Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I 100% agree with you on this one Chalmers. It would be a treat to have seen all the guests in person, but I feel like with Ursula especially, we were robbed of an experience. For real she was definitely the most interesting guest we had, and I really enjoyed hearing her interpretation of her own artwork. I really admired how passionate she was about her sculptures as well. It was almost as if she saw them as not her own artwork, but more or less her own manifestation of nature. From the wacky materials to the vaulting shapes, to the stories behind the art and their connection to the events in her life, Ursula definitely had a deeper layer of complexity to her art.
The degree of her recognition and accomplishment was absolutely misleading as to her personality too. She could have easily wanted nothing to do with the class, however, she was so grounded the whole time, answering all our questions and explaining everything to us so nicely. For me, the person behind the art is almost more important than the art itself as well, so I really was excited to see how down-to-earth Ursula was. It would have been a really cool experience to see her artwork live at some of the crazy venues it was featured at, but I’m sure I’ll be around those places sometime soon, and I’ll absolutely be keeping an eye out for her artwork.
@ash I think you make a really solid but also terrifying point. Between immigrant life, housing crises, an unalienable sense of isolation and prevalent drug abuse, the the film depicts an accurate picture of what actually could have happened in a situation such as that of the Sullivan’s. I agree that a thousand other stories similar to theirs took place, however I do not believe that they all had such a happy ending. The film closing off on a high note makes it a bit of an anomaly, whereas thousands of other families relived the introductory sequence for many, many more years. Times were difficult and the crises of the 70s spilled over far into the future, where their ripples can still be felt today.
@eric I wrote about Mateo, but definitely didnt notice before how complex the interplay is between those two characters. I was able to appreciate Johnny’s dynamic character when watching the film, but never really considered how they would be incomplete without each other until reading the post. And @Liam I think you make a great point too, their outward expression was definitely inseparable from the qualities of the characters. I wonder if their being the only two male protagonists has something to do with the way that the characters were written in terms of visual emotion. The roles could have been reversed a bit in the film, as in a prototypical family, the male usually is under the expectation to appear as the stoic yet determined foundation of the family. However, Johnny is portrayed as an emotional, lost man whereas Sarah assumes the patriarchal role in the family. This switch-up could be a testament to the theme of abnormality throughout the film.
I think this analysis was really spot on. I noticed the contrast between Corrigan and Solomon as well, and was glad you pointed it out to juxtapose the two characters rightfully. I like to see Solomon, as you do, as a parody of the justice system as a whole. Wee spend the majority of the novel inside of the heads of others who all have experienced pain for others, whether that be Tillie’s pain for her daughter, Corrigan’s pain for the less fortunate, or even Ciaran for Lara. I believe that the author draws detail to Solomon’s lack of empathy purposely, and depicts the least amount of struggle in his life as a young man to illustrate the irony of how decisions with the power to permanently change (or even end) the lives of the many are in the hands of one who is empathetically incompetent.
This was a very good analysis and a fresh, interesting new take on the character. I liked how he was the only character who didn’t have a first-person perspective of his own to share during the novel, yet we learn just as much about him as we do the other characters through his words, history, and actions. I also think that not seeing inside of his head invites us to create alternate perspectives on the character, like the great one you offered. However, I see him as less of an addict and more of a conflicted soul trying to get a grip on life. His heart is in constant turmoil from his birth on, and I believe Corrigan is simply trying to sympathize with others’ pain so he can better understand his.
This was a really good analysis, and I think you really hit the nail on the head as to the main theme of the movie. In the establishing shot as well as Auggie’s photo project and several examples you pointed out such as Cyrus’ hook, there is a persistent reminder that amongst the awesome, still backdrop of New York City, it is truly the minute movements and differences that tell the most vivid stories. I appreciate that you were able to identify so many points where your theme is prevalent, it really speaks to your analysis skills.
I also appreciate how you not only connected your response to New York, but Auggie’s photo project as a whole. It was personally one of my favorite elements of the film as a whole. I strongly believe that his photo project holds great magnitude to the story of Smoke thematically, as the movie is all about paying attention to the minute, smaller, less illustrious details and movement that take place set against a still, awesome backdrop. The movie, as you point out, also highlights the little things in life, as well as the little differences. For instance, in your example you have mutually beneficial relationships. I believe that Auggie not only received gratification for his good deed for Ethel in the form of a camera, but I believe that he also needed that Christmas as much as she did to cope with his own loneliness.
