Making connections to a piece of literature is one of the ways that we can come to understand it at a much deeper level. Our connections should not just be about characters, or scenes. They should be about big ideas and how those ideas manifest themselves and transcend time. Previously, we have connected our ideas to other texts and poetry.
For this week's blog, I want you to take from Crime and Punishment and connect what you take to a film that you have watched. Pull a chunk of dialogue from the film. Explain what you see happening in your selection. Then, explain how you see Crime and Punishment emerging within your selection. Once you have done that, tell us why it matters.
“‘Better say what you want straight out!’ Sonia exclaimed painfully. ‘You’re leading up to something. You surely didn’t come here just to torment me!’ She could not restrain herself, then suddenly burst into bitter tears. He looked at her somberly. About five minutes passed.
ReplyDeleteAt last he said quietly: ‘Of course you’re right, Sonia.’ Suddenly he had changed. His deliberately insolent and helplessly defiant tone disappeared. Even his voice had suddenly grown weak. ‘I said yesterday I wouldn’t come to ask forgiveness, yet I almost started out by asking forgiveness. . . . When I said what I did about Luzhin and God’s will, I was thinking of myself. . . . Sonia, I was asking forgiveness. . . .” He wanted to smile, but there was something helpless and incomplete in it. He bowed his head and covered his face with his hands.”
When I first read this prompt, I challenged myself to write about the last movie I watched, and
that’s Rango, from the last time I babysat! If you haven’t seen it, the film centers around a sheltered chameleon who falls out of the back of his owners’ pickup and is left all alone in the middle of a desert road (although he really isn’t any more alone than he was before). He ventures into a small town having a severe water shortage and facing a lot of corruption, and, in light of his anonymity, decides to become sheriff and adopt the persona of a hero to save the town and his fellow critters that he has come to love (including a lovely lizard lady).
With reference to the quote above, this passage was a poignant one for me, considering the relationship Raskolnikov has with Sonia seems to be the only real deep and meaningful one he has. When he is with everyone else in his life - even with people who genuinely adore him - he is never truly himself and always seems to be pretending, whether that means he pretends to be generous, pushes others away, or simply treats people terribly who genuinely like to help. Similarly to Rango, he puts up a facade for what he appears will be to others’ benefit, but this pretending often ends up for the worse. He also finds, like Rango, that when he was alone, he was in pain, yet when one has friends and meaningful relationships, life is much more rich, only a different type of pain takes its place. Real relationships make life harder, and as demonstrated by Raskolnikov’s difficulty in being vulnerable with Sonia and Rango’s painstaking confession to Beans when he must surrender his identity, being real with others is often extraordinarily difficult. However, for each man, eventually he had to apologize and own up to what he did, and even though they didn’t love him for it, those who truly had his heart were always there.
“‘Better say what you want straight out!’ Sonia exclaimed painfully. ‘You’re leading up to something. You surely didn’t come here just to torment me!’ She could not restrain herself, then suddenly burst into bitter tears. He looked at her somberly. About five minutes passed.
ReplyDeleteAt last he said quietly: ‘Of course you’re right, Sonia.’ Suddenly he had changed. His deliberately insolent and helplessly defiant tone disappeared. Even his voice had suddenly grown weak. ‘I said yesterday I wouldn’t come to ask forgiveness, yet I almost started out by asking forgiveness. . . . When I said what I did about Luzhin and God’s will, I was thinking of myself. . . . Sonia, I was asking forgiveness. . . .” He wanted to smile, but there was something helpless and incomplete in it. He bowed his head and covered his face with his hands.”
When I first read this prompt, I challenged myself to write about the last movie I watched, and
that’s Rango, from the last time I babysat! If you haven’t seen it, the film centers around a sheltered chameleon who falls out of the back of his owners’ pickup and is left all alone in the middle of a desert road (although he really isn’t any more alone than he was before). He ventures into a small town having a severe water shortage and facing a lot of corruption, and, in light of his anonymity, decides to become sheriff and adopt the persona of a hero to save the town and his fellow critters that he has come to love (including a lovely lizard lady).
With reference to the quote above, this passage was a poignant one for me, considering the relationship Raskolnikov has with Sonia seems to be the only real deep and meaningful one he has. When he is with everyone else in his life - even with people who genuinely adore him - he is never truly himself and always seems to be pretending, whether that means he pretends to be generous, pushes others away, or simply treats people terribly who genuinely like to help. Similarly to Rango, he puts up a facade for what he appears will be to others’ benefit, but this pretending often ends up for the worse. He also finds, like Rango, that when he was alone, he was in pain, yet when one has friends and meaningful relationships, life is much more rich, only a different type of pain takes its place. Real relationships make life harder, and as demonstrated by Raskolnikov’s difficulty in being vulnerable with Sonia and Rango’s painstaking confession to Beans when he must surrender his identity, being real with others is often extraordinarily difficult. However, for each man, eventually he had to apologize and own up to what he did, and even though they didn’t love him for it, those who truly had his heart were always there.
What do you mean by "poignant"? Did you know that the opening sequence from Rango pays tribute to the last time Johnny Depp was in the desert? The chameleon's red shirt and disposition are references to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", a book-turned-movie about a journalist (Hunter S Thompson) and his psychotic lawyer who travel to Las Vegas and have a psychedelic adventure. The movie is a solid 7/10, and the book an even better 8/10. Would recommend.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete“They wanted to speak, but could not; tears stood in their eyes. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life. They were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other.” (Epilogue.2.23) This is only one of the many times we see Raskolnikov and Sonia’s love for each other. The love that Raskolnikov has for Sonia is the love that holds him together.
ReplyDeleteI found a similar love in a movie that I’ve seen multiple times and have come to really enjoy.
Love & Other Drugs is a movie about a woman named Maggie who has Parkinson’s and is a beautiful artist who has no interest in intimacy but a lot of interest in sex and Jamie a drug rep that later becomes the most popular pharmaceutical around, who also has a rep for sleeping with numerous amounts of women, meet and kindle a love that to others may not connect to c&p but to me, in a way, it does. Maggie having Parkinson’s not only complicates how she lives her life but makes her believe that she does not need to find love. In my eyes Jamie is Sonia and Maggie is Raskolnikov. Despite the many attempts that Maggie make to keep Jamie away from her because she believes that she is no good, he doesn't listen. He chooses to stay by her and support her. He understands that her Parkinson’s will one day change her life dramatically but he decides he is willing to go through it with her. Just like Sonia understands that Raskolnikov has problems dealing with the murder and has a hard time coming to terms with what he's done, she chooses to help him despite the fact that he may be dangerous. What they do is not out of pity. In both situations it seems like love is almost impossible, but both overcome it. It's a great tasks that both Jamie and Sonia take on, but it's is love that binds the pages. No Love & Other Drugs is not about murder, or evil and violence. It's about the good old sappy love. That is how the book and the movie are tied just with different knots.
