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.

The Thin Red Line by Jordan Kulm

Title/Year: The Thin Red Line/1998
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Terrence Malick/USA/1943
Budget: $52 million
Gross: $98,126,565
Synopsis:  Director Terrence Malick's adaptation of James Jones' autobiographical 1962 novel, focusing on the conflict at Guadalcanal during the second World War. 
Narrative and Visual Keywords: war, suffering, nature, death
Characterization/ Dialogue Characters are relatively flat typical war characters as Malick is a heavy visual director
Camera/lighting/editing technique: Heavily cinematic variation including wide shots and tighter shots for action
 Political/ Social Commentary The unavoidable destruction of beauty brought by war
Historical Relevance/ Recognition WWII
Random fact, Etc.  The original cut of the film was just under 6 hours in length. Over a million feet of film was shot. 



1. Are they any evident elements of an evolving group integration?

The group of men from company C are pretty divided as they are bunked up in their tiny little ship, but once they hit the battle field, things are different. When life is on the line they get smart real quick and truly become a unit with a singular goal. Whether it be life or liberty, victory is the catalyst in this unit.

2. Are there any scenes where self-sacrifice is apparent?

The biggest self-sacrifice in this movie is what each individual soldier left behind in America while they are out risking their lives to protect it. One scene in particular shows a flashback of Private Bell having intimate moments with his wife as he says "My dear wife, you get something twisted out of your insides by all this blood, filth, and noise. I want to stay changeless for you. I want to come back to you the man I was before." showing that he is protecting his wife and country at the cost that he will never be able to enjoy them the same way after the brutality of war.

3. Answer TWO of the following question on analyzing characterization:

*Identify the central (most important) character or characters. Which characters are static and which ones are developing? Which characters are flat and which ones are round?

Private Witt would be the central character of the story while there are many cameo characters played by big shot actors like John Travolta and Jared Leto of 30 Seconds to Mars.

*Which minor characters function to bring out the personality traits of the major characters? What do they help reveal?

Right from the beginning the main character, Private Witt, is living in a tribe of simple people. This is his happiest moment and the time he is truly exploring himself to find spiritual enlightenment.

Hot Shots part Deux by Kevin Fisk

Satire is a powerful art form, which helps points out deficiencies in human behaviors and the issues which result from them in such a way that they become absurd, even hilarious.  In effect, satire ends up being entertaining to a broader audience. Satire also has the ability to protect its creator from criticism, because it is implied rather than overtly stated.  In the over the top comedy “Hot Shots part Deux”, director Jim Abrahams’ objective was simple:  to cram as much satire as he could into an hour and a half.  Amidst the silliness, the foundation for the film is laid in the mold of a “going in to get the guys” type picture a la the overly macho Rambo III.   Although Sheen plays the Rambo character as best he can, he is clearly less built than Sylvester Stallone, so it is truly hilarious when he walks through every scene flexing his arms.  “Why me?” says Harley.  He is met with the reply “because “you’re the best of what’s left.” Analyzing a film like this from an academic perspective is almost impossible.  Jim Abrahams leaves no stone unturned when deciding whom to take shots at in the film.  Political figures, the enemy, even the protagonist Topper Harley, played by Charlie Sheen is mocked from the start of the film.  The film even picks on itself, and other movies in the war genre when the characters start referring to their world as a movie.  “Why are you here?  Of all the jungles you could be in, this one.”  Says Topper.  “It’s the sequel Topper.  I had to come.”  Replies Ramada

The sheer randomness of the humor is what makes this movie so great.  The biggest laugh came when Topper is on a fishing boat, making his way through a jungle river.  As he passes another boat, his real life father is on the boat, re-creating a scene out of apocalypse now, but with a twist, they each yell to each other “I loved you in wall street”.  The random humor keeps the movie fresh.  Taking a short cut through the jungle leads the team through a Beverly Hills backyard barbecue, or a cutaway in a fight scene for a quick promo: “War, it’s fantastic!”

The best satire in the film comes from instances in conversation and every-day life.  “You have to be joking.”  Says Topper.  “Look, if I was joking, I would say, a horse walks into a bar, the bartender says why the long face?”  Replies Ramada, Topper’s love interest in the film.  Another example is when a radio dispatcher is trying to get the soldiers attention. “The eagle has landed.  The Crips are raiding the liquor store” “you yanking my chain?”

