One Week In, and I Remember Why I Dropped Out of College

[Tuckerfan]

Okay, for those of you not playing the home version of Tuckerfan's an asshole, let me get you up to speed. In October of '08, I was laid off from my job, and by Feb. '09, the only offer I had was Wallyworld. Naturally, I took it, but I also registered at the local community college to go back to school and get an A.S. in engineering. I had planned on taking just 1 or 2 classes until my income improved, but because of Obama's stimulus program and some decisions made by the community college, I get to take a full load for the next two years. (Whoopie!)

Surprisingly, many of the courses I took 20 or so years ago at university (MTSU), transferred to the community college, but I still needed a humanities elective, for some reason. No biggie, I thought. They offer an "Intro to Film" class, I'll take that, since I've probably seen most of the films already, and I can bloviate with the best of them. Boy, was I wrong. (At least as far as seeing the various films go, not about the "bloviate" part.)

Here's the listing of the films (* denotes that its something I've seen prior to the class):

Bonnie and Clyde
Clueless
V for Vendetta*
Great Expectations
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)*
Pleasantville*
In The Company of Wolves
Heavenly Creatures*
Psycho*
Pan’s Labyrinth
Apocalypse Now* (both versions)
Se7en*
Boy’s Don’t Cry

Honestly, out of those films, I don't get why Clueless (yes, I know its an updating of Shakespeare, but to put it on the list and not a Shakespearean film is beyond me) or V for Vendetta is on the list. Some of the others, well, I can kind of see why they're on the list, even if they're not films I would choose.

The class is a "hybrid" one, where we meet once a week, and then the rest of the time discuss things online. The instructor is a PhD student at MTSU. This should have set my alarm bells ringing, but I was hopeful that she at least had a clue. Now, I'm not so certain. I'll post why in a moment. (I'm cutting this off to try and reduce the TLDR comments, and minus 10,000 style points for anyone who responds with such.)

[What Exit?]

Sounds like fun, Clueless was probably included as it is light-hearted. I saw a lot of heavy movies in there.

You should do one of the ones you haven't seen yet for the movie club too.

[Tuckerfan]

Here is what the instructor posted in the online comments section about the film.

A phrase that you might want to become familiar with (b/c you are going to see it again in Heavenly Creatures) is folie a deux. From Wiki: "Folie à deux (English pronunciation: /fɒˈli ə ˈduː/, from the French for "a madness shared by two") is a rare psychiatric syndrome in which a symptom of psychosis (particularly a paranoid or delusional belief) is transmitted from one individual to another."

I posted a link under content about it that gives some basic information that connects it to Bonnie and Clyde and Heavenly Creatures.

I noticed that some of your posts referred to the hold that Clyde had over Bonnie. He was portrayed as a "charmer," so it's easy to see why Bonnie was attracted to him.
As far as the sex was concerned, could it be possible that because sex and power are so closely intertwined, that one of the reasons why Clyde couldn't perform was because he was already being satisfied by being in control? In other words, he didn't need it.

Interestingly, the screenwriters had originally written Clyde as bisexual. There was supposed to be a scene with him, Bonnie, and C. W., but it was cut. Wouldn't that have been risqué for the 1960s?

Another issue that the film addresses is the connection between order and chaos. In his theory of carnival, Mikhail Bakhtin argues that during carnival freedom is experienced and traditional order is subverted. In other words, those who "normally" hold positions of power lose that place in carnival (the slave becomes the master). Although carnival appears chaotic, it is really ordered. Consider the ending of the film—after chaos, order is restored. What does this suggest about our culture? In other words, does it suggest that the hegemonic power structure will remain intact at any cost? What is that cost? How do you think that idea could be applied to this film? (You might want to keep this idea in mind for future films too.)

Violence—Notice that the killings that Bonnie and Clyde commit are “played down” in the film, but the killing of them is clearly, shown (you might want to search on wiki for an actual video of the actual killings about 5 mins after it occurred—it’s haunting—supposedly each body had over 100 bullets in it). Notice how violent the killings of Bonnie and Clyde were. Why do you think Penn chose to show it (besides being realistic)?

Okay, so I think that some of this is a bit of a stretch, given the quality of the film, and I respond with:

I don't know that Folie à deux could really be applied to either the fictionalized Bonnie and Clyde or the real life ones. In both cases, there were more than just the two of them involved. I suppose that one could argue that the others were merely swept up in Bonnie & Clyde's (And while I'm thinking about it, let me just say the fact that the two of them are referred to as "Bonnie and Clyde" is rather interesting. Commonly, especially in the era in which the two of them lived, you'd list the MAN's name first, not the woman's. Is this suggestive of society thinking that Bonnie somehow corrupted Clyde, or because it seemed so scandalous for a woman to be involved in criminal activity, a combination of the two, or some other reason?) "mad game," but that strikes me as being wrong.

