In Week 11, of Design for Animation, Narrative Structures, and Film Language with Professor Nigel Mairs, the emphasis was on academic studies and bibliography development. This week focused on strengthening the theoretical backbone of my critical report.
I consolidated my core academic sources, drawing from animation studies, media theory, and political communication research. Authors such as Napier and Mitkus were particularly useful in framing animation as a medium capable of emotional distancing, ideological normalisation, and cultural influence.
Napier, S.J. (2006) Anime from Akira to Howl’s Moving Castle: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 24–41. Used for ideological framing and indirect political storytelling in animation.
Mitkus, T. (2014) ‘Animation as Ideological Discourse’, Animation Studies, 9, pp. 55–68. Core theoretical source defining animation as a political and cultural medium.
Wells, P. (1998) Understanding Animation. London: Routledge, pp. 112–134. Used to support narrative strategy, satire, and abstraction in animated form.
Kumar, A. (2012) ‘Media, Ideology and Representation’, Journal of Media Studies, 6(2), pp. 77–92. Referenced critically to contextualise ideological framing (used selectively).
Ganesh, K. (2020) ‘Animation and Cultural Politics in India’, South Asian Popular Culture, 18(1), pp. 19–35. Used to support Indian animation’s engagement with social inequality and governance.
Gray, J., Jones, J.P. and Thompson, E. (2009) Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era. New York: NYU Press, pp. 3–22. Supports analysis of satire in The Simpsons and South Park.
McClennen, S. and Maisel, R. (2014) Is Satire Saving Our Nation?. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–104. Used for understanding satire as political critique and bias.
Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage, pp. 15–43. Foundational theory for representation and ideological construction.
In addition to the main bibliography used in the report, I explored several additional sources that informed my understanding but did not appear directly in the final submission. These included broader studies on propaganda, satire in media, and audience reception theory. While these sources were not cited directly, they influenced how I framed arguments and interpreted case studies.
Jowett, G. and O’Donnell, V. (2015) Propaganda & Persuasion. London: Sage.
Reason for rejection: Too broad and focused on traditional propaganda; lacked animation-specific analysis.Lovell, T. (2000) Media, Culture and Identity. London: Sage.
Reason for rejection: Strong cultural theory but insufficient engagement with animation as a medium.Ott, B.L. (2012) ‘The Politics of Satire’, Critical Studies in Media Communication.
Reason for rejection: Overlaps with Gray et al. (2009); redundancy avoided.Herman, E.S. and Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon.
Reason for rejection: Important ideological text, but too journalism-focused and not animation-specific.Booker, M.K. (2006) Drawn to Television. Westport: Praeger.
Reason for rejection: Focused heavily on children’s television; limited relevance to political satire.Sardar, Z. (1999) Orientalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Reason for rejection: Useful conceptually, but risked shifting the report into postcolonial theory rather than animation analysis.
This week reinforced the importance of academic credibility. I ensured that all sources were peer-reviewed, relevant, and properly referenced using Harvard conventions. This process also helped me avoid over-reliance on opinion-based commentary and strengthened the objectivity of my critique.
By the end of Week 11, my research was fully supported by academic theory, ensuring that the report functioned as a critical investigation rather than a personal viewpoint.