Bones: Logic vs. Emotions in How We Decide

From left to right: Dr. Jack Hodgins, Angela Montenegro, Seeley Booth, Dr. Temperance Brennan, Dr. Zack Addy, Dr. Cam Saroyan.

The human mind is a complicated puzzle of chemical reactions and impulses. Somehow, those impulses result in decisions, both conscious and unconscious. The discussion on what drives these decisions – a “trained gut,” dopamine, reasons, morals, etc. – is simply broken into the battle between logic and emotions. Are the best decisions made by only relying on logic? Are all bad decisions made because of rash emotions? Or is the best decision-making done with a balance between logical thought and emotional urges? The hit FOX television show Bones is an excellent example of the struggles between letting logic or emotions rule in life, and these characters serve as surrogates for real-life situations and relationships.

Dr. Temperance ‘Bones’ Brennan

Bones follows crime novel author Dr. Temperance Brennan of the Jeffersonian Institute in Washing, D.C., as she uses her skills in forensic anthropology to solve crimes when only the bones are left behind. She is partners with Special Agent Seeley Booth, head of the FBI’s Homicide Investigations Unit and a former military sniper, who uses “Bones” as his nickname for Dr. Brennan. Booth believes in using his “gut” to make decisions and values emotions and personal relationships, while Brennan prizes logic and reason above all else. The two learn from each other’s perspectives as they deliver justice to the victims, along with the Jeffersonian team. Notable members of the team include Angela Montenegro, Brennan’s best friend and an artist who reconstructs facial features for remains; Dr. Jack Hodgins, an entomologist and conspiracy theorist; Dr. Camille Saroyan, a coroner and the director of the Jeffersonian Institute’s Medico-Legal Lab; Dr. Lance Sweets, a young FBI psychologist; and numerous interns, most importantly Dr. Zack Addy, Brennan’s original graduate student who is even more socially inept and prone to logic than Dr. Brennan (this eventually leads to his downfall, as will be discussed later). As the show progresses, Dr. Brennan’s reasoning that emotions make humans weak begins to falter, partially due to her interactions with her friends and partly because of her growing affection and admiration for Booth. Brennan learns many important lessons about the need for emotions and logic in both living life and making decisions.

Dr. Brennan starts off believing that only logic is needed to make decisions. In Jonah Lehrer’s book How We Decide, a patient named Elliot discovered what it is like to only have logic. After a tumor was cut out of his cortex, Elliot found that he could no longer make decisions. “Routine tasks that should have taken ten minutes now required several hours…His indecision was pathological.” His doctor soon decided to test Elliot’s emotional reactions. “The results were clear: Elliot felt nothing.” This led to more studies of similar patients, all with the same results. “These patients all appeared intelligent and showed no deficits on any conventional cognitive tests. And yet they all suffered from the same profound flaw: because they didn’t experience emotion, they had tremendous difficulty making decisions.” Without emotions, these patients were unable to decide anything from what to eat for breakfast to when to go to bed. “The simple truth of the matter is that making good decisions requires us to use both sides of the mind…Sometimes we need to reason through our options and carefully analyze the possibilities. And sometimes we need to listen to our emotions. The secret is knowing when to use these different styles of thought.”

Dr. Brennan with Dr. Zack Addy

In the episode “The Pain in the Heart” (Season 3, Episode 15) Brennan learns the importance of emotions and the dangers of logic in a most unforgettable way. The Gormogon Master, a cannibalistic serial killer that has evaded capture all season, has managed to find a new apprentice in Dr. Zack Addy, Brennan’s graduate student. Zack takes part in a diversion so that the Master can retrieve some evidence from the Jeffersonian, but something goes awry and Zack is badly injured in order to avoid hurting Hodgins, keeping Zack from being able to escape. Brennan and Booth discover that it was Zack who helped the Master and ask him how he could do it. He replies that the Master’s logic was irrefutable to him and he could not refuse. Brennan counters:
Brennan: “All of your assumptions are built upon a first principle, Zack. To wit, the historical human experience as a whole is more important than a single person’s life.”
Zack: “Yes.”
Brennan: “Yet you risked it all so you wouldn’t hurt Hodgins.”

Zack was able to recognize the importance of logic and follow it, but he wasn’t able to leave emotions – and personal relationships – out of it. His logic was what led him to make a bad decision, but his emotions helped save him from making an even worse one (that of injuring or possibly killing his best friend). Brennan saw the flaw in his logic and the power of his emotions, realizing the dangers of pure logic.

When making decisions purely from logical thought, there are bound to be some obstacles. In Booth’s work as a military sniper and FBI field agent, he has developed what Lehrer calls “a trained gut.” This means that he can rely on his emotions – his “gut reactions” – to tell him how to act in a situation, because he has been trained to react correctly even when there is no time for logical analysis of options. He’s experienced the outcomes before, so he is able to “feel” the positive and negative actions even before carrying them out. In Lehrer’s examples of a pilot trying to land a failing plane and a quarterback trying to win a touchdown for his team, he introduces the concept of a “trained gut” and discusses how the mind makes split-second decisions. “So how does a quarterback do it? How does he make a decision? It’s like asking a baseball player why he decided to swing the bat at a particular pitch: the velocity of the game makes thought impossible…It’s as if his mind is making decisions without him.” Quarterbacks and pilots go through many rigorous hours of training, teaching them how to respond to certain situations without even realizing why they are responding that way. It’s the same way that monkeys are trained to turn a joystick for food or gamblers learn which decks to avoid during a game. We experience the positive or negative effects of our actions and learn what to do to get the positive response we want, or the influx of dopamine. “How do emotions become so accurate? How do they identify the lucrative decks so quickly? The answer returns to dopamine, the molecular source of our feelings.” When the monkeys turn the joystick the wrong way and don’t receive food, or the gamblers pick a card from a bad deck and lose money, dopamine stops firing. The positive emotion gives way to negative, and the monkeys and gamblers with intact neurological responses learn to avoid the bad feelings, or the wrong directions and bad decks. Trained guts are reliable tools that can come in handy when the time for logical reasoning just isn’t there.

In the episode “The Parts in the Sum of the Whole” (Season 5, Episode 16) Bones flashes back to Brennan and Booth’s first case together. A young singer’s body was found after performing at a political fundraiser where an influential judge was in attendance. The case is about to be closed and Booth is directed to seek Dr. Brennan’s help in the case. Upon first meeting, Booth tells her that he “just knows” it was the judge who killed the girl and he wants Brennan’s help in proving it. She insists that she will only help him find the truth, whatever that may be. In the end, they catch the judge and Brennan must admit that Booth’s “gut” was right. Brennan begins the process of learning to trust Booth’s feelings even if she can’t logically explain them. “The process of thinking requires feeling, for feelings are what let us understand all the information that we can’t directly comprehend. Reason without emotion is impotent.”

Although emotions are vital to decision-making skills, there are times when emotions can cloud logic and cause bad decisions to be made. Lehrer depicts Wag Dodge’s escape from the Mann Gulch fire by burning the grass around him before being reached by the flames, even though his comrades were running to the cliffs for safety. Wag Doge survived due to his quick thinking, but most of his colleagues didn’t make it. All they could think about was getting to what they thought was safe, even if logically they knew they wouldn’t make it in time. This is called perceptual narrowing. Only Dodge was able to stop and think, and it saved his life. He was able to push his emotions aside and focus on the logic of the situation. This came from his experience fighting fires – most of the other volunteers were young and inexperienced. In a way, he had a “trained gut” that took over in his time of need. This time, emotions were the dangerous factor.

In the episode “Aliens in a Spaceship” (Season 2, Episode 9) Brennan and Hodgins are kidnapped by the mysterious Grave Digger and buried alive in Brennan’s car. Hodgins came upon the attack accidentally and was injured, forcing the Grave Digger to bury him along with Brennan despite only leaving enough air for 24 hours (now 12 for two people). Booth and the Jeffersonian team are racing the clock to find them, but with a shortened deadline and few leads there isn’t much hope. But with Brennan’s capacity for logical thought under pressure and both her and Hodgins’ expertise, they are able to send a message to Booth and to increase their air supply by cutting into the trunk and spare tire. Despite these successes, there still isn’t much hope that they will be found in time, but Brennan manages to remain hopeful.
Brennan: “Booth will find us.”
Hodgins: “You have a lot of faith in Booth.”
Brennan: “No, faith is an irrational belief in something that is logically impossible. Over time I have seen what Booth can do. It’s not faith.”
Hodgins: “No offense, and I’m not just saying this because you filleted me with a knife, we are out of air. We don’t know if our message got out, much less if anyone understood it, and we are buried underground. What you have is faith, baby.”
Their ability to push aside their emotions and use logic allows them to stay alive long enough to be found, and Brennan’s faith in Booth is not misplaced. Her comment of “Booth will find us” attests to her growing confidence in Booth’s abilities despite having no logical reason for thinking that he will find them. She has learned to trust her trained gut when logic is needed and Booth’s trained gut when emotions are needed. A balance between the two.

“For too long, people have disparaged the emotional brain, blaming our feelings for all our mistakes. The truth is far more interesting. If it weren’t for our emotions, reason wouldn’t exist at all.” There is no reason separate from emotion, and vice versa. Our decisions aren’t made based on one thing or another. A whole myriad of factors goes into each and every decision, no matter how small. It’s our emotions that allow us to “feel” our way through our lives, and it’s our logic that allows us to keep our emotions in check. The best decisions are made with a good balance of both.

Dr. Temperance Brennan grows immensely during the show, coming to grips with her emotions and allowing some of her decisions to be guided by them instead of logic. She begins as a logical purist with little patience for things that cannot be proven. But as the show and her time with Booth furthers, her willingness to admit that some things cannot be proven, but felt, permits her to make decisions that lead her to a much more fulfilling life as a mother and wife, two roles she was certain she would never hold.

In Menand’s The Metaphysical Club, the life of Charles Sanders Peirce sheds some light on the truth about certainty. “In a world that never repeats itself with exactitude, all believing is betting. Our beliefs and concepts are, in the end, only guesses about how things will behave most of the time.” Scientists pride themselves on being “certain” of proven facts and using those facts to discover more “certainties,” but previously accepted facts are often found to be untrue (the Earth is flat, etc.). The same can be said about Dr. Brennan, and this is a major point of the series – her accepting the fact that living a life of certainty doesn’t guarantee anything. As her logic is questioned and new results are gained, she must reevaluate her life and adapt. “…philosophy is not a path to certainty, only a method of coping, and second, that what makes beliefs true is not logic but results…This meant that human beings are active agents – that they get a vote – in the evolving constitution of the universe: when we choose a belief and act on it, we change the way things are.” By observing Booth’s faith in God and his faith in other people, Brennan begins to see how acting on faith can change outcomes. When previously only willing to act on logic, she slowly begins to move through more of her life on belief and emotion. Having used scientific certainty as a crutch, she finds more solid foundations in her relationships with Booth and her friends, people who make decisions based on emotions and logic.

“…Properly speaking, there is no certainty; there are only people who are certain.” Pierce’s statement points to Booth, who is certain of what he believes no matter how irrational it may seem. This allows him to live more freely but also more clearly, not having to find new grounds when his fall apart. Once she realizes that humans cannot live their lives purely logically, Brennan finds happiness and conviction in her new relationships and perspectives. She is able to make sometimes irrational decisions based on her feelings.

 

In the episode “The Bod in the Pod” (Season 8, Episode 7) Brennan’s journey from logic to emotional acceptance comes full circle. A crime scene clean up expert is murdered, and despite having no evidence as to the killer’s identity, Brennan insists that the man’s competitor is the culprit.
Cam: “Dr. Brennan, do you think Melvin Carville is our killer?”
Brennan: “Yes.”
Cam: “Based on? Seriously? You’re working a hunch here?”
Brennan: “Melvin Carville told Sweets specifically to tell me personally where to look for blood.”
Hodgins: “Like a challenge?”
Brennan: “Yes.”
Cam: “Oh, you are most definitely working a hunch.”
Ironically, Booth is unwilling to believe her “hunch” because the evidence doesn’t point to Carville, but Brennan is persistent and is able to prove her theory correct. In just 8 seasons, Brennan is able to go from blatantly rejected feelings and emotions to embracing them to the point of sometimes overruling logic. She is able to make better decisions, even if she can’t explain why she makes them. And without question, her life is richer and more fulfilling.

