Talk about a crazy situation to be in if your Maggie the cat stuck on a hot tin roof. On one side, she's got Gooper and Mae and on the other she's got Brick. In dealing with Gooper and Mae, Maggie has to sit through all the demonstrations that they put on, or rather how their kids put on. And for what!? Trying to win over Big Daddy so that they can have the estate for themselves. Maggie, feeling out of place, has to try to convince Big Daddy of the same, but without the assistance of Brick. And I would say that having to deal with Brick is a hard enough challenge to go through on your own.
In the movie, you can really sense the desperation between everyone towards the end of it. This is of course after everyone has found out that Big Daddy is actually dying. Gooper and his selfish wife Mae immediately bring out the paper work to Big Mama. But Maggie makes the ultimate desperation shot at the estate when she announces that she is pregnant with Brick's baby. And its nice to see Brick finally step up for his wife after all of her hard work and back her up in her lie in front of big Daddy.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Vampys!
Vampires have always been appealing. Their ability to live for hundreds of years gives them the opportunity to witness timeless changes. The movie an Interview With The Vampire incorporates homoerotic symbolism. The director uses handsome men to capture the "gaze" of the viewers. Also, their actions are sexualized. I also found a connection, that they lead a life that is "bittersweet." Eros the bittersweet states that life can be bittersweet, where one can experience a simultaneous feeling of bitterness and sweetness. Louie's life ironically becomes bittersweet. He is a vampire that must kill, yet he has a conscious not to kill. At times his life becomes hectic and unbareable. Louie must battle his innate vampiric desires while needing blood to survive.
Tom Cruise is so much more normal as a vampire!
When I first started reading Interview With The Vampire I of course was looking for the relevance of gender in the novel. I couldn't quite see this relevance too clearly until I read to page 42 and Louis began to speak of the Freniere Plantation and how it was to become run by the only son and how it wasn't possible for one of the five daughters to be capable of doing so. Also, strangely on page 42 I saw relevance to Eros' Bittersweet when Louis is talking to the reporter about how sugar was refined in Louisiana and how it is ironic that the refined sugar is like a poison, so sweet it could bring death. There is also a whole lot of the because whole receptor/reciever thing going on between Louis and Lastat because Lestat holds some sort of power over Louis by threatening him with the knowledge that he supposedly has and Louis does not. Also, because Louis was the receptor because he received being a vampire from Lestat and Lestat's teeth were somewhat of a phallus. It all makes sense in my mind but it al looks like a bloody mess in a blog! Haha get it, bloody mess?!?
Transylvania Tango
Naturally, I read and watched Interview with the Vampire looking for the relevance to gender. While both looked at mortality through the eyes of an immortal, and gave some interesting insight into all that immortality brings, it seems that the film skirted some sexual and gender issues that the novel developed more. I must admit that I have never been a fan of horror and more specifically vampires. IWTV is tolerable because it deals with some interesting twists on the human condition. But what of the gender issues? Hmm . . . There seems to be a bit of Maurice/Durham dynamic going on with Lestat/Louis: implied homo-eroticism and bisexuality. The whole oral fixation with sucking blood is, well . . . do the math. Then there is the resentment/affection and the struggle for power. I dunno, maybe it is just that I am not into the whole Dracula thing that I find it difficult to ferret out the DEEP MEANING.
Vampirism:Bloody Bisexuality?
