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.
Jaeline Perez: I found it interesting that most of these teen movies are mainly focused on middle class students. The student usually gets the boy or Girl they like in the end, and every one lives a happily ever after. Like how Bulman said these teen movies all have the same plot. Most of the time movies don't even mention the school or education, the setting is just in the school. I've noticed Hollywood nowadays has put more significant issues in their projects like racial injustice, drugs, and mental illness. These types of high school fantasy movies can really brainwash teens into thinking that high school is full of partying and breaking the rules, when in reality it really isn't. I think the movie freedom writers does a good job at depicting high school and the students lives. It shows how they struggle everyday to survive due to gang violence, but it also shows how little effort the school does to help the students learn.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Bulman said about how hollywood portrays these unrealistic fantasies in movies, and shows. A lot of these movies don’t show real life struggles or consequences, they portray this fantasy that everything will be ok in the end or you always get the girl or guy and thats just not true don’t get me wrong it does happen but not all the time and I think that there should be move movies that show more realistic scenarios such as police brutality, racial injustice, real life consequences that result from your actions, mental illness.
ReplyDeleteBulman's analysis of high school themed movies resonates with me, as it should. These movies are too predictable, almost following the same blueprint, to the point that there are very popular satires about this genre. One interesting take that Bulman discussed was the duality of the image of teachers in a lower class school versus a middle-upper class school. This theme is something I've always seen but never noticed. It wasn't until upon reading this article that I realized that the genre of high school films is divided into subgenres based upon class.
ReplyDelete- Phong Ngo
DeleteRachel Ruble: I agree that part of the pleasure of popculture is that it is popular. I never though about that one of the main reasons people enjoy movies and shows is that they get to experience them with others. I love hearing and talking about popular movies online or on social media. These high school movies also can act as comfort to others who can relate to the characters in the movie. Movies give a great topic of discussion or debate and can form a sense of togetherness when talked about in a group. Bulman says that, "This collective process helps to bond members of a society together and to reinforce our collective understanding of the social world we share." I think this a great quote and sums up a really good perspective of why movies, specifically high school movies, are so appealing.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with what Bulman says. While movies and Hollywood warp ideas across multiple genres into caricatures that are easy to digest by the populace, it all boils down to what you expect to see, hence the reason there are things such as tropes, common plot lines, similar stories with different characters. In the genre Bulman talks about in the book, for example, the American High School films, they usually follow a strict plot progression that is interchangeable with most movies of the same genre: introduction, plot hook, mild success, large conflict, then resolution. In my opinion, part of the reason story lines follow this progression, regardless of whether or not the story itself is exaggerated and utterly predictable, is that people across generations and status can find a way to relate to the themes in some way. In the end, these stories are ways for us to be entertained and in that respect, a lot of them do their job well.
ReplyDeleteThere was many ideas that Bulman shared in his writing that I agreed with. Especially, when he stated that films influence the way that we see the world, he says they help us understand ourselves and society. This is so true, I think we all have seen a movie make a trend so popular or a certain fashion statement popular. (For instance, a black dress and pearls will forever be iconic thanks to Audrey Hepburn and Breakfast at Tiffany's). This also ties into another point that Bulman makes when he says that pop culture is pleasure and that it helps reinforce the understanding of the social world we share. Going off off the Audrey Hepburn example, with her black dress and pearls, it is a shared understanding for lovers of Breakfast at Tiffany's and it brings a sense of culture I would say.
ReplyDeleteMoral and social development can be substantially increased through education in schools. Bulman makes some very valid points that I have never taken notice of and are still prevalent. Earlier in the chapter, Bulman states that movies generally reflect and shape culture. Therefore, the movies mentioned in the chapter could be seen as a reflection of the educational system. Urban schools are predominantly full of children from diverse backgrounds and often there seems to be a teacher that is more determined than others. Movies do take a dramatic approach to the “teacher hero”; but I have seen teachers try to be a moral compass and a source of encouragement for their students. In the Girl Meets World episode, the teacher helps bring to light social issues in the context of the class experiment. Most of the agency is placed in teachers but can be extended to students. For example, when the girls stood up to the boys, the adults allowed multiple valuable lessons to the students. Any form of media shouldn’t be the main source of information about education. However, TV and movies do a great job at presenting an issue and a solution in a relatable and entertaining manner.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that I took issue with in Bulman's chapter was the nonchalant speed with which he brushes aside the entire category of race and whether or not it may intersect with a sociological understanding of high-school films. I would want to know how the race consideration does intersect with his data -- and the very fact that so many classic high school films, he says, are taking place in the suburban middle-class context, and these seem to form the largest group in his sample. The social class lens may line up more exactly with the questions he wants to answer, but claiming that race isn't useful to look into because it doesn't line up as much seems to disregard how race might actually interact with those very questions.
