Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 7, 2017 at 9:29 pm #1035Darby DalyParticipant
Melissa,
I think you’re analyzation of Georgia is truly impressive. I can easily say that I did not enjoy the movie and I think that is because I did not watch it through the same lens that you did, but I wish I did. The points that you brought up regarding the different singing styles of the two sisters really made me think harder about the film.
“She is definitely not as vocally talented as her sister, but her ability to express such honest pain in a song is incredible to me. When Georgia performs, her voice is beautiful but there is no expression to it.” I completely agree with this point – the two sisters’ personalities are portrayed through their music. I did not fully realize this at first. Every time I looked at Sadie I just saw a Courtney Love wannabe, and every time I looked at Georgia I was just kind of annoyed because I don’t really like country music (no offense if you do). However, the heart and passion that Sadie demonstrates in all of her performances displays who she is and what music means to her, while Georgia’s plain and almost boring music displays her own life – she is satisfied with what she has, she does not particularly seem to have any passions.
Though I did not like this film at first, I think reading your analysis has made me appreciate it much more – thank you!
April 23, 2017 at 11:04 pm #1031Darby DalyParticipantLizzie,
I think that you have an interesting take on the idea of transsexuals in the film. Your claim that Buffalo Bill’s death in the end represents his punishment for trying to become a woman definitely made me think about how I viewed the film. While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think that I had a different reaction to this issue. When Lector explained that Buffalo Bill is not a real transsexual, I took it more literally than you did. After Lector made that point, I viewed Bill as someone who was severely struggling with his identity and mental health, and being a transgender was the only thing that he was able to “diagnose” himself with. However, I do really like the ideas that you had toward this issue, and I can absolutely see these issues from a similar perspective as you did.
April 10, 2017 at 12:53 pm #1005Darby DalyParticipantMichael,
I think that you have written a very strong analysis of the relationships between the characters of Wit. I particularly thought that your analyzation of the relationship between Dr. Posner and Vivian was very interesting. Through the flashbacks that we saw of Vivian’s life, it is clear that she had dedicated her life to her work rather than to actually enjoying herself. The more we get to know Dr. Posner’s character, the similarities between the two characters become very clear.
The interaction between Dr. Posner and Vivian when she is asking him about why he chose his career path, and why he specifically chose to study cancer is evidence of your claim. Dr. Posner’s responses to Vivian’s questions make it clear that they share similar priorities, and through Vivian’s reactions to his answers, it is even more clear that she is aware of this similarity. I think that at this point of the movie, Vivian was beginning to realize that she did not live her life the way she wanted to, and her responses to Dr. Posner seemed to be an attempt to make him realize that he was headed down the same path.
Both of these characters dedicated their lives to work, allowing it to consume all of their thoughts and actions. During the course of their lives, Dr. Posner and Vivian seem to prefer to push other people away, as they believe that not only do they not need anyone else, but they do not have time for such interactions.
–Darby Daly
April 3, 2017 at 11:16 am #993Darby DalyParticipantEmily,
I’ve seen this movie several times, and after reading and learning about Joseph Campbell I certainly have a different perspective on the movie. I definitely agree with your idea that Stacey Pilgrim and Wallace Wells are Campbellian mentors to Scott throughout the movie. He is constantly going to them for help and support when he is faced with a problem. It was also interesting to see how the two mentors worked together in order to make sure that Scott did not fail or give up. If it had not been for these two Campbellian mentors, then it is entirely possible that Scott would not have been successful in his “Battle of the Exes.”
March 25, 2017 at 6:40 pm #978Darby DalyParticipantArden,
I found myself agreement with a majority of the points you made regarding Alive. I felt very similarly with your main idea behind the religious aspect of the film. I think that because Read was so adamant about including religion in the book that it was important for Marshall to include religion as well. Religion was such a key part of the boys’ lives, and if Marshall had eliminated it from the film then there would have been a lack of understanding their characters. I also felt as though including the religion made the boys appear more humane regardless of them eating the human flesh. Overall I believe that Marshall did a good job by including the right amount of religion in the film
As for your comments on the tone, I did not really observe a change in tone between the book and the film upon my own watching. However, after reading your post I can definitely see what you mean and agree with you. I think that the book was far more intense and had a more serious tone than the movie did. Making the actors sarcastic was an interesting touch, as it kept the overall mood a little lighter than the books mood. I do not know how I felt about the amount of “humor” the movie had. While it made it a little more entertaining to watch, I believe that it eliminated a lot of the seriousness and importance that the story carried.
March 24, 2017 at 10:32 pm #977Darby DalyParticipantHi Megan,
I don’t know if I necessarily agree with you on this. I felt as though the cannibalism was one of the biggest controversies presented in this book, and without it in the film it would not have had as much of an impact on the audience as it had with it. The act of cannibalism that these men carried out created a significant moral conflict that made the story even more heartbreaking. I think by including the scenes of the men cutting and eating the human flesh their story was more realistic. If they had cut out these scenes then it would have made the cannibalism seem as though it were immoral, and I feel that the book justified it not only in terms of their survival but also religiously.
March 6, 2017 at 2:08 pm #967Darby DalyParticipantCassidy,
I definitely agree with your analysis of Big Fish. I had a similar outlook on the characters while we were watching the movie as well. It was difficult for me at first to distinguish who exactly was the hero between the two, but as you said, I think both characters are rightfully heroes in their own way. While the story was primarily about Edward’s life story and how he was the obvious hero when he was younger, Will was just as much of a hero as he overcame the differences he had with his father to be there with him by his death bed and determine the genuine story of his life.
Overall I feel like I could not have said it any better myself, your analysis is pretty much exactly how I felt, and I appreciate the points that you brought up.
–Darby Daly
February 23, 2017 at 11:21 am #958Darby DalyParticipantHeather,
I found your use of both Campbell and Mulvey in analyzing Peter Weir’s Witness to be extremely interesting and appropriate. I agree with the points that you brought up regarding Rachel, however, I did not really put together the maternal side of it as well until I read your points. While I was watching the movie, I really only saw Rachel as being a sexual object for Book to look at. But I think that you are definitely right with the maternal concepts as well.
Rachel’s character did not have much significance other than being an object for Book’s use. I found myself becoming very frustrated with how she was portrayed, I think that she had so much more potential as a character. Even her young son had a more dominant role than she did. Her portrayal of being an object of sexual desire added that hint of romance that adds to the plot, but I just really found it rather annoying.
Your comment regarding her taking off her bonnet was pretty interesting as well. I definitely agree that it was a symbol of her being naked within the Amish community. I just found it a little much that she was so quick to give away everything that she had built her life around, but I guess that is where the audience can see the significance of Book and the insignificance of Rachel.
February 20, 2017 at 3:30 pm #954Darby DalyParticipantNatalie,
I am glad that you interpreted the relationship between the Mulvey reading and On the Waterfront similarly to how I did. You pulled an interesting quote from the reading, and the idea of the female characters being viewed as an object of desire for men is something that is clearly noticeable in the movie. If it had not been for Terry’s infatuation with Edie, then he would not have become the hero character. This infatuation was driven by his attraction and sexual desire for her. You make a good point in regard to how Kazan sexualized Edie throughout the movie, especially with the scene that you described where she is in the bed with the white dress. I thought that scene was done subtly, but it was a very strong moment in the movie. However, I slightly disagree with your last comment, because I think she would be relevant, but perhaps to a different extent.
-
AuthorPosts