Similarly, answers to questions concerning the nature, function, and value of art in society are varied and disputed almost endlessly.  The problem may be that there are no universally right or wrong answers.  As Plato would say, our goal should then be to seek the answers closest to the truth through philosophical intercourse.
So, in the spirit of Plato, and in hopes that it will ignite the minds of its readers to finding their own answers, I now proceed to address the question of the value of art in the form of a Platonic dialogue:
The Professor seemed intent on not saying another word until one of us started the debate.

Not wanting to disappoint him, I began, Well, I for one don’t think that Art should exist solely for Art’s own sake.

You can’t just make an assertion like that and not back it up, interjected the Professor.

Okay then, let’s look at an example.  If Art should exist for Art’s sake, then does it matter what the reaction to it is?

It shouldn’t, said Bonnie – a brown-haired girl in the back of the class.  Art is art, even if a person isn’t educated or open-minded enough to accept it or understand it.

Then what if a film is horribly made; if the director, actors, and crew are inexperienced and sloppy in the production?  Suppose even those involved regret making it.  Should the film have been made in the first place? Can a badly made film with no redeeming elements justify its own existence purely with the argument that because it falls, by default, under the general umbrella of “Art”, it has the right to be made?

Yes, because there may be someone out there whom the story touches.  Or maybe the film inspires the director to learn from his own mistakes and go on to make better films.

You make a good point, Bonnie, I said.  But by doing good, Art is acting out a utilitarian role; it is being used for something.  Art for Art’s sake implies that it doesn’t have to be good for anything; that it is “good” by the mere fact that it “is”.

Bonnie quickly and coolly responded, I still believe that Art shouldn’t be required to DO anything to be labeled good.  There is good art that is appreciated by no one and yet it remains good.  I recently saw a documentary about a place of worship that had many rooms and corridors, some of them seldom if ever seen, let alone used.  The original carpenters did exquisite work on the banisters and interior work on that part of the building, but it is never seen or appreciated.  It does no one any good, for no one knows it is there.  Yet, I can’t believe that its not being seen diminishes its value any.  If Van Gogh’s Starry Starry Night, with its ground-breaking style of color and texture, was locked away in some attic, never seen by anyone except the artist himself, it would still be a masterpiece.

While I am in danger of finding myself extremely unpopular with the class for arguing against that, I feel I must.  In order to combat your worthy argument, Bonnie, I must pose another question.  What makes a piece of art “good” or a “masterpiece”.  Value must come from somewhere.  It cannot be intrinsic, or naturally occurring within the piece, because there are so many widely differing opinions as to what is good and what is rubbish.

Those who don’t see it aren’t sufficiently educated, or they would also recognize its intrinsic value.  What is beautiful to one, will be beautiful to all if its values are properly explained.

It is true that why one finds a certain piece of art beautiful can be explained, others don’t have to accept it.  As the Russians say, “Of taste there is no arguing.”  Often one does not even know why he or she is touched by a certain piece, but they know that it is meaningful to them.  And that, Bonnie, is what I am trying to get at.  The value of Art is only created by the connection between man and Art.  It is the spark of emotion, the deepening of thought, the touching of the heart that gives Art its meaning.  Just as man, God’s best creation, is given meaning only as he connects with his Creator, so is Art given meaning only as it connects with man.  “Good Art” makes a connection with people.  And that is why opinions differ so much on what is “good”.  Different people need and want different things.  For some a particular piece presents an answer, and for some it does not.  But the “good” comes from within man.

At this point, the Professor finally stepped into the conversation.  That brings up a good point, he said to me.  What is Art?  Is a canvas with paint splattered on it Art?  What makes it Art? Is it the skill in the making of it?  Is it the emotions undergone while making or experiencing it?  What excludes a piece from the category of “Art”?  The Professor once again leaned back on his desk and waited for answers.

Bonnie immediately spoke up, I read somewhere where someone defined Art as “the practice of creating perceptible forms expressive of human feeling” (Black 166).  I’d like to amend the ending there to read “expressive of the human experience.”  I believe Art addresses more than just feelings, it also addresses issues, situations, relationships and other things a little broader than just feelings.

I agree with that definition of Art, but I believe it only works because it is so broad.  It can encompass all conventional art and art forms, but it also spreads beyond that for personal interpretation.  Of course, with such a big umbrella other things may fall under this definition of Art that definitely isn’t art, like hurting another living thing to express anger or frustration.  But, since this definition, unlike so many others, is inclusive of all that normally would or could be dubbed as Art, I’m willing to support it, too.

