Research Update 16/05/2017

I realise it’s been a month since I last did an update and while I’ve been really busy and have accomplished things in the meantime, I think I’ve been missing this time to reflect on what I’m doing. I do feel like I’m making progress which is great of course but every now and then I hit a problem that sends me back a step.

Finishing a first draft of the first chapter feels really great and like I have some tangible evidence that I’m getting somewhere. The feedback on it from my supervisors was so helpful and insightful and it’s incredibly comforting to know that my work will only get better and tighter with that guidance. Now though, it’s past time to get stuck into the meaty parts of the thesis.

I’ve been working on Elizabeth (1998) and I’m not entirely sure why I started with this film. I honestly think I just had it on the brain and I guess it’s the most visible depiction of Elizabeth I in recent decades. I’ve been going over those key scenes in it that I think are pivotal to understanding her representation, particularly in regard to gender. The more I go over them the more things I notice which is great. I’ve tried to go over them, first just in general a bunch of times and them with specific things in mind, like space, lighting, camera angles, performance etc. I’m particularly interested in the way Kapur uses light and colour to differentiate Elizabeth from the other characters, particular as this is also a moral differentiation. He creates a real visual dichotomy between good (Elizabeth for the most part) and evil (those that would bring her harm, namely any and all Catholic characters). So I’ve been exploring that and writing up my thoughts as well as looking into what others have written about the film.

I have hit a bit of a roadblock with the film aspect as I’m having some second thoughts about the themes. The more I think about it, the more problematic the woman/queen idea becomes to me. I’m wondering if it might be best to attack the films/series first. Perhaps if I picked the ones I find most interesting and analyse them properly and then re-evaluate the themes from there. It would be looser and I would have to go back and look over them again in particular reference to whatever theme I ended up going with and it scares me a little as it feels like a move backward but I wonder if it might be the better course in the long run.

Other than that I did read an interesting article recently. It was the article Judith sent me, “Films as Historical Sources or Alternative History” by Anirudh Deshpande. What I thought was interesting was that he is arguing that film is a form of history in the same way that oral history is and that this means that, as has been argued with oral history, to privilege written history is to also privilege the kinds of histories and the people who record their history this way and leave others out. He says,

If historians choose to stick to documentary sources they do end up limiting the scope of their enterprise. They will then consciously turn their back on those people who may not figure in documentary sources but might appear as crucial traces in visual sources of both past and present. (4456)

He argues essentially, in a kind of flipping of the argument we find in Image as Artifact, that written/archival sources should be supplemented with visual sources. It’s interesting to me that both arguments want to use both written and visual sources but come at it from different perspectives. Deshpande also argues that the emotional and personal elements of a historical film are its strongest. I think there’s some interesting perspectives in there I could perhaps incorporate.

I have to report the awful as well as the good I suppose so I should mention that I had a rather colossal stuff up. I entirely misread a source and then when writing about it, consequently misrepresented it. Obviously this is a HUGE no-no and I take such pride in my work usually that this mistake really threw me. It makes me both incredibly angry and frankly, embarrassed because it was such a lazy mistake and should never have happened. On the bright side, if there is one, it is not a mistake I will allow myself to make again.

Source:
Deshpande, Anirudh. “Films as Historical Sources or Alternative History.” Economic and Political Weekly 39, no. 40 (2004): 4455-59.

Advertisements

Research Update 17/04/2017

This fortnight has largely been focused on thinking through and writing on methodology. It’s been a good process. The more I write the clearer things become.

First of all, it’s become clear to me in writing about methodology that my grasp of film theory is a little lacking. I found that when it came to describing how exactly I’ll approach the films and things like what exactly I mean by terms like mise-en-scéne, I couldn’t pull up the theory and the literature that I need. This sent me into a bit of a spin at first but at the end of the day, the only thing that will fix that is doubling down on the film research for a hot second.

Secondly, I worked out what I don’t really like about O’Connor. Although his method allows the space for serious film analysis, he and the scholars contributing to Image as Artifact are still coming from the perspective that traditional history is still the most important and the best means of assessing any historical piece. This is understandable given the time it was written, O’Connor’s position as a historian, and his intention that this method be applied in a history classroom. What it means though it that the areas of the methodology that fit more easily with standard historical methods, namely tracking down production histories through archival research, are the most thought out and considered aspects of the method presented in Image as Artifact and the film studies aspects are far less developed (though there are still some really interesting ideas in there). Also, it feels as if O’Connor and co. are still trying to fit film studies into historical studies.

Thirdly, despite this I found that I still feel the method can work. It is unsurprising that O’Connor’s attitude in the early 1990s would be the way it is. As such, I think for its time the method was still a great move forward in the field of film and history. I feel that if I bring it even further and dispense with the idea that historical methods are paramount (they are still absolutely crucial of course, I’m definitely not arguing to get rid of them) and taking the film analysis sections more seriously, the method can still be incredibly useful. I feel as if the method needs to be taken to a conclusion that O’Connor himself seemed still a little hesitant to reach. Film studies perhaps doesn’t need to fit into historical studies but rather they could meet somewhere more in the middle.

I’ve also had a few issues this fortnight trying to get that thesis/life balance right. Easter time is always a little busy for me, my family celebrates it and it’s birthdays all around (including my own) and finding the ability to say ‘I can’t do this thing because of my thesis’ has been really hard. I’ve never been very good at saying no to my family and close friends and I feel that now it’s expected of me to do everything, both by me and by them and it becomes this big loop of guilt for me about either/or not doing enough work and not doing enough with or for my family (though I know that they would of course understand). Not to mention, with my head, sometimes stupid things knock me out. I had a panic attack last week about almost losing a ring and it took me out all day which again, makes me feel really guilty. I’m just trying to work out how to balance these things at the moment and some days it’s harder than others. I think I have to learn how to live with being a bit selfish from time to time for my own greater good.

Research Update 02/04/2017

I’m continuing to work through Image as Artifact to unpack my thoughts on the methodology. A lot of it is contributions from other scholars but, as I’ve been discussing with my supervisors, everything is of its particular context and this becoming increasingly obvious to me all the time. There is a lot of talk in this about how film can be useful so long as we are aware of its pitfalls in comparison to written history.

There is some interesting discussion however, particularly in Daniel Leab’s essay, about how the medium contributes to the past being rewritten for the present and how films respond to changing beliefs about the past. This is useful for me thinking about how film/TV might demonstrate changing ideas of Elizabeth I as a result of second-wave or post feminism for example. There is discussion of the inadequacy of the content analysis supported by Rosenstone and the need to think about style and composition. This is a big part of what I like about O’Connor’s methodology.

I also came across a nice quote from Patricia-Ann Lee which I will need to remember to keep in mind. “Creating or even defining methodologies,” she says, “is a chancy and dangerous business since it suggests that there are absolutes in a process which must always retain the greatest possible flexibility” (p. 97). O’Connor’s method is probably not THE answer to analysing historical films but perhaps is just the most applicable for me given my opinion on how these films should be approached and will probably need to be changed and adapted to the new ways in which film and TV are being consumed today.

I’ve finally finished writing about defining historical films (even though I’m fairly sure I will cut most of it) and by the end I think I really fleshed out my own thoughts on the topic though it will definitely need to be cleaned up. I’ll be moving right along to writing about methodology.

Side note: Pacemaker is THE BEST. I sit down to write what I need to that day and end up just flowing. Today, I needed to write 163 words to hit my target but ending up writing close to 600 once I got on a roll. It’s such a good way to prompt myself to get writing. This is not a sponsored post.

Sources:

O’Connor, John, ed. The Image as Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. USA: R. E. Krieger Publishing Co. , 1990.

Research Update 27/03/2017

I’ve had another slow week I feel. I’m trying to get back on track but I still feel a bit sluggish and slacking. I’ve been working through Image as Artifact by John O’Connor, trying to get back around the methodology. So far this has been helpful as I’ve picked up some really important threads of ideas and also been able to see some of the shortcomings of O’Connor’s theories. I think it’s important that I acknowledge and address these if I’m going to use his method.

O’Connor developed the two phase method of film analysis and historical inquiry for analysing historical films in order to help develop critical viewing skills in the classroom. While this isn’t my focus or my argument I think it’s still in the same vein in the sense that I want to further a meaningful way to assess these films. I like that O’Connor aims for this method to be used for both film and television and specifies that each media requires slightly different approaches, including the consideration of the flow of television programming and the different spaces and circumstances of television viewing in comparison to cinema. This will be important to keep in mind when I talk about film versus television. O’Connor also argues for a view of the audience as active and that context is paramount, both positions I would agree with. There is a lot on reception which for now is helpful just to keep in mind but would be good for further work.

