Faludi

As we see in all of the Susan Faludi chapters, women still do not have equal rights as men. They are not treated fairly and not respected as women. One could say that women are seen as objects and not intellectual beings as they are. The static’s speak for them when she explained the number of women working in fortune 500 companies and just in the workplace in general. These are problems that I do not think have changed even now in 2008. I think that some of these numbers are old. I would like to see the results from these same polls today. The idea of blaming feminism on all of women’s problems in getting jobs and their success with men I believe is a stretch. Some of these problems come with popular culture and social norms of society. The biggest gap that I see is in education and how women make as much money as someone with out a college degree after they graduate. Along with that there is a large gap between funding and popularity between women and men’s sports. Men get hands down a significantly larger amount of funding no mater the sport.

Faludi

As we see in all of the Susan Faludi chapters, women still do not have equal rights as men. They are not treated fairly and not respected as women. One could say that women are seen as objects and not intellectual beings as they are. The static’s speak for them when she explained the number of women working in fortune 500 companies and just in the workplace in general. These are problems that I do not think have changed even now in 2008. I think that some of these numbers are old. I would like to see the results from these same polls today. The idea of blaming feminism on all of women’s problems in getting jobs and their success with men I believe is a stretch. Some of these problems come with popular culture and social norms of society. The biggest gap that I see is in education and how women make as much money as someone with out a college degree after they graduate. Along with that there is a large gap between funding and popularity between women and men’s sports. Men get hands down a significantly larger amount of funding no mater the sport.

Who is to Blame?

The questions raised within the articles were very thought provoking, especially in the wake of watching and thinking about The Hours.  I must agree with the comments from many, that without any strong evidence and without citations it seems that even with the most sound arguments seem lacking within Faludi's arguments.  If these arguments are taken at face value and applied to a text or film, even without strong evidence they present very interesting perspectives and analysis.  By applying her ideas to The Hours, new and unseen perspectives emerge that put the film in a larger network of social commentary and critique.  Operating under these applications does give the movie a greater richness and perspective that would otherwise be missed. 

B.Meyer's Backlash Against the Backlash Against the Women-Folks

Susan Faludi had a point to make. And, yes, Reagan is to blame for a lot of things (and Bush and Clinton and Bush). I found Faludi's arguments to be very refreshing and common sensical--yes, a lot of things we see on TV are not representative of the larger crowd. I cannot find anything at all wrong with this, or these, articles, except the dubious claim of overkill--but in plain sight of this severe backlash against feminism and women in general, I find it very adequate.
She elucidates so many under-the-surface issues and behind-the-scenes actions that we as digestors of popular culture and media are unaware of. Some things that we DON'T see on TV or read in newspapers are just, plainly, unknown to us. Although we attempt to understand that "radio and TV--poison," as rapper Nas said it, we still are affected by what we see, and absent the appropriate counterbalance, and as male participants in this sexist culture, we sometimes tend to believe it, though we don't want to, or succumb to this persistent popular culture. Understand, there are no objective observers. We are all participants within this culture.
Thus, a lot of things that Faludi attempts, and succeeds, in discrediting are things I actually thought had some tinge of truth. Such as: career women succumb to negative psychological effects; feminists are a bit cold-blooded; infertility is rising--blame the women; women are hungry for sex/men, etc. Although I would usually argue against this being a majority of all cases, I would, in the deeper part of me, believe that at some level these statements are true. Therefore, her elucidation on these matters--especially considering the vast, almost conspiratorial efforts by popular media and Hollywood to push the women back in the kitchen--and knowing these to be already racist/sexist institutions--convince me of the larger issue at hand. Which is male insecurity.
Enter Wabash.
What got me was the almost subconscious, paranoid response of the fundamentalists and politicians and psychological ramifications on males involved in this system. Men are so frailly insecure that to have the women step out of the tungsten-thick definitions of reality, the fragile box of reality created for women, would upset the system in its entirety. Even disregarding facts, common sense, plain knowledge, experts who actually know what they're talking about. Our definitions of manhood are so sensitive that even a slight deviation from this mandatorily uncontested "norm" would leave us blubbering, shivering in a corner, writing suicide notes. And so, there stands the grey elephant we call Wabash.
Honestly, we really cannot ignore its presence in the room, i.e., all-male institute, i.e., fragile male self-identification. What I'm trying to point out is our history as a College and the reaction at the mere thought of allowing women in. How much of our lives have been constructed on the perception--covert perception, sometimes overt--that we are in fact dominators, or in some sense in charge or should be by some societal hierarchy. Until the question is asked, the answer won't be provided. In order for the question to be asked, one has to accept the possibility that the system we find ourselves in is in fact sexist--not only that, but as benefitors of this systematic sexism, what is our participation and in which ways do we either fight this or support this? These questions I pose, I guess, are not actual questions to be answered because they're deeper questions that take a long time to answer--rhetorical tools then. My point is, the psychological, widespread backlash that feminism received in Faludi's article's time (late '80s-early '90s I'm sure) is still very much persistent in our times, and we can see this by looking at our pop culture and asking ourselves very honest questions.
I found Faludi's arguments to be eye-opening and at the same time unsurprising when I really thought about it.

Faludi's Backlash

On the whole, I found the reading selection from Faludi's Backlash to be, if nothing else, well-organized and easy to read.  Like others posting, I agree that her lack of citation is frustrating; I would have really appreciated footnotes or endnotes, and their absence makes me inherently a little skeptical towards the material.  Also, I felt that I would be more compelled by the data if it was in a more current book... a lot happens in 15+ years and I cannot help but wonder how valid her arguments and data are today, whether or not this backlash against feminism died with the late 80s and early 90s or if it still exists today.  However, looking past these two issues, I feel she does a good job of making a convincing argument, particularly in the second chapter when she goes issue by issue and tears apart these feminist "myths."

Blame It On Feminism

I thought Faludi's "Blame It On Feminism" presented a number of very interesting arguments. However, like many other people who have already posted blogs, I had trouble taking her argument too seriously due to the way she threw in stats and quotes with no citation or any evidence to prove her validity. To go back to my rhetoric 101 class, it is important to establish credibility while making an argument, and that is not necessarily done in this article in a few places. (I know this isn't a speech, but some of the same ideas apply) This is almost too bad because I think this essay is very well written and formulated, and a few of her ideas caught my attention. One of these things was her idea on backlash, and how it is quietly, almostly secretly, working out of men's fear of women becoming equal. Though I will agree that equality between men and women is still a problem, especially in the work force, I don't know how seriously I can take her argument that there is an actual concentrated effort on the part of men to keep women down.

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against the American Woman

I have studed the Second-wave feminists in the past, and am acquainted with Friedan's innovations in The Feminine Mystique and the militant feminism of Millett's Sexual Politics, but I am not at all familiar with the Third-wave feminists, as I am assuming this is the movement Faludi's critics would ascribe her to.

What I had read about Third-wave feminism left me with the impression that it was essentially the expansion of the women's liberation movement, and would focus upon international issues rather than the rights of women in a single country. I anticipated that a backlash in politics and the media might occur after the Second-wave and subsist for at least a decade, but I did not imagine the overwhelming result which Faludi describes in the articles we've read for today.

Faludi highlights the repeated and widespread use of post-Second-wave feminism as a scapegoat by American society. Understandably, what makes this situation complicated is the lack of equal pay compensate despite protecting legislation, but the cultural biases are no less frustrating. Faludi claimed that infertility is still considered a strictly women's issue and that the media outright manipulates the feminist image and suppress further activity within the movement.

I consider it astonishing that women are still misrepresented in society and find feminist studies that much more worthwhile for this very reason.

"Blame it on Feminism"

I am not going to beat a dead horse. I agree with many of my fellow classmates that I often found Fauldi’s arguments troubling or lacking certain types of validity. It is difficult for us to accept her arguments when she is lacking citation or sources. But I do not want to touch on this because I think that Jake did a tremendous job of this.

I rather liked the structure of her “Blame it on Feminism” piece. I thought that she did an adequate job of attempting to provide the other side of the argument in the first few pages. I found the quote from the Sheriff, page xii, very problematic. His quote seems to reflect his narrow-minded attitude along with his arrogance. (Also, Fauldi does not cite where she discovered this source). I think Fauldi did a good job of finding statements and arguments that contradict her own beliefs. Many of the arguments she presented appeared to be valid, many of them were in fact very factual. In a psychology class that I took last semester, in numerous sources and studies, it was shown that women’s infertility is, more often than not, caused by her career. It’s called “the working women’s disease.” One of the many factors for this ‘disease’ is a postponement of pregnancy to wait until a career blossoms but this postponement can also lead to an increase and stress and workload. Both of these issues lead to menopause. According to the articles and books that I read last year, there is not quite an “infertility epidemic” but there is a rising problem, which Fauldi claims does not exist. My biggest problem with this specific article is that Fauldi claims there is a country wide backlash to “reverse women’s quest for that equality” (xviii). Personally, I have not seen any type of backlash like this. I have not seen, in any shape or form, a backlash or attempt to try and revert women’s roles back to that of the 40s or 50s. I am by no means saying that women have reached complete equality, all I am saying is that I have not seen evidence to support the claim that women are being ushered back to the past.

Faludi chapters

Susan Faludi articulates her points very clearly, and the reading was easy to follow. However, like several of my peers, I am suspicious of the validity of the many statistics she presents, mainly because she doesn't cite specifically where exactly she gets her stats from.

Assuming that her stats and her sources are valid, I found her criticism of the Reagan administration's role in fighting women's independence to be very intriguing. She claims that "In the Reagan administration, U.S. Census Bureau demographers found themselves under increasing pressure to generate data for the government's war against women's independence, to produce statistics proving the rising threat of infertility...the dark side of single parenthood" (8). If this claim is true, it is certainly reprehensible. As an American, I find it embarrassing that a president's administration would intentionally try to warp stats to make it harder for women (or any group of people) to live independently.

Supposedly, the Reagan administration also censured Jeanne Moorman's marriage study. Faludi says that Reagan administration officials "handed down a directive, ordering her to quit speaking to the press about the marriage study because such critiques were too controversial...She was told to concentrate instead on a study that the White House wanted-- about how poor unwed mothers abuse the welfare system" (13). Once again, this is disgusting
and shameful to read. Apparently, the Reagan administration was only concerned about the welfare of a select few individuals in the nation, and independent-thinking women weren't part of this select group.

Once again, I fully realize that these claims really have no true validity apart from hearsay. As an American, I hope that the accusations toward the Reagan administration are not completely true, because they're truly shameful if this is indeed the case.

Faludi and Feminism: Women in the Media

Faludi’s articles are interesting and full of support to help feed the fuel that the media is totally against feminism. The first chapter set up the last two chapters in explaining the ideas and backlashes associated with feminism.

The second article discussed how women are paid less even though have the same or more education that their male counterparts (which is still freaking unbelievable and I believe is a huge problem with America) as well as the problems with divorce. Faludi said statistics showed that “men are less anxious to untie the knot than women: in national surveys, less than a third of divorced, while women report they were the ones actively seeking divorce 55 to 66 percent of the time” (Chapter Two, 26). She also explained the double standard with fertility regarding men and women. The studies are only centered on women and their infertility, not men and their fertility problems.

But, the article that really had me going was Chapter Six and the revelations about the executives at the networks. Essentially, empowered women on television left a bad taste in their mouths, but, in the end, were giving the networks high ratings shares, buckets of money, and great publicity. Of course, the backlash against these outspoken women (like Rosanne Barr and Candice Bergin’s character Murphy Brown) was intense and never-ending, especially when Murphy Brown had a baby out of wedlock. Also, when CBS moved the ever-popular “Cagney and Lacey” to a death time slot, it finally died after failed attempts. Basically, network executives (all male during this time) didn’t want females to have power and promote the ideals of feminism. So much for Girl Power, huh?

Faludi and Feminism

Maybe I am just not up with the times, or am just not paying that much attention to current events (both are equally possible). But reading some of these examples in these three texts did seem a bit of a stretch to me. Growing up, I rarely ever saw a case of the “oh woe is me” feminine reaction. Quite the contrary, I grew up surrounded by several women both in real life (my aunt & my sister especially) and in TV and Film (Ripley from Aliens & Zoe Washburne from Joss Whedon’s Firefly) and never once did I hear or sense any thoughts or feelings on a society that deems women inferior or weak. The question of how far the Feminist Movement has come has popped up once before on a PSY 102 exam. While I’ll admit that the movement is still ongoing, it has brought women a long way from their social status almost a century ago. Perhaps Faludi should do a new piece that is a little more up to date on the current situation of women both in everyday society and in TV and Film, especially with such heroines as Buffy, Jill Valentine and Claire Redfeild from the Resident Evil Films and Padme Amidala from Star Wars.

Faludi and the Modern Woman

I am inclined to agree with Roger and Jake on several points. Some of my concerns with the readings deal with the fact that, in the end, Faludi is just too repetitive. I completely appreciate the point(s) she is championing, but maybe being a little less trigger-happy would help her presentation. I see truth in what she says; I come from a working class, single parent household. I was raised by a mother who made roughly $20,000 a year. 

I have grown up seeing strong women presented on television, just as Jake and Roger asserted. I als
grew up seeing a strong woman in my own home. Perhaps there are a large number of men out there who are terrified of the idea of having to compete with female counterparts, but I have never been one of them.

Many of Faludi's statistical assertions are difficult to take in all at once. From what I have pieced together, I can say I agree with her. All people should marry and reproduce later in life, after having completed school and becoming set within a career. I feel in our modern world that is becoming common sense. Aside from this, it seems much of Faludi's point seems to be directed at outdated concerns of women living lives as "baby factories." While this should not be the sole purpose of a woman's life, it is something that only a woman can do. Believe me, if I could bear a child in place of a future hypothetical wife, I would, just for the sake of fairness. This is, however, completely impossible.

Some sort of middle ground must be struck. That's just my opinion.

Faludi Chapters

  

As Jake mentioned, Susan Faludi's Backlash is outdated in 2008, sixteen years after she published it in 1992. Perhaps it is this fact that pushes me to read Faludi's text with a grain of salt, or maybe it is my own (self-proclaimed) progressive stance on feminist/womanist/race issues. Growing up largely in the 1990s, and on into the beginning of the 21st century, my own particular experiences and surroundings have oriented my opinions/beliefs toward this progressive, female-positive (I hope) stance. Contrary to Faludi, I DO believe that the womanist/feminist movement has made some strides, though I realize that it is not yet over (and in this respect, I agree with Faludi), and perhaps it will not be over for a long time. With that said, I must reiterate what Jake says in his post and add my own personal examples: The TV landscape has changed in respect to depictions of women. I have grown up with shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, Everwood, Felicity, Jack & Bobby, Reba, Ugly Betty, LOST, and so on, and these shows have/had strong female leads/co-stars playing women in charge, women with clear, nonconforming ambitions, and women who mesh well with an ensemble cast of strong, free-willed characters—male and female alike.

As for specific textual references, the following passage is interesting/ludicrous to me: "A guest columnist in the Baltimore Sun even proposes that feminists produced the rise in slasher movies. By making the 'violence' of abortion more acceptable, the author reasons, women's rights activists made it all right to show graphic murders on screen" (Faludi xi). This quotation features just one example of Faludi's strong use of examples/paraphrases/quotes. The quote piques my interest because of its absurdity, its distortion of logic. I cannot fathom how abortion's (small amount of) acceptance can be used to justify the depiction of "graphic murders [and violence]" (Faludi xi). How is a quiet, relatively private (re: unseen) abortion the same as a gore-filled on-screen murder where the camera never even tries to "look" away? Slasher films depict sensationalism at its "finest," while abortion is nothing to publicize. It seems a woman would want to just get it over with and NOT sensationalize/publicize it. Thus, I think I can see Faludi's point here, and in other instances, but as Jake said, her statistics and citations leave something to be desired (plus, the text is quite "old"/outdated).

Faludi

I had trouble with the pieces by Faludi. I thought they were well approached and meticulously done, however, there are a lot of moments where she will claim statistics and never cite them. This is a huge problem for me. For example, on page seventeen Faludi states, “the suicide rate of single men is twice of that of single women”. That may be true, but there are no sources. Faludi has no problem with ad hominem attacks. She constantly goes for the study, and then personally attacks the people who conducted the study based on their character. For example, Faludi attacks Bennett for the Harvard-Yale study by implying that the studies are false and tainted because they will not directly answer questions about the studies. That seems like a horrible argument that would not be able to stand on its own two feet.