As for the "hold" Clyde had over Bonnie, I don't think it was so much of a hold, as it was that he offered her something that nobody she'd met to that point could. The opening sequence of the film, with Bonnie beating her bed in frustration and Clyde's apt description of who Bonnie was indicate that she was a girl who dreamed big, but wasn't able to get out her hard scrabble existence. (Most people today don't have an idea of how crushing poverty was back then, and the film makers didn't dwell on it, since all of them had been born around the time of the Great Depression, and so had it ingrained on them to a level those of us born long after can't imagine.) Clyde wasn't there for a roll in the hay, or expected Bonnie to be barefoot and pregnant, he offered her adventure, excitement, fortune, and fame. Those are pretty powerful aphrodisiacs at any point in time. Add in the belief many women have that they can "tame" someone as they see as a "bad boy," and the attraction becomes overwhelming for most people. (The concept of Bonnie being able to "tame" Clyde is played out in the film as near the end, after the two of them talk about "going straight," the couple apparently consummates their relationship shortly after.)

Mind you, I'm trying to be polite and not say, "What are you? An idiot!?!" Because that's really what I'm thinking at the moment. The whole concept of folie à deux is a bit beyond the depth of the film, IMHO, and as I've stated, doesn't really fit. I am, however, in dangerous territory, since I've "challenged" the instructor on her comments. In my next post, I'll C&P her reply, along with mine.

[Exy]

well okay then

[Tuckerfan]

Wiki goes on to say: “The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à trois, folie à quatre, folie à famille or even folie à plusieurs ("madness of many").”

However, since it is Bonnie and Clyde who start the gang, arguably they begin as a folie à deux. Their crime spree began before the others joined them. The others just get swept up in it. Notice how the film begins with their meeting and then the other characters are gradually introduced. Perhaps it could be argued that it evolves into a “folie à famille or even folie à plusieurs.” But since the primary focus of the film (the history and the legend as well) is on them, it is about the psychological connection between them; hence, the folie à deux (how many people actually know the names of the other gang members? But when you say Bonnie and Clyde, almost everyone is somewhat familiar with them). We (as a culture) are fascinated with them as we are with other famous murderous pairs (i.e. Parker and Hulme, Christine and Lea Papin, and many more).

In addition, the poem that Bonnie writes (recited in the film) claims that they are the gang: “Now Bonnie and Clyde are the Barrow gang / I'm sure you all have read. / how they rob and steal; / and those who squeal, / are usually found dying or dead.” Again their folie à deux is apparent. BTW—you can get a copy of the poem online—just google “The Poems of Bonnie Parker.” She defines them as the gang: “Bonnie and Clyde ARE the Barrow gang.” Others aren’t the focus or the center of the madness, Bonnie and Clyde are the focus of the madness; hence, the folie à deux. Furthermore, a reason why the phrase can be applied to them is that they are a pair unlike in a gang or cult where there is one central leader.

At this point I want to scream, "Oh for fuck's sake! Bonnie was a hack poet, and what you're claiming for her is little more than retconning the film to fit your petty ideals of the whole deal." I cannot do that, however, because I will incur the wrath of my teacher if I do. She has hung everything upon folie à deux, and my questioning of that fact is not merely seen as someone acting out of ignorance (or even the normal debate structure one might take), but as someone who is saying, "You're a cunt! A worthless reject of human society, who is lower than vaginal discharge."

So, because what the instructor has said sticks in my craw as being "wrong" (realizing, unlike my instructor, that there can be a broad range of interpretation of artistic elements) I down a few drinks and respond with:

So, what's it called when an entire nation is subject to that level of "insanity"? Because if one is going to talk about the hegemony killing Bonnie and Clyde to protect itself, then I think that its only reasonable to say that Bonnie and Clyde are creations of that self-same hegemony as a way to justify its existence. (The old "Well, you might think we're despicable, but we keep you safe from such folks as Bonnie and Clyde" argument.) In which case, I don't see Bonnie and Clyde as being "mad," but merely "actors" playing out the role assigned to them by society. They are as helpless to change their roles as are any of the other "common" people. (Somewhat indicated by Clyde's complaint about the newspapers claiming the gang robbed a bank in Chicago, while they were recouperating from their injuries.)

