QUESTIONS FOR NISHITANI

1. What does “ego of the Cartesian type” mean? (p. 13 and notes)

2. What is Nishitani’s main objection to “cogito, ergo sum”? (p14 top and middle – the “eye” example 152)

3. What are two big problems associated with thinking of the self as “self-centered”? (bottom 14, top 15)

4. What does Nishitani suggest needs to be done in order to gain a better understanding of the self? i.e. does Descartes’ doubting go far enough? (middle 15, bottom 15)

5. Describe the “Great Doubt”? (top 16, bottom 17, bottom 18)

6. What does Nishitani mean when he says, “nihility” and “nullify”? (middle 16, top and middle 17)

7. How does Watsuji Tetsuro describe the self/individual? (101/102) And, how does this tie into Nishitani’s argument? (think about how we can understand identity if we are not an “ego of the Cartesian type”)

HW - 3 page paper - double spaced, typed, name at the end

BARTON FINK

BARTON FINK – 1991
Directed by – Joel Coen

If you’ve ever seen a Coen Brothers’ film (Joel usually directs and Ethan produces), the one thing that really sticks out is…well, everything. The Coen brothers own their films, providing a unique artistic and aesthetic vision that permeates every aspect of each film. It’s hard to describe, but it might be best to say that everything purposefully seems a little bit off-kilter – not so much to destabilize the film, but just enough to let you know that you are in foreign territory. It should also be mentioned that each film is incredibly different; never repeating the same setting, time period or dialect, they cover everything from violent Irish gangster films, the excellent Miller’s Crossing, to Raising Arizona (one of my favorites) – a comedic take on kid-napping set in the South-West, to a surreal, quasi-retelling of The Odyssey that takes place in the deep-south called O’Brother Where Art Thou (the same title as the fictitious story on human suffering featured in Preston Sturgess’s 1941 Sullivan’s Travels – these guys know their film history). They’ve also targeted the Mid-West, Texas, and the Northeast, tackled the romantic comedy and made a gritty film-noir. And, then there’s Barton Fink, which doesn’t fall as neatly into an established category. One thing we can say for sure is that Barton is a writer who is engaged (or mired) in the creative process – so let’s just say this one is about intention and creation. After all, a fairly universal question is what’s more important? What you make? -or- How you make it? As far as the setting goes, the Coen brothers key in on two cities, New York and Los Angeles. Notice how the cities are used – the “integrity” line is drawn once again between the two (think Annie Hall or every Woody Allen film ever made). But, L.A. is more or less needed to get us to the real icon of the fake and disingenuous: Hollywood.

The Coen brothers are infamous for detail; the problem is, just like Hitchcock, you have a lot of detail and not all of it is helpful. As a viewer, you are required to be active; you can’t just sit back and soak in the explosions and hot chicks in bikinis. This is a film you definitely need to take notes on because the patterns and symbolism often don’t make sense until later (if they ever do – watch out for red herrings). To be honest, Barton Fink is a film that provides more questions than answers, so don’t expect to understand everything. But, I am interested in what you do understand. What is your take on Barton? Are you sympathetic? Is he missing something? If so, what? What are you missing? What do you need to know? How does the film address the issue of authenticity and the creative process? And, using Barton as an example, what’s more important? What you make? -or- How you make it? Also, describe, in detail, two scenes you felt were shot or edited well and why.

JOURNALS DUE 5/14 – A DAY – MONDAY

RUBRIC FOR QUALITY PROJECT

SCORING RUBRIC FOR ____________________________’S
QUALITY PROJECT

CREATIVITY – It is original and inspiring. The artist put a lot of thought into the piece, and it possesses aspects that distinguish it from others of its kind.
__________
25 PTS.
AESTHETICS – It is well made and pleasing to the eye, demonstrating excellence and superiority. It is executed well and will not easily fall apart or lose its value.
__________
25 PTS.
TIME AND EFFORT – There is a clear, organized and defined thought process. The final project looks professional and finished. Also, the amount of time, effort, and dedication is readily apparent.
__________
25 PTS.
PRESENTATION – It is clear, organized, compelling, and the process of its creation is explained. Overall, it captures the audience’s attention.
__________
25 PTS.

TOTAL:

READING SCHEDULE FOR ICB

HOMEWORK READING SCHEDULE FOR
IN COLD BLOOD

PAGE ---- TO ---- PAGE --------------- DATE DUE

3 --------------------------------- 13 -- Tuesday, April 24th
14 -------------------------------- 24 -- Wednesday – 25th
24 -------------------------------- 32 -- Thursday – 26th
32 -------------------------------- 41 -- Friday – 27th
41 -------------------------------- 49 -- Saturday – 28th
50 ------------------------------- 66 -- Sunday – 29th
66 ------------------------------- 79 -- Monday – 30th
79 ------------------------------- 96 -- Tuesday – May 1st
96 ------------------------------- 113 -- QUIZ -- Wednesday – 2nd
113 ----------------------------- 130 -- Thursday – 3rd
130 ----------------------------- 147 -- Friday – 4th
148 ----------------------------- 165 -- Saturday – 5th
165 ----------------------------- 179 -- Sunday – 6th
180 ----------------------------- 191 -- Monday – 7th
192 ----------------------------- 206 -- Tuesday – 8th
206 ----------------------------- 224 -- Wednesday – 9th
224 ----------------------------- 240 -- Thursday – 10th
241 ----------------------------- 254 -- Friday – 11th
254 ----------------------------- 271 -- Saturday – 12th
271 ----------------------------- 285 -- Sunday – 13th
285 ----------------------------- 302 -- QUIZ -- Monday – 14th
302 ----------------------------- 317 -- Tuesday – 15th
317 ----------------------------- 330 -- Wednesday – 16th
330 ---------FINISH---------- 343 -- Thursday – 17th

