Chapter 6: Researching the Movies

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Welcome back to another Deep Dive.

It is great to have you here with us.

Today, we are shifting gears a little bit.

You know, usually when we sit down to talk about movies, we're obsessed with the experience of, well, watching them.

We talk about the plot twists that made us gasp, the cinematography that made us cry, the acting that just blew our minds.

We talk about the magic that happens on the screen.

That's the fun part, isn't it?

The popcorn part.

Exactly.

But today, we're going to pull back the curtain on what happens after the credits roll.

We're going to look at the detective work that turns a fan into a scholar.

We are diving deep into chapter six of Timothy Corrigan's Essential Text, a short guide to writing about film, the eighth edition.

And the title of this chapter is simply Researching the Movies.

It sounds a little dry when you just say the title like that.

Researching.

It sounds like homework.

It sounds like, you know, dust and library cards.

Yeah, a little bit academic.

A little bit.

But what Corrigan is actually describing here is an investigation.

It's about unlocking the hidden layers of a film that you simply cannot see just by staring at the screen.

I like that framing.

It's less about doing work and more about solving a mystery.

Precisely.

The whole premise of this chapter is that watching the movie is just the tip of the iceberg.

If you want to really understand film, if you want to move from being a casual viewer with an opinion to a writer with a genuine argument, you have to look beneath the surface.

So it's to locate, evaluate, and then integrate external information.

That's the process.

So our mission today is to guide you, the listener, through that exact transition.

We want to take you from the person who walks out of the theater saying, man, I really like that, to the person who can say, here is exactly how this film fits into history, technology, and culture, and here's why that matters.

And to do that, we have a very clear road map laid out by Corrigan in the chapter.

We're going to start by looking at the philosophical difference between a critic and a historian.

It's a bit of a battle of ideologies, really.

Okay.

Critic versus historian, then what?

Then we're going to get practical.

We'll navigate the materials of research.

We're talking about primary sources versus secondary sources, what they are and how to use them.

And I see we're also going to talk about the digital minefield, using the internet without getting duped.

That feels very relevant.

Absolutely.

And after that, we have some very practical tactical advice on note -taking, drafting, and avoiding plagiarism.

Corrigan gives us a toolkit for actually getting the words on the page.

And finally, stick around, because we're going to end with a showdown, a comparative analysis of two essays on the classic film Bonnie and Clyde.

We're going to see in real time how research transforms a basic review into a powerful historical argument.

It really is the perfect case study to cap it all off.

It's going to be a comprehensive look at the craft.

All right.

Let's jump right into the deep end, then.

Section one, the two camps.

Corrigan opens this chapter by describing a traditional split in firm writing.

On one side, you have the critic.

On the other, the historian.

Walk us through this divide.

Okay.

So this is a really fundamental distinction.

And it shapes how you approach the entire project of writing about film.

Let's start with the critic.

Okay.

For the critic, the primary focus is their own analysis, their own feelings, and crucially, what is visible and audible on the screen.

The movie itself.

So for the critic, the text begins when the movie starts and ends when the credits roll.

Nothing else matters.

That's the purest view.

Yes.

The critic believes that the art should stand on its own two feet.

They're looking at the lighting, the acting, the editing rhythm, the emotional impact.

To a pure critic, researching other material like the budget, or the director's troubled childhood, or the studio politics, might actually seem unnecessary.

They might even see it as a distraction.

Like, don't tell me about the budget.

Just show me the movie.

It feels like cheating almost.

Exactly.

They might argue that if you need to read a biography to understand the movie, then the movie has failed as a work of art.

The meaning should be self -contained.

Okay.

That makes sense.

It's a very focused aesthetic approach.

So what's on the other side of that canyon?

On the other side of the canyon, you have the historian.

And the historian believes that you cannot possibly understand the movie unless you understand the context that produced it.

The soil it grew in.

That's a perfect way to put it.

The historian looks at production history, at critical responses from the time of release, at theoretical suppositions about culture.

