Two discussion questions relating each film (and any readings assigned with them) are due on the by 10:30 p.m. the Wednesdays the films are screened. Two discussion questions on each reading for tuesdays are due the Monday before by 5 p.m. Please put your name after the questions you email me (at [email protected]). This format works extremely well, but it will only work well if all of you are equally prepared for discussion and only if you in fact do participate in class. You should be just as prepared to discuss on days you are not leading discussion as on days you are. The point of the questions is (a) that you do the readings and watch the films carefully (analytically); (b) that you come prepared to class to talk about the reading or film concretely; and (c) that you get practice for writing your papers and flim clip exercise (your papers will depend on your noticing the kinds of things in the readings and film that draw you to formulate questions about them. To this end, I will ask all of you email me two discussion topics (3-4 sentences) and discussion questions (at least one) about each reading and each film assigned for each class. I will then post these questions with your names on the course website or email them to you via the class email listerv before class. The day you lead class, you need not do the discussion questions. Please put the name of the class in your email title, and please put your name in your emailed topic / discussion discussions after your questions. (It just makes it easier for me to copy them on to this page.) Please make the questions as concrete as possible (addressed to a specific aspect of the reading or film). Please limit your questions to the film itself (don't bother with production or reception histories). Your questions should arise from a close reading of the film's form in conjunction with the readings. Your questions may or may not come up in class, but all students will should read all of them.

Be sure to bring the assigned book or a print copy of all assigned eletronic readings and bring it with you to class. If you don't bring the reading(s) with you, I count you as absent.

Below are examples of excellent discussion questions and failing discussion questions. These were written by students in a different film class on the film epic and U.S imperialism I taught earlier.

PASSING:

1. Troy has been paralleled to the present war in Iraq. Unlike maybe other epics we have seen in the past, Troy does not advocate war but rather displays the ultimate pointless nature of war. And this message can be a direct jab to the current war in Iraq which many view as a pointless war. However, I would not argue that in Troy, the aggressive Greeks can be seen as the United States while the defensive Trojans are the Iraqis because the noble King Priam who rules Troy is no sadistic Saddam Hussein. Instead, I would say that the conflict between the Greeks and Trojans represents a conflict of American Ideals. The Greeks and their warring behavior can be paralleled to the current foreign policy of The United States with the power-hungry Agamemnon clearly symbolizing George Bush. Like Agamemnon, Bush has been seen as this ruler using war for his own personal ambitions. He and his rich republicans send young poor minorities to the killing fields of Iraq rather than doing their own dirty work. There are numerous quotes in the film directly referring to Bush such as ?Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn?t that be a sight? (Achilles), "War is young men dying and old men talking? (Odysseus) and ?I see 50,000 men brought here to fight for one man's greed? (Hector). Even at one point Agamemnon says ?Peace is for the women?and the weak. Empires are forged by war,? echoing Bush?s current foreign policy. On the other hand, the Trojan empire is seen as what the ideal America should be; a nation that pursues peace before war, a nation of men that fight for their country and countrymen rather than glory and greed. Maybe Troy represents what our nation used to be, and Greece is our country now. These opposing ideals are summarized in the film by the parallel editing of the two great warriors speaking to their men before they first engage in battle at the beaches of Troy. First we see the great Hector say to his men, ?All my life I've lived by a code and the code is simple: honor the gods, love your woman and defend your country. Troy is mother to us all. Fight for her!? He is preaching to his men to be righteous to their faith, to live honorable domestic lives but at the same time, to bravely defend your country when under attack ? ideal virtues of a supposed nation like ours. Then we see the great Achilles pumping up his ?brothers of the sword? men by telling them ?Let no man forget how menacing we are. We are Lions! Do you know what?s there, waiting, beyond that beach? Immortality. Take it! It?s yours!? While Hector preaches to fight for necessity, Achilles tells his man to fight for the greed and pride of conquest and glory. We are not fighting in Iraq to defend our nation but to rather remind the world of how truly ?menacing we are.? What else can we say about the parallels between Troy and Bush's war in Iraq? Why does Peterson decide make the film through the eyes of the aggressor rather than the defenders? Is it because we are currently on the side of the aggressors in Iraq? Would the film have worked better in its message if we saw the film through the eyes of the Trojans?

