Last Blog Post RIP IB Film

Films about outsiders aren't really that rare. We love to watch them because we like to see stories that we don't always hear about and make us see a completely different life that we never thought we'd see. I was out almost every day for My Own Private Idaho, and I can't make enough of an educated guess to write about it so I'll focus on Flirting.

Flirting had two outsiders. The first one that we meet is Danny. He's an outsider because his personality differs from that of the other students at his school. He's kinda weird and stuff y'know. He has one good friend and he didn't like rugby, right? That's kind of why he didn't fit in a lot. Private schools are tough to make friends in because most of the people have one set personality and whoever isn't like that will just kind of hang around with others. We followed him around. We were where Danny was and we experienced what he experienced. That way, we kind of mentally isolated him more. We were only primarily seeing his side (with the exception of some scenes where we saw Thandiwe on the other side of the lake, but she's the outsider in her school so it's kind of the same thing) and his interactions with others, rather than seeing people interact with each other more. We experienced his life.

And also Thandiwe's life to a lesser extent. Who was more of an outsider due to her race. The interaction between both outsiders and the way both of them learned about each other makes them be isolated together in a way. And this is because we followed Danny for most of the film. Following Danny led to following Thandiwe and the bond that they created.

I'm gonna miss you Mr. Boswell. I'm glad I switched out of physics and joined your class. It's been a wonderful two years.

Post Zach's Blog Last

Films with an outside group at the center of the narrative are very common, rightfully so because they're stories can be some of the most interesting. However in the vast array of films about outsiders, Gus Van Sant's My Own Private Idaho sticks out as an enormously unique film.  Part of that is due to its subject matter, not many filmmakers have chosen to tackle this particular subculture, but it is mostly due to the wide range of styles that Van Sant incorporates.

Apart from the dramatic elements of the story and the subtly humorous moments, there are quite a few interesting and unique stylistic choices that Van Sant employs.  Namely, the use of documentary style semi-interviews with the street kids as they recount stories of their experiences to the camera.  These scenes serve the purpose of getting the camera close up to the kids, as though we are a part of their group.  The way it is framed we are not sure who the kids are talking to or who is listening to them.   The film exudes a profound sense of empathy for these kids and their situation.  This is distinctive from say a Harmony Korine film, with scenes like this Van Sant puts the focus on the kids, their story and creating a sense of empathy.  There are also elements of magical realism such as the magazine cover scene and the near seamless integration of Shakespeare's language into the dialogue.  On top of all of that we have the tableau sex montages which provide a unique spin on shooting and editing sex scenes.  (Defying the rules of sex scenes that Robert and I so eloquently demonstrated in our presentation last year)

The styles present almost make it feel like Van Sant is experimenting to find what works for him.  However it never feels messy, the styles all flow together and make for a truly distinct viewing experience.  I love this film and I think it is a perfect example of unique and fresh storytelling.

Wow this is the last assignment I'll turn in late for IB Film.  I'm getting a little emotional.  Thank you to Mr. Boswell for helping me develop an intense passion for viewing and analyzing film. So long everybody, it's been real.  I wish you all luck in your future endeavors.  I love you guys.

I don't want a D

Outsider art is one of my favorite movements. On an average Sunday afternoon, you can find me listening to Daniel Johnston while sorting through piles of paintings left by dead janitors.

That being said, my good friend Owen P. Kelley was right in saying that I would enjoy My Own Private Idaho. Directed by Van Sant, MOPI deals with what was at the time a hot topic: MALE PROSTITUTION. Tackling such a taboo topic is bound to marginalize the film. But even with its limited reach, MOPI manages to make real what people wished would remain out of sight. Mikey and co. are portrayed as complex people, each with his own personality and unique dream. I can hear what you're saying: "but wait, Johnny, even mainstream films strive for character depth!" ALAS, it is exactly this character depth that turns Van Sant's film into an outsider one because these characters are so controversial in their raw and unique emotional authenticity.

the last hurrah: my own private blog post

Well, here we are.  The final blog post, on the final days of high school.  This is long overdue.  Here it goes.

