Oklahoma! and Maintaining the Social Standard

Oklahoma! is most often expressed as a light hearted, dark tinted ‘romp in the field’ American classic. It is exactly because of this that I chose to analyze this film and its idyllic fundamentals for society. The film is set in Oklahoma territory in 1906, just before the state was made the 46th in the union. Throughout the film, a general feeling of playfulness, carelessness and ignorance of the looming truths of reality weave the viewer into either a blissful sing-a-long or a teeth-clenching rage. Unfortunately for the sing song types, “it’s just a movie, lighten up” won´t take away the classist, sexist and minority absent elements of this film for me.

Firstly, to approach the film on a cultural note, Oklahoma got its film worthy start by thwarting the attempts to make an all-Indian state of the same name(Various, Wiki). The location offered the promise of oil and farming fortunes for ambitious white Americans, reason enough to leave American Indians with not even so much as a single reservation in the state to this day. Oklahoma at the time also had a fairly large population of black settlers as well as several black towns. There were even appeals made that Teddy Roosevelt should officially call Oklahoma a majority-black state(Various, Wiki). Although a majority white settlement at that time would have likely had a low population of black or American Indian residents, the film in its idyllic fantasy portrays the absence as a part of their perfect, conflict-free society, not as reality. The film showed an extremely one sided win for the “moral and upstanding” settler and complete avoidance of the topic of “the other”. Aside from the absence of minorities, the film was not completely without cultural variety. A Persian man, Ali Hakim, played the part of a sexually immoral traveling salesman. From the beginning of this characters development, the stereotype of both a charismatic gypsy and untrustworthy peddler were without doubt present. Contrary to this unjust representation, Ali was overall represented as a man of decent human character. He was given a major part in the ruin of Jed’s first attempt at murdering Curly and shared in the towns suspicious of Jed’s outcast characteristics. Ali was not a minority in the same right as black Americans and American Indians, he was an immigrant played by a white American actor. Perhaps Roger and Hammerstein’s roots played a part in this characters role or possibly it was an attempt at appeasing the overall lack of diversity.

The portrayal of women’s role in society did no one any favors in Oklahoma!. This film was made before women could vote in the United States but while Europe was making leaps and bounds in the suffragette movement and women’s rights. This is not to say that the film was not accurate on that note either, but that doesn´t make it any less offensive. What is most offensive about the way women are portrayed is how joyfully it’s done. There was not one character who was against the intensely patriarchal way of thinking, as was (to an extent) the well educated Marian in The Music Man. The female characters were flighty and giggling throughout the film; many were portrayed as poor speakers, under educated, materialistic and overall shared one main goal in life, marriage. The concept of female ownership is reinforced by the role of Ado Annie’s father who basically auctions his daughter off to the highest bidder. Ado Annie herself is a frightful stereotype of a mindless, flirty, cheating , untrustworthy girl. At one point in the film the girls are rated on their cooking abilities in a charity event. Throughout the film, no one mentions any other quality the girls may have that would put them of use anywhere but a kitchen. Releasing the film in 1955 was an ideal time for its success. With cold war, segregation and women’s traditional place in the home, it´s no wonder this film was a hit. Society in 50’s America was hooked on the ideal of its white picket fences, nuclear family and “outsider-free” society. Something I´m sure the studio was well aware of before its release. Sadly even after WWI, when many women replaced men in the workplace, and after 1920 when they were granted the ability to vote, the 1950’s held as true to the old song and dance as Oklahoma!.

Aunt Eller was the only female character who showed any independence from the hormone driven men and submissive women of Oklahoma!. As an older woman, she was not “attractive” anymore so she no longer bore the burden of a woman subject to man´s rule, sexually. She was still under the rule of a male driven society but had ownership over her own property, although depending on Jud for working the land. Her character brings up the issue of age discrimination in the film. Although a much less prominent issue than the gender, race and class issues it is none the less unfair. She has won the right to speak out and be “herself” only because of her age and growing uselessness to society, not because she is a human being. She is referred to as a “silly old woman” Although she is a different character than the other women in the film, she is no less committed to the importance of marriage and has fully accepted the role of women and men in her society.

