I just wanted to say that of course there were many things done well in The Thin Blue Line, but two things in particular really struck me while watching it. First, I got the chills when Randall was talking about how people kept telling him what happens when you are electrocuted to death, such as eyes popping out and fingernails and toenails popping off, and it kept cutting to a bleak, black and white picture of an electric chair. It’s so scary that men have devised ways to “legally” kill other men. Yes, let’s electrocute them, oh and even better, let others watch. I’m not saying that Morris was saying anything against the death penalty, but I do think he created a lot more implications than merely an innocent man was about to be killed. How many such innocent men have been murdered, and by our very own democratic system? Further, who decides who gets to live? A judge who is more concerned with his number of wins to losses? Or how about a jury who hears biased evidence from creepy watching people with no life of their own who want money, and who would really just like someone to put to death ? Let’s forget the 16 year old, we got one who’s old enough to kill!

Oh yea and the second moment that really struck me that I was going to address before I found something to rant about was when the lawyer who knew the truth told us that he had stopped practicing.  I commend that man, and also feel sick that it really has to come to that.

Wow.  Yea, this documentary made me feel how completely inadequate my own life is, and wonder how the hell I’m gonna make something of myself.  Morris blew me away.  Sad as it sounds, it’s hard to make reality so interesting for me usually.  Fortunately though, there might be some truth in this world yet.  David petrified me, but intrigued me so much.  I love how Morris doesn’t leave us with a monster, but tries to delve into what could have made him so.  So many movies would just leave David as a one-planed creature who kills and doesn’t care, but Morris wondered why?  I doubt anyone would have ever asked him about his brother, and his death, and his father’s blame for him.  Anyway, I just felt that after watching this, maybe there is such a thing as justice out there, even if we the people with our own cameras and resources have to figure it out.  It doesn’t matter that those who govern us choose to ignore it time and again.

I really enjoyed the discussion about who’s the failure, cold cruel father, or unsuccessful, trophy room son.  I doubt I could ever call either a success, but I definitely feel that being a son from those awful parents, he did better than I probably would have.  Both sons are screwed up, there’s no doubt, but at least both are searching for something more than the awful family business.  I actually had a hard time watching Gates of Heaven, it was almost painful.  They were struggling so much, and the parents didn’t even have a clue.  Sitting in trophies to show off that you’re successful never helped anybody.  Blasting music through amps at animal carcases is a little weird, even for me.  Not to say, also humorous.  But, I’m off topic.  Cal just seems like pure evil to me.  In fact he reminded me of a not as witty or funny Al Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate.  Cold, cruel and living for one purpose-power.  Neither care who they crush on the way, family included.

i was wondering if anyone else noticed Morris’ placement of plants in Gates of Heaven? I was struck immediately, of course, because of Mac sitting in front of the huge tree, but then I began to notice that every single person that is involved with the pet cemeteries, or “loving” pets, there is a plant or a flower or some naturish thing coming in from the side. The only two who do not have any plants etc are the man at the factory who obviously doesn’t care about the animals, and the lady in the ornate “whiteish” room with the hideous poodle picture above her. I know someone mentioned the reoccurances of red with the “successful” pet cemetery family, but I just thought the plants etc interesting too.

I loved today’s class. I mean, we didn’t get very far-material wise- but I think days like these are necessary. I loved the random rants, and especially the topic of the difference between liking something and knowing that it is “good.” I can relate in almost everything that I do, because my movie tastes, as well as books, music and art (among MANY other activities) all range between respect and just enjoyment. As I grew older, it was sometimes hard for me to separate the two, because I am very opinionated and stubborn, and when I make up my mind, I don’t usually like to change it. For example, I LOVE the Evil Dead Trilogy, and other such amazing spectacles that make up B horror movies, and I also enjoy Rambo and other such examples of rampant killing. Even though Hannibal Rising got awful reviews (and rightly so especially when compared to Silence), like a critic I found who recognized its failure, we just couldn’t help enjoying ourselves throughout the entire movie. Then of course though, I appreciate Citizen Kane and Casablanca etc etc etc, and own copies of them, but they are the ones that I watch every couple years just because I know how well done they are. I also have a weak spot for Westerns…Fistful of Dollars and the whole Man with No Name Trilogy in particular, but also John Wayne’s, Jimmy Stewart’s and the Magnificent Seven series. Anyway, as I was saying, it’s the same with poetry etc. I love reading Jack Prelutsky’s children poems yet I just can’t make it through a Wordsworth. I know it’s good, but sometimes I just don’t have the willpower. I definitely think there’s a difference between liking and appreciating, especially because I am an obsessive person and have fallen down the “liking” path way to often. I mean c’mon, Bruce Campbell with a chain saw as a hand killing Deadites…what could be more enjoyable?

