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.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Christ in Concrete
So about an hour into the movie, I was wondering if Geremio was going to die. That's probably insensitive, but I was surprised that the movie was so different from the book. It wasn't that different though; things were just compressed and moved around. Actually, the movie was pretty much backwards from the book. It kind of reminded me of I Remember Mama in that respect, just because the stories were compressed into the play and then into the movie.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Rome-ance
Gregory Peck returns to his Roman Holiday in the film adaptation of The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit, and it’s just as romantic. Despite the horrors of war, Tom manages to find a picturesque landscape full of exotic women in both versions, though. The exotic nature of Rome in both versions shows American fascination with Europe following World War Two, however the film glosses over some of the grittier facts. The novel allows Maria to express how her family dies in front of her eyes, while their death is simply mentioned in the film. Additionally, the villa in the movie is partially destroyed, but only to give a lovely view of a beautiful town; it does not show Tom breaking apart a piano and destroying the riches of the house to build a fire.
However, in both versions Rome acts as a sort of time out of time--not only an escape from the war, but an escape from life itself. Tom and Maria live totally contingently, with no social obligations. In contrast, Tom’s life with Betsy is fraught with concerns over money and children. Both versions also seem to allow Tom this period of romance outside of marriage, giving men the space to sow their wild oats without major repercussions. Tom’s experience in Rome is totally outside of his peace time life; even when he decides to “do the right thing” and help out Maria and his son he never meets or speaks to them, delegating that responsibility to Judge Bernstein instead. Rome becomes almost a mythical place in the novel and the movie. It is essential that it does not pose any actual threat to the nuclear family of the 1950s, instead it proves Tom’s virility and provides a needed respite from the horrors of war.
However, in both versions Rome acts as a sort of time out of time--not only an escape from the war, but an escape from life itself. Tom and Maria live totally contingently, with no social obligations. In contrast, Tom’s life with Betsy is fraught with concerns over money and children. Both versions also seem to allow Tom this period of romance outside of marriage, giving men the space to sow their wild oats without major repercussions. Tom’s experience in Rome is totally outside of his peace time life; even when he decides to “do the right thing” and help out Maria and his son he never meets or speaks to them, delegating that responsibility to Judge Bernstein instead. Rome becomes almost a mythical place in the novel and the movie. It is essential that it does not pose any actual threat to the nuclear family of the 1950s, instead it proves Tom’s virility and provides a needed respite from the horrors of war.
family matters
i am not sure about the casting choices for the film version of the man in the gray flannel suit. it seems impossible to be gregory peck and be hesitant, stressed, and fearful of economic impotence–basically everything that tom rath is in the novel, and gregory peck is not. instead, he remakes tom rath into a suave, forthright, albeit emotional man, and yet so not emotional; rather, peck's emotions are all noble and contained, like the pinnacle of what american manhood is supposed to be.
that's what the whole film felt like for me, however: an ennobling of the struggle for meaning that sloan wilson almost makes seem a bit pathetic, or at least unattainable, but the film makes into a heroic affirmation of 'real' values.
family is what ultimately comes to represent the most valuable entity in the world of the film. i think the novel eventually comes to that conclusion too, in tom and betsy's focus on creating a healthier school environment for their children. but the film really pushes this image immediately the film begins: we see the cute antics of the rath children, the tv time, the temper tantrums before bed, the dog, the fatal drama of chicken pox. sentimental music plays in the background, reinforcing the warmth and connectedness of the home and the family. and by the end of the film, instead of tom's obsessive mental harping on maria, he says to betsy that he has put maria in the past and only thinks of the welfare of his child (if we believe him). finally, the part of the novel in which hopkins invites tom to join him on the business trip in california is moved to the very end of the film, to allow tom to actively reject "success" over the time he wants to spend with his family.
hopkins also expresses more bitterness and vindictiveness at why he has chosen "success" over family, and in the staging of the scene i think we are meant to be left with the impression that he has made the wrong choice, that it has deprived him of a life he could have had. in the novel, getting to hear more of hopkins' own narrative, his upbringing and his relationships with his family, we draw basically the same conclusion, except there is a sense that even if he has made sacrifices, the person he is must always draw him to the life of business, and therefore almost seems less like the choice he made, than like the compulsion he is forced to obey.
that's what the whole film felt like for me, however: an ennobling of the struggle for meaning that sloan wilson almost makes seem a bit pathetic, or at least unattainable, but the film makes into a heroic affirmation of 'real' values.
family is what ultimately comes to represent the most valuable entity in the world of the film. i think the novel eventually comes to that conclusion too, in tom and betsy's focus on creating a healthier school environment for their children. but the film really pushes this image immediately the film begins: we see the cute antics of the rath children, the tv time, the temper tantrums before bed, the dog, the fatal drama of chicken pox. sentimental music plays in the background, reinforcing the warmth and connectedness of the home and the family. and by the end of the film, instead of tom's obsessive mental harping on maria, he says to betsy that he has put maria in the past and only thinks of the welfare of his child (if we believe him). finally, the part of the novel in which hopkins invites tom to join him on the business trip in california is moved to the very end of the film, to allow tom to actively reject "success" over the time he wants to spend with his family.
hopkins also expresses more bitterness and vindictiveness at why he has chosen "success" over family, and in the staging of the scene i think we are meant to be left with the impression that he has made the wrong choice, that it has deprived him of a life he could have had. in the novel, getting to hear more of hopkins' own narrative, his upbringing and his relationships with his family, we draw basically the same conclusion, except there is a sense that even if he has made sacrifices, the person he is must always draw him to the life of business, and therefore almost seems less like the choice he made, than like the compulsion he is forced to obey.
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (2)
These 2 things struck me about the film:
1) The addition that Hopkins thought that Tom looked like his son. I don't think this was in the book, and I thought that it was an interesting addition. It was probably a way to forge a connection between Tom and Hopkins, and to make Hopkins seem like a better family man -- although to what end I'm not sure. Maybe the writers made him want to seem more sympathetic to the audience, based on the time period.
As far as forging a connection between Tom and Hopkins, I don't know if it was necessary, because it didn't seem like their storyline was fully realized. We talked during the movie how things were moved around and cut out. The thing with Maria came late, for example. We were surprised it came so late.
2) We talked during the movie about Gregory Peck playing the main character. I think choosing him definitely had an effect on the character. For example, we talked about how he wasn't as sarcastic, and I don't know whether this specifically was a positive or a negative change.
1) The addition that Hopkins thought that Tom looked like his son. I don't think this was in the book, and I thought that it was an interesting addition. It was probably a way to forge a connection between Tom and Hopkins, and to make Hopkins seem like a better family man -- although to what end I'm not sure. Maybe the writers made him want to seem more sympathetic to the audience, based on the time period.
As far as forging a connection between Tom and Hopkins, I don't know if it was necessary, because it didn't seem like their storyline was fully realized. We talked during the movie how things were moved around and cut out. The thing with Maria came late, for example. We were surprised it came so late.
2) We talked during the movie about Gregory Peck playing the main character. I think choosing him definitely had an effect on the character. For example, we talked about how he wasn't as sarcastic, and I don't know whether this specifically was a positive or a negative change.
Any Other Color Besides Gray?
There is a lot of gray in this film from the Manhattan buildings to Gregory Peck's wardrobe, but I'd like to look at the colors that characterize the women in his life. When we were watching the film, Agatha pointed out that she hated Betsy's outfits throughout the movie. I noticed, too, that they seem quite drab, even for a 1950's housewife. In the majority of the film, Betsy wears a combination of gray, brown, beige, and orange - not the happiest of colors. I wonder if this was meant to parallel the "mundane-ness" of the life she felt she lived. Her dour and boring attire matched her dour and boring home (and life). It is only when Betsy is happy to be settled in the old mansion that she finally decides to wear pale pink, a more pleasing and happy color. In contrast, when we first see Maria in flashback form, she is wearing a bright teal dress, brimming with brightness and passion, like it's wearer. The use (or lack thereof) of color does separate the two women in my mind - and Tom's decision for a passionate affair, leaving his dull life behind him.
The Depression In the Gray Flannel Suit
One thing I noticed about The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, both in the film and novel, is that besides offering few examples of working class characters, they never, at least not that I noticed, explicitly mention the Depression. Sure, the novel and film were produced in the fifties, almost twenty years after the height of it, but it seems as if it might at least be mentioned in contrast to the boom of post-war America. The only potential reference we get of it comes from the novel: when Tom is told about his father mismanaging the family’s money (possibly a reference to the crash of the stock market and its aftermath?). I wonder if this is an attempt on Wilson and Johnson’s part to repress or even disavow the economic realities experienced during the Depression. If so, could we view elements of the Depression as attempting to make themselves known in the novel and film, a more subtle version of Tom’s war memories making themselves known in the narrative? In what scenes or moments in the film might we find them, if in fact they do exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)