Foot: Cleveland Film Festival part 2

Again, I saw Rubber (the serial killer tire).
A) Personal Issues: I think what I liked the most about this film was the absurdness of it. You can't examine this film too closely or I think it will be ruined. There is no reason for this film; it just is and it works, at least for me. I went into the film expecting the film to be totally crazy because the little blurb in the pamphlet we got commented that the film was absurd. I wasn't expecting some artistic movie that commented on the deeper meaning of life, so I had no problem with this film. I think other people will feel the same way, to differing extents, of course. If someone is expecting a serious film, then they will be disappointed by this film. But if they are just looking for a good time and for a few laughs, I think this film would be good.
B) Technique: While the acting in the movie was definitely over the top, the film was put together really well. The music really heightened what was going on and was mostly instrumental, which fit with what was going on. There were some sections that had lyrics, but this also worked. For example, some of the lyrics when the tire first sees the girl that is a main focus point, the lyrics are something like "Don't want to be lonely no more." It helped to give the tire personality that it might not have had since it couldn't talk. In my opinion, the special effects were pretty good. I couldn't see that there were strings or anything moving the tire, but it also didn't look like it was CGI. The tire looked real and really looked like it had a mind of its own. Overall, the film looked really good.
C) Acting: Robert, the tire, was the main character and really, even though it wasn't an actual actor, was probably the best "actor." Throughout the film, the tire really seems to have a mind of its own. I do have to say that the tire wouldn't have been as good by itself; it was definitely helped out by the real actors. Although they have names according to the cast list, they weren't really named during the film, so I won't call them by name. But the male actors who played the main cop and the accountant were two of my favorites, along with the actor in the wheel chair. While some of the acting was over the top (so serious that it was too serious and became funny), this fit with the mood of the film. Overall, I would say the actors were cast well and, given the situation of the movie, were believable.
D) Plot: Rubber is about a serial killer tire named Robert. Robert discovers that he is able to blow people up using his telekinetic powers and sets out on a killing spree. Meanwhile, a group of spectators are "safely" watching Robert from a distance and Robert is being chased by cops.
      Is the plot realistic and believable? Not at all. But for a movie that claims it is an homage to no reason, the plot really works. I thought the plot was pretty original. I have never seen or read anything about a serial killer tire, especially not one that has super powers. While watching the film, I tended to personify Robert. Even though I knew he was a tire, I would start to wonder what was he was thinking, why he was on this killing spree, and so on. I think since the film was able to do this, the plot, although extremely absurd, was good.
E) Themes: I think, if there is a deeper meaning to this film, it is that we try to put chaos into order, even when it will not benefit us. We try to make sense of everything around us, even though there are some things in this world that just defies sense.  But I also feel that this film doesn't need to have a deeper meaning. The cop at the beginning warns us that there is no point to this film and he is right. If I am right about the deeper meaning, it's not distracting from the plot.
F) Genre: If I had to choose, I would classify Rubber as a supernatural horror/comedy movie. I mean, there is a live tire that kills people, but the film is funny. But honestly, because Rubber sets itself up as being so absurd, I sort of feel like it is in its own class, although I don't know what that would be. I think many people want to believe in the supernatural, at least for a little bit of time. That's why movies about vampires and witches, or even superheroes are so popular. As a society, we like horror because it allows us to examine our fear without being in that situation. Finally, we like comedy because sometimes we just want to laugh. It doesn't matter from what, we just want to see things that make us laugh.
G) Representation: This film doesn't really represent different kinds of people because they aren't really the main focus points. Yes, there is diversity (men, women, children, teenagers, adults, there is a man in a wheelchair, there is an African American woman), but the film doesn't highlight their differences. They are just there watching a tire. This film isn't meant to examine life or people. There is no reason to the film.
H) Ideology: If I had to choose an ideology, I would go back to the deeper meaning I have already discussed. It's natural for human beings to try to make sense of the world around us, even when sense can't really be applied. I think the film challenges this belief, because the more someone tries to make sense of the film, the more he or she can't. As I've said before, the film has no reason. The plot is absurd, the characters are absurd. The whole concept of the film is crazy specifically so that the film won't make any real sense.

