THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: social justice, revolution
CHARACTERS: Vakulinchuk (head mutineer), Golikov (ship’s captain)
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR SERGEI EISENSTEIN: October (1927), Alexander Nevsky (1938) Ivan the Terrible (1944)
SYNOPSIS: “Odessa - 1905. Enraged with the deplorable conditions on board the armored cruiser Potemkin, the ship's loyal crew contemplates the unthinkable - mutiny. Seizing control of the Potemkin and raising the red flag of revolution, the sailors' revolt becomes the rallying point for a Russian populace ground under the boot heels of the Czar's Cossacks. When ruthless White Russian cavalry arrives to crush the rebellion on the sandstone Odessa Steps, the most famous and most quoted film sequence in cinema history is born.” – Promotional synopsis, Kino International. The film is in five parts: (1) "Men and Maggots", in which the sailors protest at having to eat rotten meat; (2) "Drama at the Harbor", in which the sailors mutiny and their leader, Vakulynchuk, is killed; (3) "A Dead Man Calls for Justice" in which Vakulinchuk's body is mourned over by the people of Odessa; (4) "The Odessa Staircase", in which Tsarist soldiers massacre the Odessans; and (5) "The Rendez-Vous with a Squadron": , in which the squadron ends up joining the sailors' side. – Wikipedia.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. The film opens with this quote: “Revolution is war. Of all the wars known in history it is the only lawful, rightful, just, and great war. . . In Russia this war has been declared and begun – Lenin, 1905.” Why would revolution be “the only lawful, rightful, just, and great war”?
2. In the opening scene, an officer on the Potemkin (still under Russian control), stumbles into men sleeping in hammocks and in frustration swats one. The caption reads: “It’s easy to vent one’s rage on a recruit” and the swatted man says to his bunkmates, “there’s a limit to what a man can take.” This is obviously more than about a guy getting swatted. What’s the larger political significance?
3. When the ship’s physician inspects the meat, he says "Those aren't worms... they're only maggots. Just wash them off with brine; the meat's perfectly fine." Among the various injustices that Eisenstein could have focused on to provoke feelings of moral outrage in viewers, what was it about the food issue that made it so effective?
4. The film has a cynical view of religion. When the tarp is thrown over the sailors and they’re about to be shot, there is a close up of a priest tapping his cross, then a close up of a soldier holding his sword. Once the mutiny breaks out on the ship, the priest says to a rebelling sailor “Remember the Lord”; the sailor pushes the priest and says “Out of my way”! How might religion have been complicit in the injustices that the sailors were rebelling against?
5. When the people of Odessa mourn the death of Vakulynchuk, a smug middle class man yells “Kill the Jews”, after which the crowd beats him. What’s the significance of the anti-Semitic remark and the crowd’s reaction?
6. At the beginning of the staircase scene, town folk of all social classes cheer and wave at the Potemkin, indicating their support of the mutiny. Describe the appearance of the different social classes. Is it believable that the upper class would gladly participate in a communist revolution?
7. One of the pioneering features of the film is its use of quick edits (montage sequences), which is especially evident in the staircase scene. How does this add to the dramatic effect of the scene?
8. The most dramatic part of the staircase sequence is the concluding scene when the baby carriage rolls down the stairs. What makes this especially effective?
9. Compare and contrast these various tributes of the Odessa staircase scene on youtube:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1tO2D3LCI
10. In the concluding shot of the film, the Potemkin sails head on towards the viewer. What is the message behind this shot?
THE MAN FROM EARTH (2007)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: mortality, empirical evidence, religious faith.
CHARACTERS: John Oldman, Dan (black anthropologist), Harry (biologist, strange guy with glasses), Edith (older woman, devout Christian), Sandy (historian, John's girlfriend), Art (long blonde haired archeologist), Linda Murphy (Art's student), Will Gruber (old psychiatrist).
SYNOPSIS: "An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he is an immortal who has walked the earth for 14,000 years. Acclaimed Sci-Fi writer Jerome Bixby conceived this story back in the early 1960's. It would come to be his last great work, finally completing it on his deathbed in April of 1998." – producer's website
DIRECTOR RICHARD SCHENKMAN: And Then Came Love (2007)
1. Throughout the film, John’s friends search for ways to either confirm or disconfirm his story. What were some of their attempts, and what was John’s response?
2. Can you think of possible ways to confirm or disconfirm John’s story that hadn’t occurred to his friends?
3. John states that he once met someone that was like him, but when the two exchanged life stories, he couldn’t be sure that the other man was telling the truth, or just playing along. Is there anything that John and his friend could have said to each other that would have confirmed the truth of their stories?
4. Which of the friends’ reactions best (and least) reflects how you would have responded if you were in the room with John and the others that evening?
5. Suppose that one of John’s friends was a linguist and asked John to prove his story by speaking in the many languages that he learned over the millennia. Suppose further that John was fluent in modern foreign languages, but only knew a few phrases of ancient ones. Would this hurt John’s claim?
6. John states that he was the historical Jesus, and that early Christians embellished what actually happened to the point that it was no longer historically recognizable. Suppose this was true and, without John’s help, we tried to extract from the New Testament the portions that were historically true. What might we select and what might we reject?
7. What were John’s personal religious views, and if you lived 14,000 years like John, what might your religious views be?
8. From your perspective, what would be the most rewarding part about living 14,000 years, and what would be the least rewarding?
9. John said that he had a lot of money. How might he have accumulated it?
10. Suppose John wanted to bury something and dig it up centuries later, either for personal financial gain or historical benefit. What objects might he select, and what would guide his choice?
