Discussion
As you can tell by the weight given to Discussion (50%) in determining your Final
Grade, I place a high value on Discussion. I believe Discussion is the critical
learning activity you perform during the semester that synthesizes what you've
learned from the assigned readings and watching the films. In addition, I’ve found
that truly engaging in the Discussions is the best predictor of your success in the
course.
So how do Discussions work?
Generally, you will have and a Discussion due each week. The discussion deals
with screenplay, the additional materials on the syllabus for that week, and, the
film whose poster is shown on the left of the syllabus for that week. Additionally,
at the top of each week, you will see that I’ve noted a theme for that week such
as Character or Dialogue.
Those are starting points for the discussion;
however, you can also discuss other relevant topics of interest.
The Discussions will take place on blackboard in the discussion forum. You are
required to post a minimum of two posts per Discussion. I encourage you to
post as early in the week as you can. Then to check the Discussion each day
and keep abreast of what others are posting and to engage in discussion with
your classmates. So, while I am only requiring a minimum of two posts per
discussion, I am hoping that you will be posting more often.
What are you looking for in the discussion?
I am looking for critical analysis not mere plot summary. State your opinions,
pose questions, and provide us with your insights. As noted earlier, I have listed
topics for each week that can serve as starting points for the discussion, but you
are not limited to those topics. Be insightful, be opinionated, be reflective. Take
advantage of this opportunity for sharing your observations and thoughts about
the material we’re studying.
How are Discussions graded?
Here is the Grading Scale I use:
A+ =
10 Points
A
=
9.5 Points
A- =
9 Points
B
=
8.5 Points
B- =
8 Points
C
=
7.5 Points
C- =
7 Points
D
=
6.5 Points
D- =
6 Points
E
= under 6 Points
When grading your posts, I classify them into one of the following three
categories:
1. Substantial Posts
2. Meaningful Posts
3. Unsatisfactory Posts
Substantial Posts are outstanding posts that represent the best posts in the
discussion. These posts provide detailed, in-depth analysis. Since Discussion is
the only regular weekly activity you have to demonstrate to me that you are
engaged in the course and doing the work necessary to learn the material, you
need to make sure that your posts reflect the effort you are putting into the class.
Meaningful Posts are quality posts that do not go into the depth or level of detail
that merits a Substantial Post rating. Nevertheless, they do make a solid
contribution to the discussion. While they typically are shorter than Substantial
Posts, it is not mere length that determines the difference between a Substantial
Post and a Meaningful Post. Shorter, particularly insightful posts may well be
judged as a Substantial Post, while a long plot summary post may not even
achieve a Meaningful Post rating.
Unsatisfactory Posts are just that. They are posts that provide little or no
meaningful content. For example, a post that is mere plot summary would be an
Unsatisfactory Post because there is no analysis. After all, presumably, we have
all watched the film and don't need you to tell us what happened. Similarly, a post
that merely says I agree with someone's post is fine, but it won't earn you any
credit in the discussion.
In order to earn an A for a discussion, you must have a minimum of three
posts in each discussion (that’s right to earn an A, you must go beyond the
two post minimum requirement)
and
you must demonstrate that you are truly engaged in the Discussion and are
not just a hit-and-run poster.
Among those three posts, you must have at least one Substantial Post and two
Meaningful Posts (for each discussion). If you do that and demonstrate that you
are engaged in the discussion by responding in a meaningful way to other
students’ posts, you will receive a 9, the lowest possible A. Should you do
better than that, then you could earn an even higher A.
To clarify, in order to show you are engaged in the discussion, at least one
of your posts in each discussion must be a response to another student. And
that post must be considered at least a Meaningful post. So simply saying you
agree or disagree with someone, without furthering the discussion in a
meaningful way will not count as being engaged in the discussion.
In summary, I want to see that you are not only posting Substantial and
Meaningful posts but also reading your classmates’ posts and responding to
them. This is how you will gain the most from the class.
Perhaps the easiest way to differentiate between a Substantial and a Meaningful
Post is to give you a couple of examples.
Here are two Sample Substantial Posts. The first is from one of my Studies in
International Film class, the second from a Literature into Film class.
Sample Substantial Post 1:
Akira Kurosawa’s 1952 film “Ikiru” is the type of movie that can change a life, or
at least change a person’s way of looking at life. It is an extremely moving, and very,
very good film. To me, it also stands as a superb example of the emotional and
inspirational power of cinema.