O’Connor still appears to be coming from the position that written history is ultimately superior to film. He criticises scholars for holding historical films and television to unrealistic expectations but admonishes films that privilege “feeling history” over “thinking historically” (p. 33) and argues, in a similar position to Robert A. Rosenstone, that films that pander to audiences expectations and preferences are the worst kinds of historical films. He also seems to want historians to become more actively involved in filmmaking as he believes they would want to make the creative process more obvious to the audience – the ideal trait of a good historical film in his opinion.

I feel that these arguments miss the point. To me, if we want to seriously evaluate historical film and television on the basis of their particular media as well as their historical value, we must accept film as it is going to come and that not all films are going to be experimental and challenge dominant narratives and expose their processes of construction or reconstruction. I believe we should be questioning what we can learn both from films that do these and the mainstream films that don’t, instead of picking and choosing and creating hierarchies of kinds of films – end of rant-

O’Connor is also skeptical of the typical narrative structures in historical films and television claiming that “in the stories that make for successful movies on television programs, the motives of major characters must be understood in terms of present-day values and concerns immediately accessible to a general TV audience…” (p. 2). While I understand his position that this might misrepresent actual historical motives (or what historians believe to be the most accurate motives), I think this might be able to show us information about how the filmmaker and the wider society in question sees the relationship between the past and the present and how they relate to each other. I think that the question of how we use the present to relate to the past and vice versa is a really rich and interesting one and could certainly be explored in films about Elizabeth I. In particular, can later Elizabeth I films like Elizabeth (1998) and shows like The Virgin Queen (BBC, 2005) and Elizabeth I (HBO, 2005), be viewed as means to explore female political leadership in a post-Thatcher Britain?

Ultimately, I think that although I disagree with some of O’Connor’s underlying ideas, the methodology is still fine for me.

Aside from that, I just started a Pacemaker account/plan to help keep track of my writing (thanks to the wonderful Toshi and Alix for putting me onto it).  Also I had a really great and productive study day with Lucie and Alix which included Alix gifting us some really lovely pens which might seem insignificant but really makes me smile and makes actually writing more enjoyable.

Sources:
O’Connor, John, ed. The Image as Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. USA: R. E. Krieger Publishing Co., 1990.

Research Update 21/03/2017

Last week was, for the most part, awful. Obviously the meeting with my supervisors was super helpful but outside of that, not great. I had been skimming through Visions of the Past, but the advice from the meeting was to lay off the theory reading and, especially, stop reading more Rosenstone. He’s outdated and I’ve read all that I need to in order understand where he fits into the field and my own argument. I went home then, and put that away. I think I’d like to look back into O’Connor a bit and refamiliarise myself and look deeper into the methodology.

I did some Tips for Effective Reading tutorials through the uni library. They were nice and quick and helpful. Mostly they were things that I knew but need to remember to do properly, specifically pre-reading. I typically tend to try to read absolutely everything and naturally, there is not enough time for this. I think I need to put more time into surveying the text for actual relevance to save time reading unnecessarily.

I also looked into Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, which was suggested to me by my supervisor Anne. Upon doing some reading I realised I must have done it a little before because the ideas were familiar. If I understand correctly, Bourdieu’s idea of habitus is the norms, patterns of talking, thinking etc., and tendencies that are socially and culturally acquired by individuals that they must take into different social contexts or fields but that also must adapt to those contexts. This is my understanding from some very surface level research. I did try to find some work on habitus and cinema but came up pretty empty (admittedly it was probably a boy’s look). There was one article by Bhrugubanda (2016) called “Embodied Engagements: Filmmaking and Viewing Practices and the Habitus of Teluga Cinema.” This looked mostly at the habitus of lower class Indian women and how this influences their viewing practices of devotional films though there was some discussion about the space of the cinema that could potentially be interesting. From my own thinking, I was wondering about film having its own habitus, as in certain kinds of films at certain times should fit certain conventions of narrative or genre or the like or how it might thwart these conventions and how this would shift over time. I guess viewer expectations would be important here too, expectations that are themselves created, or at least influenced, by pre-existing or prior conventions. I don’t know if that makes sense but it’s what I’ve been thinking about.

Sorry for the brevity and any incoherence, I’m incredibly tired at the moment. I will do better.

