English 2150: Literature and Film

Magnolia

2020-04-26T18:41:00.002-04:00

Attention: This film response is an optional one. If you do this response, the file name should be "LastName.FirstName.OFR.Magnolia.S20"----if you have any Film Response grades that are "Falls Short," this is a chance to raise one of them. However, this Optional Response cannot replace an "Incomplete" grade. Also, please read the instructions for film responses again, very carefully, so that you can be sure to meet all requirements.

For this response I would like you to do the same kind of exercise you did for 12 Years a Slave. Usually, I come up with an idea for you to think about and respond to. I start by identifying an idea from the film that interests me and then follow a train of thought that leads to your discussion prompt. This time, I would like you to try to create a prompt as if you were the teacher and I were the student.

You'll still write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of between 300 and 400 words:

First paragraph: Start by identifying ONE clip of particular significance to you. Describe this clip (focusing on the film work that MAKES it meaningful to you) and explain how it opens up an interesting and reasonable view of the film.

Second paragraph: Extending from the first paragraph, identify a debatable question or two that emerge from that moment in the film. First, lead up to those questions by explaining the ambiguity or debatable nature of the idea you discussed in the first paragraph. Second, ask your questions. Third, explain how those questions cut to the heart of the film and are worthy of discussion.

Challenge yourself to start a discussion of the film on your own terms.

Magnolia Discussion

2020-04-26T18:41:00.001-04:00

Today, with this film, we continue our journey into some essential questions raised in our experience of art: "what is the nature of humanity?" and "what is the potential of humanity?" Who are we, and what makes us who we are? Is there a moral imperative that directs our path, or do we construct a morality that suits our intentions? Is there such a thing as evil? Is there such a thing as good? Do we choose between them, or do we simply fall into categories that conveniently describe our behavior?

As you work your way through this film, think carefully about the variety of human flaws these characters have. P.T. Anderson is very interested in exploring human responsibility, but he is also interested in the nature of weakness and the need for help. Do you find yourself judging or sympathizing? Is it possible for you to forgive or can you only condemn? Are all flaws created equal? Try to frame your question and debatable statements with P.T. Anderson in mind. Magnolia is a film unlike most you have probably scene, so you will need to work hard to size up these characters.

Here are some questions and ideas of my own:

How do you make sense of the fragmented narrative? What effect does the dilated cross-cutting have on your viewing experience?
Given its epic proportions, what is the effect of the film's personal focus on the characters? Is the film personal?
Can we say what this film is about? Does it expand beyond the boundaries of a unified theme? What might that unified theme be?
Judgment? Forgiveness? What's the difference?
P.T. Anderson has said this film is his favorite of the ones he's made, but he also regrets making the final cut so long. How do you reconcile these contradictory points of view?
My thesis: Magnolia is a film about forgiveness, the difficulty we face in forgiving, the necessity of forgiveness, etc. My reason for thinking this way is that the characters who wield justice in the film, without the opposing urge to forgive (be merciful), fall into a vortex of pain and suffering. Anderson seems to be challenging us to consider what we can forgive. I take this to mean not what crimes and misdeeds deserve forgiveness but how far WE can let ourselves go to forgive what we might call the "unforgivable." To the extent that the film is about forgiveness, it is also about love, for love, properly understood, is synonymous with forgiveness. That is, the opposite of love is condemnation (of the person, not the deed). "Tough part of the job. Tough part of walking down the street." Even Jim can see that life, like his job, is no easy task. It is, however, governed by a simple idea: love. Everything else is sickness and death.
My other thesis: P.T. Anderson is the man. That is all.

12 Years a Slave

2020-04-19T17:44:00.001-04:00

Attention: You should read the instructions for film responses again. For a "quality effort" grade, be sure to focus on the film work in ONE moment from the film per paragraph. Your file name should be "LastName.FirstName.FR7.S20"

For this response I would like you to do the same kind of exercise you did for The Thin Red Line. Usually, I come up with an idea for you to think about and respond to. I start by identifying an idea from the film that interests me and then follow a train of thought that led to your discussion prompt. This time, I would like you to try to create a prompt as if you were the teacher and I were the student.

You'll still write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of between 300 and 400 words:

First paragraph: Start by identifying ONE clip of particular significance to you. Describe this clip (focusing on the film work that MAKES it meaningful to you) and explain how it opens up an interesting and reasonable view of the film.

Second paragraph: Extending from the first paragraph, identify a debatable question or two that emerge from that moment in the film. First, lead up to those questions by explaining the ambiguity or debatable nature of the idea you discussed in the first paragraph. Second, ask your questions. Third, explain how those questions cut to the heart of the film and are worthy of discussion.

Challenge yourself to start a discussion of the film on your own terms.

12 Years a Slave Discussion

2020-04-19T17:42:00.000-04:00

"There's nothing to forgive."

Today, with this film, we continue our journey into some essential questions raised in our experience of art: "what is the nature of humanity?" and "what is the potential of humanity?" Who are we, and what makes us who we are? Is there a moral imperative that directs our path, or do we construct a morality that suits our intentions? Is there such a thing as evil? Is there such a thing as good? Do we choose between them, or do we simply fall into categories that conveniently describe our behavior?

As you work your way through this film, think carefully about the ethical purpose that drove McQueen to make this film. You've already seen a film by Steve McQueen--Hunger--so you know he is very invested in social issues that many of us would rather ignore or pretend do not still matter. Try to frame your question and debatable statements with Steve McQueen in mind. He is such a daring filmmaker, not just in the way he shoots and edits his material, but in the types of stories he is willing to tell.

Some questions for us to consider:

What is the narrative frame? Even without voice-over, does this film have a narrator?
Why do you think McQueen decided NOT to use voice-over in this film? Unlike The Thin Red Line, the interludes in this film are typically silent instead of filled with commentary from one character or another.
What is the shape of the plot?
If you've watched to the end, you might say that this film is redemptive. On what basis could we say it is (or is not)?
Is the content of this film more overwhelming than McQueen's Hunger, or any of the other films we watched that feature traumatic experiences?
This film does not shy away from racist language--should we tolerate/accept/embrace the artistic use of such language given the story that this film attempts to tell?
Should this brutal story, being based on a true one, be presented as film for our consumption?
Does this film present a realistic view of slave conditions and treatment in the South?
Does this film present a universal view of slave conditions and treatment in the South?
Does this film (as a work of art) make an argument against slavery? If so, then why? I mean, is it not generally accepted now that slavery is evil and has justifiably been abolished as a sanctioned economic model?
Is slavery a national evil?

