Welcome to the Shakespeare and Power Politics blog...in other words: who is the biggest machieval?
Monday, April 29, 2013
My Own Private Idaho...
How does the the director, Gus Van Sant, use the binary opposition between high and low culture to reveal the vitality of Shakespearean text to an American context?
As always, you need to respond to two others' texts to exceed expectations.
One way that the director shows opposition is by showing many scenes of all the transient strange people who dwell in that weird building and then showing the scene with Keanu Reeves' dad who is a very rich and successful man. His dad is supposed to represent Bolingbroke in the movie. Im guessing that we will see more of the classier side of life in the following parts of the movie. By showing the vast difference between the civilized world and the world of drugged out prostitutes we can see how this concept can be Americanized. We also see the classier side when the narcoleptic guy goes to that rich women's house and he is examining the nice things in the room. I predict that Keanu Reeves will become more and more civilized because in the play, Hal becomes more sophisticated as he goes along.
The components that Van Sant used to create a binary opposition are similar to the components Shakespeare used for the same purpose in Henry IV. A component of the binary opposition Van Sant creates is the depiction of the higher class looking down upon the actions of the lower class. Specifically, when Scott’s father informs Scott of how disappointed he is with the way Scott is living his life. This exact same binary opposition occurs in Shakespeare’s Henry IV. King Henry looks down upon Prince Hal for the low way in which he behaves. The fact that this component of the binary opposition appears in an American context and in Henry IV shows how a Shakespearian text possesses vitality to an American context, purely because of how similar the situations are. Another part of the binary opposition created by Van Sant is the depiction of the lower cultures’ desire for the wealth of the higher class. In the scene where Mike is in the mansion of the elderly woman examining her expensive possessions, a clear desire to possess her wealth within Mike is revealed. In Henry IV, the desire for the wealth of the upper class is shown when Falstaff and his crew rob the rich people at Gad’s hill. This desire of the lower class to possess the wealth of the upper class is used by both Shakespeare and Van Sant to strengthen the binary opposition between the rich and the poor. The use of this component by both men shows the vitality of Shakespearian text to an American context. There is one more component of the binary opposition between poor and rich cultures created by Van Sant. It is how cruel the upper class is to the lower class. Once Scott inherits his father’s fortune, he becomes a part of high society. Once he has made this transition, Scott turns his back on Bob, the man who made Scott who he is. In Henry IV pt. 2, the exact same thing happens. Once Prince Hal completes his transformation into an individual of high culture, he turns his back on Falstaff, his mentor and friend. Van Sant using a component incredibly similar to one used by Shakespeare shows the vitality of Shakespearean text to American context.
I agree. The idea that the poor want what the rich have is a much more accessible idea for American audiences to grasp than Shakespeare's original play.
I appreciate you connection between the scene at the woman's mansion to the robbery. It makes perfect sense. Van Sant had to have made that similarity intentional.
I definitely agree with the connection you made between scott and prince hal. I also agree with ryan that the idea of the poor wanting what the rich have makes much more sense in this movie rather than in the original play.
Mark I thoroughly agree with your first two statements. Sant did a great job of creating a parallel between the fathers of both Scott and Hal. Also, I think that your connection between the robbery and the old ladies house is accurate and unique. However, I don't think that Bob has as large of an influence on Scott's life as you do. That said, we didn't really look far enough into their relationship to truly see what it was all about.
The director shows opposition between high and low culture at the end of the film, in the upper-class cafe. The presence of Bob and the other homeless people contrasts greatly with the people in suits around them, and all of the people in the cafe back away from them. Scott's reaction to Bob here is the direct opposite of his reaction when Bob enters the hotel. When Bob enters the hotel (low culture) Scott greets him and invites him in, but when he enters the cafe (high culture) he tells him to never come near him again. The director uses Scotts actions towards Bob to show the opposition between high and low culture.
I agree. Scott's actions when he is wealthy demonstrates the rich class mistreating the poor class. Once Scott has inherited his father's wealth, he turns his back on Bob. He feels he doesn't have to be kind to Bob anymore because of his ascension into high society. This is identical to the way in which Prince Hal treated Falstaff after making it to the top.
I absolutely agree with the image of class separation while they are in the restaurant. Like you said, in the low class environment of the hotel scott is perfectly fine with bob around but when they are in the higher class environment bob can not be around because of what he looks like and what he is wearing.
I also agree the director shows opposition between high and low culture at the bar. The reaction of Scott was quite interesting showing little empathy towards Falstaff. In fact he was completely apathetic.
To me, the fact that Scott refused to even turn and look at Bob symbolized an "If we don't see them, they don't exist" mentality toward the lower class. Scott has just entered a sector of society with controlled, calculated interactions. Bob is the antithesis of that.
