When telling people about this assignment I was amazed how many people had never seen Field of Dreams. I grew up playing baseball and basketball and watching sports movies like Field of Dreams, Major League, and Rudy. So when I saw we were going to watch this classic I jumped on the opportunity to write a blog about it.
There are two themes in this story to me. The first is pretty obvious and is to follow your dreams. The second theme that comes to mind when I watch the movie is never lose your youth.
Follow your dreams is a term that is used commonly in life, but it is shown over and over again in this story. No matter what everyone says Ray still goes with what he feels is right. When Ray and his family were staring poverty in the face Ray knew that he had to stick to his dreams. This really furthers the plot by adding a more magical touch to the story, it gives you that "feel good" feeling.
Never losing your youth is something that I believe in and I am glad that you see examples of it in Field of Dreams. Ray was born and raised on baseball. He knew everything there was to know about the sport because of his father. Therefore baseball is a part of his youth and by following the instructions given by "the voice" he is reminded of his youth and gets to see the baseball he grew up hearing about. This really defines Ray's character by portraying him as not just a hippie from the 60's who decided to grow up, but as a middle aged man who still has passion in his life for the things he grew up falling in love with.
Field of Dreams is a great movie that really gives you hope and makes you feel like a kid again. The passion that Ray shows is different than most stories you hear about anymore. And the themes are simple but important to remember for your life.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Historical approach to Field of Dreams
“If you build it, he will come.” This short but significant quote from the movie Field of Dreams has grown a wide spread popularity all around the globe ever since 1989 when it came out in theater's. The historical baseball loving film has left a great effect on certain people. The other viewers that just think it’s a “good” or “okay” movie don’t know about the approach of historical facts behind the film, or how it’s been so successfully responded to by audiences all over.
People can “go the distance” and enjoy the film Field of Dreams much more once they’ve learned the historical background of it. The movie is about pursuing one’s dreams, no matter how much effort it took. It is also based on a book called Shoeless Joe Jackson comes to Iowa. The director Phil Alden Robinson wanted the setting to look just like the book described so readers and viewers could get all the connections. It was filmed in Iowa at a century-old place called Lansing Farm. The baseball field was constructed in three days and the filming lasted fourteen weeks. People do come to visit the farm, and the diamond created for the movie still has the same intentions as it did for the film, a place for peace, relaxation and dreams.
Another historic part of this film is the two men who played the part of legendary baseball star’s Shoeless Joe Jackson and Midnight Graham. Shoeless Joe Jackson played for the White Sox and was pulled away from the World Series for his “Black Sox Scandal”. In the film, Field of Dreams, he is described just as he really was in real life. A deadly hitter and one of the greatest left fielders in the history of baseball. Moonlight Graham, know as Archie Graham, played on the major league team the New York Giants. His story was unique because he retired from professional baseball the same day he made the team because he was the “rookie” and the manager pulled him out five minutes after the game started and he never got to bat against a big league pitcher. He then went on to pursue the rest of his dreams and become a children's physician. In the movie he finally did get his time at bat for just five minutes then when the
little girl gets sick and he becomes a doctor and saves her. Therefore, in the film it was shown on the field that he fulfilled both his dreams he had.
Viewers of this movie have responded greatly. The film became an Academy Award nominee for “Best Picture of the Year.” It was also acknowledged as the sixth best film in the fantasy genre. People come from all over to view the Baseball field movie sight in Iowa. There is even bumper stickers that are seen everywhere that say “Is this heaven? Iowa”. There are several other movies that refer to the certain line in the movie, “If you build it, he will come.” Of course all baseball fanatics have enjoyed this movie and have given it great reviews.
The historical approach to the film Field of Dreams was to honor old baseball legends in a unique way of bringing dreams to reality. It shows that when people believe in fate or signs they fight for something they believe in no matter how much it takes. In this case, it was for the love of baseball.
- Hannah Southern
People can “go the distance” and enjoy the film Field of Dreams much more once they’ve learned the historical background of it. The movie is about pursuing one’s dreams, no matter how much effort it took. It is also based on a book called Shoeless Joe Jackson comes to Iowa. The director Phil Alden Robinson wanted the setting to look just like the book described so readers and viewers could get all the connections. It was filmed in Iowa at a century-old place called Lansing Farm. The baseball field was constructed in three days and the filming lasted fourteen weeks. People do come to visit the farm, and the diamond created for the movie still has the same intentions as it did for the film, a place for peace, relaxation and dreams.