First, I’ve got to start with Takashi Shimura. What astonishing range from this
actor. It is so impressive that this is the same guy we also saw as the leader of the samurai
in “Shichinin no samurai.” And here, what a performance. Kurosawa with “Ikiru” makes
great use of close-ups and faces, but there is none more expressive and telling than that of
Shimura. Every emotion, every thought, every feeling is written on his aged, worried, and
weary face. He so effectively goes from a gut-wrenching concern in the doctor’s office,
to sheer terror hidden away in the darkness of his son’s room, to total bewilderment when
out on the town with the writer, to a smile, particularly when he’s with Toyo Odagiri
(Miki Odagiri) that gives his character great warmth—he even comments as such. And
look at the scenes of them together. These are some of my favorite moments, these times
when he finds such joy and refreshment in the simplicity of youth (“They make you that
happy?” he perplexingly asks Odagiri about her new stockings).
She represents to him so much possibility, possibility that seems to have been lost
with his son, though the early flashbacks of his reminisces with his boy are quite
touching. Not finding satisfaction from wild abandon and drunken revelry, the
contentment he shows just watching this silly girl eat noodles and play games is so
powerfully conveyed by Shimura. She, and we, really begin to understand this character
through the development of their relationship.
The narrative strategy Kurosawa employs is also interesting I think; not so much
the splitting into two of the story structure, he did that before and after this picture, but
the way he switches our emotional expectations around. In the beginning, we are pretty
much instantly thrust into sadness (the first image is of Watanabe’s cancer) and it
seemingly gets worse and worse as his familiar relationships dissolve, Odagiri becomes
somewhat leery of him, and he ultimately, and abruptly, dies. But then, Kurosawa does a
curious thing and makes the second half of the film (aside from the wake) comprised of a
series of vignettes that, for me anyway, elicited nothing but smiles—seeing his
determination, his drive, his defiance (standing up to the yakuza by simply entering a
room for instance). Typically in stories like this, dealing with someone’s death and their
illness, we get the characters being happy in the beginning then we see their demise; that
is what creates the sadness and the sympathy. But Kurosawa knows that life doesn’t
necessarily follow that progression. Instead, sometimes there is great joy and acceptance
only after the worst has happened. The great Japanese film scholar Donald Richie has
compared the structure to “Citizen Kane.”
The above also follows with Kurosawa’s general penchant for shifting tone
throughout the film. As I mentioned, right away we find out (through a narrator no less,
notably not a terribly distancing one) that our protagonist has cancer. But then what do
we get? A sequence of a sadly amusing example of beaurocratic absurdity (even with the
pest control guy swatting a fly). Are we to laugh at this? Or later, after we see Watanabe
so happy with the girl, the next scene is of him getting (crucially) ignored by his son. And
then there’s the key scene when he decides that though he can’t make anything at his
office like the girl makes toy rabbits, he can, however, make a difference. He’s
rejuvenated. He goes back to work and opens up the case about the cess pool and the park
(notice we still hear “Happy Birthday” being played over this—this is a rebirth, a new
start, a turning point), but then, he dies.
What is Kurosawa driving at here? I think he is simply showing us, as the title of
the film suggests, what it’s like “to live.” This film is an exceptional example of the
realities, to say nothing of the complexities, of life, of living. I feel there are two
remarkably significant lines of dialogue in the film. The first is when Odagiri, referring to
Watanabe’s behavior with her, asks, “What’s the point?” As simple as it is, and though
it’s maybe said in a different context, that’s the sort of existential question that really lies
at the heart of this film. The second exchange, and for me the one that truly makes the
film have such a personal impact, is when one of the city workers notes at the wake that
they would have done the same if they knew they were dying. “Anyone of us could drop
dead,” counters a Watanabe supporter. That’s sort of the message, for lack of a better
word, of the film. We are all going to die. Watanabe knew he was for sure—he had a
timeline. But we all know our death is imminent, it’s just that in most cases we don’t
have that temporal reference point. So, essentially, we’d better get busy doing something
worthwhile while we’re here.
I first saw this film about seven years ago, and I’ve seen it probably two or three
times since, but watching again it this weekend, after several years, I found it to be quite
remarkable just how different the picture was for me personally. I’m only 26, so there
were obviously some parts of what was happening with Watanabe that I couldn’t really
relate to, but for me, with at least some degree of maturity (in addition to life, work,
family, etc.), came a new understanding of the film and its central issues. That, I think, is
one of the key attributes of a great film, that ability for it to speak to audiences in
different ways as they, and it, and the world, age. New aspects of the movie became
relevant, some seemed less so, but in the end I found myself coming away from the
picture even more pleased than ever before. It is a great cinematic achievement, one of
Kurosawa’s finest for sure, and one of great humanity, thoughtfulness, joy, sorrow, and
all those emotions in between—I can’t imagine seeing Watanabe on that swing in the
snow, filmed in such a tranquil and reserved manner as Kurosawa does, without being
moved to tears.
