Add dry_questions.md

Guides added.

.ignore

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.jj

cba_questions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Questions for Caetlin Benson-Allott
+
+2024-03-20
+
+### General Questions
+Styles of questions:
+* This thing reminds me of that thing. What do you think about this connection? (e.g., Dark Knight -> Joker)
+* Process & development: how does an abstract concept gets shaped into theory?
+* Where do you see potentiality and limitations of a theoretical figure?
+* Talk more about x: I want to hear more about a thing (e.g., Covid & material culture)
+* The writing and diction of theory?
+* How do you _do_ the theory you're arguing for?
+* In _Oxford Handbook_, applying film theory to DV; vs. Kyle's intro re: the importance of film theory (last 2 sentences).
+    - What pitfalls do you see in bringing film theory to bear on social media? Digital, networked video?
+* Limits of emptahy in _Oxford Handbook_: p. 455, Facebook, feedback loops: facile empathy.
+
+Scott wants to add to these:
+* What and who are you responding to?
+* What's the dissatisfaction this is supposed to repair?
+* What do you want people to get over?
+* What's the historical (political, aesthetic) situation you're writing into? (Why this now? [then])

covenant.md

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 # Course covenant
+## CIN1101s24
 
 Seminars should be communal spaces of intellectual adventure, vulnerability, and risk-taking. This covenant specifies practices that are all animated by the fundamental assumption that we are a group of people in a room trying to understand things better. By following this seminar, we agree to the following principles:
 
@@ -58,7 +59,7 @@ The principle of openness is a different, related iteration of generosity. It af
 
 ### Good citizenship
 The principle of good citizenship means behaving in ways that allow others to learn well. We agree to:
-* Be on time to seminar, which begins at 6:10pm.
+* Be on time to seminar, which begins at 3:10pm.
 * Stay the whole duration of the seminar—or, if we must leave, we agree to do so with as little disruption as possible.
 * Leave the seminar room for bio-breaks in ways that are unobtrusive. (Asking for permission to leave is obtrusive.)
 * Moderate our participation in the seminar, ensuring that a small cadre of students does not dominate discussion. We note that this responsibility cuts both ways. For those of us who are dilatory, we agree not to take up too much space in the seminar. For those of us who are laconic, we agree not to leave others to do the work of sustaining discussion.
@@ -75,6 +76,6 @@ The classroom is not a symmetrical institution. Scott agrees to embody authority
 ### Responsible learning
 Students must take on responsibility for the practices of learning. We agree to:
 * Take responsibility for our learning, understanding that the learning that can take place in this seminar is organized by their practices of inquiry.
-* Take the initiative to address and, if posssible, to remedy any difficulties with the course material as they arise.
+* Take the initiative to address and, if possible, to remedy any difficulties with the course material as they arise.
 * Share concerns about, and difficulties with, pedagogical practices with Scott and other students as they arise.
 * Perform course obligations in a timely manner, or communicate regarding delays or other snafus in a proactive and timely manner.

dry_questions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Questions for Damon Young
+
+2024-04-03
+
+Min: How do you build an archive with contemporary media? How do you relate to the algorithmic curation of content? ("Ironies," pp)
+
+Cailin: You mention paranoia in "Ironies" and "Shortbus"; how do you think about Sedgwick's reparative reading? 
+
+Alex: In "Ironies," about sincerity & Chris Crocker; this doesn't quite account for the "new sincerity" turn in web culture. Is this a generational thing? Gen X, vs. Millennial, vs. Gen Z? Are web aesthetics local to particular audiences?
+
+Scott: How do you periodize Web 2.0? How is it different from TikTok, Instagram, Discord?
+
+Veronica: p. 15 of PDF: "Crocker seems no more convincing..." Is there really no difference bt. Crocker & PewDiePie? Irony is protective, vs. the vulnerability of earnestness. Aren't people incentivized to claim irony rather than sincerity?
+
+Cailin: Perversion isn't perversion anymore. But the stalker storyline is the one that actually feels gross? (Voyeurism of the camera vs. voyeurism of Caleb.) (Watchful eye of Lady Liberty looks like War on Terror-style surveillance and not the assurance of the liberal order's claim to assure the equal pleasure--"pursuit of happiness"--of all. Maybe?)
+
+Veronica: On _Shortbus_: what does queerness mean to you? It seems no longer to index people or identities. p. 204: "If simulation was a structural condition..." Is "perverted, fetishistic" activity/desire necessarily queer (as in the case of _Psycho_)? Or: what does "beyond identity" mean in this context? Now? The muddying of queerness & perversion, subsumption of queerness into perversion: this is used so that more people could take on queerness as a lived formation?
+
+Min: "Ironies," 6: "lulz," or the corruption of "lol". How do you think about the change in online interaction with alt-right celebrities? How do we trace a path from Milo to Elon. (Are they on the same path, or is something else going on here?)
+
+Scott: How would you narrate the last 5 years of internet culture?
+
+Orrin: If we were to link Milo to the piece; Milo is the new creative director for Yeezy; Kim K's photography book. p. 18: "The self of the selfie..." Can you talk more about ambient sexualization and the movement of a gaze in in internet culture? And how film theory helps you discern the technological and aesthetic procedures that bring this new kind of gaze into being?
+
+
+

