Web & Social Media Analytics Previous Year Question Paper.pdf
Journal of marketingmanagement, 2013vol. 29,nos. 1–2, 26–47,
1. Journal ofMarketingManagement, 2013
Vol. 29,Nos. 1–2, 26–47,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.769020
Anthropomorphism, marketing relationships, and
consumption worth in theToyStory trilogy1
ClintonD.Lanier Jr., University of St. Thomas,Minnesota,USA
C.ScottRader,WesternCarolinaUniversity,NorthCarolina,USA
AubreyR.Fowler III,ValdostaStateUniversity, Georgia,USA
Abstract Who doesn’t love a toy? Toys become our friends, our
inspirations,
and our creations. What is interesting about these significant
relationships is
that they are formed with rather ordinary commercial products.
While this
may seem natural enough, Pixar’s Toy Story trilogy provides us
a glimpse into
the other side of this relationship, that is, from the perspective
of the toys.
Through a highly sophisticated use of anthropomorphism, the
films reveal that
theserelationshipsare far fromone-sided, value-based, identity-
laden,symbolic
manifestations. Instead, they encompass a mutually constituting,
evolving,
defining, and ever-changing process, in which we become our
objects as much
as our objects becomeus. As a result, it is important to look
beyond the relative
valueof theseobjects in order to assess their overallworth.
4. the Toy Story
trilogy. Through a critical examination of the ‘vital materiality’
of the movies and
their characters (Bennett, 2010), a radical and innovative
understanding emerges
of the profound and pervasive nature of contemporary life in
which consumers
and products form complex relationships that reciprocally
constitute and define the
participants. Far from being one-sided, in the Toy Story movies,
the products also
possess a life of their own, which consequently allows them to
form relationships with
consumers that must be continually negotiated and experienced
not simply to allow
consumers to produce meaning, but to help them discover what
it means to exist.
These relationships are based on a deeper ontological
connection and corresponding
set of responsibilities that consumers must learn from their
possessions in order to
live a fuller and more rewarding life.
TheToy (back)Story
The three Toy Story films, created and produced by Pixar
animation studios
(Paik, 2007), provide an ideal context from which to examine
the interface of
anthropomorphism, marketing, and consumption for three
reasons. First, each
of the movies prominently features anthropomorphised
characters as the primary
actors. Here, the objects being anthropomorphised – toys – are
mass-produced
commercial products, providing an appropriate venue for a
5. marketing analysis.
The main characters include Woody, a nostalgic cowboy doll,
and Buzz Lightyear,
an intergalactic action figure. While the two main characters are
fictional toys,
the movies also include a cadre of some well-known and
popular non-fictional
toys, including Mr Potato Head, Etch-a-Sketch, and Speak-n-
Spell, all of which are
also anthropomorphised. In addition, the films focus primarily
on various types
of marketing-based relationships among the anthropomorphised
toys and different
human characters (e.g. Andy, Sid, and Al). Finally, all of the
movies deal specifically
with issues arising from the consumption (i.e. acquisition, use,
and disposal) of the
anthropomorphised toys.
Second, all of the films clearly captivated the viewing public, as
well as movie
critics, upon their initial release and have continued to resonate
with audiences
at home and in theatres, as evidenced by re-releases and DVD
sales (United Press
International, 2010). The original Toy Story, released in 1995,
grossed nearly
$361 million worldwide, ranking it as the 125th top grossing
movie of all time (Box
28 Journal ofMarketingManagement, Volume29
Office Mojo, 2012). Toy Story 2, released in 1999, grossed
$485 million worldwide,
6. and Toy Story 3, released in 2010, grossed $1.06 billion
worldwide, making it,
remarkably, the tenth highest grossing movie of all time (Box
Office Mojo, 2012).
This popularity spawned a huge merchandising effort, including
toys, clothes, games,
and even theme-park attractions (Price, 2009). The enduring
fascination with the
movies and their characters suggests that they are tapping into
something much
deeper than simply hedonic enjoyment and are addressing
consumers at the level
of lived experience.
