What is one particular part of Kukharsky’s piece that you would give constructive corrective feedback on? What would you tell the author to change and why? Your answer should be at least three sentences long.
9 thoughts on “Blog Post #18: The Russians Are (Still?) Coming (Kukharsky, pp. 249-253)”
Comments are closed.
If I were to constructively give a feedback on for the author, I would recommend him to restructure the first few topics of his essay. The thesis of Kukharsky’s argumentative paper focuses on how Hollywood demonizes Russians in America by portraying them consistently as villains in movies. However, as we learned in ENGLISH 2100, argumentative essay is structured as a main argument supported by several other sub-arguments. When looking at Kukharsky’s paper, his essay is as such
Main argument: Hollywood portrays Russians as villains to the American public because of politics
1st sub-argument: Thousands of Hollywood films hosts Russian mafia, spies etc.
2nd sub-argument: Many Americans uses movies as primary sources for information on Russia
I don’t see a correlation between how these two sub-argument support the main thesis that Hollywood portrays Russians negatively because of political motives.
Only the 3rd sub-argument and 4th sub-argument made more sense since it focused on tension between Russia (previously Soviet Union) and United States during Cold War and American government influence on Hollywood movies.
The author included many facts in 1st and 2nd sub-arguments, and they were well written, but I don’t think they tie back to the main thesis too well.
The author mentioned that the goverment influences what is being created and televised from Hollywood. This argument may have been powerfull if there was substantial evidence. No evidence was provided that shows the mentioned bureaucracy, CIA, has had any impact on what is being televised. I am not saying that this point is wrong, the goverment may have actually intervened when it came to the mentioned media such as The Hulk or Meet the Parents, but is there is no evidence that goes on to prove this point of the author.
Although the takeaway from the piece is very clear, namely that Hollywood bolsters negative stereotypes of Russians, there was one piece of his argument that wasn’t fleshed out. I would’ve like to see more on how Americans actually internalize these stereotypes and if the anti-Communist rhetoric of films actually translates to the audience. The one statistic of 35% of just Republicans believing Forrest Gump being a documentary was not persuasive enough to convince me that movie goers actually internalize what they see in films in a significant way to alter their opinions and views.
While Russians, along with many other ethnic groups, face many unfair stereotypes in Hollywood, I would have liked to see a stronger link of evidence in the history of Russia, particularly in the 20th century like the article referenced. I think that more supporting evidence of Russian culture in comparison to the American viewpoints that the author talks about. While the author tries to debunk these stereotypes, theres was definitely a real fear of Russians last century and I think the piece would have been stronger had the author brought more evidence into play.
I think the essay goes a bit off-topic at some points. He mentions how Hollywood gives up the Russian movie market but never explains how that’s relevant. It is an effect that the negative portrayal of Russians in movies has, but it doesn’t help strengthen his argument and may even make it weaker by dividing the reader’s attention.
While most people in the US are aware of the stereotypes that are seen all throughout Hollywood, many people forget to think how others see America. That is one thing I was hoping to see in this essay. I understand that this was about the stereotypes of Russians in Hollywood. I would have loved to see other side of the fence. Lastly, I feel like the history section of the essay was relatively short and felt that there was more to it.
The author suggests a link between Hollywood and government propaganda, and although this is certainly an intriguing topic, I don’t see any real sensibility behind the claim. The author ignores the fact that Hollywood’s sole market is entertainment, and bad guys, gangsters, villains, etc. provide entertainment value that entices consumers. In order to make the antagonist more intriguing, the director creates a character that is the antithesis of the protagonist. Through recent history, Russia has been a major advisory to America, which makes a Russian character a sensible villain for an American protagonist. The author doesn’t consider that these portrayals are based in historical context, not intentional prejudice. Does the entertainment industry impact the way we view people from other countries or cultures? Certainly yes, but so does what we see on the news, read in history books and experience in real life interactions. Popular stereotypes are unavoidable, but how one views them and allows them to impact his/her mentality is completely within the power of the individual. It is unfair to link an implied government-induced prejudice with the entertainment industry as a whole, as if there is some underlying conspiracy.
Though Kukharsky is passionate about the topic, I felt certain areas of the paper needed expanding upon or more concrete evidence. One of the sub-arguments that movies are the main source of information on Russia for Americans has only one example. The example didn’t seem to have much bearing as it was only “34% of Republican voters regarded Forrest Gump as a documentary.” The paper also touched upon how government is involved in Hollywood, but never explains what kind of involvement.
One thing I would improve on is to not go off topic too much.Also to improve on the hook for his writing. He didn’t come off and grab my attention right away which made me go off track with his writing.