This ain't no review.
This ain't no rating.
This is just musin' around.
Alright, I went to see the film The Lives of Others not long ago--in original German, Das Leben der Anderen, of interest for "anderen," or "others," and I couldn't help thinking of Cruise's Anderton character in Minority Report, Anderton translating on German screens as "Otherton," and referring to his future "other" committing a crime that isn't allowed to happen; hey, Spielberg's got German blood, but I don't know about Phil Dick--and the film does an excellent job of recreating the look and feel of Communist bloc East Germany; the country is given an empty warehouse aesthetic. Bland exteriors and bland interiors prevail, floor-to-ceiling absence of decor, wall-to-wall lack of design. Difficult, I thought, to imagine a happy place like the former GDR looking any other way.
And what does this to do with anything gender-related, you ask?
Screen-bleed. I could see the film's warehouse aesthetic bleeding into the darkened auditorium where I sat. Cinemas aren't the once-heralded movie-palaces of yore--that stopped long ago. Cinemas these days aren't far from the warehouse aesthetic of yesterday's East Germany. Yeah, plush carpeting and stadium seating up the luxury ante a little, but, as a whole, a current movie theatre is a warehouse with lights playing tricks against one wall.
And the gender thing?
Such modern cinemas are genderless. I've seen black-and-white photos of movie-palaces long gone, back when MGM and Paramount had strings of theatres and could dump hefty industry revenues into the look, into the architectural and interior design of the venues flickering their circulated spectacles--Roman columns and heavy tasselled drapes, elaborate balconies and flying buttresses, hell, maybe even a stone gargoyle or two. And such interiors were gendered.
Amped imaginations, minds geared for impending spectacle and the hyperstimulus the moving image can foment, tend to see charged images in things. Interiors can be eroticized.
Imagine a vintage poster ad campaign for eroticized cinema interiors:
SEE THE TOWERING PHALLUS OF DORIC COLUMNS LOOMING HIGH!
SEE THE SHAPELY LEGS OF THE BALUSTRADE ENCIRCLING THE BALCONY!!
SEE THE SHIFTING SCARLET DRAPES LIKE THE FOLDS OF A WOMAN"S DRESS!!!
And these days, warehouses.
A de-eroticizing of interior cinema-space design. A "de-genderizing." Maybe it's got something to do--accch! a LOT to do--with what Laura Mulvey writes about the cinema's scopophilic tendencies, the "pleasure in looking" the cinema engenders with its "playing on [our] voyeuristic fantasy" (170). Can't have super-charged, super-eroticized patrons filing out of the darkness, can we? Products of voyeurism coupled with erotic interiors? Far-fetched, I know. Probably just the laziness in building standards. Ya never know, though.
I don't know. Every film I've ever seen I saw in a warehouse. In fact, the warehouse I saw The Lives of Others in is the same warehouse chain I saw Fight Club in years ago.
And so a word about Fight Club.
In the film, we hear Tyler's "As I See the World" speech. This is better elaborated in the book, wherein Tyler wants to "blast the world free of history," a world where "You'll hunt elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center, and dig clams next to the skeleton of the Space Needle [and] paint the skyscrapers with huge totem faces and goblin tikis" (124) and "you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower" (125).
Ah, Project Mayhem. To my mind, it seems like Project Mayhem has a specifically gendered agenda--to return the world to a state of fertility. Fertility, traditionally a female aspect, here commandeered by a man who, in the film, says "we're a generation of men raised by women" and "perhaps another woman isn't the answer."
Mass gender re-orientation?
Fertile not in the body, so fertile in the mind.
And a fertile mind it is--so fertile it whipped up another personality.
Just a thought.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Gayze
Another week, another book or film, another story involving homosexuality. Throughout the semester, the theme has obviously been centered around homosexuality. Once again, this theme is present in Fight Club. In some of the novels/films we've covered, there is no question that it it present. Such as Fight Club and Maurice. Other times, the film or novel only hints us to thinking there might be some kind of other action going on. Such examples would be Interview With the Vampire, Louis and Lestat, and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, between Brick and Skipper. Nevertheless, the idea is there.
Speaking of ideas... Can we also say that Laura Mulvey's idea of the "gaze" is also present in some of the works we've covered? I think so.. In the films Maurice and Interview With the Vampire, we were shown nude scenes in order to capture our "gaze" and attention. In the film Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, we are forced to "gaze" thanks to the director's use of close-ups. The audience is shown several scenes where Maggie is obviously displayed for visual pleasure. The use of close-ups is also present in the novel Fight Club. "Tyler spliced a penis into everything after that. Usually, close-ups, or a Grand Canyon vagina with an echo, four stories tall and..." I'm looking forward to see in what direction is Fight club is going to lead us!
