To Film Adaptaion and BEYOND

Euphoria is one interesting production of a show.

Zendaya is in it. Some other people are in it. Zendaya is also in it. In this show, teenagers discover themselves in a mixed up, messed up world. The main character/ narrator of the story struggles with a drug addiction. Jules struggles with self-worth. Nate struggles with anger issues. There are a lot of struggles.

But one of the greatest struggles we discussed in class was that of authorship in fan fiction and storytelling. The third episode of the series contains an infamous case of the fan fiction blues. It uses the persona of Harry Styles and Louis Tomilson to portray a very inappropriate interaction between the two. 

Did I mention Zendaya is in the show?

Anyway, the episode gained negative traction because of the fan fiction featured. It begged the question if using real people in fan fiction is okay? Did the show even get permission to feature such an explicit scene in the first place? Apparently, they did not. I have various opinions on the matter. That scene upset me on many levels. But before we dive into that, let’s go over what we discussed in class about fan fiction.

Ewan Morrison analyzed fan fiction's place in the media in her article, “In the beginning, there was fan fiction: from the four gospels to Fifty Shades”. She talked about how fan fiction is seen as the lowest point in history, and as anti-original. Although I understand that point of view, I feel like it does not give authors of fan fiction enough credit. Some of the most prolific authors started out as or even are fan fiction writers. S.E Hinton being one of them!

It’s hard to say that fan fiction as a whole is unoriginal. Although the authors use worlds created by others, fan fiction spins said world. It provides a different perspective, expands on the world, and may even create new ideas and characters that normally would not have been discovered.

Morrison also notes how fan fiction was/ is not associated with authorship.

In class we discussed how Twilight was originally a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan fiction, and how Fifty Shades of Gray was originally a Twilight fan fiction.

Henry Jenkins argued that, “Fan fiction is a way of the culture repairing the damage done in a system where contemporary myths are owned by corporations instead of owned by folk.”

In an age where Authorship is a big deal, fan fiction is considered the lowest of the low. But in reality, it is virtually impossible for there to be a completely original story. I believe that if a story is good it is good, and should have value whether it’s a fan fiction or not.

Unless that fan fiction is explicitly about two real people. Using real people in fan fiction is not cool, and it should not be a thing. Especially when it becomes so popular that it could have a negative effect on the people it is written about.

What Euphoria did, by portraying that relationship between the two members of One Direction was extremely disrespectful considering they didn’t even ask permission. It’s also disturbing considering the boys have expressed their discomfort with having such stories written about them.

I think that Euphoria is sexually explicit for no reason, but that’s just my dumb opinion. But when you add two real people to the mix (it doesn’t matter if the scene was animated or not) that is a breach in privacy, and just overall disgusting. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. Euphoria should not have included that scene. In fact, the show should’ve found another story involving very not real characters, since they wanted to involve a scene like that in the first place. I get that explicit fanfiction is real, and that people can relate to that kind of media. But, creating explicit fictitious media that could hurt real people is wrong. And maybe the producers of the show don’t care, but Harry does. Louis does. I do!

I get that Euphoria gets its kicks out of being risky and not your average tale about teenagers, but yo leave real people and their personal lives out of it.

Okay moving on.

The show exploits girl pain.

It is produced by men.

Some find it relatable, while others claim it romanticizes self-harm and girl pain.

It does have a female lead who is not oversexualized, and does not conform to gender norms.

It’s not original. The original Euphoria stems from Israel.

I feel bad for trashing the show so I will say one good thing about it…

Zendaya is in it.

Quick! What has suburban settings, coming of age romance, and high school dances? If you answered teen movies, then you are right. If you also answered any Netflix Original movie featuring Noah Centineo, I’ll give you a point for that one too.

And as much as I’d love to dive into that topic, today’s discussion will be based on The Outsiders, and The Virgin Suicides. Both films are based on young adult novels.

Okay, get this.

The Outsiders: a novel about a group of rag-tag boys, written by S.E Hinton (a teenage girl). Gets adapted into film form, directed by Francis Ford Coppola (a grown man).

The Virgin Suicides: a novel about a rag tag group of sisters, written by Jeffrey Eugenides (a grown man). Gets adapted into film form, directed by Sofia Coppola (a young woman).

The irony is phenomenal.

The Outsiders harbors the nostalgia of U.S. boyhood in the 60’s. The boys go through a lot, even the death of their friend. However, they stick together and overcome their adversities. With this story, pain is a pathway to becoming a hero.

The Virgin Suicides contains the U.S. female nostalgia of the late 90’s. However, the girls don’t overcome. Rather they succumb to the pressure of their unfortunate situation and all take their own lives. With this story, pain is a pathway to death.

How media is marketed to teens is quite interesting. Elissa Nelson stated in her essay, “The New Old Face of a Genre: The Franchise Teen Film as Industry Strategy”, that there are three distinct features connecting the 1950’s, 80’s and 90’s. To quote her,

“1.  New entertainment technologies were starting to gain traction and were vying for the youth demographic’s attention: television in the 1950s; home entertainment, including VHS and cable, in the 1980s; and new digital media, including DVDs and the Internet, int he1990s.

2.The United States was in periods of sustained economic growth, and teens were perceived as having disposable incomes.

3.Although there were the occasional big-budget or prestige teen films produced by major studios, such as Rebel without a Cause (NicholasRay,1955), Back to the Future (RobertZemeckis,1985), and Titanic (JamesCameron,1997), most were lower-budget genre films that often focused on teens in everyday situations (or with horror films, in unusual situations, but still small-scale stories), often set around locations associated with teens such as high schools, family homes, shopping malls, and summer camps” (Nelson 126).

