HAVE A GREAT BREAK--KEEP WATCHING FILMS!

Maus and Beasts of the Southern Wild by Crystal Nehler

Maus by Art Spieglman is a 1991 Graphic Novel talking about the plight of Vladek and Anya Spiegleman during the Holocaust.  What makes it different is its depiction of different nationalities as different animals.  Mice being Jews, Cats being Germans etc.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a gorgeous low-fi fever dream brought to the silver screen by Ben Zeitlin.  It follows the journey of young Hush Puppy through hurricanes, poverty, isolation -- all sad topics to be sure -- but ends on an unexpected uplifting note.

War Comic influence of WWII, by Zachary vanBuuren

comic book influence of wwii

     The 1930’s saw a transformation of the comic. In the beginning, the comic was regarded as nothing more that a panel strip in the newspaper. The familiar three panel layout was what comprised “the funny pages” in the newspaper. The origin of the comic strip can be dated back to the egyptians. Then in the late 1930’s, the comic book came into popularity. With this new format of storytelling and conveying of information, a new method of storytelling was made possible. Writers and artists could tell stories of fantasy and epic tales, from this, the graphic novel was make possible and accepted as a literary medium.  

     Comic books took popularity throughout wartime because they were an easily transportable, digestible method of hero stories to motivate and encourage the soldiers. Many of the generation that saw the development of the comic book were drafted during WWII and took with them a desire for comics with them into battle. From this desire a new type of comic book character was born. A character who was strong in the face of the enemy. A leader by example. An inspiration to military prowess. The comic book format was also a new way to train soldiers and give instruction to tasks such as repair equipment.  Where this was particularly effective was in map making and instructional documentation. It was viewed an an effectively universal medium that did not rely on reading comprehension to pass information. While this was used throughout the war, it also spawned a stereotype of the enemy that persisted through the war and after. American comic artists tried for many years to shake of the negative stigma attached to the Japanese. 

     Joe Simon and Jack Kirby created and released Captain America #1. Published one year before the bombing of pearl harbour. American comic artists were already attempting to portray the nazi party as a national opponent. Many other superhero personas were born to help fight the nazi regime as well as the Japanese. The comic book publishers in America realised that they could use their use their creations to help raise war bonds as well as tell stories. It seems as every character did their part in helping the war effort as well as fight the enemy as well. Other creators including Stan Lee brought in Batman and Robin, the Flash, the Atom, the Human Torch, the Sub-Mariner, as well as many lesser known shorter lived superheros such as Catman. 

     Captain America was a hero that was not above the common soldier. True, he had superhuman strength and a flashy costume, but he provided a moral code of conduct for the american fighting force to abide to, and during battle he could provide soldiers with a boost of morale. The story of Captain America was something that soldiers could relate to and could personify. He had started as a nobody in his hometown, and through the glory of the military, he was something and somebody. He was a representation of a perfect soldier as well as being a emotional being struggling with his own life. 

While the comic industry was booming in America, the Germans were attempting their own war magazines. Historically they had relied on illustrated propaganda posters solely to vilify the Jewish culture and preceding that, to tell children's stories. German artists emulated the american styles to tell stories of war heroes and victorious battles. 

     War comic readers wanted to continue to see battles that lived on. They wanted to relive the glory and to teach their children about them. Heroes were born, evolved, and eventually were killed by their creators. 

WAR PHOTOGRAPHER

WAR PHOTOGRAPHER
Bradley Davis
 
 War Photographer/ 2001


Christian Frei/Switzerland/1959


Synopsis: Documentary about war photographer James Nachtwey, considered by many the greatest war photographer ever.

Narrative and Visual Keywords: Photographer, Voice over Narration,Train,Mine,Graveyard.

Characterization/ Dialogue: This documentary is about war photographer James Nachtwey. This is the credo of James Nachtwey, this generations most renowned
war photographer. He says some poignant things about why and how he
does what he does. I think for the most part the word "war" here could
be replaced with the word "poverty".

 War Photographer is a documentary about Photojournalist James Nachtwey who is considered by many to be the greatest war photographer of recent decades.
Nachtwey’s career as a war photographer began in 1981 when he covered civil unrest in Northern Ireland. Since then he has photographed more than 25 armed conflicts as well as dozens of critical social issues. He has received the Robert Capa Gold Medal, World Press Award, Magazine Photographer of the Year, and I.C.P. Infinity Award multiple times. He has been named recipient of the TED Prize, the Heinz Foundation Award for Art and Humanities, the Common Wealth Award and the Dan David Prize.  His photographs are in the collections of the Museum of Modern Art and the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, among others. Nachtwey has been a contract photographer with TIME Magazine since 1984 and Nachtwey has covered conflicts and major social issues in more than 30 countries. For the past three decades, he has devoted himself to documenting wars, conflicts and critical social issues, working in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza,Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, the Philippines,
South Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, South Africa, Russia, Bosnia,
Chechnya, Kosovo, Romania, Brazil and the United States.






