Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 5, 2014 at 9:59 pm #431Jo-Ann WongParticipant
Personally for me, I loved the music choices for this version of the film. For the 1920’s, jazz was considered a part of counter-culture and transgressing boundaries set by classical music at the time. However, jazz is now considered a part of that classical repertoire while hip-hop and rap are becoming almost like the “jazz” of our generation. To me, while not fully representative of the 1920’s, I thought the music of the movie caught the rawness and “dangerous” nature jazz had upon the age for a modern age. Also, a lot of the songs hearken back to jazz styles, such as Fergie’s “A Little Party Never Killed Nobody” and will.i.am’s “Bang Bang,” which both incorporate eletroswing to connect the 1920’s to modern music. Other songs which are used as motifs, such as the appearance of Lana Del Rey’s “Young and Beautiful” whenever Gatsby and Daisy are together, are also used in multiple styles. For instance, there is the classical rendition with no vocals and an orchestra while the version with Lana Del Rey is more representative of older pop songs (in my opinion). On the other hand, there is a jazz version played during the second party scene which incorporated swing style as well.
April 7, 2014 at 6:01 pm #378Jo-Ann WongParticipantAlas, I also have to agree with what everyone else has already said. I tried to like this movie as usually, I am a fan of both indie films and movies about the downward spiral of characters. However, while the movie tried to emulate this “genre,” I think it failed in its attempts. Instead, I think this movie became an example of bad screen-writing. Throwing in characters who come in for a minute and not having them reappear for an hour and expecting the audience to remember them is not a good way to garner any sympathy for them. What was the deal with John C. Reilly’s character(lacking so much character I cannot remember his name)? When he find out he died, due to the lack of creating sympathy for him, I felt nothing emotionally and was unable to understand Sadie’s “pain.” With Sadie, rather than creating a character with problems, she becomes the image of the spoiled child gone wrong. By the end, I could care less what happened to her as I could not understand where she was emotionally coming from. Also, the opening sequences were so randomly thrown together, with the past and present consistently switching for no apparent reason other than to create a jarring effect (which does not help the movie), that when the movie ended, I was still wondering who Trucker was and his relation to Sadie. Were they lovers? Was he an abuser? Was he famous? Apparently, everyone but the audience knew who he was. I can understand the director wanting to create a sense of a “slice-of-life” film, but the only result was me losing interest.
Also, I greatly disapprove of whoever did the sound editing of this film. Not everything has to be turned super-high, especially that excruciating unnecessary singing segment.
“Requiem for a Dream” is a much better movie about drug abuse instead of this one.
March 25, 2014 at 8:40 am #294Jo-Ann WongParticipantI found your interpretation of the movie, in terms of Little Red Riding Hood, interesting as I originally connected the story more to the Catskin stories. For instance, like the Catskin stories, the mistreatment of Catherine is due to the impact her mother had on her father. Another similarity was in the way the desires of the daughters are ignored in favor of the fathers’ inability to communicate with them. While Catherine does not physically escape from her father like in the Catskin stories, she escaped from him in an emotional sense. Later on, this departure from her father is completed by her disinheritance, which separates her from her past life where money, rather than her desires, was the ruling factor.
I have to compliment the production designer for this movie. I loved how the color scheme slowly changed from bright when Catherine was childishly in love to dark when she becomes disillusioned. However, at the end, when she meets Townsend again, while the colors are muted, they are still present, thereby indicating her ability to be content with her decisions and be independent.
March 11, 2014 at 10:41 am #280Jo-Ann WongParticipantWhile watching “Silence of the Lambs,” I also noticed how the majority of the movie was taken from Clarice’s point of view, which was accomplished by placing the camera at lower angles so it would have to look up in order to look at the other male characters. This is apparent in scenes such as when she is left in the room with multiple policemen at the funeral home. This specific choice is interesting as it turns the presence of the male gaze in film onto itself by taking it from the perspective of the female character. While watching movies, the male gaze is largely unnoticed as it is a part of our culture. However, when turned on itself, the male gaze is revealed as being creepy and invasive by the woman being desired, which is Clarice in this case.