The Outsiders showcases how gender, sexuality, and class was represented during that time. But is also strays from the status quo. It shows a relationship between boys, that is not often represented in the media. The softness of boyhood, and love they all share for one another is outstandingly comforting and beautiful to see.

It also reconciles with the nostalgia of the 60’s, when things were safer (cough cough for white people cough cough). Our professor asked if we found the relationship between the boys’ heartwarming. I for sure did.

When I first read the book, I didn’t think anything of it. I just thought the idea of a group of boys livin’ a life out on the lamb, looking out for one another, with cool nicknames was fun. I would have never guessed that it would be ground-breaking to see boys care for each other, even if they aren’t blood related. I love relationships, whether they be platonic, familial, or romantic. And seeing these teenage hoodlums love each other without the “no homo” thing was neat. Brotherly love, ya’ll.

But what about the ladies? The Virgin Suicides appears to be the complete opposite. Not only because it’s about girls (which I’d argue against), but because their bond with one another leads them in a different direction. While Sodapop, Dallas, and Ponyboy are out free in the streets of Oklahoma, the Lisbon sisters are practically imprisoned in their own home, drowning in their own thoughts until they are eventually consumed. They don’t make it out alive. Not a single one of them. Sisterly love ya’ll?

Here’s why I’d argue that the main characters of The Virgin Suicides is not the Lisbon sisters. Sure, they appear to be the main characters, the title is about them after all. But I’d say that the story is really about the boys watching/ commenting about their lives.

 The narrators of the story. As the boy’s gaze at the girls, the audience too gazes. We never truly get an insight into their thoughts, feelings, actions.  We see them, but can never completely understand them they way the girls understood them. We saw and heard what the boys wanted us to see and hear. To us the girls are an anomaly. Beautiful, mystical, misunderstood creatures. Okay so maybe the story is about them, but they lack the initiative that a main character would/should have.

One thing we noticed between the two films is this:

The boys build each other up, become the heroes of their own story. The girls, stick together but succumb instead of survive. The only independence the girls achieve is from their own bodies. They don’t even get the chance to tell their own stories.

Jeffery Eugenides suggested that The Virgin suicides conveys how men feel about being left out of girlhood. There is a triangle of gazes (audience, camera, and the male gaze). Some would even consider the film an exploitation of girl pain. Which is interesting considering it was directed by a woman.

Thank you for reading

pictures used: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/551691023093455922/

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/5573-the-virgin-suicides-they-hadn-t-heard-us-calling

Although we had a class discussion about the Lolita novel and movies, I could not bring myself to use any of the pictures from either of the films. Not to say this picture is any better but I just would rather not post anything that sexualizes a child. Also, I couldn’t think of a punny title for this one, but it’s a serious topic anyway. So...

The Male Gaze

“Lolita” a novel by Vladimir Nabokov came out the same year as the movie Rebel Without a Cause. This is important because Rebel Without a Cause is a wonderful movie, and “Lolita” is not. In my humble opinion, the book and movies are terrifying and cover a terrifying topic that I wish not to elaborate on.

But I would like to talk about the dangers of the Male Gaze. Laura Mulvey, a feminist writer, coined the term and analyzed it in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. In it she talked about how female bodies are used as an allegory for consumption. America seems to be consumed by the consumption of young females.

Relationships between young women and older men is a highly prevalent trope. One I find intriguingly disturbing considering how popular it is. I often think of Twilight, or stories like thereof. The girl is 16 and the dude is 117, but it’s okay because he’s immortal and looks young.

But what’s even worse are the stories depicting sexual relationships between an older male and a younger female. Or any relationship with a big age gap between a full adult and A MINOR. They are not cool. And they should not be a thing. I understand wanting to create awareness about the terrifying reality of pedophiles is one thing. But create media depicting the rape of a young woman by a 40-year-old is extreme. I don’t need to watch Lolita to know pedophilia is wrong.

And that brings me to another question about those who enjoy and romanticize Lolita and Humbert. But I’d rather not go there.

Back to the male gaze. According to Mulvey it is a concept used for analyzing visual culture. Who is doing the looking in classical Hollywood. With the male gaze, the women are on display. This display is typically for the white straight males.

If you think you’ve never seen the male gaze in action, just take a look at an action movie ever created. Transformers, directed by Michael Bay would be a great place to start.

Women are objects of desire, and historically viewed as objects. This leads to the belittlement and disempowerment of women.

Along with the male gaze is scopophilia. This is the love of looking. The pleasure of looking at someone sexually.

But I wonder if it’s just as degrading for men as it is for woman to be sexualized for the audience’s pleasure? Do they also feel like objects? Or is it the systematic social pressure that women have been forced to conform to for years and is still something that has yet to light up? I’m not sure if what I said made sense but I’d like to end off this post with this…

Pictures used:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/c6oh8x/harley_quinn_then_and_now/

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1134670/women-in-transformers-franchise/

I could not think of a clever word play that would combine the idea of film adaptation with the actual film itself, but that’s okay because I love this movie so much I don’t care.

The Fall

Director: Tarsem Singh

After a young immigrant worker (Alexandria) and stunt double (Roy) take a fall that land them hospitalized, they form a bond through Roy’s storytelling skills.

Before I get into why I love this film and why no one else’s opinions matter (lol just kidding), we talked about some things in class.

