Skip to main content

A Class for Film Buffs

 


When I was in my second year in college, I took a class called “General Sociology Through Film.” It seemed like it would be a fun class. Watching movies was part of the curriculum. I like movies. It was a great concept, and a popular class. I am not sure how much actual sociology I learned from that class, but maybe some of it sunk in.

The class met on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Monday was a one-hour lecture about some sociological principle. Wednesday was a two-hour period where we watched the film for that week. Friday was a discussion of the film. There were a couple of mid-term exams and a final exam where we could prove that this was an academic experience. As I said, I couldn’t tell you what concepts I learned in the class, but I do remember the movies.

Part of the class focused on human development: childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc.. We skipped early development. For the young-adult leaving home for the first time, we watched Next Stop Greenwich Village. For marriage, we watched Ryan’s Daughter. For divorce, we watched An Unmarried Woman. For old age, we watched Harry and Tonto. There were other movies we watched that I don’t remember the concepts being illustrated, but the movies included: Soylent Green, A Boy and His Dog, 2001: A Space Odyssey. The ones I have listed are the ones I remember. I remember them because they had some kind of impact on me. Some of them I had seen before on television. But seeing them in class uncut on a large screen pulled me in more than they ever had before.

A Boy and hid Dog was an eye-opening experience for me. I had never seen it, didn’t know anything about it, and it was my first exposure to Harlan Ellison (well, other than the Star Trek episode “City on the Edge of Forever,” but that hardly counts as Ellison denounced what they did to his script). I was blown away by this post-apocalyptic tale and the dystopian society the boy was lured into, that it was a satire of certain American subcultures (and it is set in 2024).

I am guessing that this class took place around 1980, so these movies were not all that old at the time. As the years passed, I have been struck by the thought that maybe this class did not say as much about general sociology as it did about the psychology of the professor who was teaching it. The movies that he chose said something about him. For example, he chose a movie about divorce implying that divorce was a normal part of human development. I understand that many couples get divorced, but does that make it a normal part of what it means to be human? Hmm. Discuss amongst yourselves. I notice looking back that many of the films have death as a central theme or major sub theme. Perhaps he was saying the way we deal with death is one of the most important traits that make up our society. To put it in the words of Captain Kirk, “How we face death is at least as important as how we face life.” (but I took this class before Kirk ever said that line).

Star Liner

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...

Bureaucrats

  I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law.   If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...