Topics

The film cache of War World I, World War II, and Vietnam dramatizations are continual fodder for the curious and critic alike. The ancient battles of Europe and Asia have had their turn in front of the camera lens and the recent terrorism and rogue posturing leave no doubt that the theaters will draw revelers back in droves for the foreseeable future. Does the war formula of the past persist in terms of viewer expectation and recent innovation such as night vision? How does the ever changing geopolitical agenda and the socioeconomic appetite influence the confrontational depiction on the silver screen or the plasma screen? Does CGI enhance or devalue the tendency to transcend the dilemma physically, ideological or existentially? Consider the early stop motion techniques of Jason and the Argonauts (skeleton sword attack), War Games (teen hacker), The Hunt for Red October (espionage), or Terminator 2 (apocalyptic dream) for analysis of realism and suspension of disbelief in new battle fronts. Are psychological warfare or cyber-attacks in virtual space the future of wars, drone missions and stealth raids a nascent ploy, or is there still a place for the dog fights and tank ambushes of early combat?

An analysis of the trend of "elevated horror", and how A24 curates and establishes the pillars of this trend through the films it chooses to purchase. There seems to be a school of thought that is under the impression that films like The Babadook, Hereditary and The Witch (which could all be considered as familial "drama" films masquerading as horror) are refreshing because horror has been "devoid of thematic resonance" in the past and the genre is having a resurgence of some kind. Important to consider that all of these filmmakers seem to hold horror at arm's length, stating in interviews that they weren't trying to make a horror film and that they see their work as a "family drama" or some other derivative and cliched response.

The simplest definition of 'art' is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form." Given this definition, could fashion be labelled an art form? We dismiss clothing as an everyday aspect of life, but it may actually be inherently artistic.
An article on this topic could look at designers, both big and small. Look at the creative process and discuss how clothing is designed. Think of what needs to be considered, colour, shape, material. These are also considered in other art forms, like sculptures or paintings.
The article could also look to how people choose to dress. Is this, in and of itself, a kind of art? Is it a type of artistic expression?
Painters or photographers create websites and Instagram pages to show off their creations. People in fashion also do the same. This is a niche you could explore when highlighting parallels between fashion and other art forms.
The fast fashion industry is often criticised for ripping off other brands or designers. This might suggest a personal aspect to the creation of fashion. Just like you would not copy someone else's painting for profit, should designers not be copying other people's fashion designs?
Finally, as with art, in the fashion industry there is a hierarchy of what is considered 'good' and 'bad'. Like art, fashion is constantly subjectively judged. This is another parallel which can be explored.
Ultimately an article on this topic should draw a conclusion, is fashion an art form or is it not? It should provide evidence throughout to support which conclusion is drawn. There are a plethora of angles this topic could explore.

With the upcoming release of Playstation and Xbox's newest consoles many are curious will these be their last physical consoles. The world is shifting towards streaming technology over physical devices. Microsoft already offers accessibility options with the Play Anywhere service, which allows you to play your digital Xbox One games on Windows 10 and vice versa. Ubisoft co-founder Yves Guillemot, believes we will soon start streaming video games like we do TV, music and film. I'm interested in how the gaming industry's advance towards streaming will affect gaming culture. Will our favourite gaming companies go the way of blockbuster when the video streaming giant Netflix emerged.

A bizarre name that can as easily put you off as draw you in – 'Warrior Nun' (WN) is the latest TV series from Netflix. It is based, unsurprisingly, on a comic book character by Ben Dunn. It tells the story of a young woman who is reincarnated by an angel's halo during an attack by demons on a sect of warrior nuns. The presence of the halo in her body, when the previous Warrior Nun died gives her abilities and a new life.

Sounds ridiculous right?
It is. It is also a fascinating look at a range of new archetypal roles around women that are becoming increasingly popular in TV and film. Similar in format to the 'Motherland: Fort Salem' with the focus on a military-esque sect of women only warriors it pushes against traditional gender stereotypes and a patriarchal society. WN actively critiques concepts of free will, religious determination and the complexity of friendship. It has a Buffy feel that fits within the scope of a traditional monomyth narrative, but also brings new perspectives that consider issues of racial roles and language. Much of the dogma linked to the catholic church is considered and critiqued within the way the myth of the halo and the order is presented. It further utilises a fantastic bilingual approach that Netflix does seem to be actively beginning to incorporate, whereby any Spanish spoken in the show is not subtitled, but at points where Italian or other languages are used these are provided with subtitles.

The show is worth a deeper analysis both for the development of themes and ideas that are reflecting changing perspectives on gender, race and religion, but also from the perspective of wider changes that are being reflected through the stable of shows from Netflix and other show providers. What do you think?