Foot: Cleveland Film Festival part 1

To be honest, at first I thought this was going to be somewhat a waste of time. I didn't really see the point of going all the way to Cleveland to see an independent film when the assignment we are doing with these films could quite easily be done with DVDs or movies in local theaters. While I still feel this way, I had a lot more fun at the festival than I thought I would. While I probably won't go back again simply because it is too much of a drive on top of other life stuff, I'm glad I did have to go because I really enjoyed the film. In a large part, this is because I went with Rebecca and some of her friends. This made it a lot more fun than going by myself.

(This is the trailer for the film we saw). We saw the film Rubber which is about a serial killer tire. The tire blows people's heads off using his telekinetic powers. At the same time, there are characters within the movie that are watching the tire's actions as if it is a movie. And then there are the characters in the movie that know (at first) that this is just a stunt, and then the tire continues on its killing spree. This sounds really confusing and it is hard to explain the movie. It was so absurd that if you were to really try to analyze it, the film would be ruined. Therein lies the awesomeness of this film. Even one of the characters (a cop chasing the tire) starts the film off telling the audience (both us and the audience in the movie) that some things are just like that: absurd and with "No Reason." This is definitely not a film for everyone and if you are looking for a meaningful film, you really shouldn't see Rubber. But the tire definitely steals the show and the film was well done, even if some of the acting was odd. But that also works with the film. The entire theater was laughing for most of the film. Overall, I think a lot of people will find something to laugh about with this film. I personally don't think it's quite a waste of time as some people say in their reviews on IMDB. But I enjoyed it and wouldn't mind seeing it again.

This video is the opening scene to the film.

Foot: Youtube Video

My dad emailed this to me. It is an actual school answering machine message and is about holding parents responsible. Or, at least the video claims it is real. I really liked this because it is so true. Yes, teachers have an influence on their students, but we are not with them all the time. Parents have to be held accountable for their kids and stop blaming teachers. At the same time, students need to hold themselves accountable. If I had homework to do and I didn't finish it, I owned up to it and so did most of my friends. Or I finished it before class was starting, but it was still up to me to finish it.

Foot: Spring Break

First, I would just like to wish everyone a good spring break. Enjoy the time off from classes. I know I will. While I'm definitely not taking the whole week off, I have worked it so that my homework will be done by Thursday (besides reading books-I don't really consider that homework if it is at least somewhat interesting). This way, I can have Friday and the weekend to relax and to take a break from school. But right now, I'm listening to music, typing this, wanting to play with my new cell phone and my puppy if there weren't people working on our roof. I also have a video game on pause! Then work tonight, and then maybe a little homework

Some of the customers where I work seem to think it's weird that I'm so eager for break. It's like they think that just because I am going to be a teacher, that automatically means that I want to be in school everyday. So not true, but I think a lot of people see that. Or there are a ton of people who go into teaching because of all the breaks. That's not why I'm in teaching and I'm sure anyone else in our class is the same. We're teachers because we know the value of education and want to pass that on. But that doesn't mean that we don't enjoy the time off. Teaching, even if we aren't really doing it yet, is draining and we need the time off to relax and regroup. Otherwise, we might become poor teachers, putting little effort into our plans and teaching. So the time off is good.

Anyway, have a good break, people! And I am jealous of anyone going on vacation...

