Will the real Dorian Gray please stand up?

In a presentation during class this week, the trailer for the 2009 movie Dorian Gray was shown. It looked interesting, so I decided to watch it to compare it to the book for the blog this week. And boy was I surprised.
First off, this movie is rated R for a reason. It is a little gory, but mainly super sexual. I should have expected that because of the nature of the book itself, but I was still taken aback. Second, I wasn't expecting the movie to be exactly like the boo, but it turned out to be very loosely based off of the novel. The characters were the same, and the plot had the same basic concept, but there were a few key parts that were oddly different.
The novel actually shows Basil painting Dorian Gray, whereas in the book it does not. Also, the painting was put on display to the public in Dorian's house for a period of time before he puts it away. The portrait seemed super grotesque too. In the novel, I did not imagine it actually lifelike and moving, whereas in the movie where were maggots seeping out of his eyes and one could see the changes as they occurred. In the movie, the man in the portrait did not only grow old, but seemed to sort of decay.
Dorian Gray's relationship with Sibyl in the movie also differs from that of the book. He still falls in love with her for her acting, and they get engaged very quickly after meeting each other. However, they break up for an extremely different reason. in the book, Dorian claims that he does not like her anymore because she was no longer a good actress. in the movie, he gets kind of freaked out because she wants children, and she accuses him of cheating on her (which he did with Lord Henry's help). She yelled at him for going to the club with the women, and he leaves frustrated and angry. The next morning Jim Vane comes to tell Dorian that Sibyl drowned herself in the river. Another discrepancy in the movie is Jim (or James) Vane; instead of being accidentally shot like in the novel, Dorian kills him on railroad tracks.
One final, major, differing point is the relationship between Basil and Dorian. In the book, Wilde alludes to homosexual relations with Lord Henry and Dorian, and Lord Henry and Basil fight over Dorian's affections. However, the movie is very different. It actually shows Dorian seducing Basil, and them kissing each other, and conveniently cutting to the next scene right before they have some sort of sexual relation. This was quite surprising, and Dorian uses his sexual power over Basil to manipulate him.
Overall, I the plot was the same: the idea of the portrait aging while Dorian stays young. He still kills Basil in the movie, Sibyl kills herself, Dorian turns to temptations, and Dorian ends up killing himself when he stabs the portrait, and the characters' personalities are accurate. But the details are not the same, including the actual name of the movie: Dorian Gray versus The Picture of Dorian Gray.

The Man Who Would Be King

The Man Who Would be King (1975)

Stepping into CUE 318 for our extra credit movie I know we all were thinking ‘ah crap another weird old movie we have to watch for English’. But then the names Sean Connery and Michael Caine come into play and we all know this is going to be one kick ass movie. At first I couldn’t stop thinking about how bloody young Michael Caine looked and how much he is one of my favorite actors, with Sean Connery coming in at a close second. When considering the cinematography, the movie includes quite a high amount of white and light coloring; from outfits to walls and scenery. The lightness of the colors could easily represent the light colors of India, which is where the movie is set. The matching white suits that Michael and Sean wear in the beginning of the film seem to make them even more of a duo, as well as their interactions with one another. The two seem to have a brotherly bond that keeps them going throughout their journey to India.

One scene I did not understand though was when the two characters were hidden on the side of a hill, shooting at a tribe of people, women and children included, who were enjoying their own festivities below. Leading up to the scene, there seemed to be no pre-cursor to this massacre and it came off completely unnecessary. After killing several people, the two walk up to the village and are strangely accepted. They are accepted into the community and there they teach them to fight and during this time, the people of the village come to the conclusion that the two men are ‘Gods’ and are worshiped as such. When they are summoned to the high priest, the white motif is used again with the light clothing of the priest and the other monks that are included in the scene.  These religious figures plan to kill Daniel until they see his Mason's pendant around his neck. After this he is crowned.

There are many elements that confuse me about this story and the movie. First of all is the idea that the village in which they attacked accepted the two killers as their own. Why would they accept two men into their territory who just slaughtered many of their own men? Not only did they accept them into the community, they gave them essentially a position of power and put them at the head of their army. Secondly, the high priest plans to kill Daniel until his pendant is shown; it is after this that he is crowned, but why?  After this instance, it becomes apparent that Daniel and Peachy's relationship begins to waiver, and it becomes obvious that Daniel begins to believe he is high and superior and that he is indeed a God. Daniel is giving orders and Peachy is simply sitting behind him listening. Daniel comes to the conclusion that he is King and Peachy is merely a subject. Overall, Daniel is completely overcome by his newfound authority and is consumed.

In the end, Daniel is made a fool when he is discovered to be human rather than a god and is sent to his death. Peachy is crucified but escapes and returns the head of Daniel to the journalist. 

Overall I enjoyed the film very much. I mean come on, Michael Caine and Sean Connery? And how about Sean Connery’s mustache!

Burden is a burden

Throughout the poem "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling the speaker is calling the white man to arms. Not physical arms, but to take on his share of burden. He calls for future generations to be looked at with a sort of exile and referenced white folks as a breed. It seems as though there is a distaste left with the speaker, which is perfect because white mans burden is a left over response to the mistreatment of others by white people in this country in the past. The speaker is portraying one of these mistreated individuals and almost appears to be taunting the "burden" onto the white man. The speaker calls white children half devil and claims that white's will seek others profit and gain. All in all, this could be looked at as a toast or even a curse. Likewise, "Black Man's Burden" by Hubert Harrison has its  own mocking tune. Written as a response to Kipling's poem, It could be calling Kipling out for boasting too loudly and not being entirely politically correct. It seems to point out the equalities of misjudgment from each race at large and the generalizations that are made and skipped over depending on which defense or act of aggression is being made and by whom. My question to the class or another reader would be, do either of these poems tell the whole story? If so why, if not how come?