Is it AWE or is it AWWWWW?

[sparrowsupport]

So many Sparrabethians have been heart broken over the latest installment of POTC that it's compelled me to write a more detailed analysis over why it is "not so bad" as Kraken phelgm when looked at from an analytical perspective. To preface the anaylsis, I'll say two things. First: J/E cannot be found in AWE except by those who already know where

Comments

[desiring_me]

I agree whole heartedly!

[ladylavinia]

The ending of the film leaves much open to interpretation. Elizabeth goes to be with Will, and has only to meet him one day every ten years. The rest of her time is her own.

According to the movies' two screenwriters, the Flying Dutchman curse upon Will was permanently severed when Elizabeth remained faithful to him for ten years. Their final reunion occurred in the "Easter egg" sequence following the end credits.

And if Elizabeth was faithful to Will for ten years, that meant she DID NOT take any opportunity to enjoy some romantic meeting with Jack during those ten years.

[sparrowsupport]

Possible, but that's not how the curse was explained in the film. The way the curse was explained in the film is that all Elizabeth has to do is to show up to meet Will every ten years. There's nothing in the FILM that states she has to be faithful to him, or that the curse is broken.

And I never said that Jack and Elizabeth's meeting have to be romantic. All I said was that they will meet again.

Sorry mate, like I said it's up to interpretation. This is mine, you have yours, we're entitled to disagree.

[fried_flamingo]

This is an excellent critical interpretation of the movie. I'm not convinced that this is what the screenwriters/director had in mind when creating AWE (I think you may be giving them slightly too much credit) however I adore your perspective on key scenes, especially the 'two birds finally flying' moment - one of my favourite scenes in the film, despite it's slight implausibility (sail as a parachute?) but maybe I'm being picky.

I think there are so many tools that could have been used to communicate the nature of the J/E relationship more clearly or hint at some form of resolution but taking it from your perspective perhaps the lack of resolution is a good thing. Either way you've given me numerous fresh angles to consider when I rewatch the film.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Clarity....

[sparrowsupport]

Thanks for reading and commenting! I'm glad that my observations on the film have helped you to reconsider it in a different hopefully more positive light. It makes me sad that it's getting such a bum wrap from so many people when in fact, there is a lot to admire

[fried_flamingo]

I totally agree that there is so much to admire about the movie. From the opening scene I was convinced I was going to love it and I think that the beauty of it is what makes its failings so much harder to bear because it gives us a taste of what could have been.

Yeah the movie of course requires a suspension of disbelief but I'm very fickle in how far I allow my suspension of disbelief to be pushed. Sometimes it's the little things I find fault with ;) As I say though, that's a minor consideration and considering how much I do actually love that scene I'm willing to let it go.

What would you have done differently to communicate the nature of the relationship if you had the chance? Fab question! I tihnk the writers are waving the subtext flag a bit too readily at the moment and it seems an unconvincing way of damage limitation after the fact. So in general I'd say, make the sub(subsubsubsub)text, text. Have Jack's demons in the Locker be more complex than Chicken Man and Goat Shagger. Have Betrayed Jack argue with Legend Jack

Have you read the 36 page script?

[sparrowsupport]

I don't know if you've read the 36 page script or not, but the resolution and the direction of it is more clear than what made it into the film. The purgatory scene for instance contains on six Jacks, and it's intent was to convey the depth of Jack's despair at being locked in purgatory. Given the nature of the film and that families still take their children to see it, I can see why they might have wanted to alter the tone.

If you haven't already, I suggest picking up a copy of the Adult Novelization. You'll find that your suggestions were actually in the original script.

If you haven't read a copy of the 36 page script, let me know and I'll find a way to get it to you. :)

Re: Have you read the 36 page script?

[fried_flamingo]

No I haven't read the script but I'd certainly be interested in doing so. I propbably will pick up the novelisation too. Ultimately though the film is the text and its this we must rely on to convey the message, so any resolution in the script or the book, for me, would just be an indication of what might have been rather than a bear any influence on the final meaning of the movie

Re: Have you read the 36 page script?

[sparrowsupport]

Hmmmm, ok. I'll try to figure out a way to get you a copy. I promise not to spam you if you have an email address or something. If not maybe I can post at least the original purgatory site on my lj. Let me know your thoughts!

[tanith75]

You've brought up so many amazing things that never even occurred to me.

I especially love your analysis of Jack as the "lost bird", (which is by far the most poignant line in the whole movie) and of Jack and Lizzie flying. I actually teared up reading your description of it.

Thanks for this :)