When it comes to Faludi’s chapter on TV, I agree with her. It does appear from the television shoes that she sighted that most of them were based on families where the mother had no part or motive outside of the family (or possibly, she was non-existent). However, I do think this argument is now out of date. Almost twenty years later, the whole mantra of television has changed. The shows that are producing the highest ratings star female casts (Sex and the City, Grey’s Anatomy, The OC, Weeds, The Hills, That 70s Show, Friends, Lipstick Jungle, What I Like About You, Dirt, Will and Grace, etc.). I think this shows that times have changed. I do feel Faludi’s commentary is necessary, but it almost seems more nostalgia than current.

Laura Deserves Some Sympathy Too

I am afraid I must completely disagree with Joseph's interpretation of how the characters dealt with the respective problems in the film, particularly with Woolf and Laura Brown.  First off, both characters feel trapped by their situations.  Woolf elects to commit suicide while Laura runs away.  Both choose escapism as their method of handling the situation.  Can we say that suicide is a more legitimate way of handling such a problem over running away?  I don't believe so.  But as one may point out, as Joseph did, perhaps Laura's motivation was not as convincing or did not seem as important as Woolf's.  As stated earlier, Woolf had a history of mental illness, but could one not also argue that Laura did?  I mean, she clearly shows signs of intense depression and any psychologist would find a suitable diagnosis in the pages of the DSM-IV.  So, even though it seems like she had it all going for her, she obviously felt trapped and possibly had deep-seated mental issues like Woolf had.  Thus, I believe we can extend sympathy for her as well.  All the women in the story had unsettling intertwined issues to deal with and all of their struggles should be regarded equally.  That's my two cents at least.

The Hours

After viewing this movie I was torn. I didn’t know if I enjoyed the movie or not. The concept of having three women in three different time periods is one I have never heard of. Wolf was the most intriguing character to me personally. The first scene of her writing a letter to her husband and then in the process of taking her own life was shocking to me. Wolf was faced with the constant struggle of being normal. That is all she wanted but was battling with her voices and unbearable headaches. She was so very sensitive to all of the aspects of the world that is what made her writing so interesting. There was so much detail that it was easy for it to be lived out in reality again. The most intriguing person in the movie was Wolf’s husband. Leonard had some much love and compassion for her it was almost insane. He changed his entire life for her to be accommodated. The way that Virginia has treated him and the way that he responds to her is amazing to me. He was fulfilling his duty as a husband to take the best care of his wife and she went and killed herself.

The Hours Blog

After watching this movie, and thinking about it for a while, I begin to realize how the film imitates Woolf's style of writing--specifically her almost-stream-of-consciousness. In the film, there seemed to be a second or two too long where the camera focuses on seemingly arbitrary objects, and it reminds me of her "Mark on the Wall" short story or whatever it was. I also found the suicides to be very important: a sort of release from the stuck lives that the main characters were living. Woolf kills herself to get away from some complicated form of life--husband? or insanity/depression? or just being away from London? Julianne Moore's character contemplates committing suicide, and the obvious comparison is drawn when the floodwaters come as she's about to do it in the hotel room. But she actually gets up the courage to leave, eventually. At first I would say the reprecussions of her leaving her traditional woman role causes Ed Harris to kill himself--but rather, their relationship was strained because she was in that draining relationship and not because she left that relationship. Meryll Streep or "Mrs. Dalloway" has similar characteristics as the fictional, Woolf-book character, and as in the book, it is not her that dies but someone else, someone very close. But the suicide serves as a positive in that time-frame, bringing the women together--the guy's mother, "Mrs. Dalloway," her life-partner, and their daughter. So there's also that positive from that death. Although drastic, it seems that's what it took to get a change in their lives--even, as with Woolf's situation, she had to end her life in order to do it. Nonetheless, I'm still not sure what to make of this movie. Interesting at least.

A Couple Thoughts on "The Hours"

I wrote a paper last year and in that paper I used some references to this film, The Hours. One of the main ideas I stressed was Virginia Woolf’s use of stream of consciousness and how characters in her prose often reflect her contemplations about the self. She was active in attempting to understand one’s condition. She was often seen as depressed and introverted. Even more, she saw an importance in finding the definition of oneself in relation to others, in relation to community.

This is an important part of the movie. The first scene that stands out as expressing this is with Ms. Brown making the cake for her husband and her friend Kitty coming over. Immediately before the scene, we see Virginia Woolf thinking about her story, Mrs. Dalloway, saying that the woman “is going to kill herself,” over something trivial, basically. The scene then goes to the cake and Mrs. Brown becoming frustrated with how it is turning out. She constantly says “it didn’t work,” even to her friend. She was trying to fix something, trying to show her husband that she loves him. She told her son that they had to make the husband a cake otherwise he wouldn’t know they loved him, which alludes to the relation with community. It is obvious that the husband already loves her, but something like this cake represents more. She can’t make it just like she can’t really fix her feelings of isolation. She can’t express herself and is therefore lonely. This feeling is especially heightened after the conversation with Kitty, her friend who cannot conceive. After a seemingly very emotional conversation and even kiss, Kitty retreats back into a state that seems detached from emotion, especially toward Mrs. Brown. This once again plays into the feelings of isolation that lead Mrs. Brown to move toward suicide, which she does not attempt after all. This brings up another topic of how the characters in the film, Laura Brown and Clarissa, are attached to Virginia Woolf. Their experiences mirror the experiences of Woolf’s fictitious characters, and those characters often reflect the contemplations of Woolf herself, as was mentioned at the beginning of this. In these terms, Laura and Clarissa are outward realizations of Woolf’s interior psyche.

Laura Brown & The Feminine Mystique

In 1963, Betty Friedan published one of the fundamental works of the Second-wave feminist movement, The Feminine Mystique. The Mystique attacked the stereotype of the 'happy American housewife' and concluded that American women were the victims of a society which expected the lives of women to amount to a vicarious existence through her husband and children.

Such is the dilemma which confronts the housewife Laura Brown in director Stephen Daldry's film, The Hours. While reading Virginia Woolf's book, Mrs. Dalloway, Brown realizes that she is unsatisfied with her homely and otherwise picturesque family. Friedan's notion of the feminine mystique becomes apparent when Brown is confronted with the dilemma of a friend and realizes that society expects her to find fulfillment in her life as a homemaker and the bearer of children. But for Brown this is a life of suppression that prevents her from being her own woman and living for herself. She can continue to be a mother for the sake of the continued happiness of her husband and children, or can leave her current life behind and pursue her own happiness and way of life.

After contemplating and rejecting the idea of suicide, Brown solves the dilemma of the feminine mystique by deciding to run away from her family after the birth of her second child. Brown abandons her children and realizes the consequences of her actions, but her dialogue at the end of the movie reveals that she harbors no regrets and believes that she made the right choice by fleeing to Canada. Social norms would contend that she should feel remorse for what she has done, but Brown only regrets that she does not regret living her son Richard behind.

"The Hours": Husband Comparison

Obviously there is a comparison between the three main female characters in the movie (Woolf, Laura, and Clarissa), but I also found a parallel between the two husbands in the movie: Leonard Woolf and Dan Brown.

Both husbands are good, solid men who genuinely care about their wives.  Though the men certainly mean well, neither one really seems to comprehend what their wives are going through.
In Dan's case, he is completely oblivious to the fact that his wife is dangerously depressed and suicidal.  He certainly shows his love for his wife.  He comes home with flowers for his wife on his own birthday, and he makes a big deal abouth how much he enjoys his birthday cake that she made, even though it is clear that she's not a very good cook.  Yet Laura never really opens up about how she's feeling with her husband, and he never probes her regarding her deeper feelings.

Compared to Dan, Leonard Woolf better understands what his wife is truly feeling.  He's much more reserved and serious than Dan.  Leonard clearly is trying to do what he and the doctors think is best for his mentally disturbed wife by moving out of London to the country.  Yet, as the train station scene shows, he never really trusts what his wife says or wants.  He's always worried that its the voices in her head that are truly controlling what she says/does.  

Both men want the best for their wives.  The two husbands are certainly not at fault for the illnesses of their wives.  Yet neither man really seems to grasp what the women are experiencing, and as a result, they aren't able to save their wives in the end.

The Hours

After watching this movie, I am left with many things to be impressed with. The direction of the film was good. Even when the movie jumped between the three different characters, it seemed to have a good flow and was not as annoying as I thought it would be. The aspect of the story that most interested me, and befuddled me, was the comparative situations of the three women and how they faced their problems. Virginia deals with serious mental disease that is well documented in the film and is well known about her in general. Woolf's problems were well documented to have began in her childhood when her mother died, she also was a victim of sexual abuse as a girl. Clarissa, the Mrs. Dalloway character, deals with the issue of her friend and former lover dying of AIDS. She is also overwhelmed by trying to plan his party while trying to deal with her emotions. These characters are easy to sympathize with, both for different reasons, but their reasons are equally legitimate. The character I found it impossible to sympathize for was Laura. I really wanted to like her, as Juliane Moore is one of my favorite actors, but it was impossible. What problems does she really have? She may not be content with her life, but we can say that same thing about most characters we find in books and films. By all accounts she has a good husband, a son who clearly loves her, and an all around decent life. The end of the movie sealed it for me, though, when we find out that Laura left her family behind and moved to Canada, showing the ultimate sign of immaturity. She completely failed to face her problems, chosing instead to run away.

The Hours - Richard as Point of Focus

I must say this film was quite breathtaking. While I certainly empathize with all the main characters, my focus must rest upon Richard. The connections are not explicitly clear until almost the end of the movie, but Richard is the binding of the book. As a poet and novelist, Richard's specialty with literature grants him a knowledge of Virgina Woolf's Mrs. Darroway. Though it may seem scatter-brained to see it, this prologue of this work is a parallel of Richard's life. Virigina Woolf's own issues with her lot in life played out through Richard's mother and later in Clarissa, apparently the only woman for whom he ever held romantic feelings.

This, then, is the idea. Richard's life becomes what is seen in the film (a broken man dying of a terrible disease) because of his relationships with women. His mother abandons him at an early age, and his love for Clarissa is unrequited. While it seems simple, this idea downplays the struggles faced by the women in the story, all of whom deal with some form of depression, anxiety, or feeling of emptiness. In the end, as in Woolf's novel, Richard's only escape, only release, is through death. He could no longer bear what his body, and his heart, were putting him through. I must say that Ed Harris's moving display of Richard was perhaps what drew me into the movie most.

Notes on The Hours

In Stephen Daldry's movie The Hours (2001), when Richard (Ed Harris) says that he seems "to have fallen out of time," his words are a metanarrative of the film itself. Indeed, The Hours as an entity, a film, is "out of time," as we go in and out of time periods at the director's/writer's will. What is more, this time warp is not messy/disorienting; it does not affect the quality of the film, because Daldry and David Hare (the screenwriter) expertly connect the timelines together, using Virginia Woolf and her novel Mrs. Dalloway as the common thread. The three timelines come together mostly through the following themes: depression/oppression, love, and life/death.

Virginia, in the '20s and '40s, is depressed and mentally unstable, Laura (Julianne Moore), in '51, deals with similar issues (e.g., husband/wife power dynamics, individuality, and so on), and both Richard and Clarissa, in 2001, encounter depression as a result of the agony of waiting for death as well as the agony of love. The love theme comes up in Virginia's time, but it becomes more evident as we progress through the time periods (from the '20s and '40s to 1951 to 2001). Regarding love, Laura tells her son that his father will not know that they love him unless they make him a birthday cake, and later on, after she seriously contemplates suicide, she finally tells her son that she loves him. He smiles at this, and here, it seems as though Laura has never said "I love you" to him. Richard echoes this sentiment later on when he says to Clarissa, "You've been so good to me, Mrs. Dalloway. I love you. 'I don't think two people could have been happier than we've been'" (my italics), thus utilizing Virginia('s) (Woolf's) famed words from her real-life suicide note. Finally, as we can gather, life and death are very important in this movie, as Virginia contemplates and later commits suicide, Laura contemplates suicide, and Richard commits suicide (seemingly without thinking much about it).

As we can see, the themes in each time period spill over into each other and create a unified whole. When we finally realize that Laura's son, in 1951, is Richard, in 2001, the movie rapidly comes together, and then concludes. Considering the events and themes in Virginia's storyline, perhaps in Mrs. Dalloway itself, the storylines with Laura, Richard, and Clarissa become extensions of Virginia's own fantasy world, the world in which she writes and sometimes "lives," the world she writes about. We can see this more clearly if we note the suicide subtheme (from death/life) in Virginia's time and its use later in time. Suffice it to say, overall, The Hours is a compelling trip into the mind of one Virginia Woolf; it is "her" story about a group of psychologically "messed up" people, people like her.

P.S. Was anyone else waiting for "Color Blind," by Counting Crows, to start playing? The music in this film reminds me of the beginning of that song!

NOTE: All quotes and paraphrases, of course, come from The Hours.

Generational Perspectives

In watching The Hours, a distinct shift in the problems of each lead female character can be seen. The central plot element tying these three very different stories together is Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway. The problems that each of these women face seems to be focused on the generational issues within their moment in society and time.
Virginia Woolf suffers not only from her lower societal position as a woman in 1923 England but also from the fact that she must suppress her lesbian desires in order to be accepted. These issues which she struggles with if brought to the surface would have labeled her an outsider. Laura is dealing with the very different lifestyle that she yearns for and its conflict with the 1950's homogeneous societal outlook. As she comes to the realizations that this lifestyle favored and pushed to the forefront by society is not for her, she leaves and takes her life into her own hands. Clarissa's issues are also very much her own and deal with her struggles as a lesbian in the modern age and how she can achieve happiness.
Each of these stories is linked by significant plot issues but each outcome and conclusion for the women is different. The over arching problem which they each struggle with is whether they should live their lives for their own personal satisfaction or for the happiness of others. Each woman's story brings to light parts of their character which works against the societal norm and which they must struggle with to seek happiness.

The Hours

After reading the few posts before my own, I came to the realization that I am somewhere in between Rob’s enjoyment of the film and Arschel’s disdain for the film. There were scenes and issues that I found boring and uninteresting. But I also found several scenes very touching and truthful about the way relationships develop and break apart.

For me, the scenes and characters that I cared the least about were the ones involving Julianne Moore. Her story had so many possibilities and there were so many chances for the movie to do more with her character. I wish she had spent more time talking with Kitty about their husband’s time in the war. Laura tells Kitty that they owe them for their service in WWII. Kitty has no idea what she means and Laura replies “Well, with all of this.” I wish the movie would have pushed this scene and these hidden desires and questions about the way veterans interacted with their wives. Laura appears as if she actually believes this statement. She is living this ‘cookie cutter’ lifestyle because she feels as though she owes it to her husband. This would have been more compelling and much more interesting to me. But instead her story bothered and annoyed me.

However, Clarissa’s story I found to be more exciting and interesting. There is a good chance this occurred because I think Ed Harris is a brilliant actor and I think he did a tremendous job. Rarely, if ever, do you hear about his performance in this movie. Not only does he play a convincing poet, often discussing why or why not he enjoys the life; but more importantly, I believed that he had AIDS and that he was going to die from it. I personally know someone who contracted and died from AIDS and I know what it does to the human body and I know what a person looks like who is suffering from the disease. Tom Hanks looked like he had the disease in Philadelphia and Ed Harris assuredly looked like he had contracted and was dying from the dreaded disease. He was able to make his character, Richard, suffer from terrible mood swings, varying from anger to sadness to happiness in the blink of an eye. I found his story compelling and I feel that Clarissa’s embodiment of Mrs. Dalloway (as Rob mentioned earlier) gave the story more substance and meaning. I felt that she, above all other characters, demonstrated and acted like Mrs. Dalloway, a hostess who was not actually alright.

Clarissa

Clarissa is a very interesting character within the film "The Hours." Although she does seem to enjoy her domestic life, her contemplations leave her questioning of her life somewhat leave her happiness "up in the air." It is important to note that although she does not despise her domestic home life, a part of her contemplates the decisions that she has made for herself over the years. Within these contemplations, one is able to notice the ambiguity of her belief that she has made the "correct" decisions. This is important to note under the Feminist Analysis of a text or film, because although a woman may search for her own identity, it does not necessarily mean that she disconnects herself with any type of domesticity in her life. Clarissa seems to be happy with her domestic life, but her contemplations may tell us otherwise. The reflections of her past love affair leave her wondering if she has in fact made the right decisions for herself throughout her own lifetime. Clarissa seems to be caught between the dichotomy of the happiness of the present and the "what if" of past decisions. Her contemplations can be closely related to Sylvia Plath's poetry. Although Plath seems to show happiness in her children, as Clarissa seems to show happiness in present-day life, she feels captivated and bound by her husband, and even her father, as Clarissa does to her past love affair.

