Close Reading #3

“Infidelity, Grandly Staged” by A. O. Scott (http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/movies/anna-karenina-from-by-joe-wright-with-keira-knightley.html?ref=movies)

            In his review of the film, “Anna Karenina”, A. O. Scott portrays the movie to be a fantastic depiction of the original novel and an engaging watch. This is done through his use of diction, detail, and figurative language.  

            Scott shows the reader how captivating and well-made the film is through his word choice. For example in the second paragraph he says, “It is risky and ambitious enough to count as an act of artistic hubris, and confident enough to triumph on its own slightly — wonderfully — crazy terms”. By incorporating the words “risky”, “ambitious”, and “crazy”, Scott introduces the reader to how interesting and engaging the film is. He also shows that the film is well done by including that the director’s means were “wonderfully” crazy. Scott’s continued use of diction is also seen in the fourth paragraph when he refers to the director’s goal as his “brilliant gamble”. By calling it this, he is further expressing his opinion of the film as being an enthralling interpretation of the original novel. This is again seen in the fifth paragraph when Scott describes the performances within the film as “fresh, energetic and alive”. By using these words, he makes the film seem more captivating to the audience.

            The details included by Scott in his review also contribute to his portrayal of the film as being a great interpretation of the book and an engaging movie to watch. For example, after going into an in-depth description of how the director’s previous films have been mediocre interpretations of the novels upon which they were based, Scott says, “Mr. Wright’s “Anna Karenina” is different” (paragraph 3). By including background on the below-par standards of Wright’s “book to movie” directing history, the contrast between works gained meaning and showed the reader how good of a depiction of the novel “Anna Karenina” is.

            Scott also used strong figurative language to emphasize the engaging qualities of the film. For example in the sixth paragraph he says, “The camera hurtles through the scenery as if in hungry pursuit; the lush colors of the upholstery and the costumes pulsate with feeling; the music (by Dario Marianelli) howls and sighs…”. These metaphorical comparisons show the reader that the mechanics of the film make for an exciting experience. By saying that the camera “hurtles…in hungry pursuit”, he makes it seem as though the audience finds themselves to be brought into the story because of it. His comment on the colors of the costumes as “pulsating” also connects the audience to the movie by portraying it as if the vibrancy of the colors can actually be felt. Scott does this again later in the same paragraph when he says, “Mr. Wright turns a sweeping epic into a frantic and sublime opera”. By comparing the movie to a “sublime opera”, he portrays it to be a captivating film.

            Throughout the review, Scott makes good use of his diction, detail, and figurative language to express his feelings about the film. He repeatedly uses his words to show his readers how engaging “Anna Karenina” is, and how it is a sensational interpretation of the original novel.

Prompts: #3

1974. Choose a work of literature written before 1900. Write an essay in which you present arguments for and against the work's relevance for a person in 1974. Your own position should emerge in the course of your essay. You may refer to works of literature written after 1900 for the purpose of contrast or comparison.

            Pride and Prejudice written by Jane Austin in 1813 is a timeless piece, but is it still relevant in today’s society? The answer to that question is both yes and no: in modern times we can still see the importance of reputation and normalcy, however social classes and gender roles are much less defined.

            Pride and Prejudice depicts an individual’s reputation as being of the utmost importance, therefore every decision is dependent on society’s reaction. The characters must be very careful in their behavior because stepping out of social normalcy could lead to ostracism. An example of this is when Elizabeth walks to Netherfield. Not only is it socially unacceptable for a lady to walk such a distance, but she has also become filthy in the process. This causes Miss Bingley to think less of her because it is considered unsuitable behavior. This importance of reputation is relevant in today’s society as well. If people are to act in ways that are uncommon, others will tend to judge them, alter their opinion, and build his or her reputation around it.

            In Austin’s novel, there were three very distinct classes—the upper, middle and lower class. Individuals within these classes rarely transitioned between them, and if they were to do so it was typically a downgrade. People in the upper class also tended to dislike individuals below themselves. This is clearly seen in Miss Bingley who had a strong distaste for seemingly every character with less wealth than herself. She could do this because at the time, classes were very distinctly defined. Today, social classes are much more broad and easier to transition between. This makes Miss Bingley’s judgment irrelevant in today’s society because she would not necessarily know who is wealthier than herself and who is not.

            One of the most important themes in Pride and Prejudice is the portrayal of women as dependent on men. This is virtually irrelevant in today’s society because the role of women is not just to be the homemaker anymore. Now, women have important roles in all areas of work, including very authoritative positions. During the time of which this novel was written, however, these occupations for women would have been laughable. In fact, a woman’s place in society was entirely based upon the man she married and she would not have worked outside of the home unless she was a member of the lower class. Since so much of the novel is focused on this theme, it is not relatable to today’s readers.

            Overall, most of the values that Jane Austin attacked in writing this novel are irrelevant in today’s society. Although an individual might find it easy to relate to the importance placed on reputation and social normalcy, the majority of the novel focuses on themes not very significant in today’s society. People nowadays are of every level of wealth and are not as distinctly separated as they were in the 1800's. In addition to this, the genders are much more equivalent to each other. Being that the majority of this novel seems to revolve around these two themes, it makes the main idea irrelevant to individuals in today’s world.

Response to Course Material #3

Recently we have spent most of our time focusing on Death of a Salesman, while continuing to work with DIDLS. As of right now, Death of a Salesman seems to be tackling the same themes that were seen in The American Dream—materialism, consumerism, etc. This makes me wonder if all of the works we discuss this year are also going to focus on these topics. I have, however, noticed a bit of variation between the works. Death of a Salesman seems to put a lot more emphasis on the success of the individual and pride. One aspect that I am wondering about is its emphasis on the relationships within the family. I am not sure if they are similar to The American Dream because the family seems distant and Willy, in particular, seems to care mostly about his sons’ value, or if they are more contrasting because Death of a Salesman shows the characters expressing compassion.

I notice that the more we do exercises involving DIDLS in class, the more I understand them and am able to apply them. For example, while watching the presidential campaign speeches this weekend, I found myself picking them apart based on their use of diction and details. Each candidate used their word choice to make themselves seem like the clear choice.  They also purposely omitted certain unflattering details and included ones that portrayed themselves in the best light. I think it is very interesting that I can not only use these techniques to analyze pieces for class, but also for things in the real world.

We also recently re-took the terms test. My results amazed me because I memorized all of the definitions of the terms and their applications, but I still did horribly on the test. I think knowing all of the terms somehow caused me to become too cryptic in identifying them. I found that I was having difficult making any of the terms work well with the questions given, and then once I did, I would second guess myself. For example, in one of the questions I initially thought that a given passage was a conceit—an elaborate comparison—because it compared one’s feelings to a detailed description of a scene. When I went back through to check my answers, however, I read more in depth on the description of the scene and noticed that it provided imagery and the comparison was not incredibly clear, so I changed my answer to “imagery”. It was conceit.