Royale With Cheese

From the March 2 class presentations.

I had never really thought about how much movie goers react to what women do on the screen. In horror movies when a woman screams, it causes people in the theater to scream as well. The same thing happens with women crying in movies. It’s as if directors are playing with our heads. I don’t know about that, but it is kind of funny to think about.

Another thing that happens with women and movies is said to be that the woman will kill the monster in a horror movie. This made me think of a scene from an old sci-fi flick called “This Island Earth;” “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie” made fun of it too. First of all, the show and their version of the movie was hilarious in my opinion. So then scene has this large brainy creature attacking the leading lady, her manly lover was (I think) unconscious and the white haired alien being who is helping the heroes was injured. She was the only thing standing in the creatures way, and she took it down…without even touching it. Oh, it was so funny. The woman had evaded the monster a few times and then she tripped an fell. The creature walks toward her and then trips as well, but that trip was the last one it would ever take. It just fell over and either unconscious itself or it died for no apparent reason (it has been a while since I last saw it). But I figure the woman was the reason he tripped (it was chasing her) so in a way she killed it. The womanly winning streak lives on!

I’ve been behind on my posts unfortunately because of all the work I have to do. For some reason I always get stuck with having a ton of work due in different classes all in the same week. It happens all the time. Maybe the world is conspiring against me. Anyway, the next few posts are from past dates; I have to get back in the game.

On February 28 there was a presentation of the Andrews and Chatman chapters, they spoke about adaptations and what it means to have them. Now fidelity was mentioned in the beginning of the presentation, the screenwriters staying faithful to the text. An example of doing this was where there was a beautiful woman in the novel, they tried to put one in the film as well. But not everyone might think this woman is gorgeous, so there are men watching her and basically drooling over her beauty.

I wonder if this method of adapting/portraying beauty in film is very successful. I read through my notes after our “What is good and What we like” discussion in class. This may be a good way to adapt the beauty of a character in a novel to the beauty of a actor/actress in a film. But even after someone states that a woman in the film is beautiful, not all of the viewers are going to think so.

Everyone judges someone else in their lifetime, people do it without even realizing it. Quite frankly, that is just the way things are. So, I believe that Scarlett Johansson is an incredibly beautiful woman. But a friend of mine stated that there is nothing about her that is attractive. People will judge will always judge beauty, whether its on the big screen or in a restaurant. So even with some men or women in a film saying how good someone looks as a way of backing up the fact that the character is supposed to be beautiful, it will always be disregarded by some. What it all comes down to is: who decides if the actor or actress is beautiful enough or not to portray the fictional character of a novel? Who has that power?

The fact that Mickey Mousing is used during LeRoy’s adaptation of “Little Women” leaves me asking: Why?  The novel became a monumental work of literature that still lives on today, but I feel like LeRoy takes away from that stature when he presents the film with music that follows the characters’ movements.  I’ve been told this adaptation is not very good, and I have not seen enough of the film yet to make that distinction for myself.  But we saw a little of the movie in class and observed Jo jumping over the fence twice with the music following her every move, random shots that last too long and also just regular shots in general that last too long.  I guess in the end, even though I have not seen much of the film, I feel that LeRoy’s adaptation is not up to par with the novel.

I found it incredibly strange that in the 1933 adaptation of “Little Women” began with soldiers walking into town.  I know the way the camera was position and the direction of the walking soldiers in a way pulled viewers into the movie, but why is that the first scene you see after the opening credits?  The problem here is that the only time the soldiers are ever mentioned in the book and the rest of the movie is when the girls speak of their father.  Perhaps Cukor was trying to simply let the viewers know that there is a war going on.  Either way, I must say that the whole sequence was very out of place and confused me a little when I first saw the film.

Is an egalitarian marriage possible?

Maybe.  A relationship based in the idea of equality.  It can happen, but a few other things must happen as well.  For instance, the person who “wears the pants” in the relationship must take those pants off.  Figuratively speaking of course.  It is the way of human life, to dominate less prosperous beings.  The Egyptians did it to Jewish people, Whites did it to Blacks, the Nazis did it to Jewish people, and men have always done it to women, at least in the U.S. which is where this book takes place anyway.  Breaking down that socially constructed barrier restricting women from being just as prosperous and equal to men must happen in order for this form of marriage to occur.  This idea may seem far-fetched, but I believe Louisa May Alcott is attempting to show the possibilities of this event.  Amy and Laurie rowing the boat together, sit right next (equal) to each other in order to keep the boat (relationship) from tipping over.  Maybe Alcott is trying to say that for a marriage to be great and long-lasting there must first be equality between the husband and wife.

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.)