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.

READING SCHEDULE FOR HEART OF DARKNESS

Heart of Darkness
PAGES ------ DUE BY
3-15 ----------- 3/16
16-50 --------- 3/26
50-60 --------- 3/27
61-71 --------- 3/28
71-83 --------- 3/29
84-96 --------- 3/30

FAST, CHEAP, AND OUT OF CONTROL

FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL - 1997
Directed by: Errol Morris

Errol Morris is considered one of the best documentary filmmakers of all time. The only problem is that he doesn’t consider himself a documentary filmmaker. Most people think of films as falling into two major categories: documentaries (non-fiction) and movies (fiction). 99% of the films in theatres fall into the latter category, but the interesting thing is that although they are undeniably fictitious, they are stories masquerading as actual events. A movie only really works if it retains some sense of reality. The idea behind a documentary is to capture “reality” or “truth” and discard the fiction, and most people take this at face value – think of all those videos in history class. However, Morris argues that the camera doesn’t really capture “truth,” it just captures more stories, and that’s what he’s interested in: more stories. He once said, “My gripe isn't with cinema verite. It's the metaphysical claim -- the idea that style guarantees truthfulness -- which I find repellent." If anything, Errol Morris is a trafficker of human stories, and his intent is not so much to clarify the world around us but to reveal its complexity.

Fast, Cheap and Out of Control is a human story with a little bit of animal and a pinch of robot. Is it a documentary? It certainly documents the words and ideas of four individuals in an interview-like format, but Morris abandons the traditional approach of a documentary, melding these seemingly unconnected stories by crossing monologues (you never hear Morris ask a question until the end) with footage of an old B-grade adventure film, some imaginative landscaping, a circus, scrambling insect robots, lion taming, a naked mole-rat colony, and a traveling circus. The effect is that the individual stories seem to get lost, but what emerges is not quite clear since the film doesn’t give answers, it generates ideas. Some say Morris’s films are unclassifiable. This may be true. Fast-Cheap is undeniably quirky and fun, but for all its playfulness there is also an underlying sense of mortality. Morris commented, "I had a poem by William Butler Yeats in mind when I made it. The lines in 'Lapis Lazuli': 'All things fall and are built again/And those that build them again are gay.' It's the idea of the hopelessness of it all, but a surviving nobility notwithstanding." One of the underlying principles in Physics is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. But, Fast-Cheap seems to argue that everything that is created is destroyed….and, that’s ok.

As you watch the film, I want you to be mindful of the cinematography. Find at least two examples of scenes or sequences you feel are excellent or poor examples of cinematography (be sure to include detail – describe what you liked/disliked about it). Also, I would like you to comment on the inclusion of both the circus footage and the B-grade adventure film – what effect does it have on the overall narrative? Speaking of overall narrative, what did the film leave you thinking about? Were there any ideas created? Destroyed? And, describe a moment of beauty and a moment of sadness.

ANNIE HALL

ANNIE HALL – 1977
Directed by Woody Allen

If Hitchcock was famous for always making cameos in his films, Woody Allen is famous for not staying out of the entire two hours. He hasn’t starred in every film he’s made, but his presence even while off the screen is undeniable. Allen started off as a writer and stand-up comedian before picking up some minor acting roles, but he always hated working with other people’s material so he committed to writing, directing and starring in his own films – makes artistic vision a lot easier, doesn’t it? And, artistic vision is something Woody Allen has never seemed short of. His films are often unconventional and imaginative, breaking the rules in ways that are both unexpected and purposeful. I think this works because most of his films, even the comedies, deal with characters who are frustrated or at their wit’s end, therefore, the unexpected seems like a viable option. If Allen could have, he probably would have patented “angst”. His main characters, again – often played by Allen – are the poster-children for existential crisis. They struggle, they search and they often come up empty, but Allen, more than most filmmakers, is incredibly attuned to the connection between the tragic and the comedic.

Annie Hall is often described as story about “love in modern times”, but I think this is a bit oversimplified and suffers from the kind of unwarranted nostalgia that always casts a false glow on “un-modern times”; as if love now is drastically different from love 100 years ago. I think the feeling and expression of love hasn’t changed, but people often confuse love for commitment, and I would agree that we are certainly less patient, especially with marriage, but to me, the “love” exhibited in Annie Hall is authentic because it is so easily recognizable as love, even though neither character ever says, in a straightforward way, “I love you”. I would also argue that Annie Hall is essentially a film the chronicles the struggle to create something meaningful. But not just something meaningful, something meaningful that lasts. As you watch the film, I would like you to keep this idea in mind – that this film is about the joy and the anxiety of creating something: in this case, a relationship between two people.

In your journal, I would like you to address the comments made in the previous paragraph – in specific – What you think of Annie and Alvy’s relationship? Where you see the joy? What are the sources of anxiety? And, what is the film’s or Allen’s overall commentary about relationships? With all this talk about “creating” and “anxiety”, it’s important to note that this is also a rather entertaining and funny film as well. That said, describe at least one scene you find funny or amusing and at least one scene you find imaginative or unexpected. Be sure to describe the scenes in detail.

PWB Reading Schedule

HOMEWORK READING SCHEDULE FOR
THE POISONWOOD BIBLE

PAGE TO PAGE DATE DUE

START ------------------------- 19 Thursday, 8th February
20 ------------------------------- 29 Friday – 9th
30 ------------------------------- 34 Saturday – 10th
35 ------------------------------- 42 Sunday – 11th
43 ------------------------------- 49 Monday – 12th
50 ------------------------------- 63 Tuesday – 13th
64 ------------------------------- 68 Wednesday – 14th
69 ------------------------------- 82 Thursday – 15th
83 ------------------------------- 98 Friday – 16th
99 ------------------------------- 111 Saturday – 17th
112 ----------------------------- 124 Sunday – 18th
125 ----------------------------- 134 Monday – 19th
135 ----------------------------- 141 Tuesday – 20th
142 ----------------------------- 152 Wednesday – 21st
153 ----------------------------- 158 Thursday – 22nd
159 ----------------------------- 169 Friday – 23rd
170 ------------------------------ 180 Saturday – 24th
181 ----------------------------- 186 Sunday – 25th
187 ----------------------------- 201 Monday – 26th
202 ----------------------------- 216 Tuesday – 27th
217 ----------------------------- 227 Wednesday – 28th
228 ----------------------------- 240 Thursday – 1st March
241 ----------------------------- 252 Friday – 2nd
253 ------------------------------ 264 Saturday – 3rd
265 ----------------------------- 278 Sunday – 4th
279 ----------------------------- 287 Monday – 5th
288 ----------------------------- 300 Tuesday – 6th
301 ----------------------------- 311 Wednesday – 7th
312 ----------------------------- 324 Thursday – 8th
325 ----------------------------- 334 Friday –9th
335 ----------------------------- 347 Saturday – 10th
348 ----------------------------- 359 Sunday – 11th
360 ----------------------------- 367 (QUIZ) Monday – 12th
368 ----------------------------- 375 Tuesday – 13th
376 ----------------------------- 394 Wednesday – 14th
395 ----------------------------- 406 Thursday – 15th
407 ----------------------------- 414 Friday – 16th
415 ------------------------------ 423 Saturday – 17th
424 ----------------------------- 438 Sunday – 18th
439 ----------------------------- 454 *spring break* Monday – 19th
455 ----------------------------- 465 SB Tuesday – 20th
466 ----------------------------- 474 SB Wednesday – 21st
475 ----------------------------- 490 SB Thursday – 22nd
491 ----------------------------- 496 SB Friday –23rd
497 ----------------------------- 506 Saturday – 24th
507 ----------------------------- 517 Sunday – 25th
518 ----------------------------- 526 Monday – 26th
527 ----------------------------- 533 Tuesday – 27th
534 ---------FINISH---------- 543 Wednesday – 28th

