The Philadelphia Story
Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 01:11 PM
(This was originally posted on Moodle in September)
I have seen The Philadelphia Story several times before yesterday's showing and I am amazed that I can always find something new in the film that I had not noticed before. These films have so much more depth and meanings than many of the films today (not to mention better acting). I had not realized how Tracy's mother was basically ignored in the movie by Tracy after she went off with Tracy's father. Tracy acknowledges her mother one time after that when she is drunk at the party and she was surprised to see her mother there. It almost seems that Tracy can only face her mother when she is intoxicated because she is ashamed of her mother's thoughtless behavior. When the mother left with him, Cavell says that "it deprives the mother of her mental competence, so that while she continues to be present, her mind is absent..." (Pursuits of Happiness, 138). I agree with what Cavell says. After she leaves, I feel like she left her self-respect. Why would she so easily go back to him after there was evidence of him "spending time" with a beautiful dancer? She loses her dignity and essentially her independence when she leaves with him.
I find the scene where Tracy's father tells Tracy that she is acting like a "jealous woman" discerning. And perhaps it is because I have not seen another film that has such honesty and hurt in an exchange between a father and daughter. Many films show fathers comforting their daughters when they are upset, but this film shows an entirely different aspect. A raw, but true portrayal of a father saying exactly how he feels, for better or worse. Tracy takes her father's words to heart and I feel sorry for her because he put it so bluntly. Tracy realizes that there was some truth in his words, so the scene that she tells her father that she loves him is especially touching to me.
I also would just like to say how brilliant George Cukor is at casting Jimmy Stewart, Katharine Hepburn, and Cary Grant. I think the three actors did a superb job and I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. May The Philadelphia Story live on!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Lady Eve
The Lady Eve
Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 10:29 PM
(This was originally posted on Moodle in September)
Even as the credits were rolling, it was obvious to the viewers that Peter Sturges wanted us to be thinking about the biblical story of Adam and Eve as we were watching The Lady Eve. Not only is the name Eve in the title, but the snake, otherwise known as "The Devil" is sliding around the screen in the beginning. When Jean sees Charlie, she throws an apple at him to get his attention. She is tempting him to turn around just as Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree. In the next scene, we see Charlie reading a book called Are Snakes Necessary? which I found particularly amusing. Charlie later tells Jean that he loves snakes and he confesses "Snakes are my life". Peter Sturges, who some could argue that he is supposed to be "God" because he wrote the script, punished both Charlie and Jean in this movie as God punished Adam and Eve. Cavell states, "His (Charlie's) intellectual denial of sameness accordingly lets him spiritually carve her in half, taking the good without the bad, the lady without the woman, the ideal without the reality, the richer without the poorer. He will be punished for this" (61). I also think Sturges was punishing Charlie for his stupidity for falling for the same girl essentially three times without even knowing it! Jean also gets punished because "she feeds him with the fruit of the tree of stupidity" (Cavell, 62). She also pretended to be someone she was not.
As I was watching this movie, I did not feel the same sympathy I had for the characters in The Philadelphia Story. As much as I enjoyed Jean's independence, I thought she was quite cruel for impersonating someone just to get back at Charlie. It would have been different if she only confused him for a day, but she kept on going until he proposed again and then they were married, which I think was too far! Even the horse knew that Charlie was making a mistake. He tried to warn him, but who listened to a horse in those days? I also did not feel any sympathy for Charlie because he was so dim-witted. Mugsy knew that Jean and Lady Eve were the same person and he was "named a mug by the author of the film" (Cavell, 69). Jean was not far off when she called Charlie a "mug". He was as dumb as a box of rocks, and I like Henry Fonda, so it was hard for me to see him in such a stupid role.
One of my favorite quotes from the movie was when Jean said "A man who couldn't forgive isn't much of a man". Charlie wasn't much of a man because he couldn't forgive Jean for being a card shark. He also could not forgive Lady Eve for her previous relationships and he did not even want to here what Jean had to say at the end. Clearly, Charlie was not even close to a man.
The Lady Eve is a hilarious comedy, but I think it is funny in a sad way. Many people are gullible and passive, like Charlie, and they would believe the story that Sir Alfred threw at him. Hopefully the world is full of more Mugsy's than Charlie's.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 10:29 PM
(This was originally posted on Moodle in September)
Even as the credits were rolling, it was obvious to the viewers that Peter Sturges wanted us to be thinking about the biblical story of Adam and Eve as we were watching The Lady Eve. Not only is the name Eve in the title, but the snake, otherwise known as "The Devil" is sliding around the screen in the beginning. When Jean sees Charlie, she throws an apple at him to get his attention. She is tempting him to turn around just as Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree. In the next scene, we see Charlie reading a book called Are Snakes Necessary? which I found particularly amusing. Charlie later tells Jean that he loves snakes and he confesses "Snakes are my life". Peter Sturges, who some could argue that he is supposed to be "God" because he wrote the script, punished both Charlie and Jean in this movie as God punished Adam and Eve. Cavell states, "His (Charlie's) intellectual denial of sameness accordingly lets him spiritually carve her in half, taking the good without the bad, the lady without the woman, the ideal without the reality, the richer without the poorer. He will be punished for this" (61). I also think Sturges was punishing Charlie for his stupidity for falling for the same girl essentially three times without even knowing it! Jean also gets punished because "she feeds him with the fruit of the tree of stupidity" (Cavell, 62). She also pretended to be someone she was not.
As I was watching this movie, I did not feel the same sympathy I had for the characters in The Philadelphia Story. As much as I enjoyed Jean's independence, I thought she was quite cruel for impersonating someone just to get back at Charlie. It would have been different if she only confused him for a day, but she kept on going until he proposed again and then they were married, which I think was too far! Even the horse knew that Charlie was making a mistake. He tried to warn him, but who listened to a horse in those days? I also did not feel any sympathy for Charlie because he was so dim-witted. Mugsy knew that Jean and Lady Eve were the same person and he was "named a mug by the author of the film" (Cavell, 69). Jean was not far off when she called Charlie a "mug". He was as dumb as a box of rocks, and I like Henry Fonda, so it was hard for me to see him in such a stupid role.
One of my favorite quotes from the movie was when Jean said "A man who couldn't forgive isn't much of a man". Charlie wasn't much of a man because he couldn't forgive Jean for being a card shark. He also could not forgive Lady Eve for her previous relationships and he did not even want to here what Jean had to say at the end. Clearly, Charlie was not even close to a man.
The Lady Eve is a hilarious comedy, but I think it is funny in a sad way. Many people are gullible and passive, like Charlie, and they would believe the story that Sir Alfred threw at him. Hopefully the world is full of more Mugsy's than Charlie's.
Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
I understand now how Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown is Pedro Almodovar's most accessible movie, but I would not necessarily say it was his best. The absurdity of this film reminded me of Bringing Up Baby, especially the scene when Lucia is on the motorcycle, shooting at the cab with Pepa in it. The cab driver was by far my favorite character in the movie. I thought he was hilariously placed, because it seemed like he was the comic relief after a more serious moment in the film. I also adored the scene when Pepa was crying and he also started crying, yelling at himself for not having eye drops. The other scene when he has the eye drops and Pepa uses them was perfectly placed by Almodovar.
As far as the relationships go in this movie, Ivan and Pepa clearly had an unusual one. Ivan was married with a child that Pepa didn't even know he had. She even admits that Ivan doesn't tell her anything. Communicating is a key aspect in a relationship and they definetely did not have that. They were constantly missing each other's calls and messages. Candela is another character with relationship issues. She says that she is used by men and the audience knows that she was used by the Shiite terrorists. The relationship between Marisa and Carlos is also an unusual one. They are engaged, but Carlos can't tell Marisa that he loves her, which made me skeptical if there would ever be a wedding between the two of them. Marisa also seemed to be controlling him and when she was unconscious because of all the sleeping pills, it seemed like Carlos could actually be himself because she wasn't telling him what to do. Carlos also kissed Candela at least three times, which I found absurd because she had just tried to kill herself and he knew that she just had a fling with terrorists. That did not seem to bother him though! Lucia and Ivan probably had the most bizaare relationship, which ended up with her becoming mentally ill and in a mental institution.
Children in this movie came up when Pepa found out she was pregnant. Pepa did not want Ivan, the father of her child, to be in her life or the child's and in that sense that scene reminded me of Antonia's Line when Danielle wanted to have a child but not a husband with it. Marriage did not have a positive connotation in this movie either. Ivan was married and he was also cheating on his wife with at least two other women. Carlos and Marisa were engaged and yet Carlos still kissed Candela several times. He didn't seem to care that she was asleep for so long either. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown was extremely entertaining and fit perfectly into the category of the Comedies of Remarriage.
As far as the relationships go in this movie, Ivan and Pepa clearly had an unusual one. Ivan was married with a child that Pepa didn't even know he had. She even admits that Ivan doesn't tell her anything. Communicating is a key aspect in a relationship and they definetely did not have that. They were constantly missing each other's calls and messages. Candela is another character with relationship issues. She says that she is used by men and the audience knows that she was used by the Shiite terrorists. The relationship between Marisa and Carlos is also an unusual one. They are engaged, but Carlos can't tell Marisa that he loves her, which made me skeptical if there would ever be a wedding between the two of them. Marisa also seemed to be controlling him and when she was unconscious because of all the sleeping pills, it seemed like Carlos could actually be himself because she wasn't telling him what to do. Carlos also kissed Candela at least three times, which I found absurd because she had just tried to kill herself and he knew that she just had a fling with terrorists. That did not seem to bother him though! Lucia and Ivan probably had the most bizaare relationship, which ended up with her becoming mentally ill and in a mental institution.
Children in this movie came up when Pepa found out she was pregnant. Pepa did not want Ivan, the father of her child, to be in her life or the child's and in that sense that scene reminded me of Antonia's Line when Danielle wanted to have a child but not a husband with it. Marriage did not have a positive connotation in this movie either. Ivan was married and he was also cheating on his wife with at least two other women. Carlos and Marisa were engaged and yet Carlos still kissed Candela several times. He didn't seem to care that she was asleep for so long either. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown was extremely entertaining and fit perfectly into the category of the Comedies of Remarriage.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sylvia Plath's Poetry
When I first read Sylvia Plath's writing in high school, I was amazed. I had never read anything so powerful and honest. Her poem "Daddy" which was the first poem I read by Sylvia Plath, was nothing like any other poem I had read. It was different and unique, full of endless possibilites. Sylvia Plath does not try and hide behind her emotions or problems that occur in society, she embraces them and instead of shoving them away, she writes explicitly about them and does not try to cover them up. She writes what society wants to be swept under the rug and to remain passive and silent, but she cannot stand for that. I especially believe Sylvia Plath does this in her short stories. I have read Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams which contains some bizaare stories but which also question the role of women in many of them and the way women were treated by society in the 1950's when Sylvia Plath was alive.
There are a few lines that I find particularly fascinating in her poems. In "Daddy", I especially like the line "The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you".
I believe she is speaking not only of her deceased father in this line, but also any man who demeans women and pushes women down intellectually. I also find her personal passage in this poem intriguing "Bit my pretty red heart in two
I was ten when they buried you.
At twenty I tried to die
And get back, back, back to you.
I thought even the bones would do.
But they pulled me out of the sack,
And they stuck me together with glue".
Sylvia Plath was a beautiful woman and I think she tried to live the way society told her too. She flirted with men and would get dressed up and go to parties. She married Ted Hughes and had two children and was a successful writer. Society told her that this would be enough for her to be happy, but she wasn't. When Sylvia Plath says "they", I think she is talking about society and how they tried to put her life back together after she made her suicide attempts, but that kind of a life was not good enough for her, and I don't blame her for wanting more. I wonder if she lived in a different time period, like the 1980's or the 2000's, if she would have been content with her life or if she still would be unsatisfied. I think that is one of the messages Sylvia Plath is trying to portray in her poems. She talks about marriage and the cultural patriarchy and how women were taught to be silent and passive, but I think she wants the readers to think about their own life and if life has changed, or if it's still the same when she wrote these poems. I know the United States has come a long way since the 1950's, but we still have a long way to go. I was with a group of friends, mainly men, there was only one other woman in the group and one of the men said "Want to hear a joke? Women's rights!" All of the men instantly started laughing. I was extremely uncomfortable and upset, and I wonder how much has changed if some men still think that women having equal rights is some kind of a joke. I know this was only the opinion of a few men, and not all men are like that. But I still wonder. I also had a woman in her forties tell me that she does not think any woman should be the President of the United States. I do not understand this kind of thinking. Even though women are supposed to be paid the same as men for doing the same amount of work legally, that still does not happen in every job situation. I am not trying to say that women are victims and that men are evil. Women are not victims, we are human beings, the same as men are, and should be treated the same way as men and given the same opportunities. When I turn on the television, I still see women microwaving something for their children, or baking cookies, not men. I think these stereotypes need to be changed, and I believe that is one of Sylvia Plath's points in her poetry. Each person is a unique individual, and should not be judged solely by their gender.
There are a few lines that I find particularly fascinating in her poems. In "Daddy", I especially like the line "The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you".
I believe she is speaking not only of her deceased father in this line, but also any man who demeans women and pushes women down intellectually. I also find her personal passage in this poem intriguing "Bit my pretty red heart in two
I was ten when they buried you.
At twenty I tried to die
And get back, back, back to you.
I thought even the bones would do.
But they pulled me out of the sack,
And they stuck me together with glue".
Sylvia Plath was a beautiful woman and I think she tried to live the way society told her too. She flirted with men and would get dressed up and go to parties. She married Ted Hughes and had two children and was a successful writer. Society told her that this would be enough for her to be happy, but she wasn't. When Sylvia Plath says "they", I think she is talking about society and how they tried to put her life back together after she made her suicide attempts, but that kind of a life was not good enough for her, and I don't blame her for wanting more. I wonder if she lived in a different time period, like the 1980's or the 2000's, if she would have been content with her life or if she still would be unsatisfied. I think that is one of the messages Sylvia Plath is trying to portray in her poems. She talks about marriage and the cultural patriarchy and how women were taught to be silent and passive, but I think she wants the readers to think about their own life and if life has changed, or if it's still the same when she wrote these poems. I know the United States has come a long way since the 1950's, but we still have a long way to go. I was with a group of friends, mainly men, there was only one other woman in the group and one of the men said "Want to hear a joke? Women's rights!" All of the men instantly started laughing. I was extremely uncomfortable and upset, and I wonder how much has changed if some men still think that women having equal rights is some kind of a joke. I know this was only the opinion of a few men, and not all men are like that. But I still wonder. I also had a woman in her forties tell me that she does not think any woman should be the President of the United States. I do not understand this kind of thinking. Even though women are supposed to be paid the same as men for doing the same amount of work legally, that still does not happen in every job situation. I am not trying to say that women are victims and that men are evil. Women are not victims, we are human beings, the same as men are, and should be treated the same way as men and given the same opportunities. When I turn on the television, I still see women microwaving something for their children, or baking cookies, not men. I think these stereotypes need to be changed, and I believe that is one of Sylvia Plath's points in her poetry. Each person is a unique individual, and should not be judged solely by their gender.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Antonia's Line
Antonia's Line was quite different from the films we have been watching thus far. This movie created a different way of living in the village. There were definetly aspects of Utopia in the village. Antonia was able to live with her daughter, Danielle, without having a husband. Danielle could also raise a child without a father. Two women are able to have a relationship together in this town. Crooked Finger freely expressed his opinions and beliefs without being afraid of the consequences for doing so. Althought there were moments of Utopia, there was also dystopia. The character Pitte definetly destroyed the Utopia in the village by raping Deedee and Therese. Mad Madonna and the Protestant are not able to be in a relationship. Not everyone in the town got along, hence the death of Pitte. Crooked Finger also hung himself. In a Utopia, I feel like these events would not occur.
There were also many relationships in the film. Most of the time, when the characters lost their virginity, it was not with the person they would spend the rest of their lives with, but they would find their true love later in life. Antonia lost her husband, and I presume that she loved Farmer Bas more than she loved the father of Danielle. Danielle sleeps with a man to have a child, but she does not even know him. She later finds her true love with Therese's teacher. Deedee is raped by Pitte and she marries Looney Lips later in the film. Therese is also raped by Pitte and sleeps with one of her students and another man, but finds her "soul mate" is Simon.
