As a writer, I’d like to think that my main strength is in my prose. When I write academic papers, I write in a very specific tone that is somewhat fluid. However, on the other hand, my writing itself is usually not as fluid. I am subpar in utilizing strong transitions, so my ideas are not always as well-connected as I would prefer. Additionally, my greatest weakness is within my research. I often struggle with sorting through the information I have on hand. Together, these things create papers that seem sort of together on the surface level but are kind of dysfunctional upon further analysis.

As we have written our papers throughout the course of the cluster, I’ve seen these strengths and weaknesses play a major role in the formation of my papers. Overall, my style of prose has helped with my phrasing and has made my writing seem better connected. On the other hand, when writing the papers on Icarus and Daedalus, I sometimes wondered if my work was actually backed by research or if I was kind of making it up along the way. I wasn’t sure if I was reaching beyond my scope when I spoke of the father-son dynamic between the pair and the significance and symbolism of their relationship within Greek society. Looking back, it’s very likely I made assumptions about my lines of reasoning that lead me to the conclusions of those papers. In general, my ideas were relevant to one another, but sometimes felt jarred when strung together.

I feel that this final paper is definitely putting my research abilities to the test. I don’t know enough about the film industry or film production to really make assumptions and come up with lines of reasoning like I did for my Daedalus/Icarus papers. Thus, my work really has to be backed up with references to, say, what the American Dream really is. I think the overall fluidity of my writing has improved a lot, now that I am aware of how poor my transitions previously were. I think I’m doing a better idea of relating ideas that are actually relevant to one another, and it helps expose which of my ideas need more research for me to understand and connect it to the bigger picture. In general, now that I am more conscious of what my strengths and weaknesses are as I write, I am looking more closely at how they play out in my final draft, and I hope this will help me compose a stronger argument overall.

To Mr. Mundt,

Using the nationalist approach to mythology to market The King’s Speech is a good financial decision because the movie itself is British nationalist propaganda.

In the most basic structure of the film, it exists as a recapturing of a moment of national strength, in which the leader of Great Britain overcame his own personal difficulties and to bring the nation together under radio in one of the hardest times of all. Through the structure of the film, the audience sees the parallels between the first speech Bertie gives at Wembley and the final speech in Buckingham Palace. We watch as the camera zooms into Bertie’s face, as the color palette surrounding him changes. At Wembley, the background is blue and cold; Bertie’s face reflects his own fear. At Buckingham Palace, the background is red and inviting; Bertie’s fact has a sort of resilience he didn’t have before. Watching these two scenes alone would spur the general public to put faith in the nation’s abilities, as one would be able to see exactly how much the government works for the good of the people. Heck, when I watched these two scenes, I felt a flood of British nationalism flowing through my blood.

Aside from the example that Bertie sets as a leader, there is also the authenticity of the set that captures an essence of national greatness. The cast and crew were incredibly dedicated to making this set look as realistic to old-day London as possible, which really embodied the sense of pre-WWII London. The fact that the city isn’t idealized with blue skies and clear streets intensifies the reality of the movie and puts the audience into the shoes of the common people who were in London at the time, peering up at the gray skies and dusty streets. This era, this pre-WWII era is in itself one of the moments in which nationalism in Great Britain was at its peak. Great Britain rallied together once again in order to fend of the threat of Nazism. Thus, being put back into that setting would incite the sense of nationalism that, in the face of fear, would fill the hearts of the British.

Mr. Mundt, while we may occasionally disagree on the future of this company, I can guarantee you that selling The King’s Speech as a nationalist approach to mythology is the best way to go about marketing for this movie. I understand that you sometimes dislike utilizing the most obvious approach, but in this case, the most obvious approach is the strongest approach. Who knows, maybe the movie will win an Oscar or something?

Best regards,
Kara

Concerns for the paper:

• I think one of my biggest concerns that I came across while writing this was the fact that I felt like I hadn’t incorporated the historical background/production history as best as I could. I emphasized the parallels between David Seidler’s disability and King George VI’s disability a lot in my initial outlining, but it didn’t seem to be a natural focus point for the paper aside from providing background information as to why the movie was produced. I think I want to focus on tying in the life of Seidler with the historical accuracies and explore a lot more as to why Seidler chose to tell the story the way he did. This is going to require more interview-type sources that will ultimately dictate the direction of this perhaps new paragraph.
• Not too sure if this is a similar concept as to what was expressed before, but I am considering fleshing out the significance of why the movie had to be made so historically accurate. Why go through all the trouble of splashing dirty water all over the streets? What was Seidler/the production crew trying to create through this extreme level of historical accuracy? I think this focus would also help emphasize why the historical inaccuracies are significant.
• I have a lot of personal interest as to how Seidler’s identity as a British-American influenced his decision to tell this story but within the American perspective of what an American hero is. I think the concept of an American hero is strong, but that the argument that Bertie is an American hero is a little tenuous other than the interview in which Seidler states so. However, I think I should maybe consider more the friendship angle that Seidler mentions and explore how making connections and establishing friendships to help achieve success is an American concept (so Seidler claims).

Dear Great Aunt Helga,

I hope you’re having fun in the Orlando sun! College is well; thank you for asking about my final paper for class! I think the overall writing process is going well, although I do have a few minor concerns.

I’m very excited to be writing about The King’s Speech, the movie we watched together last summer when you visited. My paper will be arguing that the movie’s inaccuracies, you know, the ones about Winston Churchill and Bertie and their beliefs and views towards Nazi Germany, are part of a bigger scheme. I’m claiming that the scriptwriter made these changes intentionally, but I’m worried that I won’t be able to find sufficient evidence about this. One of the biggest parts of my argument is equating Bertie as a cultural hero of Great Britain, particularly, by comparing him with Robin Hood and King Arthur. We learned in class that a cultural hero was someone who embodied the best values of the culture. I like to think that, by getting through his speech impediment “for the country,” Bertie was a cultural hero of sorts. The movie does dramatize the necessity of his speech a lot, so I think this is a logical conclusion. I’ll need to do some more research and see if I can pull up any interviews and original script notes from the scriptwriter himself. I don’t think this is too difficult of an issue to overcome, but it is my greatest concern thus far.

One of the struggles I can see myself having to face is my lack of movie-knowledge. Unlike my cousins, I am not as well-versed in the intricacies of the movie-production process or the terminology and description for shots and the like. I’ll have to rely very heavily on my sources, but I believe I will be talking a lot about set dressings, which is apparently what they call the decorations and props for all the sets. This is definitely unfamiliar territory for me in terms of vocabulary, and I worry that I will mix the terms up or not even realize the significance of certain movie aspects. I’ll try to watch the film again and then pay closer attention to the way the movie is directed. Maybe that’ll help a lot!

Other than me potentially failing my organic chemistry course, this is a pretty good update on where I am in school! I’m always glad to hear from you, and I hope to see you over break again!

Love,

Kara

While The Terminator is hailed as an all-time classic, there are parts of the movie itself that may leave the viewer unsatisfied with the final product. In my opinion, the most underdeveloped aspect of the film can be seen with the characters themselves. For a movie with primarily three characters involved, only two of which are actual people, only Sarah undergoes the most minute bit of character development. I was quite disappointed that Kyle fit only within the “Self-Sacrificing Warrior” kind of archetype throughout the whole movie. Even with Sarah, she consistently acts hysterical during all action scenes until the last leg of the film, when Kyle gets shot in the car. I really felt the film was too focused on action and not enough on the growth of the actual characters themselves, despite there only being two to even focus on.

Aside from character development, I also felt that the plot was lacking. The movie really lives up to its status as an action movie. However, other than that, it doesn’t really contain any plot elements of any real substance. I thought the romance in there was forced and trite, and the way it was introduced and executed was unrealistic. To me, it felt like the only element the movie really focused on was the action in the film. I would have really liked to see more variety within the storyline of the actual movie itself rather than just car and shooting scenes and the one forced romance scene.
Overall, for a movie of its era, I thought The Terminator was relatively impressive. The effects were intentional and effective, and I felt it could compare to perhaps thriller movies of today. However, I felt that it had much more potential than that, and after watching Endgame, my standards for movies have really skyrocketed beyond the reach of The Terminator.

Movie: The King’s Speech

Synopsis: The King’s Speech tells the story of King George VI, formerly known as Albert or “Bertie,” and how he and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue, work together to overcome his speech disability in order to lead the nation when they are on the brink of WWII.

Paper type: expository

For my paper, I will be comparing the actual historical events that are depicted in The King’s Speech with the events as seen in the movie. There are certain aspects, such as the creation of the sets, that are designed to add historical accuracy to the movie. On the other hand, there are also inconsistencies between the historical drama and the actual history of the events surrounding King George VI. My argument is that these different facets of the film are used to emphasize and dramatize the story of Lionel Logue and King George VI as first priority and then maintain historical accuracy second. I also want to consider the way that King George VI is portrayed as a cultural hero in the movie. I currently only have one source about cultural heroes in Great Britain that details the legends of King Arthur and of Robin Hood as setting the standard. Thus, I aim to compare the three and the literal versus figurative ways they represent cultural heroes of Great Britain.

Concerns/Questions: I’m not too certain how I am going to tie the production history into my movie (aside from just the information about the sets because that was all I could really find). I’m not even sure if that part qualifies as tying in the production history with what ended up on screen. I’m also a little worried about how to do a good formal analysis without going too much into the nitty gritty of every single scene in the movie. A less alarming concern of mine is how to find sources about the legends of King Arthur/Robin Hood/other heroes that are lengths that I can actually read (the one source I have right now is a book preview on Google Books lol)

The Graduate works within the archetypal tradition, as can be understood through Benjamin’s pursuit of women. Mrs. Robinson represents lust, risk, and everything associated with the sort of fleeting lifestyle Benjamin desires to follow after graduating. Benjamin is not emotionally invested in Mrs. Robinson as a partner, but rather pursues her as a sexual outlet during the night. During the day, he lounges around aimlessly with no plans for his future. On the other hand, Elaine represents love, safety, structure, and everything that Benjamin needs. When he finally decides to give Elaine a chance, he falls in love with her for who she is, so much so that he decides to marry her; up to this point in the movie, that is one of the only concrete decisions Benjamin makes about his future. In this way, Benjamin’s experimentation with each woman and his choosing between the two is universal in the sense that he chooses between chaos and order: this wild, aimless lifestyle that his younger, immature self desires, and the structured, logical pathway that his adult self needs to adopt.

The movie also works simultaneously within the national archetype. Benjamin’s sense of aimlessness and despair after graduating from college is representative of the disillusionment many Americans faced after the end of WWI. Benjamin is at a loss for what he wants to do post-graduation; he no longer feels the drive to push him to higher education, thus he never applies to graduate school. In a similar way, following WWI, many Americans no longer felt the same patriotism they had experienced prior to the war. Instead, most of them lost faith in the nation. This sort of disillusionment is the other side of the coin of the patriotism that is so essential to the American identity, and thus, in itself, is a part of the American identity. Thus, through Ben’s faltering belief in the traditional graduate school path, we see the ourselves as a country.

In both Sunrise and Red River, we see the protagonists struggle with relationships with the ones they love most.

Sunrise depicts a romantic relationship, but the river crossing scene shows shots of the husband looking up with dark shadows under his eyes and of his slow, suspenseful walk towards his wife on the boat coupled with the unresolved, suspended melodies of the music, creating an environment in which the audience is unsure of the wife’s fate. When the bells ring in the background, the husband realizes his own actions and rows them to shore.

Red River, on the other hand, details a conflicting, intimate relationship between father and son figures. As Dunson proceeds towards Matt, the music swells in intensity and picks up in tempo, preparing the audience for an action-packed scene. When Dunson begins to beat him, Matt responds for the first time. The music, which had previously stopped, picks up once more. The fighting comes to a close when Tess shoots at both of them and demands they see their love for one another.

In both films, we see a direct reflection of the action of the scene within the musical score of the movie. In addition, the protagonist in each film realizes he loves the other due to the influence of an outside force: the bell in Sunrise and Tess in Red River.I saw Red River as a more effective storyboard for sharing the themes of love and loyalty. In Sunrise, the husband fought with his own adultery and desires. It highlights love as a powerful motivator in both good and bad ways, as love both led him to drown his wife and later save her. However, it seemed unrealistic for the husband to suddenly recall his affections for his wife when he was so hellbent on murdering her only moments ago.  In Red River, on the other hand, the audience was able to see the way their relationship first blossomed and how it slowly fell apart. Most importantly, we saw that Dunson and Matt unconditionally still loved one another throughout the process, even when they began to lose respect for each other. In this manner, Red River addresses the notion of earning respect, particularly in the moment where Matt, previously compliant, begins to finally fight back against Dunson. Because of this prior contextualization, the plot behind Red River seemed more realistic and thus more effective at reaching a crowd today.

Kara watches in hushed anticipation as Prince Albert in The King’s Speech struggles to draw the words from his lips. She watches as he fights to string noises together as Lionel Logue encourages him to push through for his country.

Kara sits in a crowded classroom with the rest of her classmates, but in that moment, as Bertie and Lionel stand in the recording room by themselves, she feels alone.

Bertie struggles, had continued to struggle, for days on end for the good of his country. This theme of loyalty, of self-sacrifice, is one that resonates with her all too well. She sits in the classroom, being astutely aware of the parallels between this future King and her own life. She remembers walking into the stadium in Ohio in semifinals, hands shaking with nervousness. She remembers performing, the breathlessness and exhaustion that comes with running through a six-minute show, and of stepping off feeling well.

Stronger than any of those memories, she remembers when the scores had come out and she had realized that her team didn’t make finals.

Mere tenths of a point.

These themes of loyalty, of self-sacrifice are all too familiar to her, her team, and her world. She can’t help but wonder if the outcome was because she wasn’t ready to sacrifice enough, if she put her own fears ahead of her team.

Tears are forming in her eyes as she watches King George VI finish his speech, delivered beautifully. She watches as he embraces this little victory, a concept so foreign to her recently.

This stuttering prince had overcome his fears and personal obstacles for the betterment of his people.

Why couldn’t she?