![]() The same has been said of Mad Men’s Peggy and Joan, as a get-out-of-sexism free card for the creators, but I don’t buy ‘women as true/secret/sleeper heroes’ precisely because of the long history of unrounded woman characters.Ĭoyotito - their baby (At first I thought Coyotito referred to a bird! Just me?) The viewpoint character is Kino, Steinbeck spends the first chapter getting us to side with Kino, and Juana remains unrounded. I disagree that Juana is ‘the true hero’. They only survived each scenario because of her and her ideas. In …The Pearl, Juana is the true hero of the story whose place is behind her man until the end, when they walk “side by side” when before, she always had to walk behind him. If only she weren’t under the thumb of her husband, who knows best according to the laws of patriarchy, they could’ve returned the pearl to the sea and their baby would have lived.īecause of the Female Maturity Formula, authors like Steinbeck are often let off the hook, because, as the following Goodreads commenter says: She realises the evil in the pearl much earlier in the story, functioning as a Cassandra character. Juana is your classic Female Maturity Formula. Juana - Kino’s obedient wife who has recently given birth to their first baby. Owns a canoe and spends his days diving for pearls and fishing to feed his family. ![]() Kino - small build, wears a suppliant hat, native to Mexico, no money. Heinemann 1948) Illustrations by Vera Jarman CHARACTERS OF “THE PEARL” The Pearl (John Steinbeck – originally published by W. Bad deeds are carried out by imperfect humans. The oversized pearl itself is blamed, when in fact pearls are just pearls. The illusion of causality is at work in Steinbeck’s “The Pearl”, too, as humble villagers are corrupted by greed as soon as they come into some material good fortune. If everyone were affected by the same cognitive bias as my father we wouldn’t see older women walking around with hands full of inherited rings. That’s how inheritance works, of course - a ring isn’t passed down until its owner dies. Obviously, to his mind, the ring itself is bad luck. First it belonged to an auntie of his - an auntie who died. I never see that ring again, because my father insists it’s cursed. A year or so later, Nana is killed by a car while crossing the road to buy milk at the dairy. Nana goes to her bedroom, comes back with a ring and says, “See this ring? That’s yours when I die.” I can’t really see the ring from where I sit on the floor, but I nod obediently. I’m four or five, sitting on the carpet in the living room at my Nana’s house. This story reminded me of a half-forgotten memory.
0 Comments
![]() dumps film deals on Hollywood investors." Reuters. "Entertainment Industry Economics." Cambridge University Press. The Motion Picture Association of America."Why everyone lies about their movie's budget." The Los Angeles Times. "Hollywood re-thinks use of A-list actors." Reuters. ![]() "A Movie's Budget Pops From the Screen." The New York Times. You never know - and that's entertainment!įor lots more information on the movie industry, take a look at the links below. The next big thing could be a low-budget comedy or a $250 million special effects extravaganza. Every film is a unique product (even sequels) that enters an ever-changing market. With all that money flying around, you'd think that studios could at least spot a potential hit. James Cameron, who more or less invented the super-budget special effects genre with "Titanic," developed his own 3D technology for "Avatar" - and paid $14 million of his own money to do it. For "Transformers 2" ($225 million), special effects powerhouse Industrial Light and Magic used 40 full-time animators. Not surprisingly, the most expensive movies of the past 20 years have had the biggest special effects budgets: "Spiderman 3" ($258 million), "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" ($250 million), and "Superman Returns" ($232 million) top the list. Icons like Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise are taking pay cuts up front in exchange for a bigger cut of DVD sales and distribution deals on the back end. Once a star has a few mega-hits under his or her belt, they're usually welcomed into the exclusive $20 million per movie club - although membership isn't a lifelong privilege.Īfter a series of relatively star-free hits like "Transformers," "Star Trek," and "The Hangover," - plus a growing list of superstar flops like Will Farrell's "Land of the Lost" and Julia Roberts' "Duplicity" - studios are starting to see the light. The rationale is simple: Stars sell more tickets and are more recognizable or marketable to international audiences. So if a movie costs $100 million to make, you'll need an additional $50 million to sell it.įor studio films, the traditional "safe bet" is to spend major money on a big-name actor. When calculating a marketing budget, the rule of thumb is to spend 50 percent of the rest of the production costs (pre-production, filming and post-production). Few studios would sink 80 million into an R-rated thriller movie, Scorsese-attached or not. That strategy seems to work: "Spiderman 3" made 45 percent of its total gross ticket sales in its opening week, while "X-Men: The Last Stand" made 52 percent of its money in its first week of release Though he's known for his violent gangster movies, Scorsese entered the 2010s with a surprisingly PG-13 thriller, and that rating might have been one of the compromises to get such a high budget. ![]() Big money is spent on trailers, TV ads, billboards, and Web sites to pack people in on opening weekend. Marketing makes up a huge chunk of modern movie budgets - $35.9 million on average - largely because the fates of many Hollywood releases are sealed in the first week. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |