Ang Lee's film Hulk (2003) is based on a character whose origins lie in the world of Marvel comic books. In both versions, Bruce Banner is a repressed and unassuming scientist who, as a result of an accident involving gamma radiation, transforms into a massive green engine of destruction, known as the Incredible Hulk, whenever he becomes angry. The Hulk is the rampaging male id, unleashed by modern science upon a world unprepared for its limitless, primal fury. But as interesting as a literary analysis of the character might be – and the Hulk is rife with such possibilities – this is not where Lee's Hulk breaks any new ground. Indeed, by such standards, it is a mundane – if not, actually, a rather awful – film. But what Lee's film does that is extraordinary is its attempt to, not simply adapt the content of the comic books, but in some way translate the experience and aesthetics of the comic books onto the movie screen. In doing so, he alters the conditions of the filmic apparatus enough to warrant further examination.
However, the scene under examination in the textual analysis begins fairly conventionally. This scene is relatively early in the film, before the events that unleash the Hulk occur. Bruce Krenzler/Banner (Eric Bana) comes into the office he shares with colleague and ex-romantic interest Betty Ross (Jennifer Connely) at the nuclear biomedicine laboratory. Inside, he finds that Adam Talbot (Josh Lucas), a defence contractor who is one of the film's villains, has come to pay them a visit.
Talbot's presence is understood to be intrusive, as he is placed in the centre of the frame, marginalising Bruce and Betty to the the periphery in their own office (shots 1c, 3, and 5a). Furthermore, Betty's over-the-shoulder look back to Bruce as he opens the door in shot 1c seems guilty. There is something of the caught-in-the-act to the staging of Bruce's entry to the office. This establishes the tension of a romantic triangle between the three characters, which never fully emerges as a plot point, but remains as a subtext throughout the portions of the film that deal with Talbot.
Betty has to leave rather quickly to attend to some generic science (shot 5), but Talbot lingers a moment to have a "man to man" conversation with Bruce. There is some obvious tension between Talbot and Bruce as he makes overtures toward acquiring their research for military applications (and the ensuing financial benefit of selling the technology).
The article “Indian Mascots-You’re Out” by Jack Shakley, was published in the Los Angeles Times in August 2011. The author argues the issues of sport teams having Native American names. The author wrote the article due to more and more Native Americans protesting at stadiums. This article can be divided into five sections. In the introduction, the author opens the article by giving us history on how he first encountered this topic in the early 1950s. He tells the readers, that his father gave him money to buy a baseball cap, but was also conflicted. He originally wanted a Yankees hat because of a fellow Oklahoma Mickey, Mantle came up as being touted as the rookie of the year. Since he is mixed with Muscogee/Creek, he felt misplaced to the
1. The scene begins by fading in on the back of the silent man’s head (Cary Grant) in Alicia’s bungalow. Then the camera zooms out while sweeping right to give the first full shot and view of both of the main characters. They are shown seated at a table, with many empty bottles of liquor and glasses.
The article “The problems with Native American Mascots” written by Laurel R. Davis covers many arguments regarding the use of Native American names and images for sports teams’ mascots. Rather or not sports teams should be able to continue using Native American names for their teams and images for their mascots is a highly controversial topic. Opinions will vary, especially when a person of Native American heritage is being asked opposed to a person of non-Native American heritage. Native American images should not be used for sports teams’ mascots as their use stereotypes the group, misrepresents many aspects of the Native American culture, as well as negatively impacting the lives of those that come from Native American heritage.
Asian or any other ethnic group is unthinkable, so why are Native Americans still fair game”? (Shakely 522) Jack Shakely, former chair of the los Angeles City/county Native American Commission as well as president emeritus of the California community Foundation, effectively argues that removing Native American names and mascots from college and professional teams is the right thing to do. Indian mascots for sports teams are offensive to many Native Americans because they are portrayed as savage cut-throats or act like fools. Jack Shakely argues his point in the article, “Indian Mascots- You’re Out!” by explaining his experience with Indians portrayed as mascots and how dignity and respect are not subject to majority rule. A fourth-generation Oklahoman of Creek descent, he is the author of “The Confederate War Bonnet”, a historical novel of the Civil War in Indian Territory. Shakely is mixed-blood Muscogee/Creek and his family has fought against Indian stereotypes. Being a known author, a leader of these important organizations, Native American, and personally dealing with his family fighting against Indian stereotypes makes Shakely creditable to argue his point effectively. I also believe that Indian names and mascot should be removed, because I would be offended if a sports team was named after African Americans and an African American mascot was dancing around like a fool. Some Native Americans believe that people are getting the wrong impression about them. Only %16 of Native Americans find Indian names and mascots offensive but Shakely states, “If 16% of a population finds something offensive, that should be enough to signal deep concern. There are...
Literature and film have always held a strange relationship with the idea of technological progress. On one hand, with the advent of the printing press and the refinements of motion picture technology that are continuing to this day, both literature and film owe a great deal of their success to the technological advancements that bring them to widespread audiences. Yet certain films and works of literature have also never shied away from portraying the dangers that a lust for such progress can bring with it. The modern output of science-fiction novels and films found its genesis in speculative ponderings on the effect such progress could hold for the every day population, and just as often as not those speculations were damning. Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein and Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis are two such works that hold great importance in the overall canon of science-fiction in that they are both seen as the first of their kind. It is often said that Mary Shelley, with her authorship of Frankenstein, gave birth to the science-fiction novel, breathing it into life as Frankenstein does his monster, and Lang's Metropolis is certainly a candidate for the first genuine science-fiction film (though a case can be made for Georges Méliès' 1902 film Le Voyage Dans la Lune, his film was barely fifteen minutes long whereas Lang's film, with its near three-hour original length and its blending of both ideas and stunning visuals, is much closer to what we now consider a modern science-fiction film). Yet though both works are separated by the medium with which they're presented, not to mention a period of over two-hundred years between their respective releases, they present a shared warning about the dangers that man's need fo...
Teams in every sport, at every level of competition, have a mascot. It is the mascot that represents the competitive spirit and team identity, motivating players and fans alike. Does the symbol chosen have any impact on whether a team wins or loses? Unlikely. But the choice of a Native American mascot continues to ignite debate and controversy among athletes, fans and alumni, as well as those people who might otherwise be disinterested in sports. Utilizing an Indian mascot is nothing more than a veiled attempt at hate speech.
In his Sports Illustrated article, “The Indian Wars,” S.L. Price argues that there is no easy answer to whether or not the use of Native American mascots by high school, college, and professional sports teams is offensive. “It's an argument that, because it mixes mere sports with the sensitivities of a people who were nearly exterminated, seems both trivial and profound -- and it's further complicated by the fact that for three out of four Native Americans, even a nickname such as Redskins, which many whites consider racist, isn't objectionable.” Whereas Price provides ample evidence that his claim is true, I disagree with the way it was presented and I still insist that Native American names and mascots are offensive.
There is considerable controversy that dates back to the 1960’s over sports teams’ names that reference Native American heritage. “The National Congress of American Indiana’s (NCIA) created a campaign in 1968 to eliminate stereotypes found in print and other media.” (ChangeTheMascot.org). The American Indian community has worked for many years to abolish the right to use Native American Names, spiritual and cultural symbols by professional sports teams (Teters) that they feel offensive. The Washington Redskins football team continues to battle a long standing controversy to change their name. Native Americans, politicians, fans of American football, as well as the general public all seem to have opposing viewpoints regarding if this team should be forced to change their name out of respect to those offended.
3. How might we get to the bald truth/reality of Stanley and Stella 's relationship during the poker game? How are we supposed to understand Stella 's motivation for being/staying with Stanley, despite his physical abusiveness? (that is, on what is their relationship based/founded/sustained)? How does the discovery of these things affect the relationship between Blanche and Stella, and why is this important?
You see Native American team names and mascots everywhere in sports: middle schools, high schools, colleges and professional teams. In fact, 900 teams in the United States use Native American terms (Potenza). Over the past couple years, Native American groups began to protest, sue, and ask teams with Native American nicknames to change their names, mascots, and logos. For instance, in 2014, many groups have protested against the NFL and the Washington Redskins, to change their name. Many people believe that Native American nicknames belong in sports. Those people believe that using a Native American name brings tradition and honor to the tribes they support. However, those nicknames are racist and humiliate Indians. Sports teams using Native
I never really thought about how Native Americans really felt about people using their Chiefs or Tribes names as College, Universities and professional sports team names and Mascots. This Topic is dividing the Native American community with 90% of the Native community saying that they really don’t get offended about the Mascot and Football team names. The resting 10% of the Native community find it offensive. Saying that it is racist, that the names reinforce and promote bullying towards Native American Students in some schools that have native names or mascots as stated in the article “Oregon Bans Native American Mascots in schools.” I would say I agree that sports teams shouldn’t have their names connected to Native American history or culture,
On the surface, Hitchcock’s wardrobe choice indicates that Margot and Tony should have a loving and caring relationship. However, when the audience compares the suits and dresses of Margot’s marriage and her affair, it is hard not to imagine the affair to be more intimate and passionate due to the presence of red. When looking at Margot’s fire-red dress, the audience notices that Margot is much happier with Mark than she is with Tony. This added meaning helps the viewer to establish the source of Tony’s anger, which eventually facilitates the murder.
The dispute over whether Native American mascots should be used as a team symbol dates back to the 1970’s (Price 2). There are those who are passionately against Native American mascots. These advocators insist that Native American mascots are degrading to the native population and the mascots do not represent the true identity of Native Americans. What they fail to realize is that this argument focuses entirely on the perception and predetermined judgment that any Native American mascot is discriminatory and dehumanizing. This is simply not the case.
Beginning in the late 1960’s, a new film movement known as New Hollywood began, rapidly replacing the Classical method of filmmaking. This era was unique because many popular films of the time were produced outside of the studio system, shot on-location, and with non-professional actors and actresses. These “art films” were brash, irreverent, and full of anger. While directors during this time used drastically different methods to achieve their final product, the meaning they attempted to convey through their art was often quite similar in its presentation and encompassment of society. According to David Bordwell, “stylistic devices and thematic motifs may differ from director to director, [but] the overall functions of style and theme remain remarkably constant in the art cinema as a whole.” (Bordwell “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice”) For example, A Woman Under the Influence (1974) and Wanda (1970) are formally very different but both develop portraits of irresponsible mothers within the socio-historic context of the decline of the Baby Boomers and the trauma of the Vietnam War.
Star Wars (1977) is one of the world’s most successful films of all time. It has made a terrific impact on popular culture since its release. Furthermore, Star Wars changed the narrative and aesthetic style of future Hollywood films. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, illustrates how cinema has evolved since Fred Ott’s Sneeze (1894). Ultimately, this essay will explain the set up of Star Wars and how it connects to cinema history, in the point of views of the: narrative and cinematic style, genre, auteur theory and the global film industry.