I decided to see 300 again last night after our discussion in class.  The first time I watched the 300, I lost myself in the cinematic experience. I was still impressed with the film, but I saw more and more that was kinda cheesy. They toss around a lot of phrases like “freedom isn’t free” and I didn’t notice it the first time but it made the movie a little worse for me. I suppose in the end 300 wasn’t as great as I originally thought. It was funny too though, last post I started to defend guilty pleasures but found that opinion has to have a basis in order to sustain its own validity.  We went over this already so I’ll conclude this post with acknowledgement that 300 wasn’ t a great movie, but it’ll be on my favorites shelf as soon as it comes out.

I liked 300. I came into the movie with no expectations for an outstanding plot; I came for the visuals and the bloodshed. I came to be entertained. Next time I see it I might critique it, but not the first time. Is it wrong to just enjoy a movie? Can’t we just sit back and relax and let a movie distract us for just awhile? I think so.  It’ll be a sad day when we let our own critiques ruin an entertaining movie or stop us from listening to a catchy tune. What do you sacrifice for your “sophisticated opinions”?  I knew a kid like that, he’d ridicule you if you liked an “unoriginal, 4/4 beat” song. I’ll tell you one thing; nobody liked that kid, and eventually no one shared any music with him. Over time we were all sharing different, interesting music with each other and he missed out on all of it because of his standards.  Don’t get me wrong, standards are necessary but you need to know when enough is enough.  300 was a good movie because it was aesthetically pleasing, the soundtrack was vivacious and gripping, and personally I’ve wanted to see a testosterone filled, blood and gore, manly man’s film. That’s exactly what it was and maybe more to some people.  Critics and movie aficionados are now going into the movie and citing that it was just an allegory for current conflicts, and inciting a lot of deeper revelations behind the storyline. For example, I myself look to the film and I feel like the lesson is what it is to be a man. To be strong enough hold to hold onto ideals and stare into the abyss. The Spartan’s sacrifice inspired thousands and that’s a beautiful concept to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like the greatest story ever told. He didn’t decapitate anyone, but when it came to taking an easy way out he turned his check and sacrificed himself and then people rallied to his cause.  Now it’s a big step to make that comparison and by no means are they the same, but just consider the similarities and that’s enough.Lastly 300 could be seen as bad. If you came to see a strong female character, I’d say you’re in the wrong theatre.  But she does help support the motif of sticking to ideals, by showing what happens if you don’t. This was written hastily but what it comes down to is opinion. I liked this movie, if someone else didn’t it’s alright the most important thing is to watch and it and form an opinion but that’s a topic for another blog.

I took the quiz that Beth posted because well, who doesn’t like taking personality quizzes? I got to be honest I was apprehensive because I saw part of myself in all the sisters, and wasn’t sure exactly who I related to. I scored an 80% Jo and 55% Beth.  I thought that was interesting because I placed Beth and Jo on opposite ends of the sister spectrum in my mind.  Originally surprised, when I thought about it though, it made the most sense. It comes back to that idea of 4 individuals or 1 family unit. Are they really 4 different sisters? Or are they 1 person’s personalities. I could see Jo and Beth being the different perspectives of 1 woman, or 1 man for that matter. I think it also goes to show that we’ve got a little of everyone in us.

I also wanted to say, just for the record, that I liked being youngest. Mostly because it meant I had some sweet older siblings to look up to and learn from.

Those were some serious qoutes about Little Women that Dr. C read to us today. I had no idea that so many accomplished figures in history held the book as highly as they did.  I’ve heard alot, seen bits of the movies here and there but never really considered reading or watching it. I’m really intrigued by the Jo character I’ve heard so much about. It’ll be interesting to see who I relate to and why, I’ll probably learn something about myself. Well I’m off to read the book, I’ll post again once I’ve finished it.

I was pretty impressed with the settings and camera shots in Miller’s Crossing.  I missed seeing it in class so I ran out to Blockbuster and rented it and was really impressed. I really liked our “Ned” in this film. Tom was stronger and more visual in this film and it’s probably because of the changing times, perhaps that’s why I enjoyed this film more. That scene with Tom and Verna in the woman’s dressing room, was very powerful. The way he just commanded them to leave as well as the way Verna stood up to Tom. I really felt that “Battle between the Sexes” in that scene which was interesting to me as it was mentioned previously in the Glass Key’s trailer.  Lastly I remembered a comment I had about the opening shot with the hat on the leaves in the forest, because the way I remember it the hat is blown away in the wind but the leaves on the ground don’t really move. I thought that was interesting, as well as the hat as a symbol, but I’ll save that for another blog.

