Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window and Mark Pellington's Arlington Road, though similar in premise and location, the films are quite different from each other. Hitchcock uses point-of-view to put the viewer in the protagonist's position, he “blurs” the line between good and evil, his antagonists tend to be charismatic, and his films always have a happy ending. Although Rear Window and Arlington Road have similar story lines, the way the stories are told are quite different, as Mark Pellington and Alfred Hitchcock have two different directing and storytelling styles. Other that the similar premise and plot, Rear Window and Arlington Road are two completely different films. Arlington Road may have some similar points from Rear Window, it really should not be compared to Hitchcock's film, and definitely should not be compared to Rear Window, since they have different story lines, are from two completely different generations and two different directors, and neither one is a remake of the other.
For example, the tasteless perfect ending is eliminated and replaced with an unconventional one which only adds more suspense to the film. Also the main idea that no place is safe, the use of charismatic villains and a blurred line of good and evil remains intact through out this film as well. It is seen in the setting of a suburban town and even the dialogue as well. Also Lang true status remains a mystery to the public allowing him to stay charismatic, and even the protagonists use unethical means to achieve theirs goals. I believe Pellington honored Hitchcock’s classic elements while adding his own style to the film.
Irony is the opposite of what is said or intended for the audience. There are several forms of irony. There are verbal, situational and dramatic ironies. Verbal is opposite of what the speaker has intended such a sarcasm. Dramatic is when the reader know something that the characters don’t such as in scary movies when u know where the killer is hiding but the characters don’t.
The addition of supporting characters, such as Lisa, diminishes somewhat the loneliness of the short story character. The character in the short story has more in common with Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade than with Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff. That Hitchcock took a story written in a style similar to Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, and chose not to make a film noir detective story speaks much to Hitchcock’s purpose here. Rather than creating a conventional detective story, Hitchcock creates an everyman, whose injury prevents him from action. The impotence the character feels heightens the tension of the film, as well by forcing the viewers to identify with his frustration.
Suspense, thrill, simplistic complexity, and exquisite directorial brilliance, these are the qualities that make a Hitchcock film stand out from the rest. Arlington Road, though a perfectly entertaining thriller, did not live up to the standards of a Hitchcock film. It was very enjoyable for what it was; however it shouldn’t be considered in the same category as a Hitchcock flick. This semester we watched Rear Window, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, in film class before we watched Arlington Road, directed by Mark Pellington, and while both had several similarities, there were enough differences to say that Arlington Road came up short of recognition as a “Hitchcockian thriller.” Hitchcock’s directing style is very classical and suspenseful. He likes to show the audience the tragedy that is going to occur, before the characters that are going to experience it know of it.
The Ripper, the center character in the novel, does not have as large a role in this treatment; the story is mostly told from Abberline's point of view. B. Hollywood's tradition to have a happy ending story. Conclusion: In the end, From Hell straddles that fine line between fact and fiction so often found in Hollywood's "historical epics." While the Hughes brothers are to be commended in capturing much of the authenticity of the times, location and the case, the film should certainly not be viewed as an authentic representation of the Ripper crimes as a whole. Those interested in the real facts of the case are urged to pick up Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper or Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper.
It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on. I enjoyed The Big Sleep by Howard Hawks, but can still recognize and appreciate the differences between it and Chandler's masterful novel. It is an objective appreciation of the two works which forms the foundation a good paper. One must look at the book as a distinct unit, look at the film as a distinct unit, and then (and only then) use one to compare/contrast the other in a critique. The film, after all, is not an extension of the novel&endash;as some would like to argue&endash;but an independent entity that can be constructed however the artist (Hawks in this case) wants.
The first flaw in “Not all violence movie is created equal” system is Gittell lack of convincing evidence. When talking about Looper, Gittell give too much details about special fact of the movie instead of drawing the connection to his final conclusion about how Johnson may use the scene “ between Joe and the mob” to “resemble the relationship between a film and its audience” (Gittell). Secondly, Gittell made a false assumption about his reader’s knowledge. Since “Not all movie violence is created equal” talked about how violence scenes shouldn’t necessary promote violence, Gittell’s intended audience include a lot of anti-violence movie critics. Despite that fact, Gillet’s supporting evidences are mostly found on the-most-extreme-violence-movie-of-all-time list.
Although most of Aristotle's characteristics of a tragedy had to do with the downfall, he had two that did not. First, he thought the central character should not be totally good or evil. This was based on the belief that the ruin of a totally good character would be too painful, and the ruin of a totally bad char... ... middle of paper ... ... not even thank is wife for the plan that made him king. Due to Malcolm's final speech, the reader is left with positive, not negative feelings. Overall Macbeth is not a tragedy according the Aristotle's standards.
Wyatt believes there may have been another less destructive, less diversionary, more spiritually fulfilling way to search for their freedom rather than selling hard drugs, taking to the road and being sidetracked, and wasting their lives. ƒÞ For all its counter cultural reflections, the movie does not portray the youthful movement uncritically, rather it provides an ambiguous ending, implying that excesses, even counter cultural ones, can be harmful and destructive. David Hopper also defines this film as anti-counter cultural. The romance and dream of the American highway is turned menacing and deadly¡XThey looked for America but couldn¡¦t find it anywhere.