Media Literacy, Critical Writing and Reviews
The Twists of Turning Red by Gregory J. Golda
I had the distinct pleasure the other day of sitting down to watch Pixar/Disney's new feature called Turning Red. Now why was it a distinct pleasure? Because my guest for the screening was my 8-year-old godchild. She happens to be the daughter of Moroccan and Arabic parents. She has a very outsized personality and a vocabulary to match. She had seen the film once before me and convinced me that I MUST watch it. From the opening credits, I realized it was based in Toronto since I had spent so much time there as a child. The city is just north of my hometown of Buffalo NY. Well, my little friend was very impressed that I had been to the same town as our protagonist- Mei-Mei.
As the film unfolded, she was very eager to spoil every upcoming plot point, so I tried to teach her a little bit about film viewing etiquette. And in turn, she tried to teach me the lyrics to all the songs. And remember, she had only seen this film once and had it down.
Our protagonist Mei-Mei is a young, prepubescent girl of Chinese descent. Her parents seem to be second generation Canadians and Mei-Mei's friend group is a cross section of the Canadian population. The ensemble cast reminded me a bit of Big Hero 6, minus the superpowers. Well, I don't want to spoil it, but Mei-Mei does indeed have a superpower which was the unexpected twist. Just when you think you've figured out what the movie is, it becomes something else entirely.
Head-snapping twist aside, what fascinated me most about this film was my little 8-year-old companion's obliviousness to the subtext of the story. Considering her age, she was probably not in any way following the inferences to Mei-Mei actually hitting puberty. Pixar's success, in my estimation, has always been that it's able to create stories that read on multiple levels. Children enjoy them just as much as adults but for different reasons.
After I watched the film and marveled in the uniqueness of the story, I looked online and saw that a critic had called it unrelatable. (She later apologized for the charge) I was mystified by that. The setting and characters were just a little off from Disney's old mainstream ways and maybe the hostility comes from a bias of familiarity. Is different bad? Should media only be set in New York City? Well, it does feel like that more often than not because of the overabundance of portrayals of American cities and especially New York City. Is Canada a (Peace) bridge too far?
As I mentioned before, I'm from Buffalo New York and when I, as a child, saw any representation of Buffalo in the mass media it was always shocking to me. (and usually related to snow) It was exciting. I felt like somebody was paying attention to my existence by mentioning my city. Now, considering that I'm a white male, representation was never an issue when it came to the possibilities in my life. I grew up seeing representations of whiteness and cis male masculinity at every turn. I could truly imagine being anything I put my mind to. But, something was different about place for me. My first visit to New York City was when I was 26 years old. Toronto was always our family's first choice for a metropolitan visit as NYC was over 400 miles away. But actually visiting New York City for the first time blew me away. New York City was familiar to me from all its depictions. It felt like every movie, sitcom, play, graphic novel and rom-com was set here. Everywhere I turned I saw something I recognized. I felt like TV and movie writers never left the 5 boroughs.
So, for Turning Red, setting a movie in Toronto felt kind of bold. And then telling the story about a tiger mom, who turns out to actually be a red panda mom, was superbly amusing and I can only imagine, empowering for young women seeing themselves in these characters, situations, and places.
Several YouTube videos have gone viral thanks to Good Morning America running these reactions of little kids seeing themselves in recent movies. Films like Encanto are filled with representations of children of color. As someone who's never really felt 'outside' of the mass media, I think it's important to reflect on that empowerment. It's important to look at that privilege and say, EVERYBODY needs to feel that specialness of representation. And those who are constantly represented need to acknowledge it and behold its power.
The more racial, gender and sexual representation, the more people feel seen and humanized. Mei-Mei normalizes the awkwardness of falling in love for the first time. We relate to the unfathomable shame of your parents trying to talk to you about puberty and the bottomless embarrassment of your parents airing your innermost desires to the world. This film sets up a world in which the parent's authority is supreme and the child's aspiration structure is based on pleasing them. And, in another finely tuned turn of the narrative, reveals how to assert independence from a (literally) monstrously oversized and overprotective mother to become your own person. Seeing a film like this can guide children to understand their bodies, connect to their communities, deal with their families, choose their friends and control their autonomy without having to make all of Mei-Mei's mistakes for themselves.
I hope my little screening partner will grow up seeing herself represented many times over and I hope that builds her confidence that she belongs, and this world is hers to explore and thrive within.
GJG 2022
I had the distinct pleasure the other day of sitting down to watch Pixar/Disney's new feature called Turning Red. Now why was it a distinct pleasure? Because my guest for the screening was my 8-year-old godchild. She happens to be the daughter of Moroccan and Arabic parents. She has a very outsized personality and a vocabulary to match. She had seen the film once before me and convinced me that I MUST watch it. From the opening credits, I realized it was based in Toronto since I had spent so much time there as a child. The city is just north of my hometown of Buffalo NY. Well, my little friend was very impressed that I had been to the same town as our protagonist- Mei-Mei.
As the film unfolded, she was very eager to spoil every upcoming plot point, so I tried to teach her a little bit about film viewing etiquette. And in turn, she tried to teach me the lyrics to all the songs. And remember, she had only seen this film once and had it down.
Our protagonist Mei-Mei is a young, prepubescent girl of Chinese descent. Her parents seem to be second generation Canadians and Mei-Mei's friend group is a cross section of the Canadian population. The ensemble cast reminded me a bit of Big Hero 6, minus the superpowers. Well, I don't want to spoil it, but Mei-Mei does indeed have a superpower which was the unexpected twist. Just when you think you've figured out what the movie is, it becomes something else entirely.