As the characters in Bones learn, logic and emotions can each have their downsides when not used properly. But decisions made with both are why humans are currently at the top of the food chain. Humans don’t rely only on instincts or only on desires. We make decisions based on a complex web of threads that are the human brain.

Works Cited
“Bones.” TV.com. CBS Interactive Inc., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/episodes/&gt;.
“Bones: The Pain in the Heart.” TV.com. CBS Entertainment, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/the-pain-in-the-heart-1196624/trivia/&gt;.
“Bones: The Parts in the Sum of the Whole.” TV.com. CBS Entertainment, n.d. Web. 24 Apr.
2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/the-parts-in-the-sum-of-the-whole-1318327/&gt;.
“Bones: Aliens in a Spaceship.” TV.com. CBS Entertainment, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/aliens-in-a-spaceship-879259/&gt;.
“Bones: Aliens in a Spaceship.” TV.com. CBS Entertainment, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/aliens-in-a-spaceship-879259/trivia/&gt;.
“Bones: The Bod in the Pod.” TV.com. CBS Entertainment, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/the-bod-in-the-pod-2596069/&gt;.
“Bones: The Bod in the Pod.” TV.com. CBS Entertainment, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/bones/the-bod-in-the-pod-2596069/trivia/&gt;.
“Bones on FOX.” Bones. FOX.com, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. <http://www.fox.com/bones/&gt;.
Lehrer, Jonah. How We Decide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. Print.
Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2001. Print.
Nozick, Robert. The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1989. Print.

Film Firsts You Might Not Have Thought About

Earlier today in class, Dr. Welky mentioned that the first toilet ever seen in an American film was in 1960’s Psycho. That got me thinking – what other firsts in films have I been ignorant of? What do these firsts tell us about film history and American history? We discussed the contrast between the scandal of a flushing toilet being shown on film and the violence we see in movies like Psycho and most action thrillers. Why is it that Americans are okay watching gory and violent films but nudity, sex, and cursing are still seen as ratings-raisers and inappropriate for the screen?

Let’s delve into some other firsts to look at the progression of films and society:

 

Widely considered the first feature-length film is 1906’s The Story of the Kelly Gang.

The first feature-length color drama was 1914’s The World, the Flesh and the Devil.

A screenshot from the film.

The first feature film sequel was The Fall of a Nation, the 1916 sequel to Birth of a Nation. This film is currently considered lost.

The first feature-length animated film was El apóstol  in 1917.

The first remake of a feature-length film was Marked Men, a 1919 remake of the 1916 The Three Godfathers.

1927’s Wings actually boasts a lot of firsts. First and only film to win Best Production at the Oscars (the award was discontinued after that and changed to Best Picture); that also makes it the first film to win Best Picture. It was the first and only silent movie to win Best Picture until 2011’s The Artist. It also contained the first on-screen kiss between two men and the first product placement in films.

The famous kiss.

The first film shown in 3D was 1952’s Bwana Devil.

The first film based on a television series was 1954’s Dragnet.

The first CGI feature film was Toy Story in 1995.

These are just a few of the famous firsts of films. But what do they tell us about movies – and ourselves?

Obviously the first feature film and first color film developed from technology advances and audience demand. The working classes needed entertainment and were willing to pay for it. Birth of a Nation was a box office success, so making a sequel seemed good business. Also a good reason to remake films as with The Three Godfathers and Marked Men. The film industry has always followed formulas they knew would make them money.

Then we get to animation. Also a technological development, but maybe also a marketing development? Audiences have children, and children like whimsical things that remind them of their own imaginations. Enter cartoons and animated films. Demand met. That also shows the logical progression to the CGI of Toy Story – better animation, better stories, more money. (Toy Story went on to have two sequels, proof that filmmakers are still repeating money-making formulas). Another form of remakes is movies based off television shows, like Dragnet. Audiences love the show, so why not make it into a film? The fan base is already there. And 3D is a natural progression of the advancements of technology that brought us color, sound, and animation. Viewers will always pay for the latest film experience.

Now let’s talk about Wings. This is one of my favorite firsts, because it shows how one film can accomplish so much. The Oscars began in 1929, reviewing films from August, 1927-August, 1928. This included Wings. It won the first version of the Best Picture award. Nowadays the Oscar Awards are a huge deal that thousands of people watch and only so few movies earn. But Oscar-winning films, actors, actresses, directors, and writers dominate the films we watch in our homes every day. Hard to believe that this tradition hasn’t always been around (my grandfather was a child when the Awards began, if that helps with perspective). But think about what our lives would be like without animated films, sequels, remakes, or the Oscars? Think about the technologies we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for the advancements of film (I’m thinking iPads, laptops, televisions). And think about the films you would never have seen. Now those firsts seem pretty important, huh?

 

Study History. Watch Movies.

When most people think of history, they think of dusty text books and old guys wearing wigs. They might think of Ancient Rome or Victorian England. But the first thing they think of is not Hollywood (unless, perhaps, you’re Dr. Welky). In fact, most historians would probably argue that movies aren’t an intricate part of the world’s history – but they would be wrong. Maybe individually movies don’t have much to offer our knowledge and understanding of history, society, and culture. But as a collection, movies offer us invaluable insights into events, societal norms, political opinions, and so much more. They show the advancement of technology, of civil rights, and of life. More than any textbook, movies show us the views and beliefs of entire groups of people at any given time in film history.

If we study films from their creation to modern times, we can observe the tremendous steps humanity has taken in the past century. We progressed from silent films (poor color, over-dramatic acting, overlaid piano music) to talkies (black-and-white, lots of spoken exposition, film noir) to today’s films (full color, special effects, 3D). We’ve advanced from the racist commentary in Birth of a Nation to exploring the wrongs of the past in films like The Butler. But what can we really learn by studying the history of Hollywood, film technology, and film politics?

In class we’ve discussed varying subjects from the creation of Hollywood to censorship to the responsibility of films and film-makers. The power of actors, directors, writers, and film CEOs is irrefutable. Films shape people and the way they see the world or certain issues. So it should be obvious that in order to understand why and how history is viewed, we should understand movies. Why did we start making movies? Why did we start watching them? What types of movies are made? We can look at the movies of the war eras to tell us that films can serve as mirrors into the past.