Men are also subject to their own share of stereotyping in the film. They are portrayed as masculine, macho, dominating, poorly educated, sexually obsessed and inherently risk taking. Although many of these ideals are so accepted that people rarely questions them, they are no less fair than stereotypes about women. Jud is one character who falls victim to numerous gender stereotypes as well as stereotypes directed to the poor and/or working class. When Jud is first introduced to us, he is carrying a pile of wood with muscles abound, his shirt is open and he is covered in dirt and sweat. This does not necessarily mean he is a negative character but in the film that is what we are meant to feel when everyone else is picture perfect and clean. The film actually depends on us to discriminate against him based on nothing else but the way he looks. Curly brings his opinion of Jud to our attention by calling him a “bullord colored rally hire hand”. This is thwarted by Aunt Eller saying Jud is the “best hired hand I ever had…two woman couldn´t do it”. Although Aunt Eller is defending Jud and doesn´t judge him herself (to begin with) her opinion is likely dismissed because of her age and gender. Laury is also guilt of senseless judgment of Jud’s character in this first scene. When she changes her mind about going to the dance and attempts to tell him, her seemingly senseless fear of him makes her hold her tongue. His mannerisms and polite statement about picking her up for the dance reveal that he is completely unaware of her cruel intentions.

The entire character development of Jud and the surrounding plot refers to a critical social issue that this film unfortunately does not approach comprehensively. Jud is considered a “social misfit” and one that is lower class/working class at that. He is, from the beginning, “not one of the community” and therefore does not have the right to “its women” or even friendships within it. People who express any behavior that deviates from the group norm are easily singled out. Whether the person is shy, aggressive, has underdeveloped social skills or is only seemingly different because of class or culture, are all common reasons for rejection. People who are rejected usually withdraw; withdrawal causes more social rejection and a cycle continues. When Curly approaches Jud to talk about Laury and the dance, he chooses to take an approach of rejection and machismo by telling him to commit suicide. During the song “Jud is Daid”, Curly mocks Jud by saying he “Loved the beasts of the field, loves his fellow man, loved the little children” etc, while Jud appears to honestly believe this of himself. He slowly comes to realization that he will probably never fit in with the other characters. When Curly blatantly asks Jud, “how’d you get to be the way you are anyhow? sitting in here in this filthy hole”. Curly makes the classic assumption that the poor choose to be poor and the misfit, outcast. He has initiated the cycle, to no fault of Jud’s, and causes Jud to react with anger (Wever-Rabehl). Thus his sudden search for a weapon and an aggressive “she better not change her mind”, referring to Laury going to the dance. It’s heartbreaking to see his character and future in the film degrade so quickly at the joy of others, especially ones so hypocritical and unwelcoming.

Given the roll of Jud, his lines and aggravation to turning “misfit”, it seems at first confusing as to whether we are to pity or loathe Jud. It seems so harsh to assume the writer wants us to believe that Curly merely brought out the true personality of Jud, not the other way around. Curly, although fitting into society quite well, is the true misfit and a wholly horrible and unsavory character. Laury as well is hardly better than Curly by the end of the film. Her “vision” of Jud´s “true nature” cause her to act fearfully and reject Jud after agreeing to go to the dance. She never had a conversation with Jud as a person or got to know better his intentions, which as shown are good, as he tells her on the ride to the dance “I remember everything you´ve ever done”. Up to the point of the dance itself Jud never fully realized how different he was. He may have forgotten completely about ever killing anyone had he not got his heart so brutally stepped on. In many films a heartbroken man who tries to kill the girl’s “winner” is seen as a villain but the “winner” who kills the heartbroken man (even in an equal duel), is a hero. It seems that the winner of love is always the winner in life, and those who are rejected, just as in society, are losers, and sometimes losers who don´t deserve justice

Oklahoma! although colorful and comedic does not represent an ideal society we should be proud of. It contains numerous overtones and undertones of social injustice and even legal injustice. It’s movies like this that reinforce so many of the worst wrongs in society. After all is said, “it´s just a movie” still doesn´t ring true. A movie, a book, a sexist remark, are never just that, they are the reflections and models of our culture and should be approached critically as if our futures depended on it.

