phyllis young

First watch this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXLZki9pQgThen :To receive full credit (25/25points) you must answer at least two of the following questions about the monster movie documentary in the form of a short paragraph as well as respond critically to at least two of your classmates’ posts.Note: Responding critically requires more than a simple “yes” or “no.” In sentence form, respond with one of the following:I agree because…(you must finish the thought)I disagree because…(you must finish the thought)I partially agree and partially disagree because…(you must finish the thought)Discussion Questions:The documentary’s host, Mark Gatiss, focuses this particular section of the documentary on the horror films that were produced in Britain. Throughout the video, he mentions that the productions are “distinctly British,” by which he intends to contrast them with the American horror pictures that pioneered the genre of film. Having now seen parts one and two of A History of Horror, what comparisons and contrasts can you find between American and British horror films? Which country’s films do you like or find the most intriguing and why?Two of the most famous British horror actors are Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. They had individual starring roles and also frequently costarred in the same productions, much like their Hollywood counterparts Karloff and Lugosi. Also like Lugosi, Cushing and Lee seemed to tire of the endless sequels they played in. Though the two pairs’ acting styles differed greatly, the public appreciated both. What do you think accounts for the success of the four men, especially Cushing and Lee? Are they stars in their own rights, or are they merely Britain’s answer to Hollywood’s most famous monsters? Near the end of the documentary, Gatiss makes a comment about the rules of British horror changing in that “sensation had suddenly overtaken suggestion” by the time horror films began to fall out of style. Though sexuality is almost always at least subversively present in any work of horror, by the ’60s, female nudity was practically required in a horror film, and rape was no longer hinted at; it was explicit. Does this shift make the later productions more or less horrific than the earlier ones? How so?The Two comment that you should reply to them : I agree that the sensitivity to graphic or horrific movies does differ between men and women. When men see nudity it doesn’t really bother them so they don’t think it is necessarily horrific. Females on the other hand will more than likely always be sensitive to these types of scenes. The second comment: I agree because nudity is something people don’t really mind and rape wasn’t common back then so they didn’t think anything about it. But now rape is a hard subject to ever talk about and its happening everyday.