Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close versus Death of a Salesman

When I was reading Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the book that popped into my head was The Catcher in the Rye; however, another person already chose to compare these two novels. After thinking it over some more, I decided to compare Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close to Death of a Salesman. Both of these novels take place in New York, although it is during different time periods. Even though these novels take place about 50 years apart from each other they have other similarities besides their location.

This novel and play are both written in throw multiple perspectives; they also both jump from the present to the past. In Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the time period changes when there is a change of narrator. By switching the narrator, the reader is slowly able to start putting the piece together of how the present situation came to be. The past events that are described help to illustrate the connection between past and present, the cause and effect of certain actions. In Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the grandfather writes about how much he loved Anna and in turn that is the reason why he was not able to love the grandmother resulting in him leaving. By leaving it creating a situation where a boy grew up without a father and that boy’s son grew up without a grandfather. This kind of situation would help shape a person into who they are, Oskar has this great attachment to his father and grandmother, but things might have been different if the grandfather did not decide to leave. A situation like this is found in Death of a Salesman because within the play there are many flashbacks. Through these flashbacks, it reveals how the characters came to be in the situation they are in, but it also reveals many things about the characters themselves. Willy and his son, Biff, often argue within the play but it is revealed later on this that his could have been as a result of Biff finding his father having an affair. However, it was not just the affair it was the fact that his father was lying to him; thereby, shattering the image he had of his father causing their relationship to turn sour.

In both of these pieces of literature, the setting is in New York and flashbacks are used to show that the way a person is raised greatly affects how they will develop. Past events greatly influence the choice that people make in the present and future. There are other similarities between these two pieces of literature such as the connection between father and son. In Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the bond that Oskar had with his father was very strong and this is highlighted when it is being compared to the relationship between Oskar and his mother. Oskar even remarks how he wishes it was his mother that died instead of her father. The relationship between father and son the Death of a Salesman is also important because Willy proved to be a great influence on Biff's personality. Willy has an enormous sense of pride and he focused a lot of his attention on Biff resulting in Biff following his father's example. Even though in the present setting of the novel, the relationship between Biff and his father is very fragile, that strong connection is still present through the amount of influence that Willy had on Biff. 

At first, this play did not seem to be very similar to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but after thinking about it, I was kind of amazed how similar they are even though they are on completely different topics and are set in different time periods. I hope everything I wrote about for Death of a Salesman is correct since I have not read the play in over 2 years.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and Reign Over Me

While reading Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, I was reminded of a movie I watched recently titled Reign Over Me. Both the novel and the movie are focused around 9/11 tragedies, and thus share several thematic similarities.

            Reign Over Me tells the story of a middle-aged man named Charlie Fineman who has lost his wife and three daughters in the 9/11 attack. The plot revolves around the reunion of Charlie with his former roommate, Alan Johnson, and how Alan helps Charlie cope with his grief. Alan went to dental school with Charlie, and is now an established dentist living with his wife and two daughters. Charlie, on the other hand, has discontinued his practice since the incident and now plays in a local band.  Charlie initially treats Alan as an acquaintance because he doesn't remember him, but as old memories are re-surfaced, they both become close friends again. Alan realizes, however, that Charlie has intentionally repressed his memories about the loss because he becomes infuriated if anyone tries to remind him of his family. Therefore, Alan convinces Charlie to seek help from one of his colleagues, Dr. Angela Oakhurst, who is a psychiatrist in the same building where Alan works. Although Charlie reluctantly visits Dr. Oakhurst, he does not talk to her about the tragedy; instead, he decides to open up to Alan. After reiterating the tragedy, Charlie goes back home and tries to commit suicide by cop. As a result, he is apprehended and forced to undergo three days of intense psychological evaluation, after which it is recommended that he should be committed to a psychiatric facility. During the court trial, however, the Judge realizes the complexity of the case, and thus he assigns Charlie’s in-laws the responsibility of deciding whether or not he should be committed. They decide to allow Charlie to continue leading his life normally, and the movie ends with Charlie moving into a new apartment.

