A post on F-Bomb called "Sexism Is Not Actually 'Edgy'" discusses derogatory, offensive, and sexist comments make during this year's Oscars. The author talks about Seth McFarlane's song in the beginning, "We Saw Your Boobs", saying that it not only objectifies the female actresses but it also reduces there performance to simply the appearance of their bodies. She also explains that the song was especially insulting because many of the scenes to which he was referring were rape scenes. I agree completely agree that these jokes were distasteful, but I don't know if I would go as far as to call them sexist. While clearly they were hurtful, I don't think they were meant degrade the actress' performance. What I think the author missed, is that the opening monologue of the Oscars is, in many ways, satire. Rather than objectifying women, I think that more of what McFarlane was trying to do was comment on our sex obsessed culture. Rather than voicing his own impressions of the films he referenced, he was mocking the people who actually viewed movies that way.
Million Dollar Baby is a film that received widespread critical acclaim and won the 2004 academy award for best picture. In the film Hilary Swank plays a boxer who seeks out a trainer so that she can become a successful boxer, she works as a waitress to supplement her income. She initially seeks out the help of a marginally successful boxing trainer played by Clint Eastwood, he initially rejects the offer to train her saying he doesn’t train girls. Over time she is able to convince him to train her and they grow to have a bond (not romantic just a bond).
She uses the funds of her boxing in order to buy her mother a house, her mother is by no means grateful and complains that having a house with threaten her reception of welfare payments. Her mother also says that everyone in her old town is laughing at her for trying to become a professional boxer. In her first big fight she is knocked down and her neck lands on a stool, after this she becomes paralyzed from the neck down. She asks Clint Eastwood to end her pain and he reluctantly agrees. This film is definitely a feminist film as the main character exhibits agency, and does not fit into any typical stereotypes.
In choosing to go into professional boxing, which is typically considered to be a masculine sport, the protagonist is defying typical stereotypes of women. The film shows the difficulty in her participating in the sport and defying stereotypes as Clint Eastwood’s initial reaction is one of hostility to the idea of her boxing and according to her mother, everyone in her hometown mocks her. There is no lingering attachment to the separate spheres ideology as the main character does not have a domestic role, is not submissive, is not particularly pious and does not strive for purity.
Clint Eastwood’s character is initially that of a stereotypical “tough guy” he is unsympathetic to the main character’s cause, and as usually the case when Clint Eastwood is in a film, he is rough around the edges. As the film goes on though Clint’s Character eventually develops a heart and toward the end he is emotionally attached to his trainee, and in doing so he breaks out of his stereotype.
Throughout the film the main character shows agency in her actions and is thoroughly determined to become a successful boxer. She combats obstacles in her way to becoming a successful boxer and is not swayed, by the opinion of others, from her goal.
The film is a feminist film because it’s characters are not confined to typical gender roles. Hilary Swank’s character is not stereotypical in her desire to become a boxer and Clint Eastwood’s character is not stereotypical in that he eventually breaks out of the “tough guy” role.
The film Legally Blonde, starring Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods, is on of the best examples of the idea of feminism in the modern world. Starting as a soroity sister whith hopes of becoming engaged, Elle Woods is the "perfect" girl. She has everything she needs to be happy in life, but when her boyfriend dumps her on the night she thinks he's going to propose, Elle vows to do whatever it takes to get him back. His excuse for breaking up with her is that he can't be taken seriously in the law school world with her by his side, so, sticking to her vow, Elle applies for law school, and, to everyone's surprise, gets into Harvard. As time goes on, Elle matures and buckles down on her work, eventually forgetting about her ex, and focuses on becoming something she can really be proud of: a lawyer.
The beginning of the film gives into the idea that women need men to complete them and that men have women completely under their spell and can manipulate them any way they want. When she is dumped, Elle wants nothing more than to get back the man who broke her heart because she feels incomplete without him. Her determination to get him back leads her to Harvard Law where she spends her time trying to juggle her classes and impressing her ex. The film shows women as completely dependent on men and men completely independent from women, giving the idea that men can discard one woman for another and be just fine, while the woman who was discarded will wollow in depression for weeks.
As the film goes on, Elle begins to focus more on her school and less on her ex, though he is almost always in the back of her mind, since he's started dating her "worst enemy". Even more determined to win him back from her, she studies harder and becomes more serious about her work so she can become a successful lawyer and he will want her back. With this, the film gives the idea that women use their manipulating skills to make men want them or make men notice them. It also makes women seem completely desperate when they are threatened by other women.
Towards the end of the film, Elle becomes completely independent from her idea that she needs to get her ex back after meeting Emmett, another law student who she begins to fall for. By this time, Elle has become a new person from the sorority queen she started out as and turned herself into a successful lawyer who even won a case for her university firm. The end of the film sends the message that women can be successful without a man and can be free to achieve whatever they want, even in the least likely circumstances.