Virginia Woolf

“The Hours” focuses on three stories of women as they revolve around Virginia Woolf’s story Mrs. Dalloway. I struggled with Laura and Clarrisa’s characters because they both seemed somewhat bland to me. At least, I think Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore did not perform their parts well. However, I would say that Nicole Kidman did deserve her 2002 Academy Award for her performance as Virginia Woolf.

The way Nicole portrays Virginia is extremely interesting. Virginia seems attached from society, as she constantly finds ways to shut herself away from Leonard. This goes back to her mental illness. There are many times throughout the movie where I question Virginia’s actions. I am left to wonder, is she currently out of it, or is she in her right frame of mind? I believe there is a sort of interpretation for the viewer to decide. I believe that what makes Nicole Kidman’s performance of Virginia Woolf stand out. She gives the character a sense or the estranged and bizarre (“Someone has to die in order that the rest of us should value life more. It's contrast”). I personally think that a great writer has to be strange and different, and this is how Kidman sets up the character. There is also a tie between Mrs. Dalloway and Virginia. The book almost seems therapeutic in its nature, as it opens up a world for Virginia to act by. The story sets up Virginia’s own suicide.

The Hours

Well, I can honestly say that I have never been as infuriated with any film I have ever seen up until I saw The Hours. Watching the lives of these three women play out on screen was an exercise in extreme patience as I listened to their plights and came close to screaming in agony. I’ve rarely ever seen such lack of interest in life in anyone. While I thought Julianne Moore’s story was the most infuriating to watch, it was the Virginia Woolf portion of the film that made me rethink my intentions to become an English major. A little while ago in another class, we asked the question focusing on authors of yesteryear. Was it a must to have a crappy childhood then go insane in order to become on of the greatest literary minds of all time? Apparently, and that is why I have such disdain for a lot of the authors we talk about in most English classes today. But this was different; this was the moment that made me snap with disgust. Towards the end of the film, she tells her husband that “someone has to die in order that the rest of us should value life more.” This was complete stupidity to me. Death, of course, can be life altering, but if this film taught me one thing it is this: watching the sad and depressing lives of these women unfold on screen made me appreciate my life a lot more than I did right before I watched the film. To simply give up and let go, like several characters in this film did, a la Ed Harris and eventually Virginia Woolf, is something that really ticks me off. The will to live is a much more fulfilling goal and worthwhile battle, with surrender not even being an option. If I could have my way, I would avoid this film for the rest of my life…at least Meryl Streep’s story had a somewhat decent ending (or at least she had the same reaction I would picture myself having if I had a girlfriend as just watched this film).

Soon, We All Must Face "The Hours"

This is my third time seeing this film and I appreciate it more every time I see it. The interconnection between the three characters – Clarissa Vaughn (the embodiment of Clarissa Dalloway in Virginia Woolf’s famous novel, Mrs. Dalloway), Laura Brown, and Woolf herself is what makes the film so dramatic and well-made. The film focuses on these three women and the affects that Mrs. Dalloway has on their loves and how they truly relate to one another even though the live in different eras and live completely differently lifestyles.

One of the major themes in the movie is illness. Someone in each of the three women’s lives has a major illness that affects their lives personally. First of all, Virginia is affected the most, because she has a mental illness and it ultimately drives her to a cold and lonely suicide. Her illness was unbearable and was not only hindering her enjoyment of life, but was also, in her eyes, causing her husband to live an unfair life full of sadness and despair. In regards to Laura, her best friend, Kitty, has been told that she has a growth in her uterus and that is the reason why she can't conceive. Laura, heartbroken by her friend’s horrible and unfortunate news, lets her guard down and shows her feelings for Kitty with an affectionate kiss on the lips, escaping her cookie-cutter life as a housewife for just one moment. Finally, Clarissa’s good friend, Richard (who is also Laura Brown’s son), is dying a slow death because of his fight with AIDS. He is a renowned poet and Clarissa is throwing a party for him, which he doesn’t even want to go to because of his awful condition. Clarissa has an extremely close relationship with him and insists that he attend the party, which he ultimately doesn’t, for an obvious reason.

This theme of illness can also be related to the depression that each of the women faces in their everyday life: Virginia with her mental illness and bleak outlook on life; Laura with her marriage that she is unhappy with, as well as the idea of being the perfect housewife for the rest of her life; and Clarissa’s own “unraveling.” She has been taking care of Richard for ten years and has held her composure, but is now losing that composure due to his worsening condition. The main point here is that these women are spending their whole lives trying to make others happy and not worrying about themselves first. There is a difference between being selfish and having respect for one’s self. Essentially, all three women are living a lie and soon they will have to “face the hours.”

Another major theme/motif in “The Hours” is that of water. No matter what, water is in every scene – it is even mentioned in every scene (whether being poured into a vase to bring life to flowers or requested as a drink). The most obvious reference to water is that of death. Virginia commits suicide by drowning herself in a nearby river, Laura contemplates suicide and the scene of water filling her hotel room is a beautiful but morbid scene simultaneously (it represents the drowning sensation she feels as a housewife and mother), and Clarissa describes going out in the morning to getting into a pool.

PS: The one thing that always bothered me about this film is how red the three women’s faces were and how RED Virginia’s hands were, especially when she was smokin’ those cigs.

Jesus the Pederast and Walter the Veteran

I have to admit I got a kick out of Jesus Quintana, the pederast.  Admittedly, he plays a rather small and insignificant role in the film as a competitive bowler that, much to my surprise, we never even get to see Lebowski, Walter, and Donny compete against.  I did find two things about his character interesting.  First, the way he pronounces his name.  When I first saw the name on his bowling shirt, I assumed it would be pronounced Jesús (Spanish pronunciation), a name that is not uncommon amongst the latino world; rather, he pronounces it the same way that we pronounce the name of the Christian savior, a name that many in the American population would look down upon using.  We also know it is a nickname much like "The Dude", so it was a self-chosen name.  So just off the bat, we get a strong sense that he is meant to invoke the Christian religion or a connection to it.  Second, his opposition with Walter.  Walter, as we learn in the film, is Jewish (by conversion, thus he willfully accepts the faith much as Jesus chooses his nickname) as he observes the shabbos, which he does in practically orthodox seriousness.  With that in mind, we can regard Walter as a representation of the Jewish faith whereas Jesus is a representation of the Christian faith.  To make this even more secure, we are presented by the conflict between these two characters much as the religions often clash.

But these characters are more than just a representation of these two religions.  Why is Jesus a pederast with a painted fingernail and a hairnet made to look like a ponytail?  Or why is Walter a Vietnam War veteran with PTSD, one which crosses the line repeatedly in the movie towards being an absolutely annoying idiot?  Since these characters are both identified with religions and one is a pervert while the other is barely tolerable, could there be a commentary on religion here?  Arguably the movie is really about nothing significant, so it seems that the portrayal of these characters may be a way to make a negative commentary on two world religions as a way to show just how ridiculous they can both really be.

Class Struggle in "The Big Lebowski"

After reading what Chuck posted about how there are elements of a class stuggle present in "The Big Lebowski" I really got to thiniing about this and found that class differences are present throughout the entire movie. Clearly the "real" Lebowski, Jacky Treehorn, and Maude Lebowski are representative of the highest social class, while the Dude and his associates are on the lower end of the spectrum. These class differences can be seen throughout the movie. In the case of The Dude and his friends Donny and Walter, their social status can be observed by their hobby of bowling. Bowling is one of the central themes in this movie and is important because it is viewed as a working man's sport, which is illustrated by the bowling montage in which over weight and balding lower-middle class men are the majority of the clientele of the bowling alley. The Dude's lower class status can also be seen by the clothes he wears in the movie which all appear to be purchased from thrift stores as at one point in the movie he is wearing a Medina Sod bowling shirt that has the name "Art" stitched into the left breast pocket. The upper class characters in the movie are often associated with their enormous dwellings. Mr. Lebowski lives in a mansion that is apparently large enough to warrant "Wings" while Jackie Treehorn lives in a huge house in a "quiet beachside community" and Maude Lebowski has enough room in her house/apartment to have a harness system installed for her abstract paintings. The rug, which is not only what starts all of the Dude's problems, acts as a unifier of classes as it is something expensive that is normally reserved for the higher class characters and is instead "tying the room together" in a "bums" seedy little apartment. Bunny Lebowski can also be seen as a character who has bridged the gap between classes and has become miserable. Leaving her small town family farm in Minnesota Bunny moves out to the West Coast with great ambitions but instead ends up in the not-so blockbuster film "Logjammin'" and having to marry an old disabled wealthy guy just to survive. In the end Bunny is miserable after becoming part of the upper class and her family wants her back. The Coen brothers seem to indicate that the upper and lower classes should not mingle, and that being in the upper class does not neccesarily entail happiness, as the Dude is happiest when he has a White Russian in one hand and a bowling ball in the other.

Walter Sobchak

Never in the history of film has there been a more hilarious case of post traumatic stress disorder than in the case of Walter Sobchak in "The Big Lebowski." While this may seem a cruel thing to say, I would be lying if I did not admit that I laughed harder at this character than any other in the film. I would feel bad about laughing at his behavior if the characters in the movie didn't seem to have the same unsympathetic feelings towards him. One of the funniest lines to me is when Walt says, "Am I right?" repeatedly and the Dude finally replies, "You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole." After watching him go on and on with his tirades about Vietnam and Shomer Shabbos, something became very clear to me. That one thing was that Vietnam did not make Walt the way he was, Walt was born that way, and no set of circumstances in his life could ever change the fact that he is a complete asshole, plain and simple. Although a very loveable (and quotable) one.

The Dude

I saw this movie for the first time last semester, and this is about my third time watching it. I still think it’s a pretty “out there” movie, but I enjoy it. There are a bunch of elements in the movie that I’d want to continue to learn about, but I’ll talk about one thing that I have noticed more each time I have watched the movie.

The Dude seems to always make odd relationships with people. The first relationship noticed is between the Dude, Walter, and Donny. In some way, I feel like these characters and their personalities combine in the attempt to form one. However, being that the Dude is the main character, it would seem like Donny and Walter are part of Dude’s character, but I am not completely sure this is the case. Even when they are all together, Dude doesn’t seem to have much more of a control over himself, which to me would seem like a way to recognize that Donny and Walter are integral missing parts of Dude’s character. On the other side of that, Walter constantly refers to the situation as being “their problem.” Walter is always getting into Dude’s affairs it is like they do move as one person. Donny is the neglected of the three. At most moments, he is positioned in the middle of the three, asking questions which are usually ignored. One time that sticks out was during the “Jesus” scene, when Donny seemed to be peering through Dude’s arm as he sat behind Dude and Walter. Donny and Walter seem to be adding to the Dude, but they are not full replacements of the missing aspects of his personality.

"The Big Lebowski" Loves War and Girl Power

I really don’t know what to write on about this movie, so I am just going to wing it. I have seen this film before on bus rides to swimming & diving meets, but never really paid too much attention to the film, but I definitely noticed some interesting things about “The Big Lebowski” when in a controlled environment.

One of the major themes I noticed was the whole aspect of war. Walter (played by John Goodman) always brings up Vietnam when he is in a situation where he feels he is being threatened. When he is in the restaurant and gets all worked up about the way The Dude is acting, the waitress comes over and politely asks him to quiet down. He immediately goes into a rant about fighting in Vietnam to protect this woman’s rights and his rights so they can be free…and loud in family restaurants. These Vietnam references are not only expressed loudly (literally) but also refer to Walter seeing his friends dying and getting blown up right next to him.

Another theme I noticed in this film was the idea of female empowerment. Maude is the epitome of the new generation’s female. She is strong, stern, and knows exactly what she wants and how to get it. For instance, she has sex with The Dude, only to tell him she did it to get pregnant, but that he shouldn’t worry because she wanted to get impregnated by a man who wouldn’t want to see the child. Not only is she a free thinker and a determined woman, but she also wants full control of her life, and gets it. On the other hand, the “slut” known as Bunny knows what she wants, mostly sexual things (like when she offers The Dude a blowjob for $1000), but also has the free reign to do whatever she wants – case in point, fleeing the town to go visit friends (pretty much the whole plot of the movie is her missing and no one knowing where she is).

The film touches on so many other things, but these two really stuck out to me. I understand that we have to watch “The Hours” for Wednesday, which is funny, because Julianne Moore is in that film, too (she played Maude in this film).

The Big Lebowski

A few guys have talked about the class struggles present in the Big Lebowski, and I had never really thought that much about it, but it's very interesting to look at. The Dude, clearly a character representing the lower class, gets no respect from those in the upper class (Jeffery Lebowski and Jackie Treehorn), and is continually used and abused by them. Even Maude, who is the real source of the Lebowski fortune and a much more positive portrayal of the upper class, uses the Dude to try to get herself pregnant. Like most other things in the movie, it's hard for me to figure out exactly what the Coen brothers are trying to say about the lower and upper classes. Making the Dude the protagonist and showing Jeffery Lebowski as a vain, fake, megalomaniac would certainly suggest that the Coens are on the side of the lower class, but there are a couple of things that make me think otherwise. The Dude really doesn't change throughout the movie, and it is assumed he is still the lazy bum he was at the beginning. Plus, the Dude's companion, Walter, is portrayed as absolutely ridiculous and oafish, which would also contradict that notion. Overall, this is a great and hilarious movie, whether or not it has a clear (or any) meaning.

The Big Lebowski

If there was one thing I found really interesting about this flick, it had to be the frame of the film which was Sam Elliot’s narraration. It reminded me very much of Marlow’s opening and ending for Heart of Darkness. Even though “the Cowboy” was only physically present in two scenes and his narraration was only heard in one other scene other than the beginning and end, it was a good point to note in comparison with another text we’ve read this semester. Also the concept of the “Stream of Consciousness” seemed to play a bit into the film. It starts out with a simple rug, then branches out to several other thoughts and complications pertaining to The Dude while finding ways to return to the subject of rug and branch out again, similar to the recent exercise we just posted on the blog site.

The Big L

The movie shows the differences between classes. The “Dude” was never shown in any position that would show him in a higher class. Through out the movie his clothes were dingy and didn’t look clean cut like the rest of the cast. This movie is the epitome of a lower class citizen trying to live his life and gets mixed up with something he didn’t even want to be mixed up with. I would call it guilty by association. The movie is building stereotypes, stating that when you are a lower class citizen you are at the liberty of all people of a higher class. For the beginning to the end we see “The Dude” getting bossed around and beat up through out the movie. He is at a constant struggle with him self and his peers. His peers who are low class might even be lower than “The Dude” creating even more problems through out his life.

The Philosophy of the Absurd in The Big Lebowski

This article asserts that The Big Lebowski is in fact a modern adaptation of Albert Camus' The Stranger and an illustration of the philosophy of Absurdism, which one might consider type of nihilism-a reference which is frequently alluded to within the film itself.

The Dude equates to an American version of The Stranger's Meursaults in the sense that he lives without responsibility, contemplation, or regret. The Dude individual who consistently denies the possibility of meaning or truth to existence; the entire world may be reduced to opinion and perception for Jeffrey Lebowski. As should already be apparent by now, nothing in the movie is particularly meaningful in and of itself (though his friends may assert otherwise). The Dude is merely acted upon and made to react.

The act of bowling is an adapted symbol which I will take to be representative of the Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus tragic Greek hero who is damned to endlessly toil by repeatedly pushing a rock up a hill (and when it reaches the top, it rolls back down and he must start all over again). Sisyphus figures heavily in Camus' portrayal of the Absurd Man. As the bowling ball is to the dude, thus is the epistemic rock to Sisyphus. This ceaseless labor is a metaphor for the absurd repetition and meaninglessness of everyday life. (On a side note: I would argue that the metaphor is more precisely portrayed in The Big Lebowski, for it also confides a sense of mortality-the bowling ball will not simply roll forever as the rock of Sispyhus would, it reaches the end of its lane eventually and invites the epistemic possibility of death). Like Sisyphus, the Dude becomes a tragic hero the moment he becomes conscious of the absolute absurdity of his existence (This occurs for Mersault and The Dude with the impending realization of his own deaths). The Absurd Man realizes that he cannot hope for meaning, true knowledge, the future, or at all; Camus argues would find solace in the garunteed futility of his actions.

