Much Ado about nothing(2012 and BBC)

I felt very much like Claudio pretty much the whole time I was watching this movie. While I think its cool that they were true to the text while radically adapting it at the same time it was quite a distraction for me. It was worse than the music in 2012 The Great Gatsby. I found myself not really paying any attention to what the characters were saying and more about what they were doing. I found it very hard to pay attention. Although the comedy done by some characters was easy to follow and amusing. But some of the conversations were just hard to follow,  a lot of word play for simple sentences. I was also very confused by Hero's "death" and her resurrection. I think I may have missed something with all of the back and forth in what is basically a foreign language.

I found this adaptation much easier to follow for obvious reasons. Although I feel like there wasn't a whole lot of deceit in this one like in the 2012 version with the people in the cuffs. While there was some deceit it was mostly done for good reason. They also made it more obvious that the characters talking about Beatrice and Benedict, I felt in the 2012 version the characters that were talking about Benedict really had no idea that he was listening in but that might be because I was too distracted by the language. In the end I think I would like to see a film that is like the actual play. 

Stranger Than Fiction

Okay, so this is a bit of a throw back because I came into the class late in the semester but I'm  doing it anyway. I have very little negative to say about this movie(I say this because I tend to look at the flaws in the films versus the good things). Ever since I saw this movie when I was about seventeen I loved it. I've watched it many times since but I had to rewatch it with a critical mind this time and I did notice one flaw. Wouldn't Karen have to write all of Harold's realizations about him hearing a voice narrating his life? Why is it that only when he contacts her do their stories meet? A possible theory of mine is that when Harold is doing things to bring him closer to Karen she is writing the other characters(the boy on the bike and the woman who gets hired to drive the bus) back stories. Feel free to give your own ideas and thoughts about why this is. Other than that I have only positive things to say about this movie. I love the character development and how you can really feel the emotions of the actors. One scene that really hit me hard watching this time around was the scene where Hillbert tells Harold that he has to die for the story and Harold is devastated. "The hero dies but the story goes on..." This goes to show that Will Ferrell has the ability and skill to play an emotional and deep character. They made good use of imagery, dressing Harold in bright vibrant colors after he begins to discover himself and the contrast this makes in the office scene where he is just moving past everyone in their dull grey colors. This is another reason I chose the picture above, I never noticed it until about the third time I watched the movie but when Karen begins to talk about Anna the clouds begin to move. Subtlety is a great thing when used right. Something that comes to mind, maybe the writer of the film intended to kill Harold but decided it was too negative and changed it. While the film appears as a tragedy in many ways it has a lighthearted feel throughout, so maybe he was never going to die in the first place. 

"That's not your car!" 

"It is now."

Okay.... This movie. I loved this movie. I am madly in love with films that leave open endings and are strung with puzzles. I feel a lot of people are, I'm not if its the thrill of trying to solve the mystery or trying to find even the smallest flaw in the story you can. Which ever you like to do or both, Memento is possibly one of the greatest movies for this. It took me a bit to catch on to the way that they edited the film but once I caught on I was trying to piece everything together. The movie was a lot more fun to try and put together than the short story. The short was really basic, I was interested for a while reading it but it wasn't really captivating or confusing or hard to figure out. But with a short story, as we've discussed in class, its harder to leave really good details for riddles and a thorough story. But with an almost two hour film you can squeeze in a lot and you can really play with peoples minds. While the shorty was chopped up it still has a very linear feel to it. But with the film you feel like you're jumping back and forth constantly, and I feel like this is more disorienting because of imagery. Our minds are constantly trying to absorb new info in reverse and forward. While I was watching I thought of it like watching a VHS tape backwards. Popping in the tape at the end rewinding by 5 minutes playing to the end, rewind 10 minutes playing to 5 minutes, rewind 15 minutes play to 10, rinse and repeat. At first this is a little disorienting trying to figure out the SYSTEM. But soon enough we are CONDITIONED. 

The Great Debate

I feel like this will be much easier to put in writing. As I said in class, I believe Sammy and Leonard are two different people. Sammy the con man, Leonard the insurance inspector. But here's why I think that Leonard "is Sammy". The first thing we need to keep in mind is that Leonard has brain damage, wires can get crossed and memories mixed up. Leonard takes the story from his life when he was investigating Sammy's case which is already in his mind. His last memory is watching his wife "die". It is highly possible that he passed out looking at his wife tangled up in the curtain barely breathing. If that was your last memory of course you would think she was dead. The next thing we have to keep in mind is that Teddy really is a cop, regardless of whether or not he used Leonard, he seems trustworthy with his info but we are conditioned to distrust what he says due to how the film is made. But I think we should trust Teddy's word. So with all this info and a few nudges from the filmmakers with spliced shots I think we should believe that Leonard's wife survived and did in fact have diabetes and in Leonard's subconscious he placed Sammy in his place to deny the loss, pain, and truth about his wife. The mind is capable of extraordinary things even when it is damaged. As for "remember Sammy Jankis." I believe that was Leonard trying to remind himself who Sammy really was in order to try and separate the two and remember the "truth". But why bother going through all this explanation? You're just going to forget it all in 10 minutes anyway......

The Great Gatsby: The good, the bad, and the kind of okay...

The Great Gatsby(Novel)

First off let me just open with I did not like the book. I know, big gasps. While it is well written I want more story than a bunch of detail, you can give plenty of detail describing a landfill but its still full of garbage. Yes, detail is important but you can't lean an entire novel on it. To me the novel was a lot of bones and very little skin, i'll call it a zombie novel(don't ask). I'm aware he was trying to capture the generation he was in at the time with a love story on the side but he could've done a better job of mixing story and detail.

The Great Gatsby(1974)

Let me just throw this out there from the beginning, this is very bad. They follow the novel fairly well but it all just seems like a joke with the atrocious acting. Yes, standards have greatly improved since then but the Godfather didn't seem to have any trouble with finding good actors. I have to say that I agreed with every review that I read about this film. While it sticks with the novel, there are plenty of parts where they stray. As stated many times in class, Gatsby is too cool. They may as well cast a robot for him... or even all the actors. None of them seemed to have depth or dimension. Overall I would recommend just staying away from this film. Classic or not its not worth the two and a half hours that it takes away from your life. 

Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MstmidhHNQ

The Great Gatsby(2013)

Where the hell is Leo's oscar and did Jay-Z do music for this movie... I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I actually liked the characters and grew close to them, probably because they actually have emotions. This movie stuck with the book and had a very interesting take on the perspective in which it was to be told. It made me feel like a reader as much as a movie goer, though you'd probably have to have read the book first in order to get this feeling. Some people like to pick on Leo's accent in this movie but I thought he did a perfect job. He had that regal, over the top tone because that's not who Gatsby is, I saw it as him mocking all of the snobs he was surrounding himself with. Now on to the music, like many I think it was a huge mistake using pop music in this film. While everything does have a very polished and modern look to it, I feel that when you put pop music in a 1920's setting it takes away from the authenticity of the era. I don't want to hear something I can hear any time I turn on the radio, I would rather hear revamps of Jazz songs from that era. Though the one modern song I was fine with being in the movie was Lana Del Rey's "young and beautiful" because it had an older and more natural sound and fit the context of the film. 

Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaBVLhcHcc0

Adaptation: a film that contradicts itself in every way and gets away with it

        Okay, so I first watched this movie about a year ago having no clue what it was about. I got about half way through and ended up leaving it and forgetting to finish. Well when I read the article about the description of Larouche I was thinking to myself, "Man, this guy sounds really familiar..." Not just the name but the very description of his physical attributes. I eventually remembered watching a movie that had a character who fit those exact features and was an orchid hunter. So I was quite shocked that the film did such a great job that I would remember the character just by the description of the character. Anyway on to the movie.

        I found it very interesting how they were able to make a full length film by basically running in circles. It opens with a black screen and the voice of the narrator having monologue about himself, which later in the film he talks about making the opening of the film itself. He later describes a possible opening for the film in which the sub-story uses to begin it's story. This movie was two movies inside of one big movie that is in itself several genres at various points throughout the movie. I enjoy this film because to get a full understanding of everything that happens you have to sit down and take notes and possibly even make a diagram. Yeah, you can talk about the various plot twists and humorous references about the film they are in but that's only skimming the top.