Explore the world of "feel-bad" movies, or films which appear, to aim, first and foremost, to disgust, offend or shock its audience. You could focus on films like The Human Centipede franchise, especially because the third instalment is in the process of being released. Analyse how these films are marketed, how the content aims to attract (or rather repulse – and by doing so, attract) the audience? Why are people drawn to such films and why do they continue to be green-lit? Can they ever exhibit any sort of artistic significance or social weight or are they just gratituous exploitation and a waste of time? Other examples or case studies could include: A Serbian Film, the Saw franchise (especially the later ones post-Saw 2 or 3), Antichrist, Dogtooth, Funny Games, Requiem for a Dream, Salo. Or, in addition/alternatively, you could stray away from horror and focus more on films which dwell in the realms of sadness and suffering or leave your with a bad taste in your mouth or just, generally, sad. These could include: American History X, The Green Mile, The Mist, other von Trier works (haven't personally seen the older stuff, yet, but I have heard they are depressing), Melancholia, Seven, Gone Girl, Happiness. I am sure the list could go on and on.
Would most likely focus on film, but if you could come up with case studies from other mediums, go for it.
I'm not sure if this'll help your case but Scream has a lot of blood, everywhere. They make absolutely sure to show it on screen. That might be a good one to talk about. And if I talk about other mediums, I know Mirai Nikki in the Anime medium can be visually disturbing and surprisingly adult in some circumstances. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
There seems to be a human fascination with extreme violence: violent news stories and media are more attractive to viewers than non-violent or positive ones. The fear factor is a great way to attract viewers. Why is this? Is it a cognitive association? Does our fear fascinate us? Find some studies on why this is used as a tool to draw in viewers in media. – Emilie Medland-Marchen9 years ago
In this article, you should be dissecting the cultural relevant themes that are in the movie "Dope" and rationalize why it may become a classic because it refers to many modern trends.
Cool topic, awesome idea to focus on an indie rather than blockbuster. The focus on narrative and stylistic choices may back up your overall argument. Explain how the combination of all three elements could develop a thorough analysis of Dope's cultural and social relevance. – Thomas Munday9 years ago
@Thomas Munday Maybe some day I'll do an analysis on an indie film. I just saw Dope recently and saw some relevant themes in the movie, so I'll just stick to that. But I'll consider the narrative and stylistic choices though.
– SoalaIda9 years ago
Remember when the Cat in the Hat featured Paris Hilton? Do you recall the sexual innuendos in The Grinch Who Stole Christmas? I don’t. However the live-action movies state otherwise. Despite pandering to an adult audience, these movies did poorly with both the critics and the audience. Are the gimmicks stated previously the only reason these movies failed? Could it be that Seuss books just can’t be turned into live-action movies? Or is there a deeper reason behind it?
The problem with the Seuss movies is that Hollywood does not know how to adapted 20 paged books into full length movies. If the books are too hard to stretch out into a movie, then simply just don't adapted it. The books are simply not made to be movies because of how strait forward,yet brilliant the books are. Trying to bring pulp culture into Seuss's creative and nonsensical world simply does not mix. I know I cringed when The Lorax had a Donkey Kong reference. In this case, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
I think that the failings of these movies is that they were, intrinsically, and consciously made to be "of" the time they were produced, whereas the books seemed to be timeless. I do not think a successful live-action adaptation of a Seuss story is impossible, but I think if it were to be done by mainstream Hollywood, they would not risk greenlighting it without these popular cultures or some sort of drawcard like Zac Efron. As aforementioned, a live-action or animated film is probably not necessary, especially, as I think his wife has vowed to reject all live-action adaptations because of The Cat in the Hat. Perhaps, it may be better to speak how other stories could be animated for widespread release. As far as I understand, at least Horton Hears a Who was pretty successful, both commercially and critically. I have heard that The Lorax is lacking, but, still, could be an interesting topic. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
Perhaps a new suggestion should be given. Instead of making these books into films, make them shorts, maybe a TV series. Animated for bonus points. A good point is that live action does not mix with Dr. Seuss. If it must be adapted, it must be animated. I remember watching an animated Cat in the Hat when I was young (so many cats, wow) so I know it works. It just has to be done right. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Dr. Seuss is my favorite author. I own twenty or thirty books, some from my own childhood (wonder what that original printing of Thidwick is worth??) and some I bought to read to my now-adult children. While I still love the art, the prose, and the lessons learned, I do not find full-length live action movies to be a workable medium in which to interpret this body of work.
For one, the need to expand and flesh-out the text into screenplay length is counter to the simplicity of purpose of the original works. Seuss books are designed and written to help children learn to read, to entertain minds with short attention spans, and to teach life’s important lessons, not to entertain the masses for 100 minutes. Many of the books are quite obviously liberal politically and may not translate well to general audiences who don’t go to children’s movies for political commentary. Remember that the original art work for Yertle the Turtle depicted Yertle as Hitler, causing the publisher to refuse to print until the character was changed.
