Find something (an idea, a claim, an argument, etc.) in Bulman Ch 1 to disagree with. Explain what it is and shy you disagree with it. Note: If you absolutely can’t find something to disagree with, feel free to write about that situation (why you can’t disagree) or simply discuss something that you found interesting in Ch. 1.
There was a statement that I found myself disagreeing and agreeing with. The statement was made on page three, which states, “I find in my analysis of the high school films that a social class lens better explains the data than a lens of race.” I find myself agreeing with this statement because the setting of high school movies is separated into three sub genres of social class: elite, middle/suburban, and poor/under-resourced school. However, I disagree with this statement because race and economic power are VERY mutually inclusive. Race and social class are closely related due to the systemic foundations this country was built upon. Unfortunately, there are patterns and anyone can see what demographic makes up a particular social class. I believe that the reason why the author feels/sees that social-class is a better lens than race is because a predominant amount of Hollywood movies have a White main character. However, I give props to many producers of newer high school movies/shows, as they have more diverse characters, plots, and tackle racial issues realistically.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBulman argues that popular culture reassures individuals by aligning their worldviews, creating a collective understanding. However, this view oversimplifies the reality that popular culture can be divisive, especially ethnically/racially. Not everyone shares the same interpretations, and films often reinforce stereotypes that only resonate with specific groups. Hollywood, dominated by elites, may even alter this "collective understanding.” They are undoubtedly apart of popular culture. However, films and media, at their hands, can be less representative of different perspectives.
Ryan:
ReplyDeleteBulman mentions how movies don’t really paint an accurate picture of reality and don’t necessarily reflect how things actually are. While I agree that a majority of “realistic” movies don’t paint an accurate picture of reality, I would disagree that none of them do. I think there are a good handful of movies out there that manage to depict reality in an accurate way that can be depicted as truly realistic. And while most movies require suspension of disbelief, they can still be realistic in their themes about life.
Bulman states on page two that the success of a film genre over time implies that elements of the genre resonate with a large audience. I slightly disagree with this statement, because I can see where he's coming from, but I also don't agree that films have to resonate with audiences to make enough money to produce more. This is especially true as people's attention spans get shorter and all that matters is keeping people engaged and entertained. For example in action movies like fast and furious there are elements like family values and saving people, however I think most people go and watch them because of the high stakes and cars jumping from buildings and things like that.
ReplyDeleteJeff Baker
ReplyDeleteBulman mentions how sociologists don't study film. I personally disagree with that. By analyzing film sociologists can explore themes such as race relation, class dynamics. and gender roles. Even though he mentions right after that they often observe and use social interactions and track patterns of social inequalities, but that just seems obvious to me and sounds like he is completely disregarding film as a source.
A statement I agree and disagree with speculates on how films consider and ramify culture. Bulman states, "Ultimately, it is very difficult to specify exactly how films reflect culture and how they affect it." I agree with this statement because there is so much a film can communicate displaying culture appreciation until it enacts a sense of culture appropriation. I disagree with this statement because of how Hollywood markets their movies. Pertaining to a certain image, message of pop culture, or simply famous actors taking on a revolutionary role. What about world cinema? What about values, traditions, people, and lifestyle that go into films outside of the United States?
ReplyDeleteAfter readings chapter one I really could not find anything that I disagreed with. I thought it was super interesting however, that he was talking about how films affect and influence culture. At first I thought it was non sense to say that something so insignificant could have such big meanings when relating to society. But after reading more I started to understand how films could affect culture. When he started talking about genre of films I began to realize that he's not talking about comedy's or something. He was talking about films that were created by artists with specific meanings when relating to culture.
ReplyDeleteBulman mentions hollywood routinely twists and shapes reality to maximize dramatic or comic effect for commercial purpose .films must also frame complicated social relationships within two hours and on a two dimensional canvas. Films are located at the center of a complex cultural process of production and consumption. The movie spoof is evidence that the high school film has been successfully established as its own hollywood genre.
ReplyDeleteA statement that I disagreed with was stated was that films simply complicated relationships. I disagree with this statement as I feel like films tackle and display relationships in such a great way. I say this because we relate to so much of these characters and feel connected to them so much because of how realistic and close they are to the relationship we have in real life.
