An online space for our community to extend our engagement with education and pop culture
Tuesday, August 20, 2024
October 8… Bulman Revisited
Think back to Bulman’s ideas about Hollywood and high school. If possible, share something that you think he got right and also provide critique of some aspect of his ideas.
Bulman's ideas about Hollywood's portrayal of high school, especially how individualism shapes characters and plots is spot on. In fact, his observations partially influenced the way I view this specific genre now. Suburban students in these films often seek identity through rebellion against societal norms, while those from low-income backgrounds strive to escape poverty through hard work. However, Bulman overlooks the significance of the interconnectedness of race in these narratives. For example, he states, "There is very little use for history, community, or tradition in these high school films." This absence is rooted in systemic issues like white supremacy, which often marginalizes these values. He mentions that the exclusion of women from the social frame gives an incomplete picture of our social society and I think the same applies for oppressed groups.
Hannah: I feel that Bulman was going in the right direction when he delineated the types of stories told in different types of schools, but to me there are more guidelines and not hard rules. There is a noticeable trend with the movies in that those focusing on lower-class schools have the teacher be the focus and those that take place in a more well-off school tend to have students be the focus. In "To Sir, With Love," the story was focused on a teacher working in a lower-class school and turning his students around for the better, teaching them how to be proper adults. In "The Breakfast Club," the students learn to become friends while in detention and what the future may hold for them. In "The Holdovers," Angus and Hunham both grow as people while stuck at school over the holidays. Of the three that I watched, only one could be definitely categorized as a lower-class school, with perhaps an argument being made for the school in Breakfast Club. To Sir, With Love has utilitarian individuality be the most prominent, as it is shown to be most important for the students to be attractive and ready for work. The other two have expressive individualism be most important, as Breakfast Club focuses on the kids' friendship and the fear of becoming their parents, and Holdovers focuses on two characters that learn that they are more similar than they thought and are able to grow throughout the movie. I do think that Bulman's ideas are a bit too simplistic and do not capture the whole scope of these genres (after all, genres are already quite loose and subject to shifts), but these movies still showcase his guidelines clearly. To Sir, With love has the utilitarian individualism on full display, while the other two have the expressive individualism be apparent. Breakfast Club has the kids worrying about who they are and what they will become, while Holdovers has Angus and Hunham learning to be better versions of themselves.
Bulman offers a lot of valid criticism when it comes to Hollywood and high school. I believe the primary aspect he was right about was the educational relationship to class and race. I feel that race, specially, is a topic that likes to get pushed the side and to pretend like it’s not valid, or it doesn’t happen anymore. Throughout many of the movies that we’ve watched in class, race has been in a big factor. In stand and deliver, race was used against the students in multiple occasions. Especially when the testing board accused the students of cheating because of how well they performed on the exam. Bulmans analysis was conducted a few years ago and I think it would be impossible to completely predict the trends in Hollywood. However, I still believe his critique for the most part stands true.
The main takeaways from Bulman was how he analyzed high school films that are separated by class; how there is a unifying feature of individualism, but is illustrated/represented differently between the socioeconomic classes; and the critique of his claim about race and class—the two social constructs are interconnected. I believe he was spot on with his claim on individualism. In all of the movies we’ve watched so far or discussed, the main character(s) battles internal and external conflicts to reach a part of their true self or come to a realization. In most cases, these conflicts arise due to the character's socioeconomic status and environment. For example, the students in Stand and Deliver faced economic and family situations that prohibited them from getting opportunities that could increase their social mobility. Through determination and encouragement from their teacher, one student was able to get a full-ride to college. As stated before, Bulman failed to acknowledge the intersection of race and class in his work, despite this concept being illustrated in a plethora of films. For example, how come in Stand and Deliver, the setting was in a low income, Hispanic neighborhood? How come in Holdovers, the Head Chef, who took the position at a rich school because she needed the money, had to be Black woman? I’m not saying that poor, predominantly White schools don’t exist, but we can’t deny the significance race holds in pop culture and entertainment. Film directors make these decisions because they represent the patterns in our society.
Bulman, in his work on Hollywood representations of high schools, critiques how films often present a stereotypical view of American high school life. One of the key points he gets right is his analysis of how Hollywood tends to oversimplify the high school experience, often portraying it through cliques and social hierarchies. For example films like The Breakfast Club reduce high school to a series of archetypes like the jock, the nerd, the popular girl, and so on. Bulman argues that these portrayals reinforce social norms and expectations, which highlights how certain high school movies can influence real-life dynamics by reducing complex realities to fit a narrative. Overall, Bulman is accurate in pointing out the stereotypical nature of high school films, but his critique might oversimplify how much these films impact viewers compared to other social forces.