Realization of this nihilism grants a kind of freedom, however, as made evident in the comparison between both Jeffrey Lebowskis in the film. One is a nihilist and the other a vain megalomaniac who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of meaning, power, and wealth. Without these illusions he is but a restricted version of The Absurd Man, and therefore he is portrayed as paralyzed from the waist down, unable to move or act without the help of scientific knowledge and sound reason. The Dude, by comparison, needs no degree of hope and therefore exists more freely than his futile antithesis, so long as he accepts the responsibility for his lifestyle instead of existing in a state of perpetual ignorance.

The world is a place devoid of meaning save the meanings which would be imposed upon it by humanity, and in this sense The Dude's paranoid, raving, and indifferent friends who attribute any random series of larger meanings and possibilities upon a single event contrast to The Absurd Man in The Dude.

Maude Lebowski - Truly Feminist or a Parody of Feminism?

Julianne Moore's character of Maude Lebowski is one of the more confusing in the film. While The Dude himself might be seen as a Deadbeat Everyman character, can Maude be seen as an archetypal Everywoman? Her existence seems to be primarily to satirize wealth and affluence, as she is shown to be the true power in the Lebowski family, granting her father a stipend from which he can enjoy a certain level of comfort. Further, she is completely independent and engages in a peculiar artist's lifestyle. These things aside, she is a rather charming character intellectually, as her obvious flaunting of her education over The Dude occurs solely to make him uncomfortable (her second appearance in the "Vagina" scene).

These things aside, Maude can also be seen as a parody of true feminism. This can be seen primarily through her aforementioned arrogance, but also through her final actions in the film (the "Jeffrey. Love me." scene). Maude conceives a child with The Dude, the epitome of a deadbeat, simply because of the fact he is a deadbeat. She wishes to raise the child by herself, without any fatherly influence over the potential son or daughter. Coming from a single parent household myself, I see this as a pretty horrendous idea.

So, we have Maude Lebowski as a self-described feminist, but in truth a potentially poor parent who thinks she can handle everything by herself. Perhaps, in the end, all the characters are nihilists. That is a funny sentiment, is it not? Maude should try believing in something outside of her own tired ideals before trying to force them upon someone else. That is only my opinion, of course.

The Unconscious in Lebowski

The movie has multiple hidden elements working within it. Every character seems to be taken to the ultimate level of their circumstance, Walter invokes every stereotype of a Vietnam veteran, "The Dude" Lebowski shows many assumptions about the lower class of society, Tara Reid epitomizes the stereotype of a gold digger, and the trend continues within almost every character. These over exaggerated portrayals of the characters mixed with the larger than life plot line of movie suggest greater connotations and commentary that the viewer is made aware due to the flow of the movie. The surreal sections of the movie put the it in a world that is not separated from the perception of the mind and is in fact working with it. When "The Dude" slips into his mental hallucinations/dream sequences it subconsciously asks the viewer to be aware of the underlying elements of the movie and helps to make the larger themes of the movie more apparent. These larger themes point toward a social commentary and analysis of class and gender roles within society. The opening scene of the movie also helps to add to this grander view of the plot which makes the dysfunctional characters stand out even more starkly.

Dream Analysis

My initial dream took place in an experimental theatre. I was with my girlfriend and a large group of my fraternity brothers. The actors of the theatre interacted with the audience by giving certain members baskets with name tags. The baskets held within them objects the shape and consistency of racquetballs. I was given a basket with circular shaped objects and a name tag that had not my name but my girlfriends. When I attempted to give the basket to her the actors became angry and would not let me. Several other people nearby received baskets with objects in the them but the objects were abstract and incomprehensible. There shapes and physical presence was continually shifting. The activity on stage as well as the set was very similar to the movie version of a Midsummer Night's Dream. The actors were wearing clothes in the similar style and the stage seemed to be an idyllic outdoor scene.

In analyzing this dream multiple connections and applications on my life. The theatre is connected in that I had visited a theatre that past weekend and had not enjoyed it. The fact that I was enjoying the play must have been a repressed desire to fulfill the high expectations I had held when attending the play. The racquetball type materials are significant because the day before this dream there had been an email fight within my fraternity email list about who would get to play in the IM tournament. The fact that the racquetballs within the baskets are only physically stable in my basket shows that I have made up my mind about the issue but that it is still in turmoil. The name tag with my girlfriends name on it and the presence of my fraternity brothers is possibly a repressed fear for loss of my self identity in the company of my peers while with my girlfriend. The fact that I attempted to correct the situation but that the dream goes on idyllically shows that I am not deeply bother by this issue.

"The Dude" Is Not a Hero

One of the most interesting/important aspects of Joel and Ethan Coen's The Big Lebowski (1998), in my opinion, is the portrayal of diversity/class/genders. We see everything from the poor, lazy oaf (who is not a hero but is still the protagonist of the film) to the rich, apparently thrill-seeking woman. Throughout the movie, the Coens present us with one stereotype after another (e.g., Nothing to worry about; "these men are nihilists"), and "The Dude" does not escape this device. Even in his fantasy with Maude, he is a plumber (or some other job that we often see as lower- or middle-class), while she is a powerful viking (?) woman with a trident; thus, he will never amount to anything, even in the fantasy, and she, being rich in the "real world," gets to wear symbols of power in the fantasy world. Even in the end—although "The Dude" has gone on an adventure, playing private dick—"The Dude" only has his bowling buddies to go home to. There is no lifestyle change for him, even though he underwent a (superficial/fake) transformation of sorts during his adventure (i.e., lost his laziness, to a degree, so he could complete the mission). During the mission, his life had purpose, but now, it's back to basics, or shall we say "bowling?" Thus, "The Dude" is not a hero (for long, at least). He again becomes a stereotypical oaf.

The Big Lebowski: Walter and Donny

While I did enjoy watching The Big Lebowski, I know for a fact that I didn't understand it completely by any means. So rather than attempting to delve into the philosophical or psychological aspects of the film, I'm going to focus simply on the relationship between Walter and Donny.

Donny serves as Walter's lap-dog. Almost any time Donny attempts to enter a conversation between Dude and Walter, he is greeted by a "shut the f--- up Donny!", courtesy of Walter. There are only a few times in the movie when Walter tolerates Donny, the most notable one being at the bowling alley bar, when the Dude and Walter have gotten into an argument. Frustrated with his best friend and bowling partner, Walter decides to instead take Donny along to bowl. Donny, thus, seems to be a sort of safety option/friend for Walter when his relationship with Dude has its troubles.

It's probably far-fetched, but I think that after Donny's death, Walter realizes that he no longer has his safety "friend." Perhaps deep-down Walter is aware of the fact that he tends to do things that, however well-intentioned they are, get on Dude's nerves. Knowing that Donny will no longer be there is a scary thought for Walter.

The Out of Place and Vietnam

I believe that “The Big Lebowski” is making a point about the veterans of Vietnam and how they live in the current era.

The Dude and Walter are stuck in a time frame that is foreign to them. They do not communicate well with the current society and tend to keep to themselves. When the rug is taken, the Dude is taken along with the rug, out of his hiding place and into a world that is so bright it is almost blinding. He is forced to leave his element on a bizarre journey to find the coveted oriental piece. The problems occur when he runs into characters that seem outside of his time period and more modern. For example, towards the end of one of his visits with Maude Lebowski, Maude (and the other guy in the room) pick up the phone and begin to talk in another language. As the talking continues, the Dude seems more and more out of place, until finally, the two people break out into laughter and the Dude is left watching the bizarre display. The Dude and Walter need something, anything, to keep them back in their own element. This is where bowling and white Russians come into the story. Whenever the Dude enters a foreign place, he immediately goes for the alcohol (2 ounces of vodka, 1 ounce of coffee liqueur, and some cream to be precise) to keep his cool. The same is true when Walter is with the Dude. In order to keep his sanity, Walter needs to be bowling. There are certain times of chaos when Walter leaves the bowling alley. This is seen in several places. First, Walter goes off in the coffee shop when the waitress tells him to keep his voice down. Second, when the two go to drop off the briefcase, Walter hijacks the plan and instead drops off a suitcase without the money. And the last example of a shift in reality happens when Walter and the Dude fight the nihilists. They cannot fight them in the bowling alley, because that is Walter and the Dude’s center of control. However, the moment they leave the alley, they meet the nihilists and all hell breaks lose.

So what does this have to do with Vietnam veterans? Walter’s coping with Vietnam comes through his bowling. When Walter is outside of the bowling alley, he continuously tells stories of how things were in Vietnam. Nevertheless, when Walter is in the bowling alley, all of that ceases to be as he becomes more calm and collective (“Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.”). The Dude, on the other hand, is completely lost in the 70s. He walks the Earth (never leaving his sandals) completely off the map. He is lost in his own world, and does not want to leave it for any circumstance. This can be seen as aftermath for a Vietnam veteran. The Dude is constantly stuck in a time frame where he cannot get out. His only wish is to surround himself with comfort (through white Russians and bowling) in order to ease his pain. However, by not adjusting to the times, his recovery process is slow and sluggish. This is why they search for white Russians and bowling. To get away from the American culture that brings back memories of Vietnam.

Donny's Death

Personally, this is one of my favorite movies and I will always find it funny no matter how many times I watch it. I was wondering what scene everyone found the funniest. For me, the funniest scene is the first scene in the bowling alley when the Dude is discussing his rug with Walter. The dialogue in that scene is hysterical and I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to actually deal with Walter.

The scene right before Donny’s death, inside the bowling alley is a strange scene. Every time that we have seen Donny bowling, he has been “throwing rocks.” It is implied that he is a very good bowler, perhaps the best on his team. But in this scene, he does not get a strike, he rolls a 9. When the pin fails to fall over, Donny gives a bewildered look down the lane. I felt like the look he was giving was one of defeat and sadness. I never really noticed it before but his look was rather surprising. Considering that his death occurred in the very next scene, the remaining pin foreshadowed his imminent demise. Also, there is a flaw in this scene that anyone who has bowled will notice. Donny should have had a second shot and a chance to roll for the spare but that is beside the point. Most of this movie is extremely comical and very vulgar. But this specific scene stands out to me because it seems out of place. Looking back on it, Donny’s death is so pointless and unnecessary that I wonder why it had to occur. Did the Coen brothers need to kill him? What point was made by his death? I cannot find a reason for his death, I am not sure how the movie would have ended if Donny had lived but I do not think he needed to die. Throughout the movie, his only purpose was for Walter to make fun of him and tell him that he was out of his element. Donny is a punch line for Walter and just kind of a side character who really does nothing to progress the plot of the movie. The first time that I saw the movie, his death surprised me; but the Coen brothers do have a habit of killing characters that probably do not need to die.

The Big Lebowski

One of the biggest themes that one is able to seen in The Big Lebowski is the clash of socio-economic status peoples within a given community. Obviously, The Dude is not a part of the upper-class, or even the middle class. However, he ends up doing all the "grunt" work for the rest of the upper and middle classes. The movie, especially within The Dude's smaller community, provides a microcosm of the overall American society. The lower class is dependent on the upper and middle classes for monetary value, and the upper and middle classes rely heavily on the lower class for doing their "grunt" work. However, it is not the lower class people that come out on top, because there tends to be a lot of unethical actions taken by the upper class towards the lower classes, and this comes out within The Big Lebowski. It appears that the only way to really make it in America, or to prove the "American Dream," is to delve within a decadence lifestyle, or to make money unethically. The only actual "normal" people are The Dude and Donny, and they get treated horribly by the upper class. Throughout the entire movie, The Dude is forced to do this and that, like being led here and there on a leash. Towards the end of the movie, Donny gets a heartattack and dies because of the unethical actions of the upper class. Instead of treating the lower class with respect, the upper class "uses" them in order to line their pockets a bit more.

As Requested - A Blog about My Dream

The dream I chose to write about was actually a pretty odd nightmare, of which I do not have many. It occurred early in the morning of January 18th, as a frame of reference. It was quite simple, really, and might have been preceded by other dreams that had some sort of connection to it.

The nightmare was, in totality, a view through my eyes of another face, but one with solid black eyes. This sounds pretty simple, I know, but it did not speak with words, but rather seemed to speak with a placard like out of a silent movie. The placard read simply "You can never go back." I am at a loss as to what this means, exactly, but I do have some ideas. In my class writing exercise over it, I considered the possiblity that it was some sort of fear coming to the surface, such as my fear of failure, etc.

However, with more thought, I begin to think it linked with a recent situation I found myself in. You see, a good friend of mine recently died from a horrible form of cancer that ate away at his spine and brain. Those less-than-necessary details aside, he always told me he would haunt me in a specific situation after his death (we knew well in advance his death would come this way, you see, given the prevalence of cancer in his family). This contingency was that I would endanger my college career by trying to take time off from classes to return to my distant home should he die while I was in said classes. I, of course, followed his advice when the tragedy occurred, but the nightmare happened weeks ahead of time. Perhaps it was a subconscious warning of myself, reminding myself that I needed to follow his wishes, because the time was close. This is just my idea, any others?

The Invisible Man in the Mirror

This seems to be an important part of the song:

"Could It Be Really Me,
Pretending That They're Not Alone?"

The man in the mirror is the invisible entity of indifference and selfishness. MJ is asking whether his indifference to other people's struggles are really of his own construction. Flipping up his collar and walking past the homeless people, hungry kids, etc., may not be a behavior that is distinctly Michael, but rather one that pervades the society in which he finds himself. In consideration of Lacan's mirror stage, MJ's perception of the "I" comes in conjunction with his experiences with the others: the obligatory object of his sympathy, but also the cause of his indifference. There is a system of negligence, of ignoring the troubles of the world as long as those troubles aren't personally experienced. The man in the mirror is as visible as our abilities to recognize our indifferences. Therefore the man isn't just MJ, it's all indifferent people on this earth.
This point is furthered when we realize that MJ has a purpose for making this song. Present a situation where you feel sympathy where before you haven't, and present the best way to deal with it:

"If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change"

He's not singing to himself necessarily, but to the audience members who are unaware or uncaring of other people's troubles. The song is not meant solely for himself, as the man is not just MJ.

Man In the Mirror

This song addresses a number of things that can be looked at psychoanalytically. Obviously, one the first thing that comes to mind is Lacan's mirror stage, which many people have already talked about. However, I find it more interesting to look at when he says, "I'm gonna feel real good now." On the surface, it's easy to see this as simply talking about the good feelings that come from helping others. But looking at it psychoanalytically, there could be more to see. Why does he suddenly have the urge to feel better? Is there some reason or reasons from his past that have made him unhappy? The way he says it makes me feel like he has been looking for something that will make him feel better for a long time now, suggesting a painful past and general unhappiness.

I don't necessarily think that MJ is referring to his relationship with his dad when he says he has "been a victim to a selfish kind of love". In the way he talks to himself and refers to himself as the Man In the Mirror, I get the idea that he is talking about himself, and how he has victimized himself with his selfish love- love for himself and ignorance of the pain of others. I think he feels guilty about his wealth and is ready to make changes within himself and his way of looking at the world to make the world better. Which will, in turn, make him feel happy.

We are all "The man in the Mirror"

I am not sure who said it earlier in the blog but it was remarked that the man in the mirror is MJ. To some extent I would agree with this but I feel that the "man in the mirror" is all of us; men, women, old and young. Everybody has at one point in their life looked at themselves in the mirror and wished they could change something about themselves or about the world, and the observation that there are many people in the world that "That There Are Some With No Home, Not A Nickel To Loan" is obviously something that many people have noticed and wanted to change. It is interesting to think about what made MJ think about this song, if in fact he wrote all of it, there was probably some event that triggered this type of thinking. Most likely this was a fairly traumatic event as it made Michael want to change not only himself but also to change the way his audience thinks about the world they live in.

Make a Difference!

This is actually one of my favorite MJ songs out there. I found him to be quite the lyricist, considering if he completely wrote or substantially aided in the process of writing his songs. He was an entertainer, as is evident from the video... and then he kind of went left field in most people's eyes. Which brings me to my point.
I love the message of this song. It is about confronting yourself, and making a change for the better: for yourself and society. More so, it is about realizing that there are those less fortunate. What I find interesting is MJ's stance in this song. He makes it sound as though he was unaware of the less fortunate based on his success. This seems a bit off, MJ coming from a poor beginning himself in Gary, Indiana. I don't think he ever overlooked his fans, or those who had less than him, especially children, which is brought out in the first verse. From this, I gather that MJ was referring to himself making a more lasting impression on people as his way to make a change. He was no doubt obsessed with being the greatest entertainer of the 20th Century and he pushed the limits, creatively, image-wise, etc. This song is his realization that he could be even bigger than he was; that he could be an icon. The video shows this. Every 30 seconds or so there is a reference to a clip of famous world leaders or difference makers. This is tying MJ to them; he wants to be as influential as they were and more. The message is powerful, and MJ was well on his way, it is just interesting how wild of a turn that ended up taking in his career, going from amazing entertainer and influential artist to a mostly fanatical persona. Still, MJ left a great mark on entertainment and raised the bar while he was in the spotlight.

