Does Nadia Bjorlin Wear Contact Lenses

Cormac McCarthy, the Coens and the rough finish of No Country for Old


In the construction of characters there is always a particular hierarchy that must be respected. If a character has not been presented with a primary role may not assume in the course of the plot and main characters should carry out its mission throughout the movie plot. Breaking this rule is possible, but for this we must develop a structure that justifies the change of roles or characters. It happens in movies such divided into chapters or formed by many independent accounts.

The literature is much more common to find such resources. Written language features give greater freedom the author to change the view so you can play with the characters moving narrative weight from side to side. However, in the movies half the limitations of the story make it less flexible to use these resources.

The "abandonment" of the hero by McCarthy and the Coen

Warning! Spoilers!

In the book of Cormac McCarthy No Country for Old the author relates in the third person, but also giving space to the inner world of some characters (the old sheriff who begins as a child). In his film adaptation, the Coen brothers do not get away from the history as account for much of the conflict between Moss, starring the best built and most caring, and Chirgurh, the indestructible villain played by Bardem. After

focus on that conflict to the western style, the Coen just confuse the audience when they kill the main character before the end of the film. In the book McCarthy backs covered through other characters, also relying on a registry change in language giving more insight to the story. But when the Coen resort to these other characters, everything seems more hollow because the secondaries have just imposed (especially the sheriff who is in book a more defined). Perhaps another approach, a little less sharp and more closely in parallel plots, the end may contain a greater force.

Moss's death in an off, right after seeing him survive a brutal persecution for an hour and a half, with only 20 minutes to complete. Is this what is expected of a hero?

Hives Ankles Antibiotics

stereotype and archetype: Opposites in artistic creation

quote of criticism in the newspaper ABC about the film No call it amor... llámalo X firmada por Javier Cortijo :

"Mala, repleta de chistes de barra de Whiskería, situaciones sitcom de vergüenza ajena, y personajes casposos y arquetípicos "

Me sorprende mucho el calificativo "arquetípico" dentro del razonamiento utilizado por Cortijo para enjuiciar la construcción de personajes de esta película. Creo que todos captamos el sentido que pretende darle, ya que se encuentra marcada por un análisis más cercano al reproche que a la argumentación. Pero el significado real, o al menos el significado that given the term "archetype" in artistic creation, is very different concept here is handled.

But what is an archetype? Is it a stereotype synonym (word sure all the readers who will come to mind)? Is there a difference between these two terms? Drawing

relief and universal resource dictionary, we find the crux of the matter:

"Archetype: original and primary model in an art or something else."

"Stereotype: Image or commonly accepted idea of \u200b\u200ba group or partnership with immutability. "

The opposition between two concepts can be clearly seen. The archetype of a unique brand, exclusively, on developing an idea, while the stereotype refers to plantemientos already in place widely in the social group. The first is proper common latter. A radical difference that sit on the important bases of artistic production.

archetype and stereotype the script

Both the script as any other type of work, use the stereotype is a resource poor. Its design is based on the topic and the commonplace and almost always hollow. There is nothing different, nothing new, it offers the same with different packaging. Often these formulas are included in the cliches of genre or narrative fashion, which should not be neglected ever. They are also present in all areas, both on the characteristics of the characters as narrative structures, resources, script ...

However, the archetype has a strange, unknown to the audience that is attracted by its unusual nature and unknown. The great merit of building a good archetype is the ability to give this story an absolute alien who is a reflection of what days we live and feel a day from a perspective that brings different shades. Which often provide the leap to archetypal narrative will be searching for new models, new references or creative skills.

To conclude in the most revealing as possible, a quotation from script guru Robert McKee defining these two concepts:

"The archetypal stories that reveal universal human experiences dress unique expression of a specific culture. The stories stereotypical lack both content and form. are reduced to a limited experience of a particular culture disguised in general "

Given this, do not think a story of whiskey bar "is itself an archetypal construction. Javier Cortijo , great critic whom I admire, it goes this time with a very common slip and extended vocabulary. No big deal, but at the same time to create, that boundary is always maintained solid and immovable.