In Day of the Locust, Nathaniel West portrayed Faye, who was the focus of Tod's attention and therefore one of the key figures of the book, as a living representation of Los Angeles. Budd Schulberg writes Sammy Glick as the epitome of the entrepreneurial American self-promoter in the wake of the Gilded Age. However, he specifically ends up as a screenwriter in Hollywood. How does Sammy's character reflect Schulberg's assessment of Los Angeles?Sammy's essential characteristics, such as rapid change, brash confidence, and recycling of existing content, could be interpreted as alluding to the "character" of Hollywood. However, within the narrative Sammy is sidestepping the usual track of a screenwriter, which undermines the possibility of him being representative of the average screenwriter or citizen, as Faye was representative of the aspiring actors. Furthermore, how do the elements of Hollywood that align with Sammy's character integrate with Schulberg's literal characterization of Los Angeles? What Makes Sammy Run contains critique of Los Angeles, but is Sammy a part of that? 

After exploring noir for the past few weeks, What Makes Sammy Run? feels out of place. There is no crime investigation, at least from what I have read, and no hyperbolic reactions/characters. Aside from perhaps the moral ambiguity of Sammy himself, the novel does not seem to fit into the description of noir that we have discussed. It perhaps relates in that Hollywood is the birthplace noir and this is a closer examination of society in which noir was created. Hollywood, from this perspective, is not all glamorous as we see with the conflict of the Guild. The Guild is unlike the classical unions the Boosters were trying to avoid. It encompasses seasoned screenwriters in addition ordinary writers as one and the same which is different from the unions going on strike. Sure they abide by not signing contracts, but the fact that it has writers from every level is out of the ordinary. Why is this "union" able to survive as long as it does even if some people want it to be more like a classical union and others would prefer it to be further than it already is? It seems as though it is preventing writers from acquiring better paying jobs, but at the same time it could be protecting them from unfair contracts. Does the Guild do more bad than good?

Something else that stood out for me was the lack of a classical femme fatale. In previous texts there has been an obvious female character in this position; however, Kit does not seem to fit this role and she seems to be the obvious woman to play the part. She is strong, reserved, and seemingly sane unlike the other women. Al often describes her features as similar to a handsome male and not extremely feminine. She even is able to control Sammy at some moments and be the voice of reason. Her character is given a personality that in our previous novels has been given to a man. This is unlike any of the other women we have encountered, so what has changed? Why is Kit given more power than the women in other novels and what, if anything, does it say about the society? If Kit is not the femme fatale, and someone is expected to be it, then who is it?

Can You Look Los Angeles in the Eyes?

The Boosters projected an image of Los Angeles as full of sunshine and possibilities. These real estate brokers and business men lure middle class midwesterners to Los Angeles by riving Spanish aesthetic and architecture. The Spanish revival had minimal factual validity and painted the era of Spanish colonialism in California as happy and easy when in reality the native people of California were forced into haciendas and Catholicism while their own culture was squandered. This played up history of Los Angeles was purely a marketing strategy used by the Boosters, and it was hugely successful in the sense that they made money quickly and divided up the land into lots to sell to weathered and weary Iowans seeking a life in Los Angeles.

The Noir movement served to undermine the paradisal version of Los Angeles's history and reality. Los Angelinos were searching for something more real. Something that went deeper then the blinding sunshine and flashing lights. There was an absence of real historical accounts of Los Angeles in the time of and before the Boosters, and probably in part because it was favorable to the Boosters if evidence that undermined or "debunked" their version of California's history stayed off the shelves. So, when the dissatisfied Los Angelinos did not have much reliable history to turn to create a more "real" version of their city, they used fiction and film to create Noir. This new genre, born in Los Angeles, was the perfect vessel for all the creatives at the time to vent their dissent with the portrayed perfection and distorted reality of their city. In a way they shouted at the Boosters, "No, look! We will show you what Los Angeles really is! You will see all the evil, destruction, theft, and mayhem this city is capable of!"

Looking back on this progression, were the Noir writers and film makers justified in creating this alter-ego of Los Angeles if they themselves had created a fiction (which later served as a surrogate history) that was even less based in reality than the "Spanish history" marketed by the Boosters? Hadn't the Noir writers like the Boosters just capitalized and profited on people's emotions and hunger for an escape by creating a story people were willing to believe? Or were the ideas and stories of Noir more justified? Connecting this idea to today, are there similar movements or stories that people cling on to in order to rationalize their decisions? The Spanish revival movement built the real estate industry and the Noir movement fueled Hollywood, are there other examples of industries in Los Angeles or beyond that create "histories" to profit? Has Los Angeles finally escaped it's self inflicted escapism?