OK so I mentioned in class that I was having a spamming issue on my comments and I couldn’t figure out what it was about my entry that inspired all these companies to send me ads about anti-depressants and all sorts of other meds. True, I am a bit of a crazy but I’m already medicated enough as it is thank you very much. But lo and behold, I log on today to find that alone with welbutrin and zoloft I had ads for viagara and cialis. So I am depressed and I am a man. I am a man who is depressed about erecticle disfunction! That would very much depress me, I think, if I were a man – especially if I were still only a twenty year old man!

Anyways, this got me thinking about how we advertize differently to men and women. Advertizing viagara never actually says anything about not being able to get it up. Instead it makes it seem like the man who is taking viagara is conquering the evil disfunction (which is only mentioned in passing) and he can please his woman more than the average man. It’s really rather ridiculous. It’s like the happy people on the herpes commercial – but that’s another thought. Of course now with ads for tampons and pads it talks about not letting anything get in the way of your day. It’s like tampons are just another invention by “the Man” or MEN and we aren’t going to let them stop us! WARNING: Feminist Advertiser On the Loose!

O.K. So maybe I’m just ranting, but it made you laugh right? Now I’m going to Copy/Paste the amazing outline I talked about in class (btw, I did not make this outline myself so don’t be too impressed).

1.) Diegetic sound Sound whose source is visible on the screen or whose source is implied to be present by the action of the film:

o voices of characters

o sounds made by objects in the story

o music represented as coming from instruments in the story space ( = source music)

Diegetic sound is any sound presented as originated from source within the film’s world

2.) Non-diegetic sound Sound whose source is neither visible on the screen nor has been implied to be present in the action:

o narrator’s commentary

o sound effects which is added for the dramatic effect

o mood music

Non-diegetic sound is represented as coming from the a source outside story space. The distinction between diegetic or non-diegetic sound depends on our understanding of the conventions of film viewing and listening. We know of that certain sounds are represented as coming from the story world, while others are represented as coming from outside the space of the story events. A play with diegetic and non-diegetic conventions can be used to create ambiguity (horror), or to surprise the audience (comedy).

3.) SIGNIFICANT DETAILS OF FILM FORM

Distance of shot

The use of different shots can influence the meaning which an audience will interpret:

· Close-up: May be used to show tension;

· Extreme close-up: Focuses on a single facial feature, such as lips;

· Medium shot

· Long shot

· Establishing shot: Mainly used at a new location to give the audience a sense of locality.

Camera angles

These are used extensively to communicate meaning and emotion about characters:

· Low angle shot: Looking up at a character or object, often to instill fear or awe in the audience;

· Straight angle shot

· High angle shot: Looking down on a character, often to show vulnerability or weakness;

· Canted or Oblique: The camera is tilted to show the scene at an angle. This is used extensively in the horror and science fiction genre. The audience will often not consciously realize the change.

Mise en scene

“Mise en scene” refers to what is colloquially known as “the Set”, but is applied more generally to refer to everything that is presented before the camera. With various techniques, film makers can use the Mise En Scene to produce intended effects. This narrow definition of mise en scène is not shared by all critics. For some, it refers to all elements of visual style — that is, both elements on the set and aspects of the camera. For others, such as Andrew Sarris, it takes on mystical meanings related to the emotional tone of a film.

It has also come to represent a style of conveying the information of a scene primarily through a single shot – often accompanied by camera movement. It is to be contrasted with montage-style filmmaking – multiple angles pieced together through editing.

The term mise-en-scene (pronounced “meez-ahn-sen”) refers to the director’s control over what appears in the film frame. In short, mise-en-scene covers four areas:

· Setting and Props

· Lighting

· Costumes and Make-up

· Behavior of Figures (acting and other movement)

Just got home from watching the 1994 Little Women.  I must say I’ve been looking forward to it all day.  There’s nothing quite like a good adaptation of one of your favorite novels to be a quick fix at the end of a long day.  Perhaps that’s what inspires folks to adapt books into film because most people can’t exactly sit down and plow through a novel in 90 min or so.  I know my life as an English major would be much easier if that were the case.  But I digress.

