Prague, Czech Republic
Study Center
Course Syllabus
Course
Title: East European Cinema
Course Code: CINE 3011 PRAG
Programs offering course: CES, CNMJ
Language of instruction: English
U.S. Semester Credits: 3
Contact Hours: 45
Term: Spring 2016
Time: Tuesday
13:50 - 15:20 Thursday 13:50 -
15:20
Place: G2
Professor: Petra
Dominkova, PhD.
Professor Contact Information: petra.dominkova@gmail.com
Office address: Professors’
Lounge, CIEE Prague Study Center
Office hours: By appointment
Office hours: By appointment
Course Description
The aim of the course is to discuss
the most important trends and movements in the history of post-war East
European Cinema and also to put the films within their historical (political
and cultural) context. Each lecture is focused on particular national cinema.
In addition, we will learn how to analyze the film form and style as well as
acquaint ourselves with various approaches towards film criticism. During the
course students will watch selected feature films in their entirety (with
English subtitles) and short extracts illustrating the topic.
Please note that this course requires you to view films outside of class time.
Learning Objectives
By the end of the course the student will be able
to:
• recognize the most important East European directors and films;
• define the Czechoslovak New Wave, cinema of moral anxiety and other movements
• analyze a film of interest
• use various critical approaches while writing about the particular film
• analyze a film form and style of a chosen film.
• recognize the most important East European directors and films;
• define the Czechoslovak New Wave, cinema of moral anxiety and other movements
• analyze a film of interest
• use various critical approaches while writing about the particular film
• analyze a film form and style of a chosen film.
Course Prerequisites
The only prerequisite is a
willingness to read, think, speak, write and learn about East European cinema
and film style and form generally.
Methods of Instruction
The course is rather discussion-laden:
one of the weekly sessions is entirely devoted to discussing one particular
feature film and the other session to a lecture, which will still require a lot
of student participation. Being a film class, the showing of clips is indeed
necessary. Occasionally there will be presentation slides shown. We will have
two field trips: to the film festival One World and Barrandov studios.
Course Requirements
Response Papers
The student will write FOUR 2-page-long response papers about the films. Each response paper will be written in one of following approaches: RECEPTION criticism, GENRE criticism, MARXIST criticism, FORMALIST criticism (each response paper will be written within a different approach; students themselves choose which films they will be writing about and which approach would be suitable for that very film; the suggestions will be provided). All the approaches will be explained in class ahead. The papers about the particular film will be turned in BEFORE the film will be discussed in class. All four response papers needs to be turned in until the last day of discussion. The response papers will be graded based on consistency of the arguments: students should prove that s/he understands the particular critical approach as well as show that s/he is able to apply it on the film we will watch. Response papers will have a title and will have a clear structure: introduction, body, conclusion. They will not summarize the plot, unless necessary. Student will not write a response paper on film s/he has a presentation on.
Presentation
One lesson each week (90 minutes) will be devoted to discussion. We will discuss the film and the reading(s) that are assigned for that very day. While all the students will be familiar with the film and the reading(s), one student will have a special task to be a “leader of discussion”. S/he will prepare the handout for each student that will include the close analysis of the film based on the reading (not exclusively, student may add whatever else s/he will find important for understanding the film). The handout will include AT LEAST 5 questions for class. Those questions should be rather complicated, can be even controversial, encouraging the students to think about the film more intensively (not “Did you like the film?). The 90 minutes time span reserved for the discussion does not mean that the “leader” will talk 90 minutes! Since everybody in class will be prepared, the “leader” will encourage all students to talk. The student's presentation will last at least 60 minutes.
The student will write FOUR 2-page-long response papers about the films. Each response paper will be written in one of following approaches: RECEPTION criticism, GENRE criticism, MARXIST criticism, FORMALIST criticism (each response paper will be written within a different approach; students themselves choose which films they will be writing about and which approach would be suitable for that very film; the suggestions will be provided). All the approaches will be explained in class ahead. The papers about the particular film will be turned in BEFORE the film will be discussed in class. All four response papers needs to be turned in until the last day of discussion. The response papers will be graded based on consistency of the arguments: students should prove that s/he understands the particular critical approach as well as show that s/he is able to apply it on the film we will watch. Response papers will have a title and will have a clear structure: introduction, body, conclusion. They will not summarize the plot, unless necessary. Student will not write a response paper on film s/he has a presentation on.
