the film.
(2) How did the film critically examine some of the particular in-class themes (i.e., the state, hegemony, power, race, etc.)?
(3) How effective was the film’s examination of these themes? Were any perspectives missing? If so, how could the film’s examination be improved?
Essentially, in this review you are to construct a well-supported argument about how well a film addressed a particular theme that we have analyzed/complicated in class. Don’t just say that the film did or did not do a good job. Rather, you should justify that claim while evoking material from the syllabus. Part of this, therefore, involves critically describing/defining whichever concepts you’re analyzing. For instance, if you discuss discourse, don’t take its meaning for granted. Describe what discourse means anthropologically, and then use that description to analyze the effectiveness of the particular film. I also encourage you to think intersectionally. Don’t just analyze a film in light of hegemony, for instance, but as discourse intersects with issues of race, or class.
One source MUST be “Speech, Citizenry, and the Market: A Corporate Public Figure Doctrine” by Desai. You can choose the other two.
the movie is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMNZXV7jOG0)