I must say, without reservation, that in loving the 94 version of the film I come almost as close to my love of the novel.  Obviously there will always be things that get lost in the transference from medium to medium (case and point is the lack of boat scene with Amy and Laurie) but this film is definitely pretty darn close to perfect.   We may not have a better word yet, but the “feeling” I get when reading Little Women is the same as when I watch Winona Ryder and Gabriel Byrne (or perhaps he’s just yummy and I’m biased, so sue me).  But beyond my obvious admiration of Professor Bhaer, I must say that I absolutely love Susan Sarandon’s portrayal of Marmee.  Sarandon makes Marmee come alive as not just a loving mother but also a strong woman who sacrafices for her family and wishes she could give her girls “a more just world.”  That is by far one of my favorite lines.  I feel like this version of the film is the most true to Alcott’s world of Little Women.  All four girls get a chance to grow and become full characters.  More importantly, however, is the way they interact with each other.  I think this version of the film really shows the March family as a cohesive unit with all sorts of delightful inner workings.

So the 1949 version of Little Women was awful. But, there are definitely some interesting choices to be discussed. For one, I am a fan of the casting choice for Laurie. I couldn’t help but notice some interesting parallels between Peter Lawford’s life and the life of his character Laurie. Peter Lawford was a member of the Rat Pack back in it’s hay day. The Rat Pack included Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr, Joey Bishop, and Peter Lawford. If you’re interested, HBO made a really awesome film entitled The Rat Pack starring Ray Liotta as the man himself (that’s Frankie if you don’t know). Anyways, back to Lawford. Frank started calling him Brother-in-Lawford because he married Patricia Kennedy and was therefore cool by association to the President! Obviously, Laurie is way cooler on his own than Lawford was but still if it weren’t for Jo, he would’ve been the weird neighbor that no one cared about. See what I’m saying?

For more info on The Rat Pack

For more info on the HBO film

So I took almost all of the “Which March Girl Are You?” Quizes and I wasn’t really surprised.  I liked the ones that ranked them in order the best.  Overall I was mostly Jo but Amy was a VERY close second.  In fact, when ranked I was 75% Jo and 70% Amy (I told you it was close).  And twice I was Meg, although I’m not sure I agree with the summary given of Meg.  Each quiz explained why you were the person you were and the explanations revealed much about the way the quiz writer interpreted the novel.  It would seem that the quizes that told me I was Meg read her as being stuck on herself and nothing more than a domesticated door mat (I’m not sure that says much for my personality).  Anyways, I was all in all not very surprised at my results.

So I need to write before I forget all the things I was thinking about in class.  For one, I really believe in the idea that all these characters are bouncing off each other and none could really exist as the person they are without each other.  Lucky for me, although I do not have any sisters, I have an amazing best friend who manages to be the Meg to my Amy and the Beth to my Jo all at the same time.  And maybe she’s the Meg to my Jo as well, who knows? But I do know that when Amy desperately wants limes, Meg is there to tell her that you aren’t the worst person alive just because you want something for yourself.  And when Jo is worried that she’ll never get things right it is Beth who believes she can be whatever it is she wants to be.

But let’s not forget Marmee.  Let’s not forget the strength Marmee has in supporting all of her little women.  Isn’t she just amazing? I sure think so.  She teaches Meg how to be the domestic woman that also has a mind and the ability to be the support system her husband will need.  I do not think that this makes Marmee or Meg any less of a strong or even feminist woman.  Marmee doesn’t want Meg to be a simpleton, she wants her to be a wife who is a confidant, a friend, and a rock of support.  Marmee wants Jo to embrace her own spirit and intellect while also knowing that family will always be the center of her strength.  Marmee lets Beth know that it is OK to have fear as long as one has faith.  As for Amy, Marmee is both supportive yet firm in order to teach her that while it is fine to be silly in one’s youth it is more than necessary to grow out of it at some point.

Now, without any segueway (sp?)  at all, I love Professor Bhaer.  I totally by it.  Unfortunately I think the film adaptation we just watched doesn’t do him justice.  (You will see when we reach the 1994 version that I will have MUCH more to say)  Anyways, when I first read and reread Little Women I knew that Jo and Laurie could not and would not end up together.  Sure they were great friends, but as lovers they would kill each other.  Jo wasn’t ready to be tied down by Laurie because he wasn’t strong enough.  Jo does need someone who will challenge her and who will be like a father figure.  As for Laurie, I think him and Amy make perfect sense.  Amy grows up to be a woman who will not only fit into Laurie’s world but will compliment his personality.  While perhaps outwardly she seems to be the delicate arm candy Jo predicts Laurie will marry, I truly feel that she inspires him to be all that he can be.  Laurie couldn’t have ever really changed to suit Jo because she wouldn’t let him.  She wanted him to be her Laurie, her childhood friend forever.  Amy not only allows Laurie to grow up, she insists upon it.  So while Laurie is being forced to grow up, Jo is having her eyes and her heart opened up by the older and wiser Professor – whom, I might add, I pictured as a handsome gentlemen not a silly old fool like in the 1933 version.

So in summation, I couldn’t imagine the novel (or film adaptations) without ANY of the March girls and I truly feel that Professor Bhaer was not well done in this version.

So I was trying to comment on Robyn’s blog and I was hopelessly unsuccessful.  Therefore, before launching into my own post, I’m going to post here what it is I was going to say:

I’m not sure I agree with the idea that no one wants to be like Beth.  She has an incredible strength within her, it just isn’t in the same way as the others.  Even Jo, who is the character we all want to be, gets a lot of her own strength from Beth’s love, supportive, and unfailingly faith in the goodness of others.

As for Amy, I really feel that by the end of the novel she is not the same little girl she was in the beginning.  Sometimes those like Amy who come from such beginnings blossom into likeable characters in their own right.

Now, back to my original train of thought (if I can find it).  I will say shamelessly that I too am absolutely in love with Little Women.   I really have a hard time imagining how different a person I would be had I not been given the novel when I was a child – I think I was nine or ten as well.  However, while our friend Dancing Bread Rolls says this novel is not her scene, it is most definitely mine.  My mother gave me Little Women because while she had a luke warm feelings about it she knew I would absolutely love it.  I think that if Marmee were a single mother with a bad temper and a strong stubborn streak, she could easily be my mother.  Now, I know that makes my own dear mother sound bad, but she did give me Little Women which proves that although it may not have touched her the same way, she knew it would find a special place in my soul.  Actually, my mother says that she grew to appreciate the novel after I read it.  I think it’s because, like Jo, I’ve always wanted to be a writer and I’ve always needed my mother to tell me that it’ll be ok.

Now the next thing I admit may come as a shock:  of course I see so much of myself in Jo but yet there is another character in the book that accounts for a huge part of me as well and that character is Amy.  I know that to many she is obnoxious, self-centered, and perhaps an early example of a gold digger but I think that’s only if you look at the surface.  There’s something sweet about her fear of dying before ever being kissed and her naive belief that she can control who she falls in love with.  I guess I’ve always found myself living somewhere between Jo and Amy.  I find myself typing away long into the night and worrying that I’ll never fit into some mold and then at the same time I’ve realized since coming to college that I’ve embraced a life and a persona that is more like Amy of in Europe.  I feel that perhaps in the end what it’ll come down to is the choice between a Laurie and a Professor Bhaer.  I’ve had so many Laurie type friends, and I think that in that regard I will be Jo til the end.  So, if you know of any Bhaer types, send them my way ok?

So this weekend I went out and bought that book “Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs,” and then I was inspired to actually buy some Cocoa Puffs cereal to go with it.  So while I was enjoying my chocolaty goodness I began thinking about cliches.  Poor cliches have a bad rap amongst literary types for it has been jammed into our heads that cliche = bad writing.  Now I understand why it is so easy to fall into this trap.  Cliches are cliches because hundreds of other writers have already used them and therefore they are “unoriginal.”  But really, I have to question whether or not there remains any original ideas out there? I think that the only thing any writer (whether it be a novel, short story, or screenplay) can do is face the facts that no matter what they write there will be at least one person out there who finds it to be trite, predictable, and/or cliche.

The key is to figure out how to harness cliches and make them work the way you want them too.  Take for example the idea of mistaken identity.  This is a ploy that has been used over and over again by some of the greatest artists of all time *cough cough* Shakespeare *cough cough* and the reason this “gimick” has survived is because it works.  Take for example, “While You Were Sleeping” a film whose entire plot is driven by this concept.  Girl saves boys life, hospital nurse thinks girl is boy’s fiance, and then boy’s family takes her in while boy is in a coma.  Of course the coma thing is essential because while boy “is sleeping,” girl gets a chance to meet and fall in love with the whole family.  What makes this cliche work is that one can really believe this character Lucy (played by Sandra Bullock) is so lonely that she’s easily swept up in the excitement of being welcomed into this family.  Her parents have died, she has no family, she works in a booth at the L-station, and she’s the one who works every holiday because she doesn’t have any family.  So, is it too unbelievable to suppose that she wouldn’t go along with this mistake especially when she has two older father figure types telling her that it’s the best idea for the time being? I think not.  Plus, if she doesn’t go along with it, how is she supposed to meet the cute brother that she ends up with instead? 🙂

So I’m kind of late in getting around to my discussion of The Glass Key film. Oops, sorry about that. But I find myself sitting wondering what it is about movies that makes them stick in my head. I’ve always been that kid who corrects others when they misquote a movie even if it’s just that they didn’t get the word order correct. I think part of that has to do with some OCD tendencies, but more importantly, I myself aspire to be a screenwriter and I wouldn’t want someone misquoting me! There really is something in not just the word choice, but the order and the tone and the body language… a movie can take all of these elements and BOOM! smack you in the face with them. There are always things going on that can’t be appreciated the first or even second time around. For this reason I was very glad that we were able to rewatch parts of The Glass Key during our discussion.

The ending was praticularly problematic for me because I found myself liking it despite the fact that it was quite ridiculous. I think that is where the real magic of film lies: the ability to make rational human beings forget reality for an hour or two and, even if just for a moment, believe that it’s possible that (N)Ed and Janet can just run off together with Paul’s blessing and everyone was ‘blissfully, blissfully happy.’ Ridiculous, right? But do we go to the movies because we desperately need to buy into this sillyness if only just for an hour or so? Maybe. And while the film’s ending did not have the sort of unsettling ending that the novel did, I will say that it was an ending that made me laugh even after I returned to my realistic mindset. I mean, seriously, Paul taking back the ring… that is class cinema. 🙂

How to begin discussing a class when the first assignment involves reading about a glass phallic symbol that at one point breaks off while functioning??? I must say, it is a somewhat disturbing yet utterly intriguing beginning.

In discussing some of the typical conventions of hard boiled detective novels, I was struck most by the idea that the protagonists are usually morally compromised at some point in the work.  At once this is both perplexing and reasonable.  My initial gut reaction is to rebel against a hero with a gambling problem (for example) and yet on further reading I realize that there are reasons behind this convention that I’m starting to comprehend.   The easiest answer to the question why would the author wish to have a flawed hero is simply that it adds depth to the character.  But why something like gambling? Gambling is one of those issues that divides people.  There are those who see it as good, clean fun and then the others who have seen the mindless pleasure consume someone they love until they become a slave to the casino.  But really, that’s just about anything in life, right? Depending on the situation or who one is the results are going to vary.

That’s why people use gambling as a life metaphor:  Life is like a card game, you do the best you can with the hand you’re dealt.  I think I’ve always been partial to this particular metaphor because it is a balance between a humbleness before the unknown and a belief in human free will.  A character with a gambling problem is much more complex than what appears on the surface.  It was seem like just another addiction but really it is a deeper desire to try and control the course of one’s life.  A gambling addiction is the inability to recognize that one can only control so much in this life.  Unfortunatly, the House wins quite often but that isn’t some sort of cosmic goad to get us to empty our pockets in retaliation.   The pain we experience when we allow ourselves to be vulnerable (gambling is actually an example) is meant to test us.  The pain is just a way of seeing which way we will turn.  Will we turn inward with a stubborn belief that we can solve all our own problems? Or will we walk away from the card table or slot machine and say that today is just not our day?

Our hero is noble in that he takes the risks but his shortcomings arise from a desperado type belief that self reliance is the definining principle that is to be valued above all else.  No man is an island.