Another historic part of this film is the two men who played the part of legendary baseball star’s Shoeless Joe Jackson and Midnight Graham. Shoeless Joe Jackson played for the White Sox and was pulled away from the World Series for his “Black Sox Scandal”. In the film, Field of Dreams, he is described just as he really was in real life. A deadly hitter and one of the greatest left fielders in the history of baseball. Moonlight Graham, know as Archie Graham, played on the major league team the New York Giants. His story was unique because he retired from professional baseball the same day he made the team because he was the “rookie” and the manager pulled him out five minutes after the game started and he never got to bat against a big league pitcher. He then went on to pursue the rest of his dreams and become a children's physician. In the movie he finally did get his time at bat for just five minutes then when the
little girl gets sick and he becomes a doctor and saves her. Therefore, in the film it was shown on the field that he fulfilled both his dreams he had.
Viewers of this movie have responded greatly. The film became an Academy Award nominee for “Best Picture of the Year.” It was also acknowledged as the sixth best film in the fantasy genre. People come from all over to view the Baseball field movie sight in Iowa. There is even bumper stickers that are seen everywhere that say “Is this heaven? Iowa”. There are several other movies that refer to the certain line in the movie, “If you build it, he will come.” Of course all baseball fanatics have enjoyed this movie and have given it great reviews.
The historical approach to the film Field of Dreams was to honor old baseball legends in a unique way of bringing dreams to reality. It shows that when people believe in fate or signs they fight for something they believe in no matter how much it takes. In this case, it was for the love of baseball.
- Hannah Southern
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Victor Rocked
“Phoenix, Arizona” was a story that was adapted to film in Smoke Signals. Victor Joseph experienced a rough childhood that was haunted by his father’s heavy drinking. After his father left around the age of twelve he became very angered at the single mentioning of his dad. In Smoke Signals, Victor traveled with Thomas Builds-a-Fire to Phoenix to recover his father’s dead body. Along their journey Thomas tells multiple stories about Joseph’s father, some he had never been told before. As the story goes Victor seems to get more aggravated with Thomas and his stories. When Victor wrecks he reaches an understanding of how important these stories are in his life.
The film starts with a story being told about Thomas Builds-a-Fire also being narrated by Thomas. The use of this sets a theme that reoccurs throughout the movie. Thomas’ stories reveal things about Victor’s father that were unknown to the audience. When different things are unraveled it helps us realize that Victor’s father is not the terrible person he was first presented as. Thomas is a key character that without him the story would not make sense. The often use of the stories or flashbacks give the audience a better understanding of all the characters not just Arnold Joseph.
As the film progress, we slowly learn why Arnold Joseph became an alcoholic and why he was always mad. Although the story was not told Thomas the impact it makes on Victor is a big one. When Suzy tells Victor that his father started the fire it left him speechless. The use of this story really hits Victor hard and he becomes angered at the fact that it may be true. Victor was obviously angered at the smallest mentioning of his father. He was like this nearly his whole life. He did not like the fact that his father was an alcoholic and abusive man. Victor did not learn to accept this fact until he ran back to get help after the wreck.
Stories reveal lots of missing facts in a movie and they can be very helpful for the audience. The amount of flashbacks and stories connects many people in Smoke Signals and unveils many different aspects of characters that were first presented in a different way. Victor Joseph faced a rough childhood and used his father’s death as a way to release all the anger that had built up over time. The anger that was released was referred back to an old story that Thomas told once. When Victor dumped his ashes in the falls he was “cleaning out the attic.”
The film starts with a story being told about Thomas Builds-a-Fire also being narrated by Thomas. The use of this sets a theme that reoccurs throughout the movie. Thomas’ stories reveal things about Victor’s father that were unknown to the audience. When different things are unraveled it helps us realize that Victor’s father is not the terrible person he was first presented as. Thomas is a key character that without him the story would not make sense. The often use of the stories or flashbacks give the audience a better understanding of all the characters not just Arnold Joseph.
