We hope you're enjoying your unscheduled off-day. Here is the question you'll be writing on for most of the period tomorrow, assuming we're there. But tomorrow or Monday or whenever, you'll get a chance to answer this. Pay special note to the directions at the end, of what you can and cannot use.
Stay warm.
Congratulations, you are now an authority! You have watched eight movies made by Peter Weir and you have thought, discussed and written about each of those films individually and in conjunction with one another. So, now you have an opportunity to show off your impressive knowledge.
We began the course claiming that Weir is an auteur, a filmmaker with a vision. At first blush The Last Wave may not strike a viewer as related to Witness or Dead Poets Society. Gallipoli and Fearless have something in common? Picnic at Hanging Rock connects with The Mosquito Coast and Master and Commander?! Well, yes. But what exactly are the connections? How do these eight films cohere? What is Weir saying about this world of ours through his cinematic creations over the past forty years?
Pull your thoughts together between now and tomorrow morning when you will need to record your answers in a well supported and logically organized essay (of two and a half to three pages). You may prepare notes or an outline. You may bring in additional printed information: blogs and cast lists. You may not use the internet during the test. In the essay you will need to refer to all eight films. Provide specific supporting details from the films.
This will serve as half of the test grade. The other half will present thirty or so objective questions about the films. You may use your printed notes for this portion of the test as well.
This is your call to quarters. As Aubrey told his men, “Quick’s the word and sharp’s the action.”
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Blog #13. Fearless. People don't believe in god so much as they choose not to believe in nothing.
The United States is finished. But you and me, we're in peak condition.
You told me I was going to be safe with you.
You're safe. You're safe because we died already.
Put you head down... it will be over soon. Now close your eyes... everything is wonderful.
Well, that's it, folks. This is where we end our study of Peter Weir. We hope this gets you to further investigate his canon: The Truman Show, Year of Living Dangerously, Green Card (his only true comedy), and most recently The Way Back, starring Ed Harris and Colin Farrell. Clark and I commented today how there has not been a bad performance in a film we've watched of his, and, arguably, Jeff Bridges, Harrison Ford, and Robin Williams gave the best performances of their careers in a Weir film. Just found this on the web. Let's hope so. The man makes good movies.
Fearless leaves one—it left me—drained. It may be the most difficult of Weir's difficult films (Picnic at Hanging Rock, Last Wave). More so than the more recent Hollywood films we've watched the last couple weeks, this film (penned by Rafael Yglesias, based on his own very good novel) takes us back to those inscrutable Australian films. For this film, Weir, for whatever reason, used a new cinematographer Allen Daviau, who did incredible work for Steven Spielberg. This film, Clark and I agreed, looks totally different than the ones done by John Seales and Russell Boyd. No huge vistas but lots of pinched shots in enclosed spaces. There is, though, that incredible ending, the plane crash, that made Emi a believer.
1. One more time: what do you think of this film? And why? What moment and/or image stayed with you?
2. What do you see Weir playing out here that reminds us of his other films? Do you see any familiar themes, tropes, conflicts, characters? How so?
3. Max Klein clearly makes a choice at the end of the film. The light beckons him: he heads towards it. But then he chooses to go away from it—back to life, back to his wife Laura and their son and their world. He has experienced life from the perspective of one who nearly lost it and from the perspective of one who never knew what it meant to almost lose it. What does it mean for him to have chosen what he does at the end? What has he chosen? Why has he chosen this? Go to town on these queries.
Maybe we'll see you tomorrow—but maybe we won't. If we don't, we'll post the essay question here early in the morning, so you can work on it for Thursday.
Great class, guys. And yes, thank you for your buy in and engagement and enthusiasm and willingness to stretch yourselves.
We'll leave you with this great moment. Rosie Perez was nominated for an Oscar for her performance; and a great one it is, indeed.
You told me I was going to be safe with you.
You're safe. You're safe because we died already.
Put you head down... it will be over soon. Now close your eyes... everything is wonderful.
Well, that's it, folks. This is where we end our study of Peter Weir. We hope this gets you to further investigate his canon: The Truman Show, Year of Living Dangerously, Green Card (his only true comedy), and most recently The Way Back, starring Ed Harris and Colin Farrell. Clark and I commented today how there has not been a bad performance in a film we've watched of his, and, arguably, Jeff Bridges, Harrison Ford, and Robin Williams gave the best performances of their careers in a Weir film. Just found this on the web. Let's hope so. The man makes good movies.
Fearless leaves one—it left me—drained. It may be the most difficult of Weir's difficult films (Picnic at Hanging Rock, Last Wave). More so than the more recent Hollywood films we've watched the last couple weeks, this film (penned by Rafael Yglesias, based on his own very good novel) takes us back to those inscrutable Australian films. For this film, Weir, for whatever reason, used a new cinematographer Allen Daviau, who did incredible work for Steven Spielberg. This film, Clark and I agreed, looks totally different than the ones done by John Seales and Russell Boyd. No huge vistas but lots of pinched shots in enclosed spaces. There is, though, that incredible ending, the plane crash, that made Emi a believer.
1. One more time: what do you think of this film? And why? What moment and/or image stayed with you?
2. What do you see Weir playing out here that reminds us of his other films? Do you see any familiar themes, tropes, conflicts, characters? How so?
3. Max Klein clearly makes a choice at the end of the film. The light beckons him: he heads towards it. But then he chooses to go away from it—back to life, back to his wife Laura and their son and their world. He has experienced life from the perspective of one who nearly lost it and from the perspective of one who never knew what it meant to almost lose it. What does it mean for him to have chosen what he does at the end? What has he chosen? Why has he chosen this? Go to town on these queries.
Maybe we'll see you tomorrow—but maybe we won't. If we don't, we'll post the essay question here early in the morning, so you can work on it for Thursday.
Great class, guys. And yes, thank you for your buy in and engagement and enthusiasm and willingness to stretch yourselves.
We'll leave you with this great moment. Rosie Perez was nominated for an Oscar for her performance; and a great one it is, indeed.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Blog #12. Dead Poets Society. I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.
Language was developed for one endeavor, and that is - Mr. Anderson? Come on, are you a man or an amoeba? Mr. Perry?
To communicate.
No! To woo women!
Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"
But if you listen real close, you can hear them whisper their legacy to you. Go on, lean in. Listen, you hear it? —Carpe—hear it?—Carpe, carpe diem, seize the day boys, make your lives extraordinary.
For the first time in my whole life, I know what I wanna do! And for the first time, I'm gonna do it! Whether my father wants me to or not! Carpe diem!
We're going to talk a little more about Dead Poets Society before we start Fearless. We'll finish Fearless on Tuesday, give you the essay topic, and then on Thursday you will have the test.
Dead Poets Society really gets people going. As Jenny said on Friday (echoed by Sohail), it's manipulative, but a large part of its manipulation is how it manipulates the conventions of its genre—the inspiring teacher narrative. Katie mentioned Mona Lisa Smile. Others include Stand and Deliver, Dangerous Minds, Mr. Holland's Opus, To Sir With Love, etc, etc. etc. Peter Weir allows to view John Keating as both the solution and, to some degree, the problem, to the real world choices these boys will face. The easy enemy here is Welton with its extolling of tradition; yet it helped create Keating. It is not Miss Appleyard's School with all its repressed sexuality and truly weird headistress. The parents are the easy enemy; yet Neil's father is really looking for his son. And who can forget his anguished "Oh my son! Oh my son!" Keating says—as does Weir—that we must remind ourselves to constantly look at things in a different way.
1. Make a case for Keating as Allie Fox's more palatable brother. You don't have to hate Keating to do this. But it's clear that whether you like it or not, Keating and Allie—and Jack Aubrey as well—are spiritual siblings. Don't shy away from the harder parts of this question. Don't excuse Keating because he is inspirational, cares for the kids, loves literature, looks good in tweed; don't excuse him because you like him. Do what he tells his kids to do: look at him through a different lens.
2. Clark asked several times in class on Friday, what does it mean, what's the importance, of the last words of the film. This is as Keating is leaving the school, and half the class stands on their desks. It's a powerful moment, no doubt—the synthesizer is swelling, the boys tower on their desks, the headmaster is powerless, and Keating is holding back his tears. "Thank you, boys, thank you." So what's he thinking them for? And to what point in the film?
Tomorrow, we'll start out last film in our study Peter Weir: Fearless, made in 1993, starring Jeff Bridges, Rosie Perez, and Isabella Rossellini. It's a doozy.
To communicate.
No! To woo women!
Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"
But if you listen real close, you can hear them whisper their legacy to you. Go on, lean in. Listen, you hear it? —Carpe—hear it?—Carpe, carpe diem, seize the day boys, make your lives extraordinary.
For the first time in my whole life, I know what I wanna do! And for the first time, I'm gonna do it! Whether my father wants me to or not! Carpe diem!
We're going to talk a little more about Dead Poets Society before we start Fearless. We'll finish Fearless on Tuesday, give you the essay topic, and then on Thursday you will have the test.
Dead Poets Society really gets people going. As Jenny said on Friday (echoed by Sohail), it's manipulative, but a large part of its manipulation is how it manipulates the conventions of its genre—the inspiring teacher narrative. Katie mentioned Mona Lisa Smile. Others include Stand and Deliver, Dangerous Minds, Mr. Holland's Opus, To Sir With Love, etc, etc. etc. Peter Weir allows to view John Keating as both the solution and, to some degree, the problem, to the real world choices these boys will face. The easy enemy here is Welton with its extolling of tradition; yet it helped create Keating. It is not Miss Appleyard's School with all its repressed sexuality and truly weird headistress. The parents are the easy enemy; yet Neil's father is really looking for his son. And who can forget his anguished "Oh my son! Oh my son!" Keating says—as does Weir—that we must remind ourselves to constantly look at things in a different way.
1. Make a case for Keating as Allie Fox's more palatable brother. You don't have to hate Keating to do this. But it's clear that whether you like it or not, Keating and Allie—and Jack Aubrey as well—are spiritual siblings. Don't shy away from the harder parts of this question. Don't excuse Keating because he is inspirational, cares for the kids, loves literature, looks good in tweed; don't excuse him because you like him. Do what he tells his kids to do: look at him through a different lens.
2. Clark asked several times in class on Friday, what does it mean, what's the importance, of the last words of the film. This is as Keating is leaving the school, and half the class stands on their desks. It's a powerful moment, no doubt—the synthesizer is swelling, the boys tower on their desks, the headmaster is powerless, and Keating is holding back his tears. "Thank you, boys, thank you." So what's he thinking them for? And to what point in the film?
Tomorrow, we'll start out last film in our study Peter Weir: Fearless, made in 1993, starring Jeff Bridges, Rosie Perez, and Isabella Rossellini. It's a doozy.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Blog #11. Dead Poets Society.
Here's a clip from today's viewing:
Dead Poets Society was a major success for Peter Weir. Costing, according to the oracle, $16.4 million, it grossed over $234 million. That's a success by any standard. It's a beautifully filmed movie (the cinematography is by John Seales, who did Mosquito Coast and Witness) with a very appealing cast of young actors in a story that never gets old: coming of age. It's funny, it's touching, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry—and has Robin Williams doing Marlon Brando doing Shakespeare. Who can resist that? It's also, like Master and Commander and Witness, a deceptive movie: Keating urges his students to look closely, to see what's around them: he's talking to us as well.
So: 1. What is your reaction to what we saw? Like? Dislike? Why? And what moment or image stayed with you from today's viewing—and why?
2. John Keating and Allie Fox. Compare and contrast them. At the end of the day, are they more alike than different, or more different than alike? This isn't a silly question. Really think about this and answer in depth.
We'll finish the movie tomorrow. We're really looking forward to the discussion. Heads up—we're calling on everybody tomorrow.
Dead Poets Society was a major success for Peter Weir. Costing, according to the oracle, $16.4 million, it grossed over $234 million. That's a success by any standard. It's a beautifully filmed movie (the cinematography is by John Seales, who did Mosquito Coast and Witness) with a very appealing cast of young actors in a story that never gets old: coming of age. It's funny, it's touching, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry—and has Robin Williams doing Marlon Brando doing Shakespeare. Who can resist that? It's also, like Master and Commander and Witness, a deceptive movie: Keating urges his students to look closely, to see what's around them: he's talking to us as well.
So: 1. What is your reaction to what we saw? Like? Dislike? Why? And what moment or image stayed with you from today's viewing—and why?
2. John Keating and Allie Fox. Compare and contrast them. At the end of the day, are they more alike than different, or more different than alike? This isn't a silly question. Really think about this and answer in depth.
We'll finish the movie tomorrow. We're really looking forward to the discussion. Heads up—we're calling on everybody tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Blog#10. The Mosquito Coast. The World Seemed Limitless.
Once I had believed in Father and the world had seemed small and old. Now he was gone and I wasn't afraid to love him anymore. And the world seemed limitless.
That's the last words of the movie—and reviewing the ending (as you will be able to below) I was struck by how much this story is about family, about, even more specifically, fathers and sons. Just as Witness was. And Master and Commander. And as we'll see tomorrow, Dead Poets Society.
Clark and I both agreed that this was a better movie than we had given it credit for originally, Clark having seen it twice before, and me, once. This may be my favorite Weir movie. And we both agreed that Harrison Ford is not miscast in this film. As Clark said, he may be better here than he was in Witness.
So:
1. What did you think of this film, now that you've finished it? And what moment or image in it defines for you what this movie is truly about—and how so?
2. This was a commercial and critical failure. According to the oracle (Wikipedia), it cost $25 million to make (and it looks it) and made only $14 million. Why do you think this didn't catch on with audiences in 1986? And do you think it would if it were released today?
3. Clark put it so well today. "How do—or should—we live? Straight or crooked?" How does this film answer that question? And, acknowledging that this is a theme Weir returns to again and again, how do we see this presented in two of his other films—and with what answer? (This is the kind of connecting you're going to be asked to do on the test, so here's a chance to get started preparing for the test a week from tomorrow)
Here's the powerful ending of the film.
That's the last words of the movie—and reviewing the ending (as you will be able to below) I was struck by how much this story is about family, about, even more specifically, fathers and sons. Just as Witness was. And Master and Commander. And as we'll see tomorrow, Dead Poets Society.
Clark and I both agreed that this was a better movie than we had given it credit for originally, Clark having seen it twice before, and me, once. This may be my favorite Weir movie. And we both agreed that Harrison Ford is not miscast in this film. As Clark said, he may be better here than he was in Witness.
So:
1. What did you think of this film, now that you've finished it? And what moment or image in it defines for you what this movie is truly about—and how so?
2. This was a commercial and critical failure. According to the oracle (Wikipedia), it cost $25 million to make (and it looks it) and made only $14 million. Why do you think this didn't catch on with audiences in 1986? And do you think it would if it were released today?
3. Clark put it so well today. "How do—or should—we live? Straight or crooked?" How does this film answer that question? And, acknowledging that this is a theme Weir returns to again and again, how do we see this presented in two of his other films—and with what answer? (This is the kind of connecting you're going to be asked to do on the test, so here's a chance to get started preparing for the test a week from tomorrow)
Here's the powerful ending of the film.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Blog #9. The Mosquito Coast.
My father often talked of things being revealed - that was true
invention, he said. Revealing something's use, and magnifying it;
discovering its imperfections, improving it, and putting it to work for
you. God had left the world incomplete, he said, and it was man's job to
understand how it worked, to tinker with it, and to finish it. I think
that was why he hated missionaries so much - because they taught people
to put up with their earthly burdens. For father, there were no burdens
that couldn't be fitted with a set of wheels, or rudders, or a system of
pulleys.
We eat when we're not hungry, drink when we're not thirsty. We buy what we don't need and throw away everything that's useful. Why sell a man what he wants? Sell him what he doesn't need. Pretend he's got eight legs and two stomachs and money to burn. It's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I'm glad that a number of you today, in a smaller class than usual, enjoyed the movie. It provokes us: it asks fundamental questions; it gives us a hero who is terribly flawed in ways we haven't seen in the other films, and who may be mad, but isn't necessary wrong. Harrison Ford, bless his heart, plays a character who elicits in me, at least, major ambivalence. He's a ego-maniac: he's reckless; he's immature; he's a genius; he's not always wrong. He's not very likeable, and Ford plays him as unlikable. That's a risk for a major actor. Helen Mirren, one of our great actors, plays relatively quiet housewife, something of a change and risk for her. With all this going for the movie, good for you that you're hanging with it.
1. Reaction to the film? Like? Dislike? Why?
2. Katherine, I don't remember what term you used today, but it was something along the lines that Allie Fox is taking his children's childhood away from them. And he is—no ice cream, no television, no, if it were today, cellphones, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, American Idol, etc. Katherine, you make this point as a criticism. Is Allie's instinct wrong here? Not necessarily what he does and how he does it, but his desire to spirit his children away from what he sees as a corrupted world? Explain your response.
