In The Road Not Taken the poet is expressing regret, or at the very least ambivalence, for his choice.
William Dobbin is the emphatically not a sympathetic character in Vanity Fair. In fact he is the biggest loser in a story filled with biggest losers.
The moral of Romeo and Juliet is that teenage passion is destructive, dangerous, and ultimately meaningless. Both children should have listened to their parents, honored their family and community obligations, and used a lot more common sense. Had Romeo controlled himself like a man he would have forgotten Juliet as quickly as he had Rosaline, and gone on to live a prosperous life with a lot less murder and mayhem.
I wrote the same thing here a few years ago. Romeo and Juliet is not a romantic tragedy, it is a comedy that few people get. It is making fun of teenage drama and fickleness. Romeo was just a horn-dog pure and simple and would take whatever he could get. There are a English professors that share the same view and Andy Griffith of all people has a standup comedy routine describing Romeo and Juliet that makes all of this perfectly clear.
Romantic love was held as subject to ridicule for centuries following. Even in some 20th century American guides it’s listed as not one of the better reasons to marry as “in love” and “in lust” were so often interchangeable in people’s self perceptions. It could well be Shakespeare was warning people to not mistake one for the other, but he wrote it in such a way that we got to see Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting in their primes butt nekkid.
Not in the book. Wonka hires the Oompa Loompas aware from a fairly dismal life and pays them with chocolate, their favorite food. Not exactly kosher under current hiring laws, certainly, but a far cry from slavery. There’s no indication given that they can’t all just pack up and go home any time they like.
To each his own and everything, but dude, you’re smoking crack. And not even good crack.
How do you explain the props he gets while walking around the convention, the party scene, and Bernie Moran’s general attitude toward him?
The “something utterly obvious” you claim he fails to notice is the entire crux of the movie, and the obviousness of it is only in hindsight. I challenge anyone to prove that they knew what was going on the whole time the first time they see that movie.
I’ll completely buy that Harry is past his prime. I’m even willing to listen if you want to argue that he’s got a rep he doesn’t completely deserve because he got lucky on that one job he won’t discuss, and now he’s trading off that rep even when it gets him in over his head. But Harry is not inept. He is skilled at his job and respected by his peers and, when push comes to shove, he’s a good man in an evil world.
Yes, this is one of my favorite movies of all time. Why do you ask?
It seems to me that there’s three types of people in the world: folks who consider “The Conversation” a masterpiece, folks who’ve never heard of it, and fools.
I have a feeling somebody will take great umbrage to this, but:
Dumbledore was a jerk. He deliberately withheld vital information from characters and constantly made decisions that endangered people around him. He sees tragedy coming miles off, but he takes very few actions to prevent it. (Yeah, yeah, I know his hands were tied and nobody listened and blah blah. The guy’s a master wizard.)
More broadly, I think the entire staff of Hogwarts is composed of gross incompetents. This makes sense in the jokey kids’ lit context of the first three books, but once they start getting more detailed and serious, it starts to seem weird.
Also, Harry and Hermione had apparently pulled off almost every significant act of magic by their third year in school. Why doesn’t Hogwarts have honors classes?
Agreed on all counts. When we hear the shift in intonation of the recording toward the end, we’re listening to it through Harry’s ears–it didn’t always sound like that, but now that we now the meaning behind the words, the emphasis in his mind’s ear seems obvious and unequivocal. Harry may be old school, but he’s still one of the best there is.
Goku from Dragonball Z is an asshole and endangers his friends, family, and the earth many many times. He purposefully allows Cell and Vegeta and Freiza and others to attain their full power, just because he wants to fight them and “test his strength” bullshit. Because he’s so stupid, people forgive him, but in reality he’s a selfish Saiyin jerk
…I read this post about five times thinking it was a response to my post re: Harry Potter. I couldn’t even begin to fathom what you were talking about.
Can I just say that it’s been freakng me out that when people talk about Willy Wonka lately it’s becoming increasingly more obvious that they are referring to the newest movie? Like it’s the definitive version and not an interesting experiment?
I don’t think moving to Florida to take over a carwash to make your girlfriend happy is at all comparable to moving to Hollywood because you’ve become a successful movie creator.
Maybe the actual meaning isn’t obvious, but the first time I heard it it was apparent to me at least that there was something more to it than what it was assumed to be.
The phrase suggests that their knowledge has made them take action. Also the usage ‘had the chance’ instead of ‘gets the chance’ strengthens the idea that they have a plan that doesn’t necessarily involve escaping him.
I’m not saying that’s the only way to have heard it, but I think it should have at least raised questions; it certainly did when I saw it. No, I didn’t know everything that was going on, but he should have at least been perceptive enough to see something odd in what they said.
I’ll grant that he does act professional; he’s not a buffoon. And he may be a good man, though it’s hard to reconcile apparent innocence with his paranoia. I suppose he’s a good man who knows or is worried he doesn’t belong in his line of work (either for moral qualms or, as I’d additionally argue, ineffectiveness). The thing about my theory is that I’m not inclined to defend it strongly because the movie bored me. I find it hard to really enjoy non-comedic movies about incompetent people (and whether you agree with me over whether he ever had it or not, in the movie he fails).
I did recall that at least once I found a critic who partly agrees with this idea, or at least lends some support. The first few paragraphs of Roger Ebert’s review(Spoiler warning if you read to the end of it). Unfortunately I’ve read more than one review where he gets basic facts about a movie wrong, but I think he’s mostly correct on the details here. Speak to me Maddie - Last year I was teaching The Road Not Taken and was a little surprised to find the same thing is potentially true - ‘all the difference’ is an ambiguous phrase. Moreover the descriptions of the paths doesn’t make the one any more desirable than the other, and since he did choose one, I’d call that ambivalence.
I’ll respect your disinclination to debate this at length, but I do want to strongly suggest that you give this movie one more try with the understanding that Harry Caul is slowly coming apart as the movie progresses. You mention his paranoia without context. Rather than pointlessly accuse you of not paying attention or not giving the movie your full attention, I’ll give you full credit for admitting to being bored (I was a little bored the first time I watched it, too – bored and freaked the f&ck out, but that’s a different story) and fill in a little of Harry’s backstory for you:
[spoiler]Harry’s big, career-making job involved an important negotiation in which he told one side what the other side’s final position would be. Thus making the entire negotiation a farce in which Harry’s side was able to essentially get everything they wanted because they knew going in what the real final objective of their opponent was. Now, if I recall correctly, it is never explicitly stated but rather strongly implied that the losing side was mobbed up. I think it’s the Teamsters, but I can’t be sure at the moment.
So there’s the key thing behind what Harry’s got going on in his life: he screwed the mob. And really, once you’ve screwed the mob, you pretty much spend the rest of your life thinking when not if. And he’s just not built for that. The whole “I was sick when I was a child” scene tells us this. Harry’s not a strong man. He’s a man who has been looking over his shoulder and keeping his door locked and running from an unseen hammer about to fall for longer than he can sustain on his meager inner resources, and it’s worn him down.[/spoiler]
You’ve framed your criticism of Harry Caul in much the same way Chang framed his accusations against McCoy in Undiscovered Country, so I have to admit there’s an element of truth to what you’re saying. But your original statement was, unqualified with the context as it was, going too far, IMHO.
Ebert is often given to excellent insights about movies. In this case, IMHO, he missed the forest for the trees. And was probably in his mind comparing this film to Coppola’s previous film, which is always dangerous territory.
a) The Wall (the Pink Floyd album and the movie that followed awhile after) is not “a movie about a rock star named ‘Pink’ and the alienation of stardom” nor is it “a movie about a rock star named ‘Pink’ and the horrors of drug abuse”. It’s first and foremost a movie about maleness and alienation from as well as alienation as a consequence of the male sex role, masculinity, and all that’s wrapped up in it, from the very first sound on the very first track onward. That it involves a rock star named ‘Pink’ is no more “what the movie was about” than The Shining was a story of a private school teacher named ‘Jack’.
b) As long as I’ve mentioned Stephen King… Carrie was not about a horrid monster-person under the ugly surface skin of an unpretty high school girl, nor was it about her as an admirable hero. It was about how fucking awful average kids in school can be, and while we have mixed feelings about Carrie White we’re inclined to cheer as the takes down the town.
c) Harvey is not about an eccentric delusional guy who sees a 7 foot tall rabbit where none exists, nor is it a movie about a 7 foot tall rabbit that only one guy can see. It’s a movie about people’s different ways of handling someone who “sees things” (/ has mental content) that other people do not, and whether to do something about it or just be laissez faire about it.
I mean saying that the Wall isn’t about a rock star but about themes of alienation, isn’t that true of any other thing? The Sopranos isn’t about the mafia–it’s about themes of family and post-modernity. Twilight isn’t about vampires–it’s about how women can fool themselves into anything. And so on.
In Ebert’s review, it feels like he’s imposing security standards of 2001 on 1974 and comes to all the wrong conclusions as a result. Why wouldn’t his landlord have access to his apartment and phone #? That his new client can call his unlisted number suggests how powerful and invasive he is (which is supported visually throughtout the film). He loses the tapes in a rare moment of drunk, emotional vulnerability, not everyday carelessness. And Harry’s old school, so he falls for the ballpoint pen (which he regards as merely a gimmick).
He’s a traditionalist and a bit of a stick-in-the-mud, but hardly incompetent, IMHO.
