Find something (an idea, a claim, an argument, etc.) in Bulman Ch 1 to disagree with. Explain what it is and shy you disagree with it. Note: If you absolutely can’t find something to disagree with, feel free to write about that situation (why you can’t disagree) or simply discuss something that you found interesting in Ch. 1.
I didn't find anything to disagree with during the reading, but I found it interesting how the author described movies and how they shape how we see society he mentioned three types of genres that capture the culture of the genre but not what it is and I find this very true, I've found myself watching movies or shows and imagine how real that scenery or culture might be like imagine the wild west might be or look like or how high school is full of jokes and geeks and the popular groups but in reality its not always true.
ReplyDeleteI honestly could not find anything to disagree with in the reading. I did find the extent of Bulman’s research to be very interesting though. The way he decided to analyze the high school film genre based off of social class makes a lot of sense to me. High school related films always seemed to have the same general plot to them and now that I think about it, many of them do have similarities rooted in the fact that they deal with characters who are members of the same social classes. I can’t believe that older high school film analysis failed to look into how social class impacts the plot lines and how it reflects American society because it seems to be an important element to study when looking at the genre.
ReplyDeleteThe ideals of Bulman Ch. 1 are pretty agreeable to me; especially since I come from a household of teachers and educators. Knowing the difference between reality and the picture painted by Hollywood is something I have a solid understanding of and Bulman is absolutely right when he explains the cinematic difference between teachers in different social scenarios. I found it interesting how he drew a concept of balance between situation and self when it came to educators. Bulman explained that in movies you see teachers as good and bad, and such a perception is based on their situation. Usually, middle-class and suburban teachers tended to lean dislikable while poor and less fortunate environments bred "hero teachers". This is interesting because even in real life I had teachers in my life that matched these personalities and the situation matched as well. Such a perception by cinema is in some ways accurate, unlike most Hollywood portrayals as mentioned by Bulman. These sub-genres and their parallels to reality are an interesting concept, especially to someone who has a well-formed perception of the reality of social class and education.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with the analysis Bulman was doing of the films. He said looking at the films through the lens of class made the most sense to him. This made me wonder how looking at different things while watching films might also interact with his class analysis. For example, the breakdown of diversity in middle class, low-class, and high class movies. Something I would be interested in analyzing is how the role of teenage girls might've changed over time. I feel like more recent films have more well rounded teenage girls compared to characters of the past. Bulman's article makes me curious about changes that have happened in what's represented in film over time.
ReplyDeleteIf I try hard to find something to disagree with it would be the way Bulman names the distinction between urban, suburban, and private as the most important factor in the high school movie genre. He makes a point of saying that when these distinctions are ignored in film analysis, important lessons regarding social class and American culture are overlooked, which I agree with, but I dont think it's the best way to lay these distinctions out. The generalizations being centered around location and then private schooling are unnecessary when discussing the tensions of American social class. I think private versus public is extremely important to be laid overtop of portrayals of urban, suburban, and rural high school experience.
ReplyDeleteAn excerpt I didn’t particularly agree with was: “Film analyses are often based on a small sample of films, and the argument often delves no deeper than the author’s interpretation of the “text” of the film. Little effort is made to use the lessons of social science research to help interpret the meaning of a representative sample of films” (Bulman 2). In my experience, when prompted to analyze films either in class or by my own volition, sociological context becomes relevant more often than not. The context of a story —its location, time period, plane of reality, and more—shapes every factor of it. In order to understand the protagonist, we have to understand the world they’re existing within, and what its rules are. Are they an upstanding citizen compared to the general population? Are they literally the worst? At least in my experience, the people that are taking the time to analyze a film are not ignoring sociological context after looking at the simple context. (And those who never do look silly, in my opinion)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I could not find something that I disagreed with. I agreed with a lot of his takes, especially the ones where he was talking about movies, shows, and commercials. I like how he said certain things in film making affect how people overlook things. Like important lessons in culture that affect the social class. I really liked how he broke down the middle, high and low class as well.
ReplyDeleteI could not find anything I’d disagree with when reading Bulman’s chapter 1. In fact I quite agree with him, in that people are more drawn to things they resonate with and can put themselves into. That’s the major factor for why romance movies do so well, many imagine themselves in it. His ideas of highschool movies being based off of real life is interesting, i believe they work together in some ways, one affecting the other. The one thing I will say is how idolized movies about highschools are. In modern times watching highschool movies they are quite unbelievable in a sense where the majority of people making highschool movies are adults perception of highschool nowadays.
ReplyDeletePersonally nothing I read I really disagreed with, the descriptions of how movies shape our views or certain groups, places or people. I think it is very accurate that movies are romanticized and people may find themselves wishing for reality to be more like them. High school movies are the perfect example because they set a certain stereotype of what type of groups you will see and how things should be. In reality these are not very accurate and create the wrong image in peoples head, especially high schoolers themselves.
ReplyDeletei found the reading by bulman very interesting and i overall agreed with everything he was saying. it was really eye opening to see things i definitely have thought about actually written out and analyzed. when i was in elementary school i was obsessed with high school musical and though thats exactly what highschool would be like. i idolized it in my mind just how bulman said. movies based off highschool set a certain stereotype of what highschool will be like when it really doesn't turn out like that at all. having actually lived what bulman is saying i cant really find anything to disagree with.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find anything I disagreed with when reading Bulman's Chapter 1. But I did agree and find some points interesting that were brought up. Such as how films reveal a certain truth that may not be accurate but does tell the truth about the culture that produces and consumes it. In addition where a film and text are only popular if the it resonates with the readers or viewers. Reason for this is that the enjoyment of popular culture is a collective experience. Which if you think about it, is kind of interesting because one person can satisfy and reinforce a collective understanding with a whole population. Such as romanticized movies that lead to many resonating and idolizing how they think relationships should be. Although it is not entirely realistic it is what some would hope it was like.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Ghee:
ReplyDeleteMy disagreement with Bulman comes from right near the beginning, when he states that film studies scholarship rarely considers social context/the social sciences. Aside from the fact that arguably the most famous film theory essay (Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema") is also a sociological essay, Bulman contradicts this idea within in his own text. His quotations of Shary, Crane, and Schatz all reflect the belief that films are cultural productions indicative of the society that produced them, but he then goes on to say that within film scholarship "little effort is made to use the lessons of social science research". Even in my own film studies classes, the social contexts that produced films and film movements are always at the forefront of discussion, so it seems like a rough assumption to make.
