Directors like David Lynch mislead audiences with dialogue. Going as far to create distorted backwards voices in Twin Peaks. Alfred Hitchcock once said a film only works if you can understand the story with no sound/dialogue. Explain the effect of dialogue and how it can be used to change the audience's perspective to intensify the visual elements of the storytelling process.
I think this is an incredibly interesting topic and wonder if it applies to non-English dialogue film? – Jmphi7 years ago
Reference the "Unreliable Narrator". How does the audience figure out what is real when they have reason to believe the voice that they hearing/the character whose viewpoint we are following might not be telling the truth? – Kidcanuck7 years ago
This could definitely be an interesting story if researched well. This could also tie into the themes of "actions speaking louder than words" and showing how a character can say one thing, and then turn around and do something else. The question is, when a character is deceiving other characters, can film give that character the ability to deceive the audience, too? – Sharkbait1017 years ago
Those who have harassed and sexually assaulted others are finally coming to light. The skeletons are being flung out of many guilty people's closets and those who have suffered are speaking out. While it is not cleaning out everything, there is progress.
We have become familiar with publically "outing" abusers in the movie business. However, what do viewers, outside of the film industry, do to show their support for those who have suffered while protesting the offenders? Are we able to avoid a film because a director, producer or actor has harassed someone? Do we ignore the rest of the hard-working men and women attached to the set?
Are we able to appreciate the art of someone who is an offender?
This is a great topic and one that could be expanded upon in philosophy and literature. So many authors in the established canon often had offensive views, owned slaves and perceived the Enlightenment as a sole privilege for Europeans. So what does one do with offenders, past and present? Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? – Munjeera7 years ago
This is SO important. Though you've placed this under Film, as a literature nerd I'd suggest to anyone who chooses to write on this to look at Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author." Not the most exciting read but it basically asks this exact question. But someone, please write on this! – Heather Lambert7 years ago
Unfortunately, this has always been a topical post. Fortunately, the issue has started to be addressed. However, what I find interesting is when someone moves past the "alleged" and into being convicted. For example, Mike Tyson. He was convicted of rape over twenty years ago yet he has been something of a minor pop-culture star for years, even starring in the successful Hangover series, ironically as apparently the cast and crew protesting Mel Gibson in the second film, they seemed to have no such reservations about a convicted rapist. Did the stigma ware off Tyson? Was it too fresh on Gibson? The latter conclusion would be supported by Gibson's resurgence in the last couple of years, notably in Daddy's Home 2- where many critics enthusiastically proclaimed "Gibson is family friendly again." – jackarthurgayer7 years ago
Does physical presence primarily carry the screen character, or does the dialogue and script or director and cast influence the dramatic effect behind entertainment? In the process of this consideration, explore classic one-liners instituted by Mae West burlesque sketches in film and song. Among the other possible directions to elaborate, television greats such Jackie Gleason of The Honeymooners fame and his nonstop banter against his wife, his neighbor, and the slew of supporting roles displayed in a variety of episodes. This point can be expanded to other genres or periods such as: the Clint Eastwood 1970s role of Dirty Harry or the snide remarks of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series.
Film adaptations are the result of taking a story, usually a text, and adapting it to, well, film. Adapting a piece of work for the screen is not easy. A novel, for example, was created with specific detail. Taking a 300-page novel and condensing it into a 120-minute film is challenging. You are forced to remove or adjust certain characteristics to fit concerns, like financing. Otherwise, you may have a short story with hopes to create a full feature. That's just the beginning. Imagine if there is a verbal story carried on through generations. What does a screenwriter do then?
Can something that was created for another medium successfully "work" as a film, narratively and stylistically?
Optimally, art should be as protean as possible, and the borders between the various art media should be as porous, permeable, and flexible as possible, so as to foster dialogue (meta and otherwise) between media. Film adaptations at their best are a great reflection of this ideal, but it begs the question: why are the inverses--film novelizations, say--not nearly as prominent? Novelizations do not have nearly as great a critical reputation as adaptations; they are usually hastily written cheap paperbacks, sold as tie-ins and/or for franchise-building, out of print quickly. If filmmakers have frequently been able to distill novels into films--into effective unions of image and sound derived from text--then why can't (or don't) authors expand images and sounds into text that can interact meaningfully and/or provocatively with the film by addition, subtraction and/or alteration, as film adaptations do with their source texts? If novels are used as source material for other media but films aren't, what does that say about how our culture values (or not) those media in terms of art and entertainment? Of course films can expand upon novels, so could novels not expand upon films by, for instance, coloring in the characters' psychological states? Novelizations, qua adaptations, provide (I believe) a ripe opportunity for artistic renaissance, if there are any authors out there willing to consider it and take the plunge! – Alec Johnsson7 years ago
Coincidentally I have recently watched 'Ten Canoes' (2006), an Australian film entirely in the Aboriginal languages used by those who appear in it. It's a morality tale told during a hunting expedition, which attempts to address the verbal story carried on across generations theme you suggested. Well worth watching. I'd recommend it to anyone who is looking for something a little different. – Amyus7 years ago
I think the worst decision you can make is to try to copy and paste a book scene for scene and make it a movie. With a completely different medium, screenwriters and directors need to make conscious cuts and changes because the books were never intended as a blueprint for a film. Changes have to be made. To see successful adaptions, I suggest you look at how screenwriters and directors make conscious changes to the source material. Example: Both Godfather book and film are successful but Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola make decisions about cutting material from the book and changing some things. L.A. confidential by James Ellroy was another successful adaption in 1997 by Curtis Hanson (with Russel Crowe, Kim Bassinger, Kevin Spacey, and Guy Pearce. In order to adapt the 500-600 page book, clear changes were made to the source material, entire storylines were cut, but the movie captured the essence of the book and it was an impressive creation on its own right. Another fascinating adaption is Blade Runner, which is vastly different than its book counterpart (Do Androids Dream...By Philip K. Dick) yet was a huge influence on many films and books and has surpassed the popularity of the film. – Sean Gadus7 years ago
Analyze the lack of on-screen romantic love, as the spouses/love interests of the two main adult characters (Cooper and Dr. Amelia Brand) have both died. However, there is an incredible amount of love between Cooper and his daughter Murph, which allows for there to be love within the story.