In your discussion posting, please share ONE thought-provoking question and TWO thought-provoking, debatable statements about 12 Years a Slave to the "Debatable Statements" forum in D2L. Please see the calendar and the discussion forum description for additional information.

Your questions and statements should encourage the exchange of ideas between you and your peers. You may ask additional questions about your concerns and confusions, but for the main content of your posting, try to think hard about ideas that relate to the heart of the film, how it's made, and what it achieves as a story. Including clip descriptions that your questions and statements relate to can help your classmates understand your meaning.

The Thin Red Line

2020-04-12T22:30:00.003-04:00

Attention: This film response is an optional one. If you do this response, the file name should be "LastName.FirstName.OFR.ThinRedLine.S20"----if you have any Film Response grades that are "Falls Short," this is a chance to raise one of them. However, this Optional Response cannot replace an "Incomplete" grade. Also, please read the instructions for film responses again, very carefully, so that you can be sure to meet all requirements.

For this response I would like you to do the same kind of exercise you did for Birdman. Usually, I come up with an idea for you to think about and respond to. I start by identifying an idea from the film that interests me and then follow a train of thought that leads to your discussion prompt. This time, I would like you to try to create a prompt as if you were the teacher and I were the student.

You'll still write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of between 300 and 400 words:

First paragraph: Start by identifying ONE clip of particular significance to you. Describe this clip (focusing on the film work that MAKES it meaningful to you) and explain how it opens up an interesting and reasonable view of the film.

Second paragraph: Extending from the first paragraph, identify a debatable question or two that emerge from that moment in the film. First, lead up to those questions by explaining the ambiguity or debatable nature of the idea you discussed in the first paragraph. Second, ask your questions. Third, explain how those questions cut to the heart of the film and are worthy of discussion.

Challenge yourself to start a discussion of the film on your own terms.

The Thin Red Line Discussion

2020-04-12T22:30:00.002-04:00

"O my soul, let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out at the things you made. All things shining."

Today, with this film, we continue our journey into some essential questions raised in our experience of art: "what is the nature of humanity?" and "what is the potential of humanity?" Who are we, and what makes us who we are? Is there a moral imperative that directs our path, or do we construct a morality that suits our intentions? Is there such a thing as evil? Is there such a thing as good? Do we choose between them, or do we simply fall into categories that conveniently describe our behavior?

As you work your way through this film, think carefully about how Terence Malick chose to film and narrate this story. Try to frame your question and debatable statements with Terence Malick in mind. He has such a unique approach to telling a war story that we need to acknowledge who this film stands out from what we would normally expect a war film to be.

Here are some questions for us to consider:

Does this film have a narrator? If so, who is telling the story? Does the teller use words to tell the story? What is the narrative frame?
Who is Train? Why are most of the voice-overs his words?
How would you describe the "direction" of events in the story? What does this plot arrangement tell us about the film?
Sacrifice seems to be a motif in this film. What are some examples of sacrifice in the film? Does this emphasis on sacrifice make the film about redemption?
Would you say that this film has a protagonist? An antagonist? If so, who? If not, why not?

In your discussion posting, please share ONE thought-provoking question and TWO thought-provoking, debatable statements about The Thin Red Line to the "Debatable Statements" forum in D2L. Please see the calendar and the discussion forum description for additional information.

Your questions and statements should encourage the exchange of ideas between you and your peers. You may ask additional questions about your concerns and confusions, but for the main content of your posting, try to think hard about ideas that relate to the heart of the film, how it's made, and what it achieves as a story. Including clip descriptions that your questions and statements relate to can help your classmates understand your meaning.

The voices of Train:

VO - 1:57 - 2:30

“Whatʼs this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?”

DS - 20:18 - 21:19

“I just canʼt help how damn scared I am, Sarge, all right? I canʼt help it. I got—You know, my stepdaddy took a block and beat me when I was real little. And I—I was scared. And I used to run. I used to hide. Hell, I slept in a chicken coop a whole lot of nights. And, uh—I never thought itʼd get no worse than that. But Iʼm living by the—by the minute over here. Iʼm counting the seconds. And weʼre gonna be landing—Weʼre gonna be landing soon. Thereʼs gonna be air raids. Weʼre probably gonna die before we get off the beach. This place is—Itʼs like a big floating graveyard.”
“Whatʼs your name, kid?”
“I want to own an automobile when I get out.”
“Whatʼs your name?”
“Edward — Edward B. Train”
“Train.”
“The only things that are permanent is—is dying and the Lord. Thatʼs it. Thatʼs all you got to worry about. This war ainʼt—This war ainʼt gonna be the end of me. And it ainʼt gonna be the end of you neither.”

VO - 31:02 - 32:55

“Who are you who live in all these many forms? Your death that captures all. You too are the source of all thatʼs gonna be born. Your glory, mercy, peace, truth. You give calm a spirit, understanding, courage. The contented heart.”

VO - 1:50:42 - 1:52:31

“This great evil. Where does it come from? How did it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Whoʼs doing this? Whoʼs killing us, robbing us of life and light, mocking us with the sight of what we might have known? Does our ruin benefit the earth? Does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you too? Have you passed through this night?”

VO - 2:02:57 - 2:03:17

“Hours like months. Days like years. Walked into the golden age, stood on the shores of a new world.”

VO - 2:06:06 - 2:06:36

“Canʼt nothing make you forget it. Each time you start from scratch. War donʼt ennoble men. It turns ʼem into dogs. Poisons the soul.”

VO - 2:17:02 - 2:18:10

“We were a family. Howʼd it break up and come apart, so that now weʼre turned against each other, each standing in the otherʼs light? How did we lose the good that was given us, let it slip away, scatter it, careless? Whatʼs keeping us from reaching out, touching the glory?”

VO - 2:23:22 - 2:24:04

“One man looks at a dying bird and thinks thereʼs nothing but unanswered pain. But deathʼs got the final word. Itʼs laughing at him. Another man sees that same bird, feels the glory, feels something smiling through it.”

