The PUNisher

It wasn’t that bad of a movie. Honestly, if you hadn’t read the book or seen the 1933 version you would find little wrong. The plot makes sense and you understand the characters. But if you were to compare it, this film does fall short in originality and following the plot.

The girls do go out and buy themselves presents. This definitely didn’t happen in the book but what it does accomplish is solidifies the girl’s interests for those who don’t quite catch on. Amy loves to draw; Beth loves music but won’t talk to anyone; Meg is vain; and Jo loves books and reads them quickly. To us it doesn’t seem a little redundant, but for those who have yet to see the film it is somewhat necessary. And one of the bigger problems is Amy’s magnificent bust even though she is barely a preteen, while Beth looks to be no older than nine years old. Amy is most definitely no little woman in this film. She does act like one though.

As far as originality, yes the 1949 version steals almost every shot from the 1933 version. At least they flipped the layout of the tea room to try and make it different. Also, there was that unbearably long take when Laurie took Jo from one side of the room to the other so they could dance. That was pointless. Also
This film does lack innovation as far as adapting the text and at sometimes makes a mockery of it, but as far as being a film it isn’t that bad. Sometimes comparing a film to others like it can weaken your ability to analyze that film. Sure it would have been better if they just redid the 1933 version in color, but Katherine Hepburn was way too old. But then again, maybe she could have played Marmee…..yeah I don’t think so either.

So I’ve been reading some of the people’s blogs about companionate marriage.  What struck me as a major problem to this theory is the idea that both parents have mutual interest in their children.  The only way this is possible is through adoption.  When a woman goes through the excrutiating pain of child birth, she is most definitely experiencing much more than the father (although he has spent the last nine months being at her beck and call, you decide what’s worse).  What I’m trying to say is that women generally care more for their children because that child was literally a part of themselves at one point.  I’m not saying men don’t care about their offspring, but as far as interests go in their child, I just can’t see there every being equality between the parents.

I must say however I loved the passage we read in class and I am surprised that it has not made it into any of the film adaptations.  But let’s face it:  everyone loves Jo.

For anyone to say that a character in a novel is not important is ignorance.  When analyzing a film/novel/any work of art, we are trained to pay attention to even the slightest detail (we’re studying the length of shots for Christ’s sake!).  How can we rule out a character?  We shouldn’t even be wasting our time asking which character is more important.  And as far as saying a character plays off another, that’s blatantly obvious.  Practically all characters in all novels are different in some way.  That’s how we learn from the characters actions and thoughts, by comparing them to others.

Little Women does a great job of writing about five women in different stages of their lives.  By having such a large number and giving them distinct personalities, a larger audience can find someone to relate to more easily.  Also, we see different ethics to strive for:  freedom of expression, etiquette, caring for others over yourself, etc.  All of these characteristics are split up between the four daughters, but all appear to be within Marmee.  She is the ultimate woman in some senses, as Mom’s are generally seen in the eyes of their offspring.  Marmee nurtures and cares for each girl in a separate, different way which shows her range of character.  When can we start talking about her?

I fell asleep.  I definitely dozed off for about five minutes.  It’s not because it’s an old movie; I’ve seen enough to not find the cinematography boring.  The story just wasn’t interesting to me.  I’m not even sure how this is a coming-of-age novel for girls because nothing really bad happens.  Sure there is death and for Christ’s sake Jo doesn’t marry Laurie, but that’s it.  Even then it isn’t all bad.  Beth needed to died, but after years of suffering.  It was a blessing for her to go.  Jo and Laurie didn’t get married, but Laurie married Amy.  From what I could see they lived happily ever after.  In fact, everyone lived happily ever after except for Beth.  What does this teach young women who are reading this book?  That there is in fact a perfect person in the world for everyone?  Not quite.  Where’s the heart ache?  Laurie was upset for a little but he apparently got over it.  All I’m saying is that it’s going to take a lot to convince me there is something deep in Little Women, but if anyone can do it, Dr. Campbell can.

First and foremost I would like to clarify what a cut exactly is.  I’ll try to explain this with a film and digital connection.  First off, a cut does not have to mean that a camera moves.  I also saw on a previous post that it meant a scene had to change.  Let’s not confuse scene and shot.  A scene/sequence is a collection of shots that usually pertain to one point in a story.  A shot is one continuous period of time in which a camera was rolling and there was no temporal editing going on (there could be effects applied to one shot which is technically editing).

So the film and digital connection part.  Think of there being two pieces of film.  Tape those two pieces of film together.  You have a cut.  That’s why they are called cuts, because two pieces of film not actually “connected” need to be taped together.  With digital film, think of there being two files (or clips).  When you butt two files together without there being space between them, that’s a cut.   That’s the basic definition of what a cut is.

Now about the camera having to move.  I will acknowledge that this is the case almost 100% of the time.  But there are things called jump cuts.  This is where you break up a shot that would normally be one continuous shot into many similar looking ones.  If you were to see a plane flying towards you and all of a sudden the plane goes from a mile away to 100 ft that is technically a cut.  The camera didn’t move at all.  But there was a cut.  These are hard to detect but if you know about the term, it’s not too difficult to point out.

Now about the purpose of a cut.  You do a cut because the thought and information in a shot are exhausted, as in you need to cut to something new.  This is why when you watch a film there are cuts right after someone’s sentence is finished.  They have expressed their ideas and we cut to a reaction.  Interestingly enough you can cut in mid-sentence to someone reacting to the sentence.  This would suggest that the person in the new cut is really listening because the sound is in the same frame as them (just a editing theory I thought of).   One of the editing books I have read (“In the Blink of an Eye” by Walter Murch), Murch (who is one of the greatest editors who has ever lived) comments that when he was editing he noticed he was cutting right as an actor was blinking.  He mentions how we blink whenever we are finished with a thought.  So basically our entire lives are one big movie filled with millions of cuts.  Just thought that was an interesting thing to bring up.

If you’re interested in editing I highly suggest the book forementioned and also the writings of Eisenstein and Pudovkin.  The latter are hard to read (Russian translations BLAH!) but can be informative.

First and foremost I’d like to point out that the sound heard in the darkness was not, at least I do not believe, the ice going inside the glass. It was someone picking ice out of a container. I replayed it a couple times and that is what I’ve concluded. Whether or not it’s relevant is something that deserves pondering. An interesting interpretation of there being a sound in darkness would be relating it to Tom’s ability to tell people things without them seeing it. He tells Jasper a phony story to get what he wants, as well as Bernie. That’s just an undeveloped idea but I just wanted to throw it out there.

Now I’m going to point out some shots that I thought were very interesting.  The first I’ll point out is the title sequence shots of the trees.  Sure there’s that whole looking at the heavens, almost like praying, (as we find out later it is Tom’s point of view), but I’d like to point out the similarity it has to the shot in Kurosawa’s Rashomon.  Rashomon was the first film to shoot directly into the sun.  The shot in Rashomon has the sun seen through numerous tree branches.  As the film is about different events seen through different witnesses, the sun can be seen as the truth and the trees as different paths to the sun.  In respect to Miller’s Crossing this shot doesn’t make quite as much sense because there is no sun and the trees aren’t tangled as much.  But the idea is still there.  Tom is telling Casper, Leo, Bernie, and Verna different stories.  The only difference between this narrative and Rashomon‘s is we know a little more about what’s going on in Miller than we do Kurosawa’s film.

Another interesting shot I found doesn’t really have anything to do with analysis but rather how the Coen brothers put together a movie.  In the shot where Tom is reading a newspaper, there is a fade into it.  Our attention is immediately drawn to  the headline “Gangland Slaying” before the entire frame is done fading.  They accomplish this by putting more light onto that part of the newspaper.  I thought it was really cool as a filmmaker myself.

In the final shot I’ll bring up is early in the film: when Tom breaks into the ladies room drunk to see Verna.  The shot is a point of view forward tracking shot (Tom’s POV) as he is approaching Verna.  If you look at all the other women in the room, they look EXACTLY the same.  Same haircut, dress, makeup, etc.  Verna looks entirely different from all of them.  Tom has clearly singled her out from all the other women and him being in an intoxicated state manifests this even further, as the camera is in POV.  When one is intoxicated, you are usually single-track minded and can focus on one thing at a time.  In this case, it’s Verna.  All other women are just moving around him and all he wants is for them to get out of his way.

Random point:  There is a reference to the western genre when Leo says “they took his hair” and Tom replies “maybe it was injuns.”  Thought that was cool.

The most interesting observation I had in this film was at the end of Miller’s Crossing we find out the film wasn’t a love story about Verna and Tom, but rather Leo and Tom.  Tom did everything for Leo.  He gave and took beatings.  He even killed the brother of the woman he loved.  It’s amazing how strong his love for Leo is.  Early in the film they have a lover’s quarrel when Leo doesn’t follow Tom’s advice.  Tom says before leaving, “my opinion used to matter here.”  If that doesn’t sound like an old married couple I don’t know what does.  At the end of the film, there is an extended shot of Tom looking out at Leo as he walks away.  If this isn’t a clear indicator of his love for Leo I don’t know what is.

Our discussion today in class aroused some interesting thoughts. Identity and soul of a film were the ones that stood out to me. I was most inspired by the comment of people changing their image (clothes) as they grew.  But anyway, can works of art have souls? People say they put their heart and soul’s into something they work really hard on, so why not film?

The first question I asked myself: is film alive? My answer is yes in an obvious metaphorical sense. Film doesn’t physically breathe, think, or have a pulse. It is, however, “born” from ideas of countless sources. The root source is a human mind. A film cannot spontaneously appear. Hundreds of people work on it to get the best possible outcome. It’s almost like they are “raising” (yes there will be more horrible comparisons) it. This is where the film starts to become a film. It’s no longer a bowl of mush; it takes a form. People are putting their thoughts, experiences, and sometimes actual bodies in the film. Who is to say that film is not alive? Alive in the sense that people are influenced by them to the point where they begin to live their lives around them. When girls start looking for John Cusack’s characters in every guy, there is some life force there that inspires. Film has inspired people to attempt assassinations for Christ’s sake! And to finish my comparison of film to a person’s life, one could say that when the film is released in the theaters, it’s out of the writer/director/producer’s hands. He/She just sits back and wonders if their “baby” will succeed in life. That attachment could relate to their ego but it also has that offspring quality.

So what about film having an identity? The topic of us changing ourselves (specifically image) does not really apply to a film. Once a film is officially released, it doesn’t change. There are those rare occassions where someone (example: George Lucas) will add some additional footage and graphics to make their film better. This is similar to a parent not willing to let go and let their child be what they are. It saddens me everytime I see films out that have an extended director’s cut or additional endings. It’s all a novelty to get people to buy the DVD. Chances are if you have to do that then your film sucked to begin with. But I digress. The substance in the film does not change. We hear the same sounds and see the same Grace Kelly from Rear Window now that they heard and saw when it was first released. What changes is how the audience sees it. That’s the identity of a film: what we personally give it. A film is secure with how it looks. Bambi won’t decide that her mother should live and Kevin Spacey would clarify that he is Kayser Soze (or would he?). Throughout time, the identity of a film will change as our culture changes. A perfect example is Birth of a Nation. It was a great film at the time it came out and was shown in the White House. Now it’s almost a sin to watch it because it is so racist and offensive.

Ultimately the life span of a film is determined by its ability to affect others. We’ve seen the recurring loner in the past films we have watched. There is life in that character. Every guy wants to be him. This is just the smallest of examples. There is rarely a film out now that is completely original in everything it does. There is some inspiration from at least another film’s components. Don’t tell me film has no life, no soul. If it doesn’t, then I don’t.

Here are a couple interesting thoughts I had during the film:

In the extended shot of Ed telling Paul about finding Taylor’s dead body, Paul is brushing his teeth.  I believe he only started brushing his teeth once he told Ed what was going on.  This could be a subtle hint that Paul is lying, because he feels guilty of not telling Ed the truth and needs to clean his “dirty” mouth.

When Paul and Ed run up to Paul’s office after Sloss is assassinated, there are Vote Henry banners and signs all over.  In this scene, Paul confesses to Ed that he killed Taylor.  The mise en scene (staging of characters, props, lighting, etc.) suggests that Henry has some kind of influence on Paul and possibly the murder of Taylor, which we eventually find out he does.

When Ed is telling Mrs. Matthews about what is going on, Opal is in tears about what Ed is saying.  He tells Mrs. Matthews that everyone is trying to convince Opal that her brother Paul killed Taylor.  What I find odd is that Opal told Ed before Taylor’s death that Paul was going there to kill him.  I don’t think she needed any convincing.  It’s almost like the screenplay writer forgot who told Ed to stop Paul.

One of my questions was why no Shad O’Rory?  And what exactly is Nick Varner?  There are some parts where he sounds Italian and others Irish.

There are obvious differences of the film The Glass Key compared to the novel.  One of the main things that the film lacks is complexity.  As Dr. Campbell said earlier in class, Hollywood simplifies the emotions.  The film has a semi-hero with Ed but his character is not nearly as complex as Ned is in the novel.  Ned is much more hard-boiled than Ed.  We only truly see one of Ed’s faults at the beginning of the film when he rolls dice once.  Gambling is a vital part of Ned’s character and the screenplay adapter just tapped the surface.  Instead of Ed getting involved for the money, he gets involved for the woman and somewhat for Paul’s sake.

One of the most disturbing parts in the novel is when Ned, after being brutally beaten, finds razor blades and attempts to kill himself.  The film had a similar scene, but instead of killing himself he uses it to tear the stuffing out of the bed to light it on fire.  Instead of being desperate and suicidal, he’s MacGyver.  It’s obvious that Hollywood was not prepared for that, which is why I’m actually in favor of a remake being made.

After reading The Glass Key, I couldn’t help but relate the novel to the film Chinatown (1974).  Both involve a corrupt power pulling strings in the background while a lowly detective keeps snooping around.  In both instances we aren’t really aware of what the main character is thinking.  Jake Gittes, the main character in Chinatown, is not given a voiceover much like Ned.  This is hardly a profound discovery as both are in the same genre.  When reading The Glass Key, what struck me was that Taylor Henry’s dead body was found on China Street.  When writing Chinatown, Robert Towne obviously knew his noir.

What separates the two works is that Key takes place on the East Coast (NY area) and Chinatown on the West Coast (LA).

The only thing left in my mind is why are the Chinese the source of so much corruption?  Why China Street/Chinatown?