FEAR/And Then There Were None

The cinematic key hole scene is very interesting. It's interesting in a speculative way as it is on a complex level. Someone starts off the scene sneaking a peak through a key hole at the person he's conversing with. While this is happening someone is watching the person being impartial ruining the person he's conversing with privacy. There's also someone else watching the third person, and as the person in the room seemingly unaware of being watched leaves his room and follows the path of what he can tell is of another; the one watching him follows and they all act according to the one they have had their eyes on up until the point when the last one who loses his tag along questions them all. It's a feeling that I would describe as humorous and slightly irritating. The likeliness of that happening often I imagine being dim. The secrecy having hoped to be kept or the awareness of surrounding being faulted while snooping leading up to the breaking point(moment when being caught) in its wholesome is appreciated for its sequence of events, timing, cuts, subjectiveness, objectiveness, as well as its arkward humour. The arkward humor has been tapped from watching what I now know to be absurdism. I youtubed, 'theatre of the absurd' and found a cool, interesting video where a Professor taking on the form of another gives his explaining of absurdism to a student who's also in the form of another. The Professor uses his own knowledge to explain absurdism and afterwards the student gives her input in a slightly oblique way. She inquisitively tells him to get to the base of what absurdism is by asking a question subsequently given an answer. The Professor speaks on what may be the transcending factors that come with the term in length. The student when mentioning facts about absurdism tells about its sense of apparent paranoia, loose language, and institutions of fear, and what not said. After viewing the youtube video I associate the arkward, irritating fear to be what both the Professor and the student describe absurdism to be. The Professor somewhat says the disconnection to some parts of life leads to joy that is brought about through it's loose, chaotic, and wild diversity. This scene reminds me of tone of arsenic and old lace with all of its busyness and commotion. I'd like to know whether if experiencing absurdism rarely, matters when it comes to feeling irritated. I think it doesn't yet I wouldn't want to or need to know.

and then there were none movie

While viewing this movie I saw two scene that made me think. one where the judge is found to be the culprit. The judge then explains to Vera about the reason he killed everyone in the house ;Viewing it as justice. I see it as anti-hero step or as being a vigilante. In the judge's own mind he thinks what he is doing is right and getting rid of the dangerous element. Second rogers the butler the comic relief I see him a sad figure troubled past and people assuming he's dumb. Rogers reminds me of Charlie Chaplin downtrotten figure with a comedic tone.

Tongue

While Prof. Talbird was reading the passage out loud, I noticed something very particular. Through the expanse of the novel, the characters are constantly consuming tongue. Beyond, the necessary nourishment tongue provides, it also serves as symbolism. Tongue can be taken as symbolism for secrets. Each of these characters had a secret they consumed, whether it was personal or shared like the doctor that helped Wargrave pose as dead.

Vera Hanging Herself

I thought about this a little bit before writing this and coming up with new thoughts. Vera killing herself put myself in her shoes; as someone damned to pay for the cause of someone else's death. Vera lets a kid boy drown, I'm not sure if she couldn't swim or not so I'll rule out related thoughts that may sidetrack and confuse you. I thought about being in her position ready to kill myself. I thought to my self what would I do?! Will I kill myself because of the fact that I've indirectly killed somebody? I thought would I feel deserving of death as my consequence? Also I thought why would I kill myself and why not someone else kill me? And then I thought what would I do since I have been around so much deaths, would I be inclined to kill? Vera kills herself, that's clear. I wonder if those same questions or some similar went through her head before the kick of the chair.

And Then There Were None

As we finish up Christie's novel this week, I have some questions I'd like you to consider:

• What is the tone of the novel? I think you'll discover that, in addition to a fundamental change in the plot near the end of the film, that the entire tone is different. To prepare us to appreciate this tone--and to figure out how it was accomplished--I'd like us to define the tone of the novel before we screen the film.
• At the end of the book we learn--not just from Owen/Wargrave's confession, but also from the police inspectors' conversation in the Epilogue--that Wargrave wasn't guilty of sending an innocent man to his death. So the question arrises: Is Wargrave a villain? Is he evil? Why or why not?
• Why does Vera hang herself at the end? 

What questions do you have about the novel? 

Overview On Final Draft

As I previously stated in my last blog I thought that I would have had a lack of information being that I have not seen many traditional movies. My anxiety of not reaching my five page requirement soon came to an end after I scrolled through every movie on Netflix and HBO. With my three movies at hand I had no problem find other sources through the queens borough community college database. My idea of relating woman's dominance in the early twenties was one that came with an abundance of information to help me write in-depth. The two sources I found were perfect in a sense that not only did they help me produce information about topic but it was so specific to what I needed I couldn't ask for anything better. For example one of my sources does talk about the flappers in the roaring 20s, but it also explained how directors used that form of style in there movies. The woman carried themselves with the way they dressed and addressed individuals was all explained throughout many directors movies and films. 

"Arsenic and Old Lace"

To he quite honest as a spectator of the “Arsenic and Old Lace” I was completely mislead through my the entire showing. As Jonathan began to discover that his two harmless aunts are the reason why there is a dead body in the window trunk. I began to believe that the two woman took part in the cemetery services. There was something in my mind that wouldn't allow me to accept that two old woman were murders of over 12 individuals. I was not able to categorize them as being murders or "Bad" human beings. As the movie progressed and as Jonathan's brother was introduced I for one would have no problem believing he killed a couple of people himself. The way he carried himself for the get go as he snuck into his family house, to the way he talked to individuals put no doubt in my mind that he was a cold blood killer. As law  enforcement got involved the two woman would have need to explain themselves on why there were 12 bodies in there basement. I kept thinking to myself I hop everyone is smart enough to blame it all on Jonathan's brother being that he is already accused of murdering 12 people around the world, and he has brought another victim with him. No one would have gotten wrongfully convicted and everyone could have gone back to there Daily routines. 

arsenic and old lace

While watching this film I noticed a familiar theme with Bringing up Baby. Both films, make fun of authority figures. In BUB we see how police officers are portrayed as absurd idiots. We also see this in Arsenic and Old Lace. The police officers are utterly aloof to the crimes that are being committed right in front of them. It is interesting to note that these movies were products of the years following prohibition. Perhaps the critiques found in this movie were aimed at the authority figures of the prohibition age as they too were unable to stop people from breaking the law no matter how obvious they were.

