What a sad tragic story this is for all the characters. I felt empathetic for each of them through out the story, the dying father, oblivious mother, forgotten son, frustrated Maggie, drunken son, dead Skipper, and desperate mother of six. This story also made me think of Maurice and how Clive struggled with homosexuality for himself and his friend Maurice. I felt that same conflict in Cat on the Hot Tin Roof.
There were several interesting lines from this story that also brought me back to some of our other readings. On page 40 Margaret “Maggie” called Brick “superior creature!-you godlike being!” This reminded me of our discussions of Eros and some of the arguments brought forth by the attendants of the Symposium, of how Eros was the better of all the gods so beautiful and perfect. Almost untouchable if you would like to say and this is how Brick made me feel, like he was untouchable. He was numb to human feeling.
Skipper was a very interesting part of the story. Even though he is not physically present, he presences is felt through out the story. Skipper reminded me of Maurice. He was a little more honest about his feelings and a little more willing to pursue them. This struggle between characters over the true nature of their “friendship” is what seems to torment Brick. I really wonder what Bricks true feelings about Skipper were. Did he feel more romantic feelings for Skipper? Is he angry because he feels like Skipper was friends with him under false pretenses? Or is he bitter that everyone is taking their friendship and trying to classify it as something other than what it was just because it didn’t fit the typical male friendship? Part of me thinks it is more of the latter that is eating at Brick. I don’t think Brick was necessary in love in a sexual way with Skipper, because he does confuse that Maggie was great in bed he in fact says the greatest. But it also seemed that even though he liked Maggie sexually, he gave his love more to Skipper and their friendship.
It’s a tough call to explain the relationship between Skipper and Brick. It doesn’t help that we can hear Skippers side of the story and Brick would never really come clean with the whole story. I was at the edge of my seat waiting for him to confess everything, the truth, when he was talking with his dad, but I didn’t get the satisfaction. I still feel like he is holding something back. If only the dead could talk.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Silver-Screen Sexism?!?!
Isn’t it strange, You think you are innocently chowing down on butter popcorn and taking pleasure in watching a flick unfold on the silver screen, but in reality you are being told how to view yourself and others!? According to Mulvey, Hollywood movies are just an extension of patriarchy in which female characters appear flat and unimportant. Although this may be the case in some films, I don’t believe it is a constant that always applies.Yes, those shots she speaks of in which close-ups of women’s faces and legs are splashed across the screen do border on sexual objectification.
However, look at all the films made today that focus on women who are empowering, strong, and more than just one-dimensional.( Recently Jennifer Connelly played a headstrong journalist in Blood Diamond, a film which depicted the diamond infused civil wars that rocked Sierra Leone in the 90’s). Of course there are still the high school-teen movies that dish out nothing put cheesy jokes and inappropriately clock-stopping long shots of female curves. You know the scenes: in which the hot chick is prancing down the hall in slow-motion, some unknown wind source is blowing delicately through her mane of perfection, all while some corny music plays in the background. Even though these phony scenes project an unnatural image of beauty to teens, I feel as though these vignettes of unreal life have become a big joke and now are only done to make a mockery of the film itself. It is sort of like the film is saying to the viewer, “Yeah, here we have inserted the typical, expected scene in which a girl is praised for her body, not brains…deal with it…savor it…you knew it was coming!”
While this does bother me to a certain extent, I feel the best way to deal with it all is to have a sense of humor. Ironically today there are girls/women lining up to be admired simply for their beauty and/or sexuality. Look at Girls Gone Wild, Top Model, and any pseudo reality show! Okay, so I know these two examples I mentioned differ in regards to their nature, but when you get down to it, aren't they both about women making themselves a commodity? ! Now, is it years and years of patriarchy and sexist media that has pushed these women to want to willingly behave in such a way ? You decide.
After watching Spielberg’s “Minority Report” and Reading Mulvey I see a connection when it comes to females being the “victim” in need of a “rescue” in films. The female precog, the most talented/intelligent of the three, needs help from Cruise’s character. Although she is responsible for almost controlling the fate of Cruise’s future, she is still weak, at risk of dying, and fits right into the “damsel in distress” role. It was refreshing to see that she was not sexualized and played up with make-up for the role, but her helplessness and vulnerability were still there in full force. I guess some may say that my argument lacks validity because the other 2 male precogs were just as pathetic. Yes, this is true. But, I wonder why did she have to be the one "couch-jumping Tom" was dragging around like an old dust mop to help him not commit a murder. Is it positive or negative that she was the one that held the most power of the 3? I mean essentially hasn’t he used and abused her all these years through Precrime and now isn’t he just using her again so his ass will be saved? Hmmm, was this movie really about gender-power struggles…male/female relationships…equality (or lack of)…After all?
However, look at all the films made today that focus on women who are empowering, strong, and more than just one-dimensional.( Recently Jennifer Connelly played a headstrong journalist in Blood Diamond, a film which depicted the diamond infused civil wars that rocked Sierra Leone in the 90’s). Of course there are still the high school-teen movies that dish out nothing put cheesy jokes and inappropriately clock-stopping long shots of female curves. You know the scenes: in which the hot chick is prancing down the hall in slow-motion, some unknown wind source is blowing delicately through her mane of perfection, all while some corny music plays in the background. Even though these phony scenes project an unnatural image of beauty to teens, I feel as though these vignettes of unreal life have become a big joke and now are only done to make a mockery of the film itself. It is sort of like the film is saying to the viewer, “Yeah, here we have inserted the typical, expected scene in which a girl is praised for her body, not brains…deal with it…savor it…you knew it was coming!”
While this does bother me to a certain extent, I feel the best way to deal with it all is to have a sense of humor. Ironically today there are girls/women lining up to be admired simply for their beauty and/or sexuality. Look at Girls Gone Wild, Top Model, and any pseudo reality show! Okay, so I know these two examples I mentioned differ in regards to their nature, but when you get down to it, aren't they both about women making themselves a commodity? ! Now, is it years and years of patriarchy and sexist media that has pushed these women to want to willingly behave in such a way ? You decide.
After watching Spielberg’s “Minority Report” and Reading Mulvey I see a connection when it comes to females being the “victim” in need of a “rescue” in films. The female precog, the most talented/intelligent of the three, needs help from Cruise’s character. Although she is responsible for almost controlling the fate of Cruise’s future, she is still weak, at risk of dying, and fits right into the “damsel in distress” role. It was refreshing to see that she was not sexualized and played up with make-up for the role, but her helplessness and vulnerability were still there in full force. I guess some may say that my argument lacks validity because the other 2 male precogs were just as pathetic. Yes, this is true. But, I wonder why did she have to be the one "couch-jumping Tom" was dragging around like an old dust mop to help him not commit a murder. Is it positive or negative that she was the one that held the most power of the 3? I mean essentially hasn’t he used and abused her all these years through Precrime and now isn’t he just using her again so his ass will be saved? Hmmm, was this movie really about gender-power struggles…male/female relationships…equality (or lack of)…After all?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Majority of the Minority Report
Steven Spielberg's, Minority Report is such an amazingly creative movie. Although it was a book before a movie I truly believe only Steven Spielberg could have brought it to life as he did. The movie made me think of Tiptree's, The Girl Who Was Plugged In in a way because in a sense, Agatha was "plugged in" cognitively to the rest of the world. Although it wasn't a choice as it was for the girl who was plugged in. I loved how of all three pre-cogs, they made the female, Agatha the most intuitive, intelligent and important one. It was fun to watch Tom Cruise as well in the days before he was a total freak. It's hard to fathom what exactly the future is going to be like, some of the aspects of the movie seem as though they may come true in the future but I'm not so sure if we will ever have cars like that. It would be cool though because it would really cut down on traffic. Anyway the majority of The Minority Report would be a really good idea, pre-crime and all however we will never have pre-cogs so maybe Spielberg could work with the government to compose a new idea on how to fight crime before it ever happens???