During WWII, once the US entered it, films were used as propaganda for the American and Allied causes. Nazis were shown as inhuman racists and Americans/Brits as the heroes. Not that I’m saying historical films (like Sahara) are accurate, but they are accurate about the views of America at the time. Films like Mrs. Miniver were used to show what the Allies were experiencing at the Nazis’ hands and to show America that they weren’t very different from us. Movies lifted morale and taught people about supporting the troops. They answered civilians’ questions about why the war was happening. Modern war movies show us different events and points of views of past (and sometimes current) conflicts (ex. Valkyrie, The Monuments Men, and Zero Dark Thirty). Movies like Schindler’s List give us a personal look into the real-life events of the Holocaust. Without movies like these, the knowledge and understanding of the past would be lost to many a viewer. We can’t expect everyone to pick up a book for their history, and books can’t show the way movies do (not that I’m against books at all).

If we look even further into the movies, such as how and why certain movies are made or what was going on in a certain period of film history, we can learn even more about historical events. As we’ve been seeing lately in class, events like The Red Scare and the Cold War affected the movies, too. Certain movies were made to please audiences and politicians at this time (anti-communist movies like I Married A Communist, which by the way isn’t even on IMDb!) and other movies were condemned later on as being pro-communist, despite being made during the time of America’s alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union (ex. Mission to Moscow). Knowing events in Hollywood like the Production Code and the reign of HUAC allow us to delve deeper into the fears and goals of an entire country. We can see the American dream reflected in films like Amarilly of Clothes-Line Alley and Little Caesar (respectively during their time periods). We see the emergence of counter-culture in America through Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver (and the varying views on it). The best and the worst times of our world are shown in our movies. Our history is in our movies, and our movies are in our history. They’re undeniably connected – so grab a flick and a seat, and drink in the history. You might not even realize what you’re learning through that screen.

 

The Role of Women in A Man’s World: Actresses Are Taking Over Our Screens

Since the beginning of films, white males have dominated the actor market, taking up most of Hollywood’s roles. In class we discussed the rise of black actors with Sidney Poitier, who broke in to the market with roles like Gregory Miller in Blackboard Jungle and Virgil Tibbs from In the Heat of the Night. Despite playing many roles that were tailored to blacks, Poitier starred in many films and helped pave the way for black actors in films today. But blacks are not the only under-represented and under-appreciated class in movies.

Even today women in the film industry have more walls to break down than white males (and in some cases even black males or males of other races). Films with female leads are typically slated into the “chick-flick” or romantic comedy category (even though a lot of romantic comedies are lately being told from the male’s point of view). Strong female leads tend to come from historical films or films with male leads with strong partner figures (take the 2012 Best Actress Oscar win for Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady, the 2013 win for Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook, or even the 2013 Supporting Actress win for Anne Hathaway in Les Misérables). But girls, don’t despair – there is an ever-increasing trend of women taking over typical male roles (and in some cases making them even better).

A more obscure but fairly recent film that falls into this category is Joss Whedon’s Much Ado About Nothing.

Seriously a masterpiece.

A modern, black-and-white take on Shakespeare’s famous play, it also gives a nod to this trend by casting Riki Lindhome in the role of Conrade, a male henchman of Don John’s that was previously played by Richard Clifford in the 1993 version. This is done by making Conrade out to be more like Don John’s mischievous girlfriend and follower rather than just another henchman. While a subtle change, it adds dimensions to the scenes between Conrade, Don John and Borachio, and completely changes the tone of exchanges such as:

DON JOHN: If I had my mouth, I would bite; if I had my liberty, I would do my liking: in the meantime let me be that I am and seek not to alter me.
CONRADE: Can you make no use of your discontent?
And therefore we get dynamics like this:

1993 version. From left to right: Conrade (Richard Clifford), Don John (Keanu Reeves), and Borachio (Gerard Horan).

2012 version. Don John (Sean Maher) with Conrade (Riki Lindhome).

And a beautiful trailer like this:

A film that was actually written for a leading man that was replaced by a leading woman is 2010’s Salt.

Angelina Jolie stars in this spy thriller originally written for Tom Cruise. A role typically given to males (the Mission: Impossible films, James Bond films, etc.) Jolie carries this action-packed mystery on her shoulders, even reportedly doing most of her own stunts. Considering Tom Cruise has already had his secret agent fame, I say it’s about time we got some female players. But you tell me who you think does it better:

Angelina Jolie in Salt.

Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible.

A very recent example is Ender’s Game, a sci-fi film based off the book by Orson Scott Card.

If you haven’t seen this yet, you need to.

In the book the character of Major Anderson is a man, but in the film he is played by Viola Davis. Anderson is a military psychologist who oversees the welfare of students like Ender (played by Asa Butterfield) and helps design games to test them. She spends a great deal of her screen time arguing with Harrison Ford’s character, Colonel Graff, about his treatment of Ender. Anderson’s conversations with Ender in the book were much more gruff and subtle, but Davis’ casting allowed Anderson to play a sort of mother-figure to Ender and the other Battle School students. Having seen the movie and read the book, I was happy with this change. Allowing Major Anderson to be the audience’s link to the ethical and moral side of the games created the sickening feeling you’re supposed to get when hearing exchanges like this:

Hard to imagine as a man now, right? The switch seems very natural and is an easy win for actresses.

Viola Davis as Major Anderson.

Through these examples I have only introduced you to the tip of the iceberg. White male actors are still dominating the field, but the future seems bright. Why is it that this battle even has to be fought? Is it because movies were founded in an age where white Christian males controlled the content and look of movies, despite the Jewish CEOs that sought their acceptance? Is it because even in today’s world we are still not all created equal?

Movies have been reflections of society since their beginning, and I see no reason why this has changed today. Even as the face of movies and their stars are changing, so are the faces of our politics, our idols, our economics, even our television screens. The struggle in Hollywood is the same as the struggle in every day society – for people of all colors, genders, races, religions, etc. to be equally represented and equally advantaged. Perhaps the fact that more roles in the industry are being won by women is a sign that more societal roles are being earned by women. Maybe it’s because our views of status, position and character are evolving. Or maybe it’s because we’re just starting to realize that women are bad ass.

Christmas Traditions

Each season brings about certain traditions in every family – whether it’s the food we eat, the places we go, or the things we watch. Most families have beloved Christmas traditions they share together year after year, including mine. To my family, Christmas means pies and sugar cookies and fold-up tables full of sweets; a giant Christmas tree covered in lights and surrounded by presents; every member of my mother’s family crammed into my grandparents’ three-bedroom house; and, most of all, Christmas movies. Why do we feel the need to watch these same films each year around the same time? Do we expect to get something different out of them, or do we look forward to getting the same feeling out of each experience?