They believe that external facts often define what the movie is and what it means.

Corrigan uses a really famous example to illustrate this tension.

It's one we've talked about before.

Orson Welles is The Magnificent Ambersons from 1942.

This is the perfect case study.

It's exhibit A in the critic versus historian debate.

So imagine you're watching The Magnificent Ambersons.

Okay.

If you are watching purely as a critic, you are looking at the screen.

You're seeing the story of a declining American family at the turn of the century.

You are admiring Welles' incredible visual style, the deep focus, the long takes, the overlapping dialogue.

You are judging the power of the story and the style as it is presented to you.

And it is powerful, even the version we have.

It is.

But the historian knows something the critic might choose to ignore.

The historian knows that the movie we are seeing isn't the movie Orson Welles actually made.

Right.

This is the tragic part of the story.

It is.

The historian knows that Welles fought massive battles with the studio, RKO.

He lost control of the final cut.

While he was out of the country working on another project, the studio took his film, chopped out nearly an hour of footage, and shot a new, much happier ending that Welles absolutely hated and disowned.

So if you are writing about the film, how does that knowledge change things?

It changes everything.

For the scholar historian, you cannot analyze the film without discussing that context.

A critic might say, the ending feels a bit disjointed and tonally inconsistent.

The historian can say the ending feels disjointed because it was shot by someone else against the director's will after the studio panicked about a test screening.

One is an observation, the other is an explanation.

Precisely.

The external facts, the studio interference, Welles's inability to complete the editing, define the film's identity as this.

This beautiful, mutilated artifact.

So the critic looks at the object, and the historian looks at the history of the object.

That's a great way to put it.

But here is the key point Corrigan makes, and it's really the main takeaway for any student writer.

Most good writers, and certainly students listening to this deep dive, need to operate somewhere in between.

It's not a binary choice.

Not at all.

We aren't just accumulating dry facts for the sake of trivia.

We use research to throw light on why we value the film in the first place.

We use the history to deepen our criticism.

He gives a couple of case studies to show how this hybrid approach works.

One of them is about the Spanish filmmaker Julio Medem.

It shows how research can create totally different arguments about the same person.

Yes, this is a great example of how creates different lenses.

Corrigan discusses two different scholars who wrote about Medem, and they come to very different conclusions based on the kind of research they did.

So who's the first one?

First you have a scholar named Rob Stone writing in 2007.

Stone used research to view Medem through the lens of auteur theory.

Let's pause and unpack that term for a second.

Auteur theory.

What is that exactly?

Sure, auteur is just the French word for author.

In film studies, auteur theory is the idea that director is the single creative mastermind of the film, just like a writer is the author of a novel.

Their personal vision and recurring themes are present across all their films.

So it's about seeing the director as the primary artist.

Exactly.

So Stone's research focused on Medem as an individual artist.

He looked at Medem's life, his interviews, his personal history, and Stone argued that Medem's body of work is a continuing intimate narrative based on his own personal references and psychology.

So he is looking at the man's inner world to explain the films.

Right.

But then you have another scholar, Nuria Triana Toribo.

She did different research.

She wasn't as interested in his psychology.

She was interested in the Spanish film industry.

She viewed him through a Spanish national cinema lens.

So she's looking at him not as an individual, but as a product of Spain?

Yes, a product of a specific cultural and economic moment.

Her research looked at box office figures, national film criticism, and government policies.

She suggests that Spanish scholars and critics have kind of seized on Medem as this figure who redeems the commercial sins of Spanish cinema.

So one sees a personal artist, the other sees a national symbol.

Exactly.

It's the same director, same movies, but two completely different conversations because of the research they chose to do.

One looked inward at the man, the other looked outward at the nation.

And that's the big takeaway here, isn't it?

Research isn't about finding the one right answer.

Not at all.

It's about entering an existing conversation.

Corrigan mentions a volume of essays called Against Certainty.

By doing research, you aren't just shouting your opinion into a void.