3. Allie is a deeply flawed figure. What, to you, is his greatest flaw or weakness?
4. We mentioned it in class today. His beautiful wife, called Mother: she seems to be a reasonable person and certainly a deeply loving mother. Why does she follow her husband the way she does? Going off to Central America and pulling a Robinson Crusoe with her children. There's no right answer: we're just interested in how you make sense of this women, who seems to have no problems relocating his children—two very young ones—into the jungle.
See you guys tomorrow.
We eat when we're not hungry, drink when we're not thirsty. We buy what we don't need and throw away everything that's useful. Why sell a man what he wants? Sell him what he doesn't need. Pretend he's got eight legs and two stomachs and money to burn. It's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I'm glad that a number of you today, in a smaller class than usual, enjoyed the movie. It provokes us: it asks fundamental questions; it gives us a hero who is terribly flawed in ways we haven't seen in the other films, and who may be mad, but isn't necessary wrong. Harrison Ford, bless his heart, plays a character who elicits in me, at least, major ambivalence. He's a ego-maniac: he's reckless; he's immature; he's a genius; he's not always wrong. He's not very likeable, and Ford plays him as unlikable. That's a risk for a major actor. Helen Mirren, one of our great actors, plays relatively quiet housewife, something of a change and risk for her. With all this going for the movie, good for you that you're hanging with it.
1. Reaction to the film? Like? Dislike? Why?
2. Katherine, I don't remember what term you used today, but it was something along the lines that Allie Fox is taking his children's childhood away from them. And he is—no ice cream, no television, no, if it were today, cellphones, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, American Idol, etc. Katherine, you make this point as a criticism. Is Allie's instinct wrong here? Not necessarily what he does and how he does it, but his desire to spirit his children away from what he sees as a corrupted world? Explain your response.
3. Allie is a deeply flawed figure. What, to you, is his greatest flaw or weakness?
4. We mentioned it in class today. His beautiful wife, called Mother: she seems to be a reasonable person and certainly a deeply loving mother. Why does she follow her husband the way she does? Going off to Central America and pulling a Robinson Crusoe with her children. There's no right answer: we're just interested in how you make sense of this women, who seems to have no problems relocating his children—two very young ones—into the jungle.
See you guys tomorrow.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Blog #8. Witness. "But It's My Way."
Just to remind us...
This movie—all of Peter Weir's movies—are so rich that our limited discussions don't do them justice. But we're trying.
1. So what was your reaction to the movie? And why?
2. What do you think the major theme is of this movie—more than anything, what is it about? And have we seen this theme in other Weir movies? Does Witness support what we've seen in other Weir films, does it broaden the thematic concern, or does it question it? How so?
3. "Witness." Great title. So why call this movie that? We get that it begins with Samuel as a witness to a murder, but that point soon disappears, or gets overwhelmed by the many other concerns of the film. But still—Witness. Meaning what, as we consider what this film is about?
Tomorrow, we'll begin perhaps Weir's thorniest effort, a box office and, to a great degree, a critical dud starring Harrison Ford (again), Dame Helen Mirren, and the late teen hot throb River Phoenix: Mosquito Coast. Bring coffee to keep you alert; have your neighbor pinch you every so often. No sleeping aloud.
This movie—all of Peter Weir's movies—are so rich that our limited discussions don't do them justice. But we're trying.
1. So what was your reaction to the movie? And why?
2. What do you think the major theme is of this movie—more than anything, what is it about? And have we seen this theme in other Weir movies? Does Witness support what we've seen in other Weir films, does it broaden the thematic concern, or does it question it? How so?
3. "Witness." Great title. So why call this movie that? We get that it begins with Samuel as a witness to a murder, but that point soon disappears, or gets overwhelmed by the many other concerns of the film. But still—Witness. Meaning what, as we consider what this film is about?
Tomorrow, we'll begin perhaps Weir's thorniest effort, a box office and, to a great degree, a critical dud starring Harrison Ford (again), Dame Helen Mirren, and the late teen hot throb River Phoenix: Mosquito Coast. Bring coffee to keep you alert; have your neighbor pinch you every so often. No sleeping aloud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)