Some Final Thoughts

Think back over the course of the semester. What was your favorite in-class screening and/or lecture? Why?

As always, provide examples to support your claims. This is your last blog post; make it count!

Contemporary Considerations

What was the last movie you saw in a movie theatre?

Analyze that film in the same manner that we analyzed Back to the Future and/or Die Hard. In other words, what do the onscreen representations suggest about global and domestic issues, gender, and/or current trends and movements in contemporary society?

As always, provide sufficient evidence from the film to support your answer.

(image: Russell Crowe and Helen Mirren in State of Play, 2009)

Create Your Own Exam, Pt 2

For this week's posting, create a multiple-choice question for Exam 3: Modern Cinema.

See the class website for sample questions from previous exams.

Polarizing Poitier

As we discussed in class, Sidney Poitier--whose film career peaked during a period when racism was rampant in the United States--is often interpreted in polarizing terms: a sell-out and a strong black lead, threatening and submissive, dangerous and harmless. For instance, take into consideration this excerpt from Brian Webster's review of In the Heat of the Night:

"[The film] seems impressive more than 30 years later, but is far more so when you consider that it was released in a period when racism was overt in much of the U.S. and was at the centre of a whole lot of conflict. During this tense time, Sidney Poitier was the perfect movie star to bridge the gap, at least theatrically. Able to portray a strong black character in a way that white audiences could appreciate, Poitier was a hero for moderates on both sides of America’s great racial divide. Of course, this guaranteed him the disdain of extremists – blacks who viewed him as a sell-out and whites who viewed him as the thin edge of a black wedge that threatened to pop open a once-stable social hierarchy. Of course, Tibbs is so polite and low-key that only the most colour-sensitive white audience members would feel threatened. It’s easier to understand why black activists might find Tibbs’ almost passive willingness to work within this corrupt system to be much more dangerous. Whether you view In the Heat of the Night as powerfully effective social commentary or just a morsel of liberal guilt relief, it certainly provides lots to think and talk about" (Brian Webster, Apollo magazine).

What are your thoughts on Poitier's place in cinema history? Where and how do you see him? What do you think of his role, his purpose in In the Heat of the Night?

Begin your response by citing a line that sticks out to you from Webster's review. As always, use examples from the film to support your response.

Twitter: Celebrities Exposed?

In case you haven't noticed, Twitter has been making headlines. For instance, some congressmen/women were publicly criticized last month for twittering during President Obama's speech. Also, Dallas Mavs owner Mark Cuban was just fined $25,000 for his "tweet" about the refereeing of his team's 103-101 loss to Denver. In addition, rock musician Courtney Love is being sued for defamation because of some recent messages she posted on Twitter.

Like Facebook and MySpace, Twitter--a free social messaging utility for staying connected in real-time--has taken the world by storm. While the majority of people utilizing the network are random citizens of the world, several celebrities (both A-list and D-list) are using it as well. As such, we might ask ourselves how the platform affects (if at all) our relationship(s) with Hollywood stars and the star system. For instance,

• Does Twitter truly allow for any barriers to be broken down, and if so, how?
  
• Do we now see these people in a different light because of what they say as opposed to what the media and paparazzi say about them?
  
• What does it mean (if anything) when celebrities respond to their "followers," non-celebrities and celebrities alike?

With these questions in mind, "follow" at least three celebrities this week and next week on Twitter. You might first try your luck at wefollow.com; there are also several celebrities mentioned in this NY Times article alongside a chart of who's connected to whom. (That's right: you can follow Shatner and Snoop!)

Then, by 11:59 PM on Saturday, April 11, collect enough data to answer any or all of the above questions regarding Twitter and its (possible) effects on stardom. Here, data means actual "tweets" (postings) by those whom you are following.

Psycho: Part 2 (Remaking Movies)

Independent film director Gus Van Sant attempts a first in American film history: a shot-by-shot remake of the classic 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho. With a few minor, modern-day changes (including filming it in color), his version is essentially the same film with a different cast and the same Bernard Hermann music.

Someone has posted on YouTube a compilation of the shots that make up Hitchcock's and Van Sant's shower scenes. After you watch the video concoction, post your reaction

-- first, to the idea of remaking Hitchcock's Psycho, a film that has been analyzed over and over by film scholars for nearly 50 years now. Should a filmmaker even attempt to recreate such a classic film?

-- and second, to the notion of remaking films altogether. In other words, what is your opinion regarding Hollywood's film-to-film remakes (e.g., 3:10 to Yuma, Cheaper by the Dozen, 101 Dalmatians, Bad News Bears, Cape Fear, superhero films)? Is this a form of plagiarism, or is merely someone paying homage to earlier works? (Or perhaps it's just an easy way to make more money)?





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the trailer of Van Sant's film, if you're interested in exploring it further.

Rashomon: The Wife

In his review of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950), James Berardinelli writes at length about Machiko Kyo's portrayal of the raped woman:

"The most striking portrayal belongs to the radiant Machiko Kyo, whose mesmerizing, seductive character varies the most from narrative to narrative. She can be wholesome, treacherous, sexy, sympathetic, or vicious. Depending on who's painting her portrait, she is a victim, a manipulator, an innocent, or a vixen. At times, she's 'like a child trying to be serious'; at others, she's 'fierce.' As good as Mifune and Mori are, they are constantly upstaged by Kyo. In casting her, an unknown at the time, Kurosawa knew what he was doing."

This week, please react to Berardinelli's conclusions about Kyo's portrayal. You might agree with the critic, disagree with him, or offer further assessments (e.g., perhaps you think Mifune's or Mori's performances stand out more than Kyo's, perhaps you think Kyo's wife comes across as something other than victim, vixen, etc.). But however you respond, be sure to provide specific evidence from the film to support your answer.

Film Appreciation 101

As discussed in class earlier this week, some contemporary audiences initially find it difficult to appreciate Grand Illusion (1937). But after analyzing Renoir's war film from a stylistic, narrative, and/or historical perspective, they end up retracting that viewpoint, realizing that the film is, as critic Roger Ebert claims, a masterful meditation on the collapse of the old order of European civilization.

This week, please write about a film that you initially found difficult to appreciate but then after considering it in a different, more thoughtful light, you ultimately came to see it, perhaps like Grand Illusion, as an outstanding work or art.

Cinema and Genre

What is your favorite film genre? Why?
And what is your least favorite film genre? Why?

When you're providing evidence to support your answer, be sure to employ appropriate film terminology as it relates to genre films (e.g., iconography, semantic components, conventions, syntactic features, plot patterns).

Censoring (Female) Pleasure

Watch the first 6 minutes of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, considering how Kimberly Peirce, the director of Boys Don't Cry (1999), responds to the ratings board's decision to cut three scenes in her film.

Do you think Peirce's answer about male-dominated Hollywood and female pleasure is justified? If so, why? If not, why not? As always, be sure to include specific examples (in this case, Peirce's dialogue perhaps...) to support your response.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

As you know, monumentous changes occurred in Hollywood between the years 1927 and 1933. Of the transitions, innovations, and breakthroughs discussed in "The Introduction of Sound" (211-19), which do you find the most fascinating and why?

As always, be sure to support your answer with evidence. Furthermore, when you pull information from the textbook, do not forget to cite the page number in parentheses.

Create Your Own Exam

For this week's posting, create a multiple-choice question for Exam 1.

See the class website for sample questions from previous exams.

Keaton vs. Chaplin

In August 2002, Entertainment Weekly promoted the box sets of silent film comics Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. In the brief article, entitled "Crash Course: Keaton vs. Chaplin," the author writes,

"Charlie Chaplin was perhaps the most famous person on the planet for the first half of the 20th century; since then, Buster Keaton has slowly risen in esteem, to the point where he's now regarded as Chaplin's superior in filmmaking (true) and in comic genius (endlessly arguable). What's undeniable is that Charlie's sentimental sensibility was rooted in the music hall and vaudeville of the past, while Buster was a poker-faced modernist who pointed to the future. Chaplin's warm, in other words, while Keaton's cool, but both can paralyze you with laughter and stun you with sudden, unexplained emotion."

According to EW, Chaplin is sentimental, warm, and rooted in the past while Keaton is poker-faced, cool, and points to the future. With these characteristics in mind, some viewers claim that one star is "better" than the other, but such arguments are ultimately unproductive as both men are comic geniuses, each with his own style, character, and themes. Therefore, rather than discussing whether Keaton is superior to Chaplin or vice versa, why don't we consider which actor's persona and/or comic presentation YOU favor and why.

In roughly 250 words, explain why you prefer the comedy, onscreen persona, narratives, etc. of Keaton OR Chaplin--not both. You must select one. To support your stance, cite at least one of the in-class films/clips we've seen of these two stars: The Gold Rush, City Lights, Sherlock Jr., and/or The General. As always, to direct your posting you should start with a thesis of some sort (e.g., I favor the comic films of Buster Keaton because they...; I enjoy the screen persona of Chaplin's tramp because it...; etc.)

