The scripted nature of television, when framed as reality TV, creates a paradoxical viewing experience. For those who know a show is scripted, there needs to be a theatrical suspension of disbelief, and those people will inherently react to it in a different way.
When we're aware a show is scripted, it's even possible to ignore that and get swept up in it as if it's either 100% real life, or just gripping fiction.
Does reality TV need to be scripted because real life is too unpredictable and boring? Do we try and force ourselves to believe fiction or scripted 'reality' tv storylines for that reason?
It's always a monumental feat when a novel, especially in YA, gets recognized for having a diverse cast of characters, and even more impressive, if it has a diverse lead, and a diverse author writing it. So, what's the middle man, per se, in getting us from being readers going through page-turners about characters of all types, only to end up with their more cliché, whitewashed, able-bodied counterparts?
The way you're using the word "diverse" is problematic. Human beings are not diverse. Populations are. To answer your suggestion, it's important for whoever wants to write this article to realize that films and novels function differently as artistic media. We can read both as narratives, but the audiovisual nature of film is really important towards the ways that directors envision a work. The reasons why movies continue to feature whitewashed casts is because most readers have a tendency to ignore these "diverse" descriptions when they read. The basic template for a human being in the American imagination is a white person, and therefore descriptions which deviate from this are easily ignored or taken with a grain of salt. It tends to be people of color who are disgruntled with whitewashing because it contributes to their historical erasure and because they are the most sensitive to these issues. – X8 years ago
The largest problem with this topic, as mentioned, is that both forms of media have different purposes. Novels have the simple job of entertaining an engaged reader, while film has the complex job of making money. If this topic is explored, the researcher would need to include this as one of the major reasons for the "whitewashing." Since producers and directors mostly care about making money instead of diversifying and representing the correct culture and racial groups, the topic would be unfortunately straightforward, I would think. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Like previous commenters have said, money is a big reason, but on the other hand it's audience's reactions to diverse content. In a lot of fandoms if you write a fanfic with a poc character, many fans will say that they can't "imagine" that character being a minority. For instance even though there are plenty of stories featuring your typical white, straight character, if you create one story featuring a minority character, some people will react by saying that you're taking stories away from white characters. – seouljustice8 years ago
To expand on what seouljustice said, I think that diversity is easy to ignore in a good book. Looks are not as important as values and motivations in books, but are much more important in more visual media, including films. Engaging with characters and projecting yourself onto them means finding similarities between yourself and them, while being able to ignore differences. Target audiences for most popular movies have large percentages of white viewers who would then have trouble empathizing with characters of different backgrounds, including (but not limited to) race and sexuality. – C8lin8 years ago
Many companies are seizing the opportunities presented by the growth and accessibility of virtual reality technology. The pornography industry is producing immersive experiences and violent games will feel more real than ever before. What are the limits of these technologies, especially for commercial use? Are we disconnecting people from the ethics of their society by immersing them in social constructs designed around amoral decisions?
Another interesting angle the writer could pursue: is there any psychological evidence that links immersive simulations like this with a decrease in sensitivity? I.E., does shooting a person or raping a person in a VR make a person more less psychologically disposed to committing those crimes? Might participating in this kind of play change the way they subconsciously view these crimes in society, or empathize with victims of these crimes. Basically, will we need to be screening for VR hobbies in our jurors in the near future? – ealohr8 years ago
Discuss ways in which writers can tell stories that go against conventions and selling-points, and would likely struggle to find an audience. It is wonderful to think outside the box and try something new. It can be rewarding and even push the artform forward with innovation. Sometimes as writers we want to break the rules and disregard important aspects to character, plot, genre, dialogue, etc. that not only work, but are usually the foundation to good writing. We may be used to writing for an audience, but this time want to try something crazy and write a screenplay for a film when we have no idea who would watch it. How can we stay true to our artistic vision knowing we are doing everything all wrong? What are the benefits?