Third, the films all maintain a considerable cultural, critical,
and even historical
relevance. In 2005, the US Library of Congress added the
original movie to its
National Film Registry, claiming that Toy Story represents a
pioneering breakthrough
as the first full-length animated feature to be created entirely by
artists using computer
technology (Library of Congress, 2005). This echoes Mendlow
(1995), who suggests
that ‘like the creators of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
fifty-eight years before
them, the makers of Toy Story . . . blazed a trail, introducing a
brand new medium in
animation’ (p. 128). Each of the subsequent movies continued to
push the boundaries
of computer animation, and the third was even nominated for a
Best Picture Academy
Award, only the third such animated film to have been so (Pixar
Planet, 2011). Even
with all of the cutting-edge technology, John Lasseter, the chief
creative officer at
7. both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studies, insists that it is
ultimately the stories
that resonate with audiences and fans (Lasseter & Daly, 1995).
Critics agree that
what vaults the films, especially as animated movies, to the
level of cultural icon is
the sophistication of the stories coupled with their accessibility
to multiple audiences
(Klady, 1995; Stack, 1995).
Unpacking theToyStory trilogy: A critical analysis
Although we have watched these movies multiple times (and
must admit that we own
one or two action figures . . . or three or four or five), a deeper
viewing of the films
allowed us to see things that we clearly missed with a more
casual approach. Indeed,
while anthropomorphism served as the overall impetus for the
research, our inductive
analysis of the films revealed that this important concept cannot
be understood in
isolation, but must be examined within a complex and evolving
network of humans,
objects, and their interrelationships. To that end, we present our
emergent themes
as unfolding narratives that reveal the anthropomorphic insights
of the films. Given
space limitations, familiarity with the movies is assumed,
though some contextual
descriptions are provided to situate the readers in relation to
particular storylines in
the films.
‘PizzaPlanet’:Anthropomorphismredux
8. It seems safe to say that the Toy Story trilogy takes
anthropomorphism to whole a new
level. While the various individual anthropomorphic aspects of
the films may not be
unprecedented, their complex and interwoven structures provide
a very unique view
of consumers, objects, and their interactions. What we
discovered in our analysis is
that anthropomorphism operates simulta neously on multiple
levels and from various
perspectives, with the result being that the films actually call
the very nature of
anthropomorphism into question. Whereas most cultural
manifestations conform
Lanier et al.Anthropomorphism, relationships, andworth 29
to conventional anthropomorphism theories of the imposition of
overtly human
perspectives on the world (e.g. Guthrie, 1993), the films
suggests that humans exist in
a deeper relationship with the world that ultimately transcends
this anthropocentric
perspective and connects us to the rest of creation in such a way
that only by
overcoming this view can we live in harmony with the world.
At the most basic level, Pixar employs anthropomorphism in a
rather traditional
manner to bring ordinary children’s toys to life and situate them
in an intricate world
of their own (e.g. Winnie-the-Pooh; Milne, 1926). What is
interesting, though, is that
what is being anthropomorphised is not the actual object, but a
9. digital representation
of the object, making the characters a type of
anthropomorphised simulacra that is
‘more real than real’ (Baudrillard, 1994). In fact, Woody and
Buzz were never actual
toys to begin with, but instead are fictional characters created
strictly for the films.
Even so, they quickly become the stars of the movies, dwarfing
both the human
characters and the ‘real’ toys (e.g. Mr Potato Head).
Pixar does not stop here, but situates the secret lives of toys
within the world
of humans. At this level, we have two very different worlds
interacting while
also remaining distinctly separate. In fact, we are informed that
there are larger
rules at play dictating the two worlds’ interaction and
separation, suggesting
something greater at work than mere anthropomorphism.
Although this general
type of human–anthropomorphised interaction is part of the
literary genre (e.g.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland; Carroll, 1865/1986), the
complexity of these
types of relationships in the Toy Story trilogy goes far beyond
any previous work.
(Wonderland seems tame by comparison.) In this particular
case, we encounter
another type of anthropomorphism in which the human children
in the films (e.g.
Andy, Sid, and Bonnie) bring the toys to life through their
imaginative world of
pretend play. This imposed ‘fantasy’ life, though, remains
different from the ‘real’
lives of the toys. However, the children’s imaginative play
10. world can and does have
a dramatic and even destructive impact on the lives of the toys.
In an example of
an even more complex anthropomorphic simulacra, we have
anthropomorphised
digital characters (i.e. human children) anthropomorphising (i.e.
through play-
acting) other anthropomorphised digital characters (i.e. toys),
though without the
knowledge that the toys have a real life of their own, which i s
based on the original
anthropomorphisation. (We hope you’re keeping up!)
