Topics

Any manga reader as well as many other people could name you the names of the 5 largest names in the manga industry. Fairy Tail, Dragon Ball, One Piece, Naruto, and Bleach. But how much of what we read is influenced by these iconic mangas and the elements they include? Just how much have these action packed, butt-kicking mangas warped the world of modern manga?

Even a brief examination of the history of literature, poetry and playwriting reveals that much of humankind's essence has already been explored in a myriad forms. We, as modern writers, are trying to find new things to say about emotions, beliefs, states of mind, and ideas that have been with us for millennia. Can anything new be said, or is everything just a reformulation of old things? Has writing exhausted its potential for innovation?

All said, does novelty even matter? It could be that there is "nothing new under the sun" in terms of literary explorations of emotions, thoughts and human experiences. However, is it more important that something new actually be said or that an artist tries to do so? Why? What makes either attempt successful or unsuccessful?

To what extent should a reader consider the author's intention in producing the work? Is the reader's individual relationship to the written work more important than the author's intended effect? Does the author have any right to dictate what the work should mean to the reader? Or, can the author only provide an interpretation of their own work and leave the rest to the reader? Consequently, are all interpretations of a written work, however absurd, valid and worthwhile? Whose opinion matters more?

On October 15, 2016, it will be the 99th anniversary of the execution of Mata Hari, a Parisian dancer convicted of pro-German espionage against France.

The question is, what is the/are the greatest spy movie(s) of all time? Why? And what is it about a spy movie that make them so thrilling? You can comment on only one, or several if you are up on the genre.

Below is the list of Top Ten Spy Movies compiled by Esquire Magazine. You don't have to consult this list, but it's there if you want or need it.

10. The Ipcress File (1965)
9. No Way Out (1987)
8. The Bourne Identity (2002)
7. Notorious (1946)
6. Three Days Of The Condor (1975)
5. From Russia With Love (1963)
4. Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
3. North By Northwest (1959)
2. The Lives Of Others (2006)
1. The Third Man (1949)

Personally, I'd have to add Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps," but I'd watch a Hitchcock movie even if he showed up in it.

Sausage Party, an R-rated animated feature, has provoked controversy since its release earlier this month. Many critics say that the film makes distasteful use of ethnic, religious and sexual stereotypes, perpetuating offensive associations that have long plagued Hollywood and western culture generally. However, as some of defenders of the film have pointed out, the characters in Sausage Party are not human beings, but rather products made by humans, and so represent and enact the assumptions embedded in the society that produced them. Such being the case, the defenders go on, the world in which the film takes place offers a space to explore the relation between these stereotypes and the culture from which they emerge.

Is Sausage Party an offensive film? Is its play with stereotype clever, or just lazy? Is it totally out of line, or does it constitute a legitimate satire of Hollywood's tendency to depend on stereotype?

Washington, Colorado, Alaska, and Oregon have legalized pot, and other states are sure to follow. Libertarians and liberals say, "About time," while conservatives fear the slippery slope-influence of a "gateway drug." Which movies do the best job of either satirizing unnecessary fears of recreational drug use, or portraying the horrors of drug use? Which films do you think offer the most realistic portrayal of the use of alcohol, pot, cocaine, LSD (or other hallucinogens such as psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, etc.), and heroin, respectively? Why?

Into the Woods, The Last Five Years, Les Miserables, Rent: in the past few years alone, there have been multiple movie musicals released, often with mixed receptions. Is it possible for musicals to move from the stage to the screen and still retain their magic? What might some challenges be? (i.e. target audience; musical fans perhaps disliking casting when people who are not traditionally "singers" are cast – think Hollywood actors rather than Broadway, cutting songs for the sake of time, sound editing causing the magic of a live performance to be lost, etc.)

