This was a site that came to the fore a few years ago. In a paradoxical way it can be seen as both a great boon to, and a slap in the face of, film studies. It’s a boon because odds are if you input a title you will find a thesis you would be able to argue- maybe not well, but you can give it a go. The slap in the face is that you can put any title into the generator and at time the worse the movie the more hilarious the results (Note: I do genuinely like one of the films in the examples below, it’s just funny to think of any of them in such an austere academic fashion).

I wish I had saved the first response I got for Pootie Tang because I laughed for a minute solid but can’t recall the wording.

Now, I do not endorse this in lieu of formulating your own theses, when you are permitted to, as those are more enjoyable to pursue. It really just is fun. More often than not in film school I was assigned a general topic and given films to choose from. Either way here are some examples of results I got. You should go and have some fun when you have time to spare.

As a post-script for those with an interest in true theses being explored in a more real way I am planning on a series of posts in January and/or February of next year that will deal in more serious-minded, closer examinations of titles.

Through the use of implied depth-of-field, C.H.U.D. delegitimizes pre-Oedipal anxieties.

Through the strategic use of narrative ellipses, Troll 2 conforms to colonial attitudes toward race.

Through the use of mise-en-scene, Eegah echoes the plight of the migrant worker in post-war America.

Soul Plane reminds the spectator of the subjugation of the individual in the face of the primacy of television through its conflicting duality of progress and humanity.

Through the deliberate suppression of colors meant to signify passion, Striptease reveals critical seams in stereotypical conceptions of Islamofascism.