It was quite an interesting experience, watching a visual representation of what we’ve been reading about for the past 4 months. While, with many of the characters, it was really cool to see in the flesh, many of them, I felt, weren’t good characterizations. Gregory Peck was a great Ahab, giving some eerie rationality to the crazy captain. Stubb, however, was not at all how I pictured him. He seemed more like a college jock than a jovial shipmate. I pictured him as much older, shorter and chubbier. Additionally, the Ishmael of Melville was betrayed in this movie adaptation. The movie Ishmael seemed much more of a simpleton; much too jolly and naïve.
In watching the movie, I noticed how much Melville’s writing style contributes to the novel. When you remove all the non-plot elements, as Bradbury and Huston did for the film, the movie is under 1 hour and 45 minutes, without cutting out much. It even has time for some wacky musical numbers, and extended whale hunting scenes (which, by the way, were very cool to see. The real whales made it very exciting.) However, all this being stripped away, the story becomes more of a simple swashbuckling sea tale (which I think we can all agree the novel is not). I also thought it was interesting that they changed the situations surrounding Queequeg’s coffin: that he made a prophecy of his own death instead of just becoming ill. Also the cutting of Queequeg I believe was omitted from the novel. They cut out much of the thematic material, focusing mainly on Ahab’s obsession with the Great White Whale. All in all, I think Bradbury and Huston did a good job of editing such a hard source material, and I’m even more interested to hear of everyone else’s story.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Response Journal Week 12 - Kalil
Watching the movie adaptation was strange, but very impressive. I had expected a 3 hour epic, though the movie was actually just under 2 hours. This was achieved by removing several scenes, and all of the documentary chapters. I personally thought that it lost a lot of meaning because of this, but it was still interesting.
My main criticism of the movie was that it was so unmistakably from the fifties. The music was overly dramatic to the point of absurdity, and made serious scenes almost comical. The adaptation of The Candles lost meaning because of the cheesy special effects (it looked like the ship was radioactive, while they could have just used white light or fire). Finally, the comedic interludes from the book were a product of humorous exchanges, but these were often garbled in the movie (Queequeg selling his head). Instead, they are replaced with jerky, fast-moving, physical comedies, such as when Queequeg gets into bed with Ishmael, or when the sailors grab at the grog after being excited by Ahab.
On the other hand, Gregory Peck’s Ahab was extremely compelling. He was dark and mad, yet clearly charismatic. Unfortunately, it was sometimes hard to take him seriously, because he was far too young. Personally, my favorite scene was the sermon, partly because of the set (boat-church), and partly because of the powerful delivery. Aside from that, the whale chases did a good job of capturing the thrilling nature of whaling, as did the final confrontation with Moby Dick, although it was clear that the Pequod sinking was just a model. Finally, the first scene was very strong, and they did a great job of incorporating the non-dialogue passages without overusing voiceover.
My main criticism of the movie was that it was so unmistakably from the fifties. The music was overly dramatic to the point of absurdity, and made serious scenes almost comical. The adaptation of The Candles lost meaning because of the cheesy special effects (it looked like the ship was radioactive, while they could have just used white light or fire). Finally, the comedic interludes from the book were a product of humorous exchanges, but these were often garbled in the movie (Queequeg selling his head). Instead, they are replaced with jerky, fast-moving, physical comedies, such as when Queequeg gets into bed with Ishmael, or when the sailors grab at the grog after being excited by Ahab.
On the other hand, Gregory Peck’s Ahab was extremely compelling. He was dark and mad, yet clearly charismatic. Unfortunately, it was sometimes hard to take him seriously, because he was far too young. Personally, my favorite scene was the sermon, partly because of the set (boat-church), and partly because of the powerful delivery. Aside from that, the whale chases did a good job of capturing the thrilling nature of whaling, as did the final confrontation with Moby Dick, although it was clear that the Pequod sinking was just a model. Finally, the first scene was very strong, and they did a great job of incorporating the non-dialogue passages without overusing voiceover.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Movie Response Journal
Moby Dick Movie Response Journal
Gabriel Wirz
Mr. Peterson
I think that John Huston and Ray Bradbury did a really good job of adapting Moby Dick into a movie. It was entertaining, it stuck to the storyline, and it did a decent job of capturing the feeling of the book. This is saying a lot because Moby Dick is all over the place, and it contains lots of elements that would be hard to recreate in a movie. In John Huston’s adaptation of Moby Dick he took out a lot of the philosophical chapters and he took out the chapters regarding the science of whaling such as Cetology. I was very impressed with the special effects of the movie due to the fact that it was made in 1956. The whaling scenes were very intense, and they seemed to be pretty accurate. Huston could have done a better job on the special effects in the scene in which the masts are struck by lightning because they literally made the masts neon green. I found it to be pretty pathetic but I’ll cut Huston some slack because it was 1956.
