Capturing Room: Film or Book?

I know that technically we weren’t supposed to watch the movie Room, but I was curious to see how they approached the escape scene in the film. I mean, I didn’t watch the entire movie so there’s that. Anyway, if you’re interested here’s the clip for the scene I will be referencing, but I’ll try my best to describe so you don’t have to watch it. Now, let’s get down to business.

We’ve all read the escape scene in Room and each have our own way of imagining it. It’s especially difficult to picture exactly what is happening since the only things we see are through the eyes of five year who has literally no knowledge of anything in the Outside. So, not only are we on the edge of our seats wondering whether Jack will escape, but we are also trying to dissect exactly what is going on. For instance, when Jack jumps out of the truck and is trying to run away, I imagined him jumping off, falling, then running like half a block away and spotting the pedestrian.

In the film, however, everything is similar but wrong in a way. Old Nick isn’t as old as I had imagined and Jack doesn’t have as long of hair as I thought he would. Another thing, I pictured the escape happening at night, but the scene is shot in the middle of the day. When it comes time for Jack to get out of the truck, everything slows down. When I was reading Room, it seemed like everything was happening too fast to really process it and to see everything slow down threw me off.

The filmmakers were probably trying to play up the drama and intensity of the scene by adding slow motion, but I think the quick pace used in the novel actually makes it more realistic. When you are in a confusing and chaotic environment, it’s unlikely that you’re going to remember the details, especially in the case of a five year old. Similarly, by adding the slow motion, it seemed like the filmmakers had to cram in the other details so that the slo mo didn’t make the scene last forever. For instance, what I had imagined as a half block run turned out to be a ten foot stumble.

To clarify, Jack jumps out of the truck, falls, get up, slightly runs 10 feet, is grabbed by Nick, and then suddenly a guy and his dog is right there. That’s another weird thing about the guy and his dog; instead of being bitten by the dog, it’s more the dog barking and jumping and the guy looking confused (understandably). Then, one of the lines that captured the interaction (guy saying, “I don’t like this” and then calling the police) was cut! Rather, the guy just asks some questions and Nick freaks out before leaving.

When comparing these two, it’s clear that the book version is much better. The movie did a great job trying to replicate it but it can’t quite capture exactly what’s going on in Jack’s head without exposing its adult undertones. That’s an aspect of the book that is implied and we as readers work to figure out. In the film, everything is more in your face and it ultimately takes away from the book was trying to accomplish.

Roommates

We’ve just started Room and already I can’t imagine being stuck in their situation for more than a couple of hours. Spending every single day crammed in a small room? I would go crazy. This is not the case for Jack, our main narrator and five year old kid. Due to unfortunate circumstances, he has been forced to exist solely within one room for his entire life, and worst of all, he doesn’t even realize it. Then again, thanks to his ignorance, he is capable of turning this entire room into a universe; one filled with “people” and games that makes every day new and interesting. These “people” I’m speaking of are the everyday objects laying around the room.

AAAAAEverything seems to have a personality and this can especially be seen when Jack is addressing an object. He capitalizes the object’s name and addresses it as a he or she. For example, “I can skateboard on Rocker without holding on to her”  (Donoghue, 8). I’ve underlined the portions of importance, but it is clear to see how Jack thinks of these objects as something more. They are not mere tools or material items; they are items he has grown up with and sees as friends in a sort. Either he addresses them as people with jobs (e.g. the Thermostat heats up the air) or as friends to play with: “[...] she pulls Clothes Horse out from beside Door and stands him open and I tell him to be strong. I would love to ride him like when I was a baby but I'm so huge now I might break his back” (16).

AAAAAABy seeing these objects as something besides material goods, Jack is able to cope with an otherwise isolationist environment. His brain comes with entertainment in order to maintain its strength and sanity. Additionally, since Jack has only ever seen this room, it’s much easier for him to seek out these countermeasures and have them be successful in distracting him. Adults in similar situations would be unable to accept their surroundings as easily without some sort of “aide” (i.e. malnutrition, drugs, etc.). The only example I can think of in which an adult uses objects as an escape is Tom Hanks character in Castaway, where the protagonist considers a volleyball to be his best friend.

AAAAAAWhile it’s still difficult for me to wrap my head around the fact that Jack has only seen one room his entire life, I understand his techniques to survive in this situation. Having only one person to talk to would drive anyone insane, and since he doesn’t have much opportunity to meet new people, turning objects into friends isn’t that crazy. I’m curious to see how the mother has been able to adapt for so long without this blissful ignorance, but for now, Jack’s world is depressing enough.