This film has allegory and connections to history. The epic portion of it mirrors the Wizard of Oz as it features a group of misfit bandits on their journey to find someone. In the film’s case it’s “the evil governor Odious”. It’s an extravagant and visually stunning film. Even more (and my favorite element of the film) is that Alexandria becomes a part of Roy’s story. She adds the childlike, whimsical, and comedic elements of this epic story.

When it comes to films this large, and with so many stories to tell we wondered who is the author? Or who gets authorship. As far as the film goes, there is a diverse cast. But the white hero is the one who not only tells the story, but the only one of the bandits to survive by the end of it. So is it just diversity for diversity sake? Or does the diversity of the movie lead to a greater connection of the film and audience?

We also discussed an essay by Shelly Cobb, “Adaptation, Fidelity, and Gendered Discourses,” Adaptation. Cobb claimed that the language used to discuss film adaptation is culturally constructed and biased. And it is biased particularly against femininity. For instance, films that are considered cliché, or overdramatic are associated with women. Such as movies from the Lifetime channel, or drama movies in general. When we think of cliché films, we think of middle aged stay at home moms, because that’s the audience they gear towards. These films are considered low class and of no value. Oh and they are super formulaic (which adds to the no value meter). But films with a heavy male authorship rarely get coded as such, even if they are just as formulaic as Lifetime films.

For instance, Marvel movies. A fellow student even said that Marvel films are just as formulaic as Lifetime films but Lifetime films actually give their female characters agency.

And films geared towards women are less likely to get awards, whether or not they stood up against the competition in the box office.

Even the language we use to describe people who obsess over a film or figure gendered.

Fan girl

Over emotional

Low class

And that’s not to say that films by men can’t be considered low class either, we’ve just noticed a correlation between how films with female authorship are treated versus films with male authorship as a whole.

Cobb also analyzed the morality of adaptation critiques. A good, pure film is one that stays loyal to the original text. A cheap, low quality film adaptation is unfaithful. And this is what we believe today. Take Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, and Avatar the Last Airbender for example. Those two film adaptations are considered lowly, cheap, terrible. Fans of the original text spit on these movies. Even the author of Percy Jackson, Rick Riordan, hates the film adaptations of his book series.

Which makes me wonder if it’s possible for an adaptation to be good, even if it’s disloyal to the original?

We also discussed authorship and how males tend have authorship over films and females have authorship over books.

Men worked back in the day and women weren’t really allowed to do much but they could read and write and that is what they did and that is how they made it through the day. At least that’s how I imagined it to be like back then. And by back then I mean Charlotte Brontë back then.

Then film came about and that had technological aspects to it so that quickly became a men’s world, and still is today.

And what about the idea of the auteur? How these male filmmakers will adapt films from novels by female authors, yet the male will get the credit for being an auteur because he revitalized it into a work of moving genius?

Then there’s the idea that you can’t love something and be a critic. Your love for that film will filter what you say about it, and your critique is not valid. I don’t agree. I think it’s important to see a film through an objective and subjective lens. It is difficult, but very possible.

Now back to the greatest film I’ve watched all year, The Fall.

This film has two voices, Alexandria and Roy. Our professor asked us if we thought it did a good job at telling multiple stories. I think it does a wonderful job of telling both of the main character’s stories, and it does it so masterfully too.

The movie begins with a slow motion, black and white sequence detailing the event that leads Roy into the hospital. I liked it because it showed but didn’t tell. Even the movie doesn’t explicitly state his injuries in the beginning but leads you to certain clues through clever dialogue that flows with the story.

The same is for Alexandria’s story. One of my favorite scenes in the film is when she (a five-year-old girl) translates for her mother, who only speaks Spanish. Here we not only get a glimpse of how grown up she has to be even for her tender age, but the difference between how others treat her versus how Roy treats her (and btw he treats her like she’s her age).

And here is my other favorite scene.

Then there’s the spectacular of Roy’s story. We deep dive into an adventure tale mirroring that of a historic epic. This features an ex-slave, an Italian explosive expert, a dude named Darwin with a monkey, Roy as a mask wearing bandit, and a mystic. Oh and a female love interest.

This is where the storytelling gets spotty for me. Although diversity of the bandits is very cool and I love diversity and want more of it in media, I’m not sure what it’s connection is to the story. I’m not sure if it’s trying to make a statement or if it’s just being a great movie with great actors and a great plot. Although we learn about the bandits’ origins we don’t hear much from them afterwards. Then it appears that their stories are being filtered through the white male point of view. And that their stories have little to no use to the overall plot except for the fact that they were all wronged by governor Odious.

And then there’s the female love interest. 

She’s literally so useless I forgot she was in the movie at all. And this says a lot about the male perspective as well. I couldn’t tell if her character was supposed to be a satire on how women are treated as props in the film industry. Because she is literally used as a prop the entire time, and dressed like one too.

Okay but also props to the costume designer for this movie, Eiko Ishioka. What an excellent job seriously. I love the costumes of this film. 

 But back to the princess. She’s surrounded by all these female conventions:

Soft spoken

Good with nature

Pretty

Doesn’t talk much

Is kidnapped

But falls in love with the kidnapper

Passes out

They use her to get to governor Odious

Turns out she ain’t loyal

It’s fine we didn’t need her anyway

She does nothing omg

It’s actually hilarious how useless she is.

That was my biggest problem with the movie. The use or lack thereof of its ONE older female character.

Lol, but I still love it.

In fact, I was more so connected to the main plot than the epic story. Roy and Alexandria formed a beautiful connection in the film mirroring that of a father and daughter.

