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.
Lauren Jefferson - In chapter 1, I couldn't find anything specific that I strongly disagreed with, but I thought it was interesting that Hollywood portrays urban schools, suburban schools, and private schools differently. I was especially intrigued with how Hollywood portrays urban schools in movies. It kind of goes along with our class discussion of how schools are intended to show students discipline, keep them "in line", and make them submit to authority. The way that lower income students in urban schools are often portrayed as undisciplined and rowdy before they learn to work hard in school makes me believe that that is the message that they want to convey to students in those circumstances in real life: that staying in line and doing well in school will get them out of their tough situation.
ReplyDeleteIn Bulman chapter 1, I struggled with finding something to disagree with. The ideas and claims made all fit into my mind and I could easily think of films that I had watched that related exactly to what was being said. Therefore, I can't really argue against any of Bulman has said, but I can think of an exception to one of his ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn the chapter, Bulman discusses how in films with the "good teacher" or "hero teacher," the setting tends to be in an urban high school with poor or working class students, and films that portray the "bad teacher" are set primarily in suburban public or private high schools. While, yes, the majority of the time Hollywood sticks to this trope, there are cases in which they veer a bit off path. The example I am providing is from the Perks of Being a Wallflower. This film is set in a suburban public high school, yet the one primary teacher throughout the story, Mr. Anderson, is not depicted as a villain, but instead comes across as a mentor who encourages the main protagonist to exercise his writing talents. So, perhaps not every film about a suburban public high school will fit the exact stereotype that Bulman presents.
I feel that for me to strongly disagree with any of the points Bulman made, I'd have to watch the films on his list and form my own opinion after watching. I thought it was very interesting though, the emphasis on how films are how we make sense of society. I am a film (Cinema) major, so I've worked on a lot of films and I can definitely say this is true! I have talked with my peers a lot about how watching and making movies with others is such a bonding experience. There is something so special about creating almost an alternate universe. Another very good point was that Hollywood films convey the sensibilities of the American middle class. On the bright side, as time goes on, indie films are gaining more of an audience and reach! There are many different perspectives that come with watching films outside of Hollywood production. Another very interesting point of chapter one was how the "teacher heroes" are mostly found in films about poor students. This trope is meant to inspire, but the argument of a savior complex could be made and I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions about this...
ReplyDeleteI do strongly agree with Bulman's point about socioeconomic context being the most important aspect when discussing the American high school film (or really any film).
Another interesting point- individualism being the dominant theme in most American high school films. This reminds me of how we discussed individualism being one of the main contributors to pop culture.
I have a hard time disagreeing with Bulman’s ideas in Chapter 1. Bulman differentiates three subgenres within the American high school film genre: the suburban school sample, the urban school sample, and the private school sample. Bulman highlights differences in content between these subgenres, summarizing: “... the tendency of educator-centered films to be set in urban high schools with poor students while student centered films tend to take place in suburban high schools with middle class students.” I disagree with the ideas that created/perpetuate this trend. Differences between these two settings are so grave that the suburban high school film and the urban high school film sub-genres have been separately satirized. High School High satirizes the urban high school film subgenre, while Not Another Teen Movie satirizes the suburban high school subgenre. Individualism is a common theme across all three subgenres, however, the expression of individualism varies by subgenre. - Olivia
ReplyDeleteOne of Bulman's ideas that I disagreed with was, " a text is popular if it resonates with readers or viewers. For a text to be popular, its message must fit the discourses used by readers to make sense of their experience. The satisfaction of consuming popular culture is that of being reassured that one's interpretation of the world is congruent with that of others." I disagree with this because what makes a book a popular book can depend on the plot/genre. Whether the book is fiction/non- fiction or far far off what reality is like it still makes it a popular book. Most books that include high school as its plot are way off of what high school is really like, yet they are still interesting to read. I agree that as humans we like to see/read things we can connect to but that alone does not make a text more popular than another in our culture.
ReplyDeleteIn Bulmans chapter one I agree with his statement that mainstream Hollywood movies do not portray life in a realistic sense but I feel that Bulman fails to create a distinction between mainstream movies and all cinema. I believe that popular blockbuster coming of age movies fail to be realistic but in his statement he is also discrediting the realism of indie/art cinema and movies not based around the American perspective. In my own experience I have found that less popular versions of movies and international films tend to portray a more relaistic visual of the world we live in. For example, there is a cinematic technique called the french ending where the story ends not in happy endings but in a more realistic, truthful conclusion. Other than that I tend to agree with most of Bulmans point I would just prefer if he more clearly defined that what he is criticizing is mainstream movies not all film.
ReplyDeleteI found Bulman's division of high school movies as class based to be very interesting and something I had not fully realized. However, I disagree with his quick dismissal of the racial aspect of this division. In the United States, there cannot be a separation of class without the acknowledgment of the skewed percentages of races among the the class ranks. The middle-class and more so working class are disproportionally black and Latino and often times the students and characters in the "urban" high school movies are reflective of those proportions. How these characters are shown and then perceived by the audience usually plays on and exaggerates stereotypes about black and Latino people. Because of this, I think it is impossible to analyze the movies through socioeconomic status independently of race. - Peter Samaha
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Bulman's chapter one, I did not find a statement of his that I particularly disagreed with. Instead, most of the things I read were things I agreed with, or they opened my eyes to things I did not notice. For example, there was a paragraph where he discussed how "Hollywood films convey elements of the dominant ideology in the United States", and that films deem the middle-class experience as "normal" in American life. He then goes on to discuss race and how films are typically in the perspective of whites. In the analysis of actual high school films, he found that a "social-class lens" is more prominent and explains the high school experience more than a "lens of race". My first reaction was to get offended, but after thinking about it, I can see there are far more issues to discuss with students that may struggle financially. High school films can portray these issues much better than they can a race issue, because there could be major backlash.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this chapter, I found myself agreeing with Bulman's ideas. The socioeconomics really do affect the way the story plays out. I never thought about it until it was pointed out, but I started seeing a pattern in the movies I’ve watch too. In my experience the working-class movies focus on students becoming better citizens and redeeming themselves, the middle-class students focus on rebelling. Although they all focus on individualism, they show it in different ways depending on which class the students are in. I think it was interesting how middle class as considered the “norm” so movies that focused on that had a “bad teacher” approach, while lower class need a “good teacher” to give them hope.
ReplyDeleteI found the entirety of Bulman’s chapter one extremely interesting and could not find anything to disagree with. Something that really stood out to me was the hero factor in the urban versus suburban high schools. The fact that the teacher is the hero of the urban societies but the students are in the suburbs really relates to the way society views the attitudes of teens in different social classes. It can be concluded that the kids in the suburban schools are somewhat spoiled and feel that they are better than the teacher and are not looking for guidance outside of the bubble they live in. Oppositely, the urban kids are hard working and only require a mentor to help them succeed in life. I feel like this is a generalization but is an extremely interesting pattern found in the high school film industry.
ReplyDelete^Katherine Housden
ReplyDeleteAndrew - Although I haven't watched a lot of high school films, I found Bulman's first chapter pretty interesting. The 3 distinctions between classes and how they are portrayed in movies makes a lot of sense. One thing I would disagree with was his quick dismissal of race and sex in high school movies. He might dive deeper into gender roles later in the book, but from my experience with suburban high school movies, there are very specific gender roles like boys being bullies and jocks while girls are typically the main love interest.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I found that the author made some interesting points. There is a lot to look into how and why students and teachers are stereotyped in high school movies. I think the way TV illustrates how school is is often overly dramatized, which reflects poorly on society because teens will think that that is how life is supposed to be. Unrealistic expectations can lead to poor self-esteem, whether within their friends, grades, or themselves. As much as we would probably like to see more realistic versions of high school, unfortunately, that doesn't make for interesting tv.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the main ideas of Bulman's chapter one, I object to the idea that the main purpose or message behind a film, or any piece of media, can be objectively determined by a viewer. Bulman states near the end of page 3 that he notes the explicit and implicit lessons of each film as a part of his data, and the framing of his analysis as data is what I find to be objectionable. The meaning or message behind the content of media is always going to be subjective to the viewer, with different viewers often times arriving at different conclusions due to their personal experiences or interpretations. While I don't find any of Bulman's claims about the films disagreeable, they are still not inherently true due to the nature of interpreting art being an individualistic experience. I believe that instead of being framed as an objective study, Bulman's chapter 1 should be viewed as a subjective analysis.
ReplyDelete^Jones Boyer
DeleteBulman splitting the Highschool genre into three different subgenres was new to me but resonated more when I thought back to Highschool based movies I've watched before. He gave us three subgenres; suburban school, urban school, and private school. He depicted teachers in urban schools as more often the hero and teachers in the suburban and private schools as the villain to which I feel like he is very much just stereotyping the tropes but overall correct nonetheless. It is weird to me how teachers are often the heros in urban based Highschool films and not in suburban/private based films, and I wonder what that says about how Hollywood views both the urban schools and suburban/private schools. Overall, there is nothing in his article that I disagreed strongly with except how he glazed over sex and race related issues within the movies, he seemed to only talk about class, no other issues often addressed in the films.
ReplyDelete-lydia
DeleteOne of the points that I disagree with from chapter 1 of Bulman's text is "The enjoyment of popular culture such as movies is a collective experience. Part of the pleasure of popular culture is that it is popular-that others are experiencing the same cultural product that we are experiencing. This collective process helps to bond members of a society together and to reinforce our collective understanding of the social world we share." Although enjoying certain movies is a collective experience, there isn’t a movie or any other piece of popular culture that every single person likes. There are pieces of popular culture that a majority of people like but there will always be people with different interests. I believe that people bond not just over shared interests but also over peoples’ interests that are different from their own. If everyone only liked the same movies, shows, etc. how would we find new things and expand our interests.
