Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 23, 2017 at 2:00 pm #1029Natalie LaCourtParticipant
I agree with almost everyone who has posted so far regarding Hannibal Lecter’s role in the movie. It was almost a shocking realization that I could watch him bite into someone’s face in the middle of the movie, and somehow still like him in the end. I think this stems from the identification of the audience with Clarice, and as Clarice comes to somewhat respect Lecter, the audience begins to develop a strange sort of affection for him also. When analyzing him as a mentor, I think it is important to recognize that he in a sense did lead Clarice to success, however his position locked in prison almost the whole time, forces us to recognize Clarice’s capability to succeed without his direct help. I think instead of recognizing him as a mentor who specifically taught Clarice something, he instead should be seen as one who forced Clarice to look inside herself and realize her potential. When looking at it in this way, it does not seem that his role would take away from the feminine message of the film.
April 23, 2017 at 1:44 pm #1028Natalie LaCourtParticipantHi Lizzie, I agree with you that the transgender issue in this movie gets slightly complicated. The movie does not seem to demonize transgenders, yet the scene in which we see Buffalo Bill dressed as a female, juxtaposed by Katherine screaming in the well is chilling. By emphasizing the transgender element, here it seems to tie together transgenders and mental instability. However, I do not think this was the intention of the movie due to the fact that, as you mentioned, Hannibal says he is “not a real transsexual”. I think instead the movie is possibly just emphasizing the fluidity of gender roles, where Clarice, the hero, and Buffalo Bill, the villain, both struggle with issues of gender boundaries. I think therefore these characters slightly parallel, yet at the same time greatly diverge from one another in terms of how they challenge these gender norms.
April 17, 2017 at 11:20 am #1014Natalie LaCourtParticipantSami, I completely agree with your quandary over what to think of Mr. Keating. When watching the movie on your own, it is easy to look over the underlying aspects of white privilege that permeate the film. When analyzing the movie in class, though, it is easy to notice how Mr. Keating seems to foster a sense of white privilege in the boys. They are encouraged to forgo their studies in pursuit of pleasure, which anyone with lower economic standing would never have the choice to do. It is interesting to me how you point out how Mr. Keating indirectly contributed to Neil’s suicide by opening his eyes to a new view of life that was not previously recognized by him. However, this is difficult for me to condemn mostly due to the contrast of Keating and the rest of the boarding school. While both the boarding school and Keating neglected to realize their innate privilege of their viewpoints, the boarding school encouraged rigid conformity and mandatory success, while Keating encouraged individuality and happiness, which is almost a universal goal of humanity. I think we find ourselves in tears at the end of this movie, despite the recognition of the privileged viewpoint due to this innate, unifying quality of humanity to evade, as Keating quoted in the movie, having to live “lives of quiet desperation” and instead embrace “carpe diem” fully and the character of Mr. Keating allows us to get a glimpse of this.
March 26, 2017 at 4:04 pm #979Natalie LaCourtParticipantI definitely agree with both Arden and Darby about the significance of religion in the movie. To me, it seemed like religion was Marshall’s main focus with the most powerful and emotional scenes being the rosary scenes. Their prayers seemed to give them the ability to transcend the gloom and despair of the plane and come together with a faith that provided community and support. I could not imagine the movie without the central focus of religion.
I also am in agreement with both of you on the difference in tone of the movie and I understand Arden’s idea of why the director could have decided to take a different tone to create the idea that even in the most dire circumstances, it is better to keep a positive attitude. However, after reading the book, the depictions of this disaster seemed entirely unrealistic, whether it was the comparatively spacious and cozy nature of their sleeping area on the plane or the seemingly short journey that Parrado and Canessa took to get back into the paradise-like valley. What do you think the people who experienced this plane crash would think of Marshall’s tone?
Also, personally I am a little disappointed that the parents were not involved in the storyline. While reading the book, the most emotionally charged parts for me were when Paez Vilaro found out they had found the plane and was hiding the dog in his coat, when he was reading the names of the survivors and read his sons name, and when he was finally reunited with him so personally I wish that these parts had been included.
March 6, 2017 at 1:52 pm #966Natalie LaCourtParticipantMarissa,
I really enjoyed the perspective you took on the character of Edward Bloom. As the movie is shown primarily through Will’s perspective, it is difficult to see Edward initially as the hero. Because the characters of Will and Edward are so different, Will very factual-based and Ed as a story-teller, the audience initially questions Edward through the eyes of Will. As the movie goes on though, and the audience begins to get caught up in the overwhelming positive and captivating nature of the stories of Edward’s life, it is hard not to admire his character, if only for his good heart and fantastic imagination. I think pointing out the quote that the Doctor says to Will in the hospital regarding Ed’s version of the birth of Will being a much better story than the true version serves to answer the question of whether Ed could still be a hero even if his stories were all fabricated. In the end, the factual nature of the stories seems not to matter, but instead like you said, it is their impact that they have on other people. As Will tells the story of Ed’s death to his father, he says, “The strange thing is there’s not a sad face to be found, everyone’s just so happy to see you”. By looking at the joy Ed has brought the people in his life, it is easy to view him as a hero. I think along with Will’s acceptance of his father’s storytelling being what saves Edward, this acceptance also saves Will, introducing him to another way of looking at life, one in which sometimes the more inventive and magical way of seeing things can bring true happiness and satisfaction to life.
Natalie
February 20, 2017 at 1:20 pm #952Natalie LaCourtParticipantLooking at Edie as the heroine while also attempting to analyze her through the lens of Mulvey, introduces two seemingly different perspectives on the character which I thought was very interesting. Mulvey seems to argue against the notion that females can be heroes at all due to their symbolic lack of phallus, the female character is simply turned into an object of male desire, with her place “as a bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning” (834). I think you make a really good point though when you acknowledge that without Edie’s character, Terry would never have been encouraged to become the hero and been a passive, complacent character throughout. However, I think that Edie is sexualized throughout the film, for example in the scene when she is in her bed in the white dress. I think this sexualization of her character supports Mulvey because I do not think she could be a relevant character without necessarily being romantic and sexualized.
-
AuthorPosts