FAVz096 Quirky Cinema: Wes Anderson (and Beyond)

Faculty of Arts
Autumn 2022
Extent and Intensity
2/0/0. 5 credit(s). Type of Completion: zk (examination).
Teacher(s)
Richard Andrew Nowell, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. (lecturer)
Guaranteed by
Mgr. Šárka Jelínek Gmiterková, Ph.D.
Department of Film Studies and Audiovisual Culture – Faculty of Arts
Supplier department: Department of Film Studies and Audiovisual Culture – Faculty of Arts
Timetable
Thu 22. 9. 12:00–13:40 C34, Thu 29. 9. 12:00–13:40 C34, Thu 20. 10. 12:00–13:40 C34, Thu 3. 11. 12:00–13:40 C34, Thu 24. 11. 12:00–13:40 C34, Thu 8. 12. 12:00–13:40 C34
Prerequisites
There are none.
Course Enrolment Limitations
The course is also offered to the students of the fields other than those the course is directly associated with.
The capacity limit for the course is 30 student(s).
Current registration and enrolment status: enrolled: 9/30, only registered: 0/30, only registered with preference (fields directly associated with the programme): 0/30
fields of study / plans the course is directly associated with
Course objectives
This course aims to deepen students’ understandings of quirky cinema; those eye-catching, bitter-sweet dramedies typically associated with the American writer-director Wes Anderson. In particular, its six sessions invite students to re-evaluate how this staple of recent Anglophone cinema has been understood in academic and popular circles. Accordingly, the first half of the course offers an alternative to the Auteurist accounts that frame quirky as the distinctive worldview of eccentric filmmakers, especially Anderson. Rather, these sessions suggest that quirky might better be understood in relation to its time-honored textual model, its indie branding, and its cultivation of the hipster audience. The second part of the course reconsiders three charges routinely levelled at quirky films, asking whether its Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is universally sexist, whether its father figures are invariably flawed, and whether it always eschews important socio-political issues. Students will explore these topics through social and industry history, and analyses of representative films including Big Fish (2003), Submarine (2009), The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), and Jojo Rabbit (2019). In so doing, it is hoped that this course will also help to enrich their capacities to examine other media formats.
Learning outcomes
This course uses the case of quirky cinema to promote critical and revisionist understandings of audio-visual formats, considering their industrial, aesthetic, and socio-cultural dimensions. The course therefore familiarizes students with transferable tools, frameworks, approaches, and skills that promise to deepen their engagement with media formats both on and beyond this course. By the end of the course, students will be expected to demonstrate a capacity to synthesize in an argument-driven fashion their engagement of scholarly frameworks and textual and contextual analyses. Their proficiency in such areas shall be assessed through their production of an original analysis of an example film, one that requires direct engagement with a key discourse that has circulated quirky cinema. All of this shall require students to develop insights on the following areas:

• Quirky and formula film-making
• Quirky and audience-targeting
• Quirky and cultural politics
• Quirky and gender representation
• Quirky and socio-political engagement

For learning outcomes specific to each of these topics, please see individual session outlines below.
Syllabus
  • PART 1: (RE)CONCEPTUALIZING QUIRKY
  • Comprising sessions 1–3, the first half of this course conceptualizes quirky in a manner that challenges the widespread assumption that such films reflect a unique directorial vision of certain filmmakers, usually the writer-director Wes Anderson. Accordingly, students examine how quirky films use a time-honored textual model, mobilize established forms of indie branding, and enable the cultivation of a clearly defined audience segment. This type of textual-industrial-social approach is designed to lay a firm foundation for the remainder of the course, in which students will examine key aspects of quirky cinema’s reception.
  • SESSION ON THE QUIRKY MODEL 22.09.2022
  • Where it is often considered to represent the whimsical worldview of eccentric filmmakers, this session suggests that is perhaps best understood as a longstanding industry format, one that most certainly includes – but also preceded and extends beyond – Wes Anderson’s high-profile adoption of it. Students will consider how The Quirky Model is characterized by a combination of aesthetic, tonal, and thematic elements that invites audiences to process these films in a quite distinctive fashion.
  • Targeted Learning Outcomes
  • A sound understanding of:
  • I: Quirky cinema’s distinctive content.
  • II: Quirky cinema’s distinctive themes.
  • III: Quirky cinema’s distinctive modes of address.
  • Preparation
  • Reading : MacDowell, 6–27.
  • 1. What content distinguishes quirky cinema?
  • 2. What are quirky films about?
  • 3. How do quirky films encourage audiences to evaluate or process this material?
  • Home Screening I: Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
  • Home Screening II: Eagle vs. Shark (Taika Waititi, 2007)
  • 1. How do these films use the Quirky Model aesthetically, narratively, thematically?
  • 2. How did you respond emotionally to the characters and situations in these films?
  • SESSION TWO QUIRKY & INDIE BRANDING 29.09.2022
  • This session continues our (re)conceptualization of quirky cinema, shifting attention away from the figure of the Auteur, by exploring its reliance on indie branding. In particular, students will consider how the core values of indie are mobilized by and in quirky films.
  • Targeted Learning Outcomes
  • A sound understanding of:
  • I. The values of Indie Culture.
  • II. The logics of Indie branding.
  • III. How indie values are projected by/in quirky films.
  • Preparation
  • Reading: Newman (2009), 16-34
  • 1. What is indie’s relationship to the “mainstream”?
  • 2. What are the three core values that define indie?
  • 3. Why does Newman consider indie an elitist subculture?
  • Home Screening I: Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl (Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, 2015)
  • Home Screening II: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (Wes Anderson, 2004)
  • 1. How do these films use characters, narrative, and aesthetics to project indie’s core values?
  • 2. How do these films depict creative endeavor to position themselves as indie?
  • 3. How do these films use their content to distance themselves from the mainstream”?
  • SESSION THREE QUIRKY & THE HIPSTER AUDIENCE 20.10.2022
  • This session concludes our (re)conceptualization of quirky less as an intuitive worldview than a calculated content-tailoring strategy, this time considering how the targeting of a key audience segment contributes to the ways these films operate. Students will examine how filmmakers using the Quirky Model address “hipsters” by way of the stories they tell, the worlds they create, and the characters that inhabit them. In particular, we shall explore how depictions of trauma, coping, and community-building imbue the films with a covert therapeutic dimension for a sensitive audience reticent to expose its vulnerabilities.
  • Targeted Learning Outcomes
  • A sound understanding of:
  • I. The Hipster mindset.
  • II. The Hipster and cultural interests.
  • III. Quirky cinema as community-builder.
  • Preparation
  • Reading: Newman (2013), 71-82.
  • 1. How does Newman define the hipster?
  • 2. What roles do maturation play in this subculture?
  • 3. What roles do culture play in this subculture?
  • Home Screening I: 500 Days of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)
  • Home Screening II: Ghost World (Terry Zwigoff, 2001)
  • 1. How do these films depict hipster characters?
  • 2. What roles does culture play in their lives?
  • 3. What roles does this suggest the films might play in the lives of real-world hipsters?
  • PART 2: QUIRKY PREOCCUPATIONS
  • The second half of this course invites students to examine the major talking points that have shaped quirky cinema’s reception in academic and popular circles. Sessions 4, 5, and 6 focus respectively on the format’s most (in)famous character-type (the Manic Pixie Dream Girl), its consistent thematization of flawed fatherhood, and the charge that quirky films fail to engage with serious social issues. In each case, students will be invited to question the received wisdom on these matters and encouraged to develop more nuanced understandings thereof.
  • SESSION FOUR THE MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL 03.11.2022
  • The session focuses on quirky cinema’s depiction of girls and women, through an examination of the format’s more notorious character-type: The Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Students will consider whether these characters have been primarily used to support the supposed male-orientation of the films, or whether they may also be used to address female audiences, even critiquing men on the screen and in front of it.
  • Targeted Learning Outcomes
  • A sound understanding of:
  • I. The characterization of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
  • II. The socio-political phenomena this character-type mediates.
  • III. The ways this character-type is used to address audiences of quirky films.
  • Preparation
  • Reading: Vazquez Rodriguez, 168–201.
  • 1. What are the defining traits of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl?
  • 2. How do such characters embody ideas about “Neoliberal/Postfeminist” femininity?
  • 3. Why does this particular author find the Manic Pixie Dream Girl so troubling?
  • Home Screening I: Ruby Sparks (Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, 2012)
  • Home Screening II: Submarine (Richard Ayoade, 2009)
  • 1. To what extent to these films mobilize the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character-type?
  • 2. Do you feel these films use these characters to speak to male viewers?
  • 3. Do these films have something critical to say about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl?
  • SESSION FIVE FATHER FIGURES 24.11.2022
  • This session will challenge another key assumption about quirky cinema: that it is a format with major “daddy issues”, given its supposed propensity for absent, inept, and malicious patriarchs. Students will be invited to assess this claim, considering whether some quirky films offer more sympathetic portrayals of father figures, not least because these films are often pitched at older males for whom parenthood is a major part of their lives.
  • Targeted Learning Outcomes
  • A sound understanding of:
  • I. How quirky films are argued routinely to critiques father figures.
  • II. More sensitive depictions of father figures in these films.
  • III. How address to older audiences drives more positive depictions.
  • Preparation
  • Reading: Robe, 101–121.
  • 1. What psychological shortcomings characterize older males in Wes Anderson’s films?
  • 2. Why do they suffer from these issues?
  • 3. How do these issues affect their conduct as fathers?
  • Home Screening I: Big Fish (Tim Burton, 2003)
  • Home Screening II: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (Mariella Heller, 2019)
  • 1. How are fathers – literal and symbolic – depicted in these films?
  • 2. How might this material be geared to fathers in the audience?
  • 3. How do these films suggest quirky cinema itself can help support fathers in the audience?
  • SESSION SIX QUIRKY AND POLITICS 08.12.2022
  • This session seeks to challenge the oft-levelled charge that quirky films have failed to explore wider socio-political issues. Students will therefore examine those films that do in fact use the Quirky Model to address some of the most pressing issues of the day, in this case using historical events to shine a light on contemporary concerns.
  • Targeted Learning Outcomes
  • A sound understanding of:
  • I. Why quirky cinema is often considered apolitical.
  • II. Why some quirky films do engage with serious socio-political concerns.
  • III. Why this engagement is sometimes presented obliquely in the films.
  • Preparation
  • Reading: Bannister, 214–224.
  • 1. How did issues of social critique factor into the popular reception of Jojo Rabbit?
  • 2. What does Bannister feel about the film’s socio-political engagement?
  • 3. Where do you stand on this issue?
  • Home Screening I: Jojo Rabbit (Taika Waititi, 2019)
  • Home Screening II: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson, 2014)
  • 1. In terms of socio-political themes, what are these films really about?
  • 2. How do the films use historical narratives to speak to contemporary socio-political issues?
  • 3. What do they suggest art/media like themselves can contribute to socio-political problems?
  • READINGS:
  • Bannister, Matthew. “Is Jojo-Rabbit an Anti-Hate Satire?” in Eye of the Taika: New Zealand Comedy and the Films of Taika Waititi. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2021: 214–224.
  • MacDowell, James. “Wes Anderson, Tone, and the Quirky Sensibility”, New Review of Film and Television Studies 10.1 (2012): 6–27.
  • Newman, Michael Z. “Indie Culture: In Pursuit of the Authentic Autonomous Alternative”, Cinema Journal 48.3 (2009): 16–34.
  • Newman, Michael Z. “Movies for Hipsters”, in Geoff King, Claire Molloy, and Yannis Tzioumakis (eds), American Independent Cinema: Indie, Indiewood, and Beyond. London: Routledge, 2013: 71–82.
  • Robe, Chris. “Because I Hate Fathers, and I Never Wanted to Be One: Wes Anderson, Entitled Masculinity, and the ‘Crisis’ of the Patriarch”, in Timothy Shary (ed), Millennial Masculinity: Men in Contemporary American Cinema: Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 2012: 101–121.
  • Vazquez Rodriguez, Lucia Gloria. “500 Days of Postfeminism: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype in its Contexts”, Prisma Social 2 (2017): 167–201.
  • SCREENINGS:
  • 500 Days of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)
  • A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (Mariella Heller, 2019)
  • Big Fish (Tim Burton, 2003)
  • Eagle vs. Shark (Taika Waititi, 2007)
  • Ghost World (Terry Zwigoff, 2001)
  • Jojo Rabbit (Taika Waititi, 2019)
  • Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl (Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, 2015)
  • Ruby Sparks (Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, 2012)
  • Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
  • Submarine (Richard Ayoade, 2009)
  • The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson, 2014)
  • The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (Wes Anderson, 2004)
Teaching methods
This course is built around six biweekly sessions to be held in-person unless COVID restrictions dictate otherwise. The sessions will combine elements of both traditional seminars and lectures, insomuch as student-focused discussions are supported with brief framing, summarizing, and contextual “lecturettes”. As preparation, students are expected to study the provided scholarship and the home screenings in relation to the questions included in the syllabus; these will form the basis of discussions, to which students are expected actively to contribute. Such an approach is intended to maximize students’ engagement and comprehension of the learning outcomes of each session.
Assessment methods
At the end of the course, students are to submit one circa. 1500–2000-word essay written in response to one of five prompts derived from the topics introduced across the course.
Value: 100% of Final Grade
Due Date: Midnight CET Sunday 18 December 2022
Note: films screened on this course may NOT be used as examples for the corresponding prompt, but may be used for a different prompt.