“You. You didn't see me that way. I have never known anyone who actually believed that I was enough. Until I met you. And then you made me believe it, too. So, uh... unfortunately... I need you. And you need me.”
“They wanted to speak, but could not; tears stood in their eyes. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life. They were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other.” (Epilogue.2.23) This is only one of the many times we see Raskolnikov and Sonia’s love for each other. The love that Raskolnikov has for Sonia is the love that holds him together.
ReplyDeleteI found a similar love in a movie that I’ve seen multiple times and have come to really enjoy.
Love & Other Drugs is a movie about a woman named Maggie who has Parkinson’s and is a beautiful artist who has no interest in intimacy but a lot of interest in sex and Jamie a drug rep that later becomes the most popular pharmaceutical around, who also has a rep for sleeping with numerous amounts of women, meet and kindle a love that to others may not connect to c&p but to me, in a way, it does. Maggie having Parkinson’s not only complicates how she lives her life but makes her believe that she does not need to find love. In my eyes Jamie is Sonia and Maggie is Raskolnikov. Despite the many attempts that Maggie make to keep Jamie away from her because she believes that she is no good, he doesn't listen. He chooses to stay by her and support her. He understands that her Parkinson’s will one day change her life dramatically but he decides he is willing to go through it with her. Just like Sonia understands that Raskolnikov has problems dealing with the murder and has a hard time coming to terms with what he's done, she chooses to help him despite the fact that he may be dangerous. What they do is not out of pity. In both situations it seems like love is almost impossible, but both overcome it. It's a great tasks that both Jamie and Sonia take on, but it's is love that binds the pages. No Love & Other Drugs is not about murder, or evil and violence. It's about the good old sappy love. That is how the book and the movie are tied just with different knots.
“You. You didn't see me that way. I have never known anyone who actually believed that I was enough. Until I met you. And then you made me believe it, too. So, uh... unfortunately... I need you. And you need me.”
"He pictures himself having trouble breathing and waking to a room full of concerned faces. He'd been terrified of dying his entire life, and as much as he tried not to think about it, death was always in the back of his head, around every corner, and hovering on each horizon. He’d brushed shoulders with death on a few occasions, but in his care free youth it had all seemed like an abstract impossible thing to ever happen to him, but with each passing decade he began to gauge the time he probably had left, and by his forties he had come to know just one thing: you will only get older. The next thing you know, youre looking back instead of forwards, and now, at the climax of all those years of worry, sleepless nights and denials, bill finally finds himself staring his death in the face surrounded by people he no longer recognises, and feel no closer attachment to than the thousands of relatives that came before. And as the sun continues to set, he finally comes to realise the dumb irony in how he'd been waiting for this moment his entire life. This stupid, awkward moment of death, that had invaded and distracted so many days with stress, and wasted time. If only he could travel back and impart some wisdom to his younger self, if only he could at least tell the young people in this room, he lifts an arm as if he's about to speak, but inexplicably says, 'it smells like dust and moonlight'”
ReplyDeleteThis is taken from Don Hertzfeldt’s 2012 Sundance winner, “It’s Such a Beautiful Day”. The film finds its connection to Dostoevsky in more ways than one, but for the sake of the blog I will be focusing on Raskolnikov’s fear of redemption. “He'd been terrified of dying his entire life, and as much as he tried not to think about it, death was always in the back of his head, around every corner, and hovering on each horizon” Bill fears the end of his mortal life, and avoids the thought of it, although it is always hovering in the back of his mind. Raskolnikov fears the thought of being caught, although it is in the back of his mind. Both characters have their entire lives (or at least what we see for the marginal duration of each medium) ruled by their respective fears. In this way Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment is found in the genetics of modern film.
“I am a strong Christian. Not a perfect one—not close. But I strongly believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible. When I die, God is going to hold me accountable for everything I’ve done on earth. He may hold me back until last and run everybody else through the line, because it will take so long to go over all my sins… Honestly, I don’t know what will really happen on Judgment Day. But what I lean toward is that you know all of your sins, and God knows them all, and shame comes over you at the reality that He knows. I believe the fact that I’ve accepted Jesus as my savior will be my salvation. But in that backroom or whatever it is when God confronts me with my sins, I do not believe any of the kills I had during the war will be among them. Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every shot. They all deserved to die.”
ReplyDeleteThis quote was pulled from the film “American Sniper”. Chris Kyle faces an internal conflict as he justifies his right to kill while serving as a Navy Seal in Iraq. He plays the scenario of confronting God and believes that he will be absolved from all his sins. Does the fact that Kyle can kill and for the greater good make him extraordinary? Now we must consider he is in a war setting, but regardless this relates directly to Raskolnikov’s article. When reading Crime and Punishment, I often ponder the question of what justifies the right to kill. Raskolnikov believes that the extraordinary person can kill for the greater good of society. The average person, or louse, on the other hand breaks the law when doing so. Raskolnikov claims, at one point, that he killed the pawnbroker to relieve society of her burden. However, Raskolnikov carried out his selfish motives and desired to discover if he truly was extraordinary. Chris Kyle fought to defend his country and the lives of his fellow soldiers. Another example of how this portion of the film relates to Crime and Punishment is through Kyle’s deep faith. I found this to directly relate to the lack thereof in Raskolnikov. Chris Kyle forms a relationship with God in order to help push past feelings of guilt following his war experience. Raskolnikov on the other hand finally discovers Christ after Sonia and his so called “guilt” consume him.
“You understand right Harry. Once I make my move, the queen will take me. Then you’re free to check the king . . . Do you want to stop Snape from getting that stone or not? Harry, it’s you that has to go on, I know it. Not me, not Hermione, you. Knight to H3. Check”
ReplyDeleteThis quote is from the movie “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have gone through the trapdoor to stop (who they believe is) Snape from getting the sorcerer’s stone and ultimately returning Voldemort to power. At the time of this quote, the trio is faced with the obstacle of a life sized game of wizard’s chess, in which they become chess pieces, and therefore face being seriously harmed - seeing as in wizard’s chess the pieces demolish each other. Ron, who is acting as the commander of the game, notices that they have an opportunity to win and move on to the stone; however, this opportunity requires him to be taken by the queen which is a life-threatening situation. Ron does not question whether or not he should sacrifice himself. Just like Dunya, Ron does not take into account his own well being or what is best for himself, rather, he determines what will benefit the most people and he acts on that. If Ron sacrifices himself to the queen, then Hermione and Harry are able to continue and retrieve the stone, stopping Voldemort from returning to power and wreaking havoc on the wizarding world, even though he is putting his own life at risk. Similarly in Crime and Punishment, we see Dunya sacrifice her life and her freedom for the benefit of Lutzen, her mother, and Raskolnikov, ensuring them an obedient wife, money, and a job, respectively. Dunya does not pause to think of the sacrifice she is making and how she will suffer, she just wants to make sure that those that are important to her are happy. Ultimately, this goes back to the ideology of Utilitarianism, and doing what is best for the greatest number of people. Ron and Dunya act as the “heroes” by not only taking action that will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, but by also putting their own well beings at stake in the process. In both instances, we see the audience being encouraged to do the “right thing” and be the “hero”, sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite movies is Dirty Dancing. This never occurred to me while reading Crime and Punishment, but Raskolnikov and Sonia are very similar to Johnny and Baby from this movie. Johnny is the cool guy who can really dance, but struggles with poverty at the same time. Raskolnikov is a good-looking intellectual who like Johnny struggles with poverty. Baby, whose real name is Frances, is on her way to college but is still viewed as childlike and treated like the baby of the family, as she is stilled called Baby by everybody. She is often looked at as someone who needs to be protected, as Sonia was looked at as a very fragile, young girl. These two pairs follow a lot of the same patterns as each other, as they discuss their problems together and there’s even a crime they have to deal with in both the novel and the film, though Johnny was wrongfully accused while Raskolnikov confessed to murders he actually committed.
