Sam Dumas-Alice Tone and Mood Updated

In the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland, the tone and mood is entirely different than the two texts I analyzed prior to this. In the Disney version, not only does the dialogue create a more friendly tone, but the tone and mood are reflected in the costumes, facial expressions, and overall scenery. Because of the nature of the movie and its animated creation, a kid friendly, softer tone is reflected.
Take for instance Alice’s dress. Unlike Funkmeyer creation of Alice, where she is wearing a dull white, lace like collared dress, the Disney Alice is wearing a bright powder blue and white gown that shines through. The bright dress is then also illuminates Aiice and the other characters larger then life expressions. Juxtaposing this to Funkmeyer’s Alice, there is a clear divide. For instance take the backgrounds of still shots. In a still shot of a character in any scene, the background is made of shades of dark grey and black. The mood that is created is one of solitude and fear. Dissimilar to this, in the Disney version is Alice, any still shot provides contrast, color, and excitement. For instance, in many of the images of Alice, her blue dress is put against another bright color and/or white. This makes the image pop and allows for a more pleasant, happy image. Lastly, the difference in mood is created through the exaggeration of not just the expressions, but the costumes as well. In Funkmeyer, there is very little expression and in the costumes, there is no volume. They are just boring and flat. In the Disney version, most of the costumes are fluffy, bold, and bright. This automatically creates a perpendicular view and feeling for the viewer.

New Media Alice -Jackson and Noah project

In looking at New Media in relation to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, there is clearly a tradition within music in how it relates to Alice. Throughout many different genres and styles of music, Alice in Wonderland has been used as a blueprint for the expression of many different things for many different artists, including GWAR, Three 6 Mafia, The Beatles, and Pogo. Some artists use media examples of Alice to accompany their own or other people’s music, but in the end, there always is an aim at a desired effect. It would seem the criteria for each example would be that they have honed in on the experience of Carroll’s Wonderland, and furthermore ideas of being lost within it. All artists mentioned have taken the imagery and text of Alice in Wonderland to suit a new story. For example, the metal band GWAR uses the framework of a place like wonderland, a surreal world, for their narrative film “Phallus in Wonderland”. The Beatles had included Lewis Carroll on their album cover for Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club, in order to site an influence for the imagery their music was evoking. A more modern example, Pogo, an electronic musician who uses samples from kids films, utilizes the technology of youuutuuube.com and the Walt Disney film in order to create a experience of Wonderland through different forms of media. It is clear that Carroll’s idea of Wonderland is profound enough to impact those in different mediums to want to create an experience.

Paul - Alice updated

Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland is such a seminal text, it is no wonder that it has been adapted numerous times. Perhaps the most famous adaptation is the 1951 animated feature from Disney. This version combines scenes from Wonderland and its sequel, adding in some musical numbers. There was also a fairly faithful British film adaptation released in 1972. In the 1980s, Czech director Jan Svankmajer released his grim take on the story. Each version features more or less the same events as the others. However, they differ in the way the stories are told. One significant shift between the different versions of Alice in Wonderland is the way the story is framed in reference to reality and also what that reality is.

For instance, the Disney version of the story it is not clear when Alice is awake and when she is asleep until the end. At the beginning of the film, Alice runs away from her sister and chases the white rabbit down the rabbit hole. Because the change is seamless, assuming that a viewer has not read the book and is not familiar with the story, this would be taken as “reality.” Because the bounds of reality within the work have not yet been established, it would be reasonable for the viewer to assume that the events which unfold are real.

The 1972 British version is unique for incorporating some nonfiction elements into the story. This version is framed by Charles Dodgson taking the Liddell sisters out for a picnic. In a voiceover, he talks about telling Alice the Wonderland story. You also hear Dodgson reciting the beginning of the story as Alice lies on the ground. At the end of the film, we see Alice waking up, suggesting the whole thing was a dream. So not only is the fantasy world of Wonderland present along with the film’s reality, it is also shown with the historical reality.

In Jan Svankmajer’s adaptation, it is clear from the beginning that the story is a work of Alice’s imagination. The film begins with Alice and her sister sitting on the bank of a river, with Alice tossing rocks into the water. We then find out that Alice is actually sitting in a dingy apartment with a doll for a sister and a cup of tea instead of a river. Throughout the film, we see Alice’s mouth speaking the non-dialogue portions of the story. The elements of the original Alice in Wonderland are retold in the film using the objects in the room around her. The message here is that the film is the little girl’s reading of Alice in Wonderland filtered through her everyday life.

The Disney and Svankmajer versions have one storytelling element in common, though. At the end of the Disney Alice in Wonderland, the fantasy world that we have accepted as being real is revealed to be a dream when Alice sees herself sleeping. Conversely, the end of Alice, where the white rabbit is missing, causes the viewer to question whether what they just saw actually happened. The 1972 version attempts to do something like this, but the effect is greatly diminished because of the storytelling techniques. Dodgson starts telling the story at the beginning of the film, but it ends with Alice waking up. It is not clear whether the events of the film were the story or Dodgson’s story. Because the events are fantasy either way, we never question what was real. This makes the twist much less effective.

The differences between the reality/fantasy framework speak to the aesthetics of each film. What is interesting about Alice in Wonderland is its blending of real and imaginary. We take the fantasy elements for granted in the Disney adaptation because it is a children’s animated movie that gives itself entirely to the fantasy. One of the most striking characteristics of the 1972 version is its devotion to the original story. This explains why it was framed within historical reality rather than its own fantasy world, eventually leading to the confusing ending. Because it stays faithful to the story, Alice has to wake up at the end, but that conflicts with the reality that the film has laid out. The Svankmajer version asks us to reevaluate what we know about fantasy and reality in ways that the other two adaptations do not. The Disney and 1972 versions seem to be more concerned with telling the story and moving between musical numbers than they do with making the audience think. This is because the first two films were made to be viewed widely by children, not the cineastes that will probably end up seeing Svankmajer’s version.

Paul, Alice Comparison

Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland is such a seminal text, it is no wonder that it has been adapted numerous times. Perhaps the most famous adaptation is the 1951 animated feature from Disney. This version combines scenes from Wonderland and its sequel, adding in some musical numbers. Nearly four decades later, Czech director Jan Svankmajer released his grim take on the story. Both versions feature more or less the same events as the other. However, they differ in the way the stories are told. One significant shift between the different versions of Alice in Wonderland is the way the story is framed in reference to reality.

For instance, the Disney version of the story it is not clear when Alice is awake and when she is asleep until the end. At the beginning of the film, Alice runs away from her sister and chases the white rabbit down the rabbit hole. Assuming that the viewer has not read the book and is not familiar with the story, this would be taken as “reality.” Because the bounds of reality within the work have not yet been established, it would be reasonable for the viewer to assume that the events which unfold are real.

In Jan Svankmajer’s adaptation, it is clear from the beginning that the story is a work of Alice’s imagination. The film begins with Alice and her sister sitting on the bank of a river, with Alice tossing rocks into the water. We then find out that Alice is actually sitting in a dingy apartment with a doll for a sister and a cup of tea instead of a river. Throughout the film, we see Alice’s mouth speaking the non-dialogue portions of the story. The elements of the original Alice in Wonderland are retold in the film using the objects in the room around her. The message here is that the film is the little girl’s reading of Alice in Wonderland filtered through her everyday life.

The two versions have one storytelling element in common, though. At the end of the Disney Alice in Wonderland, the fantasy world that we have accepted as being real is revealed to be a dream when Alice sees herself sleeping. Conversely, the end of Alice, where the white rabbit is missing, causes the viewer to question whether what they just saw actually happened.

The differences between the reality/fantasy framework speak more to the aesthetics of the Svankmajer version that to the Disney one. What is interesting about Alice is its blending of real and imaginary. We take the fantasy elements for granted in the Disney adaptation because it is a children’s animated movie that gives itself entirely to the fantasy. It asks us to reevaluate what we know about fantasy and reality in ways that the Disney version does not. The Disney version seems to be more concerned with telling the story and moving between musical numbers than it does with making the audience think. This is because the Disney film was made to be viewed widely by children, not the cineastes that will probably end up seeing Svankmajer’s version.

Sam Dumas Alice Comparison-Tone & Mood

After viewing multiple Alice in Wonderland movies as well as reading both Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, one of the main differences in the viewing experience as a whole was a result of the mood.  In Lewis Carrol’s Through the Looking Glass, and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland as well as the Disney Alice in Wonderland movie, an overarching mood of magic, illusion, and brightness ring true.  However, when comparing these to Funk Meyers Alice in Wonderland, much of this mood is lost, thus creating a whole different viewing experience.  As a way to compare the two, I am going to take two different scenes throughout two of the text, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderlands and Funkmeyer’s bizarre rendition and juxtapose them in terms of mood and its creation.

            In Funkmeyer’s Alice in Wonderland, the opening scene is a very chilling start to a previously children friendly story.  When Alice in sitting in the grass throwing stones into the water, the movie immediately shifts.  First off, the expression on Alice’s face mirrors the tone for the rest of the movie.  She does not look confused, nor does she look timid.  Her facial expression is one of intensity, slight dark curiosity, but most of anticipation.  Next, the repetition and quietness of Alice while she throws the rocks into the water is an opening scene out of a horror movie.  The mood is so strong that if a viewer did not know the story of Alice they would not eliminate the possibility of a killing, rape, or some other dark, intense action.  The speed at which she throws the rocks and the way the rocks hit the water are at a slow, still pace, a speed that is present throughout the entire movie.  As each rocks splashes into he water, Alice does not change her expression.  Her face is still, and so is the sound.  As she reaches for more rocks in her dress, the camera pans to the left to view the person next to her.  The mood is one of questioning, quietness, and slowness.

            In Lewis Carrol’s Alice’s Adventure’s in Wonderland the first scene is written with a gentle, more children friendly tone.  To begin, there is no emotion of a rock.  This object is replaced with a chain of daisies for which Alice is putting together.  The rock is a symbol of a hard, rough, colder exterior while a daisy is associated with warmth, summertime and gentleness.  In addition to this, the tone of Lewis Carrol’s first five sentences give power to Alice.  By this I mean that his narrative is one that reflects on Alice and the power for her to make her own decisions.  This is apparent when it says, “so she was considering in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and…” (9-10).  Contrast this to the lack of knowledge that Alice is even sitting next to her sister in the opening scene of Funkmeyer, never mind, have power of her own, it is clear that the tone is completely different.  Carrol’s way of giving  status to Alice through her decisions is completely lacking in Funkmeyer’s version where it is shown that Alice is miserable, depressed, and has nothing left to do but aimlessly throw rocks into the water in a repetitive motion.

 

 

Sam Dumas-Sholay

As with all movies, Sholay has its own unique and individualistic style.  Its visual aesthetic is of course based upon the normative standard of Bollywood films in general.  With dramatic story lines that twist and turn like a soap opera, to the musical dance numbers, Bollywood has a somewhat rigid and fixed style.  In Sholay, things are no different and the visual style is not only stunning, but very structured as well in that way that it highlights certain aspects of the camera.  Both foreground and background are extremely affected by the extremely vibrant colors represented in the Holi Ke Din Song.  This musical number is entertaining, but its art is present in how the clouds of color highlight different physical spaces within a scene.

            First off, in Sholay, the bursts of color in this particular scene, coming from the throwing of colored ‘smoke’ (whether it be purple, red, blue, green), has the effect to build from the background to the foreground.  What I mean by this is if you take a very close look at this approximately six minute scene, in many of the sub-shots where there is depth, the colors of smoke are being thrown in the background and slowly make there way to the foreground where the camera is.  This sounds obscure, but that fact is that they either stop right behind the desired focal point, or in about three particular points, approaches the camera and clouds out the camera.  This is seemingly used to gently go from once shot to the other.

            The second use of the colored smoke is in framing.  By framing I am speaking of the different camera emphasis that is provided through the use of the smoke. I have a few examples of this amazing scene to prove my point.  In one shot, the camera is facing towards a ferris wheel with a box underneath it.  The ferris wheel is on the left side of the shot and is the focal point for this very short shot.  On the right side, different colors of smoke are used to cloud out that right side so that the viewer automatically looks at what is visual, being the ferris wheel.

            In addition to these two visual experiences, I also noticed how the women’s head dressed, those in the background and foreground, somewhat matched the colors of smoke that were present in the foreground/ background.  This created a direct link between foreground and background.  This reminds me of Magnificent Seven in that in that movie, the camera held a direct link through the narrowing of camera and clear visuals.  In Sholay, the only difference is that he link between foreground and background is made with color while Magnificent Seven used visual clarity and narrowing.

Paul - Comparison Expanded

The films The Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven and Sholay have many similarities. Many lines can be drawn between the three both in theme and content. For instance, many of cowboys are essentially facsimiles of the earlier film’s samurai. The heroes of Sholay do not correspond to any particular characters, but the cowboy aesthetic is in full effect. While there are many such ties, there are also quite a few points of difference. One of the most obvious differences is in the dynamic between the townspeople and their protectors. Both in their interactions and their personal views of one another, each film is a product of their respective settings.

In The Seven Samurai, the interactions between the samurai and the farmers are primarily motivated by the cultural norms of feudal Japan. One of the central tenets of a samurai’s persona and lifestyle is their pride. The thought of doing a favor for a poor group of farmers was unthinkable. This is evident when the farmers first begin approaching samurai. They seem to be angered by the fact that such lowly people would even approach them. Even the most humble of the samurai in the film carry themselves with an almost aristocratic bearing. Throughout the film, the samurai occupy a separate sphere from the rest of the townspeople. They are given all of the rice and housing space while the farmers must eat millet and sleep in barns. The only one of the group who has any kind of extensive contact with the farmers is Kikuchiyo, who often regards them with complete contempt. The film often goes on to support his views. The farmers are often shown to be unintelligent, petty and easily unnerved. Take, for example, the scene in which the town attempts to lynch a captured bandit. The viewer is clearly meant to side with the disapproving samurai, whose code of honor forbids them from killing such a prisoner.

In The Magnificent Seven, the dynamic between the cowboys and the farmers are much more conventional for the time and place it was created. While the cowboys are initially greeted coldly, they eventually become a part of the town. After finding out that the farmers were starving themselves to feed their protectors, the cowboys offer to eat with them. Throughout the film, the cowboys are usually occupying the same space as the townspeople. During the final battle, the cowboys and farmers fight alongside one another as equals. In fact, when it looks like the heroes are on the ropes, it is the farmers who save the day, wielding machetes and shovels. Bernardo acts as the mouthpiece of the group when it comes to their feelings about the townspeople. When he is talking to the children, he tells them to respect their fathers for living the hard life of the farmer.

In Sholay, the two protagonists have a unique relationship with the townspeople. Sholay is unique distinct among the three films as the one where there is the least interaction between the heroes and the farmers. In fact, aside from their conversations with Thakur and the romantic subpolots, there really is no meaningful connection between the two groups. The disconnect between the villagers and the heroes here does not come from social status, but from geographic location. Throughout most of the film, Basanti chastises Veeru for his “city” mannerisms and constantly reminds him that they are in the country. This divide appears once again during Veeru’s suicide attempt. While he delivers his overwrought monologue, the onlookers talk amongst themselves about how none of them completely understand what Veeru is talking about. When it comes to the battle scenes, there is no interaction at all between the heroes and the farmers. Whereas the heroes of the other films fought side by side with the villagers, Jai and Veeru single-handedly eliminate scores of bandits while the townspeople run and hide. It seems as if they only exist to get killed and then rescued by the heroes.

As stated above, the differences between the three films’ treatment of the hero/farmer dynamic reveal much about their historical basis. Most notably, the class system was much more rigid in feudal Japan than in the old west. As portrayed in countless media, the old west was a place relative freedom and only a loosely established ethical code. For seven drifters to help some poor Mexicans in exchange for food does not seem so ludicrous. By contrast, it is rather far-fetched for seven samurai to break the strict feudal class lines and become a help some peasants. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that even though they are helping out, they never forget that they are above the people they are protecting. Both movies’ theme of food help drive this home. As mentioned above, when the cowboys find out that the farmers have been starving themselves, they all look ashamed and invite everyone to share their food. In The Seven Samurai, the samurai only help the peasants in the most dire of circumstances. First, Katsushiro tosses a coin on the ground so the peasants can buy more rice. Afterwards, he seems ashamed of his minimal generosity. Later, the group gives up their rice only when they learn about the old woman starving to death. Sholay has an interesting take on this dynamic because the two heroes are notorious criminals. In fact, in between shootouts, Jai and Veeru are usually shown napping or getting drunk. Rather than stooping to help the village, Jai and Veeru are often looked down upon by the townspeople, most notably Basanti’s aunt.

As I wrote earlier, these differences are largely based on the time and place that each is set. For instance, the old west of The Magnificent Seven was a place of relative freedom and equality. The appeal of going west was to start a new life in near-complete freedom, so everyone was more or less equal. There were no aristocratic drifters comparable to the ronin of feudal Japan. Even more stratified was the strict caste system at work in rural India. This may be part of the reason why the heroes of Sholay were recast as outlaws. It would be unthinkable for an Indian noble to take pity on those of a lower caste. By making the protagonists below the farmers, it led to a realistic situation where they would be able to help out. In addition to historical reasons, the environment in which each film was released was also conducive to their content. Japanese cinema has a long history of films that are so accurate as to be impenetrable to western audiences (Kinji Fukasaku’s labyrinth Yakuza epics come to mind). If translated directly, the historically accurate attitudes of the samurai would appear cold-hearted to Americans. Such thoughtless actions would never appear in a traditional American film like The Magnificent Seven. Much like Japan has its cinematic traditions, American cinema has a history of producing films featuring populist heroes, like those seen in The Magnificent Seven. Just as that film was a product of the Hollywood system, so Sholay is a reflection of many Bollywood tropes. The Bollywood style is essentially a catalogue of Hollywood clichés amplified to ridiculous extremes with goal being entertainment over any kind of logic. In this case, the makers of Sholay have taken the Hollywood western and turned it into something more entertaining. This is why, instead of the semi-plausible plot of The Magnificent Seven, Sholay features two men mowing down armies of bandits while still having time to woo local girls and break out into song. This also accounts for why the villagers are never seen fighting back against the bandits. Sholay has taken the American film trope of the masculine hero to such an extreme that the heroes do not need any help to kill their enemies.

Video

http://www.vimeo.com/7304105

"The Role of the Elder"

Seven Samurai, Magnificent Seven, and Sholay have scenes where when the villagers reach a point of confusion with what to do about the bandits that terrorize them, they turn to the elder to guide them in what to do next. The idea of the 'elder' character works on many levels, the most important being that throughout time the elder has represented being wise, and thus seeking wisdom about anything, be it a small or large issue, the elder has the experience and knowledge to be helpful. Take for example in Kurosawa's story, as the old man listens to mass panic, he is steady and sure, having experienced his village once burned to the ground, he had seen another village survive by hiring samurai, and thus tells his people to apply the same lesson. Even further when they panic about not being able to support samurai, since they're only farmers growing small crops, he tells them to find hungry samurai, as "even bears come out of the forests, when they're hungry." Notice the anecdotal wisdom, prevalent in the 'wise elder' character-type.

In Magnificent Seven, the villagers know right away to "ask the old man". Although he makes his case a lot simpler, that although the villagers don't know how to use guns, that they must hire guns at the border, and that they will learn to fight, or die. This character is less developed, but his conviction for what the villagers must do makes his wisdom in someways more matter of fact.

Sholay is the largest departure from the previous two examples, having actually shown the backstory of the 'elder' character, and thus giving a visual que to represent the good natured bandits, Veeru and Jai, that the town will hire to help them against Gabbar. It is because we've seen how these bandits interact with Thakur when he is vulnerable in the flashback sequence, that the officer whom he is speaking to, and also who the viewer is taking the perspective of, can know that both Veeru and Jai are trustworthy.

'Bandits' - Jackson **updated for Sholay**

Bandits by Another Name

Amongst the many differences that Seven Samurai has with it’s Americanized re-envisioning, Magnificent Seven, as well as its pre-Bollywood adaptation, Sholay, there are key similarities which pertain to the plot, mainly a village under siege by bandits causing a need for a hired gun. All three movies are book ended the same, as there are Samurai, Cowboys, and bandits alike that enter a philanthropic fight, and not as many which leave to live to tell the tail. However, the changes between the stories are cultural in all aspects; be it character types, setting, story telling, etc. It is in the three movies, that the antagonist, and the hero more or less stay the same, just having different ways of being developed, being bandits by another name that all meet their ends in an ironic way.

“Calvera”, the name of a leader of bandits who terrorizes a Mexican village, threatening to pillage and destroy what little the town’s inhabitants have, is the main antagonist of The Magnificent Seven. This is a big diversion from Seven Samurai, subtle, as it seems, because the enemy, although still a group of bandits, has a figurehead, a face and a name to associate with the enemy, Calvera, just as in Sholay, although the antagonist has many people fighting for him, he is still known as the terror, Gabbar. In Seven Samurai, the enemy takes many faces, it is a collective that fight with arrows and blades and in many ways feels like an evil that is a element of nature, an unstoppable moving force, choosing to toy with the village by waiting for nature itself to bring in better crops for the taking. This points to somewhat of a cultural twist, as American story telling and cinema often produces a ‘bad guy’ with traits that identify themselves as such. Calvera within the first five minutes of Magnificent Seven is shown as loud, boasting, and even hot tempered, and so surely a character like that of the cool cow boy, who is able to only to show tempered emotion by expression of their revolver could combat such an enemy. This is identifiable as it had been done in many American westerns, but also in some ways is another way of expressing the relationship between bandit and Samurai in Seven Samurai. However, in Sholay this relationship is somewhat eschewed, as the hired gun is literally a duo who identify as bandits, hired to defeat a bandit who has little to no morality.

Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven are the tales of outsiders vs. outsiders, or for that matter bandits vs. bandits at a very base level, while Sholay is an embodiment of both. Although the Cow Boy and the Samurai are both heroic character types, they also live on a fringe of they’re respective societies as loners or outcasts that are capable of sometimes immoral means to moral ends. A striking difference between the three is that of code; an American cow boy has no code amongst one another other than to fight for “what’s right”, however there is a sort of element of ‘freestyle’ which is uniquely American. It is in Sholay that the hero is seen as what they really are, criminals, except they are identified as morally good because of their compassion, even if that compassion is determined by the flip of a coin. For example when Thakur describes first meeting the two criminals, he has been wounded and his fate is left in their hands, in order to decide to save the man or not, the criminals flip a coin, and the outcome is to save his life. This becomes a recurring theme for the both of them, the coin is their code, however what happens when the coin has an immoral outcome is never seen, and to the benefit of the criminals as protagonists. Seven Samurai shows that although Samurai can be uniquely different from one another in personality, there is a heavy burden that weighs heavily upon them in they’re code, especially since they are ronin, and without a master. An example would be when Kikuchiyo, the most hot-headed of the Seven Samurai, approaches the others with newly found armor, which unbeknownst to him is that of ‘hunted’ samurai, he is nearly disgraced and kicked out of the collective, because the others know what it’s like to be ‘hunted’, and he clearly, hasn’t the faintest idea. It is clear that amongst the Samurai in Seven Samurai there is a need to follow the ways of Kambei, the most elder of the group, as he above them all has an understanding equivalent and as cunning as the force of nature that is the bandit’s which they’ve been hired to defeat.

While the criminals of Sholay, the Magnificent Seven, and Seven Samurai alike go on to defeat they’re respective adversaries, protecting those who they’ve been hired to protect, it is not without consequence to their actions. In both Mag Seven and Seven Samurai there are only three remaining survivors to tell the tale, however it is kind of a tale of sadness, fitting for the character-types of the Cow Boy and the Samurai, while in Sholay, one of the criminals, who is the most cool and collected out of the two, looses his life in defending the village. In Samurai “the farmers won, not us.” While in Magnificent “Only the farmers won. We lost. We always loose.” It is as though all these stories are pointing out a systemic problem amongst character types. While the genuine bandit may pillage, and threaten momentarily, they will meet they’re end by the bandits at the edge of societies moral ground’s, the Samurai, the Cow Boy, or the criminal with a second chance who will always loose to the bandits that exist in the machine of a somewhat normal society, like a village and it's farmer sacrificing outsiders to sustain they're own way of life. This goes to show that although bandits may have different names, they are all a part of an unstoppable force of nature.

Paul

The films The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven have many similarities. Both in theme and content, many lines can be drawn between the two. For instance, many of cowboys are essentially facsimiles of the earlier film’s samurai. But while there are many such ties, there are also quite a few points of difference. One of the most obvious differences is in the dynamic between the townspeople and their protectors. Both in their interactions and their cultural positions, each film is a product of their respective settings.

In The Seven Samurai, the interactions between the samurai and the farmers are primarily motivated by the cultural norms of feudal Japan. One of the central tenets of a samurai’s persona and lifestyle is their pride. The thought of doing a favor for a poor group of farmers was unthinkable. This is evident when the farmers first begin approaching samurai. They seem to be angered by the fact that such lowly people would even approach them. Even the most humble of the samurai in the film carry themselves with an almost aristocratic bearing. Throughout the film, the samurai occupy a separate sphere from the rest of the townspeople. They are given all of the rice and housing space while the farmers must eat millet and sleep in barns. The only one of the group who has any kind of extensive contact with the farmers is Kikuchiyo, who often regards them with complete contempt. The film often goes on to support his views. The farmers are often shown to be unintelligent, petty and easily unnerved. Take, for example, the scene in which the town attempts to lynch a captured bandit. The viewer is clearly meant to side with the disapproving samurai, whose code of honor forbids them from killing such a prisoner.

In The Magnificent Seven, the dynamic between the cowboys and the farmers are much more conventional for the time and place it was created. While the cowboys are initially greeted coldly, they eventually become a part of the town. After finding out that the farmers were starving themselves to feed their protectors, the cowboys offer to eat with them. Throughout the film, the cowboys are usually occupying the same space as the townspeople. During the final battle, the cowboys and farmers fight alongside one another as equals. In fact, when it looks like the heroes are on the ropes, it is the farmers who save the day, wielding machetes and shovels. Bernardo acts as the mouthpiece of the group when it comes to their feelings about the townspeople. When he is talking to the children, he tells them to respect their fathers for living the hard life of the farmer.

As stated above, the differences between the two films’ treatment of the hero/farmer dynamic reveal much about their historical basis. Most notably, the class system was much more rigid in feudal Japan than in the old west. As portrayed in countless media, the old west was a place relative freedom and only a loosely established ethical code. For seven drifters to help some poor Mexicans in exchange for food does not seem so ludicrous. By contrast, it is rather far-fetched for seven samurai to break the strict feudal class lines and become a help some peasants. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that even though they are helping out, they never forget that they are above the people they are protecting. Both movies’ theme of food help drive this home. As mentioned above, when the cowboys find out that the farmers have been starving themselves, they all look ashamed and invite everyone to share their food. In The Seven Samurai, the samurai only help the peasants in the most dire of circumstances. First, Katsushiro tosses a coin on the ground so the peasants can buy more rice. Afterwards, he seems ashamed of his minimal generosity. Later, the group gives up their rice only when they learn about the old woman starving to death. As I wrote earlier, there is simply no such correlation in the old west. The appeal of going west was to start a new life in near-complete freedom, so everyone was more or less equal. There were no aristocratic drifters comparable to the ronin of feudal Japan. Disregarding historical reasons, the environment in which each film was released was also conducive to their content. Japanese cinema has a long history of films that are so accurate as to be impenetrable to western audiences (Kinji Fukasaku’s labyrinth Yakuza epics come to mind). If translated directly, the historically accurate attitudes of the samurai would appear cold-hearted to Americans. Such thoughtless actions would never appear in a traditional American film like The Magnificent Seven. Much like Japan has its cinematic traditions, American cinema has a history of producing films featuring populist heroes, like those seen in The Magnificent Seven.

Samarai- Sam Dumas

Seven Samarai and Magnificent Seven tell the tale of a small village that is going to be rampaged by a number of bandits.  As a way to defend themselves three men go out in order to recruit help.  Wanting only a few, the group ends up as seven.  Seven Samarai and Magnificent Seven unfold this epic story with the characterization of the seven men, muddled with controversy, deep-rooted tradition, and a great plot. Seven Samarai was produced before Magnificent Seven.  Though they both follow the same tale of this village defense and group of seven, there are some differences with in the plot such as the merging of Katsushiro and Kicuchiyu into one main character, certain love interest which developed between the farmers daughter and Chico and Katsushiro which is left out of Seven Samarai, as well as other detail oriented differences to do with the plot and character development. Though the plot of generally the same, the visual production of each of the two films creates a starkly different viewing experience and creates a different mood, effect, and product overall. (Names looked up on Wikipedia--> Magnificent Seven)

                        Though there are many details that change up the plot and make for an alternative viewing to an altogether similar plot, what I want to focus on is less detail oriented with characters or story line, but instead to do with visual product of each film.  With only six years separating the two Samarai films, the visual production of each is vastly different. Before analyzing two specific scenes, some of the visual effects are based on a few more basic elements.  First off, color makes a huge difference, as does genre, being western in Magnificent Seven.  However, my thesis of how visual effects dramatically affect the overall result, has to do with foreground and background.

            In Seven Samarai, as I described in class, because of the way the scenes are shot, there is a peculiar separation (or lack there of) of the characters in the foreground versus the background.  In many of the scenes, the background action is so intensified that it is as if two scenes are happening within the frame of one.  I found this altogether distracting and as a result, as taking away from the content.  Specifically, in Seven Samarai, when Kambei, the chosen leader, goes into the hut to retrieve the screaming girl, the focus is so far back that in the midst of Kambei’s waiting at the door, so much is happening the background.  Instead doing several different angles of the same scene, the camera is a wider lens.  As a result, much of what is happening in the background competes with the foreground activity (in this case Kambei at the door before he rushes in to retrieve the girl). In the particular scene, the other villagers reactions (specifically scared, heavy emotion, fright and panic), are so visible that a clown/mime like scene shines through.  By this I mean that the background reactions are seemingly sped up, while the foreground is in normal motion.  This creates as artificially produced product and cheapening of acting and set.  The level of validity and seriousness is ruined in my mind due to the jamming in of too much in terms of content.

            In contrast to these cheapening elements due to space and visual crowdedness, Magnificent Seven is much different.  For example (for which I could use each scene in this movie) in chapter seven when Vin is sitting at the table in town, and the little girls are walking through, the camera is moving along showing everyone that is there and at many points the camera, though it is focused on two of the characters (in this case Vin), the background action is present but distant.  As with the mountains in the background, the people were visible but blended nicely in the background.  In this particular scene, as Vin is at the table in the foreground, the background is there but has a fading out quality.  The background colors are darker and the camera angles create a narrowing effect as the distance increases.  This allows for an emphasis on the main foreground of the action.  Not just in this chapter, but in all the chapters, color, fading, and an almost blurriness creates for a more visually effortless viewing.  

Sam Dumas (Poem Mash)

Baa, baa, black sheep,

Went up the hill

To fetch a pail of water.

Jack and Jill

Went up the hill

had a great fall

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.


Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

Mary went, 
Mary went, Mary went

Went up the hill

Mary had a little lamb

the lamb was sure to go.

Cold and Raw (Channeling Iceberg)

Cold and raw

Because it bit my finger so.

Cut them in July,

Then they will die.

You do the Hokey-Pokey

A diller, a dollar, a ten o'clock scholar!

Five for silver,

Six for gold,

Pat-a-cake

Cold and Raw

I used children's rhymes in constructing a sort of pseudo Iceberg Slim rhyme. I've got a record of Slim's where he uses rhyme schemes in his "reflections" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3RIXh9p6AQ), which I won't get into, but essentially I took the lines from the children's rhymes out of context while channeling what I remember from what some of Slim's recordings had sounded like. Using "pat-a-cake" for example, to say something to the effect of counting money( "pat" as in pat your pockets, "cake" as in Money). The sources of the children's rhymes are below and in order of the lines delivered.

1)Cold...North Wind Doth Blow

2)Cut Thistles in May

3) Fish story

4)Hokey Pokey

5) A Diller A Dollar

6) One for Sorrow

7)Pat-a-Cake

8) #1 repeated

Dr. Fell

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell.
I took up a poker
And threw it at his head.
I took him by the left leg
And threw him down the stairs.
And here comes a chopper
to chop off your head!
I skipped over water, I danced over sea,
And all the birds in the air couldn't catch me.

I wanted to see how dark of a poem I could make out of some nursery rhymes, and I think this will do. The story is that the narrator doesn't like Dr. Fell, so he kills him and leaves the country to avoid being caught.

Jackson's Comparison

Dracula as a Beast

 

            Within the four takes on Dracula that we’ve seen in class, three films and the original text, a reoccurring attribute to the character is his ability to transform into different animals. In looking at the different ways that Dracula is depicted as a beast, it is interesting to trace the scenarios for which he makes these transitions. While only few of these mediums take liberties to explore this unique power thoroughly, the ones that do are rewarded with not only something effectively horrifying, but substantive as well.

The introduction to the character of Dracula in Bram Stoker’s novel depicts him as both cunning and motivated by instinct. Although one of his more popular and generalized transitions is into a bat, it is when his plans are put into action, arriving in London where he is shown as a wolf leaping onto the shore. This “wolf” is seen terrorizing London, and when amongst similar animals in the zoo, even they howl as Stoker sets an unsettling tone in his novel, and in this scene there is an effect from Dracula’s transition. In Francis Ford Coppola’s film adaptation of the novel shows Dracula as many beasts in contrast with the character’s emotional state. He uses the wolf, unlike the two other films, both showing literally the horrors on the boat, but also to show how Dracula is predatory in nature. For instance in the film Dracula is shown as a wolf when attacking Lucy, who is only a pawn in his quest for Mina, thus the attack is an action of instinct and tact, much like that of a wolf. It could also be mentioned that since Lucy is shown as being a more sexualized character than Mina, a symbolic ending to her natural life in Coppola’s film is in a primal fashion at the hands of Dracula as a beast. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQoG1KenGM)

            Both F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922), and Todd Browning’s Dracula (1931), are similar in that they only hint at Dracula’s abilities to transform, if not showing the power in a subtle or abstract fashion. Murnau’s depiction of the character is that of a pale man-bat, fitting for the literal adaptation of a nocturnal monster, however this is somewhat lacking, as Murnau’s Dracula is only really seen as this monster and nothing more. Browning’s take on the character is more in the form of a human being, portrayed by Bella Lugosi, and is in fact shown as having sympathy toward wolves howling outside his castle, using a quote from Stoker’s novel, “ah the children of the night, what beautiful music they make.” However where there is no showing of a Wolf in Dracula, Lugosi is seen transformed into a bat in his seduction of Renfeild. The animalistic nature of Dracula in these films is more for effect in horror rather than substance in the character.

            Nina Auerbach is quoted as saying that “every generation gets the vampire it deserves,” and she’s right in the sense that there cannot be a proper telling of Dracula, without the required canonizing of the character, one of the key traits being his ability to morph into an animal. At the end of the day it is up to the auteur to come up with how this power will be translated into they’re respective medium, and whether an audience prefers effect to substance in Dracula as a beast, is they’re decision. 

Sam Dumas Comparison

The Van Helsing in Bram Stokers Novel, Nosferatus 1922, Browning 1931, and Francis Ford Coppolas Dracula, all show different variations of one of literature and films most famous and heroic heroes. 

            Van Helsing is known to be one of the most educated and nearly superhuman scientists in the story.  The first time that Van Helsing is introduced as the medical genius is when Lucy Westenra has fallen ill, due to Vampirism.  Evolving this point on, Van Helsing is group leader is the fight against Count Dracula.  Overall, though the lines are blurred as different versions of the epic story are retold, Van Helsing serves as the driving force for good.  He represents the good as Dracula represents the evil.

            Specifically, in the Bram Stoker novel, Van Helsing’s character is clearly depicted as the heroic, representation of all knowing and all good.  In relation to Dracula, his character is the representation of its opposite.  It is one titan against the other in a fictional tale playing off of survival of the fittest.  In the book, Van Helsing’s medical practices are very clear.  His character seems to have a further knowledge than all the rest.  He has a dominating confidence in his abilities to break through the barriers of normal, what they refer to as “western” medicine.  In the book, Van Helsing is separated from the group because of his all knowing doctorate in medicine, and his somewhat “waspy” personality.  He uses forces outside of the human realm to fight against something that is entirely not human.

            In the 1922 film, Nosferatu, Van Helsing is an entirely different character in itself.  It would be tough to compare his different uses of medical styles in this film, because he is fairly absent as the role of Draculas antagonist.  The character of Van Helsing, named Bulwer, is absent from the adaptation of the Dracula story. (Nosferatu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu)

            In Browning 1931 version, Van Helsing is back.  Van Helsing really comes into play right after Lucy’s death.  In my opinion, and though this is accentuated even more in Coppolas film, Browning depicts a darker side to Van Helsing in this 1931 film as well. After watching this film, I was left a bit confused to this sudden parallel between the good and evil characters.  Though, once I thought about it more suddenly and researched the idea a bit, I understand now that their similarity is derived from their inherent difference.  Van Helsing and Dracula are both represented as having more layers.  By this I mean they are the most in depth, able to see past just the surface.  (366 Weird Movies, wordpress.com).

            Flashing forward to Coppola’s Dracula, the main difference here is that though in Brownings film Van Helsing is more paralleled to Dracula in the sense of being more layered, Coppola’s Dracula introduces a more evil Van Helsing.  The very large difference in Van Helsing’s character in this movie is that instead of blurring the lines of similarity through knowledge, Coppola blurs the line of actual good and evil.  In all the other adaptation, including the book, Van Helsing and Dracula are either representations of the opposite of similar in a knowledge and intellectual way.  Coppola blurred the line between good and evil, putting Van Helsing in a far more superhuman light.

Paul's Comparison

When Nina Auerbach said, “Every generation gets the vampire it deserves,” she could not have been more right. Each adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel is a distinct reflection of the society that produced it. This is especially evident when you look at the interactions between the men in the vampire hunting group. In every adaptation, their relationships are indicative of the culture that produced the work.

In the original novel, the four men work together equally with Dr. Van Helsing and Mina. Each one has a specific set of experience and useful skills. Aside from a few tense scenes early on, they all also seem to get along well. In fact, a good portion of the book seems to consist of characters telling each other how much they trust and respect each other. This is a reflection of the stuffy Victorian society it was written in. Every disagreement either starts or ends with a drawn-out apology which only prompts more apologies from other characters and ends with everyone reaffirming their friendship.

The 1931 film has a completely different dynamic. By the time the storyline is in full swing, there is not much of a group at all. Mina has been reduced to the “woman in distress,” while the American John Harker rescues her with Van Helsing as a sort of sidekick. It seems as if they tried to include every old Hollywood trope in the film. The team of equals has been reduced to the lone hero with a sharp suit and a square jaw.

In Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation, the team is shifted yet again. Dr. Seward clearly has an antagonistic relationship with Quincy and Arthur that did not exist in the book. By the end of the film, the dynamic is completely different again. Quincy and Arthur are the masculine figures while Dr. Seward and Jonathan take a more submissive role behind Van Helsing. Their interactions are also more emotionally charged, most notably when Arthur gets so angry at Van Helsing that he pulls out a gun. This is representative of the entire film. What was once subtle and subdued has become broad and overstated. This is indicative of the environment that the film was released into. By 1992, many movie clichés had run their course. People today would not be interested in a film where every character gets along all the time, as in the novel. They are also tired of the solitary hero who single-handedly saves the girl. The more complex dynamic in this adaptation shows how the film tries to complicate things just for the sake of it.

Explanation

As the story of Dracula moves between media, it is interpreted in different ways. Bram Stoker’s original novel is slow-moving, steadily revealing shocking secrets. Francis Ford Coppola’s film adaptation, however, is a whirlwind of grand artistic visions and elaborate art direction. There is much debate as to whether the adaptation does the story justice, or if it is a perfectly legitimate artistic achievement when viewed in its own right. We intended to examine the differences and come up with a work that encompasses both versions.

The photo is more of a reflection of the Francis Ford Coppola film than the book. While the book is organized around mystery and shadow, the film revels in spectacle and baroque imagery. In a way, this picture bridges the gap between the two versions. Many of the film’s scenes involve grand set pieces like this, but this seems more subdued. While the film would present this scene with lighting and thunder, the photograph remains true to the book by being quiet and grey. It almost looks like a giant hand of fog, reaching out to grab the Hancock Building.

The story is meant to emulate the style and incorporate some of the themes of Bram Stoker’s novel. The book is most effective at developing atmosphere and building to crescendos of violence and horror. This is mainly reflected here in how the horror elements of the story are gradually eased into spotlight. At the very beginning, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly sinister going on. Chicago, especially near the lake, can get really foggy, and the Loop clears out pretty quickly at night. Much like the Harker chapters in Dracula, the story then becomes progressively more unsettling and horrific. A normal fall day turns into an eternity of icy horror.

Taken together, they are an attempt to bridge the stylistic gap between the novel and Coppola’s film version. Both attempt to recreate the subtle, uneasy feeling of the novel, but on the grand scale of the film version. It goes to show that just because a work contains majestic, ornate imagery, there is no reason why it also has to be loud and impersonal. As we have shown, there is a happy medium in between the two opposing styles.