i was wondering if anybody else thought that perhaps the change from the still picture of the cosy house in the background to the realistic and static snow might have something to do with the story, rather than just the points we discussed in class? yes, i agree that it shows how it changes from a book to a movie etc, but i also thought that it reflects what is about to happen in the story itself. we begin with the four little women, marmee and hannah, yet soon the nice little picture is going to leave the comfortable containment and change like the static and falling snow.

first of all, i am extremely frustrated and about to throw things. as people may have been noticing, i post many blogs at the same time, bc my computer will only let me access this website every couple of days…yea, just my luck…now i just wrote a very nice post about rude awakenings after watching the 1933 and the 1949 versions and my “session timed out” and i lost it all. so, the gist of what i was trying to post was that after watching these two films, i’ve been very disappointed. i usually appreciate kathyrn hepburn’s performances, yet besides the scene with marmee (who made me ill just watching her sweetness), and a few select others, i can’t stand her. she made jo even more loud and obnoxious than i could even imagine, and destroyed it even more with cutesy weird faces that are not cute at all. the 1949 version was even more disappointing because i adored that movie (the last time i saw it being when i was 9). as a feisty tomboy, i used to romp over fences, throw snowballs, climb trees, shake hands, use slang (christopher columbus included) and spit. let’s just say that after watching this film again, the rose colored glass memories were shattered. and thank goodness i suppose, but still.

I haven’t read Little Women since I was young, and even now I’m not sure it wasn’t just some abridged version.  Either way, this reading has surprised me.  It’s odd how much you change as you age, as your perceptions change, adapt, are sometimes intensified, and sometimes corrupted with maturation.  Also, I’m having a rough time looking at this novel with an unbiased viewpoint because growing up the 1949 adaptation was one of my favorite movies.  I haven’t seen it in years, but even back then I noticed how different it was from the book, but I didn’t care and I formed my judgments from it.  It was weird imagining Liz Taylor as Amy, and now I can’t believe that it was June Allyson who played Jo and even crazier, Janet Leigh who played Amy.  I think this book is going to be very difficult for me to take for face-value, because I loved this film, felt like I found kindred spirit in Jo, so much so that I even tried to change my name to Jo while I was growing up.

ok…the tommy gun scene-what can i say? INCREDIBLE!  Albert Finney played a perfect Leo, even though he was only cast two days before they started shooting, and after seeing this amazing scene, i just had to see what he had to say about this film.  one great quote i found was, “It seemed like a comic strip, in a sense, when I first read it,” he recalls. “The casualness of the violence amused me a great deal. But it’s extremely rich stuff. There’s an awful lot of craftsmanship in there, and thinking through and chipping away at a piece of marble for some time to get this essence.”  Also, of the Coen brothers, which I found as completely adding to their genius, “Filmmaking can become an ordeal…What’s great about these guys [the Coen brothers] is that they’ll throw new things in on the fourth or sixth take. Then while they’re editing they will play with form the same way that they played with words in preparing the script.”  I’m very interested in how films are actually made, and how such an unbelievable amount of work and precision is necessary, so this quote simply amazed me.

i like how the bowler hat has gained such meaning in this adaptation.  the loss of the hat was present in the novel, but the coen brothers seemed to make the bowler hat represent friendship and the deep sense of lacking that results with the loss of it.  i also like how this film takes the dream aspect from the novel, yet changes it to follow with this bowler hat symbolism.  when the hat falls of in the woods, we see how tom wants to keep his friends close, protect them, and further, his fear of losing them.  it’s just so interesting to me that such a simple object like something that sits on top of your hair, protects you from rain and used to be worn by almost every man can be transformed into such a symbolic part of a story.

i was sick today, so i couldnt make it to class so im very sorry to have missed the discussion on the first readings in the text. i just wanted to say that already this class is taking an effect on how i watch films. i had taken a film class in highschool with a great teacher, and i am an english major, so i always scrutinize films as well as texts, but since this class has begun its gotten worse (or better?). i just watched one of my favorite movies again, Ravenous, about cannibals who gain power from those they eat, and simple things like camera angles, shadows, camera cuts, and placement of characters found new meaning in a movie i imagined i knew by heart. it happened again when i watched Stand By Me for the first time…i feel like im in for a surprise now, even when i watch my favorites.

i really enjoyed this class discussion while watching scenes from yojimbo.  my favorite point that was illuminated was when he was crawling along the shadow, as if on the line between life and death.  after that i hadnt even imagined the part about the leaf throwing.  i had figured that his restoration in a temple after getting out of a coffin meant a lot, but i didn’t catch the stepping away from gambling into the realm of talent and skill.  i love all the clint eastwood westerns, and own them all so i don’t know how i didnt catch the parallel for that scene.  i look forward to next class and hope that reading the new text will help with analysis of the films we have viewed thus far.