Let’s explore some of the typical Christmas films you’ll see on on TV around December 25th: Home Alone, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and The Santa Clause.

Home Alone is not what you might think of as a cheerful Christmas story, until you get to the end. Poor 8-year-old Kevin McCallister (played by Macaulay Culkin) is accidentally left at home when his family goes on Christmas vacation to Paris, after arguing with his mother and saying he wishes he lived alone. Their house, located in a rich neighborhood, is targeted by “The Wet Bandits” Marv (Daniel Stern) and Harry (Joe Pesci). Kevin must defend his home from the robbers and in the process learns the true meaning of Christmas and the value of family.

This film has lots of the traditional Christmas scenes – the nativity, the children’s choir, the decorated houses, snow, etc. – that give the viewer the warm and fuzzy feeling associated with the holidays. The story, told through the innocence of a child’s eyes, lets the viewer remember what Christmas was like as a kid. It has the Christmas carols and the Christmas foods and the Santa impersonator. When Kevin is finally reunited with his family, the viewer is reminded of Christmases with their families and how, no matter how tense, they are warm memories. We are all reminded that the best Christmas present is always family.

A perfect Christmas dinner.

Now for How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the cartoon original and the live action version, but I’m going to talk about the live action one).

This one has a more blatant holiday message, but it still warms the heart and soul to watch it. The Grinch (Jim Carrey) infamously hates Christmas, but for what reason? It’s up to little miss Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen) to bring him out of his funk. You’ve got the present buying, the food making, the house decorating. All of Whoville goes bonkers for Christmas, but what is the true meaning of Christmas? Here again we see that it is not about the presents or the food, but the feeling of family and sharing. Christmas isn’t Christmas without other people.

Aren’t these the faces of Christmas?

And lastly, The Santa Clause. Maybe not as well known as the first two films I discussed, but nevertheless a classic to my family.

When Santa Claus falls off Scott Calvin‘s (Tim Allen) roof, he puts on Santa’s suit and rides around in the sleigh delivering presents due to the insistence of his son Charlie (Eric Lloyd). On Christmas day the two wake up in their own beds, the night before supposedly a dream. But Charlie knows the truth, and is determined to prove that his father is really the new Santa Claus. When Scott begins to experience strange changes to his body (a fluffy white beard, a jolly belly), he realizes that maybe it wasn’t all a dream.

While hysterical, The Santa Clause is also a wonderful story of faith and family. Charlie is the innocent believer in Christmas, who teaches his cynical parents that nothing is impossible when you believe. A somewhat broken family is healed and in the end everyone is able to enjoy the holidays together.

So what do all of these films have in common that make them Christmas Traditions? Why do we watch them over and over again? Maybe it’s the feeling of closeness and joy we get when watching families be happy together. Maybe it’s the reminder that Christmas (like any holiday) isn’t just about what you’re getting or giving. Maybe it’s seeing the beautiful decorations throughout a town covered in flawless snow (something that we here in Arkansas don’t get to experience often). Or maybe it’s the purity that goes along with holiday films; all of them bearing basically the same message with the same backgrounds. It’s the feelings we get when we watch them – the drawn up memories, the familiarity, the favorite quotes and scenes. It’s the feeling of Christmas.

 

 

Sahara and Hollywood’s Role in Winning WWII

 

            From 1941 to 1945, America was entangled in World War II. The policy of Isolationism had been smashed by the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s eyes were now on Europe[1]. For a country previously uninvolved in most of the happenings overseas, this attack hit much too close to home. The government knew the American people had to be shown what was going on in the war, but in the right way. So they turned to Hollywood[2].

            In the Bureau of Motion Picture’s (BMP) Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry (GIMMPI), guidelines for the motion picture industry during the American war effort are laid out[3]. The basic question that every producer had to answer was “Will this picture help win the war?”[4] A film made under these guidelines was Sahara, starring Humphrey Bogart and premiering on November 11, 1943.[5] Made after the surrender of the German army in North Africa to the British and American forces[6], Sahara tells the tale of a diverse group of Allied soldiers who hold off German forces at a supposed well in North Africa in order for one soldier to reach the rest of the Allied army first[7]. Within this film are many of the themes present in the GIMMPI and other war films of the time. Bogart’s character, Sergeant Joe Gunn, takes command of a group of American, British, French, and Sudanese soldiers, together with Italian and German prisoners. The fact that an American leads a team of soldiers with a variety of backgrounds in a common goal for good was extremely relevant to an American audience back home. Playing to the manual, each solider is treated with the same courtesy and respect by Sgt. Gunn, who proves to be an intelligent and valiant leader. This spoke volumes to the American people, whose view of the war was formed mostly by these films.

            One of the biggest issues the BMP wanted the film industry to address were the reasons for America’s involvement in the war[8]. Many Americans believed the attack on Pearl Harbor and revenge against the Japanese were the cornerstone of the reasoning, but Sahara gave the American people even more. As best stated in the Italian prisoner Giuseppe’s declaration to German prisoner Captain von Schletow, “I rather spend my whole life living in this dirty hole than escape to fight again for things I do not believe against people I do not hate. As for your Hitler, it’s because of a man like him that God – my God – created hell!”[9] The war was not simply being fought for revenge, but for the four freedoms (freedom of speech, of religion, from want and from fear) and the survival of entire nations[10].

            The film presents the Germans – the Nazis – as merciless, arrogant people who are willing to do anything to put down and keep all other peoples beneath them. The character of “Frenchie” tells the other men of his hometown back in occupied France, where delicious cheese and wine used to be abundant but is now impossible to make because of the Germans’ slaughter of their cattle. This subtle conversation shows the American audiences how their hometowns and lives are also threatened by this foreign enemy, and that danger is realized when Frenchie is shot in the back after negotiating with the German commander. Throughout the film the Germans are shown to have no honor while the Americans and their allies continually keep theirs. All of these choices show the audience how the enemy is an inhuman threat to the noble patriotism of the troops overseas and the citizen lifestyle at home. Even the minorities are shown how America is a kind place to them compared to the outside world, through the treatment of Sudanese Sergeant Tambul by the other characters in the film (and his eventual death at the hands of the Germans).

