Dexter Season 8 Episode 12 "Remember The Monsters?"

          At first, I was filled with an interesting combination of rage and sadness by the series finale of Dexter. I felt betrayed by the writers who made Dexter grow and struggle with being "human." The ending I had hoped for was the opposite of what really happened. However, I realized several things in this episode that made me understand the choices behind this final episode of Dexter.
          From the very beginning, Dexter was all about a man who couldn't fit into society. He struggled with girlfriends, his wife, his kids, his sister, and his job because he was a serial killer. He longed to be like everyone else. Slowly, he began to make progress on becoming normal. He had a girlfriend, got married, and had a kid. Dexter began to look like a normal human being. However, the grass is always greener on the other side. Dexter could not handle being normal. It is much easier to not care about others than to love and lose. SPOILERS! Dexter has lost everyone he loves. He killed his brother in season 1. Rita was killed by Trinity at the end of season 4. His step-children wanted nothing to do with him in season 5. Deborah finds out about Dexter at the end of season 6. She then kills LaGuerta and saves Dexter at the end of season 7. At the end of season 8, Dexter mercy kills Deb so she won't be left in a coma, he abandons Harrison and Hannah, quits his job and moves to an isolated location where he cannot hurt anyone else. It is easy to say based on these characters that Dexter has ruined many lives. By learning to be human, he cared for people, made sacrifices for them, and hurt many. This is what he realizes as he drives into the hurricane. Being with Dexter is like being an alcoholic. While it feels good now, the pain will come.
          While I understand the reasons behind the writer's decisions, I am not sure how they should have ended it. I would have enjoyed watching Dexter move to Argentina with Hannah and Harrison and watching Deb finally have a successful relationship with Quinn, but that would have been hard to do while keeping with the themes of the series. I feel like the fans deserved better and while it may have not fit with the rest of the series, the audience would have wanted it to end happily.
          In my mind, there are 3 ways this show could have ended: happily, a big bang, and the mercy kill. For it to end happily, Dexter would have gotten away with Hannah and Harrison, Deb would be with Quinn, and Saxon would be caught or dead. I feel like this is what the audiences wanted. For the big bang ending, Dexter would have gotten caught by Miami Metro, gotten into a huge battle with Saxon, or ended up in prison on the death penalty. While this seems to be the realistic ending, it wouldn't have gone over well. How the show ends is like a mercy kill. The kills weren't satisfying, but they were understood. Everything makes sense mentally, but isn't emotionally satisfying. When it comes to writing stories, I guess I have learned that emotions are more important than facts. If the ending feels good, the audience will learn to get over the flaws and missteps of the writers. However if the show ends with poetic character arcs and logical conclusions, but fails to meet the emotional needs of the audience, then nobody is happy.

The Movie Brats

          What we can learn about the past can directly impact our future. One group of filmmakers known as “The Movie Brats” knew this and applied it to their lives. George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Martin Scorsese were just a few of “The Movie Brats.” They were called this because they were the first major filmmakers to go to school for cinema. They probably took a class or two on Film History which significantly added to their knowledge and success. Instead of going straight into the film industry, they went to major colleges and universities like University of Southern California and University of California, Los Angeles. Here, they gained a great deal of factual knowledge before entering the “real world” along with experience.

          One of the most obvious things that Lucas, Spielberg, and Scorsese have in common is that they are American, they make American movies with American themes. You may be thinking, “Come on. George Lucas’ Star Wars isn’t American themed.” You’re right, but Lucas’ film American Graffiti definitely is. I mean it even has America in the title. Spielberg’s film are also very American. E.T. was a box office hit and is still considered to be a “classic” today. It is set in a small town in Iowa where he makes the audience fall in love with the characters. Probably his 2 most patriotic works are Saving Private Ryan and the TV mini-series Band of Brothers. These films are easily relatable to American Audiences because of our history in World War II. Scorsese’s film Gangs of New York deals with early Americans in the five points. I believe that these locations and themes helped connect American audiences to the films, making them great successes.

          Some movies such as Star Wars, The Departed, and Jaws are not so “in your face” about America. What I believe carried these movies to a global success is the knowledge and talent of “The Movie Brats.” Without their educations, i doubt some of their films would have been as globally iconic.