I think Slumdog was an excellent film and I completely understand several arguments given in the NPR show and the articles. I have lived in South America before, and although I didn’t live in a slum, I definitely had my share of interactions with people who did on a daily basis, as well as seeing and reading about the direct effects and issues within, like slum children being kidnapped and sold to US orphanages and a rainy day for me being the wipeout of an entire neighborhood by mudslides. My perspective isn’t going to be the same as Divakaruni called the average “Pepsi-sipping, popcorn-munching, affluent Western audience”. I appreciated the opportunity of exposure so greatly that I made it a point to try to understand the whys,hows and who’s of the situation and I intend to move back when I finish school. I grew up very poor in small towns, foster homes, group homes and on my own at 15. I went to south America with $600 in my pocket and my dog, I spent the $600 in the first week to get a place to live (and no I didn’t have parents to call for money). Before I go into some long story, Ill divert back. Living in another country where essentially my net worth was as much or less as some of its poorest inhabitants was humbling and gave me a greater appreciation for life, friends, family and things that really matter, and I will honestly say in my opinion that one will never understand that fully without experiencing it. Any residual effects of growing up in a very capitalist society mostly drained from my system into the gutters of Argentina, and gladly (vivid?).

I do not agree with the voyeuristic “poverty porn” concept at all, and although I know the prospect of actually walking among and hanging out with people some may consider very different than themselves may be scary to some, I think its important to keep the human element and not peek through tinted glass windows with pity or superiority.

I definitely agree with Priya Rajsekar on her perspective of exploitation for several reasons, but maybe not in the same respects. Mainly I think that some “Pepsi-sipping, popcorn-munching, affluent Western audience” who have little to no idea what poverty is, tend to forget that people in slums are people, not characters on a screen or in a photo in the news. And that sounds extreme but to take away dignity from a person in life or in film is basically to lower them to that of a dog, and like Rajsekar said

The film Do the Right Thing is a moving, proactive and entertaining film made by an outspoken, proactive director. It was the third film by Spike Lee and what he considers his first real directing job (Logan,2). In his first two films he was still unsure of himself but in Do the Right Thing, his true capabilities as a director and a compelling screen writer became public knowledge. Created in controversy, the making of the film itself brought up some important stereotypes in society and forced not only the public – but producers, crews, studios, publicists and movie theatres alike to pay attention to what they were investing in, showing, promoting and helping to create. Do the Right Thing – like many Spike Lee films, has an important message to be told that many people are either uncomfortable with or threatened by. Racial issues are always a touchy subject for Americans and not many directors take on challenges with such collected cool. Lee approaches racial issues both between races and the inner battle of being black in a racist society like he eats if for breakfast ( and maybe he does).

To get the most from his films, it’s important to know where Lee himself comes from and what motivates his themes. It’s easy to be confused or threatened by a controversial messages likes those in Lee’s films if you don’t fully understand the intentions. Lee came from a very stable home life. His father Bill Lee, is a Jazz composer who composed music for many of his films, his sister Joie Lee has acted in several of his films and brother David did the still photography for his first three films. His mother, Jacqueline Shelton, a teacher of arts and black literature, passed away in 1977 – years before she would be able to see Lee’s vision come alive in film (Wiki). But her influence over his convictions, the benefit of having educated parents and a proud and encouraging family are all factors that likely gave Lee confidence and support in his endeavors. Ruby Dee, a noted actress in several of his films once stated, “Racism usually erodes self-confidence; it seems to have triggered his.”(Lynn,6). Early on he developed a reputation as a man who needs no approval, is self-assured in his causes and mindfully introverted and intelligent. On the negative end, “blacker-than-thou” has been used to describe his attitude due to his consistent outspokenness towards the black community and he’s been called a racist himself, because his films often point out specifically white and black culture clashes.

Although the racial clashes he portrays between whites and blacks are in reality the most prominent American racial tensions of our time (and all American time) – and being black, he speaks from his own black experience

Hedwig & Jareth Forever

Throughout my film studies and 28 years watching films, good and bad, Labyrinth has remained one of my favorite films just as Bowie is one of my favorite musicians. This class has introduced me to a new and equally fascinating love, Hedwig and the Angry Inch and the musical performances of Hedwig herself. Both films are endlessly dynamic and star two very creative players in modern pop culture, for reasons similar and apart. The characters themselves also play equally dynamic roles, both with deep emotional issues, intentionally and symbolically. Although the films are in no way tied, for me, they represent meaningful aspects of emotional growth and represent elements of nontraditional cultures often overlooked or ignored by mainstream culture.