2.In Homer's Iliad, the character of Patroclus is Achilles best friend and most likely his lover. He was to Achilles what Hephaistion was to Alexander. However, in Troy, Patroclus is characterized as Achilles? cousin thus taking away any homoerotic relationship. Thus, when Achilles avenges Patroclus?s death in the film, his wrath is from the love for a family member rather than a mourning lover. Why do you think Peterson decided to make this change with the role of Patroclus? We have seen several pivotal epics from the conservative past like Ben Hur and Spartacus with homoerotic undertones. One would think then in our liberal culture today, that it would much more accepted to have a homoerotic tone between Achilles and Patroclus? However, Peterson totally avoids the situation. He could have simply made them best friends but took any chance of a homosexual relationship between them by making the two warriors cousins. Why was Peterson avoiding the situation so much? Do you think this deviation from the Iliad takes away from the film? Troy was not a great hit in the United States, but eventually Troy made half a billion dollars worldwide, placing it in the #35 spot of top box office hits of all time, 12 places above another epic, Gladiator. Would it have made the same success with such a homoerotic undertone, or would have it met the same fate as Alexander. Is masculinity in this film portrayed as totally dominant and heterosexual? Is masculinity in the film seen as too one dimensional and simple?

3.In both the Iliad and the film, one can argue that Hector, not Achilles, is the true hero of the Trojan War. Hector provides a stark contrast for Achilles. Hector was fighting not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland. He is seen as the ideal hero, as seen with other heroes in epics we have seen in class. He is both a domestic man and man to his country. He is a loving husband and father as seen when he bids farewell to Andromanche. He is a loyal father who follows his father despite his disagreements with Priam?s reliance on religious omens and trust of the Gods. And he quickly but reluctantly defends his brother Paris as seen when he kills Menelaus despite Paris?s cowardice and selfishness. He is a killer but a noble killer who fights only for protection of his country and people. He even allows the Greeks to collect their dead and give them proper burial rights when the same would have not been done to the Trojans. Like El Cid or Spartacus he is torn between his duty to his family and duty to his nation. As a true patriot, he ultimately chooses the greater duty of his people and like El Cid or Spartacus, he meets the same tragic fate. Achilles kills him and drags his body around the walls of Troy out of spite. In the Aeneid his family meets a similar fate. His father and many of his brothers are killed, his son is hurled from the walls in fear that he would avenge Hector, and his wife is carried off by Achilles' son Neoptolemus to live as a slave. However, Hectors heroism would be remembered, sometimes more highly than Achilles. In the Middle Ages Hector's legend was held so highly that Jean de Longuyon included him as one of the ?Nine Worthies?, nine historical figures that embodied the ideal chivalry. Furthermore, in The Divine Comedy, Dante sees the shade of Hector with the other noble heroes in the portion of Limbo reserved for the most virtuous pagans. If Hector is the ideal hero, why does the film and Homer?s epic center around Achilles? Why does Brad Pitt star as Achilles rather than Hector? Why not make a film like Braveheart or Gladiator where the ideal hero tragically dies at the end like Hector in Troy? Or with our cultures of skepticism towards traditional ideas and virtues, do we rather prefer a hero like Achilles who has much more flaws and ambiguity to his nature? --
FAILING:
How are the politics between Greece and Sparta similar to the politics today of United States and Iraq? Can you think of any other political relationship between two countries past and present that present similar political issues?

How did casting contribute to the success of the film? If Brad Pitt was not cast as Achilles would this film done as well in the box office? What do you think were the motives behind the casting in this film?

How was the choreography of the battle scenes in this film similar or different to other epics we have watched in class?

Note that the generic questions above do not depend on having viewed the film.