Thinking back to Bulman's ideas of the portrayal of schooling in cinema, I think something he got right was him saying that they can shape our view of schooling and young adulthood. The movie Lady Bird stuck out to me as a movie about the troubles of growing into yourself as you become a young adult. This movie changed how I looked back on some aspects of my life just a few years ago. Something that I expected to disagree with even more after watching the three movies was his statement about class having more importance than race. To me the movie Dangerous Minds challenged this the most (as the other movies I watched had problems with diversity) in the movie the students, who are primarily POC, are shown having their struggles outside of school that are leading to their behavior in class. This however, was not really portrayed as much as it could have, and probably would have been had it been made more recently. I still disagree with his statemen, but would have liked to see more examples in the movies I watched showing he's wrong.
I think Bulman accurately captures how high school films reinforce class and social divisions. For example, in many films like The Breakfast Club or Mean Girls, students are often portrayed as belonging to rigid social cliques (the jocks, the nerds, the popular kids), which perpetuates the idea that high school is a place of deeply entrenched hierarchies. Bulman is also right in noting how race and ethnicity are handled in a limited and stereotypical way in movies. Minority characters are often portrayed through narrow lenses, such as the "token" minority friend, or they are absent from narratives altogether. This lack of complexity in racial representation aligns with Bulman’s critique that Hollywood reinforces the status quo rather than challenging it. However, Bulman’s work could be that he underestimates the potential for these films to inspire critical thought and reflection, particularly among younger audiences. While it is true that Hollywood films often rely on familiar tropes and stereotypes, they also provide a platform for viewers to engage with issues like bullying, self-identity, and societal pressure.
Bulman successfully manages to critique and analyze how Hollywood treats and depicts School in films. He gets a lot right when it comes to how social class, race, and individualism are perceived in school. A movie like The Breakfast Club demonstrates a prominent amount of individualism in the students in detention. To SIr, With Love provides its own insight to social class and how its students choose to treat school. Bulman however may not recognize how different each person is, especially adolescents, and how they react to school related films. Not everyone will get the same perception of school. Some may view it more positively than others and inspire different ideas.
Bulman’s main point that I took away from his reading was that the portrayal of the student and teacher relationships in films reinforces stereotypes and ideas of the way teenagers act from the viewer's point of view. One point that Bulman got right is the way movies create a shared perspective and how certain movies can portray situations that are unique to one specific type of person. However, a critique I have is that Bulman only focuses on one aspect of student life. Many students have different storylines and not just one certain issue regarding identity. For example, Freedom Writers shows the storyline of multiple students and in the end, they all unite through their experiences and realize that they all have one goal, to graduate and make it out of this city.
Jeff: I'd say Bulman's idea's hold up pretty well after watching all of these movies, which I feel a little silly now because at first I didn't want to agree with him. One thing he get right was the stereotyping of certain characters, in clueless Cher fall's right under the rich white girl stereotype, and the skater guy (Travis?) being a silly stoner. I also agree on the fact that there isn't much racial representation in movies like this they live in Los Angeles one of the most diverse cities in the United States and there's maybe two or three black people in the entire movie, Cher's best friend feels like the token black person to me. A critique I can give Bulman is that he needs to give other movies a chance, it feels like think every single is just a cut and paste "5 step plan". Do a lot of movie's follow what he thinks, yes but a lot of them don't and personally those stand out much much more than others. He's just stereotyping the entire genre of high school movies if that makes sense.
Bulmans ideas about highschool stereotypes really show in some of the movies we watched. Stereotypes such as the jock, nerd and goths are all shown in these movies such as breakfast club or Class rank. Bulman also talks about the relationships between teachers and students and how each group will interact with each other. Movies in hollywood tend to simplify high school via over characterisation and growth whereas in reality, school nowadays consist of use of technology and no real development of students besides the acquiring of traits deemed necessary by the school boards. These traits consist of listening and obeying teachers, using a bell to signify class changes and enforcing rules and punishments to straighten out students into ideal job candidates. Similar to Bulmans ideas, Hollywood tries to show in movies how differences in people can be overcome in the end and allow for deeper friendships or motivation to work harder.
I think Bulman is right when he talks about the idea of how Hollywood shows high schoolers and how that affects how high school actually is. He has a lot of good points throughout the whole article but the one that stood out to me was the films affecting our actual life. One part that I cannot get behind though is the avoidance of race. At first, I didn't notice it but when we talked about it in class I just couldn't get over it.
Bulman offers insightful analysis of the relationship between Hollywood and high school, which is especially helpful when attempting to comprehend how media affects young people. However, it is critical to challenge these notions by acknowledging the variety of student experiences that might not be represented in popular culture. The discussion regarding how media affects the lives of young people might be enhanced by a more inclusive stance.
