Sunday, November 29, 2009

Blog: Rear Window. 11/30/09

I've always thought that Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker - Rear Window was an excellent example of this.

The setting of the apartments surrounding Jeff's "rear window" play an important part in paralleling his relationship with Lisa.

Miss Torso: she is a woman who cares for exercise and physical fitness/appearance. She tends to host parties/gatherings in her apartment. It's obvious that men are drawn to her and desire her. In reflection to Jeff and Lisa's relationship, I see Miss Torso representing the "perfect" or "ideal" woman (in regards to Lisa). Because of Miss Torso's appearance we - as the audience - expect the woman to be with a handsome, debonair type man. In the end, we find that Miss Torso's actual beau is a short, balding man. Jeff thinks Lisa is too good for him or should be with someone more of her "society." By looking at Miss Torso, Jeff learns the old saying to "never judge a book by its cover." If Miss Torso can be with Mr. Shorty-n-Balding, then Jeff can certainly be with the beautiful Lisa.
Jeff and Lisa's reaction: Jeff can't help but sometimes stare at Miss Torso, and Lisa - who catches a glance too - can see why.

Miss Lonelyhearts: I feel that I should relate Miss Lonelyhearts to Jeff and Lisa individually. Jeff sees a person who is suffering in their loneliness; Jeff feels that he can't have a relationship with Lisa so, ergo, he must feel lonely. It's obvious to me that Lisa loves Jeff and doesn't care about their differences, but she relates to Miss Lonelyhearts when Jeff suggests they may not be a good match. Jeff and Lisa are the perfect "lonely" people who should end up together.
Jeff and Lisa's reaction: Both Jeff and Lisa feel sorry for Miss Lonelyhearts.


The Composer: is a man who is struggling with his profession (piano playing). I see Jeff mostly reflected in the Composer. Jeff is stuck in a wheelchair, due to his cast, and in the beginning of the movie we see him struggle with his lack-of-work.
Jeff and Lisa's reaction: Jeff watches the Composer struggle and Lisa loses herself in the Composer's music.

The Newlyweds: the couple are the newest tenants at the apartments. Upon their arrival, they close the curtain to umm...*cough*...enjoy the "newlywed" part of life. I think Jeff looks at the Newlyweds as the Obvious of what will happen if he were to ever marry [Lisa].
Jeff's reaction: Whenever Jeff catches a glance of the Newlyweds, the husband is trying to enjoy a smoke and his wife is calling him back into the apartment. I feel like Jeff dreads this for the husband.

Thorwalds: Mr. and Mrs. Thorwald - DUH! - have a not-so-great marriage. They fight a lot and it seems that Mr. Thorwald suffers some verbal abuse from his wife (well, we know how he takes care of that). I think the idea of what Mr. Thorwald does is the Worst Case Scenerio in comparison to Jeff and Lisa. Jeff and Lisa love each other; Jeff may be having doubts but Lisa is strong in her feelings for Jeff. Thorwald, tired of his marriage, decides to kill his wife. BIG difference between the two couples.
Jeff and Lisa's reaction: (see movie summary/plot). Jeff and Lisa see a man who was so troubled by his marriage that he takes things into his own hands and turns to murder (as his way out).

Hitchcock makes it more apparent of what is happening in Jeff and Lisa's relationship by showing the goings-on in the other apartments. There are similarities that show Jeff he doesn't have to think Lisa is too good for him; Jeff sees the tough side of relationships but learns too that one can overcome all. And by looking at Thorwald... one can learn to not kill your spouse.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Blog: 10/28/09. Glengarry Glen Ross

Question 2: Discuss Mamet's use of profanity in the play. Is there a reason for it, or is it merely gratuitous?

When I read plays (or novels) or watch movies I tend to be picky about the content. It’s not that I am easily offended to nudity or language – I never get offended – I’m just a believer that one does not need to “over-use” adult content in movies to make it good. For example: I love scary/horror films but just because a film tries its best to gross me out with an extreme amount of gore doesn’t make it a good film for me.

I feel the same way about language. Oddly enough: Glengarry Glen Ross (which I will refer to in the blog as “GGR” because, at the moment, I’m a lazy typist) did not annoy me with its use of profanity. I do not think it was used gratuitously – I do believe there was a purpose to it.
Like the movie The Departed (directed by Scorsese) I liked the language (profanity too) because I thought it accurately depicted the lifestyle in Boston. “GGR” uses its profanity well because it also fits the location (Chicago). The play was written in 1982, so I picture Chicago in the early ‘80s – and when a bunch of salesmen (especially men) get together to talk or when they especially get angry, I visualize (well hear) a lot of profanity being used.

