What is the significance of the motherly instinct that Selma shows to her boy in regards to Marx's discussion of animalistic instincts?
First, the 'dedicated mother' portion and be tied back tot he discussion of animal instincts that Marx presents on page 300 of the piece we read. He begins by discussing production and how it is what separates people from animals. He also says that while animals DO produce, they do so only for their livelihood and for that of reproduction. Man, on the other hand, produces under no such pretext. He states, "[Man] only truly produces in freedom therefrom.[from physical need]" Selma, in my opinion, represents the bondage that the proletariat suffers through as they are coerced into a frenzied state of production. Her son represents the ideals of capitalism. The relationship that they share is not too terribly different from that of the proletariat and the capitalists. She is BLINDLY producing for someone, her son, but he will never know that she has done this, per her wishes. The same way that he lacks the knowledge of his producing contributor, Capitalists rarely know or care about the people who work for them. Contrastingly, Selma unconditionally loves her son, just as people who are in capitalistic societies love their supposed freedoms. It is nothing but a facade that allows the proletariat the single thing that keeps them going: Hope.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Mavie En Rose - (non)sexual Pedophillia
What is the significance of the usage of a transgendered child instead of an adult?
In my opinion, two things arise out of this usage. First, an air of innocence is able to surround the character as a child whereas an adult may have had a much more negative connotation connected to them by the audience. Second, the young age allows the disconnect from transgenderdism and sexuality/sensuality. This is very important in allowing a much less biased message to be put forth. Sex, especially in the United States carries too much behind it to allow a sexually active transgendered individual to be judged fairly.
Is Ludo's identity a result of peer influence or is it something else?
Ludo, as a whole, has many influences. A very prominent one is the t.v. show that he watches. Femininity screams forth from it in the stereotypical sense and the effects are evident in Ludo. He dances like her and dreams that he would be in her place. This is not his only influence though. He feels different from the other boys, such as his brothers. Instead of developing an image by having similarities with his brothers, he indirectly sets himself up as an opposing image of the typical boyish child. The power that the television show has had over Ludo isn't completely explored, but I personally feel that there was something, some driving force, that made Ludo feel that he was not a boy inside. While this is debatable, one will never be able to actually say one way or the other and must instead make simple speculations.
In my opinion, two things arise out of this usage. First, an air of innocence is able to surround the character as a child whereas an adult may have had a much more negative connotation connected to them by the audience. Second, the young age allows the disconnect from transgenderdism and sexuality/sensuality. This is very important in allowing a much less biased message to be put forth. Sex, especially in the United States carries too much behind it to allow a sexually active transgendered individual to be judged fairly.
Is Ludo's identity a result of peer influence or is it something else?
Ludo, as a whole, has many influences. A very prominent one is the t.v. show that he watches. Femininity screams forth from it in the stereotypical sense and the effects are evident in Ludo. He dances like her and dreams that he would be in her place. This is not his only influence though. He feels different from the other boys, such as his brothers. Instead of developing an image by having similarities with his brothers, he indirectly sets himself up as an opposing image of the typical boyish child. The power that the television show has had over Ludo isn't completely explored, but I personally feel that there was something, some driving force, that made Ludo feel that he was not a boy inside. While this is debatable, one will never be able to actually say one way or the other and must instead make simple speculations.
Gazin' through the Window
What is the significance of the main character's continued persistence in insisting that he is not as aesthetically focused as his girl friend happens to be?
With very few exceptions, Rear Window completely depends upon the usage of the Gaze, not only for the main plot, but also for the few side-plots that emerge. For instance, the girl friend is beautiful, sells dresses, and is focused on the aesthetic images around her. The main character is very similar in nature. His sole career, photography, revolves around the usage of the Gaze. While he may think that he and his lifestyle are quit different from his girl friend's, he is quite wrong. He is a practitioner of scopophilia, just the same as she is. This may be saying that regardless of what we practice/believe, we will always think about the perceived images of things.
How does the point of view of the gazer affect the perceived image that they see?
A perfect example of changing points of view in the film comes about whenever the main character is questioned by the other characters. The friend who is also an investigator repetitively questions and doubts the legitimacy of the main character's claims of a potential murder because, from his point of view, there is very little chance of a murder having happened. Points of view can change though, which is evident in the girl friend. Initially, she questions the claims relatively adamantly, but by the end of the film, she has shifted her POV enough that she ends up crawling around the suspected murderer's house.
With very few exceptions, Rear Window completely depends upon the usage of the Gaze, not only for the main plot, but also for the few side-plots that emerge. For instance, the girl friend is beautiful, sells dresses, and is focused on the aesthetic images around her. The main character is very similar in nature. His sole career, photography, revolves around the usage of the Gaze. While he may think that he and his lifestyle are quit different from his girl friend's, he is quite wrong. He is a practitioner of scopophilia, just the same as she is. This may be saying that regardless of what we practice/believe, we will always think about the perceived images of things.
How does the point of view of the gazer affect the perceived image that they see?
A perfect example of changing points of view in the film comes about whenever the main character is questioned by the other characters. The friend who is also an investigator repetitively questions and doubts the legitimacy of the main character's claims of a potential murder because, from his point of view, there is very little chance of a murder having happened. Points of view can change though, which is evident in the girl friend. Initially, she questions the claims relatively adamantly, but by the end of the film, she has shifted her POV enough that she ends up crawling around the suspected murderer's house.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thing, Stuff, and Items
What is the significance of the lack of initial hostility from the 'thing' towards the humans and their relative unabashed hostility towards it?
The movie opens with a scene of a man riding in a helicopter, hunting a seemingly harmless dog. He has a rifle and continues to shoot at him, missing on each shot. They get to a set of structures that seem to be a base of sorts and a group of American's emerge. They question the evident insanity in the man who is shooting at the dog, deciding to prevent an altercation that could lead to harm of one of there own. They shoot the man with the rifle and decide to take in the dog he was hunting. Up to this point, the dog has done nothing harmful or malicious towards anyone, instead it has simply been staying alive. The film continues and shows the dog(thing) harmlessly mingling with the humans inside in the base. A man starts to get angry at the individual who was 'looking out' for the dog and forces him to put him the animal with the rest. Before this though, there is a scene of the men eating food, specifically meat, and I feel this is important. The dog has scene the humans eating other beings of flesh and possibly has decided that it is morally acceptable to do this itself if its existence depends upon it. The thing gets put into the cage with the other dogs and starts to 'feed' upon one of them. This is no different morally than humans eating cows or whatever our meat of choice is, but this is where hostility towards the creature is reawakened.
What is the importance of the reawakened hostility towards the thing and how does this effect its actions that it follows afterward?
Put yourself into a situation where everyone is yelling at you, saying not to do the single thing you must do to survive. You will either die or do it. Primordial urges will force you to do it, unless you are a bonzo practicing monk that has more self-control than the average person. You do the thing, be it eating or breathing, and then the group around your attempts to kill you. Fear takes over and you will either fight or run away. Intelligence will most likely say to run when you are overwhelmed both physically and by number, so you try to run. Instead of getting away, you are followed by men spouting flame and explosives towards you but you just cannot understand why they are doing this. I feel that this is exactly what is happening in the movie. The 'thing' is being brutally hunted for doing nothing. Men are blatantly being dumb and not questioning the intentions of the 'thing'. They automatically assume that the thing that is different from them is malicious and relatively evil.
The movie opens with a scene of a man riding in a helicopter, hunting a seemingly harmless dog. He has a rifle and continues to shoot at him, missing on each shot. They get to a set of structures that seem to be a base of sorts and a group of American's emerge. They question the evident insanity in the man who is shooting at the dog, deciding to prevent an altercation that could lead to harm of one of there own. They shoot the man with the rifle and decide to take in the dog he was hunting. Up to this point, the dog has done nothing harmful or malicious towards anyone, instead it has simply been staying alive. The film continues and shows the dog(thing) harmlessly mingling with the humans inside in the base. A man starts to get angry at the individual who was 'looking out' for the dog and forces him to put him the animal with the rest. Before this though, there is a scene of the men eating food, specifically meat, and I feel this is important. The dog has scene the humans eating other beings of flesh and possibly has decided that it is morally acceptable to do this itself if its existence depends upon it. The thing gets put into the cage with the other dogs and starts to 'feed' upon one of them. This is no different morally than humans eating cows or whatever our meat of choice is, but this is where hostility towards the creature is reawakened.
What is the importance of the reawakened hostility towards the thing and how does this effect its actions that it follows afterward?
Put yourself into a situation where everyone is yelling at you, saying not to do the single thing you must do to survive. You will either die or do it. Primordial urges will force you to do it, unless you are a bonzo practicing monk that has more self-control than the average person. You do the thing, be it eating or breathing, and then the group around your attempts to kill you. Fear takes over and you will either fight or run away. Intelligence will most likely say to run when you are overwhelmed both physically and by number, so you try to run. Instead of getting away, you are followed by men spouting flame and explosives towards you but you just cannot understand why they are doing this. I feel that this is exactly what is happening in the movie. The 'thing' is being brutally hunted for doing nothing. Men are blatantly being dumb and not questioning the intentions of the 'thing'. They automatically assume that the thing that is different from them is malicious and relatively evil.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Epileptic Brothers
Does David B. use his epileptic brother's condition as an icon to draw readers into the his depressive and rather strange autobiography?
The novel is most definitely centered upon David, previously Pierre-Francois, but tends to slowly gravitate towards Jean-Christophe and his condition. Despite this being David B.'s autobiography, the reader is struck with a sense of a shaping force upon the whole family's existence by Jean-Christophe's seizures. The family is forced to do many things to attempt to alleviate the stress that the eldest son causes. The first major move happens when the family leaves the city at the badgering of the neighborhood and heads to a large countryside estate. This allows the isolation from society that has become necessary for the epileptic child, but at the same time, forces an unwarranted separation on both the author and his sister. Similarly, the entire family ends up joining a 'macrobiotic' community, all in the name of healing Jean-Christophe. Throughout both of these radical events, Pierre-Francois is impressively accepting of his situation. He is able to find fun things to do and stays relatively positive throughout. While it is true that the story is about David B., there was little option but to include so much about his brother because of how much his condition truly shaped both of their lives.
What are the significant, foreseeable long-term effects of the repetitive failures to cure Jean-Christophe's illness?
Hope. That is what causes the parental figures in the novel to drift from one cult to the next. Through this, they come across a man named Mr. N who is able to actually make the seizures completely subside for a period. He disappears, leaving the family in a sense of panic. They go to any length to find a cure for their son, but are always left disappointed by individuals with ulterior motives or by simple craziness. David, in my opinion, does a wonderful job of showing how each of the failures immediately effected the particular members of the family. While looking at his art, the evidence of a troubled childhood emerges. The apparent randomness and blood lust that can be seen in both the form and the actual art are a window directly into his mind. He then further connects his own choices and his actions in the story to his brother.
How does the personification in the art of Epileptic compare to that of Maus?
David B. puts a face to his brother's epilepsy in the form of a dragon. Similarly, Maus uses things like mice and pigs to make a general personification. The difference between the two is the lengths that David B. goes to in order to be very specific about his analogues. An interesting concept is how Pierre-Francois is completely comfortable with the shadowy figures, ie: his grandfather's constant, bird like shape. He even makes a point of calling them his 'protectors', despite the looming presence that they tend to instill in me.