Presentation
One lesson each week (90 minutes) will be devoted to discussion. We will discuss the film and the reading(s) that are assigned for that very day. While all the students will be familiar with the film and the reading(s), one student will have a special task to be a “leader of discussion”. S/he will prepare the handout for each student that will include the close analysis of the film based on the reading (not exclusively, student may add whatever else s/he will find important for understanding the film). The handout will include AT LEAST 5 questions for class. Those questions should be rather complicated, can be even controversial, encouraging the students to think about the film more intensively (not “Did you like the film?). The 90 minutes time span reserved for the discussion does not mean that the “leader” will talk 90 minutes! Since everybody in class will be prepared, the “leader” will encourage all students to talk. The student's presentation will last at least 60 minutes.
The handout/presentation should NOT
include the factual information as is the names of the cast and crew (with
exception of director and DP when relevant), the number of awards and prices
the film get, the names of the production/distibution companies assocated with
the film, the titles of the director’s other films etc, unless it is
particularly relevant. You should instead focus on YOUR OWN analysis and/or
interpretation of the film (with the help of readings assigned) and perhaps
also on the additional reviews/analysis of that film available at Internet.
The
presentation will always include the analysis of at least one of the stylistic
elements we will discuss on class (e.g. mise-en-scene or cinematography or
editing or sound), even if the obligatory reading for that very film do not
include the readings about those aspects.
The presentation will be assessed
based on following categories.
1. Subject. Was the presentation informative? Did it have a clear focus? Was it well researched? Was the student knowledgeable about the subject?
2. Organization/Clarity. Was it easy to follow? Was there a clear introduction and conclusion?
3. Delivering of the presentation. Was the speaker in control of the sequence, pacing and flow of the presentation? Did s/he make effective use of notes, without relying on them too heavily?
4. Sensitivity to audience. Did the speaker maintain eye contact with all members of the class? Did s/he give you time to take notes if needed? Did s/he speak clearly and loudly?
5. Handouts/Clips. Did the speaker make effective use of handouts? Did s/he used the clips from the movie that were relevant to the topic discussed?
Midterm essay
Students will write a midterm essay and they will decide themselves what they want to write about. I am open to suggestions. The in-class presentation Mar-24 is the part of the assignment. Late submission of the essay (max 2 days) will result in lowering the grade by two-thirds of point (e.g. B + instead of A, B instead of A - , B – instead of B + etc.).
* Essay will have 1400 words minimum (about 6 pages double-spaced)
* The essay that would combine your major and (particular) film is highly encouraged.
* The essay will concern one or more Czech film(s). It does not have to be necessarily about film(s) we have seen in class, in that case, though, I need you to let me know ahead.
* Plagiarism is unacceptable, and if any part of the assignment is plagiarized you will receive a failing grade for the essay and may fail from the overall course..
“Itinerary”:
1/ Think about the topic for your essay and the source(s) you would like to use.
2/ Meet me in a scheduled term and let’s discuss your project.
3/ Present your project to your classmates and me Mar-24 and get their/mine feedbacks.
4/ Send me a final version of your essay until Friday in midterm week midnight (Mar-25)
1. Subject. Was the presentation informative? Did it have a clear focus? Was it well researched? Was the student knowledgeable about the subject?
2. Organization/Clarity. Was it easy to follow? Was there a clear introduction and conclusion?
3. Delivering of the presentation. Was the speaker in control of the sequence, pacing and flow of the presentation? Did s/he make effective use of notes, without relying on them too heavily?
4. Sensitivity to audience. Did the speaker maintain eye contact with all members of the class? Did s/he give you time to take notes if needed? Did s/he speak clearly and loudly?
5. Handouts/Clips. Did the speaker make effective use of handouts? Did s/he used the clips from the movie that were relevant to the topic discussed?
