Movie Suggestion - Liar Liar

I suggest that we should watch “Liar Liar” starring Jim Carrey. I have not watched the movie myself but I personally love Jim Carrey for one reason. He is HILARIOUS! But the first thing that attracted me to this movie was the title itself. Among the many plays that we have read, more than half of the plays had some if not many aspects of lies/cheat/deceptions/perjury in them. Some of the plots were even built on lies after lies which caused conflicts and misunderstanding among the characters.

In this movie, the main character Fletcher (Jim Carrey) is a lawyer but he has a habit of giving precedence to his job, breaking promises to his son and his ex-wife Audrey, and then lying about the reasons. Fletcher's compulsive lying has also built him a reputation as one of the best defense lawyers in the state of California as he is climbing the ladder in the firm for which he works.

The most obvious play that could relate to this movie is of course, The Broken Jug. Both the main characters were representatives of the legal field. Their duty was to uphold justice but for different reasons they tell lies to secure their statuses. The Misanthrope also has a tiny aspect of lie when Celimene cheated on Alceste by flirting around behind his back. The Beaver Coat reveals Mrs. Wolff deceptive character towards the people around her by stealing and trying to put the blame on others. The plots were driven by lies which indirectly influenced their respective resolutions.

What if they were all unable to lie? In this movie, Fletcher one day realizes that he is unable to lie, mislead, or even withhold a true answer, which put his career and family relationship at risk. It would be interesting to imagine or discuss how the plots and endings of the plays that we studied would be different if the characters were unable to lie.

Ocean's Eleven

Ocean's Eleven stars George Clooney, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Andy Garcia and a host of other characters. To summarize the plot, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his old pal Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) hire a team of men, each possessing a criminal specialty, to help them rob a vault that serves three of the largest casinos in Las Vegas. However, Danny has another reason for why he wants to rob these casinos. This reason is because these three casinos are owned by Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) who is married to Ocean's former lover Tess (Julia Roberts). The film is a remake from the 1960 film of the same name starring the Rat Pack (Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, and Joey Bishop).
I think that this is a great movie for our class to watch because we can discuss its similarities to The Beaver Coat and possibly The Broken Jug. Some other topics for discussion could be similarities between Danny Ocean and Mrs. Wolff, the question of “Is justice served?” by the end of the film, why does one sympathize with the criminal while watching this film and if not why, the similarities between the supporting characters of the plays and the film, how would someone feel while watching this film if the comedy was completely absent, and could we say this is a “Thief’s Comedy?”

Personally, I think this is one of George Clooney’s best films and, ladies, who does not like George Clooney. The film is not vulgar for all who have a problem with too much foul language and, or nudity. The story is clever, the comedy is smart and witty, and the host of characters is perfect. After all that has been said here, how can one not want to watch this movie?

The Beaver Coat: Drama and Theater

At this point, we've watched a couple plays and read many more. As we discussed the difference in drama and theater in our last class, I felt like now was a good time to bring up differences in watching a play and reading a play, and why ultimately I believe reading a play is certainly not the best way to experience one.

In most of the plays we've read, hardly anything except dialogue is mentioned. With nothing much else to go on, reading a play feels a lot like looking at a template. By reading a play we can understand its intentions, but so much is lost when a play isn't viewed. Certain character's tones can be misinterpreted, I know on more than one occasion in this and other classes I've been totally wrong about how a character was approaching a situation just because I didn't pick it up from how it was presented in the play. The Beaver Coat is the first play to actually mitigate things like this, being very descriptive in the way people look, act, and speak.

When I say much is lost in only reading a play, I don't just mean better visualizing what's occurring, but the play's character. While that in itself might not be relevant to analysis in our class, it doesn't change the fact that some of my favorite parts from the plays we've watched have been things that were never explicitly mentioned in text alone. In The Venetian Twins, my favorite thing is when Tanino (Zanetto?) is giving an aside and one of the servants squints over his shoulder to try to see who he's talking to. In The Broken Jug, Judge Adam breaking his stick (it just snaps in half as he's banging it, it doesn't look like it was even intentional) was one of the few things that made me laugh.

In the end I believe it is unfortunate that more of these plays aren't watched instead of read, as they were intended.