As the film progress, we slowly learn why Arnold Joseph became an alcoholic and why he was always mad. Although the story was not told Thomas the impact it makes on Victor is a big one. When Suzy tells Victor that his father started the fire it left him speechless. The use of this story really hits Victor hard and he becomes angered at the fact that it may be true. Victor was obviously angered at the smallest mentioning of his father. He was like this nearly his whole life. He did not like the fact that his father was an alcoholic and abusive man. Victor did not learn to accept this fact until he ran back to get help after the wreck.
Stories reveal lots of missing facts in a movie and they can be very helpful for the audience. The amount of flashbacks and stories connects many people in Smoke Signals and unveils many different aspects of characters that were first presented in a different way. Victor Joseph faced a rough childhood and used his father’s death as a way to release all the anger that had built up over time. The anger that was released was referred back to an old story that Thomas told once. When Victor dumped his ashes in the falls he was “cleaning out the attic.”
"Hey Victor"
“This is What it Means to say Phoenix, Arizona” is a short story by Sherman Alexie. Alexie’s story was adapted into film in 1998 as Smoke Signals which was directed by Chris Eyre. The plotlines and themes between the story and the movie are very similar. Among many themes family, culture, and friendship dominate this story about two Indians named Victor and Thomas Builds-the-Fire.
Along with the common themes there are also many visible similarities between the story and the movie. One important similarity between the story and the movie is that Victors father is not around long. Victor in both instances of his story grows up with no male influence in his life. The absence of the father in the movie is important because it maintains the same storyline as in the story. Another similarity that is important is the presence of the character Thomas Builds-the-Fire. Thomas is an acquaintance of Victors; he is a strange and unique person who ultimately shows Victor in both the movie and the story what friendship and brotherhood are truly all about.
There are also visible differences between the movie and the story as well. It is important to note that these differences kept the theme and message of the story intact, unlike the differences in “Memento Mori” and Memento which put a new radical spin on the story itself. At the beginning of the movie we are shown exactly how Victor and Thomas’ paths cross in the scene with the burning house. In the story we know that the two Indians grew up together but we do not know the circumstances in which they grew up together, the movie provides us with the tragic circumstance that involves both families. In the movie we learn that Thomas’ parents die in a tragic house fire that is accidentally caused by Victor’s father while he was in a drunken stupor. These facts contribute to the storyline and provide answers to some questions that remained unanswered in the book. In the book we don’t know why this strange Indian Thomas is the way he is, “strange”. The movie implies that he is a good man but he grew up with his grandmother and essentially became a “grandma’s boy”, he had no mother or father to raise him. This fact may contribute to Thomas’ awkwardness. The movie also implies that Victors father became an alcoholic after he caused the horrible fire that killed Thomas’ parents. The guilt and alcoholism ultimately caused the fathers departure from his family to Phoenix Arizona.
The story uses flashbacks to tell the stories of the “then young” Victor and Thomas. The movie does this similarly in a very effective technique of its own. The flashbacks in the movie are essentially occurring in Victor’s memory as he travels to Phoenix to claim his father. One scene in particular demonstrated this well as “grown up Victor” looks out the window of the bus as “young Victor” runs beside it after beating up “young Thomas.” The movies way of demonstrating flashbacks was very well done and not confusing and complex as they were in Memento.
One may argue that Smoke Signals is a great film because it holds true to the powerful main themes of the story which were family, brotherhood, and culture. Victor has no “blood brother” however Thomas is the closest thing he has to it. In both instances Thomas gives his money to Victor and travels with him to claim Victor’s dead father, a trip that should never be taken on alone by anybody. In both the story and the movie Indians call one another “cousin” and the occupation of “story teller” is mentioned in both cases which illustrates Native American culture. Families, despite atrocities that they may have previously committed are still in fact family. This notion is shown in both the story and the movie because Victor goes on the pilgrimage to claim the dead father that he never truly knew. The ending scene of the movie where Victor simply breaks down while scattering his father’s ashes into the Spokane River best illustrates this sense of family. The similarity in the themes between the story and the movie make Smoke Signals a powerful and thought provoking movie.