Tossing those elements aside, however, I still don't think that the description of folie a deux (and forgive me for not including the accent mark above the a, but the software's not agreeing with my browser, and I'm not in the mood to go all charmappy at the moment) applies to Bonnie and Clyde as portrayed in the film. In some sections of society it is deemed normal for people to run afoul of the law for no legitimate reason, other than simply being a member of that subset of society (the phrase "arrested for driving while black" springs to mind). That ambitious individuals in that subset decide on a life of crime is not scandalous, but a sign of merit, or a lack of alternatives. (Outsiders find it shocking that groups who are routinely terrorized by drug dealers, will turn around and protect those same drug dealers from police sweeps, never realizing that the groups see the drug dealers as one of their own, and thus, less a threat to their survival than they do the police.)

Contrast, if you will, Bonnie and Clyde, as portrayed by the film, with the characters of Mickey and Mallory Knox in Oliver Stone's film "Natural Born Killers." While Arthur Penn shows us Clyde only directly shooting one individual (and then berating W.C. [A composite character, who is given the initials that the British use for toilet.] for putting him in the situation where he felt the need to kill someone), Mickey and Mallory basically kill people for sport. While there are some obvious parallels between the characters (lovers who commit crimes), Bonnie and Clyde are a bit more "noble" than are Mickey and Mallory, since Clyde feels remorse at what he's done, while Mickey and Mallory (and another difference is that Bonnie isn't shown to be the killer that Clyde is, while Mallory is as much a trigger person as Mickey is) kill for the sheer joy of it, seemingly.

In regards to Bonnie's poetry, I'm probably the last person who should be commenting on such things, as I have rather a "tin ear" when it comes to poetry. Almost all poetry sounds like doggerel to me, so I can't evaluate her work. I find it difficult to believe, however, that she would struggle to find the exact wording to describe things, and would instead, toss off verses rapidly, and without much thought, while thinking that they were "wonderful." So, for her to say, "The Barrow Gang is Bonnie and Clyde" is more likely an indication that she can't figure out how to include the others, while writing what she probably thought was an epic love poem about herself and Clyde, than it is of her mindset at the time.

There's also the issue of the two of them being a "construct" of the media, and the possibility of her figuring that if she didn't put in the line "The Barrow Gang is Bonnie and Clyde" nobody would give a flip about the rest of the poem. Finally, we're talking about a film produced by Warren Beatty. I know people tend to give him a lot of cred for his work as an actor, but this is the guy who gave us the big screen version of "Dick Tracy" which wasn't exactly a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. (I know it won a few Oscars, but they were for technical things and NOT for performances or story. I absolutely refuse to get into the whole psycho-sexual element of the film, with Warren casting his then-girlfriend Madonna as the film's villain.)

If I'm lucky, I haven't just committed "suicide by instructor." No, really.

I understand that this might be seen as the normal back and forth between people who've slightly differing views on a subject, but trust me, as far as she's concerned, I've done far worse than calling her a "cunt," I've shat on her and her entire family history. By way of comparison, let me quote (verbatim, I might add) of someone else's comments one the film:

I really enjoyed this film but i enjoyed the bonus features a lot more. After the movie i watched the history channel's documentary on Bonnie and Clyde. It was interesting to see all the similarities and differences there were from it and the movie. I have very mixed feelings about Bonnie and Clyde. The documentary shows you the laws justice in how they handled things with Bonnie and Clyde. They killed many law enforcers, some who werent even after them. It shows a lot of the evil things they did. The movie, however; reminds you that times were tough and it shows you that they were just ordinary people trying to get by. I honestly am not sure whether to call them heros or villans but i do think their love for each other is inspiring. In the documentary it tells that the only reason Bonnie joined Clyde in crime is because she loved him and didnt want him to die alone; she wanted to be by his side.

This is a simple C&P, I've done nothing to their comments, any errors you see are in the original, and I haven't even bothered to correct simple grammatical errors. (If anyone doubts this, PM me and I'll send you a screen grab of the page.) I'll lay you dollars to donuts that the person who wrote that is in no danger of getting their grade knocked down, despite their inability to use English (and they were born in this country, I should add), but because I questioned the whole concept of folie a deux, I'm a marked man.

[ivan astikov]

Rule#1 - NEVER piss off your teacher.

[Baldwin]

Tuckerfan, you've made a good argument. Quite possibly your instructor is an idiot. Throwing around French psychiatric/cinematic terms doesn't make one right.

Incidentally, Clueless is an updating of Jane Austen, not Shakespeare.

[Exy]

I watched Clueless a couple months ago and I was particularly struck by the fact that in the intervening 15 years or so, Paul Rudd's physical appearance has not changed in the slightest.

(P.S. The high school rom-com that was based on Shakespeare that you were probably thinking of is 10 Things I Hate About You, which was a retelling of The Taming of the Shrew.)

[sturmhauke]

Rule#1 - NEVER piss off your teacher.