Love is Blind. Love Island. Too Hot To Handle. The Bachelor/ette. These are just some of the examples of shows that have loyal followings even though they have nearly identical set-ups and very similar premises: can people find love in a short period of time, removed from their everyday lives? What I find most interesting about this show is, what drives people of all backgrounds to watch it? What makes people sign up for these shows in the first place? How do these shows maintain viewership over the years even though it's become very clear that these relationships never pan out? Are people less jaded/cynical about love than they profess to be? Or, is it enjoyable to watch them fail? I'd love for someone to share their thoughts on what makes people come back to "reality" TV shows about love/dating, time and again.

Alex Garland has been making his name in the film industry for sometime now. Primarily with his contributions to the high concept, hard science-fiction genre. Writer of such films as 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and Dredd, as well as directing the films Ex Machina and Annihilation, Alex Garland has an ability to meld incredible storytelling about space travel, artificial intelligence, and futuristic tech with touching human emotion and true to life character flaws. His most recent endeavor has seen him take a step back from the big to the silver screen in his television debut, Devs: an eight-part stand alone series involving quantum computing, determinism, and humanity (in every sense of the word).

The article would highlight several aspects; Alex Garland himself, the technology of the show, the allegorical elements between technology and religion, and the philosophical and ethical issues such as determinism, multiverse theory, morality, and the illusion of free will. This article will be discussing the show in rather in depth details so a Spoiler Warning should probably be addressed rather early in the article.

Video games have been around for nearly fifty years now. Over the past few decades, trends have come and trends have gone within video game culture. When games started utilizing open worlds, many other games followed suit. When games decided that climbing mechanics were the next big hit, many games began to replicate this feature in their own way. But there is one game mechanic that no matter how much time passes or what stage in the video game zeitgeist we are in that remains, bar none, the best feature a video game can have. That’s right, we’re talking about grappling hooks.

There is just something so wholesome, so endlessly fun, and so rewarding about being able to traverse a wild terrain by slinging a grappling hook and getting the job done; perhaps there’s only one way to cross a wide ravine surrounded by waterfalls, maybe you need to gain the high ground on an enemy and lunge your katana into their torso from above, maybe you’re being chased by a horde of undead and a quick grappling hook to the rooftops if your best escape, or maybe you just want to see what happens when you grappling hook an enemy soldier and tether them onto a moving helicopter.

Explore the top games of the last fifteen to twenty years that featured grappling hooks and discuss the value of such a useful mechanic while also discussing other games, their mechanics, and how and why those mechanics are inferior (I.e. yellow markers to indicate climbable structures, active building mechanics, stealth mechanics, dual-wielding, etc.).

The third season of Netflix's series appears to take a big turn towards scenes of "violent" sexuality in its most recent season, almost contrasting that of it's previous two seasons where there is minimal to no scenes of sexuality. Nonetheless, they do have significance for individual character arcs.

Is this what audiences demanded? Are audiences taking it well, or will it turn off some of its core viewers? How does Castlevania's video game community react to Season 3? And how do these scenes of sexuality change our previous understandings of characters?

R.K. Narayan's Malgudi, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County, and of course, L. Frank Baum's enchanting Oz. These fictional places imagined by prolific writers possess great character, and ultimately reflect the author's mindset, intention and desires. A greater understanding of each of these places is pieced together bit by bit through every engaging story written, and eventually come to represent different things in the ways that they are perceived by us, the readers. Interesting questions to perhaps ask would then be: what was the intention of the author in creating such an intricate or elaborate world (all three are depicted beautifully drawn maps) and how did people perceive such fictional towns at the time, as well as what these towns eventually came to represent.

Existentialism is often seen as a depressing philosophy, but I ultimately see it as a hopeful response to absurdity–a struggle for meaning and maybe a better life, whatever shape that may take. On that line of thought, popular shounen series with their various "never give up!" themes and questioning of humanity, morality, religion, and so on, seem to fit right into it. Naruto in particular reads like a bonafide Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith.

Does shounen anime/manga seem existentialist? If so, what kind of specific existentialist themes are in play? Does this help readers coming of age prepare for life by giving them a taste of having to figure things out in the face of adversity (and absurdity)? Or does it exceed itself and become naivety?

More broadly, what's the relationship between philosophy and fiction? Does fiction “play out” the ideas of philosophy, or does it create its own philosophical ideas?

Friends, That 70s Show, Community, The Office, Modern Family, the list spans kilometres. These kinds of ensemble tv shows, where rather than being just one main character, the focus is on a main group of characters, are incredibly popular today.
Investigate WHY that is. Is it something to do with the kind of show – many shows with ensemble casts are comedy or sit-com? Can viewers better find someone to relate to within a group, rather than with a designated sole protagonist? Does it open more expansive avenues for story-telling, when the focus is on six different people as opposed to just one? Does this keep viewers more invested, less bored? Is it the relationship aspect that draws viewers in? Do they enjoy feeling part of the on-screen group's little family? Arguably, within a group, characters can afford to be more flawed as they have their peers to keep them in check, does this make for more relatable characters? Or is it the opposite, do these shows create caricatures (the smart one, the funny one, etc.) and is that why people enjoy it?

