I agree with the notion that the American spirit is not necessarily a function of, but undoubtedly linked to entertainment; especially film. When people view films, they momentarily enter the world that the film has created. It’s easy to determine what are and are not aspects of fantasy and reality in a far-fetched sci-fi film, however in something like The Birth of a Nation, Fahrenheit 911 or westerns in the case of The Englishman’s Boy, elements of fact and fiction are blurred under the guise of the statement “Based on true events”. It is worrying how many people reference scenes from movies as though they were real events; Chance’s quote, "'The classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movie house" seems to be eerily true.

I believe that it does hold true that the American spirit can be found in the movie house, but more so in TV, video games, and computers. I think what we see most on television today that relates to the contemporary "American spirit" is the idea of life being great. We still get the happy endings that we have always see...with exceptions of course, but in movies and TV shows we still have that as a common theme. Even in video games... at the end of the game something good comes of it; whether you rescued a princess in Mario or you killed the bad guy in Halo, its all relevant. This also goes along with the idea of the "American Dream" with that everything good comes from America. As we know, because we live here, not everything is good that comes of America. We still have death, war, and poverty. And now, more than in the 1920's obviously, we see the pains of life on TV and in movies. So unlike the contemporary American spirit, the modern day American spirit is more about actuality, instead of idealizing life. We understand more today that bad things are going to happen, but so are those really great things we see on television and movies. In the 1920’s no one wanted to see people go through the pains of life.

I do think that visual media is the forum we have in America to connect to the largest and most diverse population. However there are clearly very big differences between what Chance understood to be the movie house, and what we now understand it as. For one thing, Chance is speaking in a time where there was a very limited choice in visual culture for the American public to engage, only several movies at a time, without the ability to rewind or compare to the four other versions of the same story released a year earlier. Today we live in an information overload, where there is no endpoint to the amount we can consume in our desire to be entertained. We can watch CNN, both the broadcaster and the news ticker at the bottom, while looking up utube clips online, while our cell phone rings in a text message and Tivo is taping the Grey Anatomy episode we're missing. It's insane. Chance's dream of an American classroom which is opened up to all is a reality, but which a dichotomy that what is being portrayed to the public is both controlled and completely open. To expand on that more, Chance wanted to show the American public the "facts" (which we then later learn are based in anti-Semitism) and today we have the privilege to not only turn to one place to receive those facts- thus the consumer (us) has many more options in constructs our own reality based on movies/TV and I will add internet as well- this then would lead a an assumption that we are more free in our ability to discern "truth". At the same time however, with so much information out there, it has often becomes impossible to classify what we take in, its purpose ect, so that new sources becomes entertainments in a way that is truly damaging.

I think Chance was ahead of his time in seeing the cinema and movies acting as America's classroom. This quote certainly holds true in our lives today possibly even more so than when Chance spoke these words in the 1920's. I think today we are almost too acustomed to seeing things through either cinema, or television and the internet that we come to believe we know stories, history and information based entirely because of movie clips or T.V. shows. For instance, I have never lived in New York City yet feel as if I know exactly what it would be like because of watching shows like Friends. Instead of going out there and experiencing things at first hand we tend to take the easy route and let ourselves sit and watch while TV shows and movies draw out realities we otherwise wouldn't know of or see. I find the phrase "the American spirit" fairly broad and open for interpretation. In my eyes this quote is full of irony partly because of the person saying it, Chance, is American. He finds the idea of the "American spirit" as a positive thing, something other cultures look to in envy..yet I see the phrase of "American spirit" in a more negative light. I think Chance's sees Americans as the people or culture all humans wish to emulate yet he appears just as naive and ignorant which I believe is characteristic of a real "American spirit." He completely contradicts himself by saying how Americans all seek the truth and want to truth more so than fiction (page 19) by going on to make a film which does not convey truth but instead false reality. Seeing how Chance wants to change the ending of the movie and thus life of Shorty McAdoo, you see how the American way of looking at things and learning things, important things like history, are falsified. Americans would rather believe one way or another and contiuously see evidences backing these beliefs up than be thrown a curve ball, so to speak, and have their cemented thoughts and beliefs be opened to alteration or question. I tend to see American culture as a fairly lazy culture, Americans are continually, during this time period and today, looking to progress and increased technology that will put less strain on people and make life easier. I think the American spirit is comprised of fairly lazy and ignorant characteristics. There is definitely something to be said for Chance's use of the words "movie house" before say "history" or "news" because both are influential on human thought and opinion yet movies differ from history and news because they are not the truth but intsead what people want to see. I think Americans are often afraid of the truth and would rather hide behind the messages in made up, fictionalized movie plots than what's really happening and effecting our lives.

America's youth today rarely learn what they think in the classroom. Most of the things in the classroom are ideas that are instructed by the teacher. This informaiton is often irrelevant to them and their lives. To get a better perspective on learning and life, youths and teenagers often use other media outlets to obtain knowledge. Whether it be the television, internet or movies, all of these technological mediums allow the students to gather much more information than is ever possible from the classroom. From these resources the contemporary "American Spirit" is developed. Now, kids form their identities upon what they learn not in, but outside the classroom. If they see a new movie that is popular kids will often cite that movie in their own lives. Whatever captivates or interests the youth they can learn more about it and this contributes to their indentity. Kids now have more freedom to persure their interests through all of these new technologies than ever before. Althought the information and interest is easily accessed, they must be careful, to make their own judgements in the new knowledge they learn. Too often enough, ecspecially on TV, information is presented with huge bias, this can often alter the way knowledge is obtained. The new "American Spirit" will always use exterior motives to form that identity, that spirit, but it is up to the individual themself, to truly figure out what is important to them.

The idea that the “American Spirit” is more related to television and movies is something that I struggle with daily. I used to hold high aspirations of being a writer, however after taking a business course and learning about foresight I was horribly discouraged. The trend of this nation is not towards intellect; in fact it is the exact opposite of intellect. People no longer read, younger generations are being raised on television and internet and the written word is a dying art. Most people get the general foundation of United States history not from their own research or from class, but instead movies like “Pearl Harbor” and “Saving Private Ryan.” In “The Englishman’s Boy” it depicts the old American west, which is certainly an aspect of the American spirit that is sensationalized by Hollywood and television.
What truly scares me most about this issue is making movies about these events or time periods that are truly “American” is a good idea. It’s entertaining, interesting, at least somewhat informative, pleasurable, and profitable for the creators. However, these movies are supposed to whet your appetite for knowledge, after seeing Pearl Harbor, you should want to learn more about the war and what actually happened. Instead, people are using these sensationalized, consumer driven products, and basing their actual knowledge from it. It’s really a problem of American apathy and sense of entitlement. American’s want things as easy as possible, and going to see a completely glamorized movie is much easier than reading a book, and we are willing to sacrifice even factual accuracy in favor of ease. The best metaphor I can make is City Market may offer some of the highest quality ingredients in Burlington, yet people still eat at McDonalds, and I’m not talking about those who have to eat at McDonalds for economic reasons. I’m referring to those who would rather pay 6 dollars and eat, than pay ten and cook themselves a worthwhile meal. It’s the same with knowledge unfortunately; people are much happier getting the dumbed-down, quick, and easy version of history.
Another problem is that American’s are so self-interested that they like to have their egos stroked and that’s a big aspect of Hollywood and television. Americans love to hear about the bravery of their soldiers, it’s makes them proud to be an American. It’s ironic because Americans would rather be given a booster shot of patriotism that is completely overdone and inaccurate, than have the truth told. All we ever see in our war movies, westerns, etc. is the American good guy coming out on top, however it gets lost in the shuffle how atrocious war actually is. Too many people in this country support the war in Iraq because they are simply so disillusioned and disconnected from the reality that is war as a result of these Hollywood and television productions.

