wrap up

For reasons not to be believed, my internet has been down for the past 18 hours or so. Go figure.

It's been fun. I feel like I learned a lot in this class and certainly appreciated the class discussions. Inspired me to watch more movies and look more closely at the texts I read and how i analyze them. Mostly it's made me want to look more closely at how things connect with each other- how can I read one author through the eyes of another? What would one philosopher say of another one's particular theory? Good stuff all around.

The only thing I'm miffed at is the complete and gross glossing over we did of Fahrenheit 451. There is a book, people. Read it. Don't watch the film. And if you do watch the film, hopefully you'll get a chance to talk about it in a meaningful manner.

The best part?

A young Bo Derek

Makes the class exceptional, really.
Until next time.

A little something on Foucault

Here, in all it's glory- a final essay that is perhaps too shot on Michel Foucault.

Foucault: Prisons, Sexuality, Modern Society

            Michel Foucault, the French philosopher and cultural theorist who wrote The History of Sexuality and other works, was a radical thinker and very influential to society today. He was an advocate of discourse and its reductive power, and he spent a great deal of time discussing the normalization of society. He argued that when a subject is discussed, the subject itself becomes normalized and accepted. He also talked about something called “The Perverse Implantation,” which posits that the more a subject is talked about, the more it can become a subconscious desire, which goes a long way in explaining the amount of corruption in churches. Foucault’s philosophies and ideas fit in with the concept of radical romance. His views on modern society help explain the fixation on romance and the individual’s perception of it.

            How society perceives romance has been greatly influenced by what can be called the “Hollywood ending.” Romance is when a man and a woman live “happily ever after” and leave behind their hardships to pursue a new life that is not only emotionally rich, but sexually fulfilling. Society has, for better or worse, been mechanized to believe that this is how a relationship should go, and woe unto the couple that strays from that path. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with wanting an exciting and positive relationship. People want to believe that they will stay with their partner and support them, learning more about themselves and maybe even becoming a better human being in the process. Foucault might argue that the film industry is trying to reach a specific end when it keeps creating romantic movies where this is the end that is reached. He may even argue that back in the earliest days of film, some bigshot saw that the film industry is an institution that can be used as a way to keep society mechanized. Much like schools and prisons, film can be a tool that keeps society controlled and docile.

            The film industry has been used politically before, and to terrifying levels of effectiveness. Any sort of media can be used for propaganda. This can be both positive and negative. Film can be beautiful art, and it can be universally shared with the power of the internet and its far-reaching applications.

            All this is to say that no matter what, for better or worse, society lives in an increasingly connected age. Cultures are shared at the speed of the internet, authors can be translated into any language and distributed worldwide. Whether this leads to different cultures coming together and learning about each other to positive effect or global whitewashing remains to be seen. Disparity can lead to strife, as history has shown, but it can also lead to growth. Foucault’s views on normalization point to the efficiency that comes out of it, not simply the negatives. His cold and calculated view on the efficiency of normalization could lead to some becoming frustrated for him not having a simple, cut-and-dry point of view.

            Economist-philosopher Karl Marx states his case plainly: the mechanization of society is not only dangerous because it creates class conflict, but it actually takes the passion out of the average citizens’ life. No radical romance for the Free Trade enthusiast. He credits feudal society as giving common men and women goals and passion to work towards them. In a normalized society where selfish profit is the only goal, there is no room (in Marx’s mind) for love of your fellow man and certainly no room to have a passionate and loving relationship. Apparently post-industrial society capitalists are cold, selfish celibates.

            Foucault advocates can argue that society has been institutionalized to believe in personalized, radical romance. As has been stated, the film industry is an institution with an uncommon level of power, particularly in American society. It is highly probable that children in this generation have been raised watching Disney films and their depictions of prince charmings and beautiful princesses, daring adventures and passionate reunions. Such escapades are read about daily and mooned over in many mediums, even fine art and music. It has become an expectation of this generation to be swept off their feet in romance, and to not be satisfied until they are. Perhaps this has something to do with the nation’s high divorce rate, with the rate being something like half of all young married couples getting divorced within a year or two. The young couple does not feel the burst of romance, the surge of music, the flock of bluebirds building a wedding dress out of spider silk and fallen leaves, and becomes disgruntled that the reality may not be so much like a fairy tale. It is impossible to say that romance is some kind of formal institution run by a state, but perhaps it has seeped into the subconscious of the United States over generations.