FINAL PAPER DUE Wednesday – May 23rd

AMERICAN MOVIE

AMERICAN MOVIE – 1999
Directed by: Chris Smith

The film you are about to watch, American Movie, is a documentary about an independent filmmaker named Mark Borchardt. His story really starts, according to Mark, in 1980 when he decided at the ripe old age of fourteen to become a director. He purchased an old, beat-up Super 8 camera (an early video camera that uses an 8mm wide film reel), enlisted a few of his friends, and set off for the cemetery to make his first film: The More the Scarier. Well, I’m not sure you can call it a “film” – don’t worry, you’ll see it and then you can judge for yourself – but this is where our vocabulary starts to get interesting. What else would you call it? And, how else could you describe Mark Borchardt other than as a filmmaker? He’s dedicated close to half of his life to studying and making films, and it’s obvious that his passion for film is earnest. If you’ve never seen American Movie, at this point, you may be wondering if you should know the name Mark Borchardt or at least why you’ve never heard of him. After all, somebody else is making a film about him making films, so he must be notable for some reason, right? If anything, it seems that Chris Smith (the director) chose Borchardt because you’ve never heard of him and there’s no reason you should have. Borchardt has made films, six to be exact, but he does not work for a studio in Hollywood; in fact, he has never screened his films outside of his living room. He’s unemployed, broke, and he lives in Wisconsin – not exactly a major hub of the movie industry. To a certain extent, this film is about failure; specifically, Borchardt’s failure to achieve his dream of making a successful film, or in the case of Coven, his current film, to simply finish it. However, American Movie is also about Borchardt’s inability to give up on this dream. He just doesn’t quit. And, you have to wonder, is he just ignorant that he has zero chance of making it big? Or, is his passion and determination too sincere to allow him to simply give up?

Although this is a much more straightforward documentary when compared to Fast, Cheap and Out of Control, this film raises an interesting question that many documentaries have to wrestle with: the question of exploitation. After all, American Movie is quite funny and entertaining, but most of the laughs come from moments that are equally sad. As you watch the film, I want you to think about the director’s relationship with his subject. Is Smith making fun of Borchardt? Or, is he just allowing Borchardt to tell his story? How much is Smith a part of the film? And, keep in mind my earlier questions about language. I’m interested in how you think about Borchardt – Is Borchardt a “filmmaker”? Does he make “films”? Is it ignorance or determination that drives him? Also, describe, in detail, two scenes (by Smith or Borchardt) you felt were shot or edited poorly or well and why.

ADAPTATION

ADAPTATION – 2003
Directed by: Spike Jonze

Your upcoming assignment is to try and capture the creative process or some aspect of it on film. The film you are about to watch, Adaptation, is dedicated to one particular aspect of that process: how difficult it is. Usually I talk about directors or sometimes actors in these handouts, but this handout (and this film) should be dedicated entirely to Charlie Kaufman, the writer. In the film, Kaufman agrees to write the screenplay for a best-selling novel called The Orchid Thief, an event that actually happened in real life. The only problem is that the more he becomes immersed in the novel, the more he comes to realize that it’s impossible to do the book justice. So what does he do next? He writes a film about his inability to write the screenplay, but it doesn’t stop there. Ultimately, the film becomes an exploration of creativity and how much liberty can be taken with the adaptation process itself. As you watch the film, pay attention to how Kaufman struggles to retain the essence of the narrative while trying to resist the lures and easy hooks of standard Hollywood thrillers. There’s the film that he wants to make and then there’s the film that gets made – the question is how far apart are these two?

In your journal I want you to focus on the difference between what he wants and what happens, but I also want you to write about this film as a commentary on the creative process. Remember that line from Heart of Darkness, “Exterminate all the brutes” – well, just like that line, this is a film that eats itself. Kaufman even talks about this in the film when he mentions Ouroboros – the snake that eats its own tail. But, this strange loop functions on two levels. There’s the level Kaufman identifies, i.e. the inclusion of himself in the film, and then there’s the other level of the film’s plot, which ultimately becomes what it sets out to destroy. Questions you should address include: What is the narrative structure Kaufman wants to avoid? To what extent does Kaufman appropriate the cinematic elements he so vehemently argues against? What is the final product? And, do Kaufman’s decisions ultimately make for a stronger or weaker film? Also, describe, in detail, two scenes you felt were shot or edited well and why.

REVISION POLICY

*this is the same text that appears in your course description*

Formal, drafted papers will be assigned well ahead of the due date to encourage thoughtful planning and rewriting. Revisions are encouraged but not required or guaranteed – if a revision is not allowed, you will be told in advance. Writing is hard work, and to write well, you need to pay attention to numerous details in numerous areas. That reality can be frustrating, but the process is one that allows for positive growth. ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN A ZERO – THE SUREST WAY TO FAIL THIS CLASS IS TO NOT TURN IN A MAJOR ASSIGNMENT. You are allowed and encouraged to rewrite almost any MAJOR paper – not journal entries. And, your grade is the average of the two drafts with more weight going to the revision. This is a generous offer; take advantage of it. After a paper is handed back, you have ONE WEEK to hand in the rewrite. All previous drafts and any teacher comments must be resubmitted; changes should be underlined or highlighted – unmarked revisions will be handed back.