The Professor looked at us two with a shocked look on his face.  Well, we certainly haven’t exhausted the subject, but at least we have got a few of you thinking.  And since we’ve hit a spot where our two most outspoken class members agree, I’ll take that as a sign that this discussion is over…or has it only begun?

And to that question, we had no answer.
Bibliography
SUZANNE, Bernard.  Plato and His Dialogues. 30 Aug. 2003
.
Black, Dianna M., and David B. Paxman. Writing About the Arts and Humanities. Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing, 2003.

By Joe Draschil

If you are serious about writing I reccomend keeping a journal or similar log of ideas. They can be very simple, just enough so that you can remember them in the future. It would be good to constantly add to the list.

Anyways, here are some ideas by Joseph Draschil. I may add some of my own in a future post.

1. A young boy discovers anti-Leninist papers under his couch in Communist Russia during 30’s. He shows them innocently to his neighbor who turns out to be a n undercover government informant. His father is sent to a prison camps for 30 years. He, at the age of 9, is sent there for ten years. His struggle to emerge from camp as a good person.
2. In the style of war documentaries, a documentary with the aged men who served in the war talking about it. Only, these men are the ones who were killed on missions instead of surviving it. Reactions range from extreme pride in dying for one’s country, to bitterness, to denial.
3. A local bartender or possibly a cook from a remote roadside diner encounters an extreme variety of people throughout the day. Sort of in DVD style, the viewer then has the option of watching a short piece on each character that takes place, depending on the character, either before, after, or during the brief encounter at the bar.
4. Three to four boys spend a late Saturday night driving wooden stakes into gravesites at a local cemetery. They are spooked and decide to leave earlier than planned. One boy stays after to finish driving his last stake. As he tries to leave he realizes something has a hold of his leg. The other boys return for their friend the next morning, finding him dead. Having driven a stake through his own pant leg, the boy died of fear and panic.
5. A boy hears popular music in his head at strange times. The music inspires/possesses him to do things he wouldn’t normally do (sort of like alcohol does for some!). He traces this phenomenon back to multiple head and body traumas as a small child.

You may like them, you may hate them, but remember to not drive stakes into your own pant legs!

Sacrament in the Attic

The setting is in a town in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands during the World War II. A family of four (a father, mother, and two young sons) slowly and quietly gets dressed in their Sunday best for church. They quietly ascend the stairway to their attic where two foreign pilots wait, one American and one British. The father approaches them and informs them that he’ll be able to get them to a friend in another city in a couple of days.

The family is about to start their services when they hear a loud knock at the door. Everyone freezes. The youngest boy looks over at his brother and then at his parents. Finally the boy’s mother goes slowly down the stairs. The youngest boy watches from the edge of the attic as his mother opens the door, horrified to see two German soldiers standing there with guns in hand. The boy watches as his mother masks her fear and surprise and asks what they want. Though muffled, the boy hears the soldiers assert that they are Latter-day saints (or just members of the same church) and had come to worship with them this Sunday. The mother hesitates, but then asks them to leave their guns at the door and follow her upstairs.

The young boy backs up to his father as his mother and the two soldiers ascend the stairway. Upon seeing the German soldiers, the father shoots a horrified, questioning look at his wife and absolute fear and helplessness registers in the eyes of the two pilots. The German soldiers are equally shocked to see two of the enemy hidden in this attic.

The young boy watches as the mother moves toward her husband and quietly explains that these soldiers are Latter-day Saints (or members of their church) and have come to worship with them today. The father ponders for a second and then asks the British pilot (also a church member) to bless the bread, and one of the German soldiers to bless the water. Still unsure about the situation, no one moves until the German soldier removes his helmet and jacket and moves behind the makeshift sacrament table. The British pilot also removes his jacket and kneels beside the German soldier. The British pilot blesses the bread in English, the German soldier in German. The youngest boy watches as his father passes the tray to the rest in the attic. As the boys face, we hear an older man with a thick accent explain that the pilots were safely moved on to England not long after that experience, but his family never saw the German soldiers again and were never turned in.

]]> http://introtofilm.com/2007/01/18/example-one-page-treatment-sacrament-in-the-attic/feed/ http://introtofilm.com/2007/01/16/six-o%e2%80%99clock-news/ http://introtofilm.com/2007/01/16/six-o%e2%80%99clock-news/#comments Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:00:21 +0000 barrand Film History Papers http://introtofilm.com/?p=19 Meg Gibson Singley

1 November 2004

TMA 293: Six O’Clock News

Some truth is relative, or least it can change depending on the perspective we are seeing. With many of the documentary films it has been difficult at times to follow what kind of slant the film is being given, and more difficult to know the degree of tilt that might be affecting what the audience was exposed to. At the end of Six O’Clock News I felt like I made an at least an acquaintance with Ross McElwhee, the people he filmed, and that I had drawn my own conclusions about the news from his example and study.