The novel is most definitely centered upon David, previously Pierre-Francois, but tends to slowly gravitate towards Jean-Christophe and his condition. Despite this being David B.'s autobiography, the reader is struck with a sense of a shaping force upon the whole family's existence by Jean-Christophe's seizures. The family is forced to do many things to attempt to alleviate the stress that the eldest son causes. The first major move happens when the family leaves the city at the badgering of the neighborhood and heads to a large countryside estate. This allows the isolation from society that has become necessary for the epileptic child, but at the same time, forces an unwarranted separation on both the author and his sister. Similarly, the entire family ends up joining a 'macrobiotic' community, all in the name of healing Jean-Christophe. Throughout both of these radical events, Pierre-Francois is impressively accepting of his situation. He is able to find fun things to do and stays relatively positive throughout. While it is true that the story is about David B., there was little option but to include so much about his brother because of how much his condition truly shaped both of their lives.
What are the significant, foreseeable long-term effects of the repetitive failures to cure Jean-Christophe's illness?
Hope. That is what causes the parental figures in the novel to drift from one cult to the next. Through this, they come across a man named Mr. N who is able to actually make the seizures completely subside for a period. He disappears, leaving the family in a sense of panic. They go to any length to find a cure for their son, but are always left disappointed by individuals with ulterior motives or by simple craziness. David, in my opinion, does a wonderful job of showing how each of the failures immediately effected the particular members of the family. While looking at his art, the evidence of a troubled childhood emerges. The apparent randomness and blood lust that can be seen in both the form and the actual art are a window directly into his mind. He then further connects his own choices and his actions in the story to his brother.
How does the personification in the art of Epileptic compare to that of Maus?
David B. puts a face to his brother's epilepsy in the form of a dragon. Similarly, Maus uses things like mice and pigs to make a general personification. The difference between the two is the lengths that David B. goes to in order to be very specific about his analogues. An interesting concept is how Pierre-Francois is completely comfortable with the shadowy figures, ie: his grandfather's constant, bird like shape. He even makes a point of calling them his 'protectors', despite the looming presence that they tend to instill in me.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
What is the significance of V never openly showing his face in V For Vendetta?
The most simple answer to this question surrounds the 'everyman' principle that we have discussed in class. Simply put, there is no one sinlge person that V represents, but at the same time, we could all put ourselves into his shoes. By itself, this literary technique allows an author to draw a reader in and have them develope a sense of agreement with the protagonist. My response to this is:
What is the significance of the connection between this 'everyman' idea and the showing of Fascism throughout the novel?
In a Fascist state, the ideal state of the populous is homogeneous. If V fit into this monotonous world, we wouldn't see him as the agreeable character that we do. In fact, he is just about as different as one could be from what is presented as the world in this story. He wants to do something about the world's plight, while it seems that everyone else is content to suffer. I think that the showing of how different V is from the world around him is what makes him stand out as a well drawn character.
What would have happened if we would have been able to see V's face?
I personally feel that the 'everyman' principal would definitely still be there. V is just too self and baseless in his acts to truly think that something as simple as having his face shown would destroy his character. In fact, based on the story line, V more than likely has burns on his face. If the reader was to be able to see these burns, V could have been more humanized and less idolized. This could have, depending upon presentation, actually increased the 'everyman' principal and therefore brought us closer to him as a character.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Kin-Dza-Dza
I finally got around to watching Kin-Dza-Dza again and I would definitely reccomend anyone who has minute to watch it. It's pretty freaking amazing as both a typical cyber-punk film and as a good philisophical tool. Throughout it, one can't help but see the analogues between our society and that of what one would consider the barbarous culture portrayed in the film. It is in Russian, but there are English subtitles out for it. Some key philisophical points that I was able to gather from it without any indepth analysis were social classes, socialism, capitalism, technology(ism)?, etc. A big thing I wonder about though, is if the time of the film's creation and that of it being in Russia had any impact on the philisophical viewpoints. I base this questioning off of the massive amounts of social change around the fall of the USSR and considering that the film came out in 1986, I gather that they probably coincide. If anyone else does happen to read this AND has watched the movie, I wouldn't mind hearing your opinions on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