ReplyDelete“Baby: [finding out the Schumacher's were guilty of stealing the wallets] So then - so then it's all right! I knew it would work out. I knew they'd have to apologize...
Johnny: [shrugs her off] I'm out, Baby.
Baby: [pause] They fired you anyway because of me.
Johnny: [sarcastically] And if I leave quietly, I'll get my summer bonus.
Baby: So I did it for nothing. I hurt my family, you lost your job anyway, I did it for *nothing*!
Johnny: No, no, not for nothin', Baby! Nobody has ever done anything like that for me before.”
In this instance, Johnny’s name is cleared regarding a stolen wallet, but he is still leaving his job. The couple is still facing tragedy, and looking at being separated from each other. However, through this ordeal they found solace in each other, as Baby had done something that “nobody has never done anything like that” for Johnny before. In the wake of Raskolnikov’s crime, Sonia offered him advice and guidance, even though she was facing separation from him as he would be sentenced to prison. In this face of these events, both couples did not let the separation remain. Sonia followed Raskolnikov to prison, and if you’ve seen Dirty Dancing, you would know that Johnny comes back, leading into a great dance scene. This connection matters because in all kinds of mediums we see characters that connect with each other through hardship, finding support in the other person’s presence and words. We see tragedy, but we see some good come out of it through the bond of two people.
The following excerpts are from the movie Cinderella (2015).
ReplyDeleteThe plot of this movie includes Ella (also known as Cinderella) who lives with her stepmother after her father has died. Her mother died when she was young and her father had remarried a widow who had children of her own. Neither one married for love, but because it made sense. The woman needed support and the man wanted company. The woman was jealous of Ella’s charm and beauty.
I relate this scenario to that of Sonia and Katerina Ivonovna. Although Katerina does not necessarily hate Sonia, especially in the way of the stepmother in Cinderella, she is jealous of her youth and freedom. Similarly, Sonia forgives her stepmother very easily while Ella was taught by her mother to “have courage and be kind” (a lesson she carried with her relationship to her stepfamily). Katerina Ivanovna lost her husband, first to drunkenness, and then by his death. She was in great debt, just like the Lady Tremaine and eventually not a part of Ella’s life any longer. Both Ella and Sonia had faith to help them with their difficult lives. Ella had the teachings of her mother and Sonia learned from the bible.
Lady Tremaine: “What on earth have you've been doing?”
Cinderella: “Dreaming, that's all.”
Lady Tremaine: “Well, then wake up!”
This excerpt shows how Lady Tremaine cannot afford to dream about the opportunities of life or how wonderful it is. Katerina Ivanovna also came off as a dream killer. She accepted the harshness of life and forced others to be miserable with her. She forced Sonia into prostitution and controlled her life exponentially. Katerina could not accept the beauty of life anymore because she felt helpless with a drunk husband, who could no longer provide for her family. Technically, Sonia had no real relation to Katerina. Therefor, Katerina placed part of the blame always rested on Sonia’s shoulders- they (Sonia and her father) could not provide for them.
Lady Tremaine: “Wouldn't you prefer to eat when all the work is done, Ella?”
Ella: “Yes, stepmother”
Lady Tremaine: “Oh, you needn't call me that. Madam will do.”
Katerina Ivonovna needed to separate herself from Sonia in order to force her into prostitution. Although she still may have loved her, she could not afford for the good of the family and herself to be caught up in family ties. She needed Sonia to make the money. Instead of prostituting herself, she ruined Sonia’s life. Lady Tremaine made Ella a servant in her own home. She did not have any control and was forced to do the will of her stepfamily, even though they did not treat her as such.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Crime and Punishment, I find many aspects of Dostoevsky’s novel in Thor.
ReplyDeleteScene 1
Thor: “The Jotuns must pay for what they have done. If they had stolen one of these relics…”
Odin: “They didn’t. I have a truce with Laufey, King of the Jotuns.”
Thor: “He just broke your truce.”
Odin: “What action would you take?”
Thor: “March into Jotunheim as you did. Teach them a lesson. Break their spirits so they’ll never cross our borders again. ”
Odin: “This was only a feud, doomed to fail. We will find the breach in our defenses.”
Thor: “As King of Asgard”
Odin: “BUT YOU’RE NOT KING! Not yet.”
Thor: “ My father went into Jotunheim, fought their armies, and took their casket. My friends, we’re going to Jotunheim!”
In this scene, Thor is preparing to be crowned the King of Asgard. He is trusted with the weapon Mjolnir, which is, “a weapon to destroy, or a tool to build”. Frost Giants interrupt Thor’s ceremony, causing him great disappointment. Thor sees it as an act of war. His need to end the Jotuns’ will forces his friends The Warriors Three to accompany him.
Thor embarks on a quest with a magical weapon. He wants to know if he can live up to his father (Odin defeated Laufey and took their power: the casket). He feels justified by the power of Mjolnir. However, this strength releases Thor’s mortal instinct in his ruthlessness and arrogance. Raskolnikov embodies Thor, a handsome man with a thundering presence and a quick-tempered anger. He loses himself in his suffering. Raskolnikov’s quest is to prove that people can commit crimes if they are extraordinary and above moral law, “[W]ell, for example, the lawgivers and architects of our humanity, from the most ancient on through the Lycurguses, Solons, Mohammeds, Napoleons, and so forth” (3.5.65). They are Raskolnikov’s “Odin”.His magic weapon, then, is the ax, “He drew the ax out all the way, raised it back with both hands, hardly aware of what he was doing; and almost without effort, almost automatically, he brought the blunt side down on her head. The moment he started bringing the ax down, strength sprang in him” (1.7.10). The ax gave him the strength to carry out the murder, prove his standing over a louse like Aliona Ivanovich.
Scene 2
Thor: “Why have you done this?”
Loki: “To prove to father I am the worthy son. When he wakes up, I will have saved his life, slayed that race of monsters and proved that I am the true heir to the throne.”
Thor: “I’ve changed.
Loki: “So have I. I only wanted to be your equal. Look at you, the Mighty Thor, in all your strength, and what good does it do you now, huh? There’s nothing you can do.
Loki: “ If you destroy the bridge, you’ll never see her again.”
Thor: “Forgive me, Jane”
In this scene, Loki assumes the throne and tries to kill Thor and the Warrior Three. Thor returns with a newfound feeling for the innocent and what it means to be worthy. Loki mocks him, does battle, and freezes the Bifrost. Thor destroys the bridge to protect the realms.
Thor finds the key element to being a king: self sacrifice. He destroyed the rainbow bridge, but lost Jane, the love of his life. Restoring his status, Thor sees the consequences his actions carry. His actions, now, are for the greater good. Raskolnikov, believed the murder was for the greater good of Petersburg, “This old woman’s money, which is going to be sequestered in a monastery, could beget a hundred, a thousand good deeds and fresh starts! Kill her, take her money, dedicate it to serving mankind, to the general welfare.” (1.6.12) Coming to Sonia and confessing to the murder help Raskolnikov find a new God to change his behavior. He can now rest peacefully, knowing that he loves someone more than himself
Pt. 1 - Quote From There Will Be Blood
ReplyDeleteEli Sunday: Oh, Daniel. Daniel. Please? I am in desperate times.
Plainview: I know.
Eli Sunday: I need a friend.
Plainview: Yes, of course you do.
Eli Sunday: I’ve sinned. I need help, I’m a sinner. I’ve let the Devil grab hold of me in ways I never imagined. I’m so full of sin...
Plainview: The Lord sometimes challenges us, doesn’t He, Eli?
Eli Sunday: [becomes hysterical] Oh, yes, He does, Daniel, yes, He does--
Plainview: ...Yes, He does...
Eli Sunday: He completely failed to alert me to the recent panic in our economy.
Plainview: Oh dear.
Eli Sunday: This… I must have this, Daniel, I must, I must, I must, I must, I must have this. My investments have... Daniel, I won’t bore you but, if I could grab the Lord’s hand for help I would but He does these things all the time, these mysteries that He presents and while we wait! While we wait for His word!
Plainview: Because you're not the chosen brother, Eli. 'Twas Paul who was chosen. See, he found me and told me about your land, you're just a fool.
Eli Sunday: Why are you talking about Paul? Don’t say this to me.
Plainview: I did what your brother couldn't, I broke you and I beat you. It was Paul who told me about you. He's the prophet, he's the smart one. He knew what was there, he found me to take it out of the ground. You know what the funny thing is? Listen, listen, listen-- I paid him $10,000 cash in hand, just like that. He has his own company now. Prosperous little business. Three wells producing $5000 a week.
[Eli weeps]
Plainview: Stop crying, you sniveling ass! Stop your nonsense! You're just the afterbirth, Eli.
Eli Sunday: No...
Plainview: You slithered out of your mother's filth. They should have put you in a glass jar on a mantelpiece. Where were you when Paul was suckling at his mother's teat, eh? Where were you? Who was nursing you, poor Eli, one of Bandy's sows? That land has been had, there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s gone, had.
Eli Sunday: If you would just---
Plainview: You lose.
Eli Sunday: Take this lease, Daniel--
Plainview: DRAAAIIINNNNAGE! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry, I’m so sorry. Here: if you have a milkshake... and I have a milkshake... and I have a straw; there it is, that’s the straw, see? Watch it. My straw reaches across the room... and starts to drink your milkshake: I... drink... your... milkshake! [slurps] I drink it up!
Eli Sunday: Don’t bully me, Daniel!
[Plainview picks up Eli and tosses him on the ground]
Plainview: [screams] Did you think your song and dance and your superstition would help you, Eli?! I am the Third Revelation! I am who the Lord has chosen!
[Plainview begins throwing bowling balls at Eli]
Plainview: Because I’m smarter than you, I’m older---
Eli Sunday: I’m your old friend, Daniel--
Plainview: And because I’m not a false prophet, you sniveling boy. I am the Third Revelation! I am the Third Revelation! I told you I would eat you! I told you I would eat you up!
[Plainview chases Eli]
Eli Sunday: We're family! We're brothers! We're brothers! Daniel, please forgive me, I beg you--
Plainview: That's it, that's it...
[Plainview bludgeons Eli to death with a bowling pin. The butler hears the noise]
Butler: Mr. Daniel?
[Plainview sits down on the floor, panting, then finally responds]
Plainview: I'm finished!
Pt 2. Analysis
ReplyDeleteThis is the end to There Will be Blood and one of the most spectacular on screen performances by an actor of all time. In the simplest terms, Daniel Day Lewis plays a ruthless self made oil baron representing the ruthlessness of the American Dream and it’s conflicts with the American religious identity. This last scene is reflective of Crime and Punishment because it is a demonstration of freedom through the defeat and domination of others. Throughout the movie Plainview, Daniel Day Lewis’s character, struggles to accomplish only one goal, absolute power. Eli is is his Dostoyevskian Double as represented in Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov's relationship. Much like in crime and punishment we see the double (Svidrigailov and Eli) fail due to their inability to persevere and find selfmade happiness. We see Plainview succeed because he is the only character detached from God enough to achieve his existential freedom which is punctuated by his killing of Eli. The act of murder and the act of ruining Eli is an act of freedom and individualism. This is reflective of Crime and Punishment because it pulls from the same themes and mechanics to accomplish moral introspection and character development.
“Do I lie down and die, or determined to try to alter the course of my destiny?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise what will become of me?
Am I foolish to think I could ever be, will i never be more than I am today?
I can see me as a man of respect,
You could never detect had once been so heartlessly cast away.
Am I foolish to dream I'll be Earl one day?
A towering man among men.
Then who could deny, now and then, pigs can fly!
Who will look foolish then?”
A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder is a Tony-award winning musical that centers around the story of Monty D’Ysquith Navarro. Monty is a young man who grew up very poor, much like Crime and Punishment’s Raskolnikov. After the death of this mother, Monty receives word that he is ninth in line to inherit the earldom of Highhurst. Faced with a miserable life, and a woman who will not love him until he is wealthy, Monty travels to the Highhurst castle, and receives rejection from his family members. The excerpt above comes from a song entitled “Foolish to Think”, in which Monty laments the state of his life and determines to take it into his own hands. Raskolnikov also decides to take his destiny into his hands. Both men are presented with an opportunity, and decide that the way to get ahead is to murder those who are higher than them in wealth and power. Both wonder whether they can be more than the commoners that they are, more than a “louse” as Raskolnikov would say. Both strive to be a “towering man among men”, someone who is better than others, and has risen to power through necessary violence, a “Napoleon”. Both men have their doubts as to whether they can carry out the actions needed to get what they desire. The murders are committed in various ways, and Monty and Raskolnikov both go through a period of time where they are suspected of the murders and investigated. However, Monty is not convicted on his crime and Raskolnikov is. Both men find love with their respective women by the end.
GOLLUM: We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precioussss. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitsesss. Wicked, trickssssy, falssse!
ReplyDeleteSMÉAGOL: No! Not Master.
G: Yes, precious. False. They will cheat you, hurt you, lie.
S: Master’s my friend.
G: [Tauntingly] You don’t have any friends. Nobody likes YOU...
S: [Covers his ears] Not listening. I’m not listening.
G: You’re a liar and a thief.
S: [Shaking his head] Nope.
G: Mur…derer…!
S: [Starts to weep and whimper] Go away.
G: Go away! [Cackles] HAHAHAHA!!
S: [Weeping and in a small voice] I hate you. I hate you!
G: [Fiercely] Where would you be without me? *Gollum, gollum*. I saved us. It was me. We survived because of me!
This scene is from The Two Towers (from LOTR), featuring two sides of a character arguing with each other. Gollum is a creature that has been corrupted by the One Ring, while Sméagol is the more innocent, Hobbit-like being he used to be before being poisoned by the Ring. Gollum is trying to convince Sméagol that he needs the Ring again, while Sméagol resists to stay true to Frodo (Ringbearer, charged with destroying the Ring). Self-loathing is embodied to such an extreme in the Sméagol/Gollum character (Gandalf remarks in The Fellowship of the Ring, “He hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and loves himself”) that it gives rise to distinct personalities, capable of arguing amongst themselves. Soon after the dialogue provided above, Sméagol manages to chase off, so to speak, his Gollum alter-ego.
Self-loathing plays a large part in Crime and Punishment, most notably in Raskolnikov’s character. It is worth noting that Raskolnikov’s name is derived from “raskolnik”, meaning “split”. There is a significant amount of discord between the two sides of Raskolnikov’s character – the side that is capable of murder, and the side that cares for strangers more than for himself. By looking at Raskolnikov as a character parallel to Sméagol/Gollum, we might separate Raskolnikov’s actions as having been carried out by almost separate characters, depending on which side was dominant at the time.
Lieutenant Daniel Taylor: That's what all these cripples down at the VA talk about: Jesus this and Jesus that, have I found Jesus yet? They even had a priest come and talk to me. He said God is listening and if I found Jesus, I'd get to walk beside him in the kingdom of Heaven. Did you hear what I said? WALK beside him in the kingdom of Heaven! Well kiss my crippled ass. God is listening? What a crock of shit.
ReplyDeleteForrest Gump: I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan.
Lieutenant Daniel Taylor: Yeah? Well... before you go, why don't you get your ass down to the corner and get us another bottle of ripple?
Forrest Gump: Yes, sir.
Forrest Gump is one of my personal favorite movies because it contains a surplus of messages the viewer can gain knowledge from. For instance, the theme of religion emerges multiple times throughout the movie such as when Forrest visits Lieutenant Dan at his apartment. In the scene above, Lieutenant Dan is bitter and doubting God because he lost both of his legs in Vietnam. However, Forrest Gump does the opposite of Lieutenant Dan and reaffirms his faith by stating that he is going to Heaven. This scene depicts two different types of people in regards to religion: those that have lost faith and those that still believe. Although the overall concept of religion is not in black and white in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment, there are instances in the novel where Dostoevsky’s message is similar to the one in Forrest Gump. Lieutenant Dan’s character in this scene is similar to the character of Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladov after her husband’s death. During the death of her husband Katerina says to the priest, “‘Ach! He is merciful, but not to us.’” Lieutenant Dan and Katerina are similar because they both are doubting God after a tragic event. The character of Forrest Gump on the other hand is similar to the character of Sonia in Crime and Punishment because they learn to make the best of their situations because of their continuous faith. Although Forrest Gump has a mental disability and is often faced with tough situations (the death of Bubba, the death of his mom and Jenny, being shot in the buttocks in Vietnam, etc.) his continued faith gives him purpose and most importantly it gives him hope. Similar to Forrest Gump, Sonia’s continued faith also gives her a purpose and hope- a purpose and hope that makes her life a little less dreadful and allows her to accept the fact that she is a prostitute.
The similar messages about religion in Forrest Gump and Crime and Punishment are important because it displays the controversy that comes along with religion. Because religion is a belief system that varies for every individual it is important to look at religion from every angle. However, I would argue that both Forrest Gump and Crime and Punishment share a similar message: believing in God gives one a purpose to life and is rewarding in the end.
“You guys might not know this, but I consider myself a bit of a loner. I tend to think of myself as a one-man wolf pack. But when my sister brought Doug home, I knew he was one of my own. And my wolf pack… it grew by one. So there… there were two of us in the wolf pack… I was alone first in the pack, and then Doug joined in later. And six months ago, when Doug introduced me to you guys, I thought, ‘Wait a second, could it be?’ And now I know for sure, I just added two more guys to my wolf pack. Four of us wolves, running around the desert together, in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine. So tonight, I make a toast!”- Alan from The Hangover
ReplyDeleteI just want to start off by saying that Zach Galifianakis is a steely eyed missile man, especially in The Hangover. Now to most people, this quote in no way shape or form relates to Crime and Punishment. But I disagree. If you compare Alan to Raskolnikov, several similarities appear. First, notice the growing number that appears to Alan's wolf-pack. At first, Raskolnikov is like Alan; he is totally alone. However, as the novel progressed he received support. Raskolnikov first received support from his mother and his sister, then Razumikhin and Soynia. As the novel progresses, so does the number of people he associates with. His wolf pack grows, just like Alans. Having other people is a basic human need. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, human interaction is the third most important ‘need’. Raskolnikov can’t survive on his own; he needs other people to endure everyday life. Raskolnikov shows us that life is easier when you’re in a wolf-pack.
This quote is from my favorite movie The Dark Knight
ReplyDeleteJoker: "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know...I just do things. The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. You know...they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So when I say... eh, come here. When I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal, you know that I'm telling the truth. It's the schemers... that put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. And, uh ... look where that got you.
Joker: I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look at what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hm? You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan"... even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I told the press that, like, a gang-banger will get shot, or a truck load of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die... well, then everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, then everything becomes...chaos.
In this scene the joker is talking to harvey dent who is currently undergoing his transformation into the bipolar two-face. Joker is describing how he doesn't do things according to society's norms or plans. Instead he makes his own set of ideals and he influences the brightest figure in Gotham Harvey to turn dark.
I notice a few ideas from Crime and Punishment showing up here. Firstly, Harvey Dent's new bipolar personality that is being given birth here closely resembles Raskolnikov's intense bipolar tendencies throughout the whole book. Joker's statement about society freaking out when things don't go according to plan closely resembles how society reacts after Raskolnikov commits his murders. I also notice how Raskolnikov started off the book as a schemer that is trying to control his world but eventually he realizes that he cannot do that and just submits to society by the end of the book. Basically the this is showing the bipolar dual personalities that everyone carries within themselves. Everyone has a dark side and it is our choice of whether we choose to expose it or not. We all like things to go according to plan but when they don't we all freak out and do things that surprise ourselves. Crime and punishment shines through the dark knight in these areas.
Clerk at Mint Hotel: Mr. Duke! Mr. Duke!
ReplyDeleteRaoul Duke: Oh F*ck.
Clerk at Mint hotel: We've been looking for you.
Raoul Duke: (Narrating) The game was up. They had me.
Raoul Duke: Many fine books have been written in prison.
Clerk at Mint Hotel: Sir?
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" focuses on a journalist and his lawyer spending a drug-filled trip searching for the American Dream. While Raskolnikov is probably not looking for the American dream, the anxiety he feels after his crime reflects the anxiety felt by Duke. For a good part of "Fear and Loathing," Duke and Dr. Gonzo are surrounded by cops and hotel personell who are continually shifting into reptiles and other horrific creatures. In this excerpt, Duke believes on of the hotel clerks had finally caught him and would bring his wild partying to an end. His fear is apparent when he curses and thinks that he has been caught. Raskolnikov on multiple occasions was worried that people knew his murderous secret and was terrified he would be sent to Siberia before he was ready. At the end of the novel, Raskolnikov has accepted his fate and willingly confesses to his crimes. Similarly, Duke says many fine books have been written in prison, his way of being optimistic of his perceived impending doom. These connections are important because they demonstrate the inherent morality of men in literature. Because the characters are not portrayed as socio or psychopathic, they have a more traditional moral compass, but it still differs from the average, do-good man. Raskolinkov was able to justify murder in his own mind and Duke sees a drug-binge on the job as a good way to find the tantalizing American Dream. Most people, or at the least I have, wish that they could murder someone they see as a drain on human life, or want to see what it would be like to do just all of the drugs. Most people do not do these things because they feel the pros of those activities do not outweigh the cons. The heaviest of the consequences of these transgressions against civilized society is crushing anxiety and fear. Neither Raskolnikov or Duke is able to fully enjoy their actions because they are constantly paranoid that they will be found out and thrown into jail. This fear of being locked up and kept from doing what one wants is universal and most people can relate. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Crime and Punishment" are radically different books, yet have common threads and themes which people can relate to no matter who, where, or when they are (unless they are lizard people).
A supporting protagonist in Mad Max: Fury Road, Nux is born into a cultic army of which the main teaching is that success and self-sacrifice on the battlefield will allow one to enter Valhalla upon death. Throughout the beginning of the movie, Nux single-mindedly follows this idea and attempts suicide missions for the good of the army. Each time he gets excruciatingly close to completing a suicide mission, but each time he fails both the suicide and the mission. Finally, after failing for the third time and witnessing that his actions resulted in the death of an innocent woman, Nux contemplates his purpose in life with one of his would-be-enemies:
ReplyDeleteNux: Three times the gates of Valhalla were open to me.
Capable: What gates?
Nux: I was awaited in Valhalla. They were calling my name. I should be walking with the Immortals and feasting with the heroes for Time.
Capable: I’d say it was your manifest destiny not to.
Nux: I thought I was meant for something great.
We see that Nux relied thoughtlessly on his society’s conventional beliefs for his purpose in life. This thoughtless reliance is the first step in the journey of Existentialism. The problem is that these beliefs eventually start falling apart: not only is Nux psychologically shaken as he is denied again and again, as if the beloved faith he followed for his entire life is rejecting him, but he is tormented by the knowledge that following his faith – which is supposed to result in good – resulted in the loss of innocent life and beauty. After struggling to resolve Existentialist feelings of torment and frustration, Nux rejects his indoctrinated beliefs; he later decides of his own accord to atone for his actions by helping his former enemies escape and find a new home.
Except for the very beginning, Nux’s Existentialist journey parallels that of Raskolnikov. While Nux’s initial meaning in life was indoctrinated from birth – a big no-no in Existentialism – Raskolnikov’s initial theory was his own idea and thus in accordance with Existentialism.
Both, however, are psychologically affected by their beliefs’ pointless destruction of the innocent. Nux’s belief resulted in Splendid’s death, and Raskolnikov’s theory resulted in Lizaveta’s death. Both men decide to reject their beliefs. Some may argue that Raskolnikov did not actively reject his theory, but Porfiry states at one point that he is confident Raskolnikov would never flee from St. Petersburg because the only thing he has to flee with is a theory which he doesn’t believe in anymore.
After rejecting their beliefs, they both find new meanings in life: meanings which they conjure, meanings to which they are closer than they ever were with their previous beliefs. Nux’s new meaning is finding a home; Raskolnikov’s new meaning is his love for Sonia.
And after finding new meanings in life, they both suffer punishment for their previous beliefs. Raskolnikov goes to prison for eight years; Nux finally ends up sacrificing himself in a suicide mission, but this time he wasn’t doing it to get to Valhalla. This time he did it to help his friends find a home.
The similarity of the Existentialist processes in both works, one of which is from the time of Existentialism’s conception and the other of which is from modern times, tells us that Existentialism is a universal idea. Every day, there are people frustrated with their beliefs and questioning them, people who have to decide on their own on how to adapt themselves to modified or new beliefs. And since oftentimes events which trigger such reformative thinking tend to be important, people often suffer punishment in the form of consequences of their previous beliefs. Existentialism is a widely applicable, real-life idea.
Velma: Daph, I really like this guy. What would you do if someone thought that you were some glamorous and mysterious jetsetter?
ReplyDeleteDaphne: I’d make myself one.
In this scene from “Scooby Doo: Monsters Unleashed”, Patrick comes looking for Velma at Mystery Inc. Headquarters, presumably to ask her out on a date. When he arrives, Velma hides behind the furniture in the house, crawling around the place muttering “I am invisible”. Daphne follows her and she tries to calm Velma down, explaining that while it is foreign to Velma, being intimate with someone is not a bad thing. After saying the above lines, Velma comes downstairs wearing a leather suit, a pair of three inch heels, much more makeup than usual, and no glasses, and says “Who’s your mommy?” to Patrick to greet him. It is clear in the following drive to the Coolsville Museum that she is extremely uncomfortable in her outfit, but nonetheless she wears it to fit what she thought Patrick would see as beautiful.
In "Crime and Punishment" Raskolnikov dons old and tattered clothing to fit in with the rest of the crowd on the street. Though he is poor, Dostoevsky portrays Raskolnikov as being unashamed of his rags. “He was badly dressed; so badly, it would have embarrassed a tramp to go out in such rags in the daytime” (1.1.8). This imagery conveys that the protagonist is a disgusting man, but there is nothing in the context of this quote that implies that Raskolnikov feels any shame in regard to his appearance. In fact, on the following page, when a drunkard notices his hat, Raskolnikov frets about it being too fanciful and out of place with the rest of his costume, as if his outfit was only an act to fit in.
Both pieces of art show a character’s attempt to fit in with her/his surroundings: Velma to make herself beautiful in society’s eyes, Raskolnikov to blend in with society’s expectations of a typical man in St. Petersburg. By examining social standards through the novel and film, it can be seen that society’s expectations have several sides (they are fought against but also are used as an advantage), which could explain the difficulties that are seen in any attempt to challenge standards such as stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteThe following Dialogue is from “A Few Good Men.”
Of which is the only scene I remember as I was too young to remember the whole thing. However, I have looked up the plot now and then such as for research to complete this blog, as well as randomly when looking up famous scenes from movies. I felt context was needed seeing as I don’t watch movies that often,
Colonel Jessup: “I’ll answer the question. You want answers?”
Lieutenant Kaffee: “I think I’m entitled to them.”
Colonel Jessup: ”You want answers.”
Kaffee: “I want the truth!”
Jessup: “You can’t handle the truth! Son we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded with men that have guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death while tragic probably saved lives, and my existence while grotesque and incomprehensible to you saves lives. You don’t want the truth because, deep down in places you don’t talk about in parties, you want me on that wall you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone for a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you” and went on your way, otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!”
Prior to this quote but in scenes preceding it, Colonel jessup was called as a witness to the trial of two naval officers accused of killing a fellow marine. When lieutenant Kaffee, the soldiers’’ defense lawyer, tries to get answers from their commanding officer the colonel he defends himself with the importance of his job to dodge the question. If it is the colonel’s job that allows lieutenant kaffee to enjoy his life of freedom, then why should Kaffe jeopardize it by questioning him? In doing so Jessup justifies anything that he could be accused of doing, because it was supposedly him who order the officers to kill a fellow marine, as a necessary evil to keep America safe. In “Crime and Punishment” the reader sees the notion of an extraordinary man committing acts against the law in order to benefit all of society. Like Jessup’s supposed actions breaking the law for an extraordinary person is a necessary evil. This is an example of intertextuality within media through the concept of necessary evils, and whether society should accept them or not. In the case of ‘A Few Good Men” and ‘Crime and Punishment” both Jessup as well as Raskolnikov’s attempts to justify their actions fall flat. Jessup, following this dialogue with some choice words unfit for a school blog, is summarily arrested and read his miranda rights after confessing he ordered his men to kill. While Raskolnikov eventually caves in to avoid a worse sentence ,thanks to Porfiry Petrovich, along with avoiding suicide as predicted by Svidrigailov if he did not confess. Sure the concept of an extraordinary person committing a perceived evil to benefit everyone seems grand, but in reality society on a civil level can refuse to believe any evil is necessary as is demonstrated by both of these forms of media.
Madame Thenardier comes bustling down the stairs in a bad mood. She glowers at little Cosette and changes the closed sign from "closed" to "open".
ReplyDeleteMADAME THENARDIER
Now look who's here!
The little madam herself,
Pretending once again
She's been so awfully good!
Better not let me catch you slacking!
Better not catch my eye!
Ten rotten francs your mother sends me -
What is that going to buy?
Now take that pail,
My little Mademoiselle,
And go and draw some water from the well.
We should never have taken you in
In the first place -
How stupid the things that we do!
Like mother, like daughter, the
scum of the street.
Cosette goes to put the broom away. Eponine comes in from outside.
MADAME THENARDIER
Eponine, come my dear.
Eponine, let me see you.
You look very well in that little
blue hat!
There's some little girls who
know how to behave
And they know what to wear
And I'm saying thank heaven for that!
Madame Thenardier sees that Cosette far from going is hiding behind the far wall. We see Cosette's frightened eyes peering out from a tiny gap in this wall.
MADAME THENARDIER
Still there, Cosette?
Your tears will do you no good!
I told you to fetch some water
from the well in the wood.
COSETTE
(singing through the gap)
Please do not send me out alone.
Not in the darkness on my own.
Madame Thenardier imitates Cosette as she sings.
MADAME THENARDIER
(singing through the gap)
Enough of that, or I'll forget to be nice!
You heard me ask for something,
And I never ask twice!
This dialogue is taken from Alain Boublil’s and Claude-Michel Schönberg’s Les Miserables. It is one of my favorite musicals, and as I racked my brain all week to think of a movie that I could Connect to Crime and Punishment, I thought of the crazy Madame Thenardier and the connection between her and the crazy Katerina Ivanovna. In this scene of Les Mis, Cosette is sweeping the floor, sweetly singing to herself, when Madame bursts in and starts chastising her for not working hard enough, even though Cosette is covered in dirt and tattered clothing while Madame is much cleaner. Madame has a sharp contrast of tone when Eponine, her daughter, enters the room. She shows affection and praise towards Eponine in her beautiful clothes and good behavior, while Cosette cries. Seeing that Cosette isn’t doing exactly what she asked of her, Madame again has a change of tone and again speaks to Cosette harshly and forces her to work harder.
This scene reminds me of Katerina’s oscillating personality and how she treated her children. On one hand, there was Polenka and the other young ones, and on the other hand, there was Sonia. Polenka was always forced by Katerina to feed, clothe, and care for her younger siblings while Katerina had nothing to do with them. Sonia, though, was absolutely adored by Katerina. Sonia was a saintly, selfless person who could never do wrong, while Polenka and the others seemed to always be doing something wrong, or were forced to tears and humiliating acts like dancing in the public for money. Just as Madame unjustly favors Eponine and mistreats Cosette, Katerina favors Sonia over the rest of her children.
Why does this matter? For us to be able to draw parallels between different mediums and different storylines means for us be able to grow closer to these stories. Though books and movies could be considered contrasts of each other, similarities are everywhere! Intertextuality can be found anywhere if you try hard enough...and it’s all a part of the same story, right?
Spirit Voices: [in Inuit] Come with me, I'll take you now to a place that you fear. For no reason why, your heart has turned away from me, and I will make you understand. Everything will become clear to you when you see things through another's eyes. Everything will become clear to you whatever's meant for you, you will find. Come with me, I'll take you there to a place where you'll see everything you need to be the one you need to be, and all of those things that you feared will disappear from you in time.
ReplyDeleteWhen I had first read the prompt I had no clue what to write about because I do not really watch movies or T.V. However after thinking back to my childhood I remembered the disney movie Brother Bear. In the movie, a man kills a bear for “killing” his brother, and is punished by the spirits. He soon meets up with a little bear cub, Koda, who is optimistic and believes wholeheartedly in the power of the spirits. Soon the protagonist Kenai, begins to become guilty over what he had done. Finally at the end of the movie he accepts the spirit's power.
These same concepts show up in Crime and Punishment. After Raskolnikov kills the pawnbroker, he too is punished for his actions. His punishment come in the form of guilt. Raskolnikov does not have any faith in religion much like Kenai,until he met Sonia, which sounds like what is said in the quote “your heart has turned away from me”. Sonia is similar to Koda in the fact that she believes and puts so much faith into religion. She believes in the power of God and believes that God is going to help her in the end. Much like in brother bear, Raskolnikov confesses to Sonia much like how Kenai confesses to Koda. In the end of the story Raskolnikov finally accepts religion into his life much like Kenai. His assurance and ease after he accepts religion correlates with the quote when it states “ Come with me, I’ll take you there to a place where you’ll see everything… and all of those things that you feared will disappear from you in time”. Basically what is being said is that once you accept that there are higher powers than yourself, then you will be at ease and you will have nothing to fear. Both of these seeming different works can be connected through the importance of religion and how it can liberate you and set you free from your sins.
In the movie, The Breakfast Club, the character of Bender is your stereotypical “bad boy.” He practically lives in his school’s Saturday detentions and is constantly telling authority to “eat his shorts.” It doesn’t seem like anything can bring him back down to earth until he meets the popular good girl of the school, Claire Standish, in detention. After a day in detention, Claire gives Bender her earring, and the viewer is left to decide if their relationship sprouts.
ReplyDeleteBender: [after Claire kisses his neck] Why'd you do that?
Claire Standish: 'Cause I knew you wouldn't.
Claire Standish: [pause] Were you truly disgusted with what I did with my lipstick?
Bender: The truth?
Claire Standish: Yeah.
Bender: [nods] No.
In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov murders two innocent women, and is faced with extreme guilt. It isn’t until religious woman Sonia comes into Raskolnikov’s life, helping him to overcome his guilt. He enters his road to recovery after Sonia gives him her cross necklace, and helps him to overcome his guilt.
I love to watch movies, especially when the movie is about a book I have read before. If there is a movie based off a book, I always make an effort to read the book before I see the movie because I like to make up the characters and settings based on my own imagination and not movie sets or actors/actresses. While reading Crime and Punishment, it reminded me of the movie “The Lucky One” (sappy I know). In “The Lucky One”,Logan, a Marine, comes home after being in Iraq, and he searches for the woman in the picture he found in Iraq. On this journey he has struggles, dreams of destruction, and fears. Once he finds this girl, all of his pain and nightmares go away. Their relationship reminds me of the love between Raskolnikov and Sonia. Logan says:
ReplyDeleteLogan: Finding something like that... in a war... is like finding an angel in hell. So I kept it with me.
Pertaining to the picture, he tells the girl that he saved her. Much like in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is “saved” by Sonia through her time and dedication and love to help her love. Raskolnikov and Sonia’s relationship is significant to the book because it is what helps Raskolnikov out of the darkness. Sonia is his breath of fresh air and it helps him confess what he has done. War, is sometimes describes as “hell” and I would believe that it is. Thinking about Raskolnikov’s actions and how he felt and his insanity, it can almost be described as PTSD from the murders. Having to deal with his guilt all bottled up inside can possibly cause that. With his self isolation, fear, emotional detachment, irritability, and nightmares, it can be argued that he has PTSD. To the novel, this helps show that Raskolnikov needed help to get out of this darkness.
Utilitarianism ideas emerge in the character of Michael Oher in the film The Blind Side, particularly in the scene where he gets into a car accident with his new little brother SJ and in a split decision decides to sacrifice his own safety to help better accommodate for SJ. The selfless act reminded me a lot of Sonia's gifts for her family, and even though both these actions cause the characters themselves a bit of pain (physical or spiritual), there are instances where they find it to be worthwhile to lend part of their own happiness to those they love.
ReplyDeleteCady Heron: And that's when I realized, making fun of Caroline Krafft
ReplyDeletewouldn't stop her from beating me in this contest, calling somebody else fat won't make you any skinnier. Calling someone stupid doesn't make you any smarter and ruining Regina George's life
definitely didn't make me any happier. All you can do in life is try to solve
the problem in front of you.
This is section of a scene from the 2004 movie Mean Girls, where the main character has a long internal dialog with herself reflecting on the choices she’s made and realizing that they didn’t benefit her in anyway. Cady had essentially lost herself, trading her original morales and values for for new ideas that other people deemed acceptable or “cool”. This relates to Crime and Punishment in the way that Raskolnikov “trades” his old way of life and the morales he was raised with when pawning the watch and the ring given to him by his family in his plot to kill the pawnbroker. This scene also relates to the way that through Sonia, Raskolnikov was able to realize his mistakes and see that the way he was living was not beneficial to him in any way, encouraging him to change his life hopefully for the better by turning himself into the authorities and doing time for the crime in Siberia. Raskolnikov is also a nihilist, so his outlook on life is central to the idea that nothing really matters in the long run, which is similar to the conclusion that Cady comes to in mean girls. Both characters realized the way they had previously been living wasn’t contributing to their quality of life, but was infact taking away from it. Both attempt to change their ways.
The final scene from "American Gangster" is very similar to the ending of "Crime and Punishment." I mentioned this when the floor was open during my group's jigsaw discussion. The main protagonist in "American Gangster" is aware that the cops are on his tail to bust him for selling heroin, and is about to go out and personally kill the policemen that are after him. His mother stops him and instead persuades him to swallow his pride and give it up. His mother says, "You don't shoot cops. Even I know that. Eva knows it. The only one who DOESN'T seem to know is you." He soon realizes the severity of the situation and agrees with her. He then goes to church with his mother, and when he leaves he finds the cops waiting for him and he is arrested. He eventually is given a 70 year jail sentence, but is greatly reduced to only 15. This final scene is much like what happens in the novel, with Raskolnikov giving up his fate to God. He his persuaded by his woman of wisdom, Sonya, to admit his crimes, and is given a cross to go to the police station. The theme of religion and self sacrifice is evident in both cases. The narrative here is that God can will forgive you and save you, and that one must swallow his pride and accept his consequences to move on and learn. Religion is important in this transition, as it is the embodiment of faith, and believing in something much greater than oneself. Both protagonists are given harsh sentences but are reduced, a sign that their submission to the hands of the Lord saved them to some extent, but still a big enough penalty that they are able to learn from their mistakes.
ReplyDelete