The Real Minority Report
Phillip K. Dick’s 1956 short story, Minority Report, and the 2002 Steven Spielberg film of the same name have few commonalities (aside from the name) but do exemplify the preoccupation of cinema with the objectification of the human form as described in Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. While Dick’s science fiction story explores the concepts of destiny, fate, multiple futures, and free will, the film uses the basic concepts as a showcase for the latest special effects, product placements (the Lexus factory), and of course objectifying the human body.
The film made over $300 million at the box office. The short story was virtually unknown until the film came out. Why did the film do so well? To summarize Mulvey—SEX SELLS. Take for instance the precog, Agatha, from the film. She is lithe and has a nubile look. All the better for pleasurable looking; not too threatening to the female viewer, but appealing to the voyeuristic male tendency to objectify the female form. Throw in a couple having sex as the camera follows the “spiders” searching for Anderton (hmm, missed that in the story) and Tom Cruise for the guys to project their persona into, and what do you get? BOX OFFICE SMASH!
This is why I just do not like the movies. Excuse me, films. The film took a science fiction story with a great concept and an okay plot and regurgitated it into a couple hours of crap that would appeal to most moviegoers: mystery, suspense, action, love story, crime drama, a lost child, et cetera. Stories allow us to form mental images of scenes, persons, and things, based on our own imagination and the quality of the writing. Mulvey gives me a sense that I am not alone in my distaste for the objectification of the human body not just in film, but television and print as well.
Mulvey hits the mark with her essay. Dick’s short story is a descent read. Spielberg’s film is a waste. However, judging by the fact that the film sold a zillion copies on DVD, I guess my opinion is the real minority report.
PKD-Tease
Forgive the pun. Couldn't resist.
Anyway, it's more of a utopian tease, what Spielberg did to Philip K.'s Minority Report. Isn't it?
Retinal scans posted throughout the city--a technological ante-upping of Foucault's cries of 'inspection functions ceaselessly" and "the gaze is alert everywhere"--equates utopia, you ask?
(And what kind of scary government's in place to implement such a practice? Seems more dystopic, methinks.)
Don't forget what the scans do in department stores--identifying you, acknowledging you, tapping into your shopping trends, letting you know of recommendations: a technological ante-upping of logging on to amazon.com and seeing the greeting "Welcome, ____, we have recommendations for you."
For a society hopelessly wrapped up in the seemingly inescapable python's-hug of consumerism, yeah, alright, this might seem like some kind of a utopia. an Eden with a magnetic strip.
And this brings things to: IDENTITY.
What happens to identity in a society where identity no longer belongs to you, but to corporate interests? (A timely headscratcher, perhaps, what with radio-frequency ID chips embedded in your Barnes & Noble card and your dog's flea-and-tick collar. What? Me? Paranoid?)
Walk into a store--it knows what you want.
Walk into a restaurant--it knows what you might order.
Walk into a cineplex--it knows your film preferences.
Does an identity remain genuine after rounds and rounds of "identity-broadcasting," wherein the corporate bogeymen know you almost precognitively.
And this brings things to: THE PRECOGS.
Agatha and the two nameless males in the film--who, in Philip K.'s original story, are the "vegetable-like," "deformed and retarded" "Jerry,' "Mike," and "Donna," attached to "metal bands" and "bundles of wiring," a description worthy of "Delphi" Burke in Tiptree's tale--are each rendered physically genderless--shaved heads, identical dress--as they predict futures in a big serene, eerily-lit pool like watery Delphic oracles--ah, another potential link to "Delphi."
Rendered genderless, predicting the future, the mere appearance of the Precogs, I believe, predicts the future.
A future where identity and gender are simplified to the point where everyone, from a corporate angle, wants the same things.
A realist pic of the future, you ask?
Utopias are only as possible as their marketability.
'Tis no tease.
Anyway, it's more of a utopian tease, what Spielberg did to Philip K.'s Minority Report. Isn't it?
Retinal scans posted throughout the city--a technological ante-upping of Foucault's cries of 'inspection functions ceaselessly" and "the gaze is alert everywhere"--equates utopia, you ask?