 I’d be lying if I said I didn’t cry when Alexandria fell while attempting to retrieve morphine for Roy (not knowing he was trying to kill himself), hit her head and was rushed into surgery. Upon waking up she sees a tear-ridden Roy, and she apologizes for failing her mission. Then he tells her the truth and tries to end the story with the death of his comrades and himself until Alexandria says it’s her story too and that Roy’s character will live. The despair and triumph of that scene messed me up man.

Lol, but my classmates didn’t like the movie.

Thank you for reading.

 Pictures used: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/

http://www.itsmugambi.com/blog/44filmsday14

https://www.tor.com/2018/06/01/ten-years-later-theres-still-nothing-like-tarsem-singhs-the-fall/

http://sanchezmaddie.weebly.com/blog/the-fall-roy

I just want to say that although I don’t think The Sweet Hereafter is an adaptation of The Pied Piper, but rather an appropriation, I still wanted to use it for clever word play in the title. BUT is an adaptation of the novel by Russell Banks. So I guess I wrote out this disclaimer for nothing. Thank you.

This post is based off of a class discussion.

Roland Barthes wrote an essay called The Death of the Author. In it he claimed that the audience should stop filtering the story through the biography of the author. He said that, “The birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author” (Barthes 6).

Author with a capitol A.

Killing the author (figuratively) is a necessary violence because that is the only way change will occur. This way readers can be empowered and have complete control over the story. He believes that all writing has multiple voices which allows the reader’s perspective to have power. Whatever the reader says goes and J.K Rowling can’t do anything about it.

Then we can think of writing as a performance. For instance, the popularity of oral fairy tales did not depend on who created them, but on the story itself. It wasn’t until the Western Renaissance that that the author became revered. And now we have this capitalist ideology where writers claim Authorship and want others to know that they came up with the story.

But we shouldn’t associate the Author with what they created. At least that’s what Barthes thinks. He also states that no text is an original, but instead a composite. Every new story is just a retelling of an old, there are no original stories anymore. There is no unique Author. They all borrow, translate, imitate, homage, or remaster.

This is why the text should stand on its own without the Author needing to validate or explain anything.

Michel Foucault’s essay What is an Author? Responds to Barthes ideas. Foucault claims that when we kill the author, we can create dead space. There is a singular relationship between the Author and the text. It’s important to recognize the Author, because they created the text and without them there would be no text for readers to read. Writing creates an opening and allows the Author to disappear in their art. It is a form of escapism. He also states that the entity of the author is a socio-cultural construction.

At the end of the day, the readers are the ones who give and Author his or her power. If the relationship between the Author, the text, and the reader is so important should we kill continue to kill the Author? I think Barthes stance is an extreme take on readership. Yes, I believe that there are times when we should separate the Author from his or her work, but that doesn’t make the author any less important to the story.

I wonder if taking the Author out of the equation changes the story?

What about a film like The Sweet Hereafter, that tells the story of a school bus crash that took the lives of fourteen children and paralyzed a teenager? Does the author matter here?

Since I watched this film without knowing the director or screen writer, I’d say it’s easy to separate those Authors from the story. I don’t have their biography to go by, on the story to follow.

My thoughts on the film?

I’m not sure how I feel about it. Some classmates did not enjoy it, and I understand why. For some reason I am indifferent. I enjoyed the cinematography, but the different story lines can be a bit disorienting. Not to mention the ending was anticlimactic. And perhaps this is what the author was going for. 

One intriguing question from class was this:

Who gets to talk?

Do us readers have control or should it all be in the hands of the Author?

I guess we know what Barthes would say...

Thank you for reading.

This is a post based off of a class discussion. The following pictures/ videos may contain (in the words of my professor) “minor violence and cheesy gore”.

If you haven’t seen The Company of Wolves, watch out. I’m about to spoil the whole thing right now.

Rosaleen is our heroine. Rosaleen’s sister is attacked by wolves and dies. Rosaleen’s grandma tells her not to stray from the path. Also stay away from men whose eyebrows meet because they are wolves. But Rosaleen completely ignores this advice and has a heart to heart with a pretty unibrow man. Unibrow man goes to Rosaleen’s grandma’s house and kills her. Rosaleen shows up and shoots unibrow man. He turns into wolf man and cries. Rosaleen makes a surprised Pikachu face and forgives him and then turns into a wolf? But then it’s all a dream? Who knows the ending isn’t very clear but the movie itself is a roller coaster ride of great acting and special effects.

If you’re wondering what a surpised Pikachu face is...

This film, directed by Neil Jordan, is an adaptation of Little Red Riding Hood. The classic tale of what happens when you stray from the path.

Here are some notes I took while watching the film.

·         Expectations for women

·         Don’t stray off the path or you will die!

·         Her sister strayed from the path and now she is dead

·         Sex= death

·         Eyebrows meeting= death

·         Innocence of youth vs knowledge = death

·         Rosaleen is very chill in almost ALL situations

·         Sister dead? Chill

·         Wolves can turn into attractive men? Chill

·         Wolf man predator wants to kiss her? Super chill

·         Wolf man killed grandma? What’s new?

·         She’s so chill omg

In class we discussed how this is a dark romance… a horror fantastic…. A Gothic fairy tale. This film has it all. The screenplay was written by feminist writer Angela Cater. She changes things up a bit, like the ending. In the original story, Red learns her lesson and evades the wolf safely. In this film the notion of safety is gone. She is sleeping in her room when a wolf breaks through her window, the last thing you hear is her scream. We don’t know what happened. There is no resolution.