          Finally, Spielberg and Scorsese have major box office hits dealing with Historical Fiction. Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, and Gangs of New York are clear examples of this. History provides the audience with a sense of familiarity. This can help them become immersed within the story sooner than science fiction movies for example. Also, historical films can help connect the rest of the globe to the movie, thus increasing its success. 

          Since the beginning of film, people, era’s, and film have been categorized. While “The Movie Brats” make up one small category in time, they were globally known for their impact within the film industry. This goes to show that studying and learning form the past can lead to success in your future.

The King's Speech

          When I had first heard of The King’s Speech, I thought the movie sounded incredibly boring. What made me even more upset is the fact that it won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year because I had wanted another film to win instead. In a Film History class, I was forced to watch watch The King’s Speech and was incredibly surprised by how much I actually enjoyed the film. i can now say that The King’s Speech is an outstanding film that deserves its Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay.

          One reason I was originally uninterested in the film was due to the heavy use of British actors and actresses. I had not seen anything with Colin Firth and I felt like I would not be able to connect with his character. I couldn’t be more wrong. As it turns out, Bertie (Firth) and I both hate public speaking. He would get in front of an audience and absolutely freeze. To make matters worse, he had a horrible stuttering problem. While the dialogue, casting, and scripts were great, it was Colin Firth’s performance that made this movie outstanding. Watching Firth’s stutter was marvelous and horrifying. Every scene showed off his immaculate acting skills while making the audience truly feel bad for his character, Bertie. Its performances like these that are both Oscar worthy and remembered for a long time.

          While I was watching The King’s Speech, I thought to myself, “why is this movie rated R?” It was only a few scenes later that I found my answer. One dramatic scene, filled to the brim with expletives, gave The King’s Speech an “R” rating. Usually, scenes like this drive me crazy. They provide a cheap laugh for the audience, but it doesn’t enhance the story. However, The King’s Speech is not your typical movie. This scene was pivotal to both Bertie’s character and the story as a whole. It showed that Bertie would not stutter when he swore. This gave him confidence and also helped contribute to the success of Bertie’s final speech. 

          While it may sound cliche, I walked away from The King’s Speech inspired. The story is not only well told, but it is also based on a true story. There seems to be an added dramatic effect to true stories. The audience seems to be able to relate to the characters more which only helps the film’s success. For example, look at the films Titanic and Saving Private Ryan. If these events had not happened, would the film be as popular, and would we still be able to relate to the character’s situations?

          Overall, The King’s Speech was an incredible movie that deserved its Academy Awards. Colin Firth’s performance, the swearing scene, and the fact that the movie is based on a true story, added to the overall success of the film. I am embarrassed to say that I once thought The King’s Speech would be a boring movie. This just goes to show that opinions can change and first impressions can be very very wrong.

Literary Adaptations and Double Indemnity

          Since the creation of the movies, scripts have been needed in order to create an engaging, successful movie. Many people chose to write original scripts while other chose to write scripts based on novels. When turning a novel into a movie, there are several key issues that need to be examined such as the process of adaptation from novel to screenplay and the faithfulness of the film to the novel.

          While it may seem like an easy process, there are many different steps needed in order to turn a novel into a film. The first step is acquiring the rights to the novel. Legally, this will allow you to write the screenplay. If this step is not followed, the novel’s author could sue you for millions of dollars for plagiarizing his novel. Purchasing rights is usually a very expensive step that can escalade into millions of dollars. However, Stephen King sold the rights to his novella, Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption to Frank Darabont for one dollar. Frank Darabont went and made The Shawshank Redemption, which is the highest rated movie of all time on IMDb.com. This shows that it doesn’t necessarily take a lot of money to secure the rights to a good film.

          After securing the rights, the next step is to write the script and have it approved by a producer, a director, and a studio. Not only does it have to meet their expectations, but it also has to meet the expectations of the fans and the author. In 2005, author Clive Cussler sued Crusader Entertainment for not consulting him on the revised final draft of the script and for allegedly causing the film to flop in the box office. Once the screenplay is approved, it gets put into production where the movie is created.