ReplyDeleteRachel Wolburg:
ReplyDeleteI agree that film has the ability to impact the current culture of its time and perhaps a little beyond it. However, I disagree with how much of an impact film is able to make today in terms of how culture affects schools and education. This book appears to have been published in 2015, and as Bulman states, he began his research as early as 2000. My generation was born mostly during the early 2000s. We grew up watching all these different movies and shows that portrayed kids in a school setting Ex. Neds school survival guide, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Victorious. These are just some of the shows that you could easily find during this era. As time passed, most of us started to move to streaming services and the first mainstream one was Netflix. Now, films with school settings are still popular even after we moved to a new platform. Shows like Stranger Things, Riverdale, To all the Boys I loved before are a few films that became popular on Netflix that involve a school setting. However, we must consider now the new generation of children. These kids aren’t growing up watching Disney or Nickelodeon like our generation did. Instead, for a lot of them, they're getting hooked on short youtube videos catered to capture their attention for a short time period of time until they move on to another video. Compared to how school-like films were popular and common thing for kids to grow up watching, most the kids now would rather watch a YouTube video over a whole episode of TV. Trust me, I would know as I work primarily with young children. Because of this change in the popular media with young children I believe that what ever way school type films were able to affect the current culture has dyed down and does not have as much of a effect as it used to.
Bulman mentions that movies dramatize topics or certain events that have occured in life. While I do agree that movies definitely exaggerate certain things or emphasize stereotypes like high school films, movies still fulfill on informing realistic topics/events in life. For example; historical movies. I've watched a world war film once and what the film was portraying on what occured back then was factually correct and not necessarily dramatized. Of course producers and directors need to include action, and some sort drama to hook the audience to watch the film. Moreover, I believe it still accurately portrays realistic themes and topics of life.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 1 of "Hollywood Goes to High School," the claim that Hollywood correctly depicts high school social dynamics is challenged. Hollywood frequently exaggerates and stereotypes high school life for dramatic purpose, portraying a more intense and homogenized depiction of adolescent experiences. This representation frequently overlooks the diversity and complexity of actual high school environments, resulting in misconceptions. Exaggerated representations of social hierarchies and behaviors in Hollywood films and television shows fail to capture the diverse and nuanced reality of real-world high school experiences.
ReplyDeleteWhat I agree with while watching the film was at least how bulman does mention how the role of our society throughout life involving all kinds of stories within Hollywood films. but I just disagree how bulman would downgrade film watching because of what it is today because there's a lot more action infills which makes kids a lot more interested in action movies as they grow up.
ReplyDeleteBulman wrote about the truth of hollywood, and how Hollywood exaggerates everything and strays from the truth of things in places such as high schools. I actually disagree with him. Hollywood is a place where they make movies that are going to hit home with some people, or allow others to see a different perspective. Hollywood has to exaggerate most of these movies as who would want to see the normal daily life of a highschooler? I know for sure that if you were to pick a random day of school and follow me around that day, you would not see anything entertaining. So I disagree with Bulman on Hollywood goes to high school, and I believe that other places can show kids what high school or college is really like
ReplyDeleteFrom the first page of the chapter, I immediately found the statement "Sociologists don't often study films." to be disagreeable. Bulman supports this by saying that sociology is the study of reality, and not fantasy. At a surface level it is easy to agree with the statement for most films, especially more modern films as most of them are not trying to replicate a historical story or event. The analysis of older films and those replicating historical stories or events are invaluable to sociology, as they provide insight into societal norms and trends of that era despite any exaggerations present.
ReplyDeleteChristine Jacob
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t really find anything that I disagreed with. Part of it is because the topic of the relationship between movies and society/culture is something that I delved into last semester for a research paper. For that paper, I found an article that mentioned how films can represent and influence people’s perceptions of whatever their subject is (in this case, business history). In addition, I looked into two popular texts (for their time) and a movie of the story of Robin Hood, in order to see how they would reflect or influence people’s perceptions of wealth inequality. For that reason, the idea that films/texts can speak to a culture’s perceptions, even if the story isn’t realistic or truly speaks to life, is something that has been ingrained in me after working through that idea for a semester. The other part of why I can’t disagree is because the article makes a lot of sense to me, which might mean I’m the type of person the author was writing for. I agree that films don’t speak to reality. They’ll of course have realistic themes/ideas, realistic moments, and maybe even realistic dialogue (though it’s often hit or miss); however, due to time constraints and the fact that movies (or a majority of them) are written to follow a narrative structure that doesn’t speak to how life works, the way reality is will never be like how it is in the movies. The idea that movies are part of the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the world (like fairy tales), also makes a lot of sense to me, and it also related to my research paper last semester. Finally, I feel like even the little ideas connected to the main ideas in this article all made sense to me, or there wasn’t anything obviously and utterly wrong with anything.
Riley Jenkins
ReplyDeleteAt first, after I read through the article I could not find anything that I disagreed with. I think that Bulman did a really good job in their process by reviewing films that depict lots of different circumstances. Bulman really considered how different factors can influence education. After I could not find anything to disagree with I came to read the comments on our blog and I saw Ure's post. They pointed out Bulman's line that says “I find in my analysis of the high school films that a social class lens better explains the data than a lens of race.” I believe that there definitely is some truth in this statement, money goes a long way in this society. However, I think that what separates people probably changes from place to place. In a school with a diverse student and staff population, race is not going to jump out as much and that will probably lead to division by another factor, social class. But, in a school that is predominantly white, or any race for that matter, the few people that differ are going to stand out more by their race. People make fast judgments and race and the color of people's skin is something we all can see right away, whereas social class is something that can be hidden.
To be honest, i could not find anything in the reading that i can say i disagree with. In my opinion, this first chapter of the book is very factual and foundational to the rest of the text. Although some of the statements made in the first chapter could be classified as opinions, i find that all of the comments are backed by evidence. I think it is absolutely true that film can shape our view of education, schools, and young adulthood. In fact, as i was reading this chapter, i kept thinking back to my opinion of high school when i was about to enroll. As a middle schooler about to transfer i was terrified of high school from all the movies and tv shows i had watched. For example, Most of the films portrayed bullying as a huge problem. I remember getting to high school and thinking, "wow, this is nothing like what i pictured, its just a normal place". Im sure the climate of schools has changed over time just as the films about education have changed. However, i really agree with everything the author said,. I commend their writing, because it made me think about my own life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of Bulman points in this article. Initially when reading the article I thought of the critiquing his points of "others are experiencing the same cultural product that we are experiencing." and "films both reflect and shape culture." I do somewhat agree with these points, but early in the article Bulman made it seem like movies and media shape culture and how we think. Bulman later expands on this point by saying "cultural is complex and messy". I agree with this point because we all come from different cultures and in some cases movies and media can reflect cultures but pop culture is often very dramaticized and often does not shape individual cultures. I agree with this article and it was interesting to read about the relationship between popcultire and individual culture and classism in movies.
ReplyDeleteOne statement I disagree with is "... which film resonates with a particular audience tell us much more about a reality of a particular society than the 'reality' of a film's subject" on page 1. I do agree with the opinion that your hobbies and interests show who you are but only to a certain extent. For example, I enjoy watching anime, action movies, playing video games, lifting weights, and playing basketball; all of these particular hobbies/activities are stereotyped to be more male dominating and insinuate that the society I am apart of is violent and masculine . So based just off of those things it doesn't tell you exactly who I am or what kind of society I am apart of. I am a women who presents mostly hyper-feminine and also enjoys more female dominating hobbies like reading, cooking, and painting which, based off of stereotypes, would insinuate that the society I'm apart of is warm, caring, and feminine. So I believe this statement is a bit of a stretch and not completely true.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the chapter, I could not find anything I really disagreed with. Bulman states on the first page that "which film resonates with a particular audience tell us much more about a reality of a particular society than the 'reality' of a film's subject". We see in some of the most popular films that depict high school like Mean Girls or High School Musical have played up what we know to be true. It resonates because we see the cliques and the mean people doing similar things. In Mean Girls, it's more satirical, proving the point that young girls tend to have much more aggression to each other in not-easily-recognizable ways. In doing so, it resonates with almost all women and other people because we experience being the aggressor or being the receiver of the aggression.
ReplyDeleteSomething that Bulman mentioned is how you have to look at the movies from a “social-class lens” instead of a lens of race. I think you cannot study one without considering the other. Both of them are so intertwined and have a huge impact on how people are living and their communities around them. It can be hard to fit in multiple aspects of people's complex lives and backstory in just a 2 hour movie which is why I think you can’t just base everything off of one storyline or plot because each one is so different from the other.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree that films have a major influence on how we view and go about our daily lives.
In Chapter 1, Bulman wrote on the reality of Hollywood, how it embellishes everything and deviates from the facts in places like high schools. In actuality, I disagree with him. Hollywood is a place where films are produced that will resonate with certain audiences or open their eyes to new ideas. Hollywood has to over-theorize most of these films because no one would want to watch a high school student's typical day-to-day activities. I'm positive you wouldn't find anything amusing if you chose a random school day and followed me about that day. Therefore, I disagree with Bulman that Hollywood attends high school and think that alternative settings can better prepare children for what high school and college are truly like.