Equally important, in addition to the children
anthropomorphising toys, we also
encounter the reversal, whereby the toys anthropomorphise
children. In multiple
scenes, we see Andy pretending to be Woody and interacting
with the other toys and
non-human characters as if he is now part of that secret world,
which he does not
even know exists (e.g. dressed in his Woody hat, Andy tells
Buster the dog to ‘reach
for the sky’). In addition, we witness Andy constructing a
spacesuit out of cardboard
boxes, thus becoming Buzz Lightyear as he exclaims, ‘To
infinity, and beyond!’ We
witness similar ‘reversals’ with Emily (i.e. the owner of the
Jessie the cowgirl doll) in
Toy Story 2 and Bonnie (i.e. the daughter of the day care
manager) in Toy Story 3.
Each of these examples indicates that anthropomorphism is not
simply a one-way
street (e.g. Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010) but has powerful
influence over all
involved.
11. Lastly, in a final ontological push of the anthropomorphism
boundary, we
encounter the anthropomorphic toys calling their own
anthropomorphic nature
into question. In Toy Story, the ‘real’ anthropomorphised
Woody tells the
‘real’ anthropomorphised Buzz that he is not the ‘real’ non-
anthropomorphised
30 Journal ofMarketingManagement, Volume29
galaxy-romping Space Ranger (which is not real to begin with),
but simply a child’s
plaything, to which a defiant Buzz responds that Woody is ‘a
sad, strange little man’
(though probably no stranger than that last sentence). Likewise,
in Toy Story 2, Buzz
must remind Woody that he is not a vintage collector’s item, but
merely a toy. More
scathingly, in Toy Story 3, Lotso the bear tells the other toys,
‘You think you’re
special? You’re a piece of plastic. You were made to be thrown
away’. Whereas
Lotso acknowledges their specific nature to suggest that being
non-human has no
value independent of anthropomorphism, the other toys, in a
notable departure
from conventional anthropomorphism theory, argue that it is in
fact their nature
as non-human objects that makes them so special.
‘Strange things (arehappening tome)’:
Thecomplexnatureofobjects
12. As the literature on material culture has made increasingly
clear, objects exist
in a complex network of sociocultural meanings (Appadurai,
1986; Douglas &
Isherwood, 1979; Miller, 1987). What we discover in the films
is that these same
objects do not operate merely as instrumental means to human
ends (functionally
and/or symbolically), but exert powerful forces on these
relationships both in concert
with and in defiance of these meanings. The idea that life is
simply anthropocentric
manipulations of symbolic signs and meanings (Baudrillard,
1993) belies the much
more fundamental relationships that underlie and create these
meanings.
This is apparent in Toy Story 2 when Woody, who presumably
only knew of
Andy and his family’s world, confronts his cultural history as
the main character
in a popular 1950s children’s television program, ‘Woody’s
Roundup’. Woody is
dumbfounded to discover that he not only has a complex and
well-developed
backstory, but also a plethora of associated tie-in products,
point-of-purchase
displays, and even fans, all of which reveal his commercial
nature. What makes
Woody important, as another character from the television
show, the Prospector
(a.k.a. Stinky Pete, for reasons left unsaid) points out, is not
simply the fact
that Woody is a commercial medium for the transmission of
cultural meanings
13. (McCracken, 1986), but that he constitutes the collective
consciousness of that
bygone era. Hence, objects can move beyond anthropomorphism
and take on a
life of their own as they embody the broader sense of our
relation to the world
(Bennett, 2010). That is, these objects can become powerful
agents that can act upon
our imaginations and cultural creations. This is evident when
the Prospector informs
Woody that the series was cancelled because of the collective
cultural shift away from
interest in the mythos of the American West to that of outer
space (setting the stage
for Buzz Lightyear).
An even more important issue is revealed when, upon seeing
Woody’s
astonishment, the Prospector asks rhetorically, ‘You don’t know
who you are?’
While researchers have focused on how we impose meanings on
objects, especially
those that are important to us (Belk et al., 1989; Curasi, Price,
& Arnould, 2004;
Grayson & Schulman, 2000), we tend to ignore the fact that
objects exist as
independent entities that are oblivious to the meanings that we
impose upon them.
