Roscoe Collins: You ever seen a man’s brains? I’ve seen them. I’ve picked them up, scooped them up. Put them in, do them up like brains. You buying brains?

What prompted him to say that? That’s what I think whenever I see someone in Morris’s films “ramble” on. Of course, Morris edits the film to make it seem like they’re rambling. He seems to purposefully cut out his part of the dialogue in the interview he is conducting. But the rambling isn’t rambling when you really listen to what they’re saying. Morris enjoys playiing with the audience’s assumptions and by doing so, seems to teach us a lesson. The audience realizes that people say things for a reason. We may not understand what that is, but it is important enough to that person that they’ll knowingly say it to a camera. Are these people trying to teach us something? They are sharing their life experiences with us and just brushing it off as craziness would be immature.

Dr. Campbell told us that Morris loves to just shoot and shoot. I wonder if he shoots his films knowing how he will construct them later. Morris has the ability to listen to people and really get inside their heads. He might even know what they’re talking about more than they do. Not only that, but he is able to relate other people’s stories. His ability to edit seemingly random footage into a thought-provoking film requires unimaginable patience.

I have not seen Gates of Heaven yet, but our analysis of the scene with the woman in the pink apron was a good introduction to the odd nature of the film.  I just wanted to note some things that weren’t mentioned in class.  First off, the woman is framed dead center in the picture.  Any photographer/cinematographer knows that is not how you film someone because it is visually unappealing.  There is a lack of balance in the composition.  I think this composition is essential to the film in this we are looking straight at her.  She’s dead center.  We are being the voyeurs in that we are looking straight into her life; her personal space.  She seems a little uneasy at times because no one is talking back to her.  When the car goes off, none of the crew makes a sound.  We only see her reaction.  I can’t wait to see the rest of the film.

This started as a response to Robyn’s post but I thought it was important enough to create a blog about.

The things that make a “good” film are hard to list.  There are those films that we have a campy feeling for (Schwarzenegger and Bronson anybody?), but some films excel at some things that others do not.  This is not just limited to the plot.  Citizen Kane is widely known as the greatest film of all time.  Do film buffs watch it constantly?  I doubt it.  The story is great, but it’s a somewhat “slow” film.  A good film is just like a good book.  You look at how the story is constructed in a book don’t you?  You do the same thing with film.  If the filmmaker is doing sophisticated things with the film (lighting, sound, composition, color, etc.) and you recognize them as such, then that film could be considered “good.”  If it’s your first time analyzing film, you don’t recognize these things when you’re in the theater.  Eventually you will though and you feel so much more a part of the film.  A lot of it is still skeptical, but there are some guildlines as to what makes a good film.  Coherence and originality are two things to think about when watching a film.  What I like to focus on when watching a film is the temporal and spatial relations of each shot.  Basically where are things and when do they show up.  You can really find out some interesting things about the filmmaking if you pay attention to these.  Remember:  every shot, sound, movement, title, EVERYTHING has been done on purpose.  Treat it that way and you’ll do fine with your analysis.

I would like to point out I really enjoyed the chandelier/flashlight example today.  It gives almost a perfect concept of watching an adaptation.  You are only getting fragments of the original.  Some people need to realize the difficulty in crossing mediums.  Each has their limitations and advantages.  Film is able to attract a larger audience and is easier to remember.  But the industry is dependent on technology.  Books generally have a harder time selling and the details require a bit more concentration than films.  But a books imagination can far surpass that of a film.  Everyone makes a book their own.  They see and hear characters whatever way they want.

My point is that comparing a film to a book is unfair to the filmmaker and the novelist.  The “faithfulness” of the 1949 film version of Little Women would require many class periods to discuss and opinions would rarely be changed.  It’s almost like we’re comparing the film to our personal judgement of the book, rather than the book itself.  Let me clarify by referring to the “beautiful woman” problem brought up in class.  If Renoir didn’t give us a character that said the woman was beautiful, the audience would be left to decide whether she was or not.  If people found she wasn’t, they would feel justified in saying Renoir was unfaithful to the novel.

Writing about adaptations is a tricky business that I take very seriously, especially novel-to-film adaptations.  You cannot be close-minded when doing so.  You must take in the limitations put on both mediums and then make up your mind about the fidelity of the film to the novel.  People will read a novel differently than you, especially if they live in different time periods.

It wasn’t that bad of a movie. Honestly, if you hadn’t read the book or seen the 1933 version you would find little wrong. The plot makes sense and you understand the characters. But if you were to compare it, this film does fall short in originality and following the plot.

The girls do go out and buy themselves presents. This definitely didn’t happen in the book but what it does accomplish is solidifies the girl’s interests for those who don’t quite catch on. Amy loves to draw; Beth loves music but won’t talk to anyone; Meg is vain; and Jo loves books and reads them quickly. To us it doesn’t seem a little redundant, but for those who have yet to see the film it is somewhat necessary. And one of the bigger problems is Amy’s magnificent bust even though she is barely a preteen, while Beth looks to be no older than nine years old. Amy is most definitely no little woman in this film. She does act like one though.

As far as originality, yes the 1949 version steals almost every shot from the 1933 version. At least they flipped the layout of the tea room to try and make it different. Also, there was that unbearably long take when Laurie took Jo from one side of the room to the other so they could dance. That was pointless. Also
This film does lack innovation as far as adapting the text and at sometimes makes a mockery of it, but as far as being a film it isn’t that bad. Sometimes comparing a film to others like it can weaken your ability to analyze that film. Sure it would have been better if they just redid the 1933 version in color, but Katherine Hepburn was way too old. But then again, maybe she could have played Marmee…..yeah I don’t think so either.