the first paragraphy, i.e. how will Canadian films be seen, which would seem to
indicate that this is not in fact a conclusion at all. What's more the reasons ...
Master’s Diploma Thesis Assessment Report Thesis Title:
The Films That Made It: Independent Canadian Women Filmmakers and the Recipe for Success Field of Study: English Language and Literature Author: Soňa Šašinková Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Ph.D. Reviewer: Jeffrey A. Vanderziel, B.A. Reviewer’s recommendation for overall mark: D – Satisfactory
The overall mark is based in part on the following assessments: 1.
Evaluation of central idea, thesis, focus and purpose: C – Good
2.
Evaluation of organization, logic and arrangement: D – Satisfactory
3.
Evaluation of topic development, support and evidence: E – Acceptable
4.
Evaluation of language, style, standard usage, citation and bibliographic standards: D – Satisfactory
Comments and/or topics and questions for the thesis defence: While I find the subject and aims of Ms. Šašinková’s Master’s thesis to be commendable, the end result is less than good on a number of different levels. In terms of language, Ms. Šašinková (and other students) would be well advised to stick to simpler sentence structures to avoid creating the unintended comedy of a misplaced clause (e.g. the first sentence in Section 2.1 on page 19). In terms of structure, I often had the feeling that the paragraphs seemed to be in almost random order within each of the sections and that connections between the paragraphs (i.e. transitions) were wholly missing (e.g. the introduction). Further, I found the analyses of the three films in question to be simplistic, unbalanced and isolated. There is almost no point in the thesis where Ms. Šašinková addresses the three films together, choosing rather to focus on them individually and in different fashions – examining female characters only in one film (Mermaids), ostensibly focusing on both in a
Version 2.4, 20 May 2011
very brief discussion of Kissed while focusing exclusively on males in the third, much longer analysis of Chocolate. In her discussion of character development in Chapter 4, the reader isn’t even sure which film she is discussing in section 4.2 (Kissed by process of elimination). While it is clear that Ms. Šašinková has read about and watched the films closely, the quality of her analysis is uneven, sometimes good (3.3), others not (see any of the other aforementioned sections). It is only on the “Conlcusion” that Ms. Šašinková addresses at all the question she posed in the first paragraphy, i.e. how will Canadian films be seen, which would seem to indicate that this is not in fact a conclusion at all. What’s more the reasons presented to not primarily relate to the analyses of the films she has presented in the previous chapters. In the end, this Master’s is one of promise not fulfilled and hence the recommended mark of “Satisfactory”
Brno, 13 June 2011
____________________________ Signature
2