The best example showing the vitality of Shakespereian text in the modern world is at the beginning of the film. While wine is replaced with cocaine and the tavern with the apartment, Scotts first interaction with Bob is no different than Hals first interaction with Falstaff in Henry IV. This scene introduces the inappropriate but meaningful relationship between Bob and Scott. Their relationship throughout the film exemplifies that even in a 20th or 21st century society individuals separated by binary opposition can still value each others company. When Scott leaves Bobs company Scott is ready to face the responsibility of being in a family of stature. At the beginning of the film Scott in many ways is a boy, by its conclusion he becomes more of a man. like in Henry IV this progression would not have occurred had Scott not immersed himself in the lifestyle of a street hustler.
I agree. The interaction and relationship between Scott and Bob is very similar to the relationship Hal and Falstaff have. Just like Prince Hal, Scott chooses to hang out with people of lower class. His rise into the upper class will be made more glorious because of this. This correlation between Scott and Prince Hal shows the vitality of a Shakespearean text to an American context
I agree Forrest. The relationship between Scott and Bob is definitely the pinnacle of Shakespearean influence upon Sant's film. Also, Scott could have very well used the knowledge in which Bob taught him to rise to power. If that is the case, I don't think that Sant portrays Bob's influence on Scott well as well as Shakespeare portrays Falstaff's influence on Hal.
Towards the end of the movie when Bob is forced out of the upper class restaurant is where I see the most opposition of social class. When bob was forced by scott to leave the restaurant and never see him again it was clearly because of the way he looked and the cloths he was wearing. If Bob had come into the restaurant wearing a suit and tie I can imagine that Scott would not have handled that situation the same at all and would probably have loved to see bob. Bob was denied by scott because he was representing the lower class, which scott did not want anything to do with.
It's interesting that you bring up the what if questions. What if Bob was of higher class? Would Scott be involved with him or find another low-life? I still don't believe that Scott would have dealt with him either way. It seems that Scott, once in his nice new suit, is out with the old and in with the new. He's done with everyone and everything in his past. It's weird that there wasn't any real conflicting battle... No Hotspur. It seems like the girl changed it all.
I agree with you Sam. I also think the funerals scene is really interesting, when each group appears to be apathetic about the other's funeral. The purpose of Scott's apathy toward Bob's death is to prove a point to his old friends and to secure his new place above them. The apathy of Bob's party toward Scott's dad's death is genuine - seems to be an overarching theme that the upper culture puts on airs of indifference to set the lower culture in its place, while the lower culture genuinely couldn't care less about what high culture does
I to used this example because it shows how different Scotts two worlds were. I also agree that the image of his lower class friends was why he was so embarrassed.
The director, Gus Van Sant uses modern American/Italian times in contrast with Shakespearean times. The modern take seems even more obvious when thinking about the binary opposition between the high and low culture or class. The “legal” version of Shakespeares Henry the IV part 1 didn’t seem to focus on that binary opposition. (Or at least it wasn’t as obvious to me.) Sure, you have the tavern opposed to the castle, but there wasn’t a striking feature that made it high vs low class. In many instances in My Private Idaho, it shows the thick differences of higher and lower class. Even when Hal was still a hooligan, he didn’t seem to fit into the crowd. Everyone knew he was the future rich kid, and treated him as such. For instance, Falstaff had the quick-wittedness of using Hal’s fragileness to convey that he was looking out for him during the heist. The two main situations where the high vs low class really showed were at the beginning and at the end. In the beginning we’ve seen the hideout the prostitutes live in, a dank and grungy place. And we see the scene of Bollingbroke and the rich woman’s house, where everything is expensive and tidy. In comparison, Hal lives both words in Henry IV part 1 and 2. In part 1 he’s the let-down son and in part 2 he’s the high class reputable man. In the last scene, Hal completely ignores Falstaff. Hal was dressed to impress, with his grey suit and classy wife. Falstaff on the other hand was still the grungy, fat, old man he was once before. The binary opposition between high and low culture is shown in both films.
What interested me the most about “My Own Private Idaho” was that Scott was immediately and graciously received in high society. Despite his complete inexperience with that walk of life, as soon as he makes his entrance at the dinner party he’s asked whether he will run for political office soon. The characters address Scott in a tone of relief, briskly setting him on his new path now that he’s “snapped out of it.” The interesting bit is that they aren't really relieved about Scott's welfare and potential--after all, politics are competitive--but about the fact that Scott has chosen them. To persuade their sons to clean up their acts, Bolingbroke and Scott's father both try to use a logic that does little but reveal an elitist superiority complex: In their dealings with their sons, they emphasize disappointment with their sons' lifestyles, dehumanize their sons' peers, and ultimately refuse to accept that unlike wealth, there’s no measuring stick for culture. The fact is, the collective dignity of low culture--the rejection of the notion that it’s inferior to high culture-- undermines the latter's sense of power. For as long as his defiance lasts, the rebellious behavior of Scott reveals that in a small city, the upper class can hold power over the lower by refusing to give the poor equal respect, but the lower class can also hold psychological power over the upper class by refusing to venerate insecure figures of power. That's why when Prince Hal and Scott reenter upper society, they're welcomed and encouraged to seek the rewards of sticking to the rules. The upper class interprets the voluntary return of Scott/Hal as a concrete reinforcement of the elite's superiority over low culture, but because Scott and Hal are Machiavels this is an illusion.