final_project.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Final Projects for CIN1101
+## Some parameters
+
+Due by 11:59pm on Friday, 26 April. If you are going to miss this deadline, write me early and often. Papers are due to the #work channel on Matrix.
+
+The task is to engage in an act of theorizing, however you wish to understand that. You are expected, but not required, to discuss this act of theorizing with me in office hours, well before the paper is due.
+
+Papers should be ~20pp. (6,000 words, +/- 15%). I will stop reading at 7,500 words, and not accept a paper less than 5,000 words. Notes/bibliography included. Use Chicago footnotes or MLA-style citations.
+
+You may work in a medium/genre/format other than 6,000 words of scholarly prose. If you choose to do that, I ask you to submit the equivalent amount of work, in that different medium/genre/format. In addition, I will require that you submit a "maker's statement" that explicates the project, your choices, your interests. The parameters of such a statement will be neogiated one-on-one with Scott.
+
+In addition to the above, I ask that you submit a "cover letter" for your work, by email, to Scott (this is not public). The tone need not (should not) be formal: it's an email from you to me. That said, your cover letter should address the following questions:
+
+* What did you set out to do?
+* How well did you think you achieved it?
+* What do you think you could do to get closer to your goal?
+* If your goals shifted, how did they shift?
+* If you had more time to work on this, where would it go for you? (Or would you cast it aside?)
+* What do you want to learn from Scott about this piece of work?

justfile

@@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
-push:
-	jj git push -c @-

listening.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Recommended listening
+## Because Scott always wanted to be a DJ.
+
+2024-01-23
+
+### Musical listening list
+1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Piano Sonata No. 16 in C Major, I. Allegro (1788). Performed by Lang Lang ().
+2. Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 9, IV. Ode to Joy (1822). Performed by the Berlin Philharmonic (1983).
+3. Erik Satie. _Musique d'ameublement_ (_Furniture Music_), "Tapisserie en fer forgé" ("Tapestry in forged iron") (1917). Performed by Ensemble Ars Nova (1980).
+4. Nancy Hamilton and Morgan Lewis, "How High the Moon" (jazz standard, 1940). Performed by Ella Fitzgerald (1960).
+5. Alvin Lucier, "I am Sitting in a Room" (1969), although I believe this recording is from the 1980s.
+6. Philip Glass, "The Grid," from _Koyaanisqatsi_ (1982).
+7. Donna Summer and Giorgio Moroder, "I Feel Love" (1977).
+8. Eric Prydz, "Opus" (2015).
+9. Eric Prydz, "Opus," Four Tet remix (2015).
+10. The Axis of Awesome, "4 Chords" (2011).
+11. Tears for Fears, "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" (1985).
+12. Britney Spears, "Toxic" (2003).
+13. Carly Rae Jepsen, "Call Me Maybe" (2012).
+14. Chappell Roan, "Pink Pony Club" (2023).
+
+### Additional listening
+If you'd like to listen to work that rewards the kind of listening that we're spending time with in CIN1101 together, I have a few recommendations. These are explicitly higer-brow, selections from the 70s and recently, which reflects mostly my taste. (I have not done Cavell's critic's work of making my musical taste general; you've just got my particular taste.)
+
+1. The entirety of Alvin Lucier, "I am Sitting in a Room" (1969)
+2. Simeon Ten Holt, _Canto Ostinato_ (1976; look for the Erik Hall performance)
+3. Steve Reich, _Music for 18 Musicians_ (1976; look also for the Erik Hall performance)
+4. Hélène Vogelsinger, _Reminiscence (2023)
+5. Brian Eno, _Music for Airports_ (1978)
+6. JJJJJerome Ellis, _The Clearing_ (2021)
+7. Dawn of Midi, _Dysnomia_ (2015)
+8. Nils Frahm, "Says" (2015)
+9. Kraftwerk, _Computer World_ (1981)

