After writing my first draft, the most important thing I realized is that I may want to alter my thesis a little. The different points of my thesis seem to lack a solid connection between each other and cause the essay to feel a little disjointed. I think the overall message is there, I’m just having trouble piecing it all together into a cohesive argument, and I think a revised thesis could definitely help me do that. It may also just be an issue with my topic and closing sentences not doing the work they need to segue to new ideas.

Another thing I noticed is that my essay is more or less just a list of facts over and over again with little to no expansion on any of my thoughts. I found it tough for me to really develop any analysis throughout the paper because, for most of the essay, I was just trying to argue the presence of nationalistic and archetypal elements. For my paper, it seems like the only way to really do this is by basically listing several pieces of evidence for both. My paper could definitely benefit from more developed analysis, but I will have to dig to find out how to go about it.

The third thing I saw while writing my paper that I would like to possibly improve upon is the diversity of source material that I’m using. I have 4 or 5 sources for the paper, but I use two of these sources far more than any other and they’re both from the same author. I cite Reider and Napier over and over again throughout the essay, and it’s starting to seem more like their essay than mine. Just like the analysis issue, I don’t really know how to go about fixing this issue. I could try to find more sources, but it’s difficult finding more articles than I already have about the mythological elements of Spirited Away. For all I know this may actually be a nonissue, as most of my other papers I’ve written in my academic career usually refer to only 2-3 sources. It just feels weird because this essay is super evidence-heavy.

My first goal for the revision would be to rework my thesis – right now I feel like it’s a little broad and not as strong as it could be. My paper incorporates a lot of different elements, including stages of Murdock’s Heroine’s Journey, detailed analysis of particular scenes in Brave, Brenda Chapman’s story, and larger themes about women in the film industry. I did my best to tie it all together, and I do feel like it’s all relevant, but maybe tightening up my thesis would help me better control all the moving parts of this paper.

My second goal, sort of connected to the first one, is to polish my introduction paragraph (paragraphs, actually – I had so much to say that I split it in two). Again, because there’s just so much going on in the paper and I have to provide background for all of it, my introduction seems scattered. I would want to make it more cohesive by cutting out parts that aren’t absolutely necessary (like talking about Joseph Campbell) and condensing it into a single paragraph.

My final goal is regarding the overall structure of the essay. In the final paper checklist, it says that 50% of the grade is for coherence, and I’m a little unsure whether the argument flows properly. I would like to improve transitions between sections, maybe including topic sentences for each paragraph, and possibly rework the structure to enhance the flow of the paper.

My main issue at the moment is that I am under the page limit because I am not sure what else to write about. Since my thesis is about the influence Stefan Zweig had on Wes Anderson as he created The Grand Budapest Hotel, I talked about the choices Anderson made for the movie structure and how a couple of the characters reflect Zweig in some way, and I have also added how each of these conveys the theme of generational turnover. I just don’t know what else I can talk about without repeating myself or getting off topic. I was thinking I could possibly write about why Anderson chose to set the movie in 20th century Europe, since Zweig lived there during that time period, but I’m not sure how to connect that to the archetypal myth I discuss in the paper.

Another issue I have is that I wrote a little piece about production in terms of set design and props (which is what I was originally going to write about) in the middle of one of the paragraphs. I don’t want to scratch it altogether because I do think it is an important aspect of the film’s history, but I also don’t feel like it fits very well with the thesis or with the paragraph; it’s a little out of place. If I change my thesis, I might be able to incorporate it better and that might also solve my previous problem because I could have more to write about. The issue now would be to find a new thesis that encompasses both ideas.

This is less on the topic of the paper, but I always have been terrible at writing concluding paragraphs because I never know what to write in them. I know you are not supposed to summarize your entire essay but I know you are also not supposed to introduce new ideas, so what exactly should I be writing about? At the moment my conclusion is kind of a summary of the argument, but I have already presented my argument in the previous paragraphs so it feels very repetitive.

One major thing I want to make sure I have control of is unity. I don’t mean to say my paper is not unified, but I do want to make sure all of my points flow together smoothly due to the wider range of topics discussed. I still feel everything I said was pertinent to the discussion of Interstellar, but just making sure the level of interconnection among points while maintaining the distinctiveness of my arguments is a goal for me.

