Film

Do you notice how a movie can feature one death after another and there is not one shriek from a member of the audience until the killing of an animal occurs? Why does the audience accept the loss of human life yet become upset and unsettled when a dog is shot to death? Is it a matter of innocence? The animal lacking the same mental faculties as the human and therefore placing it in an inferior, and therefore more sympathetic position? This is a phenomenon I have witnessed countless times across a number of different audiences, and I, too, have the exact same reaction. Another interesting aspect is when the victim is an infant or young child, though still in the process of development, clearly superior to a dog, but still conjuring a higher level of sympathy. This leads back to my prior questions: is this a matter of inferiority? A matter of innocence? Please discuss whether or not you have witnessed similar reactions and what is your thinking behind this disparate response?

More and more these days we see actors who started out young growing up into very troubled people. Lindsey Lohan, Shia LeBeouf, Amanda Bynes, Demi Lovato; they all have their share of craziness and major obstacles they've had to try to overcome. Is this pattern of child actors going bad related to their career starting out early? Is growing up in the film industry influencing the outcome of these actors' mental health and habits?

Regardless of one's personal opinions of film remakes, there's something rather culturally significant about making a new Ben-Hur in 2016. Since the release of the 1995 documentary, The Celluloid Closet, it has become well-known that Gore Vidal went into writing the screenplay for the 1959 film with the idea that Ben-Hur and Messala were former lovers ((link) which drove much of the subtextual conflict of the story. Though the audience of the day, via their substantially heteronormative attitudes and expectations, was predominantly unable to detect this secret inclusion, today it is viewed as a successful attempt at LGBT representation in the early days of film history.

Fast forward 57 years, to a time when society has progressed enough that homosexuality is no longer the social taboo that it once was and is not at all prohibited from cinematic representation. To remake a film like Ben-Hur at this time presents a world of possibilities, namely that the filmmakers are now able to present the homoerotic tension between these characters more explicitly and overtly than was allowed in 1959. However, based on the two trailers [the film has not yet been released at the time of my writing this], there appears to have been a conscious creative choice to make Ben-Hur and Messala adoptive brothers in this new rendering of the story. One might be inclined to speculate that this decision was made to exorcise the spirit of the story's homoerotic past, thereby using "brotherly love" in lieu of "ambiguously gay duo" to unburden their hard-core action movie with something that they believe to have "non-masculine" qualities.

Discuss the differences between the two films in this respect. How does it reflect views toward LGBT characters in the film industry, particularly in the action genre? What might it say about the shifting standards for what can be deemed as acceptable and unacceptable film content? Clearly something is a little socially retrograde if a movie in 1959 is able to do a better job of including gay characters than its 2016 counterpart. Might the remake's heightened religious emphasis have something to do with this? What other examples of recent films might exemplify this phenomenon? Furthermore, what value is there to remake certain films if not to better express aspects that can receive new meaning in our contemporary context?

With the latest bunt in the cinematic superhero world, Suicide Squad, it has become clear that critics are collective tired of the ringtone narrative that nearly all superhero films cradle. Suicide Squad specifically, held the concept of 'fight fire with fire,' which obviously entails that things won't work out. Examine the failures of Suicide Squad as a whole and what it might take (if possible) to have another good superhero film like The Dark Knight.

In the last few years Hollywood has both recreated and rebooted a number of classic films, ranging from superhero stories (like Spider-man), beloved franchises (like Star Trek), to cult classics (like Red Dawn), and modern masterpieces (like The Magnificent Seven). Choose what you feel are a few of the best and worst examples of this trend, and make an argument for or against Hollywood's "rehash" habit.

From "Romeo Juliet" to "Oh Brother Where Art Though", reworking classic stories like Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" to Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" with popular appeal is either a fun and creative on-taking or crass money grab, depending upon who you ask.

Examine similar instances in film where classic plays and literature have been given a new breath and identity through popular appeal, modernized sets, and creative directing. Are there instances where this process has succeeded in maintaining the artistic integrity of the original work while making something visionary? Are there instances where this process was a disaster? Does this act successfully cater to a new generation, or is it pandering/talking down to an audience that would prefer authenticity?

While it is common for the second film in a series to ruin the franchise, many of them MAKE the franchise; such is the case with Kill Bill and The Dark Knight Trilogy. Perhaps these films' sequels were so monumental because they were planned out to take place over three films or two films, rather than the corporate industry suits just wanting to force, say, another Iron Man onto the screen to make more money. These turn into hollow films.

Explore the rise of "spoiler culture" – especially in relation to TV shows and movies – looking at its current prevalence in society, possible origins, and perhaps some famous/infamous instances of "spoilers" as a preface to how "spoiler culture" impacts an audience's interaction with the work and fellow audience members.

i.e. inability to any longer freely engage in the discussion of a work, whether that inability to discuss effects the way people process that work, isolating one's self from others to avoid spoilers (to the point even of limiting one's social media)

Might be interesting as well to see if "spoiler culture" persists within well known material. For instance, are people less concerned with spoilers when consuming media of a historical nature like WW2 movies?