As opposed to the Cavell films, this movie shows many children in it. Letta has thirteen children, but one dies. Antonia has a daughter. Danielle has a daughter. Therese and Simon have a daughter. Deedee and Looney Lips have at least one child together. The movie revolves around producing children, but not necessarily marrying the person they had children with. Marriage is not the important thing in this village, like it was in the Cavell films. Children, not marriage, is what makes the village keep on living.
There were also many relationships in the film. Most of the time, when the characters lost their virginity, it was not with the person they would spend the rest of their lives with, but they would find their true love later in life. Antonia lost her husband, and I presume that she loved Farmer Bas more than she loved the father of Danielle. Danielle sleeps with a man to have a child, but she does not even know him. She later finds her true love with Therese's teacher. Deedee is raped by Pitte and she marries Looney Lips later in the film. Therese is also raped by Pitte and sleeps with one of her students and another man, but finds her "soul mate" is Simon.
As opposed to the Cavell films, this movie shows many children in it. Letta has thirteen children, but one dies. Antonia has a daughter. Danielle has a daughter. Therese and Simon have a daughter. Deedee and Looney Lips have at least one child together. The movie revolves around producing children, but not necessarily marrying the person they had children with. Marriage is not the important thing in this village, like it was in the Cavell films. Children, not marriage, is what makes the village keep on living.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
I have often thought about erasing memories and how that would effect a person and their lives so I found this movie fascinating to watch. I had no idea what the movie was about before I watched it, but I heard from several people who watched it that it was bizarre, and indeed it was. On the Wikepedia website, it says that although human memories cannot be erased, scientists have been successful at erasing selective memories on lab mice. I am sure that in the future they will be able to erase memories from human beings because technology is continually expanding and it's only a matter of time.
There was a sense of Adam's Rib in this movie. The audience got to see how Joel and Clementine acted around each other all the time through Joel's memories, similar to seeing Amanda and Adam in their home together. The audience saw Joel and Clementine doing routine things together, such as going out to eat and eating take-out in their bed while watching television. We saw them having fun together in the snow and on the ice. We also saw them arguing. Their lives seemed realistic to me. I also noticed that Clementine had complained to Joel saying, "I tell you everything...you don't trust me". She was upset that he did not tell her things, but he showed her memories of his past when he was in the middle of the procedure, which he might not have done if he had not undergone the procedure.
As opposed to the earlier Comedies of Remarriage, this movie portrayed that children were ignored and this was a negative thing, whereas in the earlier movies, the children were a nusance. While Joel is having his procedure, the audience sees him as a child in his old house and his mother is ignoring him. She does not care what he is doing and she keeps asking where he is, but she does not bother looking for him. Clementine says, "How lonely it is to be a kid...like they don't matter". Mary also says, "Adults are a mess of sadness and phobia". Clementine also says that she wants a child in the film, but Joel says they are not ready to have one. Even though this movie explores children's needs, the two characters are not ready to have a child yet.
This movie also brings up Valentine's Day, which is a holiday that is made up by the card companies, according to Joel. This aspect of buying something for someone on Valentine's Day reminds me of the conversation with Sister Mara Faulkner. Joel had orginally bought a necklace for Clementine for Valentine's Day, which Patrick gave to her instead. He probably felt that he was obligated to give her something otherwise he would not be considered a "good" boyfriend, which I find ironic because we were just talking in class about how giving someone flowers does not mean anything. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was a unique movie and I am sure when I watch it again, there will be many things I did not pick up on the first time I watched it. That is the sign of a good movie.
There was a sense of Adam's Rib in this movie. The audience got to see how Joel and Clementine acted around each other all the time through Joel's memories, similar to seeing Amanda and Adam in their home together. The audience saw Joel and Clementine doing routine things together, such as going out to eat and eating take-out in their bed while watching television. We saw them having fun together in the snow and on the ice. We also saw them arguing. Their lives seemed realistic to me. I also noticed that Clementine had complained to Joel saying, "I tell you everything...you don't trust me". She was upset that he did not tell her things, but he showed her memories of his past when he was in the middle of the procedure, which he might not have done if he had not undergone the procedure.
As opposed to the earlier Comedies of Remarriage, this movie portrayed that children were ignored and this was a negative thing, whereas in the earlier movies, the children were a nusance. While Joel is having his procedure, the audience sees him as a child in his old house and his mother is ignoring him. She does not care what he is doing and she keeps asking where he is, but she does not bother looking for him. Clementine says, "How lonely it is to be a kid...like they don't matter". Mary also says, "Adults are a mess of sadness and phobia". Clementine also says that she wants a child in the film, but Joel says they are not ready to have one. Even though this movie explores children's needs, the two characters are not ready to have a child yet.
This movie also brings up Valentine's Day, which is a holiday that is made up by the card companies, according to Joel. This aspect of buying something for someone on Valentine's Day reminds me of the conversation with Sister Mara Faulkner. Joel had orginally bought a necklace for Clementine for Valentine's Day, which Patrick gave to her instead. He probably felt that he was obligated to give her something otherwise he would not be considered a "good" boyfriend, which I find ironic because we were just talking in class about how giving someone flowers does not mean anything. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was a unique movie and I am sure when I watch it again, there will be many things I did not pick up on the first time I watched it. That is the sign of a good movie.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Hannah and Her Sisters
Out of the three sisters, I enjoyed Holly the most. Which evidently, Dianne Wiest won best supporting actress that year for playing Holly. Holly was quirky and she was always open to new ideas. I thought the scene where Mickey and her are listening to a rock band was hilarious. And then the switch from the rock band to the blues singer was priceless. Holly dabbles in different career choices: as an actress, caterer, and a writer. Everyone seemed to rely on Hannah though. Holly constantly went to Hannah for money. Whenever Hannah offered advice to Holly, Holly reacted strongly and would get upset at Hannah. But Hannah would apologize and would not be upset. Hannah was independent and strong, but I thought she needed to be tougher at times. She was passive in some ways. Lee is an interesting character. Even though she loved her sister, she continually slept with Hannah's husband. She would not take responsibility for what she did. When the three of them are eating at the restaurant, Lee yells at Holly for arguing with Hannah. She is taking her own guilt and using that to argue with Holly instead of arguing with herself for what she was doing to her own sister. Elliot also "loves" Hannah even though he is sleeping with Lee. It seems like in many movies, a character says they love their spouse, but they cheat on them anyway. I am not sure what Allen and other directors are trying to say. Maybe love isn't enough...? Frederick was a dispicable character. I thought he was pathetic because Lee was his only connection to the real world. The scene where Lee breaks up with Frederick was sad though, because the audience saw how much he relied on her. That was an extremely realistic break-up scene. Woody Allen depicts break-up scenes well I think. He does that in Manhattan also.
The body language in the first and last section were very evident to me. Elliot is leaning against the wall in the first scene, lusting over Lee. He also does this in the last scene, staring at Lee and her new husband. There are also many Nazi references again in this film. Frederick tells Lee that "there was a dull TV show about Auschwitz" on. He also says that the question is not how could something like the Holocaust happen, but "Why doesn't it happen more often?". He says it does happen, just not as drastic as the Holocaust was. At the end of Holly and Mickey's date, Mickey says, "I had a great time tonight. It was like the Nuremberg Trials". When Hannah is asking Elliot if he is seeing another woman, he says, "What is this? The Gestapo?" During that scene, Elliot also mentions Connecticut, a flashback to the Cavell films. When Mickey is talking to his parents he asks them, "Why were there Nazis?" As all of these Nazis references come up in Allen's films, I wonder if he had any relatives who were in the concentration camps during the Holocaust. Or perhaps he does not want people to forget the horrendous things the Nazis did to Jewish people during World War II.
This film had one of the most in depth plot lines of the Woody Allen films we have seen thus far I thought. Hannah and Her Sisters had fewer jokes than the previous films but had more serious and thought provoking ideas. There were also more tragic and underlying messages throughout the movie. I also did not feel that New York was the center of this film, as I had felt with Annie Hall and especially Manhattan. Mickey does briefly mention that New York is his town and they show architecture that David presents to April and Holly. I felt that Thanksgiving took the place of New York in this film though.