I feel like the characters in “GGR” curse to show their anger but to also appear superior to the other men. My favorite scene (which was done really well with the movie) is when Levene talks down to Williamson after he ruins Roma’s deal with Lingk. A lot of profanity is used – whether it’s cursing at Williamson or calling him names.
Profanity is used a lot out of anger – when Roma finds out that their jobsite has been robbed, he curses continuously in his demand to know if the contracts were stolen.
For the most part I think Mamet used profanity (not just to show the men’s anger) but to use it to allow the men (who do curse) feel superior (or to make the other person they’re cursing at feel inferior).

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Blog: King Lear. 10/07/09.

Response to Coppelia Kahn’s “The Absent Mother in King Lear.”



1. "But what the play depicts, of course, is the failure of that presence: the failure of a father’s power to command love in a patriarchal world and the emotional penalty he pays for wielding power. Lear’s very insistence on paternal power, in fact, belies its shakiness; similarly, the absence of the mother points to her hidden presence . . . . When Lear begins to feel the loss of Cordelia, to be wounded by her sisters, and to recognize his own vulnerability, he calls his state of mind hysteria, 'the mother,' which I interpret as his repressed identification with the mother. Women and the needs and traits associated with them are supposed to stay in their element, as Lear says, 'below' – denigrated, silenced, denied. In this patriarchal world, masculine identity depends on repressing the vulnerability, dependency, and capacity for feeling which are called 'feminine.'"

RESPONSE: I agree that King Lear represses his emotional or “feminine” side in order to keep the upper hand as king and as a man. Especially for the time period it was normal for men to have the “power” while women were merely expected to play the roles of wives and mothers. When Lear decides to divide his kingdom he suggests the best way to determine which of his daughters gets the best share is to see who loves him the most. Goneril and Regan proclaim their love (and their obvious desperate attempt to woo him) while Cordelia, the innocent daughter of the three, notes that there is nothing she can say to describe her love for her father. I believe the best way to put this particular thought together is to describe it from a feminist’s point of view: How like a man to put on a contest for his own ego. Displeased with Cordelia’s answer, he banishes her. By the end of the play, Lear has discovered Goneril and Regan’s true objective and feels guilty for the wrong done onto Cordelia. In his guilt and emotional state, Lear refers to it as “the mother” – because by expressing these certain emotions, it is very “feminine” of him.




2. "Despite a lifetime of strenuous defense against admitting feeling and the power of feminine presence into his world, defense fostered at every turn by prevailing social arrangements, Lear manages to let them in. He learns to weep and, though his tears scald and burn like molten lead, they are no longer 'women’s weapons' against which he must defend himself."

RESPONSE: It is after he understands what Goneril and Regan truly wanted – and in the wrong done to Cordelia - that Lear lets his “feminine” side out. He weeps and asks for Cordelia’s forgiveness: “You must bear with me. Pray you now, forget and forgive: I am old and foolish” (Act IV-Scene VIII). It’s after this great discovery that Lear allows his “masculine” walls to break and he learns to allow himself to feel the “feminine presence.” He no longer uses the “women’s weapons” but can cry like any woman or man can.





3. This passage relates to the reunion scene with Corelia (Act 4, Scene 7): "These are the tears of ashamed self-knowledge, manly tears caused by a realization of what his original childish demands on his daughters had led to. In this scene, which I want to compare with the next scene with Cordelia, Lear comes closer than he ever does later to a mature acceptance of his human dependency."

RESPONSE: When Lear cries, I see him crying as a man who has let his emotional walls down. I don’t think anyone views this scene and thinks: “Ppfff, men don’t cry.” He cries because he has realized what he’s done through his childish and egotistical act of asking his daughters “Who loves me the most?” I agree that he does accept reality in a way that it’s not just a “masculine” versus “feminine” world. Lear knows he has done wrong to Cordelia and how foolish it was to ask his daughters who loved him the most – since that question appears to be the catalyst for when the story drastically changes. I see how he accepts his “human dependency” – especially when he’s not sure if Cordelia is alive or dead – in his heartbreak, he collapses and dies. It’s almost as if Lear needed the love of his daughters to survive. The betrayal of Goneril and Regan drive him mad, Cordelia’s return restores Lear’s sanity, and Cordelia’s (questionable) death lead Lear to his own death.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Blog: Persepolis. 09/16/09

Marji’s father says: “Politics and sentiment don’t mix.” I have to say that I disagree with this statement. Through Marji’s eyes we were able to see revolution and war take effect in Iran and how it affected everyone. Everyone can agree that war is never a pleasant matter – on either side. It’s the strength Marji finds within herself and the love of her family to pull through all her difficult situations.

