Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

I hope Orlando is treating you well! I’m writing to tell you about the paper I’m working on for my Myth in Hollywood seminar. It’s about the Pixar movie Brave – remember we saw it together several years ago? I thought it would be a good choice to work on for our prompt, which is to write an expository paper on a movie, tying in the production history as well as mythological elements. I know it sounds complicated (and to be honest, it is), but essentially, the production history just means how the movie was made (writing, filming, directing). As for myth, I’m focusing on archetypes, which are universal themes/characters shared by a lot of stories.

Here’s how I’m connecting everything. Brave is about a heroine who discovers herself, and it has themes of woman empowerment. I can analyze this using an archetype called the Heroine’s Journey, a female take on the traditionally masculine Hero’s Journey (which is used in nearly every story you can think of). The woman who wrote and directed Brave, Brenda Chapman, underwent a real-life heroine’s journey of sorts while making the movie. My argument is that she drew on her own experiences for Brave, and is delivering a symbolic message to women/girls (particularly other female filmmakers) through the movie.

As you can see, this is a lot, which is kind of my problem right now. I’m trying to balance breadth and depth in this paper, because this is a film class and we also have to analyze scenes from the movie in detail. I’m worried that it’s just going to be too much material to cover effectively in 6-8 pages, and it will end up making no sense. I feel like if I either leaned into the production history or the myth aspect (heroine’s journey) fully, it would be a solid paper, but encompassing both at once is difficult. Right now I’m just writing whatever comes to mind and seeing where it goes. If you have any ideas, let me know! I hope I can visit you soon; until then, say hi to the alligators for me 🙂

Love,

Rithana

Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

I hope Orlando is treating you well! On my coast, UCLA is really kicking my butt! I have an expository paper coming up in my Mythology Cluster: Uses and Misuses of Mythic Storytelling in Hollywood. The prompt is to write a well-researched academic paper on a movie of our choice, focusing on the correspondence between its production history and what ended up on screen. To simplify what that means, production history involves the development of the movie (script development, casting, filming, etc.) and I have to explain how all of those elements added to what appears on screen under a mythological lens. Now I’m sure you’re wondering what a “mythological lens” means. In simple terms, it refers to seeing how elements of the movie fit either a nationalist (representing a set of values or symbols of a nation) or an archetypal (representing a universal symbolic pattern, story, values) myth.

The movie I chose is Psycho, a 1960 horror film directed and produced by Alfred Hitchcock about the encounter of Marion Crane and Norman Bates. Marion meets Norman after stealing money from her employer and ends up at Norman’s motel for the night. I am facing a few problems with this paper. I don’t know how I should narrow my idea of focusing on the mythological aspect of it. I am thinking of relating the relationship between Mr. Bates and his mother to the Oedipus complex; however, I was suggested to relate it to myth stories containing the abduction of females. I am afraid of not having enough material to discuss either. Another thing that I am worried about is balancing talking about myth and mental health issues in the movie. I have more resources about mental health in Psycho versus myth.

Please write back with any ideas that could help me with this paper! Miss you lots 🙂

Love,

Gabby

Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

I hope you’re having the time of your life in Orlando! I am writing to you to tell you about my time as of now at UCLA. Currently, I just finished a paper for my class on mythology. My paper is about the movie Se7en (that one movie you like cuz it has Brad Pitt in it) and its relation to ancient myths and it’s production history. If you don’t know, mythology isn’t what you think it is. The mythology I’m learning about isn’t just false beliefs or misconceptions. It’s stories relating to the gods and goddesses and attempts to explain natural phenomena but, most importantly, was believed to be true in its time. I am relating my movie to biblical mythology, like that in literature like Dante’s Purgatory and Milton’s Paradise Lost (you’re gonna have to look those up if you don’t know, 😦 sorry). On the other hand, production is just the making of the movie and I’ll be mainly talking about what the screenwriter had intended for the movie, the research he must have done to make it, and comparing that to what ended up on screen. Anyways, since the movie revolves around the seven deadly sins, I’m writing about the implementations of them in relation to religious beliefs from the past. Except, I realize the more I write my paper, the less I feel like it relates to mythology. The more I prove it, the more I question “Wait, is this even like mythology or..?” even though I know it is because my TA told me. Maybe I’m just overthinking, but when I do peer review, my classmates can tell me if it all makes sense. Also, I feel like my essay is hella messy with myths from multiple sources. Like they’re just everywhere and it might be confusing to a reader. I also wanna talk about how John Doe, the psychopathic killer, thought of himself as some supreme power that was placed on Earth to put people through judgement like a higher power would do in the afterlife in early mythology (think of like Judaism or the ancient Egyptians). I feel like this is important but I’d be going over the page limit so I’d have to cut down a lot. I’ll probably end up doing it later, but not today, I need sleep.