A book by Barack Obama came out in October it’s called The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. While I agree with many of the things that Obama stands for, I did sort of questions why anyone would write a book like this unless they were really trying to win people over. This title indicates to me that there still is an American Dream, we just have to buck up, work hard and find it (but see the book if you really want to know what it’s about). Chance, in The Englishman’s Boy feels that there is an American Dream to be found also, he’s working hard to realize that for himself. Harry, however, is skeptical of that dream. He’d like to think it exists. He dabbles in it and he tries to pursue a dream, but it’s not his dream and it doesn’t work for him. It doesn’t work for him in a lot of ways. He should have listed to his mother, when she put it so simply – “Home.” Harry was out looking to find fulfillment and satisfaction in things that would never give him either of the two. But it was only by those experiences he was able to withdraw himself, simplify and become content by not trying to fulfill an unrealistic, mythical dream. This is what we frequently find presented in television and movies. I read an article a while ago about how unrealistic television characters lives are. The article used ‘Carrie Brasdshaw’ from “Sex and the City” and pointed out that Carrie is columnist for a newspaper which would pull her an annual salary of about 22-27K. But if you didn’t notice she lives in a pretty posh apartment, eats out all the time, dresses in high end designer fashions – get it? Something isn’t right here. There is no way a real person could realistically live like that on a salary of 22K a year. It just isn’t possible. But, there are indeed many people that used to watch that show and say – “I’m going to move to New York and live like that.” We see instances of scenarios similar to this all over, take any show you enjoy watching and look for these things in it. Chances are, you will find more than just a few things are seriously unrealistic with the “Realities” that are presented to us day after day.

i think that it's true that the "American Spirit" was and still is located in the movie house. Even with the great change in direction of types of films and styles of films that are produced much of why and how people feel American can be traced back to theatre. Although it's more accurate to say that the "American Spirit" is in the movie house applies, at least I feel, to how foreign countries view Americans more than Americans viewing themselves as represented accurately in films. Back in the 20s when televison was in its infancy the actual televison technology was being spread throughout the world but the financing and resources for produicng their own films were limited so most tv was flooded with American programming which gave foreign countries the idea that all Americans were either gangsters or rough and rugged cowboys. This misrepresentation of the "American Spirit" is still commmon today although the film was exceedingly hilarious the move "American Pie" is one of many films that misrepresents who Americans are. Because there are most likely countless non-Americans who think that American seniors don't do anything except go to parties and try to lose their virginity before they go to college. Although i agree with Harry that the "American Spirit" is found in the movie house,I feel that its a constructed "American Spirit" meant to show the less truthful but more romatic or entertaining side of Americans.

All I could think of in reading this book were the old western movies with heroes like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne. These men are the ideal of the “American Spirit”. These men are strong, brave and always do the right thing. They are what we are all to look up to or try to be.
That is what I thought of when Chance wanted to make the story about Shorty. He wants to show the public the man that can do no wrong, however, this is not real life.
Movies today still depict these hero types in actors like Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. These are the men who are saving the day in modern time, but this is not real life.
Everyday people depend more and more on film and television to teach them about life. We watch movies about historical events as if we were reading from a textbook. We watch these “real life historical events” as if somehow the film can teach us what real life experience can’t.
The 9/11 movies are a great example of this. We all lived through this event, we read the newspaper, we watched the news and yet we still can’t let it rest until it’s a movie? We somehow have to turn this tragic, yet historical event into something we can grasp through a reel.
It is my fear that someday, we won’t be able to even trust or own judgment anymore, until it is shown back to us through a screen. America is become more and more gullible, and people like Chance are reaping the benefits.

I don't know how many confidentiality rules I might be breaking with this post. Read on at your own risk. It stays private: between me, you, and the entire Interweb 

I'm a tutor in the UVM writing center (a great place to go for help in any stage of the writing process for writers of any skill ), and I'm currently disturbed by papers being written by students for a particular introductory English course. After having watched Awakenings (a film starring Robin Williams and Robert de Niro about a veterinarian brought into a psychiatric hospital to treat patients he later found out had encyphilitis lethargica), Rain Man (a film starring Dustin Hoffman and that nutjob scientologist --who as South Park fans know, won't come out of the closet—about two estranged brothers-cum-heirs, one with autism) and My Left Foot the semi-biographical flick about palsied painter Christy Brown, students are supposed to write a comparative analysis remarking about how the films portray disability vis a vis certain critics' interpretations of disability… one of whom may have been me, I'm told.

Whether or not I'm involved in the context of this assignment, I've worked with three students on this paper. All of them came to the ultimate conclusion—a line like this was found in every draft—"boy, I'm glad I don't have a neurological disorder!" The papers portrayed some notion of a disabled person as shallow, complacent, just-happy-to-be-alive, docile, and sympathetic. All portrayed the disabled as lacking a contrarian sense, or any notion of rebellion—they all lacked sex drives, they all lacked self-affirmation and the desire to assert themselves as complex individuals. When pressed about where this interpretation came from, the students revealed that the shallow, docile, simple disabled person was the notion advanced by the movies—and quite plausibly. Nothing does a better job of totalizing ideas and representations into neat little packages than Hollywood. Needless to say, those were intense sessions for me, grappling with aspects of my identity as a tutor (do I help this student write THIS paper, as is?), as a writer (do I challenge the assertions made in the paper and offer differing, potentially illuminating perspective?) and as a disabled person (can I let such a notion be implanted and regurgitated, regardless of how well anyone involved believes it?).

One student, whom I have an odd admiration for, came to me with a paper claiming that all the films were poorly done, as they couldn't strike a balance between portraying a sympathetic disabled person and portraying a REAL person. In short, his argument was that de Niro's character (stricken with the lethargica) and Hoffman's character (the autistic Raymond) were uninspiring because the movies' respective filmmakers chose to focus too much on their respective handicaps, thereby turning them into characters. On the contrary was My Left Foot's Christy Brown, whom the student writing the paper was scared of. Christy was angry! Christy swore! Christy had sex! Christy didn't accept sympathy! Christy wouldn't let other people help him! Disabled people shouldn't be like that! You should portray them as they really are—admirable people for dealing with extraordinary circumstances, but inferior to us able-bodied folks and in need of our help.

It was at that point that I backed my wheelchair away from the table so he could get a better look at it. I asked him if he REALLY believed what he was advancing, even in light of the fact that an inferior was now helping him polish this paper. He said yes, that he still agreed. Disabled folks are inferior—Hollywood just went too far with Rain Man, and not far enough with My Left Foot.

Ouch.

I hold little resentment for this student—I can't let the ignorance of others detract me from my path, whatever it may be. However, I'd be lying if I said reading that paper—in conjunction with my economics professor advancing that crippled folk have no place in the workforce earlier in the week—didn't drive me to one….two…OK, three, tops, too many pints of Guinness last Friday. Like I said, it's admirable for a student to stick to their guns in the face of such an intimidating challenger.

I don't even hold resentment against the professor for assigning the paper. She'd no doubt hold that a recent Hollywood picture, a grocery list, or the IP numbers of everyone reading this post, rearranged and re-presented, are just as worthy of study as Dickens, Shakespeare, or George Elliott Clarke (FANTASTIC book by the way, definitely my favorite this semester).

But, I've got a problem with the pedagogy and the postmodern paradigm. Yes, "the classroom of the American Spirit is now located in the moviehouse." Yes, some students in an English class are going to reinforce their notions of what it means to be disabled, different, the Other, by watching Dustin Hoffman, Robert de Niro, or Rosie O'Donnell in that god awful "Riding the Bus With My Sister."

But, what the professor may be failing to realize (and I say this with all due respect), is that it takes a certain amount of sophistication to study popular culture as a serious academic text. Last semester I wrote a paper on Family Guy. Just in case you missed it, last semester I wrote a paper on Family Guy. Indeed, somebody from my graduating class will get their ph.D with a dissertation of the rhetorical brilliance of the Colbert Report, the satirical mastery of South Park, the religious value of The Simpsons, the nihilistic manifesto that was Fever Pitch, the 2004 Drew Berrymore-Jimmy Fallon movie about boy-meets-girl, girl-loses-boy, boy-doesn't-care-because-the-Red-Sox-won-the-World-Series.

(Indeed, to study cinema as a legitimate scholarly text displays more sophistication than I have in that paragraph).

So it turns out I'm an elitist. I believe, as well as any carriers of the intertextuality everywhere and everything as a text torches can, that movies are worthy of study, and can often lead to surprising conclusions arrived at through sensations impossible to convey in words on a page. But if you're going to do it, you're going to need to know your standard literature. You're going to need to know your theory. You're going to need keen critical thinking skills. Otherwise, you're just watching movies.

….Or playing video games. Sarah, I'm inspired by the fact that you mentioned Mario and the Master Chief (of Halo fame) in responding to this prompt. When I'm not busy writing cheeky, obscenely long blog postings, I'm a reporter for The Wiire, the leading news source for all things related to the Nintendo Wii, which was itself featured on South Park last week.

(I'm kinda uncomfortable going into this much detail about my life as a gamer—and a game *critic* no less—how pathetic!, but stick with me if you've stuck this far).

I'm REALLY interested in the capacity of digital media to tell stories: Youtube; Flash-based miniseries' like Broken Saints, which was just released on DVD; Red vs. Blue, a Halo spoof just recently purchased by Microsoft; Web comics like Penny Arcade; viral marketing campaigns like the Get-a-Call-From-Sam-Jackson for Snakes on a Plane, or www.ilovebees.com for Halo; or even the Lonelygirl16 "diary" that recently made national headlines (Wikipedia will catch you up on any of those if you're curious).

But to video games themselves, can they tell stories? My colleagues at The Wiire tend to think so. Certainly there are directors out there—Hideo Kojima, of Metal Gear Solid springs to mind—whose games become progressively less interactive and more like movies, but whose narratives remain sharper than I'd say 80% of most of the movies released today. Max Payne, released in 2001 and told through a series of comic-book-inspired panels, complete with heavy noir dialogue, pumped interest back into the genre well before Sin City.Even the Grand Theft Auto games, as notoriously lecherous and violent as they are, often feature sharp satire on the 1980s, Hollywood itself, and typical gangster stereotypes.

Other examples that pop into my head

-The Knights of the Old Republic video games, according to George Lucas himself, is the best narrative that's been told with the Star Wars license in the 30 years.
-RockStar, the company behind Grand Theft Auto, just released Bully—the story of a junior high kid at a private school where everything goes wrong, is simultaneously being praised for its sharp storytelling (appropriately evoking the atmosphere and emotions we all felt on those middle school battlegrounds) and blasted by Jack Thompson (an anti-videogame lawyer who once gained infamy by passing Janet Reno a note asking her to check a box indicating if she was heterosexual or homosexual, and then suing her for battery when Reno put her hand on his shoulder and said "I'm attracted to men, Jack, just not you")
-Al Pacino just lent his name, likeness, and voice to a Scarface video game, which rewrites its iconic ending and attempts to answer the question "What would happen if Tony Montana lives?"
-I'm currently in the midst of reviewing a game for the world's largest publisher based on The Godfather. It features the entire original cast, sans Pacino. (Marlon Brando recorded his lines on his deathbed, literally) and places you in the role of a fly on the wall in many of the movie's most memorable scenes—you drive the Don to the hospital, you plant the gun in the restaurant bathroom, you sneak into the agent's house and cut off the horse head.)

So, whaddya think? Are video games capable of telling worthy stories, or am I just a nerd standing on a soapbox?

I absolutely think that observation holds true today. It has become more and more apparent in the last 20 years that children are being raised on television, not books and newspapers. However, I do think that there are both positive and negative aspects to this revelation. On one hand, the cinema is a beautiful piece of artwork to be admired. However, it is disillusioning to understand how so much of other pieces of work are discounted because of it. For example, why is there always the consistent need to turn pieces of good or popular fiction, into cinematic pieces? Perhaps it is to further honor the work by spreading the story to more people through a different venue. Although, I would beg that in doing so, the idea that Americans are only receiving one venue of information is reinforced. That being said, maybe it is insulting to turn novels into film. Why is it not good enough to respect and honor an author’s work be commentating its original form? It is inevitable that it would be changed greatly if turned into a “made for TV movie” or blockbuster hit. Therefore, I think the “American Spirit” of molding pieces of history into tangible stories to be viewed by the public, as opposed to being interpreted in its original form, rings true greatly today.

I think Chance's statment about the movie theater as the classroom for American Spirit is as true today as it was in the 1920s. Throughout the semester we have been discussing art as a representation of history and events and in The Englishman's Boy we see this theme emphasized as Chance's goal is to use film as a means to communicate history. Today I think there are more channels other than just film to communicate the American Spirit, while film still plays a large role, television, newspapers, magazines, video games, the radio, and other forms of media try to capture the American Spirit just as Chance did. The difference today is not the representation of art but the definition of American Spirit. The American spirit has altered, it is not the cowboy defeating the Natives that Chance wanted to capture; it has taken a corporate outlook, the American Spirit has become industrialized.
When Chance calimed that he wanted to use film to portray history because it could reach such a wide and diverse crowd, he used the same justifications we use with the media. History and current events can be altered in various ways through the means of media and are often filtered to convey a particular message to a particular group of people. Thus, this is how the American Spirit is changed and altered throughout history.
I just wanted to comment on Julie B's entry in which she said, "I think Americans are often afraid of the truth and would rather hide behind the messages in made up, fictionalized movie plots than what's really happening and effecting our lives." I agree with her, I think that is something we have been uncovering throughout the course. How history and current events are represented, or often misrepresented, through art and we do not seek the truth. We would rather accept the faslehood of media influences than search for the truth.

Chance's contention that the movie theater as the classroom of the American Spirit is just as true as in the 1920's, if not more evident and substantial. Chance is a product of his time; and a representation of the notion that the American Spirit is mainly manifested through film portrayal. Though I agree with Kristen that we now have other forms of aesthetic and channels to convey the American Spirit, back in the 1920's this new "film" industry was so capivating and illuminating, it could only be seen by people as a form of truth. We talked in class about how visual stimulation is more effective on emotions, and that with film the picture is shown and then gone before the person has the time to truly reflect on the things they saw. Thus, to people of the 20's, these films represented a visual teacher. These films could be manipulated and molded to a certain "truth" that the filmaker is trying to portray, which undoubtedly influenced people's stereotypes, biases, and interpretations of history.
I also have to agree with Emily Porter's comment that there's so much information out there that its hard to classify its purpose. I agree because how can we truly find "truths" about the American Spirit, when everyone's bias or opinion on it is different? It is dangerous to label the American Spirit in a general, universal manner because it then can be deconstructed by another person's persepctive.