Eh, whatever, I made a career of pissing off my teachers since I was in elementary school. It is however important that you argue clearly, logically, and with conviction. Carry on, I say.

[Tuckerfan]

Rule#1 - NEVER piss off your teacher.

Yes, I know, but when someone tosses out something just so farking wrong, its difficult for me to not to scream, "WTF are you talking about?" I downed roughly half a fifth of whiskey before I wrote my comments about the film, so I wouldn't go into a systematic deconstruction of everything that was wrong with her comments.

Tuckerfan, you've made a good argument. Quite possibly your instructor is an idiot. Throwing around French psychiatric/cinematic terms doesn't make one right.

No, it doesn't, but I know the English professors at the university where she's getting her PhD. As a whole they embody some of the worst characteristics of college professors (that, BTW, is not simply my own opinion on the matter, the professors in every other department at that university feel the same way). When I was going there, I had to endure professors who simply had no idea of what was in the textbook (and not because they were hired in at the last minute, but because they simply didn't give a shit), others who couldn't grasp what some of the material was about (Which they admitted, mind you, and we're not talking about struggling with Joyce or Pynchon or Nabokov, but William "I'm as ham-fisted as it gets" Faulkner. ) and all of them had the same egomaniacal attitude that if you dared to question them, you had done the equivalent of digging up their sainted grandmother, sodomizing her corpse, and then defecating in her mouth. Even simply saying, "Well, I don't quite understand what you mean by this, could you elaborate?" was met with their full wrath and threats of expulsion. (I wound up going before the dean because I dared to write a paper which simply wasn't a regurgitation of an essay we had to read in class, but actually looked at the issues raised by the essay and commented on them. While chewing my ass out for being so arrogant as to think that my thoughts and opinions might have some merit, the dean explicitly said that the assignment was well below my ability, and he couldn't understand why in the hell, I didn't want to simply skate on through the class. The concept of my actually wanting to learn being rather alien to him, it seems.)

Incidentally, Clueless is an updating of Jane Austen, not Shakespeare.

Yes, you're right. I was too hammered to be bothered to look up the specifics and was going from memory. I knew it was an updating of a classic work, but I was quite wrong as to which one it was. I went with Shakespeare because every professor I had at MTSU in the English department bent over backwards to talk about Shakespeare, and specifically Hamlet. Yes, I know Shakespeare is on everyone's shortlist for the greatest author in the English language, but for fuck's sake, the man wrote more than just one damned play! In high school, we covered Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth, and some of his sonnets. In detail. I would have expected that in college, we'd have either covered some of his other works, or dealt with issues he raised in those works which were deemed to be "beyond" your typical high school student. Nope. They all obsessed over Hamlet, and just wanted us to articulate the simple facts of the play. (You know, who was Hamlet, why was he acting so weird, and what happened to him at the end.) I kept one of the textbooks I had for the English classes I took at MTSU which had Hamlet in it, simply because of how astoundingly stupid the footnotes in it were. The line where Hamlet's father advises Hamlet to "be like the plants alongside the river" is footnoted. What does the footnote talk about? Does it mention what river that might be, to give you a geographic perspective? No. Does it discuss Shakespeare's use of various plants (or the term in general) across his body of work? No. Does it mention later works by other authors that reference this line? No. It says that Shakespeare might have meant such-and-such a plant (giving its common name, with no mention of its taxonomic name) and ends with, "Probably unimportant." WTF? If its "probably unimportant," then why the fuck did you footnote it? Why not provide some useful information in the footnote, if you're going to have a footnote?

I'm sure, though, that when the English department's textbook selection committee was reviewing the book and saw that little turdbit (a word I just made up) of information, they had their dicks in their hands and were furiously pumping away at such a rate they were in danger of spontaneously combusting from the friction.

[Muffin]

Comng from a one-time English professor with a minor in cinema studies, I apologize for the doofus pretending to be your film teacher. I'm sorry he is wasting your time. I hope your other teachers are better quality.

[Baldwin]

MTSU is in Murfreesboro, isn't it? I went to ETSU, in Johnson City.

[vison]

"turdbit" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See? Rubbing up against Shakespeare again has done you OODLES of good. He was The Wordsmith of all time and you, you clever sox you, have imitated the master and come up with a brilliant - I say Brilliant!!! - new word that is Just Perfect. One understands instinctively what a "turdbit" is, and one is grateful. This one, anyway.

But I'm sorry your professors and classes are so awful. It sux.

[Tuckerfan]

Comng from a one-time English professor with a minor in cinema studies, I apologize for the doofus pretending to be your film teacher. I'm sorry he is wasting your time. I hope your other teachers are better quality.

