This was the first movie I've seen with Andy Griffith. That's surprising to me. Anyway, I liked both the short story and the movie. One thing that really stood out to me when comparing the two was the relationship between Marsha and Lonesome. In the book, they seemed much less a couple. Marsha seemed a lot more resistant in the book. The movie didn't express that in the same way. Another thing that caught my attention was the way in which Lonesome is discovered and named. It changes the status of Marsha's character because in the movie, she is the one who finds him in a jail and gives him his catchy name.
When I was reading, I was picturing in my head Ray Romano's older brother, Robert, as Lonesome. Andy Griffith doesn't look much the same, but I definitely bought the role. Andy Griffith's character redefined my mental image of Lonesome. Griffiths HAW HAW was also different from the haw haw I had imagined while reading the story, but it worked well nonetheless.
Prof. Newman mentioned this being a dark role for Griffith, and after watching the film, I would agree. I think the character of Lonesome is significantly darker in the film than in the story. The film really focuses on his will of control and his growing insanity. While those traits are definitely present in the story, they are exaggerated and magnified in the film.
Anyway, I liked it. Good reading. Good watching. Good story. Good acting. Good characters. Good plot. Good stuff. Good produce. Cool beans. String beans. 7 bean salad. Chunky soup. Thick hearty stews. Bread bowls. Abnormally large pepper shaker. Fine wines. Live Jazz. Good service. Benevolent owner. Olive Garden.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A Face in the Crowd
A Face in the Crowd raised a question about the concept of time when thinking about different forms of storytelling. The very “present” telling of A Face in the Crowd seems very contradictory to the memorandum that is The Arkansas Traveler. I think the aspect of the presentation of time is very important when considering the transfer from literature to film. With literature the audience can read it and reflect on the constant changing motions of the characters. In film the audience is swept along with the pace of the film and reflection only comes after its completion (unless you leave for a snack break.
I think this could be the main reason that so many adaptations are considered “failures.” The structure of A Face of the Crowd calls for a consistent following of Lonesome Rhodes as dynamic personality. In the short story, Rhodes’s personality is more explained as a fact rather than a developing point. Kazan uses an adaptation of time with this film to explain the rise of the man. Kazan lets us see Rhodes in his element. This agrees more with the forward moving nature of the cinema. It lets us see a man as he is, rather than what he has become.
Once more this points to how when switching forms the entire foundation of the plot must be altered if one wants to make the adaptation “faithful.” Because the form must be changed in A Face in the Crowd to sustain the interest in Lonesome Rhodes and his appeal to the masses. That appeal seems as what was made as the essence of the story. Because that was recognized Kazan was willing to restructure the entire tone of the piece in favor of this. This seems to be a important key to adapting a story. Many of the pieces we have seen thus far have just been a recreation through a visual medium. I don’t think, however, that recreation works when considering the element of time perception in the two different forms. Perhaps change is better when considering remaking a story.
I think this could be the main reason that so many adaptations are considered “failures.” The structure of A Face of the Crowd calls for a consistent following of Lonesome Rhodes as dynamic personality. In the short story, Rhodes’s personality is more explained as a fact rather than a developing point. Kazan uses an adaptation of time with this film to explain the rise of the man. Kazan lets us see Rhodes in his element. This agrees more with the forward moving nature of the cinema. It lets us see a man as he is, rather than what he has become.
Once more this points to how when switching forms the entire foundation of the plot must be altered if one wants to make the adaptation “faithful.” Because the form must be changed in A Face in the Crowd to sustain the interest in Lonesome Rhodes and his appeal to the masses. That appeal seems as what was made as the essence of the story. Because that was recognized Kazan was willing to restructure the entire tone of the piece in favor of this. This seems to be a important key to adapting a story. Many of the pieces we have seen thus far have just been a recreation through a visual medium. I don’t think, however, that recreation works when considering the element of time perception in the two different forms. Perhaps change is better when considering remaking a story.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Where Have All the Flower (or Socialist Folk Singers) Gone
First off, I want to comment on how much I enjoy the film Face in the Crowd. This has been my third or fourth time viewing it, and I'm surprised at how it never seems to grow stale. I'm also glad to get a chance to finally read the story from which it came. I've held a kind of ambivalent attitude towards Budd Schulberg's work. While part of me thinks it's great--What Makes Sammy Run?, On the Waterfront, A Face in the Crowd, etc.--part of me wonders if there are other factors, besides Schulberg, at work in what makes them great, especially his films: Kazan, Griffith, Brando, etc. There's also the fact that he named names to HUAC and was largely unapologetic about doing so.