Advice and Learning Outcomes: Towards the end of the course, an advice sheet will be issued spotlighting the general qualities graded highly on this course. Time will also be set aside towards the end of the final session to discuss these matters.
Prompt A
The supposed visionary status of quirky cinema is undermined by its reliance on the cornerstones of indie branding. Accordingly, show how a quirky film tries to convince its audience that it is a superior alternative to “mainstream” culture, by its evocation of authenticity and autonomy.
Targeted Learning Outcomes/Areas of Assessment
I. The core values of indie.
II. The logics for branding quirky films in this way.
III. How an individual quirky film projects these values.

Prompt B
While usually framed as the distinctive visions of Auteur filmmakers, quirky cinema also can be seen to represent a calculated audience-targeting strategy aimed at the hipster subculture. Accordingly, show how the content and themes of a quirky film are designed to be specifically relevant to this outwardly cool but internally sensitive audience segment.
Targeted Learning Outcomes/Areas of Assessment
I. The traits of the hipster subculture.
II. The dynamics of targeting this subculture.
III. How the content of a quirky film has been tailored specifically to appeal to this audience.

Prompt C
Quirky Cinema has been criticized for portraying its young female leads as Manic Pixie Dream Girls, which for some is rather sexist. However, it is clear that some quirky films try to rework this trope to avoid charges of sexism, sometimes going as far as to critique elements of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. With these points in mind, consider how a quirky film depicts this female character-type.

Targeted Learning Outcomes/Areas of Assessment
I. Why the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope has been considered sexist.
II. Why and how some quirky films distance themselves from this trope.
III. How a quirky film depicts its female characters.

Prompt D
Quirky cinema has long been associated with a preoccupation for depicting absent or flawed father figures. However, it is clear that some quirky films seek to offer more sympathetic portrayals of such characters. With these points in mind, consider how a quirky film characterizes fathers and/or their surrogates.
Targeted Learning Outcomes/Areas of Assessment
I. Why quirky cinema’s depiction of father figures is deemed quite negative
II. Why some quirky films try to depict father figures more sympathetically.
III. How a quirky film depicts father figures.

Prompt E
Quirky cinema is often criticized for avoiding engagement with serious socio-political topics. However, it is clear that some quirky films do in fact centralize matters of great socio-political importance. With this point in mind, consider how a quirky film seeks to make a statement about large-scale issues that impact society as a whole.
Targeted Learning Outcomes/Areas of Assessment
I. Why quirky cinema has been accused of being apolitical
II. Why some quirky films do in fact engage with large-scale socio-political issues.
III. How a quirky film passes comment on issues that affect large swathes of society.

All Essays are to be submitted in PDF or word format to MS TEAMS or to 516779@mail.muni.cz or richard_nowell@hotmail.com - Please include your name and the course title in the name of the file.
NB: Extensions can be arranged with the instructor in advance, based on health, humanitarian, and other grounds.
Tutorials
Students may arrange one-on-one tutorials to discuss any issues arising from the course, including the assessment. Meetings can be arranged by email and will take place online at a time of mutual convenience or after a teaching session.
Feedback
Each student will be emailed individually with detailed personal feedback on their paper. This feedback is designed to be constructive, so will spotlight strengths, shortcomings, and suggestions on how the paper might have been elevated.
Plagiarism Information
It is the duty of every student to ensure that s/he has familiarized him- or herself with the following details pertaining to plagiarism.
(A) Any use of quoted texts in seminar papers and theses must be acknowledged. Such use must meet the following conditions: (1) the beginning and end of the quoted passage must be shown with quotation marks; (2) when quoting from periodicals or books, the name(s) of author(s), book or article titles, the year of publication, and page from which the passage is quoted must all be stated in footnotes or endnotes; (3) internet sourcing must include a full web address where the text can be found as well as the date the web page was visited by the author.
(B) In case the use of any texts other than those written by the author is established without proper acknowledgement as defined in (A), the paper or thesis will be deemed plagiarized and handed over to the Head of School.
Language of instruction
English
Further comments (probably available only in Czech)
Study Materials
Teacher's information
Dr. Richard Nowell gained his PhD at the University of East Anglia. In his research he focuses on the generative mechanisms underwriting the development of film cycles and textual/thematic trends; the mechanics, motivations, and algorithms of repackaging American genre cinema and the appropriation of popular generic discourse in the assembly and marketing of American cinema. He is a widely published film theorist and historian, author of the book Blood Money: A History of the First Teen Slasher Film Cycle and editor of the collection Merchants of Menace: The Business of Horror Cinema.

Email 516779@mail.muni.cz or richard_nowell@hotmail.com

Office Hours Online, by appointment, at a time of mutual convenience.

  • Enrolment Statistics (recent)
  • Permalink: https://is.muni.cz/course/phil/autumn2022/FAVz096