Kristie Bennett brings up a good point about the dangers of a generation raised on television. It creates unrealistic goals and expectations because people begin to blur the line between reality and television/movies. She brings up the example of how well off it seems a character in “Sex and the City” is and how in reality she would be making roughly 25K a year and lives in an apartment that probably would cost more than her yearly salary. This is a good observation and is not limited just to “Sex and the City” but instead has affected all facets of audio/visual stimulation. There are tons of negative examples of the affect modern visual entertainment has had on younger generations. The problem lies with the American Dream, instead of deciding for ourselves what we want, we are instead told what we want through sensationalized images and movies. Americans want the good life, living in the lap of luxury with the minimal amount of work. Bringing up the example of “Sex and the City” again, not that I am an avid watcher of the series, but it would be my bet that even though already, the main character lives a life way too lavish for her own income, they take this problem and exacerbate it further. Not only would this women be flat broke if she lived this way, but they never even show her working, unless it is appropriate for the story and even then, it seems like more of a recreational hobby than an occupation. Thus, a female watching this show, looking up to these characters has learned to work a very easy, relaxed job, spend inordinate amounts of money on clothes, meals, and jewelery, and to always be trying to marry a rich man. We wonder why this country seems to be regressing; it starts with what we teach our children, and too many of their educations are grounded in cable or cinema.

I find it rather easy to agree with the statement that “The classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movie house.” In our current society, I feel as though everything that happens revolves around the movies or the television. Advertising, politics, news, entertainment, sports – everything is available on the television. Under more contemporary circumstances, this saying might pertain more to media usage in general than just the movies. Television has become an overbearing institution in society today. I find myself hearing people say, “Tell me what’s going on in the world, I don’t have a TV anymore.” It is sad and true that people without television lack a societal knowledge that other people, with TV’s, contain.
What I have noticed most recently, is that with the election coming up, the political influence on the television has increased dramatically. Every commercial break there are at least two ad campaigns for perspective political leaders. Through this constant repetition, I find that all TV does is continually try to engrain ideas into the minds of the public. These echoed ideas force people to quickly decide on “McDonalds” at their forefront when they are trying to decide where to get dinner that evening. Through television and the movies, the American spirit is sculpted to fit what the powerful and influential people of American want it to be.
One of my classmates wrote that the movies are a way for people to escape and enter a new world for a short period of time. He continued to state that in most movies, the separation between reality and fantasy is easy to determine, but in others, it can be harder when the producers make the fantasy into a reality. Because the movies reach so many Americans each week, I find it scary to think about how many people are swayed to believe certain things based on the source of film. Documentaries, for example, are definitely a more reliable source, but there is certainly an indistinct line between reality and fantasy when it comes to film.

I would definately agree with Chance that movie theaters are a classroom for the American spirit. Every class, race, and gender of Americans view movies and in that way the American spirit is captured and interpretted in thousands of differant ways. Chance wanted to capture a truly American picture and then deliver it to whom he considered "real" Americans; wealthy, white, christians whose families had been around for generations.

Specific themes that seem to catch the American spirit, to me at least, would be themes of violence, of the underdog pulling out a miraculous victory, depressing films to provoke a sense of sentimentality, and coming-of-age stories (specific to American culture such as Menace to Society). Americans find an isntant connection with such themes as they can see the truth in such stories and identify with characters, or find their friends and family in such characters. Being able to connect with someone on such a personal level is not an easy task, but it makes for an incredible film. An individual will not easily forget a work of art when they feel the emotions as the protagonist on the screen.

I held off responding to this assignment to try and couch my response in a positive way – but thank you Zach Freidman! You read my mind!

Of course, as a visitor ensconced within American society, I might have phrased my words more gently, its great that Zach doesn’t have to so I am doubly grateful that he said what I was thinking. Kristen and Julie B also agree that Americans tend to hide behind film and TV to inure themselves from life’s harsher realities. Of course they are not alone in this, in Britain we tend to do the same, and although there is a smug superiority complex I try to keep subdued in the dark recesses of my psyche (thanks to the BBC and our reputation for being a literate nation) I do recognize that, with the onset of digital media, the consumption of knowledge is being marginalized at home too. Kids only get the education outside the classroom that movie makers, video games producers and TV moguls want them to receive, and increasingly, this is invading the schoolroom because teachers have to capture the attention of the class; this is made easier by giving them something to relate to.

I liked Nick’s comments about how outsiders might view Americans through the stereotypes they see in films. It’s certainly true that real life college here is much more boring than I thought it would be having watched ‘American Pie’…

I think that to a certain degree, America’s classroom is still in the movie house. It may not be to a degree as extreme as it was in the past (or as an extreme a degree historical theorists may propose) but the cinema still has a major effect on the way we view certain concepts. Historical films in particular, like JFK or Gandhi, have a way of being accepted as fact. There were undoubtedly many people who accepted (and accept) D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance, as skewed as its interpretation of the past is. Also, small movie houses and independent pictures, like The Motorcycle Diaries and countless other films, for example, are major informing sources in today’s society. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (although I didn’t see it, not accepting the poster’s tag-line declaring Gore an “international environmental champion”) and films of its ilk are one of the main ways, in additional to the traditional media, that the populous is informed about forces (political and environmental and otherwise) and receives alternative viewpoints. However, I like to think that today most people consider a variety of sources and come to some form of reasonable conclusion. Although I think we all know that that is unfortunately not how it always works. It is a dangerous game, looking to interpretations of history on film, films which are tailored to reach a wide audience and lure in the most money possible with flashy special effects and maybe even tantalizing sex scenes, as the main source of information. Though, I suppose, films are no less subjective than textbooks or memoirs or old newspapers. Don’t believe anything you hear about the past, I say.

In response to what Emily was saying about the wealth of information sources today: That idea goes along with what I was thinking about concerning people deriving their own conclusions from a variety of sources. It would seem that with so many sources of information, we would all be really well informed, but even with this major pool of hot bubbling facts, there are so many things about which we're informed almost nothing. Remember that genocide in Rwanda that happened so recently but we knew so little about?

Forget the truth!

Oh, on an unrelated note, in my original post I said Intolerance when I meant Birth of a Nation. Bingo.

Chance states that "The classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movie house." The fact that this statement was made in the 1920's captures Chances envisionment of movies and media taking over the American spirit. The American society absorbs these lives and glorifications of extraordinary happenings as easily achievable. These hyperbolized images taint everyone's view of what life should look like. Every girl wants to model her life after the romances portrayed in the cinemas, and every man wants to be the heroes and superstars displayed on the big screen. The only detail Americans often fail to remember is that it is scripted and essentially extraordinary. No one wants to go to the movies and see a man who goes to work in a cubicle every day and is happy doing so. While Chance uses classroom metaphorically in his quotation, such an overpowerment of aggrandized cinema and television lead to a decrease in enthusiasm for our nation's history and current events. They're less exciting, and quite frankly more depressing. I would like to comment on julie B's comment about "Chance sees Americans as the people or culture all humans wish to emulate yet he appears just as naive and ignorant which I believe is characteristic of a real "American spirit." While she is correct about characteristics of the American Spirit including naive and ignorant, I do belive the American people and culture are ones that many foreign nations wish to emulate. While many countries hate us for our "Bigger/More is Better" kind of attitude, I feel a lot of that can be credited to jealousy and resentment, as opposed to us solely being naive and ignorant.

I feel that Chance's comment could be more salient in today's world than it actually was in the 1920's. The amount of information that is presented to us through television and movies is enormous. Sometimes I feel as though we do not even realize the ways that were are influence by the shows and movies we watch. From the "Sopranos" to "Jarhead" to "The OC" to "reality TV" we indulged into worlds that we could only dream of being in. The only problem with making the screen the new classroom is that the content of what we see is a times distorted and unrealistic to the way in which our lives truly work. The circumstances that arise in movies and television shows sometimes lead the viewer to believe that life is like the screen. Applying what we see to our lives cannot always lead to the results taht we see on the screen. But at times the morals and ideas that are presented to us are very good. And it is in fact a great tool to teach a culture of children that are so addicted to the television and now the internet. If used in a productive way the television and movie screen can prove more effective than prior means of teaching. Traditional forms of education are definitely falling into the past and new modes and resources for students to engage themselves has arisen at the forefront of the educational process.

I wanted to respond to Kasey Robinson's post about how something like 9/11 only seems that this tragedy is only at rest when it is made into a movie. And how it is sad that "people like Chance" reap the benefits of such a culture and society. In response, I would like to say that I feel making a movie about 9/11 is a positive and negative thing. It is easy to hone in on the positive aspects of money-hungry producers using this horrible event to boost their standing and bank accounts. But I feel that making this movie can serve as an amazing way to remember the tragedy that occurred and a way that it can always be passed down to further generations as a way to learn from the past. The images from that day are so powerful and it will be much easier for later generations to see the impact of it from the screen as opposed to a written or oral story.

In regards to Nick S's comments about the movie "American Pie" I did want to add a funny, interesting, and actually quite relevant story about that film. A good friend of mine who is from the Azores (islands that belong to Portugal) lived in my town in R.I. for an entire year, our senior year of high school, and after returning home to the Azores he said his friends only had two questions for him. One was "how did you not gain any weight!?" and the second was "did you go to any American Pie parties?" I just found that so interesting because when I watch that movie I tend to laugh and can enjoy it because I know how unrealistic and totally exaggerated it is yet I never stopped to think how foreigners look at it and how influential it can be on their opinion of America. His friends were really not kidding and really thought that movie, in honesty, summed up American high school life. Because I think producers know the influence cinema has I find it rather disturbing that they would want to portray Americans in such a light as done in American Pie. While I am against Chance's desire to change the story of Shorty McAdoo or for any producer to change a real story..I have even more heightened discontent and question for producers like those of American Pie as to what their motives or aims were with this movie? Is this really what most Americans want to look like or want to emulate? Sadly I suppose for high school aged Americans it is..I doubt it would be such a well known and popular film otherwise.
I watch very little t.v. here in college and am realizing regardless of that I am still affected by this control the media has on my life. Since even if I don't watch much t.v. or see recent movies people who do are people that I see and communicate with everyday do. Not to mention that if you are meeting someone for the first time, (which happens quite frequently in college), to make conversation you are likely to speak of something that you both know of and unfortunately a large portion of shared thoughts center on popular media, t.v. and movies. The media absolutely ties humans together. It's common ground. I can't say that I think cinema and t.v. influences will ever really change or lessen in severity because it is just so easily come by and now part of most American families lives. Work, eat dinner, watch t.v., or go to see a new feature film, go to bed..do it all again the next day. We're sucked in and it doesn't appear we'll be getting out anytime soon. Not to forget, as Eric awesomely articulated about the idea of video games and their influences. Absolutely. All I can hope is that the majority of people are aware of how persuasive and corrupt or one sided the media; cinema, videogames, etc., can be and are just watching/playing because it is there and can be entertaining but doesn't rule their thoughts and shape their decisions.

In many ways I agree with Chance's statement about the classroom of the American spirit being in the movie house. It seems that in watching movies we are 'taught' things and are not usually aware of it. I'm taking a film class on latin american film and television, and we talk about the way latinos are portrayed in American movies. I had never given thought to this before, but in looking out for stereotypes while watching a movie i've learned just how much we are shaped by what we see in movies and on TV without being aware of it. It seems that today we can be very critical of older movies and the way certain groups were portrayed in them, but I wonder how the movies that are being made today will be viewed in the future. So much of what we believe to be true seems to be on a subconcious level; we are not aware of all of the stereotypes we accept as the truth. I also agree with Chance that movies are the best way to teach the public something because of the way viewers are forced to come to conclusions about what they think of what they see on the spot. You cannot always rewind a movie to watch a scene a second time, the way you can reread a passage of a book. Movies are also accessible to everyone, and are a popular form of entertainment.
I will comment on the thought that media plays such a huge role in modern life. I keep thinking about the notion of truth and history. Through the media today we are supposed to be able to learn what is really going on all over the world very easily, yet we are always only allowed whatever version of the truth a certain reporter is willing to give us. Surrounded by so much media and technology, we are forced to be wary of everything we see and hear, and to come to our own conclusions as to what we will chose to believe. It is frustrating to think that we can never really know the real 'truth', but I guess it is up to us to decide what will be our truth in each moment of our lives. Movies, books and the media help us in this search for truth, but it is still up to us to believe what we wish to believe.

Going off on what Eric Freedman wrote in his post, I do not necessarily think that such a comment as Chance’s, that “The classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movie house” is a completely negative characteristic of this country. It truly depends on how each person perceives our constantly changing sources of entertainment. If you take what you see on television, in the movie theaters, in video games, etc. literally, then in my opinion you are a bit foolish. I become really perturbed when people blame Goldeneye 007 type video games as the primary reason why people grow up to be murders, sexual assaulters, verbal abusers, etc. It is the same concept as blaming McDonalds for the severe obesity in this country. If you don’t want to be obese, don’t eat a freaking Big Mac everyday! If you actually think that playing Duck Hunt will lead to a shooting spree in real life, don’t play it! It is a pretty simple notion. So, like Emily said earlier, entertainment can be “truly damaging,” but I really feel that that depends on how much you let it take over your life. Julie B states in her post that she feels like she has lived in New York because she has watched Friends, and that to me is the epitome of entertainment taking over reality in a damaging way. The audience of Friends, or whatever source of entertainment it is for that matter must detach themselves.

Back to the answering question asked though, I feel that Chance’s observation definitely stands true today, and gets more reinforced as time goes on with the enhancement of technology. The “bigger is better” theory that is pretty obvious here in America has its pros and cons, but overall I think its just dandy. I see nothing wrong with reality TV, hell I love it! As long as I don’t come to a point where I want to be a fellow Laguna Beacher and shop, party, and spend my parent’s money all day then why not watch it? It is entertaining, sometimes much more than my own day that has been probably spent at the library. It’s all about taking in entertainment with a careful eye, understanding that what is said to be real isn’t in actuality real, and enjoying what is purely entertainment for what it is.

A great deal of the American Spirit is most definitely found in modern film and television. This was especially seen in the 1920s when Westerns became extremely popular and began to epitomize the American Spirit. Unfortunately, a great deal of the Spirit that we should be proud of is now lost in modern TV. Instead, television has been taken over by reality TV and various shows which are supposedly portraying “real life.” This phony realism is entertainment for many, yet many others find these shows revolting. Film has the ability to portray the sentiments of Americans much more than regular TV. One of my favorite examples of this is the film American Beauty, starring Kevin Spacey. Movies like this tap directly into the sentiments of a great variety of Americans.
Of course, TV and film alike are viewed on a personal basis. While someone like myself may find modern TV depressing but have a deep appreciation for many films, others have varying views. A good film or TV show allows the viewers to feel an intimate connection with the characters. This is similar to a good book; if the writer can capture the audience with the character then many viewers will remain loyal. Once this has been accomplished a great many messages can be portrayed. The ideals of American Spirit are often portrayed. Shows like Seinfeld, Family Guy, and so forth all portray values that are appreciated and understood by Americans.
The vast amount of TV watched by Americans and others world wide, makes this statement not only true today, but perhaps even more true than it was in the 1920s when these films first came out.