After watching the film in class, I was scrolling through my Tumblr dashboard and found that the American Apparel blog had posted a screencap from the film.  I think that says a lot about what kind of company American Apparel is.  My Own Private Idaho, directed by Gus Van Sant, is film about an outsider among outsider.  I think American Apparel was trying to get us in touch with that sentiment in order to buy their over-priced t-shirts and crop tops.

This film, having been made during the wave of queer-genre films in the nineties, is set up to basically be a part of that subgenre that found itself in the mainstream.  Though it does occupy its fair share of the film as Mike treads the waters of male prostitution and inevitably falls in love with his best friend, Van Sant finds distinct ways to lead the audience away from what was mainstream gay cinema.  One of the strongest aspect of the film especially was how the sex scenes were edited and shot.  This isn't Blue Is The Warmest Color  or even Shame where the gratuitous and often overly-explicit sex scenes eventually become plain overkill.  The way the film hands to you on exactly what's happening during intimate moments draws away from the fetishism it could have easily become.

Within the first 5 minutes of the film, we see Mike on the brink of climax.  Instead of sustaining the action to the peak, it cuts to a dilapidated barn collapsing on what we can assume is the same road in Idaho we spent during the intro to the film.  This specific moment serves two purposes.  It gives what could have been an incredibly intimate moment, a man reaching his climax, a so-called break in the action.  It leads the audience away from the fetishism and instead makes you very aware of emotion while also creating comedic relief.  Secondly, the symbol of the dilapidated barn falling onto that Idaho road is very symbolic of Mike's life.  I think it's a possible allusion to the end of the film, where he is dilapidated, worn, broken, and tired.  And still, he falls back on that same road in Idaho.

The sex scenes also take a turn for the weird when Van Sant made the choice not to have them actually go through all the motions and instead edited together the characters frozen, in the middle of the action, not moving.  They are like still lifes, but the camera is placed in an awkward and sometimes unflattering position in the action.  Even more so, they're more than just snapshots, shots that go in and out, speeding up the pace.  They linger for moments, allowing you to absorb and observe everything going on in the scene.  They still maintain the eroticism, but the effect isn't as jarring.

I think Van Sant wanted to contribute to the queer new wave and the genre that was entering the mainstream at the time the film was made.  It was an important movement for the queer community.  But Van Sant wasn't a man for the mainstream.  He told the story of an outsider among outsiders, and that's what this film is. A narcoleptic prostitute among other prostitutes against the world.  Nothing is conventional, not even the journey.

The entire film is on YouTube, by the way.

it wouldn't be ib film if i'd done this on time

Films about outsiders are not always outsiders in the world of film. In fact, they're usually pretty common, and their production will usually follow the normal guidelines of popular movies. My Own Private Idaho and Flirting are both films about outsiders that are also outsiders in the world of film. Idaho especially stood out to me because of its unusual editing, risky topic, and theatricality.

Idaho contains multiple dream/hallucination sequences that involve a lot of images that are only somewhat related to the plot. Clouds rolling across the screen, houses burning down, vintage-looking film of a woman and child--all of these appear multiple times throughout the film. Dream sequences or hallucinations in films are often used to help the hero discover their true calling or some such cliche, but here, they are mostly used to present the main character's narcolepsy. The film also uses title cards for each location, an unusual sight. Another odd choice was the insertion of the teens speaking in a Portland diner. None of them are actually characters in the film, and the way they speak is almost documentary style. They seem to be giving interviews about their personal lives, again as though they are in a documentary about male prostitutes. The most out-there editing technique is the one employed in every sex scene: we never actually see any real sex, we just see still frames of the actors in sexual positions and poses. Most directors shoot sex scenes with a lot of movement everywhere, close-ups of body parts and lots of noise. Idaho, however, creates sex scenes that are full of imaginative sexuality but devoid of movement.

