Essay 1: Freewrite

Stories and storytelling in all three films are sort of instruction manuals for characters and for us readers. As an allegory, Huck Finn's story is reflected in Night of the Hunter and Moonrise Kingdom. But those two film are allegories in and of themselves as well, which says something about what stories really are; they are meant to be shared and applied to people's lives. Susie is the only character that actually reads in MK, gaining solace from fantasy books and passing those stories in a sort of Wendy- Peter Pan way on to Sam and the group of khaki scouts. And yet, the only thing that troubles her in the film is another book, the one entitled "Coping with a very troubled child". But this book is not actually meant for her, but for her parents. Her parents are the ones that need help coping, not Susie, which just proves the theme of the movie. This leads to another point about stories: the audience and storyteller's relationship. Stories are a way of providing examples of what to do and not do. And what book does this best? The Bible. Whether listeners believe that the events actually occurred in history or not, the morals are still there. Finding applications in everyday life through characters like Solomon, Moses and Noah as Huck and Jim did shows that different interpretations can have different effects on different people, which can also morph them into new applications.

MK Ebert review

Ebert's review brings up a very good point: "On this island no one seems to live except for those involved in the story." As viewers, we get so wrapped up in the story of Sam and Susie's last childhood adventure that we forget there is a world outside of this one. Although Anderson clearly shows the geographic location of the island, its world is self-contained. Its reminiscent of how a movie or play-goer watches a staged performance (fully knowing that it is fictional) and yet forgets the world outside until the play has ended and they are forced to go about their normal lives. I think that is what Anderson is trying to get at. He sets up a somewhat-fictional location but makes sure to limit the fantasy of its events (the only fantasy lying in Susie's books). "But what happens in a fantasy can be more involving than what happens in life, and thank goodness for that." He uses his made-up, but believable story to immerse the audience while they watch, and then gives them something to think about and apply to the real world they walk back into.
The review also says, "In Anderson's films, there is a sort of resignation to the underlying melancholy of the world; he is the only American director I can think of whose work reflects the Japanese concept mono no aware, which describes a wistfulness about the transience of things." Sam and Susie's transient childhood is definitely portrayed in their marriage scene, when they are blissfully ignorant in thinking that they will never end up like their parents screaming at each other through a megaphone, as the scout commander/priest tries to get them to realize.

MK 2nd impressions

I did notice the Noah play when I first watched the film, but I now see more evidence of religious themes and allusions.  Susie was always the one who seemed to be most troubled, but in actuality, she knew herself better than anyone. Sam being the dove that is called forth by the raven is almost the opposite of what one would expect. Susie is more often the one that "goes berserk". Yet, she also has the great skill of honing her gaze to see what others don't thanks to her binoculars. After last class's discussion about Noah's ark, I went back to look at other scenes that confused me. I wanted to find out why the Native Americans were given so much emphasis too.
The scene when Susie gets crazy with the scissors seemed very odd to me. The band of boys (reminiscent of Tom Sawyer's gang) had recently been given new order to bring Sam back to civilization. But oddly enough, Anderson chose to show the quick flash of conflict by "electrifying" the scissors in a flash (resembling something/someone being struck by lightning) and then showing the flying arrow that came from one of the supposedly more-refined, dubbed law enforcers.  The left-handed scissors, the more precise and refined weapon, was used by the supposedly barbaric and reckless escapees. The newly-ordained leader of the pack said that Sam "did not have the authority" to take himself out of the troop. But the boy militia was forced to flee from the forest, to return back to their "home turf", maybe like the white settlers of the Native Americans?

Huck Finn on kings and families, pg 142

In chapter 19, Huck and Jim find themselves among royalty. The duke and king are clearly taking advantage of them, but we don't think Jim and Huck notice until Huck tells his readers his philosophy: "...kept it to myself; it's the best way; then you don't have no quarrels, and don't get in no trouble. If they wanted us to call them kings and dukes, I hadn't no objections, long as it would keep peace in the family..."(142).  
This attitude is a complete reversal on Huck's part from the beginning of the book. He is now a peace-seeking leader, rather than a rebellious orphan in a widow's house. He sees himself as the head of this family, a duty that he takes seriously now. At one point he lied and said that Jim was actually his father afflicted with small pox; but maybe that was not such a lie. Jim has been a father figure for Huck ever since their escape. He has given him advice, tested him and his opinions, and nurtured him to grow into a more cultured, independent, and deliberate young man. A boy with no sense of family has suddenly more of a family in caring for three older men than his own father ever showed him. Speaking of fathers, Huck finally brings up pap again, saying, "If I never learnt nothing else out of pap, I learnt that the best way to get along with his kind of people is to let them have their own way." Huck has begun reflecting on his past life and applying those lessons to his new family, the people he truly cares for.   

Moonrise Kingdom first impressions

Knowing that this was a Wes Anderson film, I did have some idea of how it would be set up. I noticed that he likes to have his characters write letters to each other that he then shows the audience. His camera shots also have a continuity to them that gives him his trademark. His characters also speak very matter-of-factly, even though they may have no idea what they're talking about, especially the adults.
That was what struck me most about the film: the polarization between the two generations of characters, the adults and the children. The adults would act more childish than the children would! More often than not, they were more troubled than them too. Sam and Susie got married; meanwhile, Susie's parents' marriage is falling apart. The scene where the policeman and social worker are writing each other tickets in the church made me laugh, but also got me thinking. In connection with last film, there seems to be a theme of outlandish authority taking away children's freedom.That says a lot about authority that the woman doesn't even have a name; she's just called "social worker".   The band of khaki scouts acted more like a militia than an innocent boy scout troop. The "tour-guide"/Where's Waldo character actually reminded me of the narrator in Our Town, telling us the details he thought we needed to know and giving us time stamps. There was lots of Noah references, and I'm thinking that Sam could be Noah in this movie. Obviously Sam and Susie were the outsiders in this community, so does that mean that this society has fallen away from religion too? But then again, the khaki scout preacher talked about the meaning of marriage and made them seriously consider their decision before agreeing to do it, so that's something to look into further. 

Ebert review reactions

While first watching the film, I kept laughing, mostly at Mrs. Spoon whose old-school mentality on love was cracking me up. At first I though this is not a laughing matter, like the concept of a lonely widow looking out for her kids was something to be pitied. As the review says, "It is risky to combine horror and humor, and foolhardy to approach them through expressionism." It's very hard to incorporate comedy into a movie while still keeping fear in the hearts of viewers.  A few instances it came off as corny, which is why I gave the film a "meh" originally. But I agree with Ebert's review now; the makers of the film treaded right on the line of comedy and horror and made it work for the most part. 
The review goes on to say, "The basement sequence combines terror and humor, as when the Preacher tries to chase the children up the stairs, only to trip, fall, recover, lunge and catch his fingers in the door. And the masterful nighttime river sequence uses giant foregrounds of natural details, like frogs and spider webs, to underline a kind of biblical progression as the children drift to eventual safety." I had never thought of it as a "biblical progression", but it makes sense! The two children are constantly being compared to Moses, but all those references went right over my head when I first watched the movie. The river that John and Pearl travel on represents the Nile and the frog in that sequence is another clue pointing to Moses and his prophesy to the Egyptians that they would be overrun with frogs if they did not heed God's word. In another way, John and Pearl could be compared to Adam and Eve naming the animals in paradise. The Old and New Testament references play off each other, and I think incorporating them into the film may not seem necessary to everyone, but it makes the experience richer than a simple storyline.

Post-initial impressions of NOTH

Gender, religion, family and childhood are all mixed up in this web of a film. When viewing the film for the first time, I wondered why John didn't just leave Pearl behind sometimes. More often than not, John would escape Powell easily, but be forced to turn around to help poor, innocent Pearl narrowly escape the preacher. Looking back on it now, this speaks not only to John's character but also the outsider idea of giving women a chance. John would jeopardize his safety to protect his sister (displaying Miss Cooper's teachings without knowing it), and help educate this young girl who would hopefully grow up to be less naïve than the generation before her.

Family/ Childhood as status in society:  John and Pearl were outsiders in the film because they were not yet brainwashed by their parents' society. In a way, John and Pearl had gotten out just in time. What this film says about the institution of family during this time is that it is toxic for independent thinking. Their parents were gone before they could teach their children the strict and arbitrary ways of corrupt authority. In this way they were lucky; they found a woman (with no biological children of her own) and through charity and true Christian acts, she was able to nurture them to become more than what society thought they were: money.
The idea of children as money still really intrigues me. Powell saw John and Pearl as his insurance policy, claiming to care for orphans but only for the money. Miss Cooper did it out of her own kindness, not for any personal or monetary gain. Similar to John, Huck was pap's insurance. He allowed pap to do whatever he wanted and live in the lie of what society told him. Society saw children as dispensable byproducts of religious tradition, a sort of formality in life. What set Miss Cooper apart was her recognition of this view's falsehood. 

Jim's take on King Solomon

Huck is impressed with Jim's ability to see right through Solomon. He cannot understand why a king would want to be around so many bickering women and have so many children. His rationale sounds silly, but he brings up a point that Huck never questioned. Jim thinks that since King Solomon had so many children he couldn't possibly appreciate all of the them the same way he would only a few. King Solomon claimed he lived in accordance with God, but his outwards acts did not match up with his inward beliefs. It is not enough for a man to simply say he is a Christian; he must act like a Christian by following the commandments and living in accordance with God. Jim, although seen as much less intelligent breed in their society, knows that living virtuously is more important than simply proclaiming a faith and being confined to its authority. Huck has been taught the rules of the faith, but Jim has demonstrated the philosophy behind the beliefs.
Huck's view represents the Old Testament; he knows the commandments, the rules and regulations of the church. Jim represents the New Testament; he gives examples of how to apply those teachings in everyday life for the benefit on an individual and a community.   

Night of the Hunter initial reactions

Honestly, it was not my favorite movie, just because I think it was a little clichéd. While watching Night of the Hunter, I immediately saw parallels to Huck Finn.  Mrs. Spoon was making me laugh; she was so naïve and stereotypically old maid-like that her little quips sounded insane. How could anyone be so dumb to take her advice?  Ms. Cooper with the shotgun was really a sight though. Compared to John and Pearl's mother, she was the polar opposite. She represented a very contradictory role for that time period: a strong woman. Seeing the differences between the mother, Ms. Cooper, and Mrs. Spoon and the ideals that each possessed was very interesting.
But there were some things that I don't fully understand. For example, why were there different animals shown while the children were floating down the river. The owl eventually picked off the rabbit, but what about the frog, turtle, sheep, cat and the bird in the cage? I found it interesting that towards the end of the movie, when Powell and Ms. Cooper were singing the  "lean on Jesus" song she was the only one to say Jesus, not the "preacher". Other times, Powell deliberately "leaned" his hands on things so that a hand would spell out the word love or hate. For example, HATE was spelled when he leaned on his prayer book when he was telling the Spoons about the mother's disappearance. Another time, he spelled LOVE when he was leaning on the railing at Ms. Cooper's house when he came to get the kids back.