Also, there has been discussion about revising the Bechdel test because movies like “Silence of the Lambs,” while having a strong female lead, technically fail this test since the only female communication in the movie is when Clarice and her roommate are talking about Hannibal and I don’t think we ever find out the roommate’s name. However, Clarice is one of the strongest female leads in film, so is it fair to label it as a failure of the Bechdel test?
March 3, 2014 at 9:13 pm #274Jo-Ann WongParticipantIn accordance with Joseph Campbell, Shaw follows the arc of the hero according to some of the examples you have given. For instance, the call to adventure is represented by Shaw’s startled expression when being told of his election to head the 54th regiment and eventual acceptance of the position. Later on, there are multiple tests along the way, such as the example you have given concerning the paychecks and the possibility of being executed if caught by the South. Shaw passes both of these tests by not backing away from his position and joining his men in refusing his pay. Thus, he spiritually grows as he avoids material wealth in order to join his men and do the moral thing. At the end, while he does not live, like Campbell’s hero, he is able to pass on a “message” and teach society as Shaw’s involvement and training of the 54th regiment led to the positive feedback concerning African American troops and their ability to fight as well as white soldiers.
February 18, 2014 at 4:55 am #242Jo-Ann WongParticipantWhile I agree with your interpretation of the relation between Campbell’s hero and Edward Bloom, I think Will Bloom’s story can also be deconstructed in this manner. For instance, according to Campbell, there is a distaste for the father by the son due to the father’s ability to attract the mother’s attention away from the son. Similarly,in the movie, Edward draws the attention away from his son during his wedding party. Thus, Will shows antagonism towards his father. His call to “adventure,” however, is induced by learning his father is sick. While there, he gains help in understanding his father from his wife, who is the “Goddess” in Campbell’s text. His tests include accepting his father and his eventual reconciliation with his father is indicative of Will completing his spiritual journey and his “atonement with the father.” Finally understanding his father, he brings this knowledge back into his present life, which is seen when he tells Ed’s stories to his son, and is represented as the elixir in Campbell’s text.
February 10, 2014 at 8:02 am #212Jo-Ann WongParticipantI also agree with what others are saying about the end of the movie. In my opinion, Rick lets go of Ilsa because she is a part of a past that they will never be able to recreate. For instance, during one of their meetings, Ilsa tells Rick that he is not the man she used to know. No matter how much they try to fool themselves, each one of them has gone through so many different experiences and emotions since they separated that neither is the person the other one fell in love with in Paris. If they try to live in their past experiences, neither character would be able to move on and live in the present as they would be trying to reconstruct caricatures of themselves from the past. Thus, Rick realizes that if they stay together, they would never be able to live up to the expectations they set in Paris and would be miserable together (while also causing pain to Victor).
February 10, 2014 at 8:02 am #211Jo-Ann WongParticipantI also agree with what others are saying about the end of the movie. In my opinion, Rick lets go of Ilsa because she is a part of a past that they will never be able to recreate. For instance, during one of their meetings, Ilsa tells Rick that he is not the man she used to know. No matter how much they try to fool themselves, each one of them has gone through so many different experiences and emotions since they separated that neither is the person the other one fell in love with in Paris. If they try to live in their past experiences, neither character would be able to move on and live in the present as they would be trying to reconstruct caricatures of themselves from the past. Thus, Rick realizes that if they stay together, they would never be able to live up to the expectations they set in Paris and would be miserable together (while also causing pain to Victor).
January 26, 2014 at 10:25 pm #154Jo-Ann WongParticipantWhile watching “The General,” I was also intrigued by how certain scenes were shot without Buster Keaton getting hurt. The scene which stands out to me is when he is on the back of the train and somehow, by jumping and running, is able to look as if he is sliding into the first car of the train. I also found it interesting how the love interest’s name was Annabelle Lee and wondered if this was in relation to Edgar Allen Poe.
-
AuthorPosts