You're joining a debate, like the one between Stone and Triana Toribo, that is already happening.

You're adding your voice to a larger dialogue.

I want to talk about the other example he gives because this one felt very tangible, and frankly a little heartbreaking.

It's about Bette Davis.

Oh, the Bette Davis example is fantastic.

It demonstrates how a single piece of primary research, a single document, can anchor and elevate an entire argument.

So let's set this up.

You're writing about Bette Davis.

A casual viewer, a pure critic maybe, might just say, she's a great actress, or she's really intense on screen.

Which is true, of course, but it's not an argument.

It's an opinion.

Corrigan shows us a paragraph where a writer crafts a real thesis.

They argue that Bette Davis, as a star persona, represents the Vanishing Woman.

The Vanishing Woman.

That's a strong, specific thesis.

How do they support that?

Well, they don't just describe her acting in one film.

They look at her career trajectory over decades.

They use research to connect her roles.

They cite films like Dangerous from 1935, then the iconic All About Eve from 1950, then later films like The Star and, of course, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.

They show a pattern of her playing characters who are fading away, losing their status, or clinging to a past glory.

Okay, so that's using the films themselves as evidence.

But the kicker, the thing that makes it a research paper, is a specific piece of evidence they found from outside the movies.

Yes.

This is the aha moment.

They found an advertisement in a Hollywood trade paper from September 1962.

It was a want ad.

Placed by Bette Davis herself.

Bette Davis, a two -time Academy Award winner.

I have the text of it here.

It is just shocking to read.

It said,

Mother of three, 10, 11, and 15 divorcee, American, 30 years experience as an actress in motion pictures, mobile still and more affable than rumor would have it, wants steady employment in Hollywood.

More affable than rumor would have it.

That line is just, it's devastating.

It is.

It's so vulnerable.

It's this legendary, powerful star publicly begging for a job and managing her difficult reputation.

And that is the absolute power of research.

The writer uses that fact, that real life document of desperation, that public plea for work, to connect her star image with the film character she played.

The research proves that the theme of the vanishing woman wasn't just something she acted, it was something she was living.

It creates an argument that you simply cannot get just by watching all about Eve.

It connects the art to the life.

It's the historian's context illuminating the critics text.

That's it.

Exactly.

Okay.

So we know why we research.

We want those aha moments.

Now let's talk about the logistics, the practical side of things.

Section two is all about getting started.

And honestly, Corrigan starts with a dose of reality, time and management.

Yeah, it's the time versus depth calculation.

Corrigan's very practical here.

He says you have to assess your project constraints before you even begin.

There's a massive difference between a two week deadline for a five page paper and a semester long project for a 20 page senior thesis.

Right.

If you have two weeks, you probably can't fly to an archive in Paris to look at original production notes.

Exactly.

You have to be realistic about what you can achieve.

A short paper might rely on materials you can access quickly online journals, books in your university library.

A thesis, on the other hand, requires a deep dive into primary materials that might take weeks or even months to acquire and analyze.

And it's not just time, it's availability of sources.

This is a trap I think a lot of students fall into.

He contrasts writing about a classic like Gone with the Wind versus a brand new release.

This is a classic rookie mistake and it's so important.

If you choose to write about a film like Gone with the Wind from 1939 or Children of Paradise from 1945, the library is full of books.

You have decades of critical analysis, production histories, biographies and academic debates to draw from.

You have a mountain of sources.

But if you decide to write about the new superhero movie that came out two months ago, you're in a desert.

You're in trouble.

Corrigan mentions films like The Da Vinci Code or Burlesque as examples of what he calls publicized Hollywood films.

If you try to research those right after they come out, you will find thousands of articles, but they will mostly be superficial.

Right.

Plot summaries, gossip columns, interviews about what it was like on set, red carpet photos.

Exactly.

Junk food.

You won't find deep critical analysis because the scholars haven't had time to write the books and journal articles yet.

The same problem applies to very obscure foreign films or third world cinema where English language resources might just be scarce or non -existent.