 The director of this film shows video clips from those places, and many of  Nachtwey's memorable pictures, some of which are all the more haunting for suggesting, rather than showing, the extent of the cruelty and suffering he has seen. The most terrible image from Rwanda may be one in which neither killers nor victims appear, but one whose frame is filled by a pile of machetes.

 The film is less a retrospective than a profile of the photographer in action. It begins in the eerie silence of Kosovo in 1999 with  Natchtwey turning his camera on burning
farmhouses, grieving families and grave sites and follows him into the poorest sections of Jakarta, where homeless families live beside railroad tracks, and to the West Bank city of Ramallah in the early months of the current intifada.   It matters not a little that  Nachtwey is such an artful composer of images, that his work, although almost too painful to look at, is so graphic and eloquent.
The paradox of being immersed in the horrors of war and deprivation while at the same time remaining outside them, is central to the work he does. This documentary begins with a well-known quote from Robert Capa:
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."  Nachtwey, choking on tear gas in Ramallah and on sulfur fumes at an Indonesian mine, helping a fatally wounded colleague in South Africa or following Rwandan Hutus into the refugee camps of what was then Zaire, could hardly be closer to the action. And yet as he himself observes, he must also remain an outsider, a sympathetic observer of what is happening to other people.
This sympathy may be what distinguishes  Nachtwey from many of his colleagues. He acknowledges that recording grief, injury, death and distress is potentially a form of exploitation, but he makes it clear that the alternative — allowing man-made misery to remain invisible beyond the reach of those whose consciences should be shocked by it — is worse. The point that Nachtwey pushes through out the movie is that people of the world must see the horrible things that happen every day. In Nachtwey View this is the only way to change the world.


 sources:What i've learned by Cal Fussman. Esquire.com Oct.1 2005
My photographs bear witness ted.com may 27 2009
James Nachtwey by Michael Kimmelman New York time March 27 2009

Bananas by, Aaron Charny

Bananas (1971) – Woody Allen

Fielding Mellish (Woody Allen) is a goofy products tester living in New York City. When his political activist girlfriend dumps him for not being a leader and for acting immature, he decides to travel to communist land of San Marcos in Latin America.

While in San Marcos, Mellish meets with Dictator General Emilio M. Vargas (Carlos Montalbán), who tries to assassinate Mellish while disguised in rebel uniform. To make it look like the rebels assassinated a US citizen. The real rebels save Mellish from being assassinated and they develop a liking to him, he becomes president of San Marcos. When he returns to New York as President of San Marcos, the CIA gets suspicious of the new president. Mellish runs into his ex-girlfriend and tells her about the president seat, she falls back in love with him. In the end, this satire slapstick comedy is all about getting your girl back.

Allen has total control as writer, director and lead actor. Every scene in this film is taking a stab at pop culture and modern day society. Some examples  to show you what Allen satirizes; new products to help you work and exercise at the same time, getting beat up on the subway, buying adult magazines and the magic of getting the girl of your dreams,  J. Edgar Hoover is drag and the CIA sends US Troops to fight on both sides of the revolution as to not get it wrong and at the end miss America is on the witness stand and she voices her opinion on the matter. Every action and chase scene has goofy score to it. The film as a whole takes a stab at war, politics and love.

In an interview, Woody Allen was asked why he named the movie "Bananas". His response: "Because there are no bananas in it. The big, broad laugh comedy is a form that's rarely made these days," Allen said, "and sometimes I think it's the hardest kind of movie to make. With a comedy like 'It Happened One Night,' you have characters, a situation, a plot to keep things moving between laughs. But with a comedy like 'Bananas,' if they're not laughing, you're dead, because laughs are all you have.”

Great comedy, director is brilliant to point out the ridicule in the movie causing the audience to put things in the right perspective. Allen’s ability to combine humor with politics, slapstick and love makes the entire film a unique experience.