Although the film desensitizes those who watch it to mediocre jokes (Which the movie is full of), I did appreciate the way the script uses all-purpose bad jokes in place of a common go-to crutch for most spoof comedy: gross out humor.  Other than a scene with the president throwing up sushi in the Japanese Prime ministers lap, the movie was clean, which made for a more enjoyable viewing experience.  The movie rarely made me laugh out loud, but I had a smile on my face for the entire hour and a half.  The movie ended with an ending, which was intentionally as cliché as possible:  A long kiss followed by a chopper headed off into the sunset.  The ending was fitting, given the movie’s to have as shallow a plot as possible while making fun of other films.

The Power of Ridicule: An Analysis of Satire- Megan LeBoeuf

The best humor is satire, and there's a reason we have so little of it today-

Ian Hunter

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) by Noelle Henderson

I can't say I have exactly figured out Beasts of the Southern Wild, if there is anything to actually figure out.  I enjoyed the movie overall, but didn't quite understand the giant boar like creature storyline.  I actually think the movie could have done without the beast idea, which I guess would defeat the purpose of the title.  However I very much enjoyed the storyline involving Hushpuppy at The Bathtub.

I thought there were a lot of beautiful shots, although I didn't enjoy the handheld parts following her running around.  Personally, I would have shot that differently and not had it be so jerky.  I was in the front of the theater up close, so perhaps I would feel differently about it if I was farther away and didn't feel quite as dizzy.

I think there is definitely something metaphorical going on with the beasts.  There were shots going from the four beasts running to the four girls running, so I got the impression that the girls were being related to the beasts.  I think I will have to see it again to get a better understanding of the beast plot.  I did really like seeing Hushpuppy's character evolve throughout the film, and become a leader like her dad was.  I didn't enjoy the way her dad treated her and how aggressive he was towards her, but I don't think she would have evolved into the strong character she did if he wasn't that way toward her.

Overall I enjoyed seeing it, I liked that it was a unique idea and I couldn't predict where the story was going.  And I thought the girl who played Hushpuppy was amazing.  

Tropic Thunder (2008) by Noelle Henderson

Tropic Thunder uses satire to highlight it’s most crude and controversial parts, topics including the Vietnam War, veterans, race, the mentally handicapped, homosexuality, Hollywood, and drug addiction.  It is definitely a film that can be seen as completely offensive and idiotic, however if the viewer understands the stereotypes the movie is poking fun at, it is hilarious.  Many people are outraged by this film because they don’t understand that it is satirical, and that the writers aren’t making fun of the topics themselves, but rather the cultural stereotypes that exist pertaining to them.     

The opening scene is a ridiculous battle being shot for a movie within the movie, instead of this scene being a parody about the Vietnam War itself, it is about typical war movies.  There is nothing funny about war as we know it in the real world, however through the use of grotesque visuals in this scene that are so overdone, it makes battle look comedic.  The scene makes extreme violence look funny not only with it’s overflowing intestines and blood fountains, but also with it’s use of slow motion and dramatic musical score.  Through these techniques the horror of war and death is forgotten, unlike in typical war films where there is just as much graphic death seen, but there is nothing funny about it.  

The characters and the dialogue in the movie are also crucial for the battle scenes to stay light hearted.  The group of guys are a pack full of stereotypical masculine roles, that could exist in a real war movie.  There is Four Leaf (Ben Stiller) who is an egotistical testosterone filled hero, Sargent Osiris (Robert Downey Jr.) is the older father figure leader in charge of the unit, Motown (Brandon T. Jackson) is the badass young black guy, Fats (Jack Black) is the clumsy white fat guy, and Brooklyn (Jay Baruchel) is the young, smart, and inexperienced kid.  Just the names alone add a comedic effect, without their strong personalities to go along with them.  They all use crude profanity and witty war slang that is so absurd, it is hard not to laugh because they use combinations of words that don’t even make sense.  Then comes the stylistic and highly improbable situations, similar to Rambo.  At one point, Sargent Osiris runs in the middle of open fire and shoots Vietnamese soldiers to the side from behind his back.  Once he has saved Four Leaf and picks him up, Four Leaf prevents a bomb from hitting the helicopter by hitting it up in the air with his hands while still on Sargent Osiris’ back.  Such situations would not happen in Saving Private Ryan, for example. 

The horrors of war and use of satire is primarily simplified through the use of melodrama.  Similar to older movies like The Birth of a Nation and The Little American, those movies were comedic because they were so overdone and melodramatic.  Whether or not they were supposed to be funny for their time, they are now because acting has evolved over the decades into a different style.  Tropic Thunder uses a similar melodramatic style which is funny, because it doesn’t meet today’s acting standards and comes off as cheesy.  

Outside of the war theme, the movie also uses strong satire when referring to Hollywood.  Everyone in the industry; the actors, agents, studio executives, directors, etc. are portrayed as pompous and greedy.  The best example is Les Grossman (Tom Cruise), the studio executive producing the movie.  He is the most extreme portrayal with his crude, angry, egotistical, and power hungry personality.  The characters that are shown back in LA, reveal the truths about the culture of Hollywood and the corrupt things that go on there.  When Ben Stiller’s real life character (Tugg Speedman) is taken hostage by Vietnamese drug lords, Grossman decides to not pay the ransom and use his death as a publicity stunt and make money off of him.  He then offers Speedman’s agent Rick Peck (Matthew McConaugey) a G5 jet and money to not say anything about it.  This shows just how much Hollywood is about money, and is the primary focus in the industry.  

The article, The Best Humour is Satire, and There’s a Reason Why We Have So Little of it Today (Hunter) says, “Satire, in turn, depends upon the pricking of pretensions, showing up the high and mighty for the buffoons they truly are.”  Tropic Thunder does a great job of doing just that, poking fun at both Hollywood and war movies themselves.  The film also successfully mocks stereotypes we have in our culture about different groups of people.  Although it does so in a less than politically correct fashion and has offended many people, that’s what makes it so comedic.  

Sources:

Dargis, Manohla. "War May Be Hell, but Hollywood Is Even Worse." The New York Times 12 Aug. 2008: n. pag. NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 12 Aug. 2008. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/movies/13trop.html>.

Ebert, Roger. "Tropic Thunder." Chicago Sun Times 12 Aug. 2008: n. pag. Tropic Thunder. Chicago Sun Times, 12 Aug. 2008. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. 

<http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080811/REVIEWS/593221592>.

Hunter, Ian. "The Best Humour Is Satire, and There's a Reason Why We Have So Little of It Today." The Report News Magazine 29.21 (2002): n. pag. United Western Communications, 4 Nov. 2002. Web. 22 Aug. 2012. 

<http://search.proquest.com/docview /202959233?accountid=130772>.

Smith, Lynn. "The Joke Is On You." Los Angeles Times 15 Aug. 2008: n. pag. Latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, 15 Aug. 2008. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. 

<http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/15/entertainment/et-etan15>.

Catch-22(1970) by Kerry Kutzer (option D)

           Catch 22 is a film directed by Mike Nichols, adapted from the Joseph Heller novel of the same name.  We follow a WWII bombardier, Captain Yossarian as he struggles to come to grips with his crippling fear of death every time he climbs into a plane.  Having never read the book, I cannot personally comment on it but the film is hefty combination of both satire and shock.  Usually setting you up with the comedy and then dropping you down with pure shock.  It is a fairly funny film, but if you haven’t read the book, like me, it can be somewhat difficult to follow.  When this film lies on the satire, it lays it on thick, typically in the depictions of the characters surrounding our lead, Yossarian.

            Col. Cathcartt the man in charge of the airbase is a man out for glory and recognition at any cost.  He continues to raise the amount of missions his men have to fly before being rotated out in the hopes of having the squadron with the most amount of missions and a medals.  In one scene in particular, Cathcartt whines to the base chaplain that he didn’t make the Saturday Morning Post.  We are seeing the idea of a man so obsessed with notoriety that he seems to almost forget that he is fighting a war.  Another example of satire through character is the character Major Major.  Yes his first and last name is Major.  When the base loses its squadron commander, Col. Cathcartt promotes Major Major to, well, to a Major.  Yes, Major Major Major.  Even though Major has never led a squadron before let alone even fly a plane, Cathcartt decides that he is the only Major on base and thus the only one qualified for the job.  Major Major spends the rest of the film attempting to dodge people who attempt to come to him with problems.   Here we see a man frightened by the prospect of having so much responsibility lumped on him when he has no idea what he is doing.  We see it in an overtly comical way but still a very realistic and relatable.

            One of my favorite examples of satire in the film is the least satirical in my mind because I can truly see it actually happening.  At one point, Yossarian and his squadron are ordered to bomb a small town on the coast.  When Yossarian figures out that bombing the town would have no military importance and would end up killing innocents for no reason, he drops his bombs in the ocean.  The rest of the squadron follows suit.  When the higher ups learn of this, they panic.  Rather than deal with the PR fiasco that would go with such a failed mission, they concoct a story of bravery and award the entire squadron medals.  This situation stands out to me because of how it simply reeks of the truth and at its heart, that’s what true satire is.  True satire presents you with the horrifying truth and then makes you laugh at it.