Foot: Costanzo, Film in the English Class

First, I want to respond to one of the paragraphs on page 118. It is the first full paragraph and discusses how many different ways of showing and discussing a film in a class. A teacher may replay a certain scene or show the whole film before discussing. They may show a scene without the sound playing, asking students to imagine what they might hear. While this is ideal, how realistic is it really? If we are showing a movie in the classroom, most likely it is a way to kill some time (i.e., exam days, OGT week, and so on), as a reward for our students, or, in the best case scenario, because the film is related to the book we are reading. For example, students are reading Hamlet and are watching Brannagh's film version at the same time or after the reading. Watching film adaptations of Shakespeare is something that is common in the classroom, at least in my experience, because it helps students understand what is going on. But really, while we may be willing to take a couple of class periods to watch a movie, are we really going to spend a lot of time discussing that film when we have other things we have to cover? Sad to say but I really don't think so.

On a whole, I feel like this chapter is based on a film class or an English class that pretty much focused entirely on films, which is hard to believe. I don't feel like I got any information on how to incorporate watching films in my English class, beyond the mentioned method of helping students understand the literature. That's also sort of my issue with this book as a whole. I'm not really interested in how movies are made, so that aspect is out for me. I also feel like this book is meant for a class dedicated toward film, not classes that choose to utilize film to make their classrooms more technologically friendly. Maybe the study guide chapters are better; I don't really know because I've only skimmed through a couple. But so far, I don't find this book very useful for teaching secondary English.

Pytash: Jago, Chapter 5

Poetry is important, although it is not a favorite of mine. But there are simply concepts that can be well expressed in a poem form than in prose. I don't really know if I would start off the year with teaching poetry, but I can see how it would be helpful, rather than tackling a novel right away. I liked the example of Poe's The Raven because it really highlighted the struggle writers go through. It also highlights the importance of editing and revising, which is helpful for students. I just can't really see teaching a classic poem called The Parrot or, at least not a poem dealing with the same themes as The Raven. And of course modeling our thinking as we go through a poem is always useful and is a great strategy to get students thinking about a text.

I liked the suggestion of using song lyrics as an introduction to poetry or as a means to get students interested in poetry. This has been used many times to get students thinking about poetry. My question is why can't Jago see or write about young adult lit the same way? I feel like I am really beating this to death, but this really bugs me. If songs could be used as a springboard for learning poetry, couldn't Y.A. books be used as a springboard for canonical texts? If we are willing to spend a class period on songs as poetry, why not a week or so on "Romiette and Julio" to introduce students to "Romeo and Juliet"? Maybe I'm thinking about this too much, but I just don't get why Jago is so against using Y.A. lit in the classroom so long as it is relevant and meaningful. 

Pytash: Jago, Chapter 3

I know this is only the third chapter, but I am frustrated that I can't really figure out if I like this book or not. While I think Jago has a ton of good points, I can't help but disagree with her view of young adult literature. I think it is something that could be very worthwhile to be incorporated in her classroom. Obviously the literature should be relevant. We shouldn't teach Y.A. lit just because it is easier or because we need to fill some time. But if we do something like the project we're doing in class, real learning could take place. Yes, our students should be challenged. But what if the canonical text is too far out of their reach, even with our guidance? Should we just ignore the requirement of teaching "xyz" novel and ignore the knowledge that we are not helping our students learn? Or should we try to find ways to get around the reading level difficulty and still teach the same themes and so on. Obviously the answer is the latter. We should do all we can to solve the challenge of students not being able to read a classic text and I think the answer could lie in reading young adult lit.

For example, while I'm sure none of us really found "Of Mice and Men" hard to understand and even enjoy, our students may not be able to do so. We are English teachers because we love to read and and understand a novel. We know how it can mirror the world around us and are eager, to some degree, to make these connections. But many of our students won't be future English teachers. Some may not go to college. Some may never read for fun and really struggle with this activity. So it is quite plausible that these same students may not be able to read "Of Mice and Men" let alone even begin to comprehend the intricacies of the novel. So, it would be wise to teach a young adult novel that deals with some of the same issues, such as "Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes." Why not if it will help our students? We want to be in the Zone that Jago constantly stresses. We don't want to put in minimal effort, but we also don't want to challenge our students so much they give up.

