I believe that my biggest strength in writing is my prose. Having taken Latin for seven years, I am comfortable using a wide variety of sentence structures and grammatical forms. This strength is most helpful for the reader(s) of my works, as I believe my paragraphs flow and transition well without using the same structures over and over again. However, this strength can also become a weakness if I am not careful enough. At times, my prose becomes overcomplicated, and I end up with a paragraph-length run-on sentence. Other weaknesses of mine include repetition. I often find myself looking up synonyms during every writing assignment, which I attribute to my constant reiteration of similar ideas that do not expand my arguments.

This strength/weakness combination manifested itself not only in my papers but also in these weekly blog posts. Due to my procrastination habits, I often found myself writing these posts late at night, without much desire to proofread my work. When you workshopped one of my blogs last week in class, I cringed because of how complicated one of the sentences you read was. In my papers, I have also noticed this attribute, but it is less common due to the higher level of proofreading. Regardless, almost every draft of a paper I have written this year has been returned to me with a comment reading “overcomplicated” or “awkward.”

Regarding my most recent paper, I felt like eight pages were not enough to make my argument complete. This feeling could have occurred for a number of reasons, one of which is the weakness I mentioned earlier. My lack of space could easily have been explained by my overcomplicated sentences. There are other possible explanations, but given my track record, this conclusion seems most plausible.

Overall, I think this feature will always be an aspect of my writing. It is my job to learn when complicated sentences are necessary as well as recognize when a sentence is running on too much.

 

Dear Mr. Mundt,

I was fairly surprised to hear we are planning to re-release Iron Man 3, mostly because we kind of killed it last time. The original promotion did a good job bringing people to the movie, and now that the general audience knows the big reveal, marketing it the same way just will not work.

But, I have an idea that will make everyone tons of money! We market it as a rom-com. Tony and Pepper’s relationship was one of the crucial elements of this story, so if we get people excited to focus on that relationship they will want to see the movie a second time from this different perspective.

(What do you mean Kevin said no to a rom-com promotion? You are telling me I spent fifteen hours this week storyboarding a trailer that’s already been shut down by the higher-ups? FU-)

Okay, turns out I need a different strategy. So, last time we portrayed it as a nationalist movie –  America versus a foreign terrorist – with Tony’s character arc being caught within this greater conflict. But since the audience knows the truth about this supposed “terrorist”, using an archetypical lense will be more financially viable because it centers the focus on Tony’s arc.

This will be more effective for three reasons: first, the audience is informed of the Mandarin reveal. Teasing a conflict between Tony and the Mandarin will not work because audiences already know this conflict is a farce.

Secondly, Tony’s battle with PTSD following the attack on New York is the most compelling aspect of the film now that the audiences know who the real Mandarin is.

Finally, due to Tony’s relevance in Avengers: Endgame, people will be seeing this movie because of him. People want to remember Tony Stark’s character arc throughout his first three movies now more than ever.

Marketing this movie by focusing on Tony’s character arc through an archetypical lense will be most effective because the audiences are informed about the identity of the Mandarin and because audiences at the moment care more about Tony himself than some villain from early phase 2.

 

As I was writing this paper, my first problem came kind of as a surprise to me: I felt as though my thesis was fairly weak. I added my thesis and conclusion at the very end of the writing process, and (maybe because I procrastinated just a little too much) I found myself at an inability to form a sentence that, in my mind, summarized my argument and provided a “so what?” for any potential reader. It was weird, as I knew exactly what I wanted to argue within the paper itself, but perhaps due to the vagueness of my topic, my biggest challenge was forming a thesis. Overall, one of my biggest focuses during the revision process will be to improve the concision and specificness of my arguments.

The second problem that I encountered was incorporating specific evidence from the two movies which I criticized. Think of my paper as split up into two, four-page papers each about one movie. In a normal, four-page paper, I usually cite my primary source around four times. However, in the first four-page section, I only cited my first movie twice, and in the second part, I did not directly cite a specific moment from the entire movie. During revisions, I hope to add more specific examples that enhance my argument from both movies to improve the narrowness of my topic, which should also help me with my first concern.

My last and probably least concern is that I just found myself running out of room to fully criticize each movie. For example, Loki in Thor is probably one of the best and most complex villains in all of not only phase one but the entire series, but I had no room to discuss his impact on the story because I was too busy focusing on Thor’s character arc. My writing style, as you can clearly tell from the fact that I will be going way over the 300-word suggested length for this assignment, involves very flowy and sometimes needlessly complex sentences, just like this one. Yes, I am well aware of the irony behind that last sentence, but I think it proves my point. As I have mentioned in both of the previous concerns, concision is an important aspect for me during revisions. I will focus on editing down some sentences and paragraphs so that my argument will not feel so rushed.

Dear Great Aunt Helga,

It was quite the pleasant surprise to receive your letter this past week, especially since I have not heard from you since you moved to Orlando to be with your true love, Keg Jennings, the guy who sold April and Andy that house in season seven of Parks and Rec.

(quick fourth wall break: here is the scene the last sentence is referring to in case there was any confusion)

Your letter actually has presented me with the perfect opportunity to neglect my school work. Speaking of which, I am right in the middle of an essay for my mythology class at the moment. I am actually enjoying writing this paper, which definitely can not be said about all of the work I have done this school year. This project is a critical response to two movies, and I chose Iron Man 3 and Thor.

As I know you might be a little out of touch with modern pop culture, I will give a quick summary of these works. Iron Man 3 stars Robert Downey Jr — wait, I forgot that you might be too old to know who Robert Downey Sr is, let alone junior. But Thor, you know Thor! Yeah, yeah, this movie is based on one of those stories that came out when you were younger, right? Yeah, you know Thor.

Anyway, like I said, I am enjoying writing this paper, but that does not mean I do not have concerns about this essay. Regarding Thor, I am a bit worried that I am focusing too much on the character arc and not other important factors. And with Iron Man 3, well, I rewatched the film this weekend and kind of realized that my argument just a little bit falls apart under intense scrutiny. However, I am not too worried. I can either just conveniently ignore some evidence, or I could slightly modify my thesis so that it stands stronger. There’s no way my teacher could find out, right?

Well, I better say goodbye for now. Maybe this summer my family and I could come to visit you and your house-(swamp)boat?

Sincerely, your dearest great-nephew, William Baker

As I was watching The Terminator, I spent a good amount of time thinking, “what wasted potential.” Putting myself into the context of a mid-1980s film viewer, some of the visuals and sounds from this movie were especially impressive. The way the score combined futuristic synth with more horror-inducing elements perfectly encapsulated the tone of the film. However, what left me so disappointed is that the characters involved in the action scenes have very little development and that the more interesting storyline is only mentioned in exposition.

The closest any character comes to an arc is Sarah Connor. By the end of the film, she is a confident to-be mother, which is certainly different from damsel-in-distress portrayal throughout most of the film. However, is her character in the end really any different from the beginning? We see her take a creepy, sexual phone call from her roommate’s boyfriend completely in stride, and her relaxed confidence and humor are evident both in the beginning and the end. One could argue that, although she learns the most of any character in the film, Sarah Connor does not really have an arc. The same could be said for Kyle Reese. His heroic moment comes as he sacrifices himself for Sarah, but he has always been willing to sacrifice himself, demonstrated by the one-way nature of his time-travel mission. And since the main villain is a psychopathic robot, none of the three main characters experience very much, if any, character development. The intense action scenes that are plentiful in this film thus lack much emotional impact because the audience has never been given a chance to connect with the characters.

Finally, the entire premise of the film seems flawed. Which of these two options sounds more compelling? An assassination attempt on a seemingly random woman in 1984 Los Angeles, or a post-apocalyptic war between humans and robots/artificial intelligence? The best scenes in the movie come in the form of flashbacks (flashforwards?) to the future conflict. Without taking into consideration any films that follow in the Terminator franchise (because I legitimately have no idea what happens in the following movies), I believe a more effective and entertaining version of this film would focus on the war with the mythology of Sarah Connor and the Terminator being woven into the narrative.

Some consider the Marvel Cinematic Universe to contain artistic merit; others find it just to be a corporate money-making machine lacking any more profound meaning. Regardless of which side of the argument you believe, it is impossible to ignore that this franchise has reminded Hollywood that characters and stories matter more than pure action and visual stimulation, a lesson that frankly seems to have been forgotten since Star Wars. I want to embrace this character-focused universe and criticize two movies where I believe Marvel failed to utilize its own teachings: Thor (2011) and Iron Man 3 (2013).

Both of these movies were (over time, as a particular reveal in Iron Man 3 caused quite the initial backlash) well-embraced, as in 2019 Thor and Iron Man 3 have audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes of 76% and 78%, respectively. However, I believe that both of these films ultimately fail the title characters by not completing their character arcs. Regarding Thor, I will argue that the attempted redemption arc supposed completion of this arc eventually falls short because of several missing storytelling factors. Furthermore, I will also contend that the infamous reveal in Iron Man 3 actually undercuts Tony Stark’s arc (even if I misleading marketing is fair game and am not bothered by the nature of the reveal itself) which is constructed with themes of PTSD, causing the ending to also be devoid of a proper emotional payoff. Although I will argue that both movies do not contain complete character arcs, they fail in different ways: Thor‘s otherwise effective conclusion lacks support from the beginning of the film, while in Iron Man 3, there is an excellent setup for a satisfying arc, but the ending fails to live up to this early promise.

My concerns about this paper center around the specificity of my argument. I am worried that by focusing too much on just one element I will not be able to thoroughly criticize all aspects of the film and come to a conclusion about only the respective character arcs, especially considering that last week, Griffin mentioned that he wants us to “look beyond the narrative”, while this entire paper focuses on the narrative.

 

As the plot of The Graduate progresses, Benjamin Braddock slowly starts to rebel against the status quo which he has known for his entire life, leading some to characterize this movie within the hippy movement. One scene that encapsulates the nationalist imagery occurs at Elaine’s wedding to Carl. In the dramatic climax to the entire film, Benjamin takes a cross from the church and starts beating back wedding attendees with this sacred object. The “status-quo” that the nationalist themes of this movie oppose is the white, upper-middle class life. Religion, specifically Christianity was very important to this identity. By taking the most recognizable symbol of the religion that is central to this lifestyle and physically beating members of this class with such an object demonstrates Benjamin’s rejection of his upbringing. Throughout the entire film, he expresses discomfort with his life status and positions, as demonstrated by his refusal to attend graduate school and his general discontentment in life. This culminating scene reflects how his emotions have finally boiled over, causing him to physically attack the status quo which he has been trying to reject for the entire movie.

While The Graduate contains significant nationalist overtones, it still retains a standard coming-of-age character arc. One moment that reveals this archetype occurs when Benjamin first admits to Elaine having an affair with a married woman. For so much of the first act of the movie, Benjamin is portrayed as a confused kid who enters a taboo relationship because of his lack of experience and emotional maturity. The scene where the hotel workers comedically refer to him by his fake name used for the affair reaffirms this portrayal. Although using a fake name for an affair is nowhere near uncommon, the manner in which he reacts to this name with embarrassment and attempted humor reveals that, at that moment, he still just a kid. However, when Elaine later asks him if he was having an affair, his response reveals significant growth as he calmly tells her the truth, or at least a partial truth, about his relationship. For the first time in the movie, the audience views Benjamin as an adult who has come to his own terms with the affair that, for better or worse, has been the driving force behind his emotional maturation. Even though this movie ends with intense nationalist themes, there is no denying that an archetypal character arc for Benjamin still exists within this narrative.

 

The two movies Sunrise and Red River feature emotional confrontations between the two main characters – which is probably the best description for each set of two people considering both movies lack clear definitions of the protagonist and antagonist.

Between these two scenes, several obvious similarities emerge. Most importantly is the overall narrative purpose of these confrontations: the psychological toll of these fights cause the two characters involved to rekindle old emotional connections. Furthermore, both movies build tension for the confrontation. In Sunrise, the audience sees the man’s insane actions and looks, while in Red River, the confrontation is the climax of the movie. The effect of building tension in this manner allows the two fights to carry more emotional weight.

However, when comparing these scenes, what stands out more than the similarities are the differences. Most obviously and most importantly, the fight in Red River features external influences in the form of Cherry and Tess. When Cherry shoots Dundson, he inflicts physical harm that limits Tom’s capabilities throughout the fight, while Tess Millay compels both men to end the fight by invoking the connection she has with both men.

Beyond the difference in the use of external agents, the two movies differ when analyzing the power dynamics. In Sunrise, the wife never fights back against her husband even though he is threatening to kill her. She utilizes a subordinate position to beg for her life instead of standing up for herself. At the beginning of the fight in Red River, Matthew does not fight back either. He, however, has a different power dynamic, as he is allowing Dundson to beat him to demonstrate his refusal to fight his father figure but never takes a subordinate position. As the fight progresses, eventually Matthew retaliates, an action which then motivates Tess to intervene.

As mentioned, the narrative function of these related showdown scenes is actually to bring two people closer together. This purpose helps facilitate the theme of forgiveness, demonstrating that two people who clearly care for each other are able to reconcile, even after such intense confrontation.

 

Every emotional response to a movie comes from a personal truth. Whether someone resonates strongest with The Lion King, Pan’s Labyrinth, The Iron Giant, or many other options, depends on his or her specific connection to that movie. This fact was especially true for William when he saw Tag.

Tag is a dumb, summer comedy starring Andy Bernard, the bad guy from Baby Driver, Hawkeye, and Eric Andre’s constant murder victim, among others. While the ending does contain some attempt at an emotional payoff to legitimize the movie, it was never designed to make its audience cry rivers. However, it was created to inspire nostalgia and sentimentality, which were exactly the type of emotions to which William was especially vulnerable at that moment.

In the summer of 2018, the same time Tag was released, William had just graduated high school and was preparing to leave for college within weeks. He was seeing this movie with his two closest friends because its humor exactly matched the type of humor these three friends appreciated. Stupid, eye-rolling jokes had been the fuel of this incredible friendship. Even the name of this group fit the spirit of this movie, as the three referred to themselves by an expletive due to a high school group chat where two of the three constantly begged the other for homework help. So, after seeing the trailer, William decided that this movie was perfect for them.

While the attempt at emotion towards the end of the movie did not so much effect William, the themes of nostalgia did. The movie discussed how much relationships evolve as people age, which had quite an impact on William. Always a sentimental person, at that moment William was truly fearing to lose his friends when they all went to different parts of the country. This movie reassured him that, even though there are challenges to maintain relationships as people age, it is not impossible. While most emotional responses to movies come in the form of sadness or grief, William experienced an outpouring of appreciation for and a sense of bonding with his friends that he knew would last a lifetime.