The body language in the first and last section were very evident to me. Elliot is leaning against the wall in the first scene, lusting over Lee. He also does this in the last scene, staring at Lee and her new husband. There are also many Nazi references again in this film. Frederick tells Lee that "there was a dull TV show about Auschwitz" on. He also says that the question is not how could something like the Holocaust happen, but "Why doesn't it happen more often?". He says it does happen, just not as drastic as the Holocaust was. At the end of Holly and Mickey's date, Mickey says, "I had a great time tonight. It was like the Nuremberg Trials". When Hannah is asking Elliot if he is seeing another woman, he says, "What is this? The Gestapo?" During that scene, Elliot also mentions Connecticut, a flashback to the Cavell films. When Mickey is talking to his parents he asks them, "Why were there Nazis?" As all of these Nazis references come up in Allen's films, I wonder if he had any relatives who were in the concentration camps during the Holocaust. Or perhaps he does not want people to forget the horrendous things the Nazis did to Jewish people during World War II.
This film had one of the most in depth plot lines of the Woody Allen films we have seen thus far I thought. Hannah and Her Sisters had fewer jokes than the previous films but had more serious and thought provoking ideas. There were also more tragic and underlying messages throughout the movie. I also did not feel that New York was the center of this film, as I had felt with Annie Hall and especially Manhattan. Mickey does briefly mention that New York is his town and they show architecture that David presents to April and Holly. I felt that Thanksgiving took the place of New York in this film though.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Annie Hall
Annie Hall was full of unique aspects throughout the film. Many times Alvy Singer would talk directly to the camera, as if he was filming a documentary. Alvy and Annie look in on their childhood memories together which was pretty funny. When Alvy meets Annie's family he shows his family and hers and the different conversations they are having. Annie's soul also leaves her body and sits on the chair when she is having sex with Alvy. There is a cartoon of Snow White which is amusing. There is also subtitles of what Alvy and Annie are thinking about inside their head while they are talking about something else. Woody Allen is definetly a unique director.
Allen inserts many Jewish and Nazis references in this film, similar to Manhattan. When Annie and Alvy meet for the first time, Annie says "You're what Grammy Hall would call a real Jew". When Alvy meets Grammy Hall, the audience sees that Grammy Hall pictures him as a stereotyped Jewish man wearing a prayer shawl. When Alvy is in California, he says "What's with all these awards? They're always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler". Alvy and his friend are talking and Alvy is narrating a story about someone who whispered "Jew" when he began speaking and asked, "Did Jew eat?" instead of "Did you eat?"Alvy and Annie watch a four hour documentary about the Nazis during Annie Hall. Also, when Alvy and Annie are having a conversation, Alvy says, "If the Gestapo would take away your Bloomingdale's charge card, you'd tell' em everything".
This film is structured differently than many films. It opens with Allen talking directly to the camera, as if he is reciting a monologue in a play. We are notified that he and Annie have broken up. Then, the audience sees him as a young boy in school and where he grew up. The movie shows Alvy and Annie living together before the audience sees how they first met at a tennis game. Alvy and Annie break up twice in the film. They do not end up together at the end of the movie, but they get lunch somewhere and catch up. It is not the traditional movie structure, but I think it works for this film and makes everything more interesting.
Allen inserts many Jewish and Nazis references in this film, similar to Manhattan. When Annie and Alvy meet for the first time, Annie says "You're what Grammy Hall would call a real Jew". When Alvy meets Grammy Hall, the audience sees that Grammy Hall pictures him as a stereotyped Jewish man wearing a prayer shawl. When Alvy is in California, he says "What's with all these awards? They're always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler". Alvy and his friend are talking and Alvy is narrating a story about someone who whispered "Jew" when he began speaking and asked, "Did Jew eat?" instead of "Did you eat?"Alvy and Annie watch a four hour documentary about the Nazis during Annie Hall. Also, when Alvy and Annie are having a conversation, Alvy says, "If the Gestapo would take away your Bloomingdale's charge card, you'd tell' em everything".
This film is structured differently than many films. It opens with Allen talking directly to the camera, as if he is reciting a monologue in a play. We are notified that he and Annie have broken up. Then, the audience sees him as a young boy in school and where he grew up. The movie shows Alvy and Annie living together before the audience sees how they first met at a tennis game. Alvy and Annie break up twice in the film. They do not end up together at the end of the movie, but they get lunch somewhere and catch up. It is not the traditional movie structure, but I think it works for this film and makes everything more interesting.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Manhattan
Throughout this movie, I was thinking about how many relationships that were talked about or were forming in the movie. There seemed to be a lot more relationships in this movie than in the earlier comedy of remarriage films. Isaac talks about his first wife, who is currently a kindergarten teacher, and his second wife, Jill. He also mentions Jill's relationship with another woman and we see her later in the film. Yale and his wife are obviously in a relationship, but Yale also has another relationship with Mary and he mentions several other times that he cheated on his wife before Yale. Isaac is in a relationship with Tracy at the beginning of the film, and later in the film he is in a relationship with Mary. Tracy says that she has been in other affairs, even though she is only seventeen. Mary talks about Jeremiah, her first husband, and he has a small appearance in the film, who is none other than the man in The Princess Bride who is famously known for saying "Inconceivable!" It seems like so many relationships for one film.
I loved the music throughout the film. I thought Woody Allen carefully placed each George Gershwin song appropriately and they seem to connect with the scene and what actions the characters were doing at the time of the song. "Someone to Watch Over Me" is played as Isaac and Mary are walking through New York. "He Loves and She Loves" comes on when Isaac and Tracy are taking a carriage ride around the city. "Swonderful" and "Embraceable You" are also inserted in romantic scenes throughout the movie. "He Loves and She Loves" and "Rhapsody in Blue"are played twice in the film. I love when directors play a song in a movie more than once.
I found Isaac's morality fascinating. He says, "I think people should mate for life, like pigeons and Catholics". He could not understand why Yale had another relationship with Mary when he has a beautiful wife that he loves. I found his attitude refreshing because in many films today, people do not question others when they are cheating on their spouses or significant others. Yale even tells Isaac, "You think you're God". Isaac also says that the people laughing at the television show were raised on television and they automatically laugh at something that he did not consider funny. This statement reminded me of Benjamin. Isaac tells Tracy that her generation grew up on drugs and the Pill, and that his childhood was not like that. He seems to have a fascination with cancer also. At the beginning of the movie, he is smoking, even though Tracy informs the audience that he does not smoke, but he says he does not inhale because that causes cancer. He tells Willie that Frankfurter's causes cancer and he informs Mary that taking half of a valium will cause cancer, although he admits he has no research that proves that, it is just his opinion.
The child was also present in this film which was unique to the others we had been watching. Isaac tries to make his son more "masculine" or what our society tells us is masculine, by playing football with him and talking about women and that a woman was checking him out. Later in the film, Julie's girlfriend said that Willie is in a dance lesson and I can imagine that Isaac was not too thrilled about that.
Isaac says that "I can't express anger. That's one of the problems I have. I grow a tumor instead". The most angry viewers see him in this film is when he visits Yale when he is teaching and they argue around the dead skeletons about how they are both in love with Mary. And yet, Julie and her partner seem to think that he tried to run Julie's partner over and Isaac tells Julie, "I came here to strangle you". I think it is funny that he said and did these things but he says he cannot express anger.
I loved the line from Casablanca that Isaac tells Tracy, "You know we'll always have Paris". I think these characters will always have moments from all of the relationships they were in and that they will not be able to let them go.
I loved the music throughout the film. I thought Woody Allen carefully placed each George Gershwin song appropriately and they seem to connect with the scene and what actions the characters were doing at the time of the song. "Someone to Watch Over Me" is played as Isaac and Mary are walking through New York. "He Loves and She Loves" comes on when Isaac and Tracy are taking a carriage ride around the city. "Swonderful" and "Embraceable You" are also inserted in romantic scenes throughout the movie. "He Loves and She Loves" and "Rhapsody in Blue"are played twice in the film. I love when directors play a song in a movie more than once.
