The Thing

In the movie The Thing, "the thing" is a shape-shifter that makes a perfect copy of whatever it is trying to imitate. By stealing the identity of the different guys, they have an insane sense of paranoia. "The thing" is highly representative of what horror is according to Kristeva. Kristeva argues that "menstrual blood...stands for the danger issuing from within the identity." While "the thing" is not a woman or a vagina that is spewing out menstrual blood. Throughout the movie, however, the thing at different points in the movie is an exact replica of the vagina. When "the thing" is on the autopsy table, Dr. Blair cuts it open and spreads it similar to the vagina. While the blood is falling out it is pretty accurate to that of the menstrual blood.

What is the significance of the thing looking like the vagina and the menstrual blood? The thing gives the idea of the problem that exists in the identity crisis that is the camp with the thing in it. What is the significance of this? The thing is showing that that true horror exists when there is an identity crisis. What is the significance of this? Kristeva's ideas of horror are confirmed within the movie The Thing.

While there are no female characters in the movie, Kristeva's theory that horror is shown through the menstrual blood confirming the crisis that exists in the realm of losing one's identitiy. "The thing" shows itself to not only be the female character but the cause of one's loss of identity.

Transophobia

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1855389977/

The movie Ma Vie en Rose which chronicles the life of Ludo, a young boy who more closely identifies with the female gender. This is called either transgenderism or transvitism. Ludo, who is seven years old, does not have any knowledge of adult sexuality and is often confused why his desire to be a girl is considered different or wrong. The movie Ma Vie en Rose is rated "R" for brief strong language in the film, according to the MPAA. Those who have seen the movie would agree that the "strong language" is nothing worse than most Adam Sandler movies that are rated PG-13. This disparity in the rating system leads many people to think that there is a case of either transphobia or homophobia in the MPAA. Since there is no evidence that Ludo in the movie, that he is gay, it leads me to believe that there is a transphobia going on. In fact, I would say Ludo is heterosexual because he only wants to marry his neighbor Jerome after he becomes a girl.

Transgenderism from male to female disturbs some particularly when displayed in film especially when it involves children. What is the significance of this? According to Ken Corbett and Michael R. Schiavi, the cultural norm is to presume children are either asexual or latently heterosexual. Any person that has feelings that could connotate homosexuality have no story to tell until he or she reach puberty allowing he or she to be sexually active and present some type of informed reason to make this decision. What is the significance of this? Ludo is a seven year old boy, by the definition of Corbett, he would have no story to tell. What is the significance of this? Ludo obviously has a story to tell but must follow it under a different definition. Pat Califilia states that differently-gendered subjects live in a discourse where other people are investigating you, describing you, and speaking for you. What is the significance of this? In the film, Ludo is constantly being coersed into agreeing with authority figures with his ideas about his gender identification.

So what does this have to do with the unwarranted "R" rating by the MPAA? This is one of the first forrays into film to discuss the idea of transgenderism in children. This film shows that not all children are latently heterosexual or asexual but can be either "differently-gendered" or homosexual. However, since it was one of the first films to discuss these issues, it was unfairly punished for it because of transphobia. The fear by many of those judging is that they will affect children's own ideas. Since younger viewers are perceived by the public to either be latently heterosexual or asexual, the fear is that this movie could change children't minds to be something closer to homosexuality or transgender.

Listed Below is a link to a website that helped inspire the blog post: http://www.thirdtablet.com/WhyIsMaVieEnRoseRatedR/

Castration and Far From Heaven

In the movie Far from Heaven, all acts by the characters in order to gratify their sexual urges are quickly followed by some form of punishment. What is the significance of this? According to psychoanalysis, this is a form of the punishment of castration that is often associated with the oedipus complex. What is the significance of the oedipus complex in the movie Far from Heaven? According to Lampl-De Groot's essay "The Evolution of the Oedipus Complex in Women", the child renounces his first love-object in order to retain his penis. In psychoanalysis, the penis represents power. Frank denounces his homosexuality to not only retain his job but also to stay in his marriage where he also maintains the power.
Are the punishments for trying to gratify their sexual urges accurate representation of castration according to psychoanalysis? Now, as noted before, the penis generally represents power, so the loss of a penis would be the loss of power. There were five instances in the movie that I found where one of the characters was trying to gratify their urges and were punished for it.
The first one is where Kathy is trying to sleep with Frank in the bedroom. He turns her down saying that he's too tired. The look on Kathy's face is steeped in rejection. The loss of power in this scene is that she is no longer able to entice her husband. The second scene that I noticed is when Kathy visits Frank at his office. Because of the surprise Frank and his lover break a lamp in his office. The lamp is pretty phallic, in general. The fact that it is broken could be taken as a sign for castration. However, the next day the secretary, finds the broken lamp in Frank's closet. This fact leads to an uncomfortable exchange where Frank has to try to explain why the broken lamp is in his closet. Frank loses some credibility because of this and has a chance to lose his job.
After the party at their house, Frank tries to sexually attack Kathy. After a few seconds of general uncomfotableness, Frank breaks down and hits Kathy. The loss of power in this scene is that Frank is crying which is taken as a loss of masculinity and Kathy's loss of power is that her appearance is damaged. The next scene that I noticed was when Kathy is dancing with Raymond. She really wants to dance with Raymond, however in doing so, she is opening herself up. This is a loss of power because she is leaving herself vulnerable. The last scene that I noticed was in the hotel room between Frank and his lover. After this scene, Frank loses his wife and family. Whatever power he had with his family, was lost because of his inability to control his sexual urges.

