So this week, while reading Holder of the World (and writing an 18 page research paper) I was also reading Slaughterhouse – Five for FYS. It struck me how very similar they were at times, especially on the issue of time. If you haven’t read Slaughterhouse – Five I suggest you do so because it’s super good. Really, it’s quite genius. I won’t give away too much of the plot because I think you should all go read it for yourself but the story is about a man named Billy Pilgrim who has “come unstuck in time.” Basically he time travels (seemingly both at will and at random) back and forward through different times of his life.
Billy’s time travelling was what first struck me in comparison to Holder of the World. Obviously, Venn is working on a time machine in the novel, and while Billy’s time traveling is not done with the aide of a machine the Tralfamadorians (aliens Billy is convinced he was abducted by) say that all things (plants, animals, people, etc) are machines because we have no free will. So in that sense they are both time traveling by means of machine—one a man made machine, the other a man machine. The other part of the time traveling that was similar in both books was the jumping between present and past (and in Slaughterhouse – Five’s case the future as well). Holder of the World jumps between Beigh’s story and Hannah Easton Fitch Legge’s (haha) story and they become interconnected. In slaughterhouse - Five there is a quasi base story of Billy going to fight in World War II, and then it jumps around all over the place from his birth to his death to his wedding night, etc. I see this jumping between times technique as a very post-modern style of writing. There is a story within a story within a story and there are back stories and side stories and seemingly random and jumbled up stories. This is very unlike books from before post-modernism in which there was a story and you followed it from start to finish.
The concept of time is also examined in both books (both with time travel and with out). In Holder of the World Venn says Hannah married Gabriel Legge because it was her time to get married—a very determinist way to look at life. If Hannah got married because it was her time then this displays a belief that everything is predetermined and things happen when they do because that is when they were supposed to happen (determinism). In Slaughterhouse – Five the Tralfamadorians teach Billy that we are all machines and have no free will or ability to make decisions. They also show Billy that time is kind of a concept of the human mind and all time exists at once. So it’s kind of like you die, but you are still living in every other moment of your life. This is also in its own way determinism. Just as Venn looks at Hannah getting married as her ‘time’, Billy is living ‘times’ of his life—his time to go to war, his time to get married, his time to die. This even affects the way the tralfamadorians (and Billy) look at death. Any time someone dies in the novel (be it thousands of people, a horse or a glass of Champaign) the description of the death always ends with ‘so it goes.’ It is as if they are saying ‘it was there time, nothing you could do about it.’ Hannah get’s married: so it goes, it was her time. Thousands die in the bombing of Dresden: so it goes, it was there time.
The books also examine agency in similar ways. In Holder of the World Gabriel Legge is described as having no equal in Salem. He get’s this agency from his experiences, from the places he has been, things he has done. These are places and things the rest of Salem has not seen or done. So Gabriel get’s higher agency. When I was reading Slaughterhouse – Five I was wondering why Billy was so quick to believe everything the tralfamadorians told him. And then I realized that they, like Gabriel, had agency from experience. They had been places and seen and done things Billy couldn’t even imagine. And so it follows that he assumed they had superior intelligence from their experiences. Experience = knowledge = agency.
Basically it worked out quite nicely that I ended up reading both of these books at the same time because they were both very good and they complemented each other well. I found it rather handy. Go read Slaughterhouse – Five if you have not and good luck on finals everyone!!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
"What You Want"
So this evening I was in my car, racing back to campus to try (alas, in vain) to be on time for a floor meeting, and I had my IPod on shuffle (a tactic to keep my eyes on the road and off the IPod screen that has proven to be rather difficult for me because I tend to want to skip songs I’m not in the mood for. It’s frustrating because I can’t; I’m driving). The song “What You Want” from Legally Blonde the musical came up. As I was singing along (another car habit) I realized that it (both song and the musical itself) totally pertained to strategies and tactics. Eureka: a blog topic!
Wednesday morning we decided as a group that a goal is what you want to accomplish (duh), a strategy is a generally idea of how you want to go about accomplishing the goal and a tactic is an actual action that you act out in order to achieve the goal. So basically a tactic is a more specific, acted upon part of a strategy. For example we looked at the tea bagging protests that happened Wednesday. The goal was (if I am not mistaken) to lower taxes. The strategy was to rise up the people and inspire and spark protest. The tactic was, well, tea bagging. The twitter, facebook and TV promotions could also be called tactics.