            Ultimately, Foucault has a cold, if moderately accurate view of how society functions. Society wants to form groups and will respond to a strong leading impulse, particularly if the rewards outweigh the costs. In institutionalizing the concept of radical romance, society learns to accept it and then acts on it when the timing is correct. 

Oh What An Age We Live In

I thought our class discussion about digital culture and the way it has changed our interaction with each other was very interesting. It raises some issues that could only be dealt with in our generation.


Is an online relationship a "real" relationship? Conventional wisdom says "No, of course not"- but after a girl in our class talked about meeting her husband online and coming to love him through there, I wondered. I used to get incredibly irritated at friends on Myspace who would change their relationship status all the time. Occasionally it felt like they had made it public for a reason, as a way of grabbing attention from the rest of the internet- "Look! I'm single and depressed about it!" or "Hey! I'm in a relationship and I need some congratulatory affirmation!" This still happens on Facebook, and I still find it irritating. It's just a fact of life at this point, I suppose.

A month or so ago a girl I knew at a different college was killed in a car accident. I found out about it via Facebook and it was one of the most surreal experiences I've had. If I hadn't had a profile I don't think I would have found out. I didn't get a phone call or any other form of communication- I just noticed people updating their statuses with condolences and messages of well-wishing. It was chilling. We live in a wired world, where not only do we receive updates on the most mundane aspects of life (thank you, twitter) but we can even hear about something as tragic as a death. All within the space of a few minutes.

I'm still divided on whether instantaneous information is a positive or negative. Of course being able to hear about something like a fire or flood or other national disaster is good to have information about sooner rather than later, so that people can be in a position to help or keep people safe. But what has it done to our attention spans? What little patience we have is stretched to the breaking point if a load screen takes longer than 15 seconds. It could be the way we're raised- it could be me personally. I'm more apt, though, to blame the internet (if I'm playing the blame game at all. and why shouldn't I? it's my blog). There was an article in the New York Times recently that ties in rather nicely to all this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/fashion/12THISLIFE.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=smartphones%20at%20dinner&st=cse

I have no qualms about living in the age that I do now. I love where I am, the people I am near. I love that I can email my friend who lives in Hawaii at my own convenience, and that he can respond in a leisurely fashion. I love that I can shop online, find out directions to things, watch my favorite shows via Netflix Instant Streaming. I am always hesitant, however, to say how amazing the internet is and what a positive affect it has had on our lives.

I love how Barker talks about participation in the web community. Things like viral videos help build suspense for films that don't have a budget, and I love the bit about how the Arctic Monkeys got their momentum built solely through building their fanbase on the internet until they were recognizable. The potential for community is amazing and astounding and I am always impressed when I hear about the positive impact the internet can have. Hey, being able to write blogs instead of physically handing in papers is a huge step forward, in my mind. Wouldn't be possible all that long ago.

It was, however, made us perhaps more self-centered. How many friends on my Facebook? How many views on my Deviantart? How many clicks on my Youtube video? I believe the group who presented this stuff in class was on to something when they said one reason people join online community sites like Myspace or Facebook is for selfish reasons, or at least to get attention for themselves in some way. Not that everyone within a social network is inherently self-centered or looking for attention. People just want to know that they have a platform, that they have a place to be listened to. Social networking provides a medium for people to measure just such a thing.

Read: Game Over: Press Start to Continue. It's a book about the birth of Nintendo. It's unofficial, but still very informative and a great read for anyone who wants to know about how video games became such an enormous industry in America.
Listen: Anything by the Arctic Monkeys.
Watch: The Social Network. Apparently it's a pretty harsh look at how social networking developed and it's impact.

American Psycho- getting it right

While American Psycho may be a highly stylized and perhaps even unrealistic view of a serial killer and how he relates to the world, it does raise some interesting and volatile questions that merit investigation. It's a strange little film but it does (in my mind) what good art should: use the medium (be it film, music, the stage or the page) to evoke questions and inspire discussion among the viewers.