The other notable outsider aspect of My Own Private Idaho is the film's extremely risky subject material: male prostitution, narcolepsy, criminals, and even a little incest. These are not exactly the kinds of things one sees in blockbuster films. All of these bizarre topics are wrapped in Shakespearian dialogue and the story of Henry the Fourth.

Completely forgot this was happening

It's fitting that both Gus Van Sant's and John Duigan's respective 1991 releases are largely unheard of, as their central characters remain on the threshold of society themselves. My Own Private Idaho tells the story of Mikey, a street hustler, while Flirting follows Danny, a socially reserved teenager in a strict prep school. Both characters are estranged to some degree from their parents and have only one or two close friends, and thus spend most of the films on their own, allowing the audience to become much more familiar and intimate with their arcs.
 
In Flirting's case, Duigan constantly follows Danny. The audience goes where he goes, sees what he sees, and is allowed into bedrooms, locker rooms, private quarters, and any other school facilities that a student might have access to. This point of view allows for a much more intimate portrayal of Danny's escapades (especially his romance), something not often seen even in other notable coming-of-age films.  The lack of parental presence and the fact that every single scene involves Danny contribute even more to the film's separation from conventional teen dramas/romances.

Van Sant certainly avoids any notion of mainstream success with the very premise of My Own Private Idaho. In 1991, the subject of male prostitution was still something not often seen in feature films, much less explored in depth. Van Sant decided to take this controversial topic and write highly sympathetic and rich characters, who prove to be compelling despite their less-than-reputable profession. Additionally, Van Sant makes heavy use of symbols and fantastic imagery (the falling barn comes to mind) to illustrate a character's emotion rather than focus solely on the film's plot. It's probably also worth mentioning that the film is broken up by location, and the audience is made aware by color-coded title cards (PORTLAND... SEATTLE... IDAHO, etc.), an unconventional editing decision if any. Such unique (and jarring) directorial choices contribute to the film's overall isolated and disjointed mood, which appropriately reflects Mikey's own internal conflict.

étranger

I felt like My Own Private Idaho (MOPI) and Flirting are "outsiders," or aren't mainstream movies because they had some of the French influences. Nudity was of course one of the things that stood out. In MOPI, there were couple scenes where main characters were photographed naked for magazines and such. This created awkward, yet somewhat humorous atmosphere in the movie, which I think set MOPI apart from other mainstream movies (same thing for Flirting as well). Another thing I noticed is that there were many episodes in a movie--sort of like The 400 Blows--they were episodic. For instance, in Flirting, there were episodes of spanking, rugby, dance hall, boxing, intense tension between girls, and Danny and Thandiwe's secret meeting. There was only one basic theme--in Flirting, for example, love between Danny and Thandiwe--and all the other episodes added different perspectives to that theme.

The French influence--nudity and many episodes--is what I think separated MOPI and Flirting from other movies and made them the "outsiders."

Last Post ever! *sniff* *sniff*

I think that in the film the Outsiders, they made a filmthat was unique from others because in the different subject matter from other films of the time. Another difference from main stream media is that it showed smaller kids exibiting sexual behavior. These were not used in films for other 20 or so years. Another thing that made Outsiders was the amount of long shots in the film without the use of cutting.

Film Blog Post

There are instances in the film Flirting that bring to mind ideas of ‘lonerism’ and the outsider. The way these moments are implemented also sets the film apart from more mainstream “coming of age” stories. Allow me to explain.

A couple moments in the film that come to mind quite literally show our protagonist, Danny Embling as an outsider. The scene of Danny on the roof outside the girl’s dormitory, where he is juxtaposed to a cat implying some sort of natural instinct Danny has to do things and act as a solitary unit, shows his outsider persona in an interesting and unique fashion. Perhaps an even more obvious example would be the several shots of Danny crossing the river via row boat. He wades across the shore, the only thing moving in a still calm night. He quite literally (and metaphorically) goes against the tide. Furthermore, the shots similar to these always portray the night sky in such a beautiful manner, they almost look like hand drawn paintings (maybe they are?) This whole “artful” way of showing the backdrop, especially of the girl’s school, could be seen as a reflection of Danny’s romanticism of the whole scenario. Boating across a river alone under the moonlight, risking expulsion, for a girl? That’s pretty hot and bold. It also sets the film apart from more mainstream pieces. How often does a set piece reflect the protagonist’s inner sentiments in mainstream films? The answer is probably: not that often.

Another aspect of the film that sets it apart is the narration. Plenty of mainstream films include some sort of narration, but the narration in Flirting is unexpectedly intimate. Keeping a steady, soft, and poetically written flow of speech for the entire film, it feels as if the audience is Danny’s audio diary, to which he doesn’t share a summary of events but instead insightful and poetic comments on being the outsider and other poignant observations. Another fantastic scene that needs mentioning is the boxing match scene. While Danny is repeatedly smashed in the face, the film gradually reverts to slow motion, as he struggles to look straight. Eventually we arrive to a first person perspective where the camera sways back and forth in extreme slo-mo to the heavy breathing sounds of Danny, accompanied with some deep synth. The whole thing is evocative of a man in a space suit traversing some asteroid. The absolute silence besides the persistent sound of heavy breathing and the first person slow motion both portray this idea. As Danny is finally knocked out, the SFX played almost sounds like a rocket; blasting off to some distant planet, leaving Danny alone. And what could be more alone than being stuck in a spacesuit floating around in the depths of nothingness? It certainly looks and sounds very cool.

Even with the presence of Danny’s love interest, the film is no less a story of outsiders and loners. The whole idea is: two outsiders who are alone, together. If that makes any sense. It’s certainly not anything like Going The Distance with Justin Long and Drew Barrymore, where a long distance relationship is too much to bare so they romantically get together at the end. The end of Flirting is hopeful, yes. But it certainly gives you less in terms of a joyous resolution. Perhaps comparing an old movie like Flirting to a more contemporary romcom is slightly pointless, but the former hardly feels outdated in any way. Flirting’s characters a all outsiders, and thanks to some unique cinematography and editing, so is the film as a whole.

Anyways, GOOD MOVIE.

BLOG POST #4: OUTSIDER FILMS

So both films, My Own Private Idaho (Van Sant 1991) and Flirting (Duigan 1991) focused on outsiders.  Explain how one or both directors produced, shot, and/or edited the project to ensure the finished films themselves were outsiders, apart from main stream cinema.

Asmerrfikcasn ryTesrrennnnh

As I've said before, I think people spend too much time frantically debating the "true" definition of a documentary. It has been demonstrated countless times that the distinction between documentaries and fictional films is not definite. The two extremes do not exist in separate piles like we want them to. Truth in film is a spectrum.

Burnstein's American Teen is no exception. She sought out to tell a story, and through that story convey the emotions, dreams, hardships, etc. of an American teenager. Any and all criticisms of the film should be derived from how well the critic believes Burnstein met that goal. The first criticism, "too glossy," is almost completely irrelevant to anything regarding the validity of documentaries. I am assuming the speaker of that complaint expects all documentaries to heavily rely on the Cinéma vérité style of documentary filmmaking, but that is simply untrue and to believe otherwise would in fact stifle the truth's ability to shine in a film. The second criticism, "too willfully mainstream," is one I actually do agree with. American Teen's gravitation towards small town whiteys severely detracts from its ability to portray the story of the average American teenager. Admittedly, minority demographics outside of Warsaw, Indiana can still probably find pieces of themselves in the given Breakfast Club defaults, but the film could have benefitted so much more had it forced non-minority audience members to empathize with the problems of a more balanced Breakfast Club. Lastly, the dreaded accusation of inauthenticity in a documentary... Heavens to Betsy, a documentary that skews contexts in order to more precisely convey truths?! Unheard of! Whether or not she gave the subjects of the documentary dramatic direction is irrelevant. Whether or not any of it is dramatized at all is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how her choices brought her closer or further from the holy truth of the American teen. If she decided to tell one of the subjects to act a little more awkward, or get one of them to cry on camera, or whatever... So long as the audience receives her message in as untarnished a form as possible, (and by untarnished I mean TRUE)((and by TRUE I mean accurate)) then it shouldn't matter whether or not she was 100% honest. Which by the way is impossible in any documentary anyway.

