I feel that one of my strengths as a writer is my ability to gather evidence and structure an argument using that. I have always made clear arguments in my papers and that is present in this paper. One of my weaknesses as a writer has been taking that argument a step further or including the “so what?” in my paper. It has always been easy to lay out my point but I have struggled to include the reason why that point is important. This cluster has changed that for me and it has been great for my writing because now my analysis of the subject actually means something to the discussion as a whole as opposed to it being an argument in isolation. It has changed my view on academics entirely with each paper now being part of a universe of ideas about each subject. I also struggled to write in an entertaining manner prior to the cluster. I used to write barebones essays that made claims, backed them up, then summed it all up to make the argument. After having my papers torn apart in this class, I see them now as more arguments that should lead to a thought provoking discussion. I feel more comfortable arguing with myself instead of trying to make an impenetrable statement that would never be arguable or interesting. This paper addresses my weaknesses because I do allow for counterarguments in my paper and even encourage them. I suggest that a movie could be seen a different way and provide evidence to that as well. The paper ends up being a suggestion as to how the industry functions as a whole which is taking my argument a step further than my previous ones. To sum up the cluster as a whole, my writing has definitely improved but the road to get there looked similar to this

To Mr. Mundt

Using a nationalist approach to market GoodFellas is a good financial decision because it is an especially Italian American movie. Martin Scorsese has directed a variety of Italian American movies that even include a documentary about his family titled Italian American. Scorsese has had a soft spot for the Italian American community and GoodFellas is a story about a specific part of this community. One of the most significant reasons why this movie will sell is because it is about the mafia and this is a distinctly Italian American group. People want to see the mafia at its best (or ugliest depending on your take). This happens when they are Italian, taking part in the break-neck culture of tough guys fending for themselves and those close to them. This culture is entertaining to viewers and very recognizable with the actors doing what it takes including commiting murder in order to keep others in line. People recognize the Italian mafia which adds to the appeal of running a nationalist myth campaign. The Italian American nationalist myth also has a romanticism to it given that many scenes take place in restaurants or bars. The central theme of family throughout the myth paints an ideal world where the husband loves his wife and kids and the big extended family all comes together as one. This nationalist myth puts some scenes and actions in an ideal lighting to tell the viewer that this is the way things should be and many people are interested in experiencing that world. GoodFellas draws people in because it enters the nationalist myth of a romantic people while also entertaining them with the violence of the mafia found in the same culture. If people are reminded of this, they will be more than willing to buy copies of a timeless movie.  

The first and most important change I would like to make to my paper is rewording my thesis which would involve possibly redirecting my paper in a new direction. I feel like my original thesis is too broad because I was not sure what specifics I should cover in my paper. In order to do this, I may have to include a contradiction in my thesis which would be a good addition because I mention counter arguments throughout my paper. The issue is for me is wording the thesis in a way that makes sense considering the structure of the paper at this point in the process.

In my conclusion, I compare the two movies by discussing director’s choices in how the characters dress on screen and the events that happen throughout the movie. While this is a nice addition to the rest of my paper, I think it focuses too much on the narrative elements of the movie and should probably be redirected towards the production process since that is the main focus of this movie. This would entail a direct comparison of Scorsese and Fincher that is not repetitive or implied from the rest of the paper. In order to not be repetitive, this section of the paper may have to be cut out completely if it does not offer new insights into the topic.

After rereading my paper, I realized that the introduction paragraph is essentially defined “according to me”. While those definitions provided seem accurate, I think that finding a source for the definition of archetypal and nationalist would be good as well as citing Campbell. This would most likely beef up the introduction but this seems necessary considering how much information is needed to understand the argument.

Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

    I appreciate your curiosity about my mythology paper as I have been working very hard on it. I know that GoodFellas featured too much murder for your tastes, but I am glad you found Brad Pitt’s soap making tips in Fight Club useful. I just will not wash my hands at your home any time soon. I am struggling with a few parts of my paper. My thesis focuses on contrasting nationalist myth and archetypal myth which I feel GoodFellas and Fight Club fall into nicely. After tying both movies to their respective category, I feel like the contrasting of the two types of myth is almost pointless; it would just be pointing out the obvious as I describe both kinds of myth throughout the piece. Instead, I might try to add more detail to my argument of why each movie falls into each category as I focused possibly too much on the production processes. In addition to this, I am struggling with the structure of my essay. Right now, I have a section dedicated to the expository side of the piece (production history, director’s history) for each movie. While this is obviously important, it is kind of a block that leads to my analysis as opposed to it flowing with my argument. I am not sure if this is problematic because it is a good way to get my research across and also allows me to have a smooth analysis as opposed to having to stop and explain what happened during the production process. If it is an issue, I will have to find a way to integrate all of that background into my argument without sacrificing the amount of information I have to use. Hopefully I resolve this and formulate a masterpiece that will make my GSI proud.

I hope Orlando is treating you and your sixth toe well!

Love,

Cannon

In The Terminator, I felt like there was a lack of development of the antagonist that made it difficult for me to invest in him as a real villain. Obviously, the terminator was not meant to develop as a character being a cyborg sent to complete a mission. But, I missed guessing what the bad guy was thinking throughout the movie. When the bad guy is so predictable, I become less interested in him as a character. Bad guys with an interesting backstory make movies feel more complete. This leads to the heroism of Kyle Reese being downplayed because the good guy is only as interesting as the villain he is fighting. The terminator is evil but there is no depth to his evil making it less convincing. In addition to villain development, I would have liked to see a “magical helper” in the movie. I feel like Lieutenant Traxler would have been a good candidate given his reluctance to make fun of Kyle Reese’s interview with the psychiatrist. He also treats Sarah Conner well and seems to be the most developed character aside from the terminator, Sarah Connor, and Kyle Reese. He is also given a considerable amount of screen time in the beginning of the movie so it almost is expected that he will not just be killed during the police station attack like the other police officers. His anticlimactic death left me wanting more from his role in the story of Sarah Connor. I feel like having more characters involved in the movie would have developed the theme of robots fighting humans more so than Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese fighting a robot.

Two Movies: Fight Club and Goodfellas

What Fight Club is about: Fight Club is about a corporate cog struggling to find comfort in a mundane life that is excited by a new exciting “friend” in Tyler Durden.

What Goodfellas is about: Goodfellas is about the life of a gangster who lives lavishley but has to keep constantly committing crimes in order to keep others in line.

What my paper is: Doing an expository piece discussing the awesome production history of both movies and discussing the archetypes each fall into and how that potentially influenced what is on screen.

Questions: Not sure if the nationalist or archetypal thing is really part of this paper but is included because it was mentioned in class.

Annotated Bib

1. Halnon, Karen Bettez. Teaching Sociology, vol. 30, no. 4, 2002, pp. 503–506. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3211512.
   1. The source provides a summary of the plot and suggests themes and questions that the movie poses. These questions can be tied to production aspects present in other sources.
2. Raftery. Brian. BEST. MOVIE. YEAR. EVER.: How 1999 Blew Up the Big Screen. Simon and Schuster. April 16, 2019.
   1. This gives information on what exactly Fincher went through to produce the movie and how the book eventually got in his hands. I will definitely use the quote “This is as serious about blowing up buildings as The Graduate is about fucking your mom’s friend”
3. Ratner, Brett, producer. “The Making Of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas (1990)”.
   1. This documentary features interviews with actors as well as the director along with clips from the movie that they talk about. I will quote the actors talking about what the director wanted from each scene.
4. Sharf, Zack. “‘Fight Club’: David Fincher on Clashing With Ed Norton, Battling Fox Over Marketing, and Bad Box Office”
   1. Another article detailing background information about the director. It has a good section about a clash with Ed Norton that I will use.
5. Viano, Maurizio. Film Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 3, 1991, pp. 43–50. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1212795.
   1. This is a piece discussing the plot of the movie along with a history of the movies that the director has produced. This will be used in the paper to talk about the directors history and how that has affected GoodFellas.

The Graduate falls within the archetypal tradition of movies as shown by its heavy reliance on a dichotomy between the two women in Benjamin’s life. He has a relationship with both Mrs. Robinson and her daughter Elaine, each of them representing things that at one point or another are desirable for him. Mrs. Robinson is Benjamin’s guilty pleasure, bringing smoking and sex into his life which leads to him laying around all day until he can be back in bed with her at night. Elaine represents a bright future as she is in school and prods Ben in the right direction, asking him what he wants to do or asking him to have a plan before he makes another decision. Sunrise is another movie with these two types of women as the wife and city women are portrayed as opposites, one being good and the other evil in her attempts to have the wife killed. These two types of women can be generalized to the point where one could argue many stories are about a man choosing between two women who are polar opposites and represent different parts of one’s desires.

    The Graduate may fall within the nationalist category of movies due to affluence present throughout the movie. Each of the main characters come from a wealthy family that made their way in business and are now sending their children off to esteemed colleges. They drive nice cars, have no issue paying for numerous hotel rooms, and can spend days out on the road chasing love interests. The presence of generational wealth showcases the American dream as many parents attempt to build financial stability so that the next generation has the opportunity to do better than they did. This is a movie about an American family whose son worries about his future not because he will have too little opportunity, but because he has had the chance to do everything and does not know what he will do yet.

While Red River and Sunrise are two completely different types of movies, one could argue that the climatic ending scene of Red River could be compared to the first water crossing scene of Sunrise. These scenes are the most similar in the threat of death that is present in both. The apparent in both the man in Sunrise and Mr. Dunson in Red River are clear. The text on screen in Sunrise explains the city woman’s plot to do away with the man’s wife and Mr. Dunson’s promise to kill Matt leave no room for doubt that murder is a possibility in both scenes. The man and Dunson also portray similar levels of insanity shown by the man’s brutish look as he clunks his way to his wife and Dunson’s decision to shoot Cherry on his way to Matt. While the scenes share their similarities, their differences help bring out the type of movies they are. Red River’s scene is actually physical, featuring a fistfight and gunshots that would seem out of place in a more timid film like Sunrise. Another difference is the balance of power between the two in conflict. Conflict is used loosely here because, in Sunrise, the man has total control. He could murder his wife due to his strength and position over her. Red River features two grown men who throw down their guns to engage in fisticuffs, both landing respectable shots on the other. What ends this conflict is the theme present in both scenes. Red River’s final fight ends in a “good woman” stopping both men from beating each other. The man in Sunrise is stopped arguable due to the innocence and goodness of his wife. The movies feature men on the wrong path eventually set straight by a woman’s heart.

Emotion began to overcome Cannon as he took in the last scene of Rudy. He watches with pleasure as Rudy is taken off the field on his teammates shoulders after having sacked the Georgia Tech quarterback in the last seconds of a Notre Dame win. Joy fills his face and  he smiles, showing his approval for the moment as well as the movie as a whole. To Cannon, there is nothing more satisfying than a movie that has a well deserved, hard-fought happy ending. If there was one word to describe Rudy’s time at Notre Dame, it would be sacrifice. He gave up his time, his effort, and even his body to persevere through what would be a difficult experience for anyone, let alone a runt like Rudy. His trials throughout the movie had led to Cannon’s emotional investment to Rudy’s success. The completion of Rudy’s journey to play football for Notre Dame now leaves Cannon content. But, there is another reason the movie brings Cannon joy and fulfillment. He has a deeper connection to Rudy. Cannon also plays football and is in a similar situation as Rudy, working tirelessly to prepare his team for games that he probably will not play in. Every moment of the movie reminds Cannon of his own journey. The final moments of the movie give Cannon fulfillment in knowing that someone who dedicated himself to a cause, despite his limitations and lack of talent, was given praise for all that he has done. It seems like a fitting ending, especially for someone seeking that ending for himself.