MONTY. I don't want you to visit.
His
voice is rough and slurred, his split lips impeding his diction.
[Naturelle] opens a bottle of rubbing alcohol, wets a cotton ball,
presses the cotton lightly against the gash in his forehead. He
shudders, his fingers gripping the edges of the sofa cushions.
MONTY. I don't want you to come see me up there.
Naturelle struggles mightily to keep herself together. She continues cleaning his wounds.
MONTY. Why'd you stay with me? You should have left a long time ago.
NATURELLE. You idiot.
MR.
BROGAN. And maybe one day years from, long after I'm dead and gone, you
gather your whole family together and you tell them the truth. Why you
are and where you came from. You tell them the whole thing. And then you
ask them if they know how lucky they are to be there. It all came so
close to never happening. This life came close to never happening...
I loved Nell's reaction to the ending. "No...No...You're kidding"—or something along those lines. Well, I felt the same way when I saw it with Clark Cloyd when it first opened. I totally thought the fantasy was reality. It's as audacious an ending as there has
been in a mainstream studio movie. I know a number of you—Nell definitely—were sucked in by this fantasy, this wish-fulfillment, of Monty (and
maybe his father). I've seen this movie several times; and for some
reason, this time I found the ending—the fantasy—uncommonly powerful and emotional. I want Monty so much to make his life "right"—that he will use a second chance to make the world a better place than he left (and had a hand in ruining). And I love looking at the beautiful children and grandchildren he and Naturelle could have had.
So, to keep this short and sweet: And here's the screenplay.
1.
Your reaction to the "ending": from the moment Monty goads Frank into
beating him (it didn't take much), through his goodbye (his last, I
think) to Naturelle, through the scene above. Along with your reaction,
answer the question: what's the meaning of this ending? How does it
resolve the conflict(s) of the movie? Do you find it satisfying or not?
And why?
2.
Is the movie misogynistic? I ask that because the last time we watched this movie, we spent a good portion of the discussion debating this. And a couple of you—Agasha? Nell?—responded to the comment on made about the possible sexist ways the film portrays its women. So going with this train of thought: misogynistic—how so or how not? Think about this question
before answer it. And think too: is the movie portraying, commenting
on, a misogynist mind set that is in the story, or is it reflecting
Spike Lee's misogyny. Remember: Lee did not write the film—David Benioff
did (though clearly it stylistically and thematically is consistent with
many of his other films).
3. Finally: do the 9/11 references have a place in this movie? Do they serve a purpose in it? If so, how? If not—how do they, for you, affect the experience of watching the movie?
Finally, fittingly, we end the semester with a rant that most definitely and consciously mirrors the rant in our first text of the year, Do The Right Thing.
This is the last blog of the semester. Thanks for the effort, thought, and insights you put into it. Have a good weekend. Be sure to see me starting Monday if you have questions about the paper.
1. I found the ending very satisfying. When I saw the alternate reality playing out (where Monty lives in a western town) I was upset. I guess my reaction was the opposite of Nell's. It seemed so wrong that Monty would "rebuild" his life somewhere new and just create a clean slate. The whole movie showed how complicated his life was. A lot of those complications made his life hard, but I couldn't imagine him just running away from them. The ending made sense to me and felt right. Life is complicated. There are things that make it messy, and many of those issues come from within us. Monty had a couple chances to make a good life for himself, but he screwed them up. He got kicked out of his school and he dealt heroin. I'm not saying that makes him a terrible person, but Monty messed up and some of that came from his circumstances, but some of it came from his own mistakes. No matter how far he runs away, he is still the same person. He can still make mistakes and screw everything up. It didn't make sense to me that he could run away because the whole movie seemed to be about facing everything that is wrong with all of us and everything that is wrong with the city. You can't really run away from yourself.
ReplyDelete2. I think the misogyny was intentionally put in the movie, and I don't think Lee is condoning it. In a sense, I think the men's misogyny was just another way to illustrate their flaws. It might have been built into their roles to add another flaw to their list of issues. Many of the times that male characters are being sexist, they are also portrayed as being disgusting (the scene in the Chinese restaurant). That seemed like a comment against sexism to me. Also, the movie shows marginalized people and how they interact and conflict in this diverse city. I think the women being sexualized is a part of this dynamic. The city is constantly in tension because so many different types of people are living close together, all with their human flaws.
