Your title for the dissertation needs to be reformulated as a question – it’s very overgeneralised at present Your synopsis needs to be reviewed for better phrasing that makes more sense. Some of the ideas you are trying to explore are not expressed entirely correctly. You need to be more accurate- The Avant Garde starts in the modernist period and is a cornerstone of modernity-but it can also be seen as part of postmodern practice. In your first chapter I would look at early horror and the genre- what are its key features- what are the key early Avant Garde horror films aesthetic, formal and conceptual features? The Avant Garde is not a ‘guise’ unless you are saying that postmodern products appropriate Avant Garde practice-why are you using this term? There is part of your discourse that perhaps crosses into postmodernism’s lack of capacity to generate original products- always being a copy… remake or appropriate? You could look into these ideas further You could look at film in the 1980’s-2010 that is horror that has been discussed as really innovative/Avant Garde such as The Thing, Sante Sangre or The Blair Witch Project. Chapter 2 is trying to pack in too many subjects- it feels like ‘padding’ where is the argument going? I would possibly want to look at film history and theory and discuss some of the problems with film as part of a bigger capitalist economy with drivers such as making a product and often set of franchised spin offs that appeal to a particular demographic. Read Pam Cook The Cinema Book, How to Read film by James Monaco – read about film in the context of postmodern creative practice You mention the relevance of Fredric Jameson in research- he writes prominently about nostalgia as a feature of postmodernism- is this relevant ?- yes possibly if the films you want to discuss are indeed nostalgic for older film forms- I am not sure they are- could you consider the films you want to discuss more carefully? Finally what is your conclusion and can you be more thoughtful and critical in the way you explore your ideas. Fundamental/basic reading and understanding is missing.
Your title for the dissertation needs to be reformulated as a question – it’s very overgeneralised at present
ReplyDeleteYour synopsis needs to be reviewed for better phrasing that makes more sense.
Some of the ideas you are trying to explore are not expressed entirely correctly.
You need to be more accurate- The Avant Garde starts in the modernist period and is a cornerstone of modernity-but it can also be seen as part of postmodern practice.
In your first chapter I would look at early horror and the genre- what are its key features- what are the key early Avant Garde horror films aesthetic, formal and conceptual features?
The Avant Garde is not a ‘guise’ unless you are saying that postmodern products appropriate Avant Garde practice-why are you using this term?
There is part of your discourse that perhaps crosses into postmodernism’s lack of capacity to generate original products- always being a copy… remake or appropriate? You could look into these ideas further
You could look at film in the 1980’s-2010 that is horror that has been discussed as really innovative/Avant Garde such as The Thing, Sante Sangre or The Blair Witch Project.
Chapter 2 is trying to pack in too many subjects- it feels like ‘padding’ where is the argument going?
I would possibly want to look at film history and theory and discuss some of the problems with film as part of a bigger capitalist economy with drivers such as making a product and often set of franchised spin offs that appeal to a particular demographic.
Read Pam Cook The Cinema Book, How to Read film by James Monaco – read about film in the context of postmodern creative practice
You mention the relevance of Fredric Jameson in research- he writes prominently about nostalgia as a feature of postmodernism- is this relevant ?- yes possibly if the films you want to discuss are indeed nostalgic for older film forms- I am not sure they are- could you consider the films you want to discuss more carefully?
Finally what is your conclusion and can you be more thoughtful and critical in the way you explore your ideas.
Fundamental/basic reading and understanding is missing.