Head-snapping twist aside, what fascinated me most about this film was my little 8-year-old companion's obliviousness to the subtext of the story. Considering her age, she was probably not in any way following the inferences to Mei-Mei actually hitting puberty. Pixar's success, in my estimation, has always been that it's able to create stories that read on multiple levels. Children enjoy them just as much as adults but for different reasons.
After I watched the film and marveled in the uniqueness of the story, I looked online and saw that a critic had called it unrelatable. (She later apologized for the charge) I was mystified by that. The setting and characters were just a little off from Disney's old mainstream ways and maybe the hostility comes from a bias of familiarity. Is different bad? Should media only be set in New York City? Well, it does feel like that more often than not because of the overabundance of portrayals of American cities and especially New York City. Is Canada a (Peace) bridge too far?
As I mentioned before, I'm from Buffalo New York and when I, as a child, saw any representation of Buffalo in the mass media it was always shocking to me. (and usually related to snow) It was exciting. I felt like somebody was paying attention to my existence by mentioning my city. Now, considering that I'm a white male, representation was never an issue when it came to the possibilities in my life. I grew up seeing representations of whiteness and cis male masculinity at every turn. I could truly imagine being anything I put my mind to. But, something was different about place for me. My first visit to New York City was when I was 26 years old. Toronto was always our family's first choice for a metropolitan visit as NYC was over 400 miles away. But actually visiting New York City for the first time blew me away. New York City was familiar to me from all its depictions. It felt like every movie, sitcom, play, graphic novel and rom-com was set here. Everywhere I turned I saw something I recognized. I felt like TV and movie writers never left the 5 boroughs.
So, for Turning Red, setting a movie in Toronto felt kind of bold. And then telling the story about a tiger mom, who turns out to actually be a red panda mom, was superbly amusing and I can only imagine, empowering for young women seeing themselves in these characters, situations, and places.
Several YouTube videos have gone viral thanks to Good Morning America running these reactions of little kids seeing themselves in recent movies. Films like Encanto are filled with representations of children of color. As someone who's never really felt 'outside' of the mass media, I think it's important to reflect on that empowerment. It's important to look at that privilege and say, EVERYBODY needs to feel that specialness of representation. And those who are constantly represented need to acknowledge it and behold its power.
The more racial, gender and sexual representation, the more people feel seen and humanized. Mei-Mei normalizes the awkwardness of falling in love for the first time. We relate to the unfathomable shame of your parents trying to talk to you about puberty and the bottomless embarrassment of your parents airing your innermost desires to the world. This film sets up a world in which the parent's authority is supreme and the child's aspiration structure is based on pleasing them. And, in another finely tuned turn of the narrative, reveals how to assert independence from a (literally) monstrously oversized and overprotective mother to become your own person. Seeing a film like this can guide children to understand their bodies, connect to their communities, deal with their families, choose their friends and control their autonomy without having to make all of Mei-Mei's mistakes for themselves.
I hope my little screening partner will grow up seeing herself represented many times over and I hope that builds her confidence that she belongs, and this world is hers to explore and thrive within.
GJG 2022
Click Image above to read on International Council for Media Literacy site
The best film you've probably never seen comes from 1925 and has never been more relevant than today. In 1905, Russian sailors mutinied on a battleship because of their deplorable living conditions under the officers of Czar Nicholas II. After being forced to eat rotten meat they took over the ship and threw the Russian Czar's officers overboard.
In that same year, filmmakers created a reenactment of the events that took place on the battleship Potemkin. The 1905 film ‘Revolution in Russia’ (link below) looks to us like a filmed stage play. Replete with miniatures and painted sets the filmmakers essentially made a narrative newsreel to tell the tale. It is a fateful story which I'm sure was gripping to audiences of the nascent movie houses of its day. If we flash-forward 19 years we would find a new film maker expressing a completely new film language retelling this story. Sergei Eisenstein was commissioned by Stalin to reinforce the Soviet vision and remind Russians of the tyrannical days under the Czar. Eisenstein started planning a multi-episode film of at least 8 vignettes of the communist revolution. But, with a
shrinking schedule and small budget he settled on telling one story in five chapters. His 1925 film ``The Battleship Potemkin” (link below) has been considered one of the finest films ever created. And while the whole film is a technical marvel of its time, one chapter of the story in particular shows a whole new film language that still speaks to us until the present day.
In my introduction to media studies classes I screen this segment and explain the theoretical basis of, so-called, “Soviet montage”. With this technique, viewers make some pretty big assumptions about the actions they are seeing on screen. The sequence of cuts gives meaning to the actions and intentions in the viewers mind. Often in this montage approach, students, when asked, say they saw an action they did not. Many actions are inferred but not shown. This ‘suturing’ phenomenon is the core of the technique. Meaning is created within the viewer's brain from the juxtaposition of visuals.
Before running this film, I always start with the 1905 version. Students in the class are familiar with George Melies’ fantastical short films like ‘Trip to the Moon’ and the Lumiere Brothers actualities. So when they watch ‘Revolution in Russia’ I think they are mildly amused by the film's archaic special effects, gratuitous use of forced perspective and obvious ‘dummies’ being thrown overboard.