This new take on Red Riding Hood also humanizes the monster. The transformation scenes showcase the pain and horror of being a werewolf. This makes it hard not to sympathize with them, as they have no control over what’s happening to their bodies.

We also talked about the difference between the elements of a fairy tale and a Gothic.

Fairy tale: dreamlike, has morals, allegory, simple plot, gender roles, coming of age, magic, secluded places, has a young and usually female protagonist

Gothics: also dreamlike, excess (drama, blood, horror), metaphor, repressed sexuality, subversive gender and generic roles, violence, faraway lands, supernatural, psychological, terror, convoluted plot, double extenders, young female protagonist

A dark romance is a combination of the two.

 In a fairy tale or Gothic, romance turns into fear. The protagonist meets a man and falls in love. Things are going great until she finds out he’s a monster and now she fears him.

In a dark romance fear turns into romance. She may start off fearing the man, but overtime she realizes he’s still a hunk and she’ll love him forever.

 Our professor mentioned that the protagonist is put through trauma but is silenced by the idea that she has a man who loves her. 

Female writers are reworking these ideas to give the female protagonist agency and re-center her desire.

We were asked if The Company of Wolves changes the game or stays the same?

As far as storytelling goes, I enjoyed the dark take on the tale. But I’m not clear on how it would be a feminist film. If you’re trying to give the heroine a voice different from what she normally has then why is she and those around her punished for her actions? It mirrors the original tale, but this time we sympathize for the wolf.

If I were to rewrite this tale, I would make it so when Red strays from the path she finds freedom and the ability to discover herself. Then she discover that her village was actually a cage all along. She’ll realize that the people of her village were the real wolves tricking her to believe that if someone is different than her, then they are bad.

Now, that’d be interesting.

Thank you for reading

Pictures used

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1431201-surprised-pikachu

This is a very opinionated post based on a class discussion. 

Evil step mothers. We have them. We love to hate them. Our favorite princess’s basic human rights may have been ignored by one. Actually, we might just love them. We’ve seen the evil step mother in most Disney princess films. If she’s not a step mom, she’s some hot witch who refuses to let her throne or powers be diminished by some young uncultured youth who her son met two hours ago. That or she’s mad cause a man cut off her wings.

But what about the codification of these “good” and “bad” characters. I’m gonna be honest I don’t know what codification means so give me one sec.

Alright. According to Google it is the processes of arranging laws or rules according to a system or plan.

So, if the good and bad guys are codified in these Disney princess films, or in fairytales in general what would their codification be?

Bad guy: dark colors, sexy, widow

Good guy: light colors, innocent, naïve, has little to no control over what happens to her

Maleficent and Snow White adheres to these rules quite well. Especially, Maleficent.

Before I jump into that let’s talk about Sun, Moon, and Talia by Giambattista Basilc. 

This folktale published in 1634 influenced the Sleeping Beauty we know today. But this one is a bit darker. A (married) man finds this girl cursed to sleep forever and apparently, she was so hot that he couldn’t help but do the devil’s tango with her dormant body. She wakes up with two kids. Those kids are eaten by the dude’s jealous wife. Plot twist the cook tricked the mean wife and the kids and the dude and the totally not sexually abused woman lived happily ever after.

This brings up some interesting topics.

Who is the villain? The man or his wife or both?…

The generational gap between the heroine and the cannibalistic woman…

The knight in shining armor archetype…

Whose voice is heard…

We noticed that monster goes from being the man (Sun, Moon and Talia) to being the oldest woman (Snow White/ Sleeping Beauty). A woman who cannot produce children and she is evil because she can’t do what women were made to do and that is to have children and never talk and be happy with whatever she’s got because she’s got a man now so all things are good.

Sorry I didn’t mean to go off there.

This not only builds a barrier between generations of women, but it silences the voice of the heroine. Good girls don’t talk. And if they do, they aren’t good. They are evil and full of hatred and greed because they have their own ideas and that’s not what women where made for. At least that’s what these messages are saying. Perhaps I’m exaggerating (although I doubt it). But consider the fact that instead of producing a conversation on the injustice of sexual assault these stories create generational conflict. Instead of watching out for men who can’t control their lust over a literal sleeping woman, women should keep their eye on older women because those old hags might be jealous of their youth and beauty.

And what about the idea that a woman is most beautiful when she is sleeping? We discussed that this is often the trope given to young heroines at the brink of their sexual awakening. Once they cross that line between child and adulthood it’s best they go to sleep. Let the men do all the work. Wake up with two bright eyed kids. Live happily ever after. Romanticizing the female corpses is odd but common.

Also, if you’re magically sleeping, frozen in time, you can’t age. You’re beautiful and young forever so double perfection. America seems to have this fear of aging that transitions over to the fears of evil step mothers. These women also associate youth with beauty and will do anything to maintain their beauty.

Maybe I’m being mean. Maybe these stories are inspiration, ground-breaking pieces of media that change hearts and purify minds.

Tracey Mollet wrote an essay titled, “With a Smile and a Song:’ Walt Disney and the Birth of the American Fairy Tale,” Marvels & Tales”. There she discusses the origin and impact Disney fairy tales had on the American nation.

Snow White came out during the Great Depression. And it was just what America needed. An escape from realism. It taught morality, as these nature loving heroines were kind and optimistic. It conveyed the idea that material wealth is not important, but it’s what’s on the inside that truly matters. It created what Mollet referred to as a, “idealistic utopian” (Mollet 123).

But what about the unrealistic portrayal of women in the media? What about our voices? Does modern media aid to fix this issue? Or is it another ploy to feed us once and empty our pockets?