midterm.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# Midterm Paper
+## Analytical Summary
+
+**Due March 1, 2024, by 11:59pm.**
+
+Upload the paper to the #work channel on our Matrix chat.
+
+### Formal parameters
+* Formatted according to standard manuscript style, according to the _Chicago Manual of Style_:
+    - Double-spaced
+    - Sans-serif font, 12 pt.
+    - Ragged-right (not full justification)
+    - Chicago style footnotes (MLA is acceptable)
+    - Page numbers, plus headers with author & title
+* Between 1,500 and 2,000 words
+    - I will stop reading at 2,500 words
+    - This word count does *not* include notes
+
+NB: You can access the Chicago manual [here](https://www-chicagomanualofstyle-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/book/ed17/frontmatter/toc.html).
+
+### Prompt
+Select one (1) essay from [_The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_, ed. Kyle Stevens (OUP, 2022)](https://academic-oup-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/edited-volume/44429).
+You should be the sole student who has selected this essay.
+Write an analytical summary of this essay, answering the following questions:
+
+* What is the argument this essay makes?
+* How does the author situate its argument in the field?
+* What are the _questions_ and _problems_ this essay poses?
+* What is the archive/what are the cases this essay convenes?
+* How does the author make the argument?
+* What does the argument help you understand?
+* What does the argument help you think?
+* What is new in this argument? (To you, to the field...)
+* What are the limitations of the argument?
+* What is your sense of the importance of this argument for film theorists in 2024 and beyond?
+
+You need not answer these questions step-by-step, and you need not address all of them explicitly.
+Instead, you should write this as a helpful guide to a reader who is (literally and actually) a fellow MA student at the University of Toronto who may want to work with this essay as part of their research.
+
+### Stylistic considerations
+This essay should, in the first instance, be an aid to understanding for somebody else.
+That means it should _clarify_, and thus be written with as little indirection as you can muster.
+To the extent that you can (and these will be clarified in our writing workshop):
+
+* Write short sentences
+* Put subjects and verbs next to each other
+* Develop clear and cosistent characters and themes
+* Repetition is not the enemy
+* Use the first person pronoun judiciously
+
+In addition, while this is not a research or argumentative essay (and thus will likely not develop its own questions and problems), be as explicit as you can be about the questions and problems (à la Booth & co.) the essay poses in its own terms.
+In other words, your task here is to track the posing and development of questions and problems in another scholar's essay.
+(You will use your newfound abilities to talk about, describe, and track questions and problems to help you pose your own in your final research paper.)
+
+You should bring your own concerns and insights into this essay, and do so specifically with news that you want to share with your colleagues.
+The piece of writing I've published that is closest in form and style to this paper is ["Faith in Abstraction."](https://www.provocationsbooks.com/2020/02/14/faith-in-abstraction-a-response-to-scott-fergusons-declarations-of-dependence/)
+It's longer and more in command of a variety of fields than I expect you to be, but it's a good working model where the questions articulated above are worked through in something other than a paint-by-numbers approach.
+It's also perhaps, a bit more "book review"-ish than you may wish to be; I'm not sure you'll want to call your essay "preposterous."
+Your taste is your own business; we do, however, want your judgment.
+
+### Evaluation and marking
+I will not offer a formal rubric for graduate students, since evaluation at this level ought to be more holistic.
+However, I tend to evaluate across three categories:
+* Style and clarity
+* Technical argumentation and correctness
+* Conceptual sophistication and ambition
+
+(If we were reading films, I would also include analytical verve.)
+
+Mid-term papers are worth 25% of your final mark.
+
+Marks will be on a letter scale.
+
+I mostly don't believe in A+es.
+
+In graduate school, B-level marks are cause for concern.
+
+A mark of B- or below is cause for grave concern, and looks like a failing mark.
+
+### Other details
+* I will mark your paper within two weeks of submission.
+* I will offer written comments if you submit your paper before April 1.
+* There is no late penalty, but if you're more than 10 days late with your paper, I will expect you to have a meeting with me before you submit your work.

readme.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# CIN1101S24
+## Course website for Theories and Practices of the Cinema
+
+Helpful links:
+* [View the syllabus](syllabus.md)
+* [Log in to Matrix](https://app.element.io/#/welcome)
+* [Make an appointment with Scott](https://calendly.com/s-richmond/officehours)
+* [Consult the coveneant](covenant.md)
+* [Open _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_](https://academic-oup-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/edited-volume/44429)

syllabus.md

@@ -1,25 +1,61 @@
 # Theories and Practices of the Cinema
 ## CIN1101HS
 
+### Contents
+<!--toc:start-->
+- [Administrativia](#administrativia)
+- [Course details](#course-details)
+  - [Catalogue description](#catalogue-description)
+  - [Scott's take](#scotts-take)
+  - [Assignments & marking](#assignments-marking)
+  - [Course patterns](#course-patterns)
+  - [Reading](#reading)
+- [Course schedule](#course-schedule)
+  - [Week 1: Introductions, 2024-01-10](#week-1-introductions-2024-01-10)
+  - [Week 2: Cinema, or the invention of modern life, 2024-01-17](#week-2-cinema-or-the-invention-of-modern-life-2024-01-17)
+  - [Week 3: The culture industry and the critique of instrumental reason, 2024-01-24](#week-3-the-culture-industry-and-the-critique-of-instrumental-reason-2024-01-24)
+  - [Week 4: Politics and the unconscious, 2024-01-31](#week-4-politics-and-the-unconscious-2024-01-31)
+  - [Week 5: The cinematic body, 2024-02-07](#week-5-the-cinematic-body-2024-02-07)
+  - [Week 6: Writing theoretically, 2024-02-14](#week-6-writing-theoretically-2024-02-14)
+  - [Week 7: More film theory: Kyle Stevens, 2024-02-28](#week-7-more-film-theory-kyle-stevens-2024-02-28)
+  - [Midterm paper due: March 1, by 11:59pm](#midterm-paper-due-march-1-by-1159pm)
+  - [Week 8: Cont'd, 2024-03-06](#week-8-contd-2024-03-06)
+  - [Week 9: The material spectator: Caetlin Benson-Allot, 2024-03-13](#week-9-the-material-spectator-caetlin-benson-allot-2024-03-13)
+  - [Week 10: Cont'd, 2024-03-20](#week-10-contd-2024-03-20)
+  - [Week 11: The subject in technology: Damon Young, 2024-03-27](#week-11-the-subject-in-technology-damon-young-2024-03-27)
+  - [Week 12: Cont'd, 2024-04-03](#week-12-contd-2024-04-03)
+  - [WIP stand-ups/workshop: date TBD, sometime between April 3 and 19.](#wip-stand-upsworkshop-date-tbd-sometime-between-april-3-and-19)
+  - [Final paper due: April 26, 2024, by 11:59pm](#final-paper-due-april-26-2024-by-1159pm)
+- [Course policies](#course-policies)
+  - [Addressing Scott](#addressing-scott)
+  - [Late work](#late-work)
+  - [Comments on work](#comments-on-work)
+  - [In case of a strike](#in-case-of-a-strike)
+  - [Academic misconduct and plagiarism](#academic-misconduct-and-plagiarism)
+  - [Contact](#contact)
+  - [Accessibility](#accessibility)
+<!--toc:end-->
+
 ### Administrativia
 * _Instructor_: Scott Richmond, Associate Professor Cinema and Digital Media
 * _Meets_: Wednesdays, 3-7pm, in Innis 223E
 * _Office hours_: Tuesdays, 1-4pm; you must sign up at https://calendly.com/s-richmond/officehours
 
 ### Course details
-#### Catalog description
+#### Catalogue description
 Organized around a series of issues that have incited ongoing discussion and debate among scholars, cultural critics, and filmmakers, this course takes a topical approach to the study of film theory. In the process it both revisits some of the most canonical texts in the field and attends to more recent attempts to think through our contemporary moment, when digitality and transnationalism are radically changing the nature of film as well as the manner in which it is produced, distributed, exhibited, and viewed. Among those issues to be discussed are medium specificity, spectatorship, narrativity, affect, and the relationship between aesthetics, economics, and politics.
 
