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)