The movie raises questions about everything from the (very American) focus on upward mobility and socioeconomics to points on welfare and the world's obsession with porn and the twisted ways we relate to each other.

There are actually people like this. Not US, of course. We forward-thinking college students would never DREAM of forcing our views on others.

The quirkiness of this movie focuses mainly on Christian Bale's character, a serial killer who believes that the human race is selfish and focused on making as much money as possible before they die. Get you can, and figure out a way to enjoy life before you kick the bucket. The film is most certainly postmodern. It is so highly stylized that a viewer is always a little on the outside of whatever is happening with the characters. Bale's characters' voice-overs help with that. We can never be fully involved with the characters because we are constantly being pushed to a view them from a distance. We are never inside the killer's head- we get his perspective of the world and are left to draw our own conclusions. In our Barker book (page 200 in the chapter "Enter Postmodernism"... I'm still not entirely certain how to cite the damn thing), there are a few bullet points on postmodern structure:

• a sense of the fragmentary, ambiguous and uncertain nature of living
• an awareness of the centrality of contingency
• a recognition of cultural difference
• an acceleration in the pace of living

American Psycho falls squarely into this category. The movie itself is fragmented, Bale's character is ambiguous in his relation to others, and everyone else in the movie is uncertain how to get ahead- is it getting a superior business card, eating at the most expensive restaurant, schmoozing with the wife of a rival? There are even a few comments on cultural difference. In the memorable scene where Bale's character kills a homeless man and his dog, He berates the man for not getting a job and contributing to the rest of society. The man is not "normal" in our killer's mind, and perhaps that's a strong enough motivation to murder him.

I feel that postmodernism is one of this film's greatest strengths. Without the postmodernist structure, we wouldn't have directors like the Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino. Authors like Mark Danielewski (who wrote the terrifyingly excellent House of Leaves). We live in a society that will phrase most things with an ironic sneer, and sarcasm has become the normative way of talking. This movie takes a little slice of this and projects it into the mind of madman with a warped view of how to take care of business while still living in a way that keeps his motivations hidden from the people around him.

Haven't we all had moments of wanting to wipe the smirk off of someone's face? Who doesn't want to feel smug and satisfied while a rival or enemy squirms? It's just that most of us won't do it with a fireman's axe.

we all know what's coming next

Read: House of Leaves. The best example of a postmodern novel I can think. It's a book that turns what a novel can be on it's ear and is absolutely gripping from start to finish.
Listen: "It's Hip to be Square" by Huey Lewis and the News. Yup.
Watch: There are plenty of shows that fall under the category of "postmodern" but the best is probably 30 Rock. A comedy that isn't self-referential, sarcastic, fast-paced, and even fourth-wall breaking. Not to mention well-written and absolutely hilarious.

Halloween

[Before this gets rolling: yes, this is a month and a half after Halloween. I thought I'd posted it, but it turns out it was under "drafts" and so now it's showing up in December. So there's that.]

I don't have a whole lot to say on the subject of radical romance and Halloween, but it does inspire a story that JUST MIGHT have to do with gender relations and how we view relationships and all those delicious tidbits.

A few days before Halloween, a girl asked me out at my work. Something I was completely not expecting. I was pleased and excited (obviously!) but it did make me think of this class. Is that sad? Maybe.

It brought into perspective the traditional role of relationships. The man asks the woman out, he pays for the date, it goes from there. We talked about this later in class and it led to an interesting discussion- in the society that we live in today, what is expected of a guy who wants to ask out a girl? Should anything be expected, really?

The girls in our class seemed pretty adamant about the importance of independence. They were all comfortable with the idea of themselves paying for their half of the date and all were open to the idea of asking out a guy if they felt like it. The guys seemed more divided on the issue; most of them were (or seemed to be, at least in my mind) somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a women asking them out. Perhaps it's because men are used to having power; if we were viewing dating through the lens of Karl Marx, we would say that men, as the more powerful upper class, are confused and intimidated when the proletariat woman-class starts to organize and propose a whole new way of viewing dating and asking out men. Join the revolution! Overthrow the capitalist, self-serving men and usher in a new era of equality and peace...

Karl says: Peace out, ladies

It could happen.

All of this is to say I had a lovely Halloween, thank you. I ended making dinner for the lady in question (I paid for the ingredients and cooked the food, so I guess it all equals out in the end, right?) and we quite enjoyed ourselves. You could say we even bucked the societal norm because we didn't go out and party or even wear costumes. Just dinner and sparkling conversation.

Read: Marx's Communist Manifesto. Or at least some excerpts to get an idea of oppression and class struggle. Apparently it's a big deal.
Listen: Oingo Boingo. That's kind of like Halloween music, right?
Watch: A Nightmare on Elm Street. The original one. It's a little late at this point, but hey, it's a classic.

Fuck Buddies and Life on Mars

In that "great 90s sitcom about nothing" Seinfeld, Elaine and Jerry are friends who used to be in a relationship. In one particular episode in the first season of the show, they decide to hook up and see if they can have sex and still be friends without all of the messiness that goes on within a relationship. By the end of the episode they realize they cannot. Even with the strict rules they set in place (no sleeping over after sex, no phone calls the next day, no kissing goodnight), they find themselves falling into "relationship status" again and decide to just remain friends after all.

Is it possible to have the seemingly mythical "fuck buddy" that we see in the movies or hear about on TV? Is it something we should pursue in the interest of breaking down taboos about sex and love?

This explains everything, really.

Foucault would argue that as a race, humanity has already talked sex down to a simple subject that anybody can talk about. Since we have turned sex into discourse that can be discussed in school and in books or even courts of law, how much of a step is it to have it as a casual thing?

As a culture, the United States isn't sure if it's a freewheeling, open-minded society where sex is simple, easy and nothing to focus too much about (as evidenced in our film and television) or if it's a Puritan battleground where every cuss word and bathing suit on the screen, radio or printed page is worthy of scrutinization and ranting about to the conservative media. Foucault, being European (and perhaps more open-minded in his view of how sexuality), notes that societies have historically been conservative towards sexuality and how open individuals should be with sharing it. Since the civilized world came into being, sex has more or less been a hot-button issue in regards to how younger generations view it

Gender Bending in "The Laramie Project"

For those not in the know, The Laramie Project is a play written by Moises Kaufman and the Tectonic Theater Project about a homosexual boy named Matthew Shepard who was chained to a fence and beaten to death by two other teenagers in Laramie, Wyoming. This was an event that actually happened. The play is not so much a dramatization of events as it is a collection of interviews divided into short scenes and performed by an ensemble cast. Each cast member takes on a character or characters from Laramie and recounts their experience of the events that took place in 1996.


I recently saw California State Universiry, Fullerton's production of Laramie and I was surprised and blown away by what they did with the production. For me, the main thing about the play is that there cannot be a whole lot of "acting" going on. It would be a disservice to the people of the town and take away from the power of the events that happen. The actors must simply state the facts, recount their experiences, and really live within their characters to the best of their ability. This is an incredibly difficult play to do justice to, since there isn't really an arc and there isn't much character development- in my opinion the play is a comment on society and our homophobic tendencies and man's intrinsically violent nature.

All this being said- the thing that really stuck out to me was the amount of gender swapping going on within the cast and the characters being played. Men played women, women played men, one man even played a lesbian mama who told it like it is. At first this really turned me off and pulled me out of the play- how can these actors say they are honestly portraying these real men and women if they aren't even playing the right genders?- but after a while I stopped and thought about it. I realized the director was making a comment and a powerful one at that.


Maybe this is a little heavy-handed. As a society, what if we looked past gender, sexual orientation, age and race? Would there be hate? I venture to say maybe not. We live in a global society. My generation is the first fully wired generation. If someone told me "Hey Cameron, it's wrong to tie gay people to a fence and beat them to death," I would have said, "No shit" and kept on walking. The fact  of the matter is, this play was premiered in the year 2000. This wasn't something that happened 100 years ago that we can shake our heads at. 1996. That's the year that Matthew was killed.

As our Feminafesto-writing friend Anne Waldman would say: "I propose a utopian creative field where we are defined by our energy, not our gender." This has beautiful implications. Not just for a creative field, but a straight up utopia. Wouldn't that be nice? I breathe easier just thinking about it.

I wrote this mainly to say how impressed I was that the gender-swapping by the cast really worked on a deeper level than I would have expected from a college production. The actors did justice to the play and told the story that needed to be told. That's really the goal of drama isn't it?

You Never Give Me Your Money

Here, in the glorious piece of work below, we argue for the radicality of something outside of our core texts as it relates to the themes in our class. Lovely.

It Almost Doesn’t Exist

            There is perhaps nothing new under the sun, particularly in the romance genre. Hell, we have a textbook with a chapter devoted to the concept “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl in the end.” It takes a little digging to find something truly “radical,” something that challenges genre and brings something new to light. I submit to you the short film “Run,” a new video from Cut to the Chase Productions, a film company that brings new media to light.

http://cuttothechasefilms.com/

go there. be informed

            The tagline of “Run” is that it is a film “exploring lost love and the impossible decisions we make” (cuttothechasefilms.com). It certainly does. It’s a story that starts long after “boy loses girl” – the boy in question has been away for a year, presumably doing something shady to get a large amount of money. Boy and girl leave town, but circumstances destroy what they have together (as they tend to do).

            What I like about “Run” is that the characters are flawed people. The boy deals with the wrong sort and suffers consequences for his actions. Not that I buy into the convention that every single person who does something questionable should have to answer for it, but it does add some dramatic tension. The couple does not get to have a romantic reunion at an airport after a hilarious misunderstanding. There is loss, heartache, impassioned fighting.

            Is the film “radical,” though? There is a moment in the film where the boy states: “We have money now; we can do whatever we want.” Baudrillard would be proud. The boy hopes to win the favor of the girl with money – he has not physically or emotionally been there for her in a time of need, and so hopes this will do the trick. In a way, it does. In a departure from many films of this nature, they impulsively pack their things and decide to do what they can to build a new life outside of town. They feel secure in that their money can get them what they need – maybe new identities, maybe just security and safety.

            Baudrillard quotes Dr. Dichter in “The System of Objects” as saying “One of the fundamental problems of prosperity is to sanction and to justify its enjoyment, to convince people that making their life enjoyable is moral, and not immoral.”  This is something that doesn’t come up in fiction a whole lot – characters attempting to enjoy their wealth when they have it. I should say it’s something that doesn’t come up and last for long periods of time, or is given positive light as an option, rather than throwing everything to the wind and attempt to live on something like pure romance. This couple’s second go-‘round begins on a painfully practical ground. Here are two people who sink into the belief of “If we have the means, we can do what we want – the consequences we can deal with later.” Certainly radical in and out of itself.

            There are moments where the film falls prey to the traps of the romantic genre – the couple is fighting but out of their passionate shouting at each other there emerges a moment where they kiss, and the kiss solves it all for the couple. Once they kiss they make up, decide to get back together, maybe even fall back in love. It’s a cliché, surely; a kiss cannot solve a problem, at least not long term. That would have to be one hell of a kiss. 

THIS caliber of kiss

            Can a couple live on love alone? According to various credible sources, all you need is love. The Beatles didn’t write a song called “All You Need is Love, A Place to Live, and Steady Income.” It isn’t a romantic thing to think about, and certainly not uplifting to watch. I’m just riffing now, but I daresay we’ve overly romanticized living without material comfort. Adam Smith probably never had a stable, loving relationship in his life, but he certainly got to understand what drives us. In the introduction to “The Politics of Culture,” Rivkin and Ryan make a true and interesting point when the say “the media inevitably further attitudes and perceptions that assure its continuation.” We keep buying into movies because we have been conditioned to; if an esteemed filmmaker says love is all you need to get by, then who are we to disagree? It trickles down and seeps into our collective consciousness.