11. John wasn’t capable of telling Sandy that he loved her. Granted, after 14,000 years of relationships, he would try to emotionally distance himself from people. But in view of the biological basis of romantic love, is that realistic for a 35 year old man?
12. In an old Twilight Zone episode called “Long Live Walter Jameson”, a youthful-looking man is really 200 years old, and becomes engaged to a young woman. He is then shot by an old woman who was his wife from years earlier. In “The Man from Earth,” Sandy knows full well what her fate is with John, but is willing to go along with it anyway. Are either of these responses realistic?
13. John knew all along that Will was his son (as indicated in John’s facial response when he discovers that Will overheard him talking with Sandy about his Boston days). We might assume that John intentionally took a job at the college to be closer to his son. What kind of parental obligation did John have to Will throughout the years?
THE SEARCHERS (1956)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: racism
CHARACTERS: Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter), Debbie Edwards (kidnapped younger daughter), Lucy Edwards (kidnapped older daughter), Laurie Jorgensen (Marty's girlfriend), Reverend Clayton, Mose Harper (mentally challenged man), Look (Marty's Indian wife), Scar
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR JOHN FORD: The Informer (1935), Stagecoach (1939), The Grapes of Wrath (1940), How Green Was My Valley (1941, Academy Award, best director), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), The Alamo (1960).
SYNOPSIS: “Working together for the 12th time, John Wayne and director John Ford forged The Searchers into an indelible image of the frontier and the men and women who challenged it. Wayne plays ex-Confederate soldier Ethan Edwards, a believer more in bullets than in words. He's seeking his niece, captured by Comanche who massacred his family. He won't surrender to hunger, thirst, the elements or loneliness. And in his obsessive, five-year quest, Ethan encounters something he didn't expect to find: his own humanity.” – promotional synopsis, Warner Brothers. A script of this film is available at www. script-o-rama.com.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. The movie was set in Monument Valley, in southern Utah, a frequent location for Ford’s western movies. Aside from its scenic beauty as a backdrop to the film, does it add any special meaning to it?
2. What are some of Ethan’s values – political views, religious beliefs, racial prejudices, conceptions of the good life?
3. Martin is part Indian. What function does that play in the racial themes throughout the movie?
4. The Searchers has a dark tone, and at the time was an especially violent movie with a lot of shocking scenes. What are some of them, and how do they compare by today’s standards?
5. Half way through the film, Ethan and Martin see a few recently rescued white women who were kidnapped by Comanche, and appear almost subhuman. At that point Ethan suspects that the same has become of Debbie, and he wants to kill her rather than rescue her. Near the end of the film Laurie says to Martin that even Debbie’s dead mother would have preferred for Debbie to die rather than live like a Comanche (Martin himself is part Indian). Why would becoming a Comanche be so bad for people in the 1870s, and would it be that bad in the 1950s when the movie came out?
6. In what ways do Ethan’s and Scar’s personalities parallel each other?
7. When Ethan finally gets to Debbie, he doesn’t kill her but picks her up and says “Let’s go home, Debbie.” Does this reflect a change in Ethan’s attitude?
9. Ethan and Martin’s obsessive quest for Debbie cover a period of about five years. Have Ethan and Martin’s characters changed or matured throughout that time?
10. How are we to interpret the final shot when Ethan stands outside the house, looking in through the doorway, then walks away?
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (2008)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: just war theory, torture, moral responsibility
CHARACTERS: The key interviewees are as follows:
Charles Graner (specialist, mustache and glasses, boyfriend of Lynndie England, 10 year sentence)
Ivan Frederick (staff sergeant, eight year sentence)
Javal Davis (black sergeant, six month sentence)
Lynndie England (private first class, girlfriend of Charles Graner, three year sentence)
Megan Graner (specialist, guard, wife of Charles Graner, curley blonde hair)
Sabrina Harman (sergeant first class, short brown hair, took photographs, six month sentence)
Janice Karpinski (Brigadier General)
Roman Krol (military intelligence, threw nerf football at prisoner, ten month sentence)
Jeremy Sivits (specialist, MP, “friendly to everyone”, relatives fought in Vietnam, one year sentence)
Tim Dugan (contract interrogator, dark brown hair and goatee)
Brent Pack (army specialist agent criminal investigator, analyzed photographs, light brown hair and goatee)
(For images of interviewees see www.participantmedia.com/press/press_kit/standard_operating_procedure.php)
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR ERROL MORRIS: Gates of Heaven (1978), The Thin Blue Line (1988), A Brief History of Time (1992), Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control (1997), Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. (1999), The Fog of War (2003)
SYNOPSIS: "Standard Operating Procedure" provides an examination of the unintended consequences of the Iraqi war with a focus on events at Abu Ghraib prison which began to appear in global media in 2004. The prison quickly became notorious for the shocking photos of the abuse and torture of terror suspects by military men and women. Ultimately, it is the story of soldiers who believed they were defending democracy but found themselves plunged into an unimagined nightmare” (promotional synopsis). “I think of the film as a nonfiction horror movie. The imagery is designed to take the viewer into the moment the photographs were taken, as well as to evoke the nightmarish, hallucinatory quality of Abu Ghraib” (Interview with Errol Morris).
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the participants in the Abu Ghraib offenses seemed to be the most or least worse among the group?
2. What were some of the justifications that the prisoners offered for their conduct, and do any of them lessen their responsibility?