            One of the first similarities I noticed between the novel and the movie was that they both have protagonists who have been personally affected by the 9/11 tragedy - Oskar lost his father to the attack, while Charlie lost his entire family. Although Charlie appears to be in his mid-30s, the trauma has caused him to mentally regress back to a young child. Therefore, his behavior and thinking in the movie are very similar to that of Oskar’s in the novel. Essentially, both these protagonists live in their own little world, driven by memories of their lost ones. For example, Oskar tries to hold onto memories of his Dad by embarking on a journey to unravel the mystery behind the key. Similarly, Charlie tries to keep his family’s memories fresh by remodeling the kitchen over and over again. The viewer learns towards the end of the film that Charlie does so because in the last conversation he had with his wife, they argued over a future kitchen remodeling project. Additionally, both characters choose to talk to a friend about their problems as opposed to their therapist. Also, both Charlie and Oskar resort to music as a distraction mechanism – Oskar carries his tambourine with him and Charlie resorts to his iPod anytime he feels distressed. Amongst other things, the biggest difference I saw between the two characters (apart from age) was that Oskar is comfortable talking about his Dad’s death whereas Charlie refuses to discuss any details of the tragedy or his life before 9/11.

            Along with having similar protagonists, the movie and the novel are also thematically related because they both are focused around the idea of coping with loss and grief. Losing a loved at any age is extremely difficult, but as is evidenced by Oskar and Charlie, each person deals with loss in his or her own unique way. Oskar continually strives to keep his Dad’s memories fresh in his mind by recollecting the moments/games they shared, and by going on an adventure to uncover the truth behind one of his father’s possessions (the key). Charlie, on the other hand, contently roams the streets of New York in his motorized scooter, and tries his very best to suppress any memories of his family. It’s not that Charlie does not want to remember his family; rather, it appears to be a coping mechanism that he has employed in order to alleviate some of the pain. Another common theme between the two narratives is the absence of communication. In the novel, Oskar’s grandparents have difficulty communicating with each other, and even Oskar himself cannot seem to communicate properly with his mother. This idea is also portrayed in the film because Alan and his wife, Janeane, have subtle marital tensions due to the lack of communication, and Charlie refuses to communicate with anyone (except Alan) about the tragedy. Thus, both works go to show that effective communication is not only crucial for one's interpersonal relationships, but it also helps a person cope with difficult times.

            Lastly, Grandma’s comment in the novel about how “it’s always necessary” (314) strongly reminded of the movie’s ending scene where Janeane Johnson tells her husband, Alan, “…I probably don’t tell you this enough, but I love you.” This comment further portrays how vital communication is and it also stresses the importance of effectively relaying one’s emotions to others (before it's too late). Overall, as both works demonstrate, it does not matter how one chooses to deal with grief as long as the person is able to achieve some sense of closure in the end.  

Trailer for Reign Over Me:

Thank you for reading!  

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and The Catcher in the Rye

            One of the books that came to mind as I was reading Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer was The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. Both stories are told in stream of consciousness (Just in case you do not know, stream of consciousness refers to a series of thoughts or images that help the reader connect to the character by allowing the reader into the character’s inner thoughts.). The protagonists of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and The Catcher in the Rye, Oskar Schell and Holden Caulfield, respectively, are actually pretty similar and both novels are told in their points of view (except for some of the chapters in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in which they are narrated by either Oskar’s grandfather or grandmother).

            In Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the novel begins with the readers finding out that Oskar’s father, Thomas Schell, has died in the World Trade Center as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because Oskar has an incredibly close relationship with his father, he suffers a traumatizing experience from the death of his father and loses his best friend. From then on, he has trouble making friends his own age, especially in school, and is self-abusive. For a nine year old, he is actually pretty smart and intuitive, from knowing about the science behind the bombing of Hiroshima to being an amateur inventor. After finding a key in an envelope that he finds in the remains of a vase he shatters in his father’s closet, he embarks on an adventure around New York to try to find the missing lock, hoping that it will unveil something that his father left for him. Throughout his journey, he meets a bunch of people who share their stories with him; unfortunately, many of them do not even know of his father and provide little help.