McElwhee sets a good example of two things that everyone should be doing to some extent. First, he is documenting his own life. Perhaps his way of doing it might be viewed as excessive by many, but he is creating a semi-permanent document of what life is like, what he is like, and what the world is like. He doesn’t make excuses or apologies for the questions he asks or the way he tries to find their answers. The best part about the film is that McElwhee doesn’t sit around and ponder—he goes out and explores things himself. He takes the audience along with him through the TV sets in various motels into the lives of real people and gets to know them beyond the fifteen second interview that might appear on the local news station. His technique is an example of what he is preaching we should all do to some extent—he is making the 6 o’clock news a participatory mode as he reflexively makes his participatory documentary. The character of the director is developed just as those of the people he encounters—we come to know him through his actions and his interactions with others. I appreciate his sensibility and willingness to be so open about himself as he is with his subjects. It validates his wondering statements about God and serendipity and fate and the paths of this life. He is not afraid to let the audience know what is going on behind the curtain, or behind the lens; this is as much his story as it is the school teacher’s in South Carolina, or the Latino’s in California. Somehow because of that, is as much mine as well.

What is it about personal reflection that is so fascinating? It is usually incomplete, though it can be substantial. Is it the process of watching another and thus vicariously accomplishing some degree of resolution? Is it purely just a relief that we as individuals not the only one wondering about these things—death, chance, circumstance, God, religion? Personal documentary captures the human story. Maybe it’s the same story over and over, and maybe most of the characters even react in the same spirit and with the same mannerisms. But it is still somehow shocking that we could end up in a thirty second clip at that prime hour of 6, spilled open for an instant for all someones to see. Maybe what matters most is that we try not to do what the reporters are somewhat forced to do. It is informative, yes, but such a lackluster approach lacks compassion and adequate action to help someone rebuild or release or mourn. Can we ever take everything in on a first impression? Could I have made an adequate deduction of McElwhee based on 30 seconds of his film? There is no depth to one or two frames—it takes time, not simply exposure.

One of the most famous actors world wide, Jackie Chan is adored universally. What is his Background? How did he choose/develop his unique style? What is his tie to Buster Keaton?

Jackie was born in Hong Kong on April 7th, 1954 as only child to extremely poor parents. In fact the doctor offered them money to take care of the baby. His parents borrowed money from a friend and kept him. They put him in Peking Opera School at a young age. This is where he developed his martial arts skills. At the opera school Chan participated in a performing group called “The Seven Little Fortunes.” This lead him to be a stuntman in various movies. He even had the chance to appear briefly in Bruce Lee’s “Enter the Dragon.” Afterwards he actually made a sequel to Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury, and was called New Fist of Fury. This didn’t go over to well with Chan or the audiences. He made a few other movies trying to imitate Bruce Lee and it just wasn’t working.

The big breakthrough came in 1978 with Snake in Eagle’s Shadow. For the first time his unique style showed though. He was able to be comic and star in a film that was light hearted, instead of living in Bruce Lee’s shadow. He chose this style because it fit him, and he knew he needed to do something different in order to succeed.. In his own words: “”If I did things Bruce Lee style, punching and kicking, there would be no way for me to succeed. Instead I mixed action with comedy. When he kicks high, I kick low, and I added humor.” Now Chan had his niche.

While it took a few trips to America to finally make movies that were successful, the first trip was not a waste as he was there introduced to the style of the silent comedians, who had a huge effect on the rest of his career. In fact in his 1984 movie Project A he even preformed a stunt hanging from a bell tower then falling three stories which was a recreation from a Harry Lloyd film. Chan showed his respect and admiration for Keaton in this quote. ““I want to be remembered like I remember Buster Keaton. When they talk about Buster Keaton or Gene Kelly, people say ‘Ah yes, they good’. Maybe one day they remember Jackie Chan that way. That’s all”.

4-8-04

TMA 292

“A Hard Day’s Night”

Arguably, the  Beatles are the greatest band ever. Everybody loved their ‘new’ sound and  energy.  When the Beatles stepped on the  silver screen in their first movie, “A Hard Day’s Night” they won the hearts of  everyone.  In fact, 23 years after its  release, Beatles Monthly Book conducted a poll declaring “A Hard Day’s Night” the most beloved Beatles film  with twice as many votes as “Help”, the runner-up. Directed  by Richard Lester, “A Hard Day’s Night” reflects their musical attitude of  breaking new ground and pushing boundaries.   Lester revolutionized the pop musical by borrowing styles from resources  previously untapped by any other in its genre.

