After looking more in depth at Tzevtan Todorovs article, Structural Analysis of Narrative, I want to go back to the one of the topics of conversation on Monday about Henry James’ idea of a pure narrative and pure dialogue along with the idea that ” a novel is a living thing, all and continuous, like any other organism . . .” After reading the page from Henry James’ essay, The Art of Fiction, I slowly began to understand what he was trying to say.  I think what we as a class began to understand was that James believed that there are many different parts to a story, like an organism, and these parts all collaborate and constantly work together to maintain a state of homeostasis. Todorov believes differently and calls James’ statement a “dubious comparison between a work and a living thing.” Todorov is doubtful of this comparison because he thinks that parts (dialogue and description) of a novel do not necessarily need to exist in a pure state for them to be successful and for them to work as a story. Stories have the capability to be abstract and the success of these stories is not driven only by the fact of the incorporation or removal of pure aspects of a novel.

Ghost Dog (1999) starring Forest Whitaker was a very interesting film to me. To be honest I didn’t particularly think it was all that great as far as story goes but it definitely contained things that I did enjoy and small subtleties that were very clever in their execution. One thing that I thought was great , which everyone keeps talking about, is how the cartoons actions are used as strong methods of foreshadowing in the movie. For example the ending, when the mobster is watching a cartoon character shooting through a drain pipe to attack another character and that exactly what Ghost Dog does to antagonist towards the end of the film. This was one aspect of the film that I really enjoyed. I feel that it was a strong element throughout the movie.

Another thing that I really like was how he was constantly followed by the pigeons and in almost ever shot there was a pigeon somewhere always kind of looking over him. When he is passing the other guy on the street who is wearing the camouflage outfit, there is a pigeon that is always above Ghost Dog no matter what. These pigeons played a large role and were symbols throughout the whole film. The pigeons weren’t the only symbols though many other animals including the dog and bear. Animals in general played a role and they are very sacred to the samurai. One thing that I was reading about the film and trying to understand was when Ghost Dog and his friend go onto a roof top and see a man building a boat and I wondered why the boat scene was necessary for this movie? After some thought and seeing all of the animals in the movie, Im not sure why but I kept finding myself coming back to the story of Noah and his Ark. I dont really know how else to elaborate but Ghost Dog and his friend were talking about how he would get it down? and they joked about a flood and when they interrupted the man he just said he didnt understand and that he stressed how he needed to finish and how it seemed like he was in a rush to finish just like Noah. That was one part that I thought was interesting.

Finally, the question of genre kept getting throw into our class discussion and we were trying to find a set genre for the movie. Ghost Dog is in my opinion just another Crime Movie with aspects of a thriller. But we argued that the film contains many different aspects of other genres and I think its really important to be able to label a film with a set genre. The film could definitely be classified on many levels as a number of genres. One post I thought was interesting and liked to read was Chris Kelly’s blog and how he can see it as a western with various scenes that hint at that genre specifically the end when Ghost Dog and Louie are standing in the street. I couldn’t agree more with his post. Also I noticed that the movie was considered a Martial Arts film and in these films generally there are a lot of martial arts fighting but in this movie he just does all his fighting with a gun and there is maybe five seconds of actual martial arts when the mugger gets beat up by the elderly man bringing groceries to his car. I found this interesting and was just wondering if others believe this movie to be a “true” martial arts film. I know it had a lot of tendencies of many Japanese movies and I haven’t seen my far share of those so if someone could elaborate more on that then that would be cool.

The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility by Walter Benjamin is considered one of the most original and influential articles in the history of film criticism and theory. There was a lot that I took from his piece and I began to really agree with some of his points on how cinema has the technological ability to transform traditional art forms. One thing that I really liked to look more in depth at was sections ten and eleven (pgs. 238-240). These were the sections I was assigned in class and after reading them I really agreed with Benjamin. Basically the overall topic that these sections of the article discuss focus on actors and performances. Section ten discusses how test performance is an aspect of film production and film acting. He talks about the processes that have to be reproduced by film actors and how the film actor carries out an original performance for a “group of executives” instead of a stage actor who performs “in front of a randomly composed audience. ” He also compares film acting to sporting performances because they may at some point be intervened by a body of experts. Film gives actors the ability to exhibit test performances and gives these actors the opportunity to doing reshoots of scenes because they are performing in from of an apparatus, not a live audience.  For section eleven, Benjamin explains how the film and stage actor differ in performance. He writes “The stage actor identifies himself with a role. The film actor very often is denied this opportunity. His performance is by no means a unified whole, but is assembled from many individual performances.” What I think he is saying here is that a stage actor has one chance to get it right. There are no takes or edits in stage acting. If a stage actor doesn’t have enough expression in his face or voice it could derail the emotion of a performance. For film actors, they have the opportunity and tend to be more genuine in their actions and expressions. Also how film makers have the ability to mash all of these “individual performances” through editing. The edits that go into the finished project contain the most genuine and expressive shots that will help the film succeed. Walter Benjamin’s take on performances in film and on stage are I think very accurate analysis’. I really enjoyed reading about it because I am interested in acting and think its a good thing to read if one wants to be a film actor.

I know this post may be a little late but after looking at some of my notes, I took during the screening, there are some things I want to weigh in on about the film. One thing I thought that the director, Tom Tykwer, did well was incorporate a lot of repetition in his shots and quick cuts to express a fast moving pace throughout the film. Many of the shots helped establish the sense that Lola was running out of time to save Manni and how fast she had to think and react to give her an advantage. One shot in particular is at the beginning of the movie when she is thinking of how she can help Manni and throws the telephone in the air. There are quick cuts between Lola and the flying telephone and right when she decides what to do the phone lands neatly on the hook. With the use of the types of cuts and repetition at the beginning of the film, the audience is able to get a good sense of pace for the rest of the movie. Another thing that struck me as important that I did not hear during our class discussion was the ending credits. Maybe I am thinking too far into it but I found it strange that they were backwards, meaning they ran from top to bottom. I have never seen that in a film before and was very curious as to why it was done that way? I hope that if someone is reading this they can give me their thoughts on the matter of why the director decided to do this.