Mike Problem Mike Victim

I found this song quite interesting; especially the whole man in the mirror concept. I think the man in the mirror is obviously him. He has essentially decided "to be the change that he wants to see in the world." What I find particularly interesting is that he is possibly the man in the mirror in two ways. I believe that his decision to change is heavily influenced by the fact that when he sees himself, he is also seeing himself as  "The kids in the street / With not enough to eat" for example. The difficulty that he experienced growing up (tough treatment from his father and being a lonely child for example) I think makes him more capable of relating to those who suffer. So, he is the victim and the problem at the same time. 

MJ Blog

After Listening to the song and then reading over the lyrics, its becomes clear to me that the “Man in the Mirror” is himself. He is looking for a change in his life along with others. He fells as if that if he can change and do good in the world so can others in positions of power. Along with that he wants “us” as regular people to make a change in our lives and care for humanity and the well being of others. I'm Gonna Make A Change,For Once In My Life It's Gonna Feel Real Good, Gonna Make A Difference, Gonna Make It Right . . .” These here lyrics explain it all. These are the first lines from the song. Along with Jake I think that he is trying to make the ultimate change. Along with that I can also see where Joseph is coming from in stating that because of his childhood he has been affected so deeply that this change is going to help him dearly. With him helping others and making sure that they can live normal lives will help him cope with the hardships that he dealt with through out his childhood.

MITM Psychoanalysis

If one were to take a psychoanalytic approach to this song, then looking at it through the Lacan Model would be a good way to look at it. “Lacan suggests ‘the mirror stage’…when the child becomes aware of itself as a distinct being…while this mirrored being and the world that surrounds it seem completely under the child’s control.’” In this case, however, this can be put into context of the situation, a man who has a sudden awakening. He looks at the world from a very different view than before. Once a man of privilege, the character in the song realizes, “I’ve been a victim of a selfish kind of love. It's Time That I Realize That There Are Some With No Home, Not A Nickel To Loan Could It Be Really Me, Pretending That They're Not Alone?” He awakens to the truth of the world and seeing that not everything is perfect. And perhaps because of his epiphany, he can start to help change the world he sees, by starting with himself.

Man in the Mirror

I believe that this song is about both changing personally and trying to change the world around you. While I believe this, it is maybe more compelling to think about the personal change of which Michael Jackson sings. When he says, "I've been a victim of a selfish kind of love," I can't help but be reminded of Jackson's tumultuous relationship with his father. His dad, Joe Jackson, was famous for being one of the most strict showbusiness parents ever, cruelly beating and berating his five sons if they did not perform in the way he saw fit. This selfish kind of love refers to Joe's self serving treatment of his kids, not allowing them to lead normal childhoods. Jackson also sings of a "willow deeply scarred." I believe that this is a reference to the permanent damage done to him from his childhood. At the end of the song is an interesting line that raises a few questions. He repeats "I'm gonna feel real good" many times. This seems as though he's trying to convince himself of that, but, as we have seen in the time since he made this song, his life's circumstances have been such that would make me think that his wishes haven't come true.

Psychoanalysis "Man In The Mirror"

Hall states, "The primary task of the psychoanalyst is to discover the precise impact on the psyche of environmental factors..." (106).   From the very beginning of the song, the singer is observing what is going on in his outside environnment: "I see the kids in the street/With not enough to eat/Who am I, to be blind?/Pretending not to see/their needs."  The effect of this environment on the singer is evident in the chorus.  He has been filled with a sense of guilt and shame, and is now motivated to better his outside environnment by first improving himself: "If you wanna make  the world a better place/take a look at yourself, and/then make a change."

Hall also mentions how texts may have a psychological impact on readers, and how "narrative forms meet readers' deep-seated psychological needs for control and self-gratification" (109).  I believe it is safe to say that most readers/listeners desire peace and harmony, and in that vein, the text certainly speaks to them.  This desire for world peace in "Man In The Mirror" highlights what Hall says about mass-psychological forces, and their relationship with texts (on page 110).  

"Man in the Mirror" Pyschoanalysis

It seems as if a lot of people on this board have addressed the mirror as an opening for the singer to channel the rest of the world/America to change. Although change is, in fact, greatly addressed in the song, I believe looking at himself in the mirror is a type of realization that comes before the act. The singer knows he must change, but it seems sort of obligatory where and how he should change. Here is where the song seems more of a self-realization of who the singer is before he decides where he wants to be (That's Why I'm Starting With Me/I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways). The word “change” here better implies the indication of the beginning. He wants to go out and save the world, but he knows that it is a dream of grandeur to just begin with others. However, if he wants to start on the right path towards helping the world, he must help himself.

Also, relating to Hall, it seems as if the singer is influenced by the environment around him. Towards the end of the song, the singer tells his audience to take a look at themselves in the mirror and make the same change. Although most would read that as instructional, I think it could be read as if the singer is calling for help. In order to make the change himself, he needs to see others doing the same.

Psychoanalysis/Deconstruction - Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror"

While it may be an insane longshot, I consider this Michael Jackson's call for action in world affairs. It seems plausible given the juxtaposed images of nuclear explosions, Robert Kennedy, and starving children in Africa. Though I do not completely understand Jackson's stake in things, it could be perceived that his idea of self, the man in the mirror, could be meant to represent America at large and, as aforementioned, could be a plea for them to take action in helping others. This is, then, a very positive, feel-good kind of change as mentioned in the song. The leaders pictured (Ghandi, Mother Theresa, The Kennedy Brothers, Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter, etc.) would certainly all of them encourage positive involvement geared toward positive change, as all of them lived their lives to this end, with all but two of them dying in this pursuit.

Psychoanalytic/Deconstruction Analysis of "Man in the Mirror"

Considering the tenets of both psychoanalytic and deconstruction analysis (Hall 105-11, 164-9), we must preface this blog post about "Man in the Mirror" with the following statement: The analysis in this post is not the end-all-be-all take on the Michael Jackson "Man in the Mirror" video and, thus, is open to criticism and/or expansion. Furthermore, it is difficult to discern the exact origin of the video in question, not only because there is no location/origin listed, but also because, even if there was a location/origin in the video's description, the source of the video is an individual (age 16) rather than an official Michael Jackson sponsor/producer/etc. and, thus, should not be entirely trusted. As it stands, there is no location/origin listed, so a question comes to mind: Is this video that we can watch on YouTube an official video (created by an affiliate of Michael Jackson's) that has been specifically edited/shaped for Jackson's purpose (his own meaning of the video/song), or did this 16-year-old Italian kid create the video from a collection of clips? The answer to this question is important because, if the former is true, the video can easily yet—paradoxically—complicatedly be interpreted from the viewpoint of Jackson's own psyche/ideas.

With all that said, we can really begin. Assuming that the video is official, Jackson-approved, we can begin to look deep into the meaning of the song as Jackson and his affiliates intended it. The concert in the video is interspersed between clips from other concerts that took place in the day time, but more importantly, there are also clips/pictures of famous people who have made a difference in the world—people like Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, and so on. These people illustrate the main point of the song itself: We should make a change/difference in the world, because things have gotten out of hand, and to do this, we have to start with ourselves. The people in the video have made changes not only for themselves but for the good of the entire world. The emotion with which Jackson sings the song reveals that it is incredibly important to him and, thus, probably springs from something that has happened in Jackson's own life, perhaps a childhood trauma (especially considering the words/phrases "victim," "alone," and "deeply scarred"), though we cannot say this for certain without finding proof (which would lead us to a more biographically- and/or historically-geared analysis). The reactions of the audience members (e.g., screaming, passing out, etc.) connote a sense of empathy/sympathy, as these people seem to identify either with the message of the song or with Jackson himself; this implies a deep emotional connection to the morals of the song and/or to Jackson himself, as many or most of these audience members act like they know Jackson intimately and, furthermore, adore his performance ability and style. Thus, the song and the video combine to create an emotionally-charged entity that is ripe for psychoanalytical analysis. As such, we could continue, but due to the space and time constraints of the assigned one- to two-paragraph blog post, we will stop here. As stated before, criticism and expansion are welcomed and encouraged.

Psychoanalysis & "Man in the Mirror"

To add on to Thomas's post, I'd like to expand the passage he quotes from Hall that the mirror stage is "when the child becomes aware of itself as a distinct being; indeed, for a while this mirrored being and the world that surrounds it seem completely under the child's control (as the image in a mirror is under control)" (107).  What's interesting in this song is that the singer feels just that emotion, that he the world is completely under his control, that he can create a significant change to end poverty.  If we take it as Lacan suggests, however, this will be followed by stage in which "control is discovered to be illusory, especially as the child encounters language and social signification, which Lacan calls the 'symbolic order'" (107).  So taking a Lacan-heavy approach to psychoanalysis, we can conclude that, though the ambition of the singer is noble, it's liable to ultimately fail.  As we all know Michael Jackson has made changes in himself himself, albeit mostly in physical aspects than in behaviors (and negative ones at that), but children are still starving in the world.  Perhaps it's too early to declare the singer's mission a failure, but it certainly isn't successful.  Has he already encountered the 'symbolic order' Lacan speaks of or will he in the future?  We may have to wait awhile to decide for sure on that one.

Man in the Mirror

Obviously, Michael Jackson is reprimanding not only himself, but the entire culture of America while singing this song. Some elements of his past appear within this song, especially about the “selfish love” and the “kids in the street.” Michael Jackson had to overcome some oppression from his father during his lifetime. The fact that his parents tried to keep him a child by giving him hormones in order so that his voice would stay a good singing voice had to have a lasting impression on his childhood. Every child needs satisfaction given by their parents towards them, some form of confidence that they are good people and good children. Obviously, the somewhat perverted relationship that Michael Jackson had with his father plays a major role within this song. Now, his adult self is trying to “save” his child self psychologically. This appears heavily within psychoanalytic theory, and I believe that it is present here within the song “Man in the Mirror.”

Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror"

First off, trying to analyze this song without actually hearing Michael Jackson singing is pointless. Forgetting all of his wrongs, faults, and peculiarities of the man, he has a wonderful voice and when this song first came out in 1988, it was considered a very positive and influential song. I started out reading the lyrics and saying them aloud to myself but that did not work at all, I could not articulate or give meaning to the words. Once I started playing the song on my computer and reading the lyrics simultaneously, my reading of the song changed. I could feel the compassion and meaning in his voice as he tried to make his message of personal sacrifice and humbleness understood.

I read Joel’s observations and I think he did a tremendous job of addressing Lacan and the mirror in the song. The man looking into the mirror is the central image in the song which means that this reflection that the narrator is going through is the key observation of the song. As Hall states on page 107, the mirror stage “centers on the dawning of self-awareness…when the child becomes aware of itself as a distinct being.” The narrator in the song has already passed the mirror stage for infants but he is now entering the mirror stage for adults. It is a period of understanding and self-realization for the narrator. As he states in the first line “I’m Gonna make a change,” he is going to attempt to change his selfish, inward looking personality, into a more helpful and compassionate one. The narrator, at some point in his life, has been greedy or inconsiderate towards others, “I’ve been a victim of a selfish kind of love,” but now he is going to undertake the task of changing his life for the better.

This song is extremely pertinent in understanding psychoanalytic analysis but it is also very applicable to learning about and understanding Lacan’s principle about the “mirror stage.” His principle generally applies to children and their realization that they are distinct individuals but his principle can also easily be applied to adults in situations similar to that of the narrator. The narrator undergoes a distinct realization that to change the world around him, he must for start “with the man in the mirror,” because only from within can change occur.

Psychoanalysis of "Man In The Mirror"

At first glance, Michael Jackson's "Man In The Mirror," is a song about a person who, while considering the needs of people less fortunate, reflects upon himself and realizes that in order to have a positive impact on the world around him, he will first need to move beyond his own petty wants and address the changes that need to be made within himself. I will resist the urge to interprete the song as a masturbatory experience of delusion and self-gratification to instead advocate a more homely and psychologically sound comprehension of the song in the broadest terms.

As in the terminology of Lacan, the metaphor of the mirror is invoked to symbolize the move from narcissism and selfishness into a realization of one's distinct but shared sense of empathy and the universal human condition. The speaker begins with a desire to shape the world to his ideals, to 'make a difference,' to 'make it right.' He next cosiders images that reflect the collective suffering of his fellow man and will use this tactic again throughout the song to justify the urgency of this change that needs to be made. The singer is under the impression that his next move is obvious: to change the world, he must first start by changing himself. His understanding of this need to change is apparently conflicted, for at first he avoids taking responsibility for the way he had been living his life previous; he is the 'victim' of 'a selfish kind of love.' In the next line, he will at least appear to take direct responsibility for his actions ('It's time that I realize...") and then end he will question whether or not he had really been living his life in this way at all ("Could it really be me pretending they're not alone?'). This poses a challenge for the singer, for it obviously contradictory to his nature to gratify others at the expense of himself. But he justifies this effort with the incentive that it will 'feel good,' and will be the 'right thing' to do.

Obviously other bloggers might consider the singer's relationship between the singer, his society, and authority when considering what exactly is 'right' about this 'right thing' to do and who decides that it is right. But the aforementioned gloss of the psychological implications of this song should be sufficient for a general analysis.

My Dream Analysis

I always have this dream and it happens so often that during the dream I know it is not real. I am always walking around somewhere when it's dark out. As I walk, I keep hearing footsteps and I will turn my head around to see if anyone is there, and of course no one is there. I then start to speed up my pace and then when I turn around Freddy Krueger is there in all of his glory. I begin to run from him and he bolts after me. After a few seconds of running I always fall and must literally pull myself through the grass. Basically, I am running on my hands and legs, like a dog, and for some reason that is faster than actually running...go figure. After a few moments of running like an animal, Freddy eventuay catches me and stabs me either in the back or chest. Sometimes I wake up at this point and feel the pain in my back or chest. The other times I try to fight him off but everytime I punch him it is like I have the strength of an infant and his body feels like concrete. Then I die, but, like I said earlier, sometimes I know I am dreaming and don't really care that he has mortally wounded me. 1, 2, Freddy's coming for you; 3, 4, lock the door...sorry. Got into it.

My analysis of my dream is that I am still kind of afraid of the dark. I was always scared of it as a child and I hate being alone in a house/room at night and I will never go into a basement at night. Furthermore, when in a dark room, I will quickly run up the stairs, if there are any, to quickly get out of the room. Plus, Freddy Krueger always terrified me as a kid. These pretty much set up the basis of the dream.

Due to the fact that I was almost kidnapped as a kid while at a friend's house, feeds into the hysteria of always feeling like someone is waiting to get me. [While I was at Jacob's house, a man came up to the backyard and opened the fence door and told us he was looking for his dog. He then ran at us and Jacob and Christina (another friend who was over) both ran through the neighbor's yards and I only lived two blocks away and my instinct was to head home. I luckily made it to my front lawn screaming "fire" and "help me" and my mother came outside and saw the man trying to grab me. She grabbed me and he ran off, and then she called the cops and they got the weirdo. Basically, this is the catalyst of my fear of being chased.]

In regards to my falling and running on all fours, the only thing I can think of is that I have this constant stigma that I need to be perfect and this is a way for me to realize that no one is perfect and there is always something we will fail at.

Finally, I believe the weak punching scenario stems from me feeling like I will never be able to take care of myself on my own. My parents have always given me everything I have ever wanted and I have been spoiled since my childhood and I always feel like I am entitled to everything because I am so used to getting what I want. My extremely weak and insufficient punches are a way of showcasing my fear of being on my own without the strength of my parents and their huge bank accounts once I leave college.

The Truman Show

It is interesting to notice the power struggle between Truman and Ed Harris throughout "The Truman Show." Although it appears that one has the dominant powerful upper-hand on the other, I argue that it might in fact be the opposite. Ed Harris does somewhat control Truman in some ways, but what Truman does directly impacts Ed Harris' every move. As Truman begins to figure out what is exactly happening, Ed Harris is driven to the point of murder. This is not something that is done lighty, especially by someone as "powerful" as Ed Harris. In order to have complete control over another human being, or anything for that matter, one must be extremely vigilent at all times. Therefore, one must be watching over the controlled at all times. In this way, Ed Harris is controlled by Truman throughout the movie. Although Ed Harris knows what is going on and Truman does not, Ed Harris' actions are still propagated by Truman's actions. Harris becomes so obsessed that he appears, at least to me, to have an absolute absence of control over Truman, and in fact, it is the exact opposite. Truman, although unknowingly, has almost complete control over Ed Harris. The roles are reversed from what it might seem at first.

