I believe one of my strengths in writing is the actual writing portion. Once I have a well-developed idea of what I want to express, I can usually write it in concisely with a flow that brings the audience through the thought-process of the argument. A lot of my papers follow a logical path from the initial premise to the final conclusion with multiple logical steps in the middle. This has been the case in a few essays I’ve written this year. So while my argument may seem tortuous at times, I think I do a decent job at taking my audience through each logical step.

However, this assumes I have a well-developed idea, which leads me to my weakness. A lot of times, I procrastinate my essay to a point where I don’t have enough time to first have a well-developed idea. Multiple times this year, I’m finding my direction while writing the essay. Sometimes, this means that the focus of my argument shifts as I’m writing, resulting in a disjointed paper without a real focus. I think this is more or less inevitable in writing any essay, but because of time limitations, I can’t fix these mistakes. This was the case for the first draft of this final paper. However, for my final draft, I was able to start earlier, so when I ran into this problem, I had to time to work through my argument again and streamline the essay so that it doesn’t have any excessive sections.

To Mr. Mundt,

Using a structuralist approach to market The Thin Red Line is a good financial decision because it gets to a conflict that everyone has to deal with: the struggle between good and bad, chaos and order.

At the heart of this film is man’s struggle between the good and the bad. We see men brought down to the level of animals because of war. We see men turned cynical, angry at the heartlessness they perceive in the world. But we also see men who love and who still believe in the power to do good even in a world that doesn’t seem to care. Though a war film – and a very amazing one at that – the deeper messages of the film lie in man’s struggle between two forces, a struggle universal in scope. Everyone, whether they’re conscious of it or not, has these internal struggles within themselves. We all are capable of terrible things, as war demonstrates, but we are also able to control it and do good regardless.

By marketing the film in a structuralist way, with the mediation of dichotomies, we not only appeal to war film fans or Terrence Malick fans (let’s be honest, most people who watch this film are Terrence Malick fans), but also those who are looking for an answer to or an example of this internal struggle. Which is basically everyone.

I really think this could be a good strategy. Let me know what you think!

Best, Jesse

 

The first and probably most important goal for the revision is to nail down my thesis. The thesis now is a bit vague, and this has reflected in my writing: it’s kind of all over the place. For example, I started writing about Heidegger and Greek mythology only to realize near the end that neither have a place in this essay. There are parts about Bourdieu and Levi-Strauss, and it seems to make sense in my head the way things usually makes sense in one’s head. I can see the light bulb above my head but when I go reach for it, it eludes me. So, I think I need to take some time to think through the exact point I’m trying to make. From there, I can take all the different pieces – the two movies, Malick’s life, Bourdieu, Levi-Strauss – and draw out the connection between each of them. Finally, when the idea becomes clear on paper, I can work out how to elucidate it through my paper. This way, I know which aspects need more elaboration and which aspects can be shortened or even taken out.

The second goal I have is to figure out the best way to structure my paper. While writing, I wasn’t sure how I should order my paragraphs, because my argument seems to depend on a web of connections rather than a linear sequence of arguments. For example, a major part of my argument lies in considering the two films and Malick’s life together, rather than one after another. Therefore, I’m not sure how my essay should be structured to clearly and fully express my ideas. The obvious prerequisite is in the first paragraph – to first understand exactly what I’m trying to say. Next, though, I think I need to identify which aspects of my argument require another aspect to in order to make sense. Those will probably be placed towards the end. Another potential way is to identify/group the parts of research into argumentative categories, like the grounds, the warrants, the claims, the facts, etc.

Finally, I believe I need a better way to express my analysis of the two films. Right now, these paragraphs have a very stream of consciousness feel to them, where I’m just writing down random scenes and explaining how they support a larger claim. There’s a repetition of a two sentence structure, where the first sentence describes the scene and the second explains its significance, as I make my way linearly through the film. I’m wondering if there are more engaging and perhaps even clearer ways of expressing these ideas. My main issue here is that I have to explain the events of the film in order to analyze them, and I don’t know how to summarize the film while still keeping the scenes or moments that are important.

 

Dear Great Aunt Helga,

How’s Orlando been? It’s great hearing from you again, and I’d love to tell you about my paper! In essence, my paper will discuss the similarities and differences between “The Tree of Life” and “The Thin Red Line,” both films by the director Terence Malick. Just to fill you in on the plot details, “The Tree of Life” deals with this boy Jack’s childhood and early adolescence, showing the changes and development in his conception and understanding of the world. There’s also a 30-minute montage of the creation/expansion of the universe, but let’s not get into that here. “The Thin Red Line” tells of, actually, something you might be closely familiar with: The Battle of Guadalcanal during WWII. (Not exactly sure how old you would’ve been, you’ve just turned 20 right?) Anyway, the film brings us into the lives of the men in C-company, and we see each men’s view of the world and of existential concepts such as love amidst the backdrop of war. Super interesting, right?

So I thought about it, and I’m really interested in how the two films portray love within an existential worldview, or, why should we love and be good and kind if we suffer regardless? I think I have concluded that “The Thin Red Line” explores humans capacity for love and that “The Tree of Life,” building on this, explores why we should love and our journeys towards that belief. I think there’s definitely something very interesting here to explore, but I’m worried that I don’t understand the concepts well enough to write about it. I know I’ll definitely have to read more, but I’m worried I won’t get anywhere useful. As of now, I have semblances of useful ideas floating around in my brain with nothing to tie them together. I know I should look to myth because these films have a very archetypal feel to them. This means that they tell stories that can be understood by virtually everyone. I just have to narrow it down to one specific myth. I heard a piece of advice before, which says: “if you don’t know what to write, just keep reading.” Maybe that’s what I have to do…

Anyway, I hope this sheds some light on how I’m doing. Again, I hope Orlando is treating you well, looking forward to visiting!

Sincerely,

Jesse

 

In my opinion, the center of the film is Sarah’s arc, as she grows into her role as a “legend”. We do get see her during her initial “status quo” stage, during which she lives with her friend and her date cancels on her last minute. There wasn’t much, but it hinted at where she was: still dependent on others, not really taking control of her own life. However, the movie was only 108 minutes, and I think 10-15 minutes can be added to the begin to really flesh out the character. A few scenes that deal with her daily life, perhaps mundane and without much purpose, as well as her reflections on this, can probably make her triumph at the end much stronger.

If we want to look at this through a mythic lens, we could see that added 10-15 minutes as establishing Sarah as an archetypal character in the same vein as Benjamin Braddock. She could represent a human struggle which everyone can relate to, and the entire movie would be her, and by extension, our journey to take control and fight for our own lives.

(Also, as a side note, this could probably enhance the juxtaposition created by humanity versus cyborg. The question of the distinctively human with regards to robots and AI are more modern issues, but the question, in general, has existed probably since self-consciousness. This film has the potential to delve much deeper into this as well)

 

I will be taking a critical approach to the Terrence Malick films The Tree of Life and The Thin Red Line. First, The Tree of Life tells the story of Jack’s struggle between two ways of life: the way of nature and the way of grace. We see the different stages of his ever-evolving philosophy throughout his childhood and adolescence, as well as adulthood, a philosophy constantly shaped by his own experiences and the people around him. The Thin Red Line is a film centered around the conflict at Gaudalcanal during WWII. We see many of the same themes in this film as we do in the Tree of Life, as characters within the film face the questions of existence with each other as well as within themselves. My argument will center around both films telling an archetypal story about people’s struggles with morality. My concern is how to narrow this broad topic down to a “so what”. I’m not sure whether this paper should be more like an analysis of the films or whether we should give an opinion as well.

The Graduate works within the archetypal tradition of rebelling against society.. The protagonist, Benjamin Braddock, was thriving: captain of the cross country team, head of the debating club, associate editor of the college newspaper, and college graduate. At least, he was thriving based on society’s definition. It is clear that these were mostly meaningless titles to Benjamin, who ran upstairs to avoid hearing them listed off, as if titles were all that defined him as a person. This shows that he was already against societal expectations. However, he throws the norms out the window by having an affair with his parents’ friend, a married lady 20 years older than him. Within the implicit rules of society, this is a major taboo. He did hesitate at first, but his decision to go ahead with it represents the beginning of his rebellion against society, a rebellion that later included lying on the pool every day instead of going to graduate school, as well as stealing Elaine during the wedding ceremony, further rebelling against God, symbolized by him using the cross as a weapon.

The film can also be seen as working within the nationalist tradition. During the mid-1960s (when the film was made), the US was amidst the Vietnam War and the Cold War in general. Arguably, young men were facing the prospect of being drafted and facing death in a foreign country. They didn’t think about their future as a when, but an if. Hence, the uncertainty Benjamin has about his future during the beginning is very representative of this mindset. Furthermore, his nonchalance towards his college achievements and graduate school – his future in general – further represent young Americans’ attitudes during the time. He seems to live for the present, content with relaxing in the pool and having meaningless sex. Most significantly, his wild and dedicated chase for Elaine ends with him winning her, but as they are driven off in the distance, a line in the frame separates the two main characters, and Benjamin has a look of unease or boredom. This shows his passion for experiencing the present – the chase for Elaine – as well as the apathetic views towards his future – actually settling down and living a married life.

 

The films Sunrise and Red River both center around a love lost and reaffirmed. In Sunrise, a husband has lost his love for his wife, and in Red River, a mentor has lost his love for his mentee.

While this love is center in each film, they have very different meanings. In Murnau’s film, the husband was having an affair, and his lover suggested he kill his wife so the two could be together. The lover is dressed in all black, a color often associated with evil. Meanwhile, the husband’s loving wife, who still works hard to prepare food and feed the chickens, is left crying on the shoulder of her child, wondering what went wrong. She is dressed in white, the color of purity and goodness. Arguably, then, the man’s struggle between his wife and his lover represents the universal struggle between good and evil. The man, through his affair, is seduced by evil and brought to the brink. Yet, in the decisive moment on the boat, the husband chooses not to kill his wife, a triumph of good over evil.

Meanwhile, in Hawk’s film, we see a man, Dunson, mentor a deserted boy, Matt, over 14 years. During the trip to bring their 10,000 cows from Texas to Missouri, though, Dunson’s obsessions quickly lead to violence, violence that Matt disagrees with. This culminates with Matt stepping in and taking over the journey. At this point, Dunson threatens to kill Matt. After the success of the trip, Dunson indeed shows up to fulfill his word, but when the moment came, he could not do it. We see him in a previous scene confess that he sees himself as a father-figure to Matt. Hence, this final confrontation can be seen as the resolution to a familial conflict. A father’s words are not always right; a son is not obligated to agree with his father; their love should not suffer because of either of the previous reasons.

 

Whiplash (2014) reflected a dark time in Jesse’s life. He was playing on the school basketball team. Training was every Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday directly after school, 5-6:30 p.m.

It was the start of 9th grade. Jesse and his teammates were sitting on the gym floor, awaiting the new coach’s arrival. Little did they know, this season was going to be different. While the old coach had injected a sense of fun in the training atmosphere, the new coach immediately established an iron-fisted presence. He rarely let up this persona, once punishing the players with unique conditioning exercises for laughing on the sidelines during a scrimmage. Even worse, he once ordered a conditioning session disguised as punishment, blaming the players’ pains on their own incompetence and idleness. At least, that’s what Jesse saw and felt. Every Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, for a year and a half, he dreaded the school bell that signaled the end of school, because he knows of the pressure to come, the pressure of appeasing the coach, the pressure of not making a mistake…

Finally, he quit. A couple of teachers asked him if he wanted to tell his story to school administrators, and the events of Whiplash flashed through his mind. Andrew is a passionate young drummer, taken under the wings of Fletcher, a cutthroat instructor. Fletcher physically, verbally, and psychologically abuses Andrew, and when Andrew couldn’t take it anymore, he anonymously tells his story and Fletcher is fired. The two’s paths meet again, but Fletcher ends up sabotaging Andrew’s drumming dreams by purposely embarrassing him in a major performance.

Jesse feels the story – Andrew’s experiences and emotions – being played out in his own life, and is convinced not to say a word to the administrator. And if the movie convinced him of something about his own reality, what more can you really say about it?