My thesis is about villains, and how filmmakers control what we think is evil.
I have come up with my thesis from the film ‘The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford’. In this film, Andrew Dominik, (the maker of the film), has shown how filmmakers can control what we think of a person. Dominik persuades the audience during the film that the antagonist is Robert Ford. He does this by the way he portrays the characters of both Jesse James and Robert Ford.
Andrew Dominik decided who was evil and who was good. The title leads us to believe that Jesse James is the protagonist, even before we start to watch the film. Again using the title; ‘The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.' Dominik states that Robert Ford is the coward that will assassinate
…show more content…
Dominik never wanted us to see the good side of him after he did something bad. When he assassinated Jesse he lied to Jesse’s wife, Zee. He then immediately ran to the post to call for the reward. Dominik never showed him regretting his action. Dominik justified that Robert was proud of it by the way he showed him acting out his assassination to an audience, over and over again.
Dominik showed how all the way through the film Robert was a coward starting with the title. But also at the end of the film after Robert Ford assassinated Jesse James. Dominik added the scene of Robert in the bar drunk, there is a man singing a song about Jesse James. The song portraying Jesse being like a robin hood, a folk hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, and the man who shot him was considered a coward. Robert then shoots the man, that was singing the song.
The Ridley Scott Encyclopaedia by Laurence Raw discusses how by killing Jesse James Robert thought he would become famous and bigger than the great outlaw, Jesse James. But in reality, Jesse James even when killed would always be the better man, which Robert finally realized in this
The only real way to truly understand a story is to understand all aspects of a story and their meanings. The same goes for movies, as they are all just stories being acted out. In Thomas Foster's book, “How to Read Literature Like a Professor”, Foster explains in detail the numerous ingredients of a story. He discusses almost everything that can be found in any given piece of literature. The devices discussed in Foster's book can be found in most movies as well, including in Quentin Tarantino’s cult classic, “Pulp Fiction”. This movie is a complicated tale that follows numerous characters involved in intertwining stories. Tarantino utilizes many devices to make “Pulp Fiction” into an excellent film. In this essay, I will demonstrate how several literary devices described in Foster's book are put to use in Tarantino’s film, “Pulp Fiction”, including quests, archetypes, food, and violence.
In “The Thematic Paradigm,” University of Florida professor of film studies, Robert Ray, defines two types of heroes pervading American films, the outlaw hero and the official hero. Often the two types are merged in a reconciliatory pattern, he argues. In fact, this
1. Sobchack’s argument pertaining to on -screen violence that she wrote thirty years ago was that any violent acts portrayed in movies back then was to emphasize the importance of an element in a story, an emphatic way of engaging the viewers and forcing them to feel what the movie was about. It gave them a sense of the substance of the plot which would allow them to feel for the characters and yearn for good to overcome evil. In other words, the effort made to engage audiences through depictions of violence created violence that was artistic and well done, or as Sobchack writes, violence was “aestheticized.” Violence was incorporated into film in a stylistic way, and even though violence in all forms is offending, twenty five years ago when it was seen in film, it had a greater impact on audiences because it had meaning (Sobchack 429).
In the article “The Thematic Paradigm” exerted from his book, A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, Robert Ray provides a description of the two types of heroes depicted in American film: the outlaw hero and the official hero. Although the outlaw hero is more risky and lonely, he cherishes liberty and sovereignty. The official hero on the other hand, generally poses the role of an average ordinary person, claiming an image of a “civilized person.” While the outlaw hero creates an image of a rough-cut person likely to commit a crime, the official hero has a legend perception. In this essay, I will reflect on Ray’s work, along with demonstrating where I observe ideologies and themes.
The appearance of a character is not always a good reflection of one’s true personality. In The Wars, Robert attempts to change how he appears to people; he tries to become what he believes a soldier should be. When Robert kills the horse on the ship, he is traumatized; he “began to squeeze the trigger and he squeezed again and again and again” (Findley 68) which indicates he is going insane, having to do an act he did not want to commit in the first place. Robert tries to act like nothing from the shooting has affected him; he exceeds his emotions and acts exactly like an officer by saying “if this damn ship would sell us one I’d buy us both a drink” (Findley 69), by changing the subject, Robert indicates that he is not affected nor cares about the killing of the horse, even though internally, he is. Likewise in King Lear, Goneril and Regan both intentionally appear to be something they are not. When Lear
Robert Ross becomes the anti-hero because of his need of to save others but inability to do so; Robert, himself, is not aware of the fact that all he wants to do is save others because he could not save the one person he cared about, Rowena: “It wasn’t Stuart’s fault. It was Robert’s fault. Robert was her guardian and he was locked in his bedroom. Making love to his pillows.” (16) Furthermore, Robert tries to save Rowena’s rabbits: “I’ll look after them. […] I’ll take care of them. Please!!!” (18) Meanwhile, he fails again when someone else was hired to do so: “It took him thirty seconds to emerge from his pain and to realize why Teddy Budge was there.” (20) Robert unknowingly feels the need to be a savior for the people in his life, but constantly fails to do so with every attempt. Throughout the book, Robert blames himself for not being able to save Rowena or her rabbits. Another reason Robert enlists in the war is to unintentionally make up for the lack of lives he could not save in his own household.