Along with the common themes there are also many visible similarities between the story and the movie. One important similarity between the story and the movie is that Victors father is not around long. Victor in both instances of his story grows up with no male influence in his life. The absence of the father in the movie is important because it maintains the same storyline as in the story. Another similarity that is important is the presence of the character Thomas Builds-the-Fire. Thomas is an acquaintance of Victors; he is a strange and unique person who ultimately shows Victor in both the movie and the story what friendship and brotherhood are truly all about.
There are also visible differences between the movie and the story as well. It is important to note that these differences kept the theme and message of the story intact, unlike the differences in “Memento Mori” and Memento which put a new radical spin on the story itself. At the beginning of the movie we are shown exactly how Victor and Thomas’ paths cross in the scene with the burning house. In the story we know that the two Indians grew up together but we do not know the circumstances in which they grew up together, the movie provides us with the tragic circumstance that involves both families. In the movie we learn that Thomas’ parents die in a tragic house fire that is accidentally caused by Victor’s father while he was in a drunken stupor. These facts contribute to the storyline and provide answers to some questions that remained unanswered in the book. In the book we don’t know why this strange Indian Thomas is the way he is, “strange”. The movie implies that he is a good man but he grew up with his grandmother and essentially became a “grandma’s boy”, he had no mother or father to raise him. This fact may contribute to Thomas’ awkwardness. The movie also implies that Victors father became an alcoholic after he caused the horrible fire that killed Thomas’ parents. The guilt and alcoholism ultimately caused the fathers departure from his family to Phoenix Arizona.
The story uses flashbacks to tell the stories of the “then young” Victor and Thomas. The movie does this similarly in a very effective technique of its own. The flashbacks in the movie are essentially occurring in Victor’s memory as he travels to Phoenix to claim his father. One scene in particular demonstrated this well as “grown up Victor” looks out the window of the bus as “young Victor” runs beside it after beating up “young Thomas.” The movies way of demonstrating flashbacks was very well done and not confusing and complex as they were in Memento.
One may argue that Smoke Signals is a great film because it holds true to the powerful main themes of the story which were family, brotherhood, and culture. Victor has no “blood brother” however Thomas is the closest thing he has to it. In both instances Thomas gives his money to Victor and travels with him to claim Victor’s dead father, a trip that should never be taken on alone by anybody. In both the story and the movie Indians call one another “cousin” and the occupation of “story teller” is mentioned in both cases which illustrates Native American culture. Families, despite atrocities that they may have previously committed are still in fact family. This notion is shown in both the story and the movie because Victor goes on the pilgrimage to claim the dead father that he never truly knew. The ending scene of the movie where Victor simply breaks down while scattering his father’s ashes into the Spokane River best illustrates this sense of family. The similarity in the themes between the story and the movie make Smoke Signals a powerful and thought provoking movie.
Smoke Signals and a comparison to the short story
Smoke Signals, a 1998 film also written by Sherman Alexie, is based off the short story, This Is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona. When adapting a film from a narrative, there are bound to be differences that occur between the two. In the instance of changing from a short story to a full-length motion picture, there must be additions in order to add time. In the instance of Smoke Signals, the additions help create a more dynamic story line.
The addition of details provides more information on the two main characters of the film (and book), Victor and Thomas. At the beginning of the film, there is a fire on the Fourth of July that tragically kills both of Thomas’ parents while he is still an infant. This information helps to clarify why Thomas acts the way he does, telling stories to animals and being made fun of by virtually the entire town. In the novel, there is no explanation of why Thomas is such an obscure being. This addition to the film gives the viewer a sense of clarity that is lacking in the short story. Furthermore, the film adds a scene with the two boys getting into an accident on their way home from Arizona. Victor runs to try and get help, the scene changes from night to day before he reaches anyone. This provides an incredible transformation of character that is not developed within the short story. At the conclusion of the novel, Victor and Thomas go back to not speaking after their journey together. However, in this scene we see that Victor is growing up and taking responsibility for someone else, rather of thinking only of himself. This growing up, leads him to continue his friendship with Thomas as the conclusion of the film (or we are left with the impression that he will continue it). This addition to the film is very well placed and adds a great deal of development that the short story didn’t have time to include.