 #### Scott's take
 My goals for you for this semester are: (1) to get a solid grounding in how to read, think, and write film-theoretically; and (2) to develop a sense of film theory as a contemporary practice that emerges out of a set of shared concerns. Because of this, the course will be split, broadly, into two parts: (1) a decidedly quick-and-dirty tour through some of the most important texts in film theory, according to me; and (2) Zoom visits from some of the more important/interesting practitioners of film theory these days. The former should inform the latter.
 
 #### Assignments & marking
-There are two papers for the course. A midterm paper due on March 1 (5-7pp.), and a final paper on April 30 (18-20pp.).
+There are two papers for the course. A midterm paper due on March 1 (5-7pp.), and a final paper on April 26 (18-20pp.). Please note that all written work will be submitted to all participants in the course: we are a community of scholars working and thinking together.
+
+**Midterm paper.** Worth 25% of your final mark. The midterm paper will involve close engagement with any one of the essays from Kyle Stevens, _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_ (that we are not otherwise reading together in class). This will involve an analytical summary and theoretical critique of this essay. Students will all work on different essays.
 
-**Midterm paper.** Worth 25% of your final mark. The midterm paper will involve close engagement with one of the essays from Kyle Stevens, _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_. This will involve an analytical summary and theoretical critique of this essay. Students will all work on different essays.
 **Final paper.** Worth 50% of your final mark. The final paper will be an act of theorizing of your own. This will be guided (if not quite scaffolded) over the second half of the course. The midterm paper should be a starting point for this.
 
-**Good citizenship.** Worth 25% 0f your final mark. Good citizenship involves things both countable and uncountable. The countable parts will be assessed using a chit system; the uncountable parts will be assessed holistically. Each is worth a third of the "good citizenship" mark total. Here's the breakdown:
+**Good citizenship.** Worth 25% of your final mark. Good citizenship involves things both countable and uncountable. The countable parts will be assessed using a chit system; the uncountable parts will be assessed holistically. Each is worth a third of the "good citizenship" mark total. Here's the breakdown:
 * _Guiding the conversation._ Once during the semester, students will be required (with a partner) to pose the questions to which will will address ourselves during the seminar portion of the course. You must do this, but there is no evaluative component. You get full marks if you do the thing.
 * _Showing up to the seminar._ This is fuzzy. Are you on time? Do you contribute to the discussion? Have you done the reading? Are you supportive of your fellow students? Assessed holistically.
 * _Taking minutes._ Twice during the semester, you will be responsible for taking the minutes of the class. Most weeks, that means there will be two people taking minutes. Those two (or three) people will harmonize their notes into a quasi-official record of our seminar proceedings. There is no evaluative component. You get full marks if you do the thing twice; half marks if you do it once; zero marks if you don't do it at all.
@@ -29,47 +65,44 @@ There are two papers for the course. A midterm paper due on March 1 (5-7pp.), an
 #### Course patterns
 We have four hours together, in a single block, every week. Here's how you can expect us to spend our time together on days when there isn't a visitor. That's not our first day. That's also not our writing workshop.
 