            I don’t hate romance or the concept of it. There are always other things to consider in a relationship. Not to take my raging diatribe down to a bland vanilla simmer,  but you can’t live on just one thing just as you can’t live trying to do without love or passion in a relationship. The media has a firm hold on what we believe to be good and healthy in a relationship. All I know is that if it starts raining outside, it’s the perfect time to call any estranged ex-girlfriend and attempt to make up. It’s practically guaranteed that I’ll get a kiss.

Works Cited

Baudrillard, Jean. The System of Objects. Excerpt, Ch. 9.

www.cuttothechasefilms.com

Rivkin and Ryan. The Politics of Culture. Excerpt, Ch. 1.  

www.cuttothechasefilms.com 

seriously, go there and spend 18 minutes of your life watching this film. maybe you'll even see some of the things I saw.

Ethnography: Lots of Awkward Conversation

Checked out Aroma Cafe in my town to observe people. This is a distillation of what I saw.
-----

            The place I went to was called Aroma Café, a small restaurant in North Hollywood. I can’t seem to go there without seeing several couples of varying ages or types.

            Watched couples in line waiting to order (the line always goes out the door so you can see people as they wait outside then transition to the indoors). Some stand a little apart from each other and look at their menus without talking much. Some stand like they are one person, the girl leaning on the man as they both share one menu. They don’t talk much either and they hold each other close. Others talk constantly, flirting, touching and laughing as though they were alone. The people taking orders don’t really notice the couples, just individual orders as they come. When asked if people are paying together or separate, only one guy paid for both him and his partners meal. The girl stood off to the side a little when he did so and thanked him quietly. Once the girl would not let the man pay for her which caused a small holdup as they quietly talked about who would pay until finally agreeing to pay separately. There was a moment where a girl seemed surprised that the person she was with wasn’t paying for her but she reacted almost immediately with a smile and the man didn’t notice or didn’t seem to notice at the time.

            Sitting on the patio, I could see more couples. Some of the same couples who had been in line before, and some new ones. I saw at least one married couple (or at least a man and a woman each wearing a wedding ring sitting together). They ate slowly, and they talked a lot while they ate, so their plates weren’t cleared for a long time. They sat across from each other at a small table and looked at each other while they did so. The man who was talking gestured expressively with his hands and arms and the woman laughed while he did which made him smile in turn. There was a couple in the corner of the patio who held hands constantly when they weren’t holding a fork or utensil. They were sharing a big piece of what looked like red velvet cake or some kind of dessert. They both looked young, and the girl kept resting her head on the others’ shoulder in between bites. Every now and then he would pop a quick kiss on the top of her head or her brow, or she would turn her head and they would share a kiss on the lips that didn’t last very long. When someone came by to take their empty plate, they held still for a brief moment until he went away, and then they relaxed again.

            There was a couple that seemed nervous, a couple I had seen in line. They both talked constantly but quietly, not wanting to draw too much attention to themselves. The woman wore glasses and kept pushing them up her nose. The man would lean forward as he talked to her, earnestly looking into her eyes. They sat across from each other as well and each hardly touched the other at all. They sat longer than I was there. By the time I left their plates had been taken away but they hardly seemed to notice as they went back and forth in conversation, taking brief pauses every now and then for a sip of coffee or water.

            I don’t know if I saw anything particularly radical but it was interesting to see the connections being made (or not made!) as the night went on. The depth of older relationships was easy to see as a middle-aged couple slowly went about their meal: the husband/ boyfriend/ life partner knowing how to make the person he was sitting with crack up with just a gesture or phrase. I have no idea how long they had been a couple or if they even were, but it seemed like they had weathered a few storms together (hopefully nothing as rough the couple in “Fatal Attraction,” though I can see how that would bring people closer together as well). The freedom they had with each other, the way they talked, the way they moved, how they waited on each other if the other had a story or anecdote- these are people who have a deep love and respect for each other. Contrast that to the young couples in line, who seemed to not have known each other for very long or who seemed to not care for each other as deeply.

            It could be a generational thing, but I noticed that the people who looked my age weren’t overly interested in the person they were with except for the last couple I observed, who seemed to be on a first date. Phones were looked at during conversation or in line, text messages occasionally sent, but this didn’t seem to bother anyone on either side of the equation. Perhaps this takes “radical” out of the equation, but these people were tolerant to let that happen during a normal meeting with someone of the opposite gender. Seems rude to me, but I haven’t been on a date in ages so what do I know?