Failure of Panopticism in The Truman Show

It seems that the Panoptic vision did not succeed within the Truman Show because its measures were not fully executed. The fact that it was a television show undermines one of the key ideas behind it. Foucalt says that "The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed (229). Although Ed Harris attempts to control every element of Truman's life, he is incapable of doing so because his human needs did not allow him to be omniscient and because of the great number of temporary observers present in the Truman Show's viewers. Since Ed Harris could not execute his control on the viewers, it allowed for them to work free of the shows Panoptic system and breach it.

The Truman Show

In the Panopticism and in The Truman Show there is this idea of power. There is ultimately one power source in both. The effect of Panopticism as told to us in the article is “to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects even if it is discontinuous in its action…” This effect is one that we see in The Truman Show. There is this routine that Truman is going through on a daily basis even saying hi to his neighbors. But he does not realize that his next door neighbor has a camera in his trash can that is very visible to him. This effect has a strong one on Truman until there are to0 many signs that he can’t do anything but ask questions.
This idea of power we see with the creator of the show and how he felt he had the ultimate power over Truman and his world. Ask Jake explains we see how he was willing to and even attempted to kill Truman in the ocean. Along with that everyone in this world has power over Truman and his actions. They could do or say anything at any point in time and negatively or positively affect his day.

Being John Malkovich

This movie is an incredibly strange look into the mind (literally) of other people, which will of course provide many things to look at from a psychoanalytical perspective. There are a number of connections to the Hall reading for today throughout the movie. The idea of repressed childhood memories appears twice- once with Elijah the chimpanzee and once with John Malkovich. I thought Elijah's flashback scene was the most hilarious scene in the movie because of the ridiculous dialogue that is taking place. But this connects to the reading because of the psychoanalytical ideas presented in Hall, and how Elijah's memories were causing him trouble as an adult, and that to get better, he will have to "work through" it, like Lotte says. The second example of repressed memories is when the two girls are on the chase through John Malkovich's subconcious. All of the memories were embarassing and negative. I think it's very Freudian that the only memories shown in his subconcious were these memories, the types of memories that would cause someone problems in a psychoanalytical perspective.

Another connection I saw between the reading and the movie was Freud's idea that women were the "castrated" version of men. This can possibly be scene with Lotte, who feels so great when she is in John Malkovich that she decides she wants to be transgender. The fact that Lotte can only find sexual satisfaction as a man after her experience would fit into Freudian's psychoanalytical idea that women were inferior and, in some way, all longed to be men.

Overall, there is so much that can be analyzed in a movie as weird as this one, especially looking through the lens of psychoanalysis.

Panoticism and The Truman Show

"... the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers."

The above qoute seems to be at odds with Truman's situation in "Truman Show." The surveillance/tv show is a direct exercise of power by the show's execs/producers over Truman (the only inmate). It is also serves as an indirect exercise of power in the sense that viewers can watch every single minute of Truman's life while he (initially) has no idea of the fact. In either case, there is no automatic functioning of power that is taking place. Rather, the producers and viwers of the show are, in a sesne, exerting their power to invade Truman's privacy. Also, since Truman is the only inmate here (those whom he interacts with being involved with the surveillance process), the power relation proves dependent on those who exercise it (everyone except for Truman). Were even one person to discontinue their manipulation of Truman, the Panopticon could not continue to exist because Truman would then realize that he had been a prisoner without knowing it, and simply chose to walk away.

Being John Malkovich/Foucault Comparison

Well, this was certainly a very bizarre and unusual film to view. Reading Foucault’s piece afterwards did, however, put the whole idea of the Malkovich head concept into better view. Foucault defines the Panopticon as the opposite of a dungeon, “a mechanism that reverses it’s three functions-the enclose, to deprive of light and to hide-it preserves only the first and eliminates the other two…a place induces in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power…and it does not matter who exercises power. Any individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine…it does not matter what motive animates him: the curiosity or the thirst for knowledge” (Foucault 227-229). This passage sums up in general what Malkovich served as in the film. Both John Cusack and Cameron Diaz’s characters found separate, yet similar ways to operate John Malkovich to their own ends, both encountering life changing epiphanies. And not only them, but the other few hundred people who entered the portal all came out changed people, changed for the better. However, as the old saying goes, “with great power comes great responsibility.” The film clearly illustrated something Foucault alluded to by the people inhabiting the Panopticon becoming power hungry and addicted to it. Such is what eventually became of John Cusack, as he ended up thirsty for the fame and love he could never have as himself. All of which resulted in one of the creepiest film endings ever.

Being John Malkovich

This, as everyone else has pointed out thisfar, is an extremely strange film. The director, Spike Jonze, was known before this film exclusively for his work directing unique and hilarious music videos including The Beasty Boys video for "Sabatoge." The writer, Charlie Kaufman, is best known for writing films such as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Adaptation." Based on these two men being the leaders of the making of this film, we should expect such strange things as the world of Malkoviches scene and the Elijah's childhood scene. In the beginning of the film, we see John Cusack's character Craig at work performing with his puppets. This scene gives us a feeling that Craig is in control and the puppet master references obviously reinforce that. However, once that scene ends, we see that Craig is only clinging to his identity as a puppet master by a thread and will look for any way possible to change that. We first see his wife, Lotte, forcing him to get a job because his career as a puppeteer is not working out in the least bit. After finding out the portal to John's mind, Cusack tells his co-worker Maxine about it and she uses him to turn it into a business. Then, Cusack completely takes over Malkovich's body when he has the chance, seemingly fulfilling his dream of being completely in charge of something or someone. But we find that this is not what happens when he is tricked into leaving Malkovich's body, proving that he is not completely in control. This creates a very interesting puppet/puppetmaster dichotomy that works throughout almost the entire movie. At the very end, though, we see that he is inside the mind of the new vessel, the daughter of his wife and Maxine. This throws a wrench into the system that the movie builds, and gives the sort of twist ending that Hollywood loves so much to give us.

"The Truman Show" / Panopticism

In Foucault’s piece on Panopticism, he states that the effect of Panopticism is to “arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary;…in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers” (Foucault, 226). This statement relates to “The Truman Show” because Truman’s whole life was lived in a bubble (literally) for the rest of the world to see. His ignorance of his surroundings led him to live a life that he was unaware of at all.
Foucault said that Panopticism arranges things so that the surveillance on the person is permanent. This was true with Truman’s life. No matter where he was – home, work, grocery store, car – camera’s were watching his every move. His entire life was under a microscope and he was completely unaware of these circumstances.
Foucault also stated that the true perfection of power should render its actual exercise unnecessary, in other words, the observers should not necessarily interfere with the observed because then that would not be true Panopticism. Instead of letting true actions happen, creating false ones would not be true Panopticism. Essentially, this is where “The Truman Show” strays from Panopticism because the producers were telling the people in Truman’s life (all actors) what to say and what to do in certain circumstances (through an earpiece) to help calm Truman down when he was questioning the reality of people’s motivations and conservations, as well as what to do when certain events happened to him (like when he fell for Lauren and her “father” took her away and told Truman that she was mentally ill).
Finally, Foucault stated that the people who are being observed should truly be in control of what they are doing. This is true to the film in the sense that the main producer, played by Ed Harris, said that if Truman really wanted to escape Seahaven, he really could and that they would not stop him if he tried to get out of the bubble. Essentially, they did try to stop him from escaping every time (the dog, the nuclear power plant meltdown, the sea storm at the end), but they eventually let him break through the fourth wall (literally) when he finds the exit door in the ocean. What’s truly ironic is that the last scene of people watching Truman discover the falseness of his life and fall in love with Lauren is full of emotion and happiness, yet once the scene ends, they change channels again to find something else to satiate their need for voyeurism.

Puppet Master & The Puppet in "Being John Malkovich"

Immediately in the film, we learn that Craig is a puppeteer by profession, or at least he would be if he had his dream job.  This fact falls to the side until Craig begins possessing John Malkovich and controlling him indefinitely like a puppet, a feat which he apparently can only do because of his experience as a puppet master.  We, the audience, implicitly understand that the relationship between the puppeteer/puppet is similar to that of a master/slave.  This is the case initially, but it is later subverted in the film.  While Craig is controlling Malkovich and living through him, we begin to see that Craig is actually the one that's being controlled in another manner by his puppet.  Craig enjoys fame and being married to Maxine, but they are not really his, they belong to Malkovich; essentially, it's really his puppet that is the star, not him.  By the end of the film, he has become a slave to Malkovich's body.  Even when he does give up possessing Malkovich to "save" his wife, as soon as  he finds out she does not love him anymore he attempts to repossess him.  He does not, however, know that the portal works differently after midnight when the host vessel turns 44 and when he goes back down the tunnel, he winds up trapped in the subconscious of Emily, the daughter of Maxine and Lotte (Craig's former wife).  He cannot control Emily as he could Malkovich and is forced to look on as his two loves, one he lost and another he couldn't have, enjoy their life together without him.  Thus, the puppet master and the puppet have switched places in regards to which is controlling the other.

John Malkovich and Elijah

In agreeing with Thomas I would also say that "Being John Malkovich" is one of the strangest movies that I have ever seen, and to attempt to explain why Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman directed and wrote this movie would be an impossible task. It is perhaps more beneficial to instead examine the characters in the movie through a psychoanalytical lens. One of the themes in the movie that interested me was the idea of repressed childhood memories. From the beginning of the movie we are told that Elijah, the chimp, is seeing a psyciatrist to work out his issues and that both the shrink and Lotte Schwartz believe that Elijah has some repressed childhood memory that is troubling him and effecting the life he leads. At first it seems as though this is just Lotte's crazy imagination and she is just being suckered into paying a psychologist to help her pet chimp. In the end of the movie however we see that Elijah really did have a violent repressed childhood memory that could be causing him some troubles. This memory is largely based on Elijah's dealings with his parents and those around him and is marked by trauma. Hall discusses this notion that traumatic experiences have long lasting effects on personality, which would explain why Elijah is having some issues. What is really interesting about this idea of the affects of trauma during development is looking at the character of John Malkovich. When Lotte and Maxine enter Malkovich's subconscious and travel through his memories they are all memories of very traumatic experiences: watching his parents have sex, walking naked through the boys locker room while being called "Malko-bitch," peeing his pants on the school bus, sniffing women's underwear, and having an awkward moment on the couch with a women are all experiences that would have long lasting effects on one's personality. Is this perhaps a commentary on why John Malkovich, of all people, has a passage to his brain or why Craig is able to manipulate John for a prolonged period of time? It might very well be impossible to answer these questions, but the idea of the traumatic events have long-lasting effects on the human psyche is an interesting way to look at this movie.

Being John Malkovich

"Being John Malkovich" is one of the strangest movies that I have ever seen. It is almost impossible to fully explain the plot, structure, and meaning of this movie. I had seen the movie before this viewing; in fact, I watched the movie no more than eight months ago but that does not change the fact that this movie is just as bizarre as my first viewing. Two scenes in particular are extremely odd and hysterical in their own right, the scene where Malkovich enters his own mind and the scene with Elijah in the jungle. I will not even try to explain the two scenes but they are so off the wall that they are absolutely brilliant and uproarious. These two scenes are perfect microcosms for the rest of the movie. They depict how strange yet how funny and brilliant this movie is.

In our Hall book, Literary and Cultural Theory, Hall states that “it is clear that no one is fully self-aware and in control of all of the fears, desires, and conflicting emotions that can propel actions” (pg. 105). This quote speaks volumes about some of the actions in the movie. I will try not to summarize the plot because it would be impossible for me to adequately explain Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman’s movie. One of the main conflicting issues in the movie is whether or not it is right for Maxine and Craig to sell ‘trips’ into John Malkovich’s mind. Is this ethical? Even in the case where the tourist does not touch the surroundings but rather just admires them, is this a deplorable act? I tend to believe that this is a very harmful act but as Craig rationalizes it, he did discover the portal. But does that mean he is the owner of the portal or does it belong to Malkovich? Another question this movie raises is: would you like to be someone for 15 minutes? Personally, I do not know. I would not want to be John Malkovich for 15 minutes but I would like to be other people for 15 minute intervals. That is what Craig and Maxine are selling, a way to escape the plainness of everyday life. How does this movie relate to Hall’s section on Psychoanalytic Analysis? The answer is in Craig’s ability to control Malkovich and his other puppets actions and his inability to control his own life and the real people around him.

No one in the movie will doubt that Craig is a fantastic puppeteer, which is why he thrives, more so than anyone else, inside of Malkovich. He is able to propel Malkovich into iconic and legendary status within a span of a few months. As a side note, one of the funniest running jokes in the movie is that everyone knows who John Malkovich is but no one knows what movies he was in. Craig is able to manipulate Malkovich like his puppets because in a sense the portal allows him to become a puppet. Craig has fantastic relationships with things around him that he can control; the downside is that he can only control inanimate objects. His inability to control humans or his emotions eventually leads to his downfall. Craig is terribly poor at connecting with other humans. He is driven by his emotions, which are often very erratic. One almost wonders how he and Lottie remained married for so long. Like every other character in the movie, Craig cannot completely articulate why he loves being Malkovich so much. Everyone in the movie has almost the same response ‘it was fun and it…just felt right.’

Hall states “human activity is not reducible to conscious intent” (pg. 105), which is evident throughout this movie. Hall is stating that not every action that humans make is occurs because of a conscious or coherent thought. Often times actions or activities occur because of outside forces and factors, in the case for John Malkovich, many of his actions and thoughts were dictated by Craig. The thoughts and actions were not actually his but rather that of another person. This raises one more interesting question, are the premises and actions of this movie possible?

Foucault and "Truman Show"

Foucault’s “Panopticism” is a meticulous piece that speaks of how a panoptic system would influence culture, society, the political, and the individual. As Roger noted, it is hard to have Foucault’s piece not influence a viewer of “The Truman Show”. Panopticism appears to be a system that is almost too good to be true. It is very imperial, as a few men (possibly only one) can stand in an erect tower and observe the confined individual. It almost seems as if too much power is granted, as his gaze holds the rest of the confined.

“The Truman Show” helps show what happens to the individual in the panoptic model. After being under constant watch, it seems as if the individual must attempt to escape in order to establish any sort of freedom. Truman does not know exactly what he is running from, because the man in the tower is always hidden from view (in this case, Christof is in the sky and is not visible by Truman). The film also shows how controlling the tower can be. No matter how Truman tries to flee, there is always something waiting for him. This ends when Truman attempts to escape by sea. Christof can see Truman trying to leave the doom, and he will do whatever he can to stop him. In this case, the power in Foucault’s “Panopticism” shows that is corruptible, and thus, extremely tarnished. So much power is given over an individual, that it comes to a point where Christof is not worried about killing Truman in front of a live audience (NETWORK EXEC: For God's sake, Chris! The whole world is watching. We can't let him die in front of a live audience! CHRISTOF: He was born in front of a live audience).

The only matter that Foucault does not discuss in enough detail is the concept of the individual’s sanity. He leaves it open in the end for the readers to decide for themselves (“Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?”). The question is almost answered watching “The Truman Show”, as Truman’s tries to flee the dome. These scenes show a desperate nature of Truman, as he tries to escape the watchful eye he does not recognize or understand.

The Character of Maxine in "Being John Malkovich"

"Being John Malkovich" is a film about manipulation: John Malkovich's identity is compromised by the existence of a portal into his mind, wherein his actions and free will are compromised by Molly and Craig Schwartz. To complicate this situation further, both Molly, Craig, and John Malkovich himself are victims of the manipulations of Maxine, a woman who that uses that utilizes to sexual attraction all three characters have for her in order to obtain what she desires. Maxine herself does not appear to be subject to the manipulations of any other character in the movie. and therefore crtics may therefore be persuaded to consider Maxine the true puppet master in this movie.

Unlike Craig and Molly, Maxine never expressed any interest whatsoever in entering the supernatural portal into John Malkovich. In fact, her only intentions appear to involve exploiting the portal for money and obtaining sexual gratification from Craig and Molly-whichever happened to be inside of John Malkovich at any given time. The reason for this is that Maxine appears to be satisfied with her current situation in life and does not wish for fame (Craig) or to experience what it is like to be the opposite gender (Molly). The only time when Maxine appears to lose control occurs in the middle of the movie, when Craig pretends to be Molly while inside of John Malkovich. After she becomes aware of Craig's deceptions, Maxine is no longer interested in pursuing a relationship with Malkovich/Molly, but decides to stay with Malkovich/Craig instead. When she becomes aware that Craig can stay inside of Malkovich for an indefinite period of time, she praises Craig as a genius and expresses the belief that he could indeed become famous and they could subsist for the rest of their lives on Malkovich's accounts.