ReplyDelete(Alyssa Black) I had a hard time finding anything to really disagree with because any argument I did question was backed up by several points that made it easy to accept those perspectives. I loved how Bulman spoke on how the films we watch and the ideas they support help to shape us in our own individualism (which is ironic when speaking on media that is shared popularly through society). While maybe an audience member's advances in their individualism isn't exactly what is being fueled through watching these movies I think that watching characters in movies navigate through situations that you can relate to helps people grapple with their own personal lives and themes/lessons from these movies can ultimately permeate into ourselves and help shape us. I also thought it was interesting how he pointed out how Hollywood only chooses to depict white middle class America (especially in these teen movies) and how I never even really questioned it because I as a white girl from a middle class background am exactly their target audience, this makes me wonder how for people outside of this group accept this as a staple for pop culture when they may have a harder time seeing a reflection of themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 1 when referencing the difference in movies that take place in urban, suburban, and private schools, Bulman states that "These different cinematic representations of high schools do not arise because they reflect actual differences between real urban, suburban, and private high schools". He then goes on to explain that the differences in these movies are formed from how American culture "makes sense" of these different schools. However, I would argue that the differences in these movies are partly reflecting of American culture, but still are partly represented by real life situations and/or experiences. While I believe a lot of high school movies are exaggerated stereotypes, I also believe that the people writing these storylines are pulling from the real life situations/dynamics that may have occurred with themselves or others in various school settings.
ReplyDeleteBulman claims that the research he conducted makes more sense under a class lens, taking a Marxist approach that prioritizes economic hierarchy. I agree that class relations are important when imploring how education standards differentiate between low and high income facilities. Despite the importance of class, I disagree with Bulman's proposition that it has more value than a race lens. This was mentioned in class, and I'm aware that this piece has aged but it is important to acknowledge how limiting it is to pick one lens to portray. Although I disagree with his theory, I applaud him for simplifying his research to meet his capabilities.
ReplyDeletetanai ^
DeleteI disagree with Bulman's generalization of Hollywood films conveying elements of the most dominant ideologies in the United States. In my opinion, the best and most iconic Hollywood films stray away from the average movies by showing us a different perspective/ideology. They are not generalized tropes that every American has seen a thousand times over but something new and more rare. For example, some of the most popular Hollywood movies ever like Mad Max and Inception break the movie mold so to speak. They are unique and make their own dominant ideologies that is not reflective of the common ideology that was prevalent at that time. Instead I believe that Hollywood movies represent uncommon ideologies/ something that we strive to be. They show us different stories in different worlds that we can understand despite not being a common ideology that is expressed prior to watching a Hollywood movie. While this doesn't apply to all Hollywood movies, I would argue that it does apply to some of the most memorable Hollywood movies that have ever been published.
ReplyDeleteMatt Embretsen^
DeleteThis is Kate Seaver. After reading through all the pages of Bulman's text I can say I overall don't disagree with anything he said. I agree with how movies portray high school versus reality. I did notice how he explains urban, suburban, and private school subgenres. In every movie it is always seen differently depending on what school it is and how the director wants the audience to translate it. With urban schools they make the children bad behaving and the teacher has to work to earn their trust. In private schools they have the students generally be more understanding and make the plot less about the teacher and focus generally on the students’ relationships with one another. I say the use of Bulman's wording could be better. His view is very narrow and doesn’t fully allow for others to argue with his point of view. Referring to diverse schools as urban rather than using other ways to describe a school, I deem inappropriate. I think I feel this way because of how today's society is however the way this text was written would never be the same if it was made more recently.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t find much to disagree with upon first reading, but I agree with the critiques made in class about the intersection of race and class in the US. While reading, I accepted Bulman’s caveat about how overwhelmingly white Hollywood is as an explanation for their disregard of race’s impact on the way that stories are told. I think the author was getting at this when discussing the savior trope in movies about low income high schools, but since they weren’t discussing through a racial lens, they didn’t exactly identify it as the white savior complex.
ReplyDelete- I agree with Bulman’s general takes on the High School/ teen movie sub-genre. What did stick out to me was that he said something along the lines of race not being enough to include in his research. I think that it is. Race plays a huge role in the American experience. Helping in the shaping of experiences one could have within America, high schools, and interaction with pop culture. The only genre that displays diversity in the cast was the poor teens in an urban city. This was the only sub- genre where adults offered any help. Most times the adults (teacher, principal, coach, etc.) are the hero. This is very different from the message sent from the other 2 genres. I can name a few movies that could be in the private school genre. Where the lower-class outsider, is sometimes the only character of color. Who gains new benefits from their association to the school. Race is just as big of a pillar within American society as any socioeconomic status. You can’t talk about American society without talking about race. If you do, you are only describing a white experience. (Keyana Roberts)
ReplyDelete-
Angela Mitchel
ReplyDeleteI did not particularly disagree with any of Bulman’s ideas or statements. I resonated with his statement that although “Hollywood movies” tend to be overproduced and fake when it comes to telling stories, the background and “behind the scenes” of these films often shows an authentic view into the pop-culture from the time the movie was released. Popular films tend to have themes the viewer agrees with - even if the movie is filmed from a villain’s perspective, contains graphic content, or discusses controversial topics the viewer might not agree with. For this reason, I do agree with Bulman that popular films can provide insight to popular culture from the time at which the films were released.