Monday, February 9, 2009

the boys i mean/Funny Games

Like Clint, I did a little research on the boys I mean and came across the soliders/cannons interpretation of the poem. Even after reading the poem over and over again, I had definitely NOT come to that conclusion on my own. So as you can imagine, this new revelation blew my mind. I mean, it makes sense now and in hindsight it seems kind of obvious. However, I’m not sure if this makes my experience with this poem better. Sure I understand the true meaning behind it, but I feel like I cheated. I’m right there with Meredith as far as being confused—did I lose something by relying on an outside source to see the author’s intentions correctly, instead of pondering it on my own? Or is it better to try to figure it out completely on my own, even if I don’t come to the right conclusion? I won’t try to answer that now, since I’m sure it’ll be brought up in class throughout the semester.

On another note, I have mixed feelings about Funny Games. Personally, I disliked it because I’m a wimp when it comes to movies like this. However, I think it was tastefully made which doesn’t happen too often with horror movies. Instead of showing excessive violence (gore guts and blood bleh) it often opted to show one of the characters, Paul or Tubby, doing some normal activity while the violent act was taking place. For example, when Tubby shoots George Jr. you don’t actually get to see it. The scene shows Paul in the kitchen getting something to eat, then you hear the gunshot and later you get to see the blood spatter on the wall. The fact that Paul was able to get a sandwich while this horrible act was occurring just adds to the terror of the situation. I think this scene describes the whole movie—it relies more on the audience’s imagination and interpretation rather than just showing you the details. It’s easier to scare an audience by showing brutal violence. Funny Games didn’t resort to this common horror film characteristic, which is why I think it was well made.

Also, relating to the “rules” of literature, this movie did break many rules of conventional cinema. First of all, Paul breaks the illusion of a wall between the audience and the actual movie by speaking directly to the viewers throughout the movie. This is scary because it causes the viewers to be more involved, more a part of what is occurring. Secondly, Paul is able to rewind time when something he doesn’t like occurs. (Tubby getting shot) This depleted all sense of hope for Naomi Watts and her husband, because it revealed that no matter they were not going to prevail. I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but it just reminded me of our “rules” discussion and the idea that you have to know the rules before you can break them.

No comments:

Post a Comment