The opening of  Hard Day’s Night feels like any low-budget film of the time—gritty black and  white, handheld action shots in the street and at a train station and minimal  production value. All of these elements come from the movements that preceded  “A Hard Day’s Night”—French New Wave, Free Cinema, and documentary. It is this  mixture of wave and documentary with the cheeky attitudes and the  sometimes-surreal events that make “A Hard Day’s Night” such a breakthrough .

            French  New Wave left its fingerprints everywhere. It was founded by young French journalists  and critics—really the first generation of film “students”—who wanted to make  films on their own terms and based on their own theories. This attitude quickly  spread, literally sending waves through Europe.  French New Wave elements appear in the narrative structure and cinematography  of “A Hard Day’s Night.”

As far as narrative structure is concerned, there  really isn’t any. The film has no plot in the traditional sense of the word; it  is simply following the Beatles around during a “typical” day. The reason this  works out so well is that audiences do not watch the film to get from point A  to point B as they expect with a typical narrative film. “A Hard Day’s Night”  is a sort of educational film, an introduction and overview of the Beatles  behind closed doors. Even with this there are meanderings. It is not just a  straightforward, actual documentary. Writer Alun Owen spent time with the  Beatles while they were touring in France, studying them individually  to create the caricatures in the movie2.  There are many moments in the film that feel like mindless wandering—just  letting the Beatles be themselves. However, even these were carefully scripted  and the Beatles’ ad-libbing was removed.   Victor Spinetti, one of the cast, recalled that ‘there was a hell of a  lot, but they were all cut out.  We kept  to the script.  They [the Beatles]  didn’t’ ..  These not-really-doing-anything-scenes recall  the laidback attitude of Godard’s “Breathless,” where he spent long periods  doing seemingly unnecessary, side-note scenes, such as when Laszlo and  Patricia, two of the main characters, are hanging out in a bedroom. There are  many such scenes in “Hard Day’s Night,” such as the scene in the hotel  bathroom. John takes a bath while George shaves Shakes’ mirrored reflection. They  are not really doing anything here, but as New Wave pointed out, so what? it’s  a movie. Enjoy it or leave it.

            The  cinematography of “A Hard Day’s Night” shows influence from French New Wave,  documentary and Britain’s  own Free Cinema. “A Hard Day’s Night” uses black and white film as these  independent filmmakers did, partly as a stylistic choice on Lester’s part and  partially due to cost . Black  and white brings with it a certain set of expectations ingrained by its use in  previous movements. The connotations of black and white film being a medium of  cinéma vérité and the independently made wave films became even more potent  when coupled with the composition of the shots . The  beginning of “A Hard Day’s Night” blurs the line between fact and fiction—while  this scene may be somewhat planned, particularly the clever sight gag ways that  the Beatles elude their frantic fans, it is not unlike what the Beatles  experienced in everyday life2. The  cinematography became an essential part of this blurring as it was influenced  by the real life settings and as it drew from the styles of the time. Many of  the shots are very tight, adding an insider feeling. This same technique was  used in French New Wave films such as Breathless and 400 Blows. Tight shots  tend to create an intimacy between the audience and subject, forcing them to  share space for a time. In this case not only is the audience in their faces,  they are on a train with them, unable to escape. Similar tight shots are used  in the hotel, the dressing room, the club, and at the press conference. Thus  the audience is flung into the masses standing beside, in front of, and behind  the Beatles, getting to know them in different places (though they act the same  everywhere).

Another technique  embraced by French New Wave for its personal, spontaneous feel is the handheld  shot. A great example of hand-held shots is during the “Can’t Buy Me Love”  sequence when they dance around and even with the camera. Here its use adds to  the free-spirituality of the moment as the Beatles mess around, jumping,  running, flailing and falling often at high or low speed. As in “400 Blows,”  handheld draws the audience into the lives of the characters. It also adds a  feeling of liberation which became the norm in the new wave movements—a freedom  from the rules of their fathers’ society. 

The minimal  lighting also recalls the low-budget wave and documentary productions. On the  train director of photography Gilbert Taylor made the most of the only light he  was able to sneak aboard—a 5k. They were able to make great use of the natural  lighting in all the street settings and play more with the theatre setting, but  in the tradition of wave and documentary alike there is no glamour or other  effects made with the lighting5.

            Aside  from emulating the wave movements in shooting on location for cheaper cost, the  location shots further blurred the line by adding an element of realism to the  piece. “Hard Day’s Night” doesn’t remove the Beatles from the everyday world—it  captures their interactions with it. The choice for location shooting also adds  to the documentary feel of the piece. Suddenly the audience stops to say, “Is  that clean old man really Paul’s grandfather?” “Hard Day’s Night” makes such  good use of the elements of documentary and reveals just enough truth that the  audience can choose to believe it all. There are many scenes that feel very  real due to their set-up and subject matter. One is the first time the band  plays “If I Fell” in the studio. As opposed to the somewhat surreal train performance  of “I Should Have Known Better” where cuts blur the line between diegetic and  non-diegetic music, “If I Fell” shows the Beatles take up their instruments to  play, the crew still setting up the stage around them.

            Another  influence that ought to be talked about is Lester’s interest in sketch/surreal  comedy. Perhaps it was his background, combined with a similar history of Alun  Owen, triple-teamed with the goofy cheekiness of the Beatles themselves that  led to the addition of unrealistic sight gags to “A Hard Day’s Night” . In this  way Lester took what the filmmakers behind Free Cinema believed, that there  ought to be “an expressive and personal use of the [film] medium.”6  He  may have borrowed elements from other film styles, but his choice of combining  them and then adding scenes such as the Beatles running outside the train  taunting the proper middle-aged man with “Hey mister, can we have our ball  back?” or John disappearing down the drain of the bathtub. These become even  more unexpected in the shadow of the film’s influences; it is Lester’s mark to  mix the genres in this way.

         While  there were pop musicals before 1964, Richard Lester’s collaboration with the  Beatles on “A Hard Day’s Night” Definitely pushed the envelope.  Ironically, Lester did not intend for his  movie to have such an effect.  In his own  words: “I don’t think anyone ever sits down and says, ‘I’m going to do  something which will change the face of musical history, and will be known in  ten years’ time as MTV.’”   Not only did “A Hard  Day’s Night” become successful because it pushed the rules of the genre, it was  embraced by all.  In the words of film  critic Roger Ebert: “The ’60s’ had not yet really emerged from the embers of  the 1950s. Perhaps this was the movie that sounded the first note of the new  decade–the opening chord on George Harrison’s new 12-string guitar.”  

         The  first big difference between “A Hard Day’s Night” and the other pop musicals  that preceded it was that the movie/music were not performance based.  Much like the early musicals were afraid of  having their actors burst into song and dance without reasonable cause, the pop  musicals of the fifties and early sixties aimed at ‘real’ dietetic music, with  an artist or group of artists lip-synching to their songs. Mostly for Elvis, it  was he and his guitar.  “A Hard Day’s  Night” breaks this convention in the opening scene.  As the Beatles run toward the camera  alongside the train from a swarm of crazed, female fans, we hear “A Hard Day’s  Night” while they are clearly not holding any instruments or banging on any  drums.  The director used the music to  non-diegetically convey emotion.  In  Lester’s words, it was to ‘establish the principle that there would not be just  realism’ .  This is most  pronounced in the ‘Can’t Buy Me Love’ scene.   They ‘break free’ of the snooty stage manager and go wild in field.  The movie also ‘breaks free’ of being tied to  realism as they run around sometimes in slow-motion and fast-motion, held down  by no cinematic rules.

         Not  all of the music in “A Hard Day’s Night” is non-diegetic.  There are about half of the numbers which are  played as performance based songs. However, even the performance-based music is  approached uniquely.  In the performance  based Top of the Pops (1964) and Top Beat (1964) television  programs, the cinematic coverage of the bands playing was approached very  formally, using mostly static front and side shots.  Lester, on the other hand, shot the band  playing from all over the place, using fluid shots from above, behind, the  side, even through a TV screen. Perhaps he was most famous for his abnormally  quick-paced editing, jumping from the band to screaming, sobbing, swooning  girls, all of which also made it into the film ANYTHING  ELSE TO SAY HERE ABOUT WHAT HE WAS MOST FAMOUS FOR?.  

