[Lizzie Messana]

Emily, I agree with you that Hannibal’s support for Claire makes him likeable to the audience. What I find more interesting, however, is your point about Hannibal as a mentor figure, especially because I had been thinking about this in tandem with Alison Lurie’s observation of mentorship in The Classic Fairy Tales. Lurie observes that female heroes are often mentored by older, wiser women (sages, fairy godmothers, etc.). It was a challenge, then, to juxtapose this concept of a system of female empowerment with Hannibal’s position as a possible mentor to Clarice. Several thoughts occurred to me as I considered if Hannibal could truly be considered Clarice’s “fairy godmother” (a funny image in itself). We are intended to perceive Clarice as a strong, independent, brave, and intelligent woman who is capable and willing to solve the case on her own. However, would she have been able to solve it without the help and “encouragement” of Hannibal, who is arguably her (male) mentor? Without Hannibal telling Clarice how close she was to solving the case, would she have pursued it and/or been successful? Without Hannibal, would Clarice have recognized and faced her fears stemming from the screaming of the lambs? And of equal importance, if we were to argue for this interpretation, does it/could it take away from the feminist message of the film? You don’t have to answer those questions; they’re just thoughts I had when watching the film. Thanks for the response!

[Lizzie Messana]

Michael, I appreciate your analysis of Vivian’s journey in the film. Although very begrudgingly, I liked your analysis of Dr. Posner’s role in the film. To me, he was such an unlikeable character because of the flippancy with which he treated Vivian as a human being, and his speech about the “awesomeness” of cancer was almost unbearable to watch. However, your post serves as a great reminder of Dr. Posner’s function in the film, rather than just dismissing him as a tactless, heartless, bumbling idiot. While the cancer acts as the predominant debilitating physical and mental challenge that Vivian has to face, Dr. Posner presents another hurdle that Vivian has to overcome – a recognition of herself in Dr. Posner. As is her job, Vivian analyzes poetry, but she seems to take it to the extreme. She dissects everything and everyone around her, and partly due to her teaching, Dr. Posner has inherited this trait. He distances himself from a personal relationship with his “work” to get to the deeper, “truer” meaning, just like Vivian seems to do with Donne’s poetry. Somewhere along the line, Vivian seems to have lost the simple love and passion for learning that she had as a child, and instead, she replaced that passion with obsession and pride in being the best in her field, which made her competitive and detached – which perfectly matches how Dr. Posner is in the film. This realization crashes down on her, which is made apparent in Vivian’s refusal to hear Donne’s poem at the end of her life, especially not from the teacher she wished she could’ve been and should’ve listened to when she was a student.

Just like we mentioned last class, Vivian is a great example of someone who can go on a hero’s journey, realizing various aspects of their identity and coming to know who they really are, even though she is tied to a hospital bed. Her realization at the conclusion of the film that she wanted to have a better balance between academia and a social life, as you mention, demonstrates a fundamental change in her character which we see often in hero films. However, heroes usually conquer the force that is oppressing them, and I’m wondering if you think this is true. As you mention, Vivian does seem to regret the way her life worked out, but she sees the error of her ways. In your opinion, is there any way that this could be a triumph for her?

[Lizzie Messana]

 

Megan, I have to agree with some of the other comments. On my own list of aspects of the film, I wrote that I would definitely include the cannibalism, as it is one of the most important and unique parts of this survival story. There were aspects of this rendition of the narrative that I thought were well done. Nando originally brings the topic up as a joke, which I saw as something that could happen as a dark form of comic relief to hide the pain of his sister dying. As uncomfortable as it made me, the repeated images of the meat being cut or cooking served as a constant reminder of what the team had to do to survive. Unlike what I have seen on this thread, I felt that the timeline of the cannibalism was somewhat justified in the film. In terms of the characters’ appearances, it is important to remember that the actual cannibalism happened fairly early on, so the survivors wouldn’t actually be physically emaciated yet. Additionally, I personally felt that, even though the actual cannibalism happened only around 10 days in, the film spent much more time fleshing out the first few days of being stranded. For me as an audience member, this decision made it feel like the characters had been stranded for a long time and had exhausted numerous options, which helped to lessen the blow of considering cannibalism.

That being said, I do believe that the movie could’ve poured emotion into the entire decision scene. Just as Darby mentioned, the act of cannibalism presents a situation of moral conflict and heartbreak for the characters. In terms of consuming the flesh of the deceased, I feel like that could’ve been better handled in the film. As an audience member, I was uncomfortable even though I knew it was coming; so I think the movie succeeded in making the audience as unfordable and conflicted as the team must’ve been. However, to me, the film and the actors were lacking in emotion during the initial cutting. Rather, they just seemed to convey a stoic front while Canessa was cutting the first person. I would’ve expected more visceral reactions, especially from the members who were vehemently against it for personal and religious reasons.

[Lizzie Messana]

Jeanna, I appreciated your comments about the film. Similar to some of the opinions shared in class, I had a hard time with this movie because of the large number of very similar looking actors, and I did try to follow the narrative instead of just taking the movie in for its aesthetic value. Overall, I can certainly say that I did not enjoy watching the movie. And yes, while watching, I could objectively see the various successes in the symbolism of the movie. War is long and miserable, and so the length of this movie and its varying elements – interludes of poetry, overall lack of dialogue, and frequent flashback scenes – presented a lengthy, frustrating experience for me. But because of the amount of characters in the film, I could not make a connection to any one of them, and because it was hard to follow the varying subplots, I couldn’t fully comprehend the varying pressures each man was facing, making it even harder to connect with them. Additionally, there were elements of the film that I felt were incongruous with the content, such as the “romantic” flashbacks and the lofty poetry, both of which made the film disingenuous, at least to me.

Because of all my criticisms of the film, I appreciated your comment that helps to justify the large cast as soldiers representing the various realities of war. Even though I might not have liked the flashback scenes, I can definitely see how that would occupy a soldier’s mind when they are missing their partner. Similarly, I can also understand that being in a war might lead a soldier down a path of existential inquiry, represented through the poetry, when they are left with nothing else but their own thoughts. I also appreciated your final comment about the regular heroism of the soldiers, who like me, didn’t even want to be in their situation, but were forced to be. That statement, more than anything in the film, helps me form more of a connection to the soldiers, and its message of simple, everyday heroism helps to paint the movie in a more favorable light for me.

[Lizzie Messana]

Like a few of my classmates, I am rather unfamiliar with Dickens’ work. I know of his literary repertoire only superficially, which is a real shame, as he is one of the most prevalent and influential authors of our time. I share the sentiment of other classmates when I say that, as an English major, it is a major disadvantage to be unfamiliar with such pervasive work. In addition, both my mother and my sister have read Dickens’ works, and the utter polarity of their opinions on Dickens really fascinates me. I am curious to see where I fall on the spectrum . Will I love his style? Perhaps, I will find his work incredibly dull.  What is it about Dickens’ work that incites such extreme reactions (the same reactions that have kept his work relevant in today’s society)? I am truly excited to find out.

[Author]

Posts