Labyrinth is a film created by a swarm of amazing and creative talent. Jim Henson thought up the film following his work on the Dark Crystal . Along with writer Dennis Lee (writer of the Fragle Rock theme), they drafted up a rough storyline and pitched the idea to George Lucas and Terry Jones. Terry Jones had been a writer and actor for Monty Python, and already had a very sucessful career prior to the film. Adding David Bowie to the equation only further motivated its unavoidable success (Scarlett). Over the course of the making of the film, the story line changed as each player in its creation wanted their say on different elements. Although the film was intended for children, the various opinions greatly shifted the film from its original intentions, creating a movie for people of all ages. Jim Henson, childern’s writer, puppeteer and creative genius, was the brain behind numerous children´s shows like The Fraggles, The Muppet Show and Sesame Street to name a few (IMDB). When he worked on the Dark Crystal (there is sadly a sequel coming out), he entered into a whole new world; A twisted, spooky, fantastical place for adults and children alike. It’s obvious by the characters and theme that his Dark Crystal experience left him wanting more, but was it his history with children´s material that limited his abilities to give the film true depth? Without Terry Jones and David Bowie, the film may have been without any depth at all.

Bowie had his own idea of who Jareth was, describing in the documentary that Jareth is, “a big kid”, who is “fed up” and “would rather be down in Soho” (Scarlett). Henson is traditionally a happy ending kind of guy, and admits in the documentary that he wanted the film to be about life and leave people with an up feeling. He saw Jareth as an all-powerful magic character that Sarah would somehow overcome, and also someone who only existed in her mind. Both Jones and Bowie wanted to give Jareth and the labyrinth a little more depth and complexity, both having far richer and more psychological explanations for Jareths position. Bowie’s Jareth was not only a confused man with inner battles, but also a man who was not fully in control of his world. He suggests in the documentary that against his will, the goblins steal yet another baby. Implying that not only does Jareth exist beyond Saras’ world, but is also at the mercy of the rules of the labyrinth. Each goblin in the labyrinth, to me, was always someones missing little brother or sister, especially since Jareth says in the film that Toby will turn into a goblin if Sara fails. Jones describes the result of Jareth’s odd existence as leaving him “a hollow man… [who] was using the labyrinth to protect himself to keep people away. He was trying to control the world but he was really empty in himself”(Scarlett). To Jones the film was about Jareth being representative of people who intend to manipulate the world without any real emotional investment, people who expect to get what they want while giving nothing in return. Like Bowie says “a big kid”, overall I think both statements imply he just has some growing up to do.

When I first saw this film I was nine and it was new. It became obvious to me upon watching it, that my family had never seen the film, and probably didn´t even know who David Bowie was. They never would have let me if they had. I immediately became obsessed with the film, its characters and of course, Jareth. Telling everyone that I was going to grow up and be the Goblin Queen, or in the least Mrs. David Bowie. I didn´t understand what it was that I loved about him at the time, but I knew I was in no way sympathetic with Sara and was greatly disappointed in her refusal to become the Goblin Queen. Although Sara does not end up with Jareth (a twisted intro to relationship doesn´t help), the entire film is loaded with bulges, gyrations, spandex, love triangles and comeons, but more than all that, a young girl turning into a woman. The wikipedia entry on the film states that the film may be seen as “a symbolic tale of a young girl´s acceptance of her sexuality”. Aside from the obvious intentions of Jared, Sara does indeed have some growing up to do in the sexuality department. Sara is basically a big girl living in a little girl’s world at the beginning of the film. She idolizes her mother, who abandoned the family for an acting career. She puts on lipstick while looking at a photo of her, who just happens to be standing next to, who else, David Bowie (This subtle element in the film greatly confuses the reality vs reality struggle in the film). The idolizing of her mother’s sexuality and dressing like a princess can be seen as hints that she wants to transition into womanhood, but so many other elements, and maybe the lack of her mother itself, imply that she is afraid to step out of childhood fantasy (Allen). She enters the labyrinth and uses the same lipstick as a tool to mark where she has been. When she discovers that where she has been is not as it seems, her metaphorical identity crashes down and she throws the lipstick aside. According to Jones intentions for the film “eventually the girl learned there was no answer, no solution. The only thing you could do was to go with it and enjoy it. When she did that she got to the centre of the labyrinth”(Scarlett). This intention can be said of a girls sexual development as well, she couldn´t force herself to be a woman, she just had to let it happen.