I’m sure the comparison has been made by many, probably many times over, but
for those who also enjoyed this film I just wanted to emphatically recommend the films
of Yasujiro Ozu. There are some major, and vitally important, stylistic differences, but a
lot of Ozu’s films also deal with similar topics, and they are also extremely excellent
pictures. – Jeremy Carr
This text demonstrates that the author has not only watched the film but
also has analyzed it in great detail. Notice that he doesn't merely say that
Shimura does a great job as an actor. Instead, he analyzes Shimura's
performance. Also, he doesn't merely provide plot summary. Instead, he
analyzes the film's narrative structure. In addition, he analyzes the film's
tone, examines some key dialogue, and compares Kurosawa to another
Japanese master, Ozu.
Sample Substantial Post 2:
I have in my past posts shared my small disappointments with film adaptations of
the books we have read, but with Presumed Innocence, my disappointment has overfilled
and I see the adaptation as such a pale imitation of such a great story.
The story was great because it gave less of the cop investigation and more of court
litigation. I found that I enjoyed the story much more in this sense. The character of
Rusty and the inner turmoil he faces when hit with this trial bring the whole story to an
amazing depth. I very clearly perceive the characters like he does. I feel betrayed when
Raymond crosses Rusty, and experience the friendship with Stern as he works through
Rusty‘s case meticulously. The way the book was written, from Rusty’s point of view,
was a way to truly well-integrate readers into his experience, but at the same time served
well in the mystery, as Turow states, because he holds back information too.
But the movie to me was truly a shortfall to such a great piece of writing. It seemed like
the filmmakers were trying too hard to keep in things from the book such as dialogue or
characters, so the overall movie seems rushed. The exchange between Nico and Rusty at
the funeral for example, fires off such rapid dialogue that the words almost lose their
meeting. One second Nico is mentioning Carolyn, then the case, then how hard it
would’ve been to beat Rusty politically, all in the same breath. The same proves for
certain events, like the political race or even the extent of Rusty and Carolyn’s
relationship. These events are strived to be included that they almost seem smashed into
the film and most scenes serve to be quickly forgotten.
A couple scene examples would be those with Carolyn and Rusty in her bedroom and
during the “break-up.” While in bed with Rusty Carolyn talks about getting the
prosecuting attorney job and then is abruptly angry that Rusty tells her to go for it. It just
seemed like they were slipping this ‘double motive’ into the scene to fill up space, instead
of the very sparse (and creepy, in my opinion) dialogue the two have in the book about
Rusty’s wife in comparison to Carolyn. Overall the film’s attack on the plot almost made
the role of Carolyn unneeded for anything more than a victim to the crime Rusty is being
accused of. So when scenes started up that included her, I was so surprised that she was
being included at all.
This may be chalked up to tackling the story from a third-person limited view instead of
the first-person view that served the book so well. We can’t understand what Rusty thinks
when he is with Carolyn or what subtext is to the words of DellaGuardia at the funeral,
simply because Harrison Ford doesn’t narrate the entire movie (if he did, I think it would
make things worse). So the jilted new scenes of Rusty creepily stalking Carolyn at her
apartment and seeing her with a new guy or Raymond asking Rusty if “a judgeship would
be enough to satisfy” Carolyn are definitely poor in the movie, but serve to give the
audience something that they don’t have the luxury of automatically getting in the book:
inference and foreshadowing.
All in all I think the book of Presumed Innocent is an amazing piece of courtroom and
crime drama that I was very glad to have read, but I feel that the decision to make an
adaptation of it was probably worst that could be made. Despite it’s “easier” elements
(I.e. it takes place in a city, in a courtroom, the people are normal and not androids or
something crazier) I still think Presumed Innocent is the hardest story of all that we have
read to fully grasp. I know I struggled with certain pieces (especially Barbara’s motives)
and I feel that that struggle is exactly why the film just didn’t resonate well with me.
What about everyone else though? Am I alone here in my distaste for the film or should I
be ashamed for ridiculing such a great movie? I’d like to know what everyone’s take was
on both. – Christian Bejar
What I like about this post is that it is not a mere summary of what
happened in the book or film (that's boring), but analysis. He states his
opinion and then attempts to convince the reader through specific
examples. He also analyzes how point-of-view affects both the book and
the film. That's an A quality substantial post. As you will see below, a
Meaningful Post is not as in-depth or detailed as a Substantial Post, yet it
still has something to say.
