Extra Credit!

For this extra credit opportunity, I'd like you to think back through the varied expectations and techniques of our two central theories of film, Realism and Formalism, as well as the blending of those two extremes in what is considered the Classical style. You can find good discussions of these throughout our textbook, though there are particularly good overviews in Chapters 1 and 11. In your post, reflect on your own expectations of film in the context of these theoretical approaches. What kind of films are most compelling to you and why? From your perspective, what do the best films do and how do they present their subjects? Do they tend toward the more "invisible" style of Realism, their stories developing seemingly at random, framing their film world as if the camera is merely recording "life as it is?" Or are you more interested in films that use the medium to create worlds that could exist nowhere else, or that highlight stylistic manipulations of their filmed material? Do you prefer stories that follow the Classical paradigm or those that operate more mysteriously, perhaps associatively, like the thematic montages of Griffith's Intolerance and Soviet cinema? Do you prefer the glamour of Hollywood's studio era, or the grit of emerging cinemas or low-budget independent works? When you leave the theater (or turn off the DVD player), would you rather be thinking about the rich color and elegant compositions of award-winning cinematography, or about the stunning realism of a computer-generated landscape? Are you more likely to shell out $10 to see a film because of its star or because of its director, and if it's the former, would you pay more for the personality star or the actor star? And what other intellectual considerations contribute to your appreciation of a film? Do you prefer work that has clear political intent, like Do the Right Thing? Do you have a passion for a particular genre, era, or foreign cinema? As you describe your expectations as a filmgoer, provide examples of a film or two that have helped to define your preferences. And, sure, we can all make a "favorite films" list that contains a broad range of stylistic approaches, but even if you start there, see if you can identify a few consistent qualities that might suggest the outlines of your own theory of cinema. Looking forward to your comments!

After the Wedding by Greg Weinstein

After the wedding creates a stirring dichotomy between 2 very different subsets of the world's cultures. On one hand you have the capitalist endeavor of becoming wealthy and powerful and on the other you have the legion of people who are barely able to get from one day to the next. This is showcased in the two different locations in the film of India and Denmark, of an orphanage and a mansion, of the industrialized developed area and the poor, downtrodden land. Now, one can look at Jorgen's actions and his death as a greedy capitalist pig trying to "atone for his sins" of acquiring said wealth and then reaping what he sows, but perhaps he was just an opportunistic individual who, when staring down the fearsome figure of death, decided to make his loved ones happy and make thousands of individuals he has never seen before happy as well. Now, does this arrangement come with provisions? Of course, all deals do, but unlike deals with the devil, this doesn't require the purging of one's soul and in the end, it is all by choice anyway. Jacob never actually has to say yes, but just in the same way Jorgen loves his family, so too does Jacob love his and he will do whatever it takes to keep his old and new family happy, protected, and able to grow. This isn't one of those deals of the past where the person with all the money and the power makes a fool out of the naive, penniless foreigner, but instead an image of understanding and growth, for which maybe we all could learn something from.

After the Wedding - Craig Walters

I believe as much as we can look at the ‘fat capitalist pig’s’ remission for his sins through monetary graciousness as insincere, we should be able to see that Jorgen is providing for his family outside of economics as sincere as one possibly can. I’m sure he could’ve brought Jacob around well before the present time of the film, however he is attempting to find stability for his family for which he knows no money can provide, which is a father, and possibly a husband, for his loved ones. As much as we have passed judgment on Jorgen, even as Jacob often does in the movie, I think we could also ask the same question of Jacob. I don’t think there can be much of a debate of who is the better person between Jorgen and Jacob, they are individuals of different circumstances. Jacob, not having a family (to his knowledge), did not have any obligations to anyone other than himself and could more purely choose what to do with his life, where as Jorgen has built himself a family with which he is responsible to. This basically boils down to ethnics, which are not absolute. I think what the East is to Jacob is what Anna and Helene are to Jorgen, both groups being dependant upon the later while in many senses dictating the obligations of the individual.

After the Wedding- Amanda Carman

This film and its characters are so intricately layered that it's difficult to know how to begin, but as Jorgen is the puppetmaster of the story, it seems appropriate to focus on him and his influences on the moral negotiations of the characters around him.

As is revealed or implied throughout the course of the film, Jorgen discovers that he has a fatal, incurable disease and, in response to this, tracks down the father of his wife's daughter (Jacob) to serve as a replacement in the lives of his wife and children.  He invites Jacob to Denmark under the guise of a meeting to discuss funding Jacob's orphanage, and ends up inviting him to the daughter's wedding.  There, Jacob discovers that Jorgen's wife is his previous lover and the daughter is his daughter.  As the film progresses, Jacob (led by Jorgen) integrates himself further into the family.  Jorgen goes so far as to set up a possible cheating scenario (leaving for the weekend and insisting that Jacob take his wife out to dinner), even displaying a degree of cruelty toward Helene before the trip (whether this was intentional or a side effect of excessive alcohol consumption is difficult to say; Jorgen was very controlled throughout most of the film, but his internalized grief may have pushed him to drink beyond his control, making the hostile exchange with his wife less a preconceived means of pushing her away from his mortal self toward Jacob and more a case of emotional overload).  Both Jacob and Helene negotiate this moral pitfall with ease; neither give in nor truly express temptation to cheat.

The next moral conundrum Jorgen presents is the decision Jacob must make in regards to the orphanage.  Does he give up his direct work with the children, especially the child he raised, to give them the funds they need or does he stand up to the rich bastard pulling the strings, leaving the orphanage without a penny but keeping his dignity and integrity intact?  In the end, he chooses to stay in Denmark.  This, I feel, was the more morally correct decision when considering the different needs of the family in Denmark and the orphans in India.  In India, they needed the funds more than the emotional support of one man; if he had returned without the money, the orphanage would have failed and the children would have been homeless and starving once more.  By giving up the personal involvement with the project, he gave the children what they needed most; once they meet their basic needs they will be able to focus on more abstract needs, like the need for emotional support.  Pramod demonstrates this in the end; despite his apparent dependency on Jacob throughout the film, he chooses to stay where he is rather than travel to Denmark.  Things are good here, he says, demonstrating that his need for basic things was more driving than his need for Jacob particularly.  The family in Denmark, however, has their basic needs more than met and need emotional support.  They are rich enough to worry.

Jorgen's own moral negotiations are more complicated than the ones he presents to the other characters.  There is the issue of his lie of omission in regards to his health.  On one hand, his family had a right to know and prepare for his inevitable death.  On the other, he was able to spare them some pain for a while, but the knowledge that he had been hiding the truth from them created a different pain, a trust-severing pain that ended up being more hurtful to his family than merely finding out that he was doomed to die.  His ultimate motivation was largely selfish; as he told Anna, he did not want them to see him as a dead man until he was one, suggesting a desire to keep his dignity until he passed.  This is further reinforced during his emotional conversation with Helene, where he tells her that he didn't want her to see him in the pathetic state he finds himself embodying.

The other major moral negotiation undertaken by Jorgen is the idea of replacing himself in his family without their knowledge and consent.  He upends their lives, and the life of Jacob, by bringing Jacob to the wedding and forcing old wounds of Helene's, Jacob's, and Anne's to reopen.  The motivation here was largely selfless, I feel; I think he genuinely felt like it would help his family move past his death to have another father in the picture.  It was morbidly brave of him to so carefully plot out his own replacement, especially because it's programmed pretty deeply in the human mind that we do not wish to be replaced in anybody's hearts, much less in the hearts of your wife and children.  It is deeper contemplation on this inevitable outcome to his plan that leads the otherwise held-together man (disregarding alcoholic influences) to break down in one of the most heart-wrenchingly emotional scenes I've ever witnessed, further supporting the selfless nature of this plan to replace himself.  Despite the selflessness, the damage to all parties cannot be disregarded.  As for the moral outcome, I suppose it depends on whether you believe the end justifies the means.  Was it worth the disruption and emotional scarring of all involved parties to give his family some stability after his death?  I remain undecided on this point.

After the Wedding - J. Miley

I have to say that the shot of Jacob smiling is the final shot of the main story. Firstly, because the audience’s mind is already moving on when the montage of the Indian slums comes up, or at least mine was. Secondly, because the Indian side of the story plays very little into the overall story. As an audience, we stay very far away from the situation in India, both figuratively (the story concerns Jorgen & Co. more than the orphanage) and literally (most of the movie takes place in Denmark not India). Over the course of the film, we grow attached to the Danish characters and not the Indian ones and thus we want Jacob to stay with them (the Danes). It is interesting that the movie paints us this perspective because otherwise it would be a much harder choice for Jacob because both seem morally upstanding (i.e. to stay with your daughter and ex after the surrogate father dies or return to the orphanage you started). The film makes this decision easy on the audience by giving us far more time with the Danes. But this seems odd to me, I mean, concerning the narrative it is the satisfying ending/decision because the story does revolve around Jacob, Jorgen & Co. but it makes the Indian children seem like tertiary characters that do not really matter. It is as if the “personal problems/wishes” of a rich man outweigh the “survival” of orphans. Why? Because he is rich? Because Anna is Jacob’s “real” daughter even though he has never met her? Because Pramod is not Jacob’s “real” son despite basically raising him? I do not think the film or the filmmakers are actually proposing any of these questions, it is just a story about a man taking care of the family he never knew he had. But at what cost? Anna and Helene have money; Jacob is only emotional support, if you will. It is as if the movie says, “money is enough to help third world” when we see that they do not care about money. Pramod tells us so. But throwing money at a situation hoping that it will get better is a very Western thing to do. What the Indian’s want, seemingly, is the time and love of someone. This is, ironically, what Jacob gives Helene and Anna.

Therefore, in the end, money is not enough to show that you care. We see this because Helene and Anna have it; they have “bookoodles” of it. What they need it the aforementioned time and love. So the question is. "Who needs it more?" The film says Helene and Anna. But then it does show us that final montage, essentially showing us/Jacob what is being missed out on. Thus, the shot of Jacob is final image concerning the main plot whereas that montage could more or less be the final shot of the “secondary” plot or the meta-plot, the meaning of the film.

After The Wedding - Amber Merrell

I find it be very interesting how After The Wedding illustrates to the audience the world of non-profit philanthropy organizations. Jacob, the head of a non-profit that takes in orphaned kids in India, is very enthusiastic and passionate about his work. He cares for the children on a personal level, even raising one child, Pramod, as if he were his own. He has an invested interest in the future of the organization because of his passion for helping the children. Jørgen, on the other hand, is the investor who has no interest in the endeavor of the organization but has the money to help. Jørgen must donate money to worthy causes in order to keep up appearances as a successful but giving business man. In this instance, he does have the ulterior motive of wanting to find someone to take care of his family after he dies. But, he still does not share the passions of the non-profit director, Jacob. Jørgen does not care about the children or helping others in the way that Jacob does. And yet, Jacob could not do what he loves and cares about without contributions from the non-interested wealthy people like Jørgen. This calls under question the motives of non-profit philanthropic organizations and what may be influencing them. For instance, Jacob may have been put to better use in Africa at the orphanage, but because of the influence from Jørgen, the source of his funds, Jacob is forced to leave and run his organization remotely.

We also see the difference among cultures in the movie. The main characters, living in the developed world, are constantly bombarded by personal problems and relationship issues. They are shown to be rather unhappy through much of the movie. Pramod represents the developing world and he seems to be much happier and less troubled than the other characters. Granted, he is a child, but the lesson is still evident. At the end of the movie, when he is given the option of going to the developed world with Jacob, his father figure, he gives up the chance because he is happy where he is. He has heard Jacob talking about how he doesn’t like the people where he is from and so Pramod doesn’t understand why he would choose to be with mean and unhappy people when he could be at home with the people he likes. He has everything he needs in the developing world, though he has much less in the ways of material things and luxuries. This shows that perhaps those in the developing world have priorities more focused on having a simple, happy life rather than focusing on more material aspects of life like developing countries seem to.

After the Wedding - Bradley Strickland

The film is sandwiched by scenes of rural India. You see images of undeveloped Indian with starving children who have to live on the street and young girls forced into prostitution. These people have to worry about living- having food to eat or a place to sleep; or worry getting money for the shelter. They have to work to stay alive. While at the same time, Jorgen and those who live in Denmark have complicated lives that center on birthday dinners, wedding receptions, and reputations. These are chronicled in the “meat” of the film. The comparison of the social complexities between the two sides of the world is interesting because at first glance it seems that the film comments on the vainness of the way the wealthier part of society lives. But the framing is much more complicated than that. The film makes an obvious point that the complexities within Danish society come at a price; they tear at relationships and add immense moral dilemmas. In fact, just as those on the streets in India have to worry about death everyday so does the wealthy businessman, Jorgen.

We cannot help but to see an interesting commentary on social inequality in the film. As Jorgen and Jacob discuss the horrifying statistics of all the women and children dying in India and how insignificant an individual life seems in the spattering of numbers, the film emphasizes the death of one man and details the complexities associated with his death. Is this a comment upon how futile we are as a society when the death of one man is more important than the death of another? Or does this just simply describe a sociological pattern?

It is also interesting how money lies at the center of nearly every moral negotiation in this film. We see Jorgen as the ideal husband, father, businessman, and son. However, he still wants to prove himself when he dies. He remarks that the fund is pay back for his sins. Here, money is used as a moral currency. Jorgen believes that using his money in a philanthropic way makes him a great man. I wonder if and how does he think a poor man can pay back for his sins? This also creates complications for Jacob. Jacob is in a bind in that he refuses to lose his dignity and “be bought,” however he feels a strong obligation to his shelter and Pramod. Eventually, his decision to stay in Demark was the best he could do. He acknowledged this with a final smile – knowing that he has made his family happy (both Pramod and Helene and his daughter).

After the Wedding - Parker Sealy

In this film, there are many moral negotiations made. One of which is the one revolves around Jorgen and Jacob. Through there negotiations of Jacob remaining in Denmark and both trying to work out a way to get what they want, they represent the Developed and Developing countries, the East and West, Etc. Obviously Jorgen is the developed country because he is the one with all the money that is calling the shots and holds his power high over the developing country and Jacob. He calls the shots and is therefore capable of holding Jacob in Denmark to get what he wants. That’s not to say that Jorgen doesn’t have good intentions because he totally does. He wants someone to be there for his wife and kids after he dies and thinks that since Jacob is Anna’s biological father then he would be perfect for the job. Jorgen means well but he is still representing how, as a developed country, they can hold the money and not give it to the developing country and pretty much do whatever they want. Jacob obviously represents the developing country and is one that doesn’t really have a say in the matter. He didn’t want to leave India to go to Denmark but had to in order to go get money. He didn’t want to stay for more than a week but he had to in order to get the money. He didn’t want to stay forever but he had to in order to protect Anna and be there for the family once Jorgen died. So many things that he didn’t want to do but he had to in order to do what Jorgen wanted because Jorgen was calling the shots. At the end, it was almost as though Jacob had taken Jorgen’s spot because he was not calling the shots, though in a friendlier manner as he didn’t force Pramod to leave his home to go back with him but he very much took on the role of the developed country

After the Wedding- Jeremy B

Their were many dynamics in the film, After The Wedding. one of the most prominent ones was man vs nature. Throughout the film the main characters had to eventually deal with a struggle that faith through at them that for the most part they failed to catch. The most important one would be Jorgen and his illness. Throughout the movie, Jorgen is seen as a god by both his company and his family, controlling the fate of both with merely a whim. His majestic loving side is represented with his interaction of his family while his sovereignty was symbolized by his mastery of his company. However, the side of god that some view as enigmatic and sometimes cruel would be his interactions with Jacob. For example, when Jacob and Jorgen are in Jorgen's office discussing Jacob's past attempts to better the conditions in India, Jorgen is telling Jacob of all his projects and their success or failure. The way that he revealed this information made him appear all knowing and his criticism of them personified him as malevolent. Jacob was left speechless and angry when he realized that Jorgen knew this information and assessed his work with a nonchalant and aloof air, as if he were above Jacob. one good scene that really casts Jorgen as Christ would be the company dinner where while the table was round, the camera made it appear that he was at the head of the table. This scene was cast to make it look like the last supper, the final night that Jesus spent with his disciples. At the same time that Jorgen was himself all powerful in his element, his terminal illness put him in the role as an average man made of mere flesh. While he remained strong and at times struck out with righteous, furious anger, he had lapses of weakness. Two scenes would be when he is sitting in his den and when he has his mental breakdown. After he has an argument with his wife and is sitting in his study, the camera starts taking extreme close ups at canted angles of the heads of all the animals Jorgen has killed. This scene is a metaphor for Jorgen's ultimate role in the universe, reminding both he and the audience that we all have only so long to live. the last and most powerful scene is when Jorgen falls to his knees sobbing about his fear of death. After showing so much power and serenity in throughout his act of getting everything arranged for after his death, cracks under the future that has been looming over him since his daughter's wedding.

