In this course, we are examining the Geographies of Canada through the lens of nationalism and nation-building. This means different things to different people – and engaging with as many different narratives of what ‘the nation’ is and how it is experienced is crucial to one’s understanding of how ‘Canada’ functions both as an idea and as a process with material effects. For this reason, you will be asked to write a critical review of a film related to specific experiences and narratives of Canada.
short film link: https://www.nfb.ca/film/nipawistamasowin-we-will-stand-up/
Important instructions:
Given that this assignment is designed to support the course learning outcomes, I recommend you keep them in mind as you think about your approach to this assignment:
Use the concept of ‘nation-building’ to examine how processes of inclusion and exclusion shape the geographies of Canada.
Employ core geographic concepts such as place, scale, boundaries, and geographic imaginaries to examine understandings and experiences of Canada.
Apply knowledge of the historical geographies of Canada to contextualize contemporary debates
Express an informed opinion on controversial topics using geographic insights
Examine your own role in shaping the geographies of Canada
Develop research and communication skills applicable beyond this course, including critical reading, effective writing, and interpersonal communication
Format:
The first part of your review (approximately 1-1.5 pages) should be a description of the film. Be as succinct as possible, prioritizing the points that will be most relevant to your subsequent analysis.
The main portion of your review is the critical analysis (approximately 4-5 pages). This section should begin with an introductory paragraph that lays out your thesis – your analysis of how the producer/director discusses and/or portrays processes of nation-building. For the body of this section, draw upon the guiding questions from the previous section for other ideas of things to include in your analysis. Note: you do not have to address every question in the list below – but use them as ideas for the types of issues you could raise in your review depending upon their relevance to your argument. This is where it is most likely that you will engage with at least TWO other sources. These sources can be from class and/or scholarly journals
Citations: As mentioned above, you must draw upon two additional sources for this book review. They can come from class and/or be from a scholarly source (journal or book). Use APA in-text citation and include a APA-style bibliography at the end. Note that you do not need to include the book in this bibliography as it is already cited at the top. If you do quote from the book, however, be sure to use APA in-text citations.(I have provided the main 2 citations but you can use other sources in addition to the main ones if you wish)
Previous year assignments for a general idea of a good review has been attached for format ideas but they had different assignment details and should be used only for format purposes only. (example 1)
Keep these questions in mind as you watch the short film:
For the purposes of this assignment, you will be asked to write a critical review as opposed to a descriptive review. An analytic or critical review of a film is not primarily a summary; rather, it comments on and evaluates the work in the light of specific issues and theoretical concerns in a course. Keep questions like these in mind as you watch, make notes, and write the review:
What is the specific topic of the film? What overall purpose does it seem to have? For what readership is it written? (Don’t overlook facts about the producer and/or director’s background and the circumstances of the film’s creation and distribution.)
Does the producer/director state an explicit thesis? Does he or she noticeably have an axe to grind? What are the theoretical assumptions? Are they discussed explicitly?
What exactly does the work contribute to the overall topic of your course? What general problems and concepts in your discipline and course does it engage with?
What kinds of material does the work present (e.g. primary documents or secondary material, literary analysis, personal observation, quantitative data, biographical or historical accounts)?
How is this material used to demonstrate and argue the thesis? (As well as indicating the overall structure of the work, your review could quote or summarize specific scenes to show the characteristics of the director’s presentation, including cinemagraphic style and tone.)
Are there alternative ways of arguing from the same material? Does the director show awareness of them? In what respects does the director agree or disagree?
What theoretical issues and topics for further discussion does the work raise?
What are your own reactions and considered opinions regarding the work?
MAIN FOCUS TOPICS NEEDED:
While all of the above are important and can contribute to your film review – #3 is essential for the purposes of this assignment. During the first portion of the course, we will be engaging primarily with definitions of ‘the nation,’ nationalism, nation-building, settler colonialism,
sovereignty, geographies of inclusion and exclusion, and secessionism. For this review, you must examine how the film engages with the idea of the ‘nation’ in some way – what are the stories of the nation being supported/challenged. What are the process through which nation-building is happening and/or being challenged by different actors in the film? You are encouraged to draw upon other concepts if they are useful to your review: including bordering and ordering, citizenship, immigration policy, multiculturalism (as ideal, policy, and its critiques) and lived experiences of inclusion and exclusion.
Topics of nation-building through definitions of ‘the nation,’ nationalism, nation-building, settler colonialism, sovereignty, geographies of inclusion and exclusion, and secessionism should be the main focus. I have attached powerpoint lectures to help assist you briefly understand these topics. (lecture week 2 is most important)
To build your review, you are required to engage with at least TWO other sources
Use sources from:
Mainly from nationalism dhkaplan 2009 (attached in upload files)
MAinly from imaginative geographies Caroline Desbiens (attached)
some from Tim Nieguth if you want(attached)
some from
Mainly from sovereignty MColeman 2009 (attached in upload files)
APA in-style citations are important
Rubric
These are the general guidelines that will be used for marking.
Grade
A: Excellent
B: Good
C: Adequate
D or below: Inadequate
Quality of Response to Task
Contains all required elements and sections; no errors in formatting; completes assignment exactly as required.
Contains most required elements and sections; few errors in formatting; completes assignment almost as required.
Contains some required elements and sections; some errors in formatting; completes assignment generally as required.
Contains few required elements and sections; many errors in formatting; significant parts of assignment incomplete or inappropriate.
Description
Clear and concise summary of film with a focus on portions most relevant to review
Clear summary of film, but either a bit unfocused or too long
General summary, but unfocused and either inadequate or not very concise
Summary is either missing or does not provide sufficient context for the review
Quality of Thesis / Argument
Insightful, original analysis; excellent use/understanding of concepts; review fully controlled by precise, well-defined thesis.
Strong analysis that frequently goes beyond obvious or surface meanings; good use of concepts; thesis appropriate and central to the policy brief, but may lack some precision.
Simple analysis that at times goes beyond obvious or surface meanings; use of concepts adequate in most sections, but missing and/or incorrect in others; general thesis or controlling idea is evident but unclear.
Very little analysis; some use of concepts, but insufficient and/or incorrect in several ways; thesis is vague or not central to review.
Selection and Application of Evidence / Support
Fully supports all arguments with relevant evidence from film and well-developed, persuasive reasoning.
Supports most arguments with relevant evidence from film and clear, consistent reasoning.
Supports most arguments with limited, but adequate evidence and reasoning; review contains too much description; some arguments unclear and/or unsupported.
Provides insufficient/ irrelevant evidence and/or poor reasoning to support several key arguments;
review tends towards description or subjective opinion.
Writing and Presentation
Writing is eloquent and clear; very few errors that compromise understanding; absence of biased or colloquial language; excellent diction and sentence structure; excellent presentation.
Writing is clear; minor errors that do not seriously impede understanding; a few examples of biased or colloquial language; good diction and sentence structure; good presentation.
Writing is competent; some errors but paper is generally understandable; some biased or colloquial language; some problems with diction or sentence structure; acceptable presentation, but some errors in places.
Writing is not quite competent; major errors or numerous minor ones that impede understanding in places; many examples of biased or colloquial language; many problems with diction and sentence structure; poor presentation.
Citation
Correct APA-style bibliographic citation at beginning of review and all appropriate in-text citations and bibliographic materials for optional sources
Correct APA-style bibliographic citation and additional in-text citations and bibliography – only one or two errors
Generally correct APA-style formatting, but either a few errors or missing in-text citations
Either incorrect style of citation and bibliography or significant errors or omissions.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|