Royale With Cheese

I’m basically going to talk about a few points that were brought up during class on Monday, and give my views on them.

First, it was said numerously that Beth should just die, she’s a tool, and even that she doesn’t bring anything to the table. The fact is, Beth IS the table itself. She is the perfect “little woman” of the book. She is the girl that the other girls want to be like. Selfless, generous, caring, loving, bearing gifts without any thought of getting something in return. She never truly cared about material things. There was her music, but she loved to play FOR people, as well as for herself. Beth is the Utopian March girl. Let me point out that, when they receive their first letter (that we see at least) from their father, every girl except Beth says something that they will not do anymore because they want to be what their father calls “little women.” Beth starts to say something, but then stops. Could that be because she doesn’t have any flaws? Maybe, but who really knows for sure other than Alcott? I’ll also say that I find it incredibly interesting that Beth, the ideal little woman, actually dies and takes that way of life with her. The other March sisters were nothing like her, and the world around Beth was more corrupt than she could handle. Beth could not exist in that world, so of course Alcott rubbed her out. Now I’ll ask a question. By snuffing out Beth, is Alcott making an argument that a completely domestic way of life, the life of a so-called “little woman,” is completely immoral and unjust?

I also want to note that I don’t believe Meg gave in to the domestic lifestyle, simply because that is what was expected of her. Yes, she did become a stay-at-home housewife, but she chose to do so. She did not marry the kind of man that everyone expected her to. She married a poorer man, because she loved him, and that is the best reason to marry someone. So by going against Mrs. March’s advice and marrying Mr. Brooke she is not giving in to anything. Her marriage to Mr. Brooke did not cause her to become a domestic housewife. They were generally poor, so she had to work around the home to keep things running smoothly.

I also just watch Cukor’s “Little Women” earlier today, and I must say it was a bit “Wizard of Oz-ish.” I don’t know why, but I keep thinking that the entire time. When I first saw Laurie and he is waving out of his window yelling “Hello! Hello! Hello! Hello!,” over and over again, I thought he looked a little odd, and sounded goofy. I almost stared laughing. It was just the way he was doing it. I also enjoyed how the phrase “Christopher Columbus” kept getting tossed around. It’s such an odd expression, and Amy told Jo to not say such things.

I couldn’t really get into the novel “Little Women” for some reason. Maybe it was the writing style, or how the book was brought together. I just don’t know. There were times while reading where I would somewhat enjoy it, but then that feeling would often cease. I feel like I’m being left out though, because so many people say this book is phenomenal and it changed their lives, and that includes the people of today as well, and I’m just not getting that feeling. Every chapter was like a different short story about life as a woman. The only thing that each chapter had in common was that the same characters were in them. Louisa May Alcott seems to have written many little stories and pasted them together into one big book. I’m not trashing the novel at all, I want to make that clear. But I personally didn’t care for it. I can’t even express how depressing that actually makes me feel though. It’s just a shame.

I must say again that the graph used to compare the length of sentences in the novel and number of seconds of shot in a scene, is an interesting way of analyzing film and literature. While we watched that scene in “Miller’s Crossing” again and specifically looked for the cuts in filming, I started to get a headache and my eyes hurt. I guess that’s the only downside to watching for and honing in on those elements in movies.

If a film maker wants to keep the audience interested in their movie, having multiple cuts during a scene is greatly needed. You keep the viewers on their toes, watching for everything that is happening with each character on the screen. Now, sometimes one long shot can be a very instrumental moment in a movie, and you certainly need those too if a film is going to do well in the long run. Constantly jumping from shot to shot can get a little nerve racking. But if there is to be long shot of something (a fixed shot) there needs to be great dialogue. The beginning of “Miller’s Crossing” accomplished this beautifully. Tarantino used this in Pulp Fiction with a long still shot on Bruce Willis’s face while Ving Rhames is making a speech about why he’s giving Willis money. These shots can can have an amazing impact in the movie, but they can also kill the moment. Great film makers know this little tip and can use it profoundly.

I have to be honest, I was completely lost when people started talking about feelings and such during last class. I just didn’t know what people were trying to say, and maybe that’s why we needed a different word other than “feeling.” I still don’t know if we came up with one that satisfied the situation.

I can see how directors took the novel and adapted it into a movie; each film had its own method of doing so. But I don’t know if the first two films captured the original plot of the novel. “The Glass Key” (film) was more of a love story than anything else, but the novel was about a detective-like man solving the murder of Taylor Henry. The movie hardy focused on the murder at all. You see the relationship between Ed and Paul, Ed and Nick, Ed and Jeff, Ed and Janet, Paul and Janet somewhat. But what about Taylor Henry and everyone else? The film wraps everything to a close when Ed suddenly goes to Janet’s house and solves the case, which was barely examined at all elsewhere. The only thing about this film that was even remotely similar to the novel is most of the characters, but there are even problems with that – Ned=Ed, Shad O’Rory=Nick Varna. Maybe I’m coming down so hard on this film simply because it took on the same name of the book, but couldn’t truthfully carry that title through to the credits. I feel the people who were involved in making this film had other plans which they would invoke throughout it. For instance, a homosexual love story between Jeff and Ed.

As for “Yojimbo” I see the film as using aspects from the novel, but making a film about something else. Sanjura came into the town messed everyone up a little, then killed them all, and left, knowing he had cleaned the place up. Ned was never trying to clean anything up! He only wanted to get ahead in life, and that can be seen with him getting Paul to pull some strings to make him a detective just so he could get his gambling money back. Sanjura could care less about money, and the closest resemblance between the two of them is that they were good at playing all the sides. Even then Sanjura played everyone a whole lot more than Ned did in the novel.

Now “Miller’s Crossing,” even though I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, wasn’t a great adaptation of the novel either. I can see how the film is more “conscious” of itself, pulling in factors and points that draw a comparison between the film and book. I understand that adaptations don’t always follow the written works they come from. (Look at “The Scarlet Letter,” an extremely loose adaptation of its novel. It has a great cast, but there are so many odd and horrible things about it that I can’t even explain them.) There is definitely more of a gangster feel to this film than the “The Glass Key” (film), and that is one factor which brings the film closer to the novel. But even though Bernie is supposed to be (I think) Taylor Henry, the film is far different from the novel, because one of the underlying factors that kept the book going was the Henry murder and trying to figure out who did it. Bernie was not murdered in the beginning and he wasn’t killed in the woods, so he doesn’t fit Taylor’s role.

I guess this is just my own feelings on adaptations not being true to their predecessors. I also must say that the comparison of the number of words in the sentences and number of seconds in each shot was a pretty cool thing to see. Many people in class didn’t seem to think very highly of this idea, but I really thought it was interesting.

I have to say that in my opinion, “Miller’s Crossing” is definitely a genre film. It has semantic and syntactic elements of a gangster film in it. There are other factors that play into other ongoing genres that might be working within, but first and foremost the gangster element shines the brightest. I don’t think I need to point out how gangsteresque the scene with Leo shooting the crap out of everyone is. It was like the complete opposite of Sonny getting blown to pieces in “The Godfather.” They came to kill Leo and O’Bannon ends up waging a one man war against Johnny Caspar’s gang — “The Godfather Strikes Back,” coming to a theater near you.

Looking at “Miller’s Crossing” on the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com), this is what they understand to be the film’s genre: Crime, drama, thriller. Now I can’t see a traditional type of thriller working within this film, but, sure, there were some intense moments. The other two, crime and drama, are definitely what make a gangster film what it truly is. I watched the trailer for the film, and let me just say it was pretty good. I have to point out that the last thing said in it is: “No one is what they seem to be at Miller’s Crossing.” The funny thing is that the body out there was supposed to be Bernie, but it wasn’t. I hope someone else can find some humor in that too. But in the trailer you see the cops, the bosses, their henchmen, the lovers, the rats, the heels, the double-double crossers, and everyone shooting at everybody. (There was some discussion on what a heel might mean and I found this: Heel- an inconsiderate or untrustworthy person [this is supposedly an informal definition])

(I had to put it on here again.)

As it was said last class, many people go to a movie based on its genre and their expectations of what should be presented. You go to a horror film, and you’re expecting to see a little gore. You go to a gangster film and you want to see different bosses battling it out for the top, crime erupting left and right, and crisis and turmoil around every turn. “Miller’s Crossing” certainly holds up to it’s claims, while also preserving the story of “The Glass Key,” and that is why it was just so good. Although, having Albert Finney, John Turturro, and Gabriel Byrne certainly helped as well. Let’s face it, if a person went to see what they believed to be a gangster film and it actually turned out to be slapstick comedy, I feel movie goers might have some issues they would like to discuss with Hollywood, or maybe just their neighbor.

(One more for the road.)

Interested about the title? I feel like I’m destroying what I am trying to do here, but for the sake of clarity here you go. I was just looking for something to describe Leo in some way, which also started with an ‘L.’ Lahmu is a deity from Akkadian mythology. I’m sure that doesn’t seem relevant, but there are four things I found out about this deity that sort of apply to Leo:

1. He was sometimes depicted as a snake, and I would definitely say Leo acts like a vicious snake at times.

2. He and his wife gave birth to the two deities who then created the first gods. Leo created an organization that is the foundation of that city.

3. Lahmu, at one point, meant “the muddy one.” I just thought it was funny because of the “clear as mud” statement.

4. Lahmu was a gatekeeper of a temple. Leo is the gatekeeper, so to speak, of his city, which is like his temple.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahmu)

(Oh, what the hell.)

You know, I think about 1990 and I say, “That wasn’t so long ago.” But then reality hits me, and I revise, “1990 was 18 years ago.” In “Miller’s Crossing” I recognize the actor playing Tom (Gabriel Byrne), the leading man. He was one of the main characters in “The Usual Suspects,” which was only made five years after “Miller’s Crossing.” But Byrne looked much older for some reason; even five years seems like a lot of time. But Byrne was not the man who made me think this film was 18 years old; it was John Turturro who did that. He looked so young, he looked like a kid; it was his face.

We were told to focus on the first thing we hear and see in a film, so I did that. First came the sound, ice being dropped into something and making a “dinging” sound. Then I saw the glass cup, maybe three pieces of ice now sitting within it. Someone pours a drink into it, picks it up and walks away. Then came Johnny Caspar’s monologue. I noticed half way through Casper’s speech, which he probably had to think really hard about before he arrived, the man who had poured himself a drink was guy standing behind Leo. Then it turns out that he is the central man of the movie. So the first thing viewers see is Tom’s actions.

Speaking of these actions, Tom pouring the drink, it might be a foreshadowing of what currently looks like a drinking problem. Every time I have seen Tom on the screen, he, at some point, is drinking some sort of alcoholic beverage. That might be a possibility, but I’m just speculating. I truly enjoy the fact that Tom, who fulfills the same role as Ned/Ed/Sanjura, actually has a gambling problem. It pains me to watch a movie that does not much to do about the book it is based off of. The film “The Glass Key” was a lot like the novel, but I feel important factors were left out. At least it was not like the movie and book versions of “I,Robot.” I actually preferred the movie to the book, but that’s just me. But so far, even though “Miller’s Crossing” does not have the same title or characters in it, I can see hints of “The Glass Key” all across the screen.

We noted in class that “Yojimbo” is a Classic Film, or in other words an Art Film. I can see how critics can make that distinction now that we have picked out all of the little details that made the movie what it is. One example that I believe portrays this is the scene where Sanjuro is making his escape from the gang that almost beat him to death. Once he was outside and crawling toward the tavern keepers place, he is actually creeping along the border of a shadow that extends across the road. It signifies Sanjuro’s health; he’s teetering between life and death. Art films make you think and watching these movies and picking out those interesting points are what make it so great.

On the other hand there are Genre Films, which would be something such as “Not Another Teen Movie.” There are not any moments in that film that cause the viewer to say, “Wow, what a great shot. You can see how when that girl’s bra hits the football player in the face, it actually means…well…that she was aiming for his face and got it right in there!” Genre films are created based off what the viewers want to see; their inner desires coming out on the screen. If Hollywood makes a Tom Cruise movie where he’s blowing everything up and everybody loves it, then they are going to make more of them. They will keep making them until people get tired of it and want something else. This style of film, as I have said, works off of the people’s emotions, so it seems like it will always be here. A perfect example of all of this, even though it’s television, is American Idol. The first season was a hit and they just keep making them. Now there are a ton of shows that are sort of the same thing, where people come in and try to do something and someone wins at the end. Here’s the catch, every one of these shows has an English guy as one of the judges. People loved what Simon Cowell, so they keep making more shows with guys just like him in them.

I do not believe that you can have just one style of film: Only classic or only genre. There has to be both, because no matter how many art films a person might see, in the end they will still have a desire to see a genre action film where things are getting blown up, or a love story where the guy gets the girl. Everyone is pleased in having both, and should not be ashamed of liking both either.