After the Wedding - Jess N

There were many moral negotiations made in After the Wedding, not only by Jorgen and Jacob, but by the other family members as well. Jorgen's and Jacob's were of course of the greatest consequence in the film: Jorgen must make the decision to give his family up to another man so they can be taken care of after his death, which is no easy decision for any man, I'm sure. In making this decision, he not only brings Jacob back into Helene's life and into Anna's life where he must share his family with another man, at least until he passes, he brings Jacob away from Pramod, who he looks at as a son. Of course, Jorgen doesn't really seem to care about Jacob's ties to India or the school, but only about his own family and well-being which might stem from his wealthy business attitude where only him and those of concern to him matter.

Jacob must make moral negotiations between being back together with Helene and his newly discovered daughter, Anna, or going back to India to continue with the school and being with Pramod. Jorgen ultimately seems to help him make this decision by only offering the money for the school on the terms that Jacob stays in Denmarck, which he does, and that seems to be the best idea for everyone....he can take care of the family and also have the funds to keep the school running and provide Pramod with all the things he needs as a child. He also now has the money to visit India whenever which makes the split with Pramod easier.

I feel like Pramod represented the connection between Developed and Developing at the end when he tells Jacob that he would rather stay in India then go live in Denmarck with him because why would he want to go live with a bunch of people Jacob hates when he has new toys (soccer goals) and food being prepared for him right there in India? Pramod doesn't need a completely developed country to be happy in life; the new beginnings in India are plenty for him.

Jorgen and Jacob represent the connection between East and West and philanthropist and receiver of aid as Jacob must return to Denmarck on Jorgen's demand. This represents the power that the West and the philanthropist hold over the East and the reciever of aid. Jorgen runs the show and makes the rules and Jacob must abide by them to receive the aid and keep the school running for the children in India. Jacob smiles in the end because he has brought these together, as he is now part of the West and the East: living in the West, yet still helping out the East financially now; and he has also become the philanthropist and the receiver of aid: he received a sum of $12 million that has made him a philanthropist, able to support and continue his school in India. His life seems to be good and have meaning now, especially now that he knows Pramod is happy and doing fine in India and he has a good relationship with the daughter he never knew he had. His moral stuggles are over it seems, at least for now.

After the Wedding - Jess S.

I don't think that happiness ultimately depended on Jorgen's death. Even though Jacob and Jorgen didn't really get along at first, Jorgen pushed Jacob into his plan of negotiation, and I think even though Jacob knew he'd been roped in to staying in Denmark rather than being allowed to go back to India, we find that his happiness ultimately lies between the East and the West, because of the moral obligations he feels toward Anna and Pramod. I'm not sure his happiness in the end was caused by the fact that Jorgen had died. It might have changed the rules of the negotiation if Jorgen had lived in some sense, like maybe if he knew he was going to live he would still donate the money to the orphanage and let Jacob go back to India because of his obligations there, but Jorgen could also allow Jacob to be a part of Anna's life, as he rightly should have been from the start.

Given the fact that Jorgen did die, his passing made way for Jacob to integrate himself more fully into Anna and her family's life, based on the fact that Jorgen had begged him to take care of his family after he was gone. Even though Jacob was hurt that he'd been almost tricked into staying in Denmark after the plans went through, he realizes in that end scene that everything had worked out has it should, even if it meant that he would have to sacrifice a lot of time with Pramod and ultimately have more time with Anna. In some sense this negotiation almost seems fair, because now that Jacob has the money and the time to go and visit the orphanage whenever he wants, he is allowed time with Anna in Denmark that he'd never had before, whereas if he'd moved back to India based purely on the moral obligations he felt there, he'd probably almost never get to see Anna. 

Jacob has his personal moral negotiations between Denmark and India, as we see, and I think it does give broader implications toward the Developing and the Developed because we can see a good moral obligation at work because of this negotiation. Because of Jorgen's failed attempts at helping out negotiations in the past, he sees a kind of different presence with Jacob, which may be because of the emotional attachments he has toward the orphanage with Pramod. Jorgen knows he can entrust Jacob with the funds for this project, not only because I think he would have done it anyway- given his real motives for bringing Jacob to Denmark in the first place- but because I think he eventually sees the love that Jacob has for that little place in India, which mirrors, in a sense, the love he has for his family. He wants for them to carry on successfully after he is gone, just as Jacob so badly wants the money for 'his' kids in the orphanage so they can carry on too.

After the Wedding - Atlee

While there are probably too many moral negotiations that each character goes trough in the events of the film, I think it is best to focus on Jacob and Jorgen for the most part. Jacob must make several negotiations in the film, one in which he is negotiating with a woman who works with him at the school they had set up in India. She has to convince him to go back home in an attempt to gain money so that the school can remain open and continue to function. It is very odd that he must be convinced of this. In the opening he seems like a caring guy who has put a lot into the effort of this school, so it seems strange that he would need encouragement to keep it going. Later in the film, Jorgen informs us that Jacob has been involved with several organizations in his past but none of them have had the capital to continue their efforts. I think the one condition that changes at this point is Pramod. Jacob has a vested interest in this school which I think the contributing factor for Jacobs trip home.

Jorgen was a difficult character to get a grasp on. He seemed to be all over the place. The first time we see him as a good and caring father, but then he is this brilliant business man worth a fortune, but when he meets with Jacob he seems uninterested in his own efforts to invest his money with a charity organization, which I suppose could be contributed to an aspect of his ruthless business sense. But later it is explained that Jorgen is dying which seems to better explain his erratic behavior. But because Jorgen is faced with his own mortality, he must decide what would be best for his wife and family which he decides would be Jacob. It seems as though that Jorgen has kept tabs on Jacob for several years and seems to think that Jacob has turned his life around from drugs and woman to be a responsible father figure in Jorgen's absence. Jorgen appears as though he is setting up his soon to be widow with Anna's biological father, which is a crazy idea to get your head around. Yes, Jorgen wants his family to find happiness after his death, but he is seemingly setting up his wife with her former love. The thought process and peace (that is peace in the sense that his family will live o without him, and not in the sense that he is ok with his own death because he clearly has not accepted that yet) that he had to come to terms with to set up this scenario for his family. Jorgen had to tip toe around several moral boundaries and come too terms with them in order for his family to be taken care of after his death.

After the Wedding (Susanne Bier, 2006, Denmark, 120 minutes)

While After the Wedding doesn't adhere to all, or even many, of the rules of Dogma 95, the film's twitchy handheld camerawork and strong performances by actors pushed to extremes of emotion seem to demonstrate Susanne Bier's continuing commitment to at least some of the group's technical and aesthetic principles. It's an affecting film, to be sure, that carefully and thoughtfully works its way through a complex moral equation. And perhaps, when we reach the end, we feel that the characters have arrived at the right answer. I suppose this depends on how we read the somewhat ambiguous final shot, a close-up of Jacob (Mads Mikkelsen) watching his surrogate son, Pramod (Neeral Mulchandani), playing on the dirt soccer pitch that his deal with Jørgen (Rolf Lassgård) has paid to improve. Neither Jørgen nor Pramod are visible in the shot, nor are Jacob's new family, Helene (Sidse Babett Knudsen) and Anna (Stine Fischer Christensen), who he both finds and recovers thanks to Jørgen's intervention. But all of these characters, their needs and their dependency on Jacob, perhaps also their debt to him, are present in the lingering gaze of the camera, which (handheld again) seems to hang in the air like a question until Jacob responds with a very brief, very slight smile. Still, what seems to be a final answer is followed by a documentary montage of Bombay's streets and slums playing under the end credits. Earlier in the film, Jacob and Jørgen, still learning to love each other, bat statistics about Bombay's impoverished children back and forth like tennis balls, but they never really address their situation seriously as a potentially resolvable problem. Those children "over there," as Jørgen says, remain statistics, only signified by the inadequate video images of children at the orphanage, most of whom operate as a kind of set dressing for Jacob's close-ups of Pramod. Jørgen, when asked why he's funding Jacob's orphanage, as well as orchestrating the reunion of Jacob, Helene, and Anna, claims that he's "just a good person," and also that his actions will allow him "buy remission for [his] sins." This last answer creates another ambiguous moment. Is Jørgen serious, or is he referring ironically to the sins he knows Jacob believes he must have committed as an immensely successful Western capitalist? Perhaps we read the ending of this somewhat perverse family saga as happy. At least relatively. Is happiness ultimately dependent on the fat capitalist pig's death? And what does his passing make way for, exactly? Like the final shot's lingering camera, a number of questions remain about the meaning and nature of intervention, goodness, love, family, and need. For this week's post, I'd like you to reflect on After the Wedding's network of moral negotiations, and I'd particularly like you to consider what broader implications they may have for the relationship between East and West, Developing and Developed, the  philanthropist and the receiver of aid, or other formulations like this. Looking forward to your comments, as always.