But how does Legally Blonde fit in? Elle Woods, the stories protagonist, has a clear goal, a strategy and tactics that are shown within the play. For those of you who haven’t seen the musical, it basically follows the same plot of the 2001 movie version. If you haven’t seen the movie version, go shoot yourself in the foot. Everyone has seen that movie, get with it. But for now, here is a plot synopsis.
Elle’s goal is fairly simply. She’s been dumped by the man she believes to be ‘the one’ – Warner - because she’s not serious enough for the future Harvard Law student. Elle’s goal is to get Warner back and to make I'm realize that he still loves her. Her strategy is to prove she is serious. She has several tactics to accomplish this. One tactic is to get into Harvard law. This in itself is also another goal with its own strategy and tactics. Elle’s strategy to get in is “What [Harvard] Wants”. Her tactics to prove this are as follows. First Elle must get her parents to agree to pay for the expensive education (technically also a goal, but really this could go on all day so we won’t go there). After this she must get a good enough LSAT score (“of more than 174”) to be even considered by Harvard, which she accomplishes by studying rather than going to parties. To top it off she’ll “need a killer essay” to even be able to hope to get accepted. Rather than writing an essay (because after all “an essay’s so boring and so much does not fit”) Elle and the entire UCLA marching band descend upon the office of the Harvard acceptance committee and insists that she is exactly what they want.
I suppose all of these tactics are also in their way minor tactics to reach the major goal: operation ‘get Warner back’. They are like tactics to accomplish a tactic. Once Elle’s first major tactic to get Warner back (get into Harvard) is accomplished, she must then succeed in getting his attention. For this she tries several friend suggested methods including “shaking her junk” and “getting a chip on her shoulder”. Eventually Elle realizes that she must actually get serious in order to prove to Warner that she is serious. Her tactic is to actually study. Do homework and try in her classes. Elle’s final tactic is to win an actual court case that no one believes she can win (which she does using a finely tuned ‘gay-dar’, the always handy ‘bend and snap’ and her knowledge of hair care). Her strategy, and the tactics that puts it into action, succeeds because in one of the last scenes of the show Warner proposes to Elle. Unfortunately for him Elle’s journey of strategies and tactics has led her to discover that she deserves better and she doesn’t need him and her answer is “Thank you, but no.” Denied.
But despite the fact that Elle’s original goal was not the same as what she realized at the end she wanted, her series of strategy and tactics clearly worked. Elle, along with a group of trusted friends, planned out (and admittedly fumbled through) a strategic plan of action (tactics) and in the end achieved their goal (Elle does in fact find love, though it’s not Warner). Like Klein and Juffer show, it is all good and fine to have a goal, but without effective strategy and tactic that goal goes nowhere.
Wednesday morning we decided as a group that a goal is what you want to accomplish (duh), a strategy is a generally idea of how you want to go about accomplishing the goal and a tactic is an actual action that you act out in order to achieve the goal. So basically a tactic is a more specific, acted upon part of a strategy. For example we looked at the tea bagging protests that happened Wednesday. The goal was (if I am not mistaken) to lower taxes. The strategy was to rise up the people and inspire and spark protest. The tactic was, well, tea bagging. The twitter, facebook and TV promotions could also be called tactics.
But how does Legally Blonde fit in? Elle Woods, the stories protagonist, has a clear goal, a strategy and tactics that are shown within the play. For those of you who haven’t seen the musical, it basically follows the same plot of the 2001 movie version. If you haven’t seen the movie version, go shoot yourself in the foot. Everyone has seen that movie, get with it. But for now, here is a plot synopsis.
Elle’s goal is fairly simply. She’s been dumped by the man she believes to be ‘the one’ – Warner - because she’s not serious enough for the future Harvard Law student. Elle’s goal is to get Warner back and to make I'm realize that he still loves her. Her strategy is to prove she is serious. She has several tactics to accomplish this. One tactic is to get into Harvard law. This in itself is also another goal with its own strategy and tactics. Elle’s strategy to get in is “What [Harvard] Wants”. Her tactics to prove this are as follows. First Elle must get her parents to agree to pay for the expensive education (technically also a goal, but really this could go on all day so we won’t go there). After this she must get a good enough LSAT score (“of more than 174”) to be even considered by Harvard, which she accomplishes by studying rather than going to parties. To top it off she’ll “need a killer essay” to even be able to hope to get accepted. Rather than writing an essay (because after all “an essay’s so boring and so much does not fit”) Elle and the entire UCLA marching band descend upon the office of the Harvard acceptance committee and insists that she is exactly what they want.
