|
Summary of movie and
|
2
|
1
|
.5
|
|
0
|
|
|
details support reviewer's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
opinion
|
Writer gives a brief summary
|
Summary is either a little too
|
Summary is either much too
|
Little or no significant
|
|
|
of the frame and the signs
|
long or not long enough but
|
short or much too long; may
|
summary; no details from the
|
|
|
and symbols that make up the
|
does not give away ending;
|
be vague or tell too much;
|
movie and little evidence from
|
|
|
mise-en-scene
|
not quite as compelling; fewer
|
few details from the movie
|
summary to support
|
|
|
|
details from the movie and
|
and little evidence from
|
reviewer’s opinion
|
|
|
|
evidence from summary to
|
summary to support
|
|
|
|
|
|
support reviewer’s opinion
|
reviewer’s opinion
|
|
|
|
Evaluation the theory of
|
8
|
6
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
semiotics helps us
|
There is significant evidence
|
Contains some evaluation of
|
Contains insufficient
|
Contains no significant
|
|
constructs meaning in
|
that the student has used the
|
aspects of semiotics, but only
|
evaluation of the terminology
|
evaluation of aspects of the
|
|
cinema
|
semiotics terminology and
|
a superficial discussion of the
|
and theory of semiotics
|
film or semiotics
|
|
|
theory to discuss how the
|
signs and symbols and how
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
camera helps us construct
|
the theory helps us
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meaning in cinema
|
constructs meaning in cinema
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective organization and
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
flow
|
Review is strongly organized
|
Review is organized and most
|
Review lacks strong
|
Review is choppy or in
|
|
|
with clear transitions and
|
transitions and connections
|
organization; jumps around
|
cohesive; organization is
|
|
|
logical connections that create
|
are clear, but either
|
too much or lacks effective
|
unclear; few effective
|
|
|
a sense of being tightly woven
|
organization is somewhat
|
transitions; not in logical
|
transitions
|
|
|
together
|
lacking or the sense of flow is
|
order
|
|
|
|
|
|
somewhat abrupt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Final evaluation
|
2
|
1
|
.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review offers a clear
|
Conclusion is satisfactory but
|
A conclusion is present, but
|
No conclusion is present.
|
|
|
conclusion or evaluation of
|
is lacking of a clear final
|
it's weak and lacking of a
|
|
|
|
|
the critical relationship
|
evaluation of relationship
|
clear final evaluation of
|
|
|
|
|
between the theory of
|
between the theory of
|
relationship between
|
|
|
|
|
semiotics and the construction
|
semiotics and the construction
|
semiotics and the construction
|
|
|
|
|
of meaning in the film
|
of meaning in the film
|
of meaning in this film
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
10
|
4
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|