On the other hand, while I disagree with her thoughts on Y.A. lit in the classroom, I really liked her idea of documenting what literature students read throughout their entire high school career. This is beneficial to the students because they can track their reading and see how they have progressed. It is beneficial to the teachers because we can track their reading. Is the difficulty really increasing? Are we teaching relevant books? Is one teacher being too easy or too hard? I think it could also be used as a form of alternative assessment, especially if students reflect on the record at the end.

Foot: 2 more articles

"I (heart) Novels" was pretty interesting to read. While many of the terms went right over my head, I was most interested in the debate about whether these cell phone novels are considered literature or not. One of the comments in the article was "the novels aren’t literature at all but the offspring of an oral tradition originating with mawkish Edo-period marionette shows and extending to vapid J-pop love ballads' (pg. 3). While I can't really say if the second half is true, I would definitely agree with the thought that these aren't literature, at least not in the way we think of literature. One of my main components for what is considered literary is if it has endured. How long has it been around? Is it a recent novel? Has it been attacked and criticized? Has it been studied? These cell phone novels, while interesting sounding, have not yet become literature, at least in my opinion. I also liked the quote from Banana Yoshimoto, who is an author of physical books, not these cell phone novels. She said, “Youth have their own kind of suffering, and I think that the cell-phone novels became an outlet for their suffering. If the cell-phone novels act as some consolation, that is fine.” She went on, “I personally am not interested in them as novels. I feel that it’s a waste of time to read them' (pg. 3) I just found this funny.

On the other hand, while it might not be something I teach in my class, if students are interested in it, I would do my best to incorporate these cellphone novels in my teaching somehow. Maybe they become choice reads or I just have copies in my classroom library that they can borrow. I also think it would be interesting to do a writing activity where the students mimic the type of writing in cellphone novels. We teach them how to write creatively, in different forms, so this could just be another lesson.

"Publish or Perish"

I like the idea of e-books, although I'm still mostly for physical books. If I could afford it, I would like to get an iPad or Kindle or something of the like for my textbooks for school. It would be a lot easier to carry one little piece of technology than a bunch of textbooks. Also, a bit cheaper than having the actual books. But if I'm going to be reading for pleasure, even if it's reading novels for school, I would rather have a physical book. I don't think I could get into the story as much without turning real pages, feeling the texture of the paper, or smelling the book, whether it's the musty smell of old books or the cleanness of new books. I like to randomly look at the cover while I'm reading, especially if a character is pictured. I can do this easily with a physical book: simply mark my spot in some way and shut the book as much as I need to. But with an e-reader, I would have to scroll all the way back to the cover. While this might not be really hard, it would be a pain if I was pretty far into the book. Having e-books would be easier to pack on vacation, but I would miss having the actual book. If I'm floating in the pool, the worse that could happen with a physical book would be that I drop it and I may need to buy a new one. If I drop an e-reader...well, I wouldn't even have it near the pool anyway, so I guess that doesn't really matter. There are upsides to e-books and e-readers and there are downsides. I just think I would really miss having actual books if I didn't have it.

Pytash: Jago, Chapter 1

The biggest thing that struck me was the opposite view of young adult literature that is presented in the book, as opposed to some of our other books and lectures. Not that it is a negative view or anything; Jago just believes we shouldn't really teach young adult lit in the classroom (or at least be not the only thing we teach) because these books are not truly literature, at least in the sense we think of with classics. I do agree with this, to some extent. Obviously, there is a reason we teach the classics. They are tried and true, these books have some value and can impact us as people, not just as readers. But I think there is value for reading young adult lit too, not just what Jago mentions. She acknowledges the pleasure reading value and how it can mirror the students' lives. But I think there could also be academic value for reading "Say the Word" or "Speak" or "The Hunger Games" or so on. I don't think it should be the only thing we teach, but Y.A. lit can deal with prevalent issues that are also apparent in classics. It's just that the Y.A. lit is more accessible. If we are only using Y.A. lit to help students so that they don't fall behind, then yes we are missing the point of young adult lit and how it can help our students. But I believe there is some merit there.