Film Analysis

Please choose ONE of the following prompts for one movie for your two-page essay. As always, you are free to come up with your own prompt if none of these interest you.-Each robotic character has a different type of sound associated with it. Pick several of these robots (e.g. Wall-E, Eve, the little cleaning bot that follows them, and the security bot that tries to destroy the plant) and analyze the way they are characterized by their unique sound design. What are their sound profiles like? How is a “happy” sound different when it’s coming from Wall-E vs. Eve vs. the cleaning bot vs. the security bot? How is a concerned sound different? How is a frustrated sound different? Etc.
-Discuss the way the filmmakers of The Act of Killing approached their subjects and subject matter, namely, that the filmmakers asked Anwar and the other subjects of the film to make their own movies about the killings. How does the filmmakers’ approach affect the way you perceive the film The Act of Killing? How does it affect the way you perceive the subjects within it? Do you think it had any effect on Anwar and the other subjects? Would they have behaved or acted differently had the filmmakers tried to do a more conventional “interview-based” documentary?
-How does the The Act of Killing function as a documentary? Is it documentary as art? Exposé? Record? Propaganda? A mix? How do these different modes affect the way you respond to the film? How do they affect the way you respond to the subjects of the film? (you may expand upon your quiz response in writing this essay)
-If you’re not familiar with the concept of art therapy, skim through the Wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_therapy Do you think The Act of Killing functions as art therapy for Anwar and the other subjects of the film? If so, do the documentary filmmakers have any responsibilities, either to the public or to the subjects of the documentary, in the way they present the footage?
Drop Dead Gorgeous
-How does this movie use the documentary form to create comedy? In what ways does it follow the conventions of documentary and in what ways does it push against them? In thinking about this movie as satire, what boundaries does it push? How does it bring all of those aspects together to form a critique, and what is that critique saying?