Topics

This February a slew of both bad and good movies came out. However, two of them have been talked the most and those films being Sonic the Hedgehog and Bird of Prey.

What should have been a feminist success turned out to a downright misogynistic disaster at the box office. While the other that gain a truckload of backlash for the C.G.I abomination that supposed to represent the beloved Sega video game character Sonic, turned out to be a box office success, beating Detective Pikachu as the newest adorable, expressive C.G.I character to date.

These two films are where they are now because one decided to listen to the fans, while the other kicked them to the curb, thinking their message was far more important than actually adapting the source material.

At the end of the day, one wonders should fans have a say in terms of the creative process in films when it comes to adapting a popular product or should fans leave it to the paid artists to take liberties with it?

Machiavelli spent much of the second half of his life concerned with regaining a governmental position in Italy following their political coup. For a statesman, ironically, Machiavelli was a quiet and shadowy individual, though his opinions on political rule are strong and controversial. He believed that a prince must always present himself as perfect and that all countries out to have a constant cavalry in order to have a fortress of sorts(though he disapproved of most stone fortresses). This made sense in his time due to the roaming barbarians that would eventually take over his country. Machiavelli believed no man can hold power without a knowledge of tactics and to trust no one. Such a Prince has only few advisers and admirers are brushed off, otherwise the Prince will lose respect, a ruler he says must be simultaneously generous, holding festivals, and mean or brusque, occasionally cruel without reason. Do you agree with his philosophy? Do you find it hypocritical?

When adapting old stories that included prejudice or other unfair products of its time, to what extent should the adaptation be altered? Should the adaptation include the biases of the original (even if they are critiqued or showed to be flawed), or is it better to remove the biases altogether? On one hand, including the biases may be seen as a confirmation of them. However, it may also be seen as a way to renounce the flaws of the past while still valuing important stories. Avoiding the biases altogether may imply that the biases were not important, but it may also be viewed as a way of 'updating' an outdated story. Does the decision to include (or exclude) biases change depending on the original story's context (e.g. how well known it is today, how old it is, etc.)?

We are living in difficult times, and many of us are dealing with the five stages of grief. The initial excitement of change, the political reassurances, the cancellations, and finally what could mean an 18 month quarantine. No matter your living situation you are allowed to grieve. And should this continue, we all need to learn how to be alone. Museum and library connections are available online, universities are offering free classes, gardening and cooking all the things you never had time for are here. If you’re anything like me, this quarantine is a blessing and a curse, for as much as I miss my friends, my mental illness was severely effecting my stress levels back home- not one to quit I refused to give up, so to me it feels like the universe sent me home. I’m doing better than ever and graduate next week, what are your quarantine journeys?

In the Shokugeki no Soma anime, we can see a diversity of delicious dishes from around the world with exotic ingredients, in one chapter they prepared "Causa Limeña" a famous Peruvian dish prepared with potatoes and seafood. Do you think this anime encourages you to cook and learn about international cuisine?

Discussions around the male gaze (in art and elsewhere) are present within the Western socio-political, cultural and artistic milieu since a very long time. What about the female gaze – something which is becoming more and more powerful and evident in the 21st century? I would like to leave this topic relatively open so that writers can choose their own angle from which to hadnle it. I would be interested to see whether people examine this issue from a certain political stance, from a gender studies' perspective or from a more traditional pathway of looking into painting and photography, for example. I believe there is a lot to be said regarding the representation of women nowadays – in art, in films, on TV, in literature…the female figure is becoming more independent, having agency over her own body and her own gaze. What changes (if any) does this bring into the mechanisms of production, and consequently consumption, in pop culture?

Popular culture, and TV shows, in particular, are prone to use and revisit mythical figures, religious allegories, and biblical references, and, among, them, the Devil. Whether he is called Lucifer or Satan, the one who rebelled against God and have incarnated evil ever since seems to be an everlasting source of inspiration for screenwriters, creators, and showrunners. However, in recent shows like Supernatural, and, even more, in Lucifer, the Devil is – to a degree at least, especially in Supernatural where he is and stays an antagonist – humanized. His so-called evilness is – once again, to a degree – nuanced, and there is more to his psychology than evil for evil’s sake. It is especially flagrant in Lucifer, as Lucifer is the main character. He is a hero with flaws and qualities, a hero confronted to very human dilemmas, to fear, to loss, to love, a hero we are rooting for.
How Devil-like characters have been written and treated? As it evolved? Can we discern a tendency, in recent TV shows, to develop, or even humanize, the Devil? How is it done? How could such a tendency be related to the evolution of the “Good vs Evil” trope? And, potentially, what are the exceptions to the recent transformations – or lack of transformation, if we can’t discern a real tendency – and how can we explain them?

How have contemporary writers repositioned the term “Otherness” in literature? In Toni Morrison’s article “The Color Fetish,” she describes how modernists like William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway employed colorism and racial stereotypes when writing their characters. How do contemporary black writers portray their characters, as celebrating the “Other” and perhaps manipulating the Jim Crow caricatures. Consider, for example, Octavia Butler’s characters in the novel Kindred, Toni Morrison's characters in her short story Recitatif, and many others.