Is it just me, or does the relationship between sweet Louis and domineering Lestat seem to be teetering toward homosexual? Even their names look and sound good together. Can’t you just see the "his and his" towels with their cute names embroidered in blood! In all seriousness, the two vampires remind me of a couple which only stays together because amid all the bickering and dysfunction lies a strong bond. Louis at times appears upset by the inhumane actions of Lestat but also uniquely attracted to his fierce presence. Lestat at times seems annoyed with Louis’s goodhearted nature, and this leads the reader to ponder: “Why do these two stay together?” Well, the answer is simple: Both of these beings are getting certain needs met by one another. Louis, new to the world of vampirism, looks to Lestat to show him the ropes so to speak and listen to his concerns. Lestat gets great pleasure in having this power and command over Louis. Some may even say that Lestat is taking on the role of mentor and father with naïve Louis. Their relationship is one consisting of a subordinate partner and a dominate partner. The very nature of their union fits right into what "Eros: The Bittersweet" says about love and hate converging within erotic desire. Speaking of erotic, the part of the book in which Louis recalls the intense experience of Lestat draining his blood is very tantalizing. Even before Lestat sinks his teeth into Louis he lays down beside him “so gracefully” and his subtly movements so personal in nature remind Louis of how a “lover” would act. This proves to be great build up to the actual steamy encounter. It is in these heated moments of anticipation that Louis seems to admire Lestat’s physical appearance: “Never had I been so close to him before, and in the dim light I could see the magnificent radiance of his eye and the unnatural mask of his skin.” Now, simply cut out the “unnatural mask” at the end of the quote mentioned above and it reads like one that would grace the page of a romance novel. The resistance involved in the act that sent “shocks of sensation not unlike the pleasure of passion” through Louis’s body ties in nicely with Carson’s The Bittersweet. She devotes a whole section (Tactics) to explaining how forced sex, essentially rape, was encouraged in Ancient times. In Cretan society it was customary for male lovers to rape and kidnap their boy-lovers. The way that Lestat drains Louis’s blood resembles a rape because the act is intrusive and demonstrates the power he has over Louis. Even the prominent drum beat sounds of the two vampires’ hearts beating in unison seems very intimate and romantic. It is also interesting how the reader is told that Lestat’s favorite food is a fresh young girl but the “triumphant kill for Lestat was a young man.” Here, is Rice pointing out his blood-sucking preference for a reason? The vampire is allowed great freedom with who he wants to drain. The vampire has the liberty to sink his teeth into a diverse range of people (even animal) regardless of their race, class, age and biological sex! So is Vampirism a metaphor for Bisexuality? Is Vampirism a metaphor for the Sexual Revolution? Hmmm. Oh and one can not forget the double layered conversation between Louis and Lestat, in which Louis asks to let him stay in the closet for sleeping purposes. Yeah, this was very clever, especially when Lestat laughs and asks, “Don’t you know what you are?” So, was this conversation of sleeping in the closet just meant to show that Louis is struggling with accepting his role as vampire? Are Lestat and Louis more like the rugged cowboys from "Brokeback Mountain" or more like Oscar and Felix from "The Odd Couple"?...You decide!
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Vampire Double D’s (Desire and Death)
Just as in some of the other readings we have had, the characters in Interview With The Vampire all face internal desires that lead to death (not necessarily their own death though). The desire that they have is for blood, not specifically be for Eros, but it certainly appears that they are able to achieve love and ecstasy through their ability to kill. And of course, it appears that what they desire is rooted in what they lack.
Lestat is a prime example. He sought after Louis to fulfill his desire for a life of wealth and fortune, something he lacked in both his life and afterlife (except for what he was able to steal). Lestat was able to charm Louis into accepting his offer to become a vampire through his charm, physical beauty and an air of excitement. He offered Louis a “life” of death, precisely at the time in Louis’ life when he was welcoming death due to the pain and guilt he felt after the loss of his brother. They were able to fulfill each other’s needs, and therefore became partners for “life.”
The physical way in which Louis was converted into a vampire certainly is reminiscent of the Symposium. Lestat “laid” himself down next to Louis, their bodies touching one another creating an air of ecstasy between the two. But it wasn’t love that existed between them, it was the excitement of death that they both shared and found it one another. And the finale is when they drink each other’s blood. (That’s one way to swap fluids!)
And once converted, death itself becomes the epitome of happiness for the vampires. With each night, their thirst for blood results in a loss life, but killing is still the only thing that is able to quench their desire. Lestat needs specific qualities among his victims in order to be content, a young female beauty, an aristocratic male, etc., again people with qualities that he lacks. Louis, on the other hand, begins to value life in his “death” and prefers not to kill humans right away, desiring to preserve that what he now no longer possesses.
In the end, though, physical excitement and the thrill that killing gives the vampires, even Louis, prevails and each night is filled to the brim with desire…climaxing in death.
Lestat is a prime example. He sought after Louis to fulfill his desire for a life of wealth and fortune, something he lacked in both his life and afterlife (except for what he was able to steal). Lestat was able to charm Louis into accepting his offer to become a vampire through his charm, physical beauty and an air of excitement. He offered Louis a “life” of death, precisely at the time in Louis’ life when he was welcoming death due to the pain and guilt he felt after the loss of his brother. They were able to fulfill each other’s needs, and therefore became partners for “life.”
The physical way in which Louis was converted into a vampire certainly is reminiscent of the Symposium. Lestat “laid” himself down next to Louis, their bodies touching one another creating an air of ecstasy between the two. But it wasn’t love that existed between them, it was the excitement of death that they both shared and found it one another. And the finale is when they drink each other’s blood. (That’s one way to swap fluids!)
And once converted, death itself becomes the epitome of happiness for the vampires. With each night, their thirst for blood results in a loss life, but killing is still the only thing that is able to quench their desire. Lestat needs specific qualities among his victims in order to be content, a young female beauty, an aristocratic male, etc., again people with qualities that he lacks. Louis, on the other hand, begins to value life in his “death” and prefers not to kill humans right away, desiring to preserve that what he now no longer possesses.
In the end, though, physical excitement and the thrill that killing gives the vampires, even Louis, prevails and each night is filled to the brim with desire…climaxing in death.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Eros the Loony Tune
Remember the Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons from years ago?
It didn't require the analysis of a child's mind to gender identify the coyote as masculine, what with his eternal tampering with ACME gadgetry--metaphorical of a stereotypical garage-rat male tinkerer--to capture and, we imagined, devour the sonically-gifted desert bird.
And the Roadrunner's gendered identity? Perhaps it's just me, but as a child I'd always see the the Roadrunner as the feminine half of the deal. Long legs, feathery plumage reminiscent of a feather stuck in a woman's hat or maybe an exaggeration of a woman's haute couture hairdo--and, ah yes, the fact of the coyote's endless and determined chase after her, to devour her, consume her.
Something erotic here?
If "eros is lack," as Anne Carson says in Eros the Bittersweet, yes, there is; the coyote is forever lacking in his capturing the Roadrunner.
Until, that is, the fateful episode where Wile E. finally does manage the impossible and captures the bird. Maybe you remember this. And if you do, what does the coyote do? Mute, ears downcast, appearing disappointed, he simply reveals a sign with the words: (paraphrase) WELL, I'VE FINALLY CAUGHT HIM. NOW WHAT DO I DO?
(Yes, I know, the sign reads "HIM," but I still see the Roadrunner as a female image, for the sake of this argument, anyway, so I'll just go against the gender intentions of Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, and Warner Brothers in general--not to mention foregoing any homosexual readings of the Loony Tunes canon.)
Carson, interpreting the Greek poets, writes "Who ever desires what is not gone? No one." For Wile E. Coyote, this is truth; the Roadrunner is no longer gone from him, and the coyote experiences the "[impossibility] for him to have what he wants if, as soon as it"--the Roadrunner--"is had, it is no longer wanting." All the coyote's desires of devouring, consuming the Roadrunner, upon capturing the bird, disappear down a Dickinsonian drain, where we might expect the coyote to break his silence and recite Emily D.'s "I Had Been Hungry":
So I found
that hunger was a way
of persons outside windows
that entering takes away.
Wile E. Coyote "had been hungry," too. Then he got what he wanted; he found himself no longer "outside windows." Eros is lack.
