B&B

One thing I really wanted to talk about in my part of the presentation was Bazin’s idea that no matter how detailed and descriptive the drawing, we would always prefer the photograph as a more accurate representation of reality and truth. This interested me because Morris uses two drawings in The Thin Blue Line. Both are, on the surface caricatures, of witnesses at Adams’ trial. I feel like they show so much more of the personality of the two witnesses and maybe a little bit of a bias too. When the one says that the judge told her she had a ‘big, fat nose”, not only does Morris show the trial transcript (or it might have been the paper), but also he shows the hand drawing of her, in which he nose is emphasized. Also, Mrs. Miller looks so devious in her drawing. For me, this created a feeling of skepticism towards her right away. Also, it made me wonder, if she really looked like this, how did anyone take her seriously. Then that led me to wonder, if perhaps it would have been a photograph then my last sentence might have been completely different. I might have deleted the ‘if she really looked like this’ part.

I think that the Morris films that we have seen have a tendency to illude me to pay attention to what the people are saying and the content, when really I think what people don’t say and how they say it tends to be more interesting and revealing. I think that if i was supposed to soley concentrate on what the people were saying, then Morris would show them all the time. He would supplement with photographs and newspapers. Stumbling onto that topic, I think, right now more than ever, that Morris uses photographs and newspapers in Thin Blue Line to show that it did happen that it is in fact a truth that this person is saying. In a film where it is hard to know the truth, hard to find clarity, I think the references to hard materials, like they do in a documentary, really grounds the piece. I keep changing my mind about the drawings from the trial, but hopefully I’ll talk about those in the presentation on Wednesday.

On another note, I think Morris has really highlighted the advantages of listening in his films. I’d like to know exactly how he prompts people to talk and open up. It’s easy for most people to jump into and dominate a conversation and not really say anything. Then they end up missing the other end of the discussion. To some extent it is not longer conversation. In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I think it’s Clementine that says, “Just because you talk constantly doesn’t mean you are communicating”. I don’t how much sense or how well I am getting at my point, but really I think there is something to be said about silence. There is something almost ominous but also sometimes almost just as revealing as talk. Sometimes there is something hidden underneath, like a developing picture sitting in the chemicals, slowly appearing. What may seem to some people a blank, white space has something to offer to others.

I’m starting to become obsessed with the Morris films that we watched. I tell everyone about them but I can’t figure out why. I don’t know if it is content on the films, because there isn’t a story, but the way they are filmed is haunting. The faces haunt and stick in my memory. The movies are almost photographic if that makes any sense. They capture what is there, maybe manipulate it a little, but they show what they say. A picture is worth a thousand words i guess. I was obsessed with photography in high school. Not digital photography or photoshop, but black and white, hand developed photography. I’ve never been that talented in the art department but that dark room captured me. I spent days thinking about how i would crop this shot and such… but then I started looking at the world in a different way. I started seeing views and pictures everywhere. I would tilt my head, crop things in my mind, think about leaving the shutter open a little bit. Many times it was about capturing the mood at the second, the actual feeling on being there. I think that is why Morris takes me over. I feel like I could be there. I could be behind his lense.

I’ve decided that all of the Morris films leave me wondering what I am supposed to think about them and the people involved. There are so many things and clips that, while I am watching, I really want to talk to someone about. My friends are really annoyed by me going on and on about these movies, especially because it is hard to explain unless they have seen it. It’s hard to express and pinpoint all of the subtlties that make some of the scenes so intense. I feel like everything is constructed and every shot was debated over, but then I don’t know why. In one scene in Gates of Heaven, there is a shot where someone’s head fits right into an archway in the background. I have no idea if it was just a coincidence, but because it lasts awhile I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t have noticed. If I picked up on it then it’s pretty obvious…. but why? I think I keep asking myself that over and over. Why were the captions at the end of Thin Blue Line postitioned in a certain place? Why was the tape recorder shown from so many different angles? I wish I had clearcut answers.

I decided to look up some information about Vernon, Florida because the film interested me. The population is estimated around 750 people. The median age is 36 years old and the median income is $21,000. The town is approximately 76% White, Non-Hispanic. The town is named after George Washington’s home (in VA), Mt. Vernon. Thanks to Wikapedia, I also found out something really curious. Wikapedia claims, “It is alleged that some residents of the town threatened to kill Morris, who was going to expose a bizarre scam wherein individuals would cut off their own limbs as a way to collect insurance money.” This is really intriguing to me because then the movie is even more about what is real or purpose. The first word of the film is reality. I never used to pay attention to that sort of thing, now I find myself trying to pick up on everything. Anyway… the fact that the film in fact, may be more about what’s not shown, what’s not said or that in actuality, it was meant to show people faking injury, not REALLY being injured is again really complex to me. I found myself wondering if the stories and tales of the people were real, but then again if they believe they were real, then does it actually matter… I think I need to reflect on the film more…
My favorite part of the movie could have been missed rather easily. There are three older men sitting outside a store and as one is talking, another is picking his nose. Interestingly, I think I found it funny because I knew it was real. I knew the person was actually not bothered by the fact that the camera was on him. If it had been some acting that out I might not have found it as laughable.

I’ve been think about Gates of Heaven ever since I watched it yesterday. I really think I need to see it again. I think there were a lot of subtle things that the film was trying to accomplish and show that I missed. I wish I knew more about documentaries. I wonder why they chose certain settings and decided to shoot people from certain angles. In one scene, there is a man sitting on the couch and the camera seems to be much lower then it is for any other individual. Also, the man who had the collie that died, that was handicapped (please forgive my inability to remember names), was never shown in the wheelchair except from behind and only once. When the other people were talking about the fact that he had a physical handicap so it made it difficult to bury the animals, I had not idea what they were talking about. I thought it was an interesting choice. I didn’t develop sympathy for him because of his physical ailment then.
I think my favorite part of the film came near the end. The son who used to be an insurance agent was sitting behind a desk with all his trophies, and plaques and this was contrasted with his father, who was sitting behind his desk with only two items on it (the one had some sort of animal carved on it) and behind him it was black and simple. The son started talking more about himself and the father kept on track talking about the cemetery. I liked this because I thought it was a subtle thing that influenced how I was feeling about the brother. I was annoyed that I was looking through and around all the clutter on his desk. I was distracted by all the things going on around him.

After taking time off of pondering over Little Women and trying to think of something to write about, I find that I have a lot to say, so much so that I do not know where to begin. The more time I spend looking closely at Little Women, the novel and the movie adaptations, the more I am beginning to dislike the essential elements of the plot and characters. I find myself becoming annoyed by the fact that Jo is so masculine in her mannerisms, mainly because she is set up on some pedastool. She is portrayed as someone that young girls and females should strive to be. I feel like, to an extent, the rest of the March sisters are looked down upon. Their flaws are all emphasized and recognizable. It’s not easy to pick out Jo’s faults and they don’t come to mind when I think about her. Yes, she has masculine characteristics, but those are not portrayed as bad aspects/habits to have. What’s essentially wrong with Meg dressing up at the coming out party and wanting to look pretty? Why does she tell Laurie not to tell Jo how she’s ‘behaved’, like she has committed some terrible crime?
With this on my mind, I have been thinking about strong, independent female characters. The first one that came to my mind was Lizzy Bennet from Pride and Prejudice. I think that she displays some qualities that could be deemed masculine or unlady-like, or at least that could for that time period. She walks to Bingly’s house when Jane falls ill, which they emphasize in the most recent film version. So now I am wondering if all female heroines are to some extent masculinized but then I am not sure that I know what is essentially feminine anyway. I know stereotypes and generalizations but then who made or compiled all of those stereotypes? a male?

So there are a lot of aspects to take into consideration when you are making a movie, a lot more then I ever even realized. In all the adaptations of Little Women, Jo sounds/speaks differently. I wish I had all three copies here so I could give a detailed description, but I’ll just have to go with what I can remember. I think the biggest contrast is between Jo in the 1949 version and Jo in the 1994 version (I just noticed 49 and 94 ha anyway…). I think Jo’s voice and speech is very unsoothing and rough in the 49 version. It really gives her character a more masculine feel to it. Also, it seperates her from the other sisters because she is the only one that talks with that roughness, which makes me wonder how she acquired it but whatever. Jo in the 1994 version speaks in a more refined manner. I think it makes her sound more intelligent compared to 49 Jo. The voice of 94 Jo seems to allow her to be admired more for being a perfect character whereas, in the 49 version, I think Jo’s speech, if desired at all, is so for the fact that it is so different and non-conformist. I think this is interesting because when you read the novel you are able to make your own voice for the character so it must be tough to decide how someone should talk and sound.

When we first started talking about Little Women, there was quote about the story being rare because it is about “girls who want to be woman and not vice versa.” I found this to be really interesting to think about. To some extent I think the quote has a point in that when women grow up they tend to want to be young again but then again I think that young girls want to grow up in the same way. I always wanted to be older and able to drive and not have a bedtime. I remember the first time I watched TRL and I saw the girls that were like 16 and 17 years old and I thought that they looked happy and comfortable with who they were so i thought that it would be wonderful when I was their age. Now, I don’t know if I’d rather be younger or older. I’d love to not have so many responsibilities and maybe be a little more oblivious to life. On the otherhand, I’m excited to have a job, a family and not be in this limbo stage between a child and an adult. I feel like this is a strange age to be. Sometimes I feel like I am continually distancing myself from my childhood and it makes me want to go sit on a swing or chase lightning bugs.

I was actually a little horrified by the portrayal of the characters in the 1949 version of Little Women. I felt like they were exagerations and extremes of the characters that Alcott created. Instead of creating a visual of the delicately crafted characters in the novel, the movie creates characters that seem more two dimesional. Although each of the sisters had obvious faults in the novel, they were not obtrusive ones. Also, I think Jo is a great character, but I don’t like her portrayed as the ultimate heroine, someone that everyone should strive to become. I really need to see more of the movie, because 45 minutes should be the basis for my opinion.