I think it’s so great that you’re placing the theories in their cultural context. I think that your initial thesis would be weaker if you just focused on filmic context instead of the context of the when and why these theories were written, but your explicit interest in the cultural moment of when the theories were written and what they’re responding to is fabulous.
What are some areas for improvement?
Sometimes stupid people have a lack of understanding of context and have dumb ideas about theories and films because they don’t have the context for them. You should talk about that. It’s why your paper is more than just compelling, it’s why it’s important. Defending the impetus for this paper also puts it in a contemporary context and experience, just like how you’re writing about the contexts of the theories you’re writing about. One of your strengths is pointing out the lack of nuance in other’s views of old media, so it would be a great time to exercise your rhetorical strength.
I think you’ve done a great job laying out a clear central argument about how historical context is essential for analyzing The Living End through the lens of queer film theory. The thoroughness of your annotated bibliography indicates that you’ve already put a lot of thought into how Bordo, Castiglia and Reed, Freeland, Mulvey, and Straayer’s theories build on or challenge one another, demonstrating the heterogeneous nature of queer theory. It definitely looks to me like your topic is generative enough to produce a rigorous ten-page paper.
One thing you might want to think about is the balance of theory and film analysis in your paper. On the one hand, you should probably add at least one other film/media in order to meet the paper requirements. On the other hand, from what I interpreted from your prospectus, the bulk of your argument seems to focus on The Living Dead as a case study. Since the requirements specify that approximately 70-80% (7-8 pages) of the essay should be focused on film theory, you may want to consider structuring your essay such that the supporting arguments are primarily about theory analysis. In a similar vein, I would be mindful of not devoting too much of your paper explaining the history of queer politics in the 1990s, but rather referring to that history only as it pertains to the theories and to The Living Dead.
Overall, this looks like a thought-provoking topic, and I look forward to seeing how you develop it into a full paper!
I agree with your main argument that theories must be viewed within their historical contexts. The Mulvey piece "Visual Pleasures" in particular is so narrowly focused on only one form of spectatorship; even though I agree with some of her arguments, I find the piece to be extremely insular, which is why I appreciate her recent reevaluation of the original piece. By highlighting queer studies, you can also explicate how changing social norms affect the way LGBTQ spectatorship evolved over time.
As for some constructive feedback, as you mentioned during the discussion, you will need to expand your theory analysis to more films. Thinking out loud, I think someone like Kenneth Anger or Jack Smith might be interesting to explore as well, as much of their work (like Fireworks, Scorpio Rising, and Flaming Creatures) was initially condemned and censored before receiving a cultural reevaluation. I'd also recommend minimizing the time you write about The Living End in the prospectus, and discuss more about the theories before naming the examples.
What are the major strengths of this prospectus?
I think it’s so great that you’re placing the theories in their cultural context. I think that your initial thesis would be weaker if you just focused on filmic context instead of the context of the when and why these theories were written, but your explicit interest in the cultural moment of when the theories were written and what they’re responding to is fabulous.
What are some areas for improvement?
Sometimes stupid people have a lack of understanding of context and have dumb ideas about theories and films because they don’t have the context for them. You should talk about that. It’s why your paper is more than just compelling, it’s why it’s important. Defending the impetus for this paper also puts it in a contemporary context and experience, just like how you’re writing about the contexts of the theories you’re writing about. One of your strengths is pointing out the lack of nuance in other’s views of old media, so it would be a great time to exercise your rhetorical strength.
Hi Rob,
I think you’ve done a great job laying out a clear central argument about how historical context is essential for analyzing The Living End through the lens of queer film theory. The thoroughness of your annotated bibliography indicates that you’ve already put a lot of thought into how Bordo, Castiglia and Reed, Freeland, Mulvey, and Straayer’s theories build on or challenge one another, demonstrating the heterogeneous nature of queer theory. It definitely looks to me like your topic is generative enough to produce a rigorous ten-page paper.
One thing you might want to think about is the balance of theory and film analysis in your paper. On the one hand, you should probably add at least one other film/media in order to meet the paper requirements. On the other hand, from what I interpreted from your prospectus, the bulk of your argument seems to focus on The Living Dead as a case study. Since the requirements specify that approximately 70-80% (7-8 pages) of the essay should be focused on film theory, you may want to consider structuring your essay such that the supporting arguments are primarily about theory analysis. In a similar vein, I would be mindful of not devoting too much of your paper explaining the history of queer politics in the 1990s, but rather referring to that history only as it pertains to the theories and to The Living Dead.
Overall, this looks like a thought-provoking topic, and I look forward to seeing how you develop it into a full paper!
Hi Rob,
I agree with your main argument that theories must be viewed within their historical contexts. The Mulvey piece "Visual Pleasures" in particular is so narrowly focused on only one form of spectatorship; even though I agree with some of her arguments, I find the piece to be extremely insular, which is why I appreciate her recent reevaluation of the original piece. By highlighting queer studies, you can also explicate how changing social norms affect the way LGBTQ spectatorship evolved over time.
As for some constructive feedback, as you mentioned during the discussion, you will need to expand your theory analysis to more films. Thinking out loud, I think someone like Kenneth Anger or Jack Smith might be interesting to explore as well, as much of their work (like Fireworks, Scorpio Rising, and Flaming Creatures) was initially condemned and censored before receiving a cultural reevaluation. I'd also recommend minimizing the time you write about The Living End in the prospectus, and discuss more about the theories before naming the examples.
Charles