DS - 2:40:23 - 2:41:11

“Somethinʼ I can come back to. Some kind of foundation. I mean, I donʼt know what, you know—what your plans are, but Iʼm determined now. Iʼve been through the thick and thin of it. You know, I may be young, but Iʼve lived plenty of life. Iʼm ready to start living it good. You know, my daddy always told me itʼs gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better. You know, ʼcause life ainʼt supposed to be that hard when youʼre young. Well, I—I figure after this, the worst is gonna be gone though. Itʼs time for things to get better. Thatʼs what I want. Thatʼs whatʼs gonna happen. Iʼm getting older now. By no means old, but older.”

VO - 2:41:11 - 2:43:05

“Where is it that we were together? Who were you that I lived with, walked with? The brother. The friend. Darkness and light. Strife and love. Are they the workings of one mind, the features of the same face? O my soul, let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out at the things you made. All things shining.”

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

2020-04-05T11:12:00.000-04:00

Attention: You should read the instructions for film responses again. For a "quality effort" grade, be sure to focus on the film work in ONE moment from the film per paragraph. Your document name should be "LastName.FirstName.FR6.S20"

This Romanian film offers a rich opportunity for cultural study—set in 1987 (twenty years earlier than its release date), it shows us a country that is economically and socially opposite to the opulence of America at the time. But the director, Cristian Mungiu, manages to give this movie a more personal than cultural significance. The highly emotional content of the film, enhanced by the slooooowwww shooting style (hardly any cuts), creates an uncomfortable level of intimacy with the characters.

The political dimension of this film is hard to deny. In the lives of Gabita and Otilia, we see evidence of economic struggle, social desperation, and personal trauma that presumably result, in part, from the way their country is being governed. The careful arrangement of details in the film suggests that the director laments how these women are forced to the extremes we see, or that he is at least criticizing the social design that could lead to so much pain. But the pain remains deeply human as well, and is caused by personal choices.

The film makes no attempt, with the exception of the absent sex scenes we might have been subjected to, to shield us from the raw reality of Gabita’s unsanctioned abortion. Every stage of it is painstakingly shown to us: the arrangements made by Otilia, the clinical warnings of Mr. Bebe, his price, the wrapped foetus on the bathroom floor, the disposal. All of it seems directed at eliciting a real and human response from the audience. The difficulty is figuring out exactly how we are meant to respond.

Now here is your prompt: First, what is the purpose of telling this story in such stark and brutal detail, if we are not clearly shown the message of this film? Is the message that such experiences cannot be reduced to messages, to ideological neatness? Second, think specifically about the final moment of the film when Otilia looks out the window of the restaurant and appears to make eye contact with us. Is this breaking of the fourth wall (look it up!) an invitation to use or learn from what we have seen, or are we shocked out of the illusion and invited to exercise greater and more personal empathy for the characters? Remember, please write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of at least 300 words in Google Drive.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days Discussion

2020-04-05T11:11:00.001-04:00

**Trigger Warning**--As you can discover on Wikipedia and other places on the Internet, this film contains strong and disturbing imagery related to sexual assault and abortion. If you'd like to read about the content of the film before you watch it, I encourage you to do so. Also, please reach out to me if you have any questions.

Today, with this film, we continue our journey into some essential questions raised in our experience of art: "what is the nature of humanity?" and "what is the potential of humanity?" Who are we, and what makes us who we are? Is there a moral imperative that directs our path, or do we construct a morality that suits our intentions? Is there such a thing as evil? Is there such a thing as good? Do we choose between them, or do we simply fall into categories that conveniently describe our behavior?

As you work your way through this film, and your way through thinking about this film in the aftermath of watching it, I would like you to reflect on your emotional and ethical response to 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days. For some of you, this film will have been the most difficult of the semester, and for the rest, it will at least have been upsetting to a degree. What is your emotional response to this film, beyond "like" and "dislike"? How did the film successfully affect you? Contrary to Otilia's statement at the end of the film, "We're never going to talk about this, OK?," we ARE going to talk about it. Don't you agree that the director is asking us to talk about it?

As part of reflecting on your emotional response, think about specific ways that the director managed to GET that response from YOU. You should be able to express at least THREE essential ways that you'd share with me and your classmates. You can work these ideas into your questions and debatable statements. Look into the film for the heart of its purpose. Here are some dimensions to consider:

filming and editing techniques
narrative structure
purpose and/or ideology
motifs that enrich the story

This time, in your discussion posting, please share ONE thought-provoking question and TWO thought-provoking, debatable statements about 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days to the "Debatable Statements" forum in D2L. Please see the calendar and the discussion forum description for additional information.

Your questions and statements should encourage the exchange of ideas between you and your peers. You may ask additional questions about your concerns and confusions, but for the main content of your posting, try to think hard about ideas that relate to the heart of the film, how it's made, and what it achieves as a story. Including clip descriptions that your questions and statements relate to can help your classmates understand your meaning.

Squid and the Whale

2020-03-30T10:52:00.001-04:00

Attention: This film response is an optional one. If you choose to do this response, the file name should be "LastName.FirstName.OFR.The.Squid.and.the.Whale.S20" NOT "FR6"--if you have any Film Response grades that are "Falls Short," this is a chance to raise one of them. However, this Optional Response cannot replace an "Incomplete" grade. Also, please read the instructions for film responses again, very carefully, so that you can be sure to meet all requirements.

The Squid and the Whale seems determined to penetrate the core or our emotional sensitivity in order to reveal the real pain of family crisis--in this case, an ugly divorce mixed with the awkwardness and unpredictability of adolescence. When bonds break, energy is released. The opening tennis match, with the ball flying around, does help us see the hostility beginning to boil between Mom and Dad and that the two brothers are not exactly gracious toward one another.

Are the parents the squid and the whale? We should consider the possibility, but that interpretation is not satisfying enough by itself. It seems too simple. The film contains many more subtle conflicts that are too ambiguous and complex for such an easy connection: two monsters of the sea fighting with each other to the death = hostility between Joan and Bernard that leads to bitter divorce. The idea makes sense, but Joan and Bernard are also human and vulnerable, and although Joan says, "It has nothing to do with you," the two brothers are part of the battle.