Midterm essay
Students will write a midterm essay and they will decide themselves what they want to write about. I am open to suggestions. The in-class presentation Mar-24 is the part of the assignment. Late submission of the essay (max 2 days) will result in lowering the grade by two-thirds of point (e.g. B + instead of A, B instead of A - , B – instead of B + etc.).
* Essay will have 1400 words minimum (about 6 pages double-spaced)
* The essay that would combine your major and (particular) film is highly encouraged.
* The essay will concern one or more Czech film(s). It does not have to be necessarily about film(s) we have seen in class, in that case, though, I need you to let me know ahead.
* Plagiarism is unacceptable, and if any part of the assignment is plagiarized you will receive a failing grade for the essay and may fail from the overall course..
“Itinerary”:
1/ Think about the topic for your essay and the source(s) you would like to use.
2/ Meet me in a scheduled term and let’s discuss your project.
3/ Present your project to your classmates and me Mar-24 and get their/mine feedbacks.
4/ Send me a final version of your essay until Friday in midterm week midnight (Mar-25)
Student may write a midterm paper on film s/he has a presentation
on.
Final test
A test on material covered in class will be written during final exam week. The questions will stem from both the history of East European cinema, as well as the film theory. One class will be entirely devoted to reviewing facts/information that will be needed to succeed on the final test.
Class Participation
Students will read the text(s) required for each lesson and will come to the class prepared with an excerpt from the text and a comment how it refers to the film seen. Students will be able discuss the readings in the class. Lively discussion is expected. Students should ask anything that is not clear enough, bring their own ideas, and participate actively in the program of the course. Students will not used smart phones, iphones, laptops or any other similar equipment unless required by the professor. All notes will be taken by hand, that proved much more efficient. If the student requires exception, s/he needs to discuss it with the professor ahead.
Final test
A test on material covered in class will be written during final exam week. The questions will stem from both the history of East European cinema, as well as the film theory. One class will be entirely devoted to reviewing facts/information that will be needed to succeed on the final test.
Class Participation
Students will read the text(s) required for each lesson and will come to the class prepared with an excerpt from the text and a comment how it refers to the film seen. Students will be able discuss the readings in the class. Lively discussion is expected. Students should ask anything that is not clear enough, bring their own ideas, and participate actively in the program of the course. Students will not used smart phones, iphones, laptops or any other similar equipment unless required by the professor. All notes will be taken by hand, that proved much more efficient. If the student requires exception, s/he needs to discuss it with the professor ahead.
Academic
Trip
This class requires presence at overnight trip to Zlin that will take place 15th and 16th April. During the trip we will participate at about 6-hour long animation workshop where we will learn various animation techniques: pixilation, cut-out animation, puppet, and drawing. Trip also includes visit in local wine cellar.
This class requires presence at overnight trip to Zlin that will take place 15th and 16th April. During the trip we will participate at about 6-hour long animation workshop where we will learn various animation techniques: pixilation, cut-out animation, puppet, and drawing. Trip also includes visit in local wine cellar.
Assessment and Final Grade
1. Response Papers
(20%) = 200 points (50 each)
2. Presentation (20%) = 200 points
3. Midterm essay (20%) = 200 points
4. Final test (20%) = 200 points
5. Class participation (20%) = 200 points
2. Presentation (20%) = 200 points
3. Midterm essay (20%) = 200 points
4. Final test (20%) = 200 points
5. Class participation (20%) = 200 points
CIEE Grade Scale
Percentage Points
|
Letter Grade
|
Grade Points
|
96–100
|
A
|
3.7–4.0
|
90–95
|
A -
|
3.6–3.4
|
87–89
|
B+
|
3.3–3.1
|
83–86
|
B
|
3.0–2.7
|
80–82
|
•
B -
|
•
2.6–2.4
|
76–79
|
C+
|
2.3–2.1
|
70–75
|
C
|
2.0–1.7
|
60–69
|
D
|
1.6–1.0
|
0–59
|
F
|
0
|
CIEE Prague Attendance Policy
At CIEE, professors record attendance online, and
CIEE staff takes care of any possible excuses from absences. Professors do not
excuse absences.
An absence can be excused only for medical
reasons or other extraordinary situations. If a student is sick, s/he must
visit a doctor and get an official note from the doctor. The student then
submits that note to the CIEE Student Services Assistant to get the absence
excused. For other extraordinary situations, the student must meet with the
Academic Director to request an excuse.
