Film

We are slowly seeing a rise of all female or at least female dominated films in genres that have not traditionally been female friendly. Traditionally action films, whether they are specifically categorised as Action or Action slash (/sci fi, /western, /crime), have focused on varying interpretations of the masculine lead. Sometimes he is flawed, and sometimes he may as well be a plastic figurine for all the depth of character demonstrated, but always he is strong, determined and takes action, and is accompanied with weak or "temptation" women whose role is to look good half dressed. Yet a handful of recent films are starting to challenge the role of the female action hero.

The supernatural action genre has given us three intelligent, funny, and active women in 'Ghostbusters'. The heist genre laid out eight women of varying skills whose expertise held up against the original male roles in 'Oceans 8'. The sci-fi action adventure has most recently given us three power and diverse roles in the latest 'Terminator'. However, the question is this – does this indicate a substantial change in Hollywood's approach to the representation of women in film, or is this just a trend that will fade away again to be replaced with atypical machoism?

Over the past decade or so there has been a none-too subtle incursion of what once would have been considered pornographic films, into mainstream cinema. Vincent Gallo's 'The Brown Bunny' (2003), Lars von Trier's 'Nymphomanic' (2013) and the recent 'A Thought of Ecstasy' (2017), directed by Rolf Peter Kahl, are three such examples. All feature scenes with, what is euphemistically referred to as, 'unsimulated sex'. Experimental cinema, avant-garde, neo-erotica – whatever label is applied, it seems that some mainstream actors and actresses are prepared to have their names attached to these projects and, in the case of 'Nymphomaniac', even have their faces and torsos superimposed over body doubles, although in the fallatio scene from 'The Brown Bunny' no doubles were used. Discuss whether 'unsimulated sex' in mainstream films can have any actual artistic merit, or is this just another way for controversial directors to circumvent censorship and so push their own sexual fantasies? In a world increasingly bent on instant gratification, are we being desensitised to accept without question the open exploitation of sex in mainstream as 'normal'? Where should the line be drawn?

Todd Philips's Joker film is the most talked about film of the fall. When the film premiered, some critics lauded it as a masterpiece while others expressed dissatisfaction and outrage over the content within the film. With Joker passing $900 million dollars at the box office, it is apt to discuss the factors that contributed to the film's success. With this in mind, did the controversy and outrage circulating around the film provide easy/free marketing for the film and bring attention from mainstream media outlets that otherwise would have spent less time covering and discussing the film?

Analyze the reason why directors use cameos. What impact does it have on the audience? Why is it gaining popularity?

From Kareem Abdul Jabbar to Stan Lee to Stephen King, highlight examples that will look at why the crossover from reality to media is so popular. Big Bang Theory regularly played with this trope with great effectiveness. Why do we love it?

We bookworms grew up with the idea that "reading the book" was better than watching the film/TV version of it. In fact, if we ever messed up with that order we believed we were dishonoring our identity as literature lovers. The reality is, adaptations can be much better than their source material when it comes to making us care about the story. My personal examples are The Princess Bride, The Count of Montecristo, Anne of Green Gables, and Stardust. That being said, I invite you to analyse the elements that may influence how good an adaptation can be compared to its book predecessor: is it the change in structure, the plot pace, the characterisation? I'm curious about your opinion on this idea and if you have more examples that support it.

In the new trilogy of Star Wars films, Kylo Ren is a character repeatedly examined as one full of conflict, being pulled in two directions by opposite sides of the Force. At the end of The Last Jedi, he chooses to tear down all remnants of a legacy that has overburdened him and build a new one in its place, seemingly cementing himself in an ill-natured goal that prompts Rey to stop him.

However, it's believed by many fans that he still isn't too far gone, and that enough light exists in him that he could in fact be turned, as Rey was determined to do for much of The Last Jedi. On the other side of the spectrum, one could argue that Kylo going through a redemption arc that mirrors his grandfather's would render Luke's sacrifice meaningless, that his declaration to Leia that "no one's ever really gone" was more in reference to the memory of who Kylo used to be rather than suggesting Kylo is still capable of saving.

Should Kylo be redeemed in The Rise of Skywalker, the final installment in the Skywalker saga? And if he is redeemed, would that take away from the positions the characters decided to defend by the end of The Last Jedi?

The Joker is one of the most iconic supervillains in popular culture. He has been brought to life via the standout performances of numerous actors including Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Jared Leto and most recently Joaquin Phoenix. While the Joker has usually been presented playing against the Batman, Phoenix's Joker is unique in that it provides us a character study of the villain's origins without relying on the presence of the Batman. But is it possible to define a Joker in the absence of a Batman? Who would he be in that case?

Every time a new biographical film hits the big screen I find myself in a debate, both internally and with everyone with whom I come in contact. Is what I just observed good acting or just the ability of an actor to mimic what he/she has seen of the person whose story is being portrayed? Examples of this include Val Kilmer in the Doors and Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line. In interviews, both actors said that they studied hours of film in order to get every nuance correct. And, indeed, they nailed it. However, is that Oscar-worthy? Look at Daniel Day-Lewis, who played Lincoln. He did not have videos to examine, just small bits of written information about Lincoln's demeanor. He nailed it as well, yet my reason for thinking so is that he met my expectations of what I had read about Lincoln. So, the Oscar goes to… To summarize — If an actor is able to replicate a well-known and documented historical figure's every characteristic, is this good acting or good mimicry?