Rear Window vs. Disturbia

Rear Window v. Disturbia

The differences and similarities between these two movies, I find, are hilarious. I find humor in what directors and writers change per audience and these two films have striking differences.

The most obvious differences between these two films are what decade they were filmed. While Rear Window was released in the 50s, Disturbia was released in 2007. This huge time gap brings into action many technological changes. Disturbia has a lot of cell phones, the Internet, video games, XBOX and iTunes usage. In Rear Window phones still had cords and it's not like you saw James Stewart playing with his iPod when he got bored.
Interestingly enough, the use of binoculars remains in Rear Window's remake. Shia LaBeouf's character, Kale, uses them to spy on his neighbors while under house arrest (unlike James Stewart's character's broken leg). This simple piece of voyeurism technology still proves useful in 2007.

Other similarities in the film include the sidekicks. In Rear Window, Jeff has his girlfriend- a pretty blond- and his nurse. In Disturbia, Kale has his girlfriend- a pretty blond- and his best friend from school. The romantic interest is a necessity in the films so the plot is constantly tense for the viewer and the every hero needs the funny sidekick who turns into the voice of reason.

As noted earlier, in both movies, the hero is confined to his house. Jeff has a broken leg as a result of trying to get the perfect action shot for his job. Kale is on house arrest as a result of punching his Spanish teacher after his teacher makes a quip about Kale's late father (Kale was with his father when he died in a car crash after a father-son fishing trip).
I found the differences interesting. For a man in his late forties, surely nothing could be more frustrating than losing his independence to a wheel chair. Jeff is used to being out in the world in action, taking chances- getting into trouble. His handicap not only keeps him in place but allows the audience to relate through his limited mobility.
Kale's house arrest was a good choice. Since the main character is a teenager on summer vacation for this film, an injury wasn't going to make enough of a sting for the audience. Taking away a teen's freedom with an ankle bracelet, though, is perfect. Teens feel cooped up as it is but the ankle bracelet, in my opinion, was great. He is free to move around, but only within his house and some of his yard. If he steps outside his borders, the police are alerted and show up to reprimand or arrest him. (The nurse in Rear Window somewhat "polices" Stewart's character as she constantly nags at him.)

The murderers change from film to film. In Rear Window, Thorwald merely kills his wife and chops her to bits. In Disturbia, Mr. Turner is a serial killer- he kills multiple women and cuts them up into pieces before storing them in his house.
Both murderers keep a garden in the films. These gardens, I find, are a clue to the murderer's finical habits. (I don't believe Mr. Turner uses his garden to bury his victims as Mr. Thorwald does in Rear Window.) Both gardens are home to small, furry creatures’ deaths- the neighbor’s dog in Rear Window and a helpless rabbit in Disturbia.

I kind of just wanted to stray from our teacher's question this one time. The differences between the two films display the needs of today's audience- technology, fear, aggressions, etc. The only things that did not change(because the audience didn't need them to change) were the basic plot frames and the attractiveness level of the female companion.
Today's audience finds it more humorous than suspenseful that Jeffries uses a flashing camera lens to blind his attacker. At the same time, in Disturbia, Kale actually ventures into Mr. Turner's house, leading to... I won't spoil the ending!

I highly recommend watching Disturbia as the little brother of Rear Window and watching as this film takes on Hitchcock's film.

Glengarry Glen Ross

First off: loved the play, even though typically I am very against reading plays because, in my opinion, they were meant to be seen, not read. Anyway! This was an exception to me. The characters were very well played and I enjoyed reading it.
I don't really see Mamet as anti-women, really. I saw his characters at times being anti-women but not misogynists.
It seems clear with Levene- he is very concerned about his daughter and you see his devotion to her throughout the play. I especially liked the movie's portrayal of this sub-plot. In the play and movie, you see Levene calling the hospital to check on her, and attempt to speak to her. Men may have problems with women but once they have daughters that seems to change, huh?
As for the other characters, I didn't see a distaste for women in general but for particular women. There is some bitterness over "that guy's ex" for ruining a deal and "deadbeats" signing contracts they have no intention of buying, but this bitterness seems directed at their own personal and professional losses.

How are we to deal with the women in the play? As merely background? They are somewhat important but you never see them- like Romeo and Juliet's Rosaline -there for emotional substance filling in otherwise empty character developments. We see these men as constantly moving people, concerned with their jobs and careers and the women add to that concern. Levene's daughter is the perfect example. I didn't really feel sorry for him when, at the end, he turns to his boss and says "My daughter...?"

This blog has proved somewhat difficult for me as the question caught me by surprise. Mamet's women hadn't really come to mind actively as I was reading or watching as much as the gripping plot twist did.

King Lear

Let me first start off saying... I love King Lear. I haven't ever really read Shakespeare with enjoyment (except for A Midsummer Night's Dream) and usually bash him with every chance I get. I typically have no trouble telling people that although an English major, I do not like Shakespeare...but maybe I've been changed :p

Oh...I would definitely agree with Kahn's theory on King Lear. Although rare for the time period, the play explores how one parent must be present for mother and father. It's what makes King Lear so unique, I think. I am not sure that's what Shakespeare was going for...his point may not have been "let's explore single-parent families."
One could argue that towards the end of the play King Lear becomes more acquainted with his feminine side. I'm not the only one who has noticed that this seems to mean going bonkers. Sbove, you noticed this too.
I would like to have a cut- to, very silly exploration here, just for a minute: never once could I feel sorry for Regan and Goneril, especially Goneril. Her name sounds far too much that a common Sexually Transmitted Disease. There. I’ve said it. Anyway…

King Lear is all about finding balance and how it is necessary as a parent. To be the ruthless, distant parent who puts his career before his children or to be the doting, affectionate parent? (To be or not to be...? Sorry, I had to.) Towards the end of the play it certainly seems as if King Lear softens up a bit (to me, everything seemed in vain as they all died in the end...others could argue that it wasn't... either way this is a tragedy!) Also, I think another point explored in the play is whether one is willing to change in order to not lose everything he or she has. King Lear seemed to want to change so he didn’t lose Cordelia, even if it was too late for Regan and Goneril.

Persepolis

"Politics and Sentiment Don't Mix"

I don't believe Marjane Satrapi agrees with that statement at all, is obvious in her enitre graphic novel. Too much of her novel deals with her emotions towards the revolution and war for her to think that the two don't mix. Her novel is not an entirely emotional piece, but sentimentality plays a strong role in her book.
Her novel is about how the war and revolution affected her and her family. The book doesn't have a message about what should be done in Iran as it's main focus. Yes, there is evidence that Satrapi would like certain things to politically move in Iran and Tehran, but the story mostly focuses on her childhood experience.

Marjane's grandmother and mother would have similar ideas. Although Satrapi's mother would agree with her husband, that politics and sentiment don't mix- her points of view are based on her own emotions as a woman, a mother, a daughter and a wife. The same goes for Marjane's grandmother. Marjane's grandmother and mother lived through poverty and were punished for simply being female- of course their reactions to the war are going to be sentimental.

Also, the war and revolution are made only more personal to Satrapi and her family through all of the family members whose lives were either endangered or lost to the war/revolution.

From my own point of view- yes of course politics and sentiment mix- even if they shouldn’t. War becomes personal quickly, even if its purpose is not meant to be personal in any fashion. War starts off as for monetary gain but when lives are lost and restrictions on people’s freedom affect their everyday life, all of a sudden it is an emotional problem.
The US’s involvement in the Middle East may have started out about oil or protecting nuclear arms- or what have you- but after 9/11- it was personal. This nation was able to take a few punches to the arms and chest, but the suicide bombers in 2001 was a slap in the face. Quickly Americans made it personal.
What I think Marjane’s father meant was that, even though politics and sentiment are two different things- they get involved with each other and that it should be avoided. Sadly, when people react emotionally, their reasoning ability suffers. Politicians feel pressured by citizens’ feelings towards war and war tactics, and a huge mess ensues. Could the problem been taken care of quickly? Oh, yes. Had sentiment not gotten in the way, for all we know, a huge nuclear war could have begun and people would be left wondering what happened to a population of millions of people.
The point I’m trying to make is- politics, mixed with sentiment, can be messy, illogical, irrational and makes progress slow. So yes, I agree with Marjane’s father. At the same time, that sentiment is saving people’s lives…so… who knows?

The Moviegoer

This is my first blog...so... sorry if it makes no sense

Does Binx find what he was looking for?
I believe the search was really just Binx looking for an identity- some kind of fulfillment and validation in the world. When he says he doesn’t want to talk about the search, I saw it in two ways: one, hilarious- it simply struck me as very amusing- and two, as if the search was no longer relevant. Early on in the book, Binx discusses the search:

"Truthfully, it is the fear of exposing my own ignorance which constrains me from mentioning the object of my search. For, to begin with, I cannot even answer this, the simplest and most basic of all questions: Am I, in my search, a hundred miles ahead of my fellow Americans or a hundred miles behind them? That is to say" Have 98% of Americans already found what I seek or are they suck in everydayness that not even the possibility of a search has occurred to them?" (14)

And so on and so on do we hear about this search… sporadically and mysteriously throughout the book until, at one point-and without realizing it- the reader seems to finally understand what the search is for Binx. Towards the end of the book when Binx seems to have either a) found the conclusion to his search or b) given up, the reader knows a few things: he decides to go to medical school and had married Kate. Personally, I think Binx found an answer he didn’t realize he was looking for and that he is satisfied with ending the search.

It seems he has found validation, or at least a sturdy ground to stand on…

I’d like to argue more that perhaps he has just been so distracted from his search that when he says he doesn’t wish to talk about it- because maybe he forgot all about it. When Binx said that in the epilogue, I laughed out loud. It seemed typical… if you’ve ever known a child who is determined to run away to the circus- they have every intention to do so. He or she will pack a suitcase, a snack and head out the front door and then will become distracted by some friends playing kickball down the street or something else as equally promising. Ask “How was the circus?” and that child will blush and murmur “fine…” and then won’t mention it again. To me, the search is irrelevant to Binx at the end of the book, but not because it was irrelevant during the entirety of the book. I apologize if I don’t make sense… Another example I could use would be travelling for vacation- typically, one remembers the vacation, not the awful car-ride to get there.

I’ll end with applause to Percy. No writer has ever made me this confused and not made me hate him or her. I will not deny that for the majority of the book I was scratching my head but at the same time I thought I was getting the gist (like reading a foreign language with only a bit of the vocabulary). At the same time, I grew to like Kate and Binx and Aunt Emily.