Think back to Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood and high school. If possible, share something that you think he got right and also provide critique of some aspect of his ideas.
Thinking back to Bulman’s ideas about High School within movies and television, I see that he did get some things right. Bulman was right about how different classes are showcased within movies and this changes the way the characters are portrayed. What he does not go into is the connection between class and race and how they go together in film.
Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood’s depiction of high school were, for the most part, accurate. I found his mentioning of individualism to be especially prevalent among the films we watched. In each film, either the teacher (To Sir, With Love) or the students (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Lady Bird) had some sort of journey to either figure themselves out, or just display themselves to the audience. Especially with the use of 4th wall breaks, Ferris Bueller depicted a kid that, at least in this moment, knows who he is. He’s conniving in a more tame way, clever, and quick on his feet. Lady Bird, on the other hand, depicts a journey of a student beginning to question her identity and social alignment. I still agree with my critique of his comment about film criticism/analysis; with this class and its assignments (especially the critical review essay), these films are looked at through a societal scope, and not just about artist intention.
Bulman’s remarks on the portrayal of education were pretty accurate in the movies I watched. I watched Stand and Deliver, which fits it’s his category of “the urban public school” film. Class Rank is a great example of a suburban public school film, and Ladybird goes to a catholic school which fits into Bulman’s 3rd category, elite private school films. Individualism wasn’t present much in Stand and Deliver, more about individual students becoming “better” people. Although, Bulman’s depiction of individualism in Urban public school films is focused more on the teacher’s individualism, in this way Mr. Escalante is quite different than all the other teachers and administrators at his school. Class Rank sort of promoted individualism, but it was not truly accepted by the story of the film. I would say Class Rank is more about student agency and using your own person as leverage in school. Since Ladybird is a coming of age film, it’s whole story is about how unique Ladybird is from the rest of her peers.
Looking back at what we read, Bulman remarks about highschool tropes/classes and how we shape it and it shapes us. I believe he got this right especially after watching all the movies, you can definitely see the impact of some of the movies. I think he should’ve gone more into the class v race more.
Some of Bulman's ideas are present throughout the films we watched, but some of the newer films seemed to question those concepts a bit. Bulman talked about how even though the Hollywood version of high school is often romanticized and simplified to be the standard mold of a stereotypical American high schooler, there is still some truth within the stories. A film like "The Breakfast Club" has very defined characters that fall into the stereotypical cliques which is not entirely wrong, but the newer films, like Ladybird, give their characters a deeper and more nuanced background which seems to be a better depiction of a modern teenager.
Bulman definitely has some points that stand true, but many aren't as detailed as some more modern movies are. Having watched Lady Bird, I did see his stereotypical view of the high school environment, but the characters in the movie weren't just surface characters that fit a stereotype and nothing more. The characters had more depth and almost their own story and this is a much more in-depth view of the American High School trope, which Bulman didn't encompass completely in his writings, at least to the extent of this movie.
I think Bulman’s ideas were half baked. The individuality he discussed I think was relevant to the film world, but his ignorance of race being a factor of division in Hollywood high school made his views feel undeveloped. Many of the tropes he discussed were present in the movies I watched, like the teacher and student agency presented in different ways based on the type of school. But I wasn’t really thinking hmm this is a suburban school so the kids get to have more authority over their lives. It was more this is a privileged PWI. So, after watching these movies with those thoughts in mind, I can see what he was trying to do, but ultimately, he missed the mark.
I noticed after watching the three movies that many of them follow the same tropes and enable the same stereotypes. Bulman failed to mention race in his chapter, but it is clear that he was trying to point out that in movies that take place in urban areas, people of color and specifically Black students are viewed as violent and brash. Often times, a white teacher comes in to help the class, and this falls into the white savior trope. This was enforced in many of the movies that my peers watched, however the movies I watched loosely followed this. I think it is important to show how schools are underfunded and teachers are underpaid, but doing this at the expense of upholding stereotypes is a major problem that Hollywood can't seem to get out of.
Out of the three movies I watched Bulman described one movie accurately and that was clueless. When watching the film you’re introduced to the higher social class of LA where they dressed in brand names and also drove brand names and Cher the main character was very big on “fathers money” during the film we’re also introduced to some groups all in which were the typical stereotypes of high school groups like the stoner group the emo group the popular group etc.
Bulman was correct on the aspects about highschool. Watching clueless and seeing how they have weird relationships, cliques, social status, fashion, makes it feel like that's what highschool is about. The stereotypes is both in movies and in what Bulman talks about.
