Film Version Comments- February 5, 2013
Movies of books are usually awful, but this comparison shows that this is not always the case.
Overall, I believe the film did a pretty good job in wrapping up the film. As
we all know, movies usually butcher the film in some way that makes everyone
mad, but this one did not. Now the first thing that hit me was how well
Halle Barry played Janie. Though she should have looked a lot older, her acting
made up for that problem. She acted just the way I pictured Janie when I
was reading the book. She was exuberant and happy with Tea Cake and it was
played beautifully. I did not like the choice for Tea Cake at all as I pictured
him as a bigger guy that was darker. The actor was good though in portraying Tea
Cake's attitude and his fight with rabies towards the end of the movie. They
did leave out some scenes and people such as Motor Head, the cow, the trial,
etc., but I honestly thought they did it in good taste and that those scenes
were not really needed to progress the film. I did love the trial in the book
though because it set up part of the whole racial theme Hurston wanted.
Honestly, she probably would have hated the end of the movie as it takes her
whole main theme out. It lessens the racial thing by both taking out the trial
and the Turner's (they are the ones who think whites are the best even though
they are black). The best thing they did was how they depicted the whole town as
full of life and energy. Also, the chemistry between the actors was really
good, which showed Janie and Tea Cake very well. Overall, it was a pretty
good movie version of the book and it was honestly pretty entertaining.
we all know, movies usually butcher the film in some way that makes everyone
mad, but this one did not. Now the first thing that hit me was how well
Halle Barry played Janie. Though she should have looked a lot older, her acting
made up for that problem. She acted just the way I pictured Janie when I
was reading the book. She was exuberant and happy with Tea Cake and it was
played beautifully. I did not like the choice for Tea Cake at all as I pictured
him as a bigger guy that was darker. The actor was good though in portraying Tea
Cake's attitude and his fight with rabies towards the end of the movie. They
did leave out some scenes and people such as Motor Head, the cow, the trial,
etc., but I honestly thought they did it in good taste and that those scenes
were not really needed to progress the film. I did love the trial in the book
though because it set up part of the whole racial theme Hurston wanted.
Honestly, she probably would have hated the end of the movie as it takes her
whole main theme out. It lessens the racial thing by both taking out the trial
and the Turner's (they are the ones who think whites are the best even though
they are black). The best thing they did was how they depicted the whole town as
full of life and energy. Also, the chemistry between the actors was really
good, which showed Janie and Tea Cake very well. Overall, it was a pretty
good movie version of the book and it was honestly pretty entertaining.
King Lear Act 2 Thoughts- March 26, 2013
Even though he is a complete genius in his evil plan, Edward does not receive enough credit from readers, who might change their minds after reading this.
I have two important observations. One being again how much of a genius
Edmund is! Fooling his brother into thinking his dad is mad, then tell his
father that Edgar attacked him after Edgar wanted Edmund to join in killing of
his father. He even cut his arm. "If
I had some blood on me it would look like I’d fought more fiercely. (he
cuts his own arm) I’ve seen drunk men do worse than
this just fooling around.—Father, father!—Stop, stop!—Won’t anyone help
me?" Genius! Also, Cornwall is there for the whole thing which bodes
even worse for Edgar. Just amazes me how Shakespeare wrote this part of the
play. Everyone seems to fall for what Edmund does and I would have too. Edgar
has to become an insane person just to not get killed! To me, Shakespeare writes
these perfect tragic villains that have awesome plans that are logical and could
work. What other plays can you think of that do this? Kent's undying loyalty to
Lear was my other key observation. Lear in the first Act seems to be rash, over
controlling, whatever you want to call him, but by and by Kent stays by him and
that does not change here. It is most evident when Kent backs up Lear at the
stables against Oswald. He acts Oswald unprovoked because he is still mad about
how he Treated Lear from earlier. And Kent goes all out on Oswald with the
craziest slander. "You’re
a lowlife, a rascal who eats leftover scraps. You’re an ignoble, arrogant,
shallow, vulgar, pretentious, conceited, filthy third-rate servant who thinks
he’s something special." The slander just goes on from Kent! This to me
shows more about who Lear is than Kent. The reason being
that we know as readers that Kent is a stand up guy. He cares for those worth
caring and he definetly cares for Lear. This changed my opinion of Lear in a way
as I see him as a better man than what i get from the way he acts. There must be
a reason Kent cares so much for the man who banished him. It also shows how
senile like Lear is starting to become when he banishes him. Do you think
it showed more about Kent or Lear?
Edmund is! Fooling his brother into thinking his dad is mad, then tell his
father that Edgar attacked him after Edgar wanted Edmund to join in killing of
his father. He even cut his arm. "If
I had some blood on me it would look like I’d fought more fiercely. (he
cuts his own arm) I’ve seen drunk men do worse than
this just fooling around.—Father, father!—Stop, stop!—Won’t anyone help
me?" Genius! Also, Cornwall is there for the whole thing which bodes
even worse for Edgar. Just amazes me how Shakespeare wrote this part of the
play. Everyone seems to fall for what Edmund does and I would have too. Edgar
has to become an insane person just to not get killed! To me, Shakespeare writes
these perfect tragic villains that have awesome plans that are logical and could
work. What other plays can you think of that do this? Kent's undying loyalty to
Lear was my other key observation. Lear in the first Act seems to be rash, over
controlling, whatever you want to call him, but by and by Kent stays by him and
that does not change here. It is most evident when Kent backs up Lear at the
stables against Oswald. He acts Oswald unprovoked because he is still mad about
how he Treated Lear from earlier. And Kent goes all out on Oswald with the
craziest slander. "You’re
a lowlife, a rascal who eats leftover scraps. You’re an ignoble, arrogant,
shallow, vulgar, pretentious, conceited, filthy third-rate servant who thinks
he’s something special." The slander just goes on from Kent! This to me
shows more about who Lear is than Kent. The reason being
that we know as readers that Kent is a stand up guy. He cares for those worth
caring and he definetly cares for Lear. This changed my opinion of Lear in a way
as I see him as a better man than what i get from the way he acts. There must be
a reason Kent cares so much for the man who banished him. It also shows how
senile like Lear is starting to become when he banishes him. Do you think
it showed more about Kent or Lear?