Stanford Prison Experiment

I just finished watching the Stanford Prison Experiment documentary for the second time to get something to write about as well as to have something to talk about if need be. I had been assigned to view it before my next Sociology class. A lot of coincidences and connections when attending several classes in school that I find interesting most of the time. Anyways I digress; I will write about another excerpt from the documentary that isn't coincidentally relevant in our class thus far. I remember our Professor saying, 'everybody else is worse'. Correct me if I'm wrong when I quote one of the storytellers for having expanded on what our Professor said, to show how it might be true.

Excerpt: Two-thirds of volunteers were prepared to administer a potentially fatal electric shock when encouraged to do so, by what they perceived as a legitimate authority figure. In this case a man in a white coat." "Milgram's finding horrified America, they showed that decent American citizens were as capable of committing acts against their conscience as the Germans had been under the Nazis.

Prior text for prepratory gathering. I'll write about this; "All of us had gradually acclimated to increasing level of aggression, increasing powerlessness of the prisoners, increasing dominance of the guards. When I heard this midway through the documentary I noted it for its importance to the film. It made me think of this; It's like landing a plane that's meant to fall to its crash. Thoughts can be appreciated when it's expressivey assisting the structuring of a point. To be able to understand the importance of when a scene should be placed in any piece of work, you must have experience. Maybe if that scene had been placed at any other moment in the documentary, I wouldn't have thought of that line which I will use for a rhyme or poem. I'm sure a lot of peope including film buffs and personel have thought this way. This of course may or may not be a coincidence. Great minds they do say think alike. If everybody can be worse can everybody else be great?

Do you notice other places where that's happening in the book? What theories do you have about the killer?

There's only one incident that comes to mind when thinking about Blore's theory of Owen murdering by proxy. That is in chapter 3 pg. 51-56. Anthony Marston starts off asking who turned on the gramophone either because of whoever in doing that made one of them (Mrs. Rogers) faint, it could prompt some truthful facts about the message other than who turned it on such as someone playing it as a joke, or because it could tell who's intentionally meaning to start something that's bigger than a joke. Before reading past where the class is suppose to be around/near or up to, I had a feeling that it was somebody and then I thought I was wrong when something drastic happen. Drastic in the sense of surprising if I took the place of one of the characters who witnessed what I consider to have been a drastic occurrence. 

Netflix??

I started watching this show called Shameless on Netflix and there was a scene that reminded me of Old Lace and Arsenic. Joan Cusack plays Sheila Jackson, and in Shameless her character is a mother who's a bit of a push over mom. She sort of lets the other characters in the show step all over her. She's asked to take care of her dying mother in law, whom ends her suffering by putting a pillow over her head. This reminded me of Aunt Martha and Aunt Abby since they wanted to end the misery of the lonely men who come across their home. I think this way of thinking is of course abstract, but also understandable. Being that we have free will in a very twisted corrupt way justifies the characters  actions.

Arsenic and Old Lace

This is my favorite movie so far starring Cary Grant. I like the aura he brings to his characters. Whether he's playing a fumbling bone preserver at a Museum or a renowned movie critic he delivers the epitome of class and style during his era while still remaining timeless. I never really thought too much of classic actors and actresses as far as their artistry, but being introduced to Grant while discovering classic cinema is a perfect way to fall in love with these films and their respective stars. I wasn't a fan of screwball comedies after being introduced to it with Bringing Up Baby, but tonight's screening definitely changed my mind. I appreciated all the characters created and what each one brought to the screen. I was thoroughly entertained from start to finish, my favorite scene is toward the end, Aunt Abby(Josephine Hull) and Aunt Martha(Jean Adair) don't want to send their nephew "Teddy" (John Alexander) off to the "nut house" and Lieutenant Rooney(James Gleason) insists due to "Teddy's" tales of 13 people being buried in the cellar. The scene tickled me so because the aunts are so nonchalant with the confirmation. As if murder isn't a crime, they freely tell the multiple officers in the room that these were their "gentlemen" and they were "lonely". This kind of behavior would definitely be the furthest from your mind when encountering these women. After this admission Grant gets the crazy train rolling! He has to protect the ladies in his life and ultimately persuades the caretaker and officers that his aunts should accompany "Teddy" cause they have a few screws loose. Hopefully at their new residence they don't find anymore lonely gentlemen.

Arsenic and Old Lace

Another piece of brilliant acting by Cary Grant. This movie has both it's comedic points and dramatic points. this movie to me showed how human nature at times has it's funny, quirky, angry and terrifying moments. Capra's directing captured the human condition and the camera work was great with the close ups. The scene that caught my attention a lot in this picture when Mortimer was describing a play and how a character in a play gets murder. Meanwhile the whole time the character is himself and that scene had so much drama you would need a organ player just to describe it. Also I felt Cary Grant's facial expressions remind me a lot of Charlie Chaplin's. Both actors in my opinion were comedic in a physical way. In Grant's case his style of expressions was more dramatic.

And Then There Were None

One way that a mystery works--and builds suspense--is that it creates problems and then offers solutions and then overturns those solutions. Like, for instance: On p. 122 Blore offers the theory that Owen is murdering by proxy and then Armstrong offers a critique of that theory. Essentially, the characters in the plot are doing what we're doing--they've got theories and then they play those theories out in the final hope of discovering who the killer is. Do you notice other places where that's happening in the book? What theories do you have about the killer? (Again, if you've finished the book, don't spoil it for everyone else.)

While we're talking about Blore, let's examine the peculiarity of that name. I've never heard of a person w/ that name before. It makes me think of "bore." It also makes me think of "blowhard." This fits him perfectly well: He's both, isn't he? Does Christie name any of her other characters w/ similar appropriateness?

Arsenic and Old Lace

Some questions to consider:

• How would you compare this film to the two others we've watched this term? 
• How does the film use editing to create suspense?
• How does it use misc-en-scene, particularly setting to create a mood?
• The film was adapted from a stage play. Can you see evidence of that in the film?
• Like in Bringing Up Baby, insanity is used for humorous effect. What does this tell us about attitudes toward mental illness in the first half of the 20th century?
• Like BUP, this is a screwball comedy. Can you see changes in technique/content/style since the earlier film? 
• What does this film say about class/gender/race? 

Essay #1 explanation.

After last class session I now believe that constructive criticism is key when developing a well built essay. Coming to class with only a single page typed up, my idea of relating bringing up baby to the Roaring 20s varied in its length. I was worried about not having enough information to reach my five page requirement. The idea of relating Susan's dominance throughout the movie to Woman gaining the right to vote would have allowed to compare dominance within females in that time. My partner in class explained to me that I should find other female leads that could help broaden my playing field when explaining woman’s dominance in the 1920s. I could also choose aspects within the way females would dress and talk. For instance the infamous Flappers are individuals who dress and act just like Susan throughout the play. Grammar and categorizing my ideas are also key aspects, I did not want to sound repetitive when explain my ideas so I was told I should go in time order in a way that I can show progression throughout the era. 

                         Dressed to kill

This was truly, a classic murder drama.  It had all the right elements that you would expect to see in a murder mystery.  I really liked the detective Mike Shane, he was confident and determined.  I found the dialogue between him and the suspects to be unexpected.  This movie really had me intrigued.  Maybe it is that old Hollywood charm, but the acting was good and ended leaving me wanting more.

                     StageCoach
 
This movie was absolutely from the very beginning until the end.  The movie seem to cover so many issues from class, race,gender, social status and even much more. The acting was very good, the characters in this movie really played into their roles and made you believe in who they were.  For instance even when the two women where riding in the coach, the director made you feel the tention between the women.  The women who was married looked down on the other lady becuz of her  occupation.  The Docter who was a alcoholic was also an appealing character becuz of his struggle with addiction.  But John Wayne was also great becuz of his composure and optimistic approach throughout all that was happening in the whole movie.  Overall this movie was a thumbs up all the way around

And then there were none

While in class, we spoke about the type of narrator used in the novel- third person omniscient. Most prominently, this can be seen when we read about the judge being abandoned out in the balcony while the others look for an unidentified person on the island. During this scene, we witness the thoughts and ramblings of each of the men out looking for the unidentified suspect as well the thoughts of the women that remain in the house. The scene works through all of these thoughts in a fast pace and gives us enough insight to know what these characters are thinking but not enough that would allow us to sway towards one particular individual. In this instance, it is essential that we stay detached in  regards to these characters as we still don't know who is committing these murders. If the POV was different, perhaps 1st person, then we would compelled to sympathize with the narrator because their thoughts are for all intents and purposed our too. Take for example, Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn. The novel is told though two distinctive narrators, both in 1st POV. By the time we finish the novel, we are not entirely sure who we should believe as we have been privy to both narrators thoughts and take on the situation. If the unreliable narrator, has taught me anything it is to always stay detached from the situation and not allow yourself to be swayed by any character.

Stagecoach

What struck me the most while watching Stagecoach was everyone's treatment towards Dallas. Through out the movie I was unsure as to why everyone was treating her so mean. Both genders treated her like scum. Lucy, being a female too, wouldn't even look in her direction.  Usually, under high stress situations people of the same gender find solidarity in one another. The males of the movie also treated her horribly. Stereo typically, men of this time treated women with  the utmost respect and for them not to showcase this type of respect towards her was alarming. At first I thought that perhaps it was because she was not of the same class as the rest of them. Though something about this argument did not sit well with me. Still, i had no other reason to attribute their terrible attitudes towards her. Finally, at the end of the movie, I realized that Dallas was probably a prostitute. Now, from what we have spoken about in class - movies of a certain time period will speak about that society's point of view on certain matters. Judging from the time period of this movie, 1939 which so happens to coincide with the end of the great depression, it is safe to say that many women of this time were faced with the decision of going into prostitution or die of starvation. Society saw that this was a wide-spread plight as it was probably a decision that many women of this time had to take. This movie was probably a reflection on how society was trying to deal with this issue. More women than naught were being treated terribly because of their decision and as a response the movie tried to reassure them that their would be, in fact, a happy ending for them.

Stagecoach

Stagecoach is one of the original western movies in 1939 that displayed the suffering of America, after the great depression between the twenties and thirties. This movie shows different cultural diversity in America from native Indians, to Spanish, and to the Japanese. During the Great Depression, jobs where so hard to get at that time so the only jobs woman had was prostitution. Dalla in this movie was an example of economic depression because she is portrayed as a prostitute but as the movie went on, Dallas wasn’t treated like a female in the stagecoach. Her point of view wasn't regarded, The reason why is because of her occupation. In one scene where Mrs Mallory another female in the state coach asked for water during their journey, Mr. Marshall curly offers her water with a cup. On the other hand, Dalla wanted some water but Marshall gave her the water bottle without a cup. One thing I like about this movie is that all characters in the stagecoach, started off as 7 strangers who wanted to get to there  various destination but later on in the movie they all became very close.

The Shepherd of The Hills

Watching this movie I noticed the sentimental cues that go along with the movies overall message. Climaxing towards the ending John Wayne gets shot by Harry Carry. Carry tells Johns supposed lover he had good intent to shoot him. After John gets treated on by a doctor, he wakes up and reaffirms that notion. He does this by providing a lesson learned speech to Carry and his lover Betty Field. My report for our class is about types or at least refers to some throughout what will become of it. What stood out to me or what I've picked up on is the symbolism of stances and highlighted gestures. One scene in particular is Harry Carry going to the house he bought and having a moment with the rocking chair. His enthusiasm with Betty earlier in the movie is shown about her liveliness as well as her vivid enthusiasm and expressions of lust for life. Seemingly she's that kind of person which many would define superstitious types to be and he's as said. James Barton portrays a mentally altered person who's attached to his thoughts. The actors especially John Wayne plays with this noticeably. The actors have characteristics that are from very robust to being nonchalant. I don't recall movies having such discrepancies with much tuned.

Casablanca

So while I was home from getting my wisdom teeth pulled, i decided to check out TCM and watched the movie Casablanca.  It takes place during WW2, and happens to be unoccupied France, and though it's not supposed to be a comedy by any means (or at least I think?) there were a few things that I found comical due to the irony..

1. There is one black character (piano player) in the entire movie, but he has a pretty large role
2. While there are many WW2 movies/holocaust movies, this one was just different.  It actually showed all the schemes people were pulling to get in to America.  It showed how authority figures we're really sneaky, and not true to the side they were supposed to support. Many movies on the war either show the horrors of WW2, or the rebel groups, or Germans who helped keep people from the Holocaust - but never really a whole movie on ways to get around it.
3. Sam (the piano player), plays a song about knocking on wood & how great life is - which I thought was ironic because it's right before they capture a man who stole from German guards & kill him.  Also ironic just because of what is going on in Ricks club at the time as well as around the world in general.  (Sam goes back to playing the song as soon as the guy is caught and escorted out as well)

A few other things I noticed:

Misc-en-scene: When Rick & Elsa are in paris, they are literally the only people in every scene except for when they are on a dance floor at which point everyone else is completely out of focus.
In the apartment, the music stops abruptly as Elsa claims that her ex is dead - but then goes right back to this romantic music - and quickly gets fast, loud, and upbeat as it shows the nazi's taking over fance.  Elsa's attitude, tone, and the way she knocks over the glass of wine on the table after telling rick to kiss her as if its the last time - alludes to the fact that it not only will be the last time, but terrible things are going to come.

Scene that reminded me of Susan & B.U.B. - When Elsa pulls the gun on rick, after the whole movie seeming like a woman who would never do such a thing.  Reminded me of when Susan is the only one who tames the leopard.

Stagecoach was very interesting because I felt a lot of the background story was left for us to uncover. I really like how they kind of threw together these random characters and let the figure out how to get through a situation kind of like in then they were none. I felt bad for the prostitute who at the time I couldn't tell was one because it wasn't said or shown to make obvious. I did keep asking myself why people didn't like her. Also with Ringo, when we first see him we don't think that he is evil or the bad guy. We do know though that he is being looked for, but it completely goes over our heads since he's been friends with Curly since they were kids.

And Then There Were None

The beginning of tis novel really has you on edge. You begin to question whether you actually know who the killer is. Although it seemed as if the Butler killed the first victim, this acuasation is depleted because the Butler was just following orders as shown by the note given to him. Theres no real way to tell who is the killer because of the speculation that it literally could be anyone since they were all called out to the island because they were all accused of murder. Anyone could be the bad guy but while the story develops, that could all change and flip to be someone we never expected to be. Novels like this have the reader taking guesses along the way to determine who is the killer having us believe its one person when it could be the next person. And Then There Were None is a greatly constucted novel that sets a edgy tone for the reader.

Stagecoach

I really enjoyed this film. It sparked a lot of questions in my mind during the screening. I wondered why Dallas (Claire Trevor) was getting exiled from the town but after my conversation with Professor Talbird, it revealed that she was likely a prostitute and the women in the town were not accepting of that. I thought it was very clever the way the director John Ford hinted toward her profession throughout the film. The way the other characters treated her was a dead giveaway but it still flew over my head. In today's film industry it would have been more blatant than subtle as it was in Stagecoach. I enjoyed the drunk doctor as well, I found similarities between the idea of a drunk doctor in this film and the idea of the "crazy" psychiatrist in the previous film we watched (BUB). It was more enjoyable in this film because I felt the humor was more natural than overbearing like in "Bringing Up Baby". Thomas Mitchell who plays Dr. Josiah Boone played his character beautifully, from the comedic scenes to the supporting scenes even down to the serious scene he had with Luke Plummer(Tom Tyler) at the end. I also appreciated the tone of acceptance I received at the end between Dallas and Mrs. Mallory. Throughout the film, Mrs. Mallory(Louise Platt) openly shunned Dallas at every turn even when Dallas was attempting to extend the olive branch Mrs. Mallory refused to interact with her. It was until her time of sickness that she really appreciated Dallas and realized that she was a good person despite her profession. I also enjoyed Ringo's(John Wayne) masculinity that was displayed in the film even when pursuing Dallas, he was persistent but didn't come across as a nuisance or overly emotional. He told her what he wanted and didn't stop until he got it. He was a man of his word and that was highlighted throughout as well. What was odd was Mrs. Mallory's relationship with Hatfield(John Carradine). In the endless pursuit to get to her husband, she meets this stranger and allows him to court her (in a sense). I was really confused by the scene in which he contemplates shooting her, holds the gun to her head but is then shot himself. Why was he trying to kill her? To spare her? Was he mad she didn't mention the baby to him? Did he think there was hope for them to be together? The silent scenes at the very end featuring Luke Plummer and the patrons in the bar were very intense. I still have yet to come to a conclusion on what those scenes ultimately stood for. Were the patrons aware of his pending demise? Were they just scared? Were they just ready for the showdown that's been overdue to be done already? The film overall was a great introduction to John Wayne and I see how his star rose quickly after this film.    

Stagecoach '' Ringo Kid' Hero or Anti Hero

John Wayne's character in stagecoach as the ringo kid i felt as i was watching the movie that yes the audience would see him as a heroic character. There are some anti-hero tendencies that the ringo kid portrays, for example the seen where dallas tells him to escape not caring what happens to rest but is stopped on his tracks where he sees the apache war signal. Sergio leone as a younger would often see movies like this to feed his fascination about the American culture. Years later would use the anti-hero as a symbol of a person sense of justice or caring about themselves to do what's needed. So i believe that The ringo kid character was a precedessor of the anti-hero character.

Stagecoach

As I have seen this movie twice. the social aspect of it meaning you have one side dallas and ringo represented the common folk or the masses of people who come from the bottomless pit of society and have do things that higher-ups in general look down upon. While ms malory, mr hatfield and mr gateword represent the elite, the upper classes. Only caring about themselves and money. later on though all the characters joined together to help one another. John ford's message was help your fellow man or woman anyway you can. A message desperate needed during last year of the great depression and following with the onslaught of WW2.

ATTWN 1-6

I know much about this book, only I haven't read it through to the end. I read who dies next and I don't remember. For some reason I think Blore will die fourth. He's already giving theories about whose dead and how they died. He explains how he thinks Mr.Rogers kills his wife out of fear that she might get to him first for suspecting his wife Mrs. Rogers for being the killer. Although Blore is a security guard, he's way to quick to make accusations about the deaths/killings happening around him when he's on a trip with eight to nine others. His mouth and the vibe he gives off from making an assumption by the words chosen for him to use I think will get him killed next just for lacking entertainment although this is about killing killers. My other guess is that everybody will panic once they figure out that they are being hunted and the one person who's doing the hunting will show himself as they killer slightly.

And Then There Were Gone.

-Agatha Christie is a brilliant writer, I like how she started the book by introducing each character of this novel one by one and what they are thinking. One thing I like about this book is that she let us the reader know a little of their pass and the reason why they where invited to the island. I like how she plays with the characters in this novel, for example Chapter one and two introduced us to the characters and their thoughts, giving us an idea of what character is capable of doing. She also gave us a hint that there is likely a killer among them. There is a lot of suspense in this novel and I'm looking forward to it.  I'm not a fan of reading novels but I find this book interesting.

Bringing up baby

When I started reading bringing up baby, I decided that I would read as if I was a director. Reading the first page I instantly came up with where it took place, costumes, how the set would look, and different ways I can make this particular short story into a movie. I decided to re read the story however, this time I wanted to really look into the content and understand it. i felt as if Suzy's character was very intriguing. I really admired how outgoing and empowering her character was portrayed. After reading it a third time I was very interested in how the movie would coincide with the short story.

In class, I didn't realize how many other genres there was in film. I was very interested in what a screwball comedy was and was excited that we would get to watch one. While watching "Bringing up baby", the storyline was completely different from what I imagined. I first envisioned a married couple that went through wacky adventures. The story line was actually great especially since it was a comedy. I like how both the movie and short story both conveyed women in two different ways. In my opinion it showed that although they were portrayed as housewives at that particular time there is hope for viewpoints to change. I was very impressed in the screwball comedy genre and I look forward to watching many more of them.

Stagecoach

The Western genre has specific traits--cowboys, Indians, wide-open location, horses, guns, etc. However, despite these specifics, we can still see many overlaps between classic films as different as Stagecoach (1939) and Bringing Up Baby (1938). I think it would be interesting this week to think about how these very different films are alike. Some questions to think about:

• How are their conclusions similar? 
• How is setting important? Can you compare the use of interiors and exteriors in both films?
• Several of you wrote about gender roles in BUB. How are gender roles explored in Stagecoach? What is the role of romance in both films?
• The use of humor?

In addition, I think we should consider how interiors and exteriors are juxtaposed in Stagecoach. It was unusual to build roofs onto film sets, but director John Ford did for this film. Why do you think he did this? This was the first of many films to be filmed in Utah's Monument Valley. What role does the location play in this film?

What does this film say about race? 

John Wayne was a relatively unknown B actor when this film was made. Director John Ford said the movie would make him a star and he was right. How is Wayne presented as a bigger-than-life hero in the movie?

Westerns are traditionally very moral universes (unlike many of the film noirs we'll be watching in a few weeks). How are good and evil addressed in the film? Do you have any problems with any of these presentations of good or evil?

And Then There Were None

I'd like us to begin thinking about the novel this week and as part of that thinking I'd like us to think about the way the book "works." The book is a mystery--a book involving people (along w/ the reader) trying to figure out who is behind, in this case, a series of murders. Some questions to consider:

• How is point of view used in the novel? It's third omniscient, but it's a very selective omniscient isn't it? (If we knew "everything," then there wouldn't really be a mystery, would there?) At some points, we seem to enter a subjective third person where we're even aware of the way the mind works, a kind of stream of consciousness. An example would be when we enter Vera's consciousness on p. 35 (Ch. 2, section V). What effect do moves like this make?
• In that same section we have the Ten Little Soldier Boys theme (this is also printed on the interleaf before the novel begins). What role does this rhyme play in the novel? How is it connected to the ceramic figures on the dining table?
• A suspense story should make us guess what is going to happen next (and, ideally, we should be wrong in our guesses). What kind of guesses do you have about the direction of the plot? (Note: If you've read the novel before, don't give away the ending.)
• What is your reaction toward the different characters so far? Who do you think are the good guy(s) (or gal) is? Who is the bad guy(s)? How do you know?

Bringing up baby.

At first when I read bringing up baby, I thought David was engaged to Susan But after seeing the movie in class, I got a full understanding about their characters. David character in the movie was characterized as a hard working young man, trying to protect his museum by securing 1 million donation. As a result of that he met Susan, who's character is mischievous, loves to fool around. All the troubles she created for David wasn't deliberately, but coincidence. I think that all characters in the movie are funny.

"Brining up Baby"

Another point I had in mind was the literary term of “Conflict”. As the movie began we are all aware that David is in desperate need of obtaining the million dollar donation for the museums charity. The conflict comes about as David and Alice await the arrival of the intercostal clavicle. Without that bone they wouldn't be able to complete the museums dinosaur and convince Mr.Peabody to present them a check. Conflict also arises as Susan repeatedly ruins Davids chances of achieving the donation from Mr.Peabody. From the Golf course, dinning room to his house she has made the chances of him winning nearly minuscule. No matter the circumstance David is a individual who holds on to hope which intern presents his conflict. He always believes that every situation can be resolved and he can get on with the rest of his life. Hope is the trait that keeps forcing him forward in his unwilling journey. Aside from David many may think that he is the only individual suffering throughout the movie. When in fact Susan's conflict is achieving Davids undyingly love. Trying any and everything Susan had to take David on a road trip across the world only for him to love her. 

"Bring up Baby" Vijay Itwaru

To be completely honest my taste in movies usually ranges between a horror or action packed genre, I for one am not particularly interested in classical movies. Surprisingly “Bringing up Baby” played a compelling story when showcasing the journey between Susan and David. Throughout the movies as we all know Susan's God given talent of procrastination and misinterpretation granted the unwilling journey of David. As discussed in class David is a individual who is easily deceived. Not obliged to commence in any of the tasks at hand, he still lands himself a journey to Connecticut accompanied by his companion leopard. As a spectator you would believe that some point in the movie he would realize that he has been tricked by the love of Susan. As we ventured towards the ending of the movie I stumbled upon a scene which I thought was completely hilarious. As Susan acted out her whole Al Capone skit in oder to achieve her get free card out of the cell, David screams “It wont work!”. In my mind I thought to myself is this guy stupid? Susan was able to fool a man out of participating in his own wedding but, wont be able to convince a guard she is a fell felon. That scene really showed how much power women had over man, Susan changed hate into love in the eyes of David.

Bringing up Baby

I really liked the film! My favorite character was Susan because her role bought a very interesting twist to the movie. She was corky, yet wise; funny yet serious; and her twisted trail of thought kept the on going genre of screw ball comedy. When meeting Susan, David instantly becomes annoyed yet   intrigued by her very risky personality. He immediately became enticed by her head in the cloud attitude because he couldn't leave her alone as much as he wanted too. David on the other hand was a man ready to commit his life to his fiancé, but she didn't make his day half ass interesting as Susan did and I think thats what draws him to her. Therefore, my favorite part of the film was their relationship, and the play of words they used to give the audience a good laugh. Although I liked the film I do think that once the film was trumbling down from the climax, the director took to much screen time of them looking for the tiger. I did like the jail scene add on's but he could have taken less time of portraying the lost "baby" tiger.

Masculinity in Bringing up Baby

While there are plenty of differences between text and film, one theme that seems to be everlasting in both is that of masculinity. In the text, we meet David and are not immediately inclined to tease him for a lack of masculinity. As a matter of fact, David is a tad bit more stern in the text, an attribute always associated with masculinity. When David enters Suzan's apartment, the first words out of his mouth are "it's not me that's putting any wild beast into any bathroom. If she wants it in the bathroom she can put it in the bathroom and I wish her good luck". In the film, his reaction is far less stern than than his textual counterpart. Moreover, I find that Suzan is portrayed as being more masculine than David himself. If being stern is something that David lacks, then it is something that Suzan overflows with. Though Suzan's sternness is never depicted as aggressive. Rather it is shown as whimsical and comedic yet she is always the one to make the decisions. And what Suzan says, goes.

Miscommunication in Bringing up Baby

Miscommunication plays a huge role in the film. Throughout the film we see David and Suzan in about a million different scenarios that could have possibly been avoided had there been better communication between the two. They would always interrupt one another either purposefully or accidentally and thus would wind up in some sort of mayhem. While one can easily argue that the lack of communication is detrimental to a blossoming couple, it appears that it was these various misunderstandings that brought David and Suzan closer to one another. The situations they were faced with, often called for quick action. If David was zoning out at the dinner table, Suzan had to come up with David's responses. If Suzan was all of a sudden being threatened by a wild panther, then David had to step up and ward the wild animal off. What David and Suzan lacked in words they made up for in actions thus bringing some sort of validity to the phrase- "actions speak louder than words". By the end of the film many of the conversations between David and Suzan amounted to chaos yet they were each quick to fix their mistakes by thinking on their toes, and mostly always their actions would be to safeguard the other. Thus, their romance is not too far fetched despite them only knowing one another for such a short period of time; they proved their love to one another without barely any words.

Transition

After watching Bringing up baby I thought about the technical things that might have been a part of making the film. Amazingly enough I happened to take a trip to the museum of moving image,(its in queens and free fridays 4-8)  and walked through a number of exhibits that helped me figure some things out.
There they have a booth which allows you to try first hand voice overlays and sound splicing. There is also an exhibit on cameras of the era. The equipment used was massive.
In comparison to a number of our cameras today.

While this was great and all I took a looka at some photographs and short clips of different scenes. As great as some of these are; the classic american girl look is on everything. I compared it to the great gatsby. (Not the remake, though that was fabulous too)  but the original 1974 version and was happy to note that while there is only about a 30 year distance between the two. The Great Gatsby comes across as a critique of the high class all american girl while Bringing up Baby and many others like it attempt to make work oriented women seem undesirable.
The contrast is stark and the time period is just enough for a whole generation. I think it highlights the importance of time and perception of the viewer.

Bringing up baby

I thoroughly enjoyed bringing up baby.
I love to read the original stories before the become films. I am a firm believer in the idea that no matter the changes from book to film as long as the fellings are correctly portrayed they can be equally good.

Some of the differences; such as the circumstances of the engagement and the quirky/hillarious encounters between David and Susan. Really make the story work on screen.

These particular scenarios remind me greatly of the romantic comedy of today. In that aspect movies like bringing up baby have left their print on film today.  It is unfortunate that the classic knee slap quirks of this era seem to have been diminished and lost for crowd humor. Neither is superior to the other, it just seems more genuine when the laughter comes from a simple place.

Film Art

I always wondered how the shots were taken for certain action movies. I wondered about how good actors can be in doing complex scenes with a lot of swift, quick, and dynamic movements that can trick the eye. Then I thought about the people behind the scenes making it piece together which I now know they would be involved in processes such as synchronization, sequencing, cutting, and invisible cutting. The work done on an action movie with scenes similar to ones mentioned are clearly able to be scrutinized and critiqued if it isn't produced efficiently. You can always tell when someone's piece of work seen by an audience at certain scenes are deemed excellent. We hear the ooouu's and the ahhh's. The attention to detail I expect the editors have to pay attention to is what intrigues me as well as the tedious work that they have to do. Reading David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson's "Film Art: An Introduction" I've come to learn tools the workers behind the scene use as nuances to perfect their craft. There are a lot of positions taken full usage of and shoes to fill during film production. Many aspects, and key components that are apart of it. I watched ESPN first take which is a show where mainly two analyst share their opinions and factual knowledge on sports and sports players. One analyst mentioned a basketball player who was supposedly talked about in being traded. The other analyst said that if he was in charge of the organization that the would of been traded the player. He then went on to say yes the player is a big body who can shoot the ball from long range, but its like one of his relatives use to say having him on the team is like swatting a fly with a car. His analogy in making his point is about and under compensating case. Im sure with film it is the exact opposite and that every bit of information, work, style, and technique is at least looked over and can be utilized.

Empowerment of Women

Personally for me I think anything that has to do with the empowerment of women, or feminism, really draws me in and after last nights discussion in class I've been thinking about it.  I think all of the women who we saw in Bringing Up Baby are empowered in their own way and I think that as a woman, we try and take a little of each of these female characters and build ourselves. Hear me out..

You want to get to the point of Aunt Elizabeth, where you are self-sufficient, have the means to do outrageous things (such as buy a leopard), and have worked hard to be able to speak your mind no matter what the situation. However, and I speak solely for myself, you don't want to be respected only for the money that you have.

Ms. Swallow: Again speaking on behalf of myself, for many years I was dependent on a man, and have worked to get myself to the point where in a relationship if I don't agree with something, if I don't want to do something - that's just it.  I make the decision. I worked myself up to the point where my work ethic, my organizational skills, my rigidness with my job were very important and something I worked hard to accomplish, and value - especially working in a predominantly male company, and therefore there isn't very many things that I will put before my job (or school) - making me think of how Ms.Swallow was with the honeymoon.  However, I never want to get to the point where I am so anal, that work and only work is what matters in my life, that I can't have fun with my significant other because of such.  I also would not just accept someone to blow me off at important times the way David had done with Ms. Swallow.

Suzan: Any woman I think whether she admits it or not, would like to have a man wrapped around her finger the way that Suzan did, to be able to be so completely in control of the situation.  However, I think that in this day and age (again this is my opinion) compared to the 1930's it's no longer all about looks, and finding a mate.  You want to be able to have that hold over somewhere because of your intellect, the way you carry yourself, the way you speak.  Since I matured from the girl that I used to be I have gotten very adamant (though its not always a good thing) about the idea that anything a man can do I too can do - and the part where Suzan tames the wild leopard that no one else could, that everyone was afraid of was a part that made me really say Wow! That is a strong female.

Bringing Up Baby/ Movie

While i was watching this movie in class today i found another movie in some shape of form similar to bringing up baby. John Hughes movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles Starring Steve Martin and John Candy. There are some similarities between Hepburn/Grant and Martin/ Candy. Heburn's character in bringing up baby and Candy's Character in planes, trains and automobiles are very similar both are loud, annoying, causing trouble and wont take no for an answer. While Grant's character and Martin's Character are stoic, serious, sad sack, annoyed and wanting to get away Plus both movies are a screwball comedy.

Bringing Up Baby

As i read the story knowing obviously it was a romantic story. My feeling towards it was not comedy but more like a series of events between two people. Dave and Susan are complete opposites, You the saying "opposites attract". This short story is a testament to that , First off you have Dave a stoic-type of a man who is a academic,and a bit of loner. Then you have Susan a outgoing, flamboyant, loud-type of a woman who needs company of man to make herself feel safe. I feel throught the story Susan is taking charge and dave is along for the ride whether he wants to or not. for example when dave called the zoo and susan beg him not to. Later on when susan told dave " we have to look for baby''. Dave responded "NO". Susan replies in a blackmailish kind of a way" start thinking about it . The jist of it susan had dave in the palm of her hand from the beginning.

Bringing up Baby!

It boggles my mind to think about animals, the wild and big ones sharing homes with humans. This would be due to my presumtion that it's hard for most to rap there heads around the idea. Especially taking in a full grown wild animal versus one from near birth. There are cases where owners, and random people occupying (no matter the objective and/or subjective disposition) the animals habitual space get attacked, mauled, and killed by these animals with some resulting discussions including reasons as to why such animals rebelled, reacted harshly, or did both. I'd like to think that it's in these wild animals nature to protect and defend them-selves by any means necessary. Also that it's so second nature to them that no form of domestication can prohibit such actions of the sort whether or not if the animals had been provoked into their reactions. This writing, short story gives me ideas an opinions about 'what if?', for instance what if I lost a pet tiger, was being given, or was giving away a wild animal as a gift, or let alone lived with one. Such works of literature takes the imagination of its readers captive.