Adapting a film from a short story can be a difficult task because there are so many areas that could be added and completely change the theme of the original text. However, I believe that Sherman Alexie does a fabulous job of keeping a theme when he introduces Suzy Song into the film. Her relationship with Victor’s father shows a different side of the man that we had started to hate due to his actions towards Victor and his mother. In the short story, the theme of forgiveness of the father is prevalent and understood by Victor and Thomas’ mutual thoughts of dispersing the ashes of Victor’s father into Spokane Falls. However, in the film, there is more resentment inside of Victor. The addition of Suzy into the film helps Victor cope with his anger and helps him understand his father’s motives. Both the film and story tell of the ashes being dispersed in the same, as a symbol of forgiveness. However, the addition of Suzy makes the film more successful in portraying how one gets to a level of forgiveness.
Altogether, I believe that both the film and short story stick to the same plot and the main themes are the same. The additions put into the film only make it that more successful. I think that part of the success of this adaptation is that the same author writes both the short story and the film.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sample Post
This is a sample post that I came up with so that everyone would have an idea of what you'll be expected to do for your own blog entry. It comes out to about 2 double-spaced pages in MS Word.
Agree? Disagree? Want to add something? Great! ...please feel free to leave comments! (These, like all future comments, should follow the guidelines on the syllabus for respectful, constructive criticism.)
Also, if you're leaving a comment and your display name isn't your actual name, please sign your comment with at least your first name and the initial of your last name!
Finally, please note that when you make your own blog post, you'll be including a title for it in the "Title" field. (I'm including mine below only for this example.) And now, on to the post...
Memento and the Horrors of Loss
On the surface, the 2000 film Memento, directed by Christopher Nolan and based on a short story by his brother, Jonathan Nolan, has very little in common with 2004’s The Notebook. Yet when taken together, the two films, while wildly different in terms of style, subject matter, and target audience, illustrate the pervasiveness of two common and, one could argue, basic human fears: fear of the loss of a loved one, and (perhaps even more frightening, in some ways) fear of the loss of one’s own identity.
The idea that films deal with fear is nothing new. The size and scope of the “horror” section in any video store is proof of the demand for films that briefly expose us to a wide range of terrors. And although the fears they deal with would be terrifying in real life, horror movies often depict particularly unlikely threats, and it can be said that the “fear” is all in good fun. Horror movies do have staying power, as we can see in the number of people who still dress up as Freddy and Jason for Halloween decades after the release of the films in which they first appeared. But their lasting power to make us feel genuinely afraid or uncomfortable is somewhat limited.
Neither Memento nor The Notebook is a horror movie, yet each has the power to affect audiences and to provoke thought and discussion not only about love, life, and self, but about fear. Although The Notebook is a much more obvious love story, Memento, in tracing Leonard’s obsessive and difficult quest for vengeance, brutally portrays his struggle as one that is, it could be argued, ultimately rooted in love. More importantly, however, although they take very different routes to arrive there, both films could be said to end on a similar concept: the lengths to which human beings will go in order to preserve reality as they define it.
For Memento’s Leonard, this means adjusting information and records of events in order to continue his quest for revenge, as the reality he is most comfortable with has become the reality in which he has a sense of purpose and can maintain some sense of self, however fragmented and distorted it has become as a result of his inability to make memories. For Noah and Allie in The Notebook, this means, first and foremost, the shared sense of connection to a past in which they were young and both physically and—more importantly—mentally whole. In their case, the ultimate solution to the problem of unacceptable reality comes in another form, which, it can be argued, restores to the couple a degree of unity that the later years of their lives attempted to deny them.
Thus, both films address what is even more frightening than the mask-wearing, knife-wielding maniacs in horror movies; they investigate the terrible threat of losing reality as we know it. Even if that reality is not perfect, when taken away it becomes not only preferable, but the only “reality” that both film’s main characters can bear to accept. Each film forces viewers to place themselves in the protagonists’ positions to some degree, and to imagine the prospect of not knowing what is going on.