ReplyDeleteDiamon Patterson:
ReplyDeleteBulman centered this chapter around how Hollywood has created a genre of recognizable or cliche' high school movies. He builds on the fact that many urban high school movies center around an educator or principle taking a new position at the school to help uplift the less fortunate or working class students that attend. Then you have high school films that are based in the suburban society that revolves around middle class or upper class students. The upper class students tend to have way more freedom than the urban high school students. Bulman mentioned that Hollywood never centers the teacher-hero narrative within suburban high school films. I wonder is that because Hollywood thinks of lower and working class students as a group that needs saving from themselves? I wish Bulman had discussed how lower class students are exploited in Hollywood films sometimes. If someone is casted for a role as a lower-class student in a suburban high school film, they may hide it from their friends or sometimes are treated as a charity case. Also, lower and working class students that are observed in urban high school movies tend to be from minority groups and sometimes include some form of substance abuse. Why is this narrative so common? The way movies depict society does not apply to everyone, however, it is unfortunate that Hollywood continues to push out the same type of high school films. This is why stereotypes are formed do easily in society's mind.
In the Girl Meets World episode, the science teacher conducted an experiment that taught a bigger lesson towards the students. Riley had realized that the girls in the class are left to do the lazy work while the boys conduct the scientific experiments. Although the teacher started the experiment, the students are the ones who navigated the episode the most. However, the teacher was not placed in a bad light as described by Bulman about suburban schools. I believe this episode would follow the notions that Bulman made about suburban schools more than it would be able to relate to an urban school setting based on these observations.
Adina Prillaman
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this chapter I had never considered how teen movies are often separated by social class. I found it interesting how much stories can differ based on that. With that being said, I feel as though Bulman still should've considered race as well as social class. I personally believe it's just as important because of the significance it has. There can be films where people may be in the same social class but the stories can be drastically different depending on what you look like. I would've been interested in reading about how those things work with and against each other. Bulman seemed to note individualism and the desire for that as a common theme between stories about the students and stories about the teachers. I believe that there is definitely a recurring theme but I feel as though it somewhat contradicts the separation of the movies into social classes. I didn't really understand why individualism was deemed so significant.
One thing I liked about Bulman’s article was about how amazing an ideal world would be. But this is usually not the case. Bulman fails to note on multiple factors that come into this subject. Most of these movies are based on just the school part, but economic statues, race, and gender are all huge factors in schooling. Everything resets and is “okay” at the end of these movies, but most of the underperforming students have other issues that need to be worked on. These scenarios fail to produce what the actual schooling experience is, which is being ignored and/or tolerated. In my 13 years in K-12, I have very rarely seen a teacher come up to a student and go above and beyond for a student. By that I mean ask about their home life,not just the student life.
ReplyDelete~ Sha'Nya Foreman
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that I've never encountered an analyzation on this topic much like Bulman's... As they state, it is pretty scarce to find a socially conscious commentary of the cliché American high-school film trope. Ironically, over time the analyzations of said genre have become cliché in and of itself. Whether the summary of ones commentary being "high-schoolers hate their teachers" or "teachers hate their students", both are very baseless and ignore the true reason as to why the films were interpreted as such. There are those who discourage bringing up things like race and socioeconomic status in discussions that seem as though they have absolutely nothing to do with it when really it has everything to do with it. Bulman's understanding of this and determination to give light to all perspectives is something rather special and it is for this reason that I find there is nothing in the chapter that I can wholeheartedly disagree with.
