With the recent wave of Bollywood actors being integrated in Hollywood productions within the last few years, I'm wondering if this poses any risks or if this is a sign of progress in what people say is an overtly white-male establishment. With big actors like Amitabh Bachchan making an appearing in Baz Luhrmann's remake of The Great Gatsby and Priyanka Chopra making headlines with not only landing a leading role in the American TV show Quantico but also winning the People's Choice Award for said role as well as appearing in the upcoming movie Bay Watch and Deepika Padukone who is said to appear alongside Vin Diesel in xXx: The Return of Xander Cage. Does this intertwining of two different movie industries pose any sort of threat? or is this the beginning of inclusivity of POCs within the mostly white film industry?
Ooh this sounds really interesting! I'd also look into if there's any blurring besides just the actors, for example directors or producers. – thewyverary9 years ago
Can East meet West? This is a future question. Yes it is a Zen kind of concept meaning that the answer to this question will come in the future. – Munjeera9 years ago
I think each industry should remain independent from each other. Mixing both industries would harm whatever it is that makes them unique. However, actors, directors, crews, etc. should be able to work wherever they want to without discrimination. – Andrestrada9 years ago
On the surface it appears that Avatar (the one with the blue people, not the Last Airbender) is a critique on imperialist violence, one long overdue in our culture. But the movie falls short not just once but several times, changing from a thoughtful social commentary to just another feel-good, white-savior blockbuster. I'm not here to critique the writing, though god knows it needs it.
I'm here to talk about how Jake, the wounded soldier, still endorses violence as the only option to take down the Colonel. "I was hoping you'd say that?" And then the film's narrative dances around having Jake kill the Bad Guy, because oh my god can't have your hero kill someone on screen. Though apparently Jake's killed lots of people before.
On the surface, the final battle is won (with Eywa's help) to preserve the balance of the land. This is undermined by the blatant glorying in death the film takes – the battle is framed as heart-stopping, glorious, something to revel in when you are winning and to dread when you are not.
In the end, the day is won with more violence, endorsed by a deity. There is no even stopping to think on the harm done after the battle – the casualties are swept under the film's rug, because they died for a good cause right? Oh, and some of the 'good' humans get to stay. Even though there'll be no funding for their equipment to be maintained and it's likely they'll NEVER get back to Earth. Oh well, they can live on a planet with floating rocks and air that's poisonous to them, right?
I have NO idea what the hype for Avatar was. (Not Airbender as he's awesome.) My personal opinion is that not much what put into the plot and script. I think the director/producer whatever you call those people had this new "medium" they wanted to work with. They had an idea of what they wanted the movie to look like and they wanted it to showcase their new shiny tech tools, but they didn't actually have a story or plot. So they just sorta slapped things onto some paper and filled in the blanks later. I also feel like it went something like this: "Hey, guys do you remember that movie Ferngully? No? Good hopefully no one else will either, because I intend on using the exact same plot." In fact, maybe after this I'll write an article on how Avatar is basically Ferngully 3. I say 3, because I think there actually was a Ferngully 2...
– Tatijana9 years ago
I mean, I think it could still be a critique on imperialist violence/conquest, without actually saying that violence is bad in all situations... Clearly the materialistic, war for the sake of money kind of violence is disgusting, but perhaps war to defend your people and your homeland isn't? Avatar wasn't the most nuanced movie ever, but I think it still has a more nuanced approach to violence than you give it credit for. – thekellyfornian9 years ago
Despite what it looks like, Tatijana, Director James Cameron had early drafts of this script floating around for decades. So he probably wrote the original idea around when things like "Ferngully," "Pocahontas," and "Dances With Wolves" were released back in the mid-90s. But he had to wait for technology to catch up to his immense vision for how the film would look. So while the film is still clearly derivative of all three of those films, and others, it was not something slapped together. It took decades before the motion capture and CGI technology was good enough for what James wanted. It took years to perfect the set-up for everything so that the 3D would function properly. It took years to render every single thing in the film because of how dense and rich the visuals were, especially the plants. And despite how rough and awkward it is, it took decades before the script was where James Cameron wanted it. So it actually took more effort to make than it appears. And I think the reason why we still haven't seen anything on Avatar 2 yet is because Cameron wants to impress everyone again with another big leap in visuals and technology. And I don't blame him. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
@thekellyfornian, I think it was definitely /meant/ as a critique on imperialism, it just doesn't follow through on the deepest narrative levels. My counter example is Mad Max: Fury Road, which is certainly a very violent movie, but the framing of the narrative treats that violence differently. Avatar treats violence as something good, something to be excited about and glory in. Fury Road treats it as harmful, even/especially to the heroes of the story inflicting it. – Winterling9 years ago
In any form of art, whether it be film, poetry, or literature, some of it is very abstract. So abstract, that some people assert that perhaps it is lacking in actual meaning. Many students in an Intro. to Creative Media class I am taking has postulated that David Lynch's films are void of meaning because they are so abstract and ambiguous. Is this something that should be thought? That simply because we cannot conceive of the artists' intention that perhaps there is none?