Thinking back to Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood and high school.I really liked his research method on page 3 he stated," I collected a list of high school films that have been analyzed by other scholars. I7 I reviewed the weekly television listings of broadcast and cable movies. I ran searches on the Internet Movie Data Base (www.imdb.com) and Netflix and consulted various."
Bulman noted that hollywood high school films tend to show individualism in american culture. One thing he said was that in films, women characters are more likely to emphasize their “expressisve” individualism often as love interests for another. This expresses their individuality and freedom. This is very stereotypical for him to say, this was not necessarily shown in the films that I watched. The characters in the films need for love was not the main topic. It was a piece of the storyline. It also wasn’t apart of having freedom because the girls (from class rank) had priviledge already so finding “love” did not mean then the start to having freedom. Finding “love” for women in the films did not lead to liberty and independence.
The first film that I watched, Freedom Writers, was based in an urban setting, and it showed a lot of working-class or poor students, mainly people of color, that go to that school. But Bulman didn’t mention race in his writing, which I think he should have.
Bullman mentions the differences between urban and suburban highschools. He doesn't talk about the racial differences in those school environments which feels important to talk about while mentioning their differences. Something he gets right is individualism being the unitting factor between different school environments. While not everyone is figuring out their indiviualism in highschool it seems like a common time to be doing so.
Thinking back to Bulman's ideas he was right about how movies depict reality but not necessarily the right reality it doesn't touch on it all. There are different social classes shown like the breakfast club which only focuses on the white middle-class struggles versus any diversity and real-life issues that others have to deal with as well.
In comparison to Lean on Me which is set in a low-funded troubled school with mainly people of color Bulman pretty much turned a blind eye to the racial issues. He did touch on social classes so maybe you could weave that in but in my opinion I would not because social classes do not equal race.
After watching the three movies I noticed and started to make a bunch of comparisons that Bulman was writing about. There were also a few differences in some of the things that we watched but all in all I thought there were a lot more comparisons. Bulman didn't really mention anything about race, in some of the movies we watched people of color were more hated on or seen differently, while other movies there really was no sense of race at all. The movie I saw that had the least amount of racism was School of Rock but you can also say that school of rock was based in a rich private school.
Bulmans descriptions of the stereotypes and cliches of movies based on education settings were very accurate in my experience. The movies I watched focused heavily on class and the difference between suburban and urban environments. Race was never a focused topic of these movies although it appears in the films, Bulman did not write about race even though it plays such a big role in these films.
bullman described how films and shows portray the stereotype of high school but also have a truth to them since most of what highschool is are people trying to recreate the movies. but those are very different regarding social classes. your quality of education ultimately depends on the zip code you live in. which brings it back to bullman and his take on education and film
I think that many of Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood and high school were evident in the films we watched for class. For example, the themes of urban public, suburban public, and private schools were shown in every film I watched. However, if I were to critique Bulman’s ideas, I would say that he didn’t include enough (or anything) about race and class in schools and how it connects with Hollywood movies and portrayals of characters in different school settings.
As we revisit Bulman's ideas on Hollywood and high school in comparison to the films that we watched, we kind of see that there was some truth to some of his thoughts. One thing that I will say he was right about was how the environment that is showcased within the movies are in connection to how the characters are portrayed. But to that extent it is not as to the point that Bulman expressed. But what he is clearly missing is the connection between race and how that comes into play with it all.
After revisiting Bulman’s ideas and themes, I can see it in the three films I watched. He spoke about stereotypes in Hollywood movies. In the movie Freedom Writers, I saw how different races were treated differently. There were other things such as social class and the stereotypes of public schooling.
Revisiting Bulman’s ideas, he was right about the continuous use of the same tropes and stereotypes. In Clueless, the impact of cliques and social status was heavy on their storyline. Bulman could’ve mentioned race because even though not all of the films focused on class vs race, it did appear in some films.
Going back to Bulman’s ideas , you can see exactly what he means in what he talks about. I watched Clueless and that movie provides us with a lot of stereotypes in society and Bulman proves just that
I think for the most part busman was right. he captured the idea of cliques in high school. while it was a bit sterotypical it still managed to get the point across. I think he could of improved a bit more on making the character more original and go in depth. he also needed to portray how race comes into play with classrooms.
Thinking back to Bulman’s ideas about High School within movies and television, I see that he did get some things right. Bulman was right about how different classes are showcased within movies and this changes the way the characters are portrayed. What he does not go into is the connection between class and race and how they go together in film.
