Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 17, 2014 at 11:22 am #392Quinn WrightParticipant
For a concise analysis, you cover a lot of good points about the film’s characters and cultural context. I agree entirely with your idea of the epic as a “sum of its parts” sort of film. It offers exactly what it needs to in terms of furthering the character development of Jake Holman, even with Frenchy and Mai Lee’s death. Although not entirely elaborated on (we never know exactly what happened to Mai Lee, only told that she died off screen), we can view these characters as stepping stones in the development of the protagonist, the hero. The film itself is centered on his development, thus the fate of secondary characters are utilized to help further McQueen’s transition into the heroic figure. They are developed just enough to make them seem real to the viewer, and as such, to Jake Holman, just before their elimination as a means of developing his character.
April 1, 2014 at 3:04 pm #366Quinn WrightParticipantI agree largely with what is being said here, but if I may shift the conversation slightly, I would like to talk about the general themes of seeing and being seen. Not only is there an undercurrent of male-centric gaze, but also the ways in which the amish are watched and observed plays a narrative function as well. They are viewed here less as people and more as a commodity or attraction. No where is this more clear than when the tourists ask to take a picture with Harrison Ford, mistaking him for one of the genuine Amish people. Much like the concept of the male gaze, this act of seeing dehumanizes the individual and transforms them into a form of visual entertainment, an action that Ford’s character Book would not stand for, exemplified by the royal beat down he gave to those teenagers (juvenile adults?). In this way, because Ford’s character is male, one can say that the retaliation is expected, but a question I pose would be that if Rachel’s character reacted in such a way, would this reaction be as immediately acceptable in a general audience? Keeping in mind the concepts of male gaze and general themes of female passivity.
March 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm #290Quinn WrightParticipantThough I generally agree with your connections, I must comment that the implications of Townsend as a wolf figure and Catherine’s father as being overbearing are far more subtle than what you suggest, and that is a good thing. Catherine’s father, though certainly overbearing, never meant any harm for Catherine, but rather wanted to leave his entire fortune to her as opposed to having to share it with a lesser male figure. This is not to say that he did not have his own intentions at heart, never seriously considering Catherine’s feelings for Townsend, but this is a moot point as he was right about him all along. In terms of Townsend, I believe that he did have deep set feelings for Catherine, despite his financial ineptitude. Ultimately, I believe that the money issue only became prevalent the more he was denied her hand in marriage. However, this does not change his wolf like quality, I just feel as though this was a dynamic development as opposed to one that was set from the beginning. Much like the comment I made on the other post, it is Catherine’s ultimate refusal of both male figures after her travels and tribulations that establish her as a text book heroic figure.
March 11, 2014 at 3:02 pm #285Quinn WrightParticipantI agree with a lot of what is being said here. At its core, this is a film about predators and their targets, and the acts of victimization are not limited exclusively to physical violence. The decisive way in which the film is shot makes the audience feel the weight of every stare on Clarice’s body, which is unnerving in and of itself. What is powerful about this in terms of plot is the strength of Clarice’s resolve, to use whatever power she has at her disposal to catch Buffalo Bill before he kills again, despite her own victimization under the male gaze. The men of this film are of the lowest human caliber, with the exception of Hannibal, which I will get to momentarily. What I mean here is that the male officers and particularly the warden character behave like overtly sexualized animals, sparing no opportunity to stare at the female body. This writes them off as incompetent, or so completely distracted or incapable of controlling themselves or behave professionally. Now Hannibal is a thinking, analytic character, plotting his way out of confinement and toying with the minds of whoever gives him heed. He makes references to sex acts, but only inquisitively, to further delve into the others head. I do not believe him to be a sexual character. The moment of contact between him and Clarice, though suggestive, I feel was really only another attempt by him to get into her head, to make her uncomfortable. Personally, I do not believe this act to have had any genuine sexual cannotations, as he’s too smart for that, and as his dialogue reveals prior, he is only one to reference sex as a means of probing another character.
-
AuthorPosts