Changes to Changez: The Reluctant Fundamentalist

After reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist, and then reading the film, the biggest contrast I see in character’s relationships is the one between Changez and Bobby—formerly known as the “American Stranger.” One of the key elements we discussed while close reading the book was the importance of the stranger. We never knew his back-story: he wasn’t even given a name. The stranger was anonymous so that we could picture being in his shoes. There was always an air of uncertainty when it came to his motive.

            Now, I know that in the world of film, having the name of just one real character may bore the audience. However, it has worked before with adaptations of books, such as the book (and now movie), Buried. The entire book takes place inside a coffin. He has memories, that include the names of people, but you only see from his point of view. Very similar to how we only saw from Changez’s point of view in the novel. We are introduced to Bobby early in the film when he gets a phone call, presumably from the people in the scene beforehand. The call led up to a meeting with Changez, however in the book the man who Bobby portrays ends up having a meal with Changez only by chance—or so we are lead to believe. The Stranger has no reason to tape what Changez is saying, it’s just friendly conversation. However, Bobby needs to hear his every word. With this in mind, Changez could have cut things out of his story. It’s no longer immediately a friendly vibe like in the novel, but more of a nervous one.

            Bobby also has power in his hands, while in the book Changez was more dominant. Changez was comfortable in his own country, helping out this man foreign man. He kept calm, and tried to keep the Stranger at ease throughout the meal. However, in the film, the stranger talks back to Changez. He has control over what is happening to Changez’s family, and the safety of his students. Changez on the other hand has obvious henchmen in the film. They work hard to make Bobby feel uncomfortable, any chance they can. It’s like watching a duel the entire time; who’s going to shoot first.

            Is there a misconception of the American director’s interpretation of the film? That’s a big issue. In the book the entire time you are humanizing Changez. He might look the part of a terrorist, but you’re learning that he lived the American dream. He was at the top of an American firm, making bank—if I may—and scoring the girl of his dreams. He is an innocent man, who walks up to a lost American and tries to comfort him, because he too is a lover of America. Here, however in this “appointment” with Bobby, Changez defensively tells him, once the phone starts recording, that he is a lover of America. The movie’s audience gets the idea that Changez may be involved in some sketchy stuff; after all the first thing we see is this man getting kidnapped by men in beards, and suddenly it turns into his problem. Who do we trust? That issue came out only towards the end of book, because Changez was walking the stranger home in the dark—a gesture friendly enough, but too friendly perhaps. But again, right off the bat, we are unsure what this foreign man is involved with.

            The concept of the “American Stranger” was completely lost in the film. I’ve said it once, and I just said it again. The tone set between the two at the café was completely different than it was in the book. Sure, the reminiscing followed the same basic plot line, but the outside world, which was normally just Changez reassuring the stranger, or trying to grab his attention, was suddenly way too intense. It was not as easy to watch, as it was to sit back and read. 

In the span of two weeks, my film studies class has watched the movies Beasts of The Southern Wild, and Moonrise Kingdom. Personally, I loved Moonrise Kingdom: one of the best movies I've seen in awhile.

In these weeks, we have been studying "Mise en Scene" which pretty much means the way that a movie is set up. The movie Moonrise Kingdom is very calming. It's dry, but still entertaining. I think that the cast's acting was a big role, although not in the way you would expect. I mean, the parts were fairly simple, almost too simple, but the choice of actors was really important. It was like the director put these big actors in the movie to draw people in, and when they got there it was nothing like you expected. Bruce Willis didn't blow anybody's brains out. In fact he was scared to even do his job as a cop, the Khaki Scouts did it for him. Bill Murray was a lame lawyer who didn't even sleep in the same bed as his wife--didn't bust up one ghost, might I add. These actors did their job perfectly, just the right amount of blandness in their character, without the character seeming empty. If you wanted an empty actor to play an empty character he would have just cast Nicolas Cage.Think about it, if Wes Anderson had cast a group full of nobodies, would this movie have been as notable? Maybe, maybe not, but the acting and the character choices definitely helped to improve the film.

