1. Abby, Tsutsui viewed "Godzilla vs. King Kong" as a film about an imaginary showdown between the US and Japan. Thus, animals/non-humans were used as visual representatives of their respective nations, and both came across as violent and much to be feared. Does this sort of cinema only further the growing fear over "wildlife" started so many years ago in America with the word "wilderness?" Do you believe film has had a significant impact on how we view animals? Why or why not?
2. April, you mentioned in last week's class that museum curators should, and I will paraphrase, "not succumb to starbucksesque customer service." In essence, you argued that because historians are professionals, they are above such behavior; and moreover, that by pandering to public desire historical accuracy/authenticity is lost. Put another way, must history always be disseminated through boring history professors or austere museum curators lest it be considered unprofessional? In essence, can history be both education and fun (think Godzilla)? How thin is the line between the two?
3. (Bryan, please choose either A or B). A. Some believe Godzilla movies are simply supercalifragilisticexpialidocious; others, however, contend they are at best floccinaucinihilipilification, or worse yet, psuedoantidisestablishmentariamis- and thus would rather bathe in an aequeosalinocalcalinosetaceoaluminosocupereovitriolic or need hepaticocholangiochelecystentersotomies than watch them. How would you say this dichotomy of opinion fits into postmodernist thought?
Or
B. Nearly every discipline can be placed under history's overreaching tent, and that is one of the great things about the discipline. Nevertheless, there must at some point be standards. Tweets from Lady Gaga for instance, cannot be considered as historically valuable as the Constitution. Accordingly, what place, if any, do fictional films (especially sci-fi) have in the historical record? And if they belong, what rubric do we use to quantify their merit as historically/culturally valuable- keeping in mind that we don't own the past?
4. Mark, I am confident in my assumption that every time Tsutsui mentioned Japanese nationalism- you immediately drew a connection to nationalism in the Balkans. What does this tell us about the transportability of historical lessons/themes? And, perhaps more importantly, what is the danger in doing so?
5. Michal, Tsutsui noted that the content of Godzilla films was altered depending on whether the movies were aired in the US or Japan. Does this prove the films have little historical value as they were modified to appease audiences- or- even more significant as they help illuminate a cultural chasm? Piggybacking off of that answer, as a lover of all things British, and an inspiring professor as well, how would you teach Godzilla to a bunch of Brits? Would they even understand the movie? Does this in the end reveal the true value of Godzilla films, namely, their ability to reveal culture nuances?
6. Niki, Tsutsui wrote in great detail about how the Japanese saw Godzilla both as a common enemy and a lumbering billboard advertising the danger of nuclear proliferation. He did not, however, discuss how the actual survivors of the bombs felt about Godzilla, and how they may have felt about watching the destruction he wrought considering all they had been through. Was this shortsighted on his part? Which leads me to this: in our writing, we must always choose to leave things out, but how do we know what?
7. Zach, earlier in the semester, you had a discussion with Brian about an online-chat you partook in concerning the Spanish Civil War. That discussion got me thinking that in this technological era, historical accuracy/fact-collecting is perhaps less valuable than ever before. I do not argue they are unimportant, but rather that fact-checking oversight (in the way of innumerable scholars) and the ease with which information is disseminated through the Internet (such as your conversation) have made accuracy/data collection much easier. Accordingly, it is a historian's ability to communicate his or her message that now takes primacy, where perhaps in antiquity is was actually the ability to uncover facts themselves. Does this tell us the discipline has evolved, and if so, do we need to change our methods to accommodate? So, here is my thought, after reading a book as well written as "Godzilla On My Mind", I am inclined to think graduate history students should be required to enroll in multiple writing courses (such as creative writing for instance). Do you agree?
No comments:
Post a Comment