One thing that makes me a little uneasy about the film is its use of a folk singer as the right wing demagogue par excellence. When I think about music associated with the right wing, folk music is not something that comes to mind. When I think of the latter, I envision Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, and others who are usually associated with (often extreme) left wing politics. The only type of music similar enough to folk that could be considered somewhat right wing is country music. But even country musicians (at least some of them) often have political associations that could be interpreted as leftist--I'm thinking of Hank Williams Sr. song Hey Joe as a response to Mccarthyism. So I wonder if Schulberg's use of a folk singer as representative of the common man/woman is more of a fear on his part of the common masses. This is something Raymond Williams addresses in Culture and Society: a fear of allowing the masses (the unruly mob) their own means of self-determination. This is also at the heart of the debate of fictional representations of labor: do proletarian writers of whatever decade stand outside the workers as a pseudo-interested observer or are they attempting to rise with them. Perhaps the film and story, then, despite their many merits, suffer from from this potentially ungrounded fear on Schulberg's part.
One thing that makes me a little uneasy about the film is its use of a folk singer as the right wing demagogue par excellence. When I think about music associated with the right wing, folk music is not something that comes to mind. When I think of the latter, I envision Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, and others who are usually associated with (often extreme) left wing politics. The only type of music similar enough to folk that could be considered somewhat right wing is country music. But even country musicians (at least some of them) often have political associations that could be interpreted as leftist--I'm thinking of Hank Williams Sr. song Hey Joe as a response to Mccarthyism. So I wonder if Schulberg's use of a folk singer as representative of the common man/woman is more of a fear on his part of the common masses. This is something Raymond Williams addresses in Culture and Society: a fear of allowing the masses (the unruly mob) their own means of self-determination. This is also at the heart of the debate of fictional representations of labor: do proletarian writers of whatever decade stand outside the workers as a pseudo-interested observer or are they attempting to rise with them. Perhaps the film and story, then, despite their many merits, suffer from from this potentially ungrounded fear on Schulberg's part.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
one face of eve
i, like rachael, really regretted the loss of the witty, in control, female narrative from the novella version. i did also enjoy the film for itself, however–but, as usual, for telling a different story. remember that filmmaker from hutcheon who retold the story of the cuban political hero (i can't find/remember the exact reference now) because he felt that the story had been misrepresented? well even though i suppose this is fiction, the film's inversion of lonesome rhodes' guilt to marcia's guilt felt like that kind of adaptation. it wasn't just a matter of telling a different story–it was more a matter of saying "no, you've gotten this wrong; this is how it happened," this time making marcia more fully responsible for rhodes' behavior. a face in the crowd went from being a story of mutual blame back to blaming marcia as biblical eve for her 'original sin' of introducing the knowledge of fame to lonesome.
thus marcia moves from being this incredibly together, strong woman whom i'm pretty sure we all agree with when she tells lonesome to get out of her life, to this crazed, hands-clutching-her-face, edvard munch's "the scream" type of persecuted person who is suddenly supposed to be responsible for the antics of a grown man.
this theme is developed from the beginning by first portraying lonesome as an innocent, with no desire to want to tell anybody what to do about anything, and who slowly becomes power-crazed and selfish because of the role he is forced into by marcia and by the industry.
the end of the film, however, steps back from fully blaming eve for the fall of adam, in mel miller's final declamation to lonesome. he flatly remarks that audience's memories are short, and eventually someone will "give him another go" on a much cheaper venue, but that whatever he has from now on, it "won't be the same." once man has sinned, he has forever fallen…even in the entertainment industry.
as marcia and mel stand at the bottom of apartment and look up, listening to lonesome scream threats about suicide, mel again reinforces lonesome's culpability for himself by telling marcia not to listen to his rants. finally, she nods and gets into a taxi never to see him again. i was so glad that they didn't take this out of the movie.
thus marcia moves from being this incredibly together, strong woman whom i'm pretty sure we all agree with when she tells lonesome to get out of her life, to this crazed, hands-clutching-her-face, edvard munch's "the scream" type of persecuted person who is suddenly supposed to be responsible for the antics of a grown man.
this theme is developed from the beginning by first portraying lonesome as an innocent, with no desire to want to tell anybody what to do about anything, and who slowly becomes power-crazed and selfish because of the role he is forced into by marcia and by the industry.
the end of the film, however, steps back from fully blaming eve for the fall of adam, in mel miller's final declamation to lonesome. he flatly remarks that audience's memories are short, and eventually someone will "give him another go" on a much cheaper venue, but that whatever he has from now on, it "won't be the same." once man has sinned, he has forever fallen…even in the entertainment industry.
as marcia and mel stand at the bottom of apartment and look up, listening to lonesome scream threats about suicide, mel again reinforces lonesome's culpability for himself by telling marcia not to listen to his rants. finally, she nods and gets into a taxi never to see him again. i was so glad that they didn't take this out of the movie.