            I didn’t notice any same-sex couples but it wouldn’t surprise me if I just didn’t notice them. My eye gravitated towards clusters of two who seemed to be sharing intimate moments. I was intrigued by the two young couples, the one in the corner who shared dessert, and the maybe-couple whose members clearly hadn’t known each other very long but definitely were interested in doing so. I got to see the earnestness and undivided attention that goes into meeting someone for the first time, and I got to see the relaxation, the contentment of two people who had been together for perhaps a little longer.

            I wished I would have seen a former lover burst into the patio and swear to kill the new beau, and have a fight ensue. That would have been radical in every sense of the word. Mostly I saw warmth and contentment.

Undercurrents of Emtional Violence

This is less about emotional violence and more about why Tennessee Williams' Cat On a Hot Tin Roof is a fantastic play that I hadn't read until about a week ago. I have this tendency to avoid things that people tell me I would like ("Mad Men," books on philosophy, various movies like the excellent "The Savages"). I'm not sure if it's fear- or maybe I just like to string people along. My roommate has been trying to get me to watch "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" for at least a year and a half now, but I keep putting it off.

And then I remember that she's in it. Time to start watching.

The point is, I read Cat and was staggered by the emotional depth and complexity the characters displayed (well, most of the characters. Mae and Gooper don't really go beyond scheming, moustache-twirling villainy). It's still a relevant play, one that could be performed today just as easily as 30 years ago. The themes and characters make sense. Closeted homosexuality hasn't gone away, especially in the the South- not that that's the only part of the play that matters, but it's still something that demands exploration and investigation.

Why can't Brick connect with his (ostensibly beautiful) wife, Maggie? Is he actually physically repulsed by her, or is it something deeper? He can barely stand her touch- the only way he goes to bed with her is when he's fall-down drunk. If he's trying to deflect accusations of homosexuality, he could perhaps try and love his wife more- there's that quote about "doth protesting too much," maybe it makes his entire family suspicious and the accusations and drama fly out of there. No, though- every time Maggie and Brick are in a room together, he hardly pays her the slightest bit of attention.

Her. Damn, Brick. I'd be picking that up on the daily.

 

Brick doesn't try and hide his distaste for Maggie- but it's more than just her physically being a female that sets him off. Maggie says she slept with Skipper, the object of Brick's desire, before Skipper died- she did so because that's the only way both of them could get closer to Brick without seeming like godless perverts. Skipper is the one commonality the two of them had, the only thing that could bring Maggie and Brick together sexually. Once he dies, Brick shuts down; he doesn't sleep with Maggie, he gets drunk daily, and drifts away from his family.

I can practically guarantee that this family drama is being lived right now somewhere six or seven hundred miles east of here. Not in a cliche way. These are universal themes of love, trust, and sexuality- also death and denial, hope and fear. Pieces of art like this don't come around often. Truth be told, the reason I signed up to present this play to the class was because I wanted an excuse to check it out. "I mean, I probably won't read it on my own... this is a great way to FORCE me to read it!" I'm glad I did. Now if only there was someone to force me to watch Buffy so I can appease my roommate...

read: Cat On a Hot Tin Roof- it's worth it. Get a group of five or six friends together and go for it
listen: Louis Armstrong's "Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans"
watch: "A Streetcar Named Desire," another Williams masterwork. Marlon Brando is electric as Stanley, an iconic role that is still being parodied today.

Linguistics: a crash course in "wait, what?"

I have never ascribed so much meaning to the word "meaning."
Having just read some of Ferdinand de Saussure's "Course in General Linguistics" I can safely say I would be terrified to have that as an emphasis. I keep thinking if I stare long enough at the words, I can make them come alive for me, shape them into something that makes me have an "aha!" moment. Hasn't quite happened yet.


I love how Saussure compares language to chess- how each linguistic term "derives its value from its opposition to all the other terms," just as pieces on a chessboard become more valuable depending on where they are in relation to other pieces. Saussure asks you to understand that language is all about individual moments, with a set of conventions posed upon them that gives each moment context and meaning. Crazy stuff.