It can be argued that any and every text to receive any sort of canonical status has done so by strategically breaking previously established conventions. This almost feels too big to tackle. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
In my opinion the simplest way I can think of to write unconventionally is to take a common story and add your own little adjustments. You could do a backwards version of the tale or take one or a few particular elements of the story and try to get your imagination to work on that. For instance, generally, one would expect the protagonist of a fairy tale to find true love or something of the sort, but what if that character had absolutely no interest in romance. What if that character enjoys solitude? With the imagination sky's the limit. – RadosianStar8 years ago
I feel like if you were to write a story where there is no change, where the character's status is stagnant that could be a way to tackle this idea that breaks the rules. A wonderful reference to this style is Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep. It tells a harrowing deeply meaningful story in a style that is neither linear nor follows the conventions of stereotypical story telling. Hope that helps in your search to find how to 'break the rules'! – Gntmeda8 years ago
Another way I've seen writers break the rules is to write an unlikable lead, or at least one who the majority of people struggle to sympathize with. Scarlett O'Hara comes to mind because she's so incredibly spoiled. Okonkwo from Things Fall Apart is another favorite of mine; he's considered a hero in his society, but he often acts like someone you wouldn't want to look up to. Fairytales written in POVs like that of Cinderella's stepsisters or the Big Bad Wolf come to mind as well. I would devote an entire section as to why this works, and perhaps why unlikable leads may have become accepted conventions. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Looking at The Force Awakens as well as canon novels, comics, film-maker's comments, and even previous Star Wars films, suggest a reasonable theory or theories on who Supreme Leader Snoke could actually be. Snoke is the man behind the curtain in The Force Awakens and looks to have a very important role in the Star Wars universe moving forward. This would be an interesting topic because like Rey the question of Snoke's identity remains unknown.
I think it could be useful to also interrogate how these theories relate to the act of story-telling itself. What do the candidates for Supreme Leader Snoke reveal about story-telling structure within Star Wars? How do these candidates relate the conflict between the author and audience's desire for how a story should progress? I'm thinking of this within the larger Star Wars franchise and how this has played out historically within the past. – Matt Sautman8 years ago
Although Frozen has been praised for introducing the idea of familial true love, both women exhibit poor logic, emotional flightiness, and naivete. While Disney has come a long way from the submissive Snow White to the empowered and knowledge-seeking Rapunzel, Frozen's leading ladies seem to succumb to manipulation and victimization much more easily than those in earlier films. Are Ana and Elsa representative of a step backward in Disney princess evolution? What characteristics do they exhibit that might be damaging for young girls to emulate?
Are all humans not subject to exhibiting poor logic, emotional flightiness, naivete, manipulation, and victimization? Hercules was emotionally flighty near the end of his movie, and he was also heavily manipulated, as have several other men throughout Disney's movies such as Aladdin, Simba, and Tarzan - who are all thought of as very masculine characters, yet they are still subject to emotion, poor logic and so on. Allocating such characteristics as being predominately feminine might need to be analyzed before the question itself is explored. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Very good point. I think it will be helpful to focus mainly on the comparison of these main characters to earlier princesses, rather than the characteristics, themselves. – wtardieu8 years ago
One thing to consider is whether it's actually a step forward; perhaps their flaws make them more human and relatable. Anyway, that's another viewpoint that could be explored. – Laura Jones8 years ago
I agree with Steven Gonzales that characters like Elsa and Anna succumb to manipulation and victimization simply because they're human (or in the case of characters like Simba, non-human with human personalities). I don't know of anyone who hasn't been made a victim or manipulated at least once. The key is in how you handle it. I definitely think though, you could make an argument that one sister handled the victimization better than the other. Whether that's Elsa or Anna is a matter of opinion, but there are cases for both sides. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
With anime like Kuroko no Basket, Daiya no Ace, and Haikyuu!!, watchers of sports anime are immediately thrust into settings with high school-aged characters that are passionate about the sports they play. And with that passion, comes a lot of information about the rules of the sport. Even upon watching the first episode of, say, Daiya no Ace; watchers are already being forced to learn – or at least acknowledge – the rules of baseball, through the dialogue of the characters. In later episodes, and especially later seasons, watchers (over the span of watching more episodes) obtain a lot of information about the sports the characters play. And because it is "sports anime", the anime is based off of the sport it portrays, and thereby (attempts to, or) abides by the rules of the game / sport. Watchers of sports anime may even find themselves watching live-action sports on television and being able to understand at least some of the rules of the real game.