In that same year, filmmakers created a reenactment of the events that took place on the battleship Potemkin. The 1905 film ‘Revolution in Russia’ (link below) looks to us like a filmed stage play. Replete with miniatures and painted sets the filmmakers essentially made a narrative newsreel to tell the tale. It is a fateful story which I'm sure was gripping to audiences of the nascent movie houses of its day. If we flash-forward 19 years we would find a new film maker expressing a completely new film language retelling this story. Sergei Eisenstein was commissioned by Stalin to reinforce the Soviet vision and remind Russians of the tyrannical days under the Czar. Eisenstein started planning a multi-episode film of at least 8 vignettes of the communist revolution. But, with a
shrinking schedule and small budget he settled on telling one story in five chapters. His 1925 film ``The Battleship Potemkin” (link below) has been considered one of the finest films ever created. And while the whole film is a technical marvel of its time, one chapter of the story in particular shows a whole new film language that still speaks to us until the present day.
In my introduction to media studies classes I screen this segment and explain the theoretical basis of, so-called, “Soviet montage”. With this technique, viewers make some pretty big assumptions about the actions they are seeing on screen. The sequence of cuts gives meaning to the actions and intentions in the viewers mind. Often in this montage approach, students, when asked, say they saw an action they did not. Many actions are inferred but not shown. This ‘suturing’ phenomenon is the core of the technique. Meaning is created within the viewer's brain from the juxtaposition of visuals.
Before running this film, I always start with the 1905 version. Students in the class are familiar with George Melies’ fantastical short films like ‘Trip to the Moon’ and the Lumiere Brothers actualities. So when they watch ‘Revolution in Russia’ I think they are mildly amused by the film's archaic special effects, gratuitous use of forced perspective and obvious ‘dummies’ being thrown overboard.
But, something radical, electrifying, and even- terrible hits the screen when the 1925 version of the story flickers to life.
The immediate difference between the films is the use of locations. This highly influential scene takes place on the steps of the port in Odessa Ukraine. It is a historically inaccurate location but it serves as an iconic backdrop for this remarkable piece of cinema history.
The chapter opens with the citizens of Odessa eagerly greeting the mutinous ship with supplies. Interestingly, there is no single “star” in this film. In keeping with the communist ideology, the characters come from all backgrounds and essentially share the spotlight to move the story forward. Eisenstein would cast actors based on their appearances and did not usually hire stars for his films.
This being a silent film, the festive mood is broken by an inter-title with the bold text quote “Suddenly!” And so begins Eisenstein’s cinematic tour de force.
The immediate difference between the films is the use of locations. This highly influential scene takes place on the steps of the port in Odessa Ukraine. It is a historically inaccurate location but it serves as an iconic backdrop for this remarkable piece of cinema history.
The chapter opens with the citizens of Odessa eagerly greeting the mutinous ship with supplies. Interestingly, there is no single “star” in this film. In keeping with the communist ideology, the characters come from all backgrounds and essentially share the spotlight to move the story forward. Eisenstein would cast actors based on their appearances and did not usually hire stars for his films.
This being a silent film, the festive mood is broken by an inter-title with the bold text quote “Suddenly!” And so begins Eisenstein’s cinematic tour de force.
With the repeated snap of a woman's head the violence begins for the people gathered at the steps. This peculiar technique breaks cinematic time and pushes the film in a completely new expressionistic direction. The film is no longer representing reality- it represents the feeling of reality.
Eisenstein was tasked to create a film that reminded Russians in 1925 of the horrors of living under the Czar. So, as bad as it was to be in Russia in 1925 under Stalin, the point of the film was to show that it was once much worse.
The music for this film was written specifically for it and that synchronization lends even more power to the narrative. The film has been called the first music video for good reason. Its montage technique and pounding and thrilling music has been referenced in films like “the Untouchables” and even an episode of “The Simpsons”.
Reactions to this film from the students have ranged from sorrow and horror, to rage. They may not initially know what Cossacks are, but, by the end of this segment of the film they do hate them.
Presidents, by my estimation, are elected and accountable to their people. Playing out in our reality today, near those same steps, Russian forces of the new “Czar”, the unaccountable and tyrannical Vladimir Putin, threaten and mow down civilians in 2022.
The Communist ideologies of unity and egalitarianism long abandoned, the new reign of terror that comes marching down on the Ukrainian people is all too familiar callback to Russia's imperialist and cinematic past. The latest remake of this continuing story is like a cinema verite montage broken into hundreds of news clips and vertical actualities we now call tik-toks. I’m hoping for a happy ending with the dummies again being thrown overboard and peace returning to the Ukrainian people.
Revolution in Russia (1905) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JJ4lZE1768
PART 4 -The Odessa Steps - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xP-8r7tygo
Eisenstein was tasked to create a film that reminded Russians in 1925 of the horrors of living under the Czar. So, as bad as it was to be in Russia in 1925 under Stalin, the point of the film was to show that it was once much worse.
The music for this film was written specifically for it and that synchronization lends even more power to the narrative. The film has been called the first music video for good reason. Its montage technique and pounding and thrilling music has been referenced in films like “the Untouchables” and even an episode of “The Simpsons”.
Reactions to this film from the students have ranged from sorrow and horror, to rage. They may not initially know what Cossacks are, but, by the end of this segment of the film they do hate them.
Presidents, by my estimation, are elected and accountable to their people. Playing out in our reality today, near those same steps, Russian forces of the new “Czar”, the unaccountable and tyrannical Vladimir Putin, threaten and mow down civilians in 2022.
The Communist ideologies of unity and egalitarianism long abandoned, the new reign of terror that comes marching down on the Ukrainian people is all too familiar callback to Russia's imperialist and cinematic past. The latest remake of this continuing story is like a cinema verite montage broken into hundreds of news clips and vertical actualities we now call tik-toks. I’m hoping for a happy ending with the dummies again being thrown overboard and peace returning to the Ukrainian people.
Revolution in Russia (1905) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JJ4lZE1768
PART 4 -The Odessa Steps - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xP-8r7tygo
Breaking Boba: Walter White's Transformation vs Boba Fett's Puzzling Rebirth
By Gregory J. Golda
When the dust settled on episode 7 of the Book of Boba Fett and one surveys the rubble, it's clear that both Mos Espa and the future of Star Wars need some serious rebuilding. A long, long time ago, in a country situated on top of the Mediterranean Sea a philosopher and scientist named Aristotle set his sights on what makes for good fiction. A couple thousand years later we can still get a good insight into how narratives glue us to characters and situations or how they can leave us scratching our heads staring at the pieces that don’t fit together.
Aristotle was the ultimate polymath. Whatever he surveyed he mastered and wrote about. When analyzing the blockbuster tragedy of his time Oedipus Rex he saw that writers had hit upon a structure, or formula, for telling stories that could be studied and used again and again. He boiled it down to about six elements. Plot, character, thought, diction, spectacle, and song. Those are six check marks that the Book of Boba Fett definitely ticked off but why did its convoluted storytelling tick off so many fans?
I don't think it would be very controversial to say that the Book of Boba Fett did not hit the heights of human storytelling. It was a mishmash of structural elements that did not make sense, complete with puzzling character arcs.
The first element that I'm going to pick out of Aristotle's list is character because it's so critical to this story from the Star Wars universe. If you know anything of the mystique and backstory of Boba Fett you will already know that as a character he played a terribly minor role in the original films but was a fan favorite because of his cool detachment and cooler costume. Once George Lucas et al set about expanding the Star Wars universe he also gave Boba Fett a history that would retroactively fit him into an important part of the story. And as is the case with many Star Wars characters, Boba Fett had miraculously survived his on-screen death.
It’s a common trope in story telling to find a hero in the belly of the beast figuratively but in some cases quite literally. Here, Boba Fett struggles to survive his mortal fate to symbolize some sort of rebirthing. The character that goes in is not the same one that comes out. In this case, it’s not actually clear why he changes or what he then wants. In the first episode of his series he is stripped of his armor and clothes and identity. He is essentially a blank slate. The problem with this is fandom wanted more of what they had. But, the writers of the series decided to give him an arc into a completely different mindset.
Aristotle wrote about character and generally speaking, advised writers to make characters act and react based on their circumstances, past and their thoughts. I believe the writers thought it would be visually obvious why he became someone completely different. Fett is imprisoned by the Tusken Raiders and this somehow fundamentally changes his character. His motivations become very diffused and he can't even articulate them on screen. Boba Fett escapes his captivity, exacts very minor revenge on low level characters from his past life and then decides, seemingly out of nowhere, to take over the deceased Jabba the Hutt’s territory on the desolate desert planet of Tatooine so he can run drugs (or not). It seems like the greatest motivation for Boba Fett to become a crime Lord was simply because he had nothing better to do. I half expected him to have a conversation similar to Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane declaring he “…Thought it would be fun to run a newspaper.”
Aristotle's first point is plot. Plot is everything to Aristotle. If you don't build a sound story then the audience can only be dazzled by spectacle. This frustrated Aristotle and he felt that spectacle and song were last on the list for good reason. He thought they should not be used in place of good storytelling. And as is often the case in modern movie making, spectacle and song come first.
Let's look at another example for a second and talk about how character was established in one of my favorite series Breaking Bad.
Walter White's character in Breaking Bad was a man who had tremendous external pressures put upon him through fate. As a chemistry teacher dying of cancer he was forced into a new situation to provide for his family. It was, in the end, an erroneous decision that did far more harm than good but over the course of several seasons we saw Walter White's moral compass change its direction to an extreme. His initial call-to-action is noble but he becomes corrupted by power and money. Walter comes to love the excitement and thrill of it all. We see time and time again his decision-making process and at every fork he decides to go deeper into the belly of the beast. Boba Fett was thrust into his predicament- Walter White is active in creating his future however short it may be. Walter goes from trying to shield his family from his criminal endeavors to eventually folding them all in and corrupting everyone he knows.
Aristotle wrote of the “unity” of Oedipus Rex and how it took place in a very constrained amount of time. Much later, during the Renaissance and after, writers devoted themselves too slavishly to these ideas. Well-made-plays as they were called tend to be too predictable. Much like watching an episode of Law and Order or any variety. You can watch any episode of Law & Order with a stopwatch and predict the exact second of the hour where the crime is committed, the police get their evidence and the lawyers will take over. It is, however, a comforting and successful formula.
Analysts now feel Aristotle was merely saying what was happening in fictional tragedy of his day. not prescribing that everything needed to be this way. And in that way Breaking Bad succeeded at every turn because it established character and plot as its most important features and then constantly kept surprising the audience with new twists and turns.
To touch on every one of Aristotle's six points, I just have to say that in terms of diction he was talking about writers choosing words for characters, not their acting styles. In Boba Fett and the Mandalorian series the writers have leaned so hard into westerns and mob-movies that there are several quotes directly lifted from the Godfather and musical themes from films like “The Good the Bad and the Ugly.’ Audiences may or may not be familiar with those films but there is a long history in Star wars films of this kind of cut and paste technique. The postmodern style of grabbing elements from other works has served Star Wars well as space fantasy. In both of these new series the thematic tropes from spaghetti westerns and mob movies bring that galaxy far far away a little too too close to home for my tastes but opinions will of course, vary.
Aside from the two episodes in which Boba Fett barely makes an appearance and the series becomes a cross-over Mandalorian 2.5 season, the storytelling in “Book of Boba Fett” is erratic and filled with unmotivated flashbacks. Aristotle looks at the narrative structure of Oedipus Rex and shows that it starts with an action and proceeds to create a conflict that is irreversible. George Lucas hits upon this in the first Star Wars film with the death of Luke's aunt and uncle. This inciting incident or point-of-no-return engages Luke Skywalker in an all or nothing conflict with the Empire.
Walter White's inciting incidents lock him into his new life with no real way to escape. Every time he thinks of leaving it, more tragedy awaits. In the “Book of Boba Fett” the titular character could very well hop in a spaceship and leave the planet unscathed at any point. He has no family and no attachments and has created no lasting impact on his community. In fact most in the community don't even feel the need to ask him for help. He simply insinuated himself and would not be missed if he simply disappeared. This weakness of plot makes the entire series feel like I was watching someone simply moving action figures around on a playset. Without a real plan, without high stakes for the characters, and without repercussions for their actions, there is really no story here.
One of the things Aristotle seemed to really despise about Greek tragedy of his day was that authors would often create narratives that were so convoluted and characters that were unmotivated by their circumstances there could be no good resolution to the plot.
To solve this problem many writers would simply fly in a god on a crane to sort matters out in act 3. In the final episode of “The Book of Boba Fett” every dire situation is met with what Aristotle called the “deus ex machina” or the god from the machine. If you're pinned down in an overwhelming firefight just keep shooting until the reinforcements arrive. If you are battling indestructible robots just wait for your dungeon monster to arrive. And if your dungeon monster breaks this chains and turns against you just wait for well ... That one you should see cuz it's really cute.
In the final episode of Breaking Bad Walter faces absolutely insurmountable odds and also devises his own mechanical deus ex machina. It was probably the weakest moment in the series because it was so improbable- a Rube Goldberg-style machine gun that only kills bad guys.
But, as Aristotle might have said…. télos kaló óla kalá… all’s well that ends well.
Aristotle was the ultimate polymath. Whatever he surveyed he mastered and wrote about. When analyzing the blockbuster tragedy of his time Oedipus Rex he saw that writers had hit upon a structure, or formula, for telling stories that could be studied and used again and again. He boiled it down to about six elements. Plot, character, thought, diction, spectacle, and song. Those are six check marks that the Book of Boba Fett definitely ticked off but why did its convoluted storytelling tick off so many fans?
I don't think it would be very controversial to say that the Book of Boba Fett did not hit the heights of human storytelling. It was a mishmash of structural elements that did not make sense, complete with puzzling character arcs.
The first element that I'm going to pick out of Aristotle's list is character because it's so critical to this story from the Star Wars universe. If you know anything of the mystique and backstory of Boba Fett you will already know that as a character he played a terribly minor role in the original films but was a fan favorite because of his cool detachment and cooler costume. Once George Lucas et al set about expanding the Star Wars universe he also gave Boba Fett a history that would retroactively fit him into an important part of the story. And as is the case with many Star Wars characters, Boba Fett had miraculously survived his on-screen death.
It’s a common trope in story telling to find a hero in the belly of the beast figuratively but in some cases quite literally. Here, Boba Fett struggles to survive his mortal fate to symbolize some sort of rebirthing. The character that goes in is not the same one that comes out. In this case, it’s not actually clear why he changes or what he then wants. In the first episode of his series he is stripped of his armor and clothes and identity. He is essentially a blank slate. The problem with this is fandom wanted more of what they had. But, the writers of the series decided to give him an arc into a completely different mindset.
Aristotle wrote about character and generally speaking, advised writers to make characters act and react based on their circumstances, past and their thoughts. I believe the writers thought it would be visually obvious why he became someone completely different. Fett is imprisoned by the Tusken Raiders and this somehow fundamentally changes his character. His motivations become very diffused and he can't even articulate them on screen. Boba Fett escapes his captivity, exacts very minor revenge on low level characters from his past life and then decides, seemingly out of nowhere, to take over the deceased Jabba the Hutt’s territory on the desolate desert planet of Tatooine so he can run drugs (or not). It seems like the greatest motivation for Boba Fett to become a crime Lord was simply because he had nothing better to do. I half expected him to have a conversation similar to Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane declaring he “…Thought it would be fun to run a newspaper.”
Aristotle's first point is plot. Plot is everything to Aristotle. If you don't build a sound story then the audience can only be dazzled by spectacle. This frustrated Aristotle and he felt that spectacle and song were last on the list for good reason. He thought they should not be used in place of good storytelling. And as is often the case in modern movie making, spectacle and song come first.
Let's look at another example for a second and talk about how character was established in one of my favorite series Breaking Bad.
Walter White's character in Breaking Bad was a man who had tremendous external pressures put upon him through fate. As a chemistry teacher dying of cancer he was forced into a new situation to provide for his family. It was, in the end, an erroneous decision that did far more harm than good but over the course of several seasons we saw Walter White's moral compass change its direction to an extreme. His initial call-to-action is noble but he becomes corrupted by power and money. Walter comes to love the excitement and thrill of it all. We see time and time again his decision-making process and at every fork he decides to go deeper into the belly of the beast. Boba Fett was thrust into his predicament- Walter White is active in creating his future however short it may be. Walter goes from trying to shield his family from his criminal endeavors to eventually folding them all in and corrupting everyone he knows.
Aristotle wrote of the “unity” of Oedipus Rex and how it took place in a very constrained amount of time. Much later, during the Renaissance and after, writers devoted themselves too slavishly to these ideas. Well-made-plays as they were called tend to be too predictable. Much like watching an episode of Law and Order or any variety. You can watch any episode of Law & Order with a stopwatch and predict the exact second of the hour where the crime is committed, the police get their evidence and the lawyers will take over. It is, however, a comforting and successful formula.
Analysts now feel Aristotle was merely saying what was happening in fictional tragedy of his day. not prescribing that everything needed to be this way. And in that way Breaking Bad succeeded at every turn because it established character and plot as its most important features and then constantly kept surprising the audience with new twists and turns.
To touch on every one of Aristotle's six points, I just have to say that in terms of diction he was talking about writers choosing words for characters, not their acting styles. In Boba Fett and the Mandalorian series the writers have leaned so hard into westerns and mob-movies that there are several quotes directly lifted from the Godfather and musical themes from films like “The Good the Bad and the Ugly.’ Audiences may or may not be familiar with those films but there is a long history in Star wars films of this kind of cut and paste technique. The postmodern style of grabbing elements from other works has served Star Wars well as space fantasy. In both of these new series the thematic tropes from spaghetti westerns and mob movies bring that galaxy far far away a little too too close to home for my tastes but opinions will of course, vary.
Aside from the two episodes in which Boba Fett barely makes an appearance and the series becomes a cross-over Mandalorian 2.5 season, the storytelling in “Book of Boba Fett” is erratic and filled with unmotivated flashbacks. Aristotle looks at the narrative structure of Oedipus Rex and shows that it starts with an action and proceeds to create a conflict that is irreversible. George Lucas hits upon this in the first Star Wars film with the death of Luke's aunt and uncle. This inciting incident or point-of-no-return engages Luke Skywalker in an all or nothing conflict with the Empire.
Walter White's inciting incidents lock him into his new life with no real way to escape. Every time he thinks of leaving it, more tragedy awaits. In the “Book of Boba Fett” the titular character could very well hop in a spaceship and leave the planet unscathed at any point. He has no family and no attachments and has created no lasting impact on his community. In fact most in the community don't even feel the need to ask him for help. He simply insinuated himself and would not be missed if he simply disappeared. This weakness of plot makes the entire series feel like I was watching someone simply moving action figures around on a playset. Without a real plan, without high stakes for the characters, and without repercussions for their actions, there is really no story here.
One of the things Aristotle seemed to really despise about Greek tragedy of his day was that authors would often create narratives that were so convoluted and characters that were unmotivated by their circumstances there could be no good resolution to the plot.
To solve this problem many writers would simply fly in a god on a crane to sort matters out in act 3. In the final episode of “The Book of Boba Fett” every dire situation is met with what Aristotle called the “deus ex machina” or the god from the machine. If you're pinned down in an overwhelming firefight just keep shooting until the reinforcements arrive. If you are battling indestructible robots just wait for your dungeon monster to arrive. And if your dungeon monster breaks this chains and turns against you just wait for well ... That one you should see cuz it's really cute.
In the final episode of Breaking Bad Walter faces absolutely insurmountable odds and also devises his own mechanical deus ex machina. It was probably the weakest moment in the series because it was so improbable- a Rube Goldberg-style machine gun that only kills bad guys.
But, as Aristotle might have said…. télos kaló óla kalá… all’s well that ends well.
Click Image above to read on International Council for Media Literacy site
I never need to see Citizen Kane again. After teaching it for 20+ years, I’m done. I first saw Citizen Kane in 1991. It was, of course, number one on the American Film Institute's (AFI) top movie list and as a film enthusiast I thought it was important to see it and find out why. I sat down with a friend and she angrily exclaimed at the end of the film that it was probably the worst thing she'd ever seen. I, however, needed to see it again. So there was something about this film that divided peoples’ opinions. I came to the film with the endorsement of the AFI. She came to it on a whim. Expectations play a huge role in one’s perception of this film. It is an emotional film? No. I feel it’s a purely intellectual film. Another viewing of the film would not add to my understanding.
Despite voluminous writings regarding this film, I have rarely seen anyone talk about the emotional connection to the characters. I think it’s impossible to be emotionally connected to its characters. Similarly, I think most of the characters in the movie itself find it impossible to feel deep emotional attachment to Kane. Let there be no doubt. It is a technical marvel. The film rewrote the language of film. It is still the touchstone of movie making. But, it is a filmmaker’s film. Is it a film for modern audiences? Can modern filmmakers still borrow from it? Yes, they still do.
Orson Welles pushed writer Howard Mankowitz to complete the fictionalized story of the broken-hearted, emotionally stunted, impossibly rich media magnate William Randolph Hearst and turned it into a cinematic storytelling tour-de-force. The film
Citizen Kane infamously starts at the end, with the death of its protagonist. The opening tone is that of a horror film, with its foreboding scenery, creepy music and film noir lighting. It looks like a creature-feature. Subsequently, the fragmentation and incredible compositions of layered images on the screen add to the aspect of horror. A composite shot dissolving from a snow covered chalet to the lips of the dying man is intentionally disorienting.
This opening montage sequence clearly shows the hand-of-the-director. If you have any understanding of film-language, the time, scene and tone are being heavily manipulated. Basically… You cannot trust this film. If you do not understand film language or have too much trust in a director you will find the film unsettling or possibly befuddling. If this film was a bus it would have no seats or handrails. You are completely at the mercy of the driver.
Within the first five minutes the film has gone through two massive tone shifts and then is in the midst of a documentary. The exposition is delivered to us via newsreel, an early form of visual news that you would encounter at the movie theater before the 1950s and the invasion of television into the American home. But, just when you think that you've got your footing, this bus takes another radical turn and pulls back from the documentary to show the people making the documentary. It’s a jarring break of the 4th wall as we see the shadowy producers digging deeper for the story of this larger-than-life character named Charles Foster Kane. This journalistic drive to get to the root of his final word “Rosebud” propels the movie and the audience now begins to piece his mysterious life and even more mysterious death together with mental suturing.
In 1942, starting a movie with the death of the main character was an incredibly bold choice. Taken to extremes by directors like Christopher Nolan and his film Memento, this disorienting storytelling style can be incredibly effective on an intellectual level but often falls short emotionally. In films like this, (and honestly, all of Nolan’s work) I believe audiences are much more engaged in trying to figure out exactly what's going on with the storytelling and have very little time for the emotional connection.
Let’s flash forward to the 2021 Hulu original series Dopesick. It is an eight part movie that uses parallel development to tell an intertwining story of attorneys, investigators, a family-run drug cartel, and Oxycontin’s effect on the inhabitants of an Appalachian coal mining town and beyond.
Dopesick’s opening episode gives us a fly on the wall perspective in a courtroom as a couple played by Rosario Dawson and Raul Esparza hug each other goodbye at the dissolution of their marriage. Who are they? Why should we care? It’s a choice echoing Citizen Kane but after sitting through eight hours of this narrative I can confidently say it was absolutely the wrong choice. The key difference between the two films is that Charles Foster Kane’s death is the singular premise of the film, not necessarily just one element of 6 intertwining stories. Is the divorce the crux of Dopesick? Is it why the audience has tuned in? Do the filmmakers even give it the screentime to flesh itself out? Definitely not. In Citizen Kane, when the audience finds out what the nature of “Rosebud” is, it's really just a starting point for piecing it all together. Merely another piece of the puzzle of Kane’s life. The point of Citizen Kane is to watch the context of his life fall into place. The massive spiral that we're on as we experience Citizen Kane allows us to grab elements and pull them into a linear timeline to make sense of it all. Dopesick on the other hand uses a clever scrolling series of dates on the screen to show exactly where we're jumping to in time. In Citizen Kane this flashback and forward cut-up storytelling is part of the fun. I can't agree that telling the Dopesick story out of chronological order was any more effective than simply telling it chronologically.
Dopesick is intensely emotional. The composite characters like Michael Keaton’s Dr. Fennix and his injured patient, the young female coal miner Betsy (Kaitlyn Dever) are gripping and human. The divorce coming before the lovestory is a very strange choice in this case. In the last episode of Dopesick we are left with no closure on the relationship between Bridget and Paul unless you have a photographic memory of the opening moments of the series when we have yet gained any emotional attachment to the characters we’re about to spend over 8 hours with.
As a side note I want to mention that the overall ambition and structure of Dopesick is reminiscent of Steven Soderberg’s 2000 film Traffic with its interweaving storylines and cinematic color palette. That film moves chronologically and feels slightly more cohesive and is certainly more compact at a total runtime of 2 hours and 27 minutes.
Sadly, the entire final episode of Dopesick feels completely rushed like the ‘Game of Thrones’ final episode.
I was fearful moving into the 8th episode this would be the case. As I watched the episode I looked at the countdown of time remaining and knew we were going to be seeing some serious narrative compression. Scenes that should have been acted out were simply mentioned by the characters. They threw papers down on the desk which replaced several minutes of critical storytelling. Scenes which would have been supremely cathartic were completely missing.
Dopesick’s crowning achievement is in telling a compelling emotional story of the impact of the drug company’s lies on the lives of ordinary people- people and doctors who did not see this crisis coming and did not have any defense against it.
In many ways the assembly of Dopesick felt like it tried too hard to make this rather straightforward police-procedural story mysterious. It was a mixed bag in my estimation. I don't necessarily think telling the story out of chronological order made much of a difference to an audience in 2021 that already binges police procedurals and murder mysteries like popcorn. In 1942 Dopesick would have certainly blown minds for its choices. But, in 2021 it made the mistake of thinking it was Citizen Kane and as we know… I don’t need to see it again.
GJG 2022
Despite voluminous writings regarding this film, I have rarely seen anyone talk about the emotional connection to the characters. I think it’s impossible to be emotionally connected to its characters. Similarly, I think most of the characters in the movie itself find it impossible to feel deep emotional attachment to Kane. Let there be no doubt. It is a technical marvel. The film rewrote the language of film. It is still the touchstone of movie making. But, it is a filmmaker’s film. Is it a film for modern audiences? Can modern filmmakers still borrow from it? Yes, they still do.
Orson Welles pushed writer Howard Mankowitz to complete the fictionalized story of the broken-hearted, emotionally stunted, impossibly rich media magnate William Randolph Hearst and turned it into a cinematic storytelling tour-de-force. The film
Citizen Kane infamously starts at the end, with the death of its protagonist. The opening tone is that of a horror film, with its foreboding scenery, creepy music and film noir lighting. It looks like a creature-feature. Subsequently, the fragmentation and incredible compositions of layered images on the screen add to the aspect of horror. A composite shot dissolving from a snow covered chalet to the lips of the dying man is intentionally disorienting.
This opening montage sequence clearly shows the hand-of-the-director. If you have any understanding of film-language, the time, scene and tone are being heavily manipulated. Basically… You cannot trust this film. If you do not understand film language or have too much trust in a director you will find the film unsettling or possibly befuddling. If this film was a bus it would have no seats or handrails. You are completely at the mercy of the driver.
Within the first five minutes the film has gone through two massive tone shifts and then is in the midst of a documentary. The exposition is delivered to us via newsreel, an early form of visual news that you would encounter at the movie theater before the 1950s and the invasion of television into the American home. But, just when you think that you've got your footing, this bus takes another radical turn and pulls back from the documentary to show the people making the documentary. It’s a jarring break of the 4th wall as we see the shadowy producers digging deeper for the story of this larger-than-life character named Charles Foster Kane. This journalistic drive to get to the root of his final word “Rosebud” propels the movie and the audience now begins to piece his mysterious life and even more mysterious death together with mental suturing.
In 1942, starting a movie with the death of the main character was an incredibly bold choice. Taken to extremes by directors like Christopher Nolan and his film Memento, this disorienting storytelling style can be incredibly effective on an intellectual level but often falls short emotionally. In films like this, (and honestly, all of Nolan’s work) I believe audiences are much more engaged in trying to figure out exactly what's going on with the storytelling and have very little time for the emotional connection.
Let’s flash forward to the 2021 Hulu original series Dopesick. It is an eight part movie that uses parallel development to tell an intertwining story of attorneys, investigators, a family-run drug cartel, and Oxycontin’s effect on the inhabitants of an Appalachian coal mining town and beyond.
Dopesick’s opening episode gives us a fly on the wall perspective in a courtroom as a couple played by Rosario Dawson and Raul Esparza hug each other goodbye at the dissolution of their marriage. Who are they? Why should we care? It’s a choice echoing Citizen Kane but after sitting through eight hours of this narrative I can confidently say it was absolutely the wrong choice. The key difference between the two films is that Charles Foster Kane’s death is the singular premise of the film, not necessarily just one element of 6 intertwining stories. Is the divorce the crux of Dopesick? Is it why the audience has tuned in? Do the filmmakers even give it the screentime to flesh itself out? Definitely not. In Citizen Kane, when the audience finds out what the nature of “Rosebud” is, it's really just a starting point for piecing it all together. Merely another piece of the puzzle of Kane’s life. The point of Citizen Kane is to watch the context of his life fall into place. The massive spiral that we're on as we experience Citizen Kane allows us to grab elements and pull them into a linear timeline to make sense of it all. Dopesick on the other hand uses a clever scrolling series of dates on the screen to show exactly where we're jumping to in time. In Citizen Kane this flashback and forward cut-up storytelling is part of the fun. I can't agree that telling the Dopesick story out of chronological order was any more effective than simply telling it chronologically.
Dopesick is intensely emotional. The composite characters like Michael Keaton’s Dr. Fennix and his injured patient, the young female coal miner Betsy (Kaitlyn Dever) are gripping and human. The divorce coming before the lovestory is a very strange choice in this case. In the last episode of Dopesick we are left with no closure on the relationship between Bridget and Paul unless you have a photographic memory of the opening moments of the series when we have yet gained any emotional attachment to the characters we’re about to spend over 8 hours with.
As a side note I want to mention that the overall ambition and structure of Dopesick is reminiscent of Steven Soderberg’s 2000 film Traffic with its interweaving storylines and cinematic color palette. That film moves chronologically and feels slightly more cohesive and is certainly more compact at a total runtime of 2 hours and 27 minutes.
Sadly, the entire final episode of Dopesick feels completely rushed like the ‘Game of Thrones’ final episode.
I was fearful moving into the 8th episode this would be the case. As I watched the episode I looked at the countdown of time remaining and knew we were going to be seeing some serious narrative compression. Scenes that should have been acted out were simply mentioned by the characters. They threw papers down on the desk which replaced several minutes of critical storytelling. Scenes which would have been supremely cathartic were completely missing.
Dopesick’s crowning achievement is in telling a compelling emotional story of the impact of the drug company’s lies on the lives of ordinary people- people and doctors who did not see this crisis coming and did not have any defense against it.
In many ways the assembly of Dopesick felt like it tried too hard to make this rather straightforward police-procedural story mysterious. It was a mixed bag in my estimation. I don't necessarily think telling the story out of chronological order made much of a difference to an audience in 2021 that already binges police procedurals and murder mysteries like popcorn. In 1942 Dopesick would have certainly blown minds for its choices. But, in 2021 it made the mistake of thinking it was Citizen Kane and as we know… I don’t need to see it again.
GJG 2022
Clinical instructor Gregory Golda has been teaching at Sacred heart University since 1999. His master's degree in art education from Penn State and another in broadcast journalism from Sacred heart University. He teaches history theory classes as well as production. He is the owner and designer of Construkt Media Studios, a multimedia production company specializing in audio and video production as well as graphic web and theater design. He is also a husband, dad, musician, producer, sculptor and dog lover.