Rachel: Bullman’s original idea isn’t wholly inaccurate; rather, I feel it is better viewed as a good foundation for viewing films regarding school. He did get the individualism aspect pretty spot on, at least from what I saw in the movies I watched. However, he still has his faults in his writing. Markayla used a quote in their response that I would like to dive further into, "There is very little use for history, community, or tradition in these high school films." I agree with what Markayla was saying about how he seems to ignore the intersections of race, gender, history, and culture in characters. The first movie I watched was Freedom Writers and that movie would not be what it is without the race of its characters and their culture.
Bulman brings out some significant issues about how Hollywood and high school experiences interact. His observation regarding the role of race and class in educational narratives is among his most important. It appears that conversations about race are frequently ignored, as though it means that these problems are no longer important. Race is a major theme in a lot of the movies that we've watched in class and discussed. I think that most of his criticisms are still relevant, especially in light of how recurring these motifs are in movies.
Bulman's ideas about high school in Hollywood may have had a couple of things that might have been true such as the role of society involving all kinds of stories within the Hollywood films because they had some meaning to which he had some good valid points at times. for the critique I would say that of how the criticism of the film's as we see in todays world was not his strong taste and having so much hatred for it because they see those high school kids be into more of the action films.
Bulman correctly points out that Hollywood often romanticizes high school life, emphasizing rebellion, popularity, and social hierarchies. He correctly points out that these films frequently present a misleading perspective of the high school experience by highlighting specific stereotypes, such as the "jock," "nerd," and "mean girl," which simplifies and sensationalizes the complexity of adolescent social life. This image, while enjoyable, has the potential to affect how kids perceive their own high school years, either by creating false expectations or supporting existing social systems.
However, Bulman's analysis could be criticized for underestimating the diversity of high school experiences and how modern films are moving away from these stereotypes. While many classic high school films depict a highly dramatized picture of puberty, more modern films and television series have shifted toward more nuanced, authentic portrayals of adolescence. For example, series like Euphoria and films like The Edge of Seventeen investigate the darker, more complex aspects of adolescence—mental health, identity, and the problems of oppressed groups—which the standard "high school movie" tends to gloss over or overlook. Bulman's argument fails to account for the expanding diversity in representation, which features characters from various origins, with differing degrees of privilege or suffering, contending with issues other than social dynamics and romantic subplots. The broad strokes of his argument—particularly the idea that high school is primarily depicted as a "social battlefield" in Hollywood—may have been more true in the 1980s and 1990s, but are less reflective of today's media landscape, where films and shows are increasingly moving away from a simplistic view of adolescence.
In conclusion, while Bulman's theory is correct in characterizing how Hollywood movies have traditionally distorted high school life, it may benefit from a greater emphasis on the growing and increasingly diverse portrayals of adolescence in current film.
Bulman's general theory about Hollywood movies being warped has shown itself to be true. The events that transpired in the movies watched, even in the true stories, are romanticized or exaggerated to some extent. Despite being correct in terms of exaggeration and romanticization, Bulman was still relatively closed-minded when talking about how high schoolers are affected by social media. Another criticism that is applicable is his diminishing of the racial aspect of many of these movies. Race plays a key role in many of these high school movies and drives or bolsters the plot in one way or another. It's presence and importance in these movies are not easily diminished without neglecting a significant part of the film.
Bulman is focused on seeing how people are represented in schools through media, after watching movies and shows it was interesting to rethink about his ideas. Since the media is more dramatic than in real life, so people are entertained, I wonder if that influenced his writing a lot and how much he took that into account. Movies also often do not have the time or bandwidth to touch on certain topics that would absolutely impact the situation in real life that is being shows in the media. I wonder if his lack of mentioning race is related to this problem or if it was something he himself did not want to talk about.
One aspect that Bulman gets right is the focus on individualism and the transformation throughout high school. You aren’t the same person when you first walk in high school, throughout the 4 years growth does happen. One critique I have is the outdated stereotypes such as nerd and jock.
Bulman’s insights into Hollywood's portrayal of high school resonate, particularly his analysis of individualism as a central theme in character development and plotlines. However, Bulman’s analysis could benefit from a deeper exploration of the intersectionality of race and class. While he rightly addresses the presence of these themes, he sometimes overlooks how intertwined they are in shaping narratives.
Bulman makes good points as far as commenting on individualism being a central theme in many Hollywood portrayals of schools. He takes a stance that socioeconomic status is the only divider in the schools that are talked about, and I feel like that isn't always the case. Moxie does a better job of showing how race, class, gender, and disability (or lack thereof) plays a part in schools and should be part of these portrayals as well.
Bulman points out key issues about how Hollywood and high school experiences connect, especially regarding race and class in education. He observes that conversations about race often get ignored, making it seem like these issues aren't important anymore. Race is a big theme in many of the films we've watched in class. I think his criticisms still matter, especially since these themes come up so often in movies.