With that said, sports anime like Kuroko no Basket and Prince of Tennis obviously have many extreme elements – like characters with (basically) superpowers (The Generation of Miracles [Kuroko no Basket] and Echizen volleying 10 tennis balls in one stroke [Prince of Tennis]).
Is it okay to classify sports anime as accurate? The extreme elements of these anime are clear, but the anime simultaneously are based around the rules of the sport. Is sports anime considered ridiculous on a "literal level" because of its extreme elements, or can the real and the fake elements coexist to create a sensible story line?
Granted that sports anime have a great deal of passion, but isn't passion a common trait in anime. – RadosianStar8 years ago
You're absolutely right. Passion, almost to the point of extreme devotion (in this case), is definitely present in anime. – gabby9188 years ago
We all know how popular shows such as "one punch man","naruto", etc. have been received here in America but how has the mainstream attention to anime effected the industry as a whole. What do you think of the working conditions for the Japanese animators as well as the quality being delivered, is anime progressing, or is it stagnating or even being degraded? What do you think?
Although only 2 seasons in, Rick and Morty has already established itself as one of the best TV animation shows in this generation. But why is it so popular? The nostalgia it gives as it resembles "Back to the Future"? The colorful animations? The writing style? Analyze why Rick and Morty is becoming more and more popular.
There's really no going wrong with a Rick and Morty topic. The show is teeming with all kinds of topics to be discussed and dismantled. Literally anything from the ending scenes from the Season Two finale to the opening credit scene from Episode 1 can be dismantled and discussed. A heavy focus on the reality and writing of the show could really make for a wonderful article. – MatthewP938 years ago
The writing has a lot to do with it. I can't recall the source, but I remember an article referring to Rick and Morty as one of the smartest shows on television. The sci-fi mixed with suburban drudgery may reflect upon the cult shows such as Family Guy, Futurama, and even the really weird adult swim series such as Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Robot Chicken--which may be one factor contributing to its popularity. Also, creator Justin Roiland has risen to popularity since his Mr. Sprinkles web series, voicing Lemongrab in Adventure Time and other characters on various networks. Nostalgia--yes. The writing style--undoubtedly! And the growing fans are all eagerly awaiting the upcoming season! – DrownSoda8 years ago
It would be super neat to break down the references inside Rick and Morty since there are so many! But on a more analytical note, I agree with DrownSoda that it's worth looking at Rick and Morty in contrast to other adult cartoons. Rick and Morty breaks away from those shows by having a slightly more linear plot line in each season and plays with the tropes that other sci-fi shows use in an arguably more complex and intelligent way. Either way, a Rick and Morty topic would be great in any capacity. – LondonFog8 years ago
In light of the underwhelming flop that was No Man's Sky, we have to start asking ourselves; "Are we putting too much faith in indie games?". For half a decade we've seen indie games skyrocket in popularity. However many gamers tend to forget that simplicity is always a recipe for a successful game.
I think No Man's Sky was a game with a lot of confusion around not just the game itself, how it was marketed, and how it was presented to consumers. This being said, I don't necessarily think that No Man's Sky's controversy and issues represents a lot of the indie game industry. Also, I'm not sure how your comment about "simplicity" related to indie games. I think many indie games use very smart formulas to succeed, for example, Shovel Knight was designed as a love letter to retro games. So I think your topic needs a little more tweaking or clarifying prior someone writing about it. – SeanGadus8 years ago
You have a good point Sean I think I'm having a little difficulty putting my point into words. What I mean to say is that just because indie games are made with more love doesn't mean they're always good. – JacksonAP8 years ago
That is a great point, look at mighty number 9 that game was supposed to be the next mega man and instead was a huge disaster according to most critics and fans. – SeanGadus8 years ago
On the one hand you have NMS which did use false marketing. On the other, you have Rimworld which has seen massive praise. Just an idea you could make it about how games in general have been plagued by false promises with crowdfunding failing to deliver on developers promises on gamer's expectations. You could analyze how much of the problem is consumer expectation versus failure to deliver by devs. – NickC8 years ago
Why is it a general assumption that the first of any form of literature/art/media is inherently 'better' than proceeding works of art by the same artist? Does ingenuity supersede the product itself? Examples include: the first Star Wars film compared to the others, Guns N Roses' first album, etc.