Jareth’s role as an antagonist/protagonist clad in spandex and chasing after a young girl, made it an especially interesting “coming of age” story. I think that unknown things about Jarreth’s past, as Bowie and Jones saw him, intended him to be at the same emotional age as Sara in many ways. To Bowie, Jones and countless fans, Jareth was himself brought into the world of goblins against his will. Hes poor socialization with humans caused him to behave certain ways, similar to a child who’s never played with a puppy and picks it up by its ears. He is not hateful or evil, you can see that in the song “Magic Dance” when he makes Toby laugh and when he looks sad and heartbroken at Saras rejection. He is an unhappy, lonely man with great power and access to unlimited knowledge, and he simply wants someone to share it with. Ultimately Sara gets to learn lessons, yet not the ones Jarreth intended for her. Jarreth in return gets disappointment, pain, rejection and possible the loss of his entire world. Had he learned any social skills, he may have learned that bribery, authentic or not, doesn´t go over well most the time. At the end of the film Jareth says, “Do as I say and I will be your slave”, encompassing in one statement his confusion on “how it works”. Even if he only wanted to be considered a friend, he doesn´t even have basic skills like fairness, consideration for others, sharing or anything else most people are taught before they´re 3, and it’s not his fault.

Still on the subject of sexuality, and very much in the realm of confusion, Hedwig and the Angry Inch is a great place to start. Hedwig was written by a man who himself had similar toils in life as the protagonist, both appropriately, John Cameron Mitchell. The story was originally written as a stage musical premiering in 1998 and quickly rising to popularity. Soon after, it was touring the world, donning a dedicated cult following, Styrofoam wigs and all. The theme and meaning of the film has different meanings for many people, and this is’nt due to the same pre-production disagreements that Labyrinth experienced. Because of the nature, plot and characters of the film, Mitchell reports hearing fans regard the film as anything from “a new and improved Rocky Horror Picture Show” to “moving and comforting”. The range of emotions persuading people’s opinions is to be expected from a story so modern, dynamic and intimate.

The persuader of our emotions is Hedwig, and the complicated story of his (to her) life. The film skillfully uses music and flashbacks in conjuncture to tell the story while we watch Hedwig’s emotional reaction in the form of singing. We learn early in the film of Hedwig’s background full of emotional and physical trauma. Even in all of Hedwigs strength and go-toitiveness, for the majority of the film she is hurt and hiding behind a fun attitude and a consistent humor about her own traumatic past. She is not without confidence and knows what she needs to do to deal with “what she has to work with”. Not only referring to her angry inch, but the lot in life that she was handed and a scarred emotional past. Throughout the film we see her sexual identity take on many forms, and although it’s clear he is gay (as it were), his orientation has little to nothing to do with the film itself. The writer himself is a gay man, and states that upon coming out of the closet he found he didn´t fit into “gay culture,” as identified by many gay people. He found that it was just as confining and rule stricken as straight culture was, finding that bisexual people, although perceived by many as “not able to make up their minds” may have somewhat of an advantage (Fuchs).. He portrays this idea of an orientation-less lifestyle in the film consistently. Early in the film, Hedwig (then Hansel) is proposed to by an American military man, Luther, at the condition of losing his genitalia. Hedwig was never portrayed as having the desire to do this unprovoked, but for the sake of love and the adventure of escaping his Aryan gummy bear world, he saw little reason not to. Not long after the complicated and sacrificial escape, he finds himself dumped and having lost his gender pointlessly. The Berlin wall falls at the same time his heart breaks. This is where the personal identity crisis begins. He was loved by Luther, unconditionally he thought, woman or man or neither. Now that he’s alone, having sacrificed so much (for such a small player in the film) should he be a woman or a man? He just as easily could have been a man again, but instead pulls down another “wig in a box”. This isn´t necessarily a conscious decision to be a woman over a man, since gender never really meant much to Hedwig in the first place, but it is a decision on how he chooses to deal with the pain and go on with her life. This is also a moment for Hedwig to reinvent herself as no one knows her (and finally drop the Hansel). After all, being known means being close and being close has only hurt. Mitchell explains this film wide topic much simpler: “She [begins thinking] of herself as neither man nor woman, or half a man, but she realizes that she´s both, by accident. And it´s better than being one. The way she got there is very painful.”

Mitchell chose communist Berlin as Hedwig’s home base for more than one reason, though not intentionally for metaphors. He was inspired by the documentary I Am My Own Woman (1992) about a man who lived as a woman through the Nazis and the Communists. “The story of the ultimate outsider” Mitchell states (Fuchs). Mitchell was also the son of a commander in the U.S. sector of Berlin. He had several times visited him, often hanging out in local gay bars. His experiences there and personal experiences as a gay man were a catalyst in creating the moving story of Hedwigs life. If only Jareth had received such intensive background and character development his sexuality may have taken on a similar direction. David Bowie is notoriously androgynous and has at times renounced the purpose of “picking sides” in orientation. Mithel explains a direct inspiration for the rock-androgyny theme from performers like Bowie saying “androgyny is traditional in rock…. From Little Richard through the British androgynous, Mick and Elton and Bowie”. Bowie cant help but show this in Jarreth, though only so much as big names like Lucas and Henson would be associated with harmlessly (to their family values career). It would be interesting to see Labyrinth directed by a person like Mitchell. Anyone who cared so much about a character as to have to play them himself in order to get it right. If Labyrinth had been an on stage musical first, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (The Rocky Horror Show) and Hedwig and the Angry Inch, would it too have had a cult following? Maybe its not too late.

I watched “The Maltese Falcon” just before the class started and this week watched the other 2 versions and read the book. I found four different versions a little hard to sort out at first but overall I decided on The Maltese Falcon” and “Satan Met a Lady” for comparison.

I really enjoyed watching Bogart. It might be the first Bogart movie I´ve seen. I liked the way he (and that adaptation) gave Sam Spade some character and dignity, things I felt he didn´t have much of in the book or “Satan Met a Lady”. I am also becoming a big Lorie fan. His characters are always so humorous or eccentric and without being over the top or offensive.

Same Spade overall is a character I only really like in “The Maltese Falcon” over the book and “Satan Met a Lady” by far. As soon as I saw him in “Satan Met a Lady” I started to compare him to “The Music Man” ( I had the musicals class last term). He came across as a manipulative, disrespecting con artist. Though when things got real, he pulled himself together just enough to help himself to $100k, “solve a crime” and get himself a girl that didn´t challenge him. Although it should have been mentioned earlier in the film, Valerie Purvis yells that Spade”only likes women who aren’t as smart as him, and once he finally meets someone smarter, he’ll probably marry her” (in the last scene). Had this subject been a sub plot in the film, some sort of inner battle with his sleazy self, I may have liked that adaptation more. I did like the character of the old woman crime boss more than the old man in “The Maltese Falcon” but I equally appreciated the underrated crime boss sidekick in both films. He worked as sort of a catalyst for Spade´s inner bully, bringing out a side of him he couldn´t help but indulge.

Overall the characters in both films were great except for the inherit personality traits of Sam Spade via “Satan Met a Lady”. He may have more accurately matched the book but not everything is done right the first time. Not even in a book.

I really enjoyed the book and the film on this one, though I was amazed at how much the story and the presence of Mrs. Reagan differed. Both stories were surprisingly complicated compared to the other films so far, and it took reading the book after the film to understand the film better.

I really appreciated the writing style, very descriptive, though 3/4 through the book the conversations started to get longer and there were more cases of over describing unimportant scenes or features. I found that a little unnecessary as some of it was just repeating information I felt had been established. As if the characters in the book each needed their own in depth explanation for what we already knew, understandable in reality but slightly repetitive in the book.

In the film I did appreciate the relationship between Marlowe and Mrs. Reagan better than the book. The film made him seem a little more human and less like a cold untrusting – though defending his clients to the death type man, a very mysterious character from all angles. Also in the movie they included the concept of friends in his life, as the book made everyone into associates or clients and nothing more. There was no deep respect for a senior official, no devoted secretary, no father-like boss or brother-like partner; Marlowe was a very strange man. In the movie at least he seemed capable of forming a relationship, albeit one that had to be open, honest and free of illegal secrets. I think his mistrust of Mrs Reagan in the film made more sense because of how the original book played out. Compared to the book, the films used Mrs Reagan whenever possible to cover parts of the book that were missing, for positive reasons really, the inclusion of Mrs Reagan more often gave into the totally “necessary” Hollywood romance formula. It would have been a less popular film by far, good story or no, without the attractive protagonists romanticizing eachother.

I really liked how the reading pointed out that Marlowe was poetic in his metaphor’s and descriptions. Almost as though he lived an interesting life so as to narrate his experiences, people and places. He would describe his own death as if he were speaking aloud to a room full of theater actors, though completely satisfied with the fact that no one was listening. This also made his character more mysterious in the book more than the film. It’s as if here were such a loner, so personally departed from others, that he had learned to keep himself company and his mind nimble.

Sometimes I wish the characters in these films would carry over to other films just so I could see them throughout their lives and how they would handle different situations . But I also think it would ruin their mystery and cheapen their memory in the readers mind

This film, book and lecture gave me allot to think about this week. I was glad to find while reading the lecture that I wasn’t off in thinking that Waldo seemed as though he was intended to be gay, in many ways. I wasn’t sure if this was because of the writing style, the authors idea of an over-educated man or what it was until I saw the film and book in its intended light.

Just the night before I finished the book and film I watched the documentary “Celluloid Closet”. It’s an analysis of gay culture as represented through film, mostly during times when it was highly censored. Most directors and screenwriters eventually found ways around this censorship and used the censors ignorance against them. How would they know how an over-educated, spoiled old rich man acts? or an interior designer for that fact… or any other stereotypes many films not only reinforced but partially caused gay people everywhere to live up to. It was interesting to see this film in that light, with Waldo, a self denying gay man who, through his frustrations, convinced himself that his love and standards for Laura must be deeper than obsession, and more important than personal psychosis. I also found it interesting, just as “Celluloid Closet” showed, that many potentially or obviously gay characters were eventually killed off, in some sort of moral accomplishment. I felt this film was different in that sense but im not sure why, possibly because I read it as well, does that pattern repeat in books?

I also like how the lecture points out Laura’s transformation from what we know of her past and who she becomes over the course of the story. She seems to repeatedly wake up to realizations she never allowed herself before. Shedding her attitude about men for a more self respecting one, finally telling Waldo off (in the book mostly – saying that he’s always trying to shame men she likes) and finally allowing herself to fall for a guy like Mark – “a real man” as hes’ called. I did not like the development of the relationship in the film as much as in the book, especially the complication of the aunt who is trying to steal her fiance? unnecessary. I did however like the way Mark was so socially awkward in the film, never really giving off any emotion, playing with his toy when he was in a stressful or uncomfortable situation. The way he kept asking Laura about why she lied about the engagement, as sly as asking a friend to ask someone out for you but shy and endearing all the same.

The lecture also points out the missing aspect of Laura I found especially interesting in the film, the parts of Laura that tell Mark that shes a more down to earth and real woman than she seems to have been (she likes baseball, etc). By the end though, Laura ultimately is allowed to stop the self Waldo tried to hard to make her and allow herself to slow down and rethink her future and past and who shell turn into. Because of Laura’s overall character in the book, I saw it as fairly modern in regards to women’s roles and rights to non-generic personalities, something even movies today leave out sometimes.

Like a few people have said, this is one of my favorite movies as well. When I first saw it I was 12 or 13 and immediately liked it based on the fact that so many other people didn´t (my usual reaction to anything to this say). I remember people feeling really frustrated by its order and although I would explain to them in what order things went – but that the point wasn´t to “mess with their heads”, many friends and family still felt very frustrated and confused by it. Eventually it was one of their favorite films as well but I think at the time it was about experimental of a film as you might see in the average small town movie theater.

When I was watching the film this time I noticed things I have no before, as usually happens when I take a class and read even more about film. I no longer pay attention to the order of events, since at this point I have seen the film so many time they just fall into place. What I did pay attention to was more specific stylistic elements and clues throughout the film. I first started to notice silence and inactivity. There are many moments of silence in the film, usually between characters. Marsellus and Butch have an interesting interaction early in the film. While Marsellus is talking the camera is at a point of view shot of Butch listening. For the entire conversation there is no action, only listening and a fairly blank expression on Butch. Throughout the film there are instance of the camera on the listener and not the speaker. I think this makes for a more personal interaction with the listener, not only do we know for a fact that he/she is important but we can almost feel like we are there. The volumes of the voices in the conversations between Fabienne and Butch from the bathroom to the bed make for a pretty realistic scene for me, as well as the cafe conversation between Yolanda and Ringo. Just hearing Ringo yell “garcon” after having a mid-volumed conversation about robbery, then later hearing him say it in the background while Vince and Jules are philosophizing about miracles (or not) make it a more intellectual film in the fact that it gives the viewers enough credit to be a part of their world rather than just a passive viewer.