Is this the final shot of After the Wedding?

Or is this?

Do the Right Thing- Greg Weinstein

Da Mayor, as a character, fills the void of the old wise man who has seen and been through it all and during all the chaos just wants to bring a little peace and understanding to the world in which he lives. He has an interesting transformation throughout the film from drunken bum to "Romeo" to hero and finally to enlightened despot as he tries to settle down the crowd, but can only get the Fragione's out of the fray and watch as a piece of the world burns. His values and ideals are troublesome to the film because they involve everyone getting along and being nice to everyone, something certain characters in the film could never let happen. The characters barely tolerate each other which comes through in the final act when Radio Raheem is killed and all hell breaks loose on the white family perpetrated by the cowardly act of Mookie. Da Mayor tries to be a preacher to all the young ones sharing the wisdom he has accumulated over the years, only for the film to shove him to the side, being less Martin Luther King Jr. and more black panthers.

Do The Right Thing - Parker Sealy

Pino is a character that represents the racist person. He cannot stand the blacks in this film and gives off the feeling that he only accepts his race and his kind. It isn’t just that the blacks are unable to reason with, it is that Pino doesn’t give them a chance. This contributes to the film because he is one of the contributors to the climax of the film. He is one to start the uproar. Even though his dad is the one to officially initiate it, Pino is the one that represents what begins the fight: misunderstandings outside of race. Pino’s values make the film take a dramatic turn for the worst as everyone goes crazy killing, setting the place on fire, and so on. There isn’t really a way to see his point of view because this film is designed to get us thinking about racial tension that results in violence and he is all about the violence and promoting it. There are ways of understanding most of the characters points of views but it is hard to see Pino’s point of view. He just wants to get out of there. The only possible understanding of his perspective could be that he fears the unknown such as the black race. He wants to be in the comfort of his own culture surrounded by things he knows but he is forced to mingle with a different society. That is understandable but it is still not the way to go about adapting to change. Pino is one of the violence initiators and in that case, contributes to the whole theme of the film, which is more of a thought. It gets the audience thinking about violence between the races, it gets us thinking about race and about violence and about how to solve it and what to do next. I would say that it isn’t so much a central theme but just an opinion piece that allows for interpretation.

Do the right thing-Angela

This is a movie about black people for discrimination. The reason why they fought with white person was so trivial. And time goes by, the story get developed about discrimination for black people naturally. Black peoples get mad because when police officer come to stop to fight, they regarded them as criminals, and they also killed one black guy. So the fight get bigger and nobody cannot stop their fight.

In this movie, the camera moved so unstable and this represents that the fight is very high. And the red color that used in this movie also represents the atmosphere of this movie.

I think the reason about their fight was the lack of communication. They should have had to listen each other’s thought about their situation. But they just thought about their own situation, and the white people always disregard black people, and that made black people get angry about discrimination for them.

Do the Right Thing -- Beca G.

Danny Aiello plays Sal in Do the Right Thing. His character portrays the characteristics of an older generation that has had to deal with the hardships of a changing neighborhood. There doesn’t seem to be the animosity on his part towards the black patrons of Sal’s Pizzeria like his son Pino has. Sal has accepted the changes in the neighborhood, and as long as he has customers, he doesn’t seem to upset by the change in the color of his clientele. Yet his problems start because his son does have issues with the black patrons. Most of the film, Sal is trying to counteract the animosity that Pino shows the customers – yet instead of counteracting this by actually having a rational discussion with his son, Sal only perpetuates more violence and verbal abuse.

Yet overall, Sal does show respect to his customers and workers; defending Mookie from Pino’s verbal attacks, attending rather conscientiously to Jade – there is still a sense of anger when Buggin’ Out demands that black people be put on the Wall of Fame. Sal has a right as the patron of his pizzeria to put Italians on the wall, yet he has failed to see that the shift in his clientele would probably appreciate that he show them people of their own race who have become famous as well. (Buggin’ Out fails to note that there are no other races represented – not Puerto Rican or Korean who also live in the neighborhood as well.) Sal doesn’t understand why customers that he has been kind to and has known for years are now growing angry and frustrated with him over a seemingly trivial issue. But racial tensions have grown in the neighborhood due to police brutality, and so the blacks in the neighborhood have began to see all the whites as something to fight against. Sal fails to see this shift in perceptions, and so his reaction to Radio Raheem, while violent, is not something that ought to cause as much of a feral reaction that it does. The actions that follow are unprecedented for Sal, and they are things that he would’ve never really anticipated.

Sal represents people who are unaware that racial tensions have shifted and become more violent. His actions and demeanor have been the same for years, and he treats all customers in a similar gruff fashion, regardless of their color. He is a sympathetic character in the general sense that he is simply clueless to how life has changed around him. His adaptability to change in essence has become a bad thing, and his failure to teach his son how to not act so antagonistically towards those of a different race has not served him well. And yet despite everything, Sal is still willing to give Mookie more than his fair share of the days wages – albeit in an angry fashion, Sal is still unwilling to let go of the values that he has had throughout the entire film.

Do the Right Thing- Amanda Carman

The aptly named Buggin Out is the character that pushes the metaphorical snowball of racial tensions down the hill.  He comes into Sal's pizza parlor and pitches a fit about the dearth of black men on the wall of fame, which features Italian Americans as a nod to Sal's own heritage.  While his argument that Italian Americans don't eat at the pizza parlor, black people do has some validity, his presentation of the argument is hostile, meant to put Sal on the defensive.  His outrage at being thrown out of the pizza parlor for disturbing the customers with his increasingly aggressive arguments drives him to petition the neighborhood to boycott Sal's.  Through this petition, the audience learns that Sal's is widely accepted and loved by the neighborhood, despite the lack of photographs representing famous figures in black history.  With no one to help him fuel his rage, he fades into the background of the film and seems largely reasonable in the brief moments in which Mookie encounters him on the street.  It is only when he starts talking with Radio and Smiley about the similar injustices they've received at the hands of Sal's pizzeria (perceived in the case of Radio, actual in the case of Smiley) is he able to fan the fire of his hysterical rage into the attack on Sal's.  He moves from the peaceful passive protest of petitioning and boycotting to a less peaceful protest of threat and disruption (the loud radio), which finally explodes into violence.

Buggin Out seems to me to be a personification of the noble cause of equal representation stepping over the boundary of the rights of others.  While the request to have equal representation of famous black men on the wall of fame is entirely reasonable, the loud and angry demand for it stepped over the bounds.  After all, Sal owns the building and therefore has the right to decorate it however he pleases.  Buggin Out's initial response of boycotting the pizzeria was also reasonable; if he does not agree with the views of the owner, he is free to avoid the establishment.  Peaceful petition was also a reasonable response; no one is compelled to share his views, but may express camaraderie if they wish.  If enough people make a reasonable request, they are likely to receive a reasonable response (especially if the well-being of the business is at stake).

It was only after Buggin Out and Radio began dwelling on the fact that their own demands weren't being met, extrapolating what was a reasonable response on the part of a business owner into a racist attack on their personal rights, that they really begin to lose control.  By paying attention to Smiley, they recruit to their cause a dangerously ill-informed yet passionate man who is unable to reason or control his impulses as well as the average person.  And so perceived injustice fuels itself and the bystanders into hysteria, which causes several actual acts of injustice to be performed.  A man dies and a beloved business burns to the ground.  Was it worth it?  Was having a photograph on the wall worth a life and a livelihood?  I'm not sure how Buggin Out would answer that question, but it is one that needs answering.

Do the Right Thing - Jessica S.

