Category Archives: Uncategorized

Bella Molseed’s review of “Darling Lili”

Posted on by

Darling Lili (1970) is a musical comedy spy film set in France towards the end of the Great War. Written by Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty, and directed by Edwards, the film did poorly upon release and the name Darling Lili became synonymous with a box office flop. As the years have gone by, however, Darling Lili has become much more appreciated as a film, and the poor response can be attributed to an oversaturation of the movie market with movie musicals attempting to capitalize on the success of The Sound of Music in the late 1960s. Julie Andrews starred as the titular Lili Smith and sang most of the movie’s soundtrack and Rock Hudson played across her as the charming, although hyper-masculine William Larrabee.

Inspired by the story of Mata Hari, a Dutch burlesque performer and prostitute convicted of being a German spy during the Great War, Darling Lili follows Lili, a famous British singer secretly spying for the Germans, as she is assigned to spy on Major William Larrabee, an important officer known for being a playboy. Unfortunately for her mission, she happens to fall in love with him while attempting to seduce him for information on a secret mission called “Crepe Suzette.” Lili becomes convinced that Mission Crepe Suzette is a code word for his affair with the burlesque dancer of the same name and becomes incredibly jealous, framing Suzette as a German spy. The story is fraught with idyllic picnic dates and horrible communication skills, with a fun sprinkling of classic mid century racism and gender roles. One particular moment that is certainly wince worthy today is when Larabee first romances Lili by having a fancy picnic outside her window, complete with a band of “Hungarian g*p*sies,” a horrible caricature of the Romani people getting drunk and entertaining the two leads.

The cast of this film gave a phenomenal performance, Julie Andrews as the obvious standout. Her comedic timing and incredibly earnest nature made the romance of the story, which was some peculiar mix of sweet and uncomfortable, much more bearable. 

The script was, in just one word, confusing. Often, it was hard to follow the spy storyline, especially with the cuts throughout to long, loud battle scenes between fighter planes. The storyline almost sets up Lili to be much cleverer than she actually is, especially within her fit of jealousy. In one scene, Lili’s uncle and spy director informs her that no other information about Mission Crepe Suzette (a mission Lili had overheard Larrabee mention and brush off to her) has leaked and therefore it must either be incredibly important or Larrabee lied to her, which Lili convinces herself means he has a secret relationship with another woman. While Larrabee attempts to seduce Lili, she keeps delaying the act, requesting they move to a different room or laughing, angering him. She then claims he called her another woman’s name, Suzette, refusing to have sex with him until he convinces her that there is not other woman and to tell her the truth about Mission Crepe Suzette. As an audience member, this seemed like a ploy to get him vulnerable and desperate enough for sex that he would tell her about the top secret mission, which would be an incredibly brilliant manipulation on her part. However, the film never lets Lili be that clever. Of course, she does not believe him and storms away convinced he is having an affair. 

Moreover, it was hard to tell for most of the film if it was meant to be a comedy or not. There were some hilarious moments, like when Lili slams open a door as a clap of thunder booms, then enters the room with a cheerful smile on her face, or when she watches Suzette, the burlesque dancer that Larrabee actually was having an affair with, perform and the camera would cut between Suzette’s striptease and Lili’s insecure expression. But for most of the film, the genre seemed to flip every scene, from convoluted spy drama, to lighthearted romance, to serious satire of the Great War, to racy slapstick comedy, and back again. It does not allow the characters to be as fully dynamic as they could be, and while the Great War sets the circumstances of the plot, the war seems to have no impact on the characters, even though it had a lot of potential to really focus on the satire shown in several scenes. 

Darling Lili is a fine enough movie, best to watch casually. It certainly shows itself to be a product of its time at many points, and it feels far too long for the story it tells, at two and a half hours. The acting and cinematography is excellent, and the issues of the film reside entirely in the script, which is not only confusing, but just seems confused itself. The script cannot decide what audience it is serving and seems out of place in all the niches it could fall into. While the story is cute enough to enjoy, it leaves a lot to be desired for the modern viewer. Darling Lili does an okay job at telling the story it was attempting to tell, but had so much potential to delve deeper into aspects of the war and how the star crossed lovers dynamic of German spy and British general could have played out in a war time romance as seen in the books we have read.

Sources: New York Times Archive, Wikipedia

Kimber Foreman’s report on the podcast ‘Women’s lives on the Home Front’

Posted on by

I listened to Women’s Lives on the Home Front, a BBC special episode of Women’s Hour. This episode is a behind-the-scenes look at the start of a four year broadcast drama on Radio 4 called Home Front. Home Front itself is a radio drama broadcast designed to look at the lives of “people normally hidden from history” during World War One, – indicating the stories of women and working-class people – and this behind the scenes look is a conversation with creators and actors about the historical details they used to craft their characters.

This delves into an array of topics, including the rapid militarization of a town called Folkstone and their early refugee acceptance, how women supported or rejected British participation in the war, what women felt their role in the war was, how non-wartime issues were affected by the outbreak of war, how modern issues like sexual violence were treated (and ignored) at this time, and even a little myth-busting. Apparently it’s been commonly spread that combatants believed they’d be home by Christmas, but when one of the writers did a little historian sleuthing, he found that it was only a common idea among the Germans! They were so confident in their military capabilities they thought they’d be able to outdo their opponents in no time.

This podcast does well in covering a lot of ground quite quickly as well as introducing some topics not often brought to the forefront of war conversations, but in moving through topics so rapidly I think some opportunity for detail was lost. This episode feels like the beginning of a conversation, but because it isn’t part of a larger series these topics don’t get explored beyond the surface level introductions in this episode. That said, I do think there’s value in these surface level introductions. When lessons on World War One intersect with women’s suffrage the conversation often starts and ends with “women replaced men in factory jobs and saw increased employment before being forced back home after the war”, but this introduces the point that women’s suffrage was already a movement before the war, and as such the war had an impact on an already existing ideology and group of advocates. The women’s suffrage movement was split into many groups who disagreed on whether or not to support the war, how exactly to support the war, how exactly to resist the war, and what it may mean for the suffrage of women – or if they should even be considering women’s suffrage during war time. While this topic could be an hour long podcast episode on its own, I’d rather have the three minutes of education on it than the zero minutes I had before listening.

In addition to discussions with the writers on the research they did to create the show, this episode also includes clips from the Radio 4 broadcast, which allows the actors to talk about the beliefs they included in their character creation – this connects really well with our class, and how we parse out wartime ideas through the frame of specific characters. It also provides an interesting disconnect – we often discuss women in our course, but our focus has been on upper class women like those in the ambulance brigades as opposed to those working at home.

Overall, I think this episode could stand to be two or three times its current length, but there is certainly still much to be gained from the interviews. The focus on beliefs and experiences of people less glorified by common historical accounts is not only interesting in itself, but interesting in the ways it intersects with our classroom conversations on the women’s experience during the war.

Haley Patton’s review of “The War Below”

Posted on by

The film “The War Below” directed by J.P. Watts, is based on the true story of a group of miners called the “Claykickers” or “Manchester Moles” who were on the Western Front during World War I. This specialized group of miners was instructed to dig tunnels under No Man’s Land to then eventually bomb the Germans from underneath. The British Army has recruited this group of miners to set off bombs in the tunnels to defeat the enemy in hopes of ending the Battle of Messines. The protagonist in this film is Sam Hazeldine who plays “William Hawkin” in “The War Below”. Sam Hazeldine is also seen in tv shows including “Peaky Blinders” and “Resurrection”. Most of the cast in “The War Below” are not well-known actors in Hollywood, but all the actors have incredible talent that helps portray the story in this film.  

The movie begins with William Hawkin going in for a health inspection to be able to draft into the war. Hawkin does not pass the health inspection though due to a crack in his lung which is disappointing for him because he wants to serve his country. This does not keep William Hawkin and the other reject miners from serving in the war though as they are recruited for a special tunnel mission under No Man’s Land. The movie shoots back and forth from the men digging this tunnel and Hawkin’s wife back at home. This could be seen as distracting to some viewers due to the sudden switch from war to the homeland and the switch in emotions associated with each. This leads to the topic of the filming of “The War Below” and how this lower budget production gave a decent story of the “Claykickers”. This film does not do a perfect job at displaying this story of these brave miners but for the lower budget and not-so-well-known actors, it does the job for the circumstances.  

The cast of “The War Below” are not well known in the film industry but they make their marks in this movie. It was interesting seeing most of the actors in this film have very great acting abilities, yet I have never seen them in any other popular film. Sam Hazeldine does a great job at being the lead in this movie as he really helps guide the emotion and tenseness of the war within this group of miners. He does not only play a miner as he is also a father in the film, which shows another side of his character. The only complaint I have about the casting is how other than Hazeldine’s character there was not much humanity given to other characters. The audience was not informed much about their backgrounds, current life outside of the war, but we were given personalization of what their emotions were in that exact moment of their screentime. In fact, I felt like every character was just a puzzle piece moving through the motions to get to the end result. This is not the actor’s fault but the fault of the screenwriters and director for not letting the audience dive into each character’s personal narrative. There could’ve been a lot more improvement with this aspect because the actors playing these roles of the characters in “The War Below” have the potential to be great in their abilities. 

Overall, this film brings the audience through an emotional roller-coaster that shows the incredible story of the Battle of Messines and the miner group the “Claykickers”. This movie was slightly mediocre but was not terrible in its filming abilities to portray the miner’s journey at the front. With less filming of jumping back and forth from the front to the home front and more focus on the dangerous digging process, this film could’ve been more interesting. The actors that were chosen for this movie did a good job at portraying these characters; more background given to these characters though would’ve personalized the storyline more. “The War Below” did an average job at portraying the specialized group of miners that were at times bittersweet in their journey at the front.

Emily Koberlein’s review of “A Bear Named Winnie”

Posted on by

A Bear Named Winnie (2004) is based on the true story of Captain Harry Coleman who rescued a bear cub on his way to camp. He is a member of the army veterinary corps and on his way to take care of soldier’s horses during World War I. The author A.A. Milne visited Winnie in the London Zoo with his son Christopher, and Winnie’s charm inspired him to write and develop the children’s book character known as Winnie the pooh. 

This movie begins in Canada in 1914, just before Captain Harry Coleman is set to leave for camp. He purchases a bear for $20 from a hunter who shot her mother, and is able to sneak her on the train with him by identifying her as the veterinary corps’s mascot. Winnie shares a tent with Harry and Macray, who take care of her while looking after the horses and other animals in the army. Winnie gets herself into trouble throughout the movie and is an escape artist, though the whole group bonds with her and spends any free time they have playing with her. She is a real morale booster that allows the men to come together to promote something positive while preparing to move to England and then over to the front lines. They try to release her back into the wilderness, but it is clear that Winnie has become dependent upon human interaction. Harry and Mcray sneak Winnie to England with them, but they know she cannot be brought to the front lines. They take her to the London zoo, where she ultimately remains a permanent member. 

The shooting of this movie is fairly standard, there is nothing really unique about the way it is filmed in regards to visuals. However, there are elements of this movie that give it a certain level of charisma and allow the viewer to connect with the events that are unfolding. The transitions are what truly stick out. From the very beginning, the dates are displayed so that it is clear what moments are the present day, flashbacks, and the locations where the events are unfolding. Furthermore, my favorite part of this movie was the upbeat, ragtime piano music that was used for a majority of transitions. It almost is reminiscent of a silent film; this music was played when Winnie escaped from her post and was wandering through the camp, but also when there were montages of Winnie learning how to collect food and growing. This was a unique way to portray time passing; very little elements of this movie focused on the war itself. It was primarily upbeat, lighthearted, and focused around the life and circumstances surrounding Winnie and how she came to be in the London Zoo. The war itself was merely an obstacle on her journey, rather than an influencing factor or any main plot point. 

The actors were very well chosen for this movie. Michael Fassbender portrays Captain Harry Coleman, and Jonathan Young plays Macray. Fassbender is able to capture the stern outer shell of a man touched by the war, but he captivates the audience with his undeniable connection to animals and boyish charm. Macray is a stereotypical nerdy sidekick, with a soft spot for an older horse that he is unable to part with. The General and the Colonel were portrayed by harsh, brunt men who could not be bothered by things as insignificant as a mascot. However, as the movie continues the Colonel is touched by Winnie’s spirit, and the sense of comradeship she instills in the men of the artillery she represents. 

Overall this film was sweet to watch. I was brought to tears when they tried to return her to the wild, but I do have a soft spot for animals in movies. The directors were able to create a sense of loyalty between the viewer and Winnie by starting the film by showing the hunter killing her mother and selling her to escape the guilt of orphaning her. It was an interesting story to learn the context of, and there are some very heartfelt moments. It reminded me of a family movie that is not quite a Disney movie. While I did enjoy this movie, I could not say I would watch it again, though I would recommend it to someone who was interested in Winnie the Pooh and its origin story.

Miranda Colbert’s review of “1917”

Posted on by

Word Count: 688

In times where modern technology has enhanced movies to unbelievable heights, it is comforting to see the simplicity of a story told in one continuous shot. Even though this isn’t a new idea, (the first one-shot film being in 1948) it is sort of a refreshing change of pace. Taking on this challenge in his movie, “1917” Director Sam Mendes attempts to capture the horrors of World War One. Partially inspired by his grandfather’s war stories, he tells the tale of two young soldiers, Lance Corporal Schofield (George McKay) and Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) who are ordered to head through “no mans land” to a nearby company to call off an attack. As the two get closer to the front lines, the horrors of war become apparent. 

Though the technical skill of Mendes cannot be denied, it’s hard to focus on anything other than that. Because the film was more of an extended shot it prevents anything else from stealing away the focus. The point of having multiple angles in the movie is to give a different perspective on a certain subject. It is also a refreshing change of pace so the viewer is constantly stimulated. Taking away from the angles makes the viewer hyper focused on other elements. For me, I was focused on the story itself, which was lackluster in my opinion. I felt as though Mendes focused on the technical aspect so much that the plot ended up being predictable and simplistic. It got rid of the interesting characters, or a reason for them to continue on other than the mission they were handed in the beginning of the film. Film reviewer, Peter Sobczynski, explained it as “watching someone else play a video game for a solid two hours.” I agree with his point, it felt as if the person playing the video just went through the main mission without doing any of the interesting side quests. They got to the point of the game, but did not let the viewer see why the game was amazing. 

I feel as though the actors were properly chosen. They were average when it came to looks, which emphasized the point that anyone at that time could have been a soldier. They’re acting was decent (though I guess you could blame that on an average script). There wasn’t much emotion involved, but when there was it was accurately displayed.*  McKay also accurately expressed the emotions of exhaustion as well as desperation toward the end of his mission. His constant determination throughout the film was nothing to be laughed at as well. 

The film does a great job with providing enough history for the viewers to understand, without boring them to death. I know for me personally, it is hard to pay attention to long speeches filled with information. Mendes relays information through short dialogue and context clues that help the viewer get enough to have an understanding without being an expert. Since the movie isn’t about World War I specifically (though that is when it was set), but rather how awful war is, it is unnecessary for the viewer to know every detail.Because it also takes place in the middle of the war itself, it would have been impossible to explain how the war went since the character wouldn’t know that information. Which Mendes understands and accounts for. 

Overall, I think it was a good movie. Would I say I’d watch it again or buy it? Not really. The movie was definitely well filmed and Mendes is obviously talented, but I don’t think he’s a writer. There were many issues in the film but not enough for it to be considered horrible. 

SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS!!! 

*For example Lieutenant Joseph Blake’s (Richard Madden) reaction to the death of his brother was accurate. It wasn’t dramatic but more on the numb side. It felt as though he had dealt with death and was not trying to let it get to him. The scene was strong as well as realistic in my opinion. 

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/1917-movie-review-2019

Katia’s review of The Burying Party

Posted on by

The one-hour run of The Burying Party (2018) contains the ghosts of several films. A gritty war film depicting the real life poet Wilfred Owen’s first exposures to the trenches; a film that dives deep into the literary world he occupies, giving greater detail and focus to its cast and their interpersonal relationships. A deep dive into the development of Owen’s writing voice; a condemnation of war-hungry empire. Potentially, even, two or more hours that try tries to combine some or all of these features. 

The Burying Party itself is is not any of these films, but I think it accomplishes an unusual sense of completeness in its fragmented brevity. As it moves across time and space, through disparate visual and auditory worlds, it interweaves snapshots of Owen’s life at the front and on leave. In other words, the film can roughly be split into his witnessing first-hand “the pity of war,” and the interpersonal, artistic journey that enabled him to capture it, in such a way that we’re reading and remembering him now, over a hundred years later. 

The film’s contrasting settings are conveyed with care and detail. We open on Owen (Matthew Staite) at war, surrounded with what I’ve come to think of universally as gray-green “World War One color grading,” and accompanied by the haunting, discordant sounds of a piercing yet irresolute soundtrack, which punctuated by the sounds of the war itself. When the next scene finds him back home, in his mother’s house, seeing him clean and indoors is as jarring to the viewer as it clearly feels to the character. 

As he and the rest of the cast navigate indoor spaces, as well as the breathtaking English pastoral scenes that our friend-from-two-weeks-ago Sigfried Sassoon (Sid Phoenix) critiques Owen for lauding in his early poetry, the contradictions at play within these poets’ emotional lives surface with these alterations in visual worlds. These are mirrored by the soundtrack, which alternates between the harshly modern instrumentals of the war scenes, the stately pianos and violins of indoor social spaces, the birdsong and seaside of the English outdoors, and – at certain times, like the first meeting between Owen and Sassoon – the perfect silence that backgrounds dialogue. 

Owen and Sassoon’s dynamic fruitfully evades explicit melodrama or overstatement but nonetheless read to me as the heart of the film. While I’m unfamiliar with all but the most famous of Owen’s works, and only know the basic outline of his biography, the interplay between the two (and at times others in their circles) surrounding war poetry and its mission felt memorable and specific in a way that literary-biography type movies sometimes fail to achieve. I don’t know how it would play to experts, or to people with less knowledge of early twentieth century English literary circles than I, but to me the exposition surrounding the cast’s relationships and life positions felt effective and economical.

Outside of art, politics, and war, in the world of feeling or affection, more is unsaid between Owen and Sassoon than said for the majority of the movie. The intensity of this oft-mythologized literary mentorship was effectively carried by Staite and Phoenix, both in the realm of independent acting choices and the quietly intense chemistry between the two. 

As an admirer and writer of creative nonfiction, watching The Burying Party acts in close parallel to the experience of reading a fragmented lyric essay. We do not get the full story, but the parts we get are vivid and well-chosen enough to form a cohesive whole nonetheless. We might yearn, in fact (or at least I did), for hours of watching Owen and Sassoon discuss poetic form, for Owen, Sassoon, and Graves to get to sing the entirety of The Leaving of Liverpool without breaking off, for Owen to have a full conversation with his mother. But each moment we get to see is beautifully crafted; and when it comes to Wilfred Owen himself, time’s limited run is arguably the entire point.

Riley Smith’s Review of Sergeant York (1941)

Posted on by

The film Sergeant York is based on the life of Alvin C. York’s 1928 autobiography Sergeant York: His Own Life Story and War Diary. The real Alvin York repeatedly refused producer Jesse Lasky’s requests to make the movie, but York eventually agreed so he could use the profits to finance an interdenominational Bible school under the one condition that Gary Cooper star in it. The source material being an autobiography and the focus on Cooper highlight an interesting aspect of the novel; unlike many World War One works where individuality is taken away, this film focuses more on York as a person than the war or any groups as a whole. Sergeant York is thought to be a fairly accurate representation of the real story because the people it is based on pushed for accuracy. The movie was very successful, ranking as the highest grossing movie of 1941 and a press release dated July 2, 1941 states that Sergeant York was the first motion picture to be made into a stage play. At the 14th Academy Awards, the film was widely recognized with many nominations and two awards as Gary Cooper won Oscars Best Actor and William Holmes won Best Film Editing. 

In the beginning of the movie, set in spring 1916, Alvin York causes trouble in town and drinks too much; his mother, Mrs. York, is very worried about him and asks the pastor to talk to him. After almost making a life-altering mistake, Alvin is struck by lightning and becomes a devout Christian. When he is drafted, he faces a religious dilemma and applies to be a conscientious objector. The movie then follows him on his journey in the war after his application is denied. Overall, I found the movie to be well done. Since the movie was made in 1941, the lack of advanced production technique puts a lot of focus on the actors. Cooper has an impressive performance as he is very believable in the small-town role as well as a competent soldier. One of the best parts of the film is how genuine his connections with the other residents of Pall Mall appear. They are a tight knit community and this is an interesting contrast to what we see on the warfront. However, there is not as heavy a focus on York’s bond with his fellow soldiers as most scenes involving them are primarily for comic relief and there are not many emotionally impactful scenes where he interacts with other soldiers. Compelling source material and strong acting create an endearing combination of characters in the film; while York stands out as the one audiences feel the most connected to, his fiance, pastor, and mother contribute to the storyline and deliver the film’s emotional impact. 

While the movie is primarily set in Pall Mall, which is located in northern Tennessee near the Kentucky border, it was filmed in various locations in California. The small town setting is important because York has a deep connection to the land and the natural world has a large role in his life, such as his desire to buy land, and he goes into nature to reflect on going to war. He says “Fellow’s got to have his roots somewhere,” reinforcing how important his home is, and therefore how important the setting is. There are not a lot of extra elements added to the setting, which forces audiences to appreciate nature’s role as well as the acting. The war scenes were created with the help of a military technical director as there were specific aspects of the Battle of Argonne the producers wanted to include. York’s strategy to capture the German prisoners, which mirrored how he hunted Turkeys at home, was replicated to be as accurate as possible. Throughout the film, the lighting is fairly dark, which makes the flashes more jarring, especially when York is struck by lightning. The set enhances the already engaging storyline which traces York’s journey in faith, love, and war. When I watched the film, I was surprised by how little screen time the war has in the film as he does not actually go to war until over halfway through, but ultimately this emphasizes his humanity and shows how war pulls young men out of their plans. 

The movie begins with an on-screen text message thanking those who consented to be in it and states they pray for a day without war. But, since the movie came out right before the US entered WWII, it actually increased enlistment as men signed up for the army right after viewing the film. This begins a chain of conflicting messages within the movie as it can both be seen as anti and pro war. There are symbolic messages about the war’s senselessness. For instance, showing York and all the men going about their day to day lives in their small town with working towards land, interacting with each other, etc is an excellent way to demonstrate how the war is a politicians war, not the war of the men actually fighting it. Mrs. York and her daughter discuss the war as the daughter asks “Ma what are they-a fighting for ” and she replies “I don’t a-rightly know,” which is a symbol of how little people understood of the war, especially those in the country removed from politics. The American perspective, especially one from a man in a small town in Tennessee is an interesting added layer because Americans were traveling across the sea to fight the war so it felt especially useless since it did not even really protect America. As York leaves home, reassuring his family he will return, one cannot help but think of all the men who made that same promise and never came back. Furthermore, York’s religious views are certainly anti war, especially his epiphany as in the beginning of the film he participates in a fist fight over nothing serious(which can be seen as a microcosm for the lack of purpose in the war), but then completely changes his ways even forgiving the men who swindled him. However, there are more subtle pro war themes as a result of production choices. All of the soldiers in the film look like men; the casting does not accurately represent how young many of the men were. Other pro-war elements in the film include how little of the film is actually dedicated to York in battle, very few graphic deaths, and the portrayal of York’s awards after fighting. The movie’s idealized ending most likely contributed to the increased enlistment as Sergeant York is not injured and does not exhibit any severe traumatic effects from the war as the government rewards his actions with the land, which was his lifelong dream, as the movie ends with York and his fiancee preparing for their new life. In some respects it is sweet and enjoyable, but ultimately it is not realistic and could be extremely damaging for a questioning young man to see as it would encourage him to go to war. The movie is a bit lengthy, but is worth the watch for anyone interested in movies based on true stories. 

Works Cited

“Sergeant York.” (1941) – Turner Classic Movies, Turner Classics, 2022, 

For some more information on conscientious objectors in the Great War, check out this article!

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/voices-of-the-first-world-war-conscientious-objection#:~:text=Around%2016%2C000%20men%20refused%20to,were%20known%20as%20conscientious%20objectors.

Amanda Ramirez’s Reading Questions for Thursday, 2/24

Posted on by

Quick note: MAJOR spoilers ahead, early viewers beware! You have been warned!

Question 1

In chapter 34, when Frederic and Catherine are staying at the hotel together, Frederic remarks to himself:

“The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”

Do you think that we could see this quote as a possible allusion to/foreshadowing of Catherine’s soon-to-be fate? Was death in a “special hurry” to meet Catherine, as she is regarded as being among the ranks of “the very good and the very gentle and the very brave” by Frederic? Why or why not?

Question 2

We have spoken fairly in-depth about our views on the symbolism of rain and water throughout this story. The theme quite actually does not stop until the very end of the last chapter where it is forced to do so upon the closing of the last sentence. The last line of chapter 41 reads as follows:

“After a while I went out and left the hospital and walked back to the hotel in the rain.”

In the context of Frederic leaving the hospital after the deaths of both Catherine and their son, and taking into consideration some of the ways in which we suppose the rain is meant to reflect his emotional state, do you view the rain he walks out into to act more as a cleansing force for him or as a sign of his despair? Or, do you see it as being of other significance? In any instance, why?

Question 3

As the second appendix of the novel states, Hemingway wrote 47 different endings to A Farewell to Arms. Although some are more complete than others, each one offers a different take on the end direction of the novel. At the canonical conclusion of Frederic Henry’s story as we know it, do you feel that the ending lived up to your expectations? Additionally, do you feel as if Hemingway should have gone with one of his several other endings for Frederic’s story instead? If so, which one(s) do you find to be a more suitable ending? Do you feel that your chosen alternative ending(s) would do the story better justice? How?

Riley Smith’s Reading Questions for 2/24

Posted on by

Question 1:

Books IV and V narrate the transition from the tumultuous war to Catherine and Frederic’s blissful time together in Switzerland before they are torn apart by her death. What role does their domestic existence in the mountains play in the novel? How do their identities change throughout Books IV and V as they make their escape to Switzerland? Consider Catherine’s statement “It might be short. Then we’d both be alike. Oh, darling, I want you so much I want to be you too”(270) and Frederic’s “Knotting my tie and looking in the glass I looked strange to myself in the civilian clothes”(233). 

Question 2:

While Catherine is usually the one to contribute the more profound statements in dialogue, Frederic contributes several wise statements himself as the narrator. On page 226(in my copy), soon after the two reunite, Frederic has a very abrupt, but intense thought. 

“If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry”(226).  

What impact do the abruptness and stylistic elements, such as repetition, have? Does your interpretation of the passage change after rereading it now that you have finished the novel? Would you qualify Catherine as very good, very gentle, very brave, or none of those?

Question 3:

As several people discussed on here before, the novel’s opening paragraph is a beautiful use of simple, descriptive language. 

“In the late summer of that year we lived in a house in a village that looked across the river and the plain to the mountains. The bed of the river there were pebbles and boulders, dry and white in the sun, and the water was clear and swiftly moving and blue in the channels. Troops went by the house and down the road and the dust they raised powdered the leaves of the trees. The trunks of the trees too were dusty and the leaves fell early that year and we saw the troops marching along the road and the dust rising and leaves, stirred by the breeze, falling and the soldiers marching and afterward the road bare and white except for the leaves”(1). 

This short, final paragraph leaves more unsaid, but delivers a strong emotional impact and proves Hemingway’s brilliance. 

“But after I got them out and shut the door and turned off the light it wasn’t any good. It was like saying good-by to a statue. After a while I went out and left the hospital and walked back to the hotel in the rain”(297). 

Compare the first and last paragraphs to one another now that you have finished the novel. What does each convey and how do they play off each other?

Bonus Questions: 

A: When I read this in high school, my teacher felt there were three people who taught Frederic about love: Catherine(obviously), the priest(I went to Catholic school, so naturally he had to be included), and Count Greffi(no one in my class even remembered him when she first said his name). At the end of the novel, he has been impacted by a range of people and events to reflect on as he walks alone in the rain. What is the most important thing each of these people taught him? Is there anyone else you would include on this list? 

B: When Henry sees his child, he says “I had no feeling for him. He did not seem to have anything to do with me. I felt no feeling of fatherhood”(291). How important is this statement? What does it tell us about Frederic? Do you have any theories about what happens to Frederic after the novel? What would it have been like if his child had survived and Catherine died, or the other way around(given she would have probably felt a stronger sense of grief over the child’s death)?

Arden’s Review of Fly Boys (2006)

Posted on by

Fly Boys was released in 2006 and it was inspired by the true events and stories of the first fighter pilots in the Lafayette Escadrille, a French Air Service unit. The movie took place in the year 1916 before America decided to join in the war. Despite America not being officially involved, there were some Americans who volunteered to fight. The movie followed a group of these volunteers as they learn how to fly and survive.

            Character arcs and development were one of the areas that the film did an exceptional job in. After a brief summary as to what the story of the film will be focusing on, and its significance, the main cast of characters: Blaine Rawlings (James Franco), Eugene Skinner (Abdul Salis), William Jensen (Philip Winchester), Eddie Beagle (David Ellison), and Briggs Lowry (Tyler Labine), were introduced. Each of their reasons for joining the Lafayette Escadrille was explored as the movie progressed as well as how it influenced their individual conflicts. There were other pilots who volunteered as well, but the movie used them as plot devices to further the growth of the main cast by having their deaths reveal the brutality and harsh reality of war. That being said, even though the film does take the time to follow the individual characters of the main cast, Blaine Rawlings was most portrayed to be the protagonist. As someone who had no family and was a loner, Rawlings found camaraderie amongst his other pilots and rose up as a leader as well as found love. Found family, leadership role, and a love interest are typical for the main character. The other members of the main cast had to deal with finding the courage to uphold a military tradition (Jensen), being viewed and treated as an equal (Skinner), an estranged relationship with their father (Lowry), and being honest about their past and learning how to shoot (Beagle). The movie does a good job of showing how these characters struggled and overcame these conflicts as well as giving a conclusion to their arcs.

            The cinematography for the movie was outstanding. There was the employment of various kinds of shots, such as tracking, pan, establishing, wide, medium, and close-up, paired up with jump cuts, fades, and J-cuts that kept the visual storytelling of the film from becoming bland or repetitive. The most impressive shots of the film were the aerial ones and the POV shots as the pilots fired at enemy planes. This created a thrilling immersive experience. With the use of the sound design, the moods that the scenes were trying to convey were given emphasis. Even though there were a few places where the transitioning between scenes was a bit awkward, overall, the story flowed well.

            My major concern with Fly Boys was how much of it was historically accurate. There were scenes such as the dogfights, the romance between Lucienne and Rawlings, and the final battle with the Black Falcon that I felt may have been over-dramatized or exaggerated. Each aerial fight had explosions and/or daring saves just in the nick of time. As for Lucienne and Rawlings, their scenes together were mostly clichés for a love story with comedic misunderstandings and a rescue to go with it. For a fictitious action movie this would work well, but for a war movie based on a true story not so much. While looking for information on the film, I learned there were other inaccuracies such as the wrong technology for the time (i.e., the plane models) and outdated period clothing. I think those who made the movie were more concerned with making the movie as cinematic as they could instead of telling the story of these pilots.

            Overall, I found the film Fly Boys entertaining. The cinematography and the character writing helped tell a compelling story and made the movie engaging. Despite the historical inaccuracies, I think Fly Boys was definitely worth the watch. However, if they ever do decide to remake Fly Boys or make another movie based on those who served in the Layfette Escadrille, then I hope that the director and producer stay truer to the story and be more aware of historical details.