Short and Sweet

Summarizing involves putting the main idea(s) of a work into your own words, including only the main point(s). Summaries are significantly shorter than the original and take a broad overview of the source material. Here is an example:

Original passage:
Students frequently overuse direct quotation in taking notes, and as a result they overuse quotations in the final [research] paper. Probably only about 10% of your final manuscript should appear as directly quoted matter. Therefore, you should strive to limit the amount of exact transcribing of source materials while taking notes. Lester, James D. Writing Research Papers. 2nd ed. (1976): 46-47.

An acceptable summary:
Students should take just a few notes in direct quotation from sources to help minimize the amount of quoted material in a research paper (Lester 46-47).

A plagiarized version:
Students often use too many direct quotations when they take notes, resulting in too many of them in the final research paper. In fact, probably only about 10% of the final copy should consist of directly quoted material. So it is important to limit the amount of source material copied while taking notes.

This week, you are required to read two short sections in your textbook about the rise of cinema in Hollywood: "The Hollywood Studio System" (43-52) and "The World-Wide Spread of Cinema" (53-61). Choose ONE of these sections to summarize, putting the main ideas of it into your own words.

Also, don't forget:

1. Place film titles in italics or all caps (e.g., SHERLOCK, JR.).
2. Posts should not exceed 300 words.
3. All postings should be published by 11:59 PM every Saturday.

Welcome, FILM 2350 Students!

As you've already discovered, we are going to spend the next 16 weeks screening, examining, and writing about the major movements and authors of cinema history. This blog/discussion board is one of many assignments that will allow us as a class to delve further into into the history of cinema; it will also help you sharpen your argumentative writing skills as well as serve as a foundation for your final project in FILM 2350.

As your syllabus indicates, you are required to post to this forum at least once a week excluding Spring Break (March 10-14) and the final week of classes (April 28-May 2). Therefore, by the close of the semester, you will have responded to my and/or your classmates' postings nearly 15 times.

Only ten of these responses, however, will be graded. Obviously, the more you post, the more you'll have to choose from! In any case, before you begin writing and hit that Publish button, please keep in mind the following Rules for the Road...

Rules for the Road!

IMPORTANT!!
If you do choose not to adhere to the following rules, your posting may be deleted and thus rendered ineligible for your "Final 10." Consequently, please, please keep all of these things in mind before you hit that publish button!

1. Place film titles in italics or all caps, NEVER in quotation marks (e.g., Sherlock, Jr., SHERLOCK, JR.).
2. Explain your answer in detail, citing for example WHY you think Time considers Buster Keaton's film Sherlock, Jr. "a great example of American minimalism."
3. Limit responses to about 250-300 words (this post is approx. 150). If you exceed that count, tighten your writing, i.e., review what you’ve already written and see what can be omitted, combined, and/or made more concise.
4. Respond tactfully. By all means, make your case, but be thoughtful when you do it.
5. Finally, all postings should be published by 11:59 PM every Saturday. The new week begins every Sunday at 12:00 AM.

• Get started with:
  TR 2 PM: Movies: How Much Do They Cost?
  TR 6 PM: What Do Movies Say about Us/U.S.?
  

Movies: How Much Do They Cost?

Time reviews Woody Allen's film The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) as "a light, lovely meditation on the cost of surrendering our lives to commercialized fantasy."

• First, using at least 2 examples from Allen's film, explain in no more than 3 sentences why this magazine's statement is valid.
• Second, in no more than 3 sentences, address the overall idea at play here. In other words, does our relationship with commercialized cinema come with a cost? If not, why? If so, what is that cost?

To respond, click "Comment" below, and please use your name rather than an alias.

Finally, as always--for full credit--please italicize/underline all movie titles.

Students in the 6-8:50 T/Th class,
who did not get to screen The Purple Rose,
should post to What Do Movies Say about Us/U.S.?

What Do Movies Say about Us/U.S.?

This blog was written for students
who meet on T/Th, 6-8:50 PM.
Because of technical problems,
they did not screen The Purple Rose of Cairo.

However, if students from the 2-4:50 class
want to post here as well, that is fine.
But again, their required blog for the week is
Movies: How Much Do They Cost?

This week, we looked several ways that turn-of-the-century films reflected the period's fascination with travel and transportation, public events (e.g., world's fairs), and popular amusements (e.g., vaudeville, boxing matches) (World Cinema 18).

With this in mind, explore what current films--those released in the last four years perhaps--reflect about our country's apparent interests. Use at least FIVE EXAMPLES to support your answer, and as always, film titles should be underlined, italicized, or placed in all caps (e.g., THE DARK KNIGHT).

HINT: You might start with Box Office Mojo, clicking on the links for 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005 to see the top 10 grossing films of the last four years.