John Turturro's character Pino does seem the most conflicted throughout the entire cast of characters as we watch the story progress. He values his family's sense of business and pride in their heritage, but he is in constant conflict with his surroundings because of it. Even though he knows that his family's pizzeria is situated in a popular black neighborhood, it seems as though he is most unhappy about it because of the isolation he feels about his family being the last Italians that are living in that neighborhood. I think Pino inhabits the 'in-between' character in the mosaic of the film because of his dislike of the neighborhood African Americans, but also his overall like of the neighborhood African Americans. It's as though he admires those who had made something famous of themselves in the world, while the customer's in his father's store were to be hated because they hadn't, in his sense, made something of themselves.

I think the film finds Pino's point of view a problematic one because of his hateful but contradictory behavior. If nothing went his way- if nothing felt traditional to Pino-like in the sense of his family's Italian heritage, he raised up against it and would try to force whatever it was to separate. For instance, when Pino sees that Vito and Mookie are friends, he threatens Vito and warns him to keep away from Mookie, trying to inflict that separation between them. I think under the surface that Pino's character really wanted to hold on to those traditional Italian values that we can see represented through Sal's pizzeria, but he really went about it with too much force and anger that couldn't be reconciled by anyone. The film recognizes these values in a hidden sort of way; much less than it focuses on recognizing his temperamental state of mind and his want to understand. I think we can see him try to start to understand the situation in the scene where Sal is talking to him by the shop's window, but Buggin' Out intervenes and Pino's anger breaks through. These values of Pino's obviously contribute to the conflict of the film and the downfall of the pizzeria, because his negative energy is displayed every time a customer comes in to eat. I think that even though his intolerance makes him an unlikeable character, his argument seems valid if you take into account that he wanted to preserve the heritage and history of his family and his people. That does not exclude his behavior toward the African Americans of the community, but it does help show his reality in the situation.

Do the Right Thing - J. Miley

Mookie, played by none other than Spike Lee himself, is one character that causes some of the most problems in Do the Right Thing. He, like everyone else, demands respect but offers none in return. While some characters demand respect and don’t deserve it, many don’t necessarily act in a manner that directly opposes the respect they crave. Mookie does (act in a manner that opposes that which he requests). He wants to be a good father and husband/boyfriend but he never visits his son or his wife/girlfriend and when he does it’s only to “thank God” for her body parts. He wants to be paid but he shirks his duties. He is not the main problematic of the film, however. If one (and only one) man acted this way, he would not affect the events of the movie to a large degree. The problem is that almost everyone acts this way. Radio Raheem wants everyone to listen to his music but will not listen to theirs. The men on the sidewalk hate the Koreans for starting a business but refuse to get up and do anything for themselves. Pino diverts his chores to his brother but wants to be thought of as the responsible brother. The movie is filled with characters that do not take responsibility but wonder why no one respects them for it. Some of these characters, specifically Mookie, we can sympathize with. We see that despite is irresponsibility he wants to be responsible. How many times do people want to do something but can’t seem to find the will power to get it done? A student that wants to begin a paper early but watches a movie instead, an employee that knows paperwork needs to be finished but just can seem to find the drive to do it, or the parent that finds it easier to run away from their family rather than actually be there for them. These are natural responses that exist in everyone, but as Lee shows us, they can lead to disaster because one never knows if they are the Sal or Mookie of a story. If they lose it, then everyone else just might too.

Do The Right Thing - Craig Walters

I believe John Turturro’s character, Pino, optimizes the confusion, which is seen throughout the movie. I recall a scene where Pino and Mookie, Spike Lee’s character, have a conversation where Mookie asks Pino why he holds the prejudices he does against African Americans. I found it interesting that some of Pino’s favorite people, such as Prince and Magic Johnson, were African American, yet he was the most vehement with his racial prejudices. He seems to hold on dearly to the stereotypical ideals dealing with blacks and often is a self-fulfilling prophecy because his overtly negative attitude towards these people make them very hostile towards him, thus backing up his prejudices. I find a lot of people that I’m around seem to have this same ideals and attitudes. I know of several people who, for instance, love rap or hip hop, yet hold many racist attitudes towards black, I always find that interesting. Pino is the pinnacle of an outsider to the area who holds a high distaste for those inhabitants. It seems that regardless of what these people do Pino will find nothing, but a negative spin on their actions or words. To me, he is the type of person which this movie is to exploit and draw a negative light on, rightfully so.

Do The Right Thing - Amber Merrell

I am choosing to write about Pino because while this character was incredibly frustrating to me, I think that he played an important role in the film. Pino is a young man who is very proud of his heritage and wants to realize what he believes is his full potential. He considers the location of his father’s pizza shop to be less than ideal and thus unacceptable. He is quick to anger because he feels as though he and his family are being held back. This is shown very explicitly through his complete refusal to accept the people in his community and the role that he plays in the community.

Pino creates a lot of tension and conflict because he considers himself and his family to be above the rest of the inhabitants of his community. He looks down upon the misfits and failures, which he seems to see as all black people. He does not consider the citizens of this mostly minority community to be worthy of working or even eating at the pizzeria. This highlights the key concepts of racism, acceptance, and self-entitlement that are addressed in the movie.

The stubborn, unrelenting way in which Pino upholds his ideas and beliefs illustrates how this behavior can exacerbate conflicts and damage relationships. His extremism not only affects the other community members who are confronted by him, but also his own family. His father constantly has to try to keep him in check and his brother falls victim to his vicious aggression and sense of authority.

Although I did not like Pino’s character at all, the movie probably would not have had such a tragic end had his family listened to him. Pino wanted to move the restaurant to a different neighborhood. Though he desired this because he thought they could do better and the people in their current community were not good enough for them, it turned out that he was right to want to move. Radio Raheem would probably still be alive and the pizzeria probably would not have been burned down had they moved as Pino urged. So, in the end, he was right that they were not well matched to the community.

Do the Right Thing - Bradley Strickland

The drunkard of the block, Da Mayor, is quite an interesting character. It seems he is Spike Lee’s response to the black-face minstrel stereotype that was popular in the 1800’s. Lee shows Da Mayor as a drunkard, but directly contests the idea that black men are unethical and stupid. Instead Da Mayor is a philosophical and moral entity, which often provides words of wisdom to the other characters. Lee employs Da Mayor to be an embodiment of ethics and wisdom in black Americans.

One great example of this ideology coming through in the film is the fact that Da Mayor tried his best to calm the mob and show that Sal was not directly responsible for Radio Raheem’s death. He urges the mob to stop before they do something they will “regret.” This encouragement shows that what the people did was not the “right thing” in Da Mayor’s mind; however it does not seem that anyone regrets their actions the morning after. The two quotes at the end of the film put the act in perspective and raise questions rather than justify or criticize it. Though Da Mayor encourages Mookie to “do the right thing” he never tells him in regards to what or what is the “right thing.” Was Mookie’s action in self-defense towards white establishment or was it unethical and counteractive in dealing with racial tensions? Destroying Sal’s Pizzeria did not bring back the life of Radio Raheem or provide punishment for the murderer. Instead the destruction tore down a racially co-existing neighborhood (one might argue that Sal exploited the money of the black’s without being respectful of them, however I would disagree). Sal’s was a place where racial tensions were discussed and openly met – a progressive educational experience.

We also could argue that Buggin’ Out represents the ideology of Malcolm X whereas Da Mayor is an allusion to MLK’s ideas. It seems that Da Mayor wants human relationships to transcend race while encouraging this shift in an educational and nonviolent way. While his ideas are often not respected, especially with the younger black males in the neighborhood, he nevertheless is a present and integral part of the community. He saves the child’s life, tries to teach the same boy about rough economics, attempts to calm the mob, and provides Mookie with key advice. He is the teacher to the neighborhood – an old man who has been through a lot including the pre-Civil Rights era.

Da Mayor also seems to embody work ethic and responsibility in the black community. He is in stark contrast with the young Mookie who has a hard time being responsible in his work for Sal. Though Da Mayor receives criticism for not having a job and wasting his money on alcohol, he still recognizes the importance of working and doing your best. As he sweeps Sal’s sidewalk, he tells Sal that he will have the cleanest sidewalk around. In addition, he knows how to save money and not squander all of it away. This is evident in him being able to buy the very expensive bouquet of roses for Mother Sister. He seems to be a commentary on the economics and work ethic of black Americans.

Do the Right Thing-Jeremy Brinson

Mother Sister embodied the "back in the day" of black culture. She is one of the elders of the neighborhood and plays the role of guardian, watching over the inhabitants from her stoop and window. She stays in her dwelling throughout the majority of the film, only coming out when the Pizza Shop is burning. Her reclusive tendency symbolizes the older members of the black community- watching from a distance and offering their wisdom and past experiences to the younger men and women, encouraging them in times of struggle and admonishing them in times of stupidity. Mother Sister recognizes that she can't interfere with the lives of Mookie and the others, but she can wish him well and warn him to stay out of trouble, reminding a voice of wisdom. Mother Sister also tries to keep in touch with the young kids and adults by having them over to talk and "sit a while". She never leaves her stoop unless there's an emergency, always having people visit her besides calling to them in passing. This habit represents the acknowledgment of the elders that their time is past but still wanting to stay in touch with their hope for a brighter future, the current generation.

Mother Sister provides a balance in the film by being a resource of positivity and tranquility. While the heat of the day fuels the anger and tension of the neighborhood, Mother Sister's wishes and interjections provides a cool release to those that commune with her. Spike Lee represents this aspect in film by dynamics in music, whenever there is tension in the movie there is blaring rap music with a strong muffled bass to illustrate the throbbing of heads and fast pulsing of blood, two strong indicators of anger. However, whenever Mother Sister is on camera, the music changes to slow soft jazz, almost like a calming balm. The presence of Mother Sister and the stylistic expression of her both provide relief in the film as if they were the rare cool breezes during a summer scorcher.

The one negative with Mother Sister is her weakness to conflict. While she does offer words of encouragement and has wisdom, this is the limit to her strength. When ever she is faced with turmoil, whether it be the presence of the Mayor, or the murder of Radio Raheim, it's crumbles and falls. Lee also makes a reference to her weakness while she is having her hair combed, where she complains of being tender headed. metaphorically, the comb is the pain life brings and mother Sister's sensitivity is the weakness of the old ancestors to the threat of present day struggles and their lack of understanding and power to withstand it. to further prove this, revisit the scene of the night riot, when the pizza shop is burning, all Mother Sister is able to do is to crumble in the street in a heap of tears, shouts , and writhing. Mother sister may be a source of power in support, but not in fighting, for her time for that is over and also she can do now is stand on the sideline as a footprint of the past for others to acknowledge and move on from, to be left behind, and soon forgotten.

Do the Right Thing - Jessica Nguyen

Spike Lee plays the main character in his own movie, Mookie. Mookie seems to be the most ideal character of the movie (besides his sister maybe) because he works for Sal and doesn't seem to have a problem with him being Italian. He even seems to be friends with Sal's younger son and tries to help him stand up to his older brother who picks on him and bullies him all the time. His dislike for Pino doesn't stem from a racial problem but only for the way he treats his brother. Even though he works for the Italian family, Mookie still has his ties to and his black friends in the neighborhood. He tries to keep the peace between everyone, almost like a mediator between the two groups, especially Sal and Buggin Out who tries to boycott Sal's place just because he doesn't have pictures of black leaders on his wall.

The film's title, Do the Right Thing, refers to the decision that Mookie makes in the end. When the fight between Sal and Radio Raheem ends with the cops killing Radio, the crowd is angered and seems to blame Sal for his death, even though it was the cops who killed him. Mookie, as the silent onlooker, decides to throw a trashcan through the window of the pizza shop to turn the crowd's anger towards destroying the property instead of Sal himself. At first, I questioned why he did that and why he would start a riot, but he did it to save Sal and his family and he probably didn't realize the effect it was going to have or how out of control everyone was going to get. Even Sal seems to forgive him the next day and they reconcile when he goes to get paid.

Mookie seems to value money more than anything and it might even be the reason why he stays out of trouble and doesn't discriminate against the Italians. It's almost as if him and Sal have the same goals in life: Sal built the pizzeria with his own hands and that's his place; Mookie wants to make money to be able to do something with his life, almost as if he's striving towards what Sal has already done with his life. This could be the link between the bond or understanding they seem to share. Sal even tells him he will always have a job there and that he's been like a son to him.

Do the Right Thing - Atlee Watson

John Turturro, who plays Pino in this film, represents one of the major problems facing this community and society in general. Unlike his father, Pino hates the black community where Sal's Famous is located. He despises everything that they stand for and if it were up to him, he would close down his father's pizzeria and open up another shop in their own neighborhood. Because of Pino's complete lack of an attempt to try to understand the customers he serves, he just hates and resents them because their business, along with Sal's pride keep him in this neighborhood.

Pino represents one of the major problems in this film, which is a intolerance of other people. Pino keeps a wedge between his-self and the community and throughout the film he continues to create a disconnect between himself and the patron's inside and outside of the pizzeria. Pino tries to convince both his father and his brother that they are not wanted in this neighborhood and that they no longer belong with these people; his brother, who likes Mookie, listens to mookie but sides with his brother out of loyalty. Also, his father considers his establishment as an accomplishment to all of his hard work and refuses to close it up. Pino's ideals contribute to the rising tensions in the film between a number of characters including Smiley.

While the majority of his rants could simply be dismissed, he was right in the end that the people in the neighborhood were animals and had no respect for them. The entire neighborhood took on a mob mentality because of the altercation between Sal and Radio, which ended in the death of radio and the destruction of Sal's Famous.

Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989, U.S.A., 120 minutes)

At the end of Do the Right Thing, Mister Señor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson) reminds his listeners to go out and vote in the upcoming election. Spike Lee, in fact, hoped that this film would turn the 1989 New York City mayoral election against the incumbent, Ed Koch, who he saw as responsible for the increasingly violent racial tensions that inspired the work. Whether or not it actually played a role in Koch's loss to the city's first black mayor, David Dinkins, there is no question that Do the Right Thing was conceived as an ideological film. Even so, as we touched on the other night, the film seems less interested in presenting a solution than posing a question. Spike Lee, that is, wants to show look at the complex sources of the problem and get us to think and talk about them. For this week's post, choose one of the characters below and consider the various values he or she represents. What part of the ideological mosaic of the film does the character inhabit? What makes his or values problematic from the film's point of view? Which of his or her values, if any, does the film seem to appreciate, or find nonnegotiable, even essential? How do these values contribute to, or work to relieve, the conflict? Even if we may view a particular character negatively, or at least with some skepticism, are there elements of his or her "argument" that might be valid, or that must be addressed rather than dismissed?

 

Days of Heaven -- Beca G.

What struck me about Days of Heaven was how much of the movie was focused on what was not said, but what was implied by the images and actions. Linda is our main narrator, and yet she is not capable of seeing everything that the viewer is privy to. Instead the viewer has to rely on the visual clues that the cinematography provides. The film does this in an effortlessly beautiful way – for instance, seeing the silhouettes of the farmer and Abby through the window does a more than adequate job to relate to the viewer that the two of them are growing closer. Linda’s childish voice probably wouldn’t be able to explain this or even quite comprehend it.

The last shot of the film was also one that was rather interesting in how it portrays everything that Linda can’t quite say about running away. Her friend is already heading down the tracks, her mind clearly on her future destination. All of the imagery points forward to where the tracks are headed, yet Linda is still looking behind at everything that she is leaving. There is an obvious sense that she is remembering everything that has happened in the duration of the film – yet she is lacking the wordage in which to say everything that she is feeling. Instead the viewer is left with a feeling of wistfulness and nostalgia for what has been, and what can never be again. The symbolism so heavily illustrates what Linda (as an innocent at the beginning of the film) so clearly cannot quite grasp about life and it’s moments. The duality of human nature – especially when it comes to Abby and her brother – is lost on her, and it isn’t until the end of the film that maybe she begins to understand. Symbolically, there is a long journey ahead of her before she quite gets to that understanding.

Days of Heaven - Parker Sealy

This movie was well done artistically. It was a smart move to choose to shoot the film at the “magic hour” or dusk (Giannetti). This is a term used by photographers and matches what Terrence Malick and the cinematographer, Nestor Almendros, were trying to accomplish with this film, which they conveniently called Days of Heaven. They were trying to get the viewers to see this place that they lived in as a “Garden of Eden” or a lost paradise, which is accomplished almost solely through the cinematography such as the filming during the “magic hour,” which gives it a golden look which looks mystical, for lack of a better word (Giannetti). It gives the idea that no one wants to leave. The crickets were biblical imagery of the plaques that destroyed something good. The “Garden of Eden” was destroyed and they were forced to leave which literally killed them, either mentally or physically. All of these things visually translated and worked together to deliver the film that served as a way to explain the joys a child has when everything is set and secure but then has everything taken away from them and then lets it pass without feeling anything. I agree with this but I didn’t come up with this on my own. I got it from Roger Ebert. It is a recollection of events told from the perspective of Linda. She is narrating it after the fact so it is her recollection through naïve eyes. The way she tells it almost sounds like it doesn’t pain her to think about it later which is how this could be seen as the “message” or point.” All-in-all, this movie is visually dynamic and takes risks that work and force the viewer to feel the way they want them to feel.

Days of Heaven-Greg Weinstein

Days of Heaven is one of the most beautifully shot films I have ever seen. It truly rises to its' title acting like the characters really are in heaven. To borrow from another famous film, if someone asked, "Is this heaven?", I would reply with "No, this is Texas." The grand scale of the farm mixed with the time of day in which the movie was shot creates this almost ironic sense of the story as two of our main characters have no place being in such a beautiful place. Back in Detroit, Bill kills his boss or someone, we never really get any explanation at all, and you sense that they would now get this new start in Texas, especially when you see the scene of the trail of people and horses crossing the real and metaphoric gates to the farm with the setting sun off in the distance, and one expects that they are home ready to be free, but it is apparently not in them to be copasetic with their place in life. As the narrative gets darker, so too does the scenery as we get more scenes at night with a darker setting sun before a swarm of locusts and fire set Heaven ablaze. It is then that you hear the narration from Linda and it hits you that although the story is set around this love triangle, the innocent kid who just gets dragged along with her brother is setting the scenes and filling in the loose ends that the sporadic narrative barely lets us grasp. And although her voice is annoying, although basically anything written in this story is annoying, you let it pass as its a way to see more of 'Heaven'.

Days of Heaven- Jeremy

The film was a beautiful piece. The life depicted was artistically stylized so as to make a portrait of the time period. Each shot was done in vivid golden light to heighten the beauty of the nature the characters were surrounded by. A stark contrast is that whenever anyone winds up in a city. The colors become pale and the light disappears, creating an austere prison devoid of hope and warmth. Each color was carefully chosen to create the frame of the setting. Warm colors that bleed with color set a warm memory, while those of pale frosted shades set the tone for a grim reminder. One particular scene that struck my fancy was when the migrating workers were riding on the roof of the train. The metal of the roof of the train and the travelers were shot in a rusty shade. This color scheme creates a nostalgic felling of a typical happening. The light of the sun was a warm yet faded yellow, that made me feel as if I was looking at an old photo. Overall, the film stirred a feeling of peace in me. While there were climatic moments, the film as a whole put me in a calm mood, the same way the nature in it did for the wanderers that worked in it.

Days of heaven- Angela, Jung

I was surprised at wonderful visual beauty of this movie. I think that the hero is nature not the three men and woman. This movie used nature lights, so the characters are frequently shown just as outline and sometimes we cannot hear the sound of character’s voice.

As the conflict getting high, the movie shows us brutal natural appearance like grasshopper’s attack. And human also damaged to nature because of their emotion. At the last, the girl said “There is no perfect human, human has angel and devil aspects half and half.” The aspects of imperfect human and the aspects of perfect nature get intersect naturally. Like this, the director of this movie showed that human sometimes can have destructive tendency to harm not only themselves but also environment, describing love, hatred and ambition.

This movie shows class problem, but I think the director didn’t touch this problem just outwardly. This class problem get involved in the movie very deeply and naturally, so we can recognize that very naturally.

2001-Angela,Jung

2001-A space odyssey – Angela, Jung

This movie shows us universe time. At the first, the movie shows dawn of man. The ancestor of human come out and use tools. By using this, they kill animals to eat and fight each other. This shows us how human’s evolvment is violent. And then, the relationship between tools and human is adapted to ‘Jupiter discovery’.

Computer, the best equipment, get intelligence to surpass human’s. After this, the computer that could get intelligence discover contradiction of human’s behavior, and remove human according to its own perfect standard. It is irony situation because human were removed from the best tool that human created. This shows us how human existence is slight and trival thing in setting that the conflict space between tools(computer) and human is universe.

Human evolved for long times, and made a great effort to accumulate better technologies. At last, I think that they tried to approach divine scope. Human developed HAL9000 computer that has perterhuman intelligence.

Days of Heaven - Bradley Strickland

The lyrical presentation of America’s working class in Days of Heaven centered on several paradoxes. The central set of the film, a wheat field, became an embodiment for these paradoxes of love and hate, happiness and tragedy, hopes and fears, rich and poor, past and future. The field in a sense became a microcosm for human struggle and hope.

The representation of nature in this film was very artistic. Close ups showing the wheat growing out of the ground and extreme long shots of the field reinforced the beauty of nature, the animals, and the landscape. Further, it illustrated a central relationship in the movie; it showed us an inherent connection between nature and the characters that were dependent upon the field for their livelihood. One great example of this is the fire scene. The farmer’s wrath and anger are symbolized by the fire and locusts that engulfed the field. In addition, we see here how the farmer’s love for Abby become hate for Bill.

The film is full of symbols and literary devices. One example involves the wine glass dropped into the river. The glass stolen from the farmer falling into the river foreshadows Bill’s exact fate – as he is shot and dies in the river. It seems to show us that the scheme to get rich is a dangerous one with consequences. It also shows us the vast difference between the wealth of the farmer and the poverty of Bill; Abby is caught between the two.

Interestingly, the film constantly marvels us with artistic and lyrical representations of the characters and the landscape while remaining extremely realistic. The natural lighting, the realistic sounds of crickets and locusts, and the dust and hay that cloud many shots all give us an intimate view of the world these people live in. It allows for the film to be a journal in a sense for the child, Linda. Just as a journal would, it consciously distorts time and openly gives its opinion on what is important. Thus, the film seems to be very precise in setting the mood and time. It leaves the characters for months and then comes back to them. We see the change in Bill, Abby, and the farmer; we see what love, hate, and manipulation does to people. However, we see Linda just as constant as anything. We see her forced into a grownup’s world, but knowing exactly how to handle it. It is difficult to tell whether she learned anything from her brother’s death. It seems though that Linda has something to teach us – not the other way around. She seems to tell us something about the past and the future – our history and the fragments of our own journals are part of a larger whole. As the film ends we see one last symbol involving the train tracks. They represent her future – though she doesn’t know where she is going, she knows where she has been.

Days of Heaven - Jessica Nguyen

Days of Heaven was full of symbolism, mostly Biblical, and the narrative foreshadowed what was coming later during most of the movie. One of the first ones I noticed was when they were on the train and Linda's voice over is heard talking about a man she had met once that told her the Earth was going to go up in flames and that creatures would be running every which way, foreshadowing the fire that takes place later in the movie where we see animals running for their lives and the good people that escape the fire while the two men, Bill and the Farmer, end up dying in the end over their battle for Abby. Another time is when the accountant tells the farmer he should leave while he has the money. Instead, he stays, loses his crop from the locusts and the fire, gets his heart broken, and loses his life. Every one involved in the love triangle seems part of a tragedy, symbolically depicted by the locusts and the fire destroying the crops; Bill loses Abby to the farmer after being greedy for his money, Abby loses both of the men she loves, and the Farmer loses his life in a jealous rage over Abby and Bill. The deep reds and oranges from the fire may symbolize the love and destruction of the three of them....two ending in blood and one running away on her own.

The first part of the movie, before the love triangle begins, shows the happiness and carefree-ness felt by the three main characters, Abby, Bill, and Linda, as they travel around and eventually end up on the farm, working yes, but also running around playing tag, playing in the river, and enjoying their lives together. The vast wide angle shots shown throughout this time show the beautiful colors of the "golden hour" which fit perfectly along with the lives of the three main characters. The warmness of the wheat fields, the calm of the blue skies, and the joy from the golden haze of dusk are perfect at depicting the happiness of Bill and Abby together, and Linda's carefree childhood. The only problem with having the whole film shot at the same time everyday was it made it difficult to understand time. Instead of basing time off of days and the sun moving through the sky like most films, time has to be discovered through the rare shots of seasons changing, the harvest being over, and when the new one begins.