            At the heart of the film is our protagonist Yossarian.  He is a sane man coping with an insane situation and is surrounded by insane people.  He spends the entirety of the film attempting to convince people he’s crazy so he doesn’t have to fly anymore but it is to no avail.  The catch is that he is seemingly the only sane man surrounded by insane people making him the odd man out and by default, making him the crazy one.  There are almost too many examples of amazing satire in this film to be discussed here but I strongly advise everyone to watch it.  Films like Catch 22 and M*A*S*H* have really opened my eyes to just how effective satire can be when dealing with rough issues.  It hands us very deep, emotional, meaningful and sometimes disturbing messages but in a light and hilarious wrapper.  I agree with Ian Hunter when he says the best humor is satire and I believe, especially in times like these, we need more of it.

Sources

  Ebert, Roger. "Catch-22 :: Rogerebert.com :: Reviews." Catch-22 :: Rogerebert.com :: Reviews. Sun Times, n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19700101/REVIEWS/1010305/1023>.

Hunter, Ian. "The Best Humor Is Satire and There's a Reason We Have So Little of It Today." Citizens Centre Report 4 Nov. 2004: n. pag. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. <http://search.proquest.com.ai.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/219299221?accountid=130772>.

Canby, Vincent. "Catch 22." New York Times 25 June 1970: n. pag. Print.

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF1738E760BC4D51DFB066838B669EDE

Catch 22-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln81Y87DHQA

Major Major Major-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFujE3Y-ZI&feature=related

Beasts of the Southern Wild(2012) by Kerry Kutzer

Beasts of the Southern Wild was a fantastic film.  It was beautifully shot, the C.G. elements were pulled off very nicely and overall the film was touching.  I found it interesting to see this entirely different slice of life in the United States.  The stories of the those living in “The Bathtub” are something that I’ve never really been exposed to before and I don’t believe enough attention has been paid to that lifestyle.  That being said, the film did touch on quite a few themes that we’ve discussed in our deconstruction of war cinema.  The film presents the viewer with a true “us vs. them” theme when it comes to those in the Bathtub and the people behind the wall.  These people are willing to do whatever it takes to protect their way of life.  When outsiders do come to help,  they are presented as invaders and our heroes feel like prisoners of war.    

Auteur Theory (Option G) David Lean’s The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) by Andrew Barrick

Title/Year: The Bridge on the River Kwai / 1957

Director/Birth Place /Year Born: David Lean/England/1908

Budget: $3 Million Approx.

Gross: $33 Million Approx.

Synopsis: Set during WWII, A British colonel after defying a Japanese POW camp commander helps oversee the construction of a bridge that will span the Kwai River. Meanwhile an escaped American officer with the help of Allies attempts to return to the camp and destroy the bridge.

Narrative/Visual Keywords: WWII, Prisoner of War, British, Japanese, Escape, Morale, Bridge, Sabotage.

Characterization/Dialogue: The film stars William Holden, Jack Hawkins, and Alec Guinness, with them all playing lead commanding roles, even the secondary characters in the film developed and have personally identifiable traits. Dialogue is delivered is classic Lean style, with significant relationships built between the characters. The film is based loosely on true events during the construction of the Kwai Bridge on the Burma-Siam railway during WWII.

Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique: Panavision format, Wide Angles, Long Takes, Tracking and Dolly Shots, Natural outdoor lighting, Epic grand sense of scope and vision throughout the film.

Political/Social Commentary: Director David Lean based the film on the novel of the same name by Pierre Boulle. He was a secret agent with the Free French, and based some of his imprisonment and forced labor experiences on the Death Railway where over 200,000 perished. Boulle would also go on to write the novel The Planet of the Apes, another work ripe with social and political commentary.

Notable Collaborations: This was the third of six films that Lean and actor Sir Alec Guinness worked on together. The film was produced by Sam Spiegel who would go on to collaborate with Lean on Lawrence of Arabia and A Passage to India. Spiegel was known for producing The African Queen and On the Waterfront.

Random fact: The Bridge on the River Kwai was nominated for 8 Academy Awards and won sever Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Writing, Best Music, Best Film Editing, and Best Cinematography.