Of course, throughout our lives, each of us does a lot of “not-knowing-what’s-going-on” – for example, I don’t always know what’s going on in politics, or what’s going on on Wisteria Lane. But it’s a very different thing not to know what you just did or who you can trust, as in Memento, or who you are or what has happened in your past, as in The Notebook. Though they are very different, each of these films makes it clear that there are fears that are more real and more terrifying than those depicted in horror movies.
If we continue to think about either movie after it’s over, the result (beyond the confusion and questions that often follow a first viewing of Memento, and the fits of crying that many people—yes, myself included—report experiencing during a showing of The Notebook) is something that stays with you, demanding that you consider the possibility of a reality other than the one in which you are comfortable today, and, ultimately, asking what you would do if that reality was suddenly taken away.
Agree? Disagree? Want to add something? Great! ...please feel free to leave comments! (These, like all future comments, should follow the guidelines on the syllabus for respectful, constructive criticism.)
Also, if you're leaving a comment and your display name isn't your actual name, please sign your comment with at least your first name and the initial of your last name!
Finally, please note that when you make your own blog post, you'll be including a title for it in the "Title" field. (I'm including mine below only for this example.) And now, on to the post...
Memento and the Horrors of Loss
On the surface, the 2000 film Memento, directed by Christopher Nolan and based on a short story by his brother, Jonathan Nolan, has very little in common with 2004’s The Notebook. Yet when taken together, the two films, while wildly different in terms of style, subject matter, and target audience, illustrate the pervasiveness of two common and, one could argue, basic human fears: fear of the loss of a loved one, and (perhaps even more frightening, in some ways) fear of the loss of one’s own identity.
The idea that films deal with fear is nothing new. The size and scope of the “horror” section in any video store is proof of the demand for films that briefly expose us to a wide range of terrors. And although the fears they deal with would be terrifying in real life, horror movies often depict particularly unlikely threats, and it can be said that the “fear” is all in good fun. Horror movies do have staying power, as we can see in the number of people who still dress up as Freddy and Jason for Halloween decades after the release of the films in which they first appeared. But their lasting power to make us feel genuinely afraid or uncomfortable is somewhat limited.
Neither Memento nor The Notebook is a horror movie, yet each has the power to affect audiences and to provoke thought and discussion not only about love, life, and self, but about fear. Although The Notebook is a much more obvious love story, Memento, in tracing Leonard’s obsessive and difficult quest for vengeance, brutally portrays his struggle as one that is, it could be argued, ultimately rooted in love. More importantly, however, although they take very different routes to arrive there, both films could be said to end on a similar concept: the lengths to which human beings will go in order to preserve reality as they define it.
For Memento’s Leonard, this means adjusting information and records of events in order to continue his quest for revenge, as the reality he is most comfortable with has become the reality in which he has a sense of purpose and can maintain some sense of self, however fragmented and distorted it has become as a result of his inability to make memories. For Noah and Allie in The Notebook, this means, first and foremost, the shared sense of connection to a past in which they were young and both physically and—more importantly—mentally whole. In their case, the ultimate solution to the problem of unacceptable reality comes in another form, which, it can be argued, restores to the couple a degree of unity that the later years of their lives attempted to deny them.
Thus, both films address what is even more frightening than the mask-wearing, knife-wielding maniacs in horror movies; they investigate the terrible threat of losing reality as we know it. Even if that reality is not perfect, when taken away it becomes not only preferable, but the only “reality” that both film’s main characters can bear to accept. Each film forces viewers to place themselves in the protagonists’ positions to some degree, and to imagine the prospect of not knowing what is going on.
Of course, throughout our lives, each of us does a lot of “not-knowing-what’s-going-on” – for example, I don’t always know what’s going on in politics, or what’s going on on Wisteria Lane. But it’s a very different thing not to know what you just did or who you can trust, as in Memento, or who you are or what has happened in your past, as in The Notebook. Though they are very different, each of these films makes it clear that there are fears that are more real and more terrifying than those depicted in horror movies.
If we continue to think about either movie after it’s over, the result (beyond the confusion and questions that often follow a first viewing of Memento, and the fits of crying that many people—yes, myself included—report experiencing during a showing of The Notebook) is something that stays with you, demanding that you consider the possibility of a reality other than the one in which you are comfortable today, and, ultimately, asking what you would do if that reality was suddenly taken away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)