It seems like in the past year everyone's been talking about The Help. It was nominated for four Academy Awards, and Octavia Spencer won for best supporting actress. The most obvious themes in the movie are centered around race and class, and the film, while garnering mostly positive review, has received criticism for using racial Hollywood stereotypes like "Mammy". While it's not really gotten a lot of attention for its focus on women, the film also has a lot to say about gender roles and stereotypes.
If you haven't seen it, The Help centers around the lives of two women (Aibileen and Skeeter) and their friends. The movie is set in Jackson, Mississippi in the early 1960s. Aibileen is black and Skeeter is white, but they face similar struggles as women. The film presents three stereotypes of women: the wife/mother, the seductress, and the old maid. The Help dares its viewers to criticize these stereotypes by creating likeable characters that do the same.
Celia Foot, Skeeter's friend, challenges both the wife/mother and seductress stereotypes. Celia is new in town and, according to the other women, comes from "white trash". She dresses provacatively, bleaches her hair, and wears lots of makeup. Most of the women in the town shun her and feel threatened by her sex appeal. Celia is also child-less; she has suffered many miscarriages and is consequently depressed. When asked if she will have children, she says "Oh, we're gonna have some kids... I mean kids is the only thing worth living for". The women in the town are valued solely on their child-producing capabilities, so not being a mother brings Celia a lot of embarrassment and distress.
By the end of the movie Celia has successfully overcome these stereotypes and expectations. She has made new friends (namely Skeeter), she's embraced her appearance, and her husband told her that he loved her for her, not her baby making abilities. Throughout the movie, viewers are touched by Celia's charm and kindness. We are rooting for her to come out ahead, and she does.
The Help presents another female character who dares to break the mold: Skeeter. Skeeter overcomes the old maid stereotype. Unlike most women her age, she is single, has a college degree, and wants to start a book. Her mother is constantly encouraging her to find a husband, even going as far as to suggest that she must be lesbian since she hasn't settled down yet. Skeeter is an old maid at 28. She does not give in to the pressure, though. Skeeter successfully writes a book and leads a happy and fulfilled life without a man. She is strong, capable, and independent, something not many women were in the 1960s.
The Help is a feminist movie. Its characters defy traditional gender roles and stereotypes, and it presents these characters in a way that is inspiring and fun. The Help criticizes traditional patriarchal structure and employs a female gaze. Unlike many films, the women are not objectified and have agency. While The Help has recieved a lot of attention for its racial themes, it should also be viewed as feminist film.
There has always been some debate over which was better, the book or the movie? Whenever a movie comes out that was based on a book people start the debate and most of the time everyone has their own solid opinoin. People may not like the movie because it didn't live up to the standards of what the book was for them. When you read a book you make up the characters in your head and you play out how everything would go while you read. When your imagination is turned into cinema, you may end up being dissapointed because a movie cannot be as complex as a book and can't get into all the detail a book can.
For example, a lot of people say they dislike the Harry Potter movies because they are completely inaccurate to the books. Some parts of that is true because the movie doesn't go into a lot of the behind the scenes information like the book did. A movie can't be four hours long so the writers unfortunetely have to cut out what they believe would be ok to cut out. Although it really does importantly pertain to the books, if you were following only the movies, you wouldn't know any better.
I believe that people should watch the movie and start to see it as something they hadn't read about, or they could just relate the movie to the book and just know that the details did happen and just watch the movie knowing the left out material did occur, but in the book. People should just know that when a movie about a book comes out, it most likely will never be as good or the same as the book beause literature and cinema are two completely different subjects. When the movie comes out, you should view it with an open mind and judge it by how well the actor's portrayed the roles they were given with the screenplay, not by how the character in the book would act.
It's the general consensus that books almost always do a better job at telling a story than their movie counterparts. A film simply does not have the time or the means by which to give a story justice. But, then again as with most things, there is a varying degree to which books are successfully brought to life on the big screen. But what is it?
There are some stories that have just been a horrible attempt at movie-fying a novel. An example of this is non other than our very own Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. Despite many great qualities the movie possessed, it did not even come close to having the magic and the life that the book did. This is for three main reasons: 1) The inquisitive character of Oskar cannot be accurately transposed into a film without being cheesy because a large part who he is is how he feels and thinks in the privacy of his own mind. 2) The story is based almost entirely on characters as opposed to being driven by the plot. 3) The ending is very anti-hollywood and does not translate into the film industry of hollywood itself.
Now, having analyzed why some books failed at being turned into a movie, what is the reason for the other side of the spectrum being more successful? One example of a successful book-into-movie attempt is The Lord of the Rings trilogy J.R.R. Tolkien. It may just be Peter Jackson's skill as a director to accurately convey the story, but I think there is more to it than that. If ELIC failed because Oskar's character is extremely complex, then it is safe to say that LOTR succeeded for the very opposite: the saga had fairly flat characters. Even Frodo, being the deepest of them all, is still pretty superficial, with the slight exception of his inner conflict with the ring. Similarly, Tolkien's masterpiece is almost entirely driven by the plot while that of Foer was rooted in character development. Finally, LOTR had an ending that was very hollywood indeed because *SPOILER ALERT* Frodo was able to successfully destroy the ring and live happily ever after... Literally.