Walt says that he is so frightened by the gigantic museum display as a child that he can only look at it with his hands over his face. He also says that the sculpture became less scary when his mom described it to him later. For some reason, description helps soothe the sharp fear he feels, and hearing about is "fun." And now that Joan only seems capable of the opposite (saying things in a way that he doesn't want to hear them), Walt must cope with reality more directly. Maybe he needs that confrontation in order to mature, but on some levels, he seems ill-equipped to do so (another parental failure, perhaps).

Now here is your prompt: First, as an audience of this movie, can you watch the conflicts that unfold on the screen without wanting to shield your line of sight? What makes the film difficult (or not) to view head-on, confronting the disturbing realities of a dysfunctional family? Second, does this film make us experience some frightening reality more or less directly, like Walt looking at "scary fish" in the museum, or is this film more like a description of that reality that can help us face the "monsters" of life, like when Joan used to describe the squid and the whale to Walt at home?

Squid and the Whale Discussion

2020-03-30T10:50:00.002-04:00

Today, with this film, we begin (or maybe continue?) our journey into some essential questions raised in our experience of art: "what is the nature of humanity?" and "what is the potential of humanity?" Who are we, and what makes us who we are? Is there a moral imperative that directs our path, or do we construct a morality that suits our intentions? Is there such a thing as evil? Is there such a thing as good? Do we choose between them, or do we simply fall into categories that conveniently describe our behavior?

The films we have watched so far do address these questions as well, but I want to draw your conscious attention to them now. Begin thinking about them in an active way so that you can really consider the value of the films we have seen and will see. The challenge before you, from here on, is to measure the value of the films (and the remaining comics) according to a metric that you might not always or naturally have in mind: Do films have the power to build your character if you genuinely attend to their content and form?

According to our new course design, you will post TWO thought-provoking, debatable statements about The Squid and the Whale to the "Debatable Statements" forum in D2L. Please see the calendar and the discussion forum description for additional information.

Your statements should encourage the exchange of ideas between you and your peers. You may additional questions for basic information, but for the discussion-worthy statements, try to think harder about ideas that relate to the heart of the film, how it's made, and what it achieves as a story. Including clip descriptions that your statements relate to can help your classmates understand your meaning.

Course Design Update

2020-03-28T11:11:00.001-04:00

Dear all,

First, I want to say that I hope you are doing well! My top concern is that you stay healthy and happy in this stressful time. Please let me know if you are having a hard time in case there is something I can do to help you.

As the powers above have determined, we must charge ahead with the course in a purely online way, though for us, I hope, that will not be too big an adjustment. Here is how the course will work for the remaining FIVE weeks of class:

We will continue to follow the weekly schedule as before. Watch a film and do (optional) film observations by Monday. Rewatch the film by Wednesday. Do reading observations for the comic and either a required or optional Film Response by Friday. Our calendar will show all of these items as before, and you will do the work in Google Documents.
We will be adding a discussion routine in lieu of meeting in the classroom. So on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, there will be a discussion task to do that will count as your participation/attendance for those days as if we were in class. The calendar will also show these discussion tasks as “DUE” assignments. You will post threads and replies in the “Debatable Statements” forum in our D2L course. (There is also a forum called “Ask Dr. H a Question” that you can use to post course-related questions).
The Final Exam essay will still happen (more on that later).
The Final Film Term exam is cancelled.

And that’s it! If you need any help with anything in D2L, please let me know. We can do face time in Google Hangouts, if you want. Here is the website for Google Hangouts: https://hangouts.google.com/. You can use the same Gmail address that you used for Google Drive to log in. Then you can start a “new conversation” with me by clicking the green plus button and typing in matthew.horton.ung@gmail.com. To give me a heads up about a face time meeting, please email me at matthew.horton@ung.edu. Remember, I cannot receive emails at my gmail account. If you are using a phone or tablet, you can download Google Hangouts at your app store.

Again, I want nothing more than to extend my support to you during this strange time. UNG has extended the Withdrawal deadline to April 10, so if you are in a really stressful situation due to sickness, taking care of family, working, whatever the case might be, you can consider dropping courses this semester without fear of GPA penalty. I hope you will stay in your courses, but I understand if you cannot. Please try not to feel bad if you need to withdraw.

What we all need to do in this time is what is best for our health and happiness.

Your teacher,
Dr. H

Festen

2020-03-09T12:42:00.005-04:00

Attention: You should read the instructions for film responses again. For a "quality effort" grade, be sure to focus on the film work in ONE moment from the film per paragraph. Your document name should be "LastName.FirstName.FR5.S20"

Few films are as shocking and intrusive as this film, but it manages to be shocking and intrusive in the best way possible. We are exposed to the long-lasting effects of emotional trauma without having to live through the trauma itself. But then there is the trauma of the film as a film; many viewers undergo an emotionally traumatic experience when they watch Festen, and I think we can account for this effect by looking at how the movie is made, not just what happens in the story.

When he signed his Vow of Chastity, Thomas Vinterberg promised to break through the illusions that have turned films into predictable, barren, and superficial storytelling. Instead of "an illusion of pathos and an illusion of love," he wanted to present a less filtered experience, to the extent that he could with a camera in hand, and allow the inner experience and mindset of the characters to direct the path of events. In Festen, we have a film that wants, above all, to be realistic and immediate.

The way the film is made, then, corresponds to the story being told. When Christian stands up to make his "speeches" or offer his "toasts," he is attempting to break through the illusion of his father's status in the eyes of his attending family members. He seems to be the only who knows the truth, apart from the cooks and service staff, but he is willing to stand up over and over to make the truth heard. To do so, he must risk being ridiculed, but he must also revisit the terror of his childhood by confronting his father.

Now here is your prompt: First, does this film seem more truthful than most of the films you have seen? In what ways does it cut through the "illusion of pathos" or "illusion of love" that other films tend to show us? Or do you think that this film is a failed attempt to break through those illusions? Why so? Second, do you think Christian is successful in breaking through the illusion, and is he better off for doing so? In turn, for film directors, is the Vow of Chastity a step in the right direction, or should we want them to maintain the illusions?

Festen Discussion

2020-03-09T12:42:00.003-04:00

"It's one thing not wanting to talk about it,
but covering it all up is just silly."