Another thing that Wes Anderson is famous for is his scene composition. Imagine how clean cut his storyboard drawings were. We discussed in class that generally straight lines give people a feeling of calmness. That feeling was intermingled throughout the entire movie, from the tone of voice the actors took, to the straight lines in the blankets, or the stairs, or any of that. He definitely played up the rule of thirds. The whole, "what draws your eye" kind of thing, like in the scenes where Suzy's sitting on the window seat while her brothers play beneath her:

The whole thing just puts you at ease; it's simple, like the rest of the film. All very surreal, I give it five out of five cups of tea. 

\

The other movie we watched was Beasts of The Southern Wild. The movie was pretty good with a lot of freaky metaphorical diegetic scenes. Maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but one of the first things I noticed about the movie's mise en scene was the costume's and props that the actors had. Instead of a boat, they used an old broken truck bed, tied to barrels to help it float, and I mean when you're living in the Louisiana bayou  what else can you use? It really helped to put things in perspective. They couldn't afford a boat, and they had no where to try and build one. They made do with what they had, and that's the way they liked it. The other thing I noticed was how simplistic the costumes were. The leading actor--a little girl--wore almost the same exact thing in every scene, up until she is sent to the mainland for help. She always wears a white shirt, which is stained a very light brown, giving you the impression that she is obviously dirty. The lack a clothing change shows how poor of hygiene the poor girl has, and she never wears pants. At one point she wears just a shirt and underwear, but you can tell even the underwear are worn out. Not only that, but the other characters dressed so simply. It was as if I could have grabbed the clothes off of a rack in Wal-Mart, and we would be set for the entire movie, which is how it should be. These people are not well off, and their limited supply of outfits helps to show that. Even the hookers in the ladies bar wore slips as lingerie, because they couldn't afford anything else, and the men weren't complaining.

I think that the most amazing part of the film was the setting. Every single one of their settings was really from Louisiana. Like hello, that's America. And that's what some parts of America look like. While the rest of us are out worrying about how much cell phone service we have at our house, they're wondering if they can get any clean water. The houses that they created on the bayou were also intricately unique, again emphasizing the point that they work with what they have. Not only that, but the fact that these little girls have to swim to a boat in order to go anywhere, just shows how secluded these parts of America are. No one really notices them, unless they want to be noticed. And these people know that their life won't get any easier, but they choose to live this way. In a way, the bayou seems like a completely unfit place to raise a little girl, but by the end of the movie, you see how much she has grown as a character. She has to grow up a lot in a short amount of time, and you realize that all this time she's spent living this hard life will only help her when she gets older. 

It's a great film, with a good lesson, and had I not watched Moonrise Kingdom right before, I probably would have liked it even more. Four out of five cups of tea. 

Let me drop some fancy film terms for you: fabula and syuzhet.
Although the words sound confusing, when you break them up you get some simple definitions. Fabula is known as the story, from beginning to end. It's explicit; it leaves nothing out. So, recently I watched Christopher Nolan's film, Memento, and boy does that movie mess with your mind.
Major spoiler alert: I'm about to explain the fabula.
So this guy, Leonard has "this condition" where he pretty much has short term memory loss. One night he wakes up to find that his wife is being raped by some unknown man. When he rushes to his wife's rescue the masked man attacks him, and Leonard can't remember anything that happens to him after that point in his life. His wife survives the attack, with no after-effects (except some emotional scarring I assume). But she has trouble handling Leonard's condition. He doesn't recognize her as his wife, and she thinks that he's just faking it. She acts as though he's a liar, and tries many cruel tactics to try and wake him up from this "condition," however, none seem to work.  Eventually she tries the ultimate test. She tells Lenny over and over again that it's time for insulin shot, hoping that he will wake up and realize that he is killing her. When she realizes that the condition really is serious, and Lenoard's doing the best that he can, it's too late. She overdoses and lands herself in a coma that she never wakes up from. Lenny however, does not remember any of this. The only thing he remembers is that someone raped his wife. And now he has convinced himself that she is dead. Not knowing any better, he sets out to avenge the "death" of his wife. He writes down everything he learns as he goes, otherwise he has no way of knowing what is true, or even remembering who people are. So he knows that this guy's name is either John or James, and his last name starts with a G.This is important, so he gets it tattooed on his arm, that way it's a permanenet reminder. He get's a number of other things tattooed across his body. Things that he will remember everyt time he looks in a mirror, such as "John G. Raped and Murdered My Wife" and "Find Him And Kill Him."

And Lenny does just that. He finds and kills the man who raped and "killed" his wife: the man that took his life away. But he doesn't remember doing it. But he develops this system where he takes pictures of important accquaintences and places with a polaroid camera, and makes note of what he knows about them on the back, so that he can remind himself every day.
On his never-ending hunt to find the John or James G. that killed his wife--who he has already killed mind you--Lenny moves into a motel room at the Discount Inn. There he talks to a police officer about his quest for this "J.G." man, however he doesn't remember talking to him. The police officer, who's real name is John Gammel, tells Lenny that his name is Teddy. Teddy uses Lenny's condition against him, convincing him that big drug dealers in the area are te man who killed his wife. He get's Lenny to kill them off one by one, because of course Lenny doesn't know that he's already killed them.
One of the "J.G."'s that Lenny subconciously kills is the boyfriend of a drug-dealing bar tender, named Natalie. Of course he doesn't remember killing her boyfriend, and when she finds out that his condition is the real deal, she too uses him for her dirty work. Teddy warns Lenny that Natalie is no good. But all Lenny knows is what he writes down about each person, and he doesn't record everything. By the end of the movie, Natalie has proved that Teddy's real name is John Gammel--another John G.--and that the police officer that's trying to bust her for drugs is really the man that killed Lenny's wife. Not knowing any better Lenny writes himself a note, telling him to kill Teddy. Right before Lenny shoots Teddy, Teddy tries to reason with him "there are a million John G's out there, and you can't kill them all," although his feeble attempt to explain to Teddy that he's arleady killed the man who raped his wife goes awry, and Teddy is shot. Lenny is left to travel to another town and find another John G.

Okay, so that was confusing. However, that was only the fabula: the story.

The other term that I dropped was syuzhet. The syuzhet is the plot in a movie. It's the timeline of events that the director chooses to show. The movie Memento was based on a book called Memento Mori, written bty Christopher Nolan's brother. When Nolan turned it into a movie he could pick and choose the aspects of the book that he wanted to incorporate in the film. The thing that makes this movie the most memorable is that it is told completely backwards. The first thing you see is Lenny shoot this Teddy guy, and it moves backward to Natalie handing him the information saying that Teddy is liar and hasn't even given him the right name. Automatically you're set up to believe that Teddy is the antagonist, and actually killed his wife. It's not until the end that you realize that Lenny has been killing people since his wife went into a coma, determined to avenge this death, that didn't even happen. And although Teddy was using him for his own dirty work, he was really trying to help Lenny understand his conidtion. Also, throughout the movie they tell the story of some man named Sammy Jankis who mysteriously has the same condition Lenny has, and ends up putting his wife in a coma with her insulin shots. It's not until the end that you realize that Sammy really is Lenny's story.

Watching the syuzhet, without knowing the fabula is sometimes frustrating, however it's a brilliant directing technique that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats the entire time.

Last week in my film studies class, we researched and then watched the classic movie Dr. Strangelove. The movie is set in the 1960s, after nuclear weapons were introduced in World War Two. The conflict arises when an Air Force general, Jack Ripper, overrides his power, and sends his planes on a secret mission, without asking the president for permission. General Ripper was feeling threatened by those darn Russian commies, and chose to attack the greater part of Russia with atomic bombs. The movie flashes between the bomber pilots, slowly heading towards their targets, the War Room, housing the important political figures, and the Air Force base where it all started.

General Ripper has completely cut off all contact with outside parties, including the president in the War Room. (Fun fact: Ripper and President Muffley are played by the same actor.) President Muffley refuses to listen to any of the reasoning that Air Force General Buck is trying to spoon-feed him. Buck is trying to tell him that all this would have happened eventually; Russia can't be trusted. Buck says there's no way to really get a hold of these B-52s, so why not just let them run their course? However, President Muffley will not stand for that. He invites the Russian Ambassador into the War Room, in efforts to make peace with Russia, and get them to understand his predicament. He ends up aiding the Russian military in shooting down and diverting as many American Air Force planes as possible. President Muffley ends his conversation with the Russian president, feeling accomplished, until he finds out that one of the American planes had been flying so low that it was off the radar. That plane succeeds in dropping one atomic bomb over it's target in Russia, which President Muffley fears that he has set the president of Russia into a fit. The political figures consider hiding out in an underground bunker, to save most of the American race, but the movie is cut off with a series of bombs, leading you to believe that Russia has already retaliated.

This movie is chuck full of symbolism. Every single character represents a stereotype. There are the army generals, ready to attack anyone who dares to look at them funny. Then you have the Russian president and the Russian Ambassador, who swear they're there to promote peace, however the ambassador proves to be a spy, and their president was already sending bombs America's way, before they knew whether America's planes could be stopped. The American president was somebody who was ready to betray his soldiers, by helping the Russian military shoot them down, making him appear as a traitor. Not only that, but let's look at how sexist the political figures in our country were made out to be: "of course there will be ten women to each one man, and they have to have the right genes, and we'd have to allow polygamy of course." Bring up the fact that each man gets at least ten women all to himself, and suddenly the government is ready to pick the most attractive girls in the country and throw them underground.
The movie is also very anti-war. It pretty much showed how much of a disaster we get ourselves into when we shove our nose in other countries business. I noticed the motto "Peace is our Profession" shown in multiple places in the Air Force Base. It was visible in all of the rooms in the Air Force Base, including the room that General Ripper was in when he ordered the attack.However, as the movie wore on the motto seemed to disappear. In the last hour of the film I couldn't find it anywhere. And you know, speaking of symbolism, Jack Ripper? The same name as the infamous London serial killer, who ended the innocent lives of almost 300 people. Just consider that as food for thought.

In my own opinion, I wasn't a huge fan of the movie. I thought that there was too much exposition, and not enough climax. I got sick of the idiotic public figures in the War Room bickering, and wanted to see what was going to happen to Russia. Here you're waiting for Russia to get inahilated, and the only thing you get to see is some bomb falling from the sky at an itty bitty target, and boom. That's pretty much it. I thought the script was funny, and I was impressed by how well Peter Sellers played all three of his characters, but it was just not my cup of tea.

two of five cups of tea

Ask a 17 year old girl what makes a movie memorable; she'll probably tell you how incredible the cast list is, or where the storyline comes from, or how upset she is when it's over. It's sad but true. There was an entire summer where I watched a different movie every night, and right now I doubt I can tell you the title of a single one of those movies. Not that the movies weren't good, but they didn't have any large scale actors, or a original plot. My top ten list includes movies with some of my favorite actors in them: John Cusack, Emma Watson, or Leonardo DiCaprio for example. If I recognize the actors involved, and I've liked their past movies, chances are I'll make more of an effort to watch their movie. You might also notice that at least three of my top ten were books before made into a major motion picture. I've read the Harry Potter books multiple times, but I only really enjoy the first movie, because it follows the book series closer than any of the other movies. Not to mention It's Kind of a Funny Story, which is completely different from the the book, but still a good movie. My last criteria can be interpretered differently I suppose. I don't neccessarily have to leave the theater in tears in order for it to be a good movie, but I want to be able to say "wow" as the credits start rolling. I want to be able to watch it again, without getting bored. For example take The Princess Bride, I used to watch it with my grandma all the time when I was younger. I would try and get my grandpa to pretend to sword fight with me by saying "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father. Prepare to die," and still to this day, I will occasionally watch The Princess Bride on a Sunday when I have nothing else to do. A memorable movie is something that you will never get tired of; as soon as you watch it you consider it an instant classic--at least in my mind.
Ask a 70 year old director what makes a movie memorable; he'll tell you that it's the risks the director takes and the diversity in the director's filmography. Look at Martin Scorsese and the number of successful films he has under his belt, and a few rotten ones according to RottenTomatoes.com. Scorsese has been involved in the production of over 80 different films that have explored twelve different genres in the past fifty years. In fact, just last year at the age of 69 he tried his first children's movie, Hugo, also the first movie he has shot in 3-D. His biggest movie before that was Shutter Island--categorized as a "psychological thriller." Let's see: from directing an R-rated mystery movie, to a PG, feel-good, family film all in one year; now that's taking a risk.



http://www.imdb.com/list/c57XsA-Y0M0/