I agree with some of the things people were expressing about June Allyson.  She, unlike Hepburn, seemed to become Jo, and just seemed to fit into the role much better.  Of course, as Dr. Campbell noted, she takes out any inner struggle or intellectuality, but I feel that there isn’t much to begin with from the novel.  Don’t get me wrong, Jo is my favorite character, no matter what anyone says, I am biased from my opinions as a child, and am obstinate.  When I reread Little Women it shocked me how different Jo was than I remembered and had turned her into after growing up enjoying the 1949 version.  Maybe that I was exposed to this travesty of a film first has ruined my ability to critique fairly, but after reading it again, I feel that Jo was more one-planed than I remember.  She “prances” around, is boyish, has a quick temper and likes to write.  There is only one time that she is even exposed to a gathering of “intellectuals,” and until the Professor steps in, she is completely doubting her faith in God and taken by the pompous philosophers.  She sees through some of them and is disappointed, but still questions all that she has based her life on.  That’s not exactly the character I had imagined her as, or the one other people try to portray her as.  She is not experienced, and simple, as the narrator would much prefer, and most importantly, she has a good heart and is willing to work.  I don’t really like any of the three films’ depiction of Jo, but I still think that Allyson’s was the best.  Though it’s an awful film, it is easier for me to imagine her as Jo.  As I said in my earlier post, Hepburn was unnatural and too “big” for the role, and Winona Ryder was just boring.  I like her as an actress, but she seemed to (and this may be the screenwriter’s fault) be the matured and subdued Jo after Beth’s death-the ENTIRE movie.  She doesn’t capture Jo’s spirit, and though she is a great actress, she didn’t offer the vibrancy and the confidence that Jo should exude. …finally, this is all my OPINION on choices in actresses, so please don’t crucify me people, I realize I have my biases.

I just wanted to express my own opinions on the many topics that were discussed today in class.  First of all, I am a huge fan of Hepburn…USUALLY…Her performance of Jo almost made me sick.  She completely overdid everything, was loud and obnoxious, could not control her voice and made the character into completely fake Hepburn romping around.  Of course, she is a phenomenal actress, and the “layering” mentioned was noticeable, for example in the scene we watched in class when Marmee tucked her into bed- every movement was carefully planned and enacted.  But even then, though I have to admire the subtlety, it just didn’t seem REAL to me.  No real teenage girl moves around like that, sweetly smiles at her perfect mother and looks so confused or so wondering.  Some of her sickening smiles even creeped me out.  It is true that in the novel, Jo shows her emotions on her face, but I just felt like Hepburn, MOST OF THE TIME, was still acting for the stage, rather than a film.  She did seem too “big” and completely unnatural to me.  Hepburn seems to excel more in films where she can be herself; kind of screwy and annoying like in Bringing Up Baby, or even rebellious and eccentric as in Holiday and as a “goddess” to be “worshipped” and maturing in The Philadelphia Story.  Even as she aged, Hepburn’s roles were a little wacky, for example her Best Actress role in On Golden Pond…Her first line is “The Loons! The Loons!! They’re welcoming us back.”  I would have thought she would play a great Jo with her quirkiness and strength, yet she just overdid it, and at least in my case, disappointed immensely.  I had to struggle through the 1933 version, honestly.