Chloe, I think this reaction is interesting. The interaction between these two groups of culture is what makes the story timeless and adaptable to a 21st century cocaine movie. Scott and Hal were both Machiavels, and I felt sorry for King Richard, but not for Bob..hmm...
I think you make a really interesting point which I hadn't even thought of. I think the most interesting reaction is when you said that they aren't really relieved about Scott's welfare and potential, but the fact that Scott had chosen them. Even though just a bit before they had considered him a lost hope, spending his time with the bums
I agree with Meg, I hadn't thought about this, but it's an interesting reaction to the film. I think because of his father's status he is immediately welcomed, but it's interesting to think about whether or not he'd be able to make the same quick transition if his father hadn't held the status that he did.
I think that Gus Van Sant did a fairly good job of using binary opposition to Americanize and retell Shakespeare's "Henry IV". The main way Sant uses binary opposition is by portraying the Hal character as a homosexual, drug using prostitute. This varies greatly from Shakespeare's play; Shakespeare portrays Hal as a drunkard, but Sant wanted to do something over the top. By portraying Hal as a male prostitute, Sant is effectively putting him in the lowest, most memorable social position possible for the American audience viewing the movie. In turn, this makes Scott's rise to power even more dramatic than Hal's in "Henry IV". This tactic works very well, and Shakespeare's Hal character translates nicely into Sant's movie.
Unfortunately, I don't think Falstaff's character's transition is quite as smooth. In "Henry IV", Shakespeare is able to make readers admire Falstaff with his quick wit and charm, but in "My Own Private Idaho", Bob doesn't have the same charisma. I think that Sant does an excellent job of portraying Bob as a man of low culture (with his cocaine addiction), but Bob is missing the effervescent personality seen in "Henry IV". For example, in "Henry IV" the Gads Hill incident seems whimsical and lighthearted, but in "My Own Private Idaho", Bob's actions seem malicious and out of line; The difference being that Falstaff simply scares his victims away whereas Bob shoots at them. This lack of an emotional connection I failed to develop with Bob led me to feel no remorse for him when he is stood up by Scott during Scott's upscale dinner. Instead, I felt happy for Scott due to his new found maturity and ability to go of his past. I don't think that this is the reaction Sant intended for.
I like how you talk about the character of Bob. I definitely agree that he did not have the same charisma as Fallstaff, and therefore the audience can't feel the same remorse for Bob as they could've for Fallstaff.
Although I unfortunately was not present for the viewing of the first half of the film, the scene that keeps popping into my head when reading the question is the funeral scene. Above, at Scott’s father’s funeral, guests are dressed in black at an event that is traditionally a mourning and a celebration of a life. Solemn, they listen to the ancient, traditional words that the church figure speaks. Down below, Scott casts an eye toward a crowd of homeless, rough looking men. At first they are shown slightly mournful, but soon the energy builds up and the men start to have fun. They are celebrating more and not following the tradition like the men above. Scott and his girl respectfully watch the lower scene, after seamlessly being accepted into the higher culture.
Scott gives respect to the homeless man in the cafe by acknowledging their relations at one time, and allowing him to linger in the cafe for a minute. Then, Scott says that although they were close at one time, that he must leave him alone now.
In both scenes, Scott is granting respect to the group that he used to belong to. However, even with the granted respect, he is moving on and distancing himself. He gained the knowledge and experience he needed by living with the commoners, and he is going to use this experience to his advantage as a powerful man.
In Henry IV Falstaff is nothing more than a drunk who drinks, sleeps, and bums around. Hal’s interaction with him allows Hal to be a disappointment in his father’s eyes and considered low culture. In “My Own Private Idaho” Gus Van Sant mirrors this with the use of cocaine and relationship between Bob and Scott. At the beginning of the movie Scott mimicked the same relationship that Hal and Falstaff had, Bob being his adopted father. Because of his lifestyle Scott’s father considered to be of low culture, using cocaine and causing ruckus with his peers. Near the end of the movie Scott has changed and decided to become more professional, and of higher culture. When Bob approaches his, hoping things will be the same, Scott harshly tells Bob to never go him again, as he only encouraged Scott’s poor decisions. This is similar to when Hal left Falstaff, as he, too, was now part of a higher culture.
I agree. The movie shows the same progression with Scott as the play does with Prince Hal. Falstaff/Bob represent the time of Scott's/Hal's low culture lifestyles, and letting go of this friendship represents the transition into the high culture lifestyle.
The film really shines through in showing Shakespearean culture through high and low society by looking at the relationship between Scott and Bob. Even though Bob is a homeless crack addict, Scott still looks up to him and treats him as if he were his real dad. And Scott feels much more distant from his real father, who looks down on the fact that he is hanging out with someone like Bob. This relationship is similar to the one between Falstaff and Hal in Henry IV. where even though Falstaff is seen as an idiotic drunkard, Hal is still much closer to him than he is his real father,bowling broke, who looks down on the fact that he is hanging around someone like Falstaff.
