When taking a symbolic or decoding approach, Kuntzel is saying here that critics have to view narrative as a system of components and characters and groups as those components that construct a narrative. As a component, each character or group is a function within the overarching system of functions that is the narrative. I agree that this approach is overall useful in understanding filmic fact and in also understanding a character as an embedded component in a network of many characters and groups. This approach separates the noise generated by cinematic fact to focus solely on filmic fact. This approach also analyzes a character's role and function within the world the film creates. The world portrayed by the film is best understood when assessing the role that each character and group plays within the world, which constitutes the narrative. It reminds me of the film the Butterfly Effect, which demonstrates this concept. The film shows how the actions of one character or group can have a drastic effect on the lives of others, and the movie's characters and groups serve as a function within a system of functions that constructs the narrative of the film. Question to the class: What are your thoughts on this approach to analyzing the narrative?

Gains is saying here that absolute patriarchy, or the notion that the patriarchy is the first source of oppression in society, has made the oppression of woman analogous to slavery because the patriarchy identified women as the repressed other, a group that is "othered" in society. Because of this, Gaines argues, the idea of an absolute patriarchy stands at odds with other theories of racial difference which identify black people as the repressed other as well as the higher position white women historically have had in countries with ties to slavery or an racially oppressive society. Although I agree that solely looking at the patriarchy is detrimental to understanding fully systems of oppression, there are fundamental differences in all "repressed other" groups, and it feels as though comparing groups of repressed others is similar to comparing apples to oranges. I agree that the patriarchy, as Gaines mentioned, is considered significant because it was one of the first oppressive structures in society (along with class). Racial oppression grew along with globalism and global mobility, and is still a very prominent issue today along with women's rights. It feels wrong to talk about gender without talking about race and other intersecting "repressed other" identities. Question to the class: Do you think you can understand/evaluate the oppression of one repressed other group without evaluating all systems of oppression on a case by case basis? Why or why not?

Baudry is arguing that the characters of the film (secondary identifications) alllows the appearance of a primary identification, which is a nonphysical subject that occupies the space of the camera. This primary, transcendental spectator unifies the meaning of the world experienced in a film. I agree with this argument, because it highlights a central reason why people watch films. Metz cited the concepts of primary and secondary identifications in order to explain the voyeuristic desire that drives the film industry, and I agree that people watch films not only to spectate, but also to derive meaning from their experience as a transcendental spectator.

Metz is saying here that traditional film is presented as histoire (the story or narration), when in reality, histoire is disguised discourse (the act of telling). He argues that discourse, with regard to the film creator's intentions, etc., is the influence he or she holds over the public. However, the effectiveness of discourse lies in its ability to disguise itself by eliminating traces of enunciation (impersonal dialogue); thus, posing as a story.

I agree with Metz's argument here, because people resist being influenced directly and are more easily influenced when their emotions are involved or projected onto a story or situation. I think that this is a fascinating concept, because film creators, although highly influential and intentional while creating a film, are allowed to take a passive or hidden role in the discursive process during the film and the discussions that follow the film. Here is a question I would like to pose to others: do you think this approach to filmmaking is more influential than an approach that contains an explicit dialogue between the filmmakers and the audience?

I was intrigued by the possible implications brought by the changes seen in capitalism over the past 85 years, mainly because our economic system has seen a massive shift due to shifts in social and political representation in our country. Businesses and the film industry have begun to capitalize off off of these changes in different ways, often adopting counter culture or representation in order to make a profit. My question is: why is it important to study the shift in capitalism, and can you point to any films in recent years that represent this shift?