So the advice is do a preliminary search before you commit to the topic.

Check the library catalog.

100%.

Don't pick a topic until you know the sources exist to support an argument.

It's the most common way students paint themselves into a corner.

Now, here's a question that comes up all the time.

What's the best strategy for viewing?

Do you read the research before you watch the movie or do you watch the movie first with a clean slate?

Corrigan says there are two schools of thought here and he presents both as valid, which I think is helpful.

It depends on how your brain works.

What's the first approach?

The first is what you could call the educated eye approach.

These people prefer to read the history, the biography, and the critical theory first.

That way, when they sit down to watch the movie, they know what to look for.

They're primed to spot the influences, to notice the specific camera angle everyone talks about, to understand the context as it unfolds.

And the other school?

The other is the fresh eyes approach.

They want to watch the movie cold, with no preconceptions.

They want that pure, unmediated emotional reaction first.

Then they go to the library to investigate and see how their personal opinion stacks up against the historical record and the critical consensus.

I think I lean toward the fresh eyes approach.

I don't want spoilers, even in my academic life.

But Corrigan says the most important thing isn't which order you choose, it's flexibility.

Flexibility is key.

This is crucial, maybe the most important piece of advice in this section.

You have to be willing to change your thesis based on what you find in your research.

Your research might prove your initial idea wrong.

And that's not a failure, that's a success.

It means you've learned something.

He gives a great example of this evolution.

Imagine a student wants to write a paper on Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho.

Right, so they start with a huge, vague topic,

Hitchcock's Psycho.

They get to the library and realize, oh no, there are 500 books and a thousand articles on this movie.

It's overwhelming.

It's too big.

Then they have to narrow it down.

They narrow it down.

They decide to focus on something more specific, like the use of sound in Psycho.

That's a great manageable topic.

Much better.

It is.

But then, as they are researching the sound design, they keep running into one name over and over again, Bernard Herrmann.

The composer.

The composer.

The student realizes that Herrmann's music, those screeching violins in the shower scene, is doing half the work.

It's not just sound effects, it's the score that's creating the terror.

So they pivot.

They pivot.

The research leads them in a new direction.

They decide to write their paper on Hitchcock's collaboration with Bernard Herrmann and how that musical partnership affected sound design in Hitchcock's later films.

So they end up writing a paper they didn't even know they were going to write when they started.

And that is the sign of a healthy, successful research process.

If your final paper is exactly what you planned on day one, you probably didn't learn very much.

The research should surprise you.

He wraps up the section with a quote from the filmmaker, Rene Claire, from an essay called How Films Are Made.

It's a bit of a reality check about artistic intent, isn't it?

It is.

It's a splash of cold water.

We often romanticize the auteur, the director.

We think ideas are born from this lone genius sitting in an attic, struck by a bolt of divine inspiration.

Right.

But Claire points out that often a company is just searching for an idea to suit a star.

So it's not I have a vision, find me an actor.

It's we have this actor under contract for two more pictures, find me a script that fits him.

Exactly.

It's a business decision.

And research reveals those hidden motivations.

Maybe the movie you're analyzing exists because of a business deal, not a burning artistic vision.

And knowing that fundamentally changes how you analyze its meaning.

Okay, let's move to section three.

Primary sources.

This feels foundational.

In a history class, a primary source is like a letter from Lincoln or an original treaty.

What is a primary source in film studies?

In film studies, the primary source is the film itself.

It's the movie, the script and the soundtrack.

It's the object of study.

That sounds obvious, but Corrigan immediately brings up a massive issue, the access problem.

You aren't usually seeing the film the way it was originally intended to be seen.

This is a huge point that students often overlook.

Ideally, we would all be sitting in a dark theater watching a pristine 35 millimeter print projected on a huge screen.

That's the original text.

But in reality, realistically, students are watching on DVDs, streaming on Netflix or Amazon, or sometimes even watching downloaded files on their laptops.

And this creates serious issues with what Corrigan calls format integrity.