3. What responsibility did Brigadier General Janice Karpinski feel that she had for the Abu Ghraib offenses?
4. During the film Sabrina Harman commented several times that she took the photos as proof that the U.S. Army was doing things that she felt were morally objectionable. Is this claim credible, and, if so, does it justify her participation?
5. One of the convicted soldiers said that the real torture took place by the interrogators, and the Army guards were just psychologically wearing the prisoners down for interrogation. Is there any merit to this?
6. The beating death of the Iraqi prisoner was attributed to a group of Navy SEAL sailors, none of whom were convicted. What does this suggest to you?
7. At the close of the movie, contract interrogator Tim Dugan goes through the list of actions at Abu Ghraib and indicates which were criminal and which were standard operating procedure. Should any that he designated as standard operating procedure have been criminal?
8. Sabrina Harman stated the following about the hooded prisoner on the box: “I knew he wouldn’t be electrocuted. So it really didn’t bother me. I mean, it was just words. There was really no action in it. It would have been meaner if there really was electricity coming out, and he really could be electrocuted. No physical harm was ever done to him. . . . He was laughing at us towards the end of the night, maybe because he knew we couldn’t break him.” The hooded prisoner has become a symbol of the Abu Ghraib abuses. Does Harman’s account alter how you think about the hooded prisoner incident?
9. A philosophy essay by Nancy E. Snow titled “How Ethical Theory Can Improve Practice: Lessons from Abu Ghraib” states the following: “Abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq confront us with the question of how seemingly ordinary soldiers could have perpetrated harms against prisoners. In this essay I argue that a Stoic approach to the virtues can provide a bulwark against the social and personal forces that can lead to abusive behavior. . . . that character formation drawing on Stoic values can provide soldiers with the inner resilience to resist the situational factors that press them to unwarranted aggression.” Is this realistic for young soldiers, such as those depicted in the film with limited life experience and a low socioeconomic background?
10. Did Morris’s interrotron interviewing technique have a special how you as a viewer related to the participants and their stories? That is, would your reaction have been the same if it was filmed in standard interview format?
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
1. In the first portion of the film while the droogies were on their violent rampage, the scenery, costumes and language were all very stylized. Later in the film, during the demonstration of Alex’s cure, stylized costumes reappear with the outfit of the actor who attacks Alex and the hair of the unclothed actress who tries to seduce him. What was the point behind the stylization?
2. When in prison, Alex works with the prison chaplain and is drawn to the sex and violence in the Old Testament, with no interest in the more gentle portions of the New Testament. Is the movie making a point about the intrinsic merit of the Bible?
3. The prison chaplain says the following to Alex: “The question is whether or not this technique really makes a man good. Goodness comes from within. Goodness is chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.” Alex responds, “I don’t understand about the whys and wherefores, father. I only know that I want to be good.” Is the chaplain correct?
4. What items were in Alex’s prison cell, and what significance do they have?
5. The prison warden says that he subscribes to the old view of punishment: “Eye for an eye, I say. If someone hits you, you hit back, do you not? Why then should not the state, very severely hit by you hooligans, hit back also. The new view is to say no. The new view is that we turn the bad into good, all of which seems to be grossly unjust, eh?” The dispute here is between punishment as a means of retribution and punishment as a means of reform. Is the warden right that the reform approach is grossly unjust?
6. The technique of reforming used on Alex drew on the psychological theory called “classic conditioning”: associate some stimulus with a pleasant or unpleasant feeling, and the subject will eventually have a positive or negative response to that stimulus. Could this technique actually work in reforming someone like Alex?
7. Alex didn’t internalize the results of the reforming technique until he realized that he would thereafter have negative associations with the music of Beethoven, which was playing in the background. Is anything bad about this?
8. When presenting the cured Alex to the public, the Minister of the Interior stated the following about prison: “prison taught him a false smile, the rubbing hands of hypocrisy, the fawning, greased, obsequious leer. Other vices prison taught him as well as confirming in him those he had long practiced before.” Is this a relevant criticism of the ultimate purpose of the prison system?
9. Consider this dialogue between the chaplain and the minister of interior. Prison chaplain: “Choice. The boy has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement [i.e., Alex jumping out the window]. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.” Minister of the interior: “Padre, these are subtleties. We’re not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.” Is the Minister right that we should focus on results, rather than the hidden motives of criminals?
10. After Alex’s attempted suicide, newspaper stories came out criticizing the government’s experiments at reforming criminals; one headline stated “Doctors blame government scientists for changing Alex’s nature.” Don’t all efforts at criminal reform aim at changing the criminal’s nature?
KING CORN (2007)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: capitalism, animal rights, environmental ethics
CHARACTERS: Ian Cheney, Curt Ellis, Earl L. Butz
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR AARON WOOLF: Dying to Leave (2003)
SYNOPSIS: “Two friends with one year to spare and a deep curiosity about the American food distribution system set out to grow and acre of corn and see what becomes of their crop in director Aaron Woolf's agricultural-themed documentary. Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis are best friends from college who have decided to move from the east coast to the Midwest in hopes of getting a better idea where the food they consume on a daily basis actually comes from. Corn is America's most productive and subsidized grain. Upon relocating to Iowa, the pair and seeks out the assistance of friends and neighbors in procuring the land, seeds, fertilizers, and herbicides needed to grow a one-acre bumper crop of this highly-versatile commodity. As their maize is harvested and the sometimes-troubling realities of modern faming begin to emerge, the pair sets off on a mission to track the progress of their product and find out just how it is used to create a variety of different food products. What emerges is an informative and at times disturbing account of both the food Americans so readily consume without so much as a second though and the alarming state of the contemporary agricultural industry.” -- Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. The movie opens with Ian and Curtis saying that we are the first generation of people that will likely have a shorter life span than our parents, largely because of the food we eat. A scientist then states that a disproportionally large amount of the carbon in our bodies comes from corn. Both of these are probably little known facts. Whose fault is that?
2. Since the 1920s, U.S. agricultural policy has involved government subsidization for farmers. Prior to 1973, the government regulated agricultural production by keeping supply and demand in balance, which sometimes meant paying farmers to take some farm land out of production. This stabilized agricultural prices, kept them high, and allowed smaller farms to survive. Was this a good policy (as opposed to no policy of restriction or subsidization at all)?
3. In 1973 Nixon’s agricultural secretary, Earl L. Butz reoriented the U.S. farm program by not restricting what a farm can produce. Butz states in an interview with the film makers that under the old farm program, “We paid farmers not to produce, one of the stupidest things we ever did, I think.” According to Butz, the increased agricultural production in this country has driven food prices down now so that we only pay about 17% of our incomes on food. Previous generations paid twice that amount. Butz acknowledged that this has lead to large scale farming where smaller farms can’t compete, and while he was Secretary of Agriculture he routinely told farmers “get big or get out." Did Butz make the right decision?
4. Even under Butz’s restructured farm program, the U.S. government still subsidizes farmers. At the time of the movie, the government was paying farmers $28 per acre of corn. According to the film, if you grow corn without payment from the government, you’ll lose money. Is anything wrong with this policy, and what would happen if it was discontinued?
5. According to the film, the government subsidy system essentially rewards overproduction of corn. One person stated, “We subsidize the happy meals, but not the healthy meals.” Is this an accurate assessment of the results of the government subsidy system?
6. Corn yield has increased by selecting types of corn plants that grow closer to each other so there are more corn plants per acre. This has increased the yield from 40 bushels per acre in the past to 200 bushels of corn per acre now. The trade off is that it has more starch and less protein. Is the trade off worth it?
7. Most farmers use genetically modified seeds to make the crops like corn resistant to the herbicide weed killers (e.g., Liberty-ready, Roundup-ready). The result is that an entire field can efficiently be sprayed with herbicides without killing the crops. This keeps the yield per acre high and thus lowers the cost we pay for food. What if anything is bad about this?
8. The corn that Ian and Curtis grew was essentially inedible in its unprocessed form. As one person in the film said, “It’s a raw material like feed stock for all these other processes” -- specifically, ethanol for fuel, feed for animals, and high fructose corn syrup for food. Is anything particularly bad about this?
9. Corn grain isn’t a healthy food for cows, and too much of it will produce acidosis, which will kill them. Large cattle feedlots are unsanitary and expose the cows to diseases. Antibiotics are put into corn feed to help combat both acidosis and disease from confinement; about 70% of the antibiotics in this country go to that purpose. All of this is driven by economics: corn is cheap food, and confinement allows cows to put on weight quickly. Is the tradeoff worth it?
10. According to one expert in the film, the muscle in factory farmed cows looks more like fat tissue than muscle tissue. Steak from grain-fed cows has about 5 times the saturated fat as grass fed cows. Again, this is driven by economics: steak with less saturated fat would mean spending more money on how cows are raised. Is the tradeoff worth it?
11. The corn sweetener industry emerged as an outlet for the excess corn that was produced after farming was deregulated. About 70% of high fructose corn syrup goes into beverage sweeteners. One problem this creates is obesity: one expert stated that drinking calories doesn’t produce the digestive “stop signals” that eating calories does. Another problem with sweet beverages is that it contributes to type 2 diabetes. Can we really blame corn sweetener or Earl Butz for this?
12. Near the end of the film the narrator states, “We spend less of our income on food than any generation in history, and fewer of us are needed to produce that food than ever before. But we also might be the first generation to live in a time when abundance brings too much.” Is the narrator right?
CASABLANCA (1942)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: moral conflict, civil disobedience
CHARACTERS: Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman), Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), Captain Renault (Claude Rains), Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt), Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet), Ugarte (Peter Lorre)
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR MICHAEL CURTIZ: Adventures of Robinhood (1938), Angels with Dirty Faces (1938), Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942), Life with Father (1947), White Christmas (1954),
SYNOPSIS: “A truly perfect movie, the 1942 Casablanca still wowsviewers today, and for good reason. Its unique story of a love triangle set against terribly high stakes in the war against a monster is sophisticated instead of outlandish, intriguing instead of garish. Humphrey Bogart plays the allegedly apolitical club owner in unoccupied French territory that is nevertheless crawling with Nazis; Ingrid Bergman is the lover who mysteriously deserted him in Paris; and Paul Heinreid is her heroic, slightly bewildered husband. Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, and Conrad Veidt are among what may be the best supporting cast in the history of Hollywood films. This is certainly among the most spirited and ennobling movies ever made.” -- Tom Keogh
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Rick appears to have done to Ilsa what Renault was trying to do to the young Hungarian married woman. If true love a better justification than pure lust?
2. From 1930-1968, Hollywood films were under a strict production code which prohibited sexually explicit scenes. Films during that period were still sexually suggestive. For example, in place of a sex scene between Rick and Ilsa, there is a brief but suggestive shot of a lighthouse. If Casablanca was remade today, it would most certainly contain a sex scene. What if anything would be gained by this?
3. Ilsa essentially got Victor Laszlo’s blessing to seduce Rick into giving up the transit papers. Dos that make her a bad wife or him a bad husband?