Christine: I think Bulman got multiple things right in regard to his ideas concerning Hollywood and high school: Bulman believed that in high school movies, there is often a lone hero who stands outside of society. In all three of the movies I watched, I can see that being the case. Though To Sir, With Love is a British film, you can make the case that Mr. Thackeray is the lone hero, as he is the one who stands outside of the society of the school and has “unconventional” ideas about teaching and treating people. In The Breakfast Club, Bender serves as the lone hero who stands outside of society, as he is the one actively questioning and constantly rebelling against the school norms and what they are supposed to be doing during detention. Without Bender, it’s hard to say that if any of the plot or character development the kids go through would have occurred. As for Dead Poets Society, the lone hero is definitely Mr. Keating, who shakes things up in the rigid environment of Welton Academy; like Bender, his presence is the impetus for the events that follow and the transformations that occur within the characters he touches.
Bulman thought that the teenage years in the 1900s and 2000s are defined by two undertakings. One is figuring out your identity, and the other is becoming independent of your volition. The determining of one’s identity is definitely explored in The Breakfast Club; throughout the film, the kids gradually work on seeing themselves beyond the cliques they belong to and try to evaluate who they really are beyond stereotypes. In Dead Poets Society, both are ideas are explored; after encouragement, many of the boys stop repressing themselves to fit in with what’s expected of them, and they start exploring what they want to do during school, what career they want to have, and what beliefs they have instead of what their parents, teachers, and administration think is best.
Bulman proposed that high school movies emphasize utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism, as these two concepts are significant in middle-class culture, which is the main group that makes and consumes these movies. I can see how The Breakfast Club deals with expressive individualism in how the students begin discovering how to break out of the labels that defined them. In Dead Poets Society, one theme seems to be how utilitarian individualism, working hard toward a goal and not wasting effort on anything else, and expressive individualism, being who you are outside of what society expects you to be, can clash. The parents and institution represent utilitarian individualism while Mr. Keating represents expressive individualism, with the kids stuck in the middle (maybe leaning towards expressive individualism). The difference in how these two movies portray the theme of individualism could be explained by the time period, setting, and the fact that one movie is about a suburban school while the other represents an elite private school.
Christine, pt. 2: One thing Bulman got wrong was in stating that he could analyze these movies through the lens of social class without discussing race. In The Breakfast Club, the kids are all middle-class students attending a suburban school, and every character shown in the movie is white. In Dead Poets Society, the students and teachers are at an elite, religious, all-boys private high school, and all the characters are white. I also found that the school is Episcopalian, which is a pretty white denomination of Christianity. The only movie that I watched that was even a little diverse was To Sir, With Love, which took place in a poor public school where all the students were lower class. If race truly could be kept separate in discussions of class, then there wouldn’t be such a drastic difference in representation.
Bulman claimed that women traditionally had expressive individualism in contrast to men having utilitarian/rugged individualism, which can be seen in high school movies through their depiction as love interests or objects of sexual desires for men. While Bulman isn’t wrong in how women end up being represented in high school movies (it was visible in all the three that I watched), I’d like to argue that isn’t truly expressive individualism. Sure, maybe what Bulman was thinking is that women’s roles are outside the society of utilitarian individualism and rugged individualism that men are a part of, and therefore, that relates to what expressive individualism is. However, if this is what is expected of women in society, to fulfill a man’s romantic or sexual interest, I don’t think this can be considered expressive individualism, especially since it’s playing into a stereotype.
I believe Bulman was spot on, on the aspect of having "hierarchies" in high school, such as jocks, nerds, popular girls, etc. The breakfast Club is a great example of that, even clueless, though it isn't as good example like mean girls since clueless is more focused on Cher's self growth than being popular and accepted like mean girls. However, high school movies are really how he explained they'd be in the sense of popularity, individualism, and stereotypes. One critique I do have on is race. There wasn't a lot of diversity in these movies, except for Sir, With Love, but its setting is in a poor public school and lower class characters. I believe there's a huge drastic difference in these movies when it comes to separating race.
Bulman captures his interpretation of HighSchool in his works, showing the correlation between social class and societal standing in public schools. However I think he undermines the effect of race in public schools. What I mean is the staff, books, and overall educational direction would be substantially greater at a predominately white and fiscally stable community/high school, than in a marginalized and minority one. I believe it was easier for Bulman to see it in an economic view because he never had to deal with the effects of poor public schooling, hindering his ability to see past his biases.
I think that Bulman got it right when he mentioned how Hollywood is a direct correlation to not necessarily how high school really is but the societal expectation of it. I also think Bulman was correct in noting that sometimes Hollywood and high school work as a paradox in the sense that they both shape each other in a way. The only critique I have for Bulman is he seems to exclude various extraneous factors that contribute to this paradox such as gender and race and how this effects both Hollywood and the high school experience.
Bulman's ideas about Hollywood's portrayal of high school, especially how individualism shapes characters and plots is spot on. In fact, his observations partially influenced the way I view this specific genre now. Suburban students in these films often seek identity through rebellion against societal norms, while those from low-income backgrounds strive to escape poverty through hard work. However, Bulman overlooks the significance of the interconnectedness of race in these narratives. For example, he states, "There is very little use for history, community, or tradition in these high school films." This absence is rooted in systemic issues like white supremacy, which often marginalizes these values. He mentions that the exclusion of women from the social frame gives an incomplete picture of our social society and I think the same applies for oppressed groups.
ReplyDeleteHannah:
ReplyDeleteI feel that Bulman was going in the right direction when he delineated the types of stories told in different types of schools, but to me there are more guidelines and not hard rules. There is a noticeable trend with the movies in that those focusing on lower-class schools have the teacher be the focus and those that take place in a more well-off school tend to have students be the focus. In "To Sir, With Love," the story was focused on a teacher working in a lower-class school and turning his students around for the better, teaching them how to be proper adults. In "The Breakfast Club," the students learn to become friends while in detention and what the future may hold for them. In "The Holdovers," Angus and Hunham both grow as people while stuck at school over the holidays. Of the three that I watched, only one could be definitely categorized as a lower-class school, with perhaps an argument being made for the school in Breakfast Club. To Sir, With Love has utilitarian individuality be the most prominent, as it is shown to be most important for the students to be attractive and ready for work. The other two have expressive individualism be most important, as Breakfast Club focuses on the kids' friendship and the fear of becoming their parents, and Holdovers focuses on two characters that learn that they are more similar than they thought and are able to grow throughout the movie. I do think that Bulman's ideas are a bit too simplistic and do not capture the whole scope of these genres (after all, genres are already quite loose and subject to shifts), but these movies still showcase his guidelines clearly. To Sir, With love has the utilitarian individualism on full display, while the other two have the expressive individualism be apparent. Breakfast Club has the kids worrying about who they are and what they will become, while Holdovers has Angus and Hunham learning to be better versions of themselves.
Bulman offers a lot of valid criticism when it comes to Hollywood and high school. I believe the primary aspect he was right about was the educational relationship to class and race. I feel that race, specially, is a topic that likes to get pushed the side and to pretend like it’s not valid, or it doesn’t happen anymore. Throughout many of the movies that we’ve watched in class, race has been in a big factor. In stand and deliver, race was used against the students in multiple occasions. Especially when the testing board accused the students of cheating because of how well they performed on the exam. Bulmans analysis was conducted a few years ago and I think it would be impossible to completely predict the trends in Hollywood. However, I still believe his critique for the most part stands true.
ReplyDeleteThe main takeaways from Bulman was how he analyzed high school films that are separated by class; how there is a unifying feature of individualism, but is illustrated/represented differently between the socioeconomic classes; and the critique of his claim about race and class—the two social constructs are interconnected.
ReplyDeleteI believe he was spot on with his claim on individualism. In all of the movies we’ve watched so far or discussed, the main character(s) battles internal and external conflicts to reach a part of their true self or come to a realization. In most cases, these conflicts arise due to the character's socioeconomic status and environment. For example, the students in Stand and Deliver faced economic and family situations that prohibited them from getting opportunities that could increase their social mobility. Through determination and encouragement from their teacher, one student was able to get a full-ride to college.
As stated before, Bulman failed to acknowledge the intersection of race and class in his work, despite this concept being illustrated in a plethora of films. For example, how come in Stand and Deliver, the setting was in a low income, Hispanic neighborhood? How come in Holdovers, the Head Chef, who took the position at a rich school because she needed the money, had to be Black woman? I’m not saying that poor, predominantly White schools don’t exist, but we can’t deny the significance race holds in pop culture and entertainment. Film directors make these decisions because they represent the patterns in our society.
Bulman, in his work on Hollywood representations of high schools, critiques how films often present a stereotypical view of American high school life. One of the key points he gets right is his analysis of how Hollywood tends to oversimplify the high school experience, often portraying it through cliques and social hierarchies. For example films like The Breakfast Club reduce high school to a series of archetypes like the jock, the nerd, the popular girl, and so on. Bulman argues that these portrayals reinforce social norms and expectations, which highlights how certain high school movies can influence real-life dynamics by reducing complex realities to fit a narrative. Overall, Bulman is accurate in pointing out the stereotypical nature of high school films, but his critique might oversimplify how much these films impact viewers compared to other social forces.