Even those objects that we designate as special and sacred are
often beyond our
control. For example, while Andy anthropomorphises the toys to
have specific traits
and characteristics in his pretend play scenarios (e.g. Bo Peep is
a helpless damsel
in distress and Rex the dinosaur is a ferocious beast), these tend
to be contrary
14. to how the toys actually are (e.g. Bo Peep is very sexually
assertive while Rex is
Lanier et al.Anthropomorphism, relationships, andworth 31
quite timid). While we are not proposing that objects have
objective meanings or
actual selves (which are essentially human attributions anyway),
what this form of
anthropomorphism suggests is that there is often an
incongruence between how we
imagine or want an object to be and how it actually is. This may
account for the
frustration that we sometimes feel when objects do not fulfil the
ends that we seek
from them, not to mention the ways that the actual nature of the
objects influence
our own personal meanings and sense of self.
The anthropomorphism in the Toy Story films further reveals
that not only do
toys exist as independent ontological beings (though of a
commodity nature), but
that they are also unique and possess distinct ‘personalities’. In
fact, like humans, no
toy is perfect, and each comes with its own set of flaws. For
example, while Woody
is faithful and true, he also exhibits traits of jealousy and envy
– especially when
Buzz arrives and seemingly displaces Woody as Andy’s
favourite toy. Buzz, while
exhibiting traits of resourcefulness and loyalty, arrives in the
first Toy Story movie
as quite a delusional character. Other toys represent relatively
15. benign personalities,
such as Hamm, the practical piggy bank, and the cynical Mr
Potato Head, while
others are downright nasty, such as the manipulative and
conniving prospector,
Stinky Pete, and the sociopathic huggable bear, Lotso. With the
exception of these
two characters and some other unsavoury toys, which start out
sweet and lovable
but then turn exceedingly unpleasant, most of the other toys are
loved in spite of
their flaws. Joseph Campbell (1904–1987), noted scholar of
world mythology, goes
even further by arguing that it is actually the imperfections of
character that we love
(Campbell, 1988). Rather than raising the status of objects to
some saintly position
by imbuing them with special and sacred meaning (Belk et al.,
1989), it may actually
be the ordinary and profane nature of some objects that makes
them attractive and
endearing to us.
At the same time, objects do not exist in isolation, but in
complex relations to
other objects. For example, it is clear at the beginning of Toy
Story that there is
a hierarchical social structure among the toys, with Woody
acting as the de facto
leader (presumably because he is Andy’s favourite). Throughout
the three movies, we
witness various types of relationships among the
anthropomorphised objects (e.g.
authoritative, competitive, cooperative, informative,
manipulative, and romantic),
all of which exhibit dynamic tensions that shape the
16. relationships. Usually, these
interactions are precipitated by the arrival and departure of
other toys, which
dramatically changes both the ontological structure and
epistemological nature of the
toys. What we learn is that not only do objects have thei r own
particular being, but
also that their existence and meaning is directly affected by the
presence (and absence)
of other objects. In addition, the hierarchical structure is very
fluid and tenuous (even
among special possessions), as is evident by the immediate
displacement of Woody
by Buzz through the mere act of receiving a gift (Sherry, 1993).
As a result, the
relationships among objects ultimately affect both their status
and significance (Epp &
Price, 2010). As soon as Buzz is introduced into this particular
world of toys, ‘strange
things’ indeed start happening – namely to Woody’s sense of
belonging.
What, then, is the nature or purpose of objects? Woody
constantly reminds the
other toys that their existence (and meaning) is not predicated
on being played
with (i.e. a functional or symbolic purpose; Richins, 1994),
which corresponds with
extant theory on anthropomorphism, but rather is based on
‘being there’ for Andy
(i.e. an ontological purpose; Heidegger, 1927/1962). What the
films suggest is that
humans do not make sense of the world merely by attaching
meaning to things, either
17. 32 Journal ofMarketingManagement, Volume29
cognitively or bodily (Belk, 1988; Firat & Venkatesh, 1995; Joy
& Sherry, 2003), but
by encountering, interacting with, and even creating things that
exist independently
from themselves (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934). In fact, the
movies seem to discount
the meanings or symbolism of objects as an overriding
importance in this relationship
(Firat & Venkatesh, 1995). For example, in Toy Story, when
Buzz finally discovers
that he is merely a toy, he laments his fate to Woody: ‘For the
first time, I am thinking
clearly. I’m not a Space Ranger. I’m just a toy – a stupid, little
insignificant toy’.
Woody responds, ‘Being a toy is a lot better than being a Space
Ranger. Over in that
house is a kid who thinks you’re the greatest. And it’s not
because you’re a Space
Ranger, pal. It’s because you are a toy. You are HIS toy!’ The
visceral connection
between Andy and his toys, like any child with his/her favourite
things, transcends
any imposed public or private meaning (Richins, 1994), which
is always a once-
removed act of signifying, and constitutes an unreflective act of
pure being (a fact
that seems to get lost by us adults who incessantly try to
intellectualise the process).