            Most of the film’s action is in the form of struggles and battles faced by the main characters. Soldiers are killed, the terrain is dangerous, dehydration threatens each man, and trickery and betrayal are rampant. All of this cumulates in the stand-off between the German forces and Sgt. Gunn’s men, killing most of both sides. The scene that best shows the cruelty of war is close to the end, when the near-death German soldiers give up their guns and positions to Sgt. Gunn and his remaining man in return for water. Audiences watching at home could have no doubts about the hardships the troops faced and the sacrifices they were making – or about the sacrifices citizens at home must make in order to aid our defenders. According to the manual, the film graphically showed the realities of war and the need for at-home support[11]. The individual efforts of soldiers were celebrated in the ending scene where Sgt. Gunn holds up the dead men’s dog tags and reads off the names; the diversity of the group proved the strength of teamwork and the need for joint efforts in the fight; and men of all ranks and from different branches were shown to be equally valuable. The reality of why and how the war was being fought were main themes of the BMP’s campaign to enforce the GIMMPI, and Sahara is an excellent example of the campaign’s success.

            The film’s big climax comes when the men must decide if they will stay and fight to delay the Germans or leave to find reinforcements. This sums up the entire ideological message of the film. The men decide to do what is right rather than to save their own skins, to do what is best for the greater good, and even when all hope seems lost they do not give up or surrender. Under Sgt. Gunn’s direction, most of the men sacrifice their lives, but the Germans are defeated and later the news is heard that First Battle of El Alamein has been won by the Allied forces, pushing the German conquest of North Africa back. This enforces the idea that by being moral and strong, victory will be yours – or in this case, America’s along with the Allied forces. The reading of the dog tags at the final scene shows that it is individual people whose sacrifices will win this war for those living, and that this sacrifice is for a worthy cause.

            When you look at Sahara in 1943 and ask “Will this picture help win the war?” there can only be one answer: undoubtedly. The BMP and Roosevelt administration said it was Hollywood’s job to help in the war effort[12], and films like Sahara helped inform and motivate the folks at home to do their part in the fighting. Without this moral and material support, the war could not have been won. It was down to every last man and woman, no matter their occupation or skill.

Humphrey Bogart demonstrated this by being the face of the war effort in films like Sahara, despite his being too old to enlist and fight overseas[13]. Then an iconic leading man of Hollywood, Bogart displayed the noble characteristics of roles like Sgt. Gunn even in his everyday life, making him the perfect man to inspire the American people to action. It was not only up to the films but to all of Hollywood to support the war effort, and actors like Bogart took on this job with a flurry of characters like Sgt. Gunn.

Sahara is a prime example of Hollywood’s position and power during WWII. The responsibilities required of the filmmakers and actors were oftentimes daunting, yet not unreachable. The films and works of Hollywood during the war era led the American people’s opinions and motives regarding America’s role in the conflict and how they contributed to it. The perils and fears of citizens and soldiers alike were addressed in creations of propaganda and patriotism. If anyone wondered why the United States were fighting in World War II or what the civilians at home could do to help, they had only to turn to Hollywood and films like Sahara to find their answer.

---

[1] Robinson, Bruce. “World War Two: Summary Outline of Key Events.” BBC News. BBC, 30 Mar. 2011.

Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/ww2_summary_01.shtml&gt;.

[2] Mintz, Steven, and Randy W. Roberts. Hollywood’s America: Twentieth-Century America through Film.

4th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print. 139.

[3] United States Bureau of Motion Pictures, “The Issues,” in Government Information Manual for the

Motion Picture Industry (Washington, D.C.: Office of War Information, 1942).

[4] Ibid

[5] “Sahara.” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036323/&gt;.

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Bureau of Motion Pictures, “The Fighting Forces.”

[12] Ibid.

[13] “Biography |:: The Official Humphrey Bogart Website ::.” The Official Humphrey Bogart Website.

HumphreyBogart.com, 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://humphreybogart.com/biography/&gt;.

Dark City: Why Director’s Cuts Matter

If you can’t already tell, I watch a lot of movies. At home, at the theater, at a friend’s house – it doesn’t matter where I am, I’m always up for a viewing. But it wasn’t until my junior year of high school that I saw my first Director’s Cut of a film, something I had always heard of but never saw much point in. My AP English teacher, Mr. Terrell, let me borrow a movie called Dark City, which I had never heard of. He taught our school’s only film class and we had similar tastes, so when I saw the large Director’s Cut printed on the top of the case, I didn’t immediately hand it back. I am forever thankful for the trust I had in him and that he had in me to return the film (which I did the very next day, when I also went out and bought my own copy of the film). It is now one of my go-to films for regular viewing and a favorite to show to unsuspecting friends.

Cover of the Director’s Cut case.

Premiering in 1998, Dark City is a science fiction film about John Murdoch (played by Rufus Sewell), a man who awakes in a hotel room with no memory to find that he is wanted for a series of grisly murders. Murdoch must discover what’s going on in this city that never sees the sun, all while avoiding being arrested by Inspector Bumstead (played by William Hurt) and falling in love with his supposed wife, Emma (played by Jennifer Connelly). He is also on the run from a group of pale, hairless men called The Strangers. With help from Emma and a psychiatrist, Dr. Schreber (played by Kiefer Sutherland), John Murdoch discovers his own powers that may help him rescue the peculiar city from the darkness. And if that doesn’t psych you up enough, have a look at the trailer below.

Also, The Strangers have awesome names like Mr. Book and Mr. Hand, and are played by amazing actors like Richard O’Brien (you may know him better as Riff Raff from Rocky Horror Picture Show) and Ian Richardson.

Richard O’Brien

Ian Richardson

The Strangers

I won’t spoil the movie by telling you their master plan, but it is creepy and one of the best plots for a sci-fi story. Which explains why in the Director’s Cut, the opening voice-over introduction by Kiefer Sutherland’s character Dr. Schreber was taken out and moved to a later part of the film, since it gives away most of the plot. This introduction was forced on writer/director Alex Proyas by New Line Cinema for fear audiences would be too confused by the film. The Director’s Cut also includes extended footage of certain important scenes, such as the one where John Murdoch first wakes up in a hotel bathtub. This is effective by not allowing the film to be as rushed as in the theatrical version, the leisurely pace being truer to the nature of the film. Also, immediately after the opening voice-over in the theatrical version, the audience is shown loud shots of nightlife in the city. These shots are moved to later in the Director’s Cut, instead showing Shreber checking his watch silently, a quick title sequence, and then John waking in the bathroom. To show these differences better, below are the opening sequences for each version, the Director’s Cut being first and the theatrical version second. I apologize for the low quality.