Maleficent directed by Robert Stromberg in 2014 gives the villain a voice. We learn her origin, the reason for her evil, the truth of her good. But what. About. The heroine?

Still as optimistic and beautiful and as sleep as ever. Lacking in initiative, loving every breathing thing that crosses her path. And yes I am being kind of mean and people disagree with my stance but I see no difference between this heroine and the one from the cartoon, other than the fact that she doesn’t need a man. But I guess for those who disagree with me that is enough....

This is such an intriguing trope and I have mixed feelings. Yes, I do think these stories can inspire people to be hopeful and kind, but what if I find it inspiring because I’ve been conditioned my whole life to think that one set of stories is good? That this is what women should be like and I should just go with the flow? But there’s a shift. I think our voices are starting to be heard but I’m not sure if it’s just so these Hollywood producers can get our butts on those precious theater seats. I do think it’s getting better, but I don’t want it only at the hands of men either. Equality in the media is a great idea but when will that happen?

And if it does happen, will we know?

I don’t know but this new Maleficent might change some things. For the better? We can only hope.

 Thank you for reading.

Believe it or not there is a connection between adaptation and youth in film. So let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about horror movies and children.

Julian Petley’s essay, The Monstrous Child introduced me to the terms “changeling” and “childling”. This describes the portrayal of children in horror films. These innocent, wide eyed, chubby cheeked, adorable little monsters will be wise beyond their years. In some cases, they’ll look human but are truly something else.

Take Let the Right One In, directed by Tomas Alfredson, for instance. (Spoiler) the girl’s a vampire. (More spoiler) the girl’s a dude. (Last spoiler) the girl dude is super old.

Changeling and childling takes that line most Hollywood movies place between good and evil and mushes it together until you don’t/ can’t decide if a character is inherently bad or not. Eli kills to survive. She has no choice but to hunt for blood. But she doesn’t enjoy doing it. She morns over her victims, but that doesn’t make her actions any less sinister. Of course she could choose to end her life by subjecting herself to sunlight or going into a house uninvited. Does the fact that she chooses to live make her a bad person? It’s hard to say. She was turned into a vampire and castrated as a child. I can only imagine that the thought of death terrifies her as does life itself. I’m getting too deep here. Back to the broad topic of monster children.

These kidos are often the product of their corrupt parents and/ or society. These films are often a criticism on the social injustices of this world and how they lead to the downfall of our children. We are the producers of evil and that evil will destroy us. Parents must pay for their sins, we must pay for our failures, the academy should’ve given Leo more awards. I am getting too deep again.

These children are often gender ambiguous. Girls may dress tomboyish or have gender ambiguous names. Much like Eli who blurs the two genders together. Monstrous children are the “bad seed” (56) of the bunch. Macaulay Culkin’s portrayal as Henry in The Good Son comes to mind.

 The child looks sweet as pie, but underneath lies a young boy with serious psychological problems. Deceivingly sweet. Unapologetically dangerous.

Female characters are often displayed as a portal. Take Firestarter staring Drew Barrymore. She is a portal from which fire goes through. She is the gateway to destruction.

It’s interesting to see children in horror movies. They can be horrifying, even more so than adults. Perhaps it’s the fact that we normally associate children with innocence and purity. So when we see what should be pure and lovely act the opposite, the imagery is astoundingly philosophically scary.

But concerning Let the Right One In, a clear distinction between the good and bad is blurred. Eli is the vampire, but who is the real monster? I have a few ideas.

Oskar. He, unlike Eli, finds pleasure in hurting others. At least that’s how it appears in this scene 

 and this scene 

 And I’m sure you’re thinking “Well yeah he wants to hurt them, they are bullies.” But see Oskar doesn’t just want the bullying to end, he wants their lives to end. His clear joy at seeing that bully fall to his knees as the blood fell from his ear was the scariest part for me. This is because for a split second I was looking into the eyes of someone who doesn’t hurt to defend. This is someone who hurts because to him it feels good.

And what about Eli’s caretaker? An older man who kills for Eli in exchange for her devotion and affection?

Or how about Jimmy? The bully’s older brother who threatens to stab Oskar’s eye out if he doesn’t hold his breath underwater for three minutes? In that scene we see a distinction between Jimmy and his younger brother, who knows Jimmy is taking things too far.

Or what about the vampire that started it all? The vampire (not shown in film) that not only turned Eli into a blood sucking monster but castrated him?

Yes, the “monster” is Eli. But she is not the only one who acts like one.

Which leads us to a different monster.

If you’ve seen Let the Right One In, you may have also seen the remake Let Me In directed by Matt Reeves. Thomas Leitch wrote an in-depth essay about remakes entitled, “Twice-Told Tales: Disavowal and the Rhetoric of the Remake,” Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. In it he claims that there are rhetorical problems with remakes. You can’t exactly copyright films shots and you can’t stop someone from making a remake of your film.

There’s also the conversation about the audience for remakes. Remake may be attempting to lure in a new set of audiences by offering a twist on the story. It could be a remake for veteran audiences who saw the original.

Leitch argues that there’s a parasitic relationship between the remake and the original. It can be close to the original and not the be original at all. Just like Let Me In. Let Me In appears to be a shot for shot adaptation of Let the Right One In. And this caused a lot of controversy, understandably. What was the point of the remake? Who was it for? Was it good? I’m not sure about any of those questions, but what I do know is that I learned a new word.

Disavowel: a model of intertextuality that suggests one must be open minded about remakes, but still keep in mind that it is not the original and it will never be.