All in all, if a book has qualities such as fairly flat characters, a plot driven story, and a hollywood ending already built in, then by all means let the producers go nuts with turning novel into film. But, on the other hand, if the novel contains none of those qualities, it would literally not be worth touching unless you want to make a movie that is mediocre at best.
I think it is fair to say that many people could agree that books are better than movies-although that may just be my own bias, but personally I believe that a good novel can take the imagination on adventures that something so physically provided for the mind cannot equally provide. When the reader of a novel finishes a good read, they unconsciously have this image in their head of what specifically happened in the book according to their individual thought process. I think that is one of the best parts of a great book, the way you interpret it, and how it may differ from others that also read it or just how you create each character in your mind to be a certain way.
The issue with movies would have to be the image provided by the creators of the movie, whom cannot fully satisfy the specific depth of the imagination. In the book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Jonathan Foer does a great job of creating a story that a reader can really get involved in and picture certain characters certain ways. But in the film, as I said before, I do not think it was able to capture what I had pictured much of the book to be like. I did enjoy the movie because I am not a big critic when it comes to movies and if it has good music I am in for it, but the only issue was that some characters in the film were not how I pictured them in the novel at all.
For instance, Abby Black was physically different than I pictured her as well as Oscar's Mom. The director did a good job of producing this movie because I think he transformed it into a movie that people would really like if they didn't read the book, which would apply to a wider audience, which is a smart tactic but as for its appeal for the readers of the novel, it was extremely different. A lot more sad. But overall pretty well made, just incomparable to the book.
Amazing books often come with highly anticipated movies that rarely measure up. This disappointment isn't always caused by a poorly written screenplay or bad production; it is just impossible to recreate the individual and unique experience a good book gives each of its readers. As readers, we create the scenes as we read, and it's unlikely that the movie director will have the exact same vision in his/her mind. Also, reading a book gives the readers more time to connect, invest in, and get to know the characters. By the time we actually see our favorite character on screen our expectations are too high for any actor to measure up to.
An example of this is Gone With the Wind. Gone With the Wind is considered one of the best movies of all time. Adjusting to inflation, it is the highest grossing movie of all time, and it is also the first movie to win more than 5 Academy Awards- it won 10! That being said, having read the book before watching the movie, I was a little disappointed. The characters (especially Scarlet, the protagonist) were not nearly as well developed and the movie left out key plot details. This is clearly not an example of the movie simply being bad and the book being good- it shows that even the best of movies cannot create the same experience that reading a book can. Unless you are directing the movie and can create the scenes based on the images in your head, there is bound to be some discontinuity between your interpretation and the movie's, which will end with you leaving the theater unsatisfied.
Neither a book or a film is inherently superior or inferior both are forms of media which have separate ways of telling a story to an audience. for example, Reading a book usually requires that the reader invest more time that if they were watching the movie this is not a disadvantage but is just a different way of conveying the same message. When more time is invested by the reader they can get more in depth characterization but it also can limit the level of intensity as events are drawn out. Each form of media has it’s advantages in certain genres.
Some things are better when they are shown to the audience, the film avatar had a terrible story but the visuals were so good that people were able to forgive the story as they looked at the pretty colors on the screen. Some things are better when they are not shown for example in horror a common technique in a film is to use gore which is usually not scary and is just disgusting. A horror book can create more suspense as events are drawn out and the imagination is persuaded by the author to wander into terrifying places.
In terms of intensity there are certain books that are difficult to put down once started but for most people a break from the novel is required because they generally take a long time and people have to do things like work, go out to see the sunshine, or interact with other humans. A movie, because it can shorter can create more intensity as the viewer is not forced to take a break.
Certain genres are more conducive to film than a novel such as comedy. There are books that are funny but they pale in comparison to a comedic film. It is not uncommon to see someone laugh out loud while watching a movie but it is very uncommon to see someone laughing out loud at a book. Part of why movies are better for comedy is that a film can be a shared experience between members of the audience and laughing in a group is acceptable laughing by yourself is odd.
It is common for people to say that the book was better than the movie but this does not mean that movies are inherently inferior. A movie has less time for characterization than a book which can alienate an audience who remember their characters from a novel who by comparison are given less time to develop in a film. Films and novels are better for certain genres and neither is superior to the other.
I would argue that both books and movies are capable of having deep, interesting features, characters and story lines. Some books are admittably better in book form than in movie form. The harry potter movies have many small connections between books and some things that bring the whole story together, that aren't featured in the films. While the movies do a very good job of putting the story on screen, they were intended to be books, and therefore the story loses something when put in theaters. Books can also capture what a character is thinking, while in a movie the viewer has to interpret that for themselves generally, which can be a good thing or a bad thing.
However, films are very capable of being just as much of an art form as books and just as intriguing. In the movie Casablanca, there are several motifs that appear throughout the film such as a song that plays in the background, a tipped over wine glass, and other things. The motifs would be much more obvious in a book and the story would lose the effect of the motifs being subtley in the background. Movies also capture the facial expressions of characters much better than books do. A book can merely describe what an expression looks like but in a movie, the viewer can see exactly what is going on on a characters face and have their own interpretation of what the character is thinking. In Lord of the Rings, two of the characters, Legolas and Gimley, are enemies at first and then become friends through friendly competition. The expressions on the two characters faces add a humor to the movie that is not present in the books and help the viewer get a feel for the characters, even if they are a little different than the book.
I think that stories that were intended to be books are very difficult to transfer to the screen, because of the way they are written. They are intended to get you to see a character from a specific perspective and that is lost in a film when a director trys to show something that is written down as a tangible thing when it;s not meant to be. However stories intended for the screen, woudl be difficult to put in book form for the same reasons. What a director can do with camera angle and different perspectives and motifs and emotions is just as difficult to transfer as what books are good at.
Ever since the film industry has been in existence directors have constantly used books to craft their films. For example Peter Jackson's "Lord Of The Rings" and the "Harry Potter" movies were based off of books. The real question is did the audience enjoy them?
The fact is movies leave out so many key details that the books contain. Reading a book is a lot better than watching a movie based off of a book. The reader gets to know the entire story not just a snip-it that the director thought would make a good movie. When someone reads a book they create their own setting and even the cast. Since everyone has a different experience reading the book the characters will never be what one wanted in a movie. A movie is a directors vision and usually never matches up with the readers vision of characters and setting. With this loss of key details movies are becoming less and less enjoyable and predictable. The books are always better than the movies because it is ones own vision not some director in hollywood looking to make a big paycheck.
Iam a firm believer of the idea that whenever a person reads novel or other story, which is made into a movie, the reader will consider the book better. In my opinion the main reason for this is that the reader has already created their own depictionof the character and other elements such as setting.
In my experiance a great example of this assertion is in the movie Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.When I saw the film I thoroughly enjoyed it, however i did think that the book was better. This is because in my mind the characters appeared much differently. Such as Abby Black who looked totally different then i had pictured her during my reading of the novel. Every character seemed to be this way. The only exceptions to this are Oscar and Thomas. Both of those actors did an excellent job of portraying the characters, and for that I give them props.
In every case that I have ever experianced the book is indeed better than the movie, even if the movie is a master piece.
There is a generally accepted belief that book versions of stories are better than the movie versions and that in general, movies cannot match up to the “rich, thoughtful experience” of reading a book. While I do understand that books have more opportunity to set the scene explicitly and to develop a character’s thoughts, movies have the unique ability to show actions and setting complexity often overlooked in a book.
Great examples one of the advantages of movies are often found in action movies. The action-packed tale would not be the same if you had to read through all the back handsprings and roundhouse kicks, getting lost in the speed of the fights. The dynamic experience is enhanced by the visual, never hindered. Visual representation also comes in handy in those flicks when they have to creatively get through the moving lasers. Those scenes in Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve as well as Get Smart would not be the same in text.
Another visual advantage is used perfectly in Avatar. The settings in books are often overlooked as unimportant and in the cases where it is described to do it justice, the reader is board and not appreciative. Movies are able to contain elaborate settings that don’t need to be explained, just appreciated. Descriptions of all the beautiful flora and fauna in that movie would have been long and likely boring instead of instead of the constant admiration received by the movie’s fans.
Finally, a movie can in fact be better than a book. When a book is badly written but has a good plot (of which there are many), or is too complex for its own good (of which there are fewer), a movie version, if well done, can tell the story so that its integrity remains but quality goes up. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a perfect example of a set of movies that raise the quality of the original story by simply being well-made movies.
I didn't see the Swedish mini series of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" so I can't speak about that but I did find Fincher's movie closer to the book and I would think that it maybe includes more details. I also found the actress playing Salande plays it well as it includes the right mix of sharp edged nonsense and insecurity that a girl who'd been abused in so many ways from such an early age would be. I had read the books first and didn't think the American version could possibly be any good but I was really surprised. Even the guy who played Blomkvist, even though he brought that 007 aura with him, played the part better. I didn't find anything even really interesting about the book-version Blomkvist. Craig (although he's too hard body, Blomkvist was supposed to be way out of shape) played a guy who was confident in his skills but kind of goofy and definitely not used having his life threatened, which is how I pictured Blomkvist when I read the books. I could see how women might find that intriguing, how a confused young woman might find him a "safe" enough male to get involved with. And now I can't wait until the next installment of the series is released in theaters. I think the movie did a good job in portraying the book. If you guys haven't seen it yet, you should check it out!