I think sentiment does mix in with politics (maybe not all the time). From a young age, Marji was more aware of her country’s war than some of us can say we are familiar with our own. She wanted to take part in protests and rebellions. Marji also thinks she could be some sort of “savior” or “prophet.” I think the ideas she has to become a “prophet” come deep within her heart – she cares so much for her family and especially her grandmother that she never wants anyone to suffer. As a “prophet,” suffering would be “forbidden.” She’s young at heart, but she is definitely aware of the terrifying reality around her. I believe that it is both Marji’s heart and mind that direct her in life. A lot of people tend to either think with their heads or think with their hearts.

I think that while Marji truly believes that politics and sentiment don’t mix, she may argue otherwise. In both the novel and movie, Marji seems to get temperamental at times and her emotions can get the best of her. However her strong political views and her love for her family seem to always parallel one another.

Marji’s mother and grandmother would disagree with the statement of “politics and sentiment don’t mix” as well. I got the feeling that the mother would be more hard-headed about the statement (like her daughter), but nonetheless she demonstrates a care for politics as well for her family – her love for her family affects her ideas of politics because she – of course – wants what’s best for the family. The grandmother is the one that Marji is closest with – and I do see a lot of similarities and influences in their relationship. I think the grandmother, more than anyone, would agree that one must use sentiment in politics.

If you think about the way you view politics, I believe an individual uses a lot of sentiment toward their political ideas. After all, we want what’s best for ourselves as well as our loved ones. The way we react to wars and rebellions comes from our worrying and concern for our family and friends.


Marji may not have survived the war (metaphorically speaking, as well as physically) if it had not been for her family. She was always trying to do the right thing as well as lead a life that would make her family proud. Marji – like everyone else – wants the war to end and for life to be peaceful. I don’t think she would have taken a stronger stance toward the rebellion and war if it had not been for her great love of family.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Blog: The Great Gatsby. 09/02/09

Is Nick "all right at the end"? I think so..

Throughout the novel I find Nick to be a likeable character as well as a reliable narrator. In Chapter I Nick tells us that he is “…inclined to reserve all judgements… I was privy to the secret griefs…” I was able to trust Nick’s storytelling due to his openness and his ability to listen to others without judgment. After reading The Great Gatsby, I found that I had learned a lot about Gatsby as well as Nick himself. His poetic descriptions made me realize how Nick views the world himself.
My two favorite parts of the book are when Nick is describing the “valley of ashes” and Gatsby’s death. In Chapter II Nick describes the valley of ashes as a “desolate area of land” and Fitzgerald uses words like, “grotesque,” “crumbling,” and “ghastly” to describe it. Symbolically it is the product of modern America – a wasteland. The “valley of ashes” is what can occur after a failing dream (the American dream, maybe?). It’s evident too that Fitzgerald didn’t think well of the upper class (as represented by those living in the East) and for Nick to take careful notice of this wasteland (and the difference of the East and the West) gave me the chance to almost judge the characters or to see the “valley of ashes” as Nick was seeing it. Maybe the upper class life isn’t so great? I get the feeling that since Nick is involved in this lifestyle, it’s hard for him to see the “evil” in it.
Since Nick is “privy” to secrets it helps for his friendship to form and grow between Gatsby and himself. A lot of the major events in the novel focus on Gatsby (obviously) but it’s important to take note of how Nick is viewing everything. He starts to see the reality of things and notices how Gatsby strives for Daisy’s attention (by gaining wealth and showing off). On the last couple of pages in Chapter IX Nick reflects on Gatsby’s attempt to gain this “American dream.” Even though Nick says Gatsby turned “all right at the end,” he still notices the downfall of Gatsby. Before Nick leaves, he goes to what used to be Gatsby’s home and says: “I went over and looked at the huge incoherent failure of a house.” Nick also notes that Gatsby “did not know that it was already behind him” (in regards to Gatsby’s “American dream.”) It appears (to Nick, and to us) that the “American dream” was not possible for Gatsby – despite his efforts. On the last page, Fitzgerald uses the word “green” a lot – a reminder that green represented something vibrant, growing and ever-changing –the color associated with Gatsby’s almost-impossible dream. “Gatsby believed in the green light …” Nick admits that Gatsby failed at his attempts, but still admires him (not sure if that’s the best word to use) for what he tried to do. “…We will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…” Gatsby may have failed, but we can still try… I think Nick does turn out all right at the end by seeing the “valley of ashes” within the world. He was able to see the darker side of reality and Nick viewed the life of a man who attempted to completely change that and to achieve what most people want: the “American dream.” He seems hopeful at the end: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”