Tiff

Beware, I have given away some of the plot, so this is my spoiler alert.

Now, you can expect this to be negative because besides Con-Air, I basically despise Michael Bay. I also don’t really know anything about what makes up the anatomy of an Autobot or Decepticon, and that lack of knowledge is where most of my questions stem from. Let me first say that this movie was far too long. Let’s compare it with something like The Dark Knight, which was just two minutes longer, but packed with essential plot action, some of Hollywood’s greatest actors, and tastefully placed explosions. The whole final battle in Egypt could have been completed in half the time. I mean come on, it was a predictable ending. There is no way Sam was really going to die, no way Optimus Prime would have remained ‘dead,’ and no way the Decepticons wouldn’t have been ‘defeated.’ Why drag it out? And honestly, Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson just don’t stack up to Christian Bale, Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart, not to mention Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. The action was also just so much more intelligent.

I suppose these robot aliens have fluids due to the green slime that was always flying from orifices, but do they have anatomies like our own? With brains and hearts? It’s true that they are obviously humanoid, but what are the inner workings? Because I thought it pretty funny that the ways in which the robots killed one another was like any very gruesome human killing: tearing heads apart, punching through chests, ripping out spines (although I don’t think I’ve ever seen that one before). The point I’m making is that that really ‘badass’ kills, the best kills, were made by attacking what would be vital parts of the human body, and I thought that to be strange, especially since they are supposed to be an advanced race, or at least more advanced than humans.

I think the most enjoyable part of the movie was the audience response. Exclamations at the appearance of Megan Fox, “No!” at the death of Optimus Prime, “Bitch!” after one of Leo’s freakouts. Kind of like the guy who said, “She really likes him…” during The Hangover (before they leave Vegas, Stu and Jade). All in all, I suppose it could be called an interesting experience.

I figured that since I have yet to finish Heart of Darkness, I should post a few words. For anyone who has ever read this very short Conrad novel, it is in my opinion on the difficult side. It’s just kind of labor-intensive. Anyway, I just wanted to say a few words about where my movie idea first came from.

When I first thought of reading the novels movies are and have been based on, I figured I would review movies that are currently being released. You know, just fairly contemporary stuff. For the time being, that is out of the range of possibilities – I need a job first. But that is not to say that every other film ever made from a book is out of the question, because I think those are just as important. All in good time, I suppose.

So when I approached the subject so zealously, I forgot my original conception. The second mistake I made was choosing the book before the movie. I now think that may have been be a bit backwards. A film has first to be made for me to read the corresponding novel.

Third, I wanted to address the kinds of movies I will be watching, because I feel that there will be at least two distinct categories: blockbusters and educators. Of course, not every movie will conform to my specifications. The blockbusters seem to have big budgets, lots of publicity and bigger stars (i.e Apocalypse Now). The educators, like Madame Bovary, often seem to be lower-budget films, have a minimal amount of advertisement, and may not employ the most well-known actors. They also may tend toward a more accurate representation of the literature. I would count on a Kenneth Branagh version of a Shakespeare play before almost any other director. I know he has respect for what he is producing. Plus, I tend to trust stage actors. Until next week!

So I watched the 1991 French version of Madame Bovary. It was directed by Claude Chabrol, who also adapted the screenplay from the novel. The film begins with Charles Bovary on his way to set Roualt’s (Emma’s father) broken leg. Of course, this skips over the first few chapters, but the remainder of the movie is reltively true to the novel. There are certain details that Chabrol specifically seemed to emphasize. In the beginning, it was Emma’s overt, nonchalant sensuality: sucking her finger when she pricks it while sewing, licking the bottom of her drinking glass and kissing the holy relic offered on her deathbed. But at the same time there were details that I thought unimportant to the progression of the plot: the ridiculously ornate wedding cake and Emma hearing the name ‘Berthe’ during the ball at La Vaubyessard. These do have significance, but in transferring a novel to film, there just isn’t room for everything. I think that this is one of the main problems of this transferrence: narration is usually impossible to realize in a film. Instead, the burden is placed wholly onto the actors to truly portray the personality and inner thoughts of a character, which could be unfortunate given the talent (or lack of talent) of the actor. I also wonder whether the late-Victorian novel isn’t a rather difficult type to make into a feature film. The intensity of description and complexity of plot make them rather lengthy pieces of fiction, too “boring” for most readers.

All in all, the film turned out to be rather tedious, even for a book of only about three hundred pages. It serves as a great educational version though, something you could show to a classroom of older students. The actors were decent, not terrible. Homais, the pharmacist, seemed an arbitrary lingerer. I don’t think his presence would make much sense to someone who hadn’t read Madame Bovary. For those who would like to read it, Madame Bovary is a relatively easy read. The plot is pretty straightforward; not as convoluted as a Dickens, and not with long, philosophical passages that leave your head spinning. And by the way, 2001: A Space Odyssey was an original screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke before it was a book, which was written after the movie. Instead, I think I’ll read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and then watch Apocalypse Now, which is Francis Ford Coppola’s movie very loosely based on this short novel. An interesting comparison, no doubt. I’ll be reading from the Dover Thrift Edition.

Part II of Madame Bovary begins with the move to Yonville-l’Abbaye from Tostes. Emma is pregnant with Charles’ child. The description of her pregnancy and delivery are simple and to the point: “She gave birth one Sunday, about six in the morning, as the sun was rising” (80). I assume this to be the case because Emma doesn’t really care about her daughter (Berthe). She actually wants to have a male child, someone she could live through vicariously, as Emma seems to acutely feel the limits of her sex (79). But even if it had been a boy child, I feel that she would have been just as detached. I wonder if Emma would have loved a child conceived with another man, someone she loved. Maybe her detestation for her husband was transferred onto Berthe. But it could just as easily be true that Emma is so entirely selfish that she considers her daughter a nuisance in her pursuit of the life she desires.

It is also in this section that Emma meets Léon and Rodolphe, her two great loves. Léon falls in love with her almost immediately, a fact she notices a while later. It is not clear whether Emma feels the same all the time and the reader is simply not made aware (although they certainly share some kind of connection, and she finds him to be attractive and intelligent – they are sort of kindred spirits), or if she only languishes into love when she finds out his feelings toward her. In my opinion, Emma is a totally self-absorbed being. Her “love” comes about only through attention paid to her. Beforehand, she is very careful to guard her feelings. Léon leaves Yonville for Paris to pursue his studies in law. He never tells Emma of his feelings, but there is an unspoken tension that exists between the two at his departure. Very soon after, Rodolphe appears on the scene. He is rich, something of a landed nobleman who lives outside small towns in large country estates, enjoying the “quaint,” simple lifestyle. He plans from the moment he meets Emma to have her as his mistress, and never intends for their relationship to extend beyond that, a true cad: “Monsieur Rodolphe Boulanger was thirty-four years old, his nature course and his intelligence shrewd; he had a broad experience of women and was something of a connoisseur. He considered this one [Emma] very pretty; so he was thinking about her, and about her husband” (116). He ends the relationship after four years. He and Emma are planning to run away together, and he writes her a letter full of dramatic language, explaining that he cannot allow her to ruin her life, but he also can no longer be in her presence, for fear of temptation. He leaves Yonville, never to be seen again by Emma. Part II ends with Emma and Charles attending an opera (Lucia de Lammermoor) in Rouen (a neighboring town, perhaps city, large enough to house a theater). While there, the couple runs into Léon, and it can only be assumed that the unspoken love of Emma and Léon will now be indulged.

Part III plus the review of the movie is next week. What should I read next? I was thinking something modern or contemporary, maybe some science fiction? I need some ideas!

This section of the novel is not at the heart of what Madame Bovary is famous for (i.e. adultery, immorality). But it is an excellent introduction to the real character of Emma Bovary, who is not truly revealed until her marriage to Charles. Until then, the reader experiences Emma as a completely sensual being, through Charles’s eyes. They have just enjoyed a drink in this particular passage: “As it was almost empty, she leaned right back to drink and, with her head tilted, her lips pushed forward and her neck taut, she laughed at finding nothing, while the tip of her tongue, poking between her beautiful teeth, delicately licked at the bottom of the glass” (22). After their union, the focus shifts from Charles to Emma. She believes love to be something she has read about in books: “In her longing she confused the sensual pleasures of luxury with the rapture of love, and elegance of manners with sensbility of feeling” (53). When she finds this to be false in her relationship with Charles, she tries to charm up a reasonable lifestyle: “She had to derive a kind of personal profit from things, and rejected as useless anything that did not contribute directly to her heart’s gratification-for her temperament was sentimental rather than artistic, and she longed for emotion, not scenery” (34). When this attempt at creating a more interesting life also proves fruitless, Emma becomes inconsolable. She is at times self-absorbed: “Sometimes Emma would tuck in the red border of his sweater under his waistcoat, adjust his necktie, or discard the soiled gloves that he had been about to put on; and it was not, as he supposed, for his sake; it was for herself, out of an overflow of egocentricity, out of nervous exasperation” (56). As part and parcel of her disillusionment and self-absorption she suffers from, Emma experiences acute ennui: “She would close her door, poke the coals, and, faint from the heat of the fire, feel boredom bearing down upon her again, even more oppressively. She would gladly have gone to the kitchen to chat to the maid, but a sense of propriety held her back” (58).

Part I of Madame Bovary also contains great examples of Flaubert’s style of narration, which came to be known as free indirect style. It is a combination of two voices instead of only one. As the reader we get Emma’s tone of prejudice and sentiment: “But a man, surely, should know everything, should excel at many different things, should initiate you into the intensities of passion, into the refinements of life, into all its mysteries? But this man taught nothing, knew nothing, desired nothing,” as well as the understanding and sophistication of the all-seeing narrator: “He believed she was happy; and she resented him for this settled calm of his, for his untroubled dullness, for the very happiness she brought him” (38).

My Part II analysis will appear next week. I know that this way of progressing seems sluggish, but I’m trying to figure out the best way. Bear with me…

And so another semester ends…I should be graduating, but alas, one more to go! Anyway, I’ve been working on an idea for new posts, and since it is now summer, I have much more recreational reading time (as opposed to time spent reading assigned material) in which to start. My idea is this: comparing books/plays/short stories to the movies made of them. Two of my favorite things in the world. I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty excited about it. I have a limited amount of books on the shelf at my apartment – mostly stuff I’ve already read – so when I looked up from my computer today, I chose the first novel that was not Robinson Crusoe (no offense, Defoe). Therefore, my subject will be one of the first modern French novels, Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary (1857). I think I read this about two years ago, so its been a while. Checking out imdb.com, it seems that there have been many movies and/or television series made of this novel. I’ll probably be able to find the 1991 version easiest.

What I’ll be assessing is the quality of both book and film alone and how they work (or don’t work) together. Let’s put it this way: just because a novel might be considered a masterpiece does not mean its corresponding film also fits the bill, and probably vice versa. I won’t be a total stickler about content. I understand that every single event cannot be contained in a film of reasonable length. What I can’t promise is that I’ll be generous about extra scenes, additions or changes to the plot. So if you would like to read with me, I’m going to be working from the Oxford World’s Classics version translated by Margaret Mauldon, 2004. It’s 300 pages, give or take, in three parts. I’ll check up in about a week, and have at least Part I read. Happy reading!

I started watching a lot of tv this semester. A lot of criticism has come along with it: “How do you have enough time to watch all of that stuff?” Meaning, “Don’t you have other things to be doing like homework or finding a job?” (Dad) Or, “You could be crushing it on your blog or on Twitter instead of wasting your time watching tv.” (You know who you are) So although these people will probably never be satisfied with my conduct (due to their very high expectations for me, of course), I decided to write about why I watch television anyway.

It’s simple, really: 1) Whatever, I do what I want. 2) I love stories.

I mean, this is what I do on a daily basis, just in a different medium. I live for plot development and character growth. It’s not much different from watching a movie or (dare I say?) reading a book – I’m still advocating for all three, here. Plus, there is a fair amount of tv out there with a lot of merit. It seems to me that great actors, plot lines and direction are becoming more prevalent in what could be a genre just like short fiction. Television is just as capable of sparking intelligent, speculative conversation and thinking.

And if it doesn’t have merit, it probably has heart. For example, shows like CSI: Miami or Bones tend to get a bit cheesy and follow the same pattern every week, but I’ll be damned if I don’t love every one of those quirky characters. People might think me ridiculous for sobbing when Kate had to leave Aaron behind (“They’re fictional characters!”), but these people are really real to me. By the way, if you would like to further explore the issue of created entities being “alive,” you should read Luigi Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author.

There is also the value of entertainment. Even the best of us settle for watching the worst reality television – Rock of Love I, II and Bus, for example. But it’s funny! It’s hilarious, and it always serves the age-old purpose of escape. Theodor Adorno might disagree with me, but sometimes we just need to veg out.

It’s funny how different our speculations can be from what actually is, or comes to be. For example, my overzealous approach to this year’s Oscar season, which has developed into an interesting one, to say the least. Awards aside, I’d like to talk about the films that have made an impression on me (good or bad) based on my original thoughts from my last post. As you will see, this discussion comes out quite incomplete, due to the fact that I have only seen three of those movies discussed previously. I really meant to see everything, but it seems food is more important than movies – at least for me. I don’t think any of us ever expects to be poor unless we grow up expecting nothing else. But when it happens, we usually aren’t prepared for it. It’s definitely more stressful than I imagined. Anyway, it’s cut back on my movie time. I think Nick got tired of seeing movies he didn’t care about as well.

As everyone has heard by now, Slumdog Millionaire is a spectacular piece of film making. Really, I don’t have much else to say about it. The plot is compelling, the writing is witty, and you really can’t help feeling anything but love for most of the characters. On the whole it’s just a really triumphant movie, and has been the most deserving (of awards) I’ve seen this winter season.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a good, solid movie, but it isn’t my favorite David Fincher film. I have a feeling that maybe his strong suit lies in the genre of thrillers. I’ll never forget the first time I saw Zodiac. I don’t know what it was, but I was curled up in my seat, terrified to the point of sickness. The same goes for Se7en. Now whenever I watch, I know exactly what is going to happen, but I still get the willies. So the constancy of very strong emotion, whatever it may be, is a trait I enjoy in Fincher’s movies. Benjamin Button is no exception, making me cry through much of its two hours and fifty minutes. I developed a pretty strong feeling for Benjamin immediately. He is such a generous, selfless and beautiful character, so not only did I sincerely care about what happened to him, but the continual reminder of my mortality was kind of tough.  I don’t know that Benjamin’s aging backward is as important as the fact of opportunity. His childlike eagerness to do anything, even at the physical age of seventy or eighty, a curiosity most of us leave behind by fifteen. As a side note, I’m not Brad Pitt’s biggest fan, but his portrayal was spot on.

The problem I found with Doubt was not with the film as much as the play. I feel that the real dramatic guts are missing, and they only appear in the second to last scene with Sister Aloysius, Mrs. Muller and Father Flynn. I understand that during the 1960s in a Catholic school sexuality and sexual abuse are hard topics to explicitly discuss, but the woman question could have been driven home harder. In fact, for all of her veiled annoyance at her subordinate position to the men of the parish, Sister Aloysius is not only arguably the villain, but totally destroyed by the close of the play. The nuns remain powerless women. This is disappointing, but it makes its point well enough.

Before ending, I have one question: I’d just like to get an idea of how many people would be interested in a sort of internet book club? Reading novels, plays, poetry with me on something like a weekly basis? Or would books as movies be more interesting? I’d like to do both, actually. I know a lot of people dislike reading these days. Let me know!

If we hadn’t already, we are entering into the heat of Oscar season. Now, I may be completely unqualified to write this post due to my extreme biases and lack of knowledge, but I’m excited about what’s coming, so I’m talking about it. Last night I was reading a CNN article about upcoming holiday movies as well as the running for Academy Award, which I’m going to rely a lot on for this post.

First, Slumdog Millionaire, which I have not seen, but has been getting terrific reviews. It’s still new. It was deemed a possible sleeper hit by some person’s article I was reading (I’m sorry!), and it seems to have been garnering press (obviously, CNN), but I’ll be surprised if I see a trailer on tv or hear about it from a person who has no real interest in movies. This is not meant to be negative, it’s just that Slumdog Millionaire will not be your next Titanic as far as popularity goes. The film is directed by Danny Boyle. Wide release is set for November 27th.

Slumdog Millionaire

Speaking of Titanic, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio reunite in Sam Mendes’s Revolutionary Road. This is where my partiality comes into play. I admire both of these actors greatly, and Sam Mendes has already shown his stuff with American Beauty as well as two solid pictures since then (Jarhead and Road to Perdition). Also, according to IMDB, he is working on a Rufus Wainwright documentary, which could make me love anyone, and in 2009 will apparently be releasing Middlemarch, possibly George Eliot’s greatest novel. I’m a little worried about the length, though. Back to the point. It is based on the novel by Richard Yates and is released December 25th.

Revolutionary Road

Another film I am particularly excited about is The Reader. Kate Winslet stars with Ralph Fiennes, one of my favorite actors ever. I haven’t seen it around much in the press, but I think it deserves a nod. It is directed by Stephen Daldry, based on a book written by Bernhard Schlink. The release date is December 10th.

The Reader

Doubt is a Pulitzer Prize-and Tony-winning play written by John Patrick Shanley, produced originally only a few years ago in 2004. It stars the usually infallible Meryl Streep, the always lovable Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis. It seems a relatively solid cast, and most definitely a noteworthy play. Shanley is directing, so obviously the writing stays in tact. It is set for limited release on December 12th.

Doubt

Another movie based on a play, Frost/Nixon, will be making its way into theaters this year. It is very new, officially opening in March of 2007. It will star Michael Sheen as David Frost, and Frank Langella as Richard Nixon, from the original cast. The playwright Peter Morgan is also the screenwriter, and Ron Howard directs. The film will open for limited release December 5th.

Frost/Nixon

Milk is a biopic about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected into public office in California 1977. Its cast of characters: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, James Franco, Diego Luna and Josh Brolin. It is directed by Gus Van Sant, written by Dustin Lance Black, and is set to release December 5th.

Milk

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, who seem to play together as Oscar favorites. I guess I feel for the underdogs, and Cate Blanchett certainly isn’t one of them, though her talent cannot be ignored. I’m also not a huge fan of Brad Pitt, although I suppose I could give him a chance. Today I discovered that the film was directed by David Fincher and my, oh my how things change. I like Fincher a lot. He’s one of those underdog types who rarely gets credit for his work. Kids only like Fight Club because we all seem to go through that Chuck Palahnuik phase. It’s “cool.” My apologies if you actually appreciate him as a writer. It will be released on December 25th.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I haven’t seen a single one of these films, but I hope to. I hope my dates are all correct, too. Double check with imdb.com, because I was using Wikipedia half the time. And I’ll try and keep updated as the list gets a bit more honed, especially as the year comes to a close and as the nominations are handed out. Some movies may disappear, some new may emerge. I hate sort of revolving one part of my life around an award show that has almost zero impact on my life, but it usually yields spectacular rewards (i.e. the movies). If I’ve missed anything, let me know. There are some missing like Baz Luhrmann’s Australia, Clint Eastwood’s The Changeling and Gran Turino. I’ll keep updating and I’d like to hear your thoughts on this whole film business.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/17/holiday.movies/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

That’s really all I have to say. Vote tomorrow if you haven’t already. I hope you all are as excited as I am. I feel we as a country are on the brink of something really huge here. So get out there and vote! Tomorrow is going to be a great day!