Screenplay; Jackie Brown

            So for this blog I am supposed to write about how I would personally interpret the screenplay, making decision and costume design, time period, music choices, actors, and shot direction.  In all honesty, I have some difficulty with this assignment.  I thoroughly enjoyed the screenplay I read, Jackie Brown, and if asked to make a movie out of it, I would honestly change very little from what is implied in the screenplay.  What I imagined from the film before I watched it, based on how I interpreted the film, was in all honesty very close to watch the actual film played out.  I enjoyed the cast, and the music choice, which to a large extent decides the era and tone of the piece. 

            If I would have changed anything, I might have selected a different actor for the film’s antagonist.  I did enjoy Jackson’s performance, but I felt as though his physicality was too imposing.  I would have found his character much more frightening if he was less physically capable, playing up his insecurities and power trips.  I cannot think of such an actor that might fit this role however.  Another actor I might have cast differently was Deniro.  I personally envisioned a younger, scrappier actor for accomplish, and I feel as though Edward Norton could be an interesting fit for the ex con.

            As far as Jackie goes, I can’t say another actress would fit her role better.  Perhaps Jenifer Lopez (I’m thinking about her performance in The Cell), but I have serious doubts that J-Lo could handle the level of supercoolness that Pam Grier brings. 

            If I had to be asked to change the film drastically (keeping to the themes and screenplay), I consider shooting the film as a more Noir detectivish film.  The only other actor or actress I could envision taking on Pam Grier’s calm, suave performance is Humphrey Bogart.  While this would drastically change some elements of the film, I’m not 100 positive that the pseudo romantic relationship between Jackie and Max would be missed.  While reading the screenplay I enjoyed the insinuation of a possible romance, built on mutual respect and understanding.  If Bogart was starring as the cool collected pilot (Bogart would not be cast as a flight attendant, not sexy enough), and his relationship with Max, or even Maxette was more platonic, I cannot say for sure that it would drastically affect the film.  At the same time, I can already feel shifts in the direction, as the lead becomes much less vulnerable, almost to the point in which Maxette has nothing to really offer and Jack(ie) is never truly at risk.

            So having watching the film, I would honestly say I would keep the film as is.  In all honesty I felt more of an emotional impact from reading the screenplay however, but I feel as though this has less to do with execution and more to do with differences in the mediums. 

lolita

            While reading Lolita I notice that the reader begins to wonder why Nabokov, I fairly prolific writer would write a 500 plus page novel on such a offensive subject matter.  It could be to some extent Nabokov wishing to allow readers a chance to understand, or even empathize with some of the worlds most despised individuals.  I could also be shearly for the sake of generating tension and controversy, a way for Nabokov to strike a match under his audience and critics, eliciting some degree of response, be it negative or positive.  I feel as though, that if not the primary motivation for writing such a novel, another possibility could at least be one of the most interesting outcomes of this piece of literature. 

This motivation, or outcome is the viewer’s involuntary necessity to acknowledge, and even analyze the presence of manipulation, not only in the character’s manipulation of each other, but also in the author, and the narrator’s manipulation of the viewer.  The best way to successfully force this acknowledgement is to build the most persuasive manipulation in the literature.  At the same time Nabokov is constantly, repeatedly hammering into the viewer’s consciousness the fact that they are being tricked, or persuaded.  He builds a very strong persuasion, but instead of hiding it, he showcases it.

            It could be arguably stated that there exists a potent concentration of manipulation in any decent piece of literature.  Reading books for the classics, to the contemporary fiction that arrives every day, most readers will never acknowledge the presence of the author or character’s manipulation.  This is not to say that such influences are slight by any means; the basic mechanism of any form of entertainment exists in suspending the viewer’s judgment momentarily, and accepting the words, pictures, or motions portrayed as both true and beautiful.  This is not a difficult thing to do reading a beautiful, or insightful novel, even one that contains viewpoints or perspectives not shared by the reader.  Almost all great novels will be remembered because they so successfully suspended their reader’s disbelief. 