         While  the non-diegetic music may have seemed non-realistic, “A Hard Day’s Night” did  make its characters, the Beatles, more real.   This was also a new thing for the pop musical.  In the Elvis movies he had played fake  characters with different names and imaginary story lines. After watching “A  Hard Day’s Night” the audience felt like they knew John, Paul, Ringo and George  as if they were ‘boys next door.’  Alun  Owen was keenly focused on making sure that the Beatles were not a ‘four-headed  monster’ whose purpose was to entertain; he was determined to give the  audience a personal knowledge of each Beatle.   For this reason, each Beatle was given his own scene, (except Paul,  who’s scene was cut) to ensure this distinction.  This separation also came out quite naturally  in some places.  For example, while at  the dance club, each Beatle acts quite diversely from the others.  John spends his time at the table focusing  his attention on one girl; George dances casually for a while then hangs out at  the table also; Paul tries to spread his attention between a few girls and his  comrades.  Ringo, completely entranced by  the music, proves the most entertaining, jumping around, punching and wiggling.  Roger Ebert said it well in You can’t do  that: The Making of A hard Day’s Night: ‘After that movie was released  everybody knew the names of all four Beatles … everybody.”

         Alun  Owen also made this screenplay true to their personalities by allotting them  witty lines.  In fact, as Richard Buskin  noted, this component was vital in taking hold of the American market. When the  Beatles arrived at the Kennedy   Airport, the press  unloaded a series of unrehearsed questions, which earned clever responses. Thus  the Beatles ‘managed to win over the hearts of the US press and public’ before even touching their guitars.  It is possible that the press conference  scene in “A Hard Day’s Night” was intended to model this event.  In this, one of the few unscripted scenes,  the Beatles’ wittiness surfaces.  For  example a reporter asks George “Do you think these haircuts have come to  stay?”  He responds: “Well, this one has,  you know, it’s stuck on good and proper now.”

         While  the Beatles were kept as separate individuals, the filmmakers knew how much  power the band gained from its love-sick teenage-girl audience, so they kept  the Beatles from having a serious romantic interest in the movie. Elvis would  undoubtedly get involved with a member of the opposite sex in his movies; this  became yet another difference in “A Hard Day’s Night.”  By keeping the Beatles single, yet flirty  with all the girls around them, the dreamy-eyed girls at home listening to the  records, watching them on TV, on stage, or in concert could imagine being sung  to or hit on by a Beatle.  Just picture  yourself a 16-year-old girl, head over heels for Paul, and then he comes up to  you on the train with his dashing black hat as he pretends to be shy, but you  know that he just wants to sit down and pay you attention.  This wielded a huge power from the  Beatles.  Pairing the Beatles off might  have hampered this. 

         Was  “A Hard Day’s Night” simply a marketing ploy, made as a vehicle to advertise a  custom-written soundtrack and make the most of what many thought would be a  flash-in-the-pan pop group? Perhaps it was serendipity that brought all the  elements together, but what resulted was quite a different film than anyone  expected to see, or even be a part of making. Through drawing on the movements  that went before and pulling out the individual personalities of each of the  Beatles, “A Hard Day’s Night” succeeded in not only helping to launch the  talented musicians to heretic heights of fame, but reshaping the expectation  for films about rock stars. Suddenly it was more than okay to have pop music as  part of a soundtrack, or even central to a movie’s release. Beyond that, “A  Hard Day’s Night” is a smart film that shows respect to the preceding movements  it calls upon and set a new standard for musical films to follow in the future.

The Way We’re Wired (written and directed by Eric Samuelson) was a thought provoking play. I liked it because it had a general, good message. It also showed how we could progress toward our goals. The Gender creation was refreshing because it showed men respecting women for who they were, not for physicality. Lastly I liked the main character because she was witty and loving.

The meatball criticism of the play is that the protagonist (Katie) has the goal to be found beautiful by a member of the opposite sex. Specifically she wants to be attractive to Andy the new guy. Bluntly stated the obstacles in her path are that she is not slender, especially good looking, young, or charming. This play suggests that although these things may pile against you, you can still end up with the man of your dreams. I really like this message. I wholly agree that if you are not Brad Pitt or Kathy Ireland, you can still achieve relational satisfaction and bliss.

This logic leads me to say that every person can achieve they’re goals. Each woman found a way to progress, toward her goals. The teen-ager progressed by changing her moral standards for her own sake and to support her soon-to-be missionary in his decision to serve. Darlene, who started with horrible morals, let go of her “skanky” attitude and embraced marriage. She also saw the worth of her own self, through the eyes of her husband. April’s character progressed by realizing that the other women in the singles ward did not have to have “successful” jobs in the eyes of the world, to be worth something as a human. Also she found that she could be happy being single by pouring herself into her work rather than into a significant other. Callie overcame her horrible fear of everything. She bonded with the Mindy and was able to leave her kids long enough to go to the library. The biggest accomplishment she made was to confront the fear of her husband and not run away. April stuck to her goal of getting a job that was qualified for her, that would allow her to express her talents. She had worked so hard to be as qualified as she was, and knew that when that opportunity arose, it was time to take it. She showed that some things worked for, are worth more than things that come all at once.

