Film

Look into why movie goers can actively disregard "scientific problems" in films such as Star Trek and Star Wars, but grow exceedingly less forgiving during films like "Gravity", "Interstellar", and most recently "The Martian".

Explore the role of the "disability con" in films like The Usual Suspects, The Score, and The Ex. The disability con consists of a character feigning disability in order to appear harmless or pitiable. This is an example of what David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder call "narrative prosthesis." What is the effect of characters faking disabilities? How do these films alter the way we view disability? Are these portrayals harmful, helpful, or neutral?

The recent outcry from the public about the lack of diversity in the Oscars nominations has created a huge scandal. But is the Oscars really something that matters? Do these awards actually correlate with the general recognition received in popular cinema – critics and audiences alike? Is this issue something that we should focus on or should our attention be better spent elsewhere? This will discuss the history of the Academy Awards and the diversity of its nominees and winners, as well as recent trends.

On the surface it appears that Avatar (the one with the blue people, not the Last Airbender) is a critique on imperialist violence, one long overdue in our culture. But the movie falls short not just once but several times, changing from a thoughtful social commentary to just another feel-good, white-savior blockbuster. I'm not here to critique the writing, though god knows it needs it.

I'm here to talk about how Jake, the wounded soldier, still endorses violence as the only option to take down the Colonel. "I was hoping you'd say that?" And then the film's narrative dances around having Jake kill the Bad Guy, because oh my god can't have your hero kill someone on screen. Though apparently Jake's killed lots of people before.

On the surface, the final battle is won (with Eywa's help) to preserve the balance of the land. This is undermined by the blatant glorying in death the film takes – the battle is framed as heart-stopping, glorious, something to revel in when you are winning and to dread when you are not.

In the end, the day is won with more violence, endorsed by a deity. There is no even stopping to think on the harm done after the battle – the casualties are swept under the film's rug, because they died for a good cause right? Oh, and some of the 'good' humans get to stay. Even though there'll be no funding for their equipment to be maintained and it's likely they'll NEVER get back to Earth. Oh well, they can live on a planet with floating rocks and air that's poisonous to them, right?

I am constantly baffled at the still perpetuating amount of Caucasian actors and the lack of diversity in today's film industry. This can range anywhere from the newest comedies, like "The Intern," to action movies like "Jurassic World," to superhero movies like "The Avengers." There may be one or two characters of another ethnicity, such as one African-American or one Indian, but the majority of the characters, especially the main characters, remain to be white.

Why do you think that is? In the 21st century world that we are supposed to be living in, where racism and discrimination are frowned upon, why is there still a permanence, a continuity, and a focus on almost all Caucasian casts in the film industry? What is it about Hollywood that still lacks diversity? Is it the still perpetuating white privilege of society that elevates Caucasian opportunities, but diminishes that of other ethnicities?

Aside from all of the work that gets put into a film, there is a specific look in terms of color grading that higher grossing/higher budget films seem to have. The change from black and white films to color was an exciting moment in film history, so why does it seem as though the latest trend in Hollywood is to make the images darker, specifically more blue and more green than realistic life? What do those colors exhibit to viewers, similarly, what makes them and that kind of grading the latest artistic choice in blockbusters?

The film's title suggests the possibility of 'The Danish Girl' being either two of the lead characters, Lili and Gerda. However, whilst the story may seem to be about one of the first prominent transgender, it really becomes about the story of Lili's wife, Gerda, and her struggle with Einar's transformation into Lili. Whilst Hooper delves into Gerda's attraction to Hans, he does not really explore Lili's attraction to him. Critics have argued that the film conventionalises the story, that Hooper makes into one of charm rather than really showing the struggle of this emotional and physical change.

Does the film handle the subject of transgender successfully? Who was the real 'Danish girl' in the film?

There's a large volume of stuff out there that makes up the horror genre. But for all its variety, it just feels like there's a lot of the same thing. With the recent and upcoming horror movies of "The Boy" and "The Forest" (featuring famous actresses from "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones", respectively), one has to wonder whether anything new is being done here. Tried-and-true tropes seem to be the basis for these movies, and one might wonder as to the prevalence of these tropes throughout a whole slew of horror movies from the past decade.

When you say "horror movie", most people probably think of dolls, knives, clowns, gore, axe murderers, and–most prominently–'jump scares'. These are all well-recognized symbols and elements of the genre. As far as a topic goes, I think it would be interesting to talk about what really separates horror movies from each other. Not necessarily just in general–a large part of discussion might be what in particular separates 'good' horror movies from 'bad' horror movies. In the end, what makes a movie uniquely scary?