Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts

Thursday, April 8, 2010

East of Eden: Movie, Book, and Legends of the Fall

A couple years ago, I saw East of Eden on the airplane and fell madly in love with both it and James Dean. It is possible that I fell in love with the movie because James Dean was in it. I'm not sure. Anyway, I was convinced it was the most perfect movie I had ever seen, absolutely faultless, and oh, why couldn't I give Cal Trask a hug, the poor unloved thing? I guess it is difficult for a movie to live up to a first impression like that. It is true that with each subsequent viewing, I like it less. It has many good points: the acting is brilliant, the cinematography is beautiful, the soundtrack lends a lot of atmosphere to the film, and it is wonderfully dramatic. The last thirty minutes have me glued to my seat and on the verge of tears.

 
However, it also has some faults, faults I was blind to as a thirteen year old. First of all, everything except the last thirty minutes is kind of dull once you know what happens. Second of all, Julie Harris and James Dean don't have such good chemistry. Third, the plot is completely messed up, especially after you read the book.

 
*Spoilers Ahead*

 
The whole point of the movie is that Cal Trask is really not such a bad guy and his brother Aron is just as bad in his own way, or at least, not much better. By the end, you are supposed to realize that Aron is a jealous boy who wants to believe his brother is a bad person, regardless of whether he is or not. The problem is, Aron's jealousy begins to surface once he has every reason to be jealous. Cal Trask steals Aron's girlfriend, Aron knows something is going on, and he's not supposed to be jealous?? Aron doesn't start acting particularly jealous until after Cal and Abra kiss on the ferris wheel. At their father's birthday party, Aron is sulking in the background, watching Abra pay far more attention to Cal than the boy she claims to be in love with. Really, there is nothing abnormal or mean-spirited about that. Most of us would act far worse.

 
Of course, that does not change the fact that when we watch this movie, we sympathize with Cal and dislike Aron. Poor Cal, in love with his brother's girl, nasty Aron, who gets everything he doesn't deserve. And then that horrible Aron has the nerve to call Cal "mean" and "vicious" right after the birthday party! Well, if you were in Aron's shoes, Cal would seem mean and vicious. And wartime profiteering is not exactly a morally upright thing to do. I feel that the point of this movie is not so much that you "can't always tell who's good and who's bad" but that different people seem good and bad from different points of view. Cal isn't any better than Aron and Aron isn't really any better than Cal. We just react to this movie the way we do because it is told from Cal's point of view and, well, James Dean is kinda sorta adorable. Now, in that light, think about the ending. It isn't exactly fair, now is it? The ending is my favorite part, I love it beyond words, I wouldn't change it for anything...but no, it isn't fair.

 
If you read the book, you will discover that the movie doesn't do justice to it. However, I felt that the part of the book the movie did cover was done better than it was in the book. In the book, it feels anti-climactic. In the movie, several events happen right after each other that take place over the duration of maybe a year in the book. But, the book has no Cal-Abra romance, the motivations are more understandable, it is far more interesting, and the moral ideas are less black and white. Faaaar less black and white. It's kind of disillusioning, how sleazy some of the best characters are. There are a few things they changed for the movie that perhaps didn't work so well. First of all, Abra is a whole lot prettier in the book. Since she's just an average, okay-looking girl in the movie, it suggests that Cal might have fallen in love with anybody that belonged to his brother. (So suggested my sister, the cynic.) Second of all, Kate is completely evil in the book. I don't think she has one redeeming quality, and boy, is it better that way! The movie Kate is just a bit too "whore with a heart of gold," and that is a pretty shallow stereotype in comparison to the psychopath the book's Kate is.

One of the first things my sister noticed when I showed her this movie is how similar it is to Legends of the Fall. I saw LOTF recently myself and the similarities are astonishing. I don't understand how it could be just coincidental, but the messages of each film are so different I don't see why LOTF would need to borrow from EOE. Some examples:

  1. Both stories involve rivalries between brothers, particulary between two brothers, one of which is "wild" and the other is rule-abiding.
  2. These brothers compete for the fiancee of one of the brothers.
  3. The mother is out of the picture, having left the ranch long ago.
  4. The time periods are roughly the same.
  5. The brother engaged to the girl everybody wants dies in WWI.
  6.  The father has a stroke and loses a lot of money.
  7. The wild brother says he will earn back the money his father lost.
  8. There is a man working with each family of a different race. (This is only in the book.)
  9. The naughty brothers both move their eyebrows the same way. :)
  10. Both movies have awesome soundtracks

Perhaps not the most shocking list, but watch the two movies in days of each other and see what you think.

East of Eden (Film): 9/10
Book: 9.8/10 :)
LOTF: Maybe 8/10

Monday, December 21, 2009

Gone with the Wind Meets the Middle East



"Having your book turned into a movie is like seeing your oxen turned into bouillon cubes." ~John LeCarre

Gone with the Wind is not my favorite movie in the world. Not by any means. There is also a perfectly logical reason for this--the book is one of my absolute favorites and I read it long before I saw the movie. I was truly horrified the first time I saw Gone with the Wind. Now, having gotten used to it some, I like it fairly well, and a few weeks ago I took it to school because we were studying the American Civil War. Well, actually, the real reason we wanted to watch it is the fact that it is nearly four hours long, which equals at least four study-free classes, enough to win over the most anti-old stuff people in my class. In fact, one of the anti-est ones of them all suggested we watch it in the first place.

The first thing I can say based on this experiment is that GWTW is possibly the worst movie to show to non-native English speakers. (I live in Kuwait.) I'm sure that if my classmates had been able to decipher the characters' accents, they would have understood all the words. But let's put it this way: my own grandmother, who is American, saw Harry Potter 6 with me this summer and understood nothing of the first ten minutes, thanks to the actors' British accents. And yes, she can hear fine. Just imagine a foreigner trying to figure out southern accents and southern black accents. And, admittedly on a ten year old tape with commercials and sorta bad sound.

Suprisingly, the people who actually watched GWTW intently enough to figure it out liked it. We never finished it, but one girl found the video online and later told me she cried over the end. And everybody thought Clark Gable was ugly. Good. I don't get his appeal one bit--I just can't decide whether it's an ape or a loving cup he looked like. And of course, Leslie Howard never stood a chance. GWTW should win an award for most unappealing men.

Perhaps the funniest thing that happened was at the beginning, when Gerald O'Hara rides home to Tara, where Vivien Leigh waits for him. I had provided some background to my classmates--basically that it was a love story--and at the sight of Gerald, one girl cried out, "Please don't tell me that's the guy she falls in love with!" :-) Speaking of Gerald, one thing most of my more modern friends never fail to point out is how unrealistic his death is by contemporary standards. I'm not sure that's true...but it shows how much modern movies put their characters through without them actually getting harmed. And of course there were several death predictions. Surprisingly, a couple people even thought Scarlett was going to die. An interesting alternate ending. Scarlett would never have killed herself, but say Bonnie had never been born, Melanie had died as usual while Scarlett was visiting family or something, Ashley and Scarlett had become lovers, and Rhett, in a jealous rage, had shot them both. Akkh. Methinks I should stay away from fan fiction.

Anyway, the only fair thing to do is give a thorough critique explaining why I think Gone with the Wind is not all it's cracked up to be. My main complaint is that the screenwriters did a poor job with the themes of the story and focused more on jamming as many events as they could into the film while leaving out the reasons they were initially there. It would be ridiculous to expect a movie to be a carbon copy of its book, but I firmly believe that themes should be pared down, with a select few emphasized in a film, rather than to have remnants of all the themes present in a book but without much impact. For this reason, I feel GWTW lacks coherence. There is probably a lot there that seems unimportant to people who have never read the book. And for some reason, the screenwriters purposely put in a few things that further lessened the impact of plot. Some examples of both:

Most of Scarlett's stay in Atlanta prior to her flight to Tara. Of course, she needs to be in Atlanta, but what happens during this time in the book could be called the Corruption of Scarlett. Here she falls under Rhett's influence and we see Rhett's popularity rise and plummett in Atlanta society. You don't get much sense of this in the movie. According to my mother, you get the feeling Scarlett was always the way she was. Of course, that could all have been left out. But then why would the scene where Rhett gives Scarlett a green hat have been included? Does the movie make it clear that by wearing the bonnet Scarlett is scandalizing Atlanta because she has come out of mourning years before it is proper? What about when she dances at the bazaar? Did you realize that Scarlett eventually takes everything Rhett says to her about reputations and such to heart? Do you realize that before her relationship to Rhett Scarlett cares far more about propriety? Do you realize that Rhett is considered an incredibly wicked man after the glamourous mist surrounding his blockade running evaporates? I feel that they are only hinted at in the film. And worse still, almost all of them are hinted at. So you get are too many things going on that seem to have little bearing on the overall plot.

Rhett declares his love far too often. One of the main reasons his and Scarlett's relationship doesn't work is because each think the other doesn't love them. The main scene I am talking about is right before Bonnie's death when Rhett declares his love to Scarlett and suggests she sells the mills. Sadly, it doesn't work for Scarlett to have known Rhett loved her before he leaves her. This would mean that if she thought about it, she would have realized why Rhett did all the things he did that she dismissed. Like their wild night. At first, she thinks, "Oh, I've got him now, he really does love me!" but he convinces her he was simply being despicable. The way Scarlett acts here, thinking Rhett loves her, seems out of character compared to her reaction later. Rhett also shows a bit too much emotion for us to buy Scarlett's willingness to believe he doesn't care for her. She would have to be quite unintelligent to not be triumphant and superior when she kicks Rhett out of her bed and he breaks down the door. That is the way Scarlett acts when she thinks she's "got somebody." First, he says he doesn't care. Then, obviously he does. Scarlett reacts to the first point but not to the second. Not very credible, in my opinion.

Scarlett's marriage to Charles. The reason given for this in the movie is Scarlett does this to hurt Ashley. However, they also include the scene where India, Melanie, and a few other girls talk about Scarlett behind her back as they walk down the stairs, much to Scarlett's dismay. There are a few things wrong with this. Scarlett is upset by their words, but she isn't really the type to be bothered by the things people she doesn't like say. Why exactly is she upset in this scene? It should be fairly obvious to her that people know she likes Ashley Wilkes because they have said as much--Mammy and Suellen, for example. In the book, the real reason she is upset is because she had not realized anyone knew about her feelings for Ashley. When she finds out India Wilkes does know (in the book, it's Honey Wilkes) she thinks she'll be the laughingstock of Jonesboro and her family will be ashamed of her (remember her father telling her not to run after a man who doesn't love her?). This is one of the main reasons for her impulsive marriage. Scarlett reasons that marrying Charles will: a. Make India look like a fool for thinking she loves Ashley, b. Convince Ashley she was only flirting with him, c. Get back at India because she's the one engaged to Charles, and d. Get back at Melanie by marrying her stupid, naive brother. There would have been nothing wrong if the screenwriters had only had hurting Ashley be Scarlett's motivation, but then the staircase scene sh have been left out.

Scarlett's nightmare. I believe this should have been left out entirely. GWTW would have been too complicated had the symbolism of the dream been elaborated on to the point where it had the proper impact. In the book, it has two purposes. First, it shows how Rhett comforts Scarlett in much the same manner he later comforts Bonnie; and second, it parallels Scarlett's search for security. The movie could easily have handled the Bonnie theme without Scarlett having nightmares and the search for security is basically left out. Have you ever wondered why there is so much fog in the ending scene? That is because in the book, Scarlett is actually experiencing her dream in real life. She always dreamed she was running through the mist, looking for something, but she never knew what it was, only that she had to find it. In the end, she realizes this thing is Rhett, the one person who has never let her down. Without knowing that, the dream motif is meaningless in the film.

Rhett's proposition. This was a scene obviously left out because of the censors, but I believe it would have been worth figuring out a subtle way to get the meaning of the scene across, like they did with the green dress in the jail part. I think it should have been put in because it is drawn upon in at least two scenes later. First of all, the green dress scene, when Scarlett says, "You once said you wanted me." If Rhett had never asked Scarlett to be his mistress, she would have been taking quite a risk by assuming this--and, if she had deduced this, why does she fail to realize just how much Rhett cares for her? The other scene is when Rhett proposes to Scarlett and she doesn't take him seriously. In the book, she thinks he's asking her to be his mistress again. She doesn't have much of a reason to think he's joking in the movie.

Leasing convicts. Well, it has a small purpose, but I think Scarlett's corruption would have been better illustrated if they had elaborated on something they had already mentioned--like the mills, pressing old friends for money, riding around unchaperoned, etc. The rest of the plotlines concerning the convicts were left out, and they had more meaning than the simple fact that Scarlett leased convicts.

These things may seem small in themselves, but there are probably more of them, and they weaken the plot and make the entire movie far less moving. If GWTW had had some focus, more theme development, and fewer themes so that would have been possible, it would have been a remarkable film. Of course, I can't say there aren't several positive aspects to GWTW. It does a fair job adapting the plot, it's interesting for three and a half hours, and the clothing and people are gorgeous. I'm writing an extremely negative review because there are so few of them. Where are all the other dissenters? I know I'm not the only one. Isn't there someone who dislikes the movie for artistic reasons and not because of racism or melodrama? Anybody?

And merry Christmas, by the way. :)

Rating: 7/10

Saturday, July 25, 2009

The Seven Year Itch

I had seen this movie twice before I decided to show it to my family, and in neither viewing was I the least bit impressed with it. I had been hoping for something a lot funnier. Just the same, I didn't (and still don't) feel very strongly about it either way and thought, "Hmmm, maybe the family that has bizarre tast in movies will like this one even though I don't."

Alas. Big mistake. I thought wrong. Seriously, they loathed The Seven Year Itch. I haven't seen such hatred since my mother and I watched Bye Bye, Birdie. If perhaps you've gotten a taste of the sort of criticism my family indulges in, you can imagine what comments were spawned by a movie they despised, but if you can't I'll make it easy for you. Here are some quotes:

"Who on earth would stay married to a nasty old man like that?"
"Hey, she's faaaat!"
"That's the famous skirt-blowing scene? That??"
"This movie was annoying even though I slept through half of it."
"You wouldn't think it was funny if your husband shacked up with some blonde while you were on vacation."

When the whole thing was finished, a lively discussion began on just what sort of mental illness Tom Ewell's character had.

Well, I tried--and failed--but admittedly I didn't like it much more than they did, all because I thought Tom Ewell was very unfunny, and he's basically half the picture, if not three quarters. I also suspect that the general theme--of men being unfaithful while their wives and kids go on vacation--did not appeal to my family because my father works during the summer, and gues who goes on vacation without him? So that idea is really not funny in our house.

Anyway, I'd like to ask your opinions on tSYI. I might as well, since chances are I'll get them anyway, after a negative review.

To be fair, there were some funny moments. I smiled at least five times. And Marilyn Monroe's hair looked nice. However, unless the rest of you looks like Marilyn, don't cut your hair that way unless you want to look like a boy. And I'm saying that because that's just what I did last week. And guess what? I look like a boy.