Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey Cory, it’s nice to hear a musician’s take on the visitor’s advice. I’m not musically inclined, so much of my understanding from the visit was superficial. I’m glad that you and other artists within our class found Daniel Kelly’s insight beneficial and relatable. I think your motivation and comments are a testament to the experience of music, both for the audience and individual as a whole. I had the same question about the blind photographers, and I for one am not sure if I could fully trust others to help bring my artistic visions to the physical world. There has to be such a balance of communication and cohesion to produce such stunning images, and I truly hope they accurately portray what the blind photographers have described. It must be a surreal experience to be blind and know innumerable eyes are trained on your work of art; that has to be satisfying in a way I could never genuinely comprehend.
Ursula’s presence is certainly powerful; she spoke with an air of confidence and ease that truly resonated with me. She has experienced so many facets of life and it was incredible to hear about her development as an artist. Ursula’s integration of art and nature is unique and you can just tell that her connection to artistry is enduring. The massive artworks Ursula produces reflect her grounded character; her desire to be independent and grow as an individual persisted no matter what tribulations she faced, just as her sculptures will remain sturdy against harsh winds. Her sculptures stand tall alongside her, equally strong and immutable. The scale and intricacy of Ursula’s sculptures fascinated me and her dedication is evident with each and every block of wood . Additionally, I admire her skills both a leader and a team player. Her work ethic and ability to direct a team through the construction of something as personal as art work is impressive. She orchestrates sophisticated manipulations of materials and team members to mirror her vision; I cannot imagine trying to carry this out myself. Ursula is an exceptional artist, and I find myself agreeing with both of your comments!
Hey Chris,
I felt similar frustration at the neatly packaged ending. For me, it undid all of the painfully developed flaws of New York City in the 1970’s. The movie’s framework is based upon the struggle of an average family; it is the driving point of the narrative. Ending with a miracle destroys the serious strife and tension portrayed, as these attributes are never easily discarded. They cling and debilitate individuals. To me, it felt unfair that the Sullivan’s escaped the fate true New Yorkers of the time period suffered. It’s largely telling of the time period that the solution directors chose to prevent the family’s future of debt and poverty, was the kindness of a deceased individual. On a different note, I did find it wildly unrealistic that an immigrant with a wife and two children could ever earn enough as a beginning actor in New York City during the 1970’s. It’s an interesting career path, but not exactly a sustainable one, especially in the economic climate of the time period.Hey Adam,
Thanks for bringing up the info about the academy awards; it’s cool to know that Djimon Hounsou got credit for the amazing work he did. Mateo is a truly dynamic character, rising and falling to the beat of his burdens. His metamorphosis was carefully crafted and his progression towards death truly resonated with the characters on screen and the audience. At first it was almost a relief to watch his fiery energy peter out; the introduction of Mateo’s patient and heartfelt nature glazes the movie over in warm tones. Those feelings quickly dissipated with the revelation of his diagnosis. Mateo became the embers of a once bright inferno. To put it frankly, the amount of technique and flexibility this would require to execute must be insane. This was a brilliant performance and display of emotional range.Frankie is a looming shadow, blanketing the past, present, and future of the Sullivan family. Despite having died before the film’s narrative begins, he heavily influences the mindset of the main characters. The experience of losing a young child weighs on the family, constantly invading their happiness. This grief is emphasized by each intricate detail, to the point where you can almost visualize the deceased child.
When tensions rise, Christy always holds Ariel; this behavior is a physical reminder of life and safety. She wraps herself around her younger sister and speaks in reassuring tones. This is Christy trying to do all of what she couldn’t do for Frankie now in the present. Her guilt hangs unresolved and unnoticed until her meaningful conversation with Johnny.
In the movie, there is emphasis on Ariel’s struggles with transitioning from Ireland to America. This emphasis disguises how the young girl copes with her brother’s death; many of her problems and complaints are relegated to issues with the move, rather than the culmination of frustration and sorrow. She releases some of her burdensome emotions at the ice cream parlor, but the moment is fleeting and relatively meaningless. Ariel struggles with these emotions until she finds proper outlets, such as spending time with Mateo.
Sarah is traumatized by the loss of Frankie; she consistently struggles to reconcile personal guilt and blame throughout the movie. When pregnant, she is consumed by the desperate instinct to protect her child. Sarah is persistent: she is adamant in carrying the child to full-term even if it could kill her. She becomes extremely protective and defensive, creating strife between her and Johnny. Sarah’s desire to provide her family with a child overwhelms any sense of self-preservation, demonstrating the depth of grief created by Frankie’s death. In an attempt to fill the void left by Frankie, she willingly risks leaving her two daughters motherless. This gamble is a great source of anxiety and frustration, only relenting after the child survives.
Johnny turns his anguish into perseverance; he relentlessly tries to provide for his family, only to feel the cumulative effects of crippling failure. He fails to save his son, he fails to provide the children with a safe environment, he fails to land an acting job, the list goes on and as a result, Johnny withdraws from his family. He becomes absorbed by his feelings of incompetence, and even his daughters notice the shift in their father’s demeanor.
Frankie’s death defines the Sullivan family; he influences their dispositions, fears, and mentalities. While not physically present in the storyline, the consequences of his death resonate through each family member. Frankie’s role is intangible, yet it is one of the most compelling forces in the film.
I like how you traced Corrigan’s actions from his youth, as the backdrop to his character is vital to understanding his actions in the future. He spent his entire life developing his own philosophy and devoting himself to sparking light in the dark. I think his critical perspective of religion and constant assessments of the world bring a sincerity to his character that is so desperately needed, both in the book and in our reality. Corrigan is a pinnacle of altruism. His inner conflict between his love for Adelita and devotion to his spirituality makes him all the more ‘compelling’. It was nice to see him face such a human dilemma, because after comprehending the true depth of his compassion, even I was holding him up on a pedestal.
I think your analysis of Claire is really interesting, especially towards the end as you summarize your frustrations with her. Claire’s perception of the world is warped by the death of her son; her grasp on the present fades in and out as she goes about her life. As we all noticed, Claire’s anxiety invades her conceptions, interactions, and relationships to such a degree that it imprints upon the reader. This is aided by the structural changes made to the narrative you pointed out. The choppy sentences and half-formed thoughts perfectly reflect the constant chaos of Claire’s mind. She exists in an in between, as she’s neither in the present nor the past, she doesn’t exactly fit within the group but she also isn’t an outsider. She’s drifting through life, clinging to this group. Your thought process made me look more objectively at her actions and farther outside of the sympathy the author builds for her within this part of the novel.
Hi! I really enjoyed your analysis of the movie; reading your response felt like looking down the lens of a camera into the scenes themselves. Your emphasis on visibility, what is shown, accentuated, and hidden away, brings a unique perspective to each frame of the film. This is vital, especially when paired with the director’s choice to implement different chapters. Your attention to detail stresses the unique dimension Smoke creates, in addition to the cultivation of intricate themes. It makes it much easier to comprehend the complexity of the characters and the presented settings. The prominent use of imagery in the film helps to build a backdrop for New York City and supports the development of the narrative. Overall, the context you provided was interesting and the historical connection you made at the end was very insightful.
Hi! I really like your analysis of time and how it contributes to the flow of the movie. Your stance on the chapters driving the plot of the film forward really speaks to the construction of the narrative. I agree that the stream of interaction symbolizes the interconnectivity of the little community centralized at the smoke shop. That truly creates a theme, as it branches out to represent New York City as a whole. Even within our own distinct paths, we brush and intercept the lives of others, many times never even noticing. Your response reminded me of the infamous ‘butterfly’ effect, especially as you traced the movement of the stolen money and its impact on multiple characters. This analysis exposes interactions and relationships to be far more impactful than we may understand, and points out the thriving, connective community we all share.
