Film

Much has been debated over what fuels producers, screenwriters, directors, and actors in their quest to deliver the finest storytelling. Yet, one need only to look back a few decades to notice how audience appetite was satisfied with outer space dilemmas or even common, mundane concerns. Clint Eastwood, Michael Douglas, Arnold Schwarzenegger are names that come to mind when retreating back to determine what drove legions of viewers to the silver screen or the television screen. Eastwood and Douglas both acted as the cop on the beat (Dirty Harry and Streets of San Francisco) and eventually starred in roles on the complete opposite side of the law (Escape from Alcatraz and Wall Street), respectively. Schwarzenegger initially capitalized on villainy (Terminator, Conan the Barbarian) and then showed a softer side in Kindergarten Cop as well as other comedic jaunts. Explore the impulse for this effective formula of screenplay, whether at home, abroad, or any distant time or place. On what basis does the actor make the decision to reverse his posture throughout his career or, as is most often the case, venture onto the director chair or embark on political agendas (Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple)?

Characters facing conflicts make for an interesting story, and we know characters may experience different types of conflicts with other characters or even the world they exist in. How, then, do ideologies fit into this? Many people have a set of beliefs to follow, but what happens when one of their beliefs contradict another belief they have? Just an example of many, but consider Simba from The Lion King and how he has to choose between leaving home to achieve freedom or return home to fulfill his role as heir to the throne (obviously there are more examples of other characters facing competing ideologies, this is just the first that came to mind).
How do ideologies add interest to the story and how do competing ideologies perhaps enhance the story altogether?

Analyse the depiction of family units in horror films. Discuss the idea that horror films throughout the decades have highlighted moral panics in order to save the sanctity of the traditional family unit. For example, in The Exorcist (1973) a single parent family is attacked, insinuating that the possesion of Regan may not have happened if both parent were present. With this in mind are we subconciously being conditioned to continue the current or prefered sociological trends that surrounf the family unit.

Aquaman has been incredibly successful since its release. While many analysts and critics were skeptical of its chances at success, the film has done incredible business, being the repeat number one at the box office for 3-4 weeks. The film is now DC's most successful film overseas and has the potential to be a billion dollar films (sits at around 800 million currently). What qualities or circumstances have helped make Aquaman so successful, compared to the lackluster Justice League (which was both critically and commercially disappointing for many fans and critics).

With directors like Cronenberg, Lynch, Carpenter body horror emerged as a distinct genre around 70's and 80's where the body was treated as susceptible surface of rupture and deformations. The backbone of science and its possibility of bodily transformations (more than the happy possibility, it was more like "science experiment gone wrong") held the motivation behind the spawning of the genre with films like The Fly, The Re-Animator, Shivers etc. The inspiration behind the genre, to some extent comes from science fiction, and its deployment on the body. To understand the genre of body horror, one has to look at how science fiction films as well as texts treat the human body

In Ex Machina, Caleb is picked to have conversations with an artificial intelligence, Ava. While it is clear that Ava is an android, Caleb is introduced as human. However, there have been many theories that Caleb himself is a robot. Caleb even suspected that he might not be human at one point and slices his arm open to confirm it.

What details in the movie and Caleb’s characterization point to the possibility that he’s an android? For starters, Caleb is introduced to us like a blank slate and sometimes appears robotic. During his conversations with Ava, he’s the one in the box, while Ava has free space to roam her room. When asked whether he likes Mozart, Caleb says he likes “Depeche Mode,” a music group in the electronic genre. Even his reaction to cutting his arm open is unsettling.

Perhaps, if Caleb isn’t an android, other questions that can be addressed is: Why was he picked to test Ava? What does his character bring to the realm of artificial intelligence? Was he doomed from the start or did he have a chance? How is his characterization approached in the film and does it offer any insight to human interaction with artificial intelligence, such as an emphasis to the differences (or similarities) between humans and androids?

In films and TV shows, ranging from 'The Godfather' to 'Peakey Blinders', gangsters are almost always depicted sympathetically. They're the heroes, the people we root for. It doesn't matter how many people they kill, we see them as being justified. But why do we look at them so favourably? It's not as simple as them being the focal point. What almost every gangster film or TV show does is show the excitement and glamour of their lives, often against a bleak backdrop. 'Broadwalk Empire', for instance, is set in the era of prohibition. It's not just that their lives are exciting though. There's this sense that they can do anything, that they have so much power. As much as we might disagree with the violence, the sense that they can do something if someone comes against them is an intoxicating thought. 'The Godfather' perfectly captured the idea of Michael getting payback when someone tried to kill his father. In fact, the whole idea of gangsters as family, whether or not they're related by blood, makes their actions more sympathetic. There's a sense of loyalty between all of them that is heightened because they are always in life or death situations. This in turn makes betrayal, even worse.

Discuss how and why films and TV shows glamorise gangsters.

There seems to be a growing trend in millennial produced cinema and television to take real life experiences and events and bring them to the screen (Girls, Master of None, Mr. Roosevelt, Lady Bird, and more, are based closely on the writer's real life). While many of these works are widely acclaimed, is there a downside to this style of filmmaking? Can we continue to pull out unique insights from films that represent life as we know it? Or is fantasy more effective? What is it about seeing something essentially identical to our lives or our friends/families lives that stands out to us?