I think you bring up some really key points. I don't understand why Hal/Scott easily fall back into the society that they were pushed away from. It could be that he is a machiavel and knew that he needed to transition to power if he were to succeed. But turning back on his old friends seems like a bad plan.
The director makes it very evident who has money and who doesn't. Throughout the film, we see scenes with Scott and his "friends" and it is very clear through their clothes, actions and values that they live a life of "low culture"-some with cocaine addictions, many sleeping with people for money. There are also a few scenes with Scott's father and those who work for him, and this really shows the contrast between high and low culture. It is clear that they live a life of "high culture," wearing nicer clothing and leading more "professional" lifestyles. The scene that I think most reveals the opposition between high and low cultures is in one of the last scenes when Bob enters the high-class restaurant where Scott and his father are dining. When Bob enters the room, he says hello to Scott and at first Scott ignores him, and then goes on to explain how he's moved on from that part of his life. This shows Scott letting go of his low culture lifestyle, just as Prince Hal lets go of his lower lifestyle when he moves on from his friendship with Falstaff and proves himself worthy to his father.
Gus Van Sant used the opposition between high and low culture to reveal the vitality of Shakespeare by showing the two kinds of groups that Scott hangs out with. Scott, who plays the character of Prince Hal in the play King Henry IV, hangs out with poor men who sell them selves for sex on the streets even though his family has a lot of money. He does this so that his father will hold no expectations for him so that when it is time for him to step and take responsibility he will completely shock his father. There is a scene where Scott is in a posh restaurant mingling with high society people when some of his low culture friends come in and ask Scott to come back into there group. Scott pretends like he doesn't know them at first and then tells them to never talk to him again. This idea of Scott hanging out with two societies comes directly from Shakespeare's Play.
I was thinking the same that he was working to impress his father, but doesn't seem like he should have done it earlier? I also wonder if he could have had both power and fun time in the tavern or is the tavern equivalent to lowly life.
The director of "My Own Private Idaho" has a very stylistic approach when it comes to portraying who has money in the film and who doesn't. Generally all of the people who do not have money sell their bodies, engage in taking drugs, and act as loud hooligans. This being said the lower class people in the film tend to have more character and are not afraid what people think of them. The people portrayed as the higher class are all depicted in suits or fancy dress and always are in nice buildings. However, these higher class characters are boring due to the fact that it is apparent that they are trying to make a positive impression on their peers. I don't necessarily think that Van Sant does a good job of portraying Shakespearian text due to the fact that he over exaggerates the disparity which I find to be distracting and ultimately takes away my attention from the writing.
Gus Van Sant does a very good job of portraying Shakespeare to American culture. In my opinion he took it a step further by making them street bums. But like in the play Prince Hal knows he will at some point need to grow up and act like an adult like Keanu Reeves had to do in the movie. Reality sets in for Hal in both works and he has to assume a leadership and adult like position. He needed to distance himself from Falstaff, like Neo did with Bob.
I like how you talk about how he takes a step farther by making them street bums. I think that it shows the disparity even more. Also good call with calling Keanu NEO.
The use of contrast between the high class scenes in My Private Idaho is meant as a heavy slap of irony, a staple in Shakespeare. The lower class flat where the lower class hustler men were hanging out is put against the upper class scenes of Keanu Reeve's father and the lavish buildings where they gain their money from. This contrast is used, but then utterly destroyed once they show scenes of the poor hustler men doing business with the upper class men, bringing the two classes together only at the primal and sexual level.
In terms of having Shakespeare vitality in the modern context, it's the ultimate example of how class is just a construct made by people's idea of dignity, where Reeves would be trading money for sex while his Dad is incredibly respectable. But when the high class loses their dignity and decide to hire their services, then class disappears and everybody is on the same playing field.
Gus Van Sant uses binary opposition in his film to display the class differences much like Shakespeare uses it in his plays to display the differences between culture by using Prince Hal. In Van Sant’s movie he does an amazing job at showing the different socioeconomic levels. He focuses on the crew who sell their bodies in order to survive and who stick together and enjoy food at the café. Even though they are independent and can survive on their own, they must use the upper class to get their money. It’s corrupt because at this time, gay was bad and yet there were many men with money or in power who were willing to commit this crime. The interaction between the two classes is very interesting. In Shakespeare’s play, there is a contrast between the tavern and the palace. Although they are considered lower, they have fun and they are aware of things going on in the community and often mock it. Both Prince Hal in the play and Scott in the movie love being a part of the lower community (maybe its due to the fact that it’s easier to trust people not in power). However, when it is time for Hal/Scott to take a step into his position of power, he completely turns his back on the people he was closest to.
the wealthier communities are more wealthier and sophisitcated. The poorer communities and the ones that are more shown throughout the movie are more straightforward. People don't really shy away from human interaction in the less wealthier communities and with the more wealthier, keanu reeves hasn't seen his father since the start of the movie (note, I only saw half of the movie)
One way that the director shows opposition is by showing many scenes of all the transient strange people who dwell in that weird building and then showing the scene with Keanu Reeves' dad who is a very rich and successful man. His dad is supposed to represent Bolingbroke in the movie. Im guessing that we will see more of the classier side of life in the following parts of the movie. By showing the vast difference between the civilized world and the world of drugged out prostitutes we can see how this concept can be Americanized. We also see the classier side when the narcoleptic guy goes to that rich women's house and he is examining the nice things in the room. I predict that Keanu Reeves will become more and more civilized because in the play, Hal becomes more sophisticated as he goes along.
