Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I'm supposed to write a paper for my Geography of Hawaii class and chose to write it about The Representation of Hawaii in Film.  I'm kind of stumped though, so maybe you guys can give me some ideas just by talking about the subject.  In preparation I watched a bunch of Hawaii Five-O and Magnum P.I. and even a couple of episodes of Hawaiian Eye before the horrible theme song made my head start to hurt.  So... yeah... if anyone has anything to say about this that'd be great, because I really could use any ideas at all.

[smigenboger]

Film as in cinema, or general video?

There's Dog the Bounty Hunter : P
Even Hawaii isn't immune to our Great Nation's ability to make us look horrible

[ein]

I've not actually seen any Hawaii in film (other than Lost, but they took it for what it really is), but I can give you this:
Film tends to portray Hawaii as a lush paradise that's sunny all the time.
Not true.
The lush parts of Hawaii are incredibly rainy.
The sunny parts of Hawaii are either artificially green (urban areas like Waikiki *gag*) or barren, like Arizona if Arizona were touching the Pacific Ocean.
But yeah, if you want to see what Hawaii is really like, definitely watch Lost.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I was talking about television as well as movies.

Ein, your description is close but not entirely accurate.  It's actually sunny a lot of the time even in the lush parts.  Sometimes even when it's raining.  It rarely stays cloudy for long thanks to the constant trade winds from the north.  There are dryer parts but nothing as dry as Arizona...

[RedKing]

Well, there's God only knows how many "beach party" films like the Elvis stuff (Blue Hawaii, Girls! Girls! Girls!, Paradise Hawaiian Style) or Gidget Goes Hawaiian. Interestingly, these are all from roughly the same time period (1961-1966) which is shortly after Hawaii achieved statehood. So national interest was high in Hawaii and popular knowledge of the state was very low.

There's also the various Pearl Harbor movies, which typically depict Hawaii as a sleepy tropical paradise waiting to be raped by the villainous Japanese. (Except for Tora! Tora! Tora!, which actually has a fairly balanced look at the war).

Then there's Hawaii (1966), based on the James Michener novel. As such, it was one of the only films of its time to even reference Hawaii's past as an independent kingdom.


That got me to thinking: it would be fascinating to write a paper comparing and contrasting the depictions of Hawaii versus the depictions of Alaska, since they both became states at almost the same time. (And because Michener wrote a slightly more famous novel about Alaska, which was also made into a film)

[de5me7]

Im currently rounding off a Masters in Geography, and preparing to do a PhD, so i might be able to help you but then i dont know what your teacher expects from the paper, or what level you are writing at.

generally speaking the way i go about writing essays and papers it this: start at the end and work backwards.

Come up with three or four key points, these are your conclusion. SO these points might be something like: Hawaii is idealised in film to make it look like paradise, but this is'nt necessarily true. Hawaii's charasmatic features such as its beaches and volcanoe are often focused on, because these are associated with a fragile paradise etc.

Its often easier to get to these points if you have some questions you want to ask first like: does the media give an accurate representation of Hawaii and its geography, if not why? Have humans destroyed Hawaii from what it once was? HO do the people of Hawaii deal with their volcanoe and tsunamis? Remeber to ask why questions? If you cant find any film showing rain in Hawaii, why is that?

once youve got your questions and the key points to answer them start ordering your evidence around them. So look though films, tv shows documentaries. Try looking through footage from different eras to see how Hawaii has changed, or peoples view of it has changed.

once youve got your evidence, points and questions i usually order it something like this

Introduction: explain why you are researching this, then say what your goin to say  -tell the reader what each section of your essay is going to be about.

point 1 - say what the point is with a sub title, then either  write paragraphs describing your evidence/ show some photos, or graphs and tables. Once youve laid out your evidence give some interpretation that leads you back to your key point.

repeat this for two or three more points depending on word count

conclusion - summarize your points

[Calculus]

Way to go de5me7! You will go far in academia.

Start with your conclusions. Then look evidence to back it up!

Have you considered a career in politics? Public policy?

[RedKing]

Sadly, that's more or less par for the course in grad school. In part because you have a very limited amount of time to write papers, and can't afford to blow three months of research only to find that you were totally off-base to begin with.

Generally, I did a few weeks of broad-brush research to get an informed set of conclusions (so I didn't start off with something like "If everyone gets rid of nuclear weapons, everyone in the world will get free pie!"), and then spent the rest of the time hoping I didn't find information that majorly contradicted me. Yes, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest. But if I found major dissenting information, I noted that as well.