For the next blog post, please write an original argument on one of the following topics below. Whichever topic you choose, support your argument with appropriate evidence from your reading, observation or experience. Your argument does not need to be multiple paragraphs, but you should have a clear structure, where you make claims, back them up with data, and provide a warrant for how the data supports a particular claim and your overall argument. Feel free to establish exigence and make your thesis as complex as possible.
Topic #1: Richard Corliss writes in Time magazine:
Ask any reader who has seen the movie version of a favorite novel, and the answer will usually be, 'The book was better.' That's because readers of a novel have already made their own perfect movie version. They have visualized it, fleshed out the locations and set the pace as they either zipped through the book or scrupulously savored every word. Often they have even cast it.
Many lovers of books argue that films are a lesser art form. Even if the film is a masterpiece, it will never provide the viewer with the same rich, thoughtful experience as a reader gets when reading a book. Write an argument which defends, challenges or qualifies this assertion.
If you have not been following the Republican presidential campaign closely, watch the following statement from Republican candidate Newt Gingrich about food stamps and the African American community. Also, for background you might read the following news article about Republican candidates using racially-tinged rhetoric in their campaigns.
Leonard Pitts, an African American newspaper columnist, writes:
I got my first job when I was 12. The deacons at my church paid me $2 a week to keep it swept and mopped.
So I do not need Newt Gingrich to lecture me about a good work ethic. In this, I suspect I speak for the vast majority of 39 million African-Americans.
There has been a lot of talk about whether Gingrich's recent language, including his performance at last week's South Carolina debate and his earlier declaration that Barack Obama has been America's best "food stamp president," amounts to a coded appeal to racist sensitivities. The answer is simple: Yes.
Gingrich joins a line of Republicans stretching back at least to Richard Nixon. From that president's trumpeting of "law and order" (i.e., "I will get these black demonstrators off the streets") to Ronald Reagan's denunciation of "welfare queens" (i.e., "I will stop these lazy black women from living high on your tax dollars") to George H.W. Bush's use of Willie Horton (i.e., "Elect me or this scary black man will get you") the GOP long ago mastered the craft of using nonracial language to say racial things.
So Gingrich is working from a well-thumbed playbook when he hectors blacks about their work ethic and says they should demand paychecks and not be "satisfied" with food stamps. As if most blacks had ever done anything else. As if a jobless rate that for some mysterious reason runs twice the national average does not make paychecks hard to come by. As if blacks were the only, or even the majority of, food stamp recipients.
Then write an argument in which you defend, challenge or qualify Pitts' assertion that Republican candidates are using racism -- stereotyping and insulting black people, in particular -- to win votes.
This scene above from Shrek 2 is an example of a parody in the literature of satire. The scene shows all of the fairy tales characters going to save other fairy tale characters. It is a parody in sense because it begins with the Mission Impossible theme song. This sets the mood for them to do something totally bad ass. Then it shows the famous puppet Pinocchio going down the tunnel by his puppet strings to save Shrek, Donkey who is now a stallion and Puss in Boots. One the way down he gets tangled and the Gingerbread Man jumps on him. They need Pinocchio to tell a lie to make his nose grow so the Gingerbread man can reach Shrek. They tell Pinocchio to say he's wearing ladies underwear, and when he says it his nose doesn't grow. When he says he's not wearing ladies underwear his nose grows.
This shows how Shrek 2 is making fun of the common stereotypes of all of the fairy tales. It shows us that fairy tales are not real and that we shouldn't believe them to be true so people won't try to live up to those expectations. In every movie of Shrek, there are plenty examples of satire and they all try to get the point across that fairy tales are stories and are not true. People want fairy tales to be true, with all of the happy endings and the princess being rescued from the tower surrounded by a moat. The truth is that all of it is made up and we just have to accept it.
The movie (and play) The Importance of Being Earnest, is one of the most perfect examples of satire in our culture. Although it is set in England, it makes fun of the upper class. The play uses dramatic irony to show how Oscar Wilde sees the upper class as too formal and snobbish. It is dramatic irony because the characters in the play obviously think that they are high class with their multiple houses and butlers even though the author thinks that the upper class is too snobbish.
The show also uses hyperbole to make its point. Every character in it is exaggerated. The characters Jack and Algernon are both willing to change their names to Earnest just because the women they love say that they will only love a man named Earnest. This is an example of how much emphasis Wilde believes that society places on love and how important it its to us.
The comedy Mean Girls is about a girl named Cady who moves to Evanston after being home schooled while living in Africa. Cady then has to experience high school with barely any knowledge of what teenagers act like. She then meets the Plastics, a group of popular mean girls. Satire is shown throughout both Cady's little knowledge of high school life and of the Plastics meanness to everyone else at school.