Yeah, the others are, generally much better. They're in the hard sciences for the most part, however, which makes it hard to bloviate on the subject. Save for the communications professor, but she's a babe, so I just think impure thoughts when she opens her mouth.

MTSU is in Murfreesboro, isn't it? I went to ETSU, in Johnson City.

Yup, yup it is. Their aeronautical school is supposedly pretty good, but I don't know. When I was there, the Dean of Undergraduate Men Students had a PhD (and he'd gotten all his degrees at MTSU) in "Physical Education." Translation: He was a gym coach.

[Baldwin]

You can get a PhD in PE? I feel even worse now about not having a degree.

[Tuckerfan]

You can get a PhD in PE? I feel even worse now about not having a degree.

Apparently, MTSU is the only place which would hand out such a degree, anywhere else, they'd laugh you out of the place if you proposed such a thing. (So said the sociology professor when the subject of that particular dean came up.)

[Tuckerfan]

You know, after they've spent the night being overran by the VC, and they had to napalm their own position to try and save themselves, and the black guy crawls out of the fox hole, finds himself okay, and then proceeds to stab himself in the leg repeatedly, because he knows that if he gets another wound, its his ticket home and he can't take in 'Nam anymore? So he stabs himself over and over again? I know just how he feels.

This week, we're watching V for Vendetta. Now, I'd seen about half of this movie before, and I knew it pretty much sucked, so before I fired it up, I searched teh intarwebs for a drinking game for the film, figuring it would make things easier on me. (Game's here, BTW.) Half a liter (or so) of cheap whiskey in (and 1 hr 13 min. into the film), I realize I'm in big trouble. Yes, alcohol poisoning is a risk, but that's not what I'm talking about. Nope. I had a German roommate some 10 years older than me the last time I was in college, so I learned a long time ago how to hold my liquor. My concern is that I've got to post comments on the message board for the class (seriously, its a requirement to get a passing grade).

The instructor's response to my comments about Bonnie and Clyde wound up being, "They're called Bonnie AND Clyde so folie à deux DOES apply, but we've got to move on, so I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling until you go away!" (I'm only slightly altering her comments, BTW.) When our second film Clueless came up, the instructor did not do as she did with Bonnie and Clyde and start a thread where she offered the class "food for thought." Nope. She makes one response to a student's comments, but that's it. Her comments were trying to get the student to think about the "lack of a positive female role model for Cher, and how the other teen movie by the same director [Fast Times at Ridgemont High] also lacked adults as positive role models." I had composed a post about this being a common trope of teen movies, and that Disney was really big on having children characters who were orphans, or had their parents brutally murdered at some point in the film (Bambi and The Lion King being two examples). I managed to refrain from posting it, however.

Now, however, we come to V for Vendetta and, so far, only one student has posted anything. Here, in all of its unedited glory, is what she had to say

I really enjoyed this film even though it was sort of hard to follow. I really liked the message that the film sent across to the viewer. I was wanting to know if anyone picked up on the part when all the people are walking down the street in the rain and they all have black umbrellas? I feel like this really added to the movie because it was about the government trying to control everyone and make them look and act alike. I really like V. I felt like he really was not a villain but indeed a hero for the people.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Of all the simplistic and stupid things to say about this movie, that's gotta be up there in the top 10. I know some of you are going to be saying, "Christ, Tuck, WTF are you whinging about? You only have to read a few things like that, the instructor's got to read a whole shitload of things like that. Count your blessings." You'd have a point, except that if I turn in anything even slightly more sophisticated than that, the instructor's going to be busting my balls for blowing the grading curve. And that, is why I dropped out before. Bust my balls because I'm an idiot, fine. I'm a big boy, I can take it. Bust my balls because I fucking want to have an intelligent and mature discussion on the subject matter where individuals are treated with respect, even if some of the ideas they present are critiqued and I want to get all stabby with people. I'd hoped that the drinking game would enable my to dial down the high order sections of my brain and enable me to survive this, somehow, but its looking like that's out of the question. (My liver can only take so much, you know.)

[Exy]

Too bad you ended up managing your life so poorly that you ended up surrounded by people so obviously inferior to you. It's a further kick in the pants that they don't even recognize your obvious greatness.

[Ergo All Cats Are Tables]

Either way, I do want to mention that on my syllabi for hybrids I state that re-posting anyone's comments other than your own outside the class message system is a violation of the class rules and will result in a referral to academic affairs if discovered, so please be careful.

[Tuckerfan]

Too bad you ended up managing your life so poorly that you ended up surrounded by people so obviously inferior to you. It's a further kick in the pants that they don't even recognize your obvious greatness.