I think that many Americans hold true what they see in the cinema, so in this respects, yes the classroom is in the movie theatres. But, added to this is the fact that many movies, historically speaking, are false. Events are often misrepresented, people changed to fit their needs. Very much int eh way that Shorty's story was altered to fit the needs of the producers. It is terrible to think that for many Americans the only understanding and representations they have for many of the most important world events come from interpretations made by Hollywood producers. People who are more concerned with developing a cash production rather than representing historical fact. They downplay importance for capital desires and as a result, many Americans have a skewed understanding of what has shaped our contemporary world. This was one complaint echoed when the 9/11/2001 films were coming out. There was a questioning of representation when such an event is so blatently burned into the psyche of contemporary Americans. Its important for them to represent the American experience, not just the experience of the hegemony, or else our future generations will look back and assume this was historical fact.

The media definetly influences the way we see ourselves and the way the world views us. The US is the largest provider of entertainment services in the world. My main concern is that the Michael Moores and Eminems of the US entertainment industry are providing a false image to our culture. Also, the media continues to run only negative stories and not showing what really is going on. In the last decade homicides have decrease but the media increases the coverage of homicides every year giving the people a false impression that we are surrounded by mass murderers and we may be next. The protrayal of the American Dream has been attacked over the past few decades. Maybe to try and stop illegal immigrants from floating to our borders. But I still believe that this is the only country with the means to have social mobility. Other countries may be growing faster than us but their structure is not as sound. In order for these countries to really compete they will have to became more stable. I still hold true that I will be successful someday or at least work hard enough so my children will have some opprotunity. I do not believe there is any other country that can basically garantee success from hard work and persistence. Other countries focus too much on the image of the country and not the equity of every individuals. The US is very individualistic in nature and if everyone works towards their own personal success instead on relying on others to give them everything the country becomes better as a whole. Not like everyone thinks where a collective movement will be better. At 300 million people that is to inefficient and will not work. The dream is still there you just have to dream it.

I would like to comment on Eric Wright's repsonse, when the shorter film version comes out.

Fortunately for us, the US is NOT the only socially mobile country. If it were, we’d (entire human race –worldwide) would face some pretty serious issues in the future –wait, we already do! Although our country is great and it does offer a lot of things – the grass is always greener on the other side. Many people come to this country for a better life – and many leave it and go to other places for a better life. Personal evidence – my father lives in Bangladesh and works at a hospital compound and helps villagers that have no money. My oldest brother lives in Japan – mostly because he can’t stand the politics of this country. But he is content living there. Do you think Pele was born in a stadium and was just waiting around there to be named soccer’s best player in the world? No, in fact he was living in poverty, shining people shoes and playing soccer with a grapefruit. But he did what made him happy. The point is that there are countries all over the world – and they are all capable of something. American are not the only people who can succeed. And I don’t think we can even say that our path is harder or easier than the next persons. The world is a bigger place than just America or North America. Just because we don’t think about the people in Sri Lanka, Madagascar or Brunei doesn’t mean they don’t exist and it certainly doesn’t mean they too can’t achieve more for themselves. Sometimes Americans have a convoluted idea of success and achievement. Having a fine job with an above average income, a house in suburbs, 2-3 cars and 2-3 kids is not necessarily success or achievement. If you have those things and you’re not happy – can you be considered successful?
Maybe there isn’t really an American Dream – but maybe there is something bigger – something bigger and more specific for each of us to work towards.

I don't believe that all American's are taught through the media. I feel like the media just fills learning gaps that result from poor education, poor upbringings. It is alternative education. Its power is not in its truth, but rather its persuasion. "Truthiness" has aparently become the defining word of our "whatever generation". We thrive on Hollywood miseducation, and have for many years. Think of propaganda comic books during world wars. Science Fiction novels during periods of true scientific revolutions. And of course, the exaggerated wild west in favor of the already rather wild west.

We'll always learn the basis of the truth of our past in history books, but there is always enough room for interpretation; enough room to inject the Horatio Alger mentality into anything we read. We learn idealized truths half because the media feeds them to us, and half because thats what we are looking for anyway. This book was interesting to me, since I grew up reading my brothers Zane Grey novels and watching Tombstone ad nauseum, and am now engrossed in the HBO series Deadwood. I appreciate the more realistic approach to the genre, but at the same time, that is not why I keep coming back to it. I don't watch the Flintstones every day for cave man education, and I don't read westerns for their historical value. I appreciate very much the ability to discern between the fact and fiction that such portrayals offer, but I don't study these things for true accounts of the past. I find pleasure in the truthiness that our culture has succumbed to, and so I will continue watching the Flintstones while I enjoy my Fruity Pebbles.

I think ALex makes a great point in that the American Spirit is now lost in the majority of modern TV. These 'reality' shows, which are usually scripted, often involve a very small minority of Americans that the majority of the viewers cannot connect with. I am thinking specifically of the incredibly superficial and materialistic MTV show My Super Sweet Sixteen. While we do value material in American society this horribly depressing show takes materialism to all new heights. If this show were considered to capture the American Spirit we would all be assholes getting off on whatever authority we had to exploit.

Still, while this trend of 'reality' TV takes away from the American Spirit there are still TV shows which capture the American Spirit just as well. People who watch South Park know that the show is layered with various criticisms of American culture also while higlighting American trends. As we all know that while genious art exists, we are still exposed to garbage. It is in seperating the two that we can find this American Spirit, and yes it still exists widely today.

I find John’s post to be interesting, a tad contradictory, and funny all at the same time.

We’ll start with the hypocritical. You say, John, that the media is an alternative education for those who have experience “poor upbringings”? But this alternative education is something that you go on to describe as something you tend to indulge in, while eating your fruity pebbles (that was the funny part). I think there needs to be a clear distinction between media being an alternative education and a form of entertainment. Just as you say yourself, you do not watch Western movies and use your observations from that as a basis for U.S. history. Although I agree that many Americans thrive on Hollywood “miseducation” as you call it, those that choose this choose this alternative education. Despite this, I can still enjoy Hollywood and all of its miseducation without getting sucked into its fallacies.

So as I go onto read the end of your post, I find your latter paragraph to contradict the first because you, like myself, realistically enjoy the media. Despite our enjoyment, and frankly my overindulgence of the media, I am sure we are both not of “poor upbringings.”

It is true that" the classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movies house" this can be demonstrated by the fact that most americans youth nowadays learn a lot of information and news from computers, TV, video game, and entertainment. For example, most of my amrican friends knew a lot about Africa through animals channel and discover channel as well as CNN. This can proved that classroom is located in moveies house instead of the regular classroom that people used back in old days.

In addition, Americans Officially permitted enetertainments as a part of the classrom learning because most English classes require movies and video clips as a class materials beides books and articles.

Thus, part of this could be technology because technology is taking over so fast. Its changed the way of teaching so far because professors now use powerpoint a lot than lecturing while writing on the board.

The observation by Chance, “The classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movie house" is most definitely true, especially in our society today. Many books have been made into film; Harry Potter, The Notebook, The Color Purple, Pride and Prejudice, the list goes on. Yet many of us have and will continue to bypass the books to view the film because who wants to spend hours reading, when there is a two hour film of the book at blockbuster. I will be the first to admit that I have passed up the book version for the movie, however I must state the books that I read first, then viewing the movie, my appreciation for the book is greater. We now have the Discovery and History channels on television, which replace textbooks, and give us all the information we need in just one hour. Our society is becoming lazier, yet faster. A great example of how our culture thrives on quick and easy is a Visa commercial which has an upbeat tune playing in a store while customers are using their Visa cards to quickly swipe and move along until one customer takes out cash, EVRYTHING comes to an abrupt halt, with people falling over one another, as they customer finishes the purchase others move along paying with their Visa card and they quick and easy cycle continues. I thought this was a great example of how our world continues to think of ways to quicken errands and get on with their life, but what are they in such a hurry for.

