I'm just beginning to look over your drafts now, so I will post any advice later as another post, but I thought I would get this up now.
Here are our notes from the board today, which are essentially a review of the devices. Focus on your papers; comment if you have any questions.
Oh! Here is the official website, which features the trailer and such. (Note the awards listed; what do they do for the argument? Anything? Keep authority in mind.)
We will be writing drafts of our analysis of Maxed Out this weekend. You should write it as you would an article analysis, with a summation of the argument in the first paragraph, an analysis of the argument (not the topic) in the body paragraphs, and a concluding statement of the movie's persuasiveness. This assignment is worth 80 points (think a month's worth of article analyses), so spend some time on it. Here are our notes from the board:
While we didn't get as far as I would have liked, this (coupled with your notes) should give you a good starting point. Think of the above as an annotation of the movie; you won't necessarily structure your analysis this way, but it is a good summation of the movie's structure and the argued impact of many negative influences.
As always, if you have any questions please post a comment for the good of all or send me an email:
Today we began watching Maxed Out, a 2006 expository documentary on American debt. As we watch, take note of how the argument is presented, keeping in mind the various elements that make up the movie:
- Audio
- Spoken
- Background
- Soundtrack
- Video
- Shot composition
- Shot
- Mise en scene
- Camera placement
- Framing
- Subject arrangement
- Camera angles
- Written
- Title
- Labels
- Subtitles
We will discuss articles tomorrow and finish up the movie on Wednesday. You will be analyzing the film (as you would an article) on Friday.
[BTW, Rope was filmed in ten shots—not bad for an eighty minute film.]
[Also, there was no mention of a kangaroo in the seven-year-old's "rampage" at the zoo in Australia...]
Read More......on this session's final paper, check out RottenTomatoes.com for articles on An Inconvenient Truth. George F. Will is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, and has written a scathing counterargument to Gore's movie.
For the good of the community, post any other online articles you find.
Read More......Also, for those of you who are fairly proficient or fluent in Spanish, she is looking for some high school students who would be willing to read to them on Tuesdays or Thursdays. The kids love this, but often are not read to at home; many of the students who speak Spanish cannot read it. I can get the information to anyone interested in this.
Oh, speaking of volunteer work, how did the race go? Were any of you able to attend? I want stories when we get back.
We will be watching The Island on Monday and Tuesday. I did not realize how perfect this movie would be as a blend of our two very different books. It is by no means great cinema, but the ideas and concepts are there for us to discuss. If you miss class, rent the movie and watch it at home. It is PG-13, so watch it with your parents permission. I will be monitoring the unnecessary parts in class. Read More......
Me: "I can't believe how easily both the president and his physician are corrupted by power."
Me 2: "But the president was raised by the British military. This life is all he knows, and the British are not known for their diplomacy regarding other races."
Me: "What does that have to do with the president's actions? Can he not see that his brutality is wrong? How is it that the Scottish doctor is able to slough off the advances of the British official's words of imperialism and control?
Me 2: "The Scottish dislike the British. Great Britain ruled Scotland for many years. Haven't you seen Braveheart?"
[I didn't actually say that, but the sentiment was there.]
Me: "But what about free will? Is it impossible to think that the president would see the wrongs of his actions?"
Me 2: "This has nothing to do with free will. People don't spontaneously decide to change their actions. It is not about 'doing what's right,' but about following the associations one has made in light of previous occurrences. This is the root of all human actions. In reality, no one would walk away from Omelas."
Me: "What?"
Me 2: "I dunno. Something we read in college. My point is that people act as they have been raised to act. That does not mean that they cannot change, and that some influences don't weigh heavier on a person's decisions than others. It just means that a person does not spontaneously do anything. It is all in light of previous actions and interactions with others."
Me: "There is nothing new under the sun."
Me 2: "Possibly, but what is cool about this is the fact that novel actions come from the synthesis of associations."
[Note: I have paused the movie, so I'm not sure how it is going to end, but I assume things are not going to go well for the king erm, president who "knows when he will die." That never works out to one's benefit.]
Me: "This is a massive bowl of ice cream. How long have we been scooping? Why not just eat from the tub?"
Me 2: "Nevermind. My point is that if the president is ever going to be able to help his people it will be through the impact of the Scottish doctor. As a Scot he has heard of oppression, if not felt it (being wealthy, I believe). This could affect the president, but his training and such with the British military will not just roll over during one conversation. This is his life. It is all he knows. Unless his faith in the Scot is very powerful, he will not change. Both men believe they are doing the morally right thing, despite the fact that the king isn't thinking too hard about it."
Me: "I see. Wanna finish the movie?"
Me 2: "Better." Read More......