No, what's pathetic is that no matter how big of a fool I am, there's even larger fools out there. I should be having my ass handed to me by this class, since its been so long since I've been inside of a classroom which dealt with such topics, instead of my being able to compose coherent thoughts with fewer typographical errors despite having downed large amounts of alcohol. I don't want people to call me a "genius," when I'm being a drunken idiot, I want people to point out that I am a drunken idiot and to lay it out exactly why I am. I expect my thoughts and ideas to be challenged to a level I've not experienced before, I want to strain, to struggle, to try and grasp concepts vastly alien to any of those that I've ever conceived of, because if I'm somehow "average" or even slightly above "average" then things are really fucking shitty.

[Tuckerfan]

Either way, I do want to mention that on my syllabi for hybrids I state that re-posting anyone's comments other than your own outside the class message system is a violation of the class rules and will result in a referral to academic affairs if discovered, so please be careful.

Yes, of course, you do, and I suppose you'll be prepared to mention on what class day you went over this, as well as which classroom we were in when you mentioned it. You'll also be prepared to mention how you learned about this message board (given that the subject has never come up in class and that its a rather obscure offshoot of another, fairly obscure message board), because, you know, these things matter when it comes to proving identities, since we all use pseudonyms.

[Ergo All Cats Are Tables]

Yes, of course, you do, and I suppose you'll be prepared to mention on what class day you went over this, as well as which classroom we were in when you mentioned it. You'll also be prepared to mention how you learned about this message board (given that the subject has never come up in class and that its a rather obscure offshoot of another, fairly obscure message board), because, you know, these things matter when it comes to proving identities, since we all use pseudonyms.

I didn't say that I was your instructor. I told you what my policy is and asked you to be careful. Please don't assume that everyone on these boards is as nasty as you seem to assume.

[Inner Stickler]

No, what's pathetic is that no matter how big of a fool I am, there's even larger fools out there. I should be having my ass handed to me by this class, since its been so long since I've been inside of a classroom which dealt with such topics, instead of my being able to compose coherent thoughts with fewer typographical errors despite having downed large amounts of alcohol. I don't want people to call me a "genius," when I'm being a drunken idiot, I want people to point out that I am a drunken idiot and to lay it out exactly why I am. I expect my thoughts and ideas to be challenged to a level I've not experienced before, I want to strain, to struggle, to try and grasp concepts vastly alien to any of those that I've ever conceived of, because if I'm somehow "average" or even slightly above "average" then things are really fucking shitty.

I'm sorry that you don't feel you are being challenged at the level you should be. But I don't really see how what you are doing with it is constructive.

[Tuckerfan]

I didn't say that I was your instructor. I told you what my policy is and asked you to be careful. Please don't assume that everyone on these boards is as nasty as you seem to assume.

Nice backpeddle. Had you wanted to be completely clear that you were not my instructor, in your previous post you would have phrased things differently. You know, like say, "Tuck, you might want to make sure that reposting such things is okay, since in my class I warn against it and inform my students that they're at risk of going before academic affairs if they do."

Leaving it so open, as you did, allows one to draw the conclusion that you're trying to fuck with me. Or you really are my instructor. Given that the odds of you being my instructor are vanishingly small, what conclusion am I left to draw?

[Inner Stickler]

(It's backpedal) And I don't think Ergo phrased it poorly at all. I think you're just a little tense about this whole subject.

[Exy]

My post was malicious. It's really obvious that Ergo's was not, in contrast. You can tell by reading them.

[Tuckerfan]

I'm sorry that you don't feel you are being challenged at the level you should be. But I don't really see how what you are doing with it is constructive.

Not trying to be the least bit snarky here, but what should I be doing? Seriously. I'm not posting this to the class' message board, I'm posting it on a forum in which anyone other than myself who is connected to the school is highly unlikely to see. What's the harm in that? I've not posted anything on the class' boards with a snarkier tone than the sections I've quoted here. (My postings here, however, have been much snarkier. As I said before, if you doubt me, I'll be happy to send you screen caps of everything.) I could have done a number of rips, both on the instructor and my fellow students, but I didn't. (If anyone's seen some of the Pit threads I've written, they certainly know I can be hugely petty and assign names to people based on a few characteristics.) I dialed my rage down as much as possible and wrote things which dealt solely with the subject matter at hand and never put in any kind of wording indicating that I thought the person making those comments was an idiot.

I did post a reply to the student I quoted who was discussing V for Vendetta. Here it is:

There are a number of undercurrents to this film, not the least of which is the question of V being a hero or a villain. (Another, larger, question it raises is if the government was responsible, in one way or another, for some heinous act occuring, how would you react? Would you want to know about it? Would you want to see those responsible for it punished? Or would you hide your head in the sand?)