No matter how a screen writer decides to change the message, someone will be offended. Dr. Seuss books are gentle and calm. Not well suited for car chases, gun violence, hand-to-hand combat scenes, or gratuitous sex, which means adaptations for the big screen will always flop.
– JanJolly8 years ago
Edge of Tomorrow was a successful and fresh take on the sci-fi genre in film, but not many know about its origin as a light novel and then a manga in the form of the Japanese "All You Need Is Kill." This article could look at and compare the source material to its Western counterpart as well as discuss the changes done and what was gained and lost in translation.
Interesting, I read the manga because of the hype behind it, then the light novel, but didn't quite keep up since I'm not much of a movies guy. A quick wikipedia summary of the plot suggests to me though that the action is glorified and the psychological effects downplayed in the film, whereas it's clearly the reverse in the original sources. – Austin9 years ago
Whenever a remake, adaptation, or a sequel comes out, fans can't help but compare it to the original because of how good the original was. On one hand, any film should always be judged in its own way, even if it is based on another property. On the other hand, does the film itself just beg to be companied to the original, simply because it was based on other property. Does comparing it to the original help us understand the flaw of the remake/adaptation/prequel, or does it blind as a viewer to enjoy anything new in a franchise.
It would help to broaden this a bit so we don't just talk about reboots but adaptations as well. The HP movies for example beg to be compared to the books, the Spider man reboots begs to be compared to the original trilogy which in turn begs to be compared to the comics. The good question is whether comparison is right. If anybody takes this up, I'd gladly read it. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
The remaking of a film is hardly anything new in Hollywood cinema. For decades and decades films have been made and remade, though there seems to be a particularly large influx of them in the last twenty years or so. When rebooting a film or franchise, do we as the viewer maintain that the latest iteration is indeed meant to be the 'true' story arch? When dealing with franchises, do the films become obsolete in terms of their plot, or are these new films merely supplementary, coexisting within a different universe? Further, what criteria helps define this disassociation? Is it merely a work's relevance, its objective, (or subjective,) quality set against the other installments? Finally, once a film is remade, are any of the iterations to be considered 'true'? Or none of them?
The thing to think about with superhero movies is, each different incarnation, or reboot, is like a different multiverse - same as the comics. Now the trouble with rebooting a franchise is trying to still remain creative and give the fans something new, while maintaining the source material, which in this case is the comics. For example, I thought Man of Steel changed too much about Superman's mythology; yet I understand they were trying to do a new take on the character. It's all about balance. – cdenomme969 years ago
I agree with cdenomme96. It should be looked at as a multi-verse. What is canon- or the true story- depends on the fan in particular. What's damaging to this notion however is the fact that once the reboot is made, it gains more focus and the old one isn't talked about as much. When the media only ever talks about the new in terms of entertainment, things get difficult. In that sense, the new most of the time becomes the new canon because the old is generally forgotten. Part of this article, for whoever takes it up, should examine the battle between the old and the new. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Mainstream art/entertainment production appears to create works which are reducible to either an easily explained concept or premise, which can usually be understood with one interaction with it. This also fits into the industrial nature of entertainment production, wherein an artist usually approaches a production company with an idea and that production company decides whether they will fund said idea. With examples of works which exemplify not being able to be summed up briefly, intentionally or otherwise, juxtaposed to those which aimed to be easily explained and understood, analyse the current landscape of art and entertainment. Is there a place for narrative complexity and the potential of a lack of understanding in modern art?
Examples could include Inherent Vice, Infinite Jest, Synecdoche, New York, Primer, Donnie Darko, Cloud Atlas, Upstream Color, Mulholland Drive, House of Leaves.
Could focus on film, literature or arts in general.
The advent of war movies is still going strong. More often than not, a blockbuster has more to do with war and the soldiers involved than it has to do with the every-day problems we're used to in sit-coms. But they're not all directed towards a patriotic audience. A Few Good Men makes the viewer question actions, Enemy at the Gates is solely to do with the war between the Russians and the Germans, so what is the real purpose behind filming war stories if not to make an American audience feel patriotic?
It would also be useful to think of the time period of the film. Films in the first half of the twentieth century may certainly have been filmed for a patriotic audience, while modern films deviate from such a purpose. When writing about war films, one writes about the culture of the time. But on the other hand, with the demise of such strong nationalism comes another movement of very strong patriotism, seen mostly in country, southern, and rural cultures. I think the best film to talk about when tackling this subject would be American Sniper. It has stirred both patriotism and anger in many viewers. – HeatherDeBel9 years ago
It is questionable whether war films are really meant to leave audiences -- American ones, especially -- with an enhanced feeling of patriotism. Going through a list of great war movies Hollywood has produced through the decades, one would have to include "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930), "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Paths of Glory" (both 1957) all the way up to "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line" (both 1998). All of those films are really anti-war movies, examining the futility and folly of combat. It is more difficult to think of any stellar, non-propaganda films that really seem to invoke patriotism to promote warfare. – John Wilson9 years ago
Interesting, so your case would be that war movies come out to go against war, not really with it. I like the examples you gave, so I'm guessing Enemy at the Gates is an exception to that rule? – SpectreWriter9 years ago