The Vow of Chastity

Today in class, I would like you to develop some questions about The Celebration. This film is meant to disrupt your equilibrium. How does it achieve this end? How WELL does it do so? Articulate your ideas in question form to promote discussion with the class. Are we supposed to watch this film AS a film, or experience it as an event? Do the filmmakers want us to have an artistic experience, or are we meant to have a transformative emotional one? Either way, it IS still a film, right? Or does Dogme 95 want a film that is not just a film? The way Christian forces the truth upon his audience, perhaps, is the way the director wants to force the truth upon us. Are we willing participants, unlike most of the family members at the dinner? Come up with THREE essential questions you'd like to ask about the film. Look into the film for the heart of its purpose. Here are some dimensions to consider:

The Vow of Chastity
public truth and private truth
the formality of toasting
persuasion and protest

When discussing the film with your classmates, please write two STATEMENTS about the film. One of the statements should be a debatable, controversial claim about the content of the film (story, character, etc.), and one of the statements should be a debatable, controversial claim about the structure or technique of the film (plot, camera work, editing, etc.). Write these down in your discussion notes.

Both statements must be STATEMENTS, not questions, and try your best to make them debatable. They should INVITE debate because they clearly involve ambiguity and multiple possible answers. You do not have to agree with the statements you make, but you must have an actual position you can articulate and defend for the statements you make.

Here are some debatable statements from me:

Festen is a film about protest.
Festen is a protest film.
Christian is a tragic hero.
Festen is a ghost story.
The emotional brutality of Festen is necessary to its goal of truth telling.
Festen tells the truth.

The Wrestler

2020-03-02T09:44:00.002-05:00

Attention: This film response is an optional one. If you choose to do this response, the file name should be "LastName.FirstName.OFR.The.Wrestler.S20" NOT "FR5"--if you have any Film Response grades that are "Falls Short," this is a chance to raise one of them. However, this Optional Response cannot replace an "Incomplete" grade. Also, please read the instructions for film responses again, very carefully, so that you can be sure to meet all requirements.

The suffering of the characters in this film can be excruciating to watch. There isn't so much physical suffering as we see in Hunger, perhaps (there is the staple gun incident), but the emotional toll on Pam and Robin (or should we call them Cassidy and Randy?) of their choices and circumstances is massive and beyond question. I think Aronofsky communicates this emotional agony in a remarkable way--he transfers the shame and embarrassment of the characters into our viewing experience.

I wonder if embarrassment really can be a universal feeling when watching a movie like this one. We see Randy (or is it Robin?) holding onto the past in all sorts of silly ways. "Wanna play Nintendo?" is one. His belief that 80's rock ballads set the standard for musical excellence shows his limited point of view. He is disconnected from the reality of the present, from how to interact with customers at the deli counter to how to be a father to his daughter. He seems most at home when performing in the ring or watching Pam (or is it Cassidy?) perform a private dance for him.

At the same time, he does begin to confront a possible reality that might save him from the fantasy that has slowly worn him down. I am thinking here of the moment when he shoves money into Pam's hands and says, "Pretend you like me." She is rightly offended by this attack, but his insight is spot on, not about her but about himself. He knows he's spent his life paying for love, either with cash or with his body (his soul, too?). His disgust is self-directed and leads, tragically, to his forgetting dinner with his daughter.

Now here is your prompt: First, based on our sympathy for Robin (Randy) and Pam (Cassidy), does the outcome of the film lead to catharsis (check the glossary) or a sense of hope for the viewer? Second, does this film question the worth of love that is earned through performance, and of love that is performed? How is it that a film (scripted and performed) can help us see the line (or overlap) between performance and authenticity? Remember, please write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of at least 300 words in Google Drive.

Wrestler Discussion

2020-03-02T09:42:00.001-05:00

Today in your groups, I would like you to compose some discussion points about The Wrestler. To prepare for this group work, please compose THREE debatable statements about the film on a separate sheet of paper. This film is, on the surface, a very personal examination of what might be unfamiliar types of characters. At the same time, I think the film has allegorical tendencies that make it somewhat familiar. What does that mean to you? How does the film tell a larger story using the particular stories of Randy (Robin) and Cassidy (Pam)? What can you propose that will challenge your classmates to look at the film more carefully? Once you are in your groups, take some time to articulate your ideas to each other, and then write the essential statements you'd like to debate in your discussion notes.

Some ideas to guide our discussion:

performance and stardom
artistic value
decay and degradation
names and identity

Some additional questions:

Regarding the relative value of different types of art, I wonder how you feel about the distinction between art that EDIFIES vs. art that DEGRADES. Do some forms of art lift us higher and other forms of art pull us lower? Isn't the performance art of Randy and Cassidy degrading in some way, based on how it effects an audience and what it requires the performer to do?
And a follow-up question: Does the film The Wrestler qualify as art the edifies or art that degrades? I mean, do audiences of this film have an opportunity to reach a higher plane of understanding, or maybe a more sophisticated level of insight into the human condition? Is this engagement worthwhile? Of course, the alternative is to look at the film as a type of pornography or base sentimentality that offers a quick and easy release of tension. How do you experience the film? Is director asking us to compare his own film with the type of art that his characters perform? Is stripping pornography? Is the crude ballet of professional wrestling a type of pornography?
How do you take the ending of the film? Does The Wrestler qualify as a tragedy in the academic sense of the term?
When Randy quits his job at the grocery store, is he really just quitting his job? What precipitates his outburst?

Hunger

2020-02-24T11:39:00.002-05:00

Attention: You should read the instructions for film responses again. For a "quality effort" grade, be sure to focus on the film work in ONE moment from the film per paragraph. Your document name should be "LastName.FirstName.FR4.S20"

The graphic brutality of this film provokes a visceral reaction—viewers are more than likely to feel disgusted by images of filth, bodily abuse, sickness; at the same time, director McQueen arranges these images around a very real ethical dilemma that imposes another kind of burden. Hunger is an unsettling film on almost every level, in part because it recounts real historical events and in part because it offers no simple answers about the value and purpose of human life.

The Maze prison, where almost all of the movie takes place, is the site of a political standoff between the British government and the IRA prisoners. The latter will not concede their demands for political status, and the former respond to the "blanket and no wash" protest with continual violence. This lack of negotiation is mirrored by the film's own refusal to negotiate with us. There is no bargaining with this film—the only alternative to its unflinching detail is to look away, to block it out.

The centerpiece of the film, the ethical argument between Bobby Sands and a priest, is framed on either side by the brutality that results when civil negotiations fail. The placement and length of this scene suggests, perhaps, that McQueen wants to give us a recess from the preceding onslaught of human cruelty, but he also wants to prepare us for the self-inflicted abuse that Bobby Sands is willing to undergo for his beliefs. We are made to concentrate on his motivation, on his mental defiance.

Now here is your prompt: First, why, to Bobby Sands, is a hunger strike the ultimate protest, the ultimate show of defiance, against the British government and their treatment of IRA prisoners? How does the director change the tone of the film to reflect the nature of this protest? Second, what is the purpose of the visions and memories of himself as a child that appear to the dying Bobby Sands? How do these images from the past help clarify the message of the film, if any? Remember, please write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of at least 300 words in Google Drive.

Hunger Discussion

2020-02-24T11:39:00.000-05:00

Today in class, I would like you to write some of your thoughts down about Hunger. This film is very difficult to process (and, in some ways, to understand), so you should take some time to articulate your emotional response privately. Come up with FOUR strong adjectives to represent how this film made you feel. Elaborate on each one by referencing some part of the film. What about your experience with the film can be attributed to the film itself, as opposed to your personality or background?

You might consider the following dimensions to explain your emotional responses:

filming and editing techniques
narrative structure
purpose and/or ideology
something that confuses you

Write freely, but keep your focus on what you had a hard time experiencing in the film and how the film challenged you as a viewer (both in terms of its artistic complexity and its emotional assault). And, of course, for each idea you articulate, think about a clip or two that you would like to revisit as a class. Keep working and writing until I cue you to stop.

Before you begin discussing the film again with your classmates, please write two STATEMENTS about the film. One of the statements should be a debatable, controversial claim about the content of the film (story, character, etc.), and one of the statements should be a debatable, controversial claim about the structure or technique of the film (plot, camera work, editing, etc.). Write these on a separate sheet from your homework and bonus notes, and turn them in with everything else when class is over.

Both statements must be STATEMENTS, not questions, and both must be debatable. They should INVITE debate because they clearly involve ambiguity and multiple possible answers. You do not have to agree with the statements you make, but you must have an actual position you can articulate and defend for the statements you make.

Then get with your classmates and debate your statements. Involve me. The goal here is to practice having legitimate reasons for the way you interpret the film.

Birdman (optional)

2020-02-17T11:56:00.001-05:00

Attention: This film response is an optional one. If you do this response, the file name should be "LastName.FirstName.OFR.Birdman.S20"--if you have any Film Response grades that are "Falls Short," this is a chance to raise it to "Quality Effort." However, this Optional Response cannot replace an "Incomplete." Also, please read the instructions for film responses again to remind yourself what is required for a "Quality Effort."

For this response I would like you to do a different kind of exercise. Usually, I come up with an idea for you to think about and respond to. I start by identifying an idea from the film that interests me and then follow a train of thought that leads to your discussion prompt. This time, I would like you to try to create a prompt as if you were the teacher and I were the student.

You'll still write two equal-length paragraphs, for a total of between 300 and 400 words:

First paragraph: Start by identifying ONE clip of particular significance to you. Describe this clip (focusing on the film work that MAKES it meaningful to you) and explain how it opens up an interesting and reasonable view of the film.

Second paragraph: Extending from the first paragraph, identify a debatable question or two that emerge from that moment in the film. First, lead up to those questions by explaining the ambiguity or debatable nature of the idea you discussed in the first paragraph. Second, ask your questions. Third, explain how those questions cut to the heart of the film and are worthy of discussion.

Challenge yourself to start a discussion of the film on your own terms.

Birdman Discussion

2020-02-17T11:54:00.002-05:00

Some word samples that have thematic significance in this film:

"A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing."

-- Susan Sontag

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."

-- William Shakespeare
Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)

"'I'm the wrong person to ask,' I said. 'I didn’t even know the man. I heard his name mentioned in passing. I wouldn't know. You'd have to know the particulars. But I think what you're saying is that love is an absolute.'"

-- Raymond Carver
"What We Talk about When We Talk about Love"

Today in class, I would like you to take out a sheet of paper and write TWO thought-provoking, debatable statements, one about Birdman, one about a connection between Birdman and a previous film we watched in this class. Write these statements on a separate sheet of paper from your discussion notes.

Your statements should encourage the exchange of ideas in your group; think about ideas that cut to the heart of the film, how it's made, and what it achieves as a story. Write out a description of a clip to accompany each statement, making reference to camera work, editing, etc.

Be ready to voice your statements to your group--I'll come around the room to address any issues you are particularly challenged by.

And here, again, are the basic questions we should ask about everything we watch or read:

Who is the narrator? (even if the narrator is not a character, there is one)
From what point of view is the story being told?
How would you describe the shape of the plot?
Which events would you consider major turning points in the story?
Are there patterns or motifs that draw our attention to important themes?

The Graduate

2020-02-10T11:31:00.001-05:00

Attention: You should read the instructions for film responses again, very carefully. Focusing on a particular moment in the film (one for each full paragraph) is better than trying to cover many different moments and having less to say about each one. Summarizing the events of the story will not show your progress. Your file name should be LastName.FirstName.FR3.S20 because this is your 3rd required Film Response.

Benjamin is not the prodigal son who finally comes to his senses and returns home to his family; rather, he is the "model" son who has always lived his life according to the rules and plans of his parents and the other “grown-ups” around him. He has lived a life so closely according to expectation that when he finds himself on the brink of independence, he has no clue where to turn next!

By the end of the film, we might say that Benjamin still has no clue where to turn next, but he seems more capable somehow of knowing what he wants and exerting his own power to make it happen. The story told by The Graduate, then, is a way of accounting for this transformation. We are led through a series of events and developments that trace Ben's emergence into a life that belongs only to him.

Of course, whether Benjamin is fully initiated into adulthood by the end of the film is up for debate. After all, "adulthood" is not exactly portrayed in a positive light in the film. The adults seem to have outlived their enthusiasm for life; the Braddocks and the Robinsons seem either oblivious to genuine passion or embittered by the onset of middle age and the loss of youth. Benjamin seems to break free from their grasp by the end, running off with Elaine, but he is only beginning to grow up.

