Film

Seems like a significant amount of older films that are historically important/culturally significant have some serious problems in the context of today. For example, Carousel perpetuates the idea that domestic abuse is normal and okay. How are these films useful to us now– can we look back on them and appreciate them for what they are/were, or is that problematic? How should we talk about these films now?

One of the important and rather interesting aspects of Joker is Arthur's position of an unreliable narrator. He invents an entire relationship with a female character in the film, which makes the question of his paternity that arises later even more interesting, with questions around whether his mother did the same, based on the reaction from the Waynes when he attempts to investigate.

Arthur's lack of reliability also seems to suit the typical murky origins of the Joker character, as having appeared out of nowhere and not really having a clear "origin" compared to the other characters in the DC universe.

Explore the use of unreliable narration in the film. How does it contribute to the film's overall message? If there weren't these same questions in the film, how would the film have changed?

Feel free to draw on other examples of unreliable narrators in film or fiction, or on other depictions of the Joker for examining this.

The early forms of comedy in mass entertainment (vaudeville, the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges) were unapologetically absurd. They embraced silliness. We see that tradition in more modern British comedy (Monty Python, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore). And yet, American comedy seems to suffer from an unwillingness to be silly, as if silliness is somehow beneath us. There are notable exceptions of course (The Simpsons, Steve Martin's early standup), but, by and large, we seem to be mired in a bog of socially relevant comedy, or rigidly responsible satire. Where's the silliness? Is comedy allowed to be funny for funny's sake? And here, I'm referring mostly to film and sitcoms, not to stand up comedians who are as varied in their style as they have always been.

Particularly following their purchase of 20th Century Fox and their gallery of successful IP, Disney now stand to own the primary market share of global box office. Many critics are decrying the ‘Disney-fication’ of culture as the death of diversity, a crushing blow to independent production, and the continuation of a soulless future of endless sequels and franchises.

Is this, however, a fair approximation? Are Disney simply representing what audiences have sought since the birth of the blockbuster in the mid-1970’s and the arrival of the high concept in the 1980’s? Is the jewel in their crown, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, not simply the ultimate expression of audiences’ desire for cinema to be the ultimate escapist entertainment? Are Disney destroying originality or simply reconfiguring the way we engage with culture and media?

Prequels are often seen as cash-ins that don't add much to the original text. For example, even Solo's fans tend to admit that the movie wasn't particularly necessary: it does not add much to the themes, ideas, or lore of Star Wars. But other prequels have offered deeper insight (or counterpoints) to the original text. For instance, Rise of the Planet of the Apes was used to deepen the apocalyptic themes of the main text.

So: what makes a valuable prequel? If a prequel isn't adding anything to the original, then should it be "re-skinned"?

Since its technological and artistic breakthrough in the character of Gollum from Lord of the Rings, filmmakers have experimented with the possibilities and limits of the technology, with varying success. From single characters (like King Kong) to whole races and worlds (like Avatar and several Robert Zemekis films), motion capture elicits anything from wonder in the face of its breathtaking realism, to criticisms that overuse of the technology dumps the audience smack dab in the center of "Uncanny Valley." Why does motion capture draw from critics and audiences such polarizing responses? What films use the technology wisely, and which overuse it to the extent of alienating its audience? Look at both the original instances, like Gollum, and more recent instances, such as Alita in Alita: Battle Angel, and analyse how the different instances work and how they avoid or encapsulate "Uncanny Valley" in their films and characters.

The family unit has been at he heart of both salvation and destruction in recent horror films. Analyze some recent horror movies revolving around questions of family (familial curses in Hereditary, family-making in It) and discuss how the family unit can be a source of both fear and strength in these films

Most actors spend their careers playing fictional characters. However, many actors are chosen to star in biopics, Biblical epics, or similar films at least once. When an actor makes the switch from playing a character to portraying a real person, the gravitas factor goes through the roof, and while most actors will try to play real people respectfully and responsibly, there are some who arguably do it "better" than others. Just for one example, look at the many actors who have played Jesus Christ over the years.

In your opinion, what does it take to play a certain real role responsibly and respectfully? How much of a production team's choice is based on "casting type" and how much is based on say, personality or lived experience? What are some of the best biopic portrayals you've seen, of whom and by whom, and why? Discuss.