One example of dramatic irony is when Cady first arrives at high school. She does not have any experience with high school or any school since she has been home schooled her whole life. When she arrives in the cafeteria on her first day she approaches a group of african american girls. Cady thinks they will be welcoming and says "Jambo" thinking they will become her friends and let her sit. Instead however they stare at her with an unfriendly look. This scene is an example of dramatic irony because the audience knows the girls will probably not know what Cady is talking about and most likely think she is weird. Another example of dramatic irony is when Cady does not get the slang of the high school girls. When Cady tells Regina that she has always been home schooled Regina goes on to say "shut up! Shut up!" to which Cady replies "I didn't say anything." This scene has Cady unaware that when Regina says shut up she does not mean literally but just that she cannot believe what Cady is saying. These examples of dramatic irony exagerrate what a home schooled kid knows about society and brings in comedic relief.
The Plastics use verbal irony to put down the less popular girls of their high school. When Regina George, the leader of the Plastics, sees a girl in a skirt she does not like she says "I love your skirt! Where'd you get it?" The girl who is oblivious to Regina's sarcasm says "It's my mom's old skirt from the '80s." Then Regina says "Oh, vintage,so adorable." However, after the girls thanks Regina and walks away Regina comments on how much she dislikes the skirt. This sarcasm is used by Regina to offend the girls of lower social status and to insult people without having the person know they are being insulted. After this scene is shown Cady realizes that when Regina said she liked Cady's bracelet Regina was really using sarcasm. This realization shows that Regina uses sarcasm to insult people without their knowledge.
Overall, the Creators of Mean Girls use irony to make scenes comedic. However, irony especially verbal irony is also used to comment on how much girls insult people behind their backs. Irony is used in Mean Girls to portray the back stabbing and insults from girls to other girls around the world.
Disney's Pocahontas was written as a love story between two star-crossed lovers. While the intent of Disney was probably just to put a Romeo and Juliet story in a different historical context, on the way, the writers managed to depict two stereotypical visions of Whites and Native Americans.
The English settlers come across in the movie with the stereotype of greedy, selfish, and dim whites. Governor Ratcliff sings multiple songs about how much he wants wealth and glory. He also very easily tricks all of his crew that the trip is for them and that the Indians are out to get them.
On the other side of Jamestown's fence in the forest you have another stereotype. The Native American tribe is portrayed as wise, connected to nature, and honest. Pocahontas has a loving relationship with a willow tree and her father. The tribe is also willing to be convinced to negotiate with the settlers.
Oddly enough, for both of these visions of the two different races there are times when they act the opposite. There are definitely white people who love nature far more than they value money and fame. There are also definitely Indians who have embraced capitalism in their casinos.
Throughout The Last of the Mohicans the Mohicans display a great deal of rugged individualism, from running through the forest, to their grungy and natural clothing, even to their war style, they embody the image of rugged individualists. On the other hand, the British Red-Coats show a completely different form of fighting. The British walk in uniform straight lines, not bending their knees when they walk, chanting short and brief directions and carrying threatening and expensive looking weapons, all while in matching fine Red Coats. It is no surprise to me that these two opposing sides are going against each other in war because if they had any reason to fight, I'm sure that reason could escalate instantly because of any of their many differences.
The Mohicans hopes to protect their home land is a much more valid reason, in my opinion, to fight... rather than invading other peoples land to try and expand territory. The war front creates a learning environment for Cora to open her eyes to see why people like this do fight in such a fahion and why people lived in the frontier area in the first place and lastly, how nature corralates so strongly with the way many Mohicans live freely out on the frontier.
As far as we've watched The Last of the Mohicans in class, there are two things that can be drawn: 1) The Mohicans with whom Nathaniel Poe makes company represent transcendentalists and 2) the British represent the very opposite. Simply the way Poe moves through the forest with his group is so smooth, and for a lack of better words, right with nature. It's almost as if they are a manifestation of the forest that is so often the setting. Even the clothes they wear seem to be natural and worn. On the complete other hand, the British are far from one with nature. They tromp through the forest so uniformly, plowing over everything that might even be considered nature. It does not seem that anything could be more out of place in the natural world than their bright red coats and tight formation.
As far as we've watched in class, there are still Mohicans (or Transcendentalists), no matter how few. However, by the sound of the title of the movie, it would be a safe guess to assume that they might not be around that much longer. So what is the author trying to say about the way things currently are in society? The very small amount of Romanticism that is left is dwindling, and at the same time being squeezed out and swallowed up by the gigantic monster that is uniformity and community over the individual.
The award-winning movie from 2009, Avatar became famed for its new uses of technology for three dimensional effects and computer generated images. While Avatar is very much a modern movie, it still maintains many of the Romantic characteristics developed in the later 1700's. A few of those characteristics that are evident in the film are preferring emotion to logic, appreciating nature, and valuing individualism.
In the movie, the main character, Jake Sully (a human), joins the Na'vi people of the distant world Pandora through the use of an Avatar that is of the same species as the Na'vi. While his original goal, as part of his military unit, was to bond with the tribe and eventually convince the Na'vi people to sell their land to the humans, Jake soon realizes the beauty of the tribe's culture and changes sides.
