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).