The trend of showing just about everything in media, even if it seems unnecessary. I'm not talking about censoring, but about limiting the audience's act of imagination to fill in the rest of the picture. What happens when a level of subtlety, implicitness, and mystery is lost? I was thinking of some classic black-and-white films such as M, The Innocents, Nosferatu, The Third Man, Gaslight, etc. whose atmosphere is heavily reliant on what is shrouded by shadow. A lot of suspense, dread, as well as intrigue is created by what we can't see. When many movies now are so well-lit and in high-definition color, has something been lost? It seems like there is a strong desire to expose and reveal as much as we can instead. Has this transition affected how movies are filmed in other ways?

imdb.com has many user-posted lists, and one of them is a list of the 25 Best Actors of the 21st Century. The list below excerpts their top 25, which includes late greats Heath Ledger and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Are there any glaring omissions? Is there anyone on the list who shouldn’t be? Anyone need to move up or down? What makes an actor either worthy of your list or unworthy of this list? For your favorites, please describe their best performances. For your least favorites, please explain their shortcomings. If you want to deal only with the top ten or pick and choose, that’s fine too.

1. Daniel Day-Lewis
2. Leonardo DiCaprio
3. Philip Seymour Hoffman
4. Jack Nicholson
5. Morgan Freeman
6. Russell Crowe
7. George Clooney
8. Javier Bardem
9. Brad Pitt
10. Christian Bale
11. Jeff Bridges
12. Sean Penn
13. Joaquin Phoenix
14. Heath Ledger
15. Johnny Depp
16. Denzel Washington
17. Tom Hanks
18. Clint Eastwood
19. Geoffrey Rush
20. Colin Firth
21. Viggo Mortensen
22. Tom Wilkinson
23. Gary Oldman
24. Bill Murray
25. Don Cheadle

In June 2012, imdb.com posted its list of 25 Best Actresses of the 21st Century. Any glaring omissions? Anyone on it who shouldn't be? Anyone need to move up or down? What makes an actress either worthy of your list or unworthy of this list? For your favorites, please describe their best performances. For your least favorites, please explain their shortcomings. If you want to deal only with the top ten or pick and choose, that's fine too. Extra love for anyone who can explain, sanely, why Tilda Swinton's not on this list – for her Broken Flowers performance alone (c'mon, you didn't know she was in the film 'til the credits, right?) – gets an e-high five.

1. Helena Bonham Carter
2. Natalie Portman
3. Meryl Streep
4. Renée Zellweger
5. Sandra Bullock
6. Nicole Kidman
7. Hilary Swank
8. Emma Stone
9. Cate Blanchett
10. Jennifer Lawrence
11. Gwyneth Paltrow
12. Scarlett Johansson
13. Kate Hudson
14. Mila Kunis
15. Anne Hathaway
16. Amanda Seyfried
17. Keira Knightley
18. Kristen Stewart
19. Julia Roberts
20. Milla Jovovich
21. Noomi Rapace
22. Octavia Spencer
23. Rachel McAdams
24. Dakota Fanning
25. Drew Barrymore

The most damning critique of any work of fiction is that it's "cliched." Cliches are obvious detriments to the success of a work of fiction, but why? Can there be instances when the use of a cliche actually strengthens a work of fiction? Give careful definitions of terms such as "cliche," and track how an effective storytelling device, or special effect–like the "Vertigo effect" or "bullet time"–becomes a cliche, and whether it can be salvaged after endless imitation. As lazy as it is to pepper a story with overused cliches, ask, can the use of cliches be a good thing (in some instances)?

Analyse whether or not dystopian young adult novels have become essential reading or a completely redundant genre. Make sure to include examples like The Hunger Games and Divergent and discuss how they have increased the popularity of dystopian fiction for younger readers. Also evaluate newer titles and their impact on the publishing industry (whether or not they serve a purpose, are simply a cash grab, etc.).

Mockingjay part 2 has just come out with the last Divergent movie in the line up for release. Write about the top movies that are adapted from young adult novels. How do they stand up in time? Is their target audience broader than young adults? What similarities or differences are there between them? Movies of interest may be the Hunger Games, Divergent, The Maze Runner, Enders Game, The Fault in Our Stars, Twilight…etc.Of course, there are more out now than ever and the list does not need to be confined to trilogies, so long as it is adapted from young adult books.

Trace the history and development of polyvocality (a work having multiple narrators, or following varied narrative voices and perspectives from different characters) as a literary form. From its humble beginnings in the canonisation of the Gospels – combining four distinct accounts of Jesus' ministry and death by separate authors into one collected volume of scriptural authority – to the epistolary style of Samuel Richardson and Bram Stoker, all the way to Modern novels by William Faulkner, Lawrence Durrell, and George RR Martin. How have methods of polyvocal narration developed over time? What social and aesthetic factors may have given it more prominence at certain historical periods? How have these authors' choices to present their stories from multiple perspectives been reactionary to the long tradition of single narrators, whether omniscient 3rd person or limited 1st person? How is this reflected in contemporary literary styles and trends?

Baz Luhrmann's Netflix series The Get Down chronicles the origins of Hip-Hop in the Bronx in the 1970s. Does it do this history justice?

Who are the ten cinematic creators or performers whose untimely deaths have most deeply affected cinema? What is/are their lasting impact(s) on cinema? Which, if any, posthumous advances in film seem likely to have been achieved by these cinematic legends if not for their early deaths?

Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio – a collection of short stories – presents what the authors refers to as "grotesques," people who harm themselves by believing in one truth or ideal while ignoring all others. The eight-Oscar-winning film, "From Here to Eternity," seems to follow the same theme. Which characters in the film are "grotesques?" To what truth or ideal does each "grotesque" cling? What truth(s) or ideal(s) do(es) each "grotesque" ignore? How do these characters suffer for their constrained beliefs? How would each character – if they expanded their beliefs – not only reduce their own suffering, but better their own life, as well as (perhaps) others?

A recent conversation with a friend about his strange, meaningful dreams led to a conversation about dream theory. Which films, current or not, use significant dream sequences, and what messages do those dream sequences convey? What symbols and metaphors appear in the dreams? What messages are conveyed via this imagery? Which dream theory or theories are employed by these film makers? And, last, how – if at all – does a film maker's cultural and religious background affect her film presentation of dreams? A list of films to consider might include Un Chien Andalu, Spellbound, 3 Women, The Wizard of Oz, 8-1/2, Waking Life, Living in Oblivion, Inception, and Kurosawa's Dreams.

Sometimes there's a beautiful balance – like peas and carrots, pie and ice cream, Laurel and Hardy – between entertainment partners. Sometimes… not so much. In politics, Nancy whispered answers to Ronnie, Cheney pulled Bush's strings, and for eight years Hillary ran the White House while Bill diddled.

Of course, the same is true in entertainment. In music, Simon really didn't need Garfunkel, Hall didn't need Oates, and Diana Ross didn't need the Supremes. Regarding TV, it's said that "Eddie Murphy's success went to Joe Piscopo's head."

Which comic book character duos – for example, Batman and Robin – are equally necessary? Which are not? Which seem equal but are imbalanced? Which seem imbalanced but are equal? Why do these pairings either work or fail?

Do you notice how a movie can feature one death after another and there is not one shriek from a member of the audience until the killing of an animal occurs? Why does the audience accept the loss of human life yet become upset and unsettled when a dog is shot to death? Is it a matter of innocence? The animal lacking the same mental faculties as the human and therefore placing it in an inferior, and therefore more sympathetic position? This is a phenomenon I have witnessed countless times across a number of different audiences, and I, too, have the exact same reaction. Another interesting aspect is when the victim is an infant or young child, though still in the process of development, clearly superior to a dog, but still conjuring a higher level of sympathy. This leads back to my prior questions: is this a matter of inferiority? A matter of innocence? Please discuss whether or not you have witnessed similar reactions and what is your thinking behind this disparate response?