The gender creation in this play proved worthwhile and valid. Men valued women for their inner worth, rather than the outer appearance. For example when teenage Mindy tried to go farther than she should, Kyle told her that he still liked her, but didn’t want to push physical limits. This told me that the relationship between teenage boys and girls is worth more than a little like and a whole lot of lust. This was a refreshing view at a commonly touched on subject. Also when the Darlene talked about the cutaway shot to her low cut shirt, her husband Terrell told her that he didn’t want people to think of her like that, because that was not the way he thought of her either. Speaking generally, the girl who gets the guy in the end only is chosen after a long trial process, and after he “tests the water” by getting to know the other singles. Typically you would find the physically attractive main characters falling in lust with each other, becoming acquainted, then proceeding to marry.

I liked the main character because she was witty and loving. She showed her wittiness by always having something to say to everyone and in every situation. For example in the restaurant, even though Katie was upset with Andy, she definitely had a mouthful to say to him. She shows her love by caring for each of the other characters. Especially when the Callie needed a place to stay and Katie showed her compassion by letting her sleep over.

In conclusion, this was a great play because it made an important statement, showed how we can progress toward our goals, that men can like women for who they are, and lastly the main character was likeable because she was witty and loving.

Narrative

Wild Strawberries is a movie about the importance of love. Each person and situation shows how having loved or lacking love will lead to either happiness or loneliness. The son, the children and Isak are perfect examples of this theme.

Isak has a son who is supposedly jut like him. He is very involved in his work as a doctor and tries to distance himself from the people who surround him. For example he never speaks kindly to his father and they have a very cold relationship. Also he is very distant to his wife. She seems to be a person who is full of love and willing to open her heart to everyone, and needs compassion in return. After all the years of coldness, she goes with Isak, and travels to visit her husband, to give them another chance to open up to her. The beautiful thing about this movie is that they both do end up showing her love, and are happier because of it.

The children in this movie are great examples of people who run on pure emotion. They just get up and go without concern of whom, how, why, or when. They also leave their hearts open to love and be loved. That is why the two boys can put up with each other, they are willing to face the pain of competition if it means that they can receive a little of the love from the blonde girl. Everything these three do is fun. For example they pick flowers, play around and sing. They show love to each other and also to Isak, even though they had only spent one day with him, they still were excited for him to receive his award, and to congratulate him. These three show how life is fun and you can be happy if you are full of love.

Isak starts the movie explaining how he doesn’t like to be emotionally involved with anyone. Basically he is saying that he doesn’t spend a lot of effort to give love to the people around him. Isak and the old woman who also lives at his house are seasoned bickerers. They argue constantly. Isak appears shut out, grumpy, cold, and distant at the start of the film. He slowly comes around, gradually opening his heart little by little. The things that catalyze this process are his dreams and memories that help show contrast between happy times of love versus cold times without compassion. For example, he appears to be happy when reminiscing about the long ago summers. He must have been happy then, at least until his girlfriend was stolen away from him. He does not show happiness when he sees his mother. Their relationship is devoid of warmth and love. It seems to be just a horrible life that she lives, so old and so bitter. If it wasn=E2=80=99t with her kids, where did she find joy? Did she find joy at all? He certainly didn’t show excitement about their visit. The dream of the doctor examination states that all the knowledge gained as a doctor doesn’t add up to happiness. The whole examination process is cold and unfriendly. The only place in the dream where there is warmth is where his wife is having the affair in the meadow. The problem here is that the warm found in the meadow is not his warmth; rather it belongs to his wife and her lover. What makes Isak’s story so great is that he realizes where his happiness can be found. Notice how little attention was paid to the ceremony. He makes amends with his son, his daughter in law, and the old lady. He rests in his bed with the gained knowledge of what brings happiness.

In conclusion, This movie shows how only love will bring happiness and that a prestigious award, recognition, wealth, and belongings can really just make things more cold and people more distant.

Multi-media

Exploring the interactive elements of the Shrek DVD was very effective in accomplishing three goals. First, the menus support the idea that Shrek is a classic. Secondly, it was just plain fun to go through each of the different options. Lastly, the menus were memorable yet not annoying.

