Critical Eye

Well, I haven't posted much on this book because I read it before class began so I had to skim my notes on it today. I think the book was incredibly interesting! I have written and directed dramas for community and religious organizations since I was 17 and still had no idea what all went into the making of a film. Wow! Anyway, I now have 3 sets of notes on this book: things I could use in drama to enhance the message and presentation, things I think will be important in studying jazz in film, and movies I want to watch again. For instance, I had no idea that Alfred Hitchcock used the same shot 3-4 times in 'Rear Window' and that we automatically attribute the 'appropriate' emotions to the character being shown based on the content he appears to be viewing (Jimmy Stewart). I had to rewatch that movie just because of this book! I had never caught that before!

The fact that film directors have even used a wheelchair to move a camera through doorways seems so funny to me. I guess my one comment on film-making is that I feel film companies do not have to be as creative nowadays as they used to be. Thanks to computer graphics, one can achieve astonishing special effects without really going out on the limb. I guess that's why I value older films much, much more; the crews had to have ingenuity to create the effects. Sometimes their attempts worked really well and other times, they are noticeably staged. The interesting part to me is trying to figure out what they did to create the image. This book really gave me a lot of insight! I loved it! (Of course, I'm a movie buff for these older films, mentioned within the book.)

Black Like You

Well, I've just finished the first chapter. I've googled a number of artists, comedians, and movies mentioned so far. This is quite an eye-opening text so far. I have to agree with the author that there appears to be a double-standard in what is considered politically appropriate. Why are the comedic routines of Shirley Q. Liquor any more offensive than "White Chicks"? I'm also aware that most academic institutions base their admissions practices on a point system in which African Americans and other minorities receive 'points' toward admission that whites do not receive; this appears to favor one side unequally and pulls the race card to the forefront again. This may well be one factor that has promoted the re-emergence of blackface on college campuses (although it does not justify it).

Another aspect which captured my interest was the author's take on the representations of history in recent years. He states that "history is not only rigidly interpreted, [but is] in fact rewritten or edited to fit the new paradigm" (30). Having collected older films, radio shows, and books as I have, I had already noticed the striking difference in the voice of authors/directors/writers over the years. In my opinion, in an effort to pacify activist groups, we have begun to vilify America itself. Yes, we may have made mistakes in the past, but few are looking deeply into the impetus that created opportunity for these mistakes. Postmodern writing, in its supposed effort to understand truth, has grayed the lines of race, gender, and sexuality in such a way that our younger generations are growing up confused. At the same time, many activists push for identity-respect based on these very characteristics they have attempted to destroy. These are strange times.

Perhaps minstrelsy is one of the elements of popular culture that brought the discourse of race into play, enabling such experimentation today. Could it perhaps promote understanding of our uniqueness as individuals through satire of commonly-held stereotypes?

Moll Anderson wisdom

It's never too late to be what you might have been!

Philosophy by Moll Anderson

Let go of the belief that the past could have been any different.

5327 Course

Hello everyone!

Classic Films Rock!

Hi everyone!