Also checked out Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex- lady makes some excellent points. From the beginning (at least as long as I can remember) we've viewed women differently and always, ALWAYS allowed them different rights than the rest of society. The examples cited in the work make perfect sense- woman has always been "The Other," even more so than Jews and African-Americans. There is talk of a vicious cycle that occurs when something is expected to keep happening because one allowed it to happen in the first place. As for me, I know there's still a glass ceiling; anyone who says there isn't would be lying to themselves. I feel like things are changing for the better, though. Better? Well. Things are different than they were fifty years ago, I can certainly say that.

at least there's slightly less of this happening

Been reading all kinds of things for my Critical Theories class as well. You ever hear of this guy Plato? Aristotle? I guess they knew what they were talking about. Thousands of years ago. My brain is full of philosophy and how it relates to writing and rhetoric. Hopefully there comes a point where I can actually sort this stuff out and apply it, not just talk briefly about it in class.

That's ultimately what I want: to be able to act for a living, and then have badass discussions of literature on the side. Or even during, wouldn't that be a trip?

Read: Aristotle's Poetics. Incredible how everything said about character, plot, and structure still mostly applies to movies today.

Listen: "The Hazards of Love" by the Decemberists. Now THERE is a band who understands language and how to wrangle it down and make it their own.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HXUhShhmY incredible

Radical Romance: first impressions, and Gaga

When I heard I'd be creating a blog for one of classes, my first reaction was a profound "hm." The thought had crossed my mind (I'm an English Literature Major, we all want to be writers, don't we?) but I'd never acted on it. Now I'll be doing just that.

The class is Popular Culture, and the professor has added the intriguing subtitle "the Radical Romance." So far, my impression is that class will analyze how love, or the concept of love, influences culture throughout the world- and THAT excites me. Now I've said it. I'm excited. Love is one of those concepts that I believe strongly in, being an idealistic youth from the First Fully Wired Generation.

About me: living in North Hollywood, pursuing a career as an actor by way of working two jobs and slowly (steadily?) moving towards my degree at Cal State Northridge. I've bounced around since high school; I lived in Fullerton for two years and almost moved to Long Island, New York before going with North Hollywood. I'm glad I did. I don't think I would have survived a New York winter.

More to the point. The first two classes have been intensely interesting because the Good Professor encourages DISCUSSION. He brought up something fairly heavy on the second day: the fact that most western culture is inevitably tied to economics. It's pretty Marxist, if we think about it. After all, "The production of popular music, film, television and fashion is in the hands of transnational capitalist corporations." Does that mean that love is engineered in some way too? Or what about the legitimacy of artists and "indie cred" or "street cred"- once an individual or a group is raised above the culture that brought them to where they are or inspired their success, can they still make art about the same things without becoming a parody of themselves?

Take any popular band or singer. Let's say...Lady Gaga.

She started her career as a musician playing in dive bars in Manhatten and now has more money than God. In her music, she demonizes and mocks fame while at the same time desperately wants and needs it- without it, she would have no persona whatsoever.

Does she have the right to do this? She came from the bottom and built her way to the top- hers really is a success story in that regard. And while she makes it a point to thank her fans and friends and family who brought her to where she is now, she has become a product- a brand- an image. Even while being snide and even occasionally (surprisingly, surreally) insightful, her goal is be the most popular in the world of popular music.

I'm not going to defend or attack the Lady. She's a self-starter, more or less, and she does phenomenal things with genre bending. But it will be interesting to watch how she progresses in her career. She wants to be provocative and edgy, yet she still wants to reel in the unsure. Will she succeed? Probably. Even those repelled by her are mystified and curious about her success.

I can't wait to see where this class goes. I have to present something on Williams' Cat On a Hot Tin Roof in a few weeks. Should be fantastic. Keep checking back.

[The quote above is from my Cultural Analysis textbook, by the way. Not sure how extensive my citing must be at this point.]

Read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/weekinreview/15sisario.html?scp=6&sq=arcade%20fire&st=cse
Listen: "Handbook to the Sellout" by Five Iron Frenzy
Watch: Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I&ob=av2e