I would have to disagree with the first sentence of this chapter, “Sociologists don’t often study films.” He says they study “social reality” instead of “social fantasy.” This doesn’t align with his later claims, when he suggests “films both reflect and shape culture.” Sociologists study social patterns, in which they would not be able to ignore the influence of film on social life. It's hard to imagine that sociologists simply didn’t acknowledge the worldwide shock of the “I am your father” debacle, or even the more recent uptake in interest of girl culture after the Barbie movie’s success. Additionally, he also claims that film analyses are based on smaller samples of films and “arguments often delve no deeper than the author’s interpretation of the ‘text’ of the film.” As a humanities major, I was a little hurt reading this. But genuinely, every review and discussion of literature and films I’ve been a part of has started with historical and cultural context around the text or the author’s life, anything that might have made an influence on the writing itself. Films are pivotal to popular culture in a way that makes it pretty much impossible for sociologists to just ignore.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Bulman's first chapter had many good points about films that revolve around high school, he left out a huge main point. In order to discuss the differences between each movie you cannot only talk about class but race has to be included within this conversation. This is because in our society, race and class are intertwined and by leaving that part out, Bulman’s argument is not complete.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't specifically disagree with Bulman's ch. 1 and the ideas and presentation of society, but I do disagree with the somewhat validated perpetuation of stereotypes depicted. There is a lot of talk about how these films reflect "American culture" and we can "learn a lesson about our society" and not enough about the underlying issues that actually effect social institutions. A more in depth coverage with an opinionated approach in favor of future generations and society as a whole would make me feel much better about all this information. The film industry relies on inequity in our natural society to promote their movie or show. There are so many values missing from movies targeted for kids and teenagers, it creates the idea that there are specific ways to manipulate oneself for some sort of fame, success, or friends.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Bulman's chapter, I did not really disagree with anything but the fact that there are high school stereotypes in movies that don't really happen in real life. In these movies, there are things such as cliches and high school parties. Watching these movies growing up made me think differently of the structures of high school and ignore the truth about social divides (jocks, nerds, and the popular girls).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the passage that Bulman wrote, I do not see anything that I disagree with or am against. I like what he said about films especially about high school and how is basically reflects how we act and what we do in real life so I did find that very interesting and realistic.
ReplyDeletebryan
DeleteEmily Henriquez:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Bulman in chapter one. The ideas of movies being brought to life by taking something that is normal to a fantasy. When he talks about Hollywood twisting up the reality and making dramatic, I would feel like it's a necessity because having a film be "reality" would be boring for the general audience. Another ting that Bulman brought up was High School and how stereotypes really exist in those films. This causes younger audiences to think that everything in the film is true.
did really find anything I disagreed with in this reading instead I found it pretty cool. I found the most fascinating part is when he talks about how movies shape our views in life. I know that I have certain expectations for things I have never experienced due to how I see it in movies. Now this it not the best thing for society because it gives false information but I still see it it as pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteI*
DeleteThere is nothing I particularly disagree with but I found the shift of gender norms in movies interesting. women's roles in movies have went from being seen as sex objects to main characters who have their own aspirations and goals aside from finding a lover. This also changes the way love is perceived as it showcases the idea of being your own person outside of a romantic relationship.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, I didn't come across anything I particularly disagreed with. I found myself agreeing with many of his viewpoints. I particularly agreed with some of his viewpoints on movies, television programs, and advertisements. I like that they emphasized the importance that movies can have on us as an influence. I also thoroughly enjoyed his distinctions made when discussing different classes of people.
ReplyDelete**Jo
DeleteI didn’t find anything I disagreed with in Chapter 1 of the Bulman reading. I thought that his focus of urban public school, suburban public schools, and private schools was interesting lens to analyze high school films from. However, while I don’t disagree with the focus that Bulman choose to pursue, I don’t think that it was necessarily the most compelling. I think that if he had added more depth to his focus, for example adding data about the race of the student body or the amount of school funding for urban versus suburban versus private school, etc. It would have made his thesis stronger.
ReplyDeleteIn Bulman’s reading , there isn’t anything to disagree with necessarily. I will say that I have watched films before where I make comparisons to real life scenarios and start to form these sort of conspiracy theories, whether i’m by myself or with a friend. Do i think some of the things i’ve watched like Scientific fiction genres or realistic fiction , are somewhat real in real life? I have those moments but like Bulman mentioned, it’s an exaggerations and it’s not real life at all. - Novia
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Bulman's Chapter 1, I didn't find anything to disagree with. I like how he start's chapter 1. He grab my attention when he opened up talking about movies, it made me want to read more. In chapter 1 the author states, "Movies make magic. They change things. They take the real and make it into some- thingyelse right before your very eyes. .. They give the reimagined, reinvented version of the real. It may look like something familiar, but in actuality it is a differ- ent universe from the world of the real. That's what makes movies so compelling." This was the quote that made me want to read more.
ReplyDelete