I found Isaac's morality fascinating. He says, "I think people should mate for life, like pigeons and Catholics". He could not understand why Yale had another relationship with Mary when he has a beautiful wife that he loves. I found his attitude refreshing because in many films today, people do not question others when they are cheating on their spouses or significant others. Yale even tells Isaac, "You think you're God". Isaac also says that the people laughing at the television show were raised on television and they automatically laugh at something that he did not consider funny. This statement reminded me of Benjamin. Isaac tells Tracy that her generation grew up on drugs and the Pill, and that his childhood was not like that. He seems to have a fascination with cancer also. At the beginning of the movie, he is smoking, even though Tracy informs the audience that he does not smoke, but he says he does not inhale because that causes cancer. He tells Willie that Frankfurter's causes cancer and he informs Mary that taking half of a valium will cause cancer, although he admits he has no research that proves that, it is just his opinion.
The child was also present in this film which was unique to the others we had been watching. Isaac tries to make his son more "masculine" or what our society tells us is masculine, by playing football with him and talking about women and that a woman was checking him out. Later in the film, Julie's girlfriend said that Willie is in a dance lesson and I can imagine that Isaac was not too thrilled about that.
Isaac says that "I can't express anger. That's one of the problems I have. I grow a tumor instead". The most angry viewers see him in this film is when he visits Yale when he is teaching and they argue around the dead skeletons about how they are both in love with Mary. And yet, Julie and her partner seem to think that he tried to run Julie's partner over and Isaac tells Julie, "I came here to strangle you". I think it is funny that he said and did these things but he says he cannot express anger.
I loved the line from Casablanca that Isaac tells Tracy, "You know we'll always have Paris". I think these characters will always have moments from all of the relationships they were in and that they will not be able to let them go.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Awful Truth
At the beginning of The Awful Truth, I was convinced that when Jerry was not in Florida, he was cheating on his wife, Lucy. Throughout the movie, I was furious that Jerry was upset with Lucy, even though she did not do what he thought she did, but he did in fact with another woman. I was surprised that Lucy never asked Jerry where he truly had been because she knew that he was not in Florida. When Jerry tells his masseuse that "What wives don't know, won't hurt them" and then he tells the man what he doesn't know won't hurt him either. I thought the line was supposed to be directed at the audience. So because we do not know what Jerry was doing for two weeks was vital for the audience otherwise we would not like his character as much as we do. Cavell states that, "Jerry is less interested in the fact of philandering than in the possibility of it...What is so awful about the truth that nothing happened? And why would a married man find it more important to seem unfaithful than to be so?" (Pursuits of Happiness, 244). I also wondered this question. I think Cavell makes a good point that Jerry is testing Lucy's faith, but he fails his own test because he doubts Lucy. Whatever Jerry did in those two weeks, the audience knows he was not in Florida, he is hiding where he was, and he accusses Lucy for something she did not do. I still am curious why Lucy never asks him where and what he was doing in those two weeks.
One of my favorite scenes of the movie was when Lucy was dancing with Dan Leeson. I had never seen such a genuine and large smile as the one Cary Grant showed in front of the camera when he was watching the two of them in any other movie. He did not just grin once, but throughout that scene. He makes the audience believe his facial expressions, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I can understand why Cavell chose to have that image on the first page of this book. I'm surprised it's not more famous!
I was surprised at the end of the movie that Jerry went into Lucy's room right at midnight. I thought he would have gone in sooner, when they were "legally married". I am sure it was very risque to sleep with someone you were not technically married to, even though they had already been married before.
This movie was not my favorite of the comedy of remarriage, but I do think it was the most applicable to the comedy of remarriage. Throughout the movie, Jerry and Lucy question their trust for one another and what it means to be married. Both of them dabble in different relationships, but they realize that they were meant to stay married in the end.
One of my favorite scenes of the movie was when Lucy was dancing with Dan Leeson. I had never seen such a genuine and large smile as the one Cary Grant showed in front of the camera when he was watching the two of them in any other movie. He did not just grin once, but throughout that scene. He makes the audience believe his facial expressions, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I can understand why Cavell chose to have that image on the first page of this book. I'm surprised it's not more famous!
I was surprised at the end of the movie that Jerry went into Lucy's room right at midnight. I thought he would have gone in sooner, when they were "legally married". I am sure it was very risque to sleep with someone you were not technically married to, even though they had already been married before.
This movie was not my favorite of the comedy of remarriage, but I do think it was the most applicable to the comedy of remarriage. Throughout the movie, Jerry and Lucy question their trust for one another and what it means to be married. Both of them dabble in different relationships, but they realize that they were meant to stay married in the end.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Benjamin
1. "Theses defining the developmental tendecies of art can therefore contribute to the political struggle in ways that it would be a mistake to underestimate. They neutralize a number of traditional concepts- such as creativity and genius...which allow factual material to be manipulated in the interests of fascism" (Benjamin, 19-20).
2. "In principle, the work of art has always been reproducible...But the technological reproduction of artworks is something new" (Benjamin, 20). Everything is even more easier to reproduce now than it was in Benjamin's time. We can practically find anything on the Internet. Books was a big change for reproduction, and now some books can be read online.
3. "It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence" (Benjamin, 22). Now, most art forms can be easily mass produced, therefore is there such a thing as a unique song, painting, movie, etc.?
4. "The stripping of the veil from the object, the destruction of the aura, is the signature of a perception whose 'sense for all that is the same in the world' has so increased that, by means of reproduction, it extracts sameness even from what is unique" (Benjamin, 24). Our perception of an object has changed over time, especially with the use of technology.
5. "But as soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionized. Instead of being founded on ritual, it is based on a different practice: politics" (Benjamin, 25). I think there are many forms of artwork today that Benjamin would say that they are founded on politics. Political artwork has some form of agenda or message to convey to the audience also. It's never solely about the art.
6. "The function of film is to train human beings in the apperceptions and reactions needed to deal with a vast apparatus whose role in their lives is expanding almost daily" (Benjamin, 26). Is Benjamin's function of film still applicable today?
7. "The directives given by captions to those looking at images in illustrated magazines soon become even more precise and commanding in films, where the way each single image is understood seems prescribed by the sequence of all the preceding images" (Benjamin, 27). Many images are difficult to understand if we do not see the images that precede it.
8. "The film is therefore the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to its radical renunciation of eternal value" (Benjamin, 28). I really agree with this statement. I think films have so many different possibilities that there can always be something new and something to work on in films. I don't think films will ever die.
9. "Insofar as the age of technological reproducibility separated art from its basis in cult, all semblance of art's autonomy disappeared forever" (Benjamin, 28). I think this is a depressing statement. Sometimes I wish that we did not have as much technology as we do today, but then I remember all of the positive things it provides too, so I am torn.
10. "Film makes test performances capable of being exhibited, by turning that ability itself into a test. The film actor performs not in front of an audience but in front of an apparatus" (Benjamin, 30). I had not thought about this before, but it is true.
11. "The stage actor identifies himself with a role. The film actor very often is denied this opportunity" (Benjamin, 32). I have often thought about this statement myself because I have been in several plays. Whenever I am in a show, I do find something in the character I can relate to, but I think it would be difficult for film actors to do this because they shoot clips of scenes and jump around throughout the movie, not filming in chronological order.
12. "While he stands before the apparatus, he knows that in the end he is confronting the masses. It is they who will control him" (Benjamin, 33). I feel as though the audience has so much power over the actor and the film itself in this statement.
13. "Any person today can lay claim to being filmed" (Benjamin, 33). Many people make videos of themselves now and post them on You Tube where millions of viewers can watch them. Technology has really changed the number of viewers a home video can be witnessed by.
14. "The illusory nature of film is of the second degree; it is the result of editing" (Benjamin, 35). I don't think that editors get enough credit for what they do. Something should be changed about that.
15. "The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art. The extremely backward attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a highly progressive reaction to a Chaplin film" (Benjamin, 36). I wonder how different our perception of a Picasso painting is today, compared to what Benjamin would have thought in his time.
16. "Collective laughter is one such preemptive and healing outbreak of mass psychosis" (Benjamin, 38). This explains why Americans love the slapstick comedies and the comedic movies now that don't have a story plot, but they make people laugh.
17. "Dadaism attempted to produce with the means of painting (or literature) the effects which the public today seeks in film" (Benjamin, 38). I wonder what is equivalent to Dadaism today.