(A cartoon coyote reciting Dickinson as he wields his NOW WHAT DO I DO? sign? There's a project for an enterprising YouTuber!)
I'll here bring up the film Zodiac. I saw it the other day--no, I'm not crazy for serial-killer flicks, I just find Fincher's work interesting, if often uneven. Seeing it, with Carson's Eros in my head, I couldn't help seeing also the eros--where "love and hate converge"--of the police chase, the inherent love/hate duality of the chase, its glukupikron, its "sweetbitter"-ness--the love of the chase, the enmity for the reason of the chase.
This is something we can easily superimpose over Wile E. Coyote, can't we?
Carson: "A space must be maintained or desire ends."
Wile E. found this out.
And the police did, too--the desire, the "space" separating what is known and what is not, to know the killer's identity is eternal.
Eternal enough to make a film from this desire.
If only they'd run a Roadrunner cartoon before it.
It didn't require the analysis of a child's mind to gender identify the coyote as masculine, what with his eternal tampering with ACME gadgetry--metaphorical of a stereotypical garage-rat male tinkerer--to capture and, we imagined, devour the sonically-gifted desert bird.
And the Roadrunner's gendered identity? Perhaps it's just me, but as a child I'd always see the the Roadrunner as the feminine half of the deal. Long legs, feathery plumage reminiscent of a feather stuck in a woman's hat or maybe an exaggeration of a woman's haute couture hairdo--and, ah yes, the fact of the coyote's endless and determined chase after her, to devour her, consume her.
Something erotic here?
If "eros is lack," as Anne Carson says in Eros the Bittersweet, yes, there is; the coyote is forever lacking in his capturing the Roadrunner.
Until, that is, the fateful episode where Wile E. finally does manage the impossible and captures the bird. Maybe you remember this. And if you do, what does the coyote do? Mute, ears downcast, appearing disappointed, he simply reveals a sign with the words: (paraphrase) WELL, I'VE FINALLY CAUGHT HIM. NOW WHAT DO I DO?
(Yes, I know, the sign reads "HIM," but I still see the Roadrunner as a female image, for the sake of this argument, anyway, so I'll just go against the gender intentions of Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, and Warner Brothers in general--not to mention foregoing any homosexual readings of the Loony Tunes canon.)
Carson, interpreting the Greek poets, writes "Who ever desires what is not gone? No one." For Wile E. Coyote, this is truth; the Roadrunner is no longer gone from him, and the coyote experiences the "[impossibility] for him to have what he wants if, as soon as it"--the Roadrunner--"is had, it is no longer wanting." All the coyote's desires of devouring, consuming the Roadrunner, upon capturing the bird, disappear down a Dickinsonian drain, where we might expect the coyote to break his silence and recite Emily D.'s "I Had Been Hungry":
So I found
that hunger was a way
of persons outside windows
that entering takes away.
Wile E. Coyote "had been hungry," too. Then he got what he wanted; he found himself no longer "outside windows." Eros is lack.
(A cartoon coyote reciting Dickinson as he wields his NOW WHAT DO I DO? sign? There's a project for an enterprising YouTuber!)
I'll here bring up the film Zodiac. I saw it the other day--no, I'm not crazy for serial-killer flicks, I just find Fincher's work interesting, if often uneven. Seeing it, with Carson's Eros in my head, I couldn't help seeing also the eros--where "love and hate converge"--of the police chase, the inherent love/hate duality of the chase, its glukupikron, its "sweetbitter"-ness--the love of the chase, the enmity for the reason of the chase.
This is something we can easily superimpose over Wile E. Coyote, can't we?
Carson: "A space must be maintained or desire ends."
Wile E. found this out.
And the police did, too--the desire, the "space" separating what is known and what is not, to know the killer's identity is eternal.
Eternal enough to make a film from this desire.
If only they'd run a Roadrunner cartoon before it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)