Maxine does not appear to desire fame, but then again she displays an obvious interest in Craig's talents as a puppeteer and the possibility that he may become famous one day. Maxine appears to have an obvious interest in money and wealth, but then again she could easily obtain all of the wealth she desires if she simply courted Malkovich alone, for the actor himself is as infatuated with Maxine as Craig and Molly. To complicate the situation further we may refer to Maxine's relationship with Molly: Maxine states that she is attracted to Molly, but only while Molly is inside of Malkovich's body and not her own. She is attracted to the "feminine longing" she can see inside of Malkovich's eyes while Molly is inside of him, but then again she could not recognize the difference between Craig/Malkovich and Molly/Malkovich. Furthermore, if gender is an issue, then why would she abandon Craig/Malkovich for Molly alone later in the movie when Molly/Malkovich's child comes into the picture? It seems as though if anyone is uncomfortable with her own gender and eminence in society, it would be Maxine herself; Her interest in wealth and money would seem to be a mask for longings more fundamental by comparison.

Foucault and "Being John Malkovich"

Discussing the Panopticon, Foucault states, "Consequently, it does not matter who exercises power. Any individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine" (228). Comparitively, in Being John Malkovich, anyone can enter and experience the John Malkovich machine, but Craig Schwartz is the only person who can truly operate the machine that is John Malkovich for most of the movie. At the end of the film, Craig is trapped inside the daughter of Lotte and Maxine, and her subconscious prevents him from operating her. He is relegated to being merely an observer.

Craig clearly uses John Malkovich as a puppet. Malkovich is Craig's personal laboratory, which compares nicely to what Foucault says about the Panopticon: "the Panopticon was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter
behavior, to train and correct individuals" (231). Yet not only is Craig using Malkovich to alter the behavior of people on the outside, but also altering the behavior of the machine itself (Malkovich). Foucault uses the Panopticon machine to alter the behavior of those on the outside only, whereas Craig uses the Malkovich machine to alter the behavior of BOTH the people on the outside and the machine itself.

The Panopticon and Malkovich are alike in that they provide the operator with the ability to see while not being seen. The difference between the two lies in the fact that the Panopticon is essentially a static, unchanging structure which can change others on the outside, whereas the Malkovich machine, while having the ability to change others on the outside, is also a changing structure itself.

Panopticism and The Truman Show

With its description of a system that allows one to look in on an unsuspecting subject/person, Michel Foucault's Panopticism greatly informs one's "reading" of the film The Truman Show (1998), directed by Peter Weir. At its core, the movie has at least two fundamental themes/ideas that are similar to those in Panopticism: (1) a prison-like environment where one can be viewed but cannot see the viewer(s) and (2) a psychological experiment that relies on the subject's not knowing whether anyone is watching him/her (or not knowing THAT someone is watching him/her, in the case of The Truman Show). Throughout the film (which itself is a "lens" for viewing), the viewer sees Truman (Jim Carrey) through the lens of a television show, and in that lens, through the FURTHER (literal) lenses of thousands of hidden cameras; thus, not only is Truman the subject of a television show, within the movie, he is the UNKNOWING subject of a television show, which perpetuates this secret façade by way of hidden cameras.

The film portrays the secrecy of these cameras in two specific ways: (1) cameras sit so far INSIDE an object (e.g., inside a wall or mirror) that the viewer actually sees the camera as being BEHIND another object (e.g., behind picture frames and behind the numbers on Truman's car radio), thus oftentimes employing a strange camera angle that a director would not use under regular circumstances, unless he/she is trying to depict a specific/meaningful emotion and (2) cameras sit inside of objects, such as brooches, in a way that the viewer can only tell there IS a camera because the edges of the screen are masked with black or white blurs. With this latter technique, the mask around the hidden camera shows up on the TV screen as an eye (an oval shape), through which we see Truman at the same time others (viewers of the in-film television show) are seeing him on their own television screens. This network of literal and figurative lenses definitely complicates the notion of the panopticon, but it also can be counted as an excellent example of a panopticon-like system of surveillance. The eye-like image further perpetuates the notion of surveillance.

Finally, The Truman Show depicts an environment in which someone is definitely ALWAYS watching, but the question of whether someone is watching has no psychological effect on Truman, as he does not even know he is the subject of a hidden-camera television show. In contract, Panopticism portrays an environment in which someone may or may not be watching, which causes the subject to self-monitor his/her behavior out of fear of punishment for a misdeed. The main difference between these two texts, then, is that The Truman Show features an unwitting subject, while Panopticism shows a subject who is aware of his/her status because he/she has performed an illegal action (prison panopticon), become ill (hospital panopticon), and so on. Truman, for all intents and purposes, is a prisoner of the show within the movie, but he doesn't even know it.

The Truman Show and Foucault's "Panopticism"

On the outside, both texts present situations of being watched. Truman's entire life is a television show, while Panopticism was developed to encourage correct behavior through the perceived knowledge of always being watched. This, then, is the chief difference between the scenarios presented in the texts. Truman has no knowledge of his status, though, as the film progresses, he begins to suspect something is not right. Interestingly, in the end, Truman bids farewell to his fantasy world in a guise very much like an actor. This could be an attempt to maintain the facade for just a bit longer, and, in so doing, this might also act as the sole linking thread between Foucault and The Truman Show. In Panopticism, subjects' behaviors are corrected through being forced into a very public display of their lives. This was intened to teach everyone from misbehaving schoolchildren to imprisoned criminals correct action (224-230). While The Truman Show, as the show within the film, might be intended to be a rather large and lengthy case study of human behavior taken from an ignorant and innocent subject, the complete lack of knowledge on Truman's part drives a wedge between the texts. He acts naturally, not apprehensively, because he does not know he is being watched. Therefore, nothing is proven in terms of the panoptic experiment. In fact, once Truman's fears are confirmed, he begins evading cameras whenever he can. This, then, leads up to the final scene aforementioned that acts as the singular linking thread between the texts.

The Computer is Personal Again

Jerry Seinfeld HP Commercial

“The Computer is Personal Again”

Video

This commercial advertises Hewlett-Packard’s line of laptop computers. There are a number of these commercials, the spokesman being Jerry Seinfeld in this particular one. This commercial aired in mid to late 2007, before the release of Bee Movie, in which Seinfeld stars in. Along side the laptop, this movie is also advertised, or “plugged” twice, as well as Jessica Seinfeld’s cookbook. The plugs for Bee Movie are very explicit in the commercial while the plug for the cookbook is a little less.

Seinfeld’s fan base includes an older set of individuals, from around 18 to 35 years of age, including parents, which is important to this ad. Bee Movie is a family movie and the cookbook plug is to promote healthy eating habits among children. These help push the ad for the laptop forward. The idea driving this ad is that of the “computer being personal again” and there is nothing much more personal than the family.

These commercials intrigue me in the fact that as consumers, we are given very famous and recognizable spokespersons in the ads, but there faces are not shown. They are “hand commercials” as Seinfeld calls them. In the ad, the animations of the computer are in the foreground, the spokesperson in the background, with evolving settings behind them. Even though we know how famous the person is, they are secondary to how they connect (personally) with their computers, in essence placing our faces on their bodies figuratively. If we are interested in the computers, we too can have a personal connection with the laptops offered by HP. The face of the star is not necessarily important; we can enjoy the same computers as much as they can. The focus is thus on the computer and its capabilities rather than solely on the backing of celebrity.

Axe Commercial

The Advert that I'm analysing is one of Axe Deodorant Spray's...interesting commercials, viewable on Youtube.com here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbU_j0bxWpU. Now, every Axe advert I've seen (even the old skool ones in South Africa) were...rather sexist, objectifying women and all that. One man, hordes of horny women...
This ad I've chosen, however, now seems to tackle religion.
The manly man wearing the deodorant is a Christian sort of missionary, similar to a Mormon. However, the guy doesn't have a partner with him, and Mormons usually travel in pairs. Nonetheless, this guys is pretty close to Mormon-looking. He drives down the road and begins to attract all the young, mid-2's women. There's flirtation going on, and at the end when he opens his Bible, there's an Axe hidden inside. There's one of two things I can see from this. First, the guy is a good Christian/Mormon on his daily mission. This is my initial reaction. The women are the tempters. They tempt him and he eventually falls. This alludes back to Paradise, Adam-and-Eve stigma of women as tempters and men as sad victims.
However, the other thing that I began to realize is the possibility that the man is a disguised tempter. The women are easy prey. The man comes in, dressed as a good Christian/Mormon, but the message he really is trying to spread is temptation, therefore the Axe hidden, dug into the pages of the Bible. This also goes back to Paradise times, with Satan dressed as a then-innocent serpent-animal. This image as fake-Mormon being the tempter is furthered by the fact that the ad takes place during day time, early afternoon. In the traditional, domestic mindset, the man is at work and the woman is at home, attending to domestic issues. Therefore there are no men in the commercial except the fake Mormon. So the women have no one to protect them from the tempter, once again, as in the Genesis story. They are then innocent, damsels-in-distress. Susceptible to temptation.
The ending, however, with the fake-Mormon opening the door and finding a horde of domestic, young women, and he consequently "delivering" the message of unresistable temptation which is Axe, is complicated by the Mormon-stigma of polygamy. More fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy as a right or duty of their beliefs. Taking this into context, the ad can be seen as reaffirming the true Mormon right of having multiple spouses. The fact also that the women being tempted are, or appear to be already married or marriage-age further adds to this interpretation. Also, take into consideration that the Bible being opened up, containing the Axe, is a regular Bible, not the Book of Mormon. US legislation made practicing polygamy virtually illegal. Does Axe restore the Mormon Truth? or, at least, what does the Axe commercial have to say about Mormonism? Does every Mormon want to go back to the days of polygamy? Or are Mormon's tempters? Dressed as good-guy Christians but...nothing more than sheep's clothing.
Nonetheless, interesting commercial. Definitely worth the analysis.

Levi's 501 Commercial (Version with Gay Men)

The ad I've selected is a commercial for Levi 501 Jeans.  You can see the video on YouTube by clicking here.  Basically, the ad shows a man in his hip apartment changing into a pair of jeans.  As he is lifting the jeans up around his legs, the floor shakes and we see elements of the streets pop up through the floor, including a man in a phone booth.  The first man lowers the jeans and the stuff that popped out of the floor lower too; he smiles and then yanks his pants up to his waist and his apartment is entirely replaced by the city street.  He looks over the man in the phone booth, smiles, and they walk off together.

There are many elements of this ad to analyze, but for the sake of brevity I will only mention the few I think are important (I know we're only supposed to mention one, but I jcouldn't choose just one).  Having the empty apartment replaced by the bustling city street with the putting on the jeans implies that they will catapult you into social situations where you can meet new people and, potentially, an attractive male mate.  Also, the iconic blue jean and plain white t-shirt combination that the main character is wearing conjures up notions of a simple, no-frills kind of man, which is saying that we don't have to be the most fashionably savvy men to wear their jeans.  Lastly, what's truly interesting for me about this commercial is that there was another version of this commercial with a woman instead of another man in the phone booth (everything else was the exact same except the person in the phone booth); this version of the commercial I've posted is one I found on BravoTV and can only obviously succeed there because it reflects its prominently progressive audience of women and gay men.

Dolce & Gabbana Add

The add that I choose was a Dolce & Gabbana add that caught my eye when I saw it online. In the add there are five men and one woman. There is one man who is on top of the woman and he has her armed pinned down. When I saw this at first glance I wondered what they are trying to portray here. From look at this they are trying to portray the dominance of men over woman. All of the men have a look on there face which is looking at the woman of dominance. The woman has on high heeled shoes along with her pelvis being lifted off of the ground while here back and head are still on the ground. One might think that all of the men are going to have there own turn in dominance over this young girl.

Apple's "1984" Microsoft Computer Commercial

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

This commercial first aired during the Superbowl in 1984. In terms of content, the ad begins in a gray and futuristic setting. Clips of a line of uniformly marching men, a radiant blonde woman carrying a hammer, and a number of masked men carrying weapons are shown to the audience. Fragments of an extended and unspecified speech can be heard from the beginning of the movie, and soon we discover the source: crowds of the marching men in gray are shown to congregate in front of a "Big Brother" speaking to them through a giant television screen. It is at this point we see that the men in black are pursuing the blonde woman who is apparently attempting to avoid capture. Caught in a blank and zombie-like trance, the men in gray are freed from Big Brother's spell when the the blonde woman hurls her gigantic sledge hammer into the television screen and destroys it in a brilliant explosion. At this point, the commercial ends with the ominous message: "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984 [the book]."

Consider the following commercial aired a year before this one by Microsoft's biggest rival at the time, IBM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak_IrA-WUZg. IBM's comedic Charlie Chaplin portrayed computers in a comic fashion; they are seen more or less as personal tools intended for convenience rather than necessity. Certainly it can be said to lack the urgency and ominous possibilities presented in Microsoft's commercial.

What the audience is observing in "1984" is nothing less than a battle between individual and the forces of oppression and conformity polarized into a battle of good vs. evil. The ad obviously takes its like from George Orwell's classic, 1984, and therefore creates a link between Microsoft computers and science fiction, counter culture, and fantasy-it sends the message that "computers are thge future" and "a technology for making dreams into reality." In the running blonde liberator, Microsoft identifies itself with the defiant philosophy of rebellion and freedom. The company makes a statement of individuality and virtue to combat the effects of socialism, abuse of power, and conformity-fear which it plays with in the audience it intends to exploit. Though not by any means explicit, the aforementioned liberaty alluded to in the commercial can be achieved only with the purchase of a product produced en masse by a single company: Microsoft.

Ad Analysis: Smart Water

The advertisement I decided to look at is one for Smart Water which appeared in the latest issue of ESPN the Magazine. The advertisement features Tom Brady, the quarterback of the New England Patriots. In the advertisement, we see Brady wearing a suit, carrying a breifcase, but walking on a football field. In the background of the picture there is a helicopter, presumably leaving the field after dropping off Brady. The fact that Brady is in the advertisement, coupled with the advertisement being in ESPN tells us some things. This is important because sports fans will all be fimiliar with Brady on a level where they will draw conclusions about the product. Brady is seen as a playboy who dates models and actresses, he has also been voted best dressed man in the world by GQ Magazine. Brady possesses many ideals of classis masculinity, he is both attractive to women and idealized by some men for his athletic abilities. This advertisement tells us as consumers that we can be more like Tom Brady if we drink this water. We see that the power he has is evident in the ad, which tells us that Brady is so important he has a helicopter pick him up and drop him off from the football field. The fact that Brady is dressed like a business man may be an attempt to make people who wear suits to their jobs every day feel connected with Brady. Overall, this advertisement works to connect sports fans to a product by using one of the most visible and well known athletes in the world of American sports.

Smoking Ad from the 1940s or 50s

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/uploads/2007/05/smoking-ad.jpg

Above you will find the link to the ad I came across for this.

The ad shows a roughly 30-something woman with cigarette in hand. The ad does not show her left hand, therefore she could be single or married--a way to appeal to both groups. Besides this, the ad appeals to a sense of group identity and of the pleasures gained from smoking. This ad would have appeared in the days before surgeon generals' warnings and bans on public placement of advertisements, insuring that a large number of people would have been exposed to it. The ad could also appeal to either sex, women seeking acceptance and fun, and men seeking women who seek acceptance and fun.

Blade Runner Trailer Ad Analysis

Well, while it might not appeal to everyone, I still want to analyze the trailer I used in class for Blade Runner-The Final Cut. Now there was a reason I chose to use this trailer; for starters, I love this movie. It is arguably my most favorite movie of all time. Secondly, as with most trailers, it does its job well of getting the excitement revved up for this anticipated re-release, a good mixture of clips, music and memorable lines that made this film so good. Now, obviously the trailer, much like the film, is geared toward fans of science fiction and Blade Runner in general. This film originally came out in 1982 and while it was not an immediate hit when first released, it became a cult classic over time, seeing the eventual release of several different versions of the film and showing scifi fans everywhere, the next step in spectacular science fiction films. It planted the seeds for more exciting science fiction films of the 90’s to spread its ideas and qualities and take them to the next levels, hence 1995’s “Ghost in the Shell” and 1999’s “The Matrix “, among others.
The little gripe I do have about the trailer in terms of advertising is even though most fans know how amazing the movie is, it is still being tooted as an action adventure romp. This is not exactly true. While the film does have its fair share of action, it is a deep thinking, film noir-esque story delving deep into the mystery of what it means to be human in a world of advancing robotics and genetically engineered humanoids. Now, granted the story is fascinating, for those who have not seen Blade Runner at all, they might find themselves turned off and turned away based on expectations that the trailer presents. Just like audiences in 1982, who expected the film to be a strong action film for Harrison Ford in the wake of “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, there will be those (like the many people in class the other day) who might not go near the film for this simple fact.
So yes, those who have never seen or heard of Blade Runner may not want to check it out simply because it’s not their cup of tea. However, fans of the film who know the story and have never seen it on the big screen, will feel their blood pumping with the several darkend images and memorable quotes echoing across the screen. This film, while not for all, should be seen by all. And for fans of the genre, this is definitely not a film to be missed.
“More human than human is our motto.”

