Menu
close
Robyn CharlesHollywood is no longer the end all and be all of cinema. China has proven it could build and cater to not only its own audience but garner and compete for international attention with its own films and with its own stars. As part of a lecture series on Hollywood rise to superpower dome, we will look at how World War I decimated the film industry in Europe, Hollywood was able to flourish. Students will evaluate how Hollywood has maintained its dominance until now. With China's ascent as a global filmmaking force in its own right it is impacting how even Hollywood films are being made, students will be looking toward the future of filmmaking and how to participate in this ever evolving global market place.
Robyn CharlesHollywood is no longer the end all and be all of cinema. China has proven it could build and cater to not only its own audience but garner and compete for international attention with its own films and with its own stars. As part of a lecture series on Hollywood rise to superpowerdome, we will look at how World War I descimated the film industry in Europe, Hollywood was able to flourish. Students will evaluate how Hollywood has maintained its dominance until now. With China's ascent as a global filmmaking force in its own right it is impacting how even Hollywood films are being made, students will be looking toward the future of filmmaking and how to participate in this ever evolving global market place.
Robyn CharlesI really enjoyed the K Pop Lecture and I think it will make a wonderful addition to discussion centered on the role of social media creating a global society. I think it is a fun and energizing way to discuss how we define culture in a society where culture is shared. K Pop provides an amazing opportunity to explore the microevolution of culture through a very specific experience. As the amalgamation of every culture expressed through the South Korean lens, marketed globally but dependent upon success in a Japanese market for survival by way of the constructed "entertainment machine" in which true individual artistic evolution and expression is negated so that like South Korean filmmakers and artists several workers serve the collective good (of the group but ultimately the label) and do not express their individual art. This again would be great discussion points for whether or not an imposed model or formula is good. (K-Pop has a global fan base.) Whose viewpoint is being expressed? The Label? Has music become propaganda in order to indoctrinate cultural and societal norms? If so, whose culture and whose society?
Robyn CharlesI am very excited by the information I gained regarding the History of North Korean Film and am both excited and frustrated that the Library of Congress holds an extensive collection of North Korean Films but unfortunately, most do not have subtitles.
After reviewing the information presented I am excited to craft a lecture (or unit) entitled Deconstructing the "Message Film." North Korea found its niche in cinema with Propaganda films that were culturally introduced in 1945-1948 by Soviet Occupation – Soviet advisors brought a team of filmmakers and a studio to North Korea - but by the 1950s – 1970s – film becomes an important part of educating North Korean children from a very young age. With film as an integral part of the curriculum, indoctrination by film allowed for easy distribution of a constructed product to a controlled audience by artists/filmmakers were mere workers that served the collective good and did not express their individual art. I would love to view examples of these films with my students and discuss the power of (or critique) the "message," the role of the filmmaker(s), auteurs as the messenger in order critically debate whether or not films should have a message or express the point of view. And if they do express a point of view, who's point of view should they express? The Filmmaker/Artist? The Production Studio? Cultural and Societal Norms? The Government? After what I hope to be a heavy discussion we will then take a look at Hollywood films and "the formula." We will analyze the similarities and the differences between North Korean propaganda films and Hollywood's "formula." Do they both convey a message or multiple messages (how they are cast, who is deemed good vs. evil, the ethnicity of flat characters, etc.), do both types of films follow a formula, what is the "point" expressed in of each film, etc.
As discussions evolve we will take a look at a couple of examples of North Korean films in which by the 1980s the films are more entertainment driven letting go of the "message" of serving the greater good and moves into the realm of acknowledging love or individual desires as what drives the characters. We will compare these films to romantic comedies or films like The Adjustment Bureau.
I hope that after analyzing these films we can circle back to the notion of artists and filmmakers anonymously serving a collective good contrasting the "auteur theory" of U.S. filmmaking. The positives and negatives, whether some should be given "credit" for their work and if so to what extent does someone have to dictate how that work is made. Once a healthy dialogue has begun, I would like to challenge my students again with the Hollywood Formula. Whether or not the Hollywood Formula imposes a filmmaking model and under this model, who's view point is being expressed? The Filmmaker/Artist? The Production Studio? Cultural and Societal Norms? Or, the Government? What and how is the line drawn? Does a film have to be a propaganda film in order to indoctrinate?
Robyn CharlesHello, I am in my 3rd year of teaching film production in my expaning program. I am looking to expand the curriculum to include more diverse films and media in the curriculum. This is my 2nd US-China Institute Seminar and I am very happy to be returning.
