How Movies Helped Save My Soul

My thoughts in general: This book, How Movies Helped Save My Soul, is written by a Christian author, who writes about seeking to find spiritual "fingerprints" in films that he watches. As I have been reading, I have found that Higgins draws many interesting insights. I have agreed with him on many points, but on other points I don't feel that either agree or disagree. One of the main reasons that I wanted to blog about this book, which I would recommend, is because it is not a "scholarly" work. It is just a book written by a guy who likes movies and who tries to find something redeeming in films rather than just judging them to be "indecent." I had an interview with my elders' quorum president the other day, and he asked me how I reconcile the Church and morally challenging material in films. When he asked me this, my first thought was: what a stupid question. Maybe I need to repent, but this is honestly what I think. How can people not know how to reconcile difficult things for themselves? Aren't we agents to act for ourselves? In such a media saturated environment, how can you not have already thought about these issues? Anyway, I gave him an answer; I'm not convinced that he agrees with me, but that's okay. I think I'm going to recommend that he read this book.

My thoughts on application: Since this book is overtly religious (in a promoting religion kind of way), it might be difficult to use in the classroom. However, I think it could actually be a good text (if used in an appropriate way) to initiate discussion about finding things in films that are not readily apparent on the surface. It is not scholarly, so I actually think that it would be fairly easily accessible to students. Higgins does reference a lot of films that students might not have seen, but as I've been reading, I haven't felt like someone would have to already have seen all of the films that he references. In general, I think it could be good foundation material for how to look beyond the basic plot of a film and the general "I liked it"/"I didn't like it." He presents some interesting basic, layman's analysis, even if it is centered on religion.

Facebook

My thoughts in general: We've talked about Facebook before, but something struck me while I was on Facebook the other day. I logged into my account, and I saw that a friend of mine had posted a video. In the days of embedded video, this does not surprise me, but it does kind of struck me as an interesting way to represent oneself. Not only does Facebook allow someone to post information about interests (favorite music, movies, books, etc.) and to post photos, someone can also post videos. I had the thought that adjectives and other descriptors are almost obsolete in defining someone. We have arrived at the point where we define ourselves by media. I know this is nothing new; we've had these discussions before, but it hit me in a different way the other day. Thanks, Facebook, for revealing to me how illiterate I am without media.

My thoughts on application: The world in which students are growing up expects them to define themselves by media. They converse using media (in addition to having mediated conversations). Media itself has become a language. I know because I do the same thing. In the classroom, this could be a discussion in itself. All the tenets of media literacy come back to and grow out of these ideas. I know this is really basic, but Facebook helped bring me back to the foundation of the need for media literacy education. So, with students, I think Facebook could be used as the jumping off point for discussing media literacy. This is a pretty simple blog, but I think it is good to remember the basics every so often.

There Will Be Blood

My thoughts in general: So, I have been trying to include media other than films, but I felt like I needed to include this one on my blog. Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, There Will Be Blood, stars Daniel Day-Lewis. I have seen it twice, and it very worthwhile. The film tells the story of Daniel Plainview, the character played by Daniel Day-Lewis, who begins as a gold and silver prospector; then, he ends up in the oil business and becomes very successful. Visually, the film is spectacular, and it is a delightfully cinematic piece that plays metaphorically with blood and oil. Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing, and he deserves to receive the Academy Award for his performance. There is also an interesting question raised by the film about religion. Paul Dano (who was in Little Miss Sunshine) plays a "prophet" who has his own congregation, and this character is juxtaposed against Daniel Day-Lewis who is essentially a "prophet" in his own way. This juxtaposition creates some intriguing exploration into what is religion and how far can/should religion go. Like any P.T. Anderson film, There Will Be Blood abounds with multiple nuances and sub-plots/-themes. It really was great.

My thoughts on application: Again, like most films that I see, this one would not be approved to watch in a high school classroom. However, I find that there is room for instructional exploration in how it represents time period and society. The film takes place in the early 1900s, and it is set in California. However, time and place seem almost inconsequential. The thing that stood out to me that could be brought into the classroom is a comparison between this film and George Steven's 1956 film Giant, starring James Dean, Rock Hudson, and Elizabeth Taylor.

Giant is also the story of an oil man. Both films are based on previously written material. There Will Be Blood is based on the story Oil! by Upton Sinclair, and Giant is based on a novel of the same name by Edna Ferber. However, the latter takes place in Texas, even though both films were actually shot outside of Marfa, Texas. Though many comparisons could be discussed in the classroom, I think the best point of discussion would be how each represents the time period in which it was made. A lot has changed in the 50 years since Giant, and I think a lot of this change can be seen in these two films. Giant has a cast of Hollywood/American icons while There Will Be Blood casts an Englishman as an American. Inherently, this casting questions the idea of being "American." Additionally, the questions posed (and the way that they are posed) about morals in society are quite different, and it is due largely to the environments that produced the different films. This could foster some good classroom discussion.

Science in Film Lecture

My thoughts in general: If you are wondering, yes, that is a picture of Ben Unguren. Last weekend, Ben gave a lecture at the Orem Public Library about science in film. He was substituting for Dean Duncan, but I mention this to in no way compare the two; I am simply presenting the facts of the situation. He began by discussing science fiction film and how the representation of science in film has changed over the years. We watched clips from Bride of Frankenstein and Fantastic Voyage and discussed the accuracy of the science in those films. Specifically Ben mentioned how Frankenstein was an old film based on an even older novel, so the science of the world of the film is expectedly primitive in our view. However, by the time Fantastic Voyage journeys through the human heart, scientific knowledge has advanced to a point where we visit anatomically accurate chambers of the heart and human blood actually contains blood cells. The science in this film reflects its contemporary scientific understanding. One point that Ben made was that films try to represent the most up-to-date, "cutting edge" scientific knowledge.