Maybe the artist finds it funny that there is no meaning his meaning is to show that people find meaning in anything? Or maybe he has no meaning, but it's meaning is a study on what people come up with? I honestly am not the hugest fan of trying to find meaning. Poetry, literature, film, I think it's all how you perceive it. If it evokes emotion in you. If you find it clever, relatable, beautiful. What's more important: what the author meant? Or what it means to you. And honestly, unless an author specifically says what he means, it's all speculation anyway. And from that standpoint as far as scholarly analysis goes, everyone's opinion is valid and all opinions can be discussed. – Tatijana9 years ago
Lynch's films are surreal because their narratives are essentially dictated by dream logic. They usually have so much meaning (too much for some) that they can present a very difficult challenge for a mind unconditioned for the processing of such abstractions. His idiom demands a special discipline, much like learning a foreign language. Because his films don't conform to mainstream methods for conveying ideas they can seem too far beyond one’s capacity to process and that leads to frustration, resulting in unfair pronouncements of his work being “void of meaning.” As an artist myself, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a piece of work completely “void of meaning.” A piece of art may have meaning that’s inane or pedestrian, but just placing oneself within the process of producing something stimulates meaning. Even if that meaning is simply, “I create, therefore I am”
– kublahken9 years ago
I don't know if this a direction you'd want to go, and I don't have much knowledge in the way of film critique. But you could, exploring meaningless, bring up existentialism. Citing Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Foucault, and the like, could help explain the meaningless portrayed on screen. You could even maybe start with Derrida and explain his beliefs about language being a fruitless endeavor that doesn't actual convey anything of ontological substance, just concepts that lead onto each other. Then, you could move to Camus and absurdism and explain how, once seeking meaning is thrown to the wayside, the viewer and artist are free to enjoy the pure aesthetic value of the subject or piece being viewed. Like an art informed nihilism or something. haha – PGJackson9 years ago
It would be a great idea to analyze a bit more on what made film producers want to create a film after a book. This analyzation can introduce the readers to a few reasons that may have attracted the producer to want to see a story from an author come to life. The topic can focus on the romance genre as there have been many movies adapted from books of romance. For example, 50 Shades of Grey which has been a big deal in today's generation. The book trilogy got not just one movie, but three. What were the attractions that the film producer got from the book that he/she wanted to see on the screen?
I think it has a lot to do with popularity, i.e. being listed as a bestseller book and a growing fanbase. From that fact alone filmmakers might have a sense of built in security that the theaters will be full. Take a look at the recent trilogies becoming movie franchises (Hunger Games, Divergent, etc.). Also notice similar plots and themes. Genre craze. In regards to Fifty Shades, there really isn't much guesswork to be done. Sexual content, and twisted romance pulled the crowd in just to read. Who would miss it on screen? Modern TV nudity doesn't cut it anymore, rated R movies with "unusual behavior" seems to attract people. – sbermudez9 years ago
Maybe include something about how when a book is translated into a movie the content usually changes some, or something gets left out, and how that affects the viewing experience. – rinamg9 years ago
I would pick a few different movies that started first as books, and talk about how the producer came to choose that book to make into a movie. Then discuss what they might have added/taken away from the original plot and way. Then maybe finish with what you/others consider to be the better of the two options between the book and film. – BlueJayy9 years ago
Because film is a more popular medium, the scary thing is that a lot of people don't even know that many films adaption even came from books. – Lazarinth9 years ago
This past weekend, Jeffrey Tambor won the Emmy for outstanding lead actor in a comedy series for playing a transgender woman in Amazon's show Transparent. Also, Eddie Redmayne will be playing a transgender woman in The Danish Girl in an upcoming film that looks like it's an Oscar vehicle. And think of how well Dallas Buyers Club did for Jared Leto. It seems that these roles are often portrayed in interviews and articles as "complex challenges" for cisgender actors to take on. Is this problematic? Should we be arguing for more trans* actors to play their own roles, or is it okay to continue casting cisgender actors?
If you want to add more references to this list, there's also been controversy surrounding Elle Fanning playing a transgender boy in "About Ray," along with the director of the movie spreading inaccurate information about trans* people with his statements. – pixiemina9 years ago
Thanks for the suggestion! I hadn't heard of About Ray. Reading about it now. – southdakoda9 years ago
Have a look at John Cameron Mitchell with Hedwig and the Angry Inch, that might help. Also think about Laverne Cox in Orange is the New Black who became the first openly transgender person to be nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award in the acting category and the first to be nominated for an Emmy Award since composer/musician Angela Morley in 1990. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
Wasn't aware of Angela Morley's work, either. Thanks for the ideas! It also might be interesting to explore how Laverne Cox's twin brother plays her in the flashbacks before she came out. I wonder if there are trans* actors who have had to play themselves in flashbacks in other films. Also, now I'm thinking about how trans female actress Erika Ervin actually auditioned as a male for the trans female role she had in AHS: Freakshow--very Victor/Victoria. I'm realizing there's so much to explore her, and many different angles one could take! – southdakoda9 years ago
Not sure if it quite fits, but Cillian Murphy has portrayed a nb character in the film Peacock, as well as portraying a trans woman in Breakfast on Pluto. I suspect he was cast because of his "feminine" features, but it's still exclusionary and highly problematic regardless. I adore this topic! I was just discussing it wrt The Danish Girl with my gender-nonconforming pal yesterday. – marlaina9 years ago
I think something that should also be taken into account when talking about movies with trans characters is the director. They speak the loudest when it comes to why they make the decision to cast cis actors. I mean Gaby Dellal is very clearly transphobic and her reason for casting a cis girl is because the part 'is a girl and she is a girl'. The directors choices are very important to this conversation – netafeta9 years ago
Jamie Clayton on Sense8 might be worth looking into as well. – ctaylorhen9 years ago