I share the same view as Joe who commented, “It is worrying how many people reference scenes from movies as though they were real events.” Many people have been hospitalized or even killed because of reenactments. The movie, Jackass, created enormous uproar about young kids performing the same stunts as these professionals. Yet what these kids do not understand is, that they know what they are doing and have a medical team or what have you to help them in situation that have gone wrong. Many people take what they see and hear to be “truths” not knowing or understanding that they could be receiving misleading information, leading to destruction to the self or others. Emily makes another great point about Chance and the time period in which he made the statement about the “American spirit,” the choices back then were limited, but it was the beginning of the film revolution, and his statement was a very precise foreshadow of today’s society.

I think that a lot of the things we see today in the media, not only in movies, is drastically effecting the way American's view the world, the way they act, and the way other view them. The recent movie Borat allows for Americans to see a foreigner in America and the things he is not accustomed to in his home country. It pokes fun at not only American culture but also at the culture of the foreigner. Unfortunately many people who see this film will develop a view of people in that part of the world that strongly resembles the opinion they have of Borat and the ignorance he displays. This could lead to a treatment of these people that is unfavorable. Also it gives Americans a sense of superiority as many of the things commented on in the film lead Americans to believe that their culture and way of life is right and above any other. I think people do and always will relate what they see at the movies to reasl life and often apply it inappropriately to real life. Like Nicole's comment about how people take what they see in the media to be truth is definately right. People have a difficult time disceerning what is real and what is fiction. This is especially dangerous when concerning children who are impressionable and can form opinions of the world from anything, especially widespread media gossip and television and movies.

In response to Liz's response to my post (thats allowed...right?), I don't think what I was trying to say was contradictory, but I see how it may have come off that way. You and I both enjoy indulging in cheap, Hollywood entertainment as much as anyone, but the difference is our perspective. The fact that we KNOW it as such, and are aware of the fact that it is idealized and not representative of the truth, speaks volumes for our own educations and upbringings. My point was that not everyone is priveleged enough to learn such a wide array of information at such a young age, and these are the people who are gullible to the medias 'misinformation'. Though we dont know everything about our nations history, I would be willing to bet that we know enough to differentiate between what probably did and did not happen - We know enough to know that the media is lying most of the time. My post was more directed at people whose only real exposure to such past history was through the media, those without the privelege of high school history classes and a certain fantastic book by Howard Zinn.

I would completely agree with the notion that the classroom of the American spirit is located in the movie house. I do not think that is necessarily a good thing. I agree with Joe that people can say it is based on true events, but then lead the viewer to believe things that are altered to show only one side of the story. This is the problem with film and television if we only watch one source we will never get the full story because there are always two sides. I would also agree with Sarah because it definitely holds true in television and video games. This is what most Americans see on a consistent basis. This is the great thing about technology and the downfall. We see something on television and take it at face value. We see only one side of the story, the side the television company wants us to see. We are not actually there so it can be altered. I think today the biggest aspect of the American spirit in the movie house would be like Joe said documentaries such as Fahrenheit 911. These can give the viewer an extremely one sided view and that will stick in their minds no matter what actually happened. That’s why I think both view points are necessary because American’s tend to be extremely lazy and take what they see at face value and claim to be an expert on the subject. That is the problem with movies, television and video games being the spirit of America.

I absolutely agree that Hollywood serves as a classroom of the American spirit to today’s culture. Although I do not think that this is necessarily a good thing. This “classroom of the American spirit” not only includes movies now days, but also extends to include television. The development of television programming has evolved into an instantly accessible medium for anyone who has the time to vegetate in front of hours of mind numbing programming “brought to you by Insert Company whose target market you belong to].” Certain aspects of the American spirit can be seen in this programming, not only in how they are presented, but also in how they are made, why they are made and their impact on pop culture. One all too good example of this MTV’s The Real World. The object of this show is to conquer the huge question looming on all of our minds. What happens when seven beautiful drama queens are put into a luxurious apartment in a major city with no responsibilities other than drinking from the stocked bar in the house, flashing sponsor logos as much as possible, and creating enough raw party footage to be edited into some sort of storyline?

The show, which started as an experiment of some sorts, has turned into anything but that. Every season it seems as though the people become increasingly less real and more into caricatures of specific personalities that “work.” In truth, the show is a complete exploitation of the people on the show. The footage filmed is purely manipulated to downplay certain situation while more often hyping up others. The end result is no where near an accurate portrayal of the actual events. The true goal of the show is to present advertisers products as cool and desirable to its audience of impressionable young teens. They show kids how they should be dressing, what they should be listening to, and what they should be eating. MTV also sells the idea that late Saturday night blackout behavior is acceptable in the real world situations. The actual result of this “experiment” is a lose/lose situation for the cast and audience members. This isn’t really a problem to the people in the Viacom offices, the only real winners of the show. This is a nation of consumerism and the only important thing to them is that the advertisers pay up.

This show has turned out a general outline for reality TV: get people who aren’t actors (who you don’t have to pay), put them in ridiculous staged situations, edit to make it appear that something dramatic actually happened, throw them some product and pocket the money. Unfortunately, hours of this programming bombards kids minds during the after school classroom of the living room couch.

In response to Liz’s post on medias influence on people and how much is it to blame for real life circumstances, I do partially agree and partially disagree. It is quite a stretch to solely blame media for tragedies that are actually committed. Columbine stirred this debate in the news years ago. Some people targeted video games such as the shooting game Doom and disturbing satanic music by Marilyn Manson as factors to point fingers at. I think this is where you were going with your argument; the product does not create but merely appeals to a certain group of people. I do think (as suggested by my post above) that there is still danger in some products influence on the culture at large. There is an influence of media present in modern life. The difference between appealing to the group and creating the group lies in the persuasion of the audience by the product of its place in reality.

I think that Sarah brought up a really great point when she discussed the difference between societal expectations as they pertain to life in the 20’s versus contemporary society. As Sarah noted, “In the 1920’s no one wanted to see people go through the pains of life.” Arriving on the heels of WWI, the 1920’s was marked by a distinct disillusionment and unrest among the people. Notions of safety and security no longer applied, and suddenly, men could be sent off to war never to return. People were scared, uneasy, and above all, newly critical. Thus I think Damon Ira Chance is exacting in his suggestion that "'the classroom of the American spirit is now located in the movie house." People didn’t want reality. They didn’t want death, poverty, or uncertainty. Instead, a great longing for comfort and hope saturated American culture. The movie industry thrived precisely because it offered the happy ending most would not achieve in life. In films the American Dream was realized, and however far removed from one’s own personal situation the story line may have been, such images pierced the general despair, as someone, somewhere was actually happy.
Today, however, Americans are starving for glimpses of “reality.” People need to know how others live. Perhaps, even, in the same way that the cinema offered visual medium of comparison to ones own life, so too does today’s reality television juxtapose societal strata. Viewers either resemble or differ from those on television, and regardless of whether those sitting at home can identify with their television contemporaries or not, a variety of conclusions can be drawn about an individuals relation to society as a whole.
As is evident with the demise of the sitcom and rise of the reality television genre, Americans, in general, are voyeurs. Another need drives this curiosity: the need to analyze, deconstruct and wholly compartmentalize. Post modernism forces a perpetual scavenger hunt for prolific meaning through popular culture. The Internet, television, and movies, these are the cinema of the 21st century. In the 1920’s people learned about American culture, “American spirit,” from a screen in front of them. Americas are still learning from a screen, but what they’re learning is not that everything will be ok. The classroom of the contemporary American educates through passivity; pictures of life are presented, how one interprets them are wholly individual.

i feel elizabeth hagg, way up there near the top, brought up a really good point about how cinema can be a beautiful piece of artwork to be admired. it's a troubling question to discuss the worthiness of praise that television and movies get today. there are movies made out of historical events sure, but because of the exposure that the entertainment industry gets these days, we are plagued with the questions as to how genuine these history lessons are supposed to be. are we more educated about pearl harbor? or are we more attracted to josh hartnett? as far as the american spirit living in the "movie house," i think that is because as a nation we have become lazy, and laziness is being reborn into entire generations. maybe that's an easy answer, but as a part of an audience, i would suppose it is our individual responsibility to take from cinematic experience, whatever we would like to get from it. whereas television, is really just crap. we've got 30 minute sit-coms shoved down our throats, bad music, and bad news, all financed by corrupted deep wallets. so...even though the classroom of contemporary america is being held captive in front of television screens, it is individual responsibility to control what comes in...and ultimately, what comes out.

I liked what Liz Bearese described as the “bigger is better” theory. Many people are quite interested in reality TV. Although, I seem to go the other way a little bit. Sometimes bigger isn’t better and certainly the “bigger” TV shows are far from being better. I think it is easy to say the original Survivor was more enjoyable than the bigger reality shows we see today.

I also felt what Zack Friedman had to say about struggling with the “American Spirit” being based on TV. The depressing truths regarding trends away from intellect are sadly sometimes a reality. One of the things I felt particularly encouraging was the love of the arts and the encouragement for artistic expression in Canada. Sadly, I think in the US lots of intellectual and artistic value is lost for pop culture.

On another hand..I would like to believe that movies and films these days are made to correctly portray American life, popular culture and history but there is no way that is true. I personally have not seen any movies from the post WWI era so I can't pass judgement over the films that were being produced back then, but I do know today's production companies do not aim to educate. However, there are film makers out there who do want to accurately depict the American citizen and show their "American Spirit." A good example of this would be the production of the HBO mini-series BAND OF BROTHERS. A series that does an excellent job attempted to portray the United States at one of its most vulnerable times in history. Therefore, I believe a film that relates to the history of the American Spirit could do it justice than a reality series or sitcom.

In response to basically everyone's agreeance that the American Spirit is now located in the movie house. While I enjoy watching films/documentaries in the classroom and putting my head down for a little nap, I do not feel that showing a film to accurately depict a certain subject can replace the teachings of an educated teacher or professor. It is very dangerous to rely on television and films to teach students in the future. The education they receive will be extremely sub par to that of previous generations. So while i do agree that films have taken over the classroom, and that I enjoy them very much, I do not feel they are an adequate tool for the learning process.

Wright's posting was a bit suprising to me particularly the end in which he talks about how far video games have come as an artform. I too have been playing games from a very young age and as of lately especially the past two or three years I think hollywood and particularly the blockbusters have been falling very short of capturing the "American Spirit" in film. They have become giant special effect shows with little attention to real plot dynamics or dialogue. In fact lately there has been very little invention in Hollywood since every "new" movie that comes out seems to be a remake of a "classic" I just don't feel like their is any origninality in Hollywood anymore.

In responce to everyone's feelings about the classroom of the American spirit now and still being located at the movie house I agree with this strongly. Some well known examples include films such as Gladiator, Braveheart, and Rocky. All three of these movies embody the classical American hero, an underdog who never gives up and exhibits unfaltering courage.
When looking at top ranked shows, one can propose questions about the world in which we live. At one point two of the top 5 shows were Desparate Housewives and Ultimate Fighting. It is clear that these shows have gender boundaries as each show has a prominent theme. UFC - Violence, and Desparate Housewives - Drama. Do these shows capture the American spirit? Is being drawn to watch two men bludgeon one another in a cage the same tendency that drove Romans to watch Gladiators fight in the Collisuems? Could soap operas such as As the World Turns be manifestations of ancient plays that one would watch for a feeling of catharsis?
Chance was historically correct in saying that during the 20's the movies are a classroom for the American Spirit. However in this day and age, the movies are still definately a classroom for American Spirit, but they can be seen more as an elective than a core course. With the growth of electronics including video games, ipods, cell phones, and the internet; it seems that Americans are now being bombarded with more messages trying to define the American Spirit for them than ever.

I agree with the idea that contemporary "American Spirit" is now located today in the entertainment industry. Films can influence all types of people and when they are watching a movie can be influenced to feel a certain way. People respond to visual representation. I feel that the most prominate example of contemporary "American Spirit" is actors participating in the use of alcohol and drugs. A great amount of movies are created with the single point of addressing drugs and partying. For example, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Half Baked, Friday and Fear and Loathing in Las Vagas are a few examples of movies that exploit contemporary "American Spirit". If only we could assume Americans did other activities than getting drunk and high, the world would be a better place, with higher standards.

I do not agree with Sarah Pickard that yes, movies do portray American spirit, but it is more so in tv, video games and computers. I find that films dominate the entertainment industry in showing American Spirit. I do not agree that in tv, it shows that life is great. Video games and music are also very violent. Although, there are many positive video games, they are not geered towards older players, which are the ones who make their own decisions and choose for themselves what activities that they are going to participate in. Although I do agree with you that American does have a dream that everything is great, the last message that I find in our society and entertainment created from our society is that everything is of a positive nature.

There are definitely movies out there that show much of American Spirit. Not so much is it found in video games, music and other like forms of entertainment. Movies are a big part of our countries history and show the story of America growing up over the years. I don not think this will change much in the future. Sure there are movies that do not show the American Spirit but the ones that do are easily picked out.

. These men are the ideal of the “American Spirit”. These men are strong, brave and always do the right thing. They are what we are all to look up to or try to be.
That is what I thought of when Chance wanted to make the story about Shorty.

There are many movies out there that show the American spirit, there are select ones that display the stereo-typed biker gangs, and there are ones about honor and courage. One things that will always be for certain, is that they will always represent our Country in one way or another.

There are some great American spirit movies sure, but most are just selling seats at the theaters and dvd's. I would agree games are violent, but folks I think can more easily disassociate from games than movies as movies are passive and the "programming" goes in without sometimes effort.

What truly scares me most about this issue is making movies about these events or time periods that are truly “American” is a good idea. It’s entertaining, interesting, at least somewhat informative, pleasurable, and profitable for the creators. However, these movies are supposed to whet your appetite for knowledge, after seeing Pearl Harbor, you should want to learn more about the war and what actually happened. Instead, people are using these sensationalized, consumer driven products, and basing their actual knowledge from it. It’s really a problem of American apathy and sense of entitlement. American’s want things as easy as possible, and going to see a completely glamorized movie is much easier than reading a book, and we are willing to sacrifice even factual accuracy in favor of ease. The best metaphor I can make is City Market may offer some of the highest quality ingredients in Burlington, yet people still eat at McDonalds, and I’m not talking about those who have to eat at McDonalds for economic reasons. I’m referring to those who would rather pay 6 dollars and eat, than pay ten and cook themselves a worthwhile meal. It’s the same with knowledge unfortunately; people are much happier getting the dumbed-down, quick, and easy version of history.