Film

In the new trilogy of Star Wars films, Kylo Ren is a character repeatedly examined as one full of conflict, being pulled in two directions by opposite sides of the Force. At the end of The Last Jedi, he chooses to tear down all remnants of a legacy that has overburdened him and build a new one in its place, seemingly cementing himself in an ill-natured goal that prompts Rey to stop him.

However, it's believed by many fans that he still isn't too far gone, and that enough light exists in him that he could in fact be turned, as Rey was determined to do for much of The Last Jedi. On the other side of the spectrum, one could argue that Kylo going through a redemption arc that mirrors his grandfather's would render Luke's sacrifice meaningless, that his declaration to Leia that "no one's ever really gone" was more in reference to the memory of who Kylo used to be rather than suggesting Kylo is still capable of saving.

Should Kylo be redeemed in The Rise of Skywalker, the final installment in the Skywalker saga? And if he is redeemed, would that take away from the positions the characters decided to defend by the end of The Last Jedi?

The Joker is one of the most iconic supervillains in popular culture. He has been brought to life via the standout performances of numerous actors including Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Jared Leto and most recently Joaquin Phoenix. While the Joker has usually been presented playing against the Batman, Phoenix's Joker is unique in that it provides us a character study of the villain's origins without relying on the presence of the Batman. But is it possible to define a Joker in the absence of a Batman? Who would he be in that case?

Every time a new biographical film hits the big screen I find myself in a debate, both internally and with everyone with whom I come in contact. Is what I just observed good acting or just the ability of an actor to mimic what he/she has seen of the person whose story is being portrayed? Examples of this include Val Kilmer in the Doors and Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line. In interviews, both actors said that they studied hours of film in order to get every nuance correct. And, indeed, they nailed it. However, is that Oscar-worthy? Look at Daniel Day-Lewis, who played Lincoln. He did not have videos to examine, just small bits of written information about Lincoln's demeanor. He nailed it as well, yet my reason for thinking so is that he met my expectations of what I had read about Lincoln. So, the Oscar goes to… To summarize — If an actor is able to replicate a well-known and documented historical figure's every characteristic, is this good acting or good mimicry?

Daniel Craig will soon be suiting up for his fifth and final James Bond film, titled "No Time To Die", set to release spring 2020. The film will reportedly see Bond retired in Jamaica (a familiar spot for the Bond series and original author Ian Fleming) at the start of the film. Presumably, Bond is reluctantly called back for one last mission. With this being Craig final Bond film, changes are on the horizon for the massively successful and long enduring franchise. Rumors have long been floating around the internet that the next bond may break gender or color barriers with the casting of the next 007. After Craig's final film, will the James Bond producers make ambitious changes to its iconic character, or will chose to continue the series's status quo?

I'm interested in examining a few monsters that appear in horror films (ie zombies, ghosts) and how these monsters reflect racist ideologies of marginalized bodies. For example, the zombie emerged in Haiti as a result of the transatlantic slave trade and a reflection of the feeling of enslavement. I want to closer analyze how these monstrous figures are embedded in racist histories (maybe examining 2-3 films).

There are musical films like "Walk the Line" that tell the story of legendary real-life musicians, and then there are those like "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story," that, while perhaps equally legendary, bring to life new, fictionalized musical talents. In the case of one of the more well-known fictional bands of all-time, Spinal Tap from "This Is Spinal Tap," the band ended up becoming something of a reality. After making their film debut, Spinal Tap actually went on to record a few albums and even embarked on concert tours. Is the experience of Spinal Tap something of an anomaly? Has Hollywood missed out on opportunities to capitalize on a potentially successful musical acts from film that could have been something more than just fictional? If so, what bands/artists from film might have made it in the musical industry?

Even prestige television shows require something of an episodic format, and the plot must progress as a series of mini-climaxes and narratives for each episode. One of the advantages of television is the fact that the repetitive nature of the episodic structure lets us see the character in a gradient of contexts. Some recent films and "cinematic universe" projects seem to be following the television model, and place characters through iterative encounters to reveal more and more about them. The Marvel films are the most obvious example, but even series like John Wick are taking this approach. As big "intellectual properties" and sequels grow increasingly important to the success of films, is film starting to treat its characters more like television's and less like the traditional film protagonist?

History has given us many amazing and unbelievable stories which have inevitably been immortalised in cinema for the better or for the worst. Due to the enormous exposure that mainstream cinema can have, many historical inaccuracies have become embedded in the popular public's consciousness. Gladiator (2000) being just one contention. Should films be required to be entirely historically accurate to teach as well as entertain, or is this really the domain where artistic license is, and should be, paramount? Because after all, films are fundamentally works of art.