Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm #428Cortney LinneckeParticipant
I totally agree with Kristen—I was actually a big of Luhrmann’s soundtrack. I don’t think the juxtaposition of modern music with the historical context of the 1920s was meant to be disorienting or confusing. Instead, I think Luhrmann chose contemporary music in an attempt to convey to modern audiences what it was like to live in the roaring twenties, using a medium—music—that we can understand. Hip hop today seems to represent many things: power, money, violence, and even sex. There’s something about the genre that feels a bit racy and edgy and inherently cool. With his jazzed-up versions of Jay-Z splashed over elaborate party scenes and car rides, I think Luhrmann was trying to show that life in the 1920s was all of these things (especially if you were part of the elite). In his utilization of hip hop and modern music, I think Luhrmann refuses to let us view The Great Gatsby in a historical, time-specific vacuum (which we might, if traditional jazz music of the era had been used). He is allowing the story—and its message of societal and moral corruption—to transcend time and become relevant and accessible in the present day.
- This reply was modified 10 years ago by Cortney Linnecke.
March 31, 2014 at 5:09 pm #361Cortney LinneckeParticipantI thought there was a really interesting dynamic in this movie concerning violence, as it mashed together two worlds on completely different ends of the spectrum: a drug-selling, blood-thirsty, corruption-rotted police force and a pacifist Amish community. I think that playing out violence against the peaceful backdrop of Amish Pennsylvania–amidst cows, barns, and fields–was a jarring juxtaposition. It forced the audience to be more aware of the violence occurring (and how out of place and shocking it seemed) instead of passively accepting it, as we sometimes tend to do in traditionally violent Hollywood films.
I also thought this movie did some interesting things in terms of the traditional “gaze” of the camera lens. I am not necessarily referring to the “male gaze,” but perhaps an “adult gaze” or even a “mainstream American culture” gaze. Instead of viewing scenes through our own eyes, oftentimes shots were manipulated to allow us to see through the eyes of the Amish, experiencing things that we use every day for the first time–such as when Samuel sees the train, or when he tries to figure out how to use a drinking fountain. Other times, scenes were shot to put us in the perspective of a child, instead of a more “normal” gaze of an adult. One instance of this is the scene in the police station when Samuel is walking around the office and interacting with the adults, as we view individuals from his shortened height and feel intimidated by characters like the man rattling his handcuffs.
February 25, 2014 at 5:47 pm #254Cortney LinneckeParticipantI thought it was interesting how much of a presence religion had in this film, particularly because that is not a topic I expect to see pop up in a mob movie. The most obviously religious presence is Father Barry, who encourages the men to stand up to the mob and gives a speech talking about crucifixions: “Some people think the Crucifixion only took place on Calvary… and anybody who sits around and lets it happen, keeps silent about something he knows that happened, shares the guilt of it just as much as the Roman soldier who pierced the flesh of our Lord to see if he was dead.”
With this speech in mind, I think parallels can be drawn throughout the film between biblical passages about the passion of Christ and On the Waterfront‘s plot with Terry. Both contain instances of betrayal (followed by regret): Judas selling out Jesus to the Romans, Charlie selling out Terry to the mob. Both have heroes standing alone in martyrdom, thrown under the bus by their own “people”: Jesus and the Jews, Terry and fellow victims of the mob. A final parallel emerges in the last scene of On the Waterfront: Terry walking along the docks as his “people” watch on, falling and beaten up, is strikingly similar to the biblical passage in which Jesus carries the cross toward Calvary and his crucifixion, falling and beaten up as his “people” watch on.
February 4, 2014 at 6:54 pm #197Cortney LinneckeParticipantOne of the things that threw me off was the ending of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Not necessarily in terms of content, but rather in how abruptly it ended. It cut off immediately after the plot’s climax, right after Mr. Smith collapses and Senator Paine confesses his guilt. While the major conflict of the film had been addressed, most films usually follow through with falling action. For instance, it might have been nice to see Senator Paine face the repercussions of his actions, how Mr. Smith’s town reacted to the truth, if the camp was built, what happened with Saunders, etc. Even though the audience can make assumptions with these sorts of topics, and it is not necessary to show them, most films give the audience more closure. In some ways, however, this sudden ending worked–for example, it amped up the drama of the final scene, and really helped emphasize the film’s focus on politics and ethics (as opposed to, say, the romantic aspect of the story)–so ultimately I don’t think the ending’s abruptness completely detracts from the film as a whole.
January 28, 2014 at 12:54 am #189Cortney LinneckeParticipantOne of the things that (pleasantly) surprised me about The General is how unimportant words and dialogue became. I had never seen a silent movie before, so I was a bit wary of how well the story would be conveyed, how characters’ personalities would translate, and how well the film would captivate its audience without conversation to establish scenes and propel the story forward. But I thought the film’s plot and characters’ personalities ended up being very clear–through the use of both music and exaggerated actions/facial expressions–and in the end, it proved to be quite entertaining.
-
AuthorPosts