Sources:

Bhrugubanda, Uma Maheswari. “Embodied Engagements: Filmmaking and Viewing Practices and the Habitus of Telugu Cinema.” BioScope: South Asian Screen Studies 7, no. 1 (2016): 80-95.
Rosenstone, Robert A. Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995.

 

Research Update 13/03/2017

Last week was a little slower but okay. I worked through History Goes to the Movies. Essentially, Hughes-Warrington’s argument boiled down to the idea that reception studies and research into how audiences interact and respond to films and TV is an essential but so far largely missing element of historical film studies. I agree with her but I think that ultimately my Presentation of Proposal (POP) panel was right in that investigating reception might be a bit too ambitious for this paper. I also think that the crux of my thesis isn’t necessarily about audience’s responses but more about the piece itself and its particular social and historical context and about the filmmaker and/or historian. I think Hughes-Warrington would probably scoff at my approach but I will keep her argument in mind as she is right, I think, in saying that there isn’t a homogenous social experience or feeling at any given point in time that would mean we can assume how all audiences would respond to a particular film or show.

What I also found compelling in this book was that Hughes-Warrington argued against the most common charges against historical films, such as that they dupe audiences into thinking history is a simple story with a happy ending or that the films use special effects to alter reality, by pointing out that these arguments imply a passive and naïve spectator. She argues instead that audiences are active and aware that what they are watching is a film and not history itself. She cites some studies, for example the US based ‘Presence of the Past Project’ that suggest that audiences watch more historical films than read historical books and emotionally identify stronger with films but also trust them far less than they would books. I would be really interested to follow these up as I too believe that the audience are not so naïve as historical film scholars often paint them to be.

I appreciated Hughes-Warrington’s discussion of film theory, including the writings of people such as André Bazin and Jean-Luc Godard (whose writing on mainstream cinema reinforcing a particular vision of masculinity might be worth looking up) as it showed how one can combine both historical film studies and film studies. However, she often seemed to invoke these theories to show the short comings of historians studying historical film with little understanding of film theory, but didn’t really apply a critical eye to these theories themselves. She did include criticism of the definitions of ‘historical film’, criticising the exclusion of period and costume dramas, and heritage films from analysis because they don’t challenge mainstream historical narratives according to the majority of historical film scholars, including Rosenstone and Toplin. This is in line with my own argument and although this is not a major part of my thesis, I can build on her argument to suggest that all films set in or about the past, regardless of whether they challenge or maintain dominant narratives, can still tell us something about how that past is understood.

Last week I did some research off the back of the journal information David Burchell gave me and some of the stuff Sarah and Alison gave me and found some promising looking resources on Elizabeth I and found some more journals that might be worth searching through. I just have to actually go through them now.

I also went to the Higher Degree Research Orientation, which, although aimed at PhD kids was really helpful and informative. There were lots of helpful tips on how to manage time, which I am awful at, and mental health, which is important for me as I am prone to a good breakdown. The main advice there was to manage expectations on myself; this is not the end of the world, it doesn’t need to be the most perfect piece of work in the history of academia, and it probably will not define my career or life. I’m trying to keep this in mind as my perfectionism is my own worst enemy. There was a lot of talk about needing to be writing all the time and although I had heard this 1000 times I still hadn’t really listened I guess as I don’t do it nearly as much as I should if ever. One of the suggestions was to set aside time in the week just to write for a while so I’m going to start that this week and see how we go. We did have to do an exercise and just write for 10 minutes and I wrote about the theme/chronology issue because I had just been talking to Toshi about it. This is what I wrote:

It’s interesting to note the way that depictions of Elizabeth I in film and television do not necessarily fit into the easy categories we might expect. Sure, Bette Davis’s Elizabeth I in 1955’s The Virgin Queen is bitter and villainous because she can’t love and is barren rather than chooses not to have children but she is also incredibly intelligent and cunning, fiercely independent and her political mind knows no equal in the film. Similarly, the Elizabeth of Fire Over England (1937), played by Flora Robson, is strong and fierce and while she is clearly jealous of the young lovers, her preoccupation is with matters of state and has no genuine romantic subplot. In contrast, over 70 years later in Anonymous (2011), Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave/Joely Richardson) is defined only by her relationships to men, as a lover and as a mother to a number of illegitimate sons. This is her sole purpose in the film. To assume a natural progression of depictions becoming more liberal and feminist perhaps, as was my first instinct as a liberal feminist myself, is to assume that filmmakers, historians, and gender movements alike have also made this progression. This is simply not the case. We must remember that history and its written and filmic interpretations, as well as movements and terms like feminism, rarely have an straightforward evolution from point A to point B. We must also remember that judging something as more or less feminist can be problematic as this is a term that does not have one definition but can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and therefore a single depiction of a woman such as Elizabeth I in a particular film may elicit various readings and judgments based on different understandings of what a feminist interpretation might look like.

