Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 5, 2014 at 10:49 am #422Megan MeadowsParticipant
While it can be argued that Gatsby is an anti-hero, I seem him more of a tragic hero. He fits very well into the characteristics of Aristotle’s hero. He gains his greatness early on, with lavish parties and a sense of fame. Everyone ‘knows’ Gatsby, even if they have never even met him. In my opinion, his major flaw is loving Daisy Buchanan. She is a careless person who doesn’t seem to take others feelings into consideration in her actions. In my essay on the subject, I argued that Luhrmann did a disservice to her character and changed the story into more of a love story when he omitted the section with her daughter, when she picks her up for a brief second before putting her back in the care of a helper. Gatsby loving a woman like this does no good for him. His downfall is due to his own choice, because he could have told others that Daisy was the one driving, although his misfortune is disproportionate to his fault because dying is an extreme punishment for simply taking the blame for the one you love.
While it can be easily said that his death was a ‘total loss’, I believe that he gained insight on loving Daisy. The phone did ring right before his death, making it seem that it was Daisy, and he died happily as opposed to with nothing. Lastly, at least in my own opinion, I did not leave depressed. I had an overwhelming sense of pity for Gatsby and his tragic love that led to his downfall.
As for the film as a whole, I absolutely love it. I think that while it is over the top and extravagant, it fits very well with today’s time period. A ‘party at Gatsby’s’ was supposed to be a wonderful experience and I think that if it had been a simply dinner party the vision would be much different. To be honest I sometimes find dinner parties rather boring, but I would never turn down a party like the one in the film.
While in my essay I argued that Luhrmann did a disservice to F. Scott Fitzgerald because he changed the tone of the story as well as many of the characters, I believe that the film on its own is so wonderful. As we discussed in class, it is so hard, if not impossible, to have a perfect adaption to a film because there are too many variables such as cast, music, dialogue, etc. to create a perfect film version of a novel, but I think that Luhrmann was able to achieve a fantastic movie with a great cast.
April 29, 2014 at 10:03 am #410Megan MeadowsParticipantI agree Jo-Ann, I really enjoyed this movie. While I enjoyed all of the characters as well as the parallel between the funny and serious, I needed to watch the movie again for plot reasons. It reminded me of a less intricate version of Inception in which many things are going on and every time I watch it I learn more. When I rewatched the movie this weekend, I gained a lot of clarity. I recommend that students in our class do so because of how it made me look at the film. Even though I knew the ending, the revelation that Billy is the jack of diamonds killer, I enjoyed it just as much as the first time.
While I thought the film was great, I’m not sure if I believe that Marty is a true hero. He does change from beginning to end, which is displayed by his answering of the phone call from Zachariah, although his decisions made me question his nobility. For example, most likely the ‘right’ thing to do, was to take care of Charlie when he was shot, but is that what a hero would do? Since both Charlie and Billy are awful people, how does one choose what is the right thing to do? I think the problem I am having is differentiating between Marty and the dangerous and hurtful people he is surrounded with.
With the comparison I just made, Marty does seem to bet he best person, the most heroic, in the movie. He is surrounded by insane murderers and therefore looks even better than he should. But examining his qualities, he never really does much wrong, just the best decision out of many bad decisions.
Sorry if this post is confusing, I am trying to work through my own confusion with the hopes that someone else in the class may feel the same way.
I guess I’m concluding that he is a hero because of the horrible situations he is put in where he still tries to make good choices, although perhaps if not in these scenarios he would just be an average guy.
March 24, 2014 at 10:12 pm #291Megan MeadowsParticipantI agree with you Quinn. While her father is overbearing, Catherine is such an important person in his life, the one he cares about most and to see her with someone such as ‘the wolf’, it must be hard. Although I believe he does mistreat her and could have acted differently, he seems like a smart man that can judge character.
The director of the film did a great job, although I’ve never read the book I have read other Henry James novels and I felt the film was representative of James and how he writes. Based on my previous readings, I felt he fit James’ writing style well, from the camera angles (some actually made me dizzy) to the music.
One last thing that I would like to point out is the idea of Catherine as a hero. While she does stand up for what is right and overcomes her blindness due to love (she is sort of forced to), I was confused by her character. She reminded me a bit of Kristen Stewart in her movements and mannerisms, that she made me kind of made me uncomfortable. I wonder if she was acting this way because of her painful background or because that is how she is as an actress. I have seen her in a few other things, although mostly recent.
March 11, 2014 at 1:50 pm #284Megan MeadowsParticipantI really like the angle that has been taken, looking at Starling as a hero not only because of her brave actions, but because she had to overcome being belittled by men throughout the entire film. While some may argue this belittlement is not totally outright, there are so many moments of sexuality throughout the film that depict Starling not as a hero helping females around the country, but rather a sexual being for men to gaze at. The first instance that stood out to me was the man who controlled Hannibal’s original cell hit on Starling. He didn’t take her seriously and would rather spend time with her than let her do her job. Another instance is when we see Starling and Hannibal’s fingers touch. This may not be outwardly sexual, but I felt that after the two had spent so much time together and definitely developed some sort of connection, the only thing missing was the human touch, which was explicitly shown. After everything that happened, he still got to her and got in her head. He was behind bars, but who knows what would have happened if he could have really touched her (aside from his cannibalism). These examples of sexuality throughout the novel make Starling even more of a hero because of what she had to overcome. Not only did she catch a demented serial killer, but also overcame small battles with every step she took, small battles that put her up against her male peer. Overall, while Starling would definitely still be a hero if she was male, her female struggles prove her determination and persistence to do what she thinks is right.
February 25, 2014 at 9:06 pm #255Megan MeadowsParticipantI agree with you Cortney, and in a way Michael as well. While Terry is the hero of the movie, it is not without the help of others who want the best for him, not any type of praise. Another parallel that can be drawn between religious texts and the film is that the help Terry was given was not recognized. Just as those who helped Jesus walk with the cross on his back didn’t want recognition, they were true heroes for their kind actions of helping someone who was down or needed to make an important decision. Father Doyle and Edie helped make Terry who he was and fight for what he needed to. If they had not urged him to testify, who knows if he would have done the right thing? While heroes are not always perfect, the help he got was so strong and about such a grave matter. It is only after this assistance that Terry stands up for what he believes in and states that he is proud of what he did.
February 8, 2014 at 10:52 pm #206Megan MeadowsParticipantI can’t decide if Rick is a hero or if his change was an act of love. He does have many of the characteristics of Campbell’s hero; however, I’m not sure if I would call his acts heroic. I don’t think that he seemed like a bad person at any point in the novel, just watching out for himself. Casablanca seemed like it was a tense environment, between the war and Rick owning a business, and I think he just wanted to protect himself. There are so many liabilities with everything he is involved with and even if he did nothing wrong, he could still get in trouble, as we saw in the film when the officers closed down the saloon for no reason. Love can be very blinding and make people forget about what is normally important to them, such as protecting themselves. When Ilsa and Rick were reunited, Rick put his mind on her and made sure everything worked out. Instead of thinking of himself, his business, and his safety, he threw it all away to make sure she was happy and safe. That being said, I’m not sure if these are exactly qualities of a hero or if Rick was just blinded by love.
-
AuthorPosts