In the film review by Robert Ebert "Double Indemnity 1944" he explains how the movie is full of betrayal. How he thinks it is a good movie he gives us brief summary of the movie and uses some good quotes from the movie. Ebert shows a different perspective on the movie and how he shows us that the people we might be looking for might be right underneath our noses. In the book Cain tells us that Walter killed Mr. Nirdlinger by breaking his neck, In the movie all we heard was that Mr. Dietrichson was gagging and then struggling, in Ebert’s review he explains how Dietrichson is strangled and that is why you hear the struggle in the back. So there is three different perspectives that we hear about, so now we can see how other people think when they can make their own story up. Ebert says that the characters aren’t committing this murder because of lust, or money it is their behavior they are doing it because of the things that they like in life. I thought that it was for the money and the lust that Walter had for Phyllis but after it was all done it really didn’t seem like it. After they had made the dump of Mr. Dietrichson it seemed that Walter was sick of Phyllis and she was sick of him, they really didn’t see each other after they had committed the murder so it couldn’t be for the lust or the money.
Very nice film review. It's very refreshing to see or rather Hear a different take on what was driving Phyllis and Walter. I like that you explained clearly what you believed was behind their eratic behavior and acts, and also compared your ideas to the ideas and thought processes of the author of the article you choose. Within your review, you provide the reader with different options to decipher, after all, we all may interpret the actions of the characters differently. You dd a good job at explaining your article in your own words.
ReplyDeleteI also like Zachary's perspective of the review he used. He unleashed some views that I did not think of. It is special that people are different and unique to the extent that we see the same film or read the same novel and can get a different perception. It goes to show you that what one perceives,can change the way they see things and the way they act. Good job of summarizing your review.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ebert when he says that Mr. Dietrichson died in a different way. I actually never noticed until reading this review. Did they mean for him to die a different way or was that just another flaw? Because it seemed that in the novel, dying by breaking his neck was more less painful and apathetic towards Mr.Dietrichson. but also in the novel he seemed less of an ass and more just an innocent man. But in the film, they actually made him more of an ass and rude towards Phyllis. Does that connect to why they killed him in a more harsh and painful way?
ReplyDeletegreat inputs.
I enjoyed reading Zachary's review. It seems like every review i read online the critic came to the same conclusion. The movie was good and cutting edge for the time the film was released. Double Indemnity is one of or the best example of film noir of all time. I kind of felt the same way Zachary did when he said " The people we might be looking for might be right under our our noses." I also liked how Zachary pointed out the diffrences between the motion picture, and the novel. I also picked up on the same scenes that were a little diffrent in the film than the novel. I also got the same feeling that Zachary did when Walter and Phyllis exucuted there plane for killing Mr Dietrichson after they dumped his body instead of Walter being more attracted to Phyllis, He was turned off at the very sight of her, the very thought of her almost made him sick. I look forward to reading more of Zachary's blogs and seeing if we again come to the same conclusion on whatever material we are writing about at that time
ReplyDelete