Back in the Swing of Things

Just checked in for the new semester!  I think it's about time I really started writing this thing, don't you?  My goal is to have three to five pages of the first section done by next week.  I may reevaluate using Black Swan and try and write about only one or two films.  It would be more cohesive, I think.  But which one is more interesting, Harry Potter or Inception?  Or maybe even Black Swan, which is guaranteed to make a scene at the Oscars?  Certainly, that shows critical acclaim.

More thought is required.

The Movies That Didn't Suck in 2010

On my way home from Boston after watching the New Years Eve fireworks, I pulled over at a fairly generic gas station and picked up the most recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine.  I was immediately interested in one of the articles toward the back by Peter Travers where he praises the "movies that didn't suck in 2010."  Travers ranks Inception as the second best film of year, claiming "Is there a filmmaker less tamed by convention than Christopher Nolan?  Don't think so.  And Inception, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a professional invader of dreams, is a visionary milestone that gets better and digs deeper each time you see it."  Black Swan also made the listing at position number seven: "Darren Aronofsky directs a fever dream of a ballet thriller with a tour de force from Natalie Portman as a besieged danced whose body and mind are coming apart."  Harry Potter did not receive any mention.

I've also been thinking that because the psychological thriller received so much attention in 2010, having a section on Freud in the literature review may be inevitable.  Certainly, I will have to talk about Freudian theory when discussing the films and how academia approaches them.