In the case of director David Lean and his works, I would argue for the case that he as filmmaker could be considered an auteur. As pointed out in The Auteur Theory of Film essay, “The older auteurs didn’t dream about camera movement, they dreamed about characters, whom they followed with their cameras.” With a filmography spanning five decades, Lean has left lasting influence on what I would consider other visionary auteurs, including the Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Sergio Leone, Steven Spielberg and countless other contemporary filmmakers.  Following Lean’s style, these other director’s will often follow their complex characters with the camera's lens.

Originating from influential French filmmakers and critics during the 50’s, the Auteur Theory explores the notion of creative control and vision in cinema. Auteur theory implies that the director is in complete control of the film and is the film’s sole “author”, disassociated from film studio constraints. The collective creative process of filmmaking is also ignored by this theory. While Columbia Pictures and the producer of The Bridge on the River Kwai, Sam Spiegel, would certainly have had some thoughts or changes that they would have suggested that Lean, the film clearly is a hallmark of his directing technique. “Auteur Theory, in its heyday, concentrated attention exclusively on the fingerprints, thematic or stylistic, of the individual artist” (Wood) And Leans thematic and stylistic fingerprints are all over his films.

In the Lean’s Passion Was on the Screen article from the New York Times Caryn James states “Though his facility seems to suggest the anonymity of the old Hollywood studio days, Mr. Lean was not a director for hire. He never resorted to making quick films for easy money. Instead he made relatively few films and often spent years making painstaking preparations and shooting in exotic locations.” Lean certainly was a man of passion and vision when it came to his creative output. A film like Bridge on the River Kwai is the collimation of Lean’s creative process and vision as an auteur filmmaker. The film was shot in Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, a remote island, with a cast and crew of hundreds. The placement and movement of the camera is specifically positioned to emphasize the characters emotions and the large-scale scope of the film. The actor’s eyes in Lean film as consistently focused on to heighten the sense of human drama.

From his version of Great Expectations to his final film A Passage to India; which he also wrote the screenplay and edited, David Lean throughout his filmography “captured what films are all about.” (James) During his film career he was nominated for nine Academy Awards, seven of which were for best director. David Lean’s epic scope and foresight made him an innovator in film and a true auteur of the motion picture industry.

David Lean Accepts the AFI Life Achievement Award in 1990

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLAj6Sbrh6k

Sources:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lean

Ideology, Genre, Auteur

http://search.proquest.com.ai.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/210263746/fulltext/138FD1C1A92735595B7/2?accountid=130772

Wood, Robin. Film Comment 13.1 (Jan/Feb 1977): 46-51

FILM; Lean's Passion Was on the Screen

http://search.proquest.com.ai.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/428038096/fulltext/138FD2427982690F1A4/2?accountid=130772

James, Caryn, New York Times [New York, N.Y.] 21 Apr 1991: A.13.

The Auteur Theory of Film: Holy or Just Full of Holes?

http://search.proquest.com/docview/428908266?accountit=130772

Grimes, W. New York Times [New York, N.Y.] (1993, Feb 20) pp. 1-1.9

Galaxy Quest- by Carol Ostling

 

 

Galaxy Quest is a sci-fi parody about actors of a T.V shoe who end up defending a group of aliens against an alien bully. Beyond the comedy is comments to the audience intended to make one think. The movie is a parody of star trek; however, I believe that the simplification of violence helps show human nature.

In this movie we often see the unit dynamic versus the lone individual. Sometimes the lone individual( commander Taggart) is able to get this accomplished one his own.  Sure the commander can fight a little beast one his own but he cannot fight the bully of the galaxy on his own. This is often highlighted throughout the movie that it is the unit coming together that is able to overcome all. The idea of the unit coming together is also emphasized through the aliens learning to come together and defend themselves.  It becomes never just one person’s lone success but everyone’s own specific strengths.

When violence is simplified to the extent of this movie it seems like the irony of life is more evident than if it was true blue violence. Such as a clip that is in the movie where the actors are trying to explain acting to the aliens. The aliens do not understand this concept of lies but they end up seeing film a historical document. This reminds me of how we have a cultural imagination and memory of what war is. Whether it is someone acting or a documentary these ideas become ingrained in our cultural and thus become a part of us.

There is also a great example of why people go to war. Some are just happened to be there, some are thrown into leadership. Other people start fighting because the enemy killed someone that they were connected to, as with the case of Alexander (aka Dr. Lazarus). Throughout most of the movie he is portrayed an unwilling participant and kind of pacifist.  It’s not until he sees one of the aliens die is he willing to fight. It is a funny scene but the innocents of the scene and of the comedy made me feel the death of this nice little alien even more.