-* Announcements & program notes.
+* _Announcements & program notes._
-* Good news. For about 5 minutes, everybody shares good news from their professional and/or personal and/or culinary and/or pet lives.
+* _Good news._ For about 5 minutes, everybody shares good news from their professional and/or personal and/or culinary and/or pet lives.
-* Questions. For about 10 minutes, the two guides for the week set up our questions for the seminar discussion. The group will decide which question(s) to address ourselves to.
+* _Mini-lecture._ For 10-15 minutes, Scott will digest the major background information for working through the texts at hand. This will be brief, interactive, and informal.
-* Think/Pair/Share. 10 minutes. Students will spend 5 minutes identifying specific passages from the reading that may be useful for working through a question, reading those passages, and taking notes on them & the question. Then, they will spend 5 minutes in pairs discussing what they read, wrote, and thought.
+* _Questions._ For about 10 minutes, the two guides for the week set up our questions for the seminar discussion. The group will decide which question(s) to address ourselves to.
-* Student driven discussion. For the next 40-60 minutes, students will have a discussion. For the first 20 minutes of that discussion, Scott is not allowed to speak unless asked a direct question from a student.
+* _Think/Pair/Share._ 10 minutes. Students will spend 5 minutes identifying specific passages from the reading that may be useful for working through a question, reading those passages, and taking notes on them & the question. Then, they will spend 5 minutes in pairs discussing what they read, wrote, and thought.
-* Redirect. After the formal discussion, we'll collect another round of questions that arose or are still unanswered during the first discussion. We'll proceed straight to discussion this time.
+* _Student driven discussion._ For the next 40-60 minutes, students will have a discussion. For the first 20 minutes of that discussion, Scott is not allowed to speak unless asked a direct question from a student.
-* Break. At least 5, as much as 15 minutes, depending on energy levels, screening length, etc.
+* _Redirect._ After the formal discussion, we'll collect another round of questions that arose or are still unanswered during the first discussion. We'll proceed straight to discussion this time.
-* Screening (or similar). Scott will introduce the screening and what to look for/think with/perplex over.
+* _Break._ At least 5, as much as 15 minutes, depending on energy levels, screening length, etc.
-* Another break. At least 5 minutes, likely only ever 5 minutes.
+* _Screening (or similar)._ Scott will introduce the screening and what to look for/think with/perplex over.
-* What did you see? Discussion of the screening.
+* _Another break._ At least 5 minutes, likely only ever 5 minutes.
+* _What did you see?_ Discussion of the screening. Continues until the end of class.
 
 #### Reading
 This is a reading-heavy and reading-forward course. The attachment here is to the site of theory. I know it's a lot; you need to get through it. That doesn't mean you need to read every word carefully! Part of the explicit project here will be to relinquish an attachment to mastery. That often means burning out the anxiety about understanding every word. I'm here to help you get it right, but I'm more concerned with your finding sincere & authentically productive ways to engage.
 
 ### Course schedule
-#### Week 1: Introductions 
+#### Week 1: Introductions, 2024-01-10
--> 2024-01-10
 * No guides.
 * We will discuss this, and other, course documents.
-* Scott Richmond, "On the Impersonality of Experience," from _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_
+* Scott Richmond, "On the Impersonality of Experience," from _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_ (2022)
-* Roland Barthes, "The Third Meaning," from _Image, Music, Text_
+* Roland Barthes, "The Third Meaning," from _Image, Music, Text_ (1973)
-* Stanley Cavell, "Music Discomposed," from _Must We Mean What We Say?_
+* Stanley Cavell, "Music Discomposed," from _Must We Mean What We Say?_ (1979)
 
-#### Week 2: Cinema, or the invention of modern life 
+#### Week 2: Cinema, or the invention of modern life, 2024-01-17
--> 2024-01-17
 * No guides. Scott demos guiding.
 * Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility," "Experience and Poverty," and "On Some Motifs in Baudelaire," from _Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings_
 * Susan Buck-Morss, "Aesthetics and Anaesthetics: Walter Benjamin's Artwork Essay Reconsidered," _October_ 62 (1992).
 * Miriam Bratu Hansen, "Room-for-Play: Benjamin's Gamble with the Cinema," _October_ 109 (2004)
 * _Screening_: Dziga Vertov, _Man with a Movie Camera_ (USSR, 1929, 68 min.)
 
-#### Week 3: The culture industry and the critique of instrumental reason 
+#### Week 3: The culture industry and the critique of instrumental reason, 2024-01-24
--> 2024-01-24
+* Guides Min, Celina.
-* Guides TBD.
 * Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "Enlightenment as Mass Deception: The Culture Industry," from _Dialectic of Enlightenment_
 * Theodor Adorno, "On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening," from _The Culture Industry_
-* _Musical listening_: some Western art and pop music: Bach, Beethoven, Glass, Lucier; Donna Summer, Lady Gaga, Chappel Roan (approx. 90 minutes, with discussion)
+* _Musical listening_: some Western art and pop music: Bach, Beethoven, Glass, Lucier; Donna Summer, Lady Gaga, Chapell Roan (approx. 90 minutes, with discussion)
 
-#### Week 4: Politics and the unconscious 
+#### Week 4: Politics and the unconscious, 2024-01-31
--> 2024-01-31
+* Guides Alex, Emily.
-* Guides TBD.
 * Jacques Lacan, the Mirror Stage essay, from _Écrits_
 * Jean-Louis Baudry, "Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus," _Film Quarterly_ 28.2 (1974-75)
 * Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," _Screen_ 16.3 (1975)
@@ -77,53 +110,62 @@ This is a reading-heavy and reading-forward course. The attachment here is to th
 * Mary Ann Doane, "Film and the Masquerade," _Screen_ 23.3-4 (1982)
 * _Screening_: Howard Hawks, _Gentlemen Prefer Blondes_ (USA, 1953, 91 mins.)
 
