so go to it–images, clips, theories, complaints…
archive
- December 2010 (12)
- November 2010 (15)
- October 2010 (4)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (1)
Links
this is when and where y’all comment!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
I’ve notice that in most of the films we’ve watched, there is either a subtle exposure of homoerotic like in “The Full Monty” or full exposure in “The Crying Game.” Was the intention of showing this as British masculinity?
I really enjoyed both watching and reading Kes. I was hoping the ending of the book was not as sad as the movie but it was even worse. Throughout the story he never really had anyone, his mother was too busy with work and her social life, his brother was horrible to him, and he never had any real friends. Billy seemed to only have a relationship with Kes, who meant everything to him. We do not know too much about his father in the book but it seemed as if they had a good relationship. Its sad he lost his best friend and his father, they were the only ones he seemed to have a strong connection with. I think it is a shame that Billy is forced to leave school and work at such a young age with the other children. I saw Kes as representing freedom, which was a reason Billy is so fond of her. When Kes died in the end I think it gave Billy a realistic awakening. That he will never be able to attain freedom, such as the freedom we have today. He will always be controlled by society and what they expect from him, he will not advance in his education, he will work at a job he does not enjoy and will always belong to the lower class. Life for him is only getting harder.
The shower scene was so much more painful in the book. It seemed to take forever! In the movie it didn’t seem like they kept Billy in there for too long but in the book it just dragged on. It was so upsetting. I had to take a break from reading after that.
I loved both movies Kes and Saturday nights and Sunday mornings. These are the types of movies that i love to watch and leave me thinking at the end. James Bond not so much, i didn’t really care for it at all. I did tear a little watching Kes, it was so horrible how his brother killed the bird. The accents were very hard to understand but i got through it and loved it. I am going to be very indecisive regarding which movie to use for my paper. This is going to be very hard.
The movie Kes seems to highlight further the ambivalence theme started by Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Casper is very ambivalent about the life that he leads. He doesn’t care much for school, his job, or his family. The only thing he is able to focus in the film is his kestrel and in the end, even that is no longer part of his life. And much like Arthur from SNSM, Casper at the end seems to be resigned to the life he leads and will lead.
I didn’t think Arthur or the movie in general was bad. Probably one of his negative points was that Arthur seemed to be upset all the time without a reason, but I didn’t think he was wrong to feel that way. Arthur worked in a factory, and if I’m correct factory workers are often viewed and treated as machines, having no real human identity. I’m not sure if that still holds true today, apparently the modern equivalent of that is accounting (?). Anyhow, I thought Arthur’s reason to be upset was because society had already carved out his place in the world for him and then expected him to be happy about it as well. I think at one point he even says something like “What am I? Whatever you say I am, I’m not.” He’s always trying to define himself because he doesn’t want to be one of the many million who think they have choices, but are just brainwashed by the television. It could even be applied in today’s times to some extent. People think they have choices because they decide their own major and choose who they want to hang out with, but if you look at it in the larger perspective they’re all just forced unknowingly into following the pattern- get a job, get a family, raise your kids, die. The reason for his constant complaining was because he knew there was no way to defeat the system so his helplessness became a source of his irritation. At the same time, he didn’t want to go down without a fight, which was another reason why he ended up acting like a jerk. Cutting a long story short, I guess he was just disillusioned and frustrated, but at the same time justified.
So aside from the fake punches, poor fight choreography, and weird carnival music playing in the background, I thought something big was missing from the fight scene. Usually a fight scene serves one of two purposes in any movie. The first is to reaffirm our belief in the main character and legitimize him as a tough guy who is indeed worthy of our affection. In this scenario, the main character almost always triumphs quite convincingly although some initial struggle is thrown in for dramatic effect. The second is to serve as a lesson to the main character so that he can learn his lesson and grow as a person and/or fighter. The “good guy” will usually get his butt whipped, but will then learn his lesson and come back to return the favor ten-fold to his main foe. Arthur’s fight scene did neither of these. It fits more closely with the second scenario, but Arthur never did seem to learn any lesson, nor was he able to come back and beat the two soldiers who jumped him. However, the fact that it wasn’t a fair fight, and that Arthur seemed to do rather well one-on-one, made him enticing enough as a character to momentarily peak my interest, but he ultimately failed (despite his good looks and charm, as was duly noted in class) to fully capture my attention or respect.
I know we’ve totally moved on from too-cool-for-windsor-knot Bond, but I read an article in Time that made me think of him. There are currently 33 miners trapped in a mine in Chile. If only Bond could swoop in and save them. Wait, that’s not the point I was going to make. The miners, ranging in ages from 19 to 67 have been trapped since August 5th and may be there for another 4 months. Rescue teams have been able to dig 6in holes to send down supplies but they need to move very slowly in digging bigger holes so that they don’t collapse the interior structure. They were able to send down cameras and other communication devices so that the men could speak to their families and rescue teams. The men reportedly seemed astonishingly well-adjusted considering the hardship they were enduring. Those ologists who love to study people but still can’t make it through a water-cooler conversation gracefully, have flocked to Chile to study the effects of this unprecedented and unfortunate phenomenon. The experts claim that the secret to the underground calm which has reportedly taken hold in the collapsed mines is not in fact judicious amounts of gaseous sedatives but rather the civility instilled early on by those leading the rescue efforts and those that have emerged as leaders underground. The men have been organized and set to work. They are woken up at a regular time. They wash, shave and eat meals sitting down in a designated place. The leader has fashioned himself a work desk out of scrap metal that was trapped down there with them. The trappings of normalcy and civility have helped to keep these guys from totally freaking out. This situation seemed to me to parallel James Bond. I started to reconsider my prejudices. I didn’t get so far. I still think James Bond is kind of a dope but the facade he clings to now takes on a more pathetic quality in my mind. Seen through this new lens, James Bond seems to be a man who acts through desperation. In the film we see that he is always in character. Even when he is alone in his hotel room he is still James Bond. Isn’t that kinda sad? He clings to this persona, this human embodiment of what he perceives to be the height of masculine civility with the claws of a frightened cat. I still can’t muster much sympathy for a man whose life goals include perfecting his suggestive manly chuckle but it does soften my opinion of him. A smidge.
Hold that thought, David! It’s a great starting-off point for our discussion.
Did anyone else just really not like Saturday night and Sunday morning? I don’t know if it was because its 50 years old and outdated or if the movies nowadays have completely desensitized me, but I felt like I was waiting for something interesting to happen the entire movie and it never did. The main character, Arthur Seaton, seemed more like that jerk of a friend we all have who’s rebel without a clue type of attitude and behavior we dismiss with an “oh, that’s just Arthur being Arthur” than a deserving protagonist. Doreen reminded me a little of Bond’s secretary at the beginning, in that she started out with a personality level that appeared to be deeper than the other female’s, but as the movie went on, that enchantingly strong and independent attitude eroded and she became a submissive sidekick. Overall the movie just left me feeling a little empty and disappointed. Did I miss something?
There’s one thought that I kept having as I read the book. Since we watched the movie first, that’s the image of Bond that kept sticking in my mind. He’s the cool and sophisticated spy who never loses his cool. This is the same image that the movie poster portrays. In the poster, Bond is in the background and looks like he’s completely in control. On the other hand, the women (more specifically the ones on the bottom) are looking dazed and slightly submissive. Even the captions on the side tell us who’s the protagonist and who has the power. The women, enemies, and adventures all belong to James Bond.
On the other hand, the book gives me a completely different look at Bond’s character. Because we are able to see inside Bond’s head, he seems to have more depth to him. Knowing this, the poster seems to give only a superficial glance at Bond’s character. He appears to lead a fast and exciting life when there’s actually a lot more beneath the exterior.
This poster does a good job showing us the “movie Bond” and may be great at attracting attention (which is the goal of marketing a movie), but it doesn’t do the book justice. There are some underlying ideas that the movie and poster just are unable to convey.
I keep imagining, rather wanting, to see this style of a movie poster released for today’s “action films.” The enthusiastic minds of people walking out of the theatre, wanting to discuss the movie they’ve just seen, but instead in the bright hallway, being drawn to this poster. Would they stop and stare? I would. What the hell? When did James Bond have groupies? Is he “that suave” where he cant observe “his” women? In the bottom left of the poster, his muse is bending down for him. She looks up at her “man of steel,” asking him: “Mr. Bond, have you ever seen ‘Last Tango In Paris?’ I have butter!”
For instance, you might say something about our movie posters…