Now here is your prompt: First, how would you account for the change in Ben, and is the change a promising one? Does he go through some rite of passage that prepares him to seek out what he wants rather than what he is expected to do? Second, is the situation at the end of the film a result of foolishness or courage? Is Ben the hero or the fool? Remember, please write two equal-length paragraphs. Each one should be 150-200 words, for a total of at least 300 words.

Graduate Discussion

2020-02-10T11:30:00.000-05:00

Today in class, I would like you to take out a sheet of paper and write TWO thought-provoking, challenging discussion questions about The Graduate. Write these questions on the same sheet of paper as your discussion notes and be sure to turn them in at the end of class.

Your questions should encourage the exchange of ideas between you and your peers. Think hard about ideas that relate to the heart of the film, how it's made, and what it achieves as a story. Write down clip descriptions that your questions relate to and be ready to share them with your group.

You might consider interesting choices in camera work or editing, motifs that clarify the meaning of the film, features of the narrative that make the story compelling, etc.

This is a great film to extend your thinking about the language of film--so ask yourself, what did this film teach you beyond Rushmore? And was the film more engaging for being artistic and creative, perhaps more complex than our first film? Also, are there any interesting connections you made between the film and the comic?

Be ready to voice your questions to your group and to the class--we'll go around the room and address these questions to get us into deeper discussion.

And here are the basic questions we should ask about everything we watch or read:

Who is the narrator? (even if the narrator is not a character, there is one)
From what point of view is the story being told?
How would you describe the shape of the plot?
Which events would you consider major turning points in the story?
Are there patterns or motifs that draw our attention to important themes?

Rushmore

2020-02-03T10:47:00.002-05:00

Attention: You should read the instructions for film responses again, very carefully. Focusing on one small part of the film in each paragraph will help you achieve the level of detail you need for full credit. If you try to cover many different moments, you will have less to say about each one and will end up writing about film superficially. Your file name should be LastName.FirstName.FR2.S20 because this is your second Film Response.

As his name suggests, Max Fischer is a seeker of things unseen. However, he is immature and unwilling to grow up. What does Max want to do for the rest of his life? "For me, that's going to Rushmore." The problem is that he is not quite sure where he will find the missing piece he is searching for. He has insecurities all along the spectrum of possible insecurities. So he seeks fame, glory, romance, and recognition through a life created by his imagination.

But this film is also a unique take on the reality of war. The relationship between Max and Rosemary leads to an extensive battle of wills between Max and Herman. The cycle of revenge begins with envy. Maybe Wes Anderson is showing us the root of all war. Maybe war is the outcome of competition for glory, the power of having outlasted your opponent to end up on top. One thing is certain, the war between Max and Herman is not a fantasy.

After the battle ends, Herman meets Max at his mother's gravestone, on which are etched the following words: "The paths of glory lead but to the grave." These words suggest an unhappy ending for those who would seek glory, and perhaps at this moment, Max realizes the path he has chosen and why he must find another path. We see him on this new path when he reaches out to help Blume get back on track as well.

Now here is your prompt: First, in what way is Max's final play in the film a sign that he has found another path and perhaps even the missing piece he has been seeking all along? What is that path? Second, how does this final play show his growth? In what way is this play more important than the others? How is his motivation to write the final play different from his motivation to write the others? Remember, please write two equal-length paragraphs. Each one should be 150-200 words, for a total of at least 300 words.

Rushmore Discussion

2020-02-03T10:45:00.001-05:00

Today in class, before discussion, I would like you to take out a sheet of paper and write TWO thought-provoking, challenging discussion questions about Rushmore. You write these questions on the same sheet of paper you take notes on today. Name and date at the top, please.

Try to make your questions encourage debate and exploration. Think hard about ideas that relate to the heart of the story and how it's told. Also, think of clips that you can bring up in discussion.

You can consider camera work and editing, motifs that help you with grasping the meaning, narrative turns that make the story compelling, etc. Rushmore is a great film to help you start thinking about the language of film--so ask yourself, what did this film teach you about film making?

When you meet with your group, share your questions. You can also, as a group, run ideas by me if you are curious what I think.

Here are some basic questions we should ask about everything we watch or read:

Who is the narrator? (even if the narrator is not a character, there is one)
From what point of view is the story being told?
How would you describe the shape of the plot?
Which events would you consider major turning points in the story?
Are there patterns or motifs that draw our attention to important themes?

What Kind of Viewer Am I?

2020-01-17T13:25:00.003-05:00

Attention: Please do not attempt this assignment until you have successfully set up your Google Drive and have read the instructions for film responses. I know this posting is not about a film, but it follows the same formatting as all the other film responses you will do. Name your Google document LastName.FirstName.FR1.S20 because this assignment is your first Film Response.

Also, be sure you have already read Thinking About Film before writing your response to this posting. This course invites you to watch films with a more critical and self-aware eye. To be critical does not mean to look for weaknesses in a film or to express negative opinions. It really means to take a step back from your enjoyment of a film (which could be entirely personal and opinion-based) and think about how the film works and why it's made the way it's made (which involves interpretation and a careful eye). Does this critical approach mean that you cannot enjoy the film?

Definitely not! But enjoyment does depend on the mindset of the viewer. When I think carefully about a film, its techniques, its structure, and its themes, I discover a level of enjoyment that transcends personal taste. Even if your taste in movies does not change, you might still find that your personal preferences are not the only factor worth considering when you evaluate the quality of a movie you see. But you, not the film, will determine your mindset. If your mindset is static or fixed, this class is an opportunity to loosen it up and let it grow.

Some years ago, I saw a film that turned the way I watched movies upside down: Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. Do you have a film that had that effect on you? Before that moment (I was 19), I had been completely passive in my enjoyment of films. When I discovered that entertainment could be more than a passive activity, or a matter of luck, I experienced a new energy and a new optimism. If you have not already, I hope this class will help you do so.

Now here is your prompt: First, what does this statement mean: "the responsibility for a good film experience lies with the viewer"? Explain, with examples, what this statement has to do with being a critical viewer. Along the way, explain what kind of viewer are you now. Second, explain your potential to become the type of viewer who can take that kind of responsibility and the obstacles to that growth in you. How will you improve your mindset? I would like to know about the way you have watched films, whether you want to become a critical viewer, and why. Remember, please make your response two equal-length paragraphs and make sure you stay within the required word count range.

Ex Machina Discussion

2019-07-17T13:39:00.006-04:00

The story of Ex Machina is simple, right? A 21st-century story about the Promethean myth, humans playing God with their own creativity, humans compelled to create in their own image a conscious entity--is that wrong to do? The virtue of myths is their simplicity--not so much that they demonstrate easy-to-grasp truths but that they demonstrate basic truths that we often take for granted. Is Ex Machina a parable for those of us who have refused to acknowledge the simple truth?

Given its simplicity, what makes Ex Machina so compelling?
I've watched the film several times now, and I can't find one misstep. Every shot, every editing choice is pure and necessary to the total effect. Can we call the film-making complex if it's done in service of telling a simple story?

Discuss this idea (and more) with your groups. First, individually come up with three debatable statements. Then share these statements with your group and debate them. Then come up with two debatable statements, as a group, to share with the class.

Some ideas to consider:

windows and doors
the artificiality of ALL intelligence
programming (of the digital and biological kind)
human and post-human
evolution and extinction
art and control

The Turing Test:
"So, do you know what the Turing Test is?"
"Yeah. I know what the Turing Test is. It's when a human interacts with a computer. And if the human doesn't know they're interacting with a computer, the test is passed."
"And what does a pass tell us?"
"That the computer has artificial intelligence."

The Promethean Myth:
"Because if that test is passed, you are dead center of the greatest scientific event in the history of man."
"If you've created a conscious machine, it's not the history of man. That's the history of gods."

Simulation Effect:
"Yeah, it feels like testing Ava through conversation is kind of a closed loop."
"It's a closed loop?"
"Yeah. Like testing a chess computer by only playing chess."
"How else do you test a chess computer?"
"Well, it depends. You know, I mean, you can play it to find out if it makes good moves, but, uh... But that won't tell you if it knows that it's playing chess. And it won't tell you if it knows what chess is."
"Uh-huh. So it's simulation versus actual."

Wetware:
"Here, we have her mind. Structured gel. I had to get away from circuitry. I needed something that could arrange and rearrange on a molecular level, but keep its form when required. Holding for memories. Shifting for thoughts."
"This is your hardware?"
"Wetware."
"And the, uh, software?"
"Well, I'm sure you can guess."
"Blue Book."
"Here's the weird thing about search engines. It was like striking oil in a world that hadn't invented internal combustion. Too much raw material. Nobody knew what to do with it. You see, my competitors, they were fixated on sucking it up and monetizing via shopping and social media. They thought that search engines were a map of what people were thinking. But actually they were a map of how people were thinking. Impulse. Response. Fluid. Imperfect. Patterned. Chaotic."

Sexuality:
"I got a question.'
"Okay."
"Why did you give her sexuality? An AI doesn't need a gender. She could have been a gray box."
"Hmm. Actually, I don't think that's true. Can you give an example of consciousness, at any level, human or animal, that exists without a sexual dimension?"
"They have sexuality as an evolutionary reproductive need."
"What imperative does a gray box have to interact with another gray box? Can consciousness exist without interaction? Anyway, sexuality is fun, man. If you're gonna exist, why not enjoy it? What? You want to remove the chance of her falling in love and fucking? And in answer to your real question, you bet she can fuck."
"What?"
"In between her legs, there's an opening, with a concentration of sensors. You engage them in the right way, creates a pleasure response. So if you wanted to screw her, mechanically speaking, you could. And she'd enjoy it."
"That wasn't my real question."

Programming:
"Did you program her to like me, or not?"
"I programmed her to be heterosexual. Just like you were programmed to be heterosexual."
"Nobody programmed me to be straight."
"You decided to be straight? Please."
"Of course you were programmed. By nature or nurture, or both. And to be honest, Caleb, you're starting to annoy me now, because this is your insecurity talking. This is not your intellect."

Action that is not automatic:
"You know this guy, right?"
"Jackson Pollock."
"Jackson Pollock. That's right. The drip painter. Okay. He let his mind go blank, and his hand go where it wanted. Not deliberate, not random. Some place in between. They called it automatic art. Let's make this like Star Trek, okay? Engage intellect."
"Excuse me?"
"I'm Kirk. Your head's the warp drive. Engage intellect. What if Pollock had reversed the challenge? What if instead of making art without thinking, he said, 'You know what? I can't paint anything, unless I know exactly why I'm doing it.' What would have happened?"
"He never would have made a single mark."
"Yes! You see, there's my guy, there's my buddy, who thinks before he opens his mouth. He never would have made a single mark. The challenge is not to act automatically. It's to find an action that is not automatic. From painting, to breathing, to talking, to fucking. To falling in love. And for the record, Ava's not pretending to like you. And her flirting isn't an algorithm to fake you out. You're the first man she's met that isn't me. And I'm like her dad, right? Can you blame her for getting a crush on you? No, you can't."

Destroyer of Worlds:
"One day the AIs are gonna look back on us the same way we look at fossil skeletons in the plains of Africa. An upright ape, living in dust, with crude language and tools. All set for extinction."
"'I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'"
"There you go again, Mr. Quotable."
"There you go again. It's not my quote. It's what Oppenheimer said after he made the atomic bomb."
"The atomic bomb. Yeah, I know what it is, dude."

Experimental Manipulation:
"I mean, did we ever get past the chess problem, as you phrased it? As in, how do you know if a machine is expressing a real emotion or just simulating one? Does Ava actually
like you? Or not? Although, now that I think about it, there is a third option. Not whether she does or does not have the capacity to like you. But whether she's pretending to like you."
"Pretending to like me?"
"Yeah."
"Well, why would she do that?"
"I don't know. Maybe if she thought of you as a means of escape."

Feeling Stupid, Being Stupid:
"You feel stupid, but you really shouldn't, because proving an AI is... exactly as problematic as you said it would be.'
"What was the real test?"
"You. Ava was a rat in a maze. And I gave her one way out. To escape, she'd have to use self-awareness, imagination, manipulation, sexuality, empathy, and she did. Now, if that isn't true AI, what the fuck is?"
"So my only function was to be someone she could use to escape?"
"Yeah."
"And you didn't select me because I'm good at coding?"