In the words of Thomas Leitch, “The goal of the contemporary  remake is  to translate not a language but a culture, appealing to the aura of their originals as European, serious, complex, adult, art-house films while domesticating  exactly the  elements  that created  that  aura in  the  first place” (Leitch 56).

So if you want to watch Let the Right One In or it’s remake Let Me In...

Thank you for reading

Sources used: 

Julian Petley, “The Monstrous Child,” The Body’s Perilous Pleasures (1999), 87-107. 

Thomas Leitch, “Twice-Told Tales: Disavowal and the Rhetoric of  the Remake,” Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice (2002), 37-62.

https://www.nytimes.com/watching/recommendations/let-the-right-one-in

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087262/

https://www.comingsoon.net/horror/reviews/874573-the-good-son-blu-ray-review

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130221515

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by, William Shakespeare, is a well-known classic. It implements various concepts that are still used today. Love between two unlikely sources, youth in media, and the idea that the best love doesn’t last. 

The film Romeo + Juliet (Baz Luhrmann, 1996) is an adaptation of the very well-known play. An adaptation with a twist. If you haven’t seen it, do it. It’s a wild ride. If you have, you know the original text serves as the script but the movie is set in modern times.

Is that an okay thing to do? How many “authors” of a tale can there be until there are too many? Why is Leonardo DiCaprio crying the best thing to ever be produced on film?

With adaptation and intertextuality, different texts will and can inspire one another. This tale of forbidden love has been told and retold multiple times (with no sign of stopping).

There’s the Romeo and Juliet from 1968, featuring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey.

This (in my humble opinion) is the closest movie adaptation I’ve seen of the play.

We’ve got Romeo and Juliet again in 2013 with Douglas Booth and Hailee Steinfeld.

There was a Romeo and Juliet on Broadway, staring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad.

This is by far my favorite adaptation.

Numerous storytellers, filmmakers, and artists have reinvented this story to either broaden its audience or convey how they believe the story should be portrayed or both.

Luhrmann’s, however, is the most intriguing. Combining the original text with the outlandish yet extravagant MTV influence of the late 90’s is a crazy genius move. It’s a gumbo of visual effects, action, and romance. And don’t worry. If you don’t understand what they’re saying, you will understand what they’re feeling.

Mercutio’s Queen Mab speech comes to mind. 

I could watch that scene twelve times a day and still not understand what he’s talking about. But the emotion he evokes as the scene goes on alludes to his pain. He is misunderstood, misjudged, discriminated against. His distress is evident. His tone crystal clear. And because he appears to understand his own words, it helps the audience decipher this scene’s intentions.

Thomas Leitch’s wrote an essay titled, “Adaptation and Intertextuality, or, What Isn’t an Adaptation, and What Does It Matter?,” A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation. There, he described adaptation as a “problem child” as it is a form of intertextuality that challenges film binaries (Leitch, 101). No matter what, adaptation reinvents. A text could be made into a movie, or vise versa. A movie can even be an adaptation of a movie.

Some argue that Luhrmann’s adaptation is a cheap bastardization of a beautiful classic. Others adore it.

But what makes this movie an adaptation rather than an appropriation? It’s connection to the original text. The Tale of a Vampire is considered an appropriation because it is loosely based on Poe’s Annabel Lee. Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, however, is directly related to Shakespeare’s play.

The great thing about adaptation is that a story can be retold in numerous unimaginable, unlimited ways. But it’s best not to go crazy as this can lead to an adaptation’s downfall. For instance…

Did I like the movie? Yes. However, I’m not sure how I feel about the “diversity” of the cast. Don’t get me wrong. Harold Perrineau’s performance as Mercutio was outstanding, and John Leguizamo’s Tybalt was beautiful. But these roles, particularly Tybalt’s, appeared to perpetuate racial stereotypes. Why is that the good guys are white and pure and angelical, but the Latino is diablo?

Was this a director trying to reach his diversity quota or was he really pushing for a diverse cast because he knew that was something the media needed?

I don’t know, but I know the media needs diversity and not just for diversity sake. I want to see heroes and heroines that are pure and angelical and black. I want to see Filipino crime fighters. I want to see a billionaire Hispanics. I want to see geniuses and pioneers who look just like me in Hollywood’s media. Not because filmmakers have to but because they want to. Because they need to.

And if we’re going to keep remaking Romeo and Juliet, why not tell the story from different perspectives. Imagine a movie where Rosaline witnesses the death of a man who she loves but cannot be with. Imagine a Romeo and Juliet where they have powers. Or perhaps the story is retold in Ethiopia. There are so many ways this story could be twisted. I think it would be cool to make it a musical about an Indian man and a woman from Ghana who are the son and daughter of a competing circus on the moon. Think about it.

The director also implemented Catholic imagery throughout the movie. There are multiple scenes in a Catholic church, including Romeo and Juliet’s death scene. A student even mentioned that the title of the movie uses a cross as the “+” in Romeo + Juliet. Juliet is even an angel in the ball scene.

Because the film is set in modern times, swords are exchanged for guns. This addresses the gang issues in California. I also wonder if it was a criticism on the violence of gangs as well. I actually appreciate the modern setting because of this topic.

Overall, Romeo + Juliet showcases the power of adaptation. It also begs the question: how far can we go with adaptation, and what are we going to do next?

Thank you for reading.