As for what I would have done differently, I probably wouldn't have made a movie about American teenagers from Indiana because I don't care about American teenagers from Indiana.

Living the American Dream

People act differently when there is a camera filming them, they just do. It is unavoidable that Nanette Burstein's documentary, American Teen, is no an entirely accurate recreation of reality. People can get used to being in front a video camera however. They may never truly act themselves, but they do get used to being in front of the camera.

Nanette Burstein maintains that she filmed over a 1,000 hours of footage over the year she spent at Warsaw Community High School. It is reasonable to believe that during that time the students got so used to being filmed that they did not alter their actions to too great of an extent as a result. Another reason to believe that the documentary is a good representation of reality is that the students chose to be in it. Allow me to clarify. The type of individual who willingly signs up to be in a documentary that will follow them around for a year, is also the type of individual who is far more willing to share intimate information than your average joe.

What I'm getting at is that I consider the actions that occurred on film believable. I concede that it is a very real possibility that Burstein has glossed over and manipulated a fair number of aspects. Especially Megan vandalizing the house by writing "fag" on it. But I still believe it to be very possible for that to be what happened.

I wouldn't have done the documentary the same as Burstein though. She made the documentary far too formulaic. It is hard to fully describe, but I suppose the best way of putting it is that it felt as though she had decided what would happen during the course of the documentary before she filmed the documentary. Not that she neccessarily staged individual scenes, but rather she had a pretty firm idea in mind of the general narrative.

One thing that I liked was her subject matter. Not many content creators chose topics so every day to focus on, and I appreciated the change. All in all, an enjoyable documentary that quite frankly shouldn't be taken too seriously. Watch it for fun, rather than an indepth insight into American youth.

Not 100% Real

To be frank, I don't think American Teen is entirely real. While some footage from the movie (for example, the scene where the girl cries and insist not going to the school while her father drives her) and epilogues do seem to be real, some other scenes are way too private.
For instance, the scene where the guy is comforting the girl who just broke up with her boyfriend. Even if those teenages got used to the camera, I don't feel like they can totally ignore the camera man. Especially in this comforting scene. I can't iamgine myself comforting a girl in front of the guy who I barely know holding a camera in the corner of my bedroom. Or even if I knew the person--let's say one of my parents was filming me comforting a girl--it would still be quite awkward. I feel like those teenagers in American Teen are too willing to share there private moment.
I also found one contradiction in this documentary. Towards the end of the film, there was a scene where teenagers hanging out inside the car. There were two cameras--one at the passenger seat and another at back seats. So when the footage from the backseat camera is shown, I should see another camera man sitting on the passenger seat; however, I didn't see any camera man. Instead, I saw another teen sitting.
Although I believe this documentary isn't completely real, I want to object to one of the critiques. I don't think use of animation makes any documentary unreal. In this documentary, the animation was used to portray what teenagers were imagining in their mind (for example, where that awkward boy fights to get a girl). These animations make easier for audience to understand what teens are talking about and make this documentary more enjoyable.

Robert Post 3 - American Teen

I think the biggest reason that American Teen didn’t seem realistic was because of how ridiculous the whole portrayal of high school seemed. I fully believed the film was written to mimic a similar high school hierarchy present in movies like Mean Girls. Maybe B-CC is an abnormal high school or maybe times have changed since 2008, when the movie was filmed. Either way, the film didn’t seem realistic or relatable to high school in Bethesda.

Maybe high school is just like that in other parts of the country. I definitely think that the production value of the film played a part in making the film feel less relatable. The animatics helped to visualize the emotions of the characters but at the same time, the cleanness of everything didn’t seem like it really getting into a high school student’s perspective. I don’t believe the film was too mainstream. The characters on display weren’t exactly predictable cookie cutter stereotypes and they were a good choice for the director to follow.

