Movie Fantasy vs. Classroom Reality

The Class contains a much more realistic portrayal of the typical classroom situation. In this classroom, the students are very unruly. This is not the movie-style unruly where everyone is loud until the teacher must ask them to be quiet, either. The students aggressively disobey the teacher's rules and commands and continues to do whatever they can to disrupt things. Whenever the teacher gives a lecture, students chime in only to poke fun at him or try to veer off topic. The kids in the classroom are much more profane than the usual Hollywood classroom. They say things that not only contain swear words, but have highly offensive ethnic or sexist slurs that tells the viewer very much about the environment of their upbringing.

An even more important distinction between the atmosphere in The Class and that of most other school movies is the imperfectness of the teacher. The classroom movie generally has one of two teacher types: The clueless teacher with no authority over his or her class (as seen in suburban movies such as Ferris Bueller's Day Off and The Breakfast Club), or the rebellious teacher who decides to go up against the system to achieve their goal of improving the lives of their students in a way that the school system fails to do (as in Dead Poets' Society). In The Class, Francois is a teacher who genuinely wants to do his job, but his class makes this as challenging as it can possibly be. He constantly attempts to get the class interested in French and to learn the material, but they are too preoccupied with doing the opposite.

In the end, this starts to wear on the teacher until he makes mistakes. For instance, sometimes he retaliates too harshly against the students. At one point in the movie, he says that he feels one of his students has met his "scholastic limit" at a teachers' meeting (a type of scene that is unique to this movie), which spreads around until it reaches the person he was talking about. He does one of the worst things a teacher can do to a student, that is, he suggests that the student cannot learn anymore. Francois is not a bad person; he is just trying to be realistic in an obviously imperfect society that he is a part of. We see that although he is doing his best to be a good teacher, he fails in some ways and has flaws of his own. In this way, the film explores much more realistic problems of today's classroom than most movies before it.

Following an Internet Conversation

Conversation: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=108753
Regarding an announcement on whitehouse.gov that gives an email address for people to contact if they become aware of any chain emails floating around that may be spreading falsities about Obama's health care plan.

The first poster on this thread makes the claim that this is a "Big Brother-ish" act. He expresses worry that the President seems to be calling for citizens to report other citizens to the government. For most of the conversation, it simply goes back and forth between people arguing whether or not it sounds Big Brother-ish. It's basically a "yeah huh" and "nuh uh" argument. Eventually, someone finally makes the distinction that they are simply asking for information that is circulating publicly, not for the names of the people who are spreading it or any personal info. So, in this sense, the argument is made that there is nothing wrong with this strategy. The thread stays on topic basically the entire time, except for one person who says that they think the first poster's "paranoia" is humorous. The topic digresses a little when people begin to discuss whether information is to be used for "nefarious purposes." That is, the participants begin to discuss whether or not it is alright for the government to spy on its citizens if it is for the greater good. But this still does not make sense, as the distinction had already been made that no personal information is being gathered.

A conversation definitely takes place on this forum thread. Most of the time, people are responding to each other's arguments and exploring a political issue. However, no conclusion seems to be reached. Whenever someone makes a good point, the opponent usually just changes the subject or brings up another good point. It seems like no progress is made in the argument. Everyone simply throws in their two cents, but no one learns from each other. In this sense, the conversation metaphor fails.

The Signs of Film

My favorite movies:
The Dark Knight
There Will Be Blood
Quantum of Solace
Pi
Contact
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

I think this list says that I like serious movies with extraordinary main characters. I think I like to watch movies with characters who have certain attributes that I would like to see in myself, whether it is lifestyle, intellect, personality, or experiences. These movies tend to reflect cultural myths such as the importance of science and the resourcefulness of people who are well versed in it. As a science major, this appeals to me because I am a strong believer in the importance of science. I think that science should be important to anyone, no matter what field they are in. Everything comes from science, and that is what makes it so interesting to me. I tend to respond to stories about people who feel outcasted from the rest of society because they feel different than the average person. I like stories about people who seem to have such a fundamental difference in their personality that it makes them impossible to mingle with the rest of people.

In my opinion, the best film of 2009 is Watchmen. This movie is full of symbolism that can be analyzed and related to many themes in today's world. For instance, the main theme of the movie, "Who watches the watchmen?", questions who the people who are in charge of the world are. It is a scary thing to ask because one risks finding out that the people who are in charge of keeping us safe are just as unstable and flawed as we are. I think this film has appealed to many moviegoers because it is very relevant to today's society of world superpowers and intelligence organizations like the CIA who seem to have unlimited capabilities.

Countering Danby's "High School Confidential: Notes on Teen Movies"

In David Denby's "High School Confidential: Notes on Teen Movies," he questions whether teen movies "reflect reality" or describe a "set of conventions that refer to other films." He comes to the conclusion that most teen movies have a little bit of both; they attack the status quo of teenage society, but usually end up conforming to it in the end. He also explores the idea of teen movies being the writers' way of obtaining vengeance for their own years of pain in high school. He describes a movie like this as "Portrait of the Writer as a Young Nerd" because the movies represent the agonizing memories of the writers, only unfolded in a more ideal way.

Denby may very well be correct, but a basic assumption he makes in his argument is the sincerity of the writers. He assumes that big-time Hollywood writers are actually men and women who are dedicated to their craft of making art and creating something that is true to them. There is another possibility that exists, and that is that the "writers" in Hollywood are simply businessmen and women who are simply following a formula and churning out the same basic movie over and over again in order to make money. They know that many teens will eat it up. Also, there is always the promise that a few years from now, there will be a new group of teens. With this demographic of constant renewal, these would-be writers can simply recreate what has been done dozens of times before and make their yearly wage from the royalties. This phenomenon is already seen in other media, such as the music industry. Here, businesspeople such as Britney Spears or Kanye West can simply recreate what previous artists have done and reep the benefits of someone else's creativity by exploiting the ignorance of the average teenage kid. It is a dishonest way to work, but who can blame them when there are millions of dollars to be made so easily?

Review a Review (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)

Michael Bay is more the subject of Manohla Dargis's New York Times review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen than the movie itself. The famous director is widely regarded as a creator of popular movies to be taken with a grain of salt. What Dargis refers to as "the tediousness of his stories and the inanity of his visual ideas" has given him this reputation. But what the reviewer seemed to forget throughout most of this article was that this is supposed to be the review of a film.

Dargis begins by immediately undermining the seriousness of the film, stating that it is only viewed by young boys who still play with their Transformer toys or fantasize about Megan Fox. This sets the stage right away for her claim that Transformers is not a movie to be taken seriously.

She continues by describing the basic plot of the film, taking special care to mention the shakiest parts of the movie. For instance, she mentions two relatively unimportant characters in the movie who caused substantial controversy in the media as possibly racist characatures, but leaves out the big names (most of the good guys). While this is a noteworthy detail to bring up in a review, it may not have a place in one as short as this.

Dargis's main criticisms of the movie itself are the lack of introspection, introspection's replacement by more "overwhelming action," and noxious stereotypes. She balances this by stating that Bay serves his purpose of entertainment. He "wears you out and wears you down" to the point where you are shaking your head at the unnecessary amounts of explosions and sometimes visually confusing action shots. This small section of constructive criticisms is the strongest part of her review however, the rest serving as a critique of the director instead.