Students
get three allowed unexcused absences for each course for the whole semester
program. This assumes a course schedule of two 90-minute meetings per week, so
if the course meets in one longer block, missing the class constitutes two
absences. These allowed unexcused absences should be used for situations such
as when one does not want to bother to see a doctor or has some personal
situation that prevents the student from attending class. Allowed unexcused
absences should not be used in a planned way for travel or other
extracurricular events.
If a
student has 4 unexcused absences, the semester grade will be lowered by 5
points (on a 100-point scale). For 5 unexcused absences, the grade is lowered
by 10 points. Students with 6 or more unexcused absences will automatically
fail the course. This is a CIEE rule that applies to all CIEE courses and is in
line with the Participant Contract that each CIEE student signs before arriving
on site.
CIEE staff update the Moodle attendance for each
course according to doctor’s notes submitted on a weekly basis. Students can
and should check their attendance on the Moodle course sites throughout the
semester to make sure it is correct. Students with excessive absences will be
notified and the student’s study abroad advisor will also be notified.
CIEE Academic Honesty Statement
Presenting work of another person as one’s own,
failure to acknowledge all sources used, using unauthorized assistance on
exams, submitting the same paper in two classes, or submitting work one has
already received credit for at another institution in order to fulfill CIEE
course requirements is not tolerated. The penalty ranges from failure on the
assignment to dismissal from the program. The Academic Director should be consulted
and involved in decision making in every case of a possible violation of
academic honesty.
Weekly Schedule
Week 1
February 15 to February 18
|
Feb – 16
Topic: Orientation Week I
• Course introduction: course objectives, reading, assignments, approach, etc.
Feb – 18
Topic: Orientation Week II
• Dropbox workshop + VLC
• logistic
|
Week 2
February 22 to February 25
|
Feb – 23
Topic: Response papers: GENRE CRITICISM +
RECEPTION CRITICISM
• short film + analysis
Feb – 25
Discussion: CONTROL (Kontroll, Nimród Antal,
2003, 105’, color)
Required reading: • Jobbitt. • Grimmes Toping. Turn in CONTROL response paper (suggested approach: genre, reception, formalist, marxist) |
Week 3
February 29 to March 3
|
Mar – 1
Field Trip: Karel Zeman Museum
Mar – 3
Response papers: MARXIST CRITICISM
• Two Men and Wardrobe (Roman Polanski) Required reading: • Comolli - Narboni. Hamen, 67–78. |
Week 4
March 7
to March 10
|
Mar – 08
Topic: Chronology + How to write an essay /
MISE-EN-SCENE + CINEMATOGRAPHY
• How to write an essay (workshop)
Mar – 10
NO CLASS
(will be made up by visit at One World festival during evening - TBA) |
Week 5
March 14 to March 17
|
Mar – 15
Discussion: BIRDS, ORPHANS AND FOOLS
(Vtáčkovia, siroty a blázni, Juraj Jakubisko, Slovak Republic, 1969, 78’,
color)
Required reading: • Owen. Turn in BIRDS, ORPHANS AND FOOLS response paper (suggested approach: reception, formalist, marxist)
Mar – 17
Discussion: GARDEN (Záhrada, Martin Šulík,
1995, 99’, color)
Required reading: “Part 2: Mise-en-scene.” “Part 3: Cinematography.” Turn in GARDEN response paper (suggested approach: reception, formalist, marxist |
Week 6
Midterm
Exam Week
March 21 to March 24
|
Mar – 22
Topic: Czechoslovak New Wave / EDITING
Mar – 24
Topic: midterm essays – drafts
• Class discussion on the drafts of students’ final papers (each student will have a presentation, others will give him/her feedback)
Mar-25
The midterm essay is due
|
Week 7
March 28 to March 31
|
Mar – 29
Discusion: WITNESS (A tanú, Péter Bacsó,
Hungary, 1969, 105’, color)
Required reading: • Bordwell and Thompson, 89–107 (narration). • “Stalinism on Screen.” Turn in WITNESS response paper (suggested approach: genre, reception, formalist, marxist)
Mar – 31
Discusion: TAXIDERMIA (György Pálfi, 2006, 91’,
color)
Required reading: • Shaviro.