Regardless, I think Burnstein accurately captured a high school in one part of America, but certainly not something relatable to a wider range of teens. If I were directing a project like this, I think that a good change to make would be to follow a variety of students from different high schools around the country, and try to link those in some interesting way.

Not a mockumentary whaaaaaaaaat

First off, I definitely agree that the American Teen's narrative structure in a documentary definitely throws off putting, which is part of the reason for it's criticism.  I think it was American Teen's goal to make a documentary with a narrative based structure on a (or at least the director's idea of a) stereotypical American high school.  That said, I think this film achieved its goal.  They found a high school in the midwest and zeroed in on students who fit the stereotypes and/or and stereotypical problems, and then used those students to drive the story.  While that high school happened to (not surprisingly) be an almost all white high school in a conservative area.  Even though it would have been nice to be a little bit more representative of different types of people, I think that the director did an excellent job in finding and picking a school that fit those stereotypes.  The fact that when we first started watching the film many people (myself included) originally thought it was actually a mockumentary and my not wanting to believe (read freaking out) that these were real people (partially) shows this.

Now having said that, I think that more specifically it was the director's goal for American Teen to show how the stereotypes and issues that we often come to associate with high school really do exist and aren't as exaggerated as many people to assume them to be.  In this case, while certainly headed in the right direction, I think the film's apparent lack of authenticity really hurt it on the way to achieving this goal.  Part of the reason I thought it was a mockumentary at first was because of how well the characters (see I can't stop thinking about them as characters rather than subjects) fit the stereotypes.  The other reason however, was that the film indeed did seem much too polished.  While the idea that teenagers can't be extremely intimate on camera is bullshit, even if the director actually was in all the right places at the right times, she should have made it feel less structured like they really just happened to be there to retain the feel of authenticity that is necessary to a documentary.  While it is totally okay to influence what you are filming in a documentary a little bit as long as that is to portray a more accurate representation of your subject (I will give American Teen the benefit of the doubt on this), it certainly could have done a better job on making it feel like they were only capturing events and nothing more in order to maintain it's documentary feel. Many scenes' authenticity is certainly questionable (reaction shots, phone calls, etc.)

I would have left out the animated sequences, but that is more a personal choice.

oh no i'm going to have to talk about glee.

Sure, American Teen could have incorporated more than just middle-class, white, heterosexual, teenagers. Though as we've seen from Glee, which includes many a gays and many a wheelchairs, you get a unique kind of trainwreck.  Now, I watched Glee.  I am both proud and ashamed to say that.  One of the strongest and weakest parts of that show was incorporating every single issue of the present day.   They delved into Kurt, a flamboyant gay stereotype, when the LGBTQ rights movement started picking up speed.  They've dealt with questioning of sexuality, homelessness, teen drinking, lesbians, sex, the college process, transgender students, eating disorders, and even had time to have a school shooting episode in the last season.  The strengths of Glee come from very distinct characters that ultimately break out of your first perception of them in the first episode, and this is a show that has been on for 5 seasons.  On the other hand, American Teen lacks complexities outside the archetype.  But, Glee's pitfall is that the continuity and the overall structure of the show degrades as it tries to take these Big Issues in each episode and you're left playing an internal battle trying to decide which issue is best to care about.  Glee does the opposite of American Teen, where it oversimplifies everything, and instead over complicates things by takes a thousand Big Pictures and trying to fit it all into one while still finding songs to sing.

With documentaries, I don't really find anything wrong with glossy.  I think with a film like American Teen that is set in the midwest, we as B-CC students suddenly become hyper aware of the normal American high school conventions and idealism that we don't necessarily have.  I think that made it a little harder to accept much of the film as truth and more like how the students reacted to how they were baited by the filmmakers.  I honestly don't think Megan would have vandalized that other student's house if she wasn't thoroughly provoked.  The glossiness of it just comes along with that provocation and trying to depict high school seniors, which is hard because we're so boring most of the time.  Imagine trying to dramatize us sitting at home watching 8 hours of Netflix on a snow day.  It doesn't make for great cinema.

