Dancing Bread Rolls

I found our class discussion very surprising. I think the most interesting thing I learned was about lighting cigarettes as a sign of sexual entanglement and/or desire. Wasn’t aware that the meaning of the gesture was quite as overt as that. I’m not surprised about the sexual subtext in an old film–often, older movies have a greater amount of sexual suggestion than newer ones. Sure, they actually SHOW sex in new movies, but they’re not nearly as suggestive nowadays. I’m constantly shocked when I go back to old films I haven’t seen since I was a little kid, because there’s so much implied that I just didn’t catch when I was younger.

I just watched Harvey (great movie, by the way) (yay, Jimmy Stewart) (mmm, parentheses) today, and was shocked at the amount of either sexual implication or even DISCUSSION going on in a movie from that time period. I just hadn’t remembered that about it. By the way, can a giant invisible rabbit be considered a phallic symbol? Hm.

So I guess I shouldn’t be shocked, because the only difference in sexual content between old movies and new ones is simply how overt it is. In fact, I would argue that in some ways old films are far worse (or better, depending on perspective) because they include MORE sexual subtext due to the fact that they can’t show anything even remotely sexual on screen. As for Jeff’s illicit homosexual love for “Ed”, I haven’t decided if there’s enough evidence to support that yet. It’s an interesting thought.

-as we expected, many more invented lines

-”Ed” (to Janet): “I don’t want you around because I’m liable to start making passes at you.” Oh my.

-hospital nurses: (1) are good at detective work, and (2) fall for their patients in a highly unprofessional way on a regular basis, especially if the film’s producers think it will appeal to audiences.

-It doesn’t matter that the protagonist flirts shamelessly with anything female that moves…he’s still a good person because that’s what the filmmakers tell us.

-Never too much eye sex.

-Just in case we didn’t catch the implications of “Ed” and Mrs. Mathews drinking together, the suggestive fade out was necessary.

-Paul always shows up to save the day…even in places he never set foot in in the novel.

-Janet: “And there’s another reason–I’m asking you not to.”

-No complaints with Jeff.

-Apparently the book wasn’t complicated enough for them, so now Janet Henry is nearly arrested as a ploy to make her father confess. (Side note–I really don’t think the Senator Henry in the book would have cared that much. He probably would have let his daughter be arrested and played along with it. His political career would have been his highest priority, as demonstrated through his prior actions.)

-Final Scene: I could say a lot of things about how Janet praises Paul’s goodness and treatment of her in the movie, whereas in the book she still hates him despite her reason for it being taken away, but instead, I’ll just leave you with this…

“No, the other hand.”

Hey, he wanted his ring back ;)

According to Hollywood, that is. I think that’s the one thing that amused me most (yes, it was hard to pick out of so many delightful film-book continuity lapses) in the movie so far.

Film notes:

-The opening scene is very different. I especially enjoyed the self-righteous slap delivered to Paul’s face by Janet. Also the way he was turned on by it.

-”Ed”.

-”Nick”.

-Many scenes were combined. Hey, as long as they at least keep it in, I don’t care how they rearrange plot points. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have taught modern audiences to avoid being purists. Even Shakespeare continues to be mangled from time to time, which is a much greater sin.

-Everything is so exaggerated! Even given the cinema traditions of the time.

Janet: *sneaky sidelong glance*

“Ed”: *observes sneaky sidelong glance* *responds with quizzical sidelong glance*

Janet: *not-so-sneaky sidelong glance followed by eyelash-batting for extra emphasis*

“Ed”: *distracted gaze*

Janet: *self-satisfied, very obvious sidelong glance*

“Ed”: *brief attempt to pay attention to Paul and Senator Henry*

Janet: *pointed stare*

“Ed”: *total distraction*

Janet: *lustful, ‘I totally want your babies’ gaze of doom*

“Ed”: *leaps up* “Erm, gotta go!”

Ahahaha, what a fun scene :)

-”Ed” walking in on Opal. Lucky for him and film censors of the time that he hadn’t entered the room a few minutes later.

-As if family relationships in this story weren’t convoluted enough, Opal is now apparently Paul’s sister, not his daughter. Hm.

-This leads to misplaced and carefully edited lines like: “It’d be especially nice if that someone were his sister.”

Initial reaction: Oh, I remember that li–wait…it wasn’t here, it was–and…oh…sister? *brain drips out nose in reaction to violation of the original text*

– — – — –
I like it so far. Really, I do!

And if you like Veronica Lake, she’s also in a great movie called Sullivan’s Travels, directed by Preston Sturges. I highly recommend it.

Oh, and Paul’s spontaneous shoe toss at Jeff? Genius.

I did some googling for the origin of the word “heel”, and came up with this explanation:

“HEEL began its life in the U.S. underworld 1) meaning a sneak thief, perhaps a) from the idea that a heel was as low as one could get on the human anatomy, and this type of petty criminality was considered one of the lowest forms of criminal – close to the bottom of the barrel – among criminals themselves. b) because it describes an informer, which was considered to be the lowest of the low. c) it is a euphemistic shortening of the underworld expression ‘shitheel,’ but others have said that ‘shitheel’ was formed later as an intensive of ‘heel.’ d) Jonathon Green of Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang suggests that it might have derived from the expression DOWN-AT-THE-HEEL, a phrase describing someone so hard pressed for money their shoes are run down at the heels, and thus a poor destitute, slovenly and shabby low unwanted person, who might be continually AT one’s heels. e) Eric Partridge in his Dictionary of the Underworld suggested that it might be a shortened form of ‘heeler’ (from verb ‘heel’ as a dog) a criminal’s unskilled accomplice, a follower at another’s heels. 2) anyone who was contemptible or despicable, and this usage very quickly moved into the general population.”

Apparently, it’s also used in wrestling.

Hope that helps! In case anyone is interested in film noir slang, there’s another good site here.

On to The Glass Key. Read the rest of this entry »

A fairly illogical blog title, yes. (Made even more so by the fact that I’m referencing a silent movie in a film text class. Hehe.)

But hey, who can resist Chaplin?