It is those moments of existential connection that give rise to,
rather than being the
result of, creative acts of meaning and joy. For instance, does
Andy love his toys
because of the pretend play scenarios, or do the pretend play
18. scenarios arise from his
love for the toys?
‘You’remyfavouritedeputy’:Human–object relationships
We are all born into a world of objects, both natural and human
made, and objects
continuously stream in and out of this world. This movement of
objects, and its
subsequent effect on human–object relationships, is one of the
primary plot lines that
runs throughout the Toy Story trilogy. While much attention in
consumer research
has focused on the rituals and practices for receiving,
transforming, and disposing of
objects (Belk et al., 1989; Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005;
Wallendorf & Arnould,
1991), some of which we witness in the movies (e.g. birthday
parties, Christmas
festivities, and charitable donations), far less research has
examined the complex
and intimate relationships that form between objects and
humans during their time
together – especially those relations that go beyond
anthropocentric human identity
practices or magical thinking (Epp & Price, 2010; Fernandez &
Lastovicka, 2011).
For example, in Toy Story, Buzz shows off Andy’s name on the
bottom of his foot.
He tells the other toys, ‘It looks as though I’ve been accepted
into your culture. Your
chief, Andy, inscribed his name on me’. Rex replies, ‘With
permanent ink, too!’ This
raises an interesting question: What happens when objects enter
into a fully fledged
and publicly acknowledged relationship with humans?
19. Similar to the research on product anthropomorphism (Chandler
& Schwartz,
2010; Fernandez & Lastovicka, 2011; Landwehr, McGill, &
Herrmann, 2011),
the literature on human–object relationships contends that these
relationships can
generally be classified as either positive or negative depending
on the degree of
importance of the object to the consumer and the integration of
the object into the
consumer’s life (Belk, 1988; Curasi et al., 2004; Epp & Price,
2010). The Toy Story
movies suggest, though, that these relationships are much more
complex, and that
objects can be as fully integrated into negative relationships as
they can in positive
relationships. For example, Andy represents more positive
human–object relations
in which he loves and cares for his toys, which are fully
integrated into his world.
But rather than being simple extensions of his self (e.g. does
Andy really want to be
one-eyed Bart the bank robber, a favourite character in his
pretend play scenarios?)
Lanier et al.Anthropomorphism, relationships, andworth 33
or repositories of romanticised family memories (e.g. does Andy
really love Woody
simply because he is an old family toy?), these relationships
take on deeper
expressions of what it means to exist by stimulating Andy’s
imagination to consider
20. the larger questions of life. Clearly, this form of imaginative
anthropomorphism
(Fisher, 1991) is much more intricate and acute than in extant
interpretations of
human–object relations. To be sure, moving beyond imagining
that toys are simply
‘human-like’, Andy’s pretend play scenarios usually deal with
fairly profound issues,
such as the relationship between good and evil. In this case,
good tends to triumph
over evil (e.g. one-eyed Bart goes to jail), and all of the toys are
reintegrated back
into the whole dynamic relationship.
In contrast to Andy, Sid, the nefarious kid next door, represents
more negative
human–object relations in that the interactions usually lead to
the destruction of
the objects and consequently the relationships. At the same
time, though, Sid is as
equally committed and involved in the ‘relationships’ as Andy.
Likewise, the human–
object relationships also inspire Sid to use his imagination
vividly to consider the
deeper relationship between good and evil, but with the outcome
being notably
different from that in Andy’s pretend play scenarios. Sid’s
considerable investment
in these decidedly ‘short-term’ relationships is evident in the
extent to which he has
turned his bedroom into a virtual laboratory, equipped with a
fully tooled workbench,
in order to live out his own pretend play scenarios. He has even
spent his hard-
earned allowance on additional objects (e.g. fireworks) to
gleefully destroy some
21. of the doomed toys. In a twisted sense, while negative
relationships can dictate
the disposition (and even destruction) of objects (Belk et al.,
1989; Chandler &
Schwarz, 2010), they are clearly not an indicator of lack of
involvement, investment,
or imagination. This example suggests that human–object
relations are much more
layered and multifaceted than is captured in the current
literature.