ReplyDeleteA statement that I disagree with is when Bulman wrote "the enjoyment of popular culture such as movies is a collective experience". I disagree with this primarily because each persons experience of popular culture can be highly personal and subjective. Different people interpret movies and other forms of popular culture based on their own backgrounds, emotions, and own experiences.
ReplyDeleteKaylyn Spinner
DeleteMuch of Bulmans analysis I agree with, especially when he talks about individualism as an important, widespread theme in high school movies. However, I am surprised at one aspect of these movies that he did not touch on as much(at least in this chapter) and that is the stereotypes outside of socioeconomic status. Bulman only briefly acknowledges these student stereotypes such as "the rebel" or "the jock," when a large part of american movies center around these labels and at times destroying them. In fact, I'd argue that in many movies, the relationship to the teacher is secondary to the ones to the students, and their individualism comes from breaking out of a mold typically put on them by other students or society in general. Again, Bulman's analysis of student-teacher relationships is a valid opinion in my eyes, but this excerpt neglects a section of american high school movies that touch on similar themes(albeit likely with lower stakes).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapter and learning about Bulman's views when it came to films and its act on society, I found myself disagreeing with a statement made in the book. Explaining that films often exaggerate or twist portrayals of social realities, than rather simplifying to make a type of complex social issues in a way "easier" to understand. Even though he believes that these types of portrayals are not completely accurate, they are still useful since they have the ability to engage viewers with social topics to create conversation. In my opinion, I would have to disagree. The point of believing that simplifying or exaggerating social issues within movies serves as a type of education purpose. Yes it can help the concepts have an easier grasp, but they can also create one-dimensional representations on said issues. Which will continue the already reinforcing go stereotypes and beating around the bush for the oversimplification to avoid more "harm" than good.
ReplyDeleteYaseen Salih:
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Bulman chapter 1, I found it interesting when he claims that the middle class is depicted as the "normal" American life while the poor and the rich are seen as disconnected from that sense of life. Bulman follows this by saying while he does not disagree that Hollywood values the white perspective over others, he believes that the "social class lens" is a more adept explanation for that than race. I find myself agreeing with this claim, when a scene in a movie depicts a lower class community and neighborhood like in "The Wire" written and directed by George Pelecanos and Richard Price, the community is fundamentally governed by different social and cultural rules than they would be in a movie like "Ferris Bueller's Day off" Directed by John Hughes. It makes the movie seem authentic and grounded in their respective realities. There is also however the misrepresentations of diffrent cultures, for example Mexico and other South American countries often displayed as having a yellow tint in major Hollywood productions.
I disagree with the statement "They may appear to be politically neutral, but they often reflect the interests of particular segments of society." I find that films don't really seem to be politically neutral. I will use the film "Clueless" as an example. This movie illustrates stereotypes perfectly: there's the popular, fashionable blonde girl who takes the new, nerdy brunette under her wing. Cher (popular) tells Tai (new girl) how to dress, who to talk to, and who she should date. One of the people Tai is told to avoid is the skateboarding stoner boy. I think that by perpetuating these stereotypes, this movie cannot be viewed as "politically neutral." It clearly shows an American upper-middle class view of life. Granted, Bulman goes on to say that no films are "politically neutral," but I am curious as to how they could even SEEM politically neutral to begin with.
ReplyDelete^ I forgot to enter my name in my above comment
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 1 of Bulman’s work, he claims that a social class lens is more effective at explaining high school films than a lens of race, a statement that I find myself partially disagreeing with. While it is true that high school movies often emphasize class divisions—such as portraying elite, middle-class, or underfunded schools—I disagree with the notion that race should take a backseat in this analysis. Race and class are deeply intertwined in American society, with systemic racial inequalities often determining the social class one belongs to. Bulman’s analysis might overlook how race shapes these social realities, especially since many Hollywood films historically center around White protagonists. However, recent films and shows have made strides in depicting more diverse characters and storylines that address racial issues, making it crucial to examine high school films through both lenses of race and class.
Throughout reading Bulman's chapter 1, I could not find any area of disagreement with the claims he made. I do believe that films are used to display a culture and in turn, can influence a culture. I as well found his claims interesting in respect to the differences between how urban teen life is portrayed in film vs. suburban teen life. I felt as though Bulman provided insight into the film industry and how the film industry depicts the middle-class and which lens race is seen through.
ReplyDelete