I really liked that scene with the kid, the dog and the dead man. The way it was put together and organized so you see a dog, a curious child and than something so outside the spectrum of a child and his dog, it draws greater attention. It reminded me of Sin City in one shot and I thought it was gorgous. Aside from that alley scene, I think it’s interesting to note the violence between our two leads, “Ned” and “Janet”. It seems as if keeping up with the times, they upped the sex and violence and I’m not sure yet what to think of it, whether it’s well placed to keep the story realistic, or if it’s there to make more moolah.

This was a tough movie to see on Sunday night. I wish I had sat in the front because I had to sway my head like Stevie Wonder so I could read the subtitles around someone’s head. That wasn’t so bad though because I really enjoyed the music, as well as what Dr. C said about the lone Samurai becoming part of the mountains.  For that reason and the fact that we don’t see his face for the first 5 minutes I really liked that introduction. The camera following the hero’s back, felt very western to me, and I thought it was great. I got the sense that this isn’t just a regular guy, that he’s larger than life.  I’m looking forward to the following class discussions. By the way, if anyone knows where to find the soundtrack, I would like to know.

What an incredble trailer. It had everything I could ever want in a motion picture! I loved how it played off all the cardinal money making themes that Hollywood relies on i.e. sex, action, violence.  It’s funny because it still happens today, just ask Mel Gibson ( if you saw Apocalypto, than you know what I’m talking about). The exclamation points made me laugh at first, but I have to say they did spice the movie up a bit and made it more enticing to see. It really played on the sexual tension between [N]ed and Janet and focused less on the murder which was a smart move for the movie because I’d be willing to bet sex sells better than murder does.  Procreation and destruction, it doesn’t get any better than that (or so box office recepits will tell you).

First of all, I apologize for the tardiness of this blog. I was at a loss of what to write about after seeing the movie, but I do want to mention a couple things. First of all, I never want to be kicked in the shins by Ned Beaumont. Secondly, I really enjoyed William Bendix’s performance as Jeff. Right before he kills “Varna” in the movie, he looks and feels absolutely crazy.  I also felt that “Ed” was a fair representation of “Ned”; his callous, frank, and “cut to the chase”  personality shined through I felt. It tickled my funny bone to see the mannerisms of old movie stars too. For example, all the cigarettes and booze that I saw were part of that era. On top of that, now I know where “The Rock” got his signature eye brow raise from … thank you Veronica Lake. Lastly, I found the love triangle between Ed, Janet, and Paul to be more trivial in the movie, and Ned’s loyalty to Paul more moving.  I can’t explain why right now, but I think a class discussion will help organize my thoughts.

            I was really interested in what Brad was saying about the quote “Might as well take your punishment and get it over with.” The debate in the classroom reached a critical question, “Is Ned a masochist?” I’ve got to say that he isn’t, Ned struck me as an “eye on the prize” kind of guy. As a gambler, he’ll be more inclined to take the larger risks, to win big or lose big.  I think that’s why he refused Shay’s offer to betray Paul; had he received what he asked for he might have gone through with it, but because it wasn’t on his own terms he couldn’t accept it.

          As a man, no more in control of his fate than a leaf is to a gust of wind, Ned struggles with destiny to wrestle as much control as he can. That’s why he doesn’t take a break from gambling, or why he aggrevates Shay’s men as he did. Because if he simply bends to fate’s will, by either accepting the mediocre deal from Shay or to take that break, it’s an admission of defeat. It would be consciously acknowledging that that he is not in control of his life. Ned says

          “What good am I if my luck’s gone? Then I cop, or think I do, and I’m all right again. I can take my tail out from between my legs and feel that I’m a person again and no just something that’s being kicked around. The money’s important enough, but It’s not the real thing. It’s what losing and losing and losing does to me. Can you get that? It’s getting me licked. And then, when I think I’ve worn out the jinx, this guy takes a Mickey Finn on me. I can’t stand for it. If I stand for it I’m licked, my nerve’s gone. I’m not going to stand for it. I’m going after him. I’m going regardless, but you can smooth the way a lot by fixing me up.”

          Ned the gambling, fate wrangling, hero of a hard boiled detective novel is as a crossroads. There’s an easy road and a hard road, and it’s the equivalent of gambling. Ned is going to do things his way and if he wins, he wins but if he loses, or goes home early, than it’s the same as losing. If you’re not the big winner, you’re the loser. Based on these observations, I’d say he’s not a masochist, he doesn’t enjoy being beaten, but he does love to gamble and as a true gambler will tell you, the higher the stakes the better the rush. What stake is higher than your life? Ned is simply playing the game of life, win or lose.