ReplyDeleteBulman’s ideas about Hollywood’s depiction of high school were, for the most part, accurate. I found his mentioning of individualism to be especially prevalent among the films we watched. In each film, either the teacher (To Sir, With Love) or the students (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Lady Bird) had some sort of journey to either figure themselves out, or just display themselves to the audience. Especially with the use of 4th wall breaks, Ferris Bueller depicted a kid that, at least in this moment, knows who he is. He’s conniving in a more tame way, clever, and quick on his feet. Lady Bird, on the other hand, depicts a journey of a student beginning to question her identity and social alignment. I still agree with my critique of his comment about film criticism/analysis; with this class and its assignments (especially the critical review essay), these films are looked at through a societal scope, and not just about artist intention.
ReplyDeleteBulman’s remarks on the portrayal of education were pretty accurate in the movies I watched. I watched Stand and Deliver, which fits it’s his category of “the urban public school” film. Class Rank is a great example of a suburban public school film, and Ladybird goes to a catholic school which fits into Bulman’s 3rd category, elite private school films. Individualism wasn’t present much in Stand and Deliver, more about individual students becoming “better” people. Although, Bulman’s depiction of individualism in Urban public school films is focused more on the teacher’s individualism, in this way Mr. Escalante is quite different than all the other teachers and administrators at his school. Class Rank sort of promoted individualism, but it was not truly accepted by the story of the film. I would say Class Rank is more about student agency and using your own person as leverage in school. Since Ladybird is a coming of age film, it’s whole story is about how unique Ladybird is from the rest of her peers.
ReplyDeleteLainey^^
DeleteLooking back at what we read, Bulman remarks about highschool tropes/classes and how we shape it and it shapes us. I believe he got this right especially after watching all the movies, you can definitely see the impact of some of the movies. I think he should’ve gone more into the class v race more.
ReplyDeleteSome of Bulman's ideas are present throughout the films we watched, but some of the newer films seemed to question those concepts a bit. Bulman talked about how even though the Hollywood version of high school is often romanticized and simplified to be the standard mold of a stereotypical American high schooler, there is still some truth within the stories. A film like "The Breakfast Club" has very defined characters that fall into the stereotypical cliques which is not entirely wrong, but the newer films, like Ladybird, give their characters a deeper and more nuanced background which seems to be a better depiction of a modern teenager.
ReplyDeleteBulman definitely has some points that stand true, but many aren't as detailed as some more modern movies are. Having watched Lady Bird, I did see his stereotypical view of the high school environment, but the characters in the movie weren't just surface characters that fit a stereotype and nothing more. The characters had more depth and almost their own story and this is a much more in-depth view of the American High School trope, which Bulman didn't encompass completely in his writings, at least to the extent of this movie.
ReplyDeleteI think Bulman’s ideas were half baked. The individuality he discussed I think was relevant to the film world, but his ignorance of race being a factor of division in Hollywood high school made his views feel undeveloped. Many of the tropes he discussed were present in the movies I watched, like the teacher and student agency presented in different ways based on the type of school. But I wasn’t really thinking hmm this is a suburban school so the kids get to have more authority over their lives. It was more this is a privileged PWI. So, after watching these movies with those thoughts in mind, I can see what he was trying to do, but ultimately, he missed the mark.
ReplyDeleteSara
DeleteI noticed after watching the three movies that many of them follow the same tropes and enable the same stereotypes. Bulman failed to mention race in his chapter, but it is clear that he was trying to point out that in movies that take place in urban areas, people of color and specifically Black students are viewed as violent and brash. Often times, a white teacher comes in to help the class, and this falls into the white savior trope. This was enforced in many of the movies that my peers watched, however the movies I watched loosely followed this. I think it is important to show how schools are underfunded and teachers are underpaid, but doing this at the expense of upholding stereotypes is a major problem that Hollywood can't seem to get out of.
ReplyDeleteOut of the three movies I watched Bulman described one movie accurately and that was clueless. When watching the film you’re introduced to the higher social class of LA where they dressed in brand names and also drove brand names and Cher the main character was very big on “fathers money” during the film we’re also introduced to some groups all in which were the typical stereotypes of high school groups like the stoner group the emo group the popular group etc.
ReplyDeleteBulman was correct on the aspects about highschool. Watching clueless and seeing how they have weird relationships, cliques, social status, fashion, makes it feel like that's what highschool is about. The stereotypes is both in movies and in what Bulman talks about.