Is that at any way vicious? Am I calling them horrible names? No, and that bland response is not going to incur any wrath from the instructor. What I posted in my own thread about the film, might very well, however. Here it is:

This is the only one of the Waschoski brothers films that I've ever seen, I didn't like it when I saw it a few years ago, and I wasn't really looking forward to rewatching it for this class. I still don't like it now (and I even found a drinking game to play before I watched this movie, but it didn't help).

I have no idea of how this film compares to the graphic novel on which it is based (since I never read it), but there was a great deal of potential that this film had, that was utterly wasted by the Washoski brothers. The film was intended to make a statement about certain aspects of American political culture in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq War, which surely needed to be done, but this (and the Tom Cruise film Lions for Lambs) were not it.

First of all, there's huge levels of V and Guy Fawkes which they apparently missed. (Maybe its covered in the graphic novel, as I said, I didn't read it, so I don't know.) The letter "V" was a symbol of British resolve during WWII, and anyone doing a quick Google search can come up with dozens of images of Winston Churchill giving the "V" sign (which looks slightly different than the "peace sign") during the war, as well as being the Roman numeral for five (which ties it into the 5th of November, a pretty important day to Brits, as I understand it), it also ties into Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which itself, was a symbol adopted by the British during WWII (the Morse Code for "V" sounds similar to the opening notes of Beethoven's Fifth) to help show their resolve during what seemed like the darkest hours of the Empire.

I'm guessing that the creators of the graphic novel actually knew this stuff, and that's why they choose to use it. (England, after all, does have a long and rich history, and they could have cribbed from Tolkien or Cromwellian England for inspiration if they were looking for historical-type influences in general. Quite clearly, it seems to me, they were looking for a specific period in time, that would have definate connotations for many people, to frame their discussion about contemporary England in. Even if they didn't have these consciously in mind when they created the graphic novel, they no doubt played a part in their thought processes at a subconscious level.) It seems to have been lost on the Waschoski brothers, however, who just thought it'd make a "cool" movie, and they interjected their own ham-fisted ideas into the original concept. (They did, however, have some grasp of what the graphic novelists were trying to get at, as they cast John Hurt, who played Winston Smith in the 1984 film version of Nineteen Eighty Four. An almost clever bit of casting.)

The whole lesbian subplot (you know, when Evey reads the toilet paper in "prison") was just absolutely unnecessary and wrong. I have nothing against gays, or even the protrayal of them in film, but come on, if you're trying to say that those who indescriminately persecute those who are "different" will soon turn on those of us who are "ordinary," then having lesbians (or some other minority group) as your "poster children" is the wrong way to go about it, since large numbers of people will think that this is somehow okay. Much better if they had cribbed from Arthur Miller's The Crucible which he wrote in response to the witch hunts of the 1950s where some folks were certain that there were Communists lurking behind every corner.

Okay, so now I've checked the Wiki entry for the graphic novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_vendetta) and sure, enough, it turns out that the creators of the comic had intended very different things than what we see in the film, and they were really upset (even going so far as to call the film makers "cowardly") at what ended up on screen.

Yeah, you can pick it apart for lots of reasons. Its a bit disjointed, I raise the specter of alcohol, and its lacking in the seriousness one expects of a college student. However, those things are not what I'm most likely to get my ass chewed over. No, I'll get it chewed over expressing that I disliked the film. Not that I didn't express my opinion in a dispassionate matter, or that misspelled words, or I didn't fully articulate certain thoughts, but that I didn't like the movie.

[Tuckerfan]

My post was malicious. It's really obvious that Ergo's was not, in contrast. You can tell by reading them.

Yes, I'm so going to take your word for it.

[Inner Stickler]

Not trying to be the least bit snarky here, but what should I be doing? Seriously.

Talking to the administration? Preparing to write a scathing end of the semester evaluation? Looking around to see if there's a university that may be more difficult to deal with but will offer the rigor you desire? I sympathize with your plight but no one here can smack sense into your professor as much as we may want to.

[Tuckerfan]

Talking to the administration?

I'll get a lecture about how I'm "expecting too much."

Preparing to write a scathing end of the semester evaluation?

Evaluation of what? The course? The instructor? The school? Assuming (and there's no certainty that I'll even be able to do such a thing) I do, what're the odds that it'll do any good? IME, the answer is none.

Looking around to see if there's a university that may be more difficult to deal with but will offer the rigor you desire?