He mentions aspect ratio specifically.

Why is that such a big deal?

It's a huge deal because it affects the composition of every single shot.

Think about a movie like the Ten Commandments or Beowulf.

These films were shot in extremely wide formats that rely on a vast,

expansive, horizontal image.

In the case of Beowulf, it was designed for IMAX 3D.

If you watch that on an old TV that crops the sides to fit a square screen, the old pan and scan method, you are literally missing half the movie.

You're not seeing the composition the director created.

Or even watching it on a phone.

The scale is all wrong.

The scale is completely wrong.

Watching Stanley Kubrick's 2001, a space odyssey on a laptop monitor fundamentally changes the aesthetic experience compared to seeing it on a massive screen.

You lose the awe.

You lose the immersion.

So as a researcher, you have to at least acknowledge how you watched it.

Yes.

You have to be aware of the limitations of your format.

You can't write three pages about the majestic landscapes in a film if you only watched it on your iPod.

And then there is the director's cut dilemma.

I feel like every movie now has an unreaded version or a collector's edition or a special edition.

It's a complete minefield.

The version of Blade Runner Ustream might be one of seven different official cuts of the film.

The unreaded version of a comedy on DVD might have five extra minutes of jokes that were cut from the theatrical release.

So which one is the real movie?

That's the question.

If you are analyzing the pacing of the ending, but you're watching a version with 10 extra minutes inserted that the director didn't even approve, your analysis is flawed from the start.

You must be aware of which text you're analyzing and be specific about it in your writing.

But home video isn't all bad.

Corrigan points out the value of supplements, the extras.

Oh, the extras are gold for researchers.

Absolute gold.

Audio commentaries with the director or cinematographer, deleted scenes with commentaries, storyboards, making of documentaries.

These are all primary or secondary sources that provide incredible insight into creative intent and the technical process.

Right.

If the director says in the audio commentary, I wanted the scene to feel like a recurring nightmare.

So I used a wide angle lens.

You can quote that directly.

It's proof of their intention.

Exactly.

Corrigan specifically mentions the Criterion Collection and Kino International as high quality distributors.

If you can get your hands on their editions of a film, you are getting a wealth of scholarly material right there on the desk.

What about scripts?

Can I just download the script from a website and analyze that instead of watching the movie a dozen times?

Proceed with extreme caution.

Corrigan gives a very strong warning here.

A published screenplay that you might find in a book or online is often very different from the shooting script that was actually used on set.

And both of those are often different from the final edited film.

Because of editing,

actor improvisation, budget cuts.

All of the above.

Things change dramatically between the page and the screen.

A writer should never ever base an analysis totally on a published screenplay without comparing it scene by scene to the actual movie.

You could end up writing a brilliant analysis of a line of dialogue that literally never appears on screen.

Okay, so that covers the movie itself.

Now let's go to the library.

Section 4.

Secondary sources.

This is where we hunt for information about the movie.

This is the detective work.

This is building the context.

Corrigan explains how to navigate the library using keywords, cinema, motion pictures, horror films, or director's name.

But the real skill isn't finding books.

It's evaluation.

Because there are way too many books.

You pull up a topic and get 200 results.

How do you know which ones are actually useful?

You have to cull the pile.

First, be strategic.

Check the index and the table of contents.

Is your specific film even mentioned?

If not, put the book back on the shelf.

Then you have to learn to separate the picture books from the real

What does he mean by picture books?

You know the ones?

Glossy heavy coffee table books full of beautiful production stills but very little text.

They're fun to look at but they are not scholarly sources.

They won't help you write a paper.

You're looking for the detailed histories and critical studies with footnotes and bibliographies.

He also mentions using standard bibliographies to get your facts straight before you even start writing.

Yes, this is about getting a solid factual ground beneath your feet.

Sources like the American Film Institute catalog or Halliwell's Who's Who and the movies.

These are essential for checking facts.

You don't want to build a brilliant argument on the wrong release date or misspelled names.