ReplyDeleteThinking back to Bulman's ideas of the portrayal of schooling in cinema, I think something he got right was him saying that they can shape our view of schooling and young adulthood. The movie Lady Bird stuck out to me as a movie about the troubles of growing into yourself as you become a young adult. This movie changed how I looked back on some aspects of my life just a few years ago. Something that I expected to disagree with even more after watching the three movies was his statement about class having more importance than race. To me the movie Dangerous Minds challenged this the most (as the other movies I watched had problems with diversity) in the movie the students, who are primarily POC, are shown having their struggles outside of school that are leading to their behavior in class. This however, was not really portrayed as much as it could have, and probably would have been had it been made more recently. I still disagree with his statemen, but would have liked to see more examples in the movies I watched showing he's wrong.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think Bulman accurately captures how high school films reinforce class and social divisions. For example, in many films like The Breakfast Club or Mean Girls, students are often portrayed as belonging to rigid social cliques (the jocks, the nerds, the popular kids), which perpetuates the idea that high school is a place of deeply entrenched hierarchies. Bulman is also right in noting how race and ethnicity are handled in a limited and stereotypical way in movies. Minority characters are often portrayed through narrow lenses, such as the "token" minority friend, or they are absent from narratives altogether. This lack of complexity in racial representation aligns with Bulman’s critique that Hollywood reinforces the status quo rather than challenging it.
However, Bulman’s work could be that he underestimates the potential for these films to inspire critical thought and reflection, particularly among younger audiences. While it is true that Hollywood films often rely on familiar tropes and stereotypes, they also provide a platform for viewers to engage with issues like bullying, self-identity, and societal pressure.
Bulman successfully manages to critique and analyze how Hollywood treats and depicts School in films. He gets a lot right when it comes to how social class, race, and individualism are perceived in school. A movie like The Breakfast Club demonstrates a prominent amount of individualism in the students in detention. To SIr, With Love provides its own insight to social class and how its students choose to treat school. Bulman however may not recognize how different each person is, especially adolescents, and how they react to school related films. Not everyone will get the same perception of school. Some may view it more positively than others and inspire different ideas.
ReplyDeleteBulman’s main point that I took away from his reading was that the portrayal of the student and teacher relationships in films reinforces stereotypes and ideas of the way teenagers act from the viewer's point of view. One point that Bulman got right is the way movies create a shared perspective and how certain movies can portray situations that are unique to one specific type of person. However, a critique I have is that Bulman only focuses on one aspect of student life. Many students have different storylines and not just one certain issue regarding identity. For example, Freedom Writers shows the storyline of multiple students and in the end, they all unite through their experiences and realize that they all have one goal, to graduate and make it out of this city.
ReplyDeleteJeff:
ReplyDeleteI'd say Bulman's idea's hold up pretty well after watching all of these movies, which I feel a little silly now because at first I didn't want to agree with him. One thing he get right was the stereotyping of certain characters, in clueless Cher fall's right under the rich white girl stereotype, and the skater guy (Travis?) being a silly stoner. I also agree on the fact that there isn't much racial representation in movies like this they live in Los Angeles one of the most diverse cities in the United States and there's maybe two or three black people in the entire movie, Cher's best friend feels like the token black person to me. A critique I can give Bulman is that he needs to give other movies a chance, it feels like think every single is just a cut and paste "5 step plan". Do a lot of movie's follow what he thinks, yes but a lot of them don't and personally those stand out much much more than others. He's just stereotyping the entire genre of high school movies if that makes sense.
Bulmans ideas about highschool stereotypes really show in some of the movies we watched. Stereotypes such as the jock, nerd and goths are all shown in these movies such as breakfast club or Class rank. Bulman also talks about the relationships between teachers and students and how each group will interact with each other. Movies in hollywood tend to simplify high school via over characterisation and growth whereas in reality, school nowadays consist of use of technology and no real development of students besides the acquiring of traits deemed necessary by the school boards. These traits consist of listening and obeying teachers, using a bell to signify class changes and enforcing rules and punishments to straighten out students into ideal job candidates. Similar to Bulmans ideas, Hollywood tries to show in movies how differences in people can be overcome in the end and allow for deeper friendships or motivation to work harder.
ReplyDeleteI think Bulman is right when he talks about the idea of how Hollywood shows high schoolers and how that affects how high school actually is. He has a lot of good points throughout the whole article but the one that stood out to me was the films affecting our actual life. One part that I cannot get behind though is the avoidance of race. At first, I didn't notice it but when we talked about it in class I just couldn't get over it.
ReplyDeleteBulman offers insightful analysis of the relationship between Hollywood and high school, which is especially helpful when attempting to comprehend how media affects young people. However, it is critical to challenge these notions by acknowledging the variety of student experiences that might not be represented in popular culture. The discussion regarding how media affects the lives of young people might be enhanced by a more inclusive stance.
ReplyDeleteRachel:
ReplyDeleteBullman’s original idea isn’t wholly inaccurate; rather, I feel it is better viewed as a good foundation for viewing films regarding school. He did get the individualism aspect pretty spot on, at least from what I saw in the movies I watched. However, he still has his faults in his writing. Markayla used a quote in their response that I would like to dive further into, "There is very little use for history, community, or tradition in these high school films." I agree with what Markayla was saying about how he seems to ignore the intersections of race, gender, history, and culture in characters. The first movie I watched was Freedom Writers and that movie would not be what it is without the race of its characters and their culture.
