WARRIORS FROM PAGE TO SCREEN
DESCRIPTION,
PROCEDURE, GOALS:
This
course compares prose narratives to later, filmic adaptations of those
narratives in order to explore significant cultural changes, as indicated in varied
and fluctuating figurations of the warrior.
The
texts selected for this course have morphed over the decades — sometimes in
more than one version or textual form (Oz:
book, movies, television) — to reflect changes in, say, gender roles. Also,
the media used often alter aspects of the original story. In the case of cross-cultural
adaptations (for example, “Battle Royal”), the methodological
difficulties involved in undertaking such comparisons become more pronounced.
Nonetheless, studying textual adaptations and the methodological challenges of
cross-cultural comparisons can lead to a more profound appreciation of
difference among cultures and within a culture.
Completion of prior film courses is not a prerequiaite. Films
will be placed on reserve at Sinclair whenever possible and screened in KUY 410
on pre-arranged dates and times prior to (and not during) regular class
meetings. Class sessions combine small group and class discussions and lectures.
REQUIRED TEXTS include the following
(fiction ordered through UHM Bookstore):
Prose
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
(Baum, 1925)
A Clockwork Orange
(Burgess, 1962)
Selections
from Battle Royale (Takami, 1998)
Reservation Blues
(Alexie, 1995)
The Whale Rider
(Ihimaera, 1987)
The Hunger Games
(Collins, 2008)
Ender’s Game
(Card, 1985)
Film
The Wizard of Oz
(Fleming, 1939)
A Clockwork Orange
(Kubrick, 1971)
Battle Royale
(Fukasaku, 2000)
Smoke Signals
(Eyre, 1998)
Whale Rider
(Caro, 2002)
The Hunger Games
(Ross, 2012)
Ender’s Game
(Hood, 2014)
Hanna
(Wright, 2011)
REQUIREMENTS:
·
Response papers
(2-pages, double-spaced, approximately every 2 weeks);
·
One class presentation
(5 to 10 minutes, based on the required texts); includes a 2-page paper;
·
Research essay
(minimum 8 pages, double-spaced) analyzing two or more films by comparing and
contrastng strengths and weaknesses of two different scholarly approaches to
the adaptations