Days of Heaven - J. Miley

It surprised me watching Days of Heaven that the movie did not seem to take place during the “golden hour” in the way that I thought it would. Going into the movie, I fully expected it to be obvious that the sun was about to set. Instead, the movie seemed to constantly hide where the sun was. It is common practice for films to show sun rising, high above, or setting to show both the passing of time and when a particular shot takes place. Days of Heaven does not do this and thus the fact that the film talks place during the golden hour is more important conceptually than visually. Visually, the setting might be seen as more ideal and the colors might be richer than otherwise but more importantly we see the time of day as a metaphor for the overall narrative. We begin the story at the beginning of this golden hour; the entire story takes place at the doorstep (dusk) of the farmer’s and Bill’s deaths (night). Once night falls, however, day breaks and life essentially goes back to “normal.”

I think someone said something in class about the movie being essentially a nature film. This seems to be very apt considering how many long shots there are of the “Texan” plains. This vision of nature is a very important and lends to the films cyclical motif. Plants are planted, grown, harvested and then planted again with the seeds harvested. Everything has a cycle that it runs, it may change over the course but it always returns to its original form and thus it is fitting that the movie takes place over a year because we see this cycle as it occur in the plants. On the characters’ side of this cycle, the movie begins with Bill killing his boss (or a co-worker, we do not know). From then on, Bill, Abby and Linda’s lives are very different not only in setting but in lifestyle. In the end, though, they all return to who they were. Bill starts by killing someone and ends by not only killing someone but also being killed (that is a completely different type of cycle – what goes around comes around). We see this same thing in both Abby and Linda. They start running and end running. For them, this seems to be much more of an inherent choice than it does with Bill, however. Concerning Abby and Linda, they have everything lain out for them. Abby is now a widow and presumably has a small fortune to take care of her and yet she jumps on a train having dropped Linda off at some sort of boarding school or orphanage. Seemingly not long after that Linda runs away with a girl she met on the farm. Once again, they are both running, they are who they are. Just as plants grow every year in the same they did the year before, everyone returns to whom they really are eventually.

Days of Heaven- Jessica S.

                Following the heavy scene with the locusts, I thought that the scene with the fire to burn them out was extremely impressive not only lyrically, but visually as well. In that scene, we are only given silhouettes much of the time, while in others there are dim lanterns swinging as the farm hands try to stop the fire before it spreads any further. The Farmer is frantic and distressed, and I think that this is a parallel to his feelings about his relationship with Abby. The fire is destroying the farm, yes, but it seems like it is also metaphorical in that a ‘fire’ is consuming his relationship with Abby; while he could notice a different kind of fire burning between Abby and Bill. He knows that something is up between the two of them, but he doesn’t exactly know how to stop it just yet, anyway. I think all of this too is projected onto Linda because she knows the truth about Abby and Bill, but we see her at times being somewhat happy and carefree when she’s in the company of The Farmer and Abby.

                As for the visual elements that impressed me in this scene, I think it was just the overall awe of the only light seemingly coming from the fire itself and the few lanterns is like the “golden hour” of the daylight scenes. This fire scene is dark and invokes a certain element of anxiety and may not be as peaceful as the late evening scenes, but I found it to be just as intriguing as the others. The “golden hour” scenes are soft and comforting, but in contrast the fire burning scene was hard and troubling.

                To take this film as Linda’s recognition for what were the Days of Heaven is perfect for the narrative context of this film. She carefully observes the world and people around her, even though at times it doesn’t seem like she cared much as a young girl. She did what she had to do, and then later as an adult she reflected on that time in her life with what seemed like a deep love for the place she’d spent a good part of her life in.  

Days of Heaven - Amber Merrell

I found it to be very fitting that much of the movie takes place during the sunset hour. The red and amber colored glow in the background romanticizes everything that takes place. This effectively highlights the most important parts of the characters’ day: after work. This could have been a movie about the hardships of traveling about, doing whatever physical labor that presents itself as an opportunity for food and money to survive. But instead, Days of Heaven seems to be about the relationships of Bill, Abby, and Linda and the tough decisions that come with life. Thus, the movie focuses on what happens after the hard day of work is done. The romantic glow of sunset illustrates this by placing dramatic visual emphasis on these moments.

One part of the movie that especially stood out to me was when the host of wagons came through the gate to the farm, bringing new hands to the fields. This also takes place during “golden hour” which sets the stage for the rest of the movie. The gate itself stands very tall and strong, and though it is elegant it also seems rather oppressive and impersonal to me. As the wagons make their way through the gate, the farmer’s very large house can be seen in the distance. This image of extravagance paired with the stark gate seems to suggest that the work to be done on this farm is for one purpose only, and that is to benefit the farmer. Once this work is done, then you mean nothing to the employer. Nothing else of significance is in sight and the signs of the farm’s success lie solely within the grand appearance of the house and gate.

I also found the lengthy locust scene to be very interesting. Instead of merely showing them coming into the fields in vast numbers, there were multiple close-up shots of the locusts actually eating the crops. This is a very dramatic entrance to this section of the film. I found that these images suggest the doom of the main characters’ situation. A handful of insects will not do much damage to a large crop, just as a relationship can withstand a few problems. However, the close-ups of the insects and the damage that so many of them can inflict show how the choices and actions of Bill and Abby have compounded into a larger problem. Abby is tired of moving around all of the time, they seem to be bored in their lives, and they decided to use the farmer for their own profit. All of these issues have amassed into a plague that will not only destroy the farm but also their relationship with each other.

Days of Heaven - Atlee

Days of Heaven was probably the most beautiful of the films we have seen this semester. Many of the shots, such as the first listed in the series of images, appears more like a painting than a shot of the vast, open fields. The literary elements that influence the film are the narration of Linda. She narrates the film but there is no emotion throughout the film, just simply told in a matter of fact way. We are able to tell that she has obviously lived through difficult times with her brother and that their struggles have seemed to create a disconnect between herself and the idea that things could become better (i.e. hope). Throughout the film she is comments on the love triangle between her brother, the farmer, and Abby, but really doesn't seem to be pulling for her brother or his plan to obtain the farmer's wealth. She simply states that rich people have it figured out.

Another element of the film is time. It is very abstract and difficult to grasp. Throughout the film, you are never really given a sense of time other than in one seen it may be snowing, which lets you know that it is winter. The film is shot at the "golden hour," so every day appears to be the same. Even when Bill leaves, it presents a very vague time line of how long he was gone, but when he does return all of the former issues quickly return. The locusts, a biblical plague, eat away and destroy the farmer, much like the odd brother sister relationship between Bill and Abby eat away at the farmer. Also, I get the feeling that is film is very similar to a Greek tragedy. This couple who is on the run from murder end up in Texas working in the fields and devise a plan to steal the farmer's wealth, but as Abby attempts this she begins to fall in love with the farmer and tensions between Bill and the famrer start to rise over the odd brother sister relationship that Bill and Abby seem to have. This eventually leads to destruction, murder, loss, and exile. Bill ends up dead, Abby ends up going to help in the war effort, and Linda runs off with her friend who she met on the farm. They are broken up because Bill believes that his plan will bring them all happiness.

Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978, U.S.A., 94 minutes)

Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven is a painterly film, both precise and lyrical in its presentation of its world, in the way that it looks at its characters and their environments. Long, silent takes mark the film's gaze, as it were, as does the episodic structure of its narrative. We fade in and out to specific points in the story—set at a very precise point in time—some of these episodes consisting of just one shot lasting only a minute or so, quickly setting the tone of the moment as well as the season: both mood and time. As I mentioned in class, much of the film's farm sequences were shot during the "golden hour," the period between sunset and night, which also contributes to the film's painterly quality, as well as to its symbolic overtones. From its opening sequence of black and white stills and shots in a dirty, smoky mill in Chicago, Days of Heaven weaves together a kind of network of epic and personal symbols—beautiful, tragic, and terrifying. Add to this Linda Manz's oblique voice over and you have what feels like a very personal recollection whose stark elements—a house, a field, two men, a woman—almost unwittingly imply a much grander narrative about human nature. For this week's post, I'd like you to talk about the visual and literary qualities of the film, how they work together to create this grander narrative. What images or moments in the film struck you as literary in terms of their figurative qualities: motif, metaphor, symbol, allegory, to use Gianetti's terms. What did these moments suggest (maybe this more than mean—let's allow them to be more implication than definition)? You might also, or alternatively, consider the implications of situating this symbol-rich narrative as a recollection of Linda's. I'm including the images below to provoke thought, not to suggest that you should focus on these moments. Looking forward to your comments!