Discuss the difference of story and plot, and how each contribute to the film experience an audience has. Many people think that story and plot are the same thing; however, the story consists of any events that impact the characters, while plot consists of what we see on the screen.
A good idea for a topic sugestion, Sarah. After all, how often to people generally misunderstand the difference between story, plot, summary and synopsis, even exposition for that matter? You have my vote. – Amyus7 years ago
I think it's a good topic, too, but I don't share your definitions of story and plot. You write: "the story consists of any events that impact the characters, while plot consists of what we see on the screen." For me, it doesn't matter if something happens on screen or off screen. What matters is whether or not there is causality. E.M. Forster famously wrote: "‘A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality – “The king died and then the queen died” is a story.’ But ‘“the king died and then the queen died of grief” is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it.’" Forster's definition isn't the only one out there, of course, but it's a standard one. As I understand it, "story" has simply to do with the telling of events in time. This happened, and then that happened, and so on. When we talk casually to a friend about what happened the previous day, for example, we often tell a story but often are not thinking at all about plot. We usually haven't plotted out a chain of events that leads to some resolution. We're usually just telling what happened -- that happened, then that, etc. -- over the course of the day. Maybe a specific example or two from film would go a long way toward convincing me! :) – JamesBKelley7 years ago
With the hype surrounding Marvel's latest film Black Panther, there is a lot of focus from word of mouth and marketing that this is the first black superhero on the big screen. That is not true however as many have been shown in tv and films before such as Blade and Luke Cage. Yet Black Panther's role for POC representation in film is much more culturally significant than the other african-american superheroes that appeared on the big screen before the King of Wakanda. By comparing how the others were represented in comparison to Black Panther today.
An important part of this needs to be the discussion occurring around the film in relation to social and cultural issues that did not occur when other Marvel films were released. No one sat around discussing the importance of Thor being blonde (god I hope they didn't), but many people are discussing what Black Panther means and what it reflects about American society. I think this is an important topic to get up on The Artifice. – SaraiMW7 years ago
@SaraiMW That's what I mean for this idea, I was just giving a summary and you just got the exact purpose of this topic. – Ryan Walsh7 years ago
Something worth considering is that in 1998 (when Blade was released) superhero movies were far from being the pop culture touchstone that they are today. Prior to the launch of the MCU in 2008, the whole genre was a niche with limited appeal beyond the comic-nerd subculture and fans of action blockbusters. Though Blade (along with the first X-Men and Rami's Spider-man trilogy) is considered to be an ancestor of the contemporary dominance of the genre, what makes Blank Panther such a big deal is that it is the first POC lead in a (feature) superhero movie SINCE superhero movies have been the biggest thing in the world. This is a good enough topic, but I think it fixates too much upon the media narrative's unfortunate misuse of the world "first," and thus fails to see the forest for the trees. It consequently forces those of us who like to nitpick (myself included) to jump into "corrector-mode," which may distract from what a monumental moment for diversity/representation in mainstream media this really is. Just my two cents. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
@ProtoCanon So then what would be the best way to make sure that this topic doesn't devolve into nitpick territory about technicalities? – Ryan Walsh7 years ago
Hard to say, since this whole subject can be a bit of a minefield. I think the important point would be to stress precisely what makes the release of Black Panther a big deal, DESPITE it not being technically the first of its kind. This includes things like historical and cultural context (as I mentioned above), but can also pay attention to the film's commentary on colonialism, globalization, and diplomacy, as well as the uniqueness of its Afro-Futurist aesthetic being so uncommon in the landscape of big-budget Hollywood filmmaking. You're addition of "but most impactful" is the more crucial point, so it might be wise of the author to spend more time exploring that than the more salacious "not the first" talking-point. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
Great topic! Don't forget Spawn (1997), Steel (1997), Catwoman (2004), and Hancock (2008). Maybe not great films, but still relevant to the discussion. In the short entry "Comic Books/Superhero Films" in Race in American Film: Voices and Visions that Shaped a Nation (2017), I made the argument that Pootie Tang (2001) and Black Dynamite (2009) are also superhero films with a black character as the lead. If you want to glance at that entry, you might be able to find and read it by searching for:
kelley "race in superhero films" – JamesBKelley7 years ago
This is a really interesting topic and one that really says a lot about our current political environment. I think another crucial part to discuss would be the social media reaction to the movie, as well as the fact it was released by such a major and high-budget brand as Marvel. And the fact that the poc characters depicted are pretty unique in that they are royalty- not criminals or people in poverty but powerful, charismatic people. – JoanneK7 years ago
I recently re-watched Tod Brownings 1931 adaptation of Dracula, along with the Spanish language reshoot made the same year. Later, I watched an analysis of both films that was arguing the english language version was superior due to the technical proficiency of the camera operator. They compared the number of tracking shots, pushes, and dolly shots, then judged the quality of the film based off those numbers.
Personally, I find this to be somewhat of a silly way of judging a film's quality, but I couldn't help that agree with the author of the video that the English version looks much better than the Spanish one. Should the technical execution of a film, especially classic film, play a role in our subjective judgement of it?