Sources

Hunter, Ian. "The Best Humour is Satire, and there's a Reason we have so little of it today." Citizens Centre Report Nov 04 2002

SISKEL, GENE. "Keeping Woody Allen from Going `Bananas'." Sun Sentinel: 1. Mar 06 1987.

Ebert, Roger. Woody Allen goes 'Bananas' Rev. of Bananas, dir Woody Allen. Chicago Sun Tribune May 2, 1971

The Producers by Jordan Kulm

          The Producers is an interesting film to analyze for a war and cinema class because it is not only satire on war but how war is portrayed in the entertainment industry and received by the general public. This 2005 film directed by Susan Stroman and written/produced by Mel Brooks is a film adaption of the Broadway musical adaption of the original film. This in itself supports the ridiculousness of the entertainment industry as The Producers is about the production of a purposefully offensive musical within the films narrative. War is involved as the basis for making a musical production a critical failure by glorifying Hitler and painting him as a hero.
          In the film, has-been producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) is ready to give up on show business when his accountant, Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) unintentionally devises a plot to embezzle funds for a musical that will surely flop and thus avoid the attention of IRS agents. The two become partners and begin their search for a play that is "A disaster! A catastrophe! An outrage! A guaranteed-to-close-in-one-night beauty!" as Bialystock puts it when he chances upon a musical called Springtime For Hitler. They employ the worst production team in all of Broadway and sit back as the show runs itself into the ground.
          Come curtain call of opening night the playwright/star actor playing Hitler, Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell), breaks his leg. The only person who can fill the role on such short notice is flamboyant homosexual director Roger DuBris (Gary Beach). Although this turn of events is unexpected, Bialystock and Bloom are certainly not about to return the ticket money, so the show proceeds. This is where Ian Hunter's article on satire would have come in handy. Hunter explains that good satire is a challenging achievement as the subjects of satire are often foolish in reality and leave writers hard-pressed to top real buffoonery by means of narrative or visual tools.
          Springtime For Hitler begins with typical show tune music, except the melody is casually praising Hitler's war efforts. The actors playing Nazi party members are Aryan worthy, beautiful, and fit with blond hair and blue eyes. The audience begins to exit the theater in outrage because the show not only avoids the foolish side of Nazi Germany but highlights the atrocious practices and mannerisms with a very lighthearted propagandist approach. Hitler makes his grand entrance and the departing audience is captivated by what they see.
          The Hitler on stage that supposedly commands this fantastically disciplined force is short like the real Hitler, has hair and a mustache like the real Hitler, and is severely more flamboyant than the real Hitler. These are all elements of success in a satirical piece that are only heightened by the stark contrast of tone in the opening moments of the musical. This answers Bialystock's question "How could this happen? We picked the wrong play, the wrong director, the wrong cast. Where did we go right?" as he and Bloom are lamenting over the incredible success of the show. Liebkind appears with a pistol, outraged that his fuhrer could be made a fool by the actor. To this, DuBris and his partner respond "He didn't need our help!" which is met with a bullet.

          Although this is the last time war is the focus of The Producers, Bialystock and Bloom have learned the effectiveness of satire. With the success of Springtime For Hitler, the IRS discovers their embezzlement and the pair end up in prison. Now that the most tragic and impacting war of the 20th century has been satirized, they utilize this experience and bring on the challenge of creating a new musical based on the controversial prison industrial complex which ends up getting them "pardoned for bringing song and dance into the hearts of every murderer, rapist and sex manic in Sing-Sing."

          In conclusion, the role of war in The Producers is not so direct and perhaps this makes analysis simpler. As a viewer, you are watching a film that is satire about people who make war satire for viewers like you. To make a heavy subject like war comedic you must focus the ridiculous truths  and exaggerate other key elements of truth to support and provide reasonable entertainment that is not boring, depressing, or entirely fictional. Society knows that war has occurred and wants to find reason behind millions of innocent people dying but does not want to linger on the subject so satire is used to soften the blow. Understanding how others justify such heinous acts requires one to think of ones self being capable of such an act. The fact that you may indeed enjoy some aspect of war, be it having power or knowing that you would kill any number of fellow "enemy" humans to go home to your own wife and children, is not a moral dilemma that anyone could face and hold the same outlook on life.





Sources

Hunter, Ian. "The Best Humour is Satire, and there's a Reason we have so Little of it Today." The Report Newsmagazine Nov 04 2002: 23-. ProQuest Central. Web. 12 Sep. 2012 .

Symons, Alex. "An Audience for Mel Brooks's THE PRODUCERS: The Avant-Garde of the Masses." Journal of Popular Film & Television 34.1 (2006): 24,27,29-32. ProQuest Central. Web. 12 Sep. 2012.

Scott, A. O. "'The Producers,' Again (This Time With Uma)." Rev. of The Producers. The New York Times 16 Dec. 2005: n. pag. Print.

Mass Effect by Mike Mitchell

The Mass Effect series is a space opera comprised of three action role playing games that put you in the role of Commander Shepard, an officer of the Navy branch of the Systems Alliance military. You kinda have a knack for saving the galaxy. In Mass Effect you start off by tailoring Commander Shepard to your liking, you decide everything from his/her background, personality, skills and looks. The way you shape your personality and the way people interact with you is done through a huge branching dialog system that awards you Paragon points when you say or do something good and Renegade points when you say or do something bad. Decide to help someone out? Or reassure someone feeling down? Paragon +15! Were you a total dick to someone or decided those orphans didn't really need to live? Renegade +20!

As the first Mass Effect begins Commander Shepard is just a regular old Alliance Navy officer (aside from any past war heroing and secret consideration of spectre status) who is thrown into extraordinary circumstances. What seems like a routine patrol mission is actually a secret reconnaissance mission , you and Citadel Spectre Nihlus go down to Eden Prime to recover a Prothean beacon. You discover the colony being attacked by Geth that are led by a rouge Spectre named Saren. You fight your way to the beacon and it imparts you with visions of war and death. After proving Saren's treachery they make you a Spectre and the previous captain of the SSV Normandy hands over control of the ship to you for use in apprehending the outlaw, all the while uncovering the truth that Saren is merely the puppet of a much greater evil. Over the course of the game your decisions not only have impact on future events of this game but in the series as a whole. You will even be forced on more than one occasion to decide who lives and dies; do you sacrifice one for the good of many or forsake them to keep those close to you alive and further your own agenda?

Enter Mass Effect 2, it's two years later and hurray! The galaxy has been saved! Until you get blown to pieces by an unknown ship with massive firepower while on Geth patrol. Everyone makes it off safely but you, being the captain of captains that you are, goes down with the ship. Several months after the entire galaxy believes you to be killed in action you wake up in a Cerberus medical facility and discover that because you are so awesome and The Illusive Man believes that the big bad from the previous game was only the beginning, they used their seemingly unlimited funds to perform some medical wizardry and turn that vacuum sealed, lump of charred matter back into a person. You now work for him whether you like it or not. Your mission this time around is to once again assemble a crack team of specialists and find a way to put a stop to the Collectors.

Your choices here have more weight; since the nature of your end goal basically amounts to a suicide mission you have many more chances to completely screw everyone over. For example, if you don't get upgraded armor then the Collectors will slice through your ship as if it were a block of cheese against a battle axe. When your team splits up to take on different objectives if you aren't careful about who you send to do what, it's very possible you won't be seeing that person again. Ever. And if you happen to stumble upon an ending where Shepard dies, you will not be able to import that save file into 3.

In Mass Effect 2 your morality rating is displayed visually by the amount of scar tissue you have. If you're a cool guy it all heals up nicely, but if you are King of the Assholes it actually gets worse and starts to glow red along with your eyes. 2 also introduces an interrupt system; tired of a certain reporter’s bullshit? Punch her in her stupid face. Friend beginning to break down as they tell you their life story? Step in and comfort them. This is the basis for how people react to you and gauge their loyalty accordingly, which is important if you want them to survive the Collector base.

So you stopped the Collectors, got schematics for a Reaper and it seems like everyone is finally going to believe you! Then the lot of them awake from dark space and begin to start wrecking the entire galaxy. Earth included. You barely make it off the planet as a Reaper invasion force is bombarding the planet and abducting or killing everyone in sight. Welcome to Mass Effect 3. You immediately begin efforts to try and rally an entire galaxy - that is not entirely fond of each other, especially the races outside of Council space - to the cause of stopping the Reapers. What you experienced before were merely skirmishes compared to what is to come, this is galactic war.

Multiplayer is introduced in this one and is not only not a tacked on piece of crap but also has effects on the single player campaign. In multiplayer, you team up with 3 other people and fight waves of enemies for control of the section of space you are fighting in. The enemies include every main antagonist force as well as every unit type from those forces. Winning lots of battles increases the percentage of that system you have been able to take back and contribute to your war assets in single player. Much like in 2 you should have a certain "preparedness level" before you attempt the final missions but at least this time around they have let you know ahead of time.