Bulman brings out some significant issues about how Hollywood and high school experiences interact. His observation regarding the role of race and class in educational narratives is among his most important. It appears that conversations about race are frequently ignored, as though it means that these problems are no longer important. Race is a major theme in a lot of the movies that we've watched in class and discussed. I think that most of his criticisms are still relevant, especially in light of how recurring these motifs are in movies.
ReplyDeleteBulman's ideas about high school in Hollywood may have had a couple of things that might have been true such as the role of society involving all kinds of stories within the Hollywood films because they had some meaning to which he had some good valid points at times. for the critique I would say that of how the criticism of the film's as we see in todays world was not his strong taste and having so much hatred for it because they see those high school kids be into more of the action films.
ReplyDeleteBulman correctly points out that Hollywood often romanticizes high school life, emphasizing rebellion, popularity, and social hierarchies. He correctly points out that these films frequently present a misleading perspective of the high school experience by highlighting specific stereotypes, such as the "jock," "nerd," and "mean girl," which simplifies and sensationalizes the complexity of adolescent social life. This image, while enjoyable, has the potential to affect how kids perceive their own high school years, either by creating false expectations or supporting existing social systems.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Bulman's analysis could be criticized for underestimating the diversity of high school experiences and how modern films are moving away from these stereotypes. While many classic high school films depict a highly dramatized picture of puberty, more modern films and television series have shifted toward more nuanced, authentic portrayals of adolescence. For example, series like Euphoria and films like The Edge of Seventeen investigate the darker, more complex aspects of adolescence—mental health, identity, and the problems of oppressed groups—which the standard "high school movie" tends to gloss over or overlook. Bulman's argument fails to account for the expanding diversity in representation, which features characters from various origins, with differing degrees of privilege or suffering, contending with issues other than social dynamics and romantic subplots. The broad strokes of his argument—particularly the idea that high school is primarily depicted as a "social battlefield" in Hollywood—may have been more true in the 1980s and 1990s, but are less reflective of today's media landscape, where films and shows are increasingly moving away from a simplistic view of adolescence.
In conclusion, while Bulman's theory is correct in characterizing how Hollywood movies have traditionally distorted high school life, it may benefit from a greater emphasis on the growing and increasingly diverse portrayals of adolescence in current film.
Bulman's general theory about Hollywood movies being warped has shown itself to be true. The events that transpired in the movies watched, even in the true stories, are romanticized or exaggerated to some extent. Despite being correct in terms of exaggeration and romanticization, Bulman was still relatively closed-minded when talking about how high schoolers are affected by social media. Another criticism that is applicable is his diminishing of the racial aspect of many of these movies. Race plays a key role in many of these high school movies and drives or bolsters the plot in one way or another. It's presence and importance in these movies are not easily diminished without neglecting a significant part of the film.
ReplyDeleteBulman is focused on seeing how people are represented in schools through media, after watching movies and shows it was interesting to rethink about his ideas. Since the media is more dramatic than in real life, so people are entertained, I wonder if that influenced his writing a lot and how much he took that into account. Movies also often do not have the time or bandwidth to touch on certain topics that would absolutely impact the situation in real life that is being shows in the media. I wonder if his lack of mentioning race is related to this problem or if it was something he himself did not want to talk about.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that Bulman gets right is the focus on individualism and the transformation throughout high school. You aren’t the same person when you first walk in high school, throughout the 4 years growth does happen. One critique I have is the outdated stereotypes such as nerd and jock.
ReplyDeleteBulman’s insights into Hollywood's portrayal of high school resonate, particularly his analysis of individualism as a central theme in character development and plotlines. However, Bulman’s analysis could benefit from a deeper exploration of the intersectionality of race and class. While he rightly addresses the presence of these themes, he sometimes overlooks how intertwined they are in shaping narratives.
ReplyDeleteBulman makes good points as far as commenting on individualism being a central theme in many Hollywood portrayals of schools. He takes a stance that socioeconomic status is the only divider in the schools that are talked about, and I feel like that isn't always the case. Moxie does a better job of showing how race, class, gender, and disability (or lack thereof) plays a part in schools and should be part of these portrayals as well.
ReplyDeleteBulman points out key issues about how Hollywood and high school experiences connect, especially regarding race and class in education. He observes that conversations about race often get ignored, making it seem like these issues aren't important anymore. Race is a big theme in many of the films we've watched in class. I think his criticisms still matter, especially since these themes come up so often in movies.
ReplyDeleteDavid Cho
DeleteChristine:
ReplyDeleteI think Bulman got multiple things right in regard to his ideas concerning Hollywood and high school:
Bulman believed that in high school movies, there is often a lone hero who stands outside of society. In all three of the movies I watched, I can see that being the case. Though To Sir, With Love is a British film, you can make the case that Mr. Thackeray is the lone hero, as he is the one who stands outside of the society of the school and has “unconventional” ideas about teaching and treating people. In The Breakfast Club, Bender serves as the lone hero who stands outside of society, as he is the one actively questioning and constantly rebelling against the school norms and what they are supposed to be doing during detention. Without Bender, it’s hard to say that if any of the plot or character development the kids go through would have occurred. As for Dead Poets Society, the lone hero is definitely Mr. Keating, who shakes things up in the rigid environment of Welton Academy; like Bender, his presence is the impetus for the events that follow and the transformations that occur within the characters he touches.
Bulman thought that the teenage years in the 1900s and 2000s are defined by two undertakings. One is figuring out your identity, and the other is becoming independent of your volition. The determining of one’s identity is definitely explored in The Breakfast Club; throughout the film, the kids gradually work on seeing themselves beyond the cliques they belong to and try to evaluate who they really are beyond stereotypes. In Dead Poets Society, both are ideas are explored; after encouragement, many of the boys stop repressing themselves to fit in with what’s expected of them, and they start exploring what they want to do during school, what career they want to have, and what beliefs they have instead of what their parents, teachers, and administration think is best.
Bulman proposed that high school movies emphasize utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism, as these two concepts are significant in middle-class culture, which is the main group that makes and consumes these movies. I can see how The Breakfast Club deals with expressive individualism in how the students begin discovering how to break out of the labels that defined them. In Dead Poets Society, one theme seems to be how utilitarian individualism, working hard toward a goal and not wasting effort on anything else, and expressive individualism, being who you are outside of what society expects you to be, can clash. The parents and institution represent utilitarian individualism while Mr. Keating represents expressive individualism, with the kids stuck in the middle (maybe leaning towards expressive individualism). The difference in how these two movies portray the theme of individualism could be explained by the time period, setting, and the fact that one movie is about a suburban school while the other represents an elite private school.
Christine, pt. 2:
ReplyDeleteOne thing Bulman got wrong was in stating that he could analyze these movies through the lens of social class without discussing race. In The Breakfast Club, the kids are all middle-class students attending a suburban school, and every character shown in the movie is white. In Dead Poets Society, the students and teachers are at an elite, religious, all-boys private high school, and all the characters are white. I also found that the school is Episcopalian, which is a pretty white denomination of Christianity. The only movie that I watched that was even a little diverse was To Sir, With Love, which took place in a poor public school where all the students were lower class. If race truly could be kept separate in discussions of class, then there wouldn’t be such a drastic difference in representation.
Bulman claimed that women traditionally had expressive individualism in contrast to men having utilitarian/rugged individualism, which can be seen in high school movies through their depiction as love interests or objects of sexual desires for men. While Bulman isn’t wrong in how women end up being represented in high school movies (it was visible in all the three that I watched), I’d like to argue that isn’t truly expressive individualism. Sure, maybe what Bulman was thinking is that women’s roles are outside the society of utilitarian individualism and rugged individualism that men are a part of, and therefore, that relates to what expressive individualism is. However, if this is what is expected of women in society, to fulfill a man’s romantic or sexual interest, I don’t think this can be considered expressive individualism, especially since it’s playing into a stereotype.
I believe Bulman was spot on, on the aspect of having "hierarchies" in high school, such as jocks, nerds, popular girls, etc. The breakfast Club is a great example of that, even clueless, though it isn't as good example like mean girls since clueless is more focused on Cher's self growth than being popular and accepted like mean girls. However, high school movies are really how he explained they'd be in the sense of popularity, individualism, and stereotypes. One critique I do have on is race. There wasn't a lot of diversity in these movies, except for Sir, With Love, but its setting is in a poor public school and lower class characters. I believe there's a huge drastic difference in these movies when it comes to separating race.
ReplyDeleteBulman captures his interpretation of HighSchool in his works, showing the correlation between social class and societal standing in public schools. However I think he undermines the effect of race in public schools. What I mean is the staff, books, and overall educational direction would be substantially greater at a predominately white and fiscally stable community/high school, than in a marginalized and minority one. I believe it was easier for Bulman to see it in an economic view because he never had to deal with the effects of poor public schooling, hindering his ability to see past his biases.
ReplyDeleteI think that Bulman got it right when he mentioned how Hollywood is a direct correlation to not necessarily how high school really is but the societal expectation of it. I also think Bulman was correct in noting that sometimes Hollywood and high school work as a paradox in the sense that they both shape each other in a way. The only critique I have for Bulman is he seems to exclude various extraneous factors that contribute to this paradox such as gender and race and how this effects both Hollywood and the high school experience.
ReplyDelete