Tomorrow The Movie

I was not impressed with the movie of this story. It seemed to move really slowly, and it was hard to concentrate on what was happening. The movie did seem to try to stick close to the original story. Keeping the idea of the court case, the unfolding reason behind the hung jury, and the somewhat moral of the story. However the movie did not spend as much time on the actual event the book was about, the court case and its preceeding storyline. It focused more on the life and circumstances of Fentry. This made the movie seem longer, and without a point. I was also disappointed that they removed the idea of the niece telling the story altogether. There is some narration in the begging, but it is the lawyer speaking, then it stops until the end of the movie. I imagine the idea was to make the story the focus point of the movie, showing that this was what was important to the film makers. It was also probably intended to make the story seem more personal, rather then a story being related to us by a third party. In all I did not think the movie was very successful in keeping an audience interested, and I wonder why they chose to make that particular story into a movie to begin with.

Tommorrow

I was not too impressed with the short story Tommorrow. I love to read but I was unable to really get into the story. It seemed to be a little long winded for such a simple plot. I did enjoy the few twists that the story took. It was interesting that the narriator was not really involved in the action of the story. It was through the eyes of what would have been a child at the time. I was also surprised by the situation that caused the man to refuse to let the man of for murder. I was kind of expecting his reasoning to be more along the lines of mine. That no matter how bad of a choice his daughter made in choosing her husband, it was her choice and he had no right to kill the man. This was the real problem that I had with the story. The begining speech that the lawyer made seemed to be more in favor of the man not getting away with what he did. He mentions that a life can only be repayed with another life, but the story never says anything about the boy killing anyone. It does mention that a gun was found in his hand as if he planned to kill the dad too. But he did not even shoot at him because the dad killed him before he ever got the chance. Perhaps I am just not that well versed in the ideas of justice back in the old days, but I was confused by the fact that it was supposably a open and shut case, and that the one man was the only one who thought it was wrong t let the murderer go unpunihed.

Memento The Movie

I feel that the movie was a very good adaptation of the story. Although they take plenty of liberties with the general plot and actions, it is a pretty general story that allows the changes without destroying the original idea. The main idea remains the same, a man who is no longer able to make new memories is looking for the man who murdered his wife. This man is out for revenge and he plans on killing the person who is responsible. However after the task that he has set for himself is accomplished, he does not remember it.
The movie is different from the story in many ways. The man in the movie has become a killer for many, he is used by people who are able to gain his trust and convince him to kill for them, and he is presented as allowing this to happen to himself because he is not able to give up his quest for revenge. This is not explicit in the story, although it is one interpretation of the mysterious letters to himself that perhaps someone is writing them to him to get him to do something for them. The movie also focuses on a time after the original revenge death has already taken place, while the story seems to begin with his first attempt at gaining his revenge. He has just escaped from the hospital and he is leading himself to the man that is responsible for his wife's murder.
The most interesting difference between the two stories is the idea of Sammy. This is not mentioned in the story at all, however it is a very important part of the movie. Sammy is a man that the main character investigated before his incident. Sammy was unable to create new memories, and this eventually led to him killing his wife by giving her to many insulin shots. The movie tells us that there is no Sammy, that this is a fictional character made up by the main character to forget that it really happened to him. This means that his wife did not die in the attack, but was not able to live with him in the condition that he was in, and she found a way to commit suicide.

Memento

I really enjoyed this story, it was mysterious and very ironic. The story is about a man who has lost his memory, wife, and even his way of living. The man has to write himself notes to remember what has happened to him. I think that it is amazing that he was able to accomplish so much without the basic memories that we all take for granted in our daily life's.
I was unaware at the beginning of the story that it is the man who is writing the letters about the revenge that he needs to take for the death of his wife. I was surprised when it was later revealed that the person who is urging him to murder, is in fact himself. I loved that this side of him did not relate to the person who he had become. It allowed the letters to take on a life of their own, without detracting from his current situation. The person who was writing the letters was a past version of himself, during a few moments of clarity, which is cleverly referenced in the story during one letter. It made the story very intriguing.
The man was able to accomplish the murder of his wife's rapist by following the simple clues that he left for himself. I loved the idea of the tattoos designed in reverse so that he was able to read them in the mirror. This took from the idea that was presented in the beginning of the story of placing notes where he was unable to miss or forget them.
The notes turned out to be self defeating in the end. As I understood the ending of the story, he was unable to document the event that he had spent so much effort in trying to accomplish. This led me to believe that he would then have forgot that he had killed the man, and so that when he read his notes, he would believe that he still needed to get revenge for the death of his wife.

The Killers

The article we read about heroic fatalism was very interesting. I am not sure that I agree with the idea that is being presented in the article that there was anything heroic about the death of Ole Andreson. Although he is unwilling to do anything to avoid his fate, I see this more as a sense of helplessness, and perhaps even exhaustion from running so long. However, I found the article to be very helpful in demonstrating how his actions would be considered heroic in way for some people. It may simply be more comforting to believe that he was acting heroic, rather then him just wanting to get it over with.
Although the article was helpful in the heroic fatalism area, I found the rest of the article a little off topic and random. It spends a lot of time simply explaining and summarizing the events in the movies. The author even spends a great deal of time talking about the production of the different adaptations of this story. And although it was not important to the idea a heroic fatalism, I enjoyed the bit about the female portraying the exact opposite idea, willing to beg and plead to save her life.
The movies tend to be very different in the way they represent the story. While the earlier adaptations made an effort to stick closely to the story and plot of the book, the 1964 adaptation went in a different direction. The 1964 adaptation was only interested in maintaining the representation of heroic fatalism, changing the plot, characters, and dialog to present a more modern film. I found the earlier adaptations were more enjoyable for me since I had already read the story.