I think a good point to make is that the '1st' of things usually become called 'classic.' Take for example the movies Red and Red 2. Both movies in their own right are very well done: good plots, good score, good acting. However, because Red was first it had more time to be considered a favorite/classic. – chikkabooo8 years ago
I feel like a lot of the times, the mistake made is the comparison doesn't really end up being between 'good' or 'better', it's more of 'the first one' versus 'the new one'.
By which I mean to say, that instead of trying to see if a remake/sequel is GOOD or not, we end up trying to see if it's similar to the previous work or not (this holds especially true if the first work has been a success). Naturally, unless the creator is in the habit of repeating themself, one doesn't find too many similarities to point out, effectively pronouncing that the new work of art is 'not as good', even though all we actually figured out is that the new work of art is 'not like the last one'. – JayBird8 years ago
Everyone knows the second Star Wars was the best... – Sboother8 years ago
Things to discuss would be interrelated issues of authenticity, originality and historical primacy. Herbert Read argued that a desire for novelty, originality and primacy is one of the strongest biological impulses in the average human – due to the evolutionary need to adapt to unusual circumstances and the desire to propagate – and used this biological analogy to explain the innate “goodness” attached works considered the “first” or “original”. Edward Young proposed that what we consider ‘originals’ are mostly ‘accidental’, out-surviving or overshadowing the works that they actually imitated or were heavily influenced by. If, for instance, the Mona Lisa and all of the information about the original painting was destroyed, an art historian might see an early copy as the ‘original’. Perhaps the feeling that “nothing is original” is due to the fact that no information or artefacts is lost or destroyed by the modern digitisation and democratisation of information. There is a distinction to be made, perhaps, between something that is imitative, such as a forgery or copy, and something that is a development, like a sequel. When presented with an original painting and a good forgery or imitation we have a reason for not considering them of equal value. Although the aesthetic value of such a copy could be the same as that of the original painting, it would completely lack the art-historical value, with the former work inspiring others and developing art in general. Clearly, one does not want to give the same credit to someone who mechanistically copied a work in which an artist invested ingenuity and original thinking. This is reflected in how the legal language concerning the originality standard in copyright law has generally converged around the “sweat-of-the-brow” of the creator as well as the “skill, judgement or labour” invested in the object. In other words, it has proven difficult for courts to separate the effort and industriousness of reproduction without incorporating terms such as creativity or personality. An additional idea here is that the original object was a more “authentic” expression of an artist’s “self” or “intentions” not mediated or infringed upon by interlopers. – Christopher Pottecary8 years ago
Analyze how the direction in the first film succeeded tremendously in terms of both narrative, complexion, and horror. How did the second film in the franchise fail to live up to these expectations?
Sequels need to add on to the original, Sinister 2 was much of the same. – mkparker8 years ago
Although viewers expected something similar to Sinister, they did not expect almost exactly the same. Sinister 2 failed to add anything onto the concept of the child-hunting ghoul. The only thing that was different was the family that was experiencing the haunting. I think the audience was excited for something new to be added onto the story, more information/background to be revealed, or an entirely new story line similar to The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, and Annabelle. – Marina8 years ago
Analyse the history of horror films from their origin to present day. Focus on important gory films such as Carrie, Saw, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Discuss how horror films have gotten away from their once blood filled shots to now multiple pop up scares. Also discuss the incorporation of social media in horror films that are seen today.
What about older horror films like Hitchcock? Is this topic looking to examine a general history of the Horror genre? What other trends can be seen? – Kevin8 years ago
I have actually come across a lot of contemporary gore films. The trouble is, I think, that gory films have the tendency to be B-listed and now, since filmmaking is so accessible, the over saturation of the film industry has drowned them out. The simple point is that thrillers are more broadly marketable and so they get the bigger budgets and far more attention. – mkparker8 years ago
I personally have to agree with this statement. I have seen very many many horror films, and classic films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Saw are just so original. Even though they released years ago, they are still popular and relevant in the horror genre. I have noticed the different tactics that producers and cinematographers use to scare now versus in older movies. Re-makes of movies are not always successful. – Marina8 years ago
I actually think the incorporation of social media in today's horror films is a good topic on its own. Or the writer could take a look at the role of communication technology in horror films in general. (Consider, for example, the telephone in films like "Scream" and "When a Stranger Calls," or the camera in films like "Insidious" and "Shutter.") – OBri8 years ago
When most people talk about movies that they've loved since they were little, they are most likely talking about theatrically released films. However, if you were born during the heyday of video rental stores, such as Blockbuster Video, there is a chance that your favorite childhood film never made it to the silver screen. While most straight-to-video films are not considered crown gems, to say the least, that does not mean that they should be ignored and forgotten. This article will go into the history of direct-to-video films aimed at the child market, as well as an in-depth reflection of my favorite childhood straight-to-video film, Disney's Where the Toys Come From (1983). I would also encourage readers to post their own favorite straight-to-video film and their reasons why, so I can discuss those films in a later article.
