The Culture Enthusiast

"Melinda and Melinda" starts with four friends arguing over dinner if life is in its essence comic or tragic. One of them begins telling a story and two of the friends shape it in a comedy and in a drama respectively. The movie is therefore half comedy, half drama.

The movie seems to ask: is it possible to tell the same story in both tragic and funny ways? And then, is it possible for any real life event to be interpreted both as funny and sad?

“Melinda and Melinda” seems intent upon answering “yes”. If you pay attention, you can see how thorough Woody was in matching the two stories. The details, circumstances and dialogues are indeed the same in both versions of the story. There is only one small difference in the stories: Melinda, the main character, is not the same.

“Tragic Melinda” reacts and interprets everything around her in a much different way than “comic Melinda”. Even though all the other details match, they are two different people. “Tragic Melinda” even looks for more drama in her life. Certain aspects of her life are indeed out of her control, but others do seem to be her own doing like over-drinking, smoking, self medicating, dumping the stable guy for a bohemian and so on. “Comic Melinda” doesn’t make such risky choices.

In the end, it is not so much a difference in genre or in the situations themselves. There would be no intrinsically tragic or comic situation, but it is all about the characters.

Aristotle’s definition of comedy and tragedy makes perfect sense here. Comedy portrays characters as worse than they really are, so we can actually laugh at their expense. Tragedy has noble characters portrayed as better than in real life, so we take pity on their fall.

Notice the choice of actors: Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell and Amanda Peet appear in the comic version, Chloe Sevigny in the tragic version.

But in the scenes with the four friends, our expectations are subverted. Ironically, the drama director is more easy-going and laughs in funerals, and the comedy producer is the closest to nihilism and a lack of belief in life (just like Woody Allen himself seems to be).

Since it is all a matter of characters, the question is which version you prefer. I prefer the tragic story, despite my general dislike for the actress’ performance. I tend to have sympathy for tragic characters and a bigger interest in their stories.

Plus, at least in “Melinda and Melinda” the tragic dialogues and situations ring true to everybody, they are universal, while the funny bits and jokes depend much more on personal taste. An example: in a very sad scene towards the end of “tragic Melinda’s” story, her friend says on the phone: “Let’s face it. Melinda is one of those people who will always need help.” (I got goose bumps just by typing that.)

The comic parts are much more subjective. For starters, all Will Ferrell’s lines come out of Woody Allen’s mouth and not from the character’s. The problem is that Woody Allen can play Woody Allen but Will Ferrell can’t. The scene where they are playing basketball and he says he didn’t change podiatrists not even when his podiatrist operated on the wrong foot is extremely funny - because of the joke not the way he delivers it. It would come out naturally from Woody but not from Ferrell. By the way, this strangeness happens throughout the movie in the literary references that the characters use in a dialogue. It’s hard to imagine Ferrell quoting Chekhov on a French bistro.

Going back to the question the movie poses, it’s not really a matter of looking at situations and asking if they are intrinsically sad or funny. It’s much more of a matter of which Melinda you are.

Which story did you prefer – tragic or funny? What about the actors' performances, specially Ferrell's and Radha Mitchell's?

Share |

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe

Books 8:22 AM

Source
“Why has God done this to me? What have I done to be thus used?”
Robinson Crusoe - Chapter 8 "The Journal"

Many people hated reading that dreadfully long story about a guy stuck in an island. But what Robinson Crusoe lacks in action, it makes up for in heroism.

Think: his ship sank, he is the only survivor. His reaction is to make a list of the bad aspects while rationalizing that those aren’t as bad as they could be. ““Evil: I am cast upon a horrible desolate island, void of all hope of recovery. Good:But I am alive, and not drowned, as all my ship’s company was.” (Chapter 6 "I build my fortress")

So, Crusoe actually teaches us how to go from despair and grief to gratitude and self-reliance.

The proof that what he teaches us is so essential is that his stoicism seems impossible to modern readers. On the IMDB forum for Castaway (the movie with Tom Hanks with a similar story) someone asked a curious question: “Why didn’t he act crazy when he got back?”*

Apparently, it was unrealistic for a person that lived for such a long time without any human contact or any sign of our modern civilization to come back “normal”. I guess with so many movies of people going crazy after traumatic situations, it is expected that people go crazy. If you don’t go crazy… now, that’s very strange.

Source
“I might be more happy in this solitary condition than I should have been in a liberty of society.”
Robinson Crusoe - Chapter 14

However, I don’t think it is unrealistic at all. It was the person’s ability to adapt to a new environment that made him survive in the first place. It is likely that this same ability will help him adapt to modern society as well.

I wonder what Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe’s author and a proponent of Realism, would say when accused of being unrealistic. Or what he would think if he knew that to us it is strange for a person not to go crazy.

How do you feel about Crusoe’s adventures – inspiring or boring?

* The link for this comment no longer exists, because it's a couple of years old. I guess IMDB deletes older comments. However, on the current IMDB Castaway forum someone asks why he didn't commit suicide. This goes even further than the previous comment. It implies that it's impossible to bear being stranded on an island. But then again, Crusoe provides the answer: "O what ridiculous resolutions man take when possessed with fear! It deprives them of the use of those means which reasons offer for their relief." (Chapter 14 "I find the print of a man's naked foot")

Share |

Arbitrary art

Art 8:33 AM

Share |

5 movies I'm embarrassed to like

Movies 6:14 PM

Share |

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

Books 10:24 AM

Everybody's first Austen book
Source

I was at a book store the other day and I saw two different people holding copies of “Pride and Prejudice”.

Now that I consider myself an Austen reader (which, let’s face it, it’s no big deal, she only wrote six novels) I look down on people who only read "Pride and Prejudice". “They’re not real fans!” – my snobish look tells them.

But that’s just plain evil. "Pride and Prejudice" was in fact the first Austen book I read. Not because of the beautiful stylish covers they have now, but just because it was part of the assigned reading for a college class.

I remember buying it without any excitement or expectactions – I had never even seen the movie! Later on, I was so engrossed in the story that I couldn’t put it down. I read it in the bus during my morning and evening commute.

During one of these commuter readings, Mr. Darcy had just delivered a letter to Elizabeth before I got off the bus. I rushed home to read the letter but a neighbour saw me on the street and came to talk to me. I explained I needed to hurry (I just had to read Mr. Darcy’s letter!)

Another good memory is the excellent grade I got on the paper I wrote for college. Unfortunately, the paper got lost when I was changing computers and the professor never returned my hard copy. But my notes for the paper are all there written in pencil in my book.

Years later my grandmother was in the hospital and it was a pretty difficult time for our family. My aunt, who was staying in the hospital with my grandmama, mentioned she wanted to re-read “Pride and Prejudice”. I thought that was so appropriate. Not only does the book help you take your mind off things but it also gives you a portrayal of really controlled and wise ladies. (Maybe Elinor from "Sense and Sensiblity" would be a better role model – but then again "Sense and Sensibility" is not as funny.).

So, even though it saddens me to think those people who pick up “Pride and Prejudice” might never really read “Sense and Sensibility” or “Persuasion” I get some satisfaction on the fact that they might have a pretty good time with it and perhaps some fond memories too.

What's the first Austen book you read?

Share |

Pages

The Culture Enthusiast

The Pietà theme

Melinda and Melinda

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe

Arbitrary art

5 movies I'm embarrassed to like

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

About

Follow Us

Pinterest

Reading

Currently reading

Labels

recent posts

Blog Archive

Quiz time

Visit my teashop!

Popular Posts

Most popular