(And what kind of scary government's in place to implement such a practice? Seems more dystopic, methinks.)
Don't forget what the scans do in department stores--identifying you, acknowledging you, tapping into your shopping trends, letting you know of recommendations: a technological ante-upping of logging on to amazon.com and seeing the greeting "Welcome, ____, we have recommendations for you."
For a society hopelessly wrapped up in the seemingly inescapable python's-hug of consumerism, yeah, alright, this might seem like some kind of a utopia. an Eden with a magnetic strip.
And this brings things to: IDENTITY.
What happens to identity in a society where identity no longer belongs to you, but to corporate interests? (A timely headscratcher, perhaps, what with radio-frequency ID chips embedded in your Barnes & Noble card and your dog's flea-and-tick collar. What? Me? Paranoid?)
Walk into a store--it knows what you want.
Walk into a restaurant--it knows what you might order.
Walk into a cineplex--it knows your film preferences.
Does an identity remain genuine after rounds and rounds of "identity-broadcasting," wherein the corporate bogeymen know you almost precognitively.
And this brings things to: THE PRECOGS.
Agatha and the two nameless males in the film--who, in Philip K.'s original story, are the "vegetable-like," "deformed and retarded" "Jerry,' "Mike," and "Donna," attached to "metal bands" and "bundles of wiring," a description worthy of "Delphi" Burke in Tiptree's tale--are each rendered physically genderless--shaved heads, identical dress--as they predict futures in a big serene, eerily-lit pool like watery Delphic oracles--ah, another potential link to "Delphi."
Rendered genderless, predicting the future, the mere appearance of the Precogs, I believe, predicts the future.
A future where identity and gender are simplified to the point where everyone, from a corporate angle, wants the same things.
A realist pic of the future, you ask?
Utopias are only as possible as their marketability.
'Tis no tease.
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Price of Disgust or Desire $5.00
Bid Daddy refers to the term mendacity, “as one of them five-dollar words that cheap politicians throw back and forth to one another.” It is also a five-dollar word that many of this semester’s characters have broken the bank with. First, Maurice and Clive, then the two Earnests, who could forget the girl plugged in, and now Brick and Maggie. The expense of five dollars? Is it an expense that you have found yourself indebted to? How many of us, like these characters, spent $5 to get what we wanted or to temporarily rid ourselves from disgust? Maggie spent her loot for the hopes of a child, an heir to the cotton fields of Big Daddy. Brick spent his on disgust- disgust for what his heart may desire and not being bold enough to experience. The girl plugged in, was more than happy to pay up for a new physicality- even if it was one of temporary virtuality. Maurice and Clive, reluctant in their spending, still paid up. So, who else? Me? You? How many of us? How many will there be? In reality, haven’t we all expensed five-dollars, here and there, to evade or achieve? For as Brick states: “Mendacity is a system that we live in.” It is a system that may or may not bring us to a duality, such described by Maggie in the last scene. For Maggie states to Brick: “Oh, you weak, beautiful people who give up with such grace. What you need is someone to take hold of you-gently, with love, and hand your life back to you, like something gold you let go of-and I can!” If you had the opportunity, would you take the gold; would you take your spent five-dollar bill back?
Bid Daddy refers to the term mendacity, “as one of them five-dollar words that cheap politicians throw back and forth to one another.” It is also a five-dollar word that many of this semester’s characters have broken the bank with. First, Maurice and Clive, then the two Earnests, who could forget the girl plugged in, and now Brick and Maggie. The expense of five dollars? Is it an expense that you have found yourself indebted to? How many of us, like these characters, spent $5 to get what we wanted or to temporarily rid ourselves from disgust? Maggie spent her loot for the hopes of a child, an heir to the cotton fields of Big Daddy. Brick spent his on disgust- disgust for what his heart may desire and not being bold enough to experience. The girl plugged in, was more than happy to pay up for a new physicality- even if it was one of temporary virtuality. Maurice and Clive, reluctant in their spending, still paid up. So, who else? Me? You? How many of us? How many will there be? In reality, haven’t we all expensed five-dollars, here and there, to evade or achieve? For as Brick states: “Mendacity is a system that we live in.” It is a system that may or may not bring us to a duality, such described by Maggie in the last scene. For Maggie states to Brick: “Oh, you weak, beautiful people who give up with such grace. What you need is someone to take hold of you-gently, with love, and hand your life back to you, like something gold you let go of-and I can!” If you had the opportunity, would you take the gold; would you take your spent five-dollar bill back?