Marx Dancing in the Dark

In the movie, Dancer in the Dark, the main character, Selma, frequently has daydreams that result in musical sequences. These sequences are filmed at different camera angles and the overall picture is different. This is because the musical sequences are shot with multiple cameras instead of just the single hand held one that is used for the rest of the movie. However, there is one musical sequence that is different than the rest. The last musical scene or as it is called "The Next to Last Song", is filmed with the same camera angle as the rest of the movie and filmed with the same picture type.
The last musical sequence takes place with Selma about to be hanged. As she is singing, the camera stays with her and the quality of the picture does not change. The fact that this song does not get shot in the same way as the other musical sequences leads me to believe that she was actually singing this time. The other musical sequences involve every other character in the scene. This one scene, nobody else is involved in the singing, and the other characters in the scene are even giving looks as if to say why is she singing?
The other musical scenes involve her escaping her life in some way. The scene before this one, she is singing on her way to the gallows to actually be able to walk. Other times, she is seen singing and dancing while she is at work to delay the monotony. Karl Marx writes that "animals produce onesidedly whilst man produces universally." He also states that "an animal only produces what it immediately nees for its own or its young." In this way, Selma is seen producing like an animal due to the alienation she feels at work.
However, at the end of the movie, with the last musical scene, she is finally producing universally instead of just protecting her young. Her friend is obsessed with trying to save her from death for the good of her son Gene. What is the significance? This way she can still raise him. What is the significance of being able to raise him? Selma, having suffered through the same eye disorder, could help Gene deal with it. What is the significance of having to deal with it? She saved up money to pay for his surgery so he would not suffer later. How does the surgery show she is producing universally? While it seems like it is merely protecting her young, she is clearly not producing for his immediate needs but to satisfy a need that will arise later. What is the significance of her singing by herself then? By singing all by herself she is showing that only through her own alienation can she truly find what she is supposed to do. When she is with the different groups of people she has to act in accordance with them. However, when she's by herself, it is only her making the decisions.

Details and Rear Window

"By close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects, by exploring commonplace milieu under the ingenious guidance of the camera, the film, on the one hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rules our lives; on the other hand it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action." - Walter Benjamin "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction"

In the movie, Rear Window, the main character, LBJ Jefferies, had a broken leg and as a way to pass time while being stuck at his apartment he begins to watch his neighbors outside of his back window. From this view he witnesses his neighbors exhibit rather strange behavior. He begins to become convinced that one of his neighbors (Thorald) killed his wife. He comes to this conclusion by looking at seemingly trivial pieces of evidence that even the police detective did not think was important enough to consider in the investigation for the murder.


One of the pieces of evidence that LBJ finds that convinces him that his neighbor is guilty is that the flowers are taller earlier in the movie. What is the significance of that? LBJ realizes that the flowers must have been dug up and put back in place. He sends his girlfriend and his nurse to dig up the soil to see if they could find a body. What is the significance of that? While over there his girlfriend decides to enter Thorald 's apartment, unfortunately for her, Thorald enters the apartment again and there is a confrontation. What is the significance of that? This confrontation leads to the climax of the film, where Thorald confronts LBJ about the murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpxdWollqSA)

If we are to agree with Benjamin that films show us the hidden details on everyday objects while still leaving open the possibility of unlimited actions, then Rear Window would be the perfect example. As noted earlier, by merely noticing the differences in the heights of the flowers in the garden bed it leads to the climax of the film. The film shows that even the tiniest detail is worth exploring. If the film does not have any actions that are unexpected, however, it fails Benjamin's test.

