Nightcrawler - 9/10 awesome, Jake G great acting
Tusk - 3/10 Noooooooooo, went in thinking it was a comedy
Big Hero 6 - 8/10 Great stuff
Time Lapse - 6/10 Interesting start reminded me a little of Shallow Grave somehow
Enemy - 7/10 What the H did I just watch? Lots of discussion to be had after this.
Coherence - 6/10 - Need to watch again very confusing
Interstellar - 8/10 Nice
Timecrimes - 7/10 - Interesting Spanish film about how messed up time travel can get
John Wick - 5/10 - No brainer action, he does like to ensure they stay dead..
Into the Woods - 1/10 - Truly awful, the 1 rating is for Johnny Depp's wolf.
Gambit (2012) - I wonder how drunk the Coens must've been to have written this thing. That and the only other thing that kept me awake during this 'comedy' was wondering how much Colin Firth resembles Fabio Capello.
Into The Woods - 5/10
Suprised it was a musical(never heard of it before) all the singing but I actually enjoyed it found it quite funny . The last 50mins I found made it drag to the point where I just wanted it to end. I'm not sure I'd watch it again maybe the first half.
Films I've seen recently... Minor allusions to spoilers
The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015) ***
The title of this film is a review in and of itself essentially. The first film was a terrific lot of fun, and acted like a coming-of-age film told from the unique perspective of people notably older. It had some terrific messages, and was an honest love-letter to India whilst it was at it, with some rather well-crafted characters and stories to tell that were altogether not too taxing at all, but rather rewarding in fact.
A lot of that seems lost in the sequel. The Indian setting is taken for granted this time around, and isn't as wondrous, beautiful and chaotic as it was before. It's just there. As is the case for the characters... it's not so much the destination as the journey is a message uttered at one point in the film... but the film itself seems to forget that. It focuses on this wedding that I come to care little about (as the Sonni character borders on an extremity of annoying throughout the whole film) and in doing so fails to tell a story that weaves the other characters together. There is this terrific ensemble of fantastic actors, and part of the charm of the original was seeing them all together at once. This films only true deviation from the formula was that is spends most of the time keeping them split up, telling seperate stories. The plots aren't at all interwoven but merely happening at the same time, the second hotel of the title barely features and that particular plot is wrapped up extremely quickly with a bit of a convenient cop-out, whilst other plot lines are left hanging altogether...literally without explanation or conclusion.
I didn't expect much from this film... and it didn't need to be a complex, well-woven tale. But it trades in the charm and poignance of the original for...well little else, really. It just lacks those things. That said the cast is still mostly brilliant - with the exception of Dev Patel who was just infuriating by the mid-point (and Penelope Wilton's character is also more awful this time around, though not a slight on the actress). Maggie Smith was probably the real star of this one whilst Celia Imrie probably gets the best, most subtle and therefore also the most developmental and poignant scene of the film. Bill Nighy deserved more time, as did Judi Dench probably (though her exploits in the sequel were far less interesting or special in the sequel) but they had to squeeze Richard Gere in who does his best with paper-thin amounts of things to do.
It's patchy, it's too episodic, but at the same time it's harmless. And the characters are still endearing enough to carry it through to the end. Ultimately I just cannot truly dislike it as it has enough of what made the first film to work... it's just... second best by name, and by nature.
Big Hero 6 (2014) ****
If this is how Disney plans to bring Marvel content into its main range, then it's definitely a good start. Big Hero 6 is something that little bit different, and a reminder of how varied Disney can be.
The animation here is absolutely brilliant. Whilst I'd argue that what Dreamworks has achieved with Rise of the Guardians and How To Train Your Dragon is both more beautiful and impressive, Big Hero 6 brings that unique cartoon vibrance that makes Disney special.
The characters are a mixed and varied bunch, but with so many some feel a bit under-developed come the end. In fact it's probably the only great downfall of the film - four of the 'big hero's' never really get more than a few signature scenes in the film, and even the villain of the piece becomes utterly predictable when only two suspects are brought up and the story really drums it in how certain you should be that it is one in particular (it therefore being, shock horror, the other guy). The two leads deserve a mention though, as Baymax is just brilliant in design and character, whilst I'm also glad Disney finally had the guts to feature a "cool male kid" who also had the capacity to cry.
There were some great messages in the film, a couple of jokes that likely go over the kids heads too for good measure, and the post-credits scene is a lot of fun too. Perhaps Disney will consider investing in a sequel for this one - there's definitely scope for one, that's for sure.