I suppose all of these tactics are also in their way minor tactics to reach the major goal: operation ‘get Warner back’. They are like tactics to accomplish a tactic. Once Elle’s first major tactic to get Warner back (get into Harvard) is accomplished, she must then succeed in getting his attention. For this she tries several friend suggested methods including “shaking her junk” and “getting a chip on her shoulder”. Eventually Elle realizes that she must actually get serious in order to prove to Warner that she is serious. Her tactic is to actually study. Do homework and try in her classes. Elle’s final tactic is to win an actual court case that no one believes she can win (which she does using a finely tuned ‘gay-dar’, the always handy ‘bend and snap’ and her knowledge of hair care). Her strategy, and the tactics that puts it into action, succeeds because in one of the last scenes of the show Warner proposes to Elle. Unfortunately for him Elle’s journey of strategies and tactics has led her to discover that she deserves better and she doesn’t need him and her answer is “Thank you, but no.” Denied.
But despite the fact that Elle’s original goal was not the same as what she realized at the end she wanted, her series of strategy and tactics clearly worked. Elle, along with a group of trusted friends, planned out (and admittedly fumbled through) a strategic plan of action (tactics) and in the end achieved their goal (Elle does in fact find love, though it’s not Warner). Like Klein and Juffer show, it is all good and fine to have a goal, but without effective strategy and tactic that goal goes nowhere.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Anging Backwards
“While, everyone else was aging, I was getting younger... all alone.”- Benjamin Button, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This weekend I went and saw Benjamin Button on campus. While there I ran into Amy, who jokingly told me to blog about the movie. But funny story by half way through the movie we both realized that blogging about it was actually a legitimate option this unit. I know. I know I’m blogging about another movie. So shoot me, they’re good examples. For anyone who does not know the movie is about a man who is born an old man and gets younger as he grows older. His body is getting progressively younger while his mind is growing as a normal mind would. This is a perfect example of time and space and how people’s circumstances and so on can drastically change the way they relate to and think about time and space. Throughout the movie there are many instances where this relationship is displayed and examined.
The movie opens with the story of a clockmaker who was commissioned to make a clock for the new train station. Before the clock is finished his son dies in the World War 1, devastating the clockmaker. On the day the new clock is unveiled we find out that he made it so that the hands move backwards. The clockmaker says that he did this on purpose, that his hope is that time will move backwards and bring his son, and all the other young men lost at war back home safely. This brings up the movies first interesting point. When we have suffered a loss we tend to dwell in the past, wishing we could go back and change things or not take people for granted. Rather than moving forward we. Like the clockmaker, will time to move backwards instead. We fight a losing battle against time because it will never do what we so wish at those times that it would. Sometimes we are like the clockmaker and let that battle consume us, becoming almost unable to function because of our anger, frustration and pain caused by time trudging forward no matter what happens to us, no matter how much we wish to stop it or make it go back.
Later in the movie we meet Benjamin, who was born shortly after the clock was unveiled. We are left to assume that his backward aging is somehow connected to the clock. As Benjamin grows up he has to start facing the truth that he is different, that time and space mean something different to him than they do to others and that his relationship with other people. When Benjamin is about 10 or 12 he meets a little girl about the same age named Daisy. They become close friends because despite what Benjamin looks like on the outside, they are both children. It is clear that Benjamin is able to relate more to her than to the older people he lives with and looks like. One night the two sneak downstairs when they should be sleeping and sit under the table and talk, like a fort. Daisy’s grandmother catches them and harshly scolds Benjamin for getting so close to a girl Daisy’s age. Benjamin’s mother comes to console him and explains that people don’t understand because he is a ‘man-child’. Benjamin’s outward appearance and the way time is moving for him (backwards) is affecting where he can go and what he can do. His space is limited and different from everyone else’s.
Benjamin’s relationship with Daisy is severely impacted by his growing younger. It is fairly easy to tell that they are in love for most of the movie. But a relationship at the beginning of the movie when they meet is not exactly socially acceptable because of the apparent (though false) age difference and at the end of the movie it becomes impractical as Benjamin becomes a teenager, then toddler, then baby. So in order to have the relationship they desire they must meet in the middle for the few years there ages are close both in appearance and actuality. There time together is limited. Unlike a normal couple they cannot grow old together, nor can they raise children together. When Daisy becomes pregnant Benjamin feels forced to leave because he wants his child to have a father, not a playmate and as he says, Daisy cannot raise both of them. Daisy eventually marries someone else and they agree it is for the best. Benjamin’s time with the woman he loves and with his child are both limited because of his reverse aging.