4. Suppose that Renault only made romance-for-visa offer to single women. Would there be anything wrong with that?
5. On the surface, it looks like Rick abandoned his anti-Nazi efforts once he left Paris, and then became a self-centered business man. He states to Ilsa “I’m not fighting for anything now except myself. I’m the only cause that I’m interested in.” Beneath the surface, though, did Rick do anything to help the resistance movement in Casablanca, even if only indirectly?
6. Ilsa stated that she can’t fight her feelings for Rick any more, and that should couldn’t leave him again. From the audience’s perspective, is it believable that Ilsa would prefer Rick over her husband after she and Rick had been separated for so long?
7. Rick asks Victor “Don’t you sometimes wonder if it’s worth all this, I mean what you’re fighting for.” Victor responds, “You might as well question why you breath. If you stop breathing, you’ll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.” Is there really a parallel between the need to breathe and the need to fight for a cause as Victor suggests?
8. Rick and Sam were in some sense friends, but Sam always appeared subordinate, regularly referring to Rick as “Mr. Rick”. How might the movie’s portrayal of that relationship have appeared to audiences in the 1940s? How does it appear now?
9. From the standpoint of modern feminism, does Ilsa appear to be a strong or weak female type?
VERTIGO (1958)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: self-deception
CHARACTERS: James Stewart (John 'Scottie' Ferguson), Madeleine Elster / Judy Barton (Kim Novak), Midge, Gavin Elster
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR ALFRED HITCHCOCK: The 39 Steps (1935), Lifeboat (1944), Rope (1948), Dial M for Murder (1954), Rear Window (1954), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963)
SYNOPSIS: “Suspended San Francisco detective "Scottie" Ferguson (James Stewart) becomes obsessed with Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak), a troubled woman he is privately hired to follow. Tragedy ensues, and when Ferguson later stumbles upon Judy Barton (Kim Novak), a young woman who bears a striking resemblance to Madeleine, his obsession spirals out of control.” – fandango.com.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What are Midge’s feelings towards Scottie, and why isn’t Scottie interested in her romantically?
2. In the first half of the movie, at what point does Scottie’s detective work regarding Madeline cross the line to become obsessive stalking?
3. The transformational moment in Vertigo comes when we see the flashback of the tower scene from Judy’s perspective, and it becomes clear that the “Madeline” that Scottie know was a fabrication. This flashback scene does not occur in the book upon which the movie was based, and Hitchcock was advised against including it in the movie. By including it, the perspective from which the viewer sees the movie shifts. What are the two perspectives, and did Hitchcock make the right choice?
4. Once we know that Madeline’s trances were a hoax, we need to reinterpret everything Judy did while playing the role of Madeline. For one thing, she was aware that Scottie was following her the whole time. Further, it’s clear that she was conscious when Scottie undressed her and put her in his bed. What does this say about Judy?
5. How are we as viewers to feel about Scottie’s efforts to transform Judy into Madeline?
6. When Scottie sees Judy wear Carlotta’s necklace, he finally experiences what the viewer experienced in the flashback scene. The viewer’s perspective has once again shifted. What is the new perspective?
7. Philosopher Roger Gilmore says this about Scottie’s experience of vertigo: “Scottie’s wearing of a corset, his vulnerability when he falls into Midge’s arms from the footstool, his mysterious incapacity for marriage with Midge, his identification with Madeleine/Carlotta (having the same dream), all suggest Scottie’s discomfort as a pure or straightforward representative of the masculine figure in the symbolic network. In each case his vertigo is his magic release from these responsibilities.” Explain Gilmore’s point, and, on his view, why Scottie’s vertigo goes away after he drags Judy up the tower staircase and confronts her with the truth?
8. Vertigo is two hours long, slow moving, with only three main characters. Something about the personalities of Scottie, Midge and Judy must connect with viewers to sustain their interest in the film for so long. Yet all three characters are dominated by their flaws. What are their main flaws and how might a viewer identify with these flaws?
9. Suppose that Judy did not fall out of the tower in the last scene. Scottie would then have faced the choice of staying with Judy or turning her in. What would you have done, and would your decision reveal a flaw in your personality?
10. Movie critic Roger Ebert says of this film that “It is about how Hitchcock used, feared and tried to control women.” Assuming that Ebert’s assessment is correct, does this reflect anything sinister in Hitchcock, or is this just business as usual for men (and perhaps for women too). Does it make any difference that Hitchcock was especially homely?
DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: just war theory, genocide
CHARACTERS: President (Peter Sellers), General 'Buck' Turgidson (George C. Scott), Brigadier General Jack Ripper
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR STANLEY KUBRICK: Spartacus (1960), Lolita (1962), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Shining (1980), Full Metal Jacket (1987)
SYNOPSIS: “Arguably the greatest black comedy ever made, Stanley Kubrick's cold-war classic is the ultimate satire of the nuclear age. Dr. Strangelove is a perfect spoof of political and military insanity, beginning when General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), a maniacal warrior obsessed with "the purity of precious bodily fluids," mounts his singular campaign against Communism by ordering a squadron of B-52 bombers to attack the Soviet Union. The Soviets counter the threat with a so- called "Doomsday Device," and the world hangs in the balance while the U.S. president (Peter Sellers) engages in hilarious hot-line negotiations with his Soviet counterpart. Sellers also plays a British military attaché and the mad bomb-maker Dr. Strangelove; George C. Scott is outrageously frantic as General Buck Turgidson, whose presidential advice consists mainly of panic and statistics about "acceptable losses." With dialogue ("You can't fight here! This is the war room!") and images (Slim Pickens's character riding the bomb to oblivion) that have become a part of our cultural vocabulary, Kubrick's film regularly appears on critics' lists of the all-time best.” -- Jeff Shannon
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. In the war room, General Turgidson suggests to the President that the U.S. military should launch an all out attack on the Soviet Union, which would reduce the Soviet’s retaliatory force by 90%. The net result of this action would be 20 million Americans killed vs. 150 million. Good idea or bad idea?
2. The survival kits on the bomber included a tiny book that was a combination Bible and Russian phrase book. Why is that funny?
3. What else could the U.S. President have done to fix the situation?
4. General Ripper’s mental state was the initial cause of the crisis. Other elements of human error were also introduced after that. What were they and what is the larger lesson we should learn from these?
5. Dr. Strangelove says the following to the President about the doomsday machine: “That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.” In spite of all the potential human error involved in nuclear war strategy, is it better to leave humans in the loop rather than make something like the dooms day machine automated?
6. One of the tenets of just war theory is “proportionality,” that is, the military should only use the amount of force that is required to achieve their goal. Does the dooms day machine abide by the requirement of proportionality?
7. Strangelove involuntarily calls the President “Mein Fuhrer” and gives him the Hitler salute. What are the parallels between Hitler’s actions and the President’s role in nuclear war?
8. Strangelove discusses a survival strategy were several thousand people are placed in a mineshaft for 100 years, while waiting for nuclear fallout to reach acceptable levels. Strangelove says “with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.” Would it be reasonable to have a male/female ratio like this?
9. General Turgidson warns of a possible “a mine shaft gap” whereby the Soviets put more people in their mineshafts than Americans, and thus have superior numbers when they emerge 100 years from now. What is the film’s point here?
EDUCATION OF SHELBY KNOX (2005)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: sexual morality
CHARACTERS: Shelby Knox, Corry Nichols, Pastor Ed Ainsworth,
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTORS MARION LIPSCHUTZ AND ROSE ROSENBLATT: Live Free or Die (2000)
SYNOPSIS: Shelby Knox--a wide-eyed, precocious activist--is the star of The Education of Shelby Knox, a riveting tale of one girl’s mission to bring sex education to schools in her ultra-conservative hometown of Lubbock, Texas. Bursting with original characters, including an intolerant preacher crusading for abstinence, Shelby’s skeptical but loving Republican parents, and Lubbock’s tiny-but-vocal gay youth movement, the film richly captures an unusual coming of age story. In a town filled with religious fervor, sexual ferment, abstinence-only agitators and teenage pregnancy, Shelby struggles with her conflicting values and comes to terms with her own sexuality. In the process, she becomes an endearing and honest guide to the national moral morass. Unafraid to tackle pressing, complex questions, the film is supercharged with religion, politics, sex and the cultural warriors and ordinary people who battle over these hot-button issues. Skillfully crafted by award-winning directors Marion Lipschutz and Rose Rosenblatt, The Education of Shelby Knox is "a pungent civics lesson on what can and cannot be accomplished by one plucky, idealistic girl.” -- The New York Times.
INTERNET LINKS
A transcript of an online chat session with Shelby Knox is available here:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/20/DI2005062000859.html
A video of Shelby Knox’s testimony before a congressional committee is here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyifNkj-MC8
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Shelby herself notes the irony that she’s liberal while her parents are both politically and religiously conservative. She says that the transformation took place when she started associating with kids that her parents didn’t know from the Lubbock Youth Commission, and this made her thing that the world was a bigger place than Lubbock. What else might have contributed to her shift in thinking?
2. Should Shelby’s parents have been more supportive of her?
3. Should Shelby’s pastor have been more supportive of her, or did he do the best that a conservative pastor could have done under those circumstances?
4. Shelby’s pastor says with a certain amount of pride that Christianity is the most intolerant religion in the world. Is he right?
5. Shelby’s pastor also says “the terms Christian and liberal are like oil and water” insofar as they don’t go together. Is he right?
6. On two occasions Shelby asked her pastor why homosexuality was sinful, and both times the pastor cited the Bible. Could he have given a better response?
7. In an online interview Shelby states the following about her pastor: “Ed Ainsworth continues to travel the world with his abstinence-until-marriage program. He has most recently been to AIDS ravaged Africa to insist that condoms do not work.” What if anything can be said in the pastor’s defense?
8. Do you think that comprehensive sex education in Lubbock’s schools would have reduced teen pregnancy or the STD rate?
9. At the school board meeting, one of the board members made the following statement: “I pulled some other statistics regarding the south plains region. We also have a higher nonuse of seatbelts, a higher nonuse of car seats, a higher percentage of teen drinking and driving. We tend to get this ‘it won’t happen to me’ attitude … I think that Lubbock is in that mode where we think that nothing bad is ever going to happen, and when it does we’re shocked. I don’t think it’s a sex education issue, maybe it’s not an education issue. It’s an ‘it won’t happen to me’ attitude in this entire region.” How, if at all, does the board member’s assessment help address the problem of teen pregnancy?
10. When Shelby was 15 she took a sexual purity pledge; she said “it was the thing to do if you’re a good southern Baptist girl.” In an interview, Shelby stated the following about the effectiveness of purity pledges: “a recent study out of Colombia stated that 40% of teens who take the pledge break it. Most alarmingly, 88% of the teens who break the pledge do not use any form of protection when they do.” Might there still be some value to purity pledges?