Another thing that I noticed about the film this time was the number of scenes in the bathroom or where the bathroom comes up. There was an interesting reason mentioned by another student from Wikipedia where a relationship between pulp and shit comes into play but It made me think about all the films where actors don´t use the bathroom, don´t eat, don´t have realistic personalities or believable lives whatsoever. Can you even imagine Humphry Bogart on the can reading a magazine? I think it humanizes the characters and loosens the film up quite a bit.

The film is great regardless of genre or how much it cost to make, factors I dont think should matter when considering a films quality.

I had long ago intended to see Super Size Me and always failed to do so thinking “I don’t eat that stuff and I already know it’s horribly bad for you. I’ll just tell other people to see the film and I’m sure I’ll agree with everything it says”

I really enjoyed this story, both in book in film and with different reasons for each. Something about the narrative element in the film was drawing, but not so much as the book. There was a much more personal relationship with Neff throughout. I, like others, got the impression that although a salesman, he was honest and personable, less of a stereotype. One thing that bothered me about the book in relevance to the characters, was the lack of descriptive words for people, places of situations. There was a minimal amount but I felt that (especially in the fist and second meeting of Phillis) the film far better portrayed the lust and development of a relationship between the two. The book also did not emphasize to me that he “did it for a woman”, I barely remember their scenes where they met in person in the book, let alone any sort of reverence to love. In the film I feel this was a little more clearly emphasized, through Phillis’s clothing, Neff’s comments on her looks, anklet, shameless passes at a married woman. These things didnt weaken his character or make him seem cheaper than in the book but it did put more emphasis on a motive for me. In the book the only driving factor for Neff helping her, since even the scene where she claims her husband is cruel is not there, is money. Yet he doesn’t seem to care much about money either. I dont think he knows why he did it, telling himself he had superficial reasons that didn’t pan out, over telling himself he was some sort of a monster, or worse, that he did it to prove that he could do it better than any slimy client of his could.

The murder or the motive wasnt the part of the book I ended up caring much about at all in the end. The relationship with Keyes, developing love of Lola, as the murderer of her father and conclusion of the book was the true grabber for me. The film did leave me with the impression that Neff had started to like Lola but unlike the book, it seemed more like guilt and self preservation. In the book, an awkward relationship began, one that Neff should have known early on was too sick to live with. Since the movie and book were narrative in nature, I think any self analysis of his own potential psychological problems was not even considered. His obsession and full blame were put on Phillis form the beginning, and he saw himself as a foolish pawn/victim. It was him who offered to do the killing, seemingly unmotivated, and like a child who steps on a beetle then realizes what hes done, wiping the guts off his shoe, he realized that fantasy about murder and how easy it can be, and taking a human life, are very different things.

I wasnt too excited about very the ending of either the book or film but everything leading up to the book ending was great. I understand Neff killing himself, even if only for the guilt over the pain he caused Lola, but I couldnt understand why Phillis, a woman who notoriously killed for money and property, would just stop there. No matter where she went, she could always start again as a black widow trophy wife in no time. It’s not as though guilt, after all she’s done, would suddenly make her human. Given the relationship between Keyes and Neff in the book and film, I thought the book ending was more apropriate. Even if Keyes was an upstanding, meticulous, lawful man, he was not naive to the world and all the circumstances that can arise. When he came to a situation where a good friend had done something horrendous and potentially harmful to the company he had worked so hard for, he was not without a reasoning of his own. Like a sheriff whos son steals and wrecks the family car, Keyes helps Neff to the best of his abilities, without risking his own neck. Keyes, admits “I dont often like somebody”, as much affection as Neff will hear in words from a man, who in book in film, is like an emotionally distant but big hearted father. Keyes knew there wasnt much point in prison, a mans guilt is his own prison.

I also really enjoyed this weeks reading, finding out about the stories ties with a true crime and vintage tabloid stylization. I dont and have never read a tabloid bum Im tempted now to find out more about older ones, with signed confessions form murdered and photos taken from cameras on ankles. There seems as much drama and excitement in that kind of work as there are in the stories they write about. The development of the character of Phillis, in tabloid, book and film, whether over dramatized or not, was essential to the the story in all cases. The fact that she wanted her husband murdered and for money, takes away any chance of pitying the woman. In the film, they emphasize how cruel Mr. Nerlinger is to Phillis, but only for a short while. She sees no other way out and Neff as well as the viewed get suckered into believing this as a viable excuse. The pity is soon lost the more money becomes a factor in the plot and Phillis shows everyone involved her true colors.