i didn't just feel that the movie switched around elements of the novel–in doing so, and in refocusing the story on geremio's life and on his relationship with annunziata, it also sent an entirely different message. instead of paul's struggle with poverty itself, we are presented, in the first scene of the film, with geremio's breakdown over his lack of purpose, his inadequacy. it's not that poverty isn't there, but rather more that the poverty is a sign of his unfulfilled longings, the "something more" that he expected to have in his life because of his marriage and children, but which he doesn't seem to have. is this starting to sound familiar yet?
whereas the geremio of the novel is aware of the unsafe conditions of the demolition project and tries to stop it, the film suggests that where geremio really begins to go wrong is when he submits to the needs of having a job during the Depression and compromises his own workers' safety. ok, yes, it is the Depression, but are we getting warmer now?
then, the whole conflict in the film centers around geremio's struggle against moving up in the world and giving up his identity as an honest laborer in order for him to be able to afford the house he promised annunziata. hmmm where have we heard that plot before? having a house is, in fact, the ultimate representation of happiness for annunziata, which she qualifies at the end of the film by saying that geremio has "at last bought [them] a house."
when geremio dies in the novel, i believed his death was supposed to represent that of Christ–that geremio's death was a sacrifice to the building of new york city–or to capitalism, if you will (i guess that questions how worthy or holy we want to call that sacrifice). the death of geremio in the film, however, is more like that of the mortal sinner who is hoping desperately that someone else out there has already made the sacrifice so that they can save him. from what? the evil of capitalism, maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment