Discuss the rise of self-referential, "meta" narratives in contemporary film and television, and the links to the rising media literacy of consumers. Considering the introduction of media education in schools, particularly on English syllabuses, how has the audience's understanding of media conventions and tropes affected the writing of media? In the UK in particular, English education in schools now has mandatory coverage of media writing. People are growing up with a knowledge of story structure, tropes, and genre conventions. This is leading to a rise in films and television which make deliberate nods to these conventions. Some examples: Community (TV series), Deadpool (Film), Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Film), Black Mirror (TV Series), Spaced (TV Series).
It's a little vague, maybe through some definitions to help clarify? – Andi6 years ago
This is a really fascinating topic! You make a good point that "meta" narratives assume that the audience is knowledgeable about that form of media, including the tropes that constitute it. But this topic is a little broad. I would suggest picking one form of media (tv, film, books, etc.) and finding examples of meta narratives and then compare their critical and popular reception. Then, the audience's understanding of meta conventions and tropes could be more acutely analyzed. I would really like to read an article about this! – Eden6 years ago
The central idea is an excellent one, but defining forms of media will help give structure and clarity to your central aim. For instance, how do you specifically define “meta-narrative?” Does it refer to specific tropes and story-telling conventions, or is there something more to mention? Highlighting the odds and ends of these terms will help flesh out the article. Consider also the effects of online fan activity in pushing creators to cater to those interests, even to the point of altering story threads to avoid being predictable. – James Polk5 years ago
What this article needs is specifics. Giving examples of the so called "meta" narratives and literacy might give some context to what you are talking about instead of simply generalizing. – thestorydude75 years ago
Important and necessary, but also broad and ambitious for a single article. The "literacy" part of this topic can be ignored because it doesn't really affect the subject and its presentation. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analysing Jo March's character development in the movie Little Women (or the book) and how her beliefs about women changed through falling in love with a man. Contrasting her initial beliefs that women should not have to be married for society, and should be allowed to work for themselves even if married, Jo's ideas change when she discovers loneliness and love. How does meeting her husband alter her overarching beliefs?
This is an interesting one, I'd suggest looking into Louisa May Alcott's story as a woman author herself during that time to better understand why Jo ends up with a man in the end in the first place. I think Jo marrying in the end might say more about the time period and the obstacles women faced than it does about her actual character. There's a pithy little scene in the movie where we see Jo debate the romantic fate of her heroine with her publisher which might help. – MaeveM5 years ago
APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE! I'm doing an article featuring Little Women right now (totally different topic and angle, don't worry). And can I just say, it's about time we discussed this? – Stephanie M.5 years ago
I love how Jo's beliefs are although altered, not contradicted once she discovers these things throughout the course of the film. Everything she stands for about women independence, empowerment, and values remain firm as her story develops into love interest. – connorjbrennan5 years ago
Films tend to fall into one or two categories: they are either smart or they are dumb blockbusters. But If one were too realy look at the core difference between the two, it comes down to how the story is written. Either the plot forces the character through a lot of hell, or the character go through hell because they decide to. My question is which one is better?
To me this sounds like a question that depends on your psychology. If your focus is on people, character-driven plots seem more attractive; if objects/things, then plot driven. One thing that seems clear to me is that you need elements of both in order to get the best final product. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
Great topic! However, I don't think that this topic should focus on the fact that plot driven or character driven is ultimately "better" than the other. Some readers/viewers are content with plot driven stories (like fans of YA novels) and others are content with character driven stories (like fans of the literary genre). This also doesn't mean that someone who would enjoy character driven stories won't enjoy a plot driven story and vice versa. To make such a statement, I think, is actually quite bias. What I suggest in approaching this topic is weighing the pros and cons of both, their similarities and differences, and how they affect the story being told. Maybe even consider how if a character focused novel was rewritten as a plot focused novel, how this would affect its narrative structure, pacing and audience reception. – SpookyDuet5 years ago
This sounds like it would be very much an opinionated idea, and would not really provide insight into the analysis of how a story is written as proving which is better. I think rather than stating which is "better", a better idea would be to compare and contrast them, so as not to make such an opinionated statement, therefore leaving the reader open to considering both ideas, without having an opinion thrown at them. – Alyshabuck5 years ago
I'm a big fan of character-driven stories because I like to get inside their heads, so I'll be interested to see where this article goes. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
Given the schism between plot- and character-driven stories/authors, I think such an article could prove useful. Especially one that not only analyzes both sides, but also makes an argument for why both plot and character need to be treated equally with regards to forging a tight and deep narrative that's thematically cohesive. To put it in simple terms, story could = plot + character = theme. – Michel Sabbagh5 years ago
"Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)", was released on February 7th to generally favorable reviews, but the film has failed to fallen well short of its box office projections within its first week. The female lead and female directed D.C. films has been a long anticipated film and is one of the first comic book films to have an all female team (Harley Quinn, Huntress, Dinah Lance, Renee Montoya, and Cassandra Cain). Despite the film's similarities to a film like Deadpool (both films have an R-rating, with a narrator who is known for irreverent humor and fourth wall breaks), it is unlikely the film will even approach the box office success of that film or a more serious R-rated film like 2019's Joker. Despite similarities and common links to other popular properties, why hasn't "Bird of Prey" been more successful with audiences?
Good question. One angle you could take is that audience and critic tastes clearly differ. Rotten Tomatoes review metrics can show this. Go from there after that. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
Good question. From what do have been hearing is that Bird of Prey isn't the Bird of Prey fans are familar with.
It's okay for film makers to take liberties with the source material but if they are to really make it work they still need to make it recognizable.