• “Part 4: Editing.”
Turn in TAXIDERMIA response paper (suggested approach: genre, reception, formalist, marxist) |
Week 8
April 4 to April 7
April
8-10: Academic Trips scheduled
|
Apr – 5
Topic: Hungarian Cinema; narration
• Chronology • Miklós Jancsó, Béla Tarr, István Szabó • Female directors
Apr – 7
NO CLASS: Will be made-up by Barrandov Studios
field trip TBA OR May-6
|
Week 9
April 11 to April 14
|
Apr – 12
Discussion: THE
TENANT (Roman Polanski, France, 1976, 126’, color)
Required reading:
• Caputo, 145–164. Turn in THE TENANT response paper (suggested approach: genre, reception, formalist, marxist)
Apr – 14
Discussion: THREE COLORS: RED (Trois couleurs:
Rouge, Krzysytof Kieslowski, France/Switzerland/Poland, 1994, 99’, color)
Required reading: • Eidsvik.
• Žižek, p.157-181.
Turn in THREE COLORS: RED response paper (suggested approach: reception, formalist, marxist)
April 15 + 16
O/N trip to Zlín
|
Week 10
April 18 to April 21
|
Apr – 19
Guest Lecture or Field Trip
Apr – 21
Topic: Polish Cinema
• Chronology • Andrzej Wajda, Roman Polanski |
Week 11
April 25 to April 28
|
Apr – 26
Discussion: HOUSE OF FOOLS (Dom durakov, Andrey
Konchalovskiy, Russia, 2002, 104’, color)
Required reading: • Eberwein, 42 – 62. Turn in HOUSE OF FOOLS response paper (suggested approach: genre, reception, formalist, marxist)
Apr – 28
Topic: Cinema of (former) Soviet Union / SOUND
• Andrei Tarkovskij |
Week 12
May 2 to May 5
|
May – 3
Discussion: STALKER (Andrei Tarkovsky, USSR,
1979, 163’, color)
Required reading: • Bordwell and Thompson, 269–285, 288–298 (sound) • Smith. Turn in STALKER response paper (suggested approach: genre, reception, formalist, marxist)
May – 5
Topic: Preparation for Final test
May – 6
Barrandov Studios field trip
|
Final
Exam Week
May 9 to May 12
|
May – 10
Topic: Final Test
May – 13
Topic: Q&A + discussion about class
• Discussion about the class (What did you learn? What do you miss? What was your best experience?) |
Bibliography
“Part 2: Mise-en-scene.” Yale University, 27 Aug
2002: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/mise-en-scene.htm>
“Part 3: Cinematography.” Yale University, 27 Aug 2002: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/cinematography.htm>.
“Part 4: Editing.” Yale University, 27 Aug 2002: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/editing.htm>.
“Stalinism on Screen: How Rakosi’s Rule is Depicted in Hungrian Cinema Under Kadár 1956 – 1989.” Kinokinomozi: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://kinokinomozi.wordpress.com/category/hungarian-cinema/>
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010. Print.
Caputo, Davide. Polanski and Perception: The Psychology of Seeing and the Cinema of Roman Polanski. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books, 2012. Print.
Comolli, Jean-Luc, and Jean Narboni. "Cinema / Ideology / Criticism." Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. 5th ed. Ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. NewYork: Oxford UP, 1999. 752-59. Print.
Eberwein, Robert. Hollywood War Film. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Eidsvik, Charles. “Kieslowski’s Visual Legacy.” Contemporary Approaches to Film and Media Series: After Kieslowski: The Legacy of Krzysztof Kieslowski. Ed. Steven Woodward. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2009. 149–164. Print.
Grimes Topping, Christine. “The world is out of control: Nimrod Antal's Kontroll (2003) as a socio-political critique of powerless individuals in a postmodern world.” Studies in European Cinema 7.3 (Dec. 2010): 235–45. Print.
Hamen, Susan E. How to Analyse the films of James Cameron. Edina: ABDO, 2011. Print.