People who live with mental illnesses spend their lives in a state of heightened anxiety and stress, and if they're creative, this often comes through in their work. Arguably some of the greatest contributions to horror, particularly in literature, were written by people with really severe mental health problems, among them Edgar Allan Poe, HP Lovecraft, and Caitlin Kiernan. Even works made by artists who don't want their mental illness to be so obvious can be darker than they first appear. For instance, many of the deep cuts of the famous rock star Jon Bon Jovi, who struggles with depression, are much more disturbing than the songs that made him a household name. So, are all mentally-ill creatives fated to create dark, creepy, or depressing content? What specific aspects of a creator's mental illness might inform the darker aspects of their work? Are there any mentally-ill artists whose art remains entirely untouched by their illness?

Everyone knows C.S. Lewis as the writer of the Chronicles of Narnia series, as well as (to a lesser extent) The Screwtape Letters. However, he's written a lot of other works too–both fiction and nonfiction–that don't get as much attention. Throughout his body of work, what recurring patterns and themes emerge? How have they changed over time? Is there anything he wrote that doesn't get the attention it deserves?

During these uncertain times, it seems that the things we do for ourselves– without any exterior motivations– are becoming clearer. The phrase "dress for yourself" has gained a lot of momentum amongst those who actively appreciate fashion as well as those who do not give it much thought. Without the complicating factors of social validation (whether that is conformity or aiming to stand out), this article will analyze whether or not quarantine is allowing people to truly dress for themselves.

Explore the notion of creativity for creativity’s sake. With Covid-19 isolation, we are seeing a lot of people filling time by making things, from banana bread to paintings. What is the value of making stuff, even if it’s not ‘good’ aka. not pretty, or moving, or delicious. You could also explore what makes people identify as ‘creative’ or not – what is the difference between an ‘artist’ v. ‘someone who makes art’?

We've just seen history in the making last weekend when, for the first time ever a foreign language film won the Best Picture Oscar. Has Hollywood finally learned that there are other countries outside of the US where brilliant and talented people tell fascinating stories? Does this mark a new era for Hollywood in which we'll see more international talent celebrated or a last attempt of a dying branch of the film industry to stay relevant and "woke" in an increasingly globalised and diverse world?

Korean romance dramas span a variety of sub-genres that generally entice old and new audiences but romance narratives typically and expectedly end one of two ways: the protagonist and love interest end up, or not. Even if predictable, why does it sell to the audience? What aspects make Korean romance dramas addicting?

Further topic: the heteronormative themes and couples of Korean romance dramas and its underlying effect on the audience

The best way for a film company to make money while at the same time show that they are aware of female social issues is to create an all female cast spin off of an existing franchise.

Examples like Ghostbusters 2016, Bird of Prey, and Oceans 8 come to mind.
However, there has been a bit of backlash towards feminist films in recent years. Films like Bird of Prey and Ghostbusters are disliked by the public for being a feminist version of beloved men centric films. As a result, the film makers and actresses blaming the audience for being mysoginistic.

While that may be true in some degree, it is the writing and creative process behind making the film that determines its success.

In comparing Oceans 8 with Bird of Prey.

We are able to determine how to correctly produce an all female cast film.
While Bird of Prey had the female cast part down, they failed because the film makers did not adapt the comic correctly. They decided to make Harley Quin the main protagonist, in a film that is based on a comic where Harley does not appear in. In addition to that, they wrote the film in a way that made Harley quin a giant goof ball, where luck was constantly on her side.

Meanwhile, Oceans 8 does a better job, by justifying the need for all woman's cast. It mirrors the other Ocean movies visualy and incorporates original characters from Oceans 11, while keeping it unique with its own new set of characters and film score.

There has been a surge in new and upcoming book releases being retellings of old stories, whether they be classics (for example, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley) or fairy tales (like Beauty and the Beast). What does this suggest about society at the moment, if literature is a reflection of our current state of mind? Are these retellings to do with nostalgia or a need to bring the past to the modern age? Do authors succeed in doing so?

Throughout the entire series the term white hat is tossed back and forth but what does it mean. I think its about being the good guy. Whoever where the white hat is considered the one who is winning and doing the right thing. In this show we easily see where the lines between good and evil are crossed so is wearing the white hat even worth it. I think if someone could track the metaphor they'd be able to understand the relationship between Olivia and Joshua a lot better.

After witnessing the devastation of the 1918 flu pandemic, Virginia Woolf made the titular heroine of "Mrs. Dalloway" an influenza survivor, embracing life with flowers, friendship and a dinner party.

In recent weeks, we have all seen images of the doctors, nurses and other frontline workers, saving lives in hotspots like Italy and New York. Their faces, tired and worn out, call to mind Edward Munch's "Self Portrait with the Spanish Flu" and "Self Portrait After the Spanish Flu".

I propose a feature on the lessons we can learn from the art of past pandemics.

Visual novels (VN) are an interactive game genre that originate from Japan where text-based stories are presented in a narrative style of literature and allow for readers to interact as well as decide on the flow of a story. These mixed-media novels have, in recent years, gained more popularity outside of Japan especially through gaming platforms such as Steam. What sets these mixed-media novels apart from other genres such as film, animation, manga, and comics?

The depiction of violence in film has evolved dramatically over the years and it is not uncommon to see a number of films that depict war violence, gang violence, or glorified murder (think "The Purge"). How come this type of violence seems to permeate more throughout American culture in the 21st century than other, more psychological violence like that depicted in the French film "Cache" – which involves an almost ritualistic suicide? We seem to be, as a culture, more willing to accept and assimilate to the grand-sized violence where hundreds if not thousands of people die than we are to a film where only one or two deaths are seen in detail. Consider also slasher films like "Saw" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as opposed to "The Silence of the Lambs" and how this type of violence relates and speaks to our culture's appetite for specific forms of violence.