Memento [Mori]

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.

The Great Gatsby: 1974 vs. 2013

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?