It’s pretty messy and I don’t think it’s very clear but the point is that in 10 minutes I busted out a paragraph that has the bones of something important that I’ve discovered. Now I can pull that apart and further explore those ideas and/or tidy it up into something worth possibly including at some point.

At the orientation there was also a panel on managing relationships with supervisors so I will have just a few things to discuss with them when we meet this Thursday. Mostly it was just simple things that in hindsight I should’ve probably been doing the whole time like emailing summaries after meetings about what was discussed so we’re all on the same page.

So yes, it was a slow week reading wise but I got some inspiration elsewhere.

Sources:

Hughes-Warrington, Marnie. History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film. New York: Routledge, 2007.

 

Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film

James Chapman
2005

This book is an exploration of how British historical films have confirmed or confronted the idea of British national identity during their times. Chapman looks at a number of historical films spanning from the early 1930s to the late 1990s. Chapman places each film in both the context of the British film industry at the time and the wider social, economic, and political context. While I wouldn’t be looking at many of these same films, the contextual information for each decade from the 1930s to the 1990s is invaluable to me as I can apply it to my own analysis of the films that I look at that come out of Britain at these times, for example, Fire Over England (1937), Young Bess (1953), or Elizabeth R (1971).

Among the films Chapman discusses is Elizabeth (dir. Shekhar Kapur, 1998). This was a valuable chapter as it provided contextual, production, and reception information as well as analysis of the film itself. Interestingly, Chapman reads Elizabeth largely in the context of the legacy of Princess Diana who died tragically just days before the film began principal photography. He argues that outrage from historians and critics alike that the film depicted Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, as not a virgin at all can be seen as a desire to protect the national myth about Elizabeth I but also as a kind of proxy to defend the reputation of the late Princess Diana, another national icon. It is an intriguing reading that I will take into consideration. It would be interesting to think about how 16th century ideas about protecting a woman’s virtue and reputation are being invoked again at the turn of the 21st century for another female royal.

 

Chapman, James. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film. London: I.B Tauris, 2005.

 

 

Looking at Movies

Richard Barsam and David Monahan
2013

This is a introductory textbook to film studies. It introduces the basic concepts necessary for understanding and assessing film, from cinematography and editing, to film history and production and distribution structures. It is handy for its overviews and definitions and it is really easy to read. However, it doesn’t provide methods for evaluating films, nor information of approaches to film analysis. It’s a nice introduction and is excellent to have as a reference but I will need more detailed and specific information about methodologies.

 

Barsam, Richard, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film. 4th ed. New York and London: W. W Norton and Company Inc. , 2013.

Experiments in Rethinking History

Edited by Robert Rosenstone & Alun Munslow
2004

This book is a collection of works that experiment with writing history. These include experiments with the literary form itself, and with subjects, for example, focuses on narratives and the historians’ personal experience. This is in response to the growing trends in the field of history that suggest that the notion of history as an empirical, objective study of the past as it happened is no longer adequate. As this idea has been deconstructed, the literary and narrative elements of history have been acknowledged and this book represents attempts to fully explore these elements and what they can bring to the exploration and communication of history. As Rosenstone states in his introduction, “they all grow out of a desire on the part of the historians to express something about our relationship to the past which has hitherto been inexpressible, to include in history things which have long been excluded, to share information or insights or understanding that cannot be carried by traditional historical forms” (p. 2).

This book raises some crucial points about history as representation, for instance, Munslow in his introduction argues that “History is, in and of itself, a representation of something. It is not the thing itself and cannot by the magic of empiricism be transported as it actually was onto the page or the screen” (p. 7). This echoes the arguments of scholars like Hayden White and Rosenstone himself, that written history and film are not so different as they are both attempting to represent history in their own ways but both ultimately rely on a narrative form.

The book is divided into two parts: Self-Reflexive; which collects the chapters that include a focus on the historian themselves and the authorial process, and New Voices; which includes works that attempt to explore previously unknown or unheard histories or perspectives. Each chapter is accompanied by an Afterword in which the author describes what led them to want to write in this way, which provides valuable insight into their approaches.