Peer Pressure Sucks...Even in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
What a tangled web Brick is in, albeit not one that he weaved, but that his wife Maggie created for him. I’m still not quite sure myself whether or not Brick is actually homosexual or if it is just his friend Skipper, but either way, their relationship is obviously stronger than the bond that Brick has with his wife. He could possibly be similar to Clive in the fact that he wants to uphold a physical distance with Skipper due to social pressures, or perhaps he really does find homosexuality “dirty” as he refers to it. Either way, it is apparent that his wife is jealous and took it upon herself to mess things up for him and Skipper. Poor Skipper is so distraught over the realization that he is a homosexual, a truth forced upon him by Maggie, that he feels obligated to try to prove his manhood by sleeping with her. (I’m sure this is at her suggestion, demonstrating the influence of peer pressure on sexual orientation…and of course the power of persuasion that women possess!) What a mess!!
Still, the character of Brick raises some interesting questions about the pressures of sexual orientation on an individual. If he is a homosexual, than why would he rather deny it, reject and distance himself from Skipper, blame himself for his death, and commit to a life of guilt driven drinking, all as opposed to admitting that he loves his friend. Why would anyone torment himself in such a way just to avoid the truth? Perhaps the peer pressures in Brick’s society are too great for him to ignore. Brick openly admits that he doesn’t love his wife and that their relationship “never got any closer together than two people just get in bed,” yet he married her and continues to be with her, suggesting that he is merely following suit in his life to what is expected of him by society. He is obviously very easily influenced if this is the case, or powerless against the “big brother” of society.
Or perhaps social standards of the “family” are influencing his decisions. After all, his father is a high society, wealthy, hardworking man who has been married 40+ years, leaving huge footprints for Brick to follow in. In some ways he is following suit with the life his father leads; I’m sure it’s no coincidence that his father is unhappy in his marriage too. Just like Maurice, the pressures to uphold a position in society and in the family may be driving Brick to reject his current place in life. He blames his drunken state on “mendacity,” the lies upon which his life, and the lives of the ones around him are based. Still, following suit with social construction and instead of being honest with himself and his sexuality, he just abides by and conforms to the heterosexual life that is laid out for him. (It’s a good thing that it’s socially acceptable to drink!!)
Still, the character of Brick raises some interesting questions about the pressures of sexual orientation on an individual. If he is a homosexual, than why would he rather deny it, reject and distance himself from Skipper, blame himself for his death, and commit to a life of guilt driven drinking, all as opposed to admitting that he loves his friend. Why would anyone torment himself in such a way just to avoid the truth? Perhaps the peer pressures in Brick’s society are too great for him to ignore. Brick openly admits that he doesn’t love his wife and that their relationship “never got any closer together than two people just get in bed,” yet he married her and continues to be with her, suggesting that he is merely following suit in his life to what is expected of him by society. He is obviously very easily influenced if this is the case, or powerless against the “big brother” of society.
Or perhaps social standards of the “family” are influencing his decisions. After all, his father is a high society, wealthy, hardworking man who has been married 40+ years, leaving huge footprints for Brick to follow in. In some ways he is following suit with the life his father leads; I’m sure it’s no coincidence that his father is unhappy in his marriage too. Just like Maurice, the pressures to uphold a position in society and in the family may be driving Brick to reject his current place in life. He blames his drunken state on “mendacity,” the lies upon which his life, and the lives of the ones around him are based. Still, following suit with social construction and instead of being honest with himself and his sexuality, he just abides by and conforms to the heterosexual life that is laid out for him. (It’s a good thing that it’s socially acceptable to drink!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)