Assignments:
Batch Two:
Assignment Sixteen
Bill Nichols & Susan J Lederman write that
'virtually every... account of the perception of movement in film texts [is] wrong. The
impression of movement is not due to persistence of vision. The very persistence with which
this "explanation" has been recited says more about the hermetic and impressionistic world of
some film scholarship than it does about the actual mechanisms involved'. Offer a critical
exploration of this issue.
Guidance
For general guidance about what is expected in your essays for this module,
see the
general criteria.
What Key Features Do I Look For?
- Familiarity with relevant texts
- Evidence - the stronger the better
- Argument - coherent and balanced
- Theoretical discussion - relation to relevant theories
- Understanding of relevant concepts
- Reflexivity - reflections on methodology
- Examples - insightfully analysed
- Style - readability and effective presentation
|
Please remember to avoid footnotes and to include an
alphabetical list of 'References' which have been cited in the text
(not a Bibliography of anything you have read for the essay). This list should include
author's names, date, book titles (in italics), place of publication and publisher.
Within the text always cite author's surname, date and page number. Double-space your
text and number your pages. For more detailed notes on writing essays in this
department, click
here.
Advice for this particular assignment:
This title may particularly appeal to some film students.
Note that it emphasises the active processes
of cognition in visual perception.
Do not rely on general textbooks. Favour psychologically-oriented specialist texts.
Note also that this is an assignment for which the
inclusion of relevant pictorial illustrations is likely to be an advantage.
Some suggested reading
- Anderson, Joseph & Barbara (1980) 'Motion Perception in Motion Pictures'.
In Teresa de Lauretis & Stephen Heath (Eds)
The Cinematic Apparatus.
London: Macmillan, pp. 76-95
- Anderson, Joseph & Barbara (1993) 'The Myth of Persistence of Vision Revisited',
Journal of Film and Video 45(1): 3-12; [WWW document] URL
http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/classicwork/Myth%20Revisited.htm
- Herbert, Stephen (nd): 'Persistence of Vision' [WWW document] URL
http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/persistence_of_vision/
- Hochberg, Julian (1987) 'Perception of Motion Pictures'. In Richard L Gregory
(Ed)
The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 604-8 [NB: This material is only in the first edition]
- Hochberg, Julian & V Brooks (1978) 'The Perception of Motion Pictures'. In
E C Carterette & M P Friedman (Eds)
Handbook of Perception, Vol. X: 'Perceptual Ecology' New York:
Academic Press
- Jones, Michael (nd) 'The Flick in Flicker: Persistence of Vision and Phi Phenomenon'
[WWW document] URL
http://www.rmicweb.org/flicker/flick.html
- Monaco, James (1981)
How to Read a Film. New York: Oxford University Press
- Munday, Rod (2006) 'The Moving Image' [WWW document] URL
http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Modules/MC10220/visper08.html [note that these are lecture notes only and you should not directly cite them]
- Nichols, Bill & Susan J Lederman (1980) 'Flicker and Motion in Film'.
In Teresa de Lauretis & Stephen Heath (Eds)
The Cinematic Apparatus.
London: Macmillan, pp. 96-105
- Winston, Brian (nd) 'How Are Media Born and Developed' [WWW document] URL
http://online.sfsu.edu/~eyal/winston.html
Note: Treat with extreme caution sources labelled with this symbol!