God Leaves the Building

In the chapter “The Bicycle”, a cinema with 400 people inside burned down. Marji was at home and having a talk with God. She was thinking about her favorite revolutionaries when God began to question her dream of becoming a prophet. She refuses to talk about it and tells God to quiet down when she hears her parents talking about the cinema and the following demonstration. Marji decides she wants to be a part of the protest and imagines herself as some of her favorite revolutionaries. At the very moment she starts dressing up as Che Guevara, God leaves and she can’t find him. Undeterred, she marches into her parents room and begs to join the demonstration but is denied. She returns to her room and still cannot find God.
AAAAI think this chapter highlights a very important theme in the novel and that is the clear distinction between politics and religion. What I wanted to point out was the fact that God is with Marji up until the point she wants to demonstrate. The very moment she dresses up as a revolutionary, God leaves. This doesn’t she desires to leave the religion but rather the religion is not a part of the revolution. Yes, they are Islamic fundamentalists are fighting for their religion but the ideals of that religion are not being represented. The order of God is being disrupted by the chaos of man.
AAAABy showing God leaving this scene, it’s marking a transition within Marji from her desire to be a prophet days to a more politically forward and aggressive Marji. Once she makes that step it is hard to go back, as seen when she returns from her parent’s room and can not find God. She still clearly wants God in her life but can’t balance it with her idea of justice. This is especially clear when she starts identifying God with political figures (e.g. Marx). By beginning to associate God with politics, her view of religion might change. It’s still too early to see where this headed but I hypothesize that eventually Marji will be to caught up in social issues to have time to keep in touch with God.

Smells Like Teen Spirit

AAAAEver since the beginning of A Lesson Before Dying, we’ve been talking about how Grant isn’t an adult but really an overgrown adolescent. He’s snappy, lazy, and kind of self centered. The only thing that separates him from the kids he teaches is the fact that he holds the stick. However, as he talks to Jefferson more and more often, I’ve noticed a change in his behavior; he’s beginning to understand that change is possible in an unchanging world.

Up until this point, Grant has been a firm believer in the idea that everything is a cycle and nothing really matters. You can see this in the way he treats God. Yes, there is God but there isn’t a heaven. So, while God did create everything and is responsible for everyone’s lives, all that disappears after you die because there is no heaven and thus everything was for nothing. Using this reasoning, it would make sense for Grant to want to escape. If nothing good can be found here, then why not try somewhere else?

This is characteristic of the everyday teen; they just want to get away. Yet, it’s the fact that someone as young as Jefferson is able to adjust to a horrible situation in such mature way that finally opens Grant’s eyes. Yes, life isn’t great and things are still terrible for the African American community, but Jefferson is willing to stand tall and claim his humanity to prove that nothing can tear him down, not even the system. When Jefferson finally admits “Yes, I am youman”, Grant can clearly see the transformation in Jefferson.

In seeing this change, Grant’s goal to run away and escape seems so pathetic. Here is this boy, coming to terms with his death and embracing the role of a hero for his community. Grant, who previously thought this change would be impossible, is a firsthand witness to this transformation. I think by seeing this example, Grant can hopefully become the responsible and mature adult that his community and his students desperately need.

Anse is a Hypocrite

AAAAAAAI’ve had conflicted feelings about Anse ever since he was first introduced as a character. His wife has died and he wants to fulfill her last wish: to be buried in Jefferson. At first, it seemed like the honorable thing to do and I thought, “Oh, he seems like a decent guy.” But then, he says this "God's will be done . . . now I can get them teeth." Suddenly, this huge, emotional journey is transformed into an errand run. What makes this worse is that he criticizes his children (also with hidden agendas) for bringing the cake box and tool box and continues being “emotionally distraught”.

AAAAAAAAnother thing, Anse does nothing for the entirety of the novel. Often citing his injury as an excuse, Anse usually sits around and thinks about things rather than contributing in any way. When he does put in the effort, he bumbles through the task and turns out to be more of a hindrance than a help. For example, when he tries to help Cash and Tull assemble the coffin, he ends up getting in their way and just goes back to sitting on his porch. The only real thing he contributes to the journey is when he, without permission, steals money from Cash (whose unconscious), sells Jewel’s horse, and “borrows” from Dewey Dell. Even then, this isn’t him sacrificing anything. He is stealing from his children for his own selfish goal: getting his teeth.

AAAAAAAI can’t think of Anse as a hero in this story because he actually does nothing. Sure, he is the one who initiates the journey and wants to bury Addie, but everything has a double meaning. In this case, the real reason behind going to Jefferson is just not heroic in my eyes. If he really cared completely and unselfishly about Addie’s death, he would have at least treated her body with more respect. Throughout the journey, she has holes punched through her head, she is thrown into a river, and by the time they reach her final destination, her stench encompasses anything within 50 feet of her body.

AAAAAAAAnd, finally, during the funeral scene, Anse really doesn’t reach that final goodbye stage. He simply buries the body and moves on. It’s extremely underwhelming. The entire time he’s been saying how Addie needed to be buried in Jefferson because it was the right thing to do and basically getting emotional when he thinks about her. Then, just to have Anse bury Addie then quickly go get his teeth, everything seems off. Shouldn’t there be at least a few tears? I don’t know if Faulkner trying his hand at comedy when he created the hypocritical Anse, but I find it decidedly unfunny.

Penny - Yay or Nay?

Let’s talk about Penny. In O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Ulysses Everett McGill escapes from a chain gang, runs from the authorities, becomes a radio star, survives being attacked and mugged, saves a man from being lynched, and ruins a political campaign just to return to his wife. And her response to his labors? Only accept him once he finds her ring, which is now at the bottom of a very deep lake and thus sending him on another quest.

Penny is the type of woman who has all the control in the relationship. I mean, she counted to three. She makes her own decisions and bases them on what’s right for her and her children. While she does come off as aggravating in the film, I can’t say I wouldn’t make the same decisions if I were her. Up until he becomes a radio star, Everett is a lost cause. She’s got seven mouths to feed and as a woman in the 1930s, money is hard to come by. So, it makes sense that when he returns, she sticks with the “bona fide” suitor instead of instantly switching teams.

However, her “supposed” loyalty doesn’t last long. As soon as she discovers Everett is a star, she ditches her boo in favor of him (OR she realizes her boo no longer has a job and decides to switch but same idea). Then, she goes the extra mile of demanding that Everett be the one to prove his love by finding her ring. Nevermind the fact that is literally impossible for Everett to get that ring unless he invests in scuba diving lessons. She remains completely stubborn about the idea that she will not get with Everett until that ring is returned.

I think my main problem with Penny is that she is so obviously self serving and refuses to see logic. Actually, sidenote, it’s kind of funny how Everett is supposed to be this man of logic and reasoning but he’s married to a woman who sticks to her guns even if evidence to the contrary is presented (i.e. the ring and the lake). Similarly, unlike her book counterpart, she has no loyalty to her husband. From what I understand, it’s been one year since Everett left, and she already has a new man. While Penelope waited years for her husband to return, Penny doesn’t seem to spare a second thought for Everett.

I just get this sense at the end of the film that Everett’s reunion (and general relationship) with Penny can never be truly happy or as emotional as the one Odysseus has with the Penelope. While there are cons to Penelope’s character, her reunion with Odysseus fit the hero’s journey arc much better than Penny and Everett’s in that it’s clearly a happy ending. With Penny, things seem to always be up in the air.

Violence in The Odyssey and Modern Media

AAAAIn class, we discussed the use of violence in The Odyssey and whether it’s necessary in the fight against the suitors. I am here to argue a simple point: yes. You can not have an epic poem without a climax nor can you deny the buildup that has been collecting since the very beginning. If the suitors are the “villains” in this case, then they gotta go and if that includes mindless slaughter, then so be it. Never mind the fact that “some” may be innocent or that the crime doesn’t justify the punishment, we are all here to see Odysseus kick some ass.

AAA It’s impossible to put logic into the slaughter scene. If the main character were to pause and actually think things through, it ruins the flow of the story and reduces the satisfaction of Odysseus’s return. No one wants to see Odysseus meet with each, individual suitor and question them on their loyalty and behavior. That would take forever and over complicate the plot. With revenge stories, it’s best to keep it simple: either they’re innocent or guilty. In most cases, guilty equals glorious battle.

AAA So, it’s not surprising that this theme is very common in modern film. In Oldboy, a man spends 15 years in isolation and after he escapes, he goes on a huge murder spree to get vengeance against his captor (and features one of the best fight scenes in cinematic history*). Similarly, Taken focuses solely on Liam Neeson killing everyone in his path to try and save his daughter. Both of these films depend largely on violence as means for the hero to be victorious. While watching these films, no one considers, “Geez, he just brutally killed that guy. I mean the poor dude probably just wanted a paycheck.” No, let’s be honest, we all get distracted by the punching and kicking and general coolness of the fight scenes.

AAAEven at a young age, the final battle has always been essential to the hero’s journey. For example, The Lion King. The climax of the film is when Simba returns from the forest to avenge his father. What follows is a dramatic scene of lion versus hyena and the confrontation between Scar and Simba. As an audience, we want to clearly see Simba’s victory and without a final battle, that would be hard to achieve. Additionally, we can draw comparisons to the almost unjustifiable ways each villain (or villains in The Odyssey) are killed. While Odysseus kills some suitors who may be loyal (?), Simba outright throws Scar off a cliff to be eaten by hyenas. What’s unjustifiable about that? I mean, Scar did do a lot of evil things in the film. Well, for one, it’s a kid movie! Such a violent death is not normal for these types of things. Also, Scar also has some merit. He tried to give the hyenas a better life, as in not let them starve to death. So, just like with the suitors, some of Scars actions are not entirely ill intended.

AAAAfter all is said and done, I think the massacre at the end of The Odyssey comes down to one thing: Homer wants a dramatic and exciting ending. If that includes killing a 100 people, then so be it. You kill those men, Odysseus. We’ve waited over 400 pages for this.

*Graphic content (violence)