[Soadreqm]

Isn't that how science is supposed to work? You start with a theory, and then test it to see if you're right. Then you publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you send out pleading letters to get more money.

It might look like it would end with everyone repeating the same things over and over again, but I think there's usually enough crazy dissenters looking very hard to find support for their unpopular pet theory.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Sadly, that's more or less par for the course in grad school. In part because you have a very limited amount of time to write papers, and can't afford to blow three months of research only to find that you were totally off-base to begin with.

Generally, I did a few weeks of broad-brush research to get an informed set of conclusions (so I didn't start off with something like "If everyone gets rid of nuclear weapons, everyone in the world will get free pie!"), and then spent the rest of the time hoping I didn't find information that majorly contradicted me. Yes, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest. But if I found major dissenting information, I noted that as well.

Isn't that how science is supposed to work? You start with a theory, and then test it to see if you're right. Then you publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you send out pleading letters to get more money.

It might look like it would end with everyone repeating the same things over and over again, but I think there's usually enough crazy dissenters looking very hard to find support for their unpopular pet theory.

Yep, this is the way things work. You can't run around just gathering information. But you have to be careful not to bias your information-gathering. Not only do you have to include the dissenting data, you have to specifically look for dissenting data! After all, people who want to pick your paper apart will find that stuff anyway, and if you left it out it looks awfully suspicious and/or incompetent.

Besides, it's okay to revise your hypothesis after discovering that the data doesn't support it. That is science.

Anyway, I want to add that I think Gilligan's Island was filmed in Hawaii. I'm not sure, that may be a bit of urban legend. Or maybe I'm confused.

[RedKing]

Sadly, that's more or less par for the course in grad school. In part because you have a very limited amount of time to write papers, and can't afford to blow three months of research only to find that you were totally off-base to begin with.

Generally, I did a few weeks of broad-brush research to get an informed set of conclusions (so I didn't start off with something like "If everyone gets rid of nuclear weapons, everyone in the world will get free pie!"), and then spent the rest of the time hoping I didn't find information that majorly contradicted me. Yes, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest. But if I found major dissenting information, I noted that as well.

Isn't that how science is supposed to work? You start with a theory, and then test it to see if you're right. Then you publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you send out pleading letters to get more money.

It might look like it would end with everyone repeating the same things over and over again, but I think there's usually enough crazy dissenters looking very hard to find support for their unpopular pet theory.

Yep, this is the way things work. You can't run around just gathering information. But you have to be careful not to bias your information-gathering. Not only do you have to include the dissenting data, you have to specifically look for dissenting data! After all, people who want to pick your paper apart will find that stuff anyway, and if you left it out it looks awfully suspicious and/or incompetent.

Besides, it's okay to revise your hypothesis after discovering that the data doesn't support it. That is science.

Unless you don't have time to revise, in which case you concoct a half-assed theory why you're right anyways. That is grad school science. And way easier to pull off in social science. This is also why a doctoral dissertation takes way longer than a Master's thesis. Because they will nail your ass to the wall if your dissertation isn't sound. They'll just vaguely wave threateningly at you if your thesis isn't sound. Maybe ask for one rewrite just to make you think you're being scrutinized closely.

Anyway, I want to add that I think Gilligan's Island was filmed in Hawaii. I'm not sure, that may be a bit of urban legend. Or maybe I'm confused.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057751/locations

Yes, at least partly in Honolulu.

[Vector]

Way to go de5me7! You will go far in academia.

Start with your conclusions. Then look evidence to back it up!

Have you considered a career in politics? Public policy?

... This is how every single mathematical proof ever is written, by the way.  It's not just the soft sciences, or the harder sciences.  The Queen of the Sciences still has massive wibbly bits.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Way to go de5me7! You will go far in academia.

Start with your conclusions. Then look evidence to back it up!

Have you considered a career in politics? Public policy?

... This is how every single mathematical proof ever is written, by the way.  It's not just the soft sciences, or the harder sciences.  The Queen of the Sciences still has massive wibbly bits.

Oh man, the Queen of the Sciences is SO welcome at my masquerade ball!

[Vector]

Oh man, the Queen of the Sciences is SO welcome at my masquerade ball!

... Goddammit, I really need to start thinking harder about the implications of what I say before I say it 

[LeoLeonardoIII]

It's okay, I interpret things wrong.

So this Queen of Sciences. You have her number? ;P