I've been liking The Sun Also Rises a lot as a book, and a lot of that can be attributed to the style Hemingway presents, but a lot of it has to do with the characters. Jake is a complex narrator who surrounds himself with very interesting people, and I can form a solid opinion on almost every one of them.
The reason I said "almost every one of them" is that I've had a hard time recently forming my opinion of Bill as a character. I find him hilarious and quick-witted regardless of the situation he finds himself in, and for a while I really enjoyed him as a character.
Then...the bigotry surfaced. While racism and homophobia has been a constant throughout the book ranging from subtle (Jake saying Cohn getting his nose flattened improved it) to overt (Jake becoming infuriated by the black drummer's friendly attitude towards Brett) it had never been quite so inflammatory as it can be with Bill.
At first, I tried to brush it away as being an attitude of a bygone era, but the more time we spend with Bill, the harder it is to make that argument. It's hard to defend rants about the American Civil War being caused by Lincoln's homosexual affairs as anything less than rampant bigotry.
And here is where I run into my problem. I really want to like Bill as a character but can't simply ignore these sometimes horrifying displays of ignorance and hate. I still "enjoy" Bill's presence in a scene and find him much more preferable to Mike the drunken ass or Brett, who, quite comically, I recently discovered is referred to as a "demi-bitch" by many literary critics. Even so, I can never view Bill in the same way I would Howie or Holden. I can picture spending time with him being fun for a little while, but it wouldn't take long for the bigotry to reach the surface. For this reason, although I may enjoy his inclusion in the book and believe the narrative is greatly improved by his involvement, I cannot like the character himself
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Hours
I've been having some trouble summing up my thoughts on The Hours, and I feel that demonstrates how complex and rich this film actually is. Although I do have some problems with it, I feel that around 80% of The Hours was of the highest quality in terms of acting, cinematography, soundtrack, and writing. I especially liked the third of the movie that focused on Virginia Woolf as a character. Had the entire movie been about her and her experiences I would think even more of it than I already do.Ed Harris was also amazing as the new Richard character. Overall, I would say that The Hours can be called a truly quality piece of cinema.
...but I didn't like it.
I know that may sound silly after I spent the last paragraph praising the film to death, but there's one element that I haven't mentioned that completely ruins the experience for me. I hate the entire 50's plotline.
So many elements of this third of the movie rubbed me the wrong way that I could no longer stand the plot itself. One of the biggest reasons is the character of Laura Brown. Now, usually I'm a pretty big Julianne Moore fan. Almost every role I've seen her in is packed with depth, emotion, and humanity (e.g. The Kids Are All Right, The Big Lebowski, Children of Men, etc), but here her acting is so flat and unappealing that I can't help but be drawn out of the experience. Whenever the camera lingers on her as she attempts to emote I consistently felt a feeling of bewilderment come over me. I don't know if I'm alone in this interpretation but Moore's performance of slowly forcing out every syllable of her dialogue didn't communicate the tortured soul of a repressed housewife to me but instead a tired actress who's having trouble remembering her lines. It's entirely possible that Moore's attempt at portraying depression is made to look even worse due to being juxtaposed to masterful portrayals from Harris, Kidman, and Streep. Regardless of the real reason, I found the performance stupendously awful.
Not only was the performance close to painful for me, but I found the character herself incredibly out of place in this kind of story. Compare Laura's motivations for suicide to our two other main candidates. Virginia Woolf is pushed to suicide by her mind itself, a brilliant but tortured thing that seems restricted by the confines of society and life itself. Richard, similarly, is mentally unstable, depression surrounding him as his disease spreads and life loses its meaning. Laura...well to be honest I can barely tell you. Where the other sections are able to richly communicate the suffering their characters are going through, all we ever really observe from Laura's life is that she has a caring husband who loves her unconditionally, a sweet son who seems to want to emulate her, and she's reading the beggining of Mrs Dalloway. Also she... talks... as if... she... is falling... asleep.
I don't want to rant for too long about all the thematic ways the 50s section detracts from the rest of the movie because I'm sure nobody will get excited for a blog of THAT size. And besides, I do want to restate that I LOVE the other two sections. If it were possible I would consider putting the Viginia Woolf third of this movie in my personal top 100 movies. I mainly just want to hear other people's reactions to this. I really want to understand and connect to the 50s storyline, and if there's some underlying meaning or subtle nuance I'm missing then by all means help me find it. For I'd rather be wrong and love a movie than right and hate one.
...but I didn't like it.
I know that may sound silly after I spent the last paragraph praising the film to death, but there's one element that I haven't mentioned that completely ruins the experience for me. I hate the entire 50's plotline.
So many elements of this third of the movie rubbed me the wrong way that I could no longer stand the plot itself. One of the biggest reasons is the character of Laura Brown. Now, usually I'm a pretty big Julianne Moore fan. Almost every role I've seen her in is packed with depth, emotion, and humanity (e.g. The Kids Are All Right, The Big Lebowski, Children of Men, etc), but here her acting is so flat and unappealing that I can't help but be drawn out of the experience. Whenever the camera lingers on her as she attempts to emote I consistently felt a feeling of bewilderment come over me. I don't know if I'm alone in this interpretation but Moore's performance of slowly forcing out every syllable of her dialogue didn't communicate the tortured soul of a repressed housewife to me but instead a tired actress who's having trouble remembering her lines. It's entirely possible that Moore's attempt at portraying depression is made to look even worse due to being juxtaposed to masterful portrayals from Harris, Kidman, and Streep. Regardless of the real reason, I found the performance stupendously awful.
Not only was the performance close to painful for me, but I found the character herself incredibly out of place in this kind of story. Compare Laura's motivations for suicide to our two other main candidates. Virginia Woolf is pushed to suicide by her mind itself, a brilliant but tortured thing that seems restricted by the confines of society and life itself. Richard, similarly, is mentally unstable, depression surrounding him as his disease spreads and life loses its meaning. Laura...well to be honest I can barely tell you. Where the other sections are able to richly communicate the suffering their characters are going through, all we ever really observe from Laura's life is that she has a caring husband who loves her unconditionally, a sweet son who seems to want to emulate her, and she's reading the beggining of Mrs Dalloway. Also she... talks... as if... she... is falling... asleep.
I don't want to rant for too long about all the thematic ways the 50s section detracts from the rest of the movie because I'm sure nobody will get excited for a blog of THAT size. And besides, I do want to restate that I LOVE the other two sections. If it were possible I would consider putting the Viginia Woolf third of this movie in my personal top 100 movies. I mainly just want to hear other people's reactions to this. I really want to understand and connect to the 50s storyline, and if there's some underlying meaning or subtle nuance I'm missing then by all means help me find it. For I'd rather be wrong and love a movie than right and hate one.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Blog Vs. Journals: A Comparison
I thought it might be helpful to air my opinions and personal observations on the transition from hand-written to online journals. Having been in two semesters of Mr Mitchell's classes previously (African American Lit. and Coming of Age Novel ), I grew a certain fondness for the hand-written form of journal writing. I was obviously able to get over this preference, however, as I am at this moment utilizing the more modern equivalent. Having used both, I will attempt to weigh the benefits and disadvantages based on my own experiences and what I've seen and heard from others.
I will admit that I was initially against the online blogs as a full time replacement for hand-written journals. Last year the journal represented a much more personal communication between teacher and student. The best analogy I can present is that of a therapist and their patient. It would be ridiculous to broadcast a therapy session on NBC's thursday comedy lineup, and that's how I viewed the idea of putting the journal online. This comparison became immediately ridiculous once I considered it, but I do fear that more shy students are holding back some of their more creative ideas because of a fear of reprisal from their peers. I have so far seen no chastisement or heated debates erupting from blogs, which although a good thing, also has something to do with the fact that nobody is commenting at all. I'll try my best to comment whenever I can, but it seems difficult whenever you're in the role other than instructor to post a public comment on what amounts to be a piece of written work. The comment idea has grown on me in theory, but unless we are able to successfully utilize it, it's just a waste. I've also developed an interesting little paranoia in which I check every one of my classmates' blogs to make sure the idea I'm about to write about wasn't already done by someone else.
Of course, there are numerous benefits to the online version that I've run across. For one, it helps in keeping pieces of creative works legible in the case of a student with messy handwriting (oh, you all knew that was coming, don't act all surprised). It also allows the student to focus his writing time when it most benefits them, rather than having to try and force their creativity during class-time (some may have noticed that I write more late at night). It is even more practical when you consider that you cannot lose an online blog, forcing you to check every classroom and rummage through the lost and found whenever you become a bit absentminded. This new blog system should also cut down on a terrible habit that can develop in which a student puts off their journal work until a few nights before the final due date. I'm also sure that it's incredibly more beneficial to the sanity of our instructor to read 6 or 7 posts a day rather than thirty-five journals worth in a weekend. Additionally, although I do complain that I have to check every post to make sure I don't accidentally copy an idea, I do enjoy reading the posts made by others and watching as their opinions of the book grow and dwindle.
Well, this post turned into a bit more of a ramble than a point-by-point argument, but I'm not sure I can truthfully answer wholeheartedly for one side or the other. If I had to pick a side, it would probably be with this new system. Even with its flaws, the blogs just seem more practical and interesting for a journal writer. That said, I would still be perfectly happy to switch back. There's something so much more satisfying about holding a completed piece of writing rather than looking at it on your computer screen. I would say that This match has come to a draw, and until I see further evidence as to an obviously better journal experience, I'll simply be happy to be a part of the writing process.
I will admit that I was initially against the online blogs as a full time replacement for hand-written journals. Last year the journal represented a much more personal communication between teacher and student. The best analogy I can present is that of a therapist and their patient. It would be ridiculous to broadcast a therapy session on NBC's thursday comedy lineup, and that's how I viewed the idea of putting the journal online. This comparison became immediately ridiculous once I considered it, but I do fear that more shy students are holding back some of their more creative ideas because of a fear of reprisal from their peers. I have so far seen no chastisement or heated debates erupting from blogs, which although a good thing, also has something to do with the fact that nobody is commenting at all. I'll try my best to comment whenever I can, but it seems difficult whenever you're in the role other than instructor to post a public comment on what amounts to be a piece of written work. The comment idea has grown on me in theory, but unless we are able to successfully utilize it, it's just a waste. I've also developed an interesting little paranoia in which I check every one of my classmates' blogs to make sure the idea I'm about to write about wasn't already done by someone else.
Of course, there are numerous benefits to the online version that I've run across. For one, it helps in keeping pieces of creative works legible in the case of a student with messy handwriting (oh, you all knew that was coming, don't act all surprised). It also allows the student to focus his writing time when it most benefits them, rather than having to try and force their creativity during class-time (some may have noticed that I write more late at night). It is even more practical when you consider that you cannot lose an online blog, forcing you to check every classroom and rummage through the lost and found whenever you become a bit absentminded. This new blog system should also cut down on a terrible habit that can develop in which a student puts off their journal work until a few nights before the final due date. I'm also sure that it's incredibly more beneficial to the sanity of our instructor to read 6 or 7 posts a day rather than thirty-five journals worth in a weekend. Additionally, although I do complain that I have to check every post to make sure I don't accidentally copy an idea, I do enjoy reading the posts made by others and watching as their opinions of the book grow and dwindle.
Well, this post turned into a bit more of a ramble than a point-by-point argument, but I'm not sure I can truthfully answer wholeheartedly for one side or the other. If I had to pick a side, it would probably be with this new system. Even with its flaws, the blogs just seem more practical and interesting for a journal writer. That said, I would still be perfectly happy to switch back. There's something so much more satisfying about holding a completed piece of writing rather than looking at it on your computer screen. I would say that This match has come to a draw, and until I see further evidence as to an obviously better journal experience, I'll simply be happy to be a part of the writing process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)