Another major insight that we gain from looking at these
human–object relations
is that rather than objects being simply or solely extensions of
our individual or
collective identity (Belk, 1988; Curasi et al., 2004; Epp &
Price, 2010), humans are
often extensions of their objects. For example, in Toy Story,
Woody, angry at being
displaced by Andy’s new toy, directly confronts Buzz: ‘Listen,
light snack, you stay
away from Andy. He’s mine, and no one is taking him away
from me’. In this case,
it seems that the object has taken possession of the human. The
toys may ‘be there’
for Andy, but Andy is clearly there for them as well. That is,
Andy is as much defined
by the toys as the toys are by Andy. As mentioned above, this is
apparent when Andy
dresses up and pretends to be Woody and Buzz, and also in the
pretend play scenarios
when he enacts the imaginary characters of each of the toys. We
see this as well in
the grotesquely negative relationships and pretend play
scenarios of Sid, in which he
increasingly becomes a mutant extension of his experimental
22. toys (notice his t-shirt
next time you watch the movie). This is not to deny that humans
have a powerful
effect on their objects (Belk, 1988); rather, the films suggest
that objects have an
equal, active, and very real impact on humans, with the
interactive process becoming
mutually defining (Blumer, 1969).
Lastly, while both the relationship marketing and consumer–
object literatures have
extensively examined the creation, maintenance, and disposition
of relationships,
there is little exploration of what we call ‘anti-relationships’
(i.e. the need for
or …
1
Proposal for Thematic Springboard Paper
ENG2102 - Spring 2021
Due: 11:59 PM, Tuesday, February 23
Directions: (1) Download this document. (2) Using MS Word
(or compatible program) type in the requested information
below. (3) Save your file. (4) Upload your file to Turnitin.com.
Tips:
· Before turning in this assignment, review the full directions
for the Thematic Springboard paper and watch the lecture.
· Save, email a copy, or print out your chosen articles for easy
future reference.
· Whenever possible, access the articles’ PDF format (rather
than HTML).
23. · Refer to the handout “Research Tips for Finding Sources about
Movies” for an overview of finding the required source(s).
1. Student:
2. Section (either 0M1 or 0M2):
3. Choice for Key Analytical Article
Choose one of the 15 articles from “Barbara’s Recommended
Articles for Spring 2021.” On Academic Search Complete (SF
library databases), find this article and locate the following
information. Give page numbers from the PDF version of the
essay (not the HTML version). This article will provide the
main analytical point of view for your analysis.
Article title and subtitle:
Author(s):
Periodical/source name:
Database icon (either Academic journal, Periodical, or Review):
Volume #:
Issue/No. #:
First page #:
Last Page #:
Publication date:
DOI:
AN:
Quote the thesis of this article:
The thesis is on page:
Explain in your own words what this thesis statement is
arguing:
4. Choice for Focus Movie
You can choose any movie to analyze as long as it meets these 4
criteria: (1) It must NOT be mentioned in the key analytical
article above. (2) Prof. Hirschfelder must have seen it.* (3) You
must have easy access to this movie and can view it several
times. (4) It must relate to the thesis/main idea of the key
24. analytical article above. Use IMDb.com to find the requested
information.
*To find out what movies I have seen, review the appropriate
discussion posts and/or email me with specific movie titles and
years.
Name of movie:
Year of release:
Director(s):
Is this movie discussed in the article above? Yes / No
Has Prof. H seen this movie? Yes / No
Have you seen this movie? Yes / No
How do you have access to this movie?
Explain how does this movie fits with the key analytical article
you chose above:
5. Additional Sources
Using Academic Search Complete (SF library databases) or
another reliable database, find 2 analytical articles (in addition
to your key analytical article). These articles can be about your
focus movie, but they do not have to. They could be about a
movie discussed in the key analytical article, about a similar
movie, or just a relevant theme. These articles should be
relatable to the thesis statement/theme of your key analytical
article. In addition to your key analytical article named above
and the 2 articles named below, you can incorporate 1 or 2 other
articles that are reviews, analytical, or informative.For the final
paper, you may choose different articles from the 2 listed
below, as long as they are analytical and relevant to your main
theme.
*Note: The website, periodical, or journal will not be the same
as the database or search engine used to find the review.
Title of Article 1:
25. Author(s):
*Database/search engine you used:
*Original website, periodical, or journal that published this
article:
Date of publication:
Title of Article 2:
Author(s):
*Database/search engine you used:
*Original website, periodical, or journal that published this
article:
Date of publication:
