GUIDELINES FOR WRITING FILM RESPONSE PAPER (1) The point of any good movie is not the action, but the message. Hence, do not just summarize the film. If there is no analysis involved, then you have not responded, only regurgitated. If the movie is based on true events, you should evaluate the level of analogy and either justify or criticize any differences the movie exhibits with respect to the original story it is based on. (II) Do not try to be a film critic. Do not worry about the actors’ performances (except insofar as they might be relevant in evaluating the film’s success in making its point) or the subtleties of direction and editing. Your target is a particular theme, not filmmaking. (III) Your first paragraph should be an introduction to your topic—that is, the issue or issues on which you are going to focus. It should be a brief paragraph—maybe four or five sentences. Be sure to say which aspect of the movie, specifically, will be discussed in the paper. If you want to emphasize and discuss issues that are secondary in the movie, still try to mention the movie’s central theme or themes. (IV) The main body of your essay should be the exploration of your theme or themes, using characters, scenes, symbols, and situations in the movie to show how the movie supports or contradicts your understanding of a particular topic. It should be composed of two-three distinct paragraphs – each of them discussing your impressions and thoughts as related to the film in question. (V) Pay close attention to basics like grammar and punctuation. Proofread your essay. (VI) Your conclusion should contain a short summary of all points comprised in your argumentation.

Film review sample Battle of Neretva is a 1969 a Yugoslav partisan film. The film was directed by Veljko Bulajić and depicts a massive Axis offensive against the Yugoslav Partisans in The offensive was also known as the “Fourth Enemy Offensive” and occurred in the area of the Neretva-River in Bosnia- Herzegovina (I/ ). The film is based on the true events of World War II although it conveys the impression that the Partisans as well as their enemies were ideologically motivated. In my opinion, however, the bulk of the population in wartime Yugoslavia held no rigid political loyalties. Instead, they were forced to survive as best they could and their allegiances shifted according to the situation. For example, the Chetniks, who are portrayed as the inveterate enemies of the Partisans, were not a single unified force, but initially fought alongside the Partisans against the Germans and then joined the Germans against the Partisans (I/45-51). Bosnia-Herzegovina especially represented a contentious mix of political ideologies, ethnicities, and religious beliefs – including nationalism and communism, and Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslim denominations – and consequently, the war there was particularly cruel (II/13-18). The film crafts a fascinating narrative of rival radical ideologies, particularly between the multinational vision of the Communist Partisans versus the xenophobic nationalism of the Serbian Chetniks and the Croatian Ustaše. Although the film emphasizes the battle between the Partisans and the Axis powers, Bulajić stresses its local dimension – the conflict between the citizens of the former Yugoslavia. As Commissar Stole says “hatred between the same people is the most vicious.’”

The film correctly shows that the Partisans fought for much more than mere survival – from the beginning Tito envisioned the war against the Axis powers mutating into a revolutionary struggle and turning Yugoslavia into a communist state. Although most Serbs initially joined the Partisans to survive the Ustaše genocide, the Partisan leadership from the beginning emphasized the importance of social revolution that would change the country’s political and socio-economic landscape. In other words, the unique conditions of the Axis occupation and the bitter ethnic and ideological conflicts engendered the revolutionary movement united in its primary objectives (II/64-68). To sum up, the film succeeds in demonstrating that the Partisans never viewed the armed struggle against the Axis powers from a purely military prospective, but were determined to transform this struggle into a political battle to create a “genuinely multinational socialist society.” This fact alone helps explain why the Partisans were much better organized than the Chetniks, particularly in creating the so-called “free zones” – the Neretva basin was but one – in which they set up the small replicas of revolutionary society, later superimposed upon the entire Yugoslavia (II ).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. JOZO TOMASEVICH, WAR AND OCCUPATION OF YUGOSLAVIA, II. BORISLAV KOJKO, YUGOSLAVIA’S CIVIL WARS, 1994.

HOW TO WRITE A RESPONSE PAPER (1 typed, single-spaced page, supported by 2 sources) A response paper is your chance to communicate in writing your personal viewpoint and personal learning as they relate specifically to the book, essay, paper, article, etc. The text, the artifact alone, has no meaning; it is given meaning by you, the writer. In other words, a response paper is your own interpretation of a given source and should demonstrate how deeply you have thought about the concepts, values, and attitudes of the period or historical episode in question. When analyzing the source, keep in mind that its author tries to make a point, to promote an idea, a set of beliefs or values. Hence, you should concentrate upon two objectives: 1. Telling what you think these ideas are. 2. Reflecting on these points, positions, and values and indicating whether they correspond with your understanding of the historical event or episode in question. Important Note: Essay organization, style, and grammar are a crucial part of the assignment and will be graded accordingly.

Your essay will be evaluated by the following criteria: Introduction – 20% Does the introduction contain a clearly defined thesis stating an arguable point? Does the introduction provide 2-3 general points that will be offered as proof to be defended in the body of the essay? Body - 50% Do the body paragraphs take the 2 -3 points mentioned in the introduction and analyze (rather than narrate) them, making good use of reasons and evidence drawn from the text book as well as other research sources? Grammar, organization, style – 30% (while the content and structure of the essay form the basis of the grade, mistakes such as spelling errors and faulty punctuation can and will have a negative impact on the grade of the essay exam).

Sample response paper (part 1)   Compare the basic principles of Judaism and Christianity. Why, in spite of its humble beginnings, did Christianity achieve the status of a world religion?  Thesis: Although early Christians were persecuted, specific socio-economic and political circumstances forced Roman Emperors to embrace the new creed as a crucial universal bond that helped them solidify their rule and hold together the multicultural and multiethnic Roman Empire.  Body of arguments: Judaism and Christianity are two related world religions. Judaism was founded by Abraham as a monotheistic religion – that is the belief in one, universal god. According to Judaist teachings, God and Abraham struck an agreement – the Covenant – according to which ancient Jews would believe and revere only one God. In exchange, God would love and protect Jews as the chosen people. The second important premise of Judaism is that God’s love to Jews is contingent upon their belief in him. If they stop following his guide, they will be punished. The oral traditions of Judaism were written down in the series of books called the Old Testament roughly between 500 and 300BC. Christianity took its roots from Judaism, and also is a monotheistic religion. (II-34).  Yet, despite their close relationship, Christianity and Judaism took a different path of development eventually became hostile to each other. The point of rupture between the two religions was teachings of Jesus Christ, who defied the Jewish traditional religious establishment, and whose appeal to the masses won him a significant popular backing. (I-123).

Sample response paper (part 2) The founder of Christianity is believed to have been a man named Jesus. Born about 4AD in a Jewish family in Bethlehem, Palestine, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and began preaching to the poor and sick in Judea – then a Roman province -- and convinced them to follow the teachings of God. The major tenet of this new religion -- called Christianity due to the Greek word Christos (the Messiah) – is the belief in one universal God, who loves and protects the human kind. Salvation and the kingdom of heaven are attainable by everyone who puts his/her trust in the All Mighty. Around 32AD, Jesus was apprehended by the Jewish leadership alarmed by his growing popularity among the masses, Fearful of Roman reprisals, Jewish elders handed Jesus over to the Romans, who crucified him (II-34). Several reasons contributed to the growth of Christianity. Jesus’ work was continued by charismatic leaders such as Peter and Paul, who gained popularity in Europe, especially Greece and Italy. Christianity offered salvation to everybody, regardless of social status and wealth – poor and rich, sick and healthy, princes and slaves. (I-187). As the Roman Empire declined, the emperors sought a device that would unify the diverse imperial population. Such a device was a single religion, and Christianity seemed to be popular enough to serve this purpose. In 313AD it was declared state religion, and from that moment on Christianity would eventually gain the status of world religion. Thus, in spite of its humble beginnings, a strange creed preached by a Palestinian Jew named Jesus has become the most popular (numerically) religion of the world (II-37-38).

Bibliography: I. Henry Richards, History of the Middle East, II. Burt Sammons, From Pariahs to Masters, 2006.

Why, in your opinion, did the “Prague Spring” take place in Czechoslovakia and not in other East European countries? Be specific. Short essay sample. Why, in your opinion, did the “Prague Spring” take place in Czechoslovakia and not in other East European countries? Be specific. In my opinion, there were several factors that made the “Prague Spring” a unique episode. First, in contrast to other Soviet satellite-states, Czechoslovakia was an industrialized country and hence, the Soviet “socialist” model undermined the national economy, particularly in Bohemia and Moravia. Popular opinion, therefore, was squarely behind those politicians who advocated economic reforms, which in turn spurred demands for political reforms as well. Second, some prominent members of the Czechoslovak communist party such as Alexander Dubček endorsed these initiatives and challenged President Antonín Novotný. In March 1968, when Novotný resigned, his successor Ludvik Svoboda also gave consent to the reforms. So encouraged, Dubček declared the party's mission was "to build an advanced socialist society on sound economic foundations... a socialism that corresponds to the historical democratic traditions of Czechoslovakia. “ Consequently, it was a combination of economic factors and the rise of reform-minded communist politicians that facilitated the “Prague Spring.”