Speaking of ideas... Can we also say that Laura Mulvey's idea of the "gaze" is also present in some of the works we've covered? I think so.. In the films Maurice and Interview With the Vampire, we were shown nude scenes in order to capture our "gaze" and attention. In the film Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, we are forced to "gaze" thanks to the director's use of close-ups. The audience is shown several scenes where Maggie is obviously displayed for visual pleasure. The use of close-ups is also present in the novel Fight Club. "Tyler spliced a penis into everything after that. Usually, close-ups, or a Grand Canyon vagina with an echo, four stories tall and..." I'm looking forward to see in what direction is Fight club is going to lead us!
Durden's Slamposium
I think it's a little too easy to do a homoerotic reading of Fight Club. A little too easy, and a rather misleading.
Yeah, I know, early on in the book, page 14, the nameless protagonist (and we'll come back to this nameless thing) says, "We have sort of a triangle thing going here. I want Tyler. Tyler wants Marla. Marla wants me." "I want Tyler"--you could base an entire homoerotic argument around those three words, if you wanted. Oh, and you could base another argument around the "triangle thing" idea, too--relate it to what Anne Carson says about triangulated jealous relationships in Eros the Bittersweet. In "The Ruse," Carson writes "Desire moves. Eros is a verb." "Want" moves in the Fight Club triangle, yes, yes. I won't delve into this, though. Not here. Not now.
No, in Fight Club, eros is self-eros. Narcissism--love for one's self, one's image. I hope I don't spoil anything for anyone who's unfamiliar with the book or the film, but Tyler Durden and the nameless protagonist are two minds inhabiting the same body. A split mind. Ah, but this makes things a bit more difficult. Is it really narcissism?
Can there be narcissism between ego and ego ideal? An ego ideal is what Durden represents. Durden is "funny and charming and forceful and independent, and men look up to him and expect him to change their world. Tyler is capable and free, and I [Mr. Nameless Protagonist] am not" (174). An ego ideal. Methinks the case so.
(And, going into Mulvey territory, casting Brad Pitt as Durden in the film adaptation reinforces ego ideal status for male spectators to establish "recognition/misrecognition" with, specifically when contrasted against the casting of the rather rodentlike Edward Norton in the nameless insurance claims role)
Durden has the knowledge, too--the knowledge to make napalm and soap and exploding computer monitors. Durden has the knowledge and the ideas. Durden is the teacher, too. Durden leaps from the pages of Plato's Symposium, embodying (as much as a one half of a split mind can embody) one half of the student/teacher relationship the ancient philosophers pondered.
(And, if you wanted to see a genuine homoerotic undercurrent in Fight Club, don't Durden and the nameless protagonist reflect a split mind variant of Halperin's "superordinate/subordinate" relationship?)
Narcissism for a self-image projection brought around through a split mind? Alright, this is trickier to sum up than I'd thought. I've got an idea linking this self-image projection idea to Debord's 'The Commodity as Spectacle," but it's in the early phases right now. Maybe in the following blog.
Before I go, there's the nameless thing I said I'd come back to
It involves everybody's friend, Lacan.
"I asked Tyler what he'd been fighting."
"Tyler said, his father."
"Maybe we didn't need a father to complete ourselves." (53-4)
Ah, here we go, the name-of-the-father. It runs all through Fight Club.
A nameless protagonist? Is his namelessness a result of his father's indifference toward him? Does his father's indifference negate the idea of a name? Is namelessness another form of lack?
Durden springs from the nameless protagonist's mind. A radical father? Durden teaches anarchy, instructs pranks.
And Durden wants to "blast the world free of history" (124), and usher in "the complete and right-away destruction of civilization" (125). Durden wants to break down everything given a name by the father. Radical fatherhood--you don't need a father to complete yourself.
And perhaps this breaking down and destroying everything given a name by the father is the central theme of Fight Club. After a fight, smashed noses and cracked jawbones and ruptured lips render the name-of-the-father moot. Misshapen and rearranged, you are far from the thing given a name by the father, far from something recognizable by the father. Rebirth.
Yeah, I know, early on in the book, page 14, the nameless protagonist (and we'll come back to this nameless thing) says, "We have sort of a triangle thing going here. I want Tyler. Tyler wants Marla. Marla wants me." "I want Tyler"--you could base an entire homoerotic argument around those three words, if you wanted. Oh, and you could base another argument around the "triangle thing" idea, too--relate it to what Anne Carson says about triangulated jealous relationships in Eros the Bittersweet. In "The Ruse," Carson writes "Desire moves. Eros is a verb." "Want" moves in the Fight Club triangle, yes, yes. I won't delve into this, though. Not here. Not now.
