In about 45 days (about the time it takes to write an article for this site), on October 15, it will be the 102nd anniversary of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, which laborer leader Samuel Gompers called “labor’s charter of freedom,” exempting unions from anti-trust laws. It also legalized boycotts, pickets, and strikes. It also banned the monopolizing practice of price-setting.
Below is Time Magazine's list of Top Ten Labor Union Movies
How Green Was My Valley, 1941 Native Land, 1942 On the Waterfront, 1954 The Pajama Game, 1957 I'm All Right Jack, 1959 The Organizer, 1963 Harlan County, U.S.A., 1976 Norma Rae, 1979 Matewan, 1987 Waiting for 'Superman,' 2010
Choose at least one film, either on the list or not on the list, and analyze whether the film portrayals of labor unions have been prophetic, inaccurate, or somewhere in between.
This just in from your House of Representatives via govtrack.us ((link) my fellow Americans:
"Every time you drink a beer, you pay extra because federal law adds an excise tax. In fact, an estimated 40 percent of beer’s cost is due to taxes, higher than for many other consumer products. A bill currently pending in Congress would eliminate that tax for more than 90 percent of distributors. And even for the biggest distributors like Budweiser and Miller, it would still significantly cut the tax for them too. Which would mean lower prices for you."
Congress' conversations about alcohol taxation, of course, begs the question, What are the best movies about alcohol, be they legal booze, Prohibition and mafia-produced hooch, or films about alcoholism – such as Leaving Las Vegas, Lost Weekend, etc.? What makes the films especially valuable? Should movies about alcohol speak only of the dangers of booze or should they show just the fun side of alcohol, or can they show both the fun and dark sides of the stuff? Feel free to use as many or as few films to make your point(s).
A relevant article that was published a while back: https://the-artifice.com/11-movies-to-sober-you-up/ – Misagh8 years ago
Thanks, misagh. I enjoyed the article. – Tigey8 years ago
I have never been a fan of Ben Affleck. His solo scene in Good Will Hunting in which his character (Chuckie Sullivan) realizes that Matt Damon's character (Will Hunting) has indeed left for California is awful. However, in Argo, his acting was much better.
This topic is not about the Jack Nicholsons, Robert Duvalls, and Michael Caines of the cinema world who started off as gifted actors who've achieved greatness. It's more about the Paul Newmans who initially got by with looks (like Redford), but improved exponentially with experience (unlike Redford). Nor is it about the Harrison Fords who started out mediocre and never got much better.
Which actors, in your opinion, have shown tremendous growth after a less than auspicious start? How does this happen? Which early performance(s) left you underwhelmed? Why? Which later performance(s) convinced you of their improvement? Why?
One challenge of this topic is communicating the actor's progression beyond, "Pauline Kael says…" But hey, that's a start.
Is this topic just concerning actors who got parts based on attractiveness (rather than talent), but improved with more acting experience (hence the irony of the "ugly ducklings" title)? If so, then it sounds like an interesting topic since it narrows down the scope from the many actors one can think of. Since it can be such a subjective response, what criteria should one give for how well certain actors performed? – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
It's about any actor, attractive or not, whose craft has improved. The last paragraph alludes to the difficulty of the topic. – Tigey8 years ago
aprosaiintofpisces, how would we know whether if someone were hired for looks alone? Also, what other criteria are you alluding to? If you have something specific, please let me know. – Tigey8 years ago
I agree, TKing. I don’t think we’d ever know that for sure, but there are definitely people whose careers have begun and continued despite an obvious lack of talent. There have been models, singers, or individuals who were simply related to already-established actors. For example, there was that controversy at the Golden Globes about Lady Gaga winning for “Best Actress.” I’ve never watched American Horror Story so I can’t give my own opinion about her performance, but the incident did stir up controversy about whether she won simply because she’s Lady Gaga. Some have succeeded despite a rough start while others haven’t gained much talent despite continued acting careers. I was just talking about actors’ attractiveness as a suggestion since you happened to mention it offhandedly. It could focus on just about anything else that led them into having continued acting careers despite evidence to the contrary. I was only asking for more specificity regarding the types of actors we’re examining. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
I meant to say, "I agree, Tigey." I apologize for mixing up usernames. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
Paulie Shore's mom owns (or owned) a Comedy Store, so he got as much stage time as he wanted. My dad's funeral was funnier than Paulie Shore on his best day. Then there are the awards that are do-overs. Christopher Paul Curtis wrote a beautiful adolescent book, The Watsons Go to Birmingham, the Newberry Award panel goofs, gives the award to a lesser work, then realizes its mistake and "makes up" for it by awarding him the Newberry for Bud, Not Buddy, a good book, but not as good as The Watsons. Likewise, Bob Dylan got a Grammy for Serve Somebody, but nothing for Blood on the Tracks, Like a Rolling Stone or (cue up the angelic choir) Blonde on Blonde. Surely we see through a glass darkly. Don't worry about the name thing. A rosy Tigey burning brightly by another name is just as Swede. – Tigey8 years ago