My thoughts on application: I don't know from which high school they came, but the room was packed with students who were attending Ben's lecture for extra credit. I found this particularly interesting while thinking about the pedagogical value of Ben's lecture. I think the basis of his lecture--science in film--has great academic merit. Much can be explored through studying the science in films from different time periods. Films really do reflect the science of times, whether the issue is transplantation or genetic engineering. A discussion like this could have application in a science classroom or a history classroom. I think that from a student's perspective this kind of lesson could be very engaging.

Indiana Jones 4 Trailer

My thoughts in general: Recently, I saw the trailer for the newest Indiana Jones film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I have had serious reservations about this film, but after seeing the trailer . . . oh wait, I still have serious reservations. In the trailer, there is one quick scene that seems to have some typical Indiana Jones humor, and there is expectedly Spielberg use of light/shadow. Check it out for yourself:




However, despite some obligatory "Indiana Jones"-ness, it has been 19 years since Last Crusade. In that time, both Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg have made multiple very bad choices in projects. It appears that they left their A-game behind about 15 years ago. Most likely, I will see the film, but I am not as excited as I would have been if the film made 15 years ago...

My thoughts on application: However disappointing this trailer is, I think it can be very useful in terms of pedagogy. Matt would probably have more informed ideas about trailer production, but here are my ideas. First, this trailer could be used to discuss the concept of trailers in general. When discussing media literacy, trailers are a key tool in informing audiences about the basic premise of films and are designed to convince people in 1-2 min. to spend 8-10 dollars (or more) to see the film. This trailer could be used in a classroom to discuss how the intent of the trailer is met/not met. However, with this trailer, the use of footage from previous Indiana Jones films is brought into the discussion. Thus, the question can be posed: how are the previous 3 films used to sell this 4th installment? Additionally, depending on the focus of the lesson, the class could discuss the current string of "late" installments of series that were thought to be done (Rocky Balboa, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo). There are several points of discussion that could arise from this trailer.

Victoria's Secret

Sorry to not begin this post with an image, but I guess I'm just not as daring as Jeana in posting images of nearly nude women. I'd like to think that I'm protecting the innocent eyes of the young children who may be playing at your feet while you're reading this. So, I guess that means that I'm a "Savior on Mount Zion" (or maybe I'm just withstanding a temptation to lead them toward forbidden paths).


My thoughts in general: With that introduction behind us, let me discuss a certain Victoria's Secret ad that I saw in the mall a few days ago. I was shopping with some friends (all female except me, of course) for bridesmaid dresses. No, I was not shopping for myself; I was just a fashion consultant. While we were in the mall, we passed Victoria's Secret, and I saw quite a large ad adorning one of the windows of the store. Passing it, I made a sarcastic comment about the model looking like she was full of confidence and empowerment because she was wearing her Victoria's Secret underwear. There was a round a chuckles from my friends, and then one stated that Victoria's Secret underwear is quite comfortable. I had supposed such comfort existed in the high-quality products of Victoria's Secret, but I have never experienced it myself. However, my comment had nothing to do with comfort or lack thereof; it was simply an observation of the image projected by the model.

My thoughts on application: Victoria's Secret ads can be used as teaching devices in many ways such as sex education, anatomy instruction, as so on. Many, if not all, of these ads would fit right into Jeana's lessons on the male gaze and feminist criticism. However, my thoughts when I saw this ad focused more on how the product was trying to be sold to women by seeking to project power, ambition, and confidence. If simply buying expensive underwear can give you advantage in the workplace (or wherever you may wear your super panties), then it's worth the investment. In becoming media literate, it is important to recognize how a product is being presented to the consumer. Is it merely functional? No. The message is that a little patch of cloth actually clothes you with superiority. Who wouldn't want that? In a teaching environment, care must be taken with the selection of images, but it is important to discuss what the ad is selling beyond the little bits of cloth and the almost bare body parts.

Audi and The Godfather

My thoughts in general: This year, I actually watched part of the Superbowl. I don't make it a habit to watch televised sporting events (or non-televised ones, for that matter). However, whenever I do end up watching the Superbowl, I find it rather pleasurable to watch the commercials (mostly the beer commercials). I have yet to see a Superbowl commercial that tops the Emerald Nuts commercial from a couple of years ago. Eagle-eyed Machete Enthusiasts Recognize A Little Druid Networking Under The Stairs.... Though I may never see another commercial to match this favorite of mine, my interest was drawn to the TV this year when I saw the exterior of the film-producer's mansion from The Godfather. I continued watching, and I found that a man woke up covered in oil with the severed front-end of his automobile in bed with him at the foot of the bed. I immediately recognized that intertextual reference to The Godfather, and I wondered where the commercial was going. Soon, the commercial cut to outside the mansion and a fancy, sleek-designed car was zooming toward me. I don't know much about cars, but I know now that the car was an Audi R8.



My thoughts on application: I felt almost betrayed that one of the best films ever made was used to hock some sports car in which I have no interest. However, I recognize some potential pedagogical value in this commercial. It is clearly intertextual, which would make it a great example to use in teaching post-modernism/intertextuality. However, I also find it interesting that a "classic" film is used to sell a modern (post-modern?) vehicle. In the context of the film, the car has no place. Is this actually sending a message about the car having no place in the previous repertoire of Audi vehicles? Perhaps, the audience is being told that if we buy this car we will stand out from among/be superior to our fellowmen. This is a great example to use in teaching intertextuality, especially because you have to know (at least have a cursory knowledge of) The Godfather. Such understanding is vital to realize that the advertising agency (and maybe the car manufacturer) is telling us that the Audi R8 is "an offer [we] can't refuse."