No, in Fight Club, eros is self-eros. Narcissism--love for one's self, one's image. I hope I don't spoil anything for anyone who's unfamiliar with the book or the film, but Tyler Durden and the nameless protagonist are two minds inhabiting the same body. A split mind. Ah, but this makes things a bit more difficult. Is it really narcissism?
Can there be narcissism between ego and ego ideal? An ego ideal is what Durden represents. Durden is "funny and charming and forceful and independent, and men look up to him and expect him to change their world. Tyler is capable and free, and I [Mr. Nameless Protagonist] am not" (174). An ego ideal. Methinks the case so.
(And, going into Mulvey territory, casting Brad Pitt as Durden in the film adaptation reinforces ego ideal status for male spectators to establish "recognition/misrecognition" with, specifically when contrasted against the casting of the rather rodentlike Edward Norton in the nameless insurance claims role)
Durden has the knowledge, too--the knowledge to make napalm and soap and exploding computer monitors. Durden has the knowledge and the ideas. Durden is the teacher, too. Durden leaps from the pages of Plato's Symposium, embodying (as much as a one half of a split mind can embody) one half of the student/teacher relationship the ancient philosophers pondered.
(And, if you wanted to see a genuine homoerotic undercurrent in Fight Club, don't Durden and the nameless protagonist reflect a split mind variant of Halperin's "superordinate/subordinate" relationship?)
Narcissism for a self-image projection brought around through a split mind? Alright, this is trickier to sum up than I'd thought. I've got an idea linking this self-image projection idea to Debord's 'The Commodity as Spectacle," but it's in the early phases right now. Maybe in the following blog.
Before I go, there's the nameless thing I said I'd come back to
It involves everybody's friend, Lacan.
"I asked Tyler what he'd been fighting."
"Tyler said, his father."
"Maybe we didn't need a father to complete ourselves." (53-4)
Ah, here we go, the name-of-the-father. It runs all through Fight Club.
A nameless protagonist? Is his namelessness a result of his father's indifference toward him? Does his father's indifference negate the idea of a name? Is namelessness another form of lack?
Durden springs from the nameless protagonist's mind. A radical father? Durden teaches anarchy, instructs pranks.
And Durden wants to "blast the world free of history" (124), and usher in "the complete and right-away destruction of civilization" (125). Durden wants to break down everything given a name by the father. Radical fatherhood--you don't need a father to complete yourself.
And perhaps this breaking down and destroying everything given a name by the father is the central theme of Fight Club. After a fight, smashed noses and cracked jawbones and ruptured lips render the name-of-the-father moot. Misshapen and rearranged, you are far from the thing given a name by the father, far from something recognizable by the father. Rebirth.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Division of Power Within Gender
This book, Fight Club, has given me a new look at the novels and films that have been assigned. The thing that has been stressed is gender and it's correlation to all the characters. One thing I have now noticed is that within each gender, male or female, there is active/ passive within each sex. With Fight Club, Tyler is the active male while No Name Protagonist is the passive. Same goes with Interview With TheVampire; Lastat is the active and Louis is the passive. With The Girl Who Was Plugged In, P. Burk again the active and Delphi here the passive. What it all boils down to is PROPERTY/OWNERSHIP. It seems that whomever has more knowledge (or convinces the other this is so), is the one who controls the other. This control gives them a feeling of ownership over the other, who they treat as property. The passive feels the lack of knowledge makes them inferior, and they accept their role as property. Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, gives the impression that Brick is passive, yet he welds control over Big Daddy, Gooper, (and Maggie as well). Showing no desire for the plantation or it's destiny, he has the control to do what he wants regardless of anyone else. Woo Hoo, strong Big Daddy succumbs in the end to show the love Brick claims Big Daddy doesn't or never did have for anyone. Gooper continuously is trying to show his great concern he has for the welfare of the entire situation (Big Daddy and the future of the homestead) but he just looks like a fool in comparison to Brick. So it's this . . . Brick comes across as the passive one but it isn't so; he holds the knowledge that is the most important! This also gives him the property and ownership of all the males around him, he has them in his hot gorgeous hands.
One last thing, power/control/ownership/property can change hands rather quickly. Think about it . . .
One last thing, power/control/ownership/property can change hands rather quickly. Think about it . . .
Saturday, March 24, 2007
seperation or lack of finding the edge
it occurs to me that perhaps there is some validity to the mythology of Zues chopping selfs in half. If one looks at the main characters in Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire. Lestat needs his other self. Louis other limbs may be more in the line of knowledge; answers none can produce. Claudia a mother, an arm to enfold her, and a body that will not betray her and wrap itself about her as taut as woven shroud. She was rather fond of the finer things in life and a shroud of linen and cotton certainly would not behoove her. And this space this lack of, the distance between need and want. These characters need and believe it to be want. Sex is food.