FINAL ESSAY TEST FRIDAY – 30th

BAND OF OUTSIDERS

BAND OF OUTSIDERS – 1964
Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard

You can’t really talk about (or read about) Godard without reference to his role as one of the leading directors of the French New Wave, a movement that sought to reinvent the possibilities of cinema. Written on the blackboard during an upcoming scene is the equation, classic = modern, which is essentially Godard’s approach to this film. Band of Outsiders is at its most basic level a crime-caper or gangster film, both of which are very traditional and basically two of the most over-done genres of all time. It even has a number of the most basic trappings: two guys, one girl (i.e. one love triangle), naiveté and betrayal, a plan gone wrong, a chase, a gunshot, etc., etc. Pauline Kael commented, “Godard intended to give the public what it wanted…a sure fire story that will sell lots of tickets [but] he proceeded to make a work of art that sold fewer tickets than ever.” What he gave them was three people, all equally board, who seek the excitement of an existence found in film. Essentially, this is a film about people wanting to live like people in a film.

The film that Godard described as “Alice in Wonderland meets Franz Kafka” played for one week in New York before closing. It was not until much later that Americans began to revisit the film and elevate it to its current level of importance; the fact that it has been reissued as part of the Criterion Collection (the version we will watch) is but one example. Critics of the film often say that it is less inventive or simply a second look at the themes already presented in Godard’s earlier film Breathless, which many consider his best. But, what I find most intriguing about this film is Godard’s patience with his characters as they struggle with a reality that doesn’t quite mesh with the world they want and have invented. The narrator of the film comments, “He wondered if the world was becoming a dream or if a dream was becoming the world." They stumble forward, killing time in a race through the Louvre, falling in love (or at least playing with the idea of it), and dancing in a bar (extra credit if you can learn the dance steps and perform them with Mrs. Dare), all in an effort to keep themselves busy before the big score – when they actually get the chance to act like the gangster movie stars they so want to emulate and do the kind of exciting things people do in movies - however tragic it might be.

Band of Outsiders was shot in twenty-five days for $125,000 using a hand held camera and relying mostly on natural light. It is no mistake that we are watching this film right before you are about to shoot your own films under similar circumstances (i.e. no money, not much time and with limited technical capabilities). What I want you to recognize is that cinema can be unconventional and creative, yet still effective and, at its best, fun as well. For me, there are few moments in film that equal the pure enjoyment of voyeurism found in the dance scene in the café. Godard is having fun; hopefully you will too.

Questions and ideas for your journal (please do not limit yourself to these prompts):
- How does Godard challenge conventional storytelling/film-making?
- What rules of cinema does he brake? Why? To what effect?
- What elements of the crime-caper or gangster film are present? How does this film compare to Howard Hawks' gangster film, Scarface (1932), which we watched earlier?
- How does he challenge our understanding of these genres? What rules of the genre does he brake?
- Write about and describe scenes where Arthur, Franz or Odile act like characters in a movie.

FILM PROJECT DATES

STORY BOARD : THURSDAY (3/1 - D) 9:30
FRIDAY (3/2 - E) 8:30 and 10:30

DON'T FORGET TO PICK UP EQUIPMENT ON MARCH 2ND. ALSO, YOU NEED TO RESERVE EQUIPMENT 24 HRS IN ADVANCE

ITV EDITING DAYS: MONDAY (3/5 - F) 8:30, 9:30, 10:30
THURSDAY (3/8 - C) 9:30
FRIDAY (3/9 - D) 8:30, 9:30, 10:30
MONDAY (3/12 - E) 8:30 and 10:30

FILMS DUE: THURSDAY (3/15 - B) - Films are due on a DVD-R at the beginning of class (I will supply you with the DVD-R earlier in the week). We will be watching and scoring these films in this large group meeting - so make sure you're on time.

FILM PROJECT

- 5 minute time limit
- Must deal with the issue of CONTROL
- At least one reference to "Citizen Kane"
- Must adhere to the rules of the Production Code