Bringing up baby

"David kept his temper because losing it never got him anywhere" the way I understood this quote is that David isn't that type of person to be upset about anything.his character was portray to be loyal, very caring person, and he is willing to go as far as to transport a panther in a station wagon with no bars. David also went as far to staying with Susan in the Connecticut house with her aunt she never have anything good to say about. I think that only few men who truly love their woman will go as far as David character.

Adapting Short Stories Into Film

I think what makes adapting short stories into films is that short stories provide a backbone or a skeleton for an entire film's structure. What I mean is, a short story gives a film maker all the basic components to build upon deeper. The story provides hcharacters and their relationships to one another (something that can be expanded upon with dialogue and expressions and mannerisms, giving the characters more depth and personality), it can expand on the conflicts between the characters and their environments. Plus the visuals of a short story could get lost in the imagination, so experiencing someone else's vision can help ease the experience.

That's why "Bring Up Baby" easily translates to a script because the characters seem interesting and diverse enough to carry 100+ pages of dialogue and general interaction. Each character brings something different to the film's table, and the main conflict of a panther being loose keeps you laughing throughout.

Mise en scène and atmosphere and how they tie together

I was re-watching the opening scene from 28 Days Later and I couldn't help but think of the Mise en scène of the scene and it's correlation with the feeling of isolation. There's just his emptiness of not only people but noise. Dead air consumes the environment as Jim (The only man ever shown) wanders the empty streets of London. Now i've seen zombie movies in the past and I've seen this one a bunch to, but it always leaves me feeling tense when he's wandering the streets and no what where he goes, all Jim sees is empty streets... not a person on the ground or on the stairs or on the bridge, just remnants of destruction long rested. We follow Jim as he tries to configure to a new world without knowing it's rules, following the old ones on instinct, going to the pay-phones, stealing from a destroyed vending machine, and collecting thrown away money being the greatest examples of this. The entire scene is set up to give you an urgent wonder, not because it's whimsical, it's because we  (as the viewer) need some kind of footing in this reality just as much as our main protagonist, and this entire sequence just won't give us one.

Bringing up Baby

While I was reading Brining up Baby I felt as if I were watching an episode of I Love Lucy. Here's a guy who loves a girl so much he is willing to put his life on the line for her to find a panther. Suzan seemed like a "Lucy type" very unexpected and indecisive and witty. At the same time here is David the "Ricky type", serious, and straight headed. However, any crazy thing she does he sticks by her. What I found unusual of the story is why is it so important to Susan to make her brother proud? Why Did she keep baby way before she found out it was for her aunt? Also why did David just stand and watch Susan make "an ass out of herself" when she was by the pajama - clad's mans house? I didn't get the topic or point that the author was trying to make. I found the reading to be comedic and how Susan gets a kick on going back and fourth with David. David himself says he can recognize a familiar gleam in Suzan's eye. And that gleam tends to happen when they argue or something interesting happens.

Adapting Short Stories

Believe it or not, it used to be much more common for short stories to be adapted into feature films than for novels (unlike today when the opposite is true (unless it's a comic book)). This week on the blog, I'd like to discuss how Hagar Wilde and Howard Hawks managed to turn a 13-pp story into a hundred-and forty minute film. What changes were necessary to sustain the humor of the original story and expand on it? Also, why do you think that short stories are so seldom adapted today?

Feel free not to be limited by these questions. Any questions concerning the film/reading or the class in general are most welcome.

Bringing Up Baby

I just finished reading "Bringing Up Baby," and while I thought it was humorous and a mildly enjoyable short read, I felt that there could have been so much more detail, more imagery used.  I believe this would have been better as a play, or a maybe a show series.  As far as the characters, Aunt Elizabeth doesn't make much sense to me.. At first I thought that she was going to be this older hardheaded, women who is very old fashioned but then we find out that Baby the panther was sent for her.  I feel sorry for David, who is trying very hard to please a woman that he loves, but I enjoyed the part where they are bringing Baby in the wagon and you see how David will do anything for Susan even though it means risking his life (which he starts to wonder about during this scene.)

Killing vs Waiting to die

The importance of this topic is irrelevant, it's up for debate or debating purposes. As much as I liked the intriguing, intricate outer works, and dynamics of the film production processes we went over as well as the other happenings, something else caught my interest in our first class session. What leads to my inquiry, "Which would you rather or prefer? Having to kill people or having to wait to be killed?" is our Professor mentioning super heroes got me to think about the fairly new movie Batman vs Superman. I thought about Superman telling Lois, 'no one stays good in this world', before he goes off to kill the monster. In that I thought about what it would take to kill someone. Then I thought about Superman's death in the movie and how it would be to know all along when ones day of reckoning leading to death would come. I linked the two and by debating which can be worse, I debated which is worse and came to a conclusion that killing people is easier than the other. Observing and making connections can lead to refinements and/or broaden perceptions. Knowing how certain functions work really didn't interest me much before our first class session and although I may try to put forth the effort, going forward I think that it won't. Maybe I'll go through some changes and change up a bit.

A new set of eyes

To begin with, I'm not a very avid film or TV watcher. I'd much rather get lost in the pages of a book then find the time to sit down and watch a movie.  However, I found it to be incredibly intriguing to watch clips from films on Thursday with a new set of eyes.  Of course when you watch a movie, you know that every little thing is done for a reason, but you usually just ignore it and subconsciously process it.  It was interesting to really pick apart, and take a couple of minutes to think about why the directors made the decisions that they made.  To really dissect why a specific take was shot at the angle that it was, why certain sounds are more heightened than others.  It left me wondering about movies that I consider to be long time favorites, and if they are favorites due to certain things like that. I plan on beginning to re-watch them and see what I can pick up on now.