Albert Camus is one of the fathers of Absurdist philosophy and one of the greatest writers of all time; his philosophical works The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel have defined his ideas, while his novels such as The Stranger and The Plague have actualized them. Examine and breakdown the fundamentals of absurdism.
I get the desire to discuss Camus (as he's one of my favourite writers as well), but this retrospective of his life and works doesn't seem overly suitable to the here and now. I could maybe understand it if he had died recently - you may have noticed that one of our fellow contributors did so when Elie Wiesel passed, but the article has been pending for so long that it'll be hardly still relevant by the time its published, and Wiesel died 56 years AFTER Camus - but I cannot imagine anything in this article that could not be found in his many biographies or critical studies of his work.
I'm not rejecting this, but I won't approve it either. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Could Campus work be linked to a more current theme in media? I will leave it up to you Camus experts to make a more relevant link. – Munjeera8 years ago
What might be interesting is to compare Sartre with Camus.Many had mistakenly grouped Camus as an existentialist, most consistently, with the ideological thogouht processes of Sartre. Ironically, they were very good friends, but due to their ideological differences--Sartre is an existentialist--they ended up having an epic feud that ended their friendship. In a bittersweet form of a forgiveness, Sartre wrote a tribute to Camus after his death. – danielle5778 years ago
The challenge here, with such a broad topic, is to write it succinctly, but I agree with TKing that it's relevant today. – Tigey8 years ago
The issue isn't that it's not "relevant" -- I only brought up relevance because it was a facet of why this topic struck me as unsuitable for the Artifice -- but rather that scores of books have been written on precisely this topic. Even to narrow the subject matter to something more succinct would just be to focus on one chapter of those many books. For example's sake, Danielle's suggestion to compare Sartre and Camus, in addition to being something that is thoroughly discussed in every biography of either of them, is already the subject of a fantastic book (Camus & Satre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It, by Ronald Aronson) from 2004, which has subsequently been followed by a whole slew of other articles (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/camus-and-sartre-friendship-troubled-by-ideological-feud-a-931969.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-j-stone/albert-vs-jeanpaul-why-ca_b_7699530.html, etc) and even another book (The Boxer and the Goal Keeper: Sartre Versus Camus, by Andy Martin). My response to anyone who chooses to write this article is this: "Why should I read this article when I can just read the book (which, let's be honest, is undoubtedly better written and more thoroughly research)? What can you add that hasn't been stated already?" I really don't see the point in regurgitating other peoples' research, simply because it has yet to be done on this specific online platform. We should be striving for originality, critical thought, and sparking debate via new contributions (to topics old and new alike). – ProtoCanon8 years ago
True, protocannon, it's been done, but has it been exhausted? I trust your judgment on that, but won't squelch someone's attempt to find a "new wrinkle." – Tigey8 years ago
I'd argue that it's been exhausted beyond the point to which it merit's Artifice-level discussion. Maybe a "new wrinkle" can be found, to the extent that discovering previously unstudied letters or dairies of Camus would warrant writing a new or revised biography, but if such a discovery were made, it would belong in a genuine academic journal. And there are no lack of those to which it would appropriately correspond, most centrally in The Journal of Camus Studies (http://www.camus-society.com/camus-society-journal.html), or more broadly in relevant philosophically-leaning periodicals like PhaenEx (http://phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/phaenex), The Reed (http://pages.stolaf.edu/thereed/), or Existential Analysis (http://existentialanalysis.org.uk/journal/) to French literary and cultural journals like French Cultural Studies (http://frc.sagepub.com/) or the Journal of French Language Studies (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JFL). As much as we love the Artifice, it's not really the best platform for great strides in research; it's better suited for discussing why the time loop ended in Groundhog Day. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Makes sense. Thanks for your insight, ProtoCanon.. – Tigey8 years ago
Netflix has just announced a new adaptation of "Anne of Green Gables," Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" is finally under production for Starz, and both the TV adaptations of "Zoo" (James Patterson) and "Beowulf" have received excellent reviews after the most recent seasons. The the question arises: are film and TV studios running out of original ideas and content. Is the media bound to fall into the trap of making mainly adaptations of already created content, or is there hope for up and coming authors who wish to create new, potentially never before seen shows and movies?
I'm fascinated by this topic, mainly because I'd argue just the opposite. Certainly the lack of original content in mainstream cinema is prevalent today, but that has contributed in ushering in this new Golden Age of television that we are currently experiencing. Between HBO, AMC, and Netflix, we've seen some of the most original shows in recent memory: from The Sopranos and The Wire, to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, to House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. Like TKing, I hardly see how a new Anne of Green Gables adaptation represents the end of all of that. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Furthermore (re: your edits), though TV has been a breeding ground for innovative original content in the past decade or so, it is also presents creators and audiences with the ideal format for adaptations of novels. One of the biggest complaints that people always have when a novel is a adapted to film is that the book is better, the reason for this typically having a lot to do with the limited scope and timeframe of a film (seldom exceeding three hours), which cannot ever scratch the surface of a five hundred page book and barely lets you connect with the characters on the same level as you would as a reader. Television is therefore a much more suitable format for translating the experience of a book into an audio-visual medium, because it goes on for longer, is more easily divided into chapters, and can go into greater detail with each character. The best example of this that we see today is Game of Thrones; the ASOIAF series would have inevitably failed if each book were turned into a movie, but with a season per book, it's become one of the most popular and critically acclaimed shows of all time. Considering what Brian Fuller did with Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter novels - which can be described only as alchemy - I'm excited to see what he has in store for American Gods. Obviously, your point about Anne of Green Gables has merit (because that particular story has already been adapted enough), but I think we should be embracing the potential of TV adaptations of novels, having reached this period in which the art of television has become equal to that of cinema. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Please disregard the word never in my previous note. I should never have written never. – Tigey8 years ago
Be careful with this topic as one, it has been written a lot, and two, does adapting really mean running out of ideas? An adaptation requires a tremendous amount of creativity and fresh ideas to make it interesting. Plus art since the beginning of the world has always been about adapting ideas - you can never really create something completely new, without being inspired by others works or the world around you. Is Baz Luhrman's Gatsby or Romeo + Juliet just pale replicas with no character or creativity? Has he ran out of ideas on these films? I personally don't think so! :) – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun8 years ago
Adaptions also guarantee some sort of audience, so the TV/film adaption won't have to connect to completely new viewers. Even though the adaption may not be great, people will still come to see it because they already have some sort of attachment to it – ckmwriter8 years ago
It's a common conception to think that film and TV studios are running out of original ideas and content because of all the remakes and adaptations we have seen lately. However, I believe that all of the remakes and adaptations bring something new to the table. The people in charge of remaking or adapting something, have to make the piece of work relevant today - they have to modernize it. Moreover, not only do they have to attract the fans of the original piece of work but a new audience. So, I believe that once something is remade or adapted, it's a new piece of art - it has become original in a sense. Those studios are taking a story/idea that already exists and are making it their own. – simplykrizia8 years ago
When they're not simply a supporting character for comedic relief, the "gay character" in American films are usually outward stereotypical. It's been getting better over the years, but mostly only in the independent scene (most recently "Moonlight").
But even beyond that, gay films themselves have been seemingly only interested in their sexualities. The film's plots – with gay characters – are strictly, and only, about being gay – as if that's the one and only attribute of such a human being. Films rarely ever explore things beyond their sexual orientation (the only recent one I can think of is Ira Sachs' "Keep the Lights On", which was a film about drug addiction tearing up a gay couple).