I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but for me personally the Director’s Cut is the better version even from the first few minutes. If the theatrical version was the only option, it wouldn’t have become one of my favorite films. I even suspect that the theatrical cut may be the reason why it did so poorly at the box office, but once the Director’s Cut was released it established a large cult following. For a much more in-depth look at the differences between the versions, you can read the comparison on movie-censorship.com. I can tell you that I read the entire article, and I was shocked at how even the small differences in color and lighting used in the Director’s Cut made the film what it is. There were also a lot of quick shots added or rearranged to the Director’s Cut to foreshadow the plot or explain the reasoning behind the character’s motives. It makes sense that the person who directed and wrote the film would produce a better version than the studio, whose main goal is still to make money. So I thank God for Director’s Cuts.

A screenshot of the scene where John Murdoch wakes up.

Sleeping Hollow Games

When considering topics for this post, I realized that I couldn’t ignore the obvious choice. Since the beginning of film history stories and books have been adapted into movies. Fairy tales, legends, and myths alike are all molded for the big screen. Why do we make these movie adaptations, how are they made, and why do so many of them have enduring popularity?

Let’s start with a well-known but not as popular fairy tale. “Sleeping Beauty,” made popular by the Grimm Brothers and also known as “Little Briar Rose,” is a tale originally believed to have originated in Germany. The Disney film, made in 1959, is not the first adaptation of this story, but it is the best known. Let’s analyze a few differences between the original tale and the one made popular by the movies.

There are many versions of the original story, but none are as light and happy as the one portrayed in the Disney film. For starters, there are discrepancies between the number of fairies present in each tale, but most of them have more than 3 (which is the number used in the Disney film). The villian, Maleficent, is actually a wicked fairy in literature, but in the film she is more like a witch. The part about the curse and the spindle are basically the same, but after that the similarities mostly end. In some versions Sleeping Beauty sleeps for a hundred years, accompanied by her parents and the rest of the castle, and the curse is ended by the prince. They marry and have children, which then almost become dinner for the prince’s part-Ogre step-mother. In other versions, the prince rapes the princess while she is cursed and she gives birth to her children that way. Whichever version you look at, the Disney version is a far cry off. In fact, the stories don’t agree on a name for the princess, and the prince and the wicked fairy aren’t even named at all. Disney used the name Aurora for the princess, loosely taken from the common name of her daughter, L’Aurore.

So what does Aurora teach us? Why was it adapted the way it was instead of sticking closer to the original tales? It could be that the Production Code had something to do with it. Or that the lingering desire to use films as propaganda, as they were during WWII, still influenced the movie business into planting moral messages. I will explore this more later on.

Next let’s look at “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” A short story by Washington Irving, published in 1820, most of the popular adaptations are much more frightful than the actual tale. Take the trailer above for the 1999 film version Sleepy Hollow, directed by Tim Burton. You have death, gore, witchcraft, and science. A somewhat humorous tale about a love triangle solved turns into a bloody massacre. This is the complete opposite of the adaptation of “Sleeping Beauty,” where the dark and racy tale becomes happy and bright. Why was this particular story twisted into a horrific warning? Could it be that this adaptation was made after the reign of the Production Code and Joseph Breen had ended? Did we no longer require cheerful moral tales suitable for children? Let’s look at one last, more modern example before we delve further in.

“The Hunger Games.” You knew it was coming. Possibly one of the most popular book trilogies of our time, it has now become one of the most popular movie franchises. The first book came out in 2008 and the first movie in 2012. As with most book-to-movie adaptations, there are thousands of fans who have never read the book, but instead gained their knowledge of the story from the movie version. This is no different from “Sleeping Beauty” or “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” But a large difference is the amount of liberties the movie is allowed to take. With older tales like “Sleepy Hollow,” there were not many avid fans in the masses who would be angered by such extreme changes seen in the film versions. Yet with “The Hunger Games,” thousands of people who were anxiously awaiting the film release would have been (and often were) angered by any changes. Even small differences (like the changing of Thresh’s murder by Cato to death by mutant dogs) threatened to start a riot with the fans. Directors and writers are more accountable to the audiences with modern adaptations.

Another side to this phenomenon is the recent string of parodies and experimental adaptations (ex. Joss Whedon‘s Much Ado About Nothing; the new Romeo and Juliet). It seems with older stories we are hungry for new adaptations, new takes on the classic tales. The older and more well-known a story, the more often it will be redone. And we’ll pay big money to see it again and again. The current era of movies seems to be about experimenting, about finding new twists, about seeing something new in something old.

But the evolution to this view on movies was not easy coming. The Production Code rules did not allow for this freedom of expression or variance of adaptation. The WWII era and the Joseph Breen administration combined demanded morally obvious, overly patriotic, and mostly pure films. Disney thrived during this time and Disney classics like Sleeping Beauty were made. It makes sense that during this period of movie making history, previously dark and gruesome stories would be turned into teaching children’s tales. Then we ease out from under the heavy hand of the Code and we see films like Sleepy Hollow, made to visually stun and mentally test audiences. Filmmakers were no longer expected to preach and entertain all at the same time. Now they could use movies for any purpose they saw fit (although usually that still meant money). This brings us to today, where the only people filmmakers are responsible towards are the paying audiences. How they get us to pay is up to them.

Film Evolution in the 1930s

Before the 1930s, movie production was fast and cheap. Concerned more with the monetary success than the artistic success of their movies, the studios cranked out morally loose titles such as The Sheik and The Queen of Sheba. The Post WWI and the Progressive Era were upon the nation, and the movie business welcomed in sound to entertain the newly returned, newly liberated masses. Then in 1929, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression fell over America. For the movie studios who were already stripped for cash from rewiring their theaters for sound, the economic depression came at the worst time possible.

