I’m with Carmen–I never really thought about all the little details that go into making a film.  Just like a book, every last detail is there for a reason.  Each shot has a purpose and intention, and every detail about the shot corresponds with what the director is trying to create.  I think it’s sort of amazing.

It did leave me wondering, as I’m sure we all wonder when we read book sometimes “did the author really MEAN for that detail to turn out like that?”  “Did the director really INTEND the shot to work so well with the theme of heaven/hell, etc?”  I guess we’ll never really know, but I feel better believing that every intricate detail was completely intentional.  But even if it’s not–if the effect is there, accidentally or intentionally, I’m sold.

Just imagine two circles, the circles of a Venn diagram.  The Samurai from Yojimbo would be one circle, and Ned Beaumont would be the other circle.  The overlapping circle, naturally, would be their similarities.  In the Samurai’s circle, it would say “Japanese.”  In Ned’s circle, it would say “American.”  And that would be the only things written there, because besides the fact that Ned is American and the Samurai is Japanese–they are the same person.  The overlapping part of the Venn diagram would be completely filled; with the following points:

•  both gamblers
• both inherently alone in the world
• caught between two opposing sides of a conflict
• working in a city that is strange to them
• wanted by both sides of the conflict
• offerered money and incentives for their services to each side
• deal with a beautiful woman who is likewise caught between the opposing sides
• always inherently smarter than everyone else–both always know what’s going on
• cocky and confident
• both captured by one side of the conflict and tortured by some big dude for information

 And I could go on for awhile.  Okay; maybe I’m exaggerating a little–there are a couple other differences between Ned and the Samurai besides their ethnicity.  But not many.

I just thought I’d take a moment to say that yes, in fact, the movie The Glass Key is DIFFERENT than the book.  It was directed by Stuart Heisler; not written by Dashiell Hammett.  I think that we can talk about the multitude of differences between the book and the movie, as two entirely unique mediums of art, or we can talk about the quality of the movie as exactly what it is; a movie.  Yes, it does not have the refined character development of a novel.  I seem to recall that the defining characteristic of a novel is character development, while movies are known for entertainment.

The movie The Glass Key is a completely different creature altogether.  It wasn’t made as a tribute to the book–it’s just loosely based on the book.  The movie has entirely different objectives at stake.   Such as money.  Hollywood is about the box office.

That is not to say that all films are just about money–films are artistic creations in themselves.  But it’s a totally different form of art than a book.  Movies have other concerns; scene shots, costumes, lighting, acting, momentum, etc.  I think it’s unfair to compare a movie to a book without taking into account that it will not have the same effect that a book will have on it’s audience.  We’ll never enjoy any movies that are based on books (and there are quite a few) if we point out it’s failure to do justice to the book.  What about it’s success as a movie?  And it’s not just books–movies are often based on historical events, or true stories.  Well yes, sometimes movies are historically inaccurate.  Sometimes they don’t get the facts straight.

I don’t think that it’s their responsibility to do so.  Yes, in the Sound of Music Maria and the children probably didn’t glamorously climb over the mountain to escape the Natzis.  It may have been more complicated than that.  But damn, that’s one of the most memorable scenes in any movie.  It’s a great shot.  And you can appreciate it for that.  Just like we can appreciate the movie The Glass Key as a MOVIE, and evaluate it’s strenghts and weaknesses as a work of film rather than as a book.

Honestly, the trailer just says it all.  The Glamorous Woman.  The Thin man and his two big brothers.  Violence, Sex, Action, Romance, Mystery, Slapping–let me tell you, I was hooked.  I mean, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie; especially the ending, which was so corny it hurt, and oh so endearing.  But the trailer was definitely the high point.  Besides making me want to go out and watch the movie again, it made me wonder how many scenes in the movie were created specifically so that they could create such a trailer to get people to watch the movie.  I felt like the elusive movie makers decided what their viewers would want to see, and created scenes in the movie based off of what would make the movie look interesting.  The movie definitely caters to the audience above all else.  It’s “hollywoodized,” and I love it.

Does anyone else agree with me that they’ve never seen so much eye sex in a movie in my entire life?  They may not show nudity and sex in older movies, but oh my gosh, Janet is extremely promiscuous with her eyes.  She and “Ed” (Ned) really go at it.  And it doesn’t stop there.   Janet and Ned look EVERYONE up and down in the movie; relatives and friends of the same gender not excluded.

Basically, the characterization and acting in the movie is completely over the top, as is typical for many older films.  I like how they improvise the plot of the book instead of trying to follow the plot exactly.  When movies try to precisely mimic books, they inevitably fail.  I think movies based on books are much more successful when they apply the plot of the book loosley, making the movie their own.  I can’t wait to see more Janet and Ned chemistry on Wednesday…it’s pretty hot.

We discussed a lot in class how Hammett as an author does not allow us to see into the minds of his characters.  Given only the surface, we as readers must interpret the feelings and motives of the characters for ourselves.  However, Hammett does give us some imput into the inner workings of his characters Ned and Janet in their dreams; their subconscious minds.  Assuming that they are telling the truth (well Janet lies at first but she eventually tells Ned the truth) we can understand a little more about the story by interpreting the dreams.  Ned comments to Janet;

“That was only a dream,” he said. “Forget it.” He smiled without merriment. (211)

But Hammett obviously included the dreams for a reason.  As readers, we can argue all we want over whether or not Janet and Ned are actually in love with each other, but we will never reach any definite conclusion because we have no access to their thoughts.  Yet regardless of whether or not they are in love, their relationship is destined to failure based on my interpretation of their dreams. 

I used the website http://www.dreammoods.com for interpretations.  It’s sort of a rough analysis, but you get the idea.

FishingTo dream that you are fishing, indicates that you are confronting and bringing your repressed emotions to the surface. In particular, to dream that you are ice fishing, suggests that you are breaking through a hardened emotional barrier and confronting difficult feelings from your unconscious. 

Ned is perhaps confronting his repressed feelings about Janet.  Typically a loner, Ned actually opens up to Janet and confides in her.  He is “breaking through a hardened emotional barrier.”  Yet in his dream, she throws back his fish.  Once Ned finally opens up, Janet rejects him.  This dream perhaps be seen as a foreshadow of future betrayal.

Janet’s dream includes snakes.

Snake

To see a snake or be bitten by one in your dream, signifies hidden fears and worries that are threatening you.  Your dream may be alerting you to something in your waking life that you are not aware of or that has not yet surfaced. The snake may also be seen as phallic and thus symbolize dangerous and forbidden sexuality. The snake may also refer to a person around you who is callous, ruthless, and can’t be trusted. As a positive symbol, snakes represent transformation, knowledge and wisdom. It is indicative of self-renewal and positive changes. 

Janet may or may not have fallen for Ned; but her dream is telling her that he can’t be trusted.  The dangerous and forbidden sexuality also fits right in since Ned is betraying his friend Paul.  Another key (haha key!) symbol in Janet’s dream is a key! Dreammood.com says:

Key

To see a key in your dream, symbolizes opportunities, access, control, secrets, or responsibilities.  You may be locking away your own inner feelings and emotions. 

To see broken keys in your dream, signifies many quarrels and possibly a break-up.Both Ned and Janet’s dreams foreshadow the inevitable failure of their relationship.  Though they seem to be counter egos, the problem may be that they are too much alike.  They both cannot be trusted, and this may lead to their eventual downfall as a couple.