-#### Week 5: The cinematic body 
+#### Week 5: The cinematic body, 2024-02-07
--> 2024-02-07
+* Guides Anny, Aza.
-* Guides TBD.
 * Roland Barthes, "Leaving the Movie Theater," from _The Rustle of Language_
 * Frantz Fanon, "The Fact of Blackness," from _Black Skin, White Masks_
-* Steven Shaviro, "Film Theory and Visual Fascination," from _The Cinematic Body_
+* Stevens Shaviro, "Film Theory and Visual Fascination," from _The Cinematic Body_
 * Vivian Sobchack, "What My Fingers Knew," from _Carnal Thoughts_
 * _Screening_: Kathryn Bigelow, _Strange Days_ (USA, 1995, 145 min.)
 
-#### Week 6: Writing theoretically
+#### Week 6: Writing theoretically, 2024-02-14
--> 2024-02-14
 * No guides.
 * Wayne Booth, et al., _The Craft of Research_, selections
 
+#### Week 7: More film theory: Kyle Stevens, 2024-02-28
+* Guides Saffron, Daniela.
+* Robert Warshow, "The Gangster as Tragic Hero"
+* Stanley Cavell, "Must We Mean What We Say?"
+* Mary Ann Doane, "Ideology and the Practice of Sound Editing and Mixing"
+* Daniel Frampton, introduction to _Filmosophy_
+* Screening: Lynne Ramsay, _You Were Never Really Here_ (UK/France/USA, 2019, 90 mins.)
+
 #### Midterm paper due: March 1, by 11:59pm
 
-#### Week 7: More film theory: Kyle Stevens
+#### Week 8: Cont'd, 2024-03-06
--> 2024-02-28
-* Guides TBD.
-
-#### Week 8: Cont'd
--> 2024-03-06
 * Kyle Stevens, "The Very Thought of Theory" and "The Frame of the Skull," from _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_
-* Zoom visit from Kyle Stevens (Applachian State University)
+* Kyle Stevens, "The World Heard," _Discourse_
+* Zoom visit from Kyle Stevens (Appalachian State University)
 
-#### Week 9:The altered spectator: Caetlin Benson-Allott
+#### Week 9: The material spectator: Caetlin Benson-Allot, 2024-03-13
--> 2024-03-13
+* Guides Veronica, Orrin.
-* Guides TBD.
+* Stuart Hall, "Encoding/Decoding"
+* Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, "Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading"
+* Vivian Sobchack, "The Scene of the Screen"
+* Zhou Chenshu, "Introduction: 'Projecting Cinema'," from _Cinema Off Screen: Moviegoing in Socialist China_ (2021)
+* Screening: Walter Hill, _The Warriors_ (USA, 1981, 93 mins.)
 
-#### Week 10: Cont'd 
+#### Week 10: Cont'd, 2024-03-20
--> 2024-03-20
 * Caetlin Benson-Allott, "Contesting the White Gaze: Black Film and Postcinematic Spectatorship" from _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_
-* Caetlin Benson-Allott, "Introduction: Material Mediations," "Blunt Spectatorship: Inedbriated Poetics in Contemporary US Television," and "Conculsion: Expanding the Scene of the Screen" from _The Stuff of Spectatorship_
+* Caetlin Benson-Allott, "Introduction: Material Mediations," "Shot in Black and White: The Racialized Reception of US Cinema Violence," and "Conclusion: Expanding the Scene of the Screen" from _The Stuff of Spectatorship_
 * Zoom visit from Caetlin Benson-Allott (Georgetown University)
 
-#### Week 11:The subject in technology: Damon Young
+#### Week 11: The subject in technology: Damon Young, 2024-03-27
--> 2024-03-27
+* Guides Cailin, Kat.
-* Guides TBD.
+* Sigmund Freud, "A Child is Being Beaten," _International Journal of Psycho-Analysis_ 1 (1920)
+* Bela Belasz, "The Close Up" and "The Face of Man," from _Theory of the Film_ (1952)
+* Michel Foucault, "The Gay Science," _Critical Inquiry_ 37.3 (2011)
+* Robin Wood, "Psycho," from _Hitchcock's Films Revisited_ (1989)
+* Sianne Ngai, "Our Aesthetic Categories," _PMLA_ 125.4 (2010)
+* Screening: John Cameron Mitchell, _Shortbus_ (USA, 2006, 101 min.)
 