Obviously, Thorald killing his wife is a pretty unexpected action in the movie (especially with no real motive ever discovered). However, the assumption that Thorald killed his wife is there basically throughout the whole movie. The more unexpected action that takes place is when the dog mysteriously appears dead. The movie is focusing on LBJ and his girlfriend when all of a sudden we are alerted by a scream. Then we are notified that the dog was killed. During the movie, it is one of the most unexpected moments. LBJ noticed that the dog had been sniffing around the garden earlier as well. This unexpected action takes place because of the focus on the hidden details.

Autobiographical Graphic Novel

Persepolis is an autobiographical graphic novel. What is the significance of this? The book is more personal (obviously) also tells a true story based on the author's point of view. What is the significance of this? According to Hayden White all narratives are a sort of autobiography because we always reflect our own personal morals and values in whatever story we tell. In Persepolis the story is overtly autobiographical.

An overtly autobiographical novel is more personable and personal, as we see with the graphic novel Epileptic. In this graphic novel, the author David B. writes about his struggles with his brother's struggle with epilepsy. The book is very personal as well as personable. With the different artwork that David B. does in the book you can feel his own anger or depression on the page. If this book was not based on his own life then it would have not been as easy to detect all the different feelings.

In Persepolis, the girl in the story has feelings that could only be explained if the author actually lived during that time and felt those things. Luckily for us as the readers, she did. At certain points in the book, you get the author's opinion loud and clear. For instance, she talks about how people changed during the Islamic Revolution and that Islam is more or less against shaving. Little things like that would not be discussed in a non auto-biographical work.

White's central argument about narratives and stories is that it is not an objective process but rather relative to the story teller. Each story teller decides what he/she wants to put in each story. In both of the graphic novels Persepolis and Epileptic the author is essentially the only one who gets to decide what is included in the book. Thus making it a purer narrative.

One of my favorite bands is a band called Brand New. (Let the criticism of my music tastes commence.) Their first cd is called Your Favorite Weapon. In the cd there is a song called "Seventy Times Seven" which is basically about the song writer's best friend stealing his girlfriend. The reason I feel it is appropriate to include here is because the song is based on true events. The whole cd is really just an autobiographical story about the loss of his friend.
Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCrgIDXVL-w

Focused Writing

In the book Jimmy Corrigan, Chris Ware does not allow us to see the faces of all characters that are not the main characters. Ware uses many different creative ways to obscure the different characters' faces. In one case he places a speech bubble in front of the character's face so it is not shown. What is the significance of obscuring these characters' face?
According to Scott McCloud in Understanding Comics, comics are given life by us the readers. McCloud says that “you give me life by filling up this very iconic (cartoony) form. Who I am is irrelevant. I'm just a little piece of you. But if who I am matters less than what I says matters more.” What is the significance that these characters are trying to say in this book Jimmy Corrigan?
The bit characters in this book are not necessarily saying anything too significant. However, they are showing how they affect the youngest Jimmy. The most significant character that is not shown in the book is his mother. She is constantly covered by a speech bubble, the bottom of the frame, or shown off in the distance talking. While these characters are not significant to show their faces they are still important in the scheme of things. What is the significance of the few characters' faces being shown?
Ware, by drawing the faces of the few main characters, shows that the story is just about these certain characters. While there are other people who might be suffering in the same way as the different Jimmy Corrigans, they are not going to be depicted in this book. Ware is showing that our focus should just be on the characters who actually have their faces shown. While there are other people who are struggling, the focus is not in this story. What is the significance of focusing on these characters?
According to Hayden White, each story is in its own way a narrative. In each story that we hear or read, the author or storyteller chooses what to include in the story. The author always gets to choose what the focus is on. In the movie Requiem for a Dream, there is a strong focus on addiction and drugs. Filmmaker Darren Arronofsky and writer Hubert Selby, Jr. focus on four main characters instead of the literally millions of people who struggle with addictions everyday. Like in Jimmy Corrigan, Requiem for a Dream ends on a rather depressing note, but we are so engrossed in the characters that the authors have chosen that we are upset at the end. The focus on a limited amount of characters allows the audience to feel more attached to these characters making the moral of the story that much more important. I've included the ending to Requiem for a Dream, I would advise watching the whole movie before seeing the ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuzNohk5cYw

Masks of Reality and Maus

"In this world, reality wears a mask of meaning, the completeness and fullness of which we can only imagine, never experience" - Hayden White


Maus I by Art Spiegelman chronicles his father's life story about surviving the Holocaust and Hitler's conquest of Poland. In this comic book, Spiegelman depicts Jewish people as mice, Nazi's as cats, the Polish people as pigs, and the Americans as dogs. However, these depictions are not completely set in stone. A couple of different times in the book, different Jews put on pig masks to escape from the Nazi's. But are they in fact literal masks?


