FTA005 Film Appreciation
Final Assessment
Grade ：100% offnal mark
Objective: The purpose of this assignment is to engage you in a deep analysis of a film of your choice, demonstrating your understanding of the film and your ability to articulate your appreciation through a video essay. This assessment encourages you to explore not only the narrative and thematic aspects of the film but also the cinematic components that contribute to its artistic and emotional impact.
Requirement:
1. Film Selection:
Choose a film that you find particularly engaging or significant. The film should provide rich material for analysis.
2. Analysis Components:
a. Narrative and Themes: Present your understanding of the narrative and theme of the film briefly.
b. Cinematic Techniques: Examine the use of cinematic techniques such as
cinematography, editing, sound design, and mise-en-scène (every aspect will be introduced in class) . Discuss how these cinematic elements enhance the film’s narrative, mood, and emotional impact.
3. Duration: 5-7mins.
4. Content:
a. Your video essay should feature a combination of film clips, still images, voice-over commentary, and any additional audiovisual materials that support your analysis.
b. The oral presentation should be in English.
c. The video should be subtitled in English.
5. Submission Requirements:
a. File Name: your Name_StudentNumber (i.e: Biwei Cong_2322055)
b. File Format: 1920*1080
c. Upload your video to Bilibili or YouTube (make sure it’s available until March 2025)
d. Submit your video link and the full text of your oral presentation in the video essay in one pdf file via LMO (See Sample in the next page).
6. Submission Deadline:
23:59, 17th Nov. 2024 (Week 9)
Late submission penalty: 5 points deduction per day. Works will not be accepted if they are more than 5 working days past the deadline.
7. Examples of video essay:
What’s So Great About Lady Bird； Satoshi Kon
|
Grading Rubrics
|
|
Criteria
|
70+
|
60-69
|
50-59
|
40-49
|
<40
|
|
Depth of Analysis (40%)
|
Demonstrates a deep
understanding of narratve,
themes, and cinematc
elements.
|
Demonstrates a good
understandi ng of the
flm. May lack the
depth or originality but stll
provides strong
insights.
|
Demonstrates a basic
understanding of the flm.
Ideas are
generally clear
but may be
underdevelope d.
|
Demonstrates limited
understanding of the flm’s
deeper
meanings or cinematc
aspects. Ideas are
underdevelop ed or poorly artculated.
|
Displays a
lack of
understandi ng of the
flm’s
content,
themes, and cinematc
aspects.
|
|
Clarity of
Argume
nt
(40%)
|
The analysis is very well-
structured,
with each
point clearly connected to the overall
thesis.
Supportng
evidence is
well-chosen
and efectvely integrated.
|
A good
structure. Points are generally well-
supported and
connected to the thesis,
though some areas may
lack depth or clarity.
|
Argument is
present but
may lack
coherence or
depth. Points may be loosely connected,
with some
gaps in logic or insufcient
supportng evidence.
|
Lacks logical
structure, with points that are disjointed or
poorly
supported by evidence.
|
The work lacks a
cohesive thesis or logical
structure.
|
|
Quality of the Video (20%)
|
High-quality video
producton. Cle ar audio, sharp visuals, and
smooth
editng.
Creatve use of flm clips and
images to
support the analysis. The video is
engaging.
|
Good video
producton wi th clear audio and visuals.
Editng is
smooth,
though may lack creatvity or polish in
some areas. The video
efectvely
supports the analysis.
|
Adequate video
producton, bu
t with
notceable
issues (e.g.,
audio clarity,
visual quality, editng). The
video supports the analysis
but may not fully engage the viewer.
|
Poor video
producton, wi th signifcant technical
issues that
detract from the analysis. The video is disjointed,
unclear, or difcult to follow.
|
Very poor or no video
producton. Technical
issues
severely
undermine the analysis or the video is
unwatchable
.
|