Not an option for a variety of reasons too complicated to go into ATM, but suffice it to say that if I'm going to be enrolled in a place of higher education any time in the next two+ years, its the school where I'm presently attending. Mind you, when I graduate (with an AS in two years, if I'm lucky), I'll be 42, my job prospects, unless the economy is just roaring, are going to be limited because of my age (Don't hand me the story about age discrimination being illegal. I know it is, I also know its really tough to prove.) I go for getting a 4 year degree (as I intend to, if I can manage to afford it), and I'll be at least 44, more likely 46. The job market is not going to be easy for someone with a newly minted degree at that age.

I sympathize with your plight but no one here can smack sense into your professor as much as we may want to.

I realize that, and I appreciate your sympathy.

[Exy]

First of all, there's huge levels of V and Guy Fawkes which they apparently missed. (Maybe its covered in the graphic novel, as I said, I didn't read it, so I don't know.) The letter "V" was a symbol of British resolve during WWII, and anyone doing a quick Google search can come up with dozens of images of Winston Churchill giving the "V" sign (which looks slightly different than the "peace sign") during the war, as well as being the Roman numeral for five (which ties it into the 5th of November, a pretty important day to Brits, as I understand it), it also ties into Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which itself, was a symbol adopted by the British during WWII (the Morse Code for "V" sounds similar to the opening notes of Beethoven's Fifth) to help show their resolve during what seemed like the darkest hours of the Empire.

So your complaint about the film in question is that . . . they didn't hit the viewer over the head enough with the allusions they were making (or which you imagine to be there)? Really?

Don't bring up your concerns with anyone else because it's impossible to imagine you lodging a complaint about this and not embarrassing yourself in the process. None of what you're saying in this thread makes it sound like you have a good grasp of literature (not least the part where you got outraged at another poster for a sensible suggestion to be careful about copying class materials elsewhere.) I don't know whether your instructor is doing an adequate or inadequate job, but even if they're doing a bad job, you're not likely to be very convincing when you complain.

I'll get a lecture about how I'm "expecting too much."

That doesn't actually mean you're too smart for the class. It's just something they say to mollify you. "Yes yes you're far too intelligent for everyone else, please try to be sympathetic to their plight."

[Ergo All Cats Are Tables]

Nice backpeddle. Had you wanted to be completely clear that you were not my instructor, in your previous post you would have phrased things differently. You know, like say, "Tuck, you might want to make sure that reposting such things is okay, since in my class I warn against it and inform my students that they're at risk of going before academic affairs if they do."

Leaving it so open, as you did, allows one to draw the conclusion that you're trying to fuck with me. Or you really are my instructor. Given that the odds of you being my instructor are vanishingly small, what conclusion am I left to draw?

Perhaps you could draw the conclusion that you're being prickly about this, or that because of the forum you chose you're expecting people to be unpleasant in their responses. I've been teaching for a long time and although I have many reactions to your situation, the only part that I wanted to reply to was when you said you'd paste in responses from your class. That may be a violation of your school's or instructor's rules; it is in my situation. It's true that the chance of your teacher or another student finding out about it is very small. However, if your class has a similar rule, you might have wanted to act on it whether or not it was likely that you would get caught.

[Jaglavak]

You poor sucker. You seem to have missed the essential lesson of all film classes.

You are not there to learn about film
You are not there to develop your sense of esthetics
You are not there to be steeped in the classics.
You are there to memorize the professor's every opinion and have them ready to parrot back on exams comma period.

Do not attempt make the class actually useful. Do not apply reason or logic. Do not under any circumstances develop an opinion of your own, however well researched it may be. I made that mistake and had to eat a big fat C- when by all objective measures I had earned an A. Professors who teach these dipshit classes are only too aware that they are totally useless and they tend to be touchy about it to the point of extreme arrogance. There's no prize for arguing about it and you wouldn't win anyway even if you are technically correct.

Bottom line; the real lesson is that sometimes you need to wade through crap to achieve your goals. It's a non-engineering class and therefore your one and only objective is to get the highest grade for the least amount of time. If you want that degree, let go of every other consideration. If you really find the subject interesting you'll have plenty of time to learn all about it later when your future career isn't on the line.

I've read enough of your posts to know this will piss you right off. Save your pixels. I know it's not right, but after a number of years at two different universities I know whereof I speak. Do yourself a favor and be smart about it.

[GingerOfTheNorth]

Hey Tuck, I'm proud of you for going back to school.

[jali]

Originally posted by Student
I really enjoyed this film even though it was sort of hard to follow. I really liked the message that the film sent across to the viewer. I was wanting to know if anyone picked up on the part when all the people are walking down the street in the rain and they all have black umbrellas? I feel like this really added to the movie because it was about the government trying to control everyone and make them look and act alike. I really like V. I felt like he really was not a villain but indeed a hero for the people.

This sounds like a kid who is trying his best to make a point with the instructor.