Here are two Meaningful Posts. The first is from a Studies in International film
class, the second from a Literature into Film class.
Sample Meaningful Post 1:
Christine, as you correctly note, there are indeed many games taking place in this
labyrinthine film. For me, the three main games being played here are the preposterous
game, as you write, “between who’s who and who’s not;” there is the game “of risking
life and limb”—this sadly seems to be certainly the most troubling way of determining
who is ultimately the winner; and finally there is also the game of love and marriage, and
this obviously sparks some considerable contention. Can there be a winner here then? I’m
not sure. You write that, “If ‘everybody lies’ (or cheats) according to Octave, who then,
is the ultimate winner?” Well, it is true that nearly everyone seems to deceive, but does
that lying actually prohibit a winner? It may not be right, but let’s face it, cheaters (and
liars) can and do win. That said then, it is quite possible that more characters than we
think (or more than we would like to accept) come out as winners. The next morning,
after the film leaves off, disturbingly enough I get the sense that these people will carry
on just the same, unaffected; perhaps, tragically, only Andre’s life has truly been altered.
By dawn’s light, all will be forgiven and forgotten(?). –- Jeremy Carr
Okay, what I like here is that it isn't just a post that merely says I agree with
you. Instead, it engages with what the other writer wrote and expands upon
the point the other writer made. Clearly, this adds to the class discussion.
However, it does not merit as much credit as the sample Substantial Posts.
As it happens, this particular post helps the writer in another way as well.
How? Well, by responding in a meaningful manner to another student, this
writer is demonstrating that he is engaged in the discussion. Obviously, he
must have read Christine's post in order to respond to her. Just as with any
post, a response post can be categorized as a Substantial, Meaningful, or
Unsatisfactory Post. However, if it is an Unsatisfactory Post, then it does
not count as engagement.
Sample Meaningful Post 2:
What does it mean to presume? When I think of the word "presume," it connotes a
certain sense of assumption, or a blind overconfidence. Certainly, then, in reading Scott
Turow's novel "Presumed Innocent," I committed one of the gravest follies of readers: I
presumed I knew who had committed the murder.
I was tricked. Tricked by a simple literary device and complex plot. "Where did I go
wrong?" I ask myself. I decided to trust my guide, the narrator of the journey, someone I
believe to be telling me everything I needed to know. Mistake number one. Never trust
the first person, present tense narrative. They are always unreliable!
The second pitfall was presuming Barbara to be innocent. There is a certain kind of irony
to the title of the book. My overconfidence in the narrator and in my own ability as a
reader left me completely bereft of the subtle clues that the author left along the way. The
revelation of Turow's complex plot was magnificent: Sabich's discovery of Carolyn's bar
set (a complete set of twelve glasses), the fact that the murder was committed on April
1st (April Fools' Day), the third fingerprint on the glass. etc. I was completely oblivious
to even entertaining the idea that it could have been Rusty's wife. Why? Because I was so
caught up in believing, overconfidently, that Turow was leading me to the conclusion of a
setup. But the question remained, "Who killed Carolyn?" Then, when you throw in the
discovery that Carolyn had her tubes tied and the hypothesis of the diaphragm went out
the window, I was left guessing and taking shots in the dark. But considering Barbara as
the assailant never crossed my mind.
…If you are keeping score, Turow is up by two, now.
As I contemplate my casual mistakes, I am reminded not so much of the follies that I
made as a reader but of Turow’s amazing ability as a writer to command the characters
and plot. The author knows that we as readers will follow and trust Rusty-- skeptically, of
course--and thus Turow, through his use of rhetoric and plot, capitalizes on that
presumption in a remarkable way.
In the end, and as the novel comes to a close, I greatly enjoy Turow's philosophical
ending, "What is harder? Knowing the truth or finding it, telling it or believing it?" That
was our narrator's internal conflict for the second half of the novel. Rusty knew the truth:
he was innocent; he didn't kill Carolyn. He knew something was out of place when he
noticed the complete set of the twelve glasses in Carolyn's apartment. How his seed
ended up in Carolyn the night of the murder. And Rusty had no problem telling the truth.
The conflict was finding the truth and then believing it. – Laura Johnson
Here we see a writer analyzing how she was fooled. Again, the key point is
that she doesn’t merely say she was fooled, but analyzes why. And the fact
that she writes in a very entertaining manner doesn’t hurt either.
Subject lines:
Be creative in your Post subject lines. It’s more fun for the reader and
shows off your wit and creativity.
I hope this clears up any questions you may have regarding Discussion. If
not, please email me.