Time itself is a completely different thing for Benjamin than it is for us. Most of us don’t know when we are going to die and could live to be very very old. But Benjamin, being born in the body of a man in his 80’s has a limited time. He is almost like a ticking clock. He can only live until he becomes a baby, and in that way his entire life is limited to a certain possible time span. The quote I opened with makes a big point. He was going through all of this alone. Benjamin was the only one growing younger, the only person whose time and space is affected in that. This puts him in a different space than everyone else. He is alone. Kind of a bummer. But it shows how just one factor can totally change how someone relate to time and space. Like Juffer and Klein both point out, time and space are by no means constant or universal. They are different for everyone. And yet at the same time they never really change. Only our relationship to them changes. That being said, I’ll leave you with a quote from the trailer (you know, one of those things they show in the trailer but you realize later was never in the movie…):
“Life can only be understood looking backward. It must be lived forward.”
The movie opens with the story of a clockmaker who was commissioned to make a clock for the new train station. Before the clock is finished his son dies in the World War 1, devastating the clockmaker. On the day the new clock is unveiled we find out that he made it so that the hands move backwards. The clockmaker says that he did this on purpose, that his hope is that time will move backwards and bring his son, and all the other young men lost at war back home safely. This brings up the movies first interesting point. When we have suffered a loss we tend to dwell in the past, wishing we could go back and change things or not take people for granted. Rather than moving forward we. Like the clockmaker, will time to move backwards instead. We fight a losing battle against time because it will never do what we so wish at those times that it would. Sometimes we are like the clockmaker and let that battle consume us, becoming almost unable to function because of our anger, frustration and pain caused by time trudging forward no matter what happens to us, no matter how much we wish to stop it or make it go back.
Later in the movie we meet Benjamin, who was born shortly after the clock was unveiled. We are left to assume that his backward aging is somehow connected to the clock. As Benjamin grows up he has to start facing the truth that he is different, that time and space mean something different to him than they do to others and that his relationship with other people. When Benjamin is about 10 or 12 he meets a little girl about the same age named Daisy. They become close friends because despite what Benjamin looks like on the outside, they are both children. It is clear that Benjamin is able to relate more to her than to the older people he lives with and looks like. One night the two sneak downstairs when they should be sleeping and sit under the table and talk, like a fort. Daisy’s grandmother catches them and harshly scolds Benjamin for getting so close to a girl Daisy’s age. Benjamin’s mother comes to console him and explains that people don’t understand because he is a ‘man-child’. Benjamin’s outward appearance and the way time is moving for him (backwards) is affecting where he can go and what he can do. His space is limited and different from everyone else’s.
Benjamin’s relationship with Daisy is severely impacted by his growing younger. It is fairly easy to tell that they are in love for most of the movie. But a relationship at the beginning of the movie when they meet is not exactly socially acceptable because of the apparent (though false) age difference and at the end of the movie it becomes impractical as Benjamin becomes a teenager, then toddler, then baby. So in order to have the relationship they desire they must meet in the middle for the few years there ages are close both in appearance and actuality. There time together is limited. Unlike a normal couple they cannot grow old together, nor can they raise children together. When Daisy becomes pregnant Benjamin feels forced to leave because he wants his child to have a father, not a playmate and as he says, Daisy cannot raise both of them. Daisy eventually marries someone else and they agree it is for the best. Benjamin’s time with the woman he loves and with his child are both limited because of his reverse aging.