There are no chapters that deal with film but one chapter in particular, Bryant Simon’s “Narrating a Southern Tragedy: Historical Facts and Historical Fictions,” examines the role of fiction in exploring silences in history. Simon takes a story of he found in an archived newspaper of a lynching of two African-American men who are alluded to having sexually assaulted a white man in South Carolina in 1912. The story was vague and passed over with minimal details and so Simon used a fictional narrative from three different perspectives to explore what may have happened that day. The narrative is preceded by the evidence from the newspaper. This felt similar to the ways that a film might explore history by using individual perspectives and narratives.

 

Rosenstone, Robert, and Alun Munslow, eds. Experiments in Rethinking History. New York and London: Routledge, 2004.

Research Update 03/03/2017

It’s been a relatively productive week and a bit. I’ve mostly just been reading. I read Experiments in Rethinking History, a collection of essays edited by Robert Rosenstone and Alun Munslow. Among other things, it explored the relationship between fiction and history and how fiction can be used to experiment with the past as a means of exploring what might have happened. This was focused more on written narratives but the principle could be applied to film and TV I think, with the added element of film being able to explore the past through mise-en-scéne.

I also read James Chapman’s Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film which was really interesting. Chapman examines the way historical films have maintained and disrupted ideas about British national identity and national myths at the time of their production and reception. He uses films from each decade from the 1930s to the 1990s and puts each in the context of the British film industry at the time and the wider social, political, and economic contexts. This provided really useful information for me as, although I will be using different films, I can apply that contextual information to any films or television series that I might use that came out of Britain at these times, such as, for instance, Fire Over England (1937), Young Bess (1953), or Elizabeth R (1971). This would need to be added to by my own research of course. Chapman does include a chapter on Elizabeth (dir. Shekhar Kapur, 1998). His analysis is an interesting one, reading the film in the context of Princess Diana who died only days before principal photography began on the film. He argues that outrage from historians and critics alike that the film depicted Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, as not a virgin at all can be seen as a desire to protect the national myth about Elizabeth I but also as a kind of proxy to defend the reputation of the late Princess Diana, another national icon. It is an intriguing reading that I will take into consideration. It would be interesting to think about how 16th century ideas about protecting a woman’s virtue and reputation are being invoked again at the turn of the 21st century for another female royal.

I’m currently working through Marnie Hughes-Warrington’s History Goes to the Movies and I’m quite compelled by her argument that we should stop distinguishing film and television as separate and distinct forms of history/historiography and instead accept the notion of a multifaceted definition of history that includes everything from written history to film. I’m not sure if I’m in a position in my thesis to make that argument but I thought it might be worth keeping in mind, especially as I want to connect written and filmic history.

I got some great starting points for the historiography of Elizabeth I from both Alison Moore and Sarah Irving so I’ve had quick look through those but right now I’m still focused on trying to get all the theory stuff out of the way. I just have to keep reminding myself that I can’t possibly exhaust all literature on the subjects I’m looking at. I think that is a trap I fall into all too often.

I also had a few really productive meetings in the past few weeks. It was great to chat to Alison and have her on board. It was a nice, de-stress after I had been really anxious about my progress (or lack there-of) in January. After I expressed my concern about organising my thesis chronologically, given the complicated nature of approaches and attitudes toward gender politics and gender studies at any given time, Alison suggested organising it thematically instead. I went and had an equally helpful and calming chat with Judith (my lovely and life-saving supervisor) and she agreed that thematically makes the most sense. This will allow me to talk about the films that, although disparate in time, are similar in the way they choose to depict Elizabeth I and gives me room perhaps to examine why this might be the case.

Judith also suggested that I should take part in more workshops and present my work when the opportunity arises. The fact that that makes me nervous is probably all the reason I need to do my best to follow her advice. She wants to set up regular meetings, like a standing appointment and I could not agree more. Routine helps keep me focused and on track and it would make sure I had even more incentive to have something meaningful done between each meeting.

Sources:

Chapman, James. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film.           London: I.B Taurus, 2005.
Hughes-Warrington, Marnie. History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film. New     York: Routledge, 2007.
Rosenstone, Robert, and Alun Munslow, eds. Experiments in Rethinking History. New            York and London: Routledge, 2004.