Though Joss Whedon made a pretty modern version of Much Ado About Nothing, he chose to keep Shakespeare's original dialogue in the play. The language is very different from what we are use to, and many people refuse to read Shakespeare due to the difficulties of the language. However, is the language really that far removed, or as hard to understand as we seem to think? I don't think it is. In fact, it could just be the fact that most people don't know how to read Shakespeare, but I digress. I think Joss Whedon understood that, and that is why he made the choice to keep the language as it was. To show how timeless Shakespeare really is, if given the chance.
Everyone knew what was going on, whether one has read the play or not. Yes, having that opening scene helped us figure out why Benedict and Beatrice don't get along, but even without that you would get the joke about, "I believe this is your daughter." "Her mother hath many times told me so." We still get what the characters are saying, why they are saying it, and what is going on. The story can still be followed.
The only scene I didn't understand was Don John telling Claudio and Don Pedro that Hero has been unfaithful. I knew what was happening because I had read the play, but didn't understand what was being said. I think if I heard it better, I might have gotten it, but for some reason I was really confused with what was going on.
All in all, though, I think the language was a nice touch in Joss Whedon's adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing. It made since with the black and white of the film, but it also showed the timelessness of Shakespeare. Proving Shakespeare really isn't that scary, we just have to take the time to learn how to read the language, and not go in with a bad attitude about his works.
I remember watching Clueless growing up and thinking how funny it was. Here was a girl that, essentially, wanted life and everything about it to go how she wanted it to. The minute it doesn't she whines about it, and I mean WHINES! I watched it again last year, and I couldn't stand Cher's whinnyness. I never knew Amy Hekerling's movie, though, was an adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma. After reading the novel, I was amazed at all the similarities there were.
Emma is a girl who gets everything she wants. She is held so highly in her fathers mind, that she can do no wrong. The only person who sees her faults (and calls her out on them) is her childhood friend, Mr. Knightly. Emma has been told she is perfect and all knowing all her life, and now--whether she admits it or not--she has come to believe it herself. She thinks she knows what is best for herself and everyone around her. She is the stereo-typical "spoiled rich girl", she is extremely self-absorbed, whinny, and thinks of herself as a god(dess)--again, whether she admits it or not. How does she see herself as a god? Well, she think she is so important that people should always want to be in her presence (when she hadn't gotten the invitation to the party, yet, and couldn't understand how it was possible). She thinks she knows what's best for everyone (encouraging the marriage of Mr. Weston to her nanny, and discouraging Harriet from marrying the farmer, encouraging Harriet and Mr. Elton to get together--even though she was wrong in the end, etc.). Her intentions all along are to make her happier, no one else, she is always looking out for herself. At times she thinks it is to help others, but it is for her own enjoyment that she does the things she does.
Cher is the same way. She is one of the rich kids at her school which makes her popular, and inflates her ego more than it should. Her father doesn't care how she gets by in life, as long as she can argue her way out of anything (or as long as he THINKS she can argue her way out of anything). He thinks she is the best thing in the world, and what father doesn't! The only person who sees her going down a path she shouldn't is her ex-step-brother, Josh, and he pokes fun at her with it. She has all she could ever ask for and wants others to be like her, because they will be better people if they are. She isn't looking for another friend like Emma was, but she was looking for another project. She was bored and that is why she befriends Tai, saying to Dionne, "don't you want to use your popularity for a good cause?" She morphs Tai into a replica of herself, but doesn't see the effects till it's a little late.
Emma's pivotal moment came at Box Hill when everyone was out for a picnic. Emma makes a remark at Miss Bates' expense and--knowing herself what she has done, so the movies make it seem--makes excuses for why she did what she did. Trying to justify it to herself saying, "she didn't know it was about her anyway." After Mr. Knightly confronts her, however, she has no choice but to face her situations head on. She can't pretend anymore, or sweep things under the rug. She has made a mistake and needs to untangle all that she has tangled up.
Like Emma, Cher has a turning point. I believe it comes when Tai is at her house and saying how she really likes Josh, and ends up calling Cher a "virgin who can't drive." That hurts Cher to the point she starts thinking about her life and asking, "what have I created?" Tai had said something to her that she would have said to anyone else, but because the situation was flipped she realized how awful it was. Tai had transformed into Cher, Cher's mission was complete, and she felt awful.
(The part I want to focus on in this clip is from about 15 seconds to 33 seconds)
How many times in our lives do we do the same things? We use people to get what we want. We don't think about the consequences of our actions till the tables are turned. We just look out for ourselves. We live in a "me" culture, but as Christians we shouldn't live like that. We shouldn't be Chers or Emmas, we should be like Christ. We should be looking to help others, not ourselves. We should build others up, not bring them down. We all are "clueless"to a certain extent, and we will all have multiple Box Hill moments. It is learning from these situations and remembering other persons lessons, too, that keep us from staying Emmas and Chers.
I found myself being really confused while reading Jonathan Nolan's Memento Mori. I'm glad Christina is my roommate so we can talk things through after reading, or after I watch the movies. After finishing the short story, I told Christina, "So Earl just goes around killing people because he can't remember killing the guy?" I found myself feeling bad for Earl because of this, however, after watching the movie I wasn't sure if I should feel bad for him or not.
The reason I felt bad for Earl was because of the end, the scene when he's in the car heading away from the crime scene. He begins to pat down his pockets, looking for a pen, but can't find one. He is frantically looking for a pen so he can write down that he did it, he finally got the guy. He couldn't find a pen though, and he had handcuffs on and was trying to get the cops attention to give him a pen, yet to no avail. Since he had a tattoo of the guys face on his chest, I began to wonder if he has killed before. That would explain why he was in the institution in the first place. Maybe he is a serial killer and doesn't even know it because he can't ever write down the fact that he has done it. So he goes around
killing people who look like the guy he got tattooed on himself. Can you see why I felt bad for him? Probably not, but if someone would have given him a pen, then he wouldn't go around killing people. That is my theory, anyway.
But after watching Memento I began wondering if he was like Leonard and chose to kill. It seems like Leonard uses his disability as an excuse. Here are a few reasons why I think he uses it as an excuse. 1)Why didn't Teddy write on the picture of Leonard looking happy, "You got him! He's dead," or something like that.
2)Why did he take a picture of Leonard and not the guy he killed?
3)Just the ending in general, with Leonard making it so he will go after Teddy.
In conclusion, I think Leonard would be a serial killer. I think he kills because he can, there is no reason for him to stop, and it seems like he doesn't mind it because he knows he will forget it. Earl, however, I don't think wants to kill a lot of people, but he never can write down that he killed the guy. For Earl, it is an endless cycle, but for Leonard it's a matter of choice.
There was something said in class that really got me thinking; what if, in order to convey the emotion felt during the 20s, Luhrmann had to "amp up" the parties? I don't think it was stated quite like this, but you get the idea. The question was raised because we were talking about the music chosen for the film. I would have to say I think the person who asked this question was onto something.
As we stated in class, the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby was true to the 20s. Director, Jack Clayton, wanted it to be authentic with costumes, cars, hair, etc. I found the 1974 version to be rather boring, personally, I just couldn't keep focused on what was going on. Now, maybe it was due to the million things I had to get done that week, but I really think it was the acting and overall feel of the film. It never drew me in. There was nothing that made we want to pay attention (okay, so maybe I have ADD). I also didn't think the characters were portrayed very well, both in appearance and characterization (attitudes, emotions, etc.). It seemed to me that the actors needed to do more of a character analysis on their characters. Lines were just said however the actor chose to say them (now, I'll be the first to tell you that every actor interprets things differently, but you all have to work together to make sure you interpret your lines in a way that will help the meaning of the piece show through). The last thing Nick says to Gatsby, "They're a rotten crowd. You're worth the whole damn bunch put together," didn't even make since to me in this version.
The 2013 version, however, I thought was true to the overall feel of the novel. Maybe it was a little over-the-top for the 20s, but I was drawn in. I wanted to watch, see what would happen, and I didn't think it was boring at all. I'm not saying that the 20s where a boring time in history, please don't think I'm saying that. I'm sure it was as mesmerizing and interesting to the people of the 20s as the 2013 version of The Great Gatsby was to me. That is why I think the question raised in class is a valid question. With all the Hollywood influence in our lives today, it was important to make this version something that would grab an audiences attention. The musical score, I thought, complimented the mood nicely (I didn't even realize in the bridge scene the music was coming from the car, but after we watched it the second time I thought it was strange), and characters were portrayed pretty well. Lines didn't just seemed thrown in willy-nilly, and I do think the emotion and meaning of the novel came through in Luhrmanns version a whole lot better than in the 1974 version. Maybe Hollywood has made me ADD when it comes to movies, but I would watch Luhrmanns version over Clayton's version any day.
One last thing I want to talk about before ending, Tom. This character to me is a big, tough, mean guy. When someone is described as "hulking" they seem bigger than the other characters. I think the 1974, Tom, was a poor portrayal. He seemed scrawny to me, and it really annoyed me. The 2013 version, Tom, I think was better. Even though he wasn't huge, the costumer did a great job of making him seem more "hulking" and less scrawny.
What do you think? Did Luhrmann have to "amp things up" to help us feel what the people of the 20s felt, and what Tom did you like better?
Stranger Than Fiction, a movie about a man who lives a life most people would find boring. A life no one would want to watch as a movie, let alone read about in a book. Yet, it is a film that intrigues us anyway. The main character, Harold Crick, has a strict routine he follows every morning, until one morning when he starts to hear a voice. This is no ordinary voice, though, this voice is narrating his life. Everyone thinks he is crazy--as well they should--and he goes on this quest to find out who the voice is and what story he is in. Along the way he falls in love, makes a friend, strays from his normal routine to make a life for himself, and saves a life. He does find out how his story is to end, though, and it is at this point I want to start reflecting.
As I sat watching this movie, I began noticing connections to the Bible. Yes, I know, I said it. Go ahead and roll your eyes, I know you did! It is true, though, I sat in my living room talking to my roommate about it (it was a really long and interesting conversation, too, I might add). Anyway, like I said, I will start from from when Harold finds out how his story ends, and then I'll jump around from beginning to end.
In this clip, we see Harold looking for a way to rewrite his ending. This particular clip reminded me of Luke 22:42 where Jesus is on the Mount of Olives praying on the night of his betrayal and cries out, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Here, we see Harold cry saying, "I thought you would find a way." Prof. Hilbert responds, "There is no other way," also saying that this story--Harold's story--is a masterpiece, Karen Eiffel's best work yet. Harold then reads the copy himself as he rides the bus, and gives it back to Karen saying, "I read it and I loved it. There is only one way it can end." He knows it has to be written this way, and pretty much tells her "not my will, but yours be done."
Going back, now, to Karen Eiffel first meeting Harold, this scene reminds me of Jesus appearing to Thomas after he rose from the dead (John 20:26-29). To Karen, Harold is just a character, but when she sees him she falls to her knees saying, "your hair, your eyes, your fingers, your shoes..." She knew just by seeing him who he was (yes, she knew he was coming, but this is a man she knows because of her book). I know this scene comes before the one above, but even when adapting stories to film sometimes scenes get moved around. The part I'm referring to isn't until about 2:15.
Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he put his fingers through the wholes in Jesus' hands, and the whole in his side. When Jesus appeared to them in the room, Thomas believed, and Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Karen had to see Harold Crick for herself to believe he was a real person. Then she found herself wondering how many people she has killed because she wrote their story that way. Just as Thomas had to physically touch Jesus' wounds, Karen had to see Harold's hair, eyes, fingers, and shoes.
The next clip is Harold embracing his fate (I will be referring to this clip later on, as well). The time has come and he is ready for it. Knowing exactly what is to happen and for what purpose, he sacrifices himself to save the life of a child. I don't think I need to tell you the connection here, but I am going to take a leap and make a different connection--one with the little boy. He has a line towards the end, one that is rather hard to make out, he is either saying, "It's not my fault, though," or he says, "It's all my fault, though." I am going to take a leap--and many may not agree with me, and that is fine--but I think the boy could be Judas. Judas betrays Jesus (I'm not saying the boy betrayed Harold, don't try and twist it like that) but after they take Jesus away, Judas starts feeling bad. In Matthew 27:3-5, we find that Judas returns the 30 pieces of silver, confesses he sinned, and then hanged himself. I'm also not saying that now the little boy is going to kill himself, because that is awful and this story has a happy ending (both Stranger Than Fiction, and the story of Jesus!) My point is, Jesus had to die to save humanity, Harold had to die to save the boy. For Jesus to be handed over, if it wasn't Judas it would have been someone else. Harold had to save someone, and because she wrote about the bus driver and the boy in the beginning (they appeared randomly, and you knew they had to be important for some reason, right? Then you found out Harold had to die. It was either at that point you put the pieces together, or it was when they showed the boy getting out of bed and the bus driver putting on her uniform.), inevitably it had to be the boy. If it wasn't the boy, it would have been some other character that would randomly be in the beginning.