The studios were now more concerned than ever about making movies that sold well, and so entered the “formulaic stage” of cinema, as I like to call it. Studios searched for a plot formula that would sell well and could be mass produced: the gangster movie, the musical, the comedy, etc. Movies like Little Caesar and Gold Diggers of 1933 became famous film stereotypes that are still used in today’s movie business. Although politicians and church officials were concerned with the rising use of racy scenes and raunchy lines, the studio heads were all too happy to ignore the attempts to censor them, much to Will H. Hays‘ dismay. His job as the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America forced him to become the liaison between the angry officials and the studio heads. This intensifying problem of censoring movies and yet still allowing the studios to make money led to the creation of the Production Code of 1930, also known as the Hays Code.

Although the Production Code was made to approve films for viewing, it was difficult to force writers and directors to submit scripts and films for approval. The dissonance between the films that were being made and what the authorities wanted was becoming increasingly large, so in 1934 the code became enforced by Joseph Breen, head of the Production Code Administration. All eight of the big studios agreed to only show films with the PCA seal of approval in their theaters, blocking out most independent filmmakers who wished to skip the code. This launched a new era of American morality in films.

Possibly the best example of a movie produced by the Production Code and the thirty years Joseph Breen and the PCA reigned over the film business is It Happened One Night, starring Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert. A story of a spoiled rich girl who, through a journey across the country, falls in love with a “man of the people” and changes her ways; this was the beginning of the romantic comedy (think Overboard and For Richer or Poorer, which have some similar scenes with IHON). The films of the mobster or loose woman were gone, and the wholesome age of The Wizard of Oz was born. Filmmakers were forced to find creative ways to tell a story of American morals and happiness, as opposed to the gritty everyman and the new woman of the earlier film days.

Whether or not censorship is a bad thing for movies, it did force a new line of thinking onto the movie studios and the viewers of the theater in America. Most of our traditional views of America come from these movies, and however true or false these view are, the Production Code era made a big impression on the minds and hearts of the world.

Movie Musical Mania

This week in class we discussed the first movie musicals and why people love (or hate) them. I don’t believe it is a surprise to anyone when I say that I love musicals, movie or otherwise, but perhaps I should explain why that is. So here we go.

Because where else?

A quick look at the history of the musical shows us that, although musicals evolved from early Greek tragedies and traveling vaudeville troops, the modern idea of a “musical” began with Broadway. There is much debate about what can technically qualify as “the first musical,” but I will begin with Show Boat. Opening in December of 1927, this was not the first success of the team of Harbach, Hammerstein and Kern, but it was a revolutionary production for musical theatre. The Songwriters Hall of Fame explains that “There was quite simply no precedent in the American musical comedy for the complexity and seriousness of purpose of the book, or for the richness and sheer size of the score of this show…” This solidified a beneficial and successful collaboration between the three writers, but Oscar Hammerstein II still felt that his potential was not yet realized. Then he tried his hand at collaborating with composer and writer Richard Rodgers, and Oklahoma! was born. Out of this partnership came hits like Carousel, South Pacific, The King and I, and The Sound of Music. Rodgers and Hammerstein became one of the most famous writer/composer teams in musical theatre history. So naturally they moved on to television and film.

You’ve probably heard of a little fairy tale called Cinderella. But you may not have seen 1957’s Cinderella, also known as Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella, of which the book, lyrics, and teleplay were written by the team. Starring Julie Andrews, Edie Adams, and Howard Lindsay (who is currently working on a remake of The Sound of Music), Cinderella was a TV movie that premiered to more than 107 million people, a feat that would have been impossible with one performance of a stage play. In 1945, Rodgers and Hammerstein had managed to take a previously made movie from 1933 and turn it into a musical movie sensation, or State Fair. These would be the first and last of the duo’s screenplay feats, since Hammerstein died of stomach cancer in 1960, but the two will always be revered and remembered by their numerous awards and theatrical mentees (such as Stephen Sondheim).

This brings us to the movie musical madness of today. With writers and composers such as Rodgers and Hammerstein, Sondheim, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and many other masters, this is the age of the movie musical. Just today movie remakes of Into the Woods, Annie, and Little Shop of Horrors are in the works. Television stations (cough, cough, Disney Channel) make TV movie musicals every year (see High School Musical, Lemonade Mouth, and Lovestruck). But why are we suddenly obsessed with musical movies?

The reason why I love musicals is that they are true representatives of the human soul. Now, I know you’re wondering how basketball-bouncing numbers like “Get’cha Head in the Game” have anything to do with the human soul. But ignore the fact that Zac Efron is dancing around in basketball shorts (and by the way, that lovely voice you hear is actually that of actor Drew Seeley) and focus on the lyrics. “Why am I feeling so wrong/My head’s in the game /But my heart’s in the song/She makes this feel so right.” Troy Bolton is actually singing about love, about wanting to follow your heart instead of your head.

Now let’s look at another example: “My Lullaby” from The Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride. A much darker example, but nonetheless true. A few lyrics from the song are: “Payback time is nearing/And then our flag will fly/Against a blood-red sky/That’s my lullaby!” Zira has not forgiven Simba for Scar‘s death and lives for the vengeance she sees through Kovu. This song is the summary of her feeling that her only purpose left in life is to kill Simba and make him suffer like she has. Vengeance and pride are driving her existence.

Take away the random bursting into song, and musicals give way to true human emotions. An excellent television example of the ridiculousness of some musical trademarks combined with the honesty it allows the characters is the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, entitled “Once More, With Feeling.” All the people of Sunnydale begin acting like they are in a musical, and Buffy and her gang must stop this wacky behavior before everyone spontaneously combusts (because we all know this is what should happen to people who burst into song and dance). A quick example of the horror:

And a better example of the honesty/ridiculousness combination I mentioned: “Rest in Peace” sung from Spike to Buffy. In a normal conversation Spike would never be so open and honest (and vulnerable) with Buffy, but with the curse of the song upon him he has no choice but to bear his soul to the Slayer.

Often times a song can tell so much more than a conversation or an action, and it’s catchy too.  Take away all those points about pure honesty and human emotion, and you’ve still got beautiful singing done by beautiful people (and usually beautiful dancing, too). Seriously, who doesn’t get a smile on their face when they hear “Under the Sea” or “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King“? Musicals are the perfect combination of all the human abilities to create, and I don’t see them dying out any time soon.

Oh, and something to leave you with, in case you have (or haven’t) seen Reefer Madness, another amazing movie musical parody: