The movie ends with a not-so-subtly delivered political monologue, as opposed to Roseasharn breast feeding the dying man. As discussed in class, the radical ending of the book could not be screened due to the conservative tendencies of the mid 20th century. This completely changes the message intended for the audience; in the book, the ending shows the family falling apart. Roseasharn's baby is still born, and she ends up giving her breast milk to a man dying of starvation. This ending serves two purposes:
1. The inherent shock value of a grown woman breast feeding a grown man would draw much attention, and make readers consider the value of this scene.
2. One such value a reader could deduce would lead them to consider the rampant desperation of the time, where times are so bad that a Mother is giving the milk intended for her child to a grown man.
This depressing, shocking ending uses brutal honesty to demonstrate the squatters' oppression and maltreatment.
The movie's ending starkly differs, with the deliverance of a marxist monologue replacing the brutal ending of the book. I would argue this definitely makes Ford an auteur, for even though the choice really wasn't his, he changed the ending to emphasize the plight of the masses and therefore give a socialist spin to the whole film.
This depressing, shocking ending uses brutal honesty to demonstrate the squatters' oppression and maltreatment.
The movie's ending starkly differs, with the deliverance of a marxist monologue replacing the brutal ending of the book. I would argue this definitely makes Ford an auteur, for even though the choice really wasn't his, he changed the ending to emphasize the plight of the masses and therefore give a socialist spin to the whole film.
As for the second blog question, I think auteur theory to be the most valid argument in film studies today. Films are created by an entire group of people, yet the ideas and framework for the film stem from just a few of them. Does credit lie with the writer, for laying the foundation and creating the film in the first place? Or, does it lie with the director, who decides how the story comes alive through the camera? I love these arguments, for there is so much complex work that goes into a film that credit should be given everywhere, yet all the fame is often just funneled to the director.
I'm personally a huge fan of directors like Chis Nolan, who write/direct most of their own works. This way, the vision of the film isn't lost in the transition from the writer auteur to the director auteur, and the finished work's success value is much higher.
I'm personally a huge fan of directors like Chis Nolan, who write/direct most of their own works. This way, the vision of the film isn't lost in the transition from the writer auteur to the director auteur, and the finished work's success value is much higher.
No comments:
Post a Comment