Now this is a distinction that I think confuses a lot of people and it's really important.

Periodicals.

Corrigan draws a sharp line between academic journals and popular or trade publications.

What is the difference?

This is absolutely vital for students to understand.

The source of your information matters.

On one side you have the academic and critical journals.

These are publications like Film Quarterly, Sight and Sound, Camera Obscura, Cineast, and Cinema Journal.

And what kind of writing is in those?

What are they for?

These contain difficult, dense theoretical essays written by scholars for other scholars.

They feature in -depth criticism.

If you want to talk about gender theory, psychoanalysis, semiotics, or the socio -political implications of a film, this is where you look.

This is where the serious academic conversation lives.

And on the other side, the popular stuff.

The popular and trade publications.

This includes something like Variety, which is the film industry's trade paper, or newspaper reviews like those you'd find in the New York Times.

So Variety is more about the business side of things.

Mostly, yes.

It tells you about box office numbers, casting news, and industry trends.

It's valuable information for a historian, but it's not usually doing deep theoretical analysis.

A Variety review tells you if the movie was a financial hit.

A Camera Obscura essay tells you what the movie means in a cultural or theoretical sense.

Two very different olds.

And he notes that using an index like the International Index to film periodicals is crucial for finding these articles.

It's essential, especially for recent films.

As we said before, books take years to get published.

If you were writing about a movie that came out last year, the serious conversation is happening right now in the journals, not on the bookshelves.

You need an index to find those fresh articles.

Okay, let's talk about the tool everyone uses but is sometimes afraid to cite.

The internet.

Section 5.

Ah, yes.

Corrigan calls it the Wild West.

And he is absolutely right.

The internet is this incredible paradox.

It offers immediate access.

You can watch a trailer, find a production photo, or look up a fact in seconds.

But the quality of information

varies vastly.

It's a minefield of good and bad info.

He breaks websites down into three types to help us navigate.

Let's run through them.

First up, promotional sites.

These are the official studio websites for a movie.

Think of them as electronic press kits.

They exist for one reason, to sell the movie.

They're full of gossip, publicity fluff, trailers, and maybe some simple games.

They are not sources for critical analysis.

You can't quote the marketing copy as evidence.

Okay, that's easy enough to spot.

Second type, databases.

Right.

These are sites like IMDB, the Internet Movie Database, or the All Movie Guide.

These are great for factual checks.

They're very useful for looking up credits, plot summaries, release dates.

But you have to be careful.

Why is that?

Because a lot of the content, especially on IMDB, is user -generated.

The trivia sections, the user reviews, that's not scholarly information.

So use it for facts, but do not base your critical argument on a user review written by MovieLover89.

Got it.

And the third type, the good stuff.

The academic and archival sites.

These are the gems.

Online journals like Senses of Cinema or Rouge, archival sites like EarlyCinema .com, and university -hosted guides and resources like those from Yale or Berkeley's Film Studies departments.

These are often referee or peer -reviewed publications, meaning other scholars have checked the work for accuracy.

They just happen to be online instead of in print.

So what are the basic rules of thumb for web research?

How do you stay safe in the Wild West?

Corrigan lays out a few key rules.

First, check credentials.

Who runs the site?

Is it a university?

A recognized journal?

An established archive?

Or is it a personal fan blog with a lot of GIFs?

Second, check date stamps.

When was this written?

When did you access it?

The internet's not permanent, links rot, and information changes.

And the third rule.

Define your search precisely.

Don't just Google Iranian cinema.

You will get a million hits, and 99 % of them will be useless.

Be specific.

Search for politics new Iranian cinema women directors.

The more precise your search terms, the more likely you are to find the academic content you need.

All right.

We have gathered our sources.

We have our DVDs, our library books, our journal articles, and our carefully vetted websites.

Now we have to actually do the work.

Section six.

Taking notes and writing the paper.

This is where the rubber meets the road.

And Corrigan says it starts with a skill you have to develop over time.

That skill is judgment.

Judgment.

What does he mean by that?

He means you cannot write down everything you read.

That's a huge waste of time.

You have to develop the ability to skim an article or a chapter and isolate the one or two most important passages that are relevant to your specific argument.

Don't just transcribe.

Select.

To help with that, Corrigan suggests the four by six card method.

That sounds very old school in the age of laptops.

It is.

But the logic behind it is timeless.

Even if you use a computer program like Zotero or just a word document, the concept is one idea per card.

Why is that so important?

Why not just have one long document of notes?

Because it allows you to sort and structure your argument visually.

If you have all your notes in one giant scrolling document, it's a nightmare to reorganize.

But if you have them on individual cards, whether they're digital or physical, you can shuffle them around.

You can group all the cards about cinematography together.

You can say, oh, this quote about lighting actually fits better in my introduction than in my conclusion.

It makes the drafting process modular and much less intimidating.

He is also very strict about the difference between direct quotes and summaries.

This is about academic honesty and clarity.

It's non -negotiable.

If you copy the exact words from a source, you must, must, must use quotation marks rigorously.

No exceptions.

None.

But often, you don't need the whole quote.

You just need the idea.

That's a summary.

When you summarize, you condense the ideas into your own words, but you must still keep the attribution You might write, as Galperin is the only critic to recognize.

You're giving credit to the thinker, even if you aren't using their exact phrasing.

And what about ellipses, those three little dots?

When do we use those?

Use them.

They're a great tool.

If a quote is long and has a rambling irrelevant clause in the middle,

use ellipses, three space periods, to cut out the parts you don't need.

It helps you keep the quote focused on the specific point you're trying to make.

Okay, so our notes are organized.

Now, when it comes to actually drafting the paper, he talks about sorting these note cards by themes, but he drops a truth bomb here.

Be willing to rework your outline if the research contradicts your original premise.

This goes right back to that idea of flexibility.

Right.

Let's say you started out wanting to write about auteurist control, how the director made every single decision and had complete creative freedom.

But all your research interviews, trade papers, biography shows, the director actually had no control over the final cut and fought with the studio constantly.

You can't just ignore that evidence.

You must reformulate the argument.

You cannot force the facts to fit your preconceived theory.

You have to follow the evidence where it leads.

Your new thesis might be about the struggle for auteurist control in the studio system.

That's a much more interesting paper anyway.

He also suggests some specific rhetorical strategies for actually weaving these quotes and summaries into your paper.

I love his name for this.

The sandwich method.

The sandwich method is essential for every student writer to learn.

Do not just dump a quote into your paragraph and walk away.

That's a quote bomb.

It's jarring and it shows you haven't integrated the research.

So what's the sandwich?

You need a top bun.

Introduce the quote.

Set it up.

Tell us who is speaking and why it's important.

In her perceptive review, Pauline Cale argues that.

Then you have the meat.

Provide the quote itself.

And then, crucially, you need the bottom bun.

Explain or analyze the quote.

Tell us why it matters.

Connect it back to your own argument.

You have to wrap the research in your own voice.

So you frame the evidence.

Exactly.

And he also mentions the A says B says strategy.

This is a great way to structure a paragraph or even a whole section of your paper.

You use it to of a debate.

A typical response from critics at the time was X, but a more perceptive review from a lesser known journal suggests Y.

You use the research to show contrast, to show that there's a disagreement, and then you step in to adjudicate it and explain why you side with B.

And of course, throughout all of this, the big flashing red light warning.

Avoid plagiarism.

It is the cardinal sin of academic writing, and it's not just copying and pasting.

Changing a few occasional words in and calling it yours is still plagiarism.

It's called mosaic plagiarism.

If you use the idea, credit the source.

It's that simple.

All right.

We have arrived at the finale of the chapter and our deep dive.

Section seven,

the case study.

This is where we see all of this theory put into action.

We are looking at Arthur Penn's groundbreaking 1967 film, Bonnie and Clyde.

This is a brilliant move by Corrigan.

