The Birdcage
What attracts us to the movie theatre on Friday nights? Is it the commercials we see? Or is it all the gossip we hear from friends and TV talk shows? Well for many, it is the critiques we read and hear almost every day. One who specializes in the professional evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works is a critic. The profession of movie criticism is one of much diversity. Reviews range anywhere from phenomenal to average. Not only are movies created for the entertainment and sheer pleasure of the audience, they create a market of jobs and open doors to the world of financial growth. The success of these films, whether they are tremendous or atrocious, is not only dependent of the actual film, but also upon the critic’s reviews. It is a form of assistant advertising, in addition to commercials and billboards. A movie review is composed of summaries, plots, controversial issues, perks, and detriments. They discuss the features of the movie and certain points that appeals to the critic. Not to forget that the sole purpose of writing these reviews is to persuade the reader to take on a pre-opinionated view of the film prior to viewing it. In addition, they hope the reader enjoys their style to further persuade them, as well as others, to persist in reading their reviews.
Based on a corroboration of the three critics, Hinson, Howe, and Berardinelli, there is one basic overview of the movie The Birdcage. For some twenty years, Armand (Robin Williams) and Albert (Nathan Lane) have lived together as husband and wife (so to speak). Both are openly gay, and seemingly comfortable with their sexuality. They are partners in business where Armand operates a drag nightclub and Albert is the star performer. They have a son, Val (Dan Futterman), the product of Armand's one-night rendezvous twenty-one years ago with big-time executive Katherine Archer (Christine Baranski). As far as his upbringing is concerned, Val is as much Albert's son as Armand's, and he is not ashamed of his unusual family situation, at least not in the normal course of things. Things go awry when Val becomes engaged to the 18-year old daughter of Senator Keeley (Gene Hackman), the co-founder of the Coalition for Moral Order who believes that Billy Graham is too liberal. Since there is no chance that Keeley would sanction a marriage between his daughter a...
... middle of paper ...
...s portrayed as such by all three critics. As awkward the “gay” situation may seem, The Birdcage takes on a light-hearted approach to make an audience laugh, not speculate. My personal feelings on the movie were similar if not the same to the ones of the three critics. They did not alter my opinion towards the movie in any way; they only informed me of those specifics I had not yet known. One point stands out in my mind the most, and that is the very informative quality of these critiques. One fact that I did learn from these reviews that I was not aware of beforehand is the movie’s basis, which is the older French film, La cage aux Folles. Although the reviews were good in nature, I feel the film deserved more appreciation and acknowledgement than what the critics gave them. If I had to choose to read any of the critics’ reviews for a second time, I would most definitely choose Hal Hinson. He without doubt gave the finest description of the movie that truly grasped the reader’s attention, not to mention he would have sold me a ticket opening night. In general, all three critiques possessed their own authenticity and style, which in turn is the source of the critic’s reputation.
In the piece “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism,” Jean Luc-Comolli and Jean Narboni define the critic's job as the discernment of “which films, books and magazines allow the ideology a free, unhampered passage, transmit it with crystal clarity, serve as its chosen language” and which films “attempt to make it turn back and reflect itself, intercept it, make it visible by revealing its mechanisms, by blocking them” (753). Through their examination, seven film categories are outlined. Clue falls into the “E” category, which is defined as “films which seem at first sight to belong firmly within the ideology and to be completely under its sway, but which turn out to be so only in an ambiguous manner” (75...
* Wegs, Joyce M. "'Don't You Know Who I Am?' The Grotesque in Oates' 'Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?'" Critical Essays on Joyce Carol Oates. Ed. Linda W. Wagner. Boston: G. K. Hall 1979.
Oates, Joyce Carol. Where are You Going, Where Have You Been? N.p.: Epoch, 1966. N. pag. Print.
Joyce Carol Oates' short story "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" written in the late sixties, reveals several explanations of its plot. The story revolves around a young girl being seduced, kidnapped, raped and then killed. The story is purposely vague and that may lead to different interpretations. Teenage sex is one way to look at it while drug use or the eerie thought that something supernatural may be happening may be another. The story combines elements of what everyone may have experienced as an adolescent mixed with the unexpected dangers of vanity, drugs, music and trust at an early age. Ultimately, it is up to the reader to choose what the real meaning of this story is. At one point or another one has encountered, either through personal experience or through observation, a teenager who believes that the world is plotting against them. The angst of older siblings, peer pressure set upon them by their friends, the need for individualism, and the false pretense that at fifteen years of age, they are grown are all factors which affect the main character in this story.
Peters finds the bird cage, it is empty. This bird cage never actually had a bird in it. In paragraph 218, Mrs. Hale finds the canary has croaked: “‘There’s something wrapped up in this piece of silk,’ faltered Mrs. Hale. ‘This isn’t her scissors,’ said Mrs. Peters, in a shrinking voice. Her hand not steady, Mrs. Hale raised the piece of silk. ‘Oh, Mrs. Peters!’ she cried. ‘It’s—’ Mrs. Peters bent closer. ‘It’s the bird,’ she whispered. ‘But, Mrs. Peters!’ cried Mrs. Hale. ´Look at it! Its neck—look at its neck! It’s all—other side to.’”(Glaspell). Sadly, the bird was strangled, and I think that Mr. Wright did it. Mrs. Wright clearly loved her feathered friend. After it was killed, she wrapped it in a square of silk. Back then, silk was very expensive even for a little piece like that. Mrs. Hale explains how Millie loved to sing, and this bird must remind her of when she was happy. Mr. John Wright was not very happy with this bird. If he could stop his wife from singing and being happy, he could surely stop a little bird. So Wright goes into the room and snaps its neck, destroying his wife’s most prized
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.
Kozikowski, Stan. "The Wishes and Dreams Our Hearts Make in Oates's 'Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?'." Short Story Criticism, edited by Joseph Palmisano, vol. 70, Gale, 2004. Literature Resource Center, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GLS&sw=w&u=avl_madi&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CH1420056819&asid=22c8b2317a25bc24bae39d92a1b7b8ed. Accessed 30 Oct. 2017. Originally published in Journal of the Short Story in English, no. 33, Autumn 1999, pp.
At the very beginning of the book, there is constant reference to a caged bird. This
Another reason that Mrs. Wright could’ve been pushed to murder her husband was because of some evidence the women found in a shoe box and assumed to be the husbands doing was the broken neck of her canary. The canary was used by Glaspell to represent Mrs. Wright’s spirit and her marriage. The reasoning for this distinction was because earlier in the story the two women described Mrs. Wright as a free spirited person with a sweet voice like a canary. She needed to stand up for herself against the abuse and oppression as a housewife a decision made from the death of her beautiful bird. Just like the bird had a cage she too was caged in her own home. She felt in prisoned to her marriage so with free of death to her bird brought courage to give herself freedom or perhaps it’s just coincidence that her husband was discovered with a broken neck just like her canary.
The bird and the cage are the two most important symbol in this play because it symbolizes the oppression of Minnie Foster, and it can also mean the death of her husband (Mr. Wright). Minnie Foster is sometimes compared to the bird by Mrs. Hale saying that she was real sweet, pretty, and that she like to sing just like the bird, but then Mrs. Hale asks: “How she did change?”(1074). The bird symbolizes Minnie Foster before she got married, but everything changed about her after she got married with Mr. Wright. The reader can clearly see how abusive Mr. Wright was to Minnie Wright to completely change the way she is. For example, one way that Mr. Wright kept Minnie Foster oppressed is by preventing her from singing. As the reader knows Minnie really liked to sing, but Mr. Wright hated a “thing” that can sing ,as a result, he didn’t let Minnie to sing anymore.
One major theme of the movie is thing aren’t always as they appear . The major character Briony in many instances misinterprets what she has witnessed and these misunderstanding ruin the life of the people she cares the most about. The first misunderstanding took place in her back yard where she finds her elder her sister played by Kiera Knightley undressing and jumping into a fountain .in front of her garden taker Robbie played by James McAvoy. Briony’s wild imagination allows her to believe Robbie and Cecilia were having a lover’s quarrel. When actually, Robby just broke the most expensive piece of china they owed and Cecilia jumped in to the fountain to retrieve the broken piece. This is exacerbated when Briony later intercepts an erotic letter written by Robbie, intended for Cecilia’s eyes only. This letter and the fact that she caught Robby and her sister having sexual relations in the library, makes Robbie appear to be “sex maniac”. So later on when her cousin Lola Quincy was raped she automatically assumes it to be the sex crazed gardener.
The birdcage represents how Mrs. Wright was trapped in her marriage, and could not escape it. The birdcage door is broken which represents her broken marriage to Mr. Wright. It also represents Mrs. Wright escaping her marriage from Mr. Wright. When the door is open it allows Mrs. Wright to became a free woman. At one point in time the cage door use to have a lock that locked the bird inside the cage. This represents how Mr. Wright kept Mrs. Wright locked up from society. Mr. Wright knew that by keeping Mrs. Wright locked up, she would never be able to tell anyone how he really acted. Mr. Wright was very cruel to his wife.
Barsam, R. M., Monahan, D., & Gocsik, K. M. (2012). Looking at movies: an introduction to film (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co..
While critics praise the motion picture for its beauty and plot, it has also been ripped apart by historians as being untrue to yesteryear. The shear amount of inaccuracies in the film can
Wright was described as a beautiful women filled with such joy and life until she married John Wright. Mrs. Peter’s and Mrs. Hale feels sorry for her because her husband treated her so bad. Due to female bonding and sympathy, the two women, becoming detectives, finds the truth and hides it from the men. The play shows you that emotions can play a part in your judgement. Mrs. Peter’s and Mrs. Hale felt sorry that Mrs. Wright had one to keep her company no kids and she was always left alone at home. “yes good; he didn’t drink, and kept his word as well as most, I guess, and paid his debt. But he was a hard man, Mrs. Peters just to pass the time of day with him. Like a raw wind that goes to the bone. I should of think she would have wanted a bird. But what you suppose went with it?” Later on in the play the women find out what happens to the bird. The bird was killed the same way Mrs. Wright husband which leads to the motive of why he was killed. Mrs. Wright was just like the bird beautiful but caged no freedom not being able to live a life of her own. Always stuck in the shadows of her husband being told what to do and