While Jake's head may tell him that the humans will eventually get what they want, and that he can't stay with the tribe Jake decides to continue to follow what feels right in his heart. His emotions triumph over logic and it pays off as he gets all he wants including a Na'vi body after dying!
During Jake's time with the Na'vi, his appreciation for nature increases dramatically. He sees the beauty in their world and learns how to respect and treasure it. Not only does the plot show the importance of nature, but the three dimensional effects were specifically made to enhance it. Because of that technology, the audience feels the nature and it's beauty's effects.
During the story, Jake slowly becomes his own individual. At the beginning of the movie, he is a part of the giant body of men and women selected for a task. As he assimilates into Na'vi society, he begins to think for himself and form his own values. By the end, Jake has completely separated himself from his previous community and follows his own, individual beliefs.
The display of Romantic ideas is evident in Avatar through its views on emotion, nature and individualism.
Holding the spot as the number 2 top grossing film of all time Titanic is known by many people around the globe. The surprising thing is that the Producers of Titanic used Romantic characteristics when creating the story.
The movie is based around a upper class girl named Rose and a lower class boy named Jack. Rose is engaged to a rich man named Cal to earn back her families good name and money for both herself and her mother. However, on their journey to America on the Titanic Rose meets Jack and already feeling trapped in her life starts to rebel against her mothers and societies standards.
The Romanticism characteristic of individualism is expressed through Rose's rebelling against the expectations everyone puts on her. Rose not physically rebels in Titanic by being with Jack but also rebels through education.
In one scene during dinner Rose gets so fed up with the repeated topics of discussions that she brings up a new topic which some of the men do not even know of. This illustration on how well educated Rose is shows how she rebels against society's expectation that women were not as educated or as well-read as men were.
Rose rebels against the expectation of society by what a lady should act like. Rose has Jack teach her how to spit off the side of the boat and when her mother and the other women come they look down upon her. As with many other scenes the spiting scene demonstrates the improper and unlady-like way Rose acts.
Titanic also uses Romanticism with Jack's character. Jack is extremely poor and only gets on the Titanic because of a lucky poker hand. The idea of the individual is used because Jack is able to support himself and get onto the Titanic to head back to America. Also the way Jack is able to get Rose to notice him shows the power the individual has.
The appreciation of everyday life is also used throughout Titanic because of the plots basis around the sinking of Titanic. Titanic creates the message to appreciate everyday as if it were your last.
Overall, the Titanic uses Romanticism to enhance Rose's and Jack's character and to create a message that everyday of your life is important.
In every good movie, you need a really good protagonist. In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is there to fill all of your Romantic protagonist needs. Portrayed as the boy who's parents died at an early age, Skywalker lives with his aunt and uncle. He lives in a seemingly corrupt disutopia where crime is an every day ordeal, yet, through all of this, Luke remains optomistic about the future and the things to come. He manages to stay away from the crime and corruption by keeping a level head and a positive attitude about the crumbling universe around him until the day his aunt and uncle are killed by imperial troops (spoilers!).
What really focuses the attention on the Romantic aspects of Skywalker was his ability to step out of the norm of people of his world and into the Jedi world where everything was new and different. He takes his family's death as an obligation to fight back against the evil things of the universe using the Force, taught to him by his friend and mento, Obi-Wan Kenobi.
These feats that were overcome by Luke Skywalker give him the persona of the ultimate Romantic hero.
My childhood, like many other people, was filled with Disney movies. One Disney movie that uses Romanticism is Pocahontas. This movie demonstrates the importance of nature in Pocahontas's life.
In the song "Colors of the Wind" Pocahontas expresses the influence of nature on her life and how John Smith should appreciate his surroundings. Pocahontas living in nature and knowing more than John Smith about it demonstrates the Romantic thought from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Nature" that leaving society will allow people to fully understand nature.
Pocahontas teaches John Smith how to enjoy nature nd learn from it. In one part of the song she sings "You'll learn things you never knew you never knew." This illustrates how much nature has an influence over people's thoughts.
This song also demonstrates another Romantic idea that Emerson expresses in "Nature" that nature influences us when we are open to its influence. Pocahontas sings "Come roll in all the riches all around you. And for once never wonder what they're worth." She is trying to tell John Smith that the way he and the other colonists think about nature prevents them from learning. Pocahontas says that if he does not think and lets nature make an impression on him he will learn incredible new things.
Pocahontas shows a hidden Romantic message that nature when experienced without analyzing it can teach everyone great lessons and provide wonderful experiences.
Rescue Me is a show about a man named Tommy Gavin who is a fire fighter in post 9/11 New York. In the first couple of episodes you learn that Tommy's cousin died during 9/11. Tommy Gavin is known for being the firefighter with the most "cajones", whoever these "cajones" stem from his alcoholism. So part of his bravery is caused by the alcohol, but the other half derives from his need to prove he is the best firefighter in New York. In the show, he goes through a lot of grief about his cousin and 9/11. He plays the events back in his head constantly.