11. Shelby states that she didn’t trust Corry Nichols the second that she met him. Did she have good reason to not trust him?
12. Lubbock Youth Commission was setup by the city’s mayor to give the Lubbock youth a voice in city government. What good do you think a commission like that, consisting of high school students, would do in affecting change within a city of 200,000 people?
13. One scene in the film showed an anti-gay protest by members of Fred Phelp’s church. Shelby participated in a counter-protest. Would it have been better to just ignore Phelp’s protest rather than give it any credence by responding?
AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD (1972)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: egoism, imperialism
CHARACTERS: Aguirre (Klaus Kinski), Ursua (executed expedition leader), brother Gaspar (the monk), Guzman (Emperor of El Dorado)
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR WERNER HERZOG: The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1975), Heart of Glass (1976), Nosferatu: The Vampyre (1979), Fitzcarraldo (1982), Grizzly Man (2005)
SYNOPSIS: “Based on the journals of Brother Gaspar de Carvajal, Aguirre, The Wrath Of God is director Werner Herzog's hallucinatory tale of Spanish colonialists searching for El Dorado, the legendary city of gold, in 16th-century Peru. When the travellers reach an impasse, a scouting party is assembled to search for any traces of the mythical empire. As they attempt to forge their way through the dense jungle, more and more of the party falls ill while their ruthless leader, Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski), grows increasingly insane. Widely considered to be Herzog's finest film, Aguirre, which shares much in common with Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, highlights the director's visionary approach to filmmaking. Like Coppola's film, accounts of Aguirre's shooting are laced with legendary incidents, such as the time Herzog reportedly held a gun to Kinski's head to get him to finish a scene. Whatever transpired between Herzog and Kinski, it made for astonishing cinema, as evidenced by the actor's haunting performance and the entire film's powerfully hypnotic mood.” – RottenTomatoes.com. A transcription of the film’s dialogue is here: http://www.movietranscriptions.com/129242_Aguirre_The_Wrath_of_God.html
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. After the mutiny, Ursua’s wife pleads with the priest to prevent Aguirre from killing Ursua. The priest responds as follows: “Thou lettest man flow on like a river and Thy years know no end. As for man his days are like grass as a flower on the field, so he blossoms. For when the wind passeth over it and it is gone , and the place thereof shall know it no more. You know, my child, for the good of our Lord the Church was always on the side of the strong.” What’s the priest’s point, and what was his interest in continuing with the expedition?
2. The native prince and translator tells his story: “I was a prince in this land. No one was allowed to look directly into my eyes. But now I'm in chains, like my people and I must bow my head. Almost everything was taken from us. I can't do anything , I'm powerless. But I am also sorry for you because I know there is no escape from this jungle.” Should we feel sorry for the prince?
3. Why did Aguirre make Guzman the Emperor of Eldorado, and what function does the Emperor serve in the film?
4. What are we to think about the natives in the film, particularly the cannibals?
5. Two natives come on board the raft, and describe a myth that foretells the coming of the foreigners. Why do the soldiers react the way that they do?
6. The obstacles on their journey included disease, lack of food, harsh physical terrain, and assault from natives. As things get progressively worse on the raft, what are the various motivations of Aguirre, the Emperor, the monk, the black slave, and the others to continue?
7. Aguirre first makes an illusion to himself being the “wrath of God” here: “If I, Aguirre, want the birds to drop dead from the trees the birds will drop dead from the trees. I am the Wrath of God! The earth I walk upon sees me and quakes! But whoever follows me and the river, will win untold riches. But whoever deserts. . . ." What’s his point about being the “wrath of God”?
8. Throughout the movie one of the natives plays a pan flute, with happy sounding songs. What is the point behind this contrast?
9. Ursua, the overthrown leader remains alive, saying nothing. What is he thinking?
10. The Emperor is well fed while the other men go hungry. Why not a more equal distribution of his food?
11. The Emperor insists on getting rid of the horse, which they do, and someone then strangles the Emperor. With the Emperor gone, Ursua is then hanged. What are the political dynamics here?
12. Ursua’s wife walks off into the jungle, knowing that she will face death by the cannibals. What was she thinking?
13. Aguirre’s daughter is one of the last to die. What was her role in the story?
14. After his daughter dies, Aguirre states: “I, the Wrath of God will marry my own daughter and with her I will found the purest dynasty the earth has ever seen. Together we shall rule this entire continent we will endure. I am the Wrath of God! Who else is with me?” What’s his point?
15. As everyone dies at the end, with only Aguirre remaining, the raft is overrun with monkeys. What’s the deal with the monkeys?
METROPOLIS (1927)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: exploitation, revolution
CHARACTERS: Joh Fredersen (Master of Metropolis), Freder (Joh Fredersen's son), C.A. Rotwang (mad scientist), The Thin Man, Josaphat, 11811, Grot (guardian of the Heart Machine), Maria (The Robot)
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR FRITZ LANG: Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922), Woman in the Moon (1929), M (1931), Fury (1936), Scarlet Street (1945), and The Big Heat (1953)
SYNOPSIS:
“A vast future city of sixty million people is divided between its proletariat [i.e., “Workers], who slave at the machines in the city’s depths, and the administrators [i.e., “Thinkers”] who live in palatial comfort high in the city’s towers. Freder, son of the city’s leader Joh Fredersen, is struck by the beautiful Maria when she leads a delegation of children up into the upper towers from down below. He follows her down to the city depths. Horrified to see the state the workers exist in there, Freder implores his father to make changes. But instead his father goes to the scientist Rotwang and gets him to build a robot double of Maria that invokes the workers to rebel and bring the city smashing down” – www.moria.com. A transcription of the DVD commentary to the restored 2003 version of the film is available at www.script-o-rama.com. A guidebook to the city structure of Metropolis is here: www.paper-dragon.com/2026/toc.html .