            The most striking aspect of Lolita is that if forces the viewer to comprehend a sense of irony and the clash between the author, and his character’s manipulation, and the reader’s own sensibility and morals.  By taking a subject matter that is despised in our day, quite possibly one of our nations greatest fears (aside from terrorism) we are constantly behind forced to comprehend the author’s influences.  Had Nabokov chosen a less controversial subject, I feel the novel would have had significantly less impact as it wouldn’t have forced to clash within the reader.  Nabokov’s writing is eloquent and beautiful enough that I feel Nabokov feels a necessity to interject tension in the experience of interpreting his novels, for without such tension the prose would just go down too smoothly; we as the reader would accept his words and his stories with zero complaints and take it all at face value.

              To quote a passage from Lolita “Please, reader: no matter your exasperation with the tenderhearted, morbidly sensitive, infinitely circumspect hero of my book, do not skip these essential pages!  Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me; try to discern the doe in me, trembling in the forest of my own iniquity; let’s even smile a little.  After all, there is no harm in smiling.”

            These passages for me really bring to the forefront the subject at hand right now, manipulation, in both how it is used and it’s very presence in literature, unmasked in this case.  I have had many experiences with family, friends and lovers using their own vulnerabilities as leverage over me; therefore I am no stranger to the social convention that is the guilt trip.  It is partially due to my own experiences that I am extremely self-conscious of guilt tripping.  I found it very interesting therefore when I caught Humbert, the narrator of Lolita guilt tripping me in this passage, portraying himself as the vulnerable hero, who, if I so chose it, could be willed into nonexistence.  Humbert then proceeds to try to grasp power over the viewer by actually giving the viewer the permission to enjoy the novel.  The combination of what Nabokov and Humbert (I do consider there to be a strong distinction between the two entities), are saying, and how I accept their intentions leads to a strong dichotomy between what we as the viewer believes, and what we will refuse to accept.

Metropolis!!!

            The first thing I must mention in beginning to talk about Metropolis is that I found the film aesthetically very impressive.  I was very much expecting to be quite bored with the film, for I had a preconception that all silent films are quite dry.  Interestingly enough, this clashes with everything I know from acting; having worked on numerous animations in which acting is delivered nonverbally, I understand that successful pantomime is much more visually interesting than voice acting and dialogue alone.  For this, I should have anticipated a richer viewing experience from Metropolis.

            This personal insight out of the way, Metropolis is to me a very impressive movie.  I believe that the film is the highest budgeted silent film of all time, and this was very evident.  I was taken aback by not only the impressive set, costume and makeup design, but by the amount of special effects and compositing featured in the film.  To say that this piece is visually stunning is quite frankly a gross understatement.

            As far as the actual thematic content of the film goes, I think it is debatable as to what the general outlook of the film is.  It clearly illustrates the increasingly relevant clash of the classes; the harsh divide between and the thinkers and the workers, the mind and the hand. It shows the evils of upper class, how they are willing to degrade and monetize masses of human being for their own aims, and pervert them with robots (read pop stars…) to generate enough controversy to stomp any insurrection, while keeping the lower class simultaneously entertained and complacent.

            In the same vain, however, the film portrays the working class almost deserving of such harsh treatment.  We see repeated imagery of the workers as subhuman; cattle being herded along, stupid, beaten down, and complacent.  Later when the android is introduced, the workers accept the masquerade without a second’s disbelieve or scrutiny, taking the bait without fail.

            It has been said that the moral of this film is not that the divide between classes should be bridged, rather that the dived should remain, but instead with a mediator to bridge the gap and install communication and ideally understanding between the two parties.  I cannot say this is what I got from the film, but I do understand that the movie has potential to illicit completely different reactions from it’s viewing.

hunger games

            In my reading of hunger games, I began to take notice of some interesting crosses in hunger games between typical youth fiction, and dystopian, more political works of fiction such as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.  My primary experience with youth fiction has been reading through the Harry Potter novels (and later movies), and It is this context that I am deriving some comparison too.  In many ways I found Hunger Games to share similarities in reading level and tone; while hunger games had a dark subject matter, filled with violence and atrocities, It was not nearly as disturbing as soon other works of fiction I have delved into in the past.  This is quite an obvious statement though in that been a piece directed towards youths, there is only a certain amount of violence and degradation that can be included before this becomes a particular point of interest and controversy.  This being said, I felt as though this level of physicality was helpful in making the novel accessible, and generating a level of excitement to balance out political insinuations throughout.

            This brings me the aspects of the novel that I particularly enjoyed, that being the political insinuation and historical references to revolution and cultural struggle.  As I mentioned before, I noticed strong similarities between 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Hunger Games.  This comes largely from the concept of government and powerful organizations controlling the common people.  This aspect of Big brother is watching, and government control has always interested me, as I often find this to be a reflection of our current political system.  I found it more interesting that there were included many references to colonial America; there was the motif of the 13 districts reflecting the 13 states, or colonies being oppressed by the dominant forces in the world.

Genre; dystopian futures

            For this weeks reading, I chose to focus on the genre of dystopian futures.  I cannot say for sure if this could be considered a genre in the most traditional sense, but I did regardless notice many attributes which would help me quantify dystopian criticisms of politics and society a genre in and of itself.  The expectations of the genre are that it delivers a critique of modern society, and distressful prediction of possible outlooks on society in years to come. 

            Having now quantified to some degree, I can discuss my interpretation of Alduous Huxley’s a Brave New World.  Having read Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, this is a piece of fiction that I had been planning on reading for quite a number of years.   I had been heavily influenced by other pieces of ‘fiction’ that would fit into this genre, as they have illustrated to me a clear, if not verrry exaggerated illustration of what is wrong with society and what could go worse if our current situations degrade even further.

            What really resonated with me in Brave New World was the notion that people are not being controlled by oppression anymore.  We don’t live in a cripplingly militarized state, our actions are not being monitored, and we are not being persecuted by our government for unjust reasons…..  well ok, this is not true, there are some thoroughly unconstitutional dealings going on in our nation.  What strikes me, however, is the insight that Brave New World brings.  The novel essentially implies that in the future (read now) we are controlled not by guns, but by sex, drugs and entertainment.  The more I reflect upon this the more I find it to become increasingly true of society in the modern world. 

            This is not to say I believe that such controls are necessarily the ill will of oppressive regimes, more rather I feel as though this is the media’s way of acquiring huge sums of money, and resulting in, or perhaps due to, the notion that most people are lazy, and would rather drink a beer and watch jackass on the tv than step outside and try to improve the world.

           

Wizard of Oz

Reading Wizard of Oz, and then later watching the movie at the end of this summer brought about some interesting realizations.  Being the great iconoclast it is, I was obviously unable to exist without wizard of oz entering my paradigm, regardless of having not read or watched the film.  This being said, comparing my expectations to what I actually witness and read in the Wizard of Oz, I saw great differences between my mind’s version of the text, the actual text, and the movie it was based on. 

I had pictured a production that was more similar to many of the Disney classics; a light novel containing a very linear plot almost entirely lacking in content of underlying themes/values outside of the importance of appearances/beauty. 

The movie itself actually did meet some of these expectations; I saw in it a heavy idealization on beauty (the wicked witch is obviously evil due to her grotesque appearances, and the good witch’s beauty is noted as evidence of her benevolence).  This being said, most of the major differences I noted between the film and the literature were aesthetic; choices being made to glorify the on screen production, and make elements more easily readable (viewable on screen).  One huge change I noticed was shifts in the color palate, noticed both in Dorothy’s iconic footwear and also in the actual lands themselves; we saw in the book a very strong emphasis on different lands and associations made with the people and creatures that inhabited them and the choices they made in color of apparel as a result.  I found this note particularly interesting, as I would have foreseen the movie adopting such strong color decisions, particularly due to the inception of Technicolor and the establishment of color being a valid choice in film.