Life and debt political film review

PLS300: Political Ideologies – Fall 2018 Film Review Assignment #1 – Due November 20, 2018 The purpose of this assignment is for you to provide a close, careful reading of Stephanie Black’s 2001 film, Life and Debt, and to connect the film to the readings, ideas and themes of PLS300. The film documents the extent to which the international economic system undermines economic and political development in the world’s least developed countries. It is deeply critical of the practices of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and also tries to show us the ultimately illusory nature of so-called “free” trade. In your review, please answer the following questions: What is the historical and political context of the film? When and where does the film take place? What is the film’s central thesis? What evidence does the film use to advance that thesis? Is this evidence persuasive? Why or why not? You are expected to make extensive use of assigned course material: for this assignment, the articles by Andrew Gamble, James Buchanan and John Williamson are particularly relevant. Of course, you are also welcome, but not obligated, to consult additional secondary material.

Directions and Reminders The film is available at the Newnham Library (Call #HC154 .L54 2001). You can also stream the film online by going to the Library home page. Type "Life and Debt" in the search bar, and select the Streaming video option. You will then be directed to the SeneMA website, where you will be asked to create a login using your Seneca College User ID and E-mail. Spelling and grammar count. Your grade is based on constructing a convincing argument and a poorly written paper is not very convincing. Essay style is also important. You must have a clear thesis, which you set out to prove through supporting claims backed up by evidence. I encourage you to make use of the Writing Exchange program at the Seneca College Learning Centre (https://inside.senecacollege.ca/learningcentres/writing- exchange). Please make sure to properly cite all sources and to include all relevant references in an attached bibliography. You may use any citation method (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) you like as long as you do so consistently. Please avoid cover sheets, but make sure to have a header. This header should consist of your name, the course number and name, the date, the name of your instructor, as well as the assignment ("Film Review #1") in the upper left corner of your review. Please also include the word count at the end of the review. Students are required to submit an electronic copy of the assignment (in.docx format) to SafeAssign on Blackboard. Please keep electronic and hard copies of your assignments before submitting them, as well as keep drafts and rough work until all assignments have been returned. As per the course addendum, late assignments will be penalized 5% per day. No assignments will be accepted 7 days after the original due date.

PLS300: Grading Rubric for Film Review Assignment

Performance

Area Rating = 4 Excellent

Rating = 3 Good

Rating = 2 Fair

Rating = 1 Poor

Score

Comprehension

The student demonstrates a clear, accurate, detailed and comprehensive understanding of the filmmaker’s intention, worldview, and suggestions for reform.

The student demonstrates an adequate understanding of the filmmaker’s intention, worldview, and suggestions for reform.

The student demonstrates an uneven and shaky understanding of the filmmaker’s intention, worldview, and suggestions for reform.

The student demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the filmmaker’s intention, worldview, and suggestions for reform.

Comments:

Analysis

The student demonstrates a clear, accurate, detailed and comprehensive understanding of the abstract ideological values, principles and assumptions that inform the film, and connects the filmmaker’s views to primary course material in interesting, innovative ways.

The student demonstrates an adequate understanding of the abstract ideological values, principles and assumptions that inform the film, and capably connects the filmmaker’s views to primary course material.

The student demonstrates an uneven and shaky understanding of the abstract ideological values, principles and assumptions that inform the film. The student does not connect the filmmaker’s views to primary course material.

The student demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the abstract ideological values, principles and assumptions that inform the film. The student does not connect the filmmaker’s views to primary course material.

Comments:

Critique The student

carefully and thoroughly examines the evidence (and the source of this evidence), convincingly questions its accuracy, precision, relevance and completeness, and also provides compelling philosophical and policy alternatives.

The student examines the evidence, questions its accuracy but does not provide philosophical and policy alternatives.

The student examines the evidence, but does not convincingly question its accuracy or provide philosophical and policy alternatives.

The student does not consider the veracity, comprehensivenes s or accuracy of the evidence presented in the film. The student does not consider philosophical and policy alternatives.

Comments:

Style

The student writes in a clear, concise manner, and uses a lot of sentence variety and strong word choices. The paper is also free of grammatical and spelling errors.

The writing in this document is good, but the writer could have introduced more variety and/or written in a more concise fashion. The paper had some grammatical and spelling errors, but those errors did not interfere with the reader’s understanding of the document’s purpose.

The writing is awkward and occasionally difficult to understand. There were also numerous grammatical and spelling errors, which interfered with the reader’s understanding of the document’s purpose.

The writing is poor, rambling and unfocused and therefore typically very difficult to understand. There were also numerous grammatical and spelling errors, which indicate a total disinterest in proof reading.

Comments: