I really enjoyed watching the movie version of A Streetcar Named Desire, mostly because I find reading a play with all the stage directions, and the way the character is supposed to be delivering the lines completely distracting. On the other hand, I like to have the freedom to imagine the characters in my own way. After watching the movie, I could never go back and read the play without having the movie version of all the characters in my head. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does limit my imagination.
In the movie, I was able to get a much more clear picture of Blanche. She comes across as completely self centered, and conceited. While, the reader was able to get this idea from the play every aspect of the character revealed this in the movie. From the way Blanche was dressed (compared to Stella and Eunice) and the way that she rambles really shows the audience from the start that Blanche is not all there. That was another thing that irked me about the movie. Blanche was completely insane! They way she talked it was so hard to understand anything that she was saying. While, maybe that was the intention of the director it began to get annoying at times. While the play did detail the way that Blanche makes Mitch act towards her, it was made that much more clear in the movie. The best example I can think of, is when Mitch presents flowers to Blanche. She makes him take them back, and present them in a way that she finds fitting. It just goes to show how she takes advantage of men, and how she really didn't believe that Mitch was good enough for her. The best way the movie shows that Blanche is a complete nut job is when Mitch turns the light on her. She starts shaking, her eyes bug out of her head, and she is having what looks like an anxiety attack. She is mumbling, and hearing the music in her head. When the light is actually turned on, it looks as if Blanche is in physical pain the way she cowers away from the light. The way the actress makes her eyes bug out of her head if very effective to show the craziness of Blanche.
Overall, the movie was helpful in showing how everyone in the movie was CRAZY, not just Blanche. They all needed mental help if you ask me. Stanley was an alcoholic, womanizer, who needs to go to anger management. Mitch was a 30-something mama's boy who needs to get out and live life. And Stella was completely obsessed with Stanley and couldn't see past her sexual attraction. They all need to join Blanche in the crazy house.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That is a good point that you made about watching the film limiting your range of imagination while reading. However, for me this was not an issue. I was pretty much just reading the play like they were just words. I think it is really hard to try to imagine what every character is like and how they are acting. This is probably why I was so blown away by watching the film version.
The way Blanche dressed compared to the other two women did become really apparent in the film. When Stanley opened the trunk of her clothes, I was shocked to see all of the things he pulled out of there. Especially because we knew she was broke from reading the play. It became really evident at that point that Blanche was trying to hold on to the past. This idea continued to come up again and again as we watched the film.
I always think it is intresting to read something first, and then compare what you imagined to how the producer imagined it. i dont think it limits your imagination as long as you read it first before you see someone elses view points and manipulation of the story.
I agree with you that the movie did a much better job at getting across that Blanche was really crazy. I didnt think it was too bad when i read the play, but after watching it and seeing for myself she was really crazy. maybe it has a lot of impact on wether you see it for yourself and how you see it when you read it. I think when you read it you, or atleast just me, tend to want to make the charcters good, so when you see it there is no misunderstanding or different interpretation.
Your post was really funny, but you’re completely right; all of the main characters have their own share of lunacy. Besides Blanche’s clothes and ramblings revealing her self-absorption, they also are signs to me that she does not fit in in Elysian Fields. The setting in the movie is so sparse and shows that New Orleans is clearly industrialized. There are only buildings that have a purpose. There are houses, a bowling alley for recreation, bars, movie theaters, factories, stores, and the carts street vendors use to show their wares. However, there is no frivolity. Blanche, however, is frivolity personified. As Stanley reveals when rummaging through her trunk, she owns a gold dress and a tiara. When would someone where something such as that? She clearly is not concerned with practical matters and says she likes illusion. Thus, she has impractical clothes that show she has no intention of ever working. Even what she talks about is impractical, rambling about stars, telling parrot jokes, and singing tunes. She has no husband or marital disputes like the other women depicted. Right or wrong, Blanche is no match for Elysian Fields.
I agree that watching a movie version of any type of literature is limiting to the imagination and there is no going back once you have seen the actors and actresses on screen. This is the reason I usually hate to watch the movie version of a story but I did not mind this movie. The movie stuck very close to the script, I think this might have a little to do with the timeperiod that this movie was made. But, sticking so close to the script allowed it to be more the way I had pictured. I think some of the actions and personalities were very exaggerated, but in a good way that enhanced the themes of the story.
Post a Comment