Lost of love,

Lumbini

Dear Great Aunt Helga,

I hope everything is going well for you in Orlando. In your last letter you mentioned something about a bingo-related hustle you’re running down there and I’d love to hear more about it! Anyway, I’m writing you this letter because you also asked me about this film paper I’m working on and I figured I’d try to explain it a little better. In a nut shell, my goal is to write an essay about the movie The Grand Budapest Hotel where I talk about the production history in relation to any mythological aspects of the film. Now those are a couple of big words so let me break it down for you. The production history is pretty much like the recipe of the movie: it involves looking at all the ingredients that make up the film (actors, backgrounds, costumes, the script, etc) and seeing how each one affects the final product, which in this case is the movie. In terms of the mythological aspect, I’m supposed to be looking at how universal themes or more national messages come across through the choices made by the director of the movie during the production.

As I’m writing this paper I am facing a few problems, so if you can think of any solutions I would really appreciate it! My main issue is that I have a lot of information on the production history for this particular film and I have a lot of ideas about universal themes or national themes that come up in The Grand Budapest Hotel but I’m not quite sure how to link them. For instance, I could easily talk about the universal theme of legacy since the movie surrounds the concierge of a hotel taking a new lobby boy under his wing to train him in the art of customer care. On the other hand, the movie takes place during a made up war in a made up country in Eastern Europe so I’m also sure that I could write a lot about more national themes related to World War II or the Cold War. The problem is that I’m not sure how to connect either of those two concepts to the production history of the movie which has a lot to do with building sets and props from scratch and the deliberate evasion of computer-animated effects. I might be able to resolve this problem if I can make a connection between Eastern Europe and the director’s interest in Stefan Zweig (he’s this old Austrian writer; I won’t get into it here but I’ll write more about him in my next letter if you’re interested). I’m going to keep researching and I’ll tell you more about my progress in my next letter.

If you happen to know anything that might be helpful, please write me back as soon as you can. As always, I love you a lot and I hope to visit you soon!

Your great niece,

Natalia

P.S. Writing this from the post office: I’ll send counterfeit bingo cards in the next envelope, my mom insisted on reading this letter before I sent it.

Dear Great-Aunt Helga,

I hope Orlando is treating you well this time of year. I guess the seasons really don’t affect much over there, but still, you never quite know when a hurricane might just roll through. I’m writing to you because you had asked me about the paper I am writing for my Myth in Hollywood seminar for my Myth Cluster, and so I thought I’d say a little about it as well as some problems I’ve been facing and some their possible fixes. You remember hearing about Interstellar, that “another space movie,” as you called it when it played during commercials, right? Now, I know you have never been very keen on Sci-Fi, but my paper is looking at how Interstellar is really a sort of myth, kind of like how one of your favorite movies, O Brother Where Art Thou, alleges itself to be based on the Odyssey. In particular, I have been looking into how the movie is saying something about us as a country in contrast to what is says about us as people. Its been a real challenge for me to make sure I structure it right, as I have a lot I want to say and am not sure I know exactly where I want what to be said. Additionally, I am handling a lot of different pieces of info that I have gathered, and so I am looking more carefully at how to examine what’s happening in the movie in terms of exactly what the messages are and how they are portrayed with what is happening behind the scenes. Since this is a myth and a film class, a lot of what I want to say is also reliant on how visual things like pictures or movies differ from books and other writing and also how religion and story get tied into all of that, so the level of interconnection is looking a bit like those gnarled and twisted banyan trees you used to take me to see near the everglades back when I used to visit every summer. So anyway, I am working to make sure everything has its own place while still flowing smoothly like one of those crocodiles you always mention that go down the stream. Anyway, just thought I’d write to you about how my time has been in this class. If my teacher Griffin ever gets famous from writing film stories, I’ll make sure to get you his autograph.

Hope to see you soon,

Ari

The Terminator, a classic and well-known movie, prized for its engaging futuristic story line and suspenseful action sequences, is an excellent movie when considering just that. However, when taking into account finer elements of the plot, such as underdeveloped characters including Kyle Reese and lack of antagonist motive other than computer programming, The Terminator presents a film that leaves the audience craving deeper character connection.

The first quarter of the movie included a great buildup of suspense and plot, setting up the other ¾ of the movie for great emotional and plot payoff. However, when Kyle reveals the reasoning behind why he volunteered to save Sarah, the character progression comes to a halt. One of the central reasons why the characters are weaker than other successful films are because the character building in The Terminator stems mostly from dialogue and not action. Like the popular saying goes: “actions speak louder than words”. When Kyle confesses his love for Sarah Connor, Sarah seems neither taken aback nor put off. Instead, the (new) couple proceeds to create the son who is the reasoning for Sarah’s kill order. This not only stunts the character growth of Kyle Reese but also reinforces the bleak and dull view of life that The Terminator reflects. Sarah’s immediate action and movements toward Kyle highlight a strain of desperate sadness and what looks like an attempt to grasp whatever reflection of love and connection she can attain. Similarly, the flickering shadows and low lighting of the scene serve to highlight the impending doom and darkness that shrouds Sarah and Kyle’s relationship. While the filmmakers of The Terminator did reflect Kyle’s affirmations of love in the scene shortly after, the lack of action taken previous to Kyle’s words minimize the potential impact this scene (among many others) could have had.

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.

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 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)

 

Though I thoroughly enjoyed Terminator, it, like any movie, has flaws. Among more obvious ones, such the often hilariously lacking special effects (in one scene Arnold Schwarzenegger briefly transforms into a horrifically lifeless stop motion figure, then jarringly regains his humanity in a single cut), are flaws present throughout the entire experience, largely due to its overriding focus on carnage and violence.

The main flaw that I found present during the entire film was the poor characterization of nearly all of its characters. Partially due to the sheer amount of time in the film dedicated to violent action sequences, the movie leaves little time to allow characters to interact and demonstrate emotional depth. Of the three main characters, the most well-defined and, frankly, interesting personality is that of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator, whose chillingly robotic characterization is interesting mostly because of its simplicity. We, as the audience, understand that the film will not devote much (if any) time developing his character, but we also understand his motivations and personality completely from the beginning of the film.

Of course, I would never claim that simplicity is the mark of a good character; on the contrary, more complex characters are nearly always more interesting to watch than more basic ones. In a movie like Terminator, however, it is immediately clear that the protagonists of the film will be granted the same lack of character development time as the Terminator, leaving us with characters like Kyle Reese, whose interesting concept is overshadowed entirely by the bland and brief portrayal of his character and motivations. In the few moments that he’s not shooting at the Terminator or screaming vaguely at Sarah Connors, he inhabits an almost comically hyperbolic vision of the future, where his “love” connection to Connors is established briefly and unsatisfyingly before returning to gratuitous (and, of course, awesome) displays of violence. Similarly, Sarah’s actions and dialogue do nothing to establish either her love for Reese or her world-weary angst at the end of the film, and seem thrown in as an afterthought to the adrenaline-fueled action of the movie.