          The 1944 film Double Indemnity, was originally a novel of the same name written by James M. Cain.  This film is an incredible example of how the novel adaptation process should go. First, Paramount Pictures purchased the rights to Double Indemnity from Cain for $15,000. Billy Wilder took the next step and decided to write the screenplay. Nevertheless, the novel was considered to be impossible to film. The characters and the double suicide ending were considered too immoral to film according to the Hay’s Production Code. To make the script film-able, the characters were toned down and the ending was changed. After watching the film several times, author James M. Cain said, "It's the only picture I ever saw made from my books that had things in it I wish I had thought of. Wilder's ending was much better than my ending, and his device for letting the guy tell the story by taking out the office dictating machine — I would have done it if I had thought of it." Wilder had received one of the highest praises a screenwriter can receive, a commendation from the original writer. Wilder’s successful adaptation is one of the reasons Double Indemnity was so widely praised.

          Overall, the plot of Double Indemnity is the same in the novel, the screenplay, and the film. An insurance salesmen decides to help a client’s wife kill her husband to receive the insurance money. Also, the characters, the setting, and most of the character’s actions and relationships are the same in all three mediums. It is important to the story to keep the movie as faithful as possible to the original novel. If any characters were changed too much, the film may have flopped.

          While they both have to do with creative writing, novels and screenplays are very different pieces of literature. Novels can span hundreds of pages while screenplays usually stay around 110 pages. Screenwriters must condense the novel, which can include erasing and combining characters, plot lines, and entire scenes. For example, the relationship between Walter and Lola remains friendly in the movie Double Indemnity, while in the book, they become romantic. This subplot may have been removed to cut down the movie’s time or to make the film seem more believable.

          Not all changes are necessarily bad. Having the escape car stall on the train tracks was not important to the storyline, but it added tension that was not there in the book. The same applies to the scene when Phyllis almost gets caught by Keys at Walter’s apartment. Some scenes were changed in order to increase the believability of the film. In the novel, Walter sneaks into Phyllis’ car to kill her husband in broad daylight, but in the screenplay and film, Walter sneaks into their car when it is parked in the garage at night. If this had not happened, the story may have seemed less convincing. In addition, the “little man in the chest” was added to Keys’ character in order to describe his detective-like intuition about murder cases. If these few lines of dialogue were omitted from the film, nothing drastic would have changed. However, adding the “little man in the chest” created more of a personality and believability to Keys’ character.

          Because novels, screenplays, and films are all different mediums, they need to be examined and created differently. Adapting a novel into a film is difficult because the writer needs to acquire the rights to the novel, have their screenplay approved, while remaining faithful to the original medium. If time and effort are put into this adaptation process, then successful films such as Double Indemnity are able to be created. 

Chariots of Fire

          Chariots of Fire provides the world with an inspiring Christian world view, a healthy moral compass, and a refreshing religious perspective. Also, the two main characters, Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams have opposite stances when it comes to their motivation, competitiveness, faith, racial pride, and guileless sincerity. This enhances the story and helps make the story world changing.

          Chariots of Fire is a movie with one of the most inspiring Christian world views. It won 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Writing, and was nominated for 3 more. In 2006, The American Film Institute placed Chariots of Fire in a list of the top 100 most inspiring films of all time called AFI’s 100 Years...100 Cheers. This goes to show that the film has had a major cultural impact and has received high praise. Very few movies that have strong Christian themes make such an impact on the world. Because of its strong Christian themes, Christian websites highly recommend Chariots of Fire to teens and adults.

          While the story of Chariots of Fire is incredibly inspirational, it also provides the audience with a healthy moral compass. Eric Liddell, a Scottish missionary and runner, receives one of the highest honors an athlete can achieve: a chance to participate in the Olympics. However, Eric finds out that he must race on a Sunday which contradicts his beliefs in keeping the Sabbath holy. Even though he may never get this chance again, Eric does not compromise his values for his personal desires. He chooses not to compete and receives a lot of criticism for it. Members of the English government try to persuade him otherwise, but Eric Liddell says, “God made countries, God makes kings, and the rules by which they govern. And those rules say that the Sabbath is His. And I for one intend to keep it that way.”

 Eric’s beliefs and motives are pure which makes him the perfect moral compass for the film. 

          Not only does Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire provide the audience with a healthy moral compass, but he also has a unique religious perspective. Eric is an extremely committed Christian. He served as a missionary in China but also serves God through his running. He doesn’t think that God will make him faster and be able to win, but wants to praise God through his actions. One of the best moments in the film is when Eric Liddell says, “I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure.” This shows that Eric runs for God because God is the one who gave him the gift of running fast. Eric’s dedication to his faith is tested when he has to compete on a Sunday. Instead of thinking of himself on the Sabbath, he honors God and does not compete.

          Liddell and Abrahams are both incredibly motivated individuals. However, they are motivated for different reasons. Liddell runs for God as an act of worship because God made him fast. Liddell feels that he would be wasting a gift that God has given him if he did not run. On the other hand, Abrahams runs to win and to fit into Anglo-Saxon society. As a Jew, Abrahams feels persecuted and shamed by the world. In order to fit in with society, he must win his races. This begins when he attempts to beat a sprinting record at Cambridge. After he succeeds, he feels like he fits into society. Winning becomes everything to Abrahams. Eventually he says, “If I can’t win, I won’t run,” which perfect shows the motivation of Abrahams.

          Along with their motivations, Liddell and Abrahams are competitive in different ways. Liddell is a good sport while Abrahams will do anything to win. Before each race, Eric Liddell walks up to each of his opponents and shakes their hands. He wants everyone to run their bests and to be fair. Later on, Eric is pushed down and out of the race. Instead of easily giving up, Liddell gets back up, perseveres and continues racing. A similar instance happens in the film Cool Runnings. In the end of Cool Runnings, the Jamaican bobsled team crashes at the bottom of the bobsled run. Slowly, the team crawls out of their bobsled and carries it across the finish line as an act of perseverance, determination, and good sportsmanship. While Abrahams is not a bad sport, he is not a good sport either. After Liddell beats him for the first time, Abrahams is terrified of losing. He focuses all of his energy on how he can beat Eric Liddell and fails to consider that maybe Liddell is a better athlete than him. 

          The faiths of the two main competitors are very interesting and unique. Abrahams is Jew who views running as a weapon against his past and his faith. He places his faith not within Judaism but within his own talents. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Eric Liddell. Liddell is a dedicated Christian who stands up for his beliefs, will not back down, and is not embarrassed of his views. Unlike Abrahams, Eric is at peace and in harmony with who he is. At one point in Chariots of Fire, the Prince of Wales tries to convince and reason with Eric to compete on a Sunday, but Eric refuses. A similar occurrence happens in the movie 300. In 300, King Leonidas is reasoned with by King Xerxes to stop fighting and pledge allegiance to Xerxes. Even when he is offered wealth and power beyond all measure, King Leonidas refuses and stands for his beliefs. The refusal of a higher authority proves that Eric Liddell’s faith means a lot to him and is extremely strong.

          Eric “The Flying Scotsman” Liddell is very proud of is heritage. As an Olympic athlete and gold medal winner, Eric has a sense of pride for his country that few can relate to. While Olympians represent themselves, they also represent their country. Scotland chose both Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams to compete for them in the 1924 Olympics. After Liddell refused to race on a Sunday, the Prince of Wales questioned Liddell’s allegiances to England and Scotland. Liddell responded perfectly and said that God comes before his country and not the other way around. On the other hand, Harold Abrahams has very little racial pride. Abrahams is a Jew who wants to hide his heritage by competing and winning races in the Olympics. Embarrassed of who he is, Abrahams races to victory, hoping people will overlook his heritage and consider him normal. Because of this, Harold Abrahams is a very bad example of racial pride.

          When talking about guileless sincerity, Eric Liddell is the most genuine person in Chariots of Fire. Eric does not change anything about himself in order to fit in with society. He stands up for his beliefs and truly cares for others. This is also shown in the scene when he shakes his opponents hands. On the other hand, Abrahams is exactly opposite Liddell. Abrahams wants to change his heritage by winning medals and races. He is running in order to be someone else while Liddell runs in order to be himself.

          Chariots of Fire is one of the few Christian themed movies that has become a major success in the secular world. People everywhere know of Eric Liddell and his dedication to his beliefs. Chariots of Fire provides the world with an inspiring Christian world view, a healthy moral compass, and an amazing religious perspective. Furthermore, Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams are two characters worth examining because of their motivations, competitiveness, faiths, racial pride, and guileless sincerity. It is for these reasons that Chariots of Fire is one of the greatest and most inspiring movies of all time.

Casablanca

          Over the course of history, films have always had mixed reviews. However, I think I have found one movie that is the exception: Casablanca. I have scoured the internet for negative reviews of this movie and came up almost completely empty handed. Almost everyone views Casablanca as one of the best films of all time. After all, it is ranked #3 on AFI’s 100 Years... 100 Movies - 10th Anniversary Edition list. I am now taking on the impossible task of arguing why Casablanca should not be regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time.

          In summary, Casablanca is about a man named Rick (Humphrey Bogart) who runs a popular gin joint in Casablanca, Morocco during World War II. One day, a former lover of his, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) shows up in his bar with her husband Victor (Paul Henreid). The couple asks Rick to provide them with safe passage from Nazi controlled Europe to America. Rick must decide if he wants to help the couple escape, attempt to rekindle his relationship with his old lover, or let the couple die in Casablanca.

          Overall, the plot of the film is mediocre. Because Casablanca was created in another era, the style of writing, acting, and directing was completely different from today. The writing is very dialogue heavy and very boring. Aaron Sorkin, writer of The Newsroom, Moneyball, The Social Network, The West Wing, and A Few Good Men, writes extremely dialogue heavy screenplays, but he manages to make them fast paced and interesting. 

          One of the most important features in creating a successful drama is making the audience care about the characters. Blake Snyder, author of the book “Save The Cat!,” says, “...liking the person we go on a journey with is the single most important element in drawing us into the story.” One way to do this is through a “save the cat” scene. Snyder says, “It’s the scene where we meet the hero and the hero does something -- like saving a cat -- that defines who he is and makes us, the audience, like him.”

          One of my biggest problems with Casablanca is that I feel absolutely no emotional connection to Rick. There is no moment in the film where I feel like rooting for him. Rick has a broken heart over a girl, but I am unable to sympathize with his emotions because the relationship between the character and the audience never began. Casablanca had the chance to fix this problem early on in the movie, but the “save the cat” scene happened about half way into the film. By not including a “save the cat” scene early on, the movie failed to emotionally connect the characters with the audience.

          For example, a young couple is trying to acquire visa’s to leave Casablanca, but they have run out of money. They go to Rick for help who tells them to place all of their chips on the roulette table on 22 black. The croupier hears Rick say this, and lets the couple win twice in a row. This simple scene shows that Rick truly has compassion for others. If this scene happened within the first few minutes of Casablanca I may have felt more connected to Rick and thus enjoyed the movie more.

          Casablanca has been said to be perfectly cast, but I couldn’t disagree more. Bogart and Bergman play their parts adequately, but I find it hard to enjoy watching Bogart’s acting. Bogart felt stiff when playing Rick; his lines seemed a little forced, and his performance felt fake. Casting great actors such as Ronald Reagan (who was almost casted) or Jimmy Stewart could have fixed this problem.

          Along with mediocre acting comes mediocre directing. Casablanca’s director, Michael Curtiz has been criticized for only focusing on the visual aspect of a film, while overlooking the story and characters. Aljean Harmetz has quoted Curtiz saying, "Who cares about character? I make it go so fast nobody notices," in Harmetz’s book, Round Up The Usual Suspects: The Making of “Casablanca”. This clearly shows that Michael Curtiz was an ignorant, amateur director. On the other hand, director Howard Hawks perfectly described his job when he said, “I'm a storyteller, that's the chief function of a director. And they're moving pictures, let's make 'em move!”

          The only positive thing that Casablanca has, is its cultural relevance. Released in the middle of World War II, the film was able to connect with many audiences. If the film were released a few years earlier or later, I am certain that its overall success would have been poor. During this period of time, the German Expressionism Era, Siegfried Kracauer and mise-en-scene became more popular. Kracauer wrote the book, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, which helped create the foundation of modern film criticism. Also, Casablanca used many examples of film-noir which enhanced many of the emotions in the film, making it more popular. Mise-en-scene, or “what is in the frame,” became more popular with this film. The placement of the lights, actors, and objects in the film made it more dramatic along with creating more of an artistic atmosphere.

          For the most part, Casablanca is loved by everyone and is not criticized for any reason. However, the writing, acting, and directing are mediocre at best and the film is incredibly outdated. In the future, I hope I will learn to appreciate Casablanca, despite my grievances toward the film.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 2 "Sunshine & Frosty Swirl"

          Well episode two starts directly after the conclusion of episode one where Dexter tells Deb he is a serial killer. Dexter follows Deb after she runs from his apartment to vomit in the street. What a perfect reaction. I first noticed that once they started talking to each other, Deb was disgusted by Dexter. She was absolutely horrified that her father taught her adoptive brother how to kill people. This scene must have taken forever to write because it is absolutely flawless. Deb punching Dexter was the perfect reaction to Dexter’s sassy, “well what are you going to do now,” question. It was definitely something Deborah would do.

          I was pleasantly surprised when Deb brought up the topic of rehab. I didn’t expect the episode to head in this direction to happen which made it even more enjoyable. While Harry tried to channel Dexter’s killing toward evil people, Deb is trying to stop it all together. This is perfectly seen when Deb asks Dexter, “If you can channel your urges, why can’t you control them?” We have seen Dexter attempt to stop killing in the past, but he didn’t try hard enough. Now that he has Deb to keep him accountable, maybe he’ll succeed. However, forcing Dexter to enter Deb’s rehab could backfire. Addicts need to enter rehab for themselves otherwise its a lot harder to stay clean. 

          What probably stuck out to me the most was when Deb said she still loved Dexter. She is a Lieutenant at Miami Metro Homicide that loves her serial killer brother. Can you think of anything more genuine and ironic? Sibling love: nothing is better.

          LaGuerta is getting dangerously close to finding out that Travis was murdered. It seems like this happens almost every season. I’m starting to wish that LaGuerta was killed in season one like in the books.

          Deb seems to be replacing Harry and his teachings. The “Code of Deb” has already started with the first two rules: be honest and tell Deb when the Dark Passenger is tempting him.

          I’m not 100% sure what Louis’ role is in the show but he is definitely creepy. I’m pretty sure he knows Dexter’s secret and he’s not afraid of him. Maybe because he’s a serial killer too! Anyway, I hope that LaGuerta will catch onto Dexter but Louis will get caught instead. Its basically the exact same situation that Doakes was in.

          Dexter has taken it upon himself to stop Louis. Instead, he should be honest with Deb and Deb will stop him. Then all of his bases will be covered. However, this obviously wont happen because its the easy way out and it won’t thrilling.

          Well Dexter obviously didn’t choose to go that route after he drugged his sister. Not a smart move dude. Somehow, you managed to not kill Louis and called your drugged up sister for help. I’ve got to say I’m proud. I’m rarely (if ever) proud of Dexter but I am excited that I am. I would say that Dexter is changing but in reality, I highly doubt it. Throughout the whole show, Dexter has barely changed. The code is the same, his method and routines are the same, the only thing that changed was in season four when he realized he could have a family and be a serial killer. Well that ended well didn’t it? I thought Dexter might become religious in season six, but Brother Sam was killed off halfway into the season and things went back to normal. It is a little late to see a radical change in Dexter, but I am completely open to the idea.

          For the first time, we see Ray Stevenson as the main antagonist. He’s charming, business oriented, charismatic, a great actor (unlike Colin Hanks), and a brutal killer. I can’t wait to see where his character goes and how he becomes more evil.

          Overall, Randall the prisoner seemed to hold a lot of the core beliefs and values of this episode. Dexter thought Randall was able to change from being a killer to a normal human being. However, we learned that he just wanted to have a few days of happiness before he killed himself. This could be foreshadowing the ending of Dexter, but it could also be a false ending. Either way, I am excited for this season and what it will bring.