Please help me with ideas/suggestions/information to point me in the right direction for the following:
Analyze the movie through ONE of the systems world theories (Marx/Mills OR Weber/Ritzer) and ONE of the life world theories (Durkheim OR Parsons) and compare the systems world theory with the lifeworld theory. You still have the option of doing ALL the theories, of course, or comparing Marx to Durkheim AND Parsons if you want, etc. But you only HAVE to do one of each.
What are some of the major characteristics of this film that define it as a "blockbuster."
1. After defining what makes the film a "blockbuster," consider the critiques of the "blockbuster" movie from Marx/Mills and Weber/Ritzer. Discuss what kind of relationship their theories see between those who produce and make the movies and the movie audience (or public) itself. In what ways would these theories see the movie as "colonizing" the lifeworld of the moviegoer?
2. After considering the systems world perspective, access how the theories of Durkheim and Parsons would explain this film and the "blockbuster" movie generally.
3. What kind of relationship do Durkheim and Parsons see existing between those who produce movies and the movie audience? In what ways would they consider the film to have enhanced the viewing audience's lifeworld?
4. How and in what ways these do these terms actually can explain the movie and its social effects. ( For example, how Durkheim's notion of "solidarity" and "ritual reaffirmation" in this and other films -- e.g., "Amelie," "Groundhog Day" -- might relate to courtship and mating in a functional way.) or "false consciousness" or "McDonaldization".
5. Having shown how the competing SW and LW perspectives would assess the film, compare/contrast the considered strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments.
6. Some possible considerations: does the film seem to be more reflective of "false consciousness" or "solidarity"; is it predictable because of "McDonaldization" or because all movies reflect a mythic genre; is this film simply a mass produced "commodity" or a "sacred" and "ritual" event; does the film mirror the objectification of women in our society or does it reflect stronger, more assertive roles for women in today's world?
7. After having assessed how this film could be seen from both the SW (systems world) and the LW (lifeworld) perspective, consider which perspective you find to be most applicable to this particular film. Does this movie indeed seem to you to reflect "the colonization of the lifeworld," in either a Marxist or Weberian sense? Or would you agree more with Durkheim that it reflects important "functional" purposes? If so, what specifically are they?
8. Show how both the SW and the LW theories would explain the blockbuster film but in the end, CHOOSE one perspective over the other.
9. Draw on and discuss your own personal impressions of this and another films as well as your lifelong experience as a moviegoer.
10. Movies are a social phenomenon but they are also a personal one: your experiences with movies are an aspect of your life within modern society and are therefore relevant sociological evidence.
11. Include some kind of overall consideration of whether and in what ways you consider the "emotional possession" of movies to reflect either the SW or the LW theories.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 6:36 pm ad1c9bdddf
This solution assists in an analysis of the Titanic movie through system world theories (Marx/Mills or Weber/Ritzer) and one of the lifeworld world theories (Durkheim or Parsons) and compares them. It also provides related information for further research and inquiry.
Titanic video discussion
The Titanic disaster was largest passenger steamship in the world. In 1912, the ship hit an iceberg and 1,517 lives were lost. In 1997 this tragic disaster was memorialized in the award winning film, "The Titanic".
View the video clip on Root Case Analysis (9:07) and follow the process as the consultant goes deeper into the causes of this disaster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOVeO5_0qD0. In your opinion, why would it not be sufficient to be satisfied with the simple cause? Why was the deeper search as to the cause necessary? Share your comments and opinions bView Full Posting Details