My writing has certain strengths. I am good at researching and adapting my thesis based on it. This usually leads to solid arguments. I also write concisely (when I’m not trying to fill space). My points are clear to the reader most of the time due to my explicit presentation. There are also several weaknesses in my writing. My organization/structure is poor a lot of the time, leading to confusing flow of logic, and distorting my argument. This also occasionally leads to unwarranted repetition. Many times, I realize that my paragraphs are just giving more evidence to my argument rather than furthering the argument. Also, my writing is not “artsy.” It lacks strong transitions, vocabulary, and sentence structure because I care for these things less than the actual content/arguments that I present.

I feel that my strengths have influenced my papers this cluster. I usually start with an atrocious thesis until I sit down and start to do research. After researching, I develop strong theses based on them, and all of my arguments are well supported after revising the first drafts. My weakness in organization/structure almost always shows up too. I need usually move around information and add or delete paragraphs to strengthen my writing. Typically, the paragraphs I delete fail to further my argument. My grammar and transitions are usually lacking because of my lack of attention to them, but these do not concern me as much as my other deficiencies.

My current paper is a good reflection of my traits. The utilization of research is solid. Find the sources gives me an opportunity to practice doing research and adapt my thesis. My arguments are also pretty concise and clear. I feel the paper also helps me address my weaknesses. With Griffin’s feedback I am working on my organizational skills by learning what types of paragraphs can be moved or deleted. I was repetitive and didn’t always progress my argument in this essay, so I am also working to fix the issues.  

To Mr. Mundt,

Using archetypal mythic elements to market both Guardians of the Galaxy and Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2 is a good financial decision because of its appeal to people’s own sense of heroism as normal humans, its ability to develop strong characters, and the pattern of the hero’s journey that has sold well historically.

The narrative of the movies flip the common standard. Typically, it is shown that the gods or people with supernatural power come out on top when engaged in a struggle with a weaker being, thus setting the precedent on how to act or “behave” as a member of the weak. In these movies, a band of normal humans band together, become friends, and triumphs over the powerful antagonist. This structure an anti-myth that promotes the idea that even normal individuals have agency and are not subordinate to the gods. Such a notion would be popular among many people, especially those who are younger, more liberal, or less religious.

Another drawing factor is the strong development of the characters. They fill multiple archetypal roles in the movie, including the anti-heros and the misfits. These characters are not simple perfect heros, all of them being unheroic to start. This provides an opportunity for Gunn to create compelling characters that have clear flaws, intriguing histories, but also growth. This allows the group of heros to elicit empathy out of the audience, who likely to connect to these characters and actually root for their victory. This will boost the appreciation and sales for the movie.

Finally, a smaller yet noteworthy reason to market this movie is that the movies roughly follow the archetypal pattern of the hero’s journey. From certain film student I know, this is one of the structures of a script that has an above average chance to sell, and I think it is a fact worth taking into your consideration.

In general, I feel highlighting archetypal traditions would be beneficial over other avenues of advertisement, because it would appeal to the audience’s sense of connection to the movies, both in its message and characters.

Shameek Mitra

First thing I need to do is go back an restructure my essay. Looking back on it, some of my points are seemingly out of place, and a rearrangement would help convey the argument that I am trying to make. Specifically, I should introduce the idea of a Hero’s Journey before I begin to make my argument that connecting Gunn’s hero’s journey to that of the movie characters. In its current state, my discussion of the hero’s journey ends up breaking the flow of the paper. I am also worried that this part had too much summary. There are also other parts of the paper where my ordering of information might make my argument unclear.

My second change would have to be adjusting either part of my thesis or the presentation and writing of the argument. Right now, there are arguments in the essay I feel could be considered a stretch. One example, would be the argument about Gunn’s addition to the production of the movie being anti-mythic. But it was a bit clearer in my head, so I will first try to fix my writing, and if that fails, I will augment that argument. Based on the feedback that Griffin gives me, I will decide whether or not I want to keep my thesis or remodel it more exhaustively.

Finally, I feel that I don’t have enough to write about to fill up the space. This was partly the reason I ended up adding the Hero’s Journey at the end,and while I don’t think it was a poor addition, I wondering if there are better options that can take up space and remove some of my weaker arguments. Also, I was a little bit repetitive in a few of my topics, which probably tied into the fact that analysis was not very wide. As I have some time still before the final draft, I will continue looking for more topics and hopefully it won’t be an issue.

Note for Meeting: Ask if source usage is fine, ask  if I am accomplishing my so what, ask what I could talk about or if my current set is fine, ask which arguments are faltering

Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

I hope you are having a fine and dandy time in Orlando. I have a few updates on the paper you wanted to know to me about. In case you forgot, I’m doing it on the pair of superhero movies named Guardians of the Galaxy vol.1 and vol.2. I have to write about how the movie was made and about mythological elements that relate to it. By myths, I mean are the stories you read or were told when you were a kid, or maybe old stories passed down by other cultures (think Greek/Roman/Asian).

Right now I’m a little bit stuck. I know a bunch about how they made the movie. Things like the people who wrote it, why they choose some details,and how they used machines to make the fancy-shmancy effects you see on the screen (like the tree and raccoon). I also have information on what people’s reactions where to the movie. But, I am missing one important thing, and that is how the movie is similar to myths like I mentioned. I thought of a solution, but I don’t know if it will work. I may relate the story in the movie to that of the director’s in real life upcoming in Hollywood. The story in the movie is that a group of small scale criminals band together to do big things, like save their galaxy. Similarly, the director James Gunn was a small-scale director, and he and his friends (the recurring actors in his movies) go into making movies for the large-scale Marvel superhero universe.

Another concern I have is that my paper will not be long enough. I don’t really know how I’m going to solve this one, but hopefully it’ll come to me as I continue writing. I’ll brainstorm more topics to talk about for the paper, and I’ll keep you updated so you know how it’s going.

Shameek

The Terminator presents a safe plot and solid action scenes, but it lacks strong character development.

Of the three main characters, Arnold and Kyle are static and linear and Sarah is very simple. Arnold is just a machine ordered to hunt down Sarah no relatable motivations. This makes him neither a compelling villain nor a villain that the audience can find truly “evil” and worthy of being put down. One of few main characters is only interesting because he is played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Kyle is developed a bit more, as a sufferer in a dystopian society, but the movie doesn’t explicate the path to the future, or what it is like to live in that world. Kyle ends up feeling like someone from a different world so he too is difficult to connect with. I personally would have liked to see more about the future world. Sarah is a dynamic character but the problem is that her change in attitude towards her role in the future is irrelevant in this movie, so it is not very interesting. For the rest of the movie, she is only trying to stay alive.

Since the characters are developed poorly, they lack complexity and a reason for the audience to invest in them emotionally. I didn’t feel like I was compelled to root for the survival of the “good guys” and I even found myself wanting to see Sarah die in order to see how the timeline and the future would change. This to me was indicative the movie lacked character development and was driven by plot, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

In my expository piece I will discuss the movies Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 1 and 2. The premises of these movies involve an unlikely band of heroes motivated to save the world by a central antagonist. The movies focus of character development and employ a humorous overtone to complement serious developments. The movie also incorporates a mixtape of older songs to enhance the emotional and action-based aspects of the scenes in the movie.

My argument will first address the impact the director James Gunn had on the development of the movie in the context of his background in smaller budget films and comedic dispositions. This part will also discuss how Gunn’s work as both the writer script and director of the movie leads to the a cohesive and convincing final product. The pressures of the building of the MCU and his relationship with Marvel also had an impact on what made it to the screen in Gunn’s films. Mythic elements in the plot will be evaluated as well.

Concerns:

Unsure how much of the piece should focus on the myth, because the prompt doesn’t address it and also on how much we are able to delve into the world building and character development (I guess I could incorporate it as a vision of the director/writer so that it is tied to the production)

I feel like the “so what” part is difficult generate because the piece will be about a specific set of movies, so I was wondering how heavily is this considered for a prompt like this.

The Graduate incorporates archetypal traditions in plot. One such archetypal tradition is the idea of the hero’s quest. Based on How to Read Literature Like a Professor, there are certain elements of a quest that is present throughout many stories and myths in history. In the case of our film, Ben’s call to action was Mr. Robinson telling him to take Elaine out. Like many hero’s Ben initially refuses the call but eventually realizes that he wants Elaine. He enters a new world of relationships and love, but he also encounters many obstacles such as the Robinsons and their decision to keep Elaine away from Ben. After Ben’s period of disarray, he makes up his mind that he wants to marry Elaine, and grows his character and skills until he is successful. Finally, he returns home (or somewhere) with Elaine, even if it means he returns to his unclear and worrisome future. Such a pattern of the hero’s quest is adaptable to many stories, and as such it carries on the archetypal tradition.

Following WWII, the economy grew slowly in the 50s until the massive boom in the 60s. The generation of youth was the most affluent in U.S. history. The youth counterculture encompassed separation from mainstream politics and a sexual revolution. The film represents the nationalist tradition of the time through the perspective of Ben. While he was not a straight up hippie, his outlook on his future resembled that of the counterculture. Coming from a well-off family and with a disillusionment of conservative society, Ben was lost in planning for the future for he had no immediate need to work or be a “contributing” member of society. In addition he experimented sexually in ways that are taboo, indicative of the sexual revolution of the time.  Another nationalist tradition represented in the movie is the idea of a loveless marriage. In the 50s and 60s, divorce was highly frowned and an illegitimate child would apply pressure of a pair of individuals to stay together to avoid the social stigmas. This is exactly the reason that Mrs. Robinson stays married despite her lack of affection. She can avoid social scrutinization of being a single working mother and continue to care for her daughter as long as she stays married.

The climactic confrontations in Sunrise and Red River result from strain put on the relationship of two individuals. The boat crossing scene is the result of the protagonist being lulled by an outsider from the city. Conversely, the confrontation in Red River is the result of a power struggle within a family. The fight in Sunrise was more emotional (guilt, fear, love) while Red River was more physical (the two duked it out). Still, both brought up and resolved emotions revolving around love.

Both take ample time to build into the scene. In Sunrise, the notion of murder is introduced by the city lady, and it persists in the viewers’ mind for the lengthy period of time it takes for the couple to finally get on the boat and to the middle of the river. Likewise, the threat of Dunson killing Matt was introduced long before the confrontation. This created high tension leading into both the scenes.

At the point of confrontation in Sunrise, the camera is angled over the husband’s back with the wife facing him at a diagonal. Similarly, when Dunson first comes to Matt, the camera is angled over Matt’s back with Dunson facing him at a diagonal.

The progression of the score is also similar in both movies. At the confrontation, both break from the recurring theme of the rest of the score into a section with darker tones and lower instruments (especially Red River in which the main theme was constantly repeated). There is also a trumpet section leading the melody on top of the two bands. The turning point in the scenes (where it is confirmed that the protagonist isn’t trying to kill) is symbolized by a bell tone. In Sunrise a literal bell is playing as the husband starts to sit down and row back, and the sound is non-diegetic. In Red River the bell tone sounds when Dunson throws Matt’s gun on the railing; however, this sound is contrastingly diegetic.

The forefront themes in the confrontation in Sunrise are love and faithfulness. By the end of the scene the man’s love and faithfulness to his wife were rekindled. Similarly, love and friendship where at stake in Red River. Despite Dunson and Matt’s conflicts, both came to realize that these ideals triumphed and that they couldn’t permanently hurt each other.

Shameek intended to catch up on his sleep during his spring break. When he finds himself watching Your Name at 3:00 am, he can’t help but think “What am I doing?” But he decided not to stop because he was keen on seeing Taki meet Mitsuha. The trip Taki and his friends are on to find Mitsuha’s hometown reminds Shameek of the trip he is on with his friends right now. Thinking about the fun he is having, he becomes hopeful that Taki finds Mitsuha and has a fun time as well. As one failed attempt leads to another, Taki and Shameek’s optimism decay.

When the restaurant owner, Hida, recognizes the picture of Mitsuha’s town, Taki becomes energized once again. But seeing the worried look on Hida’s face, Shameek realizes that something is amiss. Still, he doesn’t have enough time to prepare himself for the news to hit. Mitsuha’s hometown, Itomori, was wiped out by a comet 3 years ago. As the movie went on, the crater created by the comet and the lists of the dead painfully confirms the event.

Shameek experiences an emotional revelation from the scene and what follows. He is reminded that human society is relatively fragile compared to the mechanisms of the universe, the world around him could change at the blink of a eye. Shameek realizes he might have never met some people if the situations in his life were slightly different, but he is also cognizant of the possibility of missed opportunities. His friends and family could suddenly disappear, just as how Mitsuha did. Would he even know?

For the following days, Shameek ponders on the many ways that his familiar life around him could change, for better or worse, or what could have been different. Ultimately, he accepts that this spontaneity is a natural part of life.