Faulkner's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

     In his acceptance speech, Faulkner explains that“…the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart…(Faulkner, 176).” He goes on to explain that the job of a poet or a writer is to assure us that life is worth living and prove to us why. He mentions that humans have courage, pride, pity and an inexhaustible voice and that with these tools we not only can survive this crazy ride we call life, but we will prevail. He shows his belief of this idea in does his short story "That Evening Sun" through Nancy, Mr. Stovall, Mother and Father. 

      As far as exhibiting these traits go, I feel that Nancy does it the best. She is not afraid to say what she feels or knows. She has an inexhaustible voice. When she's thrown in jail, she yells at Mr. Stovall, "When you going to pay me, white man? (Faulkner 168)," and recieves a kick in the face in return. She repeats that she knows Jesus is back because she can feel it (Faulkner 169) but Father just tells her that he went away even though she is adamant upon Jesus' return. Mr. Stovall and Mother are both very proud. Mother shows it when she asks Father if her safety is less important to that of Nancy when Father walks Nancy home. Mr. Stovall shows off his pride when he kicks Nancy in the face after she asks him for her pay. Obviously gender comes into play but the fact he kicks her in the face and she loses teeth shows much more then gender and that is also race. Father shows pity and courage as he tries to talk to Nancy and help her. He walks her home and tries to talk to her about Jesus and ease her stress. No matter how nice he may seem though, he and the rest of the family abandon Nancy at the end of the story regardless of their knowing that Jesus was going to kill her.

A Clean, Well-Lighted Place

1. Yes and no. When I first read "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" I imagined the environment to be much darker and not big as the actual bar/cafe was in the visual adaptation. I do think that it was portrayed very honestly in comparison to the context of the story aside from maybe one major difference.
2. Like I said in question number one,  I think the film was accurate in its depiction of Hemingway's short story. His existential-nihilistic ideas are expressed through the old man's choice of death (suicide), the emphasis of being an "old man",  and through the repetition of "nada" throughout the end of the story. 
3. I think they could have changed the setting of the story to a more intimate surrounding in contrast to this very empty and big space. I also think that at the end of the video, when the voices are talking over each other and you can only make out the word "nothing" because it is repeated. I think that added to Hemingway's existential-nihilistic beliefs but it could have been done a different way. 
4. I thought the difference in age and morals between the waiters was done very well (in spite of the less than decent acting). I also thought that however successful the production was at making the movie identical to the story, it could have done things to emphasize Hemingway's "under the surface" information because it is a visual representation rather than a written work. 
5. I would have changed the closing audio (screaming). I wasn't very fond of it. I also would have recast the younger actor and cast someone more experienced. I would have darkened the old man a bit more and cast someone more like the old man that I imagined. I feel like the movie also lacked emotion so I would have definitely tried to implement more things to make sure there would be more emotion or "pazzazz" emitted.
6. I think the actors were cast well. I didn't quite think of the old man as a short, hairy guy but it worked. I wasn't a huge fan of the acting but I felt the older waiter did a better job than the younger waiter. You could tell he wasn't a very experienced actor by his movements and because he wasn't very comfortable on camera.