Additionally, I want to make sure my pacing is correct, and that I am spending time on what I need to talk about most while spending less on parts that don’t need as much elaboration. Again, I am not necessarily saying that my paper is particularly troubled with this, but from the point of view of an outside reader this could always be the case and thus something I would want to watch out for. As far as this goes, I also want to make sure I elaborated enough on parts of the argument that are most pertinent to the thesis. Since this is a film paper about myth, I tried to find a balance between arguing for the existence of myth within the film and what it was trying to say while still holding my thesis as the ultimate point of argument, but I want to see how this holds up to someone else.

I want to try and rework my conclusion as it was a little short due to me running out of space. A lot of what it said was a little insubstantial in my opinion due to the space constraint and so I would like to see firstly how it should be restructured if it needs to be and secondly what earlier parts of my paper I should cut out in order to make the final paragraph fit.

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.

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,

I hope you’re doing well in your new apartment in Orlando! Ever since you last e-mailed me, asking for updates on the mythology cluster seminar I told you about, I’ve been meaning to write to you about the idea for my paper. I think you’ll enjoy the subject – I know how much you adore Matt Damon and Good Will Hunting. For my paper I am going to be writing about the production history of Good Will Hunting and how Damon’s upbringing in South Boston reflects the national archetype of the distinction between working-class Boston Irish and elite members of society, and how his rise to success resembles a Hero’s Journey similar to Will Hunting’s.

First I am going to be talking about how language and speech is an element that Damon utilizes to contrast between the working class and elite Harvard students. The “colorful language”, as you would say, and the Irish accents of Will and his friends, reinforce the national archetype of the urban working class, or more specifically, the Boston Irish immigrant working class, as that was what Damon was most familiar with growing up. I am also considering talking about the various Irish flag imagery that presents itself in the film and how the culture and history surrounding a work can affect its production (I also plan on relating this to Bourdieu).

Next, I am going to be talking about Damon’s Hero’s Journey and certain elements that reflect key points of Campbell’s Hero’s Journey, such as Will Hunting and Matt Damon’s similar mentor figures and inner struggles and “ordeals”. In the case of Will Hunting, it was coming to terms with his childhood and searching for a greater purpose in life, while for Damon, his inner struggle could be seen as finding the balance between his humble background in South Boston and his newfound stardom and rise to fame after Good Will Hunting.

One of my struggles I am having with this paper is organization. I’m not sure if I am trying to cram too much into one paper and I can make everything relate to the mythology in production. Anyways, wish me luck and I hope I can visit you soon!

Love,

Madison

Dear Aunt,

 

As per our last correspondence in which you expressed interest in my final paper for GE 30, I would like to fill you in on the details of that project. I was initially concerned going into writing my essay, because I did not know how I was going to correlate the hero’s journey in Spirited Away to the production history of the film.  Then, I realized that production history could extend to not just the creation of the actual film, but also to the life of its famous director, Hayao Miyazaki. As I dug into various documentations about his life, I began to see deep connections.  For instance, the genesis of his journey as an animator can be directly compared to the backbone of the hero’s journey. He starts out as a as a college student studying economics. This is his ordinary world. Then, he enters a “threshold” apprenticeship phase.  This is where he works for Toei Animation. Here, he meets his mentor, and future wife. This is his initiation phase. Before he worked there however, before college, he accrued experience drawing manga. However, he destroyed those early works because he felt like he was copying other artists, and didn’t gain experience from making them. This could be paralleled by his decision to leave Toei and create his own works.  Such a risk might not have been profitable for him, but it was necessary for his evolution into a master of the craft. This process is similar to how Chihiro denied the temptation of No Face’s gold, because she had more important things to go after.

I have few concerns about this essay.  Among them, is my teacher’s suggestion that I consider how Spirited Away subverts the classic Hero’s Journey.  He argued that Chihiro’s sad return to the ordinary world runs counter to the classic hero’s journey. I strongly disagree with that idea, because the “return with special knowledge,” or “return to the ordinary world” is an integral step in the classic formula.  Throughout Chihiro’s journey, she accrued that special knowledge. That is, she grew in confidence by leaps and bounds. She also learned about a forgotten part of her past in the form of self knowledge. She even gained a boon from the special world, that hair tie  given to her by Yababa’s sister.

The other concern I have is about an article I read a long time ago.  That article suggested that Spirited Away is actually a story about sexual initiation.  I initially discounted that idea, but as I watched the film I couldn’t not see that obvious connection.  I feel like I have to discuss it, but I’m not sure how well that would connect to Miyazaki’s journey.

Thank you for reading, Aunt.  I wish you the best with your osteoporosis diagnosis.  You’re truly the backbone of our family.

 

Best,

Alex Foyt

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

 

Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

How is the spring in Orlando? Los Angeles is getting warmer and dryer as we approach the end of the spring quarter. I am writing to you about my paper for the myth cluster class I told you last time. For this paper I am writing a piece of film criticism comparing two movies – Call me by your name (2017) and Farewell my Concubine (1993).

The reason why I chose to write about these two movies together is because they are both telling a story of a boy complicated feelings for another human being – more specifically, another male, in an age when homosexuality was stigmatized or even totally unacceptable. I found the comparison between these two movies to be very interesting because they each took place in a completely different setting：Call Me by Your Name took place in an ordinary summer in Italy, 1983, while Farewell my Concubine is a story in the turbulence of China before its unification; while affection between males is only somewhat stigmatized in the former story, it is unimaginable in the latter.

Oh I should probably give you a more detailed account of the two stories. In Call me by Your name, the 17-year-old Elio meets his father’s summer assistant Oliver and falls in love with him. After weeks of secret struggle, he reveals his feelings to Oliver, who initially avoided the discussion but eventually could not resist his feelings for Elio. They spent the last a few days in Oliver’s six-week stay together, and Elio watches Oliver leave at the train station. When Oliver calls back in the following winter, he is to tell Elio that he is marrying another woman, but he still remembers their own secret of calling each other by their own names: “Elio, Elio, Elio… “, “Oliver…”

This is a very simple movie in that there is no obvious conflict in the story, everything seems to take place within our expected range. The other movie, however, is much more complicated in its plot and setting.

Farewell my Concubine tells about two boys who grew up being trained in Peking Opera. In the harsh environment of training, they were each other’s support, and they grew up to be the most successful opera singers with their famous work “Farewell my Concubine”. Dieyi Cheng plays the concubine and Xiaolou Duan plays the lord. The former had always had an emotional attachment to Duan, and in playing the concubine for so longs, he started to see himself as a woman, or Duan’s real lover. Duan, however, only saw Cheng as his brother, and married a prostitute Juxian. Cheng’s jealousy caused his anger to both Duan and Juxian. In the following years, came China’s most turbulent time. The opera theater’s status continued to drop. All three of them endured hardship and mistreatment in the years when the Japanese army was still in China, during the civil war in China, and especially during the Cultural Revolution. Juxian lost her unborn child, and Cheng was deeply addicted to opium. During the Cultural Revolution, Duan was publicly accused, and he was forced to say that Juxian was a prostitute and he never loved her, which deeply disappointed Juxian and she hung herself. After some years, Duan again sang the opera “Farewell my Concubine” with Cheng, he tricked Cheng into singing the wrong line “I was born a boy” (which was supposed to be “I was born a girl”), Cheng suddenly realized that he had taken himself as a woman for all those years. Unable to to accept the reality, he killed himself with the sword he was holding in the opera.

The potential problems I have with writing this paper is specifying what exactly is the deep connection between these two movies, except for them all being a love story between males. I am also hesitating between whether I should choose Alexander the Great as the underlying myth story for Call me by your name or the Greek pederasty story. I feel like Alexander the great might be of more connection to the story because it is implied in the theme song’s lyric for this movie and also implied by Elio and Oliver calling each other’s name. As for connection with Farewell my Concubine, I think they are similar in having a mythological story as the “format” for their relationship. Elio looks up to Oliver, just as people look up to Alexander the great; while Cheng’s love for Duan was expressed with the presumption that he was actually a woman, just as the Concubine is; Cheng also killed himself, just as the Concubine killed herself at the end of the opera.

Best,

Eva