Galaxy Quest maybe a parody of star trek but at the heart of the story is comments one violence and group dynamics. Real violence can and is terrifying but sometimes you’ve got to suit up and defend yourself.

 

 

Sources :

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991224/REVIEWS/912240303/1023

Title The best humour is satire, and there's a

reason we have so little of it today

Author Hunter, Ian

Title American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire

Author Mintz, Lawrence

WAR COMIC BOOKS IN AMERICA - SGT. ROCK by Bryan Tosh

GOOD, EVIL and EASY - 

When most of us think of comic books we generally think of those that have been recently flooding Hollywood with fantastic stories of super-heroes and mythical characters with powers beyond reason. Being a self-proclaimed comic book fanboy myself, I would have to admit the same. Comic books and real world war do not necessarily lend themselves to a feel good reading combination. There was a time when the military characters in war comics were becoming just as popular as the bright colored characters in super-hero comics. It was short lived, however. Joseph Witek discusses in fair detail about war comics, one in particular, in his essay The Dream Of Total War. In his essay, Mr. Witek discusses the evolution of the war comic and its' place in society and among other comic books as well. Witek goes into detail about one specific title - Total War: MARS Patrol, calling it a "bizarre military fantasy". 

Witek is apt in choosing this title as it gives an excellent example of just how far publishers were willing to go at making an attempt to get their war titles into the main stream. Total War was released during the Cold War era and plenty of themes which touch on this issue are present in Total War, but it takes a more science fiction approach rather than a real world approach. Good and evil is clearly present, but comic books as a whole have always drawn that line between good and evil, for the most part. Of course, like any media, whether it be books, film, TV or comic books, they are a reflection of an era and the issues within that era. There was a time when even comic books weren't so cut and dry in the distinction of good and evil. 

In my opinion, however, one character remained as a solid definition of good and remains timeless. As I mentioned earlier, not many of us think of war comics when we think of comic books, but one such character instantly came to my mind. He has fought in WWII, appears to have near superhuman abilities but is still mortal, he has even been rumored to have been killed more than once, and he keeps on coming back. The war comic book character I am referring to is none other than Sgt. Frank Rock. He is the "Top Kick" of Easy Company during WWII and served in the European theater. Sgt. Rock and his band of rough and tough comrades, encounter danger at every turn in each issue of Sgt Rock series. Most of the stories usually involve Easy Company coming under attack or provoking an attack and then just when it looks like all hope is lost, Sgt Rock steps in and single handedly takes on the enemy. One such issue, Easy Company has just been through a fierce fire fight, even Sgt Rock has taken a blow or two. It looks like victory has been claimed, but a Nazi commander has escaped. Rock orders Easy Company to stand down and rest up as the good Sgt. pursues the lone Nazi. Sgt Rock encounters the Nazi officer and hand to hand combat begins. Rock bests the baddy however, slamming his head into the snow covered ground and suffocating the Nazi. 

The Sgt Rock series, as with most military comic books of the time, didn't fair so well. Although it was under the DC Comics label and was more successful than other war comics because of it, it still didn't have the commercial success as Superman or Batman. There were even cross over issues where Superman was disguised as a newbie to Easy Company and ends up saving the entire company in battle, Sgt Rock included. DC didn't give up on the Sarge though. He has sprung up now and again throughout time in the DC Universe. Even serving as a General and appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Lex Luthor. (Yes, Lex Luthor was voted in as president at one point and forced out of office... no surprise.)

Why does the good Sgt keeping coming back? He represents honor, courage, bravery, and commitment. When Sgt Rock was being published regularly, the Vietnam war was in swing. Sgt Rock was attempting to show the good that can still come from the military and not just what the media decides to show us. Which is also one reason I think WWII was the war of choice for Sgt Rock to fight in. It was a war that everyone rallied around and here was this all American Pittsburgh Steel worker, completing mission after mission and becoming the strong leader and hero we hoped we could still be. He has no super powers, he is human, yet he is still a hero among the SUPER heroes of DC Comics. 

Sgt. Rock has even been brought back to WWII for a special graphic novel where Rock is placed during an actual historic WWII battle. Painstaking research was done to get the story just right and so that Sgt Rock could easily be placed in that story without it deviating from history. I believe Sgt Rock will be coming back again soon to remind us that good is still out there, regardless of whether you are pro-military or not, Sgt Rock is a character we can rally behind when our real world struggles may seem too much to bare. If you're searching for a clear distinction between good and evil, Sgt. Rock makes it crystal clear.