18. "Quantity has been transformed into quality: the greatly increased mass of participants has produced a different kind of participation" (Benjamin, 39). I bet the quality of film would be better if they didn't have deadlines to keep the public happy.
19. "All efforts to aestheticize politics culminate in one point. That one point is war. War, and only war, makes it possible to set a goal for mass movements on the grandest scale while preserving traditional property relations" (Benjamin, 41). I wonder what a world would look like if we didn't have war. How would art be different?
2. "In principle, the work of art has always been reproducible...But the technological reproduction of artworks is something new" (Benjamin, 20). Everything is even more easier to reproduce now than it was in Benjamin's time. We can practically find anything on the Internet. Books was a big change for reproduction, and now some books can be read online.
3. "It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence" (Benjamin, 22). Now, most art forms can be easily mass produced, therefore is there such a thing as a unique song, painting, movie, etc.?
4. "The stripping of the veil from the object, the destruction of the aura, is the signature of a perception whose 'sense for all that is the same in the world' has so increased that, by means of reproduction, it extracts sameness even from what is unique" (Benjamin, 24). Our perception of an object has changed over time, especially with the use of technology.
5. "But as soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionized. Instead of being founded on ritual, it is based on a different practice: politics" (Benjamin, 25). I think there are many forms of artwork today that Benjamin would say that they are founded on politics. Political artwork has some form of agenda or message to convey to the audience also. It's never solely about the art.
6. "The function of film is to train human beings in the apperceptions and reactions needed to deal with a vast apparatus whose role in their lives is expanding almost daily" (Benjamin, 26). Is Benjamin's function of film still applicable today?
7. "The directives given by captions to those looking at images in illustrated magazines soon become even more precise and commanding in films, where the way each single image is understood seems prescribed by the sequence of all the preceding images" (Benjamin, 27). Many images are difficult to understand if we do not see the images that precede it.
8. "The film is therefore the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to its radical renunciation of eternal value" (Benjamin, 28). I really agree with this statement. I think films have so many different possibilities that there can always be something new and something to work on in films. I don't think films will ever die.
9. "Insofar as the age of technological reproducibility separated art from its basis in cult, all semblance of art's autonomy disappeared forever" (Benjamin, 28). I think this is a depressing statement. Sometimes I wish that we did not have as much technology as we do today, but then I remember all of the positive things it provides too, so I am torn.
10. "Film makes test performances capable of being exhibited, by turning that ability itself into a test. The film actor performs not in front of an audience but in front of an apparatus" (Benjamin, 30). I had not thought about this before, but it is true.
11. "The stage actor identifies himself with a role. The film actor very often is denied this opportunity" (Benjamin, 32). I have often thought about this statement myself because I have been in several plays. Whenever I am in a show, I do find something in the character I can relate to, but I think it would be difficult for film actors to do this because they shoot clips of scenes and jump around throughout the movie, not filming in chronological order.
12. "While he stands before the apparatus, he knows that in the end he is confronting the masses. It is they who will control him" (Benjamin, 33). I feel as though the audience has so much power over the actor and the film itself in this statement.
13. "Any person today can lay claim to being filmed" (Benjamin, 33). Many people make videos of themselves now and post them on You Tube where millions of viewers can watch them. Technology has really changed the number of viewers a home video can be witnessed by.
14. "The illusory nature of film is of the second degree; it is the result of editing" (Benjamin, 35). I don't think that editors get enough credit for what they do. Something should be changed about that.
15. "The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art. The extremely backward attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a highly progressive reaction to a Chaplin film" (Benjamin, 36). I wonder how different our perception of a Picasso painting is today, compared to what Benjamin would have thought in his time.
16. "Collective laughter is one such preemptive and healing outbreak of mass psychosis" (Benjamin, 38). This explains why Americans love the slapstick comedies and the comedic movies now that don't have a story plot, but they make people laugh.
17. "Dadaism attempted to produce with the means of painting (or literature) the effects which the public today seeks in film" (Benjamin, 38). I wonder what is equivalent to Dadaism today.
18. "Quantity has been transformed into quality: the greatly increased mass of participants has produced a different kind of participation" (Benjamin, 39). I bet the quality of film would be better if they didn't have deadlines to keep the public happy.
19. "All efforts to aestheticize politics culminate in one point. That one point is war. War, and only war, makes it possible to set a goal for mass movements on the grandest scale while preserving traditional property relations" (Benjamin, 41). I wonder what a world would look like if we didn't have war. How would art be different?
Adam's Rib
Just once, I would like to witness a movie where the woman who speaks up for her rights and her equalility to men, leaves the man who is pulling her into societies roles, permanently. Every movie I have ever seen that has a strong, independent woman character, ends up with a man. Some will say, what is wrong with this? Why is it wrong that Amanda Bonner runs off with her ex-husband, Adam Bonner to their cabin? The point I would like to bring up is that the woman did not feel equal in her relationship. Adam says that he likes the old fashioned roles of two genders: men and women. He even calls Amanda a "big he-woman". Adam goes further saying that Amanda will "split us down the middle". Why does the man always assume that it is the woman's fault for their marriage problems? Do they realize that they are apart of the marriage so they are equally at fault with the problems that are occurring? Warren says that his wife shot at him because "she's crazy". He doesn't even think for a second what he has done to warrant such a reaction from her. He is sleeping with another woman and doesn't come home at night. Warren calls his wife fat and physically abuses her, and yet, he still thinks that he is a good husband. How can he say a statement like that?
I would like to see a movie where the woman becomes completely independent. I believe that Amanda Bonner will continue her independence even when she is re-married, but how can you be married to someone who insults you, calling you a "he-woman"? Another thing that infuriates me is that Adam never apologizes for any of the comments he made or for slapping her on the butt. Amanda apologizes even though she did nothing wrong, but Adam, the person who should have apologized, didn't. And yet, Amanda still forgives him and the movie ends "happily ever after".
Cavell talks a lot about Mortgage the Merrier, the film that the characters Amanda and Adam made. I would also like to point out that Adam looked distraught and upset at the beginning of that film, just as Adam sulked throughout parts of Adam's Rib. He was not happy at their dinner party after Amanda said she was going to represent Doris. He also was furious with Amanda when a witness lifted him up in the courtroom. He wouldn't even talk to Amanda then. He just said that she should save her eloquence for the courtroom.
I thought this film really conveyed the lives of Amanda and Adam well. I felt as if I was in the same room as them when they were in their house. The audience got to see their lives in the courtroom and their lives at their own home extremely well which contributes to George Cukor's genius. This movie also made me greatful for the time period we are living in now. We have come a long ways since 1949 in terms of women's rights, but there is still more that needs to be done.
I would like to see a movie where the woman becomes completely independent. I believe that Amanda Bonner will continue her independence even when she is re-married, but how can you be married to someone who insults you, calling you a "he-woman"? Another thing that infuriates me is that Adam never apologizes for any of the comments he made or for slapping her on the butt. Amanda apologizes even though she did nothing wrong, but Adam, the person who should have apologized, didn't. And yet, Amanda still forgives him and the movie ends "happily ever after".
Cavell talks a lot about Mortgage the Merrier, the film that the characters Amanda and Adam made. I would also like to point out that Adam looked distraught and upset at the beginning of that film, just as Adam sulked throughout parts of Adam's Rib. He was not happy at their dinner party after Amanda said she was going to represent Doris. He also was furious with Amanda when a witness lifted him up in the courtroom. He wouldn't even talk to Amanda then. He just said that she should save her eloquence for the courtroom.
I thought this film really conveyed the lives of Amanda and Adam well. I felt as if I was in the same room as them when they were in their house. The audience got to see their lives in the courtroom and their lives at their own home extremely well which contributes to George Cukor's genius. This movie also made me greatful for the time period we are living in now. We have come a long ways since 1949 in terms of women's rights, but there is still more that needs to be done.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
His Girl Friday
Compared to the other films we have watched this semester, I found His Girl Friday to be the darkest of them all. When Molly jumped out of the window and died, Walter did not show any remorse or pity for the young lady. Hildy told Walter that they were murderers and she seemed distraught, but only for a moment. If I watched someone kill themself, I am pretty sure that I would be sad about it for at least a day. I think their lack of emotions proves that they are not in the "real world". Walter and Hildy live in a world full of chaos and disasters, so they are used to guns being pointed at them and people committing suicide. They truly are only newspapermen and they cannot escape from that world, even if they wanted to.