3. They made some sense to me. I liked the idea that they connected to Monty's life. The past of the building was glorious, until it turned terrible very quickly. Just like Monty's career. The future for the buildings is unclear, but they will be rebuilt. However, their destruction will remain a difficult and emotional topic for all involved. I feel like this is a possible connection to Monty's story. However, in a more general sense, they add to the darkness of the film and the idea of flawed humanity. Every character in the film has many flaws, and they have done 'the wrong thing' in multiple situations. Ground zero is a blatant reminder of human flaws and the pain humans can inflict upon one another. The process of rebuilding or fixing the mess of 9/11 will be painful long, just like Monty's recovery.
1. I wasn’t really upset when I was watching the ‘alternate’ route Monty could have taken. I thought that the overall ending was satisfying, even it was upsetting at points (like when Frank beat Monty up). When I was watching the way Monty’s life could’ve been, I couldn’t imagine it actually happening that way, which is why I wasn’t surprised when we found out that he went to prison. I think that Monty would have considered that as taking the easy way out. I think he realizes that he has to face the consequences of his actions, maybe because he expects other people to do the same and he wants to hold himself to the same standards he holds to which he holds others. That said, I think Monty acting out the alternative to prison would have been wonderful (certainly an audience pleaser for some members) but I never could imagine him doing that. I think it’s possible that Monty doesn’t want to cut himself off entirely from the life he led in New York. Going to prison would be more of an acceptance of his actions, his mistakes and his successes. But running away would mean forgetting everything, or at least pretending to (for a while at least, until he reached out to Naturelle). I think part of Monty’s choice at the end shows him accepting his own mistakes and dealing with the consequences, but it also shows that he liked his ‘dangerous’ life in New York, and he doesn’t want to forget about it.
ReplyDelete2. When I was watching the movie, it never really crossed my mind that the movie was misogynistic, although the characters did make some nasty remarks about women. I suppose this reflects on the characters’ own flaws, as opposed to Benioff’s or Lee’s misogyny. I think the fact that Monty, as the main character, never really speaks out against the Frank’s and Jacob’s misogyny could portray some of the filmmaker’s own prejudice; but Monty is also supposed to be a heavily flawed character. I think another aspect of the movie that could be portrayed as sexist was the fact that the students who dated or pursued older significant others (which, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying, is frowned upon in society) were women: Naturelle and Mary. I think this could be construed as sexist because it shows women having poor judgment, or only wanting sex. From another perspective, it shows bad morals because women are willing to use sex to get a good grade.
3. The 9/11 references were very powerful to me, especially the scene where Frank and Jacob were in Frank’s apartment looking at the destruction. Outside the context of the movie, that image shook me. In the context of the movie, I think that the conversation in that scene, with the backdrop of the demolition of the Twin Towers, was supposed to make the audience feel bleak. Frank and Jacob were talking about Monty’s future, and how he had three, none too hopeful, options. Frank argued that Monty would fall out of their lives after that night, no matter which option he chose. But Jacob was arguing the hopeful side, saying that everything would be okay. I think the 9/11 references put a morose taint on the whole movie, having the audience understand through powerful imagery what a terrible time the city was going through. Having those references pervade the movie brings to light how much hate there is in the world: the sort of hate that causes that type of tragedy in the first place, the hate that fills people in retaliation, and the amount of hate in the characters. But perhaps hate isn’t the right word. Maybe destruction, or ability to destroy. And a want to destroy, others’ lives or your own life.