This article should offer specific examples of TV shows and what it is about them that people enjoyed.

There is something about this TV show formula that just works, and an article offering an answer to 'why?' could be very interesting and insightful.

Throughout history, many stories have featured characters who are depicted as being "too good for this sinful earth" and therefore dying young. Charles Dickens, for instance, wrote many such characters into his stories; and Uncle Tom's Cabin also depicts its most famous characters in this way. Such an idea, of course, has explicitly religious connotations, with the idea being that the character is so pure that they belong in heaven and not on earth. Do such characters still exist in modern, secular media? If so, what are some examples? How can a story that lacks a religious bent portray a character as too good for the world (if indeed it's possible)?

"Top 10" type videos and articles on the internet are so prolific right now it's like they fill up any negative space available on the net. Examine why that is and how this type of arguably cheap content has become so popular. Is it because of the platforms they inhabit? i.e, "the medium is the message," or is it simply because of the mindset of the generation? Interested to hear your thoughts!

Analyze the relationship between Odysseus and Telemakos of “The Odyssey”. Specifically, look at the characters at their start (Telemakos being more passive, Odysseus being more hot-blooded). How do they develop? How do they influence each other in their development? How is this relevant in driving out 108 suitors from Odysseus’ home, all vying for Penelope’s hand? How does Athena influence both of them?

Two contemporary anime films, Weathering With You, and Penguin Highway, feature strong visual and thematic motifs of water and the weather. I suggest an article that explores how these motifs show similar themes between the two films of hope, youthful abandon, and understanding the unknown (to name a few), and how these themes reflect the cultural associations of water and weather in Japanese society, and perhaps society as a whole. I couldn't help but notice that the two films both feature water so heavily, as well as an enigmatic female lead with mysterious powers connected to water/weather. Water is a primary element that has the power to both give life and end it. Japan has a long history of devastating typhoons, fearsome weather deities, and folk customs like the teru teru bozu. As a genre, animation enables filmmakers to depict otherworldly places and events that traditional filmmaking just can't. Water, in particular, is quite challenging to animate well, so both of these films would have been quite challenging to make. I think there are links between the motif of water/the weather as a fearsome but also a crucial element in the world; exploration the unknown as a young person; Japanese animation's penchant for the otherworldly and existential; and the challenges of animating water.

While still being a plot-focused show, Sense 8 offers an interesting look into what it means to connect on a deep level with another human, sharing sometimes violent or pleasureable experiences in equal measure. Examine the different relationships in the show and what they say about our experience of love and closeness, or alternatively, the lack of those qualities. What is the show trying to get at by telling the stories of these deeply interconnected people?

Arguably, any type of entertainment offers some form of escapism (which is why we are often drawn to it). However, The Sims seems to present a unique situation.
I suggest an article that looks at the element of escapism with regard to The Sims. In that it is just simulating life, does it really offer a sense of escapism? This could present some discussion points like, the inclusion of supernatural beings, the lack of negative consequences for life decisions, the ability to play out an idealised life.
Do people play The Sims to create what they want/are missing in life? Is it just enjoyable to escape ones own life and control someone else’s? There is an entire niche of YouTube dedicated to The Sims gameplay, this could also present content for this article, in terms of how people play.
In the first player-voted pack for The Sims 4, a pack that allows players to do laundry won. Perhaps this article could offer suggestions as to why players are so enthralled in simulating the mundane, and to refer back to the key idea, is this a kind of escapism?

Analyse both the contemporary and past trends in anime and decide whether representation of different race of people is required or not considering the fact the amount of liberty an anime creator enjoys. Also, if representation in anime is a need of the hour as many people believe the sheer ridiculousness in shonen anime character style does not require characters to resemble real life human beings.

Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. Catherine and Heathcliff. Lily Evans and Severus Snape. Besides the obvious examples of unhealthy relationships in literature, there are also some that are commonly contested, like Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy or Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. Despite the toxicity of these relationships though, and despite the fact that from a twenty-first century mindset, they could be called manipulative or abusive, people still love them. People still read the stories of these characters and enjoy them.

Do toxic relationships in literature have a particular pull? If so, what is it? What makes a relationship toxic, and are any of these, or others, redeemable? Is the woman always the "victim," or can men be victimized by toxicity as well? Are toxic relationships more "accepted" with white couples (you'll notice none of these examples contain people of color or minorities)? Why is that? What about LGBTQ examples? Discuss.