Something becomes a classic when it is remembered for it good qualities over a long period of time. The movie starts with Shrek’s voice reading a storybook that happens to be the story behind the movie. The interactive elements reinforce the idea that this story will live on, like other fairy tale classics, by relating the movie to a classic story book. Secondly, there are games about the movie itself. By playing trivia about the movie, and games as if you were the characters, this emphasizes the idea that this movie is more that just entertainment, and that it will be remembered. Lastly, they had a very popular group (Smash Mouth) to do two of the songs for the movie. One of the songs (I’m a believer) is a cover of an older song that was already a classic. In the interactive section of the DVD’s you can listen to and watch the video of this song. Now when hearing or seeing Smash mouth or the original version of I’m a believer the person will be reminded of Shrek.

The menus were effective because they were just plain fun. The different animations and voices made me want to see all that was available. For example, the start-up menu was the fairy-tale characters standing in Shrek’s swamp. When you choose one of the menus a character would react by saying something funny and exit the screen. For example, when “special features” option is selected, Pinocchio says “There’s no special features here” in his funny voice as his nose grows tremendously. After realizing that each selection would give me a different enjoyable animation, I wanted to go through all the possible selections. Secondly, it was very easy to feel like you were part of that world, in the swamp with the characters. The world that was created had great depth and detail, which was revealed by navigating through the menus. The games and menus did not limit the enjoyment to things that happen in the movie, but extended on to outside life also. For example, the mirror who answers yes and no questions, allows the outside world to be integrated with Shrek’s world. The Karaoke in the swamp party also mixes the two worlds by showing songs from our world preformed by characters from theirs.

On a very fine line, the Shrek menus succeeded in being memorable yet not annoying. For example at the main menu, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) repeats “Oh, pick me, pick me! Pick meeeee!” This could have gotten annoying, but because the animation is funny and Eddie Murphy does such a great job with the voices, it is pleasantly memorable. The next time I’m playing kickball, or doing any other thing where somebody says “Pick me!” I’m going to think of Shrek. Repetition was one of the keys to making these menus memorable. For example, from the special features menu you see the gingerbread man on a cookie sheet. Each time you select his buttons, he says “Not my gumdrop buttons!” I don’t know if it is his voice, the animation, or whatever, I really got a kick out of clicking on his buttons and hearing him say that. That was something very memorable.

In conclusion, Shrek succeeded in making itself into a classic, being purely enjoyable, and creating memorable lines and animations.

Narrative

Why is Dr. Strangelove such a lovable movie? The answer to this question could easily fill volumes. I chose three basic reasons why Dr. Strangelove is a classic. First of all it is completely fun to watch. Secondly, it makes a statement about our government. Lastly Dr. Strangelove bids us to do good.

This movie lightly covers something tremendously serious. This “black comedy” approach is effective for making an easily watch able, funny piece. For example when Turgidson is advising his alternative suggestion and says “Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.” Perhaps this is the line most grave yet most comedic. By no means should the thought of millions of people dying be funny, but again that is the beauty of this movie. Another way of keeping this movie light and easy to watch is by crafting the lines so that they are amusing to the ear. For example when Turgidson and the Russian ambassador are wrestling and the president says: “No fighting in the war room.” This keeps the mood cheerful.

We know that the American government is a powerhouse that keeps this great country going. That being said, we also know that they have some attitudes that are humorous when looked at under a microscope. The satirical truth in Dr. Strangelove regarding our government’s way of thinking is grand. For example, is it possible that there are some things important to the government that may not be as imperative as they assume? For example when Turgidson worries about letting the Russian ambassador into the war room he panics about the breech of security, and what is it that he is so worried about the ambassador seeing,? Turgidson’s greatest fear is that the Russian might get a peek at…the big board. As if to say that some of the government’s highest security, top secret projects and plans may in fact be nothing more than a big board. Second, when Ripper tells the base to “… shoot first and ask questions later,” we see how military mind set has been seen in the past. Do you feel the “if we don’t win, nobody does” mind-set? Does that relate to the relations we have now with Iraq? Do we currently have the “we will win at any cost” outlook?

Lastly the call to action in this movie is noble. At a glance one might say that this movie encourages blowing things up and promiscuity, on the contrary the message is just the opposite. Did the movie give the proud feeling that a general was leading their men in a dignified cause? Or rather did the narrative point out the silliness of killing each other. For example when the president of the United States is talking with the premier Kissof of Russia, you would expect an articulate, sophisticated conversation, instead you get the following: “I am as sorry as you are Dmitri. Don’t say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we’re both sorry, alright? All right.” These sound like bickering children not authoritative adults discussing millions of lives. The call to action is to observe the childish of war, then resolve to campaign for peace.

Because it is fun to watch, makes a statement on our government, and invites us to a dignified cause, Dr. Strangelove is a grand, movie masterpiece.