Canadian Club Ad

The advertisement I will be analyzing is a Canadian Club ad I found in Sports Illustrated magazine. The ad says boldly, in the middle of the page, YOUR DAD HAD GROUPIES. This statement is followed by a number of subsequent sentences, saying "He soloed. People paid to see him. He drank cocktails. But not in martini glasses. They were whisky cocktails. Made with Canadian Club. Served in a rocks glass. They tasted good. DAMN RIGHT YOUR DAD DRANK IT." These phrases were surrounded by old-looking pictures of a man playing guitar, the same man lying with a woman, and three other pictures of the man with his band. There are a number of symbols to analyze here.

First, this ad exploits the belief that being in a rock band will make you cool and also make you popular with the ladies. No matter how music has changed, American children have always had dreams of being a Rock Star. This idea has less to do with music, and more to do with the enjoyable lifestyle that rock stars enjoy. The notion of "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" is present in this ad by creating a parallel between a favorable lifestyle, one full of groupies and fans, and drinking Canadian Club whisky. In other words, this ad is suggesting that if you drink Canadian Club, you too can live the life of a rock star, even if the "stardom" is relatively small.

The fact that the subject of the ad is "your father" is very interesting, and can be looked at in two different ways. This ad could be working off the stereotype that all dads are "lame" and "boring". By presenting this surprising information- that your "lame" dad was actually in a band, the ad could be giving it an "everyman" appeal. If your lame dad could have fans and groupies, than you can, too- by drinking the same whisky cocktails he did. Also, this ad could be appealing to the desire of a good relationship between son and father. Whether it's going to a baseball game or playing basketball, young men constantly seek a connection with their father. This ad could be exploiting this desire by presenting Canadian Club as a means of connection with your father.

This ad was found in Sports Illustrated, which makes sense, because this ad is clearly geared toward men. The ad appeals to sex with the picture of the man with the woman and the mention of groupies. Also, the ad points out that your father drank the cocktails in rocks glasses, not martini glasses. The rocks glass is bigger and seen as more masculine, which further ties the product to manliness. The ending, "DAMN RIGHT YOUR DAD DRANK IT" is also a very direct, strong way to announce that your dad drank Canadian Club, which is also a nod towards masculinity.

Overall, this ad appeals to men and their desires of fame, fortune, and sex to try to sell their product.

Ad Analysis: Budweiser Designated Driver

My ad is a Budweiser one which promotes the use of a designated driver for the holiday season.  It is from a December issue of Sports Illustrated.   It features a young, good-looking man accompanied by three extremely attractive girls of the same age.  One of these girls is holding car keys and another one is holding a wrapped present.

The sexual aspect of this ad is most intriguing to me.  I believe that it is playing to many a man's ultimate fantasy: a menage a trois (or quatre in this case).  The man in the ad has given up his keys, and has his hands around the waist of the girl who now holds these keys.  This girl is dressed up in winter garb, yet she still shows a little bit of skin on her waist. Also, the three women are of different ethnicities.  One looks to be Latin 
with dark hair, another one has brown hair with skin that is lighter, and 
the third is a blonde with very fair skin.  

I believe the ad is obviously intended for men, and it's message is that if you drink responsibly and have a designated driver, you will be rewarded handsomely.  Associating the chance to have three beautiful women with responsible drinking definitely speaks strongly to many men all around.  

Axe Deodorant: With Added BomChickaWahWah

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AbDJ6tecAbY

I decided to do a commercial that has always annoyed me: the infamous Axe Deodorant commercial, with added BomChickaWahWah. The Axe Deodorant commercials usually have an “Average Joe” kind of guy that always manages to make a woman, or sometimes women, go crazy over them simply because they are wearing Axe Deodorant. It’s obvious that the commercial is strictly marketing towards young males with the idea of wearing Axe means you’ll get laid. It’s pretty plain and simple. But these batch of Axe commercials – the BomChickaWahWah ones – are extremely annoying because of the absurdity and the annoying little BomChickaWahWah at the end.

The add, which appeals to young men, knows exactly what its demographic wants to see: sex. So, by promoting sex in its commercials, it is strictly focusing on the young male demographic to which it is advertising to. The girl in the commercial, who is quite young and really good looking, already grabs a guy’s attention. Then, as she smells the dentist, she immediately goes from calm to horny in .5 seconds. She responds to the smell of his Axe with the inevitable “BomChickaWahWah” and then, to further promote sex, she grabs the pole of the dentist machinery and starts stroking it (an obvious sexual act) and then the smell becomes so intoxicating, the girl then begins to rub her legs together, claws the dentist’s seat she is sitting in, and spits out the cotton in her mouth – all of which are nods to sex itself.

The commercial and others like it from Axe are working because sales of the deodorant have been on the increase since 2005 and the company only has one demographic to reach for its product, young males. These commercials cater perfectly to them and only them, so there is no time wasted on trying to reach out to more than one demographic.

The Gorilla and Cadbury Chocolates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzFRV1LwIo

This ad has always interested me. It is so incredibly bizarre, every time I watch it I just ask myself how does it sell chocolate? After some analyst, I came up with a couple of ideas. Cadbury is a very old style chocolate company. With the current generation, Cadbury is not nearly as recognizable as, say, Hershey chocolates. So how does Cadbury try to appeal to a younger audience? They put a drummer in a gorilla suit and let him wail on the drums. This appears to young people in two ways. First, kids and young adults see drums as a bad ass instrument. The second reason the ad appeals to a younger generation is through the gorilla suit itself. When you think about culture and television today, you realize a lot of people watch and enjoy shows like Jackass and Viva La Bam. To pull off a lot of pranks, for some reason, a lot of the actors resort to using a gorilla suit. In fact, in the Jackass pilot a man in a gorilla suit chases around another man in a banana suit.

Cadbury’s ad does make an attempt to reach the younger generations, however, they do not outcast their older customers. The song the gorilla drums to is, “In the Air Tonight” by Phil Collins. Most people in the present generation know absolutely nothing about this song. Nevertheless, the song is able to connect with older generations since the song was a big hit in the mid 1980s to early 1990s. Therefore, Cadbury is able to speak to a wider demographic.

LOOK Cycles advertisement

The advertisement that caught my eye is an ad placed in the February/March issue of Bicycling magazine. In the ad a professional cyclist named Thor Hushovd is dressed in a nice looking suit and is walking down a sidewalk in front of some shop windows with a black panther next to him, thats right, a black panther. In one of the shop windows is a LOOK carbon fiber road bike frame in front of a gold back drop and illuminated with golden lights. With the only text in the add reading "Unique bikes for unique people."
I noticed this particular ad not only because of the ridiculous content, like the black panther on city streets, but also because of how different it is from the other ads in Bicycling magazine. Most of the ads portray a man on a bike with large muscles, a five o'clock shadow, and teeth gritted with determination. This ad just seemed so much more refined than the others that it stood out. This aspect of refinement is clearly what the ad is seeking portray thier bike frames as. Whereas many companies advertise their bikes as durable and tough, LOOK is attempting to access maybe a wealthier crowd with this ad by demonstrating the exclusive nature of LOOK bicycle ownership. This can be observed in many different points of the ad. The bike is in a shop window which greatly resembles a jewelry store set up, gold lights and gold background, and as many of us have observed jewelry shops normally put their most exquisite and expensive products in these storefron displays to entice the customer into entering their store. The fact that the professional cyclist in the ad is wearing a nice blue pinstripe suit in the picture rather than his stnadard spandex and chamois jersey also gives the consumer this sense of refinement, rather than the gritty toughness normally portrayed in cycling ads. The most noticeable aspect of the ad is probably the panther next to Thor on the street, clearly a wild black panther has no place wandering around the retail district of a large city, but nonetheless one is walking on the sidewalk. This seems to represent the exoticness of the bike and suggests that it is not as commonplace as some of the other bike brands out there. Lastly, there is the text of the ad, "Unique bikes for unique people." This is perhaps a perfect summation of the whole ad in that the company is advocating for the refined, exclusive, exotic, and ultimately unique experience of owning a LOOK bike frame and that if you own one, you too are refined like Thor Hushovd, exclusive like the jewelry in store fronts, exotic like the wild panther, and unique like the bike frame.

ESPN and Robert Goulet

My advertisement was the Robert Goulet ESPN commercial. The whole commercial takes place inside of a bar or a lounge, most likely in Las Vegas. Center stage is Robert Goulet and he is singing the praises about ESPN’s nightly college basketball games. That is the whole commercial. There are a lot of other nuances and subtleties at work in this ad but on the surface the ad is strictly trying to garner interest in ESPN’s coverage of college basketball games. As discussed in class, there are a lot of different ways to analyze and look at this commercial. The entire class spent about twenty minutes discussing this one minute commercial, which shows that the commercial has more than meets the eye.

I just want to address two issues and points that were discussed in class. The first being, what is the focal point of this commercial? Is it Robert Goulet or is it College Basketball? My answer: both. This is obviously a cope out answer but bear with me. Obviously ESPN wants the people who view this commercial to watch their show. They would not advertise if they did not want viewers. I do not think anyone will argue that point. The main interest in all advertisements is to sell a product. ESPN’s product is college basketball games. They want you, the viewer of the commercial, to watch their college basketball coverage. Since this is all they want from their advertisement, why use Robert Goulet? As Joseph said in class, if you are from our generation, you know about Robert Goulet because of Saturday Night Live and other caricatures of him. Our parents’ generation knows Robert Goulet from is younger years. ESPN is not using Robert Goulet just to be funny which he is; but they are also using him as a bridge between generations. When I first saw this commercial, I was watching the television with my mom and I chuckled because I was thinking of a skit that made fun of Robert Goulet. My mom asked why I thought the commercial was funny because she had no idea I even knew who this man was. This commercial does a very good job of product placement but it also attempts to gain a few cross generational fans.

The other thing I would like to discuss is the issue of being alone. The point was raised on Friday that this commercial is playing on American’s sense of camaraderie and their desire to belong to a part of a group. I do not remember who said that in class but I think he was completely accurate. I am not sure if the writer’s of this commercial were trying to subliminally say that, I tend to doubt that, but the fact remains that this commercial makes it seem like watching college basketball in a group is more desirable than being alone. One of the unspoken desires of the American dream is to grow old with someone and to be a part of a family or a community. This commercial is making it seem as though this part of the American dream is right around the corner. All one has to do is turn on ESPN for nightly college basketball games, if he does that, then he will belong.

Advertisement

The advertisement that I have chosen is the United States Marines commercial that was shown on Channel One during my high school days. The commercial begins with a struggling adolescent teenage male climbing a rocky side of a mountain. Obviously the boy is pursuing something that he feels he must obtain. The voice over speaks in a manner that would make anybody rise up and shout, ready for action. This teenage boy keeps climbing even though he slips up every now and again, metaphorically displaying the struggles of an adolescent teenage person. When the boy reaches the top of the mountain, he is greeted with an apparition of a past United States Marine in combat gear. There is an obvious link and a handing over of the torch of the heroes of the past to the patriotic adolescent teenager shown at this moment. Once the boy has reached this point, he grabs a sword in a "King Arthur" sort of manner and raises it into the air. He then acquires a masculine identity. Adolescent boys, especially the age of seventeen are most of all searching for an identity, and especially an identity that is purely masculine. Every teenage boy desires this. The boy finally becomes a "man" when he acquires a Marines uniform. Uniforms are the representations of identities, so in a way this boy obtains the masculine identity of a United States Marine. His journey for manhood is finally over. At the end, the commercial appeals the adolescent desire to be a part of a group, because at the end, the now Marine stands in front of, leading mind you, a group of his peers, also wearing the same uniform.

My Ad Analysis: "I Am Man" Burger King Ad

Here is a link to the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vGLHlvb8skQ.

This ad is for Burger King, specifically its seasonal (promotional) Texas Double Whopper. It appeared in May of 2006 on television, and it appeared at this time because this is when the promotional sandwich was available. The target audience of the ad is men, as will be very obvious when viewing the commercial. The lyrics used in the song are very male-centric, and in fact, they are a parody of the song "I Am Woman" by Helen Reddy. The commercial is incredibly stereotypical in its portrayals of men, and that is where it gets its power. It exaggerates stereotypes to the point of ridiculousness, playing on our desire for humor, hoping that we will remember the "funny commercial"that Burger King aired, and then go have a Whopper (or anything, really!). This is especially true for men, but it seems to me that the ad also targets women in the same way, or that it asks men to take their wives/girlfriends/etc. to Burger King and have a meal. The couple can share a laugh while talking about the ridiculousness of the commercial and enjoying the tastiness of the food. The ad puts heavy emphasis on the fact that men often eat more than women and that "only" a place like Burger King has the right amount of food (and that it's good food, to boot). It also shows a sense of belonging; the men in the group all seem to want to belong, and Burger King lets them do that. I find it interesting, and that I would mention that, there has been a great deal of feminist analysis of the ad, and women even seem to feel bad for men because of it (source); they see it as a blatant stab at men, when it is really only out there to make people laugh and to get them to remember Burger King fondly and go eat there, at least in my opinion. I was not offended at all, but I thought it was really funny. In fact, I worked at Burger King for 4 years, so it was even more funny to me, as I remembered with fondness the "stupid" commercials that my employer, at the time, made. Because of this, I also know first-hand that items come and go, and they often come back if they are successful; commercials like this will probably come out this year to promote the sandwich's comeback, as it comes back almost yearly.

Finally, I thought I would clear something up: someone commented on the abovementioned feminist blog post that the word "Texas" is a symbol for masculinity in the commercial (Texas=cowboys, strength, etc.), and this is unfounded; the sandwich is called the Texas Double Whopper because it is made in the "Texas style" (in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, Burger Kings have the "Mustard Whopper," with mustard instead of mayonnaise). In fact, Burger Kings in many states and countries have their own different kinds of Whopper--e.g., the Ultimate Double Whopper in the UK and Ireland, which America sometimes has as a promotion (source, to supplement my own memory of BK). Thus, besides making sales, this is the actual REASON for the commercial: to promote a product that most Burger Kings normally don't have (and, thus, will only have for a limited time). Because of this, the commercial did not air for very long (perhaps only a few weeks).

"The Wind That Shakes the Barley" Poem

I couldn't remember which class this assignment was for, so I hope I posted to the correct blog. With that said, the subject of this post is the poem/song (ballad, more precisely) "The Wind That Shakes the Barley." We talked about this ballad in class a little bit but didn't get into it very much, so Professor Brewer said we could make a post and get a couple of extra points.

"The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is an Irish ballad about love in the midst of the fight for Irish independence. Every line seems to have a feminine ending, which represents the feminine beauty/grace/etc. of the girl in the poem, and of Ireland itself (like when people say "she" instead of a country's name). The poem is largely iambic, but each line has an extra syllable, making it feminine in form, and making it difficult to discern the number of feet in each line (seems to be 7 feet per line, but it is difficult to tell, as there is an extra syllable in each line). The poem is dark in tone, even when speaking about the girl (e.g., her tears, a bullet's piercing her heart, her clay-cold corpse, etc.). There is talk of "bold men united," which is a reference to the IRA, and it is the "foreign chains" that the IRA is trying to destroy; these references to military and war create the initial darkness of the poem, but it is when the girl dies that the poem plunges even further, right to the end of the ballad. Each of the five stanzas ends with a variation of the wind's shaking the barley. At the end of the first stanza, it says "the wind blew down the glen and shook the golden barley." The second stanza says "while soft winds shake the barley," the third says, "while soft winds shook the barley," the fourth says "while soft wind shook the barley," and the final stanza ends with "I hear the wind that shakes the barley." These slight variations seem to connote the changes that Ireland goes through with each step of the fight for independence, as well as the changes it hopes to go through in the future, the steps toward total independence. Finally, it just occurred to me that they also reference the slight change in meter at the end of each line (the extra syllable in each line).