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Commentators invariably state that the plot of Metropolis is naive, and its substance lies in its visual representation. Commentator Arthur Lennig states that "To enjoy the film the viewer must observe but never think." Is Lennig right, and what are the most striking visual scenes, and how do they elevate the substance of the film?
2. Commentator Roger Ebert states that Metropolis “fixed for the rest of the century the image of a futuristic city as a hell of scientific progress and human despair” where “Science and industry will become the weapons of demagogues.” What are some other films that capture that depressing futuristic image, and why is that image so evocative of dystopias?
3. Joh Fredersen sheltered his son Freder from the situation of the workers, but Freder discovers this anyway, which triggers an awakening in him. This parallels the story of how the Buddha, after being sheltered for years within his father’s palace, finally discovers the outside world where he discovers sickness, aging and death, which prompts Buddha on his quest for enlightenment. What does this say about the evils that these two fathers were trying to hide from their respective sons?
4. When Ferder sees the accident in the factory, he has a vision in which the workers enter the mouth of Moloch to be devoured. Moloch was a Caananite God, associated with a ritual involving sacrificial fire, which that the backsliding Israelites occasionally worshiped. What’s the point of this symbolism?
5. The “Club of the Sons” is meant to represent our own comfortable lifestyles, which require us to deny the realities of the underclass. In a similar vein, George Orwell wrote “all of us really owe the comparative decency of our lives to poor drudges underground, blackened to the eyes, with their throats full of coal dust." Are we as bad as the Club of the Sons?
6. In one version of the film, Freder says to his father, “It was their hands that built this city, but where do the hands belong in your scheme?” The same can be said of most civilizations that exploit the working class. Is there an optimistic answer that one might give to Freder’s question?
7. After the Tower of Babel scene, Maria states, "head and hands need a mediator. The mediator between head and hands must be the heart.” How does her statement connect with the Tower of Babel scene and also with the plight of the workers?
8. One of the workers asks “where is our mediator, Maria?” She answers, “Wait for him! He will surely come!” Another worker states “We will wait, Maria, but not much longer.” When all are gone, Maria sees Ferder and says, “Oh mediator, you have finally come?” to which he replies “You called me, here I am.” There’s a strong messianic theme here. How does Ferder parallel Jesus, and exactly who is he supposed to mediate between?
9. The film screenplay states “Centuries behind and centuries ahead, Rotwang’s laboratory was half a quack’s kitchen from the year 1500, and half experimental laboratory of a man from the year 2000.” Commentator Richard Scheib states more generally that “Metropolis seems caught between these two strands of thought – the fearful occlusion of the Mediaeval Gothic and on the other hand the bold, optimism of the New Germany reaching toward marvels of technology.” Explain Scheib’s point.
10. In a nightclub in Metropolis called “Yoshiwara's House of Sin,” the evil Maria robot performs a seductive dance before patrons, which results in fighting and dueling. What’s the point here? 11. Just as Rotwant planned, the workers fall under the spell of the evil robot Maria, and she destroys their belief in the mediator and incites them to rebel. How is the robot Maria’s plan for the workers different than the plan of the real Maria, and whose plan is better?
12. Richard Scheib states “You can really debate if Metropolis is as much on the side of the exploited working classes as it would appear to be. Notably it is the mad scientist not the industrialist, who is responsible for the evil and upsetting the balance of labour classes and is the one who is punished for his actions, while the industrialist benevolently restores the status quo.” Is Scheib right?
13. At the conclusion, Maria again states, “head and hands want to join together, but they don’t have the heart to do it. Oh mediator, show them the way to each other.” Commentator Richard Von Busack says the following of Maria’s statement about the heart mediating head and hands: “It's a well-meaning idea, the only one liberals can offer in a time of desperation--the hope that common decency will end the war between haves and have-nots.” Is Busack right?
LIFEBOAT (1944)
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: moral worth
CHARACTERS: Connie Porter (wealthy journalist), Rittenhouse (wealthy industrial tycoon), Gus (crewman with injured leg), Kovak (crewman with socialist convictions), Alice (nurse), Stanley Garrett (English radioman, Hume Cronyn), Mrs. Higley (depressed mother), Joe (black ship steward), Willy (German U-boat captain, Walter Slezak)
OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR ALFRED HITCHCOCK: The 39 Steps (1935), Rope (1948), Dial M for Murder (1954), Rear Window (1954), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), Vertigo (1958), Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963)
SYNOPSIS: “After their ship is sunk in the Atlantic by Germans, eight people are stranded in a lifeboat, among them a glamorous journalist (Tallulah Bankhead), a tough seaman (John Hodiak), a nurse (Mary Anderson) and an injured sailor (William Bendix). Their problems are further compounded when they pick up a ninth passenger - the Nazi captain from the U-boat that torpedoed them. With its powerful interplay of suspense and emotion, this legendary classic is a microcosm of humanity, revealing the subtleties of man's strengths and frailties under extraordinary duress.” – promotional synopsis, 20th Century Fox. The screenplay of Lifeboat is available at www.script-o-rama.com
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. The film opens with Connie Porter, the rich journalist, bragging about the pictures she took of the shipwreck. While her uncaring attitude may have been exaggerated, are there any similarities with her attitude, either in journalism or normal life?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.