Futhermore, those as food is there a distance where euphoria enters as desire and the distance between living and a high so great simply decides it is the other half lacking. The euphoria an opiate so powerful that a young girl terrified hears no pain as the entry point as how many fear a painful death. Moreover, how many fear more a painful life as Armond when Louis finds the distance between them to be greater than the desire to cross it.
Of all the characters , Claudia is surely the one to be pitied, the outcast among outcasts. Yet, they had their versin of untouchables in their caste system the mumbling, noncognizant distant relatives. How easy it is to forget, to create a victim, when one has been victimized themself and
how luxurious to have others to generate stored, simmering for centuries.
Finally, it imortality appears to have its drawbacks, just survivng, rather like a junkie itcing for a fix eliminates qualities such as compassion, love and trust. If there is a fountain of youth I believe I would settle for a local watering hole.
Futhermore, those as food is there a distance where euphoria enters as desire and the distance between living and a high so great simply decides it is the other half lacking. The euphoria an opiate so powerful that a young girl terrified hears no pain as the entry point as how many fear a painful death. Moreover, how many fear more a painful life as Armond when Louis finds the distance between them to be greater than the desire to cross it.
Of all the characters , Claudia is surely the one to be pitied, the outcast among outcasts. Yet, they had their versin of untouchables in their caste system the mumbling, noncognizant distant relatives. How easy it is to forget, to create a victim, when one has been victimized themself and
how luxurious to have others to generate stored, simmering for centuries.
Finally, it imortality appears to have its drawbacks, just survivng, rather like a junkie itcing for a fix eliminates qualities such as compassion, love and trust. If there is a fountain of youth I believe I would settle for a local watering hole.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Bittersweet Eternity
Well I have a lot to say about Anne Rice's, Interview with the Vampire...I can't believe I just now saw the movie and read the book, the story is so amazing! I could not get my head out of the book first of all and the movie was addicitve too, I've now watched it 3 times since I rented it. It might just have been young Brad Pitt to whom I was addicted, he's so beautiful even when he looks dead. I's probably lend him my neck if he were ever thirsty, haha. Anyway though so I've been thinking the last week about the whole concept of Bittersweet and so much in life is just that, bittersweet. I especially focused in on the bittersweet while watching and reading IWTV because so much in the story is bitter and sweet all in one. The fact that Louis and Lestat are "companions" yet Louis hates Lestat and Lestat simply uses Louis is bittersweet. Their relationship is on a bases of needing one another, not loving one another. Although Louis does not like Lestat he feels as though he needs him therefore he stays with him, it's a bittersweet realtionship. It is also truly bittersweet that Luois and Lestat are immortal as vampires because you would think that would be like the ultimate thing, to be able to live forever! But why would you want to live forever, miserable and alone? Everyone you love eventually dies and every 50 years you don't even know your own world anymore.
The book vs movie and homosexuality
I enjoyed the movie over the book a great deal. While I was reading the book, I always found myself becoming bored with the style of it and the way it was written. Sure, I liked the parts when Louis was telling his story of how he became a vampire and the things he did, but I didn't enjoy the parts when the book got away from the story and more towards the interview. I guess thats the way to put it. Sometimes Louis would be telling his story and then something would trigger the boy to interupt him. Asking him questions and such, which then Louis expanded on, creating another story that I felt wasn't required. I guess I found myself wanting to get back to the origianl story of it all instead of hearing about all the chit chat between Louis and the boy. So i liked the overall story, just not all the stuff inbetween the story. Just my opinion.
The book/film brought up what I think is a problem in homosexual relationships today. The question comes up: Is it ok for a couple in a homsexual relationship to adopt? This becomes a a problem for Lestat and Louis when they have Claudia. Claudia sees a woman in the distance who she looks up to and desires and eventually wants her for her own. She brings her half dead to Louis requesting him to turn her into a vampire because she needs her. In these relationships, the child is left missing out on either a father or motherly figure in their lives. Is this fair to the child?
The book/film brought up what I think is a problem in homosexual relationships today. The question comes up: Is it ok for a couple in a homsexual relationship to adopt? This becomes a a problem for Lestat and Louis when they have Claudia. Claudia sees a woman in the distance who she looks up to and desires and eventually wants her for her own. She brings her half dead to Louis requesting him to turn her into a vampire because she needs her. In these relationships, the child is left missing out on either a father or motherly figure in their lives. Is this fair to the child?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)