Multiple articles could be spun from this topic to include more diverse nationalities and industries. Can new kids who get breaks into movies solely on the basis of nepotism learn quickly on the job and become versatile actors crafting special niches for themselves? Illustrate for and against the thesis statement with comprehensive examples. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan5 years ago
Over the past several years Disney has churned out Live Action remakes of many of their beloved animated films. Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and most recently The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon have all been rebooted/remade. Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Dumbo,The Sword in the Stone and Winnie the Pooh are being remade as we speak or will be in the future. Even an Aladdin Prequel is in the works. Does this slew of live action/future live action films show that Disney is running out of ideas? Would it make more sense to remake/reboot some of their films more than others (such as their lesser known animated films)? Also include how Disney compares to Pixar (which is part of their company), and other animation studios today, and to other companies in general in terms of creativity.
I believe it's less so a case of "running out of ideas" than it is "easy money." Familiarity has been one of Disney's most valuable resources since the very beginning, making it require less effort to market recognizably-titled classics with preexisting positive intertextual connotations. Pair that with the less effort required in writer's room, and you arrive at a cost effective formula for successful filmmaking and distribution. As the animated Disney films from the past decade have indicated, there is currently no lack of original and/or previously unused content to be made. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I saw a video where the creators said that they wanted to redo a lot of the old cartoons because the "technology is better." That "people want to see it all come to life." Something to think about. – Jaye Freeland8 years ago
I do agree with ProtoCanon's "easy money," comment, but I also think it's a move of trying to stay relevant. Those movies mentioned are outdated and do not really have an audience to speak to any longer. Even when trying to show the films to your children, kids do not respond to the films, no matter how good the story telling may be, due to their having grown accustomed to the graphics of today. Disney is basically attempting to reboot its brand. – danielle5778 years ago
Jaye Freeland, excellent point. Music's the same way. The accurate protestations of Neil Young and Bob Dylan, etc., aside, the "cleanness" of digital recording technology is a boon. If they could clean up Vocalion Records' catalogue - which recorded less lucrative "race records" on bowling ball-quality vinyl - I'd be happy. – Tigey8 years ago
In The Night of the Hunter, serial killer, Harry Powell's (Robert Mitchum) slightly-raised eyebrow is genius, the tiny movement revealing his heartlessness. To those who've seen the film, even still photos of Mitchum in character resend Powell's bone-chilling indifference to life.
Another fine example of communicative expression occurs in The Devil Wears Prada when Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) smugly and finalistically hummed, "Um-huh," not quite under her breath, making audiences frown. Streep's acting was brilliant: anything more or less alters the message.
What other actors in a particular role – as opposed to say, Bruce Willis' role-to-role, smart-assed half-smile – use a powerful, signature expression – including facial, verbal, or body language – to define a specific character? What does the expression communicate? Are there actors able to reproduce this mastery via different expressions for different roles? In which roles? With which expressions?
First I could think of is Al Pacino in The Godfather Part II. In most of his scenes he's silent, seated, listening to others speak or thinking by himself. Yet even if his actions don't vary much, his brooding face express so many emotions: anger, shock, pain, amusement, and even when he's worried. Still one of Pacino's best, and establishes Michael Corleone's taking over of their family business – Joie8 years ago
A great film for this topic is Caché. Haneke is a master director and auteur, he always gets supreme performance out of his actors. Caché has minimal dialogue -- forcing his actors to use their eyes to convey emotion. Maybe include the interest of foreign films particularly -- since, if the viewer doesn't understand the language, they must rely solely on physical performance (besides subtitles). – Brandon T. Gass8 years ago
On October 15, 2016, it will be the 99th anniversary of the execution of Mata Hari, a Parisian dancer convicted of pro-German espionage against France.
The question is, what is the/are the greatest spy movie(s) of all time? Why? And what is it about a spy movie that make them so thrilling? You can comment on only one, or several if you are up on the genre.
