The Movie’s Perspective

We watched the movie for Like Water for Chocolate in class today. What do you think of it?

One major thing that I felt was that the characters in the movie were quite different from (what I had imagined them) in the book. In this post, the example of different interpretations of characters I will focus on is Mama Elena. As I read the book, I saw her as a short, old grumpy woman who was was threateningly violent at any time. Instead, in the movie she is represented as a tall, thin woman who didn’t look extremely violent. In fact, if she didn’t act the way she did to Tita, she looks like she could be an elementary school teacher. I was also surprised at the way she was able to be polite and courteous to the guests at the wedding.

Also, the way events are acted out certainly change the way I think of it. For example, I regarded Mama Elena’s thoughts on who was her secret love/r were ‘of the past’ and rough. However, the scene where Mama Elena goes to her bedroom and very sadly looks inside her secret box made me realize she too had emotions and care, despite the tyrannical figure she is. Similarly, the scene in which Mama Elena sobs for Getrudis in her bedroom showed that she actually did care for Getrudis. She did not destroy the presense of Getrudis in her home because of pure hatred — she was upset about it and did care.

An interesting point to note is that the movie is directed by Alfonso Arau. If you research, you’ll find that at the time this movie was produced, Arau was Laura Esquivel’s husband. Esquivel probably had a lot of say to the direction of this movie, on top of the fact that she was the one who wrote the screenplay. Thus, the perspective of which this movie acts out the story should be fairly close to Esquivel’s original, intended perspective. I predict that watching the movie will influence our future discussions. Many things we’ve argued about have been ‘undefined’, and subject to our own belief of what actually happened; this movie might clarify things for us. Of course, what I perceive of the characters in the book not only relies on the details about the charaacters sketched in the book, but also my personal biases. This probably means that all of us perceive the characters from the book differently, and will have different perspectives to comment from. Did the movie’s interpretation of the book differ with yours?

 

Elena’s reason for not permitting love between Tita and Pedro

            A similarity that can be seen between Tita and Elena is they both disobey their parents for their secret lover.

Elena first lover was Trevino and no matter how much her mother forbid them from their love they still met. Her last resort was to force her to marry Tita’s father. This action still didn’t stop Elena from meeting Trevino. Elena only started following her family tradition after José’s death.

Similarly, the love between Tita and Pedro was forbidden by her mother but that never stopped them either. Even though Elena also tried her best to prevent this from happening, they took every opportunity they could to communicate between one and another.

            Since both Tita and Elena share the same experiences wouldn’t you think that Elena would know how Tita felt being forbidden from the things she loved? Why wouldn’t mama Elena loosen the traditions a little so that Tita wouldn’t have to suffer the same way as she did? I think that it has to do with the fact that Elena may want to be forgiven for her act by not letting these acts to be committed within her family. Also she maybe have not wanted Tita to suffer the same pain if Pedro was killed. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.

 

Why the Narrator?

The story Like Water for Chocolate is told as a narration, from the first person and third person points of view. Based on the information given to us, we know that the narrator is a descendant of the De La Garza family. Also, the narrator is the daughter of Alex and Esperanza (p. 246). However, why did the author choose for this story to be told as such a narration?

Firstly, I believe that the author chose this story to be narrated by a person to give a more personal feel to it. As this is supposed to be an old family story, the events should feel close to the reader, and putting the reader in the place of a descendant is an excellent way to do so. By putting us in a character’s place, it also makes us more aware and understanding of the issues in the book. For example, if we were to see this from a completely outside point of view, we would see the tradition of the youngest daughter enslaved to the mother as ‘Tita’s own problem’. Furthermore, having a descendant of this family taking us through the harsh events of this story is like ‘Tita’s spirit living on’.

Next, the author uses narration in the story also so that the whole thing to work. Without a narrator, it would be hard to accomplish many things that are in this story. Firstly, the narrator helps organize this story into monthly installments, and in a way that lets us understand this otherwise complicated story. Next, the unique tone used – that is at different times quite funny, excited, or sarcastic – sounds like casual speech, compared to the literary classics of English. To use such a tone, the author needed a narrator, or it would have sounded slightly strange. In addition, notice the switch of tense at parts that dictate the steps of a recipe. It is by using a narrator that the author can change tenses so freely, as the narrator is allowed to reminisce upon thoughts of the past, and also come back into the present to think about a common procedure.

What do you think?

 

De la Garza Traditions

Traditions are customs handed down from generation to generation to preserve history, culture or teachings. In Like Water for Chocolate, the De la Garza family tradition restricts Tita from marrying Pedro because she has to take care of her mother until she died. I agree entirely with Tita on the senselessness of this tradition.

If the youngest daughter in the family has to remain unmarried and take care of the mother, who will take care of the daughter when she got old? What if the family produced no daughters? I think this flaw is too big to go unnoticed by Mama Elena.

If Mama Elena did acknowledge this loophole, then there would be an issue regarding Tita’s rights and her equality among her sisters. By birth, Tita is one of the De la Garza girls and the daughter of Mama Elena. However, her rights, her equality and her mother’s attitude towards her make Tita seem of lower status and almost like a servant.

If Mama Elena really recognizes Tita as her daughter (not just the youngest daughter who’s only there to take care of her when she is old, but a daughter like Chencha, Gertrudis and Rosaura), I think she should let Tita marry Pedro and not be so nasty towards her. What do you guys think?

 

What’s with the recipies?

Testing out the posting function…

Does anyone know why the recipies are being used? Is the some sort of climax of good cooking ideals latter on? Or is it just for fun?

And wasn’t the chicken castration a little… descriptive?

Which does not appear to be working <insert elipses>