Archive for January, 2008

24
Jan

Life’s Cruel Jokes

This was supposed to be a blog entry about the Oscar nominations (and specifically how I was surprised to see Juno honored so prominently, how I wished that my film class wasn’t over so that we could discuss the Oscar nominations in light of our studies this semester, and how over the course of teaching this film class I’ve actually found myself looking forward to the awards).  I even have a draft of this saved from earlier in the week.

Then, a masseuse found Heath Ledger dead in New York.

So once again, I regret that my half year film class is over, because I’d like to pose the a question I’ve been pondering myself.

Let me explain my thought process first.  As a society (specifically, those with critical inclinations), we praise those who put every ounce of their being into their art.  Sure, art (and I use this in the broadest sense - painting, music, written word, performance, etc) resonates with us so profoundly because it lets us see how someone else interprets the world.  Toni Morrison calls this the “missionary quality” of art - that art is the medium by which artists communicate their personal thoughts, beliefs, and views of their world.

This becomes problematic when the art reflects a tortured view of the world.  We’ve romanticized the tortured artist who leaves a body of work that offers a glimpse into the inner struggles.  However, do we ignore these messages until the artist passes, choosing to actively acknowledge those artists that embrace the “human spirit” rather than those that portray the world as a dark, disturbed place?

As for Heath Ledger, there’s far too many questions left unanswered - was his death a suicide?  Were there other signs of illness?  All of this went through my mind this morning as I read a description that said how Ledger immersed himself in his role as the Joker in the upcoming Batman film The Dark Night.  The article suggests that Ledger slept two hours a night during filming due to the mental stress his role created.

At this point, it’s too soon to tell, but it seemed like Ledger’s turn as the Joker would become his signature role.  However, who knows if this role played a part in his demise.  Perhaps by connecting with the dark parts of his own soul (”method acting,” as my students know), Ledger opened up old wounds that he couldn’t heal.

Like I said, this is all speculation.  However, it has raised the question of whether total immersion in a role, in particular a role as dark as this one, can be a healthy thing.  If not, then what part do directors and producers play in ensuring that actors’ on-screen darkness stays on the screen and out of their personal lives?

11
Jan

Playing “Favorites”

Let me share a question I’ve asked myself recently: to what extent should teachers cater to student interest?

Perhaps I should give some background. With every unit in our film class, my students watch an entire movie and then write a review of the film where they evaluate the film based on the criteria from the chapter. With our most recent chapter (that focused on narrative structure), I had to decide between a few movies - The Sixth Sense (a film that most of my students already saw), Memento (a film that many of my students watched as part of psychology class), and Annie Hall (a film I was confident that none of my students saw, despite it’s “classic” status).

I ended up choosing Annie Hall because I wanted to show something different - we’ve watched a lot of violent movies (The Departed, Gladiator, etc) and Annie Hall provided that variety. Additionally, I wanted to show a movie that the students were not familiar with so that they could evaluate how well the scattered narrative structure worked to tell Alvy and Annie’s story.

However, I fear that the opposite happened. I’m confident enough to say that Annie Hall was certainly not the most liked movie that my class watched (several students indicated that they “hated it” as well). Obviously, I didn’t plan on showing the movie because my students would hate it, but I was disappointed that they seemed to labor through it’s 93 minutes. While I imagined that the movie (as with many Woody Allen movies) would elicit “love it or hate it” reactions, I didn’t expect the vocal signs of disapproval from my normally silent students (we meet first thing in the morning, not the ideal time to sit in a dark room and watch movies).

I have not received their reviews yet, so I can’t tell if this dislike (to be fair, a few students told me that they enjoyed it) will translate into poorly written analysis of the film’s narrative structure. Certainly, I don’t expect all of my students to like every film (nor should they - I frequently tell my students that they should have personal standards for what they like and don’t like) but I hope that their dislike of Woody Allen’s neurotic on screen persona didn’t mean that they “turned off” the film and didn’t learn anything.

The only reason that I raise this question is that with the previous chapter (Editing), I showed what I think was the best received film (The Departed) as well as the best group of reviews that the class submitted all year. At first, I chalked it up to my students “getting the hang of” writing reviews (and reacting to the frequent “use the material from the chapter” comments on their papers), but now I wonder if the exceptional reviews were related to the number of students that “liked” the movie.

So, returning to my question, am I being paranoid (perhaps watching Alvy Singer’s on-screen mental breakdown inspired one of my own) or do I have a right to second guess my choice? Sure, I know that students tend to learn more when they have fun, but certainly there’s a balance between meeting the students interests and expanding (or challenging) their interests with challenging material.

Right?




Subscription Options

 Subscribe in a RSS reader

Enter your email address:

 

January 2008
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031