ReplyDeleteYour prediction was correct, and I agree with your other points. the difference between the hustlers and the people that pay for them is very evident.
DeleteGreat prediction Colt! U da man
DeleteThe components that Van Sant used to create a binary opposition are similar to the components Shakespeare used for the same purpose in Henry IV. A component of the binary opposition Van Sant creates is the depiction of the higher class looking down upon the actions of the lower class. Specifically, when Scott’s father informs Scott of how disappointed he is with the way Scott is living his life. This exact same binary opposition occurs in Shakespeare’s Henry IV. King Henry looks down upon Prince Hal for the low way in which he behaves. The fact that this component of the binary opposition appears in an American context and in Henry IV shows how a Shakespearian text possesses vitality to an American context, purely because of how similar the situations are. Another part of the binary opposition created by Van Sant is the depiction of the lower cultures’ desire for the wealth of the higher class. In the scene where Mike is in the mansion of the elderly woman examining her expensive possessions, a clear desire to possess her wealth within Mike is revealed. In Henry IV, the desire for the wealth of the upper class is shown when Falstaff and his crew rob the rich people at Gad’s hill. This desire of the lower class to possess the wealth of the upper class is used by both Shakespeare and Van Sant to strengthen the binary opposition between the rich and the poor. The use of this component by both men shows the vitality of Shakespearian text to an American context. There is one more component of the binary opposition between poor and rich cultures created by Van Sant. It is how cruel the upper class is to the lower class. Once Scott inherits his father’s fortune, he becomes a part of high society. Once he has made this transition, Scott turns his back on Bob, the man who made Scott who he is. In Henry IV pt. 2, the exact same thing happens. Once Prince Hal completes his transformation into an individual of high culture, he turns his back on Falstaff, his mentor and friend. Van Sant using a component incredibly similar to one used by Shakespeare shows the vitality of Shakespearean text to American context.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The idea that the poor want what the rich have is a much more accessible idea for American audiences to grasp than Shakespeare's original play.
DeleteI appreciate you connection between the scene at the woman's mansion to the robbery. It makes perfect sense. Van Sant had to have made that similarity intentional.
Delete-FORREST
I definitely agree with the connection you made between scott and prince hal. I also agree with ryan that the idea of the poor wanting what the rich have makes much more sense in this movie rather than in the original play.
DeleteMark I thoroughly agree with your first two statements. Sant did a great job of creating a parallel between the fathers of both Scott and Hal. Also, I think that your connection between the robbery and the old ladies house is accurate and unique. However, I don't think that Bob has as large of an influence on Scott's life as you do. That said, we didn't really look far enough into their relationship to truly see what it was all about.
DeleteThe director shows opposition between high and low culture at the end of the film, in the upper-class cafe. The presence of Bob and the other homeless people contrasts greatly with the people in suits around them, and all of the people in the cafe back away from them. Scott's reaction to Bob here is the direct opposite of his reaction when Bob enters the hotel. When Bob enters the hotel (low culture) Scott greets him and invites him in, but when he enters the cafe (high culture) he tells him to never come near him again. The director uses Scotts actions towards Bob to show the opposition between high and low culture.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Scott's actions when he is wealthy demonstrates the rich class mistreating the poor class. Once Scott has inherited his father's wealth, he turns his back on Bob. He feels he doesn't have to be kind to Bob anymore because of his ascension into high society. This is identical to the way in which Prince Hal treated Falstaff after making it to the top.
DeleteI absolutely agree with the image of class separation while they are in the restaurant. Like you said, in the low class environment of the hotel scott is perfectly fine with bob around but when they are in the higher class environment bob can not be around because of what he looks like and what he is wearing.
DeleteI also agree the director shows opposition between high and low culture at the bar. The reaction of Scott was quite interesting showing little empathy towards Falstaff. In fact he was completely apathetic.
DeleteTo me, the fact that Scott refused to even turn and look at Bob symbolized an "If we don't see them, they don't exist" mentality toward the lower class. Scott has just entered a sector of society with controlled, calculated interactions. Bob is the antithesis of that.
DeleteThe best example showing the vitality of Shakespereian text in the modern world is at the beginning of the film. While wine is replaced with cocaine and the tavern with the apartment, Scotts first interaction with Bob is no different than Hals first interaction with Falstaff in Henry IV. This scene introduces the inappropriate but meaningful relationship between Bob and Scott. Their relationship throughout the film exemplifies that even in a 20th or 21st century society individuals separated by binary opposition can still value each others company. When Scott leaves Bobs company Scott is ready to face the responsibility of being in a family of stature. At the beginning of the film Scott in many ways is a boy, by its conclusion he becomes more of a man. like in Henry IV this progression would not have occurred had Scott not immersed himself in the lifestyle of a street hustler.
ReplyDelete-FORREST PARKER
I agree. The interaction and relationship between Scott and Bob is very similar to the relationship Hal and Falstaff have. Just like Prince Hal, Scott chooses to hang out with people of lower class. His rise into the upper class will be made more glorious because of this. This correlation between Scott and Prince Hal shows the vitality of a Shakespearean text to an American context
DeleteI agree Forrest. The relationship between Scott and Bob is definitely the pinnacle of Shakespearean influence upon Sant's film. Also, Scott could have very well used the knowledge in which Bob taught him to rise to power. If that is the case, I don't think that Sant portrays Bob's influence on Scott well as well as Shakespeare portrays Falstaff's influence on Hal.
DeleteTowards the end of the movie when Bob is forced out of the upper class restaurant is where I see the most opposition of social class. When bob was forced by scott to leave the restaurant and never see him again it was clearly because of the way he looked and the cloths he was wearing. If Bob had come into the restaurant wearing a suit and tie I can imagine that Scott would not have handled that situation the same at all and would probably have loved to see bob. Bob was denied by scott because he was representing the lower class, which scott did not want anything to do with.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you bring up the what if questions. What if Bob was of higher class? Would Scott be involved with him or find another low-life? I still don't believe that Scott would have dealt with him either way. It seems that Scott, once in his nice new suit, is out with the old and in with the new. He's done with everyone and everything in his past. It's weird that there wasn't any real conflicting battle... No Hotspur. It seems like the girl changed it all.
DeleteI agree with you Sam. I also think the funerals scene is really interesting, when each group appears to be apathetic about the other's funeral. The purpose of Scott's apathy toward Bob's death is to prove a point to his old friends and to secure his new place above them. The apathy of Bob's party toward Scott's dad's death is genuine - seems to be an overarching theme that the upper culture puts on airs of indifference to set the lower culture in its place, while the lower culture genuinely couldn't care less about what high culture does
DeleteI to used this example because it shows how different Scotts two worlds were. I also agree that the image of his lower class friends was why he was so embarrassed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe director, Gus Van Sant uses modern American/Italian times in contrast with Shakespearean times. The modern take seems even more obvious when thinking about the binary opposition between the high and low culture or class. The “legal” version of Shakespeares Henry the IV part 1 didn’t seem to focus on that binary opposition. (Or at least it wasn’t as obvious to me.) Sure, you have the tavern opposed to the castle, but there wasn’t a striking feature that made it high vs low class. In many instances in My Private Idaho, it shows the thick differences of higher and lower class. Even when Hal was still a hooligan, he didn’t seem to fit into the crowd. Everyone knew he was the future rich kid, and treated him as such. For instance, Falstaff had the quick-wittedness of using Hal’s fragileness to convey that he was looking out for him during the heist. The two main situations where the high vs low class really showed were at the beginning and at the end. In the beginning we’ve seen the hideout the prostitutes live in, a dank and grungy place. And we see the scene of Bollingbroke and the rich woman’s house, where everything is expensive and tidy. In comparison, Hal lives both words in Henry IV part 1 and 2. In part 1 he’s the let-down son and in part 2 he’s the high class reputable man. In the last scene, Hal completely ignores Falstaff. Hal was dressed to impress, with his grey suit and classy wife. Falstaff on the other hand was still the grungy, fat, old man he was once before. The binary opposition between high and low culture is shown in both films.
ReplyDeleteWhat interested me the most about “My Own Private Idaho” was that Scott was immediately and graciously received in high society. Despite his complete inexperience with that walk of life, as soon as he makes his entrance at the dinner party he’s asked whether he will run for political office soon. The characters address Scott in a tone of relief, briskly setting him on his new path now that he’s “snapped out of it.” The interesting bit is that they aren't really relieved about Scott's welfare and potential--after all, politics are competitive--but about the fact that Scott has chosen them.
ReplyDeleteTo persuade their sons to clean up their acts, Bolingbroke and Scott's father both try to use a logic that does little but reveal an elitist superiority complex: In their dealings with their sons, they emphasize disappointment with their sons' lifestyles, dehumanize their sons' peers, and ultimately refuse to accept that unlike wealth, there’s no measuring stick for culture. The fact is, the collective dignity of low culture--the rejection of the notion that it’s inferior to high culture-- undermines the latter's sense of power.
For as long as his defiance lasts, the rebellious behavior of Scott reveals that in a small city, the upper class can hold power over the lower by refusing to give the poor equal respect, but the lower class can also hold psychological power over the upper class by refusing to venerate insecure figures of power. That's why when Prince Hal and Scott reenter upper society, they're welcomed and encouraged to seek the rewards of sticking to the rules. The upper class interprets the voluntary return of Scott/Hal as a concrete reinforcement of the elite's superiority over low culture, but because Scott and Hal are Machiavels this is an illusion.
Chloe, I think this reaction is interesting. The interaction between these two groups of culture is what makes the story timeless and adaptable to a 21st century cocaine movie. Scott and Hal were both Machiavels, and I felt sorry for King Richard, but not for Bob..hmm...
DeleteI think you make a really interesting point which I hadn't even thought of. I think the most interesting reaction is when you said that they aren't really relieved about Scott's welfare and potential, but the fact that Scott had chosen them. Even though just a bit before they had considered him a lost hope, spending his time with the bums
DeleteI agree with Meg, I hadn't thought about this, but it's an interesting reaction to the film. I think because of his father's status he is immediately welcomed, but it's interesting to think about whether or not he'd be able to make the same quick transition if his father hadn't held the status that he did.
DeleteI think that Gus Van Sant did a fairly good job of using binary opposition to Americanize and retell Shakespeare's "Henry IV". The main way Sant uses binary opposition is by portraying the Hal character as a homosexual, drug using prostitute. This varies greatly from Shakespeare's play; Shakespeare portrays Hal as a drunkard, but Sant wanted to do something over the top. By portraying Hal as a male prostitute, Sant is effectively putting him in the lowest, most memorable social position possible for the American audience viewing the movie. In turn, this makes Scott's rise to power even more dramatic than Hal's in "Henry IV". This tactic works very well, and Shakespeare's Hal character translates nicely into Sant's movie.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I don't think Falstaff's character's transition is quite as smooth. In "Henry IV", Shakespeare is able to make readers admire Falstaff with his quick wit and charm, but in "My Own Private Idaho", Bob doesn't have the same charisma. I think that Sant does an excellent job of portraying Bob as a man of low culture (with his cocaine addiction), but Bob is missing the effervescent personality seen in "Henry IV". For example, in "Henry IV" the Gads Hill incident seems whimsical and lighthearted, but in "My Own Private Idaho", Bob's actions seem malicious and out of line; The difference being that Falstaff simply scares his victims away whereas Bob shoots at them. This lack of an emotional connection I failed to develop with Bob led me to feel no remorse for him when he is stood up by Scott during Scott's upscale dinner. Instead, I felt happy for Scott due to his new found maturity and ability to go of his past. I don't think that this is the reaction Sant intended for.
I agree that Falstaff didn't transition. I liked Falstaff in a certain way, while I didn't even pity Bob. ;)
DeleteI like how you talk about the character of Bob. I definitely agree that he did not have the same charisma as Fallstaff, and therefore the audience can't feel the same remorse for Bob as they could've for Fallstaff.
DeleteAlthough I unfortunately was not present for the viewing of the first half of the film, the scene that keeps popping into my head when reading the question is the funeral scene. Above, at Scott’s father’s funeral, guests are dressed in black at an event that is traditionally a mourning and a celebration of a life. Solemn, they listen to the ancient, traditional words that the church figure speaks. Down below, Scott casts an eye toward a crowd of homeless, rough looking men. At first they are shown slightly mournful, but soon the energy builds up and the men start to have fun. They are celebrating more and not following the tradition like the men above. Scott and his girl respectfully watch the lower scene, after seamlessly being accepted into the higher culture.
ReplyDeleteScott gives respect to the homeless man in the cafe by acknowledging their relations at one time, and allowing him to linger in the cafe for a minute. Then, Scott says that although they were close at one time, that he must leave him alone now.
In both scenes, Scott is granting respect to the group that he used to belong to. However, even with the granted respect, he is moving on and distancing himself. He gained the knowledge and experience he needed by living with the commoners, and he is going to use this experience to his advantage as a powerful man.
ReplyDeleteIn Henry IV Falstaff is nothing more than a drunk who drinks, sleeps, and bums around. Hal’s interaction with him allows Hal to be a disappointment in his father’s eyes and considered low culture. In “My Own Private Idaho” Gus Van Sant mirrors this with the use of cocaine and relationship between Bob and Scott. At the beginning of the movie Scott mimicked the same relationship that Hal and Falstaff had, Bob being his adopted father. Because of his lifestyle Scott’s father considered to be of low culture, using cocaine and causing ruckus with his peers. Near the end of the movie Scott has changed and decided to become more professional, and of higher culture. When Bob approaches his, hoping things will be the same, Scott harshly tells Bob to never go him again, as he only encouraged Scott’s poor decisions. This is similar to when Hal left Falstaff, as he, too, was now part of a higher culture.
I agree. The movie shows the same progression with Scott as the play does with Prince Hal. Falstaff/Bob represent the time of Scott's/Hal's low culture lifestyles, and letting go of this friendship represents the transition into the high culture lifestyle.
DeleteThe film really shines through in showing Shakespearean culture through high and low society by looking at the relationship between Scott and Bob. Even though Bob is a homeless crack addict, Scott still looks up to him and treats him as if he were his real dad. And Scott feels much more distant from his real father, who looks down on the fact that he is hanging out with someone like Bob. This relationship is similar to the one between Falstaff and Hal in Henry IV. where even though Falstaff is seen as an idiotic drunkard, Hal is still much closer to him than he is his real father,bowling broke, who looks down on the fact that he is hanging around someone like Falstaff.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some really key points. I don't understand why Hal/Scott easily fall back into the society that they were pushed away from. It could be that he is a machiavel and knew that he needed to transition to power if he were to succeed. But turning back on his old friends seems like a bad plan.
DeleteThe director makes it very evident who has money and who doesn't. Throughout the film, we see scenes with Scott and his "friends" and it is very clear through their clothes, actions and values that they live a life of "low culture"-some with cocaine addictions, many sleeping with people for money. There are also a few scenes with Scott's father and those who work for him, and this really shows the contrast between high and low culture. It is clear that they live a life of "high culture," wearing nicer clothing and leading more "professional" lifestyles. The scene that I think most reveals the opposition between high and low cultures is in one of the last scenes when Bob enters the high-class restaurant where Scott and his father are dining. When Bob enters the room, he says hello to Scott and at first Scott ignores him, and then goes on to explain how he's moved on from that part of his life. This shows Scott letting go of his low culture lifestyle, just as Prince Hal lets go of his lower lifestyle when he moves on from his friendship with Falstaff and proves himself worthy to his father.
ReplyDeleteGus Van Sant used the opposition between high and low culture to reveal the vitality of Shakespeare by showing the two kinds of groups that Scott hangs out with. Scott, who plays the character of Prince Hal in the play King Henry IV, hangs out with poor men who sell them selves for sex on the streets even though his family has a lot of money. He does this so that his father will hold no expectations for him so that when it is time for him to step and take responsibility he will completely shock his father. There is a scene where Scott is in a posh restaurant mingling with high society people when some of his low culture friends come in and ask Scott to come back into there group. Scott pretends like he doesn't know them at first and then tells them to never talk to him again. This idea of Scott hanging out with two societies comes directly from Shakespeare's Play.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same that he was working to impress his father, but doesn't seem like he should have done it earlier? I also wonder if he could have had both power and fun time in the tavern or is the tavern equivalent to lowly life.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe director of "My Own Private Idaho" has a very stylistic approach when it comes to portraying who has money in the film and who doesn't. Generally all of the people who do not have money sell their bodies, engage in taking drugs, and act as loud hooligans. This being said the lower class people in the film tend to have more character and are not afraid what people think of them. The people portrayed as the higher class are all depicted in suits or fancy dress and always are in nice buildings. However, these higher class characters are boring due to the fact that it is apparent that they are trying to make a positive impression on their peers. I don't necessarily think that Van Sant does a good job of portraying Shakespearian text due to the fact that he over exaggerates the disparity which I find to be distracting and ultimately takes away my attention from the writing.
ReplyDeleteGus Van Sant does a very good job of portraying Shakespeare to American culture. In my opinion he took it a step further by making them street bums. But like in the play Prince Hal knows he will at some point need to grow up and act like an adult like Keanu Reeves had to do in the movie. Reality sets in for Hal in both works and he has to assume a leadership and adult like position. He needed to distance himself from Falstaff, like Neo did with Bob.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talk about how he takes a step farther by making them street bums. I think that it shows the disparity even more. Also good call with calling Keanu NEO.
DeleteThe use of contrast between the high class scenes in My Private Idaho is meant as a heavy slap of irony, a staple in Shakespeare. The lower class flat where the lower class hustler men were hanging out is put against the upper class scenes of Keanu Reeve's father and the lavish buildings where they gain their money from. This contrast is used, but then utterly destroyed once they show scenes of the poor hustler men doing business with the upper class men, bringing the two classes together only at the primal and sexual level.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of having Shakespeare vitality in the modern context, it's the ultimate example of how class is just a construct made by people's idea of dignity, where Reeves would be trading money for sex while his Dad is incredibly respectable. But when the high class loses their dignity and decide to hire their services, then class disappears and everybody is on the same playing field.
Gus Van Sant uses binary opposition in his film to display the class differences much like Shakespeare uses it in his plays to display the differences between culture by using Prince Hal. In Van Sant’s movie he does an amazing job at showing the different socioeconomic levels. He focuses on the crew who sell their bodies in order to survive and who stick together and enjoy food at the café. Even though they are independent and can survive on their own, they must use the upper class to get their money. It’s corrupt because at this time, gay was bad and yet there were many men with money or in power who were willing to commit this crime. The interaction between the two classes is very interesting. In Shakespeare’s play, there is a contrast between the tavern and the palace. Although they are considered lower, they have fun and they are aware of things going on in the community and often mock it. Both Prince Hal in the play and Scott in the movie love being a part of the lower community (maybe its due to the fact that it’s easier to trust people not in power). However, when it is time for Hal/Scott to take a step into his position of power, he completely turns his back on the people he was closest to.
ReplyDeletethe wealthier communities are more wealthier and sophisitcated. The poorer communities and the ones that are more shown throughout the movie are more straightforward. People don't really shy away from human interaction in the less wealthier communities and with the more wealthier, keanu reeves hasn't seen his father since the start of the movie (note, I only saw half of the movie)
ReplyDelete