He gives us a comparative analysis of two versions of an essay on the same film.

It is the perfect way to show the concrete difference between an intelligent reflection and a research enriched argument.

So let's look at essay one first.

This is the intelligent reflection.

What's it like?

And honestly, it's a pretty decent essay for what it is.

It's well written.

The student has clearly watched the movie carefully.

They discuss the film as a new kind of gangster movie that glorifies its criminal heroes.

They analyze the characters, calling them clownish drifters.

They astutely point out the photographic nature of their fame, how Bonnie and Clyde are constantly taking pictures of themselves and sending them to the press.

And they discuss the sensational climax, that famous brutal slow motion death scene where they are just riddled with bullets.

Yes, all good observations.

But what's the weakness of this essay?

It relies entirely on the writer's personal observation.

It's all what I saw on the screen.

The writer assumes the film is just about violence and publicity in a general timeless sense.

It treats the movie as if it exists in a vacuum.

Let me get to the research enriched version.

This is where the magic happens.

What's the first thing that's different?

The second essay immediately incorporates specific data to bolster the argument.

First, the writer notes the historical context of the film's release.

The film opened in August of 1967 to mostly negative reviews from the mainstream press.

They hated it.

But by November, it had become the most popular film of the year with young audiences.

That fact alone tells you something is going on.

There's a generational divide.

The audience got it before the critics did.

Exactly.

And the writer found an even more specific fact about Time magazine.

Corrigan notes this is the only time in its history this has ever happened.

Time magazine had to publicly retract its initial negative review.

They panned it, then realized the cultural tide was turning and they were on the wrong side of history and they took it back.

That's amazing.

That proves the film wasn't just a movie.

It was a cultural event.

It was divisive and misunderstood.

It was a phenomenon.

But the real game changer, the piece of research that blows the whole argument wide open, is when the writer brings in a quote from Pauline Kael.

Pauline Kael, the giant of American film criticism.

What did she say that was so important?

She wrote a landmark essay on the film and the student quotes this line.

The Vietnam War has barely been mentioned, but you can feel it in Bunny and Clyde.

Whoa.

Vietnam.

The first essay didn't mention Vietnam at all.

Of course not because Vietnam isn't in the script.

The characters don't talk about it.

The word is never said.

It's in the context.

It's in the air of 1967.

So what does that connection do to the argument?

The research allows the writer to completely shift the argument.

It's not just a gangster movie about the 1930s.

It's a film with a self -conscious style that was heavily influenced by the French new ways.

And it connects the shocking stylized violence on screen to the living room war, the way the homes on the nightly news for the first time.

So the so what of the paper becomes this isn't just a story about 1930s bandits.

It's a commentary on the 1960s media landscape and a nation grappling with televised violence.

Precisely.

The second essay proves that the film is a cultural document of 1967.

And that insight is absolutely impossible to arrive at without research.

You cannot see the Vietnam connection just by looking at Faye Dunaway's beret or Warren Beatty's fedora.

You have to read the critics of the time.

You have to understand the history.

That is such a powerful example.

It really shows that research isn't just about adding footnotes or backing up what you already think.

It's about discovering a deeper level of meaning.

It transforms the viewer from a passive consumer into an active scholar.

You aren't just watching anymore.

You're participating in a conversation that has been going on since the film was released and in some cases for decades.

Well, I think that is the perfect place to wrap up.

We have gone from the critic to the historian through the library and the internet.

We've learned how to build a sandwich and we've landed with Bonnie and Clyde.

It's quite a journey.

And the central message, I think, is that the goal of research isn't to kill the magic of the movie with dry facts.

It's to understand how the magic works.

It adds to the appreciation.

It doesn't take away.

That's a great final thought.

Thank you so much for guiding us through this.

My pleasure.

It was a lot of fun.

And thank you to you, the listener, for tuning in.

This has been a deep dive from the Last Minute Lecture Team.

Go watch a movie, but this time dig a little deeper.

See you next time.