Royale With Cheese

Kurosawa seems to be an interestingly amazing director and writer. I picked up on some of the similarities between “The Glass Key” and “Yojimbo,” but not all of the instances we talked about today. But I can see the parallels drawn between the two more clearly now. I am also a huge Star Wars fan and it is so cool that Lucas implanted an identical scene to where Sanjuro gets into his first fight, into “A New Hope.” Immediately after the comment was made, I could see it playing through my head. Oh, you gotta love movies.

One of the most indistinguishable ideas playing through each of the films is that Sanjuro and Ed/Ned are both wanderers. They really do not have any sort of place they can call home, so they begin to drift; which causes trouble in some instances. In the film “The Glass Key,” Ed does not really come off as much of a wanderer as he does in the book. Of course Ed is a man without a home, but in the movie he seems closer to Paul than he does in the novel. Paul Madvig himself, is essentially a home for Ed Beaumont. I can also see to a certain degree that Sanjuro has a temporary home within the town, that being with Gonji, the tavern keeper. This is the guy who took Sanjuro in after he had been brutally beaten, and also allowed his new found friend to constantly hang out in his establishment. This movie reminded me a lot of the movie “Last Man Standing,” which is more of an American version of “Yojimbo.”

One thing that I can say about my new knowledge of the world of Kurosawa, is that I can’t wait to see “Seven Samurai.”

I had never heard of Noir Films until last class. It seems like a very interesting way of filming. As we looked back over certain parts of the “The Glass Key,” I could see the dark shadows and slanted lines of light. The scene with Ed and Jeff in the upstairs room in the speakeasy. Nick Barnett arrived and Jeff began choking him, while Ed was standing by the door. Darkness surrounds Ed and there is a distinct ray of light only between himself and Jeff on the floor. Another point that makes this a good example of a noir film is the sexual encounter between Ed and Mrs. Mathews. It was said that there is ritualized sex in this type of movie. Throughout the film Ed had a very sexual way about himself. For example, the nurse, Mrs. Mathews and, of course, Janet Henry.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film Yojimbo. For lack of better words, I’ll just say it was awesome. Over break a friend of mine had told me about Kurosawa and of the movie “Seven Samurai.” I was told that this was the man who inspired directors such as George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino. He was the first to do to all. I did not notice the beginning effect of the Bodyguard walking into the path of the mountain; that was pretty cool. “He becomes part of the mountain.” I loved the introduction of the film. The Bodyguard is walking along a path, the viewer is following him, and the production names are showing up behind him. It was just awesome! I sound like Eddie Murphy’s goofy character from “Bowfinger.”

In the previous class, Professor Campbell mentioned that movies makers created films that allowed viewers to know how they should be feeling. I can definitely see this factor playing out in the film. I guess the director or producer would of had to make this alteration from the novel, because while reading the book people cannot figure out what’s going on, let alone what they should be feeling. My biggest issue with this way of interpreting the novel is that the film focuses on there being a romance between Ed and Janet (as well as Paul and Janet, of course), when Ned (in the novel) never truly showed any romantic feelings for Janet. Even in the end of the book when Janet asks Ned if she could go with him to New York, he replied extremely unemotionally by saying something like “Yeah, I guess.”

I enjoyed the movie, but and “Battle of the Sexes” film is not a clear representation of the movie. Sometimes I just want to sit in the board room and listen to what the people in charge of pulling together a movie based off of a book. Who in the world names their leading man Ed. I know there was the talking horse, but that does not seem like a great character to back up the use of this name. But this Ed was clearly a popular guy with the ladies. He flirted with every girl who got too close to him, except Janet. He never really flirted much with her, if at all. But this was the girl he suddenly runs to the door with at the end of the movie with the biggest smile he’d probably ever made in his life. It just strikes me as odd.

Also, this Hollywood innuendo of lighting someone else’s cigarette to mean you’re asking to have sex or are having sex is quite odd as well. This happened between men a few different times. The way Jeff was depicted with Ed (being real close to him at the speakeasy and the unusual enjoyment of beating Ed around) was really strange as well. I could see a hint of something sexual between Ed and Jeff, while the latter was holding him real close and talking real softly. The thing is I can’t figure out why these things were placed into the film. What deeper meaning were the producers/directors hoping to achieve? I’m interested in following up on these issues later classes.

Upon finishing the movie today, I realized something. Movies that are based on books are always prone to create false presentations for viewers. As I read the novel, I could honestly imagine the book on the big screen. But disappointment is unfortunately what followed with the transition of “The Glass Key” from literature to film.

Overall, I would have to say that I really enjoyed the movie; it had its quirks, humor, drama, and a ton of great one-liners. I throughly enjoyed seeing Jeff (William Bendix) in human form. He was truly fun to watch, especially when he and Ed are sitting in a back room talking and he keeps leaning in real close and holding him affectionately. That entire sequence was a bit strange in the book and I believe the movie’s scene probably lived up to Hammett’s standards.

This is just a side note, and I can’t quite figure out this detail that appeared throughout the film. Anyone who can help me understand this issue, please feel free to comment. Why in the world does Ed Beaumont continuously have an evil-looking smirk on his face? He’s keeps pulling out that smirk at the most random and unexpected places. For instance immediately after Matthews’s death.

Paul Madvig (Brian Donlevy) was one of the best characters in the film. He was portrayed as a stronger individual than he was in the book. He was much more socially expressive with the people around him, running his mouth a mile a minute at the dinner party. Readers were able to view the dinner party in the novel, but from what I gathered I felt Paul did not do much talking. I got the impression that he just sat to the side in silence. I can’t truly justify that statement, but for some reason that is the image I’ve created in my head. The scene involving Paul that I loved most was when Ed was trying to leave Matthews’s house and Jeff hits him (yet again), causing Ed to fall against the wall. As Jeff starts to move in on Ed, suddenly Paul comes out of no where and takes out Nick Barnett’s henchmen! It was awesome! He came in saving his friend from anymore harm. I also have to say that taking the ring back was hilarious. He asks for the left hand (not the right hand that she lifted), took the ring off her finger and he asks, “What, do you think I’m crazy?” Then he walks away. Awesome. Paul just seemed to be a little more independent from Ed that he was from Ned in the book.

I’ll end this with a small, but incredibly funny quote from the movie. After Ed accuses Janet of Taylor’s murder, Janet’s father, the Senator, asked District Attorney Farr who’s evidence this was based off of. Ed replied “My evidence, and brother its hot!”

On the first day of class, Professor Campbell mentioned that Ned Beaumont’s character in the movie is named Ed Beaumont. I unfortunately forgot that inescapable fact, and was surprised when I heard Ned being called Ed. I can easily say that the floating protagonist Ned Beaumont, suddenly being called Ed is incredibly disappointing and also a bit strange. Who in their right mind would suddenly say “This guy Ned Beaumont, let’s call him Ed.” I’m not sure in the name change is something significant, or just someone who wanted the hero of the movie to be called Ed.

Not only was Ned changed to Ed, but he is now a clean shaven man in the film. Throughout the novel Hammett would not allow anyone to see into the minds of any of the characters, including Ned. Ned’s most memorable move he would make during a intense moment was to stroke a side of his mustache with his thumb. I can see that the director attempting to not allow any insight into the characters’ heads, but Ed puts up his impenetrable fortress to not allow us into his thoughts by simply standing around with a straight face and stature. I guess he could run a hand through his hair instead, it’s not like anyone would see it messed up because he wears his smooth Frank Sinatra hat.

I’m noticing that the movie is taking away the characteristics that make Ned stand out from the rest. No mustache, he’s now named Ed, and he apparently doesn’t have a gambling problem. The only time he is seen making a bet is when he first comes on screen. Beyond that, so far, there has not been any hint at a gambling problem, and in turn no indication that he gambles in life. Overall, Ed Beaumont doesn’t live up to expectations, and unfortunately plays down the character’s personal and memorable strong points.

In Wednesday’s class we spoke of Ned Beaumont seeming as if he did not truly belong in “The Glass Key”. It is as if he is a floating entity, moving from place to place in an attempt to create something profitable from it all. Not just in monetary forms though. He of course took a trip to New York to take care of that. Ned initially became a private investigator to retrieve these winnings from Bernie, but he continues to hold on to his lawful status for the rest of the novel.

Ned Beaumont generally wanted answers! He played tricks on everyone throughout the novel. Imbedding himself in to individuals’ lives and reading their every move. I feel he was able to do these things, because he was a drifter. After leaving Paul the first time, he was able to have a short lived ordeal with Madvig’s arch nemesis, Shad O’Rory.

Picking up on this detail in class caused me to begin thinking about the fact that Ned continuously tried to leave town. New York was his destination and he just could not make it there. His floating among allies and enemies would not cease!

Turning over the book and reading the synopsis of the novel, I realized something incredibly interesting. Ned Beaumont is not even mentioned as being a key character in the novel. I can’t figure that one out, but it might play in with the whole “not really belong there” theory.