While watching Shanghai Triad I found myself wondering why Mr. Heidkamp would pick this movie for his students to watch. What did it have in common with Beloved? What message was Shanghai Triad trying to send? The only connections I could find between Shanghai Triad and Beloved were that the characters were stuck serving others, with little freedom. It was interesting to get caught up in another person's story through both film and reading. I feel like when you highly invested in a story it is always easier to get encompassed in the tale versus watching a movie. Every movie we have watched in Mr. Heidkamp's class has been very artistic and different. I always find myself questioning the movie more, in hopes of figuring out why we are watching it. The only conclusion I can come to about the similarities between Shanghai Triad and Beloved is the aspects of serving others and being trapped in a life of high drama.
As I was [poorly] writing a comment on the post 'Shanghai Try Again' I noticed that In Shanghai Triad, the main character (Boy #1 is my name of choice to avoid awkward spelling errors), has about 4 lines throughout the whole movie. I wonder what prompted this choice in the script, and I could come up with absolutely no answer for the time being. I don't think that this is a defficiency on the writer's side, but Boy #1 seems awfully unreal. I found myself trying to picture him doing things of his own sovereign will when his actions are described by other characters in the film, but sovereign will or rather a single multi-dimmensional motivation, aside from those nasty bouts of curiosity and eavsdropping throughout his time with the mistress, seem to escape his character. In fact, aside from the emotionally and morally complicated mistress, most characters seem to lack multi-dimmensional personalities. Shu and Huy and Chong etc. etc. are all driven by either single-minded obedience, or a single-dimmensional cravings for power and money. Whats the significance of a movie filled with a bunch of apparently uncontemplative golemns?
I found myself wondering what the connection was between the movie and Beloved as I walked out of class the day before break. After a full week of pondering, I have decided that reality is the link between the two. Most Hollywood movies and fairy tale novels have happy endings, however our two subjects of discussion end on a more realistic note: in the film, the bad guy wins, the good guy dies, and our favorite character does not really know where he'll end up. The message intended by the director, I believe, is that actions have consequences. You can't make huge mistakes and have them instantly go away by growing as a person from them, no, in the real world you are held accountable. This is similar to Beloved. Sure, Sethe and Denver grow as characters but at the end of the book, Beloved leaves without a trace, almost as if she had never been there. Toni Morrison's point is that the past is almost as inescapable as the present. In both cases the harshness of reality is never alleviated, but the characters endure and live on, because they have no other options.
After I finished reading the novel Beloved, I had one question. Was Beloved's character good or bad? It all depends on how you interpret what happens in the novel, but is there a right or wrong answer?
We know in the beginning of the novel Sethe and Denver are talking and they say, "the baby got plans". What were those plans? Did the ghost feel obliged to return because of Sethe's inability to move on and Beloved came with good intentions from the start? Or did Beloved's evil plan get foiled by Denver's sudden growth and maturity? I have been pondering this question for some time and I personally don't know which side to choose, there is evidence for both good and bad Beloved. In the end I believe all three of the main characters are helped and lead improved lives due to Beloved coming, I just don't know whether that was the ghost's intention from the start or it happened by accident.
Now I turn to you, fellow readers, was Beloved's character good or bad?
My comments on this movie are probably a little late, as I'm sure many have already forgotten it. But I had such a strong distaste with this movie, I wondered if anyone else felt the same.
The movies we watched before in English, like Trust and Dead Man, were great films, and my confidence in the selection was increasing. But then came Shanghai Triad. What an empty movie. Nothing of significance happened, and none of it was entertaining. A movie should either have something significant or entertaining. Shanghai Triad had neither. Well, actually, that is not entirely true. It had one point of significance in its cinematography, which enhanced what little plot and meaning there was and gave the movie a significant style. But I feel the cinematography is the movie's only merit.
My dissatisfaction isn't with the fact that it was foreign or subtitled or even a period piece, that would be one-dimensional. The characters were unrelatable, and not in a clever way. I felt no pity for the boy, even though the audience is obviously meant to. The movie said nothing of significance other than violence is horrific and can unfold quickly, but these are well-known and weren't displayed creatively enough to justify saying them. What was the reason for making this movie?
I'm going to end my rant here, because it could go for a while. But did anyone like it? I would like to know if there were things actually good about it that I missed.
Recent Comments