It was nice to see the movie because it cleared up some misconceptions I had about some specific things. Before watching the movie I thought that the Pequod was a lot bigger than it actually was. I also didn’t realize that Manxmen were from Scotland, or that harpooners broke out in song whenever they were at pubs or inns.
I thought that the casting director did a pretty good job, however, I had a few issues with the portrayal of some of the characters. I really liked Ahab because Gregory Peck did a good job of appearing rational and captivating yet crazy at the same time. However, he looked a little bit too much like Abe Lincoln for my liking. I thought they did a good job with the adaptation of Flask because he had a scrunched up, angry face and he always had a cigar in his mouth. I also liked Starbuck because he seemed like a good, moral, yet serious guy. I also thought that they did a good job adapting Tashtego nd Daggoo onto the screen, however Daggoo didn’t have huge hair like I expected. Queequeg was good but for some reason I imagined him being darker. I didn’t like Elijah because he looked too normal, and I didn’t like Stubb because he looked exactly like Popeye the sailor. I imagined him being older in the novel. I also really didn’t like Ishmael because he seemed too happy. In the novel he came across as being a bit depressed, and he didn’t seem to care too much about anything yet in the movie he was full of life, soaking up every minute of it. Overall, I enjoyed watching the movie, and I think Huston and Bradbury did a good job.
Gabriel Wirz
Mr. Peterson
I think that John Huston and Ray Bradbury did a really good job of adapting Moby Dick into a movie. It was entertaining, it stuck to the storyline, and it did a decent job of capturing the feeling of the book. This is saying a lot because Moby Dick is all over the place, and it contains lots of elements that would be hard to recreate in a movie. In John Huston’s adaptation of Moby Dick he took out a lot of the philosophical chapters and he took out the chapters regarding the science of whaling such as Cetology. I was very impressed with the special effects of the movie due to the fact that it was made in 1956. The whaling scenes were very intense, and they seemed to be pretty accurate. Huston could have done a better job on the special effects in the scene in which the masts are struck by lightning because they literally made the masts neon green. I found it to be pretty pathetic but I’ll cut Huston some slack because it was 1956.
It was nice to see the movie because it cleared up some misconceptions I had about some specific things. Before watching the movie I thought that the Pequod was a lot bigger than it actually was. I also didn’t realize that Manxmen were from Scotland, or that harpooners broke out in song whenever they were at pubs or inns.
I thought that the casting director did a pretty good job, however, I had a few issues with the portrayal of some of the characters. I really liked Ahab because Gregory Peck did a good job of appearing rational and captivating yet crazy at the same time. However, he looked a little bit too much like Abe Lincoln for my liking. I thought they did a good job with the adaptation of Flask because he had a scrunched up, angry face and he always had a cigar in his mouth. I also liked Starbuck because he seemed like a good, moral, yet serious guy. I also thought that they did a good job adapting Tashtego nd Daggoo onto the screen, however Daggoo didn’t have huge hair like I expected. Queequeg was good but for some reason I imagined him being darker. I didn’t like Elijah because he looked too normal, and I didn’t like Stubb because he looked exactly like Popeye the sailor. I imagined him being older in the novel. I also really didn’t like Ishmael because he seemed too happy. In the novel he came across as being a bit depressed, and he didn’t seem to care too much about anything yet in the movie he was full of life, soaking up every minute of it. Overall, I enjoyed watching the movie, and I think Huston and Bradbury did a good job.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick
A courageous young man tries to find the only person who can save his planet from the most terrifying beast in the universe -- the great white whale Moby Dick -- in this futuristic anime adventure set in 4699. But locating the outlaw Captain Ahab and his elusory crew of whale hunters and persuading them to put an end to the leviathan's long reign of terror won't be easy. Will Ahab take up the challenge one more time?
Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick
Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick
Response Journal 11 - Mayumi
One of the major themes in the last section of the book (that has also been present throughout the course of the novel) is the capacity or limitations of human ability. Ahab and contemplates how much of his own actions and fate is determined by divinity rather than his own mortal thoughts and actions. Ahab especially wonders how much of his identity is his own. Melville writes: “Is Ahab, Ahab? Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm? But if the great sun move not of himself…how then can this one heart beat; this one small brain think thoughts; unless God does that beating, does that thinking, does that living, and not I” (406-407). For Ahab, this quote reflects his critical observations on his two states of being, his monomania state and his rational state, as he tries to uncover why it is he acts the way he does. Ahab’s sense of self is put to the test by Moby Dick, the source of his monomania, who is representative of Ahab’s divine fears.
This quote takes place in “The Symphony,” the last chapter before the violent, man-driven three part chase, in a natural setting which is serene and beautiful. Ahab anticipates this change from serenity to violence and this quote is also his reflection on why he must go against nature and pursue his deadly fate. This is also the one chapter where we see Ahab show regret, in the form of these thoughts about the limitations of humans and the one tear drop that falls into the ocean.
Ahab’s second major quote about human capability is at the beginning of Chapter 35. Ahab says: “…but Ahab never thinks; he only feels, feels, feels; that’s tingling enough for mortal man! To think’s audacity. God only has that right and privelege” (419). Again, Ahab feels subject to the plans and thoughts of God and assumes that he has no control over his fate or emotional state of being. It’s interesting that Ahab said God was the only one capable of thought, since the whale who represents divine power, is clever, but does not possess the power of thought. In addition, the narrator of the book, Ishmael, is overflowing with thoughts (the book is proof enough of this). Ishmael is also the only person who miraculously escapes from the fate of the rest of the Pequod’s crew. Does this mean that Ishmael is God? Maybe it is more that he is god-like, in that his survival is similar to immortality and his other qualities as a narrator are godlike. Ishmael takes the position of authority on all issues concerning boats and whales (Cetology) shows, and his position as the omniscient narrator removes himself as a character from most of the book and allows him to tell the every thought and action of all the others aboard the Pequod.
*This idea of Ishmael as God (or god-like) is interesting to think about in contrast to Hayford’s essay “Loomings” in which he explains Ishmael’s love of roles of inferiority (or avoidance of authoritative roles).
This quote takes place in “The Symphony,” the last chapter before the violent, man-driven three part chase, in a natural setting which is serene and beautiful. Ahab anticipates this change from serenity to violence and this quote is also his reflection on why he must go against nature and pursue his deadly fate. This is also the one chapter where we see Ahab show regret, in the form of these thoughts about the limitations of humans and the one tear drop that falls into the ocean.
Ahab’s second major quote about human capability is at the beginning of Chapter 35. Ahab says: “…but Ahab never thinks; he only feels, feels, feels; that’s tingling enough for mortal man! To think’s audacity. God only has that right and privelege” (419). Again, Ahab feels subject to the plans and thoughts of God and assumes that he has no control over his fate or emotional state of being. It’s interesting that Ahab said God was the only one capable of thought, since the whale who represents divine power, is clever, but does not possess the power of thought. In addition, the narrator of the book, Ishmael, is overflowing with thoughts (the book is proof enough of this). Ishmael is also the only person who miraculously escapes from the fate of the rest of the Pequod’s crew. Does this mean that Ishmael is God? Maybe it is more that he is god-like, in that his survival is similar to immortality and his other qualities as a narrator are godlike. Ishmael takes the position of authority on all issues concerning boats and whales (Cetology) shows, and his position as the omniscient narrator removes himself as a character from most of the book and allows him to tell the every thought and action of all the others aboard the Pequod.
*This idea of Ishmael as God (or god-like) is interesting to think about in contrast to Hayford’s essay “Loomings” in which he explains Ishmael’s love of roles of inferiority (or avoidance of authoritative roles).
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Response Journal Week 11 - Kalil
Although finishing was gratifying in some sense (I truly feel accomplished for having read this entire book), I do not agree with Caleb and Gabriel. While some books are deeply satisfying to finish, many others have the opposite effect. In the case of Moby-Dick, although the conclusion was not at all unexpected, the epilogue was bizarrely short, in a way that left me wanting more. Since the very beginning of the novel, there is one question that we have all been asking: who is Ishmael? Despite him being our narrator, he is practically absent from the book, playing the role only of an observer. While it was obvious to me that Ishmael would survive, despite being aware that the Pequod would sink, I had expected some kind of expository epilogue that would give at least a modicum of information about Ishmael. Instead we are given a single paragraph in which he claims that Fate has allowed him to survive, and that the Rachel has found him, an orphan. To be fair, his characterization of himself as an orphan is rather poignant, but not for the reason it appears in the epilogue. Ishmael uses the term to describe the loss of his boat, and thereby his home and family. Yet he was never truly a part of the action, or one of the main players on the boat. He was always detached; Ishmael was already an orphan on the boat. Thus, when the boat sank, he didn’t have to go down with it, for it was not a part of him, nor the reverse. Ishmael was an orphan from the start, at least figuratively, in the sense that he was a loner, and sometimes a fly on the wall. As Caleb noted, these chapters play strongly on the unity of the ship, and show the way the crew of the Pequod acts as one, which only serves to reinforce Ishmael’s aloof nature. He is not truly a part of the ship, and merely by the fact that he is remarking on it, he cannot be taking part in it.
As one would expect, these last chapters show Ahab in the height of his madness, although he has rare moments of lucidity. When Starbuck, on the second day of the chase, urges him to reconsider, he admits that he wants to, but claims that he can’t. Although he does realize the foolhardy nature of his quest, he is still too caught up in his own monomania to turn back. He again professes his fatalism, but also his belief that people do not change. “Ahab is for ever Ahab, man. This whole act’s immutably decreed. ‘Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders. Look thou, underling! that thou obeyest mine” (418). On the final day of the chase, the hunted becomes the hunter, though it seems to me that this has always been the case. The Pequod has always been in the dark, bumbling about until they stumbled upon Moby-Dick. It is clear that the whale has always been in control, so this is not a role reversal so much as it is a role realization. Finally, I’d just like to point out that Melville did an excellent job of capturing the horror of the Pequod sinking, “Soon they through dim, bewildering mediums saw her sidelong fading phantom, as in the gaseous Fata Morgana; only the uppermost masts out of water; while fixed by infatuation, or fidelity, or fate, to their once lofty perches, the pagan harpooneers still maintained their sinking lookouts on the sea. And now, concentric circles seized the lone boat itself, and all its crew, and each floating oar, and every lance-pole, and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight” (426).
As for the movie, I asked my dad about any professors he knows that have read Moby-Dick. First he told me that one of his post-docs had just read it, although he’s an oceanographer, he is a very interesting person, and I’m sure he would be happy to talk to us. He also told me that my next door neighbor is a Beowulf scholar, so I asked her, and she told me she’d ask around for an english professor who would be willing (she hasn’t read it). Additionally, I know a linguist, and she might be willing to talk to us about the language in the novel. Finally, I emailed Matt Kish again, and hopefully he’ll get back to me. Structurally, I think we only really need to ask one question, which we will not get a definitive answer to (like Ishmael). We could still combine it with Caleb’s idea of giving some historical background/taking a trip up to whatever town he was talking about last week, but we need to get started now if we do that. In class we ought to come up with a schedule, as well as some kind of division of labor, just so that we can have some kind of organized plan. Also, did anyone email Morgan Freeman yet?
As one would expect, these last chapters show Ahab in the height of his madness, although he has rare moments of lucidity. When Starbuck, on the second day of the chase, urges him to reconsider, he admits that he wants to, but claims that he can’t. Although he does realize the foolhardy nature of his quest, he is still too caught up in his own monomania to turn back. He again professes his fatalism, but also his belief that people do not change. “Ahab is for ever Ahab, man. This whole act’s immutably decreed. ‘Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders. Look thou, underling! that thou obeyest mine” (418). On the final day of the chase, the hunted becomes the hunter, though it seems to me that this has always been the case. The Pequod has always been in the dark, bumbling about until they stumbled upon Moby-Dick. It is clear that the whale has always been in control, so this is not a role reversal so much as it is a role realization. Finally, I’d just like to point out that Melville did an excellent job of capturing the horror of the Pequod sinking, “Soon they through dim, bewildering mediums saw her sidelong fading phantom, as in the gaseous Fata Morgana; only the uppermost masts out of water; while fixed by infatuation, or fidelity, or fate, to their once lofty perches, the pagan harpooneers still maintained their sinking lookouts on the sea. And now, concentric circles seized the lone boat itself, and all its crew, and each floating oar, and every lance-pole, and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight” (426).
As for the movie, I asked my dad about any professors he knows that have read Moby-Dick. First he told me that one of his post-docs had just read it, although he’s an oceanographer, he is a very interesting person, and I’m sure he would be happy to talk to us. He also told me that my next door neighbor is a Beowulf scholar, so I asked her, and she told me she’d ask around for an english professor who would be willing (she hasn’t read it). Additionally, I know a linguist, and she might be willing to talk to us about the language in the novel. Finally, I emailed Matt Kish again, and hopefully he’ll get back to me. Structurally, I think we only really need to ask one question, which we will not get a definitive answer to (like Ishmael). We could still combine it with Caleb’s idea of giving some historical background/taking a trip up to whatever town he was talking about last week, but we need to get started now if we do that. In class we ought to come up with a schedule, as well as some kind of division of labor, just so that we can have some kind of organized plan. Also, did anyone email Morgan Freeman yet?
Response Journal Week 11 - Caleb
Response Journal Week 11:
We did it! “Moby-Dick”! As Gabriel said, there’s an immense feeling of gratification which I imagine Ahab might have felt had he lived and killed the Great White Whale himself. I wonder if the length of the novel was a sort of meta tie-in with the novel itself: those infamous slackers who start but never finish are the Ahabs, destined to be taken down by the Great White Novel. Probably not.
In these last chapters, Ahab becomes increasingly more self-aware as to what is driving his monomania. He opines, “What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time…” (406) That whole passage is quite beautiful, with Ahab questioning the nature of an omnipotent God, and reiterating his fatalist mentality. He also advocates Descartian philosophy, asserting, “Oh! How immaterial are all materials! What things real are there, but imponderable thoughts?” (396). And, finally, a more secular humanist ethos: “Stand close to me, Starbuck; let me look into a human eye; it is better than to gaze into sea or sky; better than to gaze upon God.” (406)
Another aspect of these chapters that I found interesting was the unity of the Pequod. The whole ship, including its crew, become one in several images:
“Ye two are the opposite poles of one thing; Starbuck is Stubb reversed, and Stubb is Starbuck; and ye two are all mankind…” (413)
“They were one man, not thirty. For as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all contrasting things - oak, and maple, and pine wood; iron, and pitch, and hemp - yet all these ran into each other in the one concrete hull, which shot on its way, both balanced and directed by the long central keel; even so, all the individualities of the crew, this man's valor, that man's fear; guilt and guiltiness, all varieties were welded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab their one lord and keel did point to.” (415) This enforces the metaphor of the Pequod as a single human, rebelling in vain against a supernatural, all-powerful force of nature.
Lastly, I was wondering whether Starbuck’s exclamation was a Whitman reference: “’Oh, my captain, my captain!’” (421)
As for the movie project, I’ve sent out several emails, and gotten only one response from Julian Rad, writer of the off-Broadway play “Moby-Dick”, which was nominated for several Drama Desk Awards. He said he’d be happy to do it. I also sent out emails to performance artist Laurie Anderson, the composer of “Moby-Dick: the Musical”, and graphic novelist Bill Sienkiewicz.
We did it! “Moby-Dick”! As Gabriel said, there’s an immense feeling of gratification which I imagine Ahab might have felt had he lived and killed the Great White Whale himself. I wonder if the length of the novel was a sort of meta tie-in with the novel itself: those infamous slackers who start but never finish are the Ahabs, destined to be taken down by the Great White Novel. Probably not.
In these last chapters, Ahab becomes increasingly more self-aware as to what is driving his monomania. He opines, “What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time…” (406) That whole passage is quite beautiful, with Ahab questioning the nature of an omnipotent God, and reiterating his fatalist mentality. He also advocates Descartian philosophy, asserting, “Oh! How immaterial are all materials! What things real are there, but imponderable thoughts?” (396). And, finally, a more secular humanist ethos: “Stand close to me, Starbuck; let me look into a human eye; it is better than to gaze into sea or sky; better than to gaze upon God.” (406)
Another aspect of these chapters that I found interesting was the unity of the Pequod. The whole ship, including its crew, become one in several images:
“Ye two are the opposite poles of one thing; Starbuck is Stubb reversed, and Stubb is Starbuck; and ye two are all mankind…” (413)
“They were one man, not thirty. For as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all contrasting things - oak, and maple, and pine wood; iron, and pitch, and hemp - yet all these ran into each other in the one concrete hull, which shot on its way, both balanced and directed by the long central keel; even so, all the individualities of the crew, this man's valor, that man's fear; guilt and guiltiness, all varieties were welded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab their one lord and keel did point to.” (415) This enforces the metaphor of the Pequod as a single human, rebelling in vain against a supernatural, all-powerful force of nature.
Lastly, I was wondering whether Starbuck’s exclamation was a Whitman reference: “’Oh, my captain, my captain!’” (421)
As for the movie project, I’ve sent out several emails, and gotten only one response from Julian Rad, writer of the off-Broadway play “Moby-Dick”, which was nominated for several Drama Desk Awards. He said he’d be happy to do it. I also sent out emails to performance artist Laurie Anderson, the composer of “Moby-Dick: the Musical”, and graphic novelist Bill Sienkiewicz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)