-#### Week 12: Cont'd
+#### Week 12: Cont'd, 2024-04-03
--> 2024-04-03
 * Damon Young, "In Defense of Psychoanalytic Film Theory" from _The Oxford Handbook of Film Theory_
 * Damon Young, "Through the Window from _Psycho_ to _Shortbus_" from _Making Sex Public_
 * Damon Young, "Ironies of Web 2.0," _Post45_ 2 (2019)
 * Zoom visit from Damon Young (University of California, Berkeley)
 
-#### WIP standups/workshop: date TBD, sometime between April 3 and 26.
+#### WIP stand-ups/workshop: date TBD, sometime between April 3 and 19.
 
 #### Final paper due: April 26, 2024, by 11:59pm
 
@@ -147,12 +189,12 @@ I take it that a strike will not _directly_ affect us in this class, since you a
 That said, I do suspect that a strike may _indirectly_ affect us: you'll be distracted, and possibly distraught. Not great conditions for learning. We'll feel our way through this, and I'd like to know what I can do to help.
 
 #### Academic misconduct and plagiarism
-School of Graduate Studies policies on academic misconduct and plagiarism are in full effect. These can be found at https://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/policies-guidelines/academic-integrity-resources/. This is deadly serious stuff for graduate students; I am a deep stickler for academic integrity. If you have questions or even hesitations about what is permissible, please ask early and often. Also, if it comes down to giving me something plagiarized or flubbing a deadline, flub the deadline (the late work policy above notwithstanding).
+School of Graduate Studies policies on academic misconduct and plagiarism are in full effect. These can be found at https://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/policies-guidelines/academic-integrity-resources/. This is deadly serious stuff for graduate students; I am a deep stickler for academic integrity. If you have questions or even hesitations about what is permissible, please ask early and often. Also, if it comes down to giving me something plagiarized or flubbing a deadline, flub the deadline (the late work policy above should take a lot of pressure off, here).
 
 I have taken no provisions to mitigate academic dishonesty from ChatGPT. I trust you, and I _actively want to know what you think_. That said, it does not quite go without saying: please do not use LLMs in an academically dishonest manner. That means: do not represent its output as your own thoughts, insights, or writing. (Seriously: do not take your thought so unseriously as to suggest, even to yourself, that it can be replaced by fancy autocomplete.)
 
 #### Contact
-I am more or less drowning in work, and email specifically. I cannot guarantee a response to email or Slack DMs in a particular window of time; I will do my best to respond within two business days. That said, especially if it's a time sensitive matter, I encourage you to send a follow-up email if I haven't gotten back to you within a week (or less, if the time-sensitive matter is getting ripe). I will _thank_ you for this sort of reminder; it is not remotely an imposition. Also, you may do better to make an appointment with me in office hours: you can be certain of my attention then.
+I am more or less drowning in work, and email specifically. I cannot guarantee a response to email or Matrix DMs in a particular window of time; I will do my best to respond within two business days. That said, especially if it's a time sensitive matter, I encourage you to send a follow-up email if I haven't gotten back to you within a week (or less, if the time-sensitive matter is getting ripe). I will _thank_ you for this sort of reminder; it is not remotely an imposition. Also, you may do better to make an appointment with me in office hours: you can be certain of my attention then.
 
 #### Accessibility
-I aim for universal accessibility in my course design, but this is not always possbile. If you have any concerns about accessibility issues (documented or undocumented, of whatever kind), please confer with me early and often about them. We will work together collaboratively to address your concerns.
+I aim for universal accessibility in my course design, but this is not always possible. If you have any concerns about accessibility issues (documented or undocumented, of whatever kind), please confer with me early and often about them. We will work together collaboratively to address your concerns.