The Beaver Coat: Characters Who Walk the Line Between Good and Bad

In The Beaver Coat, Mrs. Wolff was somehow both the protagonist and the antagonist. She was the villain, the one who stole from others, but at the same time she was the hero, she was ensuring her family's survival. One cannot put her into one simple good or evil box. Mrs. Wolff has some admirable traits to balance out the bad ones, and I believe that adds interest and dimension to the play. On the one hand, you know that Mrs. Wolff is doing bad things, and deserves to be caught. But at the same time, because it's for the right reasons, in a clever, devious way, and from the right people (the rich ones, she reminds me of Robin Hood a little), you want her to get away with it.
Mrs. Wolff can be compared to Adam in The Broken Jug. Yes, he did in fact break the jug, but he was trying to be with the girl he liked. He didn't break it out of spite, it was an accident. It can be argued that he didn't conceal the fact he broke the jug because he didn't want to deal with the consequences, but because he was embarrassed that he was brutally rejected by Eve.
How does this effect the outcome of the play?
Well, in The Broken Jug, his good traits were apparently not enough to overcome the fact that he was the villain. He is shamed and driven out of the town at the end, so it would appear that the good in him was to add dimension and complexity to the play. But, in The Beaver Coat, Mrs. Wolff is not punished in any way for her wrongdoing. I would guess that this is an acceptable ending because of her good qualities but for me, it still doesn't seem fair. About as fair, in fact, as Adam being driven out of town because he broke a jug. Was it not enough to remove him from the bench but allow him to remain in the town?
The effect of these morally in-between characters in both of these plays, then, is questioning whether a simple ending is able to work for them. I don't think Adam should be completely humiliated because he isn't a completely bad person and I don't think Mrs. Wolff should walk away without a scratch because she didn't do all completely good things. That these characters have both good and bad traits adds interest and complexity to the plays and because of this, these types of characters are my favourite.

The Broken Jug: The Significance of Names

In the play, The Broken Jug, viewers can't help but notice the significance of the judge's name, especially when they learn of the maiden's name too. Adam and Eve are names that are not paired together accidentally. What are the significance of these two names?

First, there is Adam. The name comes from the Bible with as Adam the first man created by God. Due to Adam's mistake in eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, mankind, today and in times past, has been condemned to a life full of suffering and sin. Licht, the court clerk, pokes fun at the coincidental relationship between Judge Adam's fall and Adam the first man's fall. "Adam's first fall was into bed, not out!" Licht's statement leads the audience to believe that not only does he already know what Judge Adam has been up to the night before, he fully understands and is amused by the irony of the sinful judge's name.

The name Eve is also significant when looked at in a Biblical context. Biblical Eve, the world's first woman, causes Biblical Adam to sin, coaxing him the the fruit of the Tree, though Biblical Eve was only convinced to do so because of listening to a serpent in the Garden of Evil. However, Eve the maiden does not appear to have done anything wrong in the play, although it could be argued Eve tempted Judge Adam simply by being so beautiful. This should be no fault of her own, because it is not a sin to be beautiful and certainly not her fault Judge Adam is creepy enough to try to take advantage of her using his high position. Eve's only sin the play is lying, but she only lies because she is afraid of Judge Adam's threats to murder her fiance. Unlike the Biblical Adam and Eve, Judge Adam and maiden Eve are not a pair linked in friendly companionship, but are only linked through Adam's evil hold he has over her obtained by threats. So unlike the Biblical story, the fault in the play lies more with Adam being the cause of sin than Eve.

Another character in the play has a name of significance. Licht, Adam's court clerk, has a name that mean "light." Licht's light comes from his knowledge of Judge Adam's sinful secret, as viewers can guess from his teasing of Adam at the beginning of the play and hints dropped throughout the trial of the broken jug that Licht knows all about Adam's activities of the previous night. However, untrue to his name, Licht does not choose to shine light upon the situation in the courtroom; rather, he chooses to keep silent and watch the awkward struggle of Judge Adam trying to keep his terrible misdeeds a secret. Licht chooses to let Adam out his own awful secret in loo of giving Adam away himself.

So though the names of the play are significant and ties might be made to other sources containing the same names, they do not exactly mirror the stories from which the names might be pulled.

The Broken Jug: The Audience

The audience, while not as directly a part of the play as some of our previous works, is still an important thing to consider. Unlike The Venetian Twins, there are no asides nor does it end with a character directly speaking to the audience. The closest we get to audience interaction is the pseudo-bow all the actors take at the end on the clock. Although the methods are not as direct as The Venetian Twins, the audience will always be an element.

In my Venetian Twins post I discussed that audience inclusion is very important. The Broken Jug accomplishes this by giving the audience a sense of superior knowledge. While the people in the court room are very slow to come to the realization, it's evident to the audience pretty quickly that Adam is the culprit. Similarly to the jug situation, we also know more than Walter regarding Adam's court records.

Many of these things we, as the audience, knew from Adam himself; for instance, that the wig had to be his. As a result of this, the audience has superior knowledge over everyone – except, that is, Adam. Adam is the audience's peer, but only in knowledge. Adam's character is what allows the audience to feel dissociated from him, and puts us on the side of the court. Given the knowledge we are afforded and the (often ignorant) people of the court, we watch as these people draw nearer to a solution known to us, and in addition watch as Adam realizes they grow nearer. Ultimately the audience inclusion stems from being on the side of the people while having knowledge of the villain.

(For a more historical approach on intended audience, see Christian's post.)

The Broken Jug: Tell the Truth

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”  Mark Twain

As I was reading this play and watching Judge Adam scramble to keep his story straight, this quote popped into my head.  Adam tells multiple stories of how he acquired the cuts and bruises on his face and head.  He tells several different accounts to explain his missing wig.  He claims to be well acquainted with Martha, but then states that he rarely visits her at her house.  He attributes his nervous attitude to being sick, then changes his story to worrying about his sick hen.  Eventually he is caught in his lies and runs off to the hill like a scared little boy.

I found that the social implication of this play is that it is better to tell the truth in a sticky situation rather than try to lie your way out of it.  (Of course, not doing something shady in the first place would be ideal.)  In several of the plays we have read, a character attempts to lie and deceive the people around him all for personal gain.  We have seen this in Celimene, Dimple, and now Adam.  Things do not work in favor of these liars. 

Rather than approach the topic of lying and deception in a straightforward and matter-of-fact manner, The Broken Jug has a comedic setting that allows for a lighter discussion of the repercussions of lies.  As Emily said in her post, we have talked in class about how comedy shines a light on character flaws.  Deception is definitely one of those flaws!  Have you ever heard of a time when someone greatly benefited from telling a lie and did not experience any consequences?  Probably not.  Lying just does not pay off.  The benefit of examining these flaws in a comedy setting is that lying is not directly condemned and we can find humor in the liar’s actions, but when we stop to think about it, the audience is left to make the conclusion that no good can come from lies and deception.

The Broken Jug: "WHAT THE F**K IS GOING ON?!"

The title quote is spoken screamed by Ed Helms' character, Stu, in Todd Philips' record breaking comedy The Hangover.

This topic has been alluded to several times in our comedy class "How is this old German play like The Hangover?"  Well, I am going to make an attempt to answer this question, and do my best to avoid straight summaries and The Hangover spoilers.

Both stories share with the audience a tale of people hold respected positions in society. The people who are in these positions are expected to act in a manner that would not be considered disputable.  In The Broken Jug you have the main character as a local judge. The Hangover's characters are a teacher, a dentist (not a doctor), and... umm... Alan.

Both narratives begin with a lot of confusion. The Broken Jug depicts a judge waking up in the morning, obviously hungover(!), with cuts and bruises on his head and knee, and no recollection of the previous evening.  Later we learn that he was also missing his wig. What happened? How did he get these injuries? Where was his wig? How did he lose his wig?

The Hangover opens in a similar fashion with the main cast in the desert and one of them is missing. After a brief flashback for context, we get to experience the real confusion with the characters as they wake up in their trashed hotel room from a night of heavy partying in Vegas.  Stu, the dentist, is beat up and missing a tooth. Phil, the teacher, has a bracelet from the hospital, and  Alan finds a baby in the closet.  Oh yeah, and everyone forgets about the tiger!

The questions of "how?" and "why?" are not revealed to the audience through flashbacks while the characters wander around clueless in their stupor trying to figure it all out. The audience is left out of the loop and is forced to experience the same feelings of confusion, dread, awkwardness, and revelation as the characters do.

The characters from both of these accounts always learn of the "how?" and "why?" through third parties. They are told of the events by other people and it is the character's (and audience's) responsibility to connect the dots in order to get the full picture.

What other similarities are there? What did you notice that I didn't? Let me know in the comments.

The Broken Jug: Why Adam's Appearance is Important

When reading/watching The Broken Jug, I felt sorry for Adam. He was an ugly, bald club-footed bachelor. His appearance is probably a significant part of the reason he wasn't able to find a wife. He tries to make light of the situation by writing a list of the perks of being a bachelor.
"That's the advantage of bachelorhood. What others, in restricted circumstances, are forced by need to share with wife and children, we bachelors enjoy to the full at our leisure, and share it with a friend."
It is obvious to me that he does not enjoy being single. It is probably, at least in part, because of this that he forces himself on Eve, breaks the jug, and then lies about it.
But in this play, the references to Judge Adam's appearance aren't cruel. That is, none of the humour in the play is derived from Adam's unfortunate appearance. Rather, his ugly exterior is just an extension of his ugly personality.
I think this is an important distinction. If the other characters made fun of Adam for being hideous, the villain could easily be turned into Eve. Adam wouldn't want to tell the truth about being at Eve's because the townspeople would laugh at his failed attempt at romance.
When his appearance is just part of his bad personality, it helps to vilify him. He becomes the exact opposite of sweet, innocent Eve. This added dimension of the characters really drew me into the play and also into a position to appreciate the hilarity of the situation further.
His monstrous facade, which is a device to further his malicious character, is also the main reason I feel pity for him in the end. Despite lying about tripping in the beginning of the play, he probably is exceptionally clumsy with club foot. He probably has a certain level of self esteem issues as well, and these could be the foundation for his poor actions. I am able to relate to Adam, and thus I see his humanity. He's not perfect. Like his namesake, he messed up, but he's only human. We can forgive him.
It is because of all of these reasons that the way Adam looks is important.