A Face In the Crowd
So - I still have to finish the story, but I want to type this first.
I think that the film version really showed not only the rise and fall of a celebrity, but also the audience reaction - how an audience can build someone up and tear them down. Because in the end Lonesome Rhodes was really a sad character; I wish I'd seen whether or not he jumped, because then I could've judged in the end if he was sincere or not. I think - for better or for worse - that Andy Griffith really gave himself to the character. I know the laugh was a bit much, but it definitely wasn't the performance that I expected from him; it was better than I expected.
I think that the film version really showed not only the rise and fall of a celebrity, but also the audience reaction - how an audience can build someone up and tear them down. Because in the end Lonesome Rhodes was really a sad character; I wish I'd seen whether or not he jumped, because then I could've judged in the end if he was sincere or not. I think - for better or for worse - that Andy Griffith really gave himself to the character. I know the laugh was a bit much, but it definitely wasn't the performance that I expected from him; it was better than I expected.
Face in the Mirror
One of the primary changes that A Face in the Crowd makes to the short story “Your Arkansas Traveler” is the insertion of an audience. The story could not include outsider reactions to the radio or television show, of course, because it was tied down to a first person narrator. Therefore, we got a cynical view of Lonesome Rhodes as a deceitful drunk. Of course, Lonesome is a deceitful drunk, but not to his adoring fans across the country, only to the less than innocent people producing his show and seeing his horrible personal life. The story does an admirable job of exposing the steamy underbelly of the entertainment industry, but in doing that it reduces the audience into an unthinking mob. Marcia admires Lonesome's charisma as much as it repulses her in the story. The film, on the other hand, provides a glimpse into the adoring crowds as they see themselves in Lonesome's “down home” charm.
The insertion of an audience reveals two elements of the world of marketing and media: the need for people to connect to personalities represented on TV and the radio, as well as the danger of that identification. The early shots of Lonesome “talking to” isolated housewives as they work in their homes. His sympathy towards and insight into domestic labor draws the isolated women into a community with Lonesome. Of course, his name connects with lonely people across the country, while his “grass roots wisdom” gives people a sense of authenticity. In the increasingly commercial culture of the 1950s, the audience seems desperate to connect with anything authentic, even if it is used to sell them something.
Even though the film does give a face to the audience searching for meaning and human connection, it still reduces Lonesome fans into a mob. Because Lonesome lacks any actual authenticity, he is able to play them like his guitar, manipulating their trust to increase sales and do his own dirty work. By seeing themselves in the television, people fall prey to the machinations of the advertising industry.
The insertion of an audience reveals two elements of the world of marketing and media: the need for people to connect to personalities represented on TV and the radio, as well as the danger of that identification. The early shots of Lonesome “talking to” isolated housewives as they work in their homes. His sympathy towards and insight into domestic labor draws the isolated women into a community with Lonesome. Of course, his name connects with lonely people across the country, while his “grass roots wisdom” gives people a sense of authenticity. In the increasingly commercial culture of the 1950s, the audience seems desperate to connect with anything authentic, even if it is used to sell them something.
Even though the film does give a face to the audience searching for meaning and human connection, it still reduces Lonesome fans into a mob. Because Lonesome lacks any actual authenticity, he is able to play them like his guitar, manipulating their trust to increase sales and do his own dirty work. By seeing themselves in the television, people fall prey to the machinations of the advertising industry.
From Wyoming to Arkansas
I have to say, I really enjoyed the short story. I thought it was great to have a witty, female narrative. Unfortunately, I'm not having the same response to the film. One of the best aspects of the story is the Margy character and how she is the one person to not be bowled over by Lonesome's charm. She is a "northern intellectual" (if that's what you want to call it) and she finds his folksome nature fake. She has a sharp wit reminiscent of Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday." But this is completely lost in the film. The first setting is changed from Wyoming to Arkansas, which loses the north-south dynamic between the two. One of the weirdest changes to me is that she goes looking for him. That is the exact opposite of the story. What makes the story work is that he is dropped in her lap, whether she likes it not, and she has to content with what this means for her life. Changing her demeanor completely changes the dynamic. She's not supposed to sleep with him! The unconsummated love furthers that awkward relationship, but these changes really seem to ruin it.P.S. Having said all that. I really liked the film, on its own, when not considered as an adaptation. The last scene was especially chilling and, I think, made up (some what) for the lack of tension between the two characters in the beginning of the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)