One big red flag is that the protagonist is Harley who doesnt exist in the Bird of Prey comic. When I heard the title of the movie I thought it was going to be about canary after all she is a member and she is named after a bird for goodness sake.
second red flag is that the film is after suicide squad that was a failure.
The final red flag is that it was promoted as a feminist film and had an all female cast. Now there is nothing wrong with a feminist film, however there has been a big backlash towards feminist films in the past few years.
I never did watch the movie but I knew it was doom to fail. The only reason why I know this is by a bit of research. – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
CGI is to modern films as peanut butter is to jelly. However, there has been a recent phenomenon of big-budget films that have unappealing visual effects turning people off of the film. Why is this happening so frequently? How do these projects get approved and released without anyone realizing the backlash it will face? Think: CATS or Sonic the Hedgehog
Totally an article we need. You could also look at the Transformers or The Hobbit series which rely heavily on CGI. Or, even better, The Lion King (2019).
You could also mention films that use CGI well. For example, The Jungle Book (2016) excelled in the visual effects/CGI department. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
You could also look into the process of how these films were made.
There is a reason why making a movie cost so much.
Also look into to the treatment of VFX Artists. In the case of sonic, the VFX team were overworked and some lost their jobs and in general VFX do not get the recognition they deserve. – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
Cats alone could make an entire article. I mean, I'm a cat-lover, and just seeing the promotional photos turned me off. WAY off. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
Seems like a significant amount of older films that are historically important/culturally significant have some serious problems in the context of today. For example, Carousel perpetuates the idea that domestic abuse is normal and okay. How are these films useful to us now– can we look back on them and appreciate them for what they are/were, or is that problematic? How should we talk about these films now?
I can see the deliema.
The Disney classics were sexist and racist, yet people love them to the point that they will remake them but with out the racism and sexism parts.
but I feel like they should be celebrated as a way to see how much society have progressed – Amelia Arrows5 years ago
What is important is that viewers and critics such as ourselves be ready and willing to acknowledge and criticize these problematic parts of media. This practice is common in the literary discipline, where pretty much all works admitted into the canon are problematic in some way shape or form, but I feel as though popular culture does not have this practice applied to it. There is a tendency now a days, especially among the younger generations, to reject all media that has any sort overtly problematic element to it. This results in people being unable to discuss positive aspects of problematic media and we as both critics and consumers miss out on a lot of well crafted media or are driven to feel guilty for enjoying it. I would even argue that problematic media is more important to be viewed and discusses, so long as there is an understanding and criticism of the problematic elements, as it allows us to be able to observe our culture in all aspects, not just the positive ones. – IvanBlue5 years ago
One of the important and rather interesting aspects of Joker is Arthur's position of an unreliable narrator. He invents an entire relationship with a female character in the film, which makes the question of his paternity that arises later even more interesting, with questions around whether his mother did the same, based on the reaction from the Waynes when he attempts to investigate.
Arthur's lack of reliability also seems to suit the typical murky origins of the Joker character, as having appeared out of nowhere and not really having a clear "origin" compared to the other characters in the DC universe.
Explore the use of unreliable narration in the film. How does it contribute to the film's overall message? If there weren't these same questions in the film, how would the film have changed?
Feel free to draw on other examples of unreliable narrators in film or fiction, or on other depictions of the Joker for examining this.
This is an excellent topic. Also could look at a film like American Psycho with Christian Bale as another example of a unreliable narrator. – Sean Gadus5 years ago
It could extend even further, you could look at other works based on this like memento, shutter Island, fight club, mr robot. Plus it could also be a discussion about how the audience will side with the character they've spent the most time with despite their actual actions. As an example, despite Walter white's actions the audience still roots for him to win. – Shinji155 years ago
Something to be cautious of or to jump into is especially his mental illness. Some believe that the Joker is a terrible portrayal of those with mental illness, that it’s too extreme. Is there a way to think about how this unreliable narration could be a source of that? That maybe Arthur views himself as worse than he is? The portrayal of himself is very fascinating. – lizzietheck5 years ago
Agreed with Sean... EXCELLENT TOPIC!! It may be helpful to reference characters like the narrator from Fight Club, Amy from Gone Girl, and Leonard from Momento... These are the three most unreliable narratives I can think of throughout any film that I've ever seen. Hope this helps!! – carly5 years ago
The best instances of unreliable narrator I've seen show up in the works of Caitlin Kiernan. Both the author and many of her characters have schizophrenia, and so in any given story it's often virtually impossible to tell whether something's really happening to a character or whether they're just imagining it. – Debs5 years ago
The early forms of comedy in mass entertainment (vaudeville, the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges) were unapologetically absurd. They embraced silliness. We see that tradition in more modern British comedy (Monty Python, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore). And yet, American comedy seems to suffer from an unwillingness to be silly, as if silliness is somehow beneath us. There are notable exceptions of course (The Simpsons, Steve Martin's early standup), but, by and large, we seem to be mired in a bog of socially relevant comedy, or rigidly responsible satire. Where's the silliness? Is comedy allowed to be funny for funny's sake? And here, I'm referring mostly to film and sitcoms, not to stand up comedians who are as varied in their style as they have always been.
This would be a good topic for one to explore the evolution of comedy in the US; how we went from vaudeville & Marx to more contemporary comedic styles. From there, one could argue whether the decline of absurd comedy is just a sign of the times, or a result of something else. – majorlariviere5 years ago
I would be interested to discover if the rise of the United States and the decline of the British Empire as respective world powers had anything to do with a more collective trend toward silliness in comedy. Perhaps it’s a potential thesis, mere speculation or something else. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