Richard’s pride is shown when he refuses to fight Harrison for white men’s entertainment. When Richard initially rejects the white man’s offer of five dollars for him to fight with Harrison, it is out of pride. Richard shows his pride quite a lot though out the novel. “’Then let’s figh...
Robert is a very interesting character with strong values, preservation of life being one of them. He goes through an emotional and psychological change throughout the novel. He assigns himself a responsibility of taking care of his sister
The Notorious Outlaw. There was so much anguish against the Ford brothers that within two years Charlie, who was the sensitive of the brothers, killed himself. Bob Ford gets killed 10 years later, by a man who entered his saloon. Jesse James was avenged, but the ironic part of this piece of history is that Jesse James was responsible for many deaths. After Jesse was killed, Frank was tired of being on the run.
...ctual roles, or adding in exciting events that revise the storyline. These changes are beneficial to producers because they engage a large audience and generate massive profits. In contrast, they do not always have a positive effect on viewers. Although they are entertaining which is an important aspect of theatre culture, they also are often misguiding. Many spectators take movies at face value, without considering that they may not exactly qualify as primary source material. Even when an historical event is fabricated to teach or enhance a moral message, it still doesn’t compensate for bending the truth. Moviegoer’s may have a positive experience and gain some skewed historical perspective, perhaps better than what they knew before the movie, but they loose out on the truth and therefore, a genuine understanding of the historical event, and its significance.
Robert Ross is a pure, righteous, ethical person in the beginning of the novel; he obtains a strong morality. Roberts’ integrity prevails when Mrs. Ross asks Robert to murder Rowena’s rabbits. “Why do the rabbits have to be killed? …I’ll take care of them. Please!!! Robert-control yourself. Silence. Who’s going to kill
However, as degrading the stereotypes may be, some directors use these stereotypes to communicate the reality of the situation. For example, when the premise of the plot relates to history of Asian Americans, the inclusion of culture-specific attitudes and accents transforms the movie or TV show in an unidealized perspective of the world. Rather than shying away from what is considered racist, the directors stays true to what is part of society. Therefore, the ethical responsibility is to display these negative stereotypes.
During the beginning of the novel, Robert Ross is shown to be sensitive, caring and protective, especially with his sister, Rowena. Rowena is one of the first characters to change Robert’s mental stability. With her death, he is lead to war. However, his inability to kill is shown in several portions of the beginning of the novel. First, he is unable to kill Rowena’s rabbits even at the insistence of his mother and tries unsuccessfully to stop their execution. (pg.18)Secondly, after he is drafted in the war, Robert believes he has a need for a teacher to guide him in “learning how to kill without killing at all but only throwing”. He considers Taffer, a retired accomplished captain, “a man who made his piece with stones”, for the job, but is sent off to sea before anything comes of it.
And from time to time, Robert does exhibit some outstanding qualities of character which have earned the respect of so many of us gathered here today. He is generous to a fault – especially if it’s his own. He is exceptionally modest – although he has plenty to be modest about (or at least he did until Pamela became his girlfriend). And he is a man who always sticks by his convictions - he will remain in the wrong no matter how much he gets ridiculed for it.
“Entertainment has to come hand in hand with a little bit of medicine, some people go to the movies to be reminded that everything’s okay. I don’t make those kinds of movies. That, to me, is a lie. Everything’s not okay.” - David Fincher. David Fincher is the director that I am choosing to homage for a number of reasons. I personally find his movies to be some of the deepest, most well made, and beautiful films in recent memory. However it is Fincher’s take on story telling and filmmaking in general that causes me to admire his films so much. This quote exemplifies that, and is something that I whole-heartedly agree with. I am and have always been extremely opinionated and open about my views on the world and I believe that artists have a responsibility to do what they can with their art to help improve the culture that they are helping to create. In this paper I will try to outline exactly how Fincher creates the masterpieces that he does and what I can take from that and apply to my films.