Into the Woods (2014) ****
The musical from which this film derives seems to be a bit of a big deal in the USA, though it either isn't over here in the UK or I've just somehow remained ignorant of it for a long time.
Into the Woods is a very decent film, I just feel that the premise behind it had a lot more potential than it actually realised. It seems a hard film to sell given the massive tonal shift later on in the film. I feel perhaps that tonal shift was poorly timed - it would have worked better either earlier on at the half way point so it felt like a more distinctive direction, or later on in the film so it was more of a twist ending. As it does happen, it feels a little too long to be an ending but a little too rushed in to be as effective as it wants to be. As a final kick whilst the ending is down, the giant seemed poorly done as well. But perhaps the biggest flaw was the lack of a clear message - which is odd as it's usually what Disney is so good at. The closest it gets is the 'be careful what you wish for' route, also covering the theme of consequences of actions. This one works except for with Rapunzel and her prince - I feel perhaps the blinding fate he faces is something that should have been kept that way. Beauty is blind after all.
The film as a whole though is really rather good, held together by a handful of songs that really stand out as something rather special above the rest. The opening song is essentially a fifteen minute piece, broken in half by a fantastic 'witch's rap' - Meryl Streep steals the piece here, and is similarly fantastic and emotive in one of the closing numbers 'Last Midnight'. Another highlight comes from the two Princes, with the song Agony. Chris Pine is simply superb here, somehow managing to ham and cheese up his role as Prince Charming without losing a shred of dignity for it - he and Streep were the two absolute highlights of this film even if he didn't quite get as much to do as I'd hoped, and Streep also gets less to do than expected.
There's some unexpected twists and turns throughout, some of them genuinely creepy when you remember this is a House of Mouse film - it features Johnny Depp in a brief role as what is a thinly veiled pedophile, and it's got to be the first Disney film to use the word 'raping' in it shortly before getting Meryl Streep to suggestively sing to us that we should 'see her nectarines'.
The costumes were brilliant, the effects were okay, the acting and singing from all involved was sublime. The songs themselves aren't of the kind you'll likely sing along to on the way out of the cinema, but of the variety that actually endeavours to tell the story just as much as the dialogue does. For the most part it's successful at that, and for anyone who relistens to the songs those I mentioned are among those that very quickly do become a little catchy.
On a down note, I must have been one of the only people who didn't really care for the short-film, Feast, shown beforehand. Maybe it's because I don't care for food, and I'm more of a cat-person
Being an impostor has a long history with literally dozens, perhaps 100s, of examples. The first one in my lifetime that came to my knowledge was The Great Impostor. It was a 1961 movie based on the true story of an impostor named Ferdinand Waldo Demara. Loosely based on Robert Crichton's 1959 biography of the same name, it starred Tony Curtis in the title role. In 1959, I was 15, and an all-star baseball player in the little town where I had grown-up in Ontario's Golden Horseshoe. I was in love with at least two girls who knew nothing of my affections, and I joined the Baha'i Faith. I was the only youth between the cities of Toronto and Hamilton along Lake Ontario.
Catch Me If You Can is a 2002 American biographical crime drama film based on the life of Frank Abagnale. Before his 19th birthday, Abagnale successfully performed cons worth millions of dollars. I watched the film last night1 more than a dozen years after it was released into cinemas. I was in the first years of my 70s after taking an early retirement, a sea-change, and reinventing myself as a writer and author, online blogger and journalist. After watching the film, I made a brief study of the history of impostors and, then, wrote this prose-poem.
Part 1.1:
The film deals with themes of broken homes and troubled childhoods, but these themes play a minor key in the overall plot with its fast pace and entertaining storyline. Abagnale posed as a Pan American World Airways pilot, a Georgia doctor, and a Louisiana parish prosecutor. His primary crime was check fraud; he became so experienced that the FBI eventually turned to him to help in catching other check forgers.
The film was directed by Steven Spielberg and starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks. Development for the film started in 1980 when I was finally stabilized on medication for my bipolar disorder at the age of 35.
Progress on the film began to take-off in 1997 when the film rights to Abagnale’s book were sold to Spielberg's company DreamWorks. By then, in the late 1990s, I was heading for retirement at the age of 55 after a 50 year student and paid employment life, 1949 to 1999.
Part 2:
The film was a financial and critical success, and the real Abagnale reacted positively to it. Abagnale wrote back in 2002, before the film was released, that: "I feel it is necessary to make the following statement concerning the book and the film, Catch Me If You Can. The reasons for this statement is to provide clarification and accuracy. I wrote the book, Catch Me If You Can, in the late 1970s more than a dozen years after I had given-up my life of crime. The book was written from my perspective as a 16-year old in the early 1960s with the help of a co-writer. I'm now 54 and I sold the movie rights in 1980.
I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted. He always reminded me that he was just telling a story and not writing my biography. This is one of the reasons that from the very beginning, I insisted the publisher put a disclaimer in the book and tapes.
It has been reported that I had written $10 million, $8 million and $5 million worth of bad checks. The actual amount was $2.5 million. I was never on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List as this is reserved for very violent criminals who pose a threat to society.
All of the crimes I committed were when I was between the ages 16 and 21. I served time in prison in France, Sweden and the United States. In the U. S. Federal Court, I was sentenced as a youthful offender because of my age at the time the crimes were committed. Even so, I was given 12 years of which I served a total of five years. This was considered harsh punishment then and almost unheard of today.
Part 2.1:
I have been married for over 25 years and I am the proud father of three sons. When I was 28 years old, I thought it would be great to have a movie about my life, but when I was 28, like when I was 16, I was egotistical and self-centered. We all grow up.
Hopefully we get wiser. Age brings wisdom and fatherhood changes one's life completely. I consider my past immoral, unethical and illegal. It is something I am not proud of. I am proud that I have been able to turn my life around and in the past 25 years, helped my government, my clients, thousands of corporations and consumers deal with the problems of white collar crime and fraud.
I know that Hollywood has made a number of changes to the story, but I am honoured that Steven Spielberg, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks participated in the making of the movie inspired by my life. It is important to understand that it is just a movie… not a biographical documentary.2-Ron Price with thanks to 1ONE TV, 9:00-12:00 pm, 2/3/'15; and 2Frank W. Abagnale, Webpost, September 3, 2002
Part 2.2:
Making bio-pics, and writing
biographies, autobiographies,
memoires, journals & diaries
can result in exaggeration, &
over-dramatization. Writers,
& film-makers play with the
facts for the sake of reading
or viewing pleasure.1 .....So
a documentary is not made
but, rather, a smooth-funny
and friendly film with color,
smartness, a brisk-tempo, &
every impulse subordinated
to the task of manufacturing
pleasure for millions & me!
1 Abagnale reported. "I hope in the end the movie will be entertaining, exciting, and funny. I hope, too, that it will bring home an important message about family, childhood and divorce". Spielberg stated that: "there are many strands in the film that clearly say something about me; I can portray some of my autobiography through the telling of this light-hearted story".
Part 3.1:
As I wrote the above I was reminded of some of the sociological theory I taught in the last decade of my teaching career in the 1990s. I was reminded especially of dramaturgy, a sociological perspective starting from symbolic interactionism and commonly used in microsociological accounts of social interaction in everyday life. The term was first adapted into sociology from the theatre by Erving Goffman. He developed most of the related terminology and ideas in his 1959 book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Kenneth Burke, whom Goffman would later acknowledge as an influence, had earlier presented his notions of dramatism in 1945, which in turn derives from Shakespeare. However, the fundamental difference between Burke's and Goffman's view is that Burke believed that life was in fact theatre, whereas Goffman viewed theatre as a metaphor. If we imagine ourselves as directors observing what goes on in the theatre of everyday life, we are doing what Goffman called dramaturgical analysis, the study of social interaction in terms of theatrical performance.
Part 3.2:
In dramaturgical sociology it is argued that the elements of human interactions are dependent upon time, place, and audience. In other words, to Goffman, the self is a sense of who one is, a dramatic effect emerging from the immediate scene being presented. Goffman forms a theatrical metaphor in defining the method in which one human being presents itself to another based on cultural values, norms, and beliefs. The goal of this presentation of self is acceptance from the audience through carefully conducted performance. If the actor succeeds, the audience will view the actor as he or she wants to be viewed.
Dramaturgical theory suggests that a person's identity is not a stable and independent psychological entity, but rather, it is constantly remade as the person interacts with others. This process is sometimes called "impression management.
Comments
I can imagime myself looking at people on the street very differently after watching this awesome film.
7/10
Oscar winner is a little lacking in plot. I thought Salvador was Stone's best movie of that year.
*******
A Good Day to Die Hard [2013]. Director: John Moore
3/10
A good day to call it a day, Bruce. Yippee-ki-crap.
*******
Savages [2012]. Director: Oliver Stone
6/10
This one has plenty of plot though few surprises. John Travolta effortlessly steals the too few scenes he's in.
Foxcatcher...So boring, decent acting but little more 3/10
Nightcrawler - 9/10 awesome, Jake G great acting
Tusk - 3/10 Noooooooooo, went in thinking it was a comedy
Big Hero 6 - 8/10 Great stuff
Time Lapse - 6/10 Interesting start reminded me a little of Shallow Grave somehow
Enemy - 7/10 What the H did I just watch? Lots of discussion to be had after this.
Coherence - 6/10 - Need to watch again very confusing
Interstellar - 8/10 Nice
Timecrimes - 7/10 - Interesting Spanish film about how messed up time travel can get
John Wick - 5/10 - No brainer action, he does like to ensure they stay dead..
Into the Woods - 1/10 - Truly awful, the 1 rating is for Johnny Depp's wolf.
Pretty creepy and inventive.
I was brought up with Adam Wests Batman so totally different but thoroughly enjoyed it.
2/10
A little gem I found courtesy of Youtube.
1/10 rubbish and the dog death was horrible to watch ruined my night
Switched it off after 45 minutes. Dull.
Suprised it was a musical(never heard of it before) all the singing but I actually enjoyed it found it quite funny . The last 50mins I found made it drag to the point where I just wanted it to end. I'm not sure I'd watch it again maybe the first half.
The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
(2015) ***
The title of this film is a review in and of itself essentially. The first film was a terrific lot of fun, and acted like a coming-of-age film told from the unique perspective of people notably older. It had some terrific messages, and was an honest love-letter to India whilst it was at it, with some rather well-crafted characters and stories to tell that were altogether not too taxing at all, but rather rewarding in fact.
A lot of that seems lost in the sequel. The Indian setting is taken for granted this time around, and isn't as wondrous, beautiful and chaotic as it was before. It's just there. As is the case for the characters... it's not so much the destination as the journey is a message uttered at one point in the film... but the film itself seems to forget that. It focuses on this wedding that I come to care little about (as the Sonni character borders on an extremity of annoying throughout the whole film) and in doing so fails to tell a story that weaves the other characters together. There is this terrific ensemble of fantastic actors, and part of the charm of the original was seeing them all together at once. This films only true deviation from the formula was that is spends most of the time keeping them split up, telling seperate stories. The plots aren't at all interwoven but merely happening at the same time, the second hotel of the title barely features and that particular plot is wrapped up extremely quickly with a bit of a convenient cop-out, whilst other plot lines are left hanging altogether...literally without explanation or conclusion.
I didn't expect much from this film... and it didn't need to be a complex, well-woven tale. But it trades in the charm and poignance of the original for...well little else, really. It just lacks those things. That said the cast is still mostly brilliant - with the exception of Dev Patel who was just infuriating by the mid-point (and Penelope Wilton's character is also more awful this time around, though not a slight on the actress). Maggie Smith was probably the real star of this one whilst Celia Imrie probably gets the best, most subtle and therefore also the most developmental and poignant scene of the film. Bill Nighy deserved more time, as did Judi Dench probably (though her exploits in the sequel were far less interesting or special in the sequel) but they had to squeeze Richard Gere in who does his best with paper-thin amounts of things to do.
It's patchy, it's too episodic, but at the same time it's harmless. And the characters are still endearing enough to carry it through to the end. Ultimately I just cannot truly dislike it as it has enough of what made the first film to work... it's just... second best by name, and by nature.
Big Hero 6
(2014) ****
If this is how Disney plans to bring Marvel content into its main range, then it's definitely a good start. Big Hero 6 is something that little bit different, and a reminder of how varied Disney can be.
The animation here is absolutely brilliant. Whilst I'd argue that what Dreamworks has achieved with Rise of the Guardians and How To Train Your Dragon is both more beautiful and impressive, Big Hero 6 brings that unique cartoon vibrance that makes Disney special.
The characters are a mixed and varied bunch, but with so many some feel a bit under-developed come the end. In fact it's probably the only great downfall of the film - four of the 'big hero's' never really get more than a few signature scenes in the film, and even the villain of the piece becomes utterly predictable when only two suspects are brought up and the story really drums it in how certain you should be that it is one in particular (it therefore being, shock horror, the other guy). The two leads deserve a mention though, as Baymax is just brilliant in design and character, whilst I'm also glad Disney finally had the guts to feature a "cool male kid" who also had the capacity to cry.
There were some great messages in the film, a couple of jokes that likely go over the kids heads too for good measure, and the post-credits scene is a lot of fun too. Perhaps Disney will consider investing in a sequel for this one - there's definitely scope for one, that's for sure.
Into the Woods
(2014) ****
The musical from which this film derives seems to be a bit of a big deal in the USA, though it either isn't over here in the UK or I've just somehow remained ignorant of it for a long time.
Into the Woods is a very decent film, I just feel that the premise behind it had a lot more potential than it actually realised. It seems a hard film to sell given the massive tonal shift later on in the film. I feel perhaps that tonal shift was poorly timed - it would have worked better either earlier on at the half way point so it felt like a more distinctive direction, or later on in the film so it was more of a twist ending. As it does happen, it feels a little too long to be an ending but a little too rushed in to be as effective as it wants to be. As a final kick whilst the ending is down, the giant seemed poorly done as well. But perhaps the biggest flaw was the lack of a clear message - which is odd as it's usually what Disney is so good at. The closest it gets is the 'be careful what you wish for' route, also covering the theme of consequences of actions. This one works except for with Rapunzel and her prince - I feel perhaps the blinding fate he faces is something that should have been kept that way. Beauty is blind after all.
The film as a whole though is really rather good, held together by a handful of songs that really stand out as something rather special above the rest. The opening song is essentially a fifteen minute piece, broken in half by a fantastic 'witch's rap' - Meryl Streep steals the piece here, and is similarly fantastic and emotive in one of the closing numbers 'Last Midnight'. Another highlight comes from the two Princes, with the song Agony. Chris Pine is simply superb here, somehow managing to ham and cheese up his role as Prince Charming without losing a shred of dignity for it - he and Streep were the two absolute highlights of this film even if he didn't quite get as much to do as I'd hoped, and Streep also gets less to do than expected.
There's some unexpected twists and turns throughout, some of them genuinely creepy when you remember this is a House of Mouse film - it features Johnny Depp in a brief role as what is a thinly veiled pedophile, and it's got to be the first Disney film to use the word 'raping' in it shortly before getting Meryl Streep to suggestively sing to us that we should 'see her nectarines'.
The costumes were brilliant, the effects were okay, the acting and singing from all involved was sublime. The songs themselves aren't of the kind you'll likely sing along to on the way out of the cinema, but of the variety that actually endeavours to tell the story just as much as the dialogue does. For the most part it's successful at that, and for anyone who relistens to the songs those I mentioned are among those that very quickly do become a little catchy.
On a down note, I must have been one of the only people who didn't really care for the short-film, Feast, shown beforehand. Maybe it's because I don't care for food, and I'm more of a cat-person
Stepbrothers 7/10
The Dark Valley (Das finstere Tal) (2014) 6/10
It's about these creatures who keep raising the temperature higher and higher until people start bursting into flames.
It's pretty much exactly the same as spending Christmas in my mother's house.
Being an impostor has a long history with literally dozens, perhaps 100s, of examples. The first one in my lifetime that came to my knowledge was The Great Impostor. It was a 1961 movie based on the true story of an impostor named Ferdinand Waldo Demara. Loosely based on Robert Crichton's 1959 biography of the same name, it starred Tony Curtis in the title role. In 1959, I was 15, and an all-star baseball player in the little town where I had grown-up in Ontario's Golden Horseshoe. I was in love with at least two girls who knew nothing of my affections, and I joined the Baha'i Faith. I was the only youth between the cities of Toronto and Hamilton along Lake Ontario.
Catch Me If You Can is a 2002 American biographical crime drama film based on the life of Frank Abagnale. Before his 19th birthday, Abagnale successfully performed cons worth millions of dollars. I watched the film last night1 more than a dozen years after it was released into cinemas. I was in the first years of my 70s after taking an early retirement, a sea-change, and reinventing myself as a writer and author, online blogger and journalist. After watching the film, I made a brief study of the history of impostors and, then, wrote this prose-poem.
Part 1.1:
The film deals with themes of broken homes and troubled childhoods, but these themes play a minor key in the overall plot with its fast pace and entertaining storyline. Abagnale posed as a Pan American World Airways pilot, a Georgia doctor, and a Louisiana parish prosecutor. His primary crime was check fraud; he became so experienced that the FBI eventually turned to him to help in catching other check forgers.
The film was directed by Steven Spielberg and starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks. Development for the film started in 1980 when I was finally stabilized on medication for my bipolar disorder at the age of 35.
Progress on the film began to take-off in 1997 when the film rights to Abagnale’s book were sold to Spielberg's company DreamWorks. By then, in the late 1990s, I was heading for retirement at the age of 55 after a 50 year student and paid employment life, 1949 to 1999.
Part 2:
The film was a financial and critical success, and the real Abagnale reacted positively to it. Abagnale wrote back in 2002, before the film was released, that: "I feel it is necessary to make the following statement concerning the book and the film, Catch Me If You Can. The reasons for this statement is to provide clarification and accuracy. I wrote the book, Catch Me If You Can, in the late 1970s more than a dozen years after I had given-up my life of crime. The book was written from my perspective as a 16-year old in the early 1960s with the help of a co-writer. I'm now 54 and I sold the movie rights in 1980.
I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted. He always reminded me that he was just telling a story and not writing my biography. This is one of the reasons that from the very beginning, I insisted the publisher put a disclaimer in the book and tapes.
It has been reported that I had written $10 million, $8 million and $5 million worth of bad checks. The actual amount was $2.5 million. I was never on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List as this is reserved for very violent criminals who pose a threat to society.
All of the crimes I committed were when I was between the ages 16 and 21. I served time in prison in France, Sweden and the United States. In the U. S. Federal Court, I was sentenced as a youthful offender because of my age at the time the crimes were committed. Even so, I was given 12 years of which I served a total of five years. This was considered harsh punishment then and almost unheard of today.
Part 2.1:
I have been married for over 25 years and I am the proud father of three sons. When I was 28 years old, I thought it would be great to have a movie about my life, but when I was 28, like when I was 16, I was egotistical and self-centered. We all grow up.
Hopefully we get wiser. Age brings wisdom and fatherhood changes one's life completely. I consider my past immoral, unethical and illegal. It is something I am not proud of. I am proud that I have been able to turn my life around and in the past 25 years, helped my government, my clients, thousands of corporations and consumers deal with the problems of white collar crime and fraud.
I know that Hollywood has made a number of changes to the story, but I am honoured that Steven Spielberg, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks participated in the making of the movie inspired by my life. It is important to understand that it is just a movie… not a biographical documentary.2-Ron Price with thanks to 1ONE TV, 9:00-12:00 pm, 2/3/'15; and 2Frank W. Abagnale, Webpost, September 3, 2002
Part 2.2:
Making bio-pics, and writing
biographies, autobiographies,
memoires, journals & diaries
can result in exaggeration, &
over-dramatization. Writers,
& film-makers play with the
facts for the sake of reading
or viewing pleasure.1 .....So
a documentary is not made
but, rather, a smooth-funny
and friendly film with color,
smartness, a brisk-tempo, &
every impulse subordinated
to the task of manufacturing
pleasure for millions & me!
1 Abagnale reported. "I hope in the end the movie will be entertaining, exciting, and funny. I hope, too, that it will bring home an important message about family, childhood and divorce". Spielberg stated that: "there are many strands in the film that clearly say something about me; I can portray some of my autobiography through the telling of this light-hearted story".
Part 3.1:
As I wrote the above I was reminded of some of the sociological theory I taught in the last decade of my teaching career in the 1990s. I was reminded especially of dramaturgy, a sociological perspective starting from symbolic interactionism and commonly used in microsociological accounts of social interaction in everyday life. The term was first adapted into sociology from the theatre by Erving Goffman. He developed most of the related terminology and ideas in his 1959 book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Kenneth Burke, whom Goffman would later acknowledge as an influence, had earlier presented his notions of dramatism in 1945, which in turn derives from Shakespeare. However, the fundamental difference between Burke's and Goffman's view is that Burke believed that life was in fact theatre, whereas Goffman viewed theatre as a metaphor. If we imagine ourselves as directors observing what goes on in the theatre of everyday life, we are doing what Goffman called dramaturgical analysis, the study of social interaction in terms of theatrical performance.
Part 3.2:
In dramaturgical sociology it is argued that the elements of human interactions are dependent upon time, place, and audience. In other words, to Goffman, the self is a sense of who one is, a dramatic effect emerging from the immediate scene being presented. Goffman forms a theatrical metaphor in defining the method in which one human being presents itself to another based on cultural values, norms, and beliefs. The goal of this presentation of self is acceptance from the audience through carefully conducted performance. If the actor succeeds, the audience will view the actor as he or she wants to be viewed.
Dramaturgical theory suggests that a person's identity is not a stable and independent psychological entity, but rather, it is constantly remade as the person interacts with others. This process is sometimes called "impression management.
Ron Price
3/3/'15.