Throughout the movie, Walter was continuously doing illegal scheming. He ended up getting Bruce in jail at least three times for crimes he did not do. First he planted the watch in his pocket that had been stolen. Then he was arrested because Walter planted the blonde girl on Bruce. And then of course, he was found with counterfeit money that was Walter's. Walter really is not a nice person, although he does have a lot of charm which makes the audience like him. Like Bruce said, "He seems like a nice guy". If Walter did all of this illegal activity just to get someone back whom he cared about, I hate to imagine what he has done to people that he does not like or what he has done to get "interesting" stories. I am not surprised that there was not much respect for the press, according to one of the reporters.
The movie was also corrupt politically. The mayor bribbed the man who had the reprieve letter for Earl Williams. There was also earlier connotations to what the governor had done to secure his position before the last election day. This movie accurately portrays how our government functions today, which is sad, but true. The sheriff in His Girl Friday also was ignorant like the sheriff in Bringing Up Baby. Overall, I found this movie to be the darkest one out of the comedy of remarriage films. As Cavell says, they are not living in "the golden world" or "the green world", but "a black world" (Cavell, 172). And they cannot escape from this black world, even if they want to.
Throughout the movie, Walter was continuously doing illegal scheming. He ended up getting Bruce in jail at least three times for crimes he did not do. First he planted the watch in his pocket that had been stolen. Then he was arrested because Walter planted the blonde girl on Bruce. And then of course, he was found with counterfeit money that was Walter's. Walter really is not a nice person, although he does have a lot of charm which makes the audience like him. Like Bruce said, "He seems like a nice guy". If Walter did all of this illegal activity just to get someone back whom he cared about, I hate to imagine what he has done to people that he does not like or what he has done to get "interesting" stories. I am not surprised that there was not much respect for the press, according to one of the reporters.
The movie was also corrupt politically. The mayor bribbed the man who had the reprieve letter for Earl Williams. There was also earlier connotations to what the governor had done to secure his position before the last election day. This movie accurately portrays how our government functions today, which is sad, but true. The sheriff in His Girl Friday also was ignorant like the sheriff in Bringing Up Baby. Overall, I found this movie to be the darkest one out of the comedy of remarriage films. As Cavell says, they are not living in "the golden world" or "the green world", but "a black world" (Cavell, 172). And they cannot escape from this black world, even if they want to.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Three Stories
As I was reading "The Little Disturbances of Man", I felt pity for Virginia. She is a hard working single mom living in a small town where everyone knows each other's business. I am sure it was extremely hard for her to lose her husband and then have everyone gossiping about her life. Welfare treated her terribly. The only good person in her life was John, but he was married. Virginia was also naive. At the end of the story, she was sure that her husband was still going to come back to her, even though he did not even go to the Army. I do not understand why she would even want him back after the way he treated her. What kind of a person tells their wife that their fat when they are pregnant and then sulks about sleeping on the coach? Overall, I found this story depressing. I think it is sad how many people get into bad relationships and then when they leave, the person wants them back even though they treated them horribly. It is also sad how many people have affairs with others when they are married. This story seemed very realistic, and perhaps that is why I found it so distressing.
I was curious why Joyce named the story "Two Galliants" because there was nothing galliant or heroic about the two men at all. They used the young woman as if she were a pawn in their game, and not an actual human being. The two men stole from her and treated her like a rag. I thought it was terrible that Corley made the girl wait for him. He was certainly not a gentleman. Corley was so proud of himself at the end when he showed Lenehan the coin he stole from her. It made me sick.
In "The Boarding House", Polly clearly has the power, as opposed to the two men who had the power in "Two Galliants". At the end, Polly seemed so happy because she knew that Bob was going to propose to her. She was crying and had been hysterical moments before, but she knew that Bob would marry her because of the obligations that society has placed on him and his moral obligations also. I wondered if Polly lied and said she was pregnant just so Bob would stay and marry her. If Polly was not pregnant, I do not believe Bob would have stayed, so to secure her happiness she made up a lie to bribe him into her life. I am not sure about this, but at the end I was startled by her joyfullness and I felt that she was scheming. In the end, Polly got what she wanted, but would she be happy in the future with a man who did not love her for the "right" reasons?
I was curious why Joyce named the story "Two Galliants" because there was nothing galliant or heroic about the two men at all. They used the young woman as if she were a pawn in their game, and not an actual human being. The two men stole from her and treated her like a rag. I thought it was terrible that Corley made the girl wait for him. He was certainly not a gentleman. Corley was so proud of himself at the end when he showed Lenehan the coin he stole from her. It made me sick.
In "The Boarding House", Polly clearly has the power, as opposed to the two men who had the power in "Two Galliants". At the end, Polly seemed so happy because she knew that Bob was going to propose to her. She was crying and had been hysterical moments before, but she knew that Bob would marry her because of the obligations that society has placed on him and his moral obligations also. I wondered if Polly lied and said she was pregnant just so Bob would stay and marry her. If Polly was not pregnant, I do not believe Bob would have stayed, so to secure her happiness she made up a lie to bribe him into her life. I am not sure about this, but at the end I was startled by her joyfullness and I felt that she was scheming. In the end, Polly got what she wanted, but would she be happy in the future with a man who did not love her for the "right" reasons?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Bringing Up Baby
The most significant difference that I found between Bringing Up Baby and the other films that we have watched this semester, besides the obvious absurdity and playfulness of this film, was the fact that the woman did not change at the end of the movie. It was the man, David Huxley, who changed at the end of the film because he met a woman and she turned his world upside down. Susan Vance was constantly bizarre, easy-going and not concerned about the problems that she and David were getting into throughout the film, including the ending. In David's words, "You (Susan) look at everything upside down".
In the film, David says that "She's (Susan) is helpless without me", but I would like to pose that it is David who is helpless without her, and not the other way around. Susan shows David how to accept life the way it is and when something unexpected comes up, you have to go with the flow. She essentially taught David how to live his life. He only lived for his work before, which isn't completely bad, but he had to have something else in his life besides work, and I don't think he did. I think David thought he had Alice, but Alice thought of their relationship as purely a business transaction. She didn't want anything to interfere with his work. She didn't even want a honeymoon! So, David was not living his life to the fullest before he met Susan. He even says that the one day he spent with her was the best day of his life. I believe that Susan is the hero of this film. She is the one who espaces from the jail and tries to prove their innocence and she also catches David when he faints. She is the strong character.
This is the second time I have seen this film, and at the end, I couldn't help but feel a slight falsity in what David was saying. When Susan comes into David's workplace, he immediately climbs up the stairs, so he will not be near her. Susan can't even see him at first. As she is speaking, it seems that David only has a romantic interest in Susan after she tells him that she will give him the one million dollars for his work. Then he grows excited, the most enthusiastic the viewers have seen him. He continues saying that he had the best day of his life and "I love you, I think", shortly after he said "I'm afraid of you". I am not trying to imply that David does not have any feelings for Susan, but I think his feelings initially started because of his passion for his work and the money he would be receiving. I often wonder what would have happened if Susan didn't say that she would give him the money. Would his reaction be different? I do think that he has more than work in his life now and when Susan knocks down his brontosaurus and isn't furious, his feelings seem more genuine. I still wonder though.
Bringing Up Baby is one of those movies that you can watch ten times and still find something new or have a new thought about it. That is what constitutes a good movie in my book. I would like to end with one of my favorite quotes from the movie, "Oh, you've torn you're coat!". My life will be complete when I can use that quote in an everyday setting and have the meaning that Katharine Hepburn portrays in that line. Katharine Hepburn is my hero!
In the film, David says that "She's (Susan) is helpless without me", but I would like to pose that it is David who is helpless without her, and not the other way around. Susan shows David how to accept life the way it is and when something unexpected comes up, you have to go with the flow. She essentially taught David how to live his life. He only lived for his work before, which isn't completely bad, but he had to have something else in his life besides work, and I don't think he did. I think David thought he had Alice, but Alice thought of their relationship as purely a business transaction. She didn't want anything to interfere with his work. She didn't even want a honeymoon! So, David was not living his life to the fullest before he met Susan. He even says that the one day he spent with her was the best day of his life. I believe that Susan is the hero of this film. She is the one who espaces from the jail and tries to prove their innocence and she also catches David when he faints. She is the strong character.
This is the second time I have seen this film, and at the end, I couldn't help but feel a slight falsity in what David was saying. When Susan comes into David's workplace, he immediately climbs up the stairs, so he will not be near her. Susan can't even see him at first. As she is speaking, it seems that David only has a romantic interest in Susan after she tells him that she will give him the one million dollars for his work. Then he grows excited, the most enthusiastic the viewers have seen him. He continues saying that he had the best day of his life and "I love you, I think", shortly after he said "I'm afraid of you". I am not trying to imply that David does not have any feelings for Susan, but I think his feelings initially started because of his passion for his work and the money he would be receiving. I often wonder what would have happened if Susan didn't say that she would give him the money. Would his reaction be different? I do think that he has more than work in his life now and when Susan knocks down his brontosaurus and isn't furious, his feelings seem more genuine. I still wonder though.
Bringing Up Baby is one of those movies that you can watch ten times and still find something new or have a new thought about it. That is what constitutes a good movie in my book. I would like to end with one of my favorite quotes from the movie, "Oh, you've torn you're coat!". My life will be complete when I can use that quote in an everyday setting and have the meaning that Katharine Hepburn portrays in that line. Katharine Hepburn is my hero!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
It Happened One Night
As I was watching It Happened One Night, I could tell why it won so many Academy Awards. I also kept thinking how many movies made knock offs of this movie. The whole concept of traveling with someone and falling in love with them on the journey is in multiple movies, such as When Harry Met Sally and The Sure Thing. I also thought it was funny when Ellie bolted at her wedding and left in a car, which Runaway Bride copied from this movie.
This movie also had a father-daughter relationship like the other two movies. Ellie's father tries to protect his daughter's virginity, even saying that he will not let Ellie and King Wesley sleep in the same bed although they are already married. The relationship between Peter and Ellie's father is interesting in the one scene they are together. Peter has already judged Ellie's father even before they met. Ellie tells her father that "He (Peter) blames you for everything that's wrong with me". After Ellie's father sees that Peter was not after Ellie for their money, he believes that Peter is a good chap and surprisingly approves of him. At the end of the film Ellie's father says to let the walls of Jericho fall down, implying that he can no longer protect his daughter's virginity, but he will let Peter take care of Ellie now.
I was surprised at the end of the film that Ellie and Peter's faces were not shown. Usually at the end of the movie, you see the lovers kiss and then the screen fades, or in this case, the walls of Jericho fall down. Perhaps their faces were not shown because it was unnecessary since the audience had seen them alone in a room multiple times already.
Throughout the movie, I was thinking of who the dominant character was, Ellie or Peter. I believe that Ellie and Peter are both dominant in the relationship at different times throughout the movie. The audience is led to believe that Ellie is independent when she jumps of the boat, leaving her father, and going on a bus alone. I believe she is the dominant one in the beginning. Of course, later in the movie, Peter helps her many times: finding a room for her, telling her not to buy the chocolates because she is on a budget, making a bed of hay for her, finding her carrots, getting a car, etc. But, Ellie gets the first car in her sly hitchhiking maneuver. She also leaves her own wedding to find Peter and marry him which showed dominance there. In the end, I think they were both equally dominant in different parts of the movie.
It Happened One Night was a phenomenal movie and I am so glad that we were acquainted. I definitely need to add this movie to my movie collection!
This movie also had a father-daughter relationship like the other two movies. Ellie's father tries to protect his daughter's virginity, even saying that he will not let Ellie and King Wesley sleep in the same bed although they are already married. The relationship between Peter and Ellie's father is interesting in the one scene they are together. Peter has already judged Ellie's father even before they met. Ellie tells her father that "He (Peter) blames you for everything that's wrong with me". After Ellie's father sees that Peter was not after Ellie for their money, he believes that Peter is a good chap and surprisingly approves of him. At the end of the film Ellie's father says to let the walls of Jericho fall down, implying that he can no longer protect his daughter's virginity, but he will let Peter take care of Ellie now.
I was surprised at the end of the film that Ellie and Peter's faces were not shown. Usually at the end of the movie, you see the lovers kiss and then the screen fades, or in this case, the walls of Jericho fall down. Perhaps their faces were not shown because it was unnecessary since the audience had seen them alone in a room multiple times already.
Throughout the movie, I was thinking of who the dominant character was, Ellie or Peter. I believe that Ellie and Peter are both dominant in the relationship at different times throughout the movie. The audience is led to believe that Ellie is independent when she jumps of the boat, leaving her father, and going on a bus alone. I believe she is the dominant one in the beginning. Of course, later in the movie, Peter helps her many times: finding a room for her, telling her not to buy the chocolates because she is on a budget, making a bed of hay for her, finding her carrots, getting a car, etc. But, Ellie gets the first car in her sly hitchhiking maneuver. She also leaves her own wedding to find Peter and marry him which showed dominance there. In the end, I think they were both equally dominant in different parts of the movie.
It Happened One Night was a phenomenal movie and I am so glad that we were acquainted. I definitely need to add this movie to my movie collection!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
James Joyce
I have read "Araby" before, but I gained new information in the discussion today about the story that I would not have known. I did not know anything about James Joyce so I understood more about the setting of the story in Dublin and I also did not know that he did not like Catholics. This explains a lot about his fascination with the dead priest in this story.
This story is about a boy who is in love for the first time. He does not know how to talk to her but he tells her that he will buy her a present at the bazaar. I think it is sad that he thinks he can win her affection if he buys her a gift. Joyce might be touching on how shallow people are for material things. I also think that Joyce views romance in this story as something exciting and exhilarating that happens in another place that is strange to you, such as Araby.
At the end of the story, it is clear that the boy does not love this girl and that going to Araby was more than just finding a gift for her. It was about finding himself. He seems like a passive boy who is young and naive and I think he wants to gain more self-confidence, but he does not. He leaves upset and without any new insights on himself, which is depressing.
I really enjoyed "Eveline". I felt extremely sad for her because she is stuck in a life that she does not enjoy, but she does not have enough strength and courage to try something new, so she just accepts the way her life is. I think she stayed where she was because she was afraid. She needs stability and her normal routine of taking care of her father and going to work. Eveline probably would not have been able to forgive herself if she went against her mother's wishes. I am sure she would have constantly worried about her father. She knew that she would never go, but at least she had the possibility of leaving.
Eveline was the only person who was keeping her family together and if she left, they would be finished. She knew that she was going to live the life her mother did. It may not be a happy one, but at least she would fulfill what she believed was her "duty" to help her father. Frank could not have saved her from the guilt she would have felt if she left with him, so she stayed with her same monotonous life because that is where she felt safe and secure.
This story is about a boy who is in love for the first time. He does not know how to talk to her but he tells her that he will buy her a present at the bazaar. I think it is sad that he thinks he can win her affection if he buys her a gift. Joyce might be touching on how shallow people are for material things. I also think that Joyce views romance in this story as something exciting and exhilarating that happens in another place that is strange to you, such as Araby.
At the end of the story, it is clear that the boy does not love this girl and that going to Araby was more than just finding a gift for her. It was about finding himself. He seems like a passive boy who is young and naive and I think he wants to gain more self-confidence, but he does not. He leaves upset and without any new insights on himself, which is depressing.
I really enjoyed "Eveline". I felt extremely sad for her because she is stuck in a life that she does not enjoy, but she does not have enough strength and courage to try something new, so she just accepts the way her life is. I think she stayed where she was because she was afraid. She needs stability and her normal routine of taking care of her father and going to work. Eveline probably would not have been able to forgive herself if she went against her mother's wishes. I am sure she would have constantly worried about her father. She knew that she would never go, but at least she had the possibility of leaving.
Eveline was the only person who was keeping her family together and if she left, they would be finished. She knew that she was going to live the life her mother did. It may not be a happy one, but at least she would fulfill what she believed was her "duty" to help her father. Frank could not have saved her from the guilt she would have felt if she left with him, so she stayed with her same monotonous life because that is where she felt safe and secure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)