            In The Catcher in the Rye, we are introduced to Holden Caulfield, who is at that moment hospitalized, as he reflects back on his time at Pencey Prep and his eventual trip back home to New York. Because of some emotional trauma such as the death of his brother and the suicide of a friend, Holden, like Oskar, is also troubled. He has a cynical view of the world, often making comments about things that are so absurd that it becomes funny to the reader. He also meets many people around New York, but ends up thinking that everyone is just phony and fake because they’re all just liars. Ironically, they are not the only ones that lie; he has a habit of lying too. Holden has difficulty with the transition from childhood to adulthood and wants to save children from growing up and becoming all the phonies that he has met in New York.

            One of the main things that stood out to me was that Oskar Schell and Holden Caulfield are both minors roaming around New York. They both seem to have some issues: Holden with his pessimistic and judgmental opinions of the world around him and Oskar and his troubles with befriending people of his own age. Both of the characters’ resulting personalities originate from the trauma of a family member’s death: Oskar with the death of his father and Holden with the death of his brother. They also do a fair amount of swearing (or almost swearing in Oskar’s case—Shittake) and lying (though not for the same reasons). Oskar and Holden also end up having psychiatric help to deal with their emotional trauma.

            Both characters embark on a journey in search of closure and reconciliation for the loss of a loved one. Oskar roams around New York looking for the mysterious lock to his key and parallel to his narration are the grandparents’ narrations of their lives through their letters. He is looking for closure from his father, trying to understand how his father died and why his father never said “I love you,” but in the end, he never really finds the truth but only closure when he digs up the grave. When Holden leaves Pencey Prep, we as the readers find that he’s actually a pretty angry guy, suffering from the death of his friend and brother. It makes him angry that he does not quite understand everything and blames it on the phoniness of the adults. At the end of the novel, he finally begins to feel a little happier after seeing his little sister Phoebe on the carousel and decides to approach life more optimistically and go back to school.

            I think that one of the big lessons that both novels try to teach us is that life is unexpected and to expect the unexpected. Events such as deaths are bound to happen at some point, but the exact time is unknown. When it does, we cannot allow it to eat us up on the inside but rather to accept it and make the best out of the situation.

Hot Fuzz and Scream

One movie I find similar to Hot Fuzz, directed by Edgar Wright, is Scream, directed by Wes Craven. They both have killers who wear black robes with hoods, multiple killers when you originally think there is only one, points where you think the characters are dead and then they come back to life, reference other movies, and make fun of other movies in their category.

In Scream, there is a series of murders in a small town. The murders are committed by a killer in a black robe with a ghost face mask. Usually before the victim is killed, they receive a call from the killer, who disguises his voice. The killer plays games with the victims, asking them questions such as “What’s your favorite scary movie?” He then reveals that he can somehow see what they are doing. Sidney Prescott receives one of these calls and is attacked by the killer but escapes. During a party she and numerous other high school students attend, multiple people die throughout the night and the main suspect, Billy Loomis, Sidney’s boyfriend, appears to be innocent when he is attacked. Later, we figure out that he is not innocent and there are two killers, Billy and Stu, who are working together. They are going to try to frame the murders on Sidney’s Dad, Neil Prescott, but they are interrupted by a reporter, Gail Weathers, who was investigating the murders. Billy ends up getting the gun from her and Sidney escapes. She hides in a closet until Billy opens it and she stabs him with an umbrella. Stu then chases her around and she ends up killing him by dropping a TV on his head. Billy is not actually dead and comes at her again, but this time Gail actually shoots him.

In Hot Fuzz, Sergeant Nicholas Angel is transferred from the police force in London, to the small town of Sandford. The night before his first day working, he ends up arresting multiple people in the town. While he is on the job, most of the calls he gets are about little things that he would never have had to deal with while in London, such as finding an escaped swan. He also notices that there are a lot of mysterious and freak accidents in Sandford, such as a car accident with no skid marks and a house explosion. He seems to be the only one who thinks there is someone who is murdering all of these people and staging it to look like accidents. In the end you find out that there are multiple killers who are all part of the NWA, or Neighbourhood Watch Alliance, that are killing people who they think are bad for the town’s image. Sergeant Angel and his partner Danny end up taking all of the NWA down, most of them in a comical way. Nick and Danny are promoted and continue to keep the peace in Sandford together.

Throughout both movies, there are numerous references to other movies. In Hot Fuzz, there are many references to action movies such as Bad Boys II and Point Break. Danny constantly asks Sergeant Angel questions about his past police work, and wants to partake in things from the movies such as car chases and shoot outs. At one point, Danny plays out one scene from Point Break, where he fires his gun into the air and screams rather than shoot his father. In Scream, there are many references to scary movies, such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Psycho.There are many times where people comment how, If this was a scary movie________ would happen. Usually a few seconds or minutes later, whatever they had said would actually happen. They also talk about who would play them if a movie was made about the murders and how they wanted to be in the sequel when they were saying they wanted to live.

Both movies also make fun of other movies in their categories. Hot Fuzz makes fun of traditional action movies by making the chase scenes unrealistic and funny, such as when Sergeant Angel is hopping over the fences doing flips, making it look easy, and when they stop to pick up the swan in the middle of the car chase. Scream makes fun of traditional scary movies by making comments about other movies. When Sidney is talking to the killer on the phone, she says she doesn't like scary movies because the girl is always stupid and runs up the stairs instead of out the door, even though she does the same thing five minutes later when the killer is after her. There is also another scene when the character, Randy, played by Jamie Kennedy, is watching Jamie Lee Curtis in a scary movie on TV and yells many times “Jamie! Look behind you!” The killer is actually standing right behind him and the viewers are also supposed to be yelling “Jamie! Look behind you!”

Hot Fuzz and Scream also end in huge fight scenes that are somewhat comical; although in Hot Fuzz, none of the bad guys really die, except probably the guy who gets blown up by the sea mine, and in Scream both the killers die.

Hot Fuzz versus A Modest Proposal

The (almost) first thing that comes to mind when I think of Hot Fuzz is Jonathan Swift’s satire “A Modest Proposal.” Both the movie and the essay have the major theme of “the greater good.” Both are also incredibly twisted in their ways of going about it. The NWA in Hot Fuzz has the goal of winning the “Village of the Year” award, again, and thus murders anyone who disrupts the small town-ness of Sandford. Disruption in this case could mean having an ugly house, being an appalling actor, having an annoying laugh, moving away, or ruining a newspaper with “tabloid journalism” and bad spelling. In “A Modest Proposal,” Swift illustrates an idea for solving the hunger crisis in Ireland. People starve to death on a daily basis, women and children beg on the streets, and no one knows what to do about it. Swift, after a long lead-up, suggests that children be eaten. He argues that it would solve the problem of starvation, that the poor would have a source of income, and that it would induce marriage and stop husbands from hurting their wives for fear of a miscarriage. Though both are technically for the “greater good,” they are warped. The achievement of goals is gone about in an improper way. The Neighborhood Watch Alliance is serious in its intent, while Swift is merely putting forth a ludicrous proposal in order to make people do something about a crisis. The NWA has a grave goal, while Swift is simply aiming for the shock factor.

Both Hot Fuzz and “A Modest Proposal” have a sudden turn of events that changes the story immediately. In the movie, Nicolas Angel is a prime cop that makes his coworkers look bad, so he is sent to a small town. A series of accidents happens, which he suspects are murders. In his investigation, he finds connections that could easily lead to murder, and is instead told, at the confrontation of the NWA, that people are merely being killed because they upset the village’s image.  While Swift’s version of a sudden plot twist is not so action-filled, it still suits the definition. As you read through the essay, he leads up to his idea with the problem at hand: babies are frequently aborted, that a child is of no use until working age (just money deposits), and that past the age of one, a child can no longer solely survive upon the milk of his or her mother and must instead be fed. Swift insists that an American friend of his said that infant flesh is tender and nourishing. Infant meat should therefore be used to feed the millions, to bring money to their parents. Cannibalism is therefore normal and necessary. Both have the theme of if you can’t think of anything else to do, kill off the problem people!

While an essay cannot have much of a genre, it still (hopefully) gives the reader a feeling of horror or shock. In this way, it can be considered a thriller or a horror movie.  If the proposal was carried out, a psychological thriller would indeed ensue. The movie, unlike the essay, has many genres. Action was obvious, as, toward the end, gun fights and car chases riddled the screen, and a man was even caught in a bear trap. Comedy was also obvious, with the two opposite partners clashing over a swan, and the huge, funny twist near the conclusion. There is a sense of romance, though “bromance” should probably be used instead. In one scene, “let’s make love” music plays steadily louder in the background as the buddy cops talk about their feelings and bond over action movies. There is a definite air of mystery: people keep having accidents and dying. Connections can be made to a land ownership scandal and to people who know too much. An air of drama is also present, as the partners struggle to become friends, while Nicolas is unable to separate his work from his personal life, and ruins his relationships. Horror and thrills also accompany this, with blood scattered generously throughout. The viewer tends to not know what to think, as so many genres are mushed together. Therefore, both essay and movie have trouble in the categorizing department.

So, while “A Modest Proposal” and Hot Fuzz have nothing whatsoever in common, they actually have some things that can be connected. The unexpected and genre peculiarity are common occurrences in these, and in other literature and movies.

Never Let Me Go and 1984

        Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go is an outstanding novel about a dystopia where clones are raised to become organ donors. As we were reading this novel, I was constantly reminded about George Orwell’s 1984. I noticed similarities primarily in the settings of the two novels since the environments were extremely important in the develop of the characters in both novels.

         George Orwell’s 1984 is set in a world where there are only three large nations left that are all isolated from each other and where there is always a war raging between two out of three of the nations. Readers follow Winston, a member of the nation of Oceania, as he starts to question the society and consider rebelling. The majority of the population of Oceania, known as the Outer Party, is governed by the Party and they are taught to obey and love Big Brother, their ruler. The people in this society are constantly, and rather creepily, under surveillance and the “history” of this world is constantly being altered by the government. People have to accept what the Party tells them is the past because they have no concrete evidence to prove otherwise. Although the students in Never Let Me Go did not seem to have as many strict rules they had to abide by, the students started out in an isolated world where their main sources of information were authoritative figures and this is may be why they cannot bring themselves to rebel or run away from their assigned fates.

         The Party is able to brainwash most of the population to “love” the Party and Big Brother by manipulating documented history to create a situation where this love becomes almost instinctual. Memories are unreliable because they can be twisted, changed, lost over time. It’s even possible that some memories are just figments of your imagination. Ways that people usually use to confirm that their memories are true are through confirmation with either somebody that shares the same memory or finding some source of physical evidence. Neither is available to the Outer Party members because of the Party’s prevention of them from communicating with one another and their tampering with all documented history. Because of this, people such as Winston become doubtful of their sanity because they fear that their memories might just be figments of their imaginations. Most people will readily accept whatever the Party tells them happened in the past rather than go insane from trying to figure out whether they are insane or not. In other words, humans like to stay in a comfort zone that consists of what they have been taught and what they have experienced throughout their lives.

          While Winston did make a failed attempt to rebel against his society, Kathy and other students did little to try to escape their fates. Winston had at least some experiences from before his society became a dystopia. This is probably the reason why the severe isolation of individuals in his society was slightly less effective at brainwashing him and he was slightly less hindered to try to escape his comfort zone. It’s a shame that Winston still ended up being brainwashed even further in the end and started simply accepting his fate as it was dictated by the society. A likely reason that Kathy and other students chose to accept their destinies may be because they rather stay in their comfort zones that they have developed through years of being raised as donors. Beating somebody is not an effective way of making them obedient. Punishments for crimes and wrongdoings have been shown to be very limited to convincing a person to not to do something again. Even though it was not their intention, the guardians at Hailsham were very effective at teaching their students that it is natural and right for them to be organ donors by essentially making donations a central part of their education. This is especially obvious when we take a look at Tommy. As mentioned in class, Tommy even seems to find a little bit of dignity in being a good donor.

       Although the environment of 1984 is like a severe version of Hailsham, It was interesting to see how the isolation factors in both 1984 and Never Let Me Go affected the characters. I am still shocked that Kathy and Tommy didn’t try to escape or rebel in any way after their conversation with Madame and Miss Emily though. Even so, I see that this could be Ishiguro’s way of telling us several things. Ishiguro might be suggesting that we question the information we receive more, that we should not place as many limitations on ourselves, and that we should try to step out of our comfort zones at times. 

Another Earth and Seven Pounds

Forgiveness is somewhat a sensitive subject. There are people who forgive others easily; some hold grudges for ages. A few feel that someone can never be forgiven for the wrong he/she has done. Forgiving another person is one thing, but forgiving yourself is a whole other story. What comes to mind is “You’re your own worst critic.” People judge themselves so harshly. They often replay whatever it is they did over and over in their mind thinking what they should have done instead. How can someone go through their everyday lives with the burden of their own guilt weighing them down?

While watching Another Earth, I felt a large part of the movie dealt with forgiveness. As the movie progressed, I thought what else I had seen or read that would relate to this. I came up with the movie Seven Pounds (which is a fantastic movie that I highly recommend!).

In Seven Pounds, the main character Tim Thomas (played by Will Smith) changes his life and the life of seven others in a matter of a few seconds. He replies to a text message while driving and ends up crashing into another vehicle. It ends with seven deaths, that of six strangers and his fiancée. This parallels what happens in Another Earth. Rhoda is driving home from a party slightly intoxicated. She is distracted by the sighting of another earth and ends up in a head on collision with another vehicle. She kills a child and a wife as well as leaving the husband in a coma.

In Another Earth, Rhoda (the main character) is introduced as someone who has great potential. I thought to myself, “Yeah! Anything is possible for her!” in the most optimistic way possible. The tragic event that soon followed was not was I imagined for Rhoda as “anything is possible”.

The protagonists in both stories share two key elements: guilt for their actions and a longing for redemption. The difference, however, lies in how they cope with their guilt and work to forgive themselves (although you might not think so from the trailers).

Rhoda finds where John lives and goes to apologize for causing the death of his wife and son. She sees what has become of his life and ends up walking out into the snow naked, attempting suicide. She again tries to apologize to John and own up to her actions, but instead offers a free cleaning trial at the last minute. She cleans his house over the next few weeks and forms a relationship with him (To be honest here, the part where they suddenly had sex was a bit…. Of a shocker, to say the least). Finally, she confesses that it was her driving the vehicle that crashed into them, but to try and set it right she gives him the ticket that she had won to travel to Earth 2. It seems that after she finally confesses and he takes the tickets, she has forgiven herself to an extent. She begins smiling more and dressing as she once did before the accident. She seems even slightly happier with herself. Rhoda was able to give hope to the one person she had unintentionally taken happiness from, John.

On the other hand, Tim knows he cannot bring back those who lost their lives, but he can make the lives of seven others better. He has to be certain that the seven he chooses “deserves” what he wants to give them. He lies to people and “tests” these strangers to see if they are good people. The only way Tim sees that he can redeem what he has done is to give his vital organs to those who truly deserve it and to give his estate to someone in need. He commits suicide to benefit others and finally forgive himself for everything he did. I do not quite know how I feel about this because he did kill himself, but it was a sacrifice for others. However, in the end he did help many people and I really can’t see it as a selfish deed because what he did was for the benefit of others.

People cope with feelings of guilt differently. Tim saw the only way to redeem and forgive himself was through suicide to give his organs to others in need, which is what he did. Rhoda was trying to right the wrong in her life and she seemed like she was forgiving herself as the movie progressed. At the end she seemed happier with herself and her situation, as if she had finally forgiven herself. However, I want to point out a difference here that Rhoda had been forgiven (or it seems that way) by John while Tim Thomas had no one except himself to ask for forgiveness, only he survived the accident.

If someone feels guilty over the wrong they did to another, I believe that one can forgive oneself but only to an extent. Without the forgiveness of someone whom one may have wronged, there will be a portion in one’s self that will still hold that burden of guilt. Without the forgiveness of the other person, you just have to forgive yourself for what you can and keep living your life.

Have there been instances that someone has wronged you, but you felt what they have done is unforgiveable? Do you think they have done something to redeem what it is they have done? Can every wrong act be redeemed? These are some of the questions that come to mind watching these movies.