After reading Bulman's article, I can agree with his ideas on how high school films really do reflect what the film industry sees how we operate socially at such a young age. It also influences how we view the world and what problems are standard to display and discuss for entertainment in films. I do believe it comes off as an unrealistic fantasy for a lot of other people that do struggle with a lot more different problems whether that be financially or anything regarding race. The cliché high school film formula will be interpreted very differently by the type of people in different social classes that watch theses film. Overall I think Bulman makes a strong argument on how these films reflect so much of a significant part of our culture.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Bulman’s ideas about how the Hollywood industry presents high schools. Seeing what a high school student does on television or in the movies is far more different than what is seen in real life (Like Mean Girls or The Breakfast Club) But I did enjoy watching that fantasy in high school and wanted to try to romanticize it as much as I could when I was in high school.
ReplyDelete-Mary Davis
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter one of Bulman’s book, it was honestly quite difficult to find something I disagreed with. His analysis opened my eyes to the different ways these high school movies can be interpreted. When I first started reading, I did not think I would agree as much I do with his claims about high school films being divided into urban schools, suburban schools, and private schools. After reading, however, it becomes quite clear that these social classes do have a major impact on the film’s plot and the different relationship dynamics between teacher and student. When I think about high school movies, my initial thoughts revolve around the different stereotypical characters (the dumb jock, the rebel, the nerd, etc.), and although these characters are a major part of high school films, I would have to agree with Bulman that dividing these movies into three social class categories and then analyzing them is the best way to get a deep, thoughtful analysis about American culture.
ReplyDeleteAbbe Casey
DeleteI disagreed with one point that said that the majority of the working middle class was white. I believe this was in Chapter 1 as well. But it stuck out to me because I thought, "wait, my parents and most of my family are black working middle class families, so this doesn't add up to me". But I think it was mainly because the time period that this was written in, the early 2000s. But I still disagree that it was mainly white people that were in the working middle class, because of all that I've seen there's no way that can be true even in the early 2000s. The middle class has always been racially diverse. Sure, white people are in the middle class, but I doubt that they are the majority, especially when the author goes on to comment on how white middle class citizens tend to rise up the "ranks" in movies and such pretty regularly.
ReplyDeleteI disagreed with Bulman about his take on the success of film. He states that in order for a text to be successful its needs to resonate with its readers or viewers. While this tends to be the case there are plenty of exceptions. For example, take Tommy Wiseau's "The Room". The spotty writing, poor pacing, and bad acting would make you think it's some sort of elaborate April fools joke from a conniving Wiseau. However, in recent years this movie has become sort of iconic even with all the blatant flaws. So even though this movie might not resonate with its audience its still manage to attract a following and become an icon in the film industry.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly I'm writing this after our class discussion on it so I had the benefit of reading it in the context of the conversation we had. I did think it was almost impressive how much he eluded to class divides without once mentioning the role race plays in real life and in some of the movies he mentioned. That or the lack of representation for non white and/or queer stories in these films. I think that is flawed. My disagreement has to do with this. Early on in the text Burman says "Films teach us who we are as much as they reflect who we are." Films in the upperclass category feature predominately white boys, a good example being Dead Poets Society. Middle class stories will have more non white characters, however very rarely in a leading role. Clueless, She's all That, 10 Things I Hate About You, and so on. Meanwhile stories set in schools in lower class areas, "urban" in Burnman's words, do have majority black characters. A personal favorite being Sister Act 2. I think that this divide may in some cases reflect reality, but definitely not across the board like it represented in film. But the idea that this trend in films "teach us who we are" puts a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think films ever really teach us who we are. If we identify with it it reflects us, if we disagree with it it shows us we need change. He goes on to say "films [are] modern day folk tales... folktales are stories that a culture tells to itself about itself." I disagree with this analogy for the film industry. This is an industry notoriously dominated by white men. Only very recently have we seen more diverse directors and even then studios have been giving them hell every step of the way (despite many of them releasing multiple award winning films.) Non white people have been portrayed horribly in film for pretty much as long as film has been around. Usually non white roles go to white actors in black or yellow face. There are definitely exceptions, but the trend was and is wide spread. I don't think someone can accurately write and direct a specific culture they did not come from or have connection to. In that way I don't films represent the whole of American culture. They reflect an unfortunate bigotry that is still around. There are so many stories that went untold because they weren't about a white man.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading the first chapter of Bulman's book. I found so many things interesting and also learned so much about the signifigance of school in Hollywood movies. Something I found really interesting and something that I never noticed before was how in most "high school" movies, the setting takes place in a middle-class neighborhood and follows middle-class kids and families. In most of these movies, the movie has the same plot where you can guess the ending. The guy gets the girl, the team wins the game, or someone comes out victorious, it is usually the same. I also found it interesting how the setting in these movies are often IN school, but rarely touch on the actual aspect of being in school. These movies are very influencial on young kids who likley haven't gone to high school yet. These movies could unfortunately normalize things in high school that should not be normalized (like drinking, smoking, partying, cutting class, etc.)
ReplyDeleteAnnalise Siridavong: This first chapter of Bulman's book really resonated with me. When I was growing up I would watch so many movies that were set in high school and I couldn't wait to start when I got older, but what the directors didn't include in those movies were the large amounts of homework, the stress of college applications, and sometimes things just don't magically work out in the end. I liked how Bulman mentions that all high school films made by Hollywood are largely exaggerated, but it is what makes them money. He speaks on how the way films are produced and portrayed is like a circle: a screenwriter produces a story with a sort of message they want to portray set in a place they are familiar with, the audience gives positive feedback, and then all films kind of start to follow this same storyline with maybe a few differences (also known as "the circuit of culture").
ReplyDeleteCindy- I agree that Bulman not including race in his analysis of the teenage film genre leaves a hollow. He misses an enormous aspect of the genre. Not that I have done research like his, but it seems that stories of kids of color are usually of tragedy, whereas, white students typically have more quirky and mindless films.They have the "expressive individualism." Their stories turn out to be less about survival than self discovery. I can't just pick random movies to make my point, but often we see white savior movies like "Freedom Writers" or "The Blind Side." A black or brown character has a coming of age story, but they aren't agents like white students or characters are. And the hero (typically white and older) take a lot of the spotlight. Furthermore, one can't divorce race from social class and gender (*ahem* Crenshaw and her theory of intersectionality*). They are too interdependent for Bulman to only include class (and he mentions gender as well and how gender is viewed). The middle class is also not hegemonic precisely *because* of race. Sure, he talks about the different school settings, but a brown hispanic student in the middle class is completely different than a white student in the middle class. A gap still exists between the two because of race (and also gender).
ReplyDeleteI agreed with most of Bulman's comments on Hollywood film. He mentioned that Hollywood "privilege's the perspectives of whites" and that social class "better explains the data than a lens of race." I actually agree with this point as well. My disagreement is what he didn't say. In America it is clear that these underprivileged places are overwhelmingly concentrated by people of certain races; those being black and Hispanic. If he was to review the data then one would have to go out of their way to not talk about it. But if the focus was to be extremely general and focus on people as a whole then I would agree that social class is a better variable to pay attention to when focusing on sociology.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that movies are strictly a catalyst to communicate societal norms/changes thereof. Movies and film are art which depict a perspective of one person, expressing their visions, creativity, etc. The idea that a movie should serves to educate or persuade an evolution of ethics on society, gender roles, racial tensions- doesn't make sense because under that assumption movies would be a utopia of politically correctness with no conflicts (otherwise the movie is to be scrutinized for inaccurately depicting how things 'should' be). My point is that movies are meant to depict things abstractly and inaccurately, not to present the status quo, and definitely not to police society because then it becomes propaganda and not entertainment. If movies are good at anything it's to spark a discussion about an idea or story, and those discussions are what should be valued and focused on- not necessarily accuracy or politically motivated subtexts.
ReplyDeletejake bosak
DeleteI agree with Bulman about how schools are depicted in movies than reality. They make school the place where you have time to gossip and face emotional problems. I will say they portray the same struggles we all kind of face mentally, but school is nothing like High School Musical.
ReplyDeleteNyah Burnett
Delete