He wishes that he could have took the place of his cousin because he blames himself for not being brave enough to go into the second tower with him after the first one collapsed. Everyone expieriences greif differently, and in this show, one of the twists is that tommy can talk to dead people. However, this only occurs when he drinks. Because of this, Tommy talks to his cousin all of the time which makes him have a bigger desire to prove himself to his cousin that he woould have gone in the second tower with his cousin, and that it wasn't that he was too scared.
Tommy Gavin in way reminds me of Oskar in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Both of them feel a need to prove something to their dead loved ones and they become like horses with blinders on. Also, a song that I listened to in class called "The Rising" by Bruce Springsteen reminds me a lot of Rescue Me, because the show is about the dramas that Tommy Gavin's fire fighter house goes through after 9/11 and how they rise from the ashes of 9/11 and get on with their duties of saving peoples lives in other fires in New York.
Even though years have past, 9/11 feels like yesterday to the men in this show. Thoughout the show, Tommy Gavin goes through even more drama and tragic death, but this doesn't stop him, it just gives him less to lose which makes hime the best fire fighter there is. With all of the stuff thst Tommy Gavin goes through in this show, you would wonder how he doesn't just crawl up in a ball and cry. Tommy Gavin is a great example of a man who doesn't let the tragic things in life consume him, rather he let's them shape him into a person free of fear/ This show shows how life goes on and the different coping mechanisms people use to get on with their lives.
In the movie The Last of the Mohicans, the Native Americans were constantly fighting. The only scene where the Native Americans were not shown fighting is when they were talking with the chief trying to convince him to kill their prisoners. The movie portrays Native Americans as violent savages. In the movie the Native Americans preyed on innocent women and children and were brutal killers. Only two Native Americans in the movie were good. These characters were Natty's father and his brother. Unlike the other Native Americans, they were kind and helpful. I believe that in the movie The Last of the Mohicans there is an unfair portrayal of Native Americans. Almost all of the Native Americans in the movie were savages and only two were kind. In reality many Native Americans were not violent. During the war, Native Americans were the victims and were pushed out of their land. Of course there were violent Native Americans, but in The Last of the Mohicans the Native Americans ferocity was exaggerated. Do you believe there was an accurate representation of Native Americans in the movie?
I was talking to a friend about movies the other day. She told me that she cried during every single Pixar movie she's seen. Most people would think, "Really? Pixar movies? Aren't those for little kids?" And the answer is yes, they are made for kids. But most Disney or Pixar movies today get to the heart of real issues and present much deeper meanings than the movies teens and adults enjoy.
Most of the movies that come out today are romantic comedies like "When in Rome," or action movies like "Transformers." I watched "When in Rome" a few months ago and thought that it was actually one of the wirst movies I've ever seen. Sure, the overall idea was kind of cute: a girl picks up coins from Trevi Fountain in Rome, and all of the guys who threw in those coins immediately fall in love with her. But the "comedy" that the movie used was just corny, and the ending was completely predictable. Of course, it ends with a happily-ever-after wedding, and everyone ends up happy. And "Transformers"... well, while it is entertaining to watch cars that turn into machines smashing a bunch of buildings, Shia LaBeouf driving really fast, and things getting set on fire, what do you take from a movie like this? Absolutely nothing. I'm no movie critic, but I can safely say that a good majority of what teens and adults watch today is completely shallow, unrealistic, and unmoving.
What I've realized over the past few years is that the some of the best movies I've seen have been "kids'" movies. Not only are these movies adorable, entertaining, and funny, they also leave me thinking when I walk out of the theater. "Wall-E", for example, addressed a real problem in the world - people are ruining the environment, and someday it will lead to the downfall of mankind. "Up" deals with the difficult process of coping with the loss of a family member, and conveys the message that you can only mourn for so long before you must accept the loss and move on. And perhaps my favorite, "Toy Story 3," challenges kids' and teens' ideas of growing up. While most media that kids and teens see and hear glamorizes growing up and makes them look forward it, "Toy Story 3" illuminates the downside, the hard part about growing up. While Andy is conflicted about leaving his toys behind when he goes off to college, the toys represent his childhood, his home, and his family. College is always depicted as fun and exciting in movies and television, but this was the first time I had ever seen a movie show a teenager's hesitation to leave his childhood behind. The movie truly made me reshape my ideas of college and adulthood.
So why is it that children's movies are so much more meaningful than "adult" movies? Is it because our society is trying to teach kids morals and life lessons while they are still young? Or is it because our minds deteriorate as we age? Is it possible that we start life ready to take in new ideas and progress into mindless beings that simply consume and wish to be crudely entertained? I think - thanks to today's movies, music, television shows, and magazines - the answer may be yes.