When will American film be able to present a gay character in such a way? So uninteresting or "normal" like heterosexual characters are presented in various genres?
There's a really great documentary about precisely this topic, called The Celluloid Closet. It would be necessary for whoever attempts to write this article to watch that, and take it as a jumping-off point. Being made in 1996, I see this article as a good "picking up where they left off," particularly dealing with how the increase of social tolerance toward LGBTQ people at the turn of the 21st century may or may not be reflected in cinematic representation. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
reesepd, maybe explaining how gay cinema outside of the USA better handles the topic might help to clarify the problem of gay stereotypes in American cinema. I hope you don't think I'm criticizing the topic negatively. It will be enlightening for me to read, and I appreciate you writing the topic. – Tigey8 years ago
Reesepd, here's another thought: You mention Ira Sachs’ "Keep the Lights On" as the only recent example of a film not using gay stereotypes. Maybe part of the topic is the question, "Is the use of gay stereotypes actually getting worse in American cinema? Why?" Again, a very interesting topic. – Tigey8 years ago
This would be such an important and engaging topic to explore. Maybe even further exploring the history and progression of LGBT representation, and touch on the fact that we see more instances of m/m gay romance more so than any other part of the LGBT community. Looking forward to reading this! – Abby Wilson8 years ago
When approaching literary criticism should our evaluation be rooted in form, content or a combination of both? Upon surveying user-generated online reviews –through platforms such as Goodreads–it is easy to see a favouring of content>form in the evaluation of (especially contemporary) fictional works. However, a satisfying or politically correct plot does not necessarily constitute a book's literary value, as has been proven in the body of literature that has developed and grown into the present canon of classics. Does a focus on content and its potentially overbearing concern with happy-endings, chronological order or likeable protagonists cloud our judgement of what makes a "good" book? And even more interestingly, can a book be judged to be "good" at all, and if so, by who?
Interesting topic! This topic should probably include some grounding in theory and criticism: although Goodread is good, it might not be substantial enough to form an opinion and an argument! Have a look at the classic debates and theories around the issue with Susan Sontag or Frederic Jameson and postmodernism - it might about art in general or film, but definitely applicable to literature too!
– Rachel Elfassy Bitoun8 years ago
A little broad for my taste but it is very thought provoking. – rowenachandler8 years ago
I think the term "good" is debatable. There are conventions used in every genre. Most of the time, a book is based on how well these conventions are played. It is like a card game. The deck of cards remains the same 52 and the games allow a myriad number of permutations involved with the human element of how to play the cards dealt. No one can say for sure how to always win at poker or bridge but there are general principles that apply. Also, think of the ace card, in some games it is the highest, in others the lowest. I trust you get where I am going with this metaphor. So a good criticism, judges how the the traditional, conventional elements are played out according to its genre. – Munjeera8 years ago
An in-depth analysis of the popular TV show The Office and how it rises above mere entertainment to become a genuine, nihilistic examination of everyday American office workers and the meaning they can find in their cyclical lives.
Don't forget, The Office originally started out as a British TV show, established by comedian Ricky Gervais. However, I think comparing how successful the American Office and how it became so much more popular than The Office UK. It's probably also worth exploring the style of The Office (fictional reality) and the clever use of a 'mock-umnetary' style of filming. Good luck! – Abby Wilson8 years ago
(agreed about the British Office thing mentioned above) but also, amazing idea! The office is a depiction of American office workers, but also of the personalities we all know. Dwight, Michael and Jim etc all represent experiences we have all had and understand. Perhaps approach this from the standpoint of what the characters mean to the viewer, how the personality types were created to be familiar and recognizable. The show offers a narrative not only on the office environment, but on the mindset of general America, and the way the countries citizens have been socialized to behave. – JoshuaStrydom8 years ago
This article will analyze the relationship between modern day film and film of the earlier eras. It will be a comparison of story plot to draw out the cause of American paranoia. During the 20th century, film was a depiction of hope, change, and what our idea of the American Dream should be. Today in film, we see the consequences of our own decisions and individualities. There is the message of "if you do this, this will happen" which wasn't a thing in American Culture and film during the 20th century. The newly released film When The Bough Breaks takes the innocent act of surrogacy and twists it into a diabolical plot against an unsuspecting couple.