She's One Tough Motha...

The first page and all the imagery of rural Louisiana immediately brought to mind Faulkner describing the living conditions for Jackson Fentry in "Tomorrow." To hear such a serious story from an innocent eight year old boys perspective makes the difference. He doesn't necessarily understand why his mother behaves so but Gaines gives significant details about who she was and is. The Minuit details of how the mother carried herself showed so much of her personality. She was obviously raising a family alone, her husband was "in the army," hinting that the father was dead or at least long gone. The son saying that his mother use to stay up late and now she seems to worry all the time, I have those friends at home. People who are forced to grow up faster than they are ready too, is that what made the mother so angry to hit her son with a switch when he wasn't ready to kill small birds? Is she hard on her son because she wasn't prepared to grow up to be a single mother with a mess of children, are they then growing up together? I think the mother leads an exhausted life with a lot going on in her head and doesn't see a change, so she is preparing her boy for the same life. She gets frustrated with her son because he is young and doesn't want to do certain things. She's young and doesn't want to do certain things as well. The mother was the most interesting character in this story because she was described by a small boy who didn't know everything that was happening inside his mothers head.

MotherFaulkner

The term I hear most associated with William Faulkner's name is "Great American Writer," is thisbecause he can so thoroughly describe the small details of everyday life in his story "Tomorrow?"I could imagine having to listen to Mrs. Puritt's long story about the life of Jackson Fentry. Forsuch an uninteresting character his life details were all there. I could remember humoring an oldperson's storytelling, difficult to stay focused on what they're talking about until they mentionan enormous bombshell, in Mrs. Puritt's case, the fact she had no clue what happened to JacksonFentry's baby.Another character Quick, fills in the holes of Mrs. Puritt's story, quite similar to how my cousinsmight share sordid gossip. It's another detailing of the boring Mr. Fentry although you hear moreabout his personal life as you might from someone closer to his age than an elderly Mrs. Puritt. His story is difficult to focus on until the name "Thorpe" is brought up and suddenly things comeinto place. Faulkners story describes not only habits but deep morals upheld by these charactersin their own individual manner. Gavin comes to realize the depth of character the insignificantseeming Fentry has, and realizes he could never have expected Fentry to vote free the man whomurdered the closest thing Fentry ever had to a son.

memento: the musical

No one remembers their lines or dance steps.

The first time I saw Memento was several years ago at a friends house. Immediately the movies unique story telling style attracted me to it. I remember thinking Natalie (Carrie Anne Moss) was an unfeeling monster, and that Teddy/John G. (Joe Patoliano) was trying to help someone at a profit. To see Guy Pearce decide to forget about already exacting his revenge so that he can carry on his life was something I could not understand.
I watched the move repeatedly, at times I owned it. I made it a mission to show it to people who had not heard of it. I preached it in abnormal psychology classes. I saw Memento so much that I really couldn't bring myself to watch it anymore after awhile. Watching it in class was the first time I sat and watched it for at least two years. I don't think I had watched it because the characters all upset me in their own way. To watch it now though seems different. Natalie is less of a manipulative puppetmaster bitch. Natalie was faced with the man who killed her lover, in his clothes, in his car. Teddy/John G. seems almost the same but I dont pitty his fate as much as I had. If he had helped Leonard kill and rekill John G.'s for over a year then to think of the number of lives Leonard was used to destroy is undeterminable. But to see Leonard decide to live in a haze of confusion, seems more human. It shows how his condition was able to persist. Leonard is a flawed individual, every character is. I had held them to a higher standard to do the right thing because Lenny was at a disadvantage to the world. Lenny's condition persisted because it was easier to exist with his condition. It's easier for anyone to keep forgetting bad things.

Who is the Worst Person in Memento?

The film adataption of the story is a confusing, tangled story of revenge. Every character has some good and bad in them. Is Teddy/John G (Joe Patoliano) good for helping a wronged man seek out revenge and peace of mind? Is he wrong for using Leonard (Guy Pearce) and his condition to kill bottom feeding criminals that would merit little investigation into their death. He is serving as a guide for Leonard at the same time he is profiting off of using Leonard as a murder weapon. If he wasn't using Lenny to kill drug dealers, if he wasn't trying to help Lenny gain a sense of accomplishment, would they have crossed the path of Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss?) A woman who has her lover taken from her by means of murder at the hands of Teddy and Lenny.
Does Natalie realize how much she and Leonard have in common? Both had the object of their affection taken from them brutally, both seek out revenge by whatever means. Does Natalie realize how much she has in common with Teddy when she sets out to help Leonard find John G; the murderer of his wife? Does she believe that Leonard is going to kill the man that ruined his life, or the man that ruined hers?
Though these two use manipulation in a good-hearted way, Leonard chooses to live in self decpetion by the end/begining of the movie. He ignores the truth, that he has killed at least one man if not several, that the man trying to resolve his mental block is now the target Leonard chooses to collect facts about. He relies on his condition to erase the memories he doesn't want, and create a life where he has purpose.
The short story was excellent in my opinion, pieces of it coming together like flashes sell the effect of short term memory loss. The theme that keeps comgin back to me in the movie though is self decpetion. Teddy/John G. deceives himself into thinking it's okay to let Lenny kill random men. Natalie deceives herself into thinking making Leonard kill Teddy/John G. will exact revenge for losing her lover. Leonard deceives himself into thinking he is someone who is long gone. Once an insurance claims investigator, now a roaming killer with a mental disorder.

Ole Anderson: Heroic Fatalism or Bi-Polar Case Study?

The Swede Ole Anderson in Hemingway's "The Killers," is described by some as heroic and noble for accepting the end of his road in stoic fashion. For me though, the story seems open to other interpretations.
I genuinely don't know very much about Ernest Hemingway accept that despite a life lived on a very grand scale, he struggled with serious depression. When I read the scene of Anderson and Nick Adams him in the boarding room, I immediately visualized a very melancholy man, a man who would not leave his bed for any circumstances, including imminent death. A man who despite others caring about his own well being he did not. The behavior seemed like that of someone who today would be diagnosed clinically depressed. Today depression is recognized and treated professionally. For Hemingway, treatment consisted of a life with intense highs and crashing lows, fueled by raging alcoholism in Hemingway's case.
My point is, can this story be related to Ernest Hemingway's struggle? The Swede is a boxer, an archetype of physical fitness. Ernest Hemingway was a larger than life fellow who seemed to live every day as an adventure. Could either of these men show weakness by 1920's culture? Could Hemingway be describing one of his depressions; to stay in bed all day trying to decide to get out or not? To not even care if men are coming to kill you? This story gives so many details about the moment, without giving hardly any detail about the characters background.
The story is so short that when it's remakes came out in the 40's and 60's, the back story to this setting changes drastically. The film noir with Burt Lancaster shows The Swede as a boxer who was double crossed by some dame to steal and kill from the mob. The 60's version has Lee Marvin wanting to know what makes a race car driver face his end so valiantly. The versions very in several ways accept that the man who dies is courageous and didn't seem to deserve what was coming,why? Hemingway only gives an account of The Swede's last night, who's to say he didn't have it coming? If the story Hemingway wrote about a time and place can be expanded into a larger story, then that story can be expanded into anything. Maybe hit men have come to kill him for abducting a bus load of children and raping them senselessly. Maybe The Swede did suffer from bi-polar disorder. And if these hit men would have shown up two days earlier or two days later than they did, who's to say The Swede might not have trapped them in his boarding house and burned it to the ground. Maybe Ole Anderson was a lonely depressed hermit, who imagined people at a diner interested in him enough to want to kill or warn him.
I liked the story for the fact that its realness left a lot of details to be undisclosed. The whole story, any story is never totally there. Maybe The Swede was a noble guy who got mixed up with mobsters, maybe he was a child raping murderer, maybe it was just Ernest Hemingway on a low day, waiting fro someone to someone to show up and do him in so he doesn't have to go to the effort.