Finally you, we have the last scene, the dialog between Prof. Hilbert and Karen Eiffel. He asks her why she changed the book. Was it because Harold was real? She responds saying, "Because it's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die and then dies; but if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway, dies...dies willingly, knowing he could stop it, then...I mean, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?" Harold lives (the boy and bus drive won't live regretting their actions, that would mean a whole new book), just like Jesus lives ... okay, not exactly because Harold never actually died. Where as Jesus was raised from the dead, Harold was saved by his wristwatch. So who played God in this film? Some might say the author, Karen Eiffel, I would have as well until I started writing this blog.
It seems like Karen is the God figure because, in the beginning, we find her standing on a rooftop looking down on "the world below." She is also writing the story, and we seem to always give authors a sort of god-like-quality. I however, am going to say the wristwatch is God in this movie. Why? How can a watch be God and not the author or other characters? Good question, thanks for asking! The God we know is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, etc. Karen always intended for Harold to die, she never expected the ending she created. The watch, however, seemed to be the only constant thing in the film. If it hadn't shut off, Harold wouldn't of had to reset it. If Harold wasn't wearing the watch, what could have been used to save him? I'm going to take another leap now and say the watch always knew Harold's fate, it knew he would live. It had to shut off when it did so Harold could reset it for 3 minutes later than the actual time. Even at the end, it beeps to make him leave Ana, and his apartment. It is also the reason Karen could rewrite the story so Harold would live. Just like in the story of Jesus, people didn't understand what he meant when he said he would rebuild the temple, and other things he said about his death. Only God knew. Karen didn't know he would live--until she rewrote it--but without the watch he would have died.
The last think I want to touch on (I'm almost done, promise!) isn't about the film connecting to the Bible. It is just an interesting thing I noticed (here is where I'm referring to the third clip again). Throughout the movie, Karen is researching different ways to kill Harold. She stands on a rooftop and thinks about jumping, sits in the rain and thinks about a car accident, she is standing in the ER watching doctors rush by trying to save people, and watches the apples roll onto the street. The interesting thing I noticed was how all of these elements appear in the ending. In the first scene with Karen on the roof, the camera is looking at the street below. As Harold gets ready to leave for his "final" trip to work, the camera looks up at Harold, through the plastic over the whole in his wall. As Karen thinks about jumping off a roof, Harold is seen standing in his apartment looking through the whole in his wall (yeah, he wasn't jumping, but he could have and it made me think of this first scene with Karen). The car accident, hello, Harold got hit by a bus! Karen watching the apples fall in the street is seen in the end when the apple Harold is eating falls to the ground and starts rolling. Watching everything happen in the ER comes back around when Karen is talking about things that we can find reassurance in. "We can still find reassurance in a familiar hand on our skin, or a kind and loving gesture ... and maybe the occasional piece of fiction. And we must remember that all these things ... are, in fact, here for a much larger and nobler cause. They are here to save our lives." --Karen Eiffel
It's crazy how what was suppose to be Karen's "best work yet," seems to bum Prof. Hilbert out when it's changed to Harold living. He just doesn't understand. The question he asks is one I'm sure all of us have asked...Why? Why would someone willingly go to their death? Why life? (not meant to be why go on living, but why come back to life? and why allow Harold to live?) I think Karen states it well, "isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?" We are Christians because a man willingly laid down his life to save us, and rose again. He is still alive! It seems like fiction. A story made up. Yet, these types of stories we tell all the time. We want the hero to live. Harold Crick couldn't die, but Jesus did. Harold Crick lived, and Jesus does. I think it is interesting that even in this film, it is hard to believe Harold lived in the end.