A flaw in American Teen is the way they forced the 5 main characters into emulating each character in the Breakfast Club, which in itself is an institution.  The subjects seemed like they were too forced into being the jock or the weirdo or the rebel and couldn't be anything more than that.  We know that there are football players who also take theatre classes.  We know the yearbook and Tattler staffers are involved in other sports or clubs.  We know that there are students that are much more than what meets the eye, and that's where it feels fake to us, because the characters/subjects are widdled down and reduced to just one singular trait.

Did I enjoy American Teen?  Yes.  Do I think they got American teens right?  No.

America's Average White Teens

Personally, I think the main issue with American Teen was the way the students were depicted to us. We all thought it was a mockumentary because the things each individual said sounded not only scripted, but it sounded like adults wrote lines for today's teens. Part of me hopes that the reason we all thought it was fake was because we're not used to seeing people's lives in that way. We notice our classmates may have issues like the students from American Teen, but we don't see it in such a detailed manner. Assuming the crew spent nearly every waking moment with these kids, they had such a large amount of footage they could have done anything. Out of hours of footage, they chose 95 minutes. Maybe they recreated certain interactions to make them more cinematic, or they had the students act out things that weren't filmed. 

I think there was one black kid in the whole film, and that's as far as this film's representation went. Aside from the race issues, the students themselves were mostly incredibly average. The person who had the most severe issues was Hannah. Megan's problems were not being sure if her top choice could accept her (which is something a lot of kids go through, so who cares about her), and experiencing the consequences of spray painting slurs on someone's house. Honestly, she was incredibly uninteresting and an overall terrible person. I don't remember Mitch at all. Colin was a little more interesting, but still painfully average. If the director's goal was to take the most average kids in some small town and glorify their boring lives, she succeeded. However, if the film had more students like Hannah who went through a severe issue that most kids don't experience or hear about, it would have been better. I really liked that about the film. They were able to show people what happens to some people. That some people go through very serious emotional problems, but we don't get to see how that person lives with it every day. The point is, aside from Hannah, all the storylines were bland. We all know what those kids went through because every kid goes through it. There are so many things happening to high schoolers, and we focused on the white girl who cares about prom more than she cares about other human beings, the jock who has to do something amazing for the team to win, some random kid who can't get a girlfriend, and I still don't remember who Mitch was.

teen dream

This film was severely suffering from a lack of diversity and a lack of originality. None of the students seemed to have unique stories, and when their lives were presented in such a tired narrative format, it just got...boring. The animated sequences were bizarre and pulled the viewers out of the storyline. Her choice of filming "a nerd, a jock, a rebel, and a queen bee" was, in my opinion, a mistake. These overused archetypes are not going to surprise anyone. If Burnstein wanted to do a documentary about high schoolers that nobody had seen before, she should have told stories that have not truly been told in an unbiased, uncut form before. It would be far more interesting to see the parallels between the high school experience for, say, a black inner-city jock, a bisexual Asian rebel on the west coast, a nerdy white girl in Illinois, and a Latina mean girl than it was to watch four white kids in the same town all prove that we all have a lot in common. Also, the documentary seemed too polished--the capturing of two sides of phone calls with supporting characters threw me out of the story and made me wonder how they had managed to have a camera crew at some random kid's house at the exact moment he was calling.

One criticism I actually didn't agree with was the concern that teens would never be so intimate on camera. People like to open up about their lives, and in this digital age, they aren't very camera-shy. The most intimate moments of the film happen months into filming, so the teens would've been used to being followed around. That said, the filmmakers clearly set up some things--it seemed very unnatural to me that the explanation of the queen bee's sister's death would come out on camera in the way that it did. It seemed set up to give us a reason to pity her after we'd seen her being rude and rather one-dimensional in every other situation. And the whole scene with her friend and the boyfriend was difficult to follow and also seemed fake.

My biggest problem with the film was Hannah's hats. Why did she keep wearing hats???

American Teen: Real or nah?

After watching American Teen and reading director Nanette Burnstein's comments on the film, it becomes clear that her ultimate goal was to tell a story. Now, while I believe American Teen succeeds in this regard, there is a broad gap between what the film wants to be and what it turns out to be - and this is where its criticisms stem from.

The title and premise of American Teen paint a picture of an unadulterated glimpse into high school life in middle America. Viewers and critics alike probably initially went in with expectations of an episodic, thematic documentary as opposed to one that tells clear-cut narratives. I also think that this is the mood Burnstein wanted to achieve - but it clashes when introduced to the three or four primary students. While this story-driven aspect alone doesn't necessarily lower the quality of the film, it does hurt it in the long run by being much more susceptible to perceived contrivances (stereotypes such as the popular girl, gamer nerd, jock, etc.). In addition, each of these subjects must say or do things that propel their arcs and keep things from getting boring - which creates the other problem of possible premeditated dialogue. 

All this said, I personally think that American Teen achieves truth, at least in part. Granted, much of what is going on in the students' lives is dramatized, whether through additional dialogue, editing, or complex animated sequences - and yet, the students' performances (if they can even be called that) are so natural, so nuanced, and intimate that I can't help but believe that they mean every word they say. At times, I often wondered why the filmmakers even bothered to artificially enhance the events. 

Had I directed a film such as this one, I would have kept my camera focused on a bigger picture than just several people - it is called American Teen, after all. While there's nothing wrong with individual narratives, one of the film's drawbacks is its struggle to draw out certain students' stories for its entire duration. I would have perhaps alternated through many students (which would also invite diversity, something American Teen sorely lacks) who could supply anecdotes, sound bytes, and other such means of thematic support. My film would offer a look at the tiny fish in a big pond rather than big fish in a small one, and I think that this approach invites many more opportunities for unfiltered realism.

American Fake!

I don't believe that this movie was actually a documentary. We spent the entire half of the movie thinking that it was a mockumentary. When we learned that it was a documentary we all could not believe it. Between the flashy animation scenes and the real life scenes that seemed like they were out of a high school romance film. Also they always had access to both sides of a conversation. I knew that they ending would have been happy because something similar would of happened in a high school romance film. I felt like I was watching High School Musical without the musical numbers. Also all the characters were an archtype in a movie. The nerd, the artistic outcast, the popular girl, and the jock. I mean the nerdy character even had like 500 zits. I feel like I was watching a mockumentary or just a regular narrative film. Real life isnt a narrative. Somethings in real life are never solved. My last and final point is how do you get accepted to a California College when you werent even there for half the year. I think it was fake.

Star Watch and Night Wars

Star Wars and Night Watch both balance the idea of good and evil, but they do it quite differently. Also, the concept of a "chosen one" is clearly present in both films (or both series as wholes). As well as the idea that this particular chosen one can completely change how each side is seen and thought of. Night Watch blurs the line between good and evil; both sides have their positive qualities and their negative qualities. In Star Wars, it's clear that the Light Side has to prevent the Dark Side from taking over the galaxy and essentially destroying all that is good (Note: there is an objective good in Star Wars, whereas in Night Watch good is more of a relative term).

Night Watch achieves more of a balance between good and evil.  That being said, there isn't necessarily a clear good and evil. During this truce that both sides are involved in, the Dark Others and the Light Others have an equal amount of power. They stop each other from having too much power and influence over their universe; there isn't a set group that is good and a set group that is bad. 

Both films (series whatever) follow the idea of good and evil and whether or not good and evil are subjective or objective terms and concepts. I liked how Night Watch blurred the line and made both sides have equal power, showing that it isn't always about good or bad, but sometimes about the power each side has. Can good become evil if it's given too much power? Perhaps.