Below is the list of Top Ten Spy Movies compiled by Esquire Magazine. You don't have to consult this list, but it's there if you want or need it.
10. The Ipcress File (1965) 9. No Way Out (1987) 8. The Bourne Identity (2002) 7. Notorious (1946) 6. Three Days Of The Condor (1975) 5. From Russia With Love (1963) 4. Zero Dark Thirty (2012) 3. North By Northwest (1959) 2. The Lives Of Others (2006) 1. The Third Man (1949)
Personally, I'd have to add Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps," but I'd watch a Hitchcock movie even if he showed up in it.
It might also be worth looking at Mata Hari, the fact that she was a performer, so would be a great subject for film, yet no films about her that spring to mind. Perhaps it could be addressed as a 'Great Women Spy Movies' (although Charlotte Grey and Spy are the only two that spring to mind...) – Francesca Turauskis8 years ago
Kind of want to add The Man from UNCLE (2015), just because it is incredibly stylish, and style has almost always been a brand of spy movies (I think) – Joie8 years ago
Sausage Party, an R-rated animated feature, has provoked controversy since its release earlier this month. Many critics say that the film makes distasteful use of ethnic, religious and sexual stereotypes, perpetuating offensive associations that have long plagued Hollywood and western culture generally. However, as some of defenders of the film have pointed out, the characters in Sausage Party are not human beings, but rather products made by humans, and so represent and enact the assumptions embedded in the society that produced them. Such being the case, the defenders go on, the world in which the film takes place offers a space to explore the relation between these stereotypes and the culture from which they emerge.
Is Sausage Party an offensive film? Is its play with stereotype clever, or just lazy? Is it totally out of line, or does it constitute a legitimate satire of Hollywood's tendency to depend on stereotype?
Sorry Tigey, I tried to edit the post, but it doesn't seem to have stuck. After "clever, or just lazy" I meant to add: That is to say, are the filmmakers in control of the social implications of their use of stereotype, and if so, to what end do they evoke them? – TKing8 years ago
If you send a message to misagh, he help you. – Tigey8 years ago
Washington, Colorado, Alaska, and Oregon have legalized pot, and other states are sure to follow. Libertarians and liberals say, "About time," while conservatives fear the slippery slope-influence of a "gateway drug." Which movies do the best job of either satirizing unnecessary fears of recreational drug use, or portraying the horrors of drug use? Which films do you think offer the most realistic portrayal of the use of alcohol, pot, cocaine, LSD (or other hallucinogens such as psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, etc.), and heroin, respectively? Why?
No discussion of this subject would be complete without mentioning the 1936 propaganda film, Reefer Madness, and the 2005 musical parody film of the same name. Together, they cover the full spectrum of hyper-conservativism and liberal satire. It is especially important to address how the former was rediscovered in the 1970s and usurped by youth culture as an "easy target for mocking" cult film, which ultimately gave rise to the latter. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Thanks. I'm writing an article about Offensive comedy right now and it's interesting to see George Carlin's remarks about drugs. He didn't do a complete 180, but he did say there's a point where the pain outweighed the pleasure. One of my favorite Carlin jokes about drugs is: "The problem with people petitioning about marijuana laws is that they can't remember where they put the petitions." – Tigey8 years ago
I'm attached to this - even made a feature film on it myself with "Cleaners" back in 2011. I think there are many films with realistic depictions, but then some sensationalized work that makes for them less on realism and more as some kind of animated (and often comical) touch on a story that isn't interested in legitimacy. "The Panic in Needle Park", with Al Pacino and Kitty Winn, is a great film. It shows their aimlessness - and their hope for one another in a way that is unheard of during such a pinnacle post-"Midnight Cowboy" / Warhol and Morrissey cinema of neo-realism. – reesepd8 years ago
reesepd,
I'll see if I can find "Cleaners." It seems right now we're caught between the perils of self-medication and the medical industry pimping truth for the pharmaceuticals. – Tigey8 years ago
I think "Requiem for a Dream" would be a perfect movie to illustrate the horrors of drug use. The horrific ending alone would perfectly show how drugs completely destroy people’s lives, as well as showing the highs of the drugs too (demonstrating why people choose to take them). "Trainspotting" is another example of a movie that shows a lot of the horrors of drug use (the toilet scene alone), as well as the obsessive nature of drugs. It could also be interesting to use this film, because the sequel is coming out at the beginning of next year, so it is relevant to bring up the original. – ojc1318 years ago