Jobbitt, Steve. “Subterranean Dreaming: Hungarian Fantasies of Integration and Redemption.” Kinokultura 24 Nov. 2008: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/7/kontroll.shtml>
Owen, Jonathan. “Slovak bohemians: revolution, counterculture and the end of the sixties in Juraj Jakubisko’s films.“ Studies in Eastern European Cinema 1.1 (2010): 17–28. Print.
Reynolds, Mike. How to Analyse the films of Spike Lee. Edina: ABDO, 2011. Print.
Shaviro, Steven. “Body Horror and Post-Socialist cinema: György Pálfi’s Taxidermia.” A Companion to Eastern European Cinemas. Ed. Aniko Imré. Chichester, U.K. ; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2012. 25–40. Print. (Also at Web. 20 July 2014 <http://www.shaviro.com/Othertexts/Taxidermia.pdf>)
Smith, Stephen. “The edge of perception: Sound in Tarkovsky’s Stalker.“ Soundtrack 1.1 (2007): 41– 52. Print.
Žižek, Slavoj. The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieslowski between Theory and Post-Theory. London: BFI Publishing, 2001. Print.
“Part 3: Cinematography.” Yale University, 27 Aug 2002: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/cinematography.htm>.
“Part 4: Editing.” Yale University, 27 Aug 2002: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/editing.htm>.
“Stalinism on Screen: How Rakosi’s Rule is Depicted in Hungrian Cinema Under Kadár 1956 – 1989.” Kinokinomozi: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://kinokinomozi.wordpress.com/category/hungarian-cinema/>
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010. Print.
Caputo, Davide. Polanski and Perception: The Psychology of Seeing and the Cinema of Roman Polanski. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books, 2012. Print.
Comolli, Jean-Luc, and Jean Narboni. "Cinema / Ideology / Criticism." Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. 5th ed. Ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. NewYork: Oxford UP, 1999. 752-59. Print.
Eberwein, Robert. Hollywood War Film. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Eidsvik, Charles. “Kieslowski’s Visual Legacy.” Contemporary Approaches to Film and Media Series: After Kieslowski: The Legacy of Krzysztof Kieslowski. Ed. Steven Woodward. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2009. 149–164. Print.
Grimes Topping, Christine. “The world is out of control: Nimrod Antal's Kontroll (2003) as a socio-political critique of powerless individuals in a postmodern world.” Studies in European Cinema 7.3 (Dec. 2010): 235–45. Print.
Hamen, Susan E. How to Analyse the films of James Cameron. Edina: ABDO, 2011. Print.
Jobbitt, Steve. “Subterranean Dreaming: Hungarian Fantasies of Integration and Redemption.” Kinokultura 24 Nov. 2008: n. pag. Web. 20 July 2014 <http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/7/kontroll.shtml>
Owen, Jonathan. “Slovak bohemians: revolution, counterculture and the end of the sixties in Juraj Jakubisko’s films.“ Studies in Eastern European Cinema 1.1 (2010): 17–28. Print.
Reynolds, Mike. How to Analyse the films of Spike Lee. Edina: ABDO, 2011. Print.
Shaviro, Steven. “Body Horror and Post-Socialist cinema: György Pálfi’s Taxidermia.” A Companion to Eastern European Cinemas. Ed. Aniko Imré. Chichester, U.K. ; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2012. 25–40. Print. (Also at Web. 20 July 2014 <http://www.shaviro.com/Othertexts/Taxidermia.pdf>)
Smith, Stephen. “The edge of perception: Sound in Tarkovsky’s Stalker.“ Soundtrack 1.1 (2007): 41– 52. Print.
Žižek, Slavoj. The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieslowski between Theory and Post-Theory. London: BFI Publishing, 2001. Print.
Professor
Profile
Petra
Dominkova, PhD.
|
|
Nationality
|
Czech Republic
|
Academic degrees
|
Mgr. (equivalent of MA): 2000 Faculty of Arts,
Masaryk University, Brno, CR
PhD. 2008 Film and Television Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts, Prague, CR |
CIEE courses taught
|
Czech Cinema
East European Cinema (FAMU: Form and Style) (FAMU: Nature and City) |
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat