For the last day of class I planned on talking about one of my favorite literature to film adaptations, Chuck Palahniuk and David Fincher’s “Fight Club”. I feel very passionate about this film because of its deep meaning and translation to cultural studies, especially in regards to social order, politics and identity. Since I was not able to show the most “anti-capitalist” five minutes of film, I will expand it into a longer recognition and analysis of the film/literature in light of our texts. Not only do I feel this film is abundant with iconic scenes and monologues, I also feel this outside literary source best sums up most of the themes we dealt with over the course of the semester in a fascinating cinematic point of view. From Barker’s chapters on “A New World Disorder?” “Cultural Space and Urban Place”, to Jacques Derrida, and even the most recent passage from Bordo’s “Material Girl”, “Fight Club” is a postmodern comment on the industrialized world, which is controversial, yet an insightful viewing and reading experience. The story is an anti-capitalist, anti-consumer, anti-material perspective on a different way to live your life in the modern world, which creates an image of a reindustrialized western world, and if deconstructed through using our text, is referred to by theorists as “disorganized capitalism”.
Fight Club’s story is told from the voice of two characters, originating from the same body. We will call Edward Norton’s character, “Jack”, our first protagonist, who is a hardworking, 9 to 5, blue-collar worker in the auto insurance industry. It is ironic in fact, that Jack works in the industry of auto recalls, representing the opposite effect of the Ford and post-Fordist workplace. Jack is in charge of hiding the mistakes of mass production and the flaws of mass consumerism. We are introduced to Jack’s narration immediately with frustration and complacency for the modern world. In an iconic montage of imagery, we see Jack sitting on his toilet, ordering countless items from an IKEA catalog. Barker’s chapter on “Space and Place” describes places, apartments and homes as social constructs that “target emotional identification and/or investment”. The montage is actually contradicting, yet beneficial from the get go as Norton’s character confesses his obsession with consumption with every paycheck made. The camera spans the entire apartment, putting a price tag on every item as if it were a picture from the spring catalog. Norton’s character describes his apartment as an extension of his own identity, slowly building to become closer to the social norm. The norm, in this case is his reference to the IKEA catalog. As Barker states, “space is implicated in questions of power and symbolism”, and I believe this scene is key in identifying the frustration of the main protagonist. Furthermore, Baudrillard states “commodities confer prestige and signify social value, status and power in the context of cultural meanings that derive from the ‘wider’ social order.” His voice implies that material consumption and obsession with improvement is not a hobby, but a curse. He has no food in his refrigerator, but owns hundreds of kitchenware. His wardrobe resembles that of a popular public figure, but he only needs his suit and tie for work. His voice at this time in the film seems depressed, and it’s almost ironic that his condo, full of stuff, is used to compensate for his apathy. I believe this scene is key in introducing the main character’s confusion because he is questioning his own addiction. He manifests himself within his apartment and his things, until he self implodes and destroys his entire complex with the help of his alter ego, Tyler Durden.
Tyler Durden is first introduced to the story of “Fight Club” as Jack’s mentor and a prophet. In the first scene at Lou’s Tavern after the explosion of Jack’s hotel, Brad Pitt’s character questions the ideals, structure and obsession of the post-modern, consumerism, Capitalistic world. He preaches the idea that reliance on “…owning things will end up owning you”. I feel this scene is iconic because it introduces one of the subversive themes of the film, as well as exploring the depths of Tyler/Jack’s psychological malfunction. At this point in the film, it is implied that Jack and Tyler are in fact different people and different personalities, but as fans of the book and film watch the scene a second time around, it becomes more of a deconstruction of the confused identity. In fact, later in the film, it is confessed that Tyler Durden is a figment of Jack's "identity paradigm" as Bordo states. Tyler Durden is Jack’s confident self, who represents what Jack wishes to be from his confident, optimistic outlook to his chiseled, attractive appearance. This is a unique spin on what Bordo refers to as “cultural plastic,” except the plastic is actually a figment of desire and perceptual malfunction. It’s contradicting and ironic that Durden preaches the idea that the plastic self is meaningless and socially constructed, but at the same time is a social construct himself. He states that our generation is lost as "men raised by woman," as if the post-industialized male is today's society is constructed only of images and social constructs defined by women. Once again, this resembles our text and is particularly important for author, Chuck Palahniuk, because he proposes the question of what defines masculinity in correlation/causation with today's society.
The film incorporates many techniques to accentuate the differences between Jack and Tyler such as body language, confidence, objectivity, camera angles and dialogue. In the diner scene, Jack is edgy, nervous, worried, and stressed about losing his “junk”, whereas Tyler is relaxed, optimistic, sensible and confident in the future. The two are complete opposites in concrete identity, but in actuality and psycholically are the same person. I believe this may be a metaphor even for the sane and normal individual within the modern city and the polarizing effect it has. Palahniuk has always been known for his powerful and controversial opinions on western society, and I feel this scene is the no exception. In Barker’s chapter on “A New World Disorder,” theorist make the conclusion that western society, dependant more on consumption and “quantity over quality” have seen a rise in multiple forms of “obsession, mania, depression, self-esteem” and many other forms of apathy, indifference, and meaninglessness. They also state that a rise in consumption and material goods has created a border and/or gap between mankind and nature. I feel this theory is very evident in Lou’s Tavern as Brad Pitt’s prophetic and preachy conversation to Jack implies. Tyler Durden states that Jack’s “stuff” were just modern solutions for insecurities and points out that the “hunters and gatherers” as with our ancestors, would be turning in their graves because of how our primitive instincts have been deprived since the rise of technology and abundance of goods since the Great Depression. After the scene in the tavern concludes, Jack and Tyler come up with the idea of fighting in the parking lot. This introduces the central theme and title of the film, and I feel this is the best example of rebellion versus the normal industrial man. By stripping away a reliance on material possessions, fear of the workplace, taxes, social relations and a self-image, mankind is left with only basic instincts of survival and violence. They create an underground fight club to become closer to nature, and at same time awaken themselves from the slumber that the “system” has created for them. A Derridian analyst could state that the members of this club, who lead much different lives in the day, are signified by the workplace that the system has chosen for them. Norton’s narration doesn’t dismiss the importance of the American job, but also implies that sub servant, hiarchy, cubicle foundations are images that we project, that dehumanize us and the same time is inevitable. By stripping away the tools that signify us, man is left with more options to lead free lives. The jobs we work define and signify us as Americans, but what we do outside what is required is what makes us human, and that is choice. Salvation through self-destruction and existentialism are themes I think David Fincher was trying to convey throughout this film. Tyler Durden is Jack's psychotheraputic analysis of himself and the world around us. By using this analysis and knowing of Jack's extension through Tyler Durden and violence, the key scene where Jack fights himself in his own bosses office implies through metaphor that Jack is being beat down by the highest of corporate monsters, both pysically and psychologically. Although it starts off subversively that the workaholics of the American machine depend of violence to open up their reality, it soon becomes blatant that the typical American-corporate consumers are too desensitized to the comfortable lifestyle, which is why the fascination with violence turns into terrorism to project the same experiences onto the mass public.
I consider this film one of the most important American films because it poses a ton of questions about the foundations of Western culture, order and economy, and is in essence an anti-American film. The underground fight club under Lou’s Tavern soon turns into a cult. Dozens upon dozens of American consumers show up to hear Tyler Durden’s speeches, and get thrills from the bloody matches of violence as form of euphoria from their “normal work” lives. The speeches of dissatisfaction soon turn into manifestos of terrorism, and then the club turns into an organization of chaos, bent on destroying conglomerates, banks and corporations with nitro glycerin made from soap and fermentation. The narration of Durden seems like a direct comment from Palahniuk, and slowly escalates over the progress of the film and novel. Barker’s chapter on “Cultural Politics and Policy” describes the terms of “Deconstruction, De-mythologization, and De-mystification,” all terms I could use to describe Palahniuk’s message, as they are analytical approaches for social perspective, understanding, movements and change. By questioning government, economical practices, masculinity, social order, and participating in movements of anti-institutional, anti-authoritarian practices, Durden becomes an agent of social change against the foundations of America. The climax reveals that Tyler Durden is in fact Jack’s multiple personality and has been using Jack’s insomnia as means to progress his terrorist plots across the major metropolis cities in America. The end becomes a struggle between Jack’s two consciences until ultimately he kills off Tyler and regains new enlightenment on how to live his life. The banks and corporations still explode in a dramatic finish, but once again, I feel this is a personal choice on Fincher and Palahniuk to create world disorder in light of our protagonist’s revelation.
Overall, I think “Fight Club” is a highly stylized film that incorporates brilliant storytelling techniques resembling that of Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” and at the same time, uses a powerful underlying message to convey a controversial topic in Western society. With numerous flashbacks, first-person narration, clever editing montages and camera skills to accentuate the boundary between Durden and Jack, the film attempts to create an illusion beyond that of any ordinary multiple-personality film. The film challenges viewers to engage into the story by brainwashing us for two hours. Viewers have an active relationship with the story because it is we, as Americans that play the part of antagonist. We are the system that defines Norton’s character, and we must abandon our reliance on capitalism to continue the plot. I feel this is an intriguing experience because at the end of the two-hour film or 300-page book, we question the logic and foundation of our own government and economy. It’s as if we are the Korean clerks from the scene where Durden holds him hostage. Durden attempts to teach us a lesson on how to live our lives, but he doesn’t force us with a gun; he merely poses the task of making us ask questions. These questions are essential in understanding the theories of culture and our current civilization. I believe in order to understand popular culture, you must be able to ask questions, and constantly, because culture is always changing, and in effect, the theories of what define culture are also changing. Why do we base our existence, our identity, our confidence and happiness on the items we possess and the jobs that signify us? Why do we allow the things we own in the modern, post-industrial metropolises of today own our identity and us? Does it really take a schizophrenic, multiple-identity, sociopath, insomniac, torn between two ideals in order to ask these questions, or is it possible to live our lives without asking these questions? “Fight Club” is a diverse film, abundant with questions and theories on culture, economy and social order. By deconstructing the foundations of a commodity-reliant, postmodern world from the perspective of a working class, insane individual, we are given the experience of questioning what makes us human, individuals, and especially, American.
Works Cited
Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: Owl Books, 1997
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications, 2000
Derrida, Jacques. "Differance."
Fight Club. DVD. Dir. David Fincher, 20th Century Fox, 1999
Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture."
Baudrillard, Jean. "The System of Objects."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
FWD from Week 15 discussion
I have a funny story to mention as I prepare my final paper. Prior to
moving to the valley and attending CSUN, I used to be a supervisor
at a Starbucks in upscale Brentwood. I would serve coffee to the most
elite of industry professionals (such as the Governator, Spielberg,
Toby Maguire, Afleck, ect. ect.) and other top real estate junkies,
doctors and lawyers ALL making over 100k a year. My tiny coffee
shop was located under a pilades studio, yoga, fitness gym, and
rapid rehab establishments, so the area was basically infested with
women and men, obsessed with increasing (or keeping) their image.
This is kind of funny in regards to our last Bordo discussion in that
weird classroom, because after the first year, Botox, plastic
injections and breast augmentations were a common thing,
especially if the women were in the industry or married into it. I
found even the teenage daughters of these high class individuals
had some sort of nip tuck done in order to fall into mommy's
footsteps. I used to take my little cigarette breaks and would over
hear some of the most absurd of the conversations. Women would
plan out an entire years worth of plastic work done in communal
meetings at the Le Pain Quotidien. Some would even condemn
other desperate, rich housewives if they hadn't had any work done.
I always had something to laugh at, being one of the few consumers
in the area who made less then 10 grand a year.
It's pretty ridiculous how consumers can become sucked
into their own environment, and put under extreme expectations and
stress. I'm sure they didn't realize that they were all becoming
"stepford wives" of the like, but then again, I don't think they
cared.
It's just like back in high school. I would buy the 100$ pair of
nikes because all of my peers had them and I wanted to fit in.
Brentwood and many other elitist communities work in the same fashion.
If your not driving the newest Porshe, Benz or Beamer, you better get
one or you'll be cast out just like that school kid nobody talks to.
If you're married to one of the highest grossing Producers in
Hollywood, and your age shows the stress, you can't afford to look
"normal" because it could actually be detrimental to your wallet
and/or your career, so stretch out your face like the lady from
"Brazil". This theme has always confused me up the wazoo. In fact,
after two years in that slice of material heaven, I even began
to re-evaluate my own image and identity in response to my customers.
That was when I knew I had to leave, and I think it was the best
choice I had ever made. I guess it's a great experience if you want
to see the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but if you ask me,
it's more of a prison than a haven.
moving to the valley and attending CSUN, I used to be a supervisor
at a Starbucks in upscale Brentwood. I would serve coffee to the most
elite of industry professionals (such as the Governator, Spielberg,
Toby Maguire, Afleck, ect. ect.) and other top real estate junkies,
doctors and lawyers ALL making over 100k a year. My tiny coffee
shop was located under a pilades studio, yoga, fitness gym, and
rapid rehab establishments, so the area was basically infested with
women and men, obsessed with increasing (or keeping) their image.
This is kind of funny in regards to our last Bordo discussion in that
weird classroom, because after the first year, Botox, plastic
injections and breast augmentations were a common thing,
especially if the women were in the industry or married into it. I
found even the teenage daughters of these high class individuals
had some sort of nip tuck done in order to fall into mommy's
footsteps. I used to take my little cigarette breaks and would over
hear some of the most absurd of the conversations. Women would
plan out an entire years worth of plastic work done in communal
meetings at the Le Pain Quotidien. Some would even condemn
other desperate, rich housewives if they hadn't had any work done.
I always had something to laugh at, being one of the few consumers
in the area who made less then 10 grand a year.
It's pretty ridiculous how consumers can become sucked
into their own environment, and put under extreme expectations and
stress. I'm sure they didn't realize that they were all becoming
"stepford wives" of the like, but then again, I don't think they
cared.
It's just like back in high school. I would buy the 100$ pair of
nikes because all of my peers had them and I wanted to fit in.
Brentwood and many other elitist communities work in the same fashion.
If your not driving the newest Porshe, Benz or Beamer, you better get
one or you'll be cast out just like that school kid nobody talks to.
If you're married to one of the highest grossing Producers in
Hollywood, and your age shows the stress, you can't afford to look
"normal" because it could actually be detrimental to your wallet
and/or your career, so stretch out your face like the lady from
"Brazil". This theme has always confused me up the wazoo. In fact,
after two years in that slice of material heaven, I even began
to re-evaluate my own image and identity in response to my customers.
That was when I knew I had to leave, and I think it was the best
choice I had ever made. I guess it's a great experience if you want
to see the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but if you ask me,
it's more of a prison than a haven.
FWD from Week 13 discussion
I found Barker's chapter 11 of "Digital media Culture" interesting because I feel my generation, especially growing up as a teenager, is the age of cyber-evolution. I found the section about "gaming and identity" the most fascinating, because I too used to be one of the millions and millions of online gamers, playing games such as the SIMS and the ever popular World of Warcraft (WOW in the cyber dialect), games where players in reality, could transform and create new personas of themselves, and pretend to have a different identity, without the boundaries of class, race, gender and location in the global scale. As a child, the games did serve as an escape from some of the limitations and fears of reality, because my character, most of the time was about 7 feet tall, fully ripped, and usually was pretty good at killing things, giving me a cyber-constructed confidence both in the gaming world and outside. I think it's also kind of funny that Turkle points out, many gamers in real life, often don't even create characters that resemble themselves.
Women can create male avatars, and experiment, through chatting, the advantages of a masculine ego and confidence, and in contrast, a male can choose to be created as a female character, allowing themselves to be more "assertive" and even experiment with reactions from other gamers that may "believe" you are actually a female in real life, sitting behind a keyboard (which is actually pretty common nowadays in the online gaming industry). I for one, never crossed-dressed online, because I was a fan of the "race" manipulation as a teen. Keep in mind, I am a caucasion male, who grew up in a 5% white population city, I found it fascinating as a kid, talking as if I were a black male from the Bay Area, or a Latino from New York. I would screw with people in my "make believe", online voice, by using slang and stereotypes just to get different reactions. I don't really think that the cyberspace gaming community is exactly beneficial to the gamers in reality, but it does serve as an escape, or portal to re-evaluate one's identity. I wasted about two years of my teenage years, addicted to the trend, and didn't really achieve anything but an excuse to sit in front of my computer for hours on end. It was truly an escape from the tremendous boredom and distance I felt as a kid, trying to make friends in a city that declared me a minority. I guess this really poses a question about the current trends in the online gaming industry. With the games getting more detailed and advanced in forms of cyber-sex, cyber-violence, cyber-hangouts and malls, and even cyber-gambling, recruiting consumers in now the billions across the globe, is our society as a whole confused/bored with our identity or are we just looking for an escape?
Women can create male avatars, and experiment, through chatting, the advantages of a masculine ego and confidence, and in contrast, a male can choose to be created as a female character, allowing themselves to be more "assertive" and even experiment with reactions from other gamers that may "believe" you are actually a female in real life, sitting behind a keyboard (which is actually pretty common nowadays in the online gaming industry). I for one, never crossed-dressed online, because I was a fan of the "race" manipulation as a teen. Keep in mind, I am a caucasion male, who grew up in a 5% white population city, I found it fascinating as a kid, talking as if I were a black male from the Bay Area, or a Latino from New York. I would screw with people in my "make believe", online voice, by using slang and stereotypes just to get different reactions. I don't really think that the cyberspace gaming community is exactly beneficial to the gamers in reality, but it does serve as an escape, or portal to re-evaluate one's identity. I wasted about two years of my teenage years, addicted to the trend, and didn't really achieve anything but an excuse to sit in front of my computer for hours on end. It was truly an escape from the tremendous boredom and distance I felt as a kid, trying to make friends in a city that declared me a minority. I guess this really poses a question about the current trends in the online gaming industry. With the games getting more detailed and advanced in forms of cyber-sex, cyber-violence, cyber-hangouts and malls, and even cyber-gambling, recruiting consumers in now the billions across the globe, is our society as a whole confused/bored with our identity or are we just looking for an escape?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
FWD from Week 10 discussion and Response to Bisexuality in the City
It's about a week or so after these postings, but I just felt I had to respond to this discussion...even if it is out of order of discussion. I grew up in the Bay Area, specifically, San Jose about 15 minutes South of San Francisco. I grew up with a lot of gay and bisexual friends, and in that area, homophobia can actually get you more damaged than than actually being gay or lesbian. That being said, many of my friends over the last few years have had official same-sex wedding ceremonies, and I find it puzzling that Prop. 8 will actually allow the weddings prior to the election valid, but make them illegal after the ban. I think that might be the most absurd bit of information I have ever heard, and it might be perfect example of why Prop 8 should be illegal in the first place. On another note, I don't think weddings are really capitalistic, but do agree with Jessica's comment that divorces are, especially marriages founded on prenuptual agreements of high class society. Kinda reminds me of that flick with George Clooney and Catherine Zeta Jones, "Intolerable Cruelty". It's quite amusing because it satires how common most marriages are used in American society as stepping stones for riches and wealth, regardless of the emotion involved in a marriage. This could also be seen with actors/actresses and media symbols, ironically marrying their costars and fellow colleagues as PR and more profit. Once again, I don't think marriages are exactly capitalistic, but marriages within a capitalistic society pretty much make the sanctity of marriage
irrelevant.
irrelevant.
FWD from Week 9 discussion and Response to Heidi's post
I don't quite agree with Heidi on this one. I found 40 year Old Virgin to be a bit on the traditional side in comparison to some of the other radical examples given by McDonald and especially in contrast to Annie Hall, BUT I do think there are a few radical elements involved that might be overlooked. For example, although Carell's character does fit the stereotypical guy meets girl scenario, it's the different characters around him that help Andy go through a character development. Rudd's character, the nastalgic, damaged (two souls intertwined) seems to be the typical heartbroken character; what Woody Allen would be like after Annie Hall's climax. He gives Andy a big box of porn to try and help him because that is probably what he uses to get over his love malfunction. Malco's character tells Andy he needs to better his image, and to attract women with looks, thus forcing him to wax portions of his hamburger meat off, ironically making a huge smiley face on his stomach. Rogen's character, being the silent poetic type, tells Andy to plant a seed (marijuana reference) and ask questions to women, and once again Andy attempts, but doesn't really get anywhere except a confusing, mislead conversation. All three characters, including the others in the workplace, help develop Andy's character in comparison to the real world around him. They reinforce the stereotypes of sexually active adults to contrast the rarity of a virgin adult. Since the film purposely recognizes the "boy meets girl" scenario, and at the same time develops the theme with radical supporting characters, I would consider this film within the radical romance sub-genre.
I feel I must also mention, since this film really doesn't ever show any sexual activity (minus some pornography, failed attempt flashbacks and wet dreams), and becomes the central conflict of Andy's character, the theme of the film and the fable taboo in the workplace, this film might
be considered a sex comedy as well. Yes, he does finally have intercourse in the end with someone he loves, but that's the big pay off for beating around the bush for two hours (by bush I mean false love or just sex, the object of what Andy is not trying to achieve based on his friends recommendations). If Andy would have taken the drunk girl, the book store girl, the weird bath tub freak or any others besides Keener's character, the same message would not be well received. Andy would only fall into the trap that his friends put him into. Through Andy's trial
and error, patience and experimentation he gains a valuable lesson in love and not just the overused term: SEX.
I feel I must also mention, since this film really doesn't ever show any sexual activity (minus some pornography, failed attempt flashbacks and wet dreams), and becomes the central conflict of Andy's character, the theme of the film and the fable taboo in the workplace, this film might
be considered a sex comedy as well. Yes, he does finally have intercourse in the end with someone he loves, but that's the big pay off for beating around the bush for two hours (by bush I mean false love or just sex, the object of what Andy is not trying to achieve based on his friends recommendations). If Andy would have taken the drunk girl, the book store girl, the weird bath tub freak or any others besides Keener's character, the same message would not be well received. Andy would only fall into the trap that his friends put him into. Through Andy's trial
and error, patience and experimentation he gains a valuable lesson in love and not just the overused term: SEX.
FWD from Week 8 discussion
Yes, this discussion will be in the form of a film student's perspective, but that's what I do and why I'm taking this course... so shoot me.
I found McDonald's chapter on "Radical Romance" the most insightful so far in this course, especially since we are now getting into films and relevance in pop culture. The Graduate and Annie Hall, two of my most cherished films of this genre, strike me on a personal level because of their brutal honesty and depiction of love and individuality. This is a
pet peeve of mine because, as McDonald states, the two previous sub-genres of sex comedy and screwball are complete opposites and mere foundations for what filmmaking can really achieve once production codes are diminished, thus allowing the filmmaker to portray the romance on a much more personal and controversial level. I especially liked how McDonald breaks down Annie Hall to demonstrate the power of a Director/Actor in a form that can define its own genre. Woody Allen uses the film as a "therapeutic activity" to attempt to dissect the human condition. He uses filmmaking techniques such as jump cuts, flashbacks, sub titles, split-screen, cartoon, third and first person narration to acknowledge the conventions of the traditional romance, European films and false ideology as well as his own flaws as a human being. As McDonald states, these techniques aren't used to dazzle us or ignore the morals Allen is trying to project, but they are used to accentuate how one might reflect on the theme of romance, through bits and pieces of awareness through the subconscious. I love this film because it does play out like a dream, or a confession to an analyst, but instead of words being used, we see images. Sometimes the images are actually contradicting Allen's narration, which allows the audience to take a major part in deconstruction Alvy, even though he deliberately talks to the camera/audience to break the illusion of wholeness in a film. We are reminded constantly that this is not a story, made up of over-used and cliche characters, themes and conversation, but a modern perspective
(and a narcissistic one at that) on society, sexual frustration, paranoia and the reality of romance. Woody Allen is concentrating on the individual and all the flaws that come with it, which is radicalism and subversive when compared to the obvious boy meets and loses girl/ happy ending structure of its predecessors. I feel the best characteristic of films such as The Graduate and Annie Hall are the fact that they don't incorporate happy endings. I mean because, 'cmon...let's face it, life isn't as perfect as the films from the 30's up to the end of the 60's made it out to be. Life isn't exactly divided into the "miserable and the horrible" as Alvy states half-way through the film, but it definitely doesn't always end "Happily Ever After" either. I guess call me a pessimist too, but this is actually one theme I can relate with on a personal level to these films.
Though they are about two decades before my time, I still feel that the films of the 70's, as innovative as they were, are still relevant today and hold their ground as the most honest and analytical depictions of romance... redefining the genre forever.
I found McDonald's chapter on "Radical Romance" the most insightful so far in this course, especially since we are now getting into films and relevance in pop culture. The Graduate and Annie Hall, two of my most cherished films of this genre, strike me on a personal level because of their brutal honesty and depiction of love and individuality. This is a
pet peeve of mine because, as McDonald states, the two previous sub-genres of sex comedy and screwball are complete opposites and mere foundations for what filmmaking can really achieve once production codes are diminished, thus allowing the filmmaker to portray the romance on a much more personal and controversial level. I especially liked how McDonald breaks down Annie Hall to demonstrate the power of a Director/Actor in a form that can define its own genre. Woody Allen uses the film as a "therapeutic activity" to attempt to dissect the human condition. He uses filmmaking techniques such as jump cuts, flashbacks, sub titles, split-screen, cartoon, third and first person narration to acknowledge the conventions of the traditional romance, European films and false ideology as well as his own flaws as a human being. As McDonald states, these techniques aren't used to dazzle us or ignore the morals Allen is trying to project, but they are used to accentuate how one might reflect on the theme of romance, through bits and pieces of awareness through the subconscious. I love this film because it does play out like a dream, or a confession to an analyst, but instead of words being used, we see images. Sometimes the images are actually contradicting Allen's narration, which allows the audience to take a major part in deconstruction Alvy, even though he deliberately talks to the camera/audience to break the illusion of wholeness in a film. We are reminded constantly that this is not a story, made up of over-used and cliche characters, themes and conversation, but a modern perspective
(and a narcissistic one at that) on society, sexual frustration, paranoia and the reality of romance. Woody Allen is concentrating on the individual and all the flaws that come with it, which is radicalism and subversive when compared to the obvious boy meets and loses girl/ happy ending structure of its predecessors. I feel the best characteristic of films such as The Graduate and Annie Hall are the fact that they don't incorporate happy endings. I mean because, 'cmon...let's face it, life isn't as perfect as the films from the 30's up to the end of the 60's made it out to be. Life isn't exactly divided into the "miserable and the horrible" as Alvy states half-way through the film, but it definitely doesn't always end "Happily Ever After" either. I guess call me a pessimist too, but this is actually one theme I can relate with on a personal level to these films.
Though they are about two decades before my time, I still feel that the films of the 70's, as innovative as they were, are still relevant today and hold their ground as the most honest and analytical depictions of romance... redefining the genre forever.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sexual Taboo
For my response paper, I chose to analyze one of my favorite stories in literature and film; Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, first published in 1955. Seven years later, in 1962, Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick adapted the novel into a feature film, which received an Academy Award nomination for screenwriting in 1963. In my response, I will be comparing the literature and film adaptation, as well as finding contrasts and correlations with related text from Foucault and McDonald. Not only is this one of my most cherished college novels and most respected of Kubrick’s films, I also feel it’s the most controversial of any subject matter I have ever experienced. In fact, Nabokov finished the novel in 1949, but was rejected from numerous American publishers because of its taboo themes. It took six years until a French publishing company, Olympia Press, finally took notice of Nabokov’s masterpiece and put the novel into circulation, and years later for American readers.
The protagonist of Lolita, Humbert Humbert, or H.H., is an educated, middle-aged college professor who has just moved to New England in search for a residence to live and work. He shortly finds a room under Charlotte Haze, and decides to move in due to his infatuation with her twelve-year-old daughter, Dolores, also nicknamed Lolita. In Nabokov’s story, we are introduced to the protagonist, knowing that he has a fixation with “nymphets” as he describes, or young, underage girls to be blunt, and confesses his forbidden desire to destroy the conventions of love and sexuality. H.H. spends the rest of the novel acknowledging his crimes and tries to justify it as a force of nature and not a psychological imbalance or genetic induced pleasures. In fact, H.H. and even Nabokov are critical of psychiatry, Freud, and of the human dilemma and boundaries of sexuality. Nabokov allows us to deconstruct H.H. as a human being with many flaws, being a pedophile and a murderer, and we are obligated to sift through H.H.’s clever usage of words and imagery to understand, or even accept the human condition. In contrast, Foucault attempts to state the history of “aberrant sexualities” through games of “perpetual spirals of power and pleasure” as a way of explaining the sexual inconsistency and reality of the individuals and those who classify them. Nabokov destroys these conventions and explanations through H.H.’s narration, not allowing the point of view of the observers, outside society, or reality into his confidential love. The narration of the story from H.H. states that his attraction, perversion or “pleasure” doesn’t derive from the evasion of an apposing law, construct or “power”, but is much more innate. H.H. describes his love through a journal, using vivid, magical phrases to compare his emotion to a trance, spell or euphoria. Like Foucault states, from a readers’ point of view, we are classifying, rather than condemning H.H. as a human being and not as a mental patient. The emotion is uncontrollable and natural for Humbert, and so he marries Charlotte to abide by societies normalcy, only to be secretly to be closer to his love. Charlotte then dies after finding H.H.’s journal, thus allowing H.H. to pursue his Lolita without interference, but now, unfortunately, as a father figure and not a lover. Lolita and H.H. go into exile from normal society, in secrecy from suspicious observers, but eventually Lolita grows up. H.H. tries to control Lolita, tries to run away with her, or even marry her, but Lolita, now aware of the situation, goes into her own exile, and marries a man half way across the country. H.H. dies in a jail cell, awaiting a trial for the murder he committed against the man that took Lolita from him. H.H. dies alone, heartbroken and widowed, only with his journal to pass on to future psychiatrists.
In comparison from the book to Kubrick’s version (and even the 1997 remake) of the film, one could refer to McDonald’s chapter on the “Sex Comedy”: a time when the subject of even legal, heterosexual sex was considered taboo. The film, made in 62, within the limits of censorships and the Production Code Administration was considered controversial because it acknowledged the forbidden “sexual perversion”, which was one of three taboos, McDonald states, that held the weakened PCA code together until 1966. Indeed, Kubrick could not portray the love between H.H. and Lolita as effective as Nabokov could, so Kubrick uses imagery and subtext within words to point out the blatantly obvious. Kubrick opens the film with foreshadow of H.H. killing a man who is also fond of Lolita, which is actually the last chapter in the book. We then cut to the introduction of H.H. as a narrator and his discovery of Lolita. Kubrick does this to get the categorization of H.H. as a murderer out of the way so we may concentrate on the more important aspects of H.H.’s subconscious and condition. Like Nabokov, Kubrick forces us to relate with H.H., his narration, usage of illustrative words, making us pedophiles, and at the same time, accepting it as just another part of the human condition. The film never received as much recognition as the 1958 American release of the book, which was controversial, yet a bestseller, because the film couldn’t achieve the graphic intensity, flow of emotions and clever usage of postmodern literature as Nabokov did. Overall, the subject matter of pedophilia may never be accepted in modern society, but we cannot dismiss that it exists. The book is still banned from every high school and more than 1/3 of countries in the world, but I think that is also why it is so highly accepted and intriguing as a form of classic literature that dares to question the conventions of passion, love and sexuality.
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel “The Perverse Implantation.” The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: The Will to Knowledge. London: Putnam, 1976.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy, Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower Press, 2007
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. France: Olympia Press, 1955. New York: Putnam, 1958.
Lolita. DVD. Dir. Stanley Kubrick, Warner Brothers, 1962
The protagonist of Lolita, Humbert Humbert, or H.H., is an educated, middle-aged college professor who has just moved to New England in search for a residence to live and work. He shortly finds a room under Charlotte Haze, and decides to move in due to his infatuation with her twelve-year-old daughter, Dolores, also nicknamed Lolita. In Nabokov’s story, we are introduced to the protagonist, knowing that he has a fixation with “nymphets” as he describes, or young, underage girls to be blunt, and confesses his forbidden desire to destroy the conventions of love and sexuality. H.H. spends the rest of the novel acknowledging his crimes and tries to justify it as a force of nature and not a psychological imbalance or genetic induced pleasures. In fact, H.H. and even Nabokov are critical of psychiatry, Freud, and of the human dilemma and boundaries of sexuality. Nabokov allows us to deconstruct H.H. as a human being with many flaws, being a pedophile and a murderer, and we are obligated to sift through H.H.’s clever usage of words and imagery to understand, or even accept the human condition. In contrast, Foucault attempts to state the history of “aberrant sexualities” through games of “perpetual spirals of power and pleasure” as a way of explaining the sexual inconsistency and reality of the individuals and those who classify them. Nabokov destroys these conventions and explanations through H.H.’s narration, not allowing the point of view of the observers, outside society, or reality into his confidential love. The narration of the story from H.H. states that his attraction, perversion or “pleasure” doesn’t derive from the evasion of an apposing law, construct or “power”, but is much more innate. H.H. describes his love through a journal, using vivid, magical phrases to compare his emotion to a trance, spell or euphoria. Like Foucault states, from a readers’ point of view, we are classifying, rather than condemning H.H. as a human being and not as a mental patient. The emotion is uncontrollable and natural for Humbert, and so he marries Charlotte to abide by societies normalcy, only to be secretly to be closer to his love. Charlotte then dies after finding H.H.’s journal, thus allowing H.H. to pursue his Lolita without interference, but now, unfortunately, as a father figure and not a lover. Lolita and H.H. go into exile from normal society, in secrecy from suspicious observers, but eventually Lolita grows up. H.H. tries to control Lolita, tries to run away with her, or even marry her, but Lolita, now aware of the situation, goes into her own exile, and marries a man half way across the country. H.H. dies in a jail cell, awaiting a trial for the murder he committed against the man that took Lolita from him. H.H. dies alone, heartbroken and widowed, only with his journal to pass on to future psychiatrists.
In comparison from the book to Kubrick’s version (and even the 1997 remake) of the film, one could refer to McDonald’s chapter on the “Sex Comedy”: a time when the subject of even legal, heterosexual sex was considered taboo. The film, made in 62, within the limits of censorships and the Production Code Administration was considered controversial because it acknowledged the forbidden “sexual perversion”, which was one of three taboos, McDonald states, that held the weakened PCA code together until 1966. Indeed, Kubrick could not portray the love between H.H. and Lolita as effective as Nabokov could, so Kubrick uses imagery and subtext within words to point out the blatantly obvious. Kubrick opens the film with foreshadow of H.H. killing a man who is also fond of Lolita, which is actually the last chapter in the book. We then cut to the introduction of H.H. as a narrator and his discovery of Lolita. Kubrick does this to get the categorization of H.H. as a murderer out of the way so we may concentrate on the more important aspects of H.H.’s subconscious and condition. Like Nabokov, Kubrick forces us to relate with H.H., his narration, usage of illustrative words, making us pedophiles, and at the same time, accepting it as just another part of the human condition. The film never received as much recognition as the 1958 American release of the book, which was controversial, yet a bestseller, because the film couldn’t achieve the graphic intensity, flow of emotions and clever usage of postmodern literature as Nabokov did. Overall, the subject matter of pedophilia may never be accepted in modern society, but we cannot dismiss that it exists. The book is still banned from every high school and more than 1/3 of countries in the world, but I think that is also why it is so highly accepted and intriguing as a form of classic literature that dares to question the conventions of passion, love and sexuality.
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel “The Perverse Implantation.” The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: The Will to Knowledge. London: Putnam, 1976.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy, Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower Press, 2007
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. France: Olympia Press, 1955. New York: Putnam, 1958.
Lolita. DVD. Dir. Stanley Kubrick, Warner Brothers, 1962
Monday, October 6, 2008
Ethnography
PART 1
Usually, I'm at the the local CSUN Chipotle on Reseda and Prairie
every Tuesday and Thursday after 313 class. It's always bursting
at the seems with business and hungry students, and I don't think
I've ever seen the line shorter than 20 people, so this is a
perfect opportunity to get some observations. As soon as I sat
down at a small silver table, I realized that my cover would be
blown because I was the only patron without a two pound burrito
or salad bowl in front of me, so I took my notebook and waited in
the 30 person line.
In front of me, stood two young male professionals, dressed in
casual suits with loosened ties, probably because it's their lunch
break. It's about 1 o'clock and the line is getting longer by the
second; now 35 people and out the side door. Behind me, is an art
student with a large black portfolio and hints of paint on her
jeans. I make eye contact with her, but she immediately looks toward
the food. The two men in front of me start talking about politics.
Both are Democrats and both hate Palin. One comment about Palin
and the familiar looks to recent Emmy award winning Tina Fey,
makes the shorter female customer in front of them look back in
disgust. She's next in line, and probably a republican. I'm third,
behind the bankers in front of me.
Behind the art student behind me is a young couple, about
24 years of age. They look sun burnt and happy to be stuffing
their face with a burrito the size of my arm. Behind them is a guy
with tattoos, staring at the art student behind me. Since I obviously
have a fascination with tattoos, I stare at his collection, hoping
he won't notice my curiosity. After all, people get tattoos to
express themselves, not to hide them. He has a dagger on his arm,
much like the one on my calf, wrapped in a torn ribbon that gives the
birth date and death of a loved one. Above that is a Celtic cross,
illuminated by the sun coming from his shoulder, which looks like
those old school suns you see on grandfather clocks and old medieval
paintings. As I looked beyond the tattooed guy, I got called in with
a "NEXT!" I ordered and payed close to $8.00 for my chicken burrito
with black beans and white rice.
As I looked around, I noticed it was going to be nearly impossible
to find a seat. The diner had become a mob of college students,
some sitting on the floor, and some standing up. I see a seat out
on the patio and sprint outside to grab it. I sit and continue my
notes by observing the few students waiting out in the 100 degree
sun, waiting to merely get inside the air conditioned establishment.
There are 3 males and 1 female, all around the age of 22. Two of
the males are in a conversation about photography, that soon leads
to a conversation about cinematography in film. I scoot a little
closer as this conversation interests me being a ctva film student.
They start talking about the new Cohen brother film, "Burn After
Reading". The shorter, lighter skinned male disagrees and says it's
a remake of "Fargo". He then stresses his disappointment because
of the expectation following last year's "No Country For Old Men".
They both start applauding that film, so I gear my ears to male
and female behind them.
They don't quite look like like the couple from inside the restaurant,
but it definitely looks like there are sparks amidst. They stand only
inches away from each other, but aren't touching. They glance
through the windows of the Chipotle in wonder. This either must be
their first time or they're nervous. I hoped that they were nervous,
or on a first date. It's nice to write about those type of encounters.
I finished my colossal burrito in a few more bites. The two
photo/ctva students go inside the doors. The two love birds make
small talk, as I put on my shades to hide my interest. They talk about
television, probably because the two students in front of them
seemed so enthusiastic, it would be a good conversation started. A
good technique for small talk. They both agree that House and Grey's
Anatomy are the best shows on television, Lost and Heroes are 2nd,
and for some reason, Survivor comes in at third. They laugh about
their choices in prime time T.V. and walk inside the diner. I look at
my watch, and it's almost 2. Time's up.
PART 2
My second part of the ethnography has changed a bit from my WebCT
version now that I can define ethnography as a system of signs and
descriptions to help understand this observation. The Chipotle
diner was indeed a great place for an observation, but it is also
harder to analyze and deconstruct the customers because they are
too similar to myself. Chipotle is a business that appeals to
students, probably because of the amazing food, but also because
they have a liquor license, margaritas and beer close to campus.
This Chipotle is also a social gathering of students who are there
to meet new people, and at the same time fill their bellys. Any
of them could have chosen the empty KFC next door, but the simple
fact that there are more peers in the Chipotle make this diner
more appealing to students like myself.I found it interesting
that when people are standing in line, a social norm is to
create small talk on a common ground such as media or politics
as was the case with the business men, the ctva students and the
love birds I observed. In this situation, language is used as
a diversion to the uncomfortable solitude in a line of 30 people,
like the art student and the tattooed guy, also observing people
much like I was, but unconsciously and without a pen and pad.
Perhaps the art student was looking at me because of my tattoos,
either in a form of curiosity or judgment, trying to define my
personality by how I appear. Barker states "the transformation
of the body through fashion and body decoration has become a
significant aspect of contemporary identity projects" and
through my observations, and my own experience with body
art, I can view the tattooed guy at the end of the line
and realize that although he is expressing himself much
differently than the fashionable art student, they are
both the same, but using "the cultured body" as a means
to describe themselves with words.
Overall, this observation hour gave me a chance to
recognize some of the ways college students use language as
a means to "achieve our purposes" as
Barker states. Though there were many different types of
people in the Chipotle, all of them seemed to be students,
based on correlating conversations, and expectations on how people
wait and react within a line of peers. Language is used not
in a social sense in this situation, but as a protective
device to alleviate the pain of that uncomfortable silence,
surrounded by hundreds of hungry college students.
Usually, I'm at the the local CSUN Chipotle on Reseda and Prairie
every Tuesday and Thursday after 313 class. It's always bursting
at the seems with business and hungry students, and I don't think
I've ever seen the line shorter than 20 people, so this is a
perfect opportunity to get some observations. As soon as I sat
down at a small silver table, I realized that my cover would be
blown because I was the only patron without a two pound burrito
or salad bowl in front of me, so I took my notebook and waited in
the 30 person line.
In front of me, stood two young male professionals, dressed in
casual suits with loosened ties, probably because it's their lunch
break. It's about 1 o'clock and the line is getting longer by the
second; now 35 people and out the side door. Behind me, is an art
student with a large black portfolio and hints of paint on her
jeans. I make eye contact with her, but she immediately looks toward
the food. The two men in front of me start talking about politics.
Both are Democrats and both hate Palin. One comment about Palin
and the familiar looks to recent Emmy award winning Tina Fey,
makes the shorter female customer in front of them look back in
disgust. She's next in line, and probably a republican. I'm third,
behind the bankers in front of me.
Behind the art student behind me is a young couple, about
24 years of age. They look sun burnt and happy to be stuffing
their face with a burrito the size of my arm. Behind them is a guy
with tattoos, staring at the art student behind me. Since I obviously
have a fascination with tattoos, I stare at his collection, hoping
he won't notice my curiosity. After all, people get tattoos to
express themselves, not to hide them. He has a dagger on his arm,
much like the one on my calf, wrapped in a torn ribbon that gives the
birth date and death of a loved one. Above that is a Celtic cross,
illuminated by the sun coming from his shoulder, which looks like
those old school suns you see on grandfather clocks and old medieval
paintings. As I looked beyond the tattooed guy, I got called in with
a "NEXT!" I ordered and payed close to $8.00 for my chicken burrito
with black beans and white rice.
As I looked around, I noticed it was going to be nearly impossible
to find a seat. The diner had become a mob of college students,
some sitting on the floor, and some standing up. I see a seat out
on the patio and sprint outside to grab it. I sit and continue my
notes by observing the few students waiting out in the 100 degree
sun, waiting to merely get inside the air conditioned establishment.
There are 3 males and 1 female, all around the age of 22. Two of
the males are in a conversation about photography, that soon leads
to a conversation about cinematography in film. I scoot a little
closer as this conversation interests me being a ctva film student.
They start talking about the new Cohen brother film, "Burn After
Reading". The shorter, lighter skinned male disagrees and says it's
a remake of "Fargo". He then stresses his disappointment because
of the expectation following last year's "No Country For Old Men".
They both start applauding that film, so I gear my ears to male
and female behind them.
They don't quite look like like the couple from inside the restaurant,
but it definitely looks like there are sparks amidst. They stand only
inches away from each other, but aren't touching. They glance
through the windows of the Chipotle in wonder. This either must be
their first time or they're nervous. I hoped that they were nervous,
or on a first date. It's nice to write about those type of encounters.
I finished my colossal burrito in a few more bites. The two
photo/ctva students go inside the doors. The two love birds make
small talk, as I put on my shades to hide my interest. They talk about
television, probably because the two students in front of them
seemed so enthusiastic, it would be a good conversation started. A
good technique for small talk. They both agree that House and Grey's
Anatomy are the best shows on television, Lost and Heroes are 2nd,
and for some reason, Survivor comes in at third. They laugh about
their choices in prime time T.V. and walk inside the diner. I look at
my watch, and it's almost 2. Time's up.
PART 2
My second part of the ethnography has changed a bit from my WebCT
version now that I can define ethnography as a system of signs and
descriptions to help understand this observation. The Chipotle
diner was indeed a great place for an observation, but it is also
harder to analyze and deconstruct the customers because they are
too similar to myself. Chipotle is a business that appeals to
students, probably because of the amazing food, but also because
they have a liquor license, margaritas and beer close to campus.
This Chipotle is also a social gathering of students who are there
to meet new people, and at the same time fill their bellys. Any
of them could have chosen the empty KFC next door, but the simple
fact that there are more peers in the Chipotle make this diner
more appealing to students like myself.I found it interesting
that when people are standing in line, a social norm is to
create small talk on a common ground such as media or politics
as was the case with the business men, the ctva students and the
love birds I observed. In this situation, language is used as
a diversion to the uncomfortable solitude in a line of 30 people,
like the art student and the tattooed guy, also observing people
much like I was, but unconsciously and without a pen and pad.
Perhaps the art student was looking at me because of my tattoos,
either in a form of curiosity or judgment, trying to define my
personality by how I appear. Barker states "the transformation
of the body through fashion and body decoration has become a
significant aspect of contemporary identity projects" and
through my observations, and my own experience with body
art, I can view the tattooed guy at the end of the line
and realize that although he is expressing himself much
differently than the fashionable art student, they are
both the same, but using "the cultured body" as a means
to describe themselves with words.
Overall, this observation hour gave me a chance to
recognize some of the ways college students use language as
a means to "achieve our purposes" as
Barker states. Though there were many different types of
people in the Chipotle, all of them seemed to be students,
based on correlating conversations, and expectations on how people
wait and react within a line of peers. Language is used not
in a social sense in this situation, but as a protective
device to alleviate the pain of that uncomfortable silence,
surrounded by hundreds of hungry college students.
FWD from Week 6 discussion
I, for one, am one of those people who have seen the 1961 film
countless times (thanks to parents and ex girlfriends), but
never attempted to read Truman Capote's writing. After seeing
Phillip Seymor Hoffman's academy award performance in "Capote",
I kind of predicted out that our faithful narrator was (just
like Tennessee Williams) an asexual or closet homosexual (at
the time), thus adding to the dilemma the book has now struck
on me. I now understand some of the themes that I couldn't
really fathom as a kid/teen, having only watched the film, trying
to understand what the heck they meant by "powder room" and why
they accepted checks and cash for 50$ because of it. Prostitution
has added a whole new element to the drama I had always thought
was Hollywood romance. Ironically after last weeks discussion on
the sex comedy and "beating around the bush", this 1961 film, made
in between the age of "the code" makes complete sense... if you
only take into account that they abandoned EVERY controversial,
juicy emotion that Capote is trying to convey.
Instead of the book being a romance, I find it to be more of a
study piece on the human condition of the female-rebel without a
cause. Our narrator, unlike the film, serves as an investigator,
complacent and willing to understand the abstract character of
Holly. We are drawn to Holly's charm, style, confidence and apathy
because everybody else in the story is. The character progression
of Holly is more like a deconstruction of insecurities, addictions,
and fixations, thus revealing her soft side as she shifts back into
reality as the story progresses.
I actually prefer the film over Capote's novella even with its
flaws. It's nothing personal against Capote's writing, because I
think he has the gift to make words and emotions fly like music
within sentences. I just think Audrey Hephburn's performance defined
an image and culture for millions of women and celebrities to come.
countless times (thanks to parents and ex girlfriends), but
never attempted to read Truman Capote's writing. After seeing
Phillip Seymor Hoffman's academy award performance in "Capote",
I kind of predicted out that our faithful narrator was (just
like Tennessee Williams) an asexual or closet homosexual (at
the time), thus adding to the dilemma the book has now struck
on me. I now understand some of the themes that I couldn't
really fathom as a kid/teen, having only watched the film, trying
to understand what the heck they meant by "powder room" and why
they accepted checks and cash for 50$ because of it. Prostitution
has added a whole new element to the drama I had always thought
was Hollywood romance. Ironically after last weeks discussion on
the sex comedy and "beating around the bush", this 1961 film, made
in between the age of "the code" makes complete sense... if you
only take into account that they abandoned EVERY controversial,
juicy emotion that Capote is trying to convey.
Instead of the book being a romance, I find it to be more of a
study piece on the human condition of the female-rebel without a
cause. Our narrator, unlike the film, serves as an investigator,
complacent and willing to understand the abstract character of
Holly. We are drawn to Holly's charm, style, confidence and apathy
because everybody else in the story is. The character progression
of Holly is more like a deconstruction of insecurities, addictions,
and fixations, thus revealing her soft side as she shifts back into
reality as the story progresses.
I actually prefer the film over Capote's novella even with its
flaws. It's nothing personal against Capote's writing, because I
think he has the gift to make words and emotions fly like music
within sentences. I just think Audrey Hephburn's performance defined
an image and culture for millions of women and celebrities to come.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
FWD from Week 5 discussion
I found the Sex Comedy chapter pretty insightful for its facts and
historical accuracy. It made me think about the discussion from last
week when my group discussed "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", relating to
the cage, when a student said that the "cage" in our society isn't
shrinking, but actually getting bigger. McDonald is referring to the
sex comedy sub-genre as a means to make a taboo subject, such as
sex in the 50's and 60's entertaining even with strict codes and
censorship. It shows how culture grows the cage, which is supposed
to protect us, until the cage is eventually non-existent or opaque.
When the birth control pills came out, and the country knew that
more than half of single women/men were already having sex before
marriage, what's the point of beating around the bush of what we
already know? The cage that defined the sex comedy was ultimately
pointless. In order to truly understand the sub-genre, we have to
think like the family from "Leave it to Beaver" or "Pleasantville",
where both the husband and wife sleep in separate beds (not really),
then turn off the lights together, say goodnight, then we see
darkness for a few seconds more, hinting out that maybe it's bedtime
...then again maybe it's not. The chapter actually brought some of
the themes from Pleasantville to mind. The film dives into the
subject of censorship and sexual freedom as color begins to
illuminate those "youngsters" who have become sexually active on
the hilltop hangout.
The "color" in the black and white film serves as a metaphor for the
changing of times and traditions. Sex was no longer talked and
giggled about, but was experimented freely as we see in the scene
where the housemaid wife, sleeping in a separate bed from her
husband, decides to masturbate in the bath tub. Although a little off
topic, I felt I needed to connect some of the themes of that film to
some of McDonald's analysis.
Another interesting fact that McDonald pointed out, which I think can
be considered the biggest contribution to the sex comedy of the
time, was Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine. Although the mainstream
cinema of 1953 beat around the bush on the topics of sex, the
magazine dared young men to venture into sex as a lifestyles,
therefore helping the themes, metaphors and humor of the sub-genre.
historical accuracy. It made me think about the discussion from last
week when my group discussed "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", relating to
the cage, when a student said that the "cage" in our society isn't
shrinking, but actually getting bigger. McDonald is referring to the
sex comedy sub-genre as a means to make a taboo subject, such as
sex in the 50's and 60's entertaining even with strict codes and
censorship. It shows how culture grows the cage, which is supposed
to protect us, until the cage is eventually non-existent or opaque.
When the birth control pills came out, and the country knew that
more than half of single women/men were already having sex before
marriage, what's the point of beating around the bush of what we
already know? The cage that defined the sex comedy was ultimately
pointless. In order to truly understand the sub-genre, we have to
think like the family from "Leave it to Beaver" or "Pleasantville",
where both the husband and wife sleep in separate beds (not really),
then turn off the lights together, say goodnight, then we see
darkness for a few seconds more, hinting out that maybe it's bedtime
...then again maybe it's not. The chapter actually brought some of
the themes from Pleasantville to mind. The film dives into the
subject of censorship and sexual freedom as color begins to
illuminate those "youngsters" who have become sexually active on
the hilltop hangout.
The "color" in the black and white film serves as a metaphor for the
changing of times and traditions. Sex was no longer talked and
giggled about, but was experimented freely as we see in the scene
where the housemaid wife, sleeping in a separate bed from her
husband, decides to masturbate in the bath tub. Although a little off
topic, I felt I needed to connect some of the themes of that film to
some of McDonald's analysis.
Another interesting fact that McDonald pointed out, which I think can
be considered the biggest contribution to the sex comedy of the
time, was Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine. Although the mainstream
cinema of 1953 beat around the bush on the topics of sex, the
magazine dared young men to venture into sex as a lifestyles,
therefore helping the themes, metaphors and humor of the sub-genre.
FWD from Week 4 discussion
I was excited when I saw our course syllabus and saw the
required text, "Romantic Comedy". I knew it would be a good
opportunity to analyze one of my most unfamiliar, foreign,
and unappreciated genres as a young film student (and probably
most other males). McDonald is pretty accurate when he mentions
that most romcoms are geared and tailored for a consumer female
based audience, which is probably why it is still one of the
most successful and overused of the "blockbuster" box office
profit. Lets face it, most of movie watchers are still within
the ages of 16 to mid 20's area and it's already a given that
more than half of them are probably female, plus the fact that
most dates and/or social groupings are usually attended at
"chick flicks" and not action, horror or other male oriented films.
The genre has become a bit repetitive and cliche, but I think
that's why we are addicted to them. They're simple for 90-120
minutes, predictable, nostalgic and usually end in happy endings
following the "guy meets girl" scenario. So what does that say about
movie watchers as a whole? Since most romcoms usually exaggerate
the most fictional, ideal love scenarios and portray iconic celebrities
with flawless features, are we transforming the idea of love into an
unattainable source of fantasy? Or are we just escaping the harsh
realism of the melodramas, insecurities and affairs of real
relationships? I think it's fascinating when we try and contrast the
romcom with other genres. It's really the only genre that can perfectly
blend the theme of love with comedy and/or satire. Action films may
have a subplot about a guy who meets a girl, then they jump off a
cliff and escape a Nazi camp or exploding volcano. Or a horror film
may involve the survival of a male and female, and along the way of
fending off zombies they miraculously gain an attraction for each
other. Just like McDonald said, almost all genres will contain some
form of relationship or love conflict. It's innate within our emotions
and it sells tickets to both sexes. Only in the romcom, though will
love be the central theme and use laughter and optimistic or
pessimistic comedy as a reinforcement. I guess it's a way of laughing
at what seems to be our biggest insecurity and fear as humans; the
consciousness of being alone and without love.
required text, "Romantic Comedy". I knew it would be a good
opportunity to analyze one of my most unfamiliar, foreign,
and unappreciated genres as a young film student (and probably
most other males). McDonald is pretty accurate when he mentions
that most romcoms are geared and tailored for a consumer female
based audience, which is probably why it is still one of the
most successful and overused of the "blockbuster" box office
profit. Lets face it, most of movie watchers are still within
the ages of 16 to mid 20's area and it's already a given that
more than half of them are probably female, plus the fact that
most dates and/or social groupings are usually attended at
"chick flicks" and not action, horror or other male oriented films.
The genre has become a bit repetitive and cliche, but I think
that's why we are addicted to them. They're simple for 90-120
minutes, predictable, nostalgic and usually end in happy endings
following the "guy meets girl" scenario. So what does that say about
movie watchers as a whole? Since most romcoms usually exaggerate
the most fictional, ideal love scenarios and portray iconic celebrities
with flawless features, are we transforming the idea of love into an
unattainable source of fantasy? Or are we just escaping the harsh
realism of the melodramas, insecurities and affairs of real
relationships? I think it's fascinating when we try and contrast the
romcom with other genres. It's really the only genre that can perfectly
blend the theme of love with comedy and/or satire. Action films may
have a subplot about a guy who meets a girl, then they jump off a
cliff and escape a Nazi camp or exploding volcano. Or a horror film
may involve the survival of a male and female, and along the way of
fending off zombies they miraculously gain an attraction for each
other. Just like McDonald said, almost all genres will contain some
form of relationship or love conflict. It's innate within our emotions
and it sells tickets to both sexes. Only in the romcom, though will
love be the central theme and use laughter and optimistic or
pessimistic comedy as a reinforcement. I guess it's a way of laughing
at what seems to be our biggest insecurity and fear as humans; the
consciousness of being alone and without love.
Monday, September 15, 2008
How did I contribute to the cage?
After seeing the film Cat on a Hot Tin Roof just recently, and reading the play about twice, I finally got an understanding of the themes and characteristics at our last group meeting (9/11/08). I helped structure our group meeting/presentation in a form of three sub-groups, along with Pip’s advice on using three clips from modern films in pop culture. I mostly thought this would be a wise choice because Professor Wexler stressed the idea of not presenting a lecture, and films such as American Beauty, War of The Roses and Brokeback Mountain still possess the value of entertainment to keep our class engaged, entertained and inspired to participate. After all, we are in a Popular Cultures course, so comparing our class read to relevant films can possibly create a ripple for that tsunami. Plus, it works for the Professor, so why not emulate his discussions?
In my sub-group, I concentrated on keeping the “cage” theme alive, by contrasting the film American Beauty with similar characteristics of family structure and success from Tennessee’s book. I feel in most ways, a marriage/family is a cage in itself; a manifestation of a cage. The family is a social construct, dependent on affection, attention, money and security and there are many parallels between a modern suburban American family and that of the vast farmland in the south. The “Beauty” from the title suggests how we create ideals and expectations of the family, and how each person has their own perspective on what beauty really is, whether it is on the surface or beneath.
In my sub-group, I concentrated on keeping the “cage” theme alive, by contrasting the film American Beauty with similar characteristics of family structure and success from Tennessee’s book. I feel in most ways, a marriage/family is a cage in itself; a manifestation of a cage. The family is a social construct, dependent on affection, attention, money and security and there are many parallels between a modern suburban American family and that of the vast farmland in the south. The “Beauty” from the title suggests how we create ideals and expectations of the family, and how each person has their own perspective on what beauty really is, whether it is on the surface or beneath.
FWD from Cat On A Hot Tin Roof discussion
I feel Tennessee Williams'writing is about as real as reality can get. Keep in mind, I bought A Streetcar Named Desire, thinking that it was a required read for the class on an out of date syllabus and read it prior to the class, I thought it was satisfactory, but nothing astonishing. In Cat On A Hot Tin Roof it's clearly evident how Williams uses his protagonists as an alter ego for his own alcohol problems and sexual confessions. The ambiguity of his writing in both stories seem to tap into his own subconscious desires and lies he can't accept within himself. He uses his writing as a confession through layers and depth of character interactions and secrets. Each character, even though this story may be about half a century old, seem as real in dialogue as a character from a Tarantino script, which is regarded as some of the best dialogue of our generation. Each character has layers within layers of subtext, leaving it a mystery to the reader/viewer to interpret their problems by searching within ourselves the problems of the human condition when
dealing with love, family and greed. Each character has a different voice, even without any character description, allowing the flow of words and tones to burn into our thoughts. Some of the themes that add to the absurdity of this "slice of life" play are those that deal with money, and how morality is abandoned when wealth is within reach. It's true that money is the root of all evil, and in this case, Williams hides this evil with plastic smiles, devious and sneaky cat-like confessions, and contrasts with truthful characters, such as Brick or Big Daddy, who seem to need not money, but true happiness, which is out of reach for both, regardless of how many acres are under their belt. Tennessee proposes many questions about life that can't be answered in one play write. How is love and happiness really defined? Is it attained through money? Fame? Acceptance? How low can humans really stoop to acquire this happiness? By living a false marriage (Cat On A Roof that never jumps off)? Or by popping out five children in order to earn
respect from those you despise? Or by escaping reality through a bottle? I think Williams' interpretive writing evolves through his themes that we are scared to relate to, because deep within all of us we have a secret. There is a black to every white and a negative to every positive. Our human shells may make us seem normal, but it's all those gushy secrets, desires and greed underneath that we fail to accept that truly makes us human.
dealing with love, family and greed. Each character has a different voice, even without any character description, allowing the flow of words and tones to burn into our thoughts. Some of the themes that add to the absurdity of this "slice of life" play are those that deal with money, and how morality is abandoned when wealth is within reach. It's true that money is the root of all evil, and in this case, Williams hides this evil with plastic smiles, devious and sneaky cat-like confessions, and contrasts with truthful characters, such as Brick or Big Daddy, who seem to need not money, but true happiness, which is out of reach for both, regardless of how many acres are under their belt. Tennessee proposes many questions about life that can't be answered in one play write. How is love and happiness really defined? Is it attained through money? Fame? Acceptance? How low can humans really stoop to acquire this happiness? By living a false marriage (Cat On A Roof that never jumps off)? Or by popping out five children in order to earn
respect from those you despise? Or by escaping reality through a bottle? I think Williams' interpretive writing evolves through his themes that we are scared to relate to, because deep within all of us we have a secret. There is a black to every white and a negative to every positive. Our human shells may make us seem normal, but it's all those gushy secrets, desires and greed underneath that we fail to accept that truly makes us human.
FWD from Week 2 discussion
I feel this topic of gender roles and equality and contrast amongst the sexes is
relevant to anybody, even if you aren't familiar with Beauvoir's writings. I find it fascinating, much like other discussions, that this was written in 1949, but yet, has so many connections with how we still live in 2008. There are some slight differences from quotes such as, "the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. And even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. Almost nowhere is her legal status the same as man’s, and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally recognised in the abstract, long-standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores." I do think that a lot of changes have been made in the last five decades, and I think the female's handicap she speaks of has evolved much more into an advantage, actually allowing them to express themselves if not more than men, especially in the workforce and consumer industries. I was cracking up from "shoes" bit from youtube.com because it is sadly true. It's like that mid-90's cult hit classic, "Clueless" where women have obvious advantages over men, especially when it comes to expression, clothes, fashion and beauty. Men are powerless to a beautiful woman, and although culture continues to change around us, the woman always has the power of choosing her mate, whereas if a male had the power to choose any mate, they would be considered an aggressor. Us men don't quite understand the fascination with materials and fashion, but we are internally jealous and fascinated with the results and power it has for our hormones.
I also found the following quote fairly interesting, "How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently? Is this change a good thing? Will it bring about an equal sharing of the world between men and women?" In light of John McCain's recent pick for VP in Palin, I feel that this quote has an interesting correlation with what could easily be the final string in world equality between men and women. With the entire world either in disgust or awe of American politics, a women Vice President can possibly have an influence for other nations to follow in the footsteps of gender rights. Beauvoir was merely skimming the surface. Although I'm not really a McCain fan, I do think that Palin as a VP in our government IS a good thing and CAN attempt to bring about an equal sharing of the WORLD and not just our nation.
relevant to anybody, even if you aren't familiar with Beauvoir's writings. I find it fascinating, much like other discussions, that this was written in 1949, but yet, has so many connections with how we still live in 2008. There are some slight differences from quotes such as, "the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. And even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. Almost nowhere is her legal status the same as man’s, and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally recognised in the abstract, long-standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores." I do think that a lot of changes have been made in the last five decades, and I think the female's handicap she speaks of has evolved much more into an advantage, actually allowing them to express themselves if not more than men, especially in the workforce and consumer industries. I was cracking up from "shoes" bit from youtube.com because it is sadly true. It's like that mid-90's cult hit classic, "Clueless" where women have obvious advantages over men, especially when it comes to expression, clothes, fashion and beauty. Men are powerless to a beautiful woman, and although culture continues to change around us, the woman always has the power of choosing her mate, whereas if a male had the power to choose any mate, they would be considered an aggressor. Us men don't quite understand the fascination with materials and fashion, but we are internally jealous and fascinated with the results and power it has for our hormones.
I also found the following quote fairly interesting, "How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently? Is this change a good thing? Will it bring about an equal sharing of the world between men and women?" In light of John McCain's recent pick for VP in Palin, I feel that this quote has an interesting correlation with what could easily be the final string in world equality between men and women. With the entire world either in disgust or awe of American politics, a women Vice President can possibly have an influence for other nations to follow in the footsteps of gender rights. Beauvoir was merely skimming the surface. Although I'm not really a McCain fan, I do think that Palin as a VP in our government IS a good thing and CAN attempt to bring about an equal sharing of the WORLD and not just our nation.
FWD from Week 1 discussion
Here is my first attempt at using the internet as a form of education and learning. It's strange how technology has evolved since I graduated from high school in 04. I always thought a blog was just another way of saying "online journal". I never thought I would be blogging through the virtual universe and at the same time gaining twice as much information as the verbal language. For the first week of ENG 313 I actually was surprised at the foundation and structure of the class discussions. On the first day we saw clips from Anchorman and Fatal Attraction, two films which, I feel, have different perspectives on gender roles. In one hand, we have Ron Burgundy, a middle aged womanizer, who uses his class and status as means to charm women. In the other hand,we have the thrilling drama of Fatal Attraction, an exaggeration of real life Jerry Springer scandals and affairs, but wrapped up nicely in a narrative suspense. I believe Ron Burgundy in Anchorman is portraying men primitively, especially in the clip we saw in class, because we see Burgundy mock the cliche theme of "winning a woman's heart". It's a form of satire that demoralizes men and thus, allows the female character to stand out
as Burgundy's attraction and desire. In contrast to the satire of attraction, we have the opposite in Fatal Attraction. Much like the title hints out, the film deals with those powerful emotions correlated with love and drama. I believe the women are given the power in this film moreover Michael Douglas' character, who only serves as humanistic object of desire, much like Christina Applegate's character in Anchorman. The women fight over Douglas in a form of violence, depicting our subconscious desires that we only experience in our nightmares. I believe both films can be viewed in a different perspective on how we view gender roles in our culture. Both films make us think about the tradition of marriage and love, how it is attained, and how it is held together, regardless whether it may be through a form of comedy or tradgedy. See you all in class tomorrow. My time has expired on this internet station. As I said on the first day of class, I'm sadly in between homes, without a computer, borrowing a neighbors pirated internet signal on Labor Day.
Jeremy Hill
hillblogs.blogspot.com
as Burgundy's attraction and desire. In contrast to the satire of attraction, we have the opposite in Fatal Attraction. Much like the title hints out, the film deals with those powerful emotions correlated with love and drama. I believe the women are given the power in this film moreover Michael Douglas' character, who only serves as humanistic object of desire, much like Christina Applegate's character in Anchorman. The women fight over Douglas in a form of violence, depicting our subconscious desires that we only experience in our nightmares. I believe both films can be viewed in a different perspective on how we view gender roles in our culture. Both films make us think about the tradition of marriage and love, how it is attained, and how it is held together, regardless whether it may be through a form of comedy or tradgedy. See you all in class tomorrow. My time has expired on this internet station. As I said on the first day of class, I'm sadly in between homes, without a computer, borrowing a neighbors pirated internet signal on Labor Day.
Jeremy Hill
hillblogs.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