ReplyDelete-Emily Henriquez
Thinking back to Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood and high school.I really liked his research method on page 3 he stated," I collected a list of high school films that have been analyzed by other scholars. I7 I reviewed the weekly television listings of broadcast and cable movies. I ran searches on the Internet Movie Data Base (www.imdb.com) and Netflix and consulted various."
ReplyDeleteBulman noted that hollywood high school films tend to show individualism in american culture. One thing he said was that in films, women characters are more likely to emphasize their “expressisve” individualism often as love interests for another. This expresses their individuality and freedom. This is very stereotypical for him to say, this was not necessarily shown in the films that I watched. The characters in the films need for love was not the main topic. It was a piece of the storyline. It also wasn’t apart of having freedom because the girls (from class rank) had priviledge already so finding “love” did not mean then the start to having freedom. Finding “love” for women in the films did not lead to liberty and independence.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe first film that I watched, Freedom Writers, was based in an urban setting, and it showed a lot of working-class or poor students, mainly people of color, that go to that school. But Bulman didn’t mention race in his writing, which I think he should have.
Bullman mentions the differences between urban and suburban highschools. He doesn't talk about the racial differences in those school environments which feels important to talk about while mentioning their differences. Something he gets right is individualism being the unitting factor between different school environments. While not everyone is figuring out their indiviualism in highschool it seems like a common time to be doing so.
ReplyDeleteThinking back to Bulman's ideas he was right about how movies depict reality but not necessarily the right reality it doesn't touch on it all. There are different social classes shown like the breakfast club which only focuses on the white middle-class struggles versus any diversity and real-life issues that others have to deal with as well.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to Lean on Me which is set in a low-funded troubled school with mainly people of color Bulman pretty much turned a blind eye to the racial issues. He did touch on social classes so maybe you could weave that in but in my opinion I would not because social classes do not equal race.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the three movies I noticed and started to make a bunch of comparisons that Bulman was writing about. There were also a few differences in some of the things that we watched but all in all I thought there were a lot more comparisons. Bulman didn't really mention anything about race, in some of the movies we watched people of color were more hated on or seen differently, while other movies there really was no sense of race at all. The movie I saw that had the least amount of racism was School of Rock but you can also say that school of rock was based in a rich private school.
ReplyDeleteBulmans descriptions of the stereotypes and cliches of movies based on education settings were very accurate in my experience. The movies I watched focused heavily on class and the difference between suburban and urban environments. Race was never a focused topic of these movies although it appears in the films, Bulman did not write about race even though it plays such a big role in these films.
ReplyDeletebullman described how films and shows portray the stereotype of high school but also have a truth to them since most of what highschool is are people trying to recreate the movies. but those are very different regarding social classes. your quality of education ultimately depends on the zip code you live in. which brings it back to bullman and his take on education and film
ReplyDeleteI think that many of Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood and high school were evident in the films we watched for class. For example, the themes of urban public, suburban public, and private schools were shown in every film I watched. However, if I were to critique Bulman’s ideas, I would say that he didn’t include enough (or anything) about race and class in schools and how it connects with Hollywood movies and portrayals of characters in different school settings.
ReplyDeleteAs we revisit Bulman's ideas on Hollywood and high school in comparison to the films that we watched, we kind of see that there was some truth to some of his thoughts. One thing that I will say he was right about was how the environment that is showcased within the movies are in connection to how the characters are portrayed. But to that extent it is not as to the point that Bulman expressed. But what he is clearly missing is the connection between race and how that comes into play with it all.
ReplyDeleteAfter revisiting Bulman’s ideas and themes, I can see it in the three films I watched. He spoke about stereotypes in Hollywood movies. In the movie Freedom Writers, I saw how different races were treated differently. There were other things such as social class and the stereotypes of public schooling.
ReplyDelete^ Jaylyne
DeleteRevisiting Bulman’s ideas, he was right about the continuous use of the same tropes and stereotypes. In Clueless, the impact of cliques and social status was heavy on their storyline. Bulman could’ve mentioned race because even though not all of the films focused on class vs race, it did appear in some films.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to Bulman’s ideas , you can see exactly what he means in what he talks about. I watched Clueless and that movie provides us with a lot of stereotypes in society and Bulman proves just that
ReplyDeleteI think for the most part busman was right. he captured the idea of cliques in high school. while it was a bit sterotypical it still managed to get the point across. I think he could of improved a bit more on making the character more original and go in depth. he also needed to portray how race comes into play with classrooms.
ReplyDelete