1. I expected Monty to go to prison until about half way through the imagined escape. I knew it was being imagined, but I was completely convinced that the movie would end with the car turning off the highway to make it a reality. The movie had done a remarkable job of making Monty a likable person - right off the bat, our first impression of our protagonist is him rescuing an injured dog - and I didn't want him to be arrested, harmed, or imprisoned. They only once showed the impact of his activities in the form of a jittery drug addict threatening him in the park, and even then it was set up to portray the addict as the antagonist. The ending was satisfying in a way, but definitely wasn't what I wished had happened. On one hand, a drug dealer went to prison for getting rich off of ruining peoples' lives - that's justice. On the other hand, Monty went to prison, and he was so afraid of it that he goaded his best friend into messing up his face so he'd have a better chance of survival. The police were threatening and insulting, the drug addict didn't excite much sympathy, but the drug dealer - generally the villain in movies like this - was kind and personable. It turned the classic understanding of the situation on its head. So the end wasn't what I wished had happened, but it was the right ending. Monty going to prison resolved the film's conflicts well - to have all the build up, every attempt at closure, all that emotional fallout, only for Monty to slip out of the predicament at the every end, would have been out of place. Going to prison resolved conflicts of what each character wanted their world to be like, and the reality of it. Jacob wanted a relationship with his student without the nasty moral and legal fallout, and that night in the club realizes that can't happen. Naturelle wanted the comfortable apartment and cushy life without thinking about where all the money came from and who'd been hurt by it, and is forced to consider this when Frank brings it up in the bar. Frank wants to be the friend to Monty that he's always been, and insists that he'll be there for him when he gets out - "thirty's still young": they'll build a business and thrive like they used to. Monty shakes him of that dream, and instead insists the best way to be his friend right then is to beat him up under a bridge in the park - and, disturbingly, that may actually be the best thing Frank can do right now. Prison was set up as the inevitable reality; shrugging it off would have been a cop out. It would have been nice, as dreams tend to be, but it would have gone against the reality of the situation. It was a good, if not happy, way to end the film.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I was not at all surprised that the dreamy, escapist ending was fake. Even as we watched it unfold, I was just waiting for the camera to snap back to reality. I certainly wanted it to be real, but, knowing Spike Lee and knowing the kind of movies you normally show us, I did not expect a clean and happy ending. Plus, I would have been disappointed in Monty if he had made a run for it, considering that he was rightfully accused and sentenced fairly leniently, considering the scope of his wrongdoing. Even so, I couldn’t help but root for Monty throughout the movie, and I kept having to remind myself that I shouldn’t be feeling so bad for him. This is kind of off-topic, but I thought it was significant that Monty only ever expressed regret for getting caught, not for the human consequences of his actions, as portrayed in the businessman-turned-junkie. But, back to the ending. I did not find it particularly satisfying, which is probably appropriate for the film. Monty and Naturelle are left in a state of uncertainty concerning the future, so it makes sense that the film should reflect that and leave the viewer with some doubt and questions about Monty’s fate.
ReplyDelete2. Just like in Heart of Darkness, I think it can be hard to distinguish between a conscious bias in the work or an unconscious bias in the creator. It seems to me that the movie itself is undeniably sexist, considering that women are underrepresented and serve primarily to help develop the male characters. However, I can’t say whether or not this mindset extends to Spike Lee himself, or if he was trying to make a commentary on it. Although, even if he were trying to make a commentary, I think it’s undetectable enough that it hardly serves any purpose. I mean, an intentionally sexist film is still a sexist film, unless viewers can pick up on the subversive intent.
3. I don’t necessarily think that the 9/11 references tie in directly with the story or serve to highlight any of the themes, but they certainly help keep the story in perspective. And more importantly, since this movie was filmed in 2002 in New York, I feel like not including the effects of 9/11 would have been dishonest. During the year immediately following 9/11, it rested very heavily on the mind of all New Yorkers. The awareness of the tragedy permeated all aspects of life. We all knew someone who had died or barely escaped from the towers, so it was of personal as well as national significance. Where I lived, about 20 blocks away, you could literally smell the smoke for months afterwards. So, even if they didn’t really serve any thematic purpose in the movie, I think these references needed to be there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2.I don't think it is misogynistic. Its characters certainly are, but the film itself did a good job highlighting (in a negative light) when sexism came up. I can't imagine many people weren't disturbed by Koysta's yelling at passers by, insisting that the two of them could have beautiful babies together. When Frank accused Naturelle of being there only for the money, saying that when Monty was gone and the cash gone with him she'd latch onto another rich man's arm, "right or wrong?" She slaps him and leaves him, tired and inebriated, alone at the bar, where he's joined by a drunk and shame-wracked Jacob. Mary, drunk and skimpily dressed, had been initiating contact with him all night, even referring to him as her lover to get into the club - but it's his responsibility to keep her from being hurt, even and especially by himself. When he returns advances she looks numb and frightened, and Jacob backs off, realizing he crossed a line. Every instance is either perpetrated by an unlikable character (like Koysta), or is immediately followed with repercussions and/or guilt (like with Frank and Jacob.) There is definitely misogyny in the film, but it is portrayed as the wrong thing to do.
ReplyDelete3. The 9/11 references weren't necessary, but were well incorporated and served to emphasize the concept of a pleasant wish verses a bleak reality. Monty's fall from grace is a tragedy in its own right, and is compared to the destruction of the twin towers. Something beautiful has been destroyed in the most complete and disturbing way possible; Monty's life with Naturelle in his beautiful apartment in New York City comes suddenly crashing down, and he faces the reality of the American prison system, which is a reality he doesn't think he can survive. Similarly the twin towers go down in flames in an unexpected terrorist attack, and Americans are left shocked and mourning. In the wake of an astounding tragedy, lights are set up to not only memorialize, but I think the movie is saying to mimic the lost structures. Bright and maybe beautiful in their own right, they fill the empty space left by the horrific reality. The lights are, in a sense, like Monty's dream of escape - they offer a pleasant alternative to what is real, because what is real is not always pleasant.
1. For me, the ending provoked a lot of emotion. I wasn't really sure whether to be glad that he "did the right thing" and faced the error of his ways, or to be sad because he was going to prison, or to be frustrated that Spike Lee just created that whole illusion just to rip it away. I wasn't surprised he ended up facing his consequences, but the alternate reality through me off a little because for a second I felt like this was what he actually decided to do. It was almost too elaborate to not be real.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the movie, it felt like everyone was struggling with where to place the blame. Similar to what Mira was saying in her post, I think this movie was about identity. I think it was about how responsibility alters who you are. I think this is seen especially in the end when Monty decides to go to prison rather than following with his father's alternative option. I think Monty felt that choosing this would've been him deluding himself and would've been him not being true to himself and his character.
2. I think it was all intentional. I think some of the characters were misogynistic but I don't think it made the movie problematic, I think was just a reflection of reality. I think some of the main instances I was debating about whether or not they were misogynistic, were between Monty and Naturelle, but now that I reflect on it more I think her behavior really played into the age difference between the both of them. Not to say that the movie didn't fed into gender roles in relationships - because it did - but I I guess what I'm saying is that the misogyny in the movie was not worth really looking into that much because it seemed intentional and - for me at least - didn't divert too much attention away from the overall meaning of the film.
3. As I said before, the meaning of the movie was more about self identity and taking responsibility for one's actions and the references to 9/11 really played into that I think. I feel like after 9/11 everyone was grieving and trying to place the blame on someone in an effort to gain some kind of control over the situation. There are parallels between this and the theme of the movie, specifically when we see Monty in the bathroom of his father's bar where he goes on his rant about everyone he hates and who he blames, which eventually just comes right back at him in the end. I think the references highlight the lack of control and how powerless someone in Monty's position might feel.
1. I thought the ending was perfect until I started thinking about it because it left me feeling closure but actually nothing was resolved, and perhaps that was intentional, but I find it frustrating. The story sets us up for the climax just as it’s supposed to, but it never reaches resolution. The dust never settles, in my opinion. I get how that could have been part of the point, but I don’t think Lee was right in his decision to leave the fate of every single one of his characters undetermined. What will Naturel do? I don’t know. What will happen to the creepy, pasty, pervy, letch of a teacher? I don’t know. What will happen to Monte’s dad after he takes that sip of beer? I don’t know. What will happen to Monte? I don’t know any of this, and you know what, there is such a thing as “too open-ended”. The ending of this movie, however poetic and depressing it may be, says nothing coherent whatsoever. It does not teach us a lesson, nor does it help me understand the lives of people different to myself. I cannot relate to the characters, nor do I care about them. This ending is a failure, therefore the movie is as well. That’s not to say I didn’t like it, because I did, but for however dark it may have been, it’s still fluff. Like cotton candy, it disappears from my memory not even an hour after finishing it. It has left no lasting impression on me, and in that way, it fails.
ReplyDelete2. I completely get how you could argue that this is a misogynistic film in that the only developed female character doesn’t have anything going on in her life other than her boyfriend. His friends are her friends and we don’t see her with anyone except them, except for the quick little flashback, but even then, that see existed for the sole purpose of showing how she and her boyfriend met. She’s dependent. Her whole life is centered around Monte; I see that, and I won’t argue against the existence of sexist undertones, but I don’t believe them to be all that important. They are undertones, as I said, and I really don’t find them all that compelling. This is a story about a man who gets the chance to say goodbye before the end of the life he’s known, but with that come the responsibility to face the fact that his life is ending. He has to live his last day knowing it’s going to be his last. What a horrible, horrible thing to have happen, the worst I think. That’s what this movie is about, and while I hate to say it, I don’t think sexism is all that important here. Just like in “Do the Right Thing”, the women we see only ever talk to or about men. Their entire world is centered around them, and that’s neither right nor realistic, but it’s also not relevant. They serve a purpose and that purpose is not to make a point about equality; it’s to highlight the more sensitive parts of the men around them, and while that might not be politically correct, it’s effective.
3. Honestly, I didn’t think about 9/11 at all while watching it. It didn’t play a vital role to me, and maybe that’s just because I don’t remember the world before 9/11, so I don’t really know what kind of point it was trying to make about it. It was the background, but not a meaningful one to me, and I’m totally willing to hear how other people’s viewing was affected by it, but it didn’t do anything for me.
1. At the time, the ending was very disappointing but now I'm pretty happy with it. To be completely honest, that alternate ending would've taken away from the movie. The movie was all about choices especially those we make on our own. Monty lived most of his life making bad choices and never got caught. But like everyone else, he isn't untouchable. His choices caught up to him and deep down, he thought he deserved it. I think it would've been the the safe box-office choice to end with Monty having a happy ending. It wouldn't have fit, but it would've made ueveryone happy, which shouldn't be the goal of a worthwhile film. From start to finish the central theme of the movie was “choice” and the consequences of the ones people make. The rant scene as well as the confrontation that Frank has with Naturelle brings this theme to light. The rant scene ultimately brings the conclusion that in the end you only have yourself to blame for your choices. The confrontation scene shows that no one is innocent when they allow others to continue with their bad choices. With all this build up, it would've been foolish to have a happy ending when the movie was showing that our choices and actions eventually catch up to us.
ReplyDelete2. I think the movie was intentionally showing the misogyny within this group of people and perhaps within New York and the world. I thought it was done on purpose in order to highlight one of the major problems with this group in particular. I thought the film was too mysoginistic to not purposely be making a comment on the mysoginistic ways of the characters themselves.
3. Maybe it’s the fact that I'm watching this in 2016, 15 years after 9/11 but it didn't really resonate with me all that much. I think the apartment scene with frank and Jake was what really made the connection between 9/11 and the movie for me. To me, the fact that Frank refused to move even after the twin towers in were bombed illustrated the unwillingness of the characters (mainly Monty) to change. On a broader scale I think Spike Lee was trying to say “Yeah 9/11 happened, but so what?” It was kind of a “fuck you Al-Queda. Life goes on”.
1. The scene where Frank beats Monty was painful for me to watch, not just because of the bloodiness but because of the idea that Monty’s best friend could have so much hate in him. Frank was angry, angry enough to almost kill Monty—for a moment I thought he had killed him. Monty did provoke him, but Frank’s anger and hatred was deep and had clearly been bubbling for a long time. We as an audience are not given much of their background, only that they grew up together as children of Irish immigrants and that they remained close friends. I think that a good bit of Frank’s hatred comes from jealousy. Monty lives a luxurious lifestyle and doesn’t work; Frank is yelled at by his boss every day and serves in a job that doesn’t seem fulfilling. He works an honest job but Monty is richer than him. And Monty has a beautiful girlfriend and is more popular. The two men have parallel lives, but it is easy to see how Frank could think he got the short end of the stick. Of course, the ending of the movie makes us realize that Frank is in fact the lucky one. The alternative fantasy ending is so very tantalizing because we are rooting for Monty despite the fact that he is a drug dealer. My reaction was one of frustration—the fantasy was so close, so real because we were watching it, but it was also so wrong. It felt discordant with the rest of the movie, with Spike Lee (because he does not give us happy endings). The movie is about justice and Monty has to get justice by going to jail, by having Frank beat him up, and in a twisted way by allowing the drug dealer people to kill his friend who ratted him out. Justice runs its course and because Monty did bad things he has to be punished.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the movie is misogynistic but I think that it is commenting on the misogynist world, not reflecting Spike Lee’s misogyny. The sexist comments, most of which surround Naturelle, are blatant and overtly discriminatory and objectifying. The way Monty tells her to wear the silver dress, the way Frank looks at her, is so disgusting that I think is has to be intentional. Naturelle is a strong woman and a loyal person—she does not rat out her boyfriend and sticks by him even though he does not treat her very well. She is beautiful and sexy and objectified, but the movie is from a male perspective, about a man going to jail, and so we can assume that Lee is doing this intentionally.
3. I’m pretty sure that this movie was written before 9/11, though it was obviously filmed afterwards. Because of this, 9/11 does not make the movie, is not central to the storyline. However, it fits very well with the themes of hatred, labeling, loyalty, and fear. This country was deeply shaken by 9/11, and it would have impacted the lives of the characters in the movie. I think that the references helped me relate to the movie and made me like it more. Monty’s world is nothing like mine, but if we have this shared experience of fear and sorrow I can connect with him. I can experience the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach with Frank as he looks out of his apartment window onto the nothingness that is the aftermath of the twin towers. Including 9/11 makes the movie more powerful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Or have we been outwitted?
ReplyDeleteImmediately as I realized that the alternate ending was false, Vivian's analysis of the sonnet came to me; John Donne is assured God's mercy as all sinners are; it is right there for the taking. Yet, instead, he rejects salvation to hide from God, asking him to forget. His logic confirms that because "serpents envious cannot be damned," and he can, God must not be just.
Similarly, as Monty's father describes his potential life, this sense of mercy is abundant. Just like Donne, who sees mercy as "easy and glorious," it seems incredibly simple for his father to drive him to the desert and have him restart his life. Yet, also like Donne I think Monty realizes that this would be fundamentally false; like Donne realizes God might be evil, Monty realizes that HE might be evil. He cannot ignore the moment of self recognition he has when he stares at himself in the mirror, that beneath the facade on the outside there is nothing beneath. He is empty, and despite everyone around him he is actively contributing to the problems of society; making people addicted to a drug that will slowly destroy their lives. His greatest act of the past couple years; saving a dog. The only friends he can rely on; the ones from high school. He desires money, wealth, power, sex, and nothing more seemingly. If he truly LOVED anybody, why did he remain a drug dealer? He was attached to his physical surroundings - the car, the nice house, the girlfriend who (possibly) fell in love with him because of his money. He has become fully enveloped in desire. When he looks beneath the surface, despite the problems of others around him, he realizes that it is hard to find shreds of humanity within.
The 9/11 towers have fallen; there are just two irreparable holes where they used to stand. They will never magically be rebuilt from the toxic ash. The towers are a symbol for Monty's life; what has happened is irreparable. He cannot magically fix himself, he has to go through the cold hard process of rebuilding himself. And just like America never will be the same, Monty will never be the same. It is his only option. It is America's only option. The illusion is a falsehood.
I found it VERY unsatisfying as I watched it, but as soon as I connected it to Donne and the metaphor of the twin towers, it made a ton of sense. I think Spike Lee and David Benioff are saying something very powerful here, that while we can project our problems onto the outside world any work starts from within. The illusion is false. Blaming other people is false. All we can do is work on ourself, so when we look in the mirror we don't jump in fright at the truth.
2. I mean, I guess it actually was, now that I think about it. Two examples come to mind.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when Jacob went too far with his student: my first thought after watching that scene was that it revealed misogyny; Jacob because of his privilege of being a man thought her body was his for the taking and just went ahead and kissed her without seeking any kind of consent; and that her reaction showed that men can't just get what they want without asking first. But looking back, I feel it is incredibly sexist; it portrays the student as a temptress that leads Jacob on to deny him at the last minute; manipulating him, playing with his mind. It undermines female sexuality by painting it as false and furthers the narrative that men should just "grab them by the pussy" because you never really know what she's thinking.
Second, when Frank questions Naturelle I feel like this could also be interpreted in two ways. Her storming off could be showing that you can't just push a woman around; Naturelle rejects the line of questioning instead of humoring it. Yet, I also feel like it could be confirming her guilt of liking Monty because of her money; she doesn't answer the question because she doesn't like the answer. She seems to be enamored with his carefree, powerful attitude on the playground; possibly that, and his lifestyle (she did get to go to Puerto Rico, nice house, etc.) ARE what made her fall in love with him. Especially because she didn't deny it. And that paints an even more sexist picture of Naturelle; even if she isn't guilty of turning Monty in she's still a gold digger.
It's important to consider that these different options for what Benioff and Lee might have been attempting to convey aren't mutually exclusive; there could be more than one thing at work in each scene. But depending on which one seems to be more prevalent, I think this movie could either be considered mildly sexist not at the fault of the director or storywriter or incredibly sexist, even as Benioff and Lee tried to fight against sexism, with the directors to blame.
3. I think the 9/11 references were vital to the film; they served to create a message wider than just Monty. Instead of it just being that Monty must rebuild his life instead of surrendering to fantasy, it becomes clear that America must rebuild itself instead of living in an illusion. It strengthens the message of Monty's rant; we can't keep blaming other races, other countries, the government, the world, the economy, our friends, our family. Everything starts from the self. America cannot and must not lash out, we must attempt to strengthen ourselves. Despite the suffering around us, we as individual citizens must not lash out at each other. Even when it seems like your world is crumbling around you. Even when everything feels impossible, and may be impossible. Because to imagine you are somewhere else would be to delude yourself into, I hate to say it, complacency. You isolate yourself from the world and become numb to suffering instead of truly feeling it and living through the period of pain that is necessary to attain greatness again. Candide taught us that there is no happiness without unhappiness; we must have a period of redemption before we can be happy again.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know you like Mad Max so I thought Id include this; isn't this like when they have the motorcycles on the edge of the great salt flat and they could just bike away, hoping for something, living in the illusion that they will get somewhere? Yet instead, they realize that the only viable place to live is the one they just fled; the one that is broken. We can't escape because there is no escape; we are stuck in our world. We must fix America, Earth or die trying.
1. Disregarding how it made me feel or what it meant, I thought the ending was fantastic just from a film perspective. I loved how time passed as Monty’s father narrated the alternate future. It didn’t fool me at all; I knew the entire time that Monty was heading straight to prison. I think a lot of the ending was about Monty’s self hatred. He hated himself for two main reasons. The first reason he was mad at himself was because of his suspicion that Naturelle was the one who made the call to the police. He realizes that his suspicion that Naturelle made the call is completely wrong and that the fact that he could turn on his girlfriend so fast bothers him deeply. The second reason Monty hates himself is the life path he chose to take. In the past, Monty maybe tried to blame others for his drug dealing and getting kicked out of the prep school he was attending. And even if he didn’t try and blame others for the path he went down, he still always said to himself that he would only deal drugs for a couple more years or a couple more months, and that what he was doing wasn’t all that bad. Now as he faces his prison sentence, I think Monty really comes to terms with his choices. He wants Frank to beat him up, he wants to feel the pain he now thinks he deserves for wasting the opportunities he had and for messing up other people’s lives with the drugs he sold. And the alternate future shows just how aware he is now that things could have been different if he had not chosen to go down the path he went down.
ReplyDelete2. I think the blatant misogyny of is purposeful for sure and serves the purpose of being another one of the flaws in humanity. However, I do think there is some not as blatant underlying misogyny and I agree with Moey that Mary affirms the stereotype that women manipulate the minds of men. It seems like the sole purpose of the female characters is to show the flaws in the male characters and this may or may not be problematic. I tend to lean towards it not being problematic because the movie is about the flaws of men, but it does seem a little strange that there are only two female characters who only exist to characterize the men.
3. I think the 9/11 references do have a place in the movie. During the rant against all the people of New York, the Monty in the mirror wants the whole city to be burned to the ground and the city would probably end up looking a lot like ground zero if that were to happen. I think the 9/11 references serve to remind us of the destructive power of hate, and by hating other people we could be causing catastrophes similar to 9/11 that might be smaller and unseeable beneath life’s surface. I thought the scene where Jacob and Frank were talking about Monty’s three choices as they looked out on the ruins was really powerful and I liked it a lot. The efforts of the cleanup crews seemed so ridiculously futile, and I think this could be compared to how messed up human nature is and our efforts to combat it are futile.
I thought the fight was one of the best scenes in the movie—it provided catharsis for the tension Monty had with his friends, especially Frank, throughout the movie. But also Monty seemed like he was trying to atone for all the poor decisions he made before through the beating, he needed a physical response to his messed-up life in conjunction with the psychological one the prison would soon have on him. The fantasy seemed too easy to spot (sorry Nell), it had some sort of whitewashed filtering that made it obvious that it was not reality. The family was all dressed in white, as if it were an idealized version of itself. So I was not surprised when Monty was pulled back to the present. I think the ending captures Monty's real goals in life if he had a second chance—he would name himself James, he would get an honest job, and he would start a family. And that makes the ending a bit more hopeful because one should know that Monty will not continue in the drug business when he gets out, so maybe then he will start to put his life together in a way that he wants.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the female leads in the movie, Mary and Naturelle, seem to have a lot of hate and contempt directed towards them by the other characters throughout the film. Jakob does not adjust Mary's grade, Naturelle is the first suspect of Monty's witch hunt, and to make it worse, the only capacity these two characters are thought of in are their sexual aspect or motherly aspect. There is even ample discussion over “proper age” for an older man to be in a relationship with a younger girl. If there was not seemingly a theme about age differences between older men and younger women, I might be able to overlook the earlier criticisms as matters of story or coincidence. But when the women in the film are purposefully sexualized at young ages, something has been missed. Jakob's love interested did not have to be a student in order for him to come out of his shell, and Naturelle did not have to be eighteen when she and Monty met. It seems that the only purpose of women in the film is to be sex objects, designed from birth.
I think they serve some sort of symbolic purpose of Monty's life—remember the end, in the fantasy, where Mr. Brogan tells him that “you'll always be a New Yorker.” Here's Monty, in the prime of his life, he has money, a great girlfriend, friends all over the city, when suddenly he gets sold out and has to give up everything to go to jail for 7 years. It seems appropriate that the memory of the Twin Towers, New York's pride, would be on display as well—it matches the magnitude of loss that Monty has sustained in his life, the need for his friends to help clean it up (think of the penthouse scene where Jakob and Frank watch the workers), and the possibility of renewal.
1. This is not a "satisfying" ending. I don't think anything could be. If everyone lived happily ever after it would be nice, but not realistic. We also would still know in the back of our mind that they deserved worse. Why should these people end up happy, when they've fed off the misery of others, like the man in the beginning (Simon I think)? To some degree, the ending is what should happen. Monty is a man who has lived a luxurious lifestyle thanks to the vice of others. He has mad immoral decisions to grant himself this wealth, and deserves some punishment. If he ran, much as it might make an easier ending, it would be neither realistic nor completely satisfying.
ReplyDelete2. In class, I said that I couldn't see the choices in this movie relating to women as anything but deliberate. I still feel that way to some degree, but I do think Lee has made misogynistic choices in the movie. Mary, who is more of a victim than perhaps anyone else in this story, comes across as an active wrongdoer, while Monty is introduced to us in the good light of saving a dog. Women are not only shown as more passive than men, but also are given fewer redeeming qualities when they do wrong. Jacob is creepy. He is a pedophile. He is a sexual predator, but the movie makes me feel bad for him. He isn't a victim in this situation. He may be somewhat drunk, but he knows that kissing Mary is wrong, and yet he does. The movie manages to simultaneously show men as more actively participating in the world and as victims, when they are hurt by their own choices.
3. I'm not entirely sure. The 9/11 imagery is certainly striking, but I'm not sure how much of a purpose it serves. I didn't feel like there was a negative impact from them. I just felt that there wasn't a strong enough connection drawn between the characters and 9/11. Like Moey said in class, there's a huge hole in New York City, just as the characters have massive flaws, but with the exception of one scene, there is no actual dialogue about the attacks or the ruins of the buildings. If there had been more interaction between the characters and the references, I would see more of a point.