On page 138 of Maus I, Vladek is wearing a mask that makes him look like a Polish person rather than a Jewish man. It is clearly a mask as Spiegelman has drawn in a line on the back of Vladek's head to indicate where the mask actually fits on his head. Following on the same page, the Polish man who is following him is shown as having a pig face (as all Polish people do in this book). However, as we continue to read we find out that he is actually a Jew. In the same panel that we find out that he is a Jew, Spiegelman has drawn it so we can the see the back of his head. On the back of his head there is the clear line with a knot, indicating that he is wearing a mask. Then in the speech bubble, he indicates that he is Jewish, too. It is evident that these masks are physical masks that the different characters can put on to hide what ethnicity they actually are, for this book.


Can these masks also be metaphorical? On page 147 of Maus I, in the last couple panels, Vladek and Anja are holding each other because there are rats in the cellar. In an ironic twist, because of the medium of comics, the panel shows two mice holding each other one reassuring the other that these rats are only mice. If we were taking this comic book as literal and not allegorical in any fashion, this scene would not make any sense. Especially since, by this point we have put together that all mice are Jewish and have been treated kindly by other mice. If it was literal these mice would be holding each other and reassurances would be in the mold of telling each other that these are other Jews. Obviously, this is not the case. All characters in the book are faced with an ever present mask of their own. These characters are not the animals that are drawn in this book. It seems rather obvious, I know. These characters are in fact humans who have the masks of whatever animals they are supposed to be on at all times. This is why they are afraid of rats or think that they are disgusting. They are very aware of what they are in reality as opposed to how they are portrayed in this particular comic book. These masks are merely there because the “Lord”, as Hayden White would say, chooses to extend these metaphorical illustrations throughout the book. Even on the back part of the book jacket, these illustrations continue. Spiegelman has a picture of himself working with a giant mask of a mouse on his head so we cannot see his face. He is conveying himself to look like the different characters from the book.


How does this connect to the Hayden White mentioned at the beginning of this blog post? It seems like a rather large leap to connect a quote to a pretty shoddy analysis of Maus I merely because there is a nice play on words. I, like the characters in the book, am self-aware. Also, like the characters in Maus I, historical narration can be changed with an act as simple as putting on a mask. The main mask that exists throughout all historical narration is the inherent bias of each storyteller telling the story. White states that “unless at least two versions of the same set of events can be imagined, there is no reason for an historian to take upon himself the authority of giving the true account of what really happened.” In someone else's point of view, a comic book illustrator might have told the story of Maus I very differently. These masks in Maus I give it credibility of an historical account based on the statement from White. Without the ever-present masks for all the characters in the book there would not be as easy of a way to discuss the inherent bias in Spiegelman's work. The inherent bias may in fact lead people to discover the other versions of the same set of events.


Is reality's mask of meaning as complex as the ever-present mask of the mice or as obvious as the masks when the mice act like pigs? That seems to be the tough question. According to White, because all things are narrations the meanings are subjective to the storyteller. What is the significance of the storyteller? The storyteller acts as the “Lord” in order to decide what is left out in a story, what the meaning is, etc. If the meaning is essentially decided by the storyteller and not the endless stream of reality then the most influential people in our lives are those that inform us of what is happening. What should our jobs be if we are not the storytellers? People are really thinking for themselves then we can decide and interpret what means what. We act as historians in our own way and our own stories are biased by our interpretations. According to White's analysis, all of history's characters already have the different masks on in our minds. We make up whatever masks they are wearing whether it is of a mouse, cat, dog, bird, or anything else. At least in Maus I, someone made those decisions for us.

Closure

Closure as defined by Scott McCloud is the phenomenon of observing the parts but perceiving the whole. It is the idea that the world exists beyond our immediate five senses and that we have to assume that it does in order for us to survive. We do this on a regular basis whether we admit to it or not. I am not in my car right now, obviously, but I can safely assume (for the most part) that my car is where I last parked it and that it did not fade into oblivion. However, McCloud plays on these assumptions that we make. There is a panel where we see him standing.

(not done)

"The spectacle is able to subject human beings to itself because the economy has already totally subjugated them. It is nothing other than the economy developing for itself. It is at once a faithful reflection of the production of things and a distorting objectification of the producers."- Guy Debord

The biggest political issue as of late has been health care reform. With worries about jobs and money, any way of saving money seems to be more important than ever. People are already "totally subjugated" by the economy as noted by Debord. People always seem to be enamored when there is a recession or even a depression. The economy seems to be on the tip of everyone's tongue and almost all actions are done with the economy in mind.

In America, we focus most of our economic minds on Adam Smith and his work The Wealth of Nations. In it he describes the "invisible hand" of the economy. When a recession comes in, political leaders are always quick to mention that this is just the economy going through its normal ups and downs.