Pictures/ videos used: https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/11/baz-luhrmanns-romeo-juliet-and-the-currency-of-cool/

https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/23148/1/ten-iconic-moments-men-cried-on-film

https://www.kreattivita.org/en/event/shakespeare-film-festival-romeo-juliet-1968-3/

https://www.awardscircuit.com/2013/10/12/romeo-juliet-%E2%98%85%E2%98%85/

https://variety.com/2013/legit/news/broadway-review-romeo-and-juliet-1200643078/

https://youtu.be/s8q8S0ScJ1w

https://www.amazon.com/Percy-Jackson-Lightning-Thief-DVD/dp/B008YVDG6W

https://bazluhrmannisgod.wordpress.com/tag/romeo-juliet/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/84077/12-star-crossed-facts-about-romeo-juliet

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2771200/

https://dragonball.fandom.com/wiki/Dragonball_Evolution

This is a post based off of a class discussion. 

If you’ve never seen the Tale of a Vampire, then you’re in for a treat. The Shamiko Sato film is sure to deliver...depending on what you’re looking for. If a slow-paced Indie film is at the top of the list then go no further. If you’re in dire need for an edgy adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Annabel Lee” you can stop here too, believe it or not. 

In my Adaptation: Youth in Film Class we discussed both the original text and its supposed film adaptation. Whether or not, Tale of a Vampire should be considered an adaptation at all. According to Cartmell and Whelehan’s Screen Adaptation: Impure Cinema, adaptation studies are always being revised. If the source is authentic and true to the original media, then it’s a form of pure adaptation. 

During class discussion we came to the conclusion that this vampire movie would be more of an appropriation than an adaptation. The reason being: it is hard to tell if it is based off Edgar’s poem at all. A poem in which I will insert here:

Annabel Lee

BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

It was many and many a year ago,   In a kingdom by the sea, That a maiden there lived whom you may know   By the name of Annabel Lee; And this maiden she lived with no other thought   Than to love and be loved by me. I was a child and she was a child,   In this kingdom by the sea, But we loved with a love that was more than love—   I and my Annabel Lee— With a love that the wingèd seraphs of Heaven   Coveted her and me. And this was the reason that, long ago,   In this kingdom by the sea, A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling   My beautiful Annabel Lee; So that her highborn kinsmen came   And bore her away from me, To shut her up in a sepulchre   In this kingdom by the sea. The angels, not half so happy in Heaven,   Went envying her and me— Yes!—that was the reason (as all men know,   In this kingdom by the sea) That the wind came out of the cloud by night,   Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee. But our love it was stronger by far than the love   Of those who were older than we—   Of many far wiser than we— And neither the angels in Heaven above   Nor the demons down under the sea Can ever dissever my soul from the soul   Of the beautiful Annabel Lee; For the moon never beams, without bringing me dreams   Of the beautiful Annabel Lee; And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes   Of the beautiful Annabel Lee; And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side   Of my darling—my darling—my life and my bride,   In her sepulchre there by the sea—   In her tomb by the sounding sea. (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44885/annabel-lee)

Although the film begins and ends with a reading of the poem, the movie takes artistic liberties that make it less of an adaptation. 

It can even be argued that the film is a criticism on male authorship, and the use of women as props. For instance, in both the poem and movie Annabel does not have a voice.  My professor even argued that the character doesn’t even have initiative in the film (which I wholeheartedly agree with). Moreover, she is used as a prop between the two male characters of the film (spoilers: both vampires). Something that stuck out to me is when our professor claimed that this movie “shines the light on the wages of having men author these stories.” Certain characters don’t get a voice, but instead are deemed as a prize that can be won or lost. 

There is also the incorporation of multiple genres within the film. From horror to fantasy. Romance to drama. This movie’s got it all. And did I mention there are vampires?

Which brings us to the idea of youth being used to enhance film. For one, vampires don’t age (and we can save the conversation about pedophilia later). Not only that but Annabel dies at a young age in the poem as well as the film. This idea of being young forever, whether that be from an immortal death or real physical death is interesting to me. It is seen in numerous movies and books *cough cough* Twilight *cough cough*. 

Which I understand. Hollywood, or just media in general, is fixated on young people. More specifically, young women. And how about the paring of young women with older men? Something Tale of a Vampire touches on, as Annabel’s romantic lead is centuries older than her. 

Then we have Edgar, a vampire who believes that the most beautiful thing in the world is for a woman to die young. This leads him to not only bury his vampire wife (Alex’s true love) alive in the ocean, but kill Annabel (Alex’s true love pt. 2) as a revenge plot against Alex, who is also a vampire. Did I mention there are vampires in this movie?

We also discussed an essay by Linda Williams (Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess). According to her essay there are three types of excessive genres in film. Horror, drama, and pornography. These genres are considered the lowest on the movie genre scale because of their excess in blood, tears, and so on. But they are also known to use female bodies. Whether that be using them as victims of crimes in horror movies, or as characters who through the emotional and physical pains and trails of life. Often times they put women in powerless situations, and use men to put women in powerless situations. This is not say that male bodies can’t be used in the same way, they just don’t seem to be as popular when it comes to these genres. If I’m honest, I never noticed these troupes until I read this essay. I tend to stay far away from these genres (mostly because I’m a comedy gal myself), but even outside of those three genres I can see how female bodies are used. Even in comedy female bodies can be used to elicit fear, sex appeal, or an excess of emotion. Whether this is good or bad, I’m not sure. I’m not a big fan of how some of these troupes can form our identities as men or women, or the fact that women are so easily victimized. 

The best I can do is stay educated, get my voice out there, and create something different. 

We ended our discussion with a very important question. Where are the limits in adapting literature to film? Are there even any?

Perhaps by the end of this class we’ll have found out.