Time itself is a completely different thing for Benjamin than it is for us. Most of us don’t know when we are going to die and could live to be very very old. But Benjamin, being born in the body of a man in his 80’s has a limited time. He is almost like a ticking clock. He can only live until he becomes a baby, and in that way his entire life is limited to a certain possible time span. The quote I opened with makes a big point. He was going through all of this alone. Benjamin was the only one growing younger, the only person whose time and space is affected in that. This puts him in a different space than everyone else. He is alone. Kind of a bummer. But it shows how just one factor can totally change how someone relate to time and space. Like Juffer and Klein both point out, time and space are by no means constant or universal. They are different for everyone. And yet at the same time they never really change. Only our relationship to them changes. That being said, I’ll leave you with a quote from the trailer (you know, one of those things they show in the trailer but you realize later was never in the movie…):
“Life can only be understood looking backward. It must be lived forward.”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Single Mothers and Retelling Bible Stories
So there is this new show on NBC called Kings that I am absolutely in love with right now. Seriously, anyone who talks to me on a frequent basis knows I won’t shut up about it. Incase people don’t watch it (go do so!), it is basically about what America (or rather an American-like country) would be like with a king, and it is based off the biblical story of King David (and King Saul as well I suppose). I think one of the things I enjoy so much about it is being able to catch all the parallels to the Biblical story because it’s fun to see how they modernized the events and it just makes me feel smart. The main character in the show is David Shepherd (the biblical David was a shepherd) who is the youngest of 8 sons (as the biblical David was). David’s mother is a single mother named Jesse (the name of the Biblical David’s father). The king’s name is Silas (counterpart – King Saul), his son’s name is Jack (nickname for john or Jonathan—Saul’s son and David’s friend) and his daughter (with whom David is beginning to be ‘romantically involved’) is named Michelle (counterpart – Michal, Saul’s daughter and David’s wife). The reverend at the palace is named Reverend Samuels (counterpart – The prophet Samuel). The plot also closely follows that of the biblical story, though obviously with modern twists. It’s a smart, well thought out story line and I am tragically addicted already. There is a plot synopsis (albeit very poor—it’s Wikipedia after all) here, But I’d suggest watching the show.
Now to the point. The part of the show I’m going to focus on is David’s mother, and more specifically the choice to make her a single mother. While I found the choice to turn the Biblical David’s father into a single mother intriguing from the get go, I think this is an especially interesting concept in light of reading Jane Juffer. Juffer talks about how less than two decades ago politicians were running around saying that single mother we’re more or less evil and caused all of society’s problems and so forth. She then points out how in the last few years this image has shifted. She sites Gilmore Girls and Bush’s talk of single mother’s being heroes. This show, this choice to turn a formally male role into that of a single mother (much like the movies we talked about in class such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers) goes right along with what Juffer is talking about.
But I find myself asking why. Why the switch from a (presumably) married father to a single mother? It’s not that I’m opposed to the switch, I’m simply intrigued. Is it merely an attempt to make the show have more modern relevance? The shows writer Michael Green did say that the wanted to take the story and “re-conceive it while still being faithful to the original material but at the same time exploring the themes, modernizing it in every way.” And a single mother does add a very modern, very non-biblical twist (not to say that the Bible is against single motherhood, just that it wasn’t a popular thing in those times). With the percent of single mothers seeming to be constantly on the rise this certainly seems a valid reason for Jesse to be a single mom. Or are the show’s writers trying to make a statement about single mothers being sufficient parenting for a child? David certainly seems very polite and well brought up where as Jack for example, brought up by both a mother and a father, seems to be prone to selfishness, rudeness and materialism. This points out that it may not be about the number of parents but who the parents are that impacts a child more and also seems like a valid reason for Jesse’s switch. Or are they following Bush’s proclamation of the single mother as a hero, showing her as this woman of strength who raised 8 sons after the tragic death of her husband in a war. She does appear to be a woman of strength and virtue, proud of her son’s accomplishment (watch the show to find out what) but weary of politics and fame. So perhaps this is the reason they chose to make Jesse a single mom.
Maybe it is a combination of the above or something I have not thought of. I guess it’s hard to tell exactly why they made that particular decision until there are more episodes and we see the character evolve and such. And even then it’s often hard to tell exactly what someone’s intentions were. But I think it is a very interesting choice and one that I am excited to see grow as the season(s) progress. One more plug for the show, because I am truly overly excited about it: Watch it Sunday nights on NBC at 7pm! :]
Now to the point. The part of the show I’m going to focus on is David’s mother, and more specifically the choice to make her a single mother. While I found the choice to turn the Biblical David’s father into a single mother intriguing from the get go, I think this is an especially interesting concept in light of reading Jane Juffer. Juffer talks about how less than two decades ago politicians were running around saying that single mother we’re more or less evil and caused all of society’s problems and so forth. She then points out how in the last few years this image has shifted. She sites Gilmore Girls and Bush’s talk of single mother’s being heroes. This show, this choice to turn a formally male role into that of a single mother (much like the movies we talked about in class such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers) goes right along with what Juffer is talking about.
But I find myself asking why. Why the switch from a (presumably) married father to a single mother? It’s not that I’m opposed to the switch, I’m simply intrigued. Is it merely an attempt to make the show have more modern relevance? The shows writer Michael Green did say that the wanted to take the story and “re-conceive it while still being faithful to the original material but at the same time exploring the themes, modernizing it in every way.” And a single mother does add a very modern, very non-biblical twist (not to say that the Bible is against single motherhood, just that it wasn’t a popular thing in those times). With the percent of single mothers seeming to be constantly on the rise this certainly seems a valid reason for Jesse to be a single mom. Or are the show’s writers trying to make a statement about single mothers being sufficient parenting for a child? David certainly seems very polite and well brought up where as Jack for example, brought up by both a mother and a father, seems to be prone to selfishness, rudeness and materialism. This points out that it may not be about the number of parents but who the parents are that impacts a child more and also seems like a valid reason for Jesse’s switch. Or are they following Bush’s proclamation of the single mother as a hero, showing her as this woman of strength who raised 8 sons after the tragic death of her husband in a war. She does appear to be a woman of strength and virtue, proud of her son’s accomplishment (watch the show to find out what) but weary of politics and fame. So perhaps this is the reason they chose to make Jesse a single mom.
Maybe it is a combination of the above or something I have not thought of. I guess it’s hard to tell exactly why they made that particular decision until there are more episodes and we see the character evolve and such. And even then it’s often hard to tell exactly what someone’s intentions were. But I think it is a very interesting choice and one that I am excited to see grow as the season(s) progress. One more plug for the show, because I am truly overly excited about it: Watch it Sunday nights on NBC at 7pm! :]
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
On Visa commercials and poor song choices
So last night I was watching TV (not a movie by the wayJ) and the commercials came on. Again. Being generally fed up with the absurd amount of commercials in television normally I found it especially unnecessary for there to be a five minute commercial break in between each and every contestant on American Idol. So when the commercials came on for the umpteenth time I got up to check my email, anything to avoid yet another ‘Hefty’ garbage bags add. But as I was walking away from the TV I heard the opening riffs of a song I knew and loved. I stopped dead in my tracks and looked back to see what company could have possibly chosen ‘Tuesday Afternoon’ by The Moody Blues (I know I know, I’ve finally broken out of my movie rut and now I’m stuck in a Moody Blues rut. But what can you do?)as the song for their commercial. At first I thought perhaps they were on tour and coming to the area—and exciting notion indeed—but upon watching further I realized it was a Visa commercial. Here’s the link to the commercial if you want to watch it.
Basically the commercial starts with part of the song and has fish and such swimming around in the background. Then a voice comes over saying “When was the last time you went to the aquarium – pause– with your daughter – pause– on a Tuesday?” As he is saying this the fish in the background form the word ‘go’. He then goes on to explain how Visa card are faster and more convenient than cash or check (as a former employee at McDonalds and someone who has handled all the forms of paying many times I feel inclined to ask “faster and more convenient for whom?” Certainly not the cashier let me tell you) and how thousands of people are ‘going place’ with Visa. After realizing what the commercial was about—consumerism, buying things in order to be happy, essentially ‘money (or credit cards) can buy happiness’—the song choice really struck me as odd. It does not seem to fit the feel of the commercial at all. In order to illustrate this I will deconstruct the song and what the Visa commercial is saying.
Tuesday Afternoon (Full lyrics here)
Now I'm on my way – Not going
It doesn't matter to me – Worry
Chasing the clouds away, the trees are drawing me near (Nature) – Material/man made things
I'm looking at myself reflections of my mind – looking into other things/the world
So gently swaying through the fairyland of love – Um, industrial world
If you'll just come with me you'll see the beauty of Tuesday afternoon – Beauty/happiness in material things, things you can buy
So in essence the song has always seemed to me to be very…pure I guess, for lack of a better word. It’s all about finding joy peace and happiness in the simply things—clouds, trees, a Tuesday afternoon—things you don’t have to pay for.
Visa, to me has a very different message. It’s hard to deconstruct Visa as it does not have lyrics or what have you to do so with, but I can give a general message that Visa projects that will illustrate why it clashes so horribly with its song choice. In essence, as I said before, Visa is all about buying happiness. They hide behind notions of family time (going to the aquarium with your daughter, etc) and taking time to relax and be alone, but in essence they are all saying the same thing. They make it seem as though you need a Visa card in order to obtain these simple pleasures. And why would you need a Visa card if you did not have to pay for these things. So what Visa is saying is that in order to be happy or spend time with your family you have to spend money. The exact opposite of what The Moody Blues are saying in ‘Tuesday Afternoon’. The song and the commercial are like oil and water. They simply don’t mix. It is consumerism vs. simple, costless pleasures. It is finding joy in watching the clouds vs. paying for entertainment. Therefore the central argument or message of the song is not the central message or argument of the commercial, even though it is essentially what the commercial is all about. In a way, the center is not the center, though perhaps that is a rather lose analysis. It makes me wonder what Derrida would have to say about Visa’s poor song choice, an interesting notion indeed.
I would advise Visa to be more careful about their song choices in the future, because although I love to see The Moody Blues recognized (something that rarely happens because they came from—though were not limited to—a decade so vastly monopolized by the Beatles) I hate to think of how horrendously different the two messages in the commercial are and would prefer they had just left the Song alone. If the band were dead I have a feeling they would be turning over in their graves at the use of their song in such a way. As they are still alive and kicking that is not a valid opinion so instead I am going to chose to say that they are in all likely hoods not the commercial's biggest fans.
Basically the commercial starts with part of the song and has fish and such swimming around in the background. Then a voice comes over saying “When was the last time you went to the aquarium – pause– with your daughter – pause– on a Tuesday?” As he is saying this the fish in the background form the word ‘go’. He then goes on to explain how Visa card are faster and more convenient than cash or check (as a former employee at McDonalds and someone who has handled all the forms of paying many times I feel inclined to ask “faster and more convenient for whom?” Certainly not the cashier let me tell you) and how thousands of people are ‘going place’ with Visa. After realizing what the commercial was about—consumerism, buying things in order to be happy, essentially ‘money (or credit cards) can buy happiness’—the song choice really struck me as odd. It does not seem to fit the feel of the commercial at all. In order to illustrate this I will deconstruct the song and what the Visa commercial is saying.
Tuesday Afternoon (Full lyrics here)
Now I'm on my way – Not going
It doesn't matter to me – Worry
Chasing the clouds away, the trees are drawing me near (Nature) – Material/man made things
I'm looking at myself reflections of my mind – looking into other things/the world
So gently swaying through the fairyland of love – Um, industrial world
If you'll just come with me you'll see the beauty of Tuesday afternoon – Beauty/happiness in material things, things you can buy
So in essence the song has always seemed to me to be very…pure I guess, for lack of a better word. It’s all about finding joy peace and happiness in the simply things—clouds, trees, a Tuesday afternoon—things you don’t have to pay for.
Visa, to me has a very different message. It’s hard to deconstruct Visa as it does not have lyrics or what have you to do so with, but I can give a general message that Visa projects that will illustrate why it clashes so horribly with its song choice. In essence, as I said before, Visa is all about buying happiness. They hide behind notions of family time (going to the aquarium with your daughter, etc) and taking time to relax and be alone, but in essence they are all saying the same thing. They make it seem as though you need a Visa card in order to obtain these simple pleasures. And why would you need a Visa card if you did not have to pay for these things. So what Visa is saying is that in order to be happy or spend time with your family you have to spend money. The exact opposite of what The Moody Blues are saying in ‘Tuesday Afternoon’. The song and the commercial are like oil and water. They simply don’t mix. It is consumerism vs. simple, costless pleasures. It is finding joy in watching the clouds vs. paying for entertainment. Therefore the central argument or message of the song is not the central message or argument of the commercial, even though it is essentially what the commercial is all about. In a way, the center is not the center, though perhaps that is a rather lose analysis. It makes me wonder what Derrida would have to say about Visa’s poor song choice, an interesting notion indeed.
I would advise Visa to be more careful about their song choices in the future, because although I love to see The Moody Blues recognized (something that rarely happens because they came from—though were not limited to—a decade so vastly monopolized by the Beatles) I hate to think of how horrendously different the two messages in the commercial are and would prefer they had just left the Song alone. If the band were dead I have a feeling they would be turning over in their graves at the use of their song in such a way. As they are still alive and kicking that is not a valid opinion so instead I am going to chose to say that they are in all likely hoods not the commercial's biggest fans.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
What the greatest 60's band has to say on 'lack'.
Looking back I noticed that three out of my four blog posts have been about movies. This makes it seem as though I do nothing but watch movies. However; contrary to how it may seem I do many other things in my free time. It occurred to me that I should find something other than movies to write about. One thing I enjoy doing other than frequenting Parkwood 18 in St. Cloud is listening to music. One of my all time favorite bands is a band that originated in the 60’s (no, not the Beatles). The band is called The Moody Blues and to me they are the greatest band the 60’s produced. No offence intended to any Beatles fans :). My favorite album by them is Days of Future Passed, their second album, released in 1967. On it they teamed up with the London Festival Orchestra to create an album that goes through a whole day in song, starting at dawn and ending at night. On both the first and last songs of the album there are parts of a poem, written by Graeme Edge, drummer and song writer for the band.
The poem is about night time and the transition from night to day. It is fairly short so I will put the whole thing on here rather than a link:
Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.And which is an illusion?
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky,
Let insipid figures of light pass by,
The mighty light of ten thousand suns,
Challenges infinity and is soon gone.
Night time, to some a brief interlude,
To others the fear of solitude.
Brave helios wake up your steeds,
Bring the warmth the countryside needs.
...
Breathe deep the gathering gloom,
Watch lights fade from every room.
Bedsitter people look back and lament,
Another day's useless energy spent.
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely man cries for love and has none.
New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young.
'Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?
As I was driving back from my spring break trip I was listening to this album and once again struggling to decide what to write about for my blog. But as I was listening to the words in the poem I noticed how it examined lack, or more specifically the relationship between ‘lack’ and ‘have’. Lines 16 to 21 all focus on differences between people: people who have youth vs. people who are old, people who have love vs. people who do not, etc. this then reminded me of our discussion in class about how we define ourselves and how one way is by what we are not. This poem hits on that exact relationship or method of self definition. As Jacques Lacan said in The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious "I think where I am not; therefore I am where I do not think." In other words, I think about what I am not and therefore I am the things I don’t think about. In terms of the poem, when the senior citizens wish they were young they are focusing on what they are not (young) and they are what they are not thinking about (old). The ‘lonely man’ cries for love, thinking about what he does not have/what he lacks—love—while being/having what he is not thinking about—loneliness. In the same way we often seem to go through life ‘thinking where we are not’. We are defining our existence through what we are not rather than what we are; because for everything you are there is a whole list of things you are not.
After I started to look closer at the poem I also noticed another relevant part. The line “Night time, to some a brief interlude, to others the fear of solitude” made me start thinking of what Lacan said about the unconscious. The same signifier (night time) is to some nothing more than an interlude between days, but to others it brings out the fear of being alone. Lacan would say that this difference has to do with eh persons unconscious—made up of experiences, fears, desires, random thoughts, etc—and would work to help them become aware of their unconscious through psychoanalysis in order to better understand themselves and why the same signifier makes them feel this way instead of that way.
Finally, I started to think of other Moody Blues lyrics and how they might pertain to Lacan. After giving it some thought I realized that the song ‘Nights in White Satin’ (also off Days of Future Passed) is also defined by lack. I won’t put up all of the lyrics because it is too long, but here is the link to them. In the song there are lines like “Nights in white satin, never reaching the end, letters I’ve written, never meaning to send”, “Beauty Id always missed” and “Just what I’m going through, they can understand” are all about lack—lack of beauty, lack of end, lack of understanding and so forth. Just as ‘I Can’t Get No Satisfaction’ was dictated by what the writer lacked, so is ‘Nights in White Satin’ dictated by what the writer lacked. As I said before, so much of how we see and define ourselves is dictated by lack, what we are not, ‘where we do not think’. This is not necessarily good or bad, simply an observation on how society defines itself. An observation that Lacan says in key to unlocking and understanding the unconscious.
The poem is about night time and the transition from night to day. It is fairly short so I will put the whole thing on here rather than a link:
Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.And which is an illusion?
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky,
Let insipid figures of light pass by,
The mighty light of ten thousand suns,
Challenges infinity and is soon gone.
Night time, to some a brief interlude,
To others the fear of solitude.
Brave helios wake up your steeds,
Bring the warmth the countryside needs.
...
Breathe deep the gathering gloom,
Watch lights fade from every room.
Bedsitter people look back and lament,
Another day's useless energy spent.
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely man cries for love and has none.
New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young.
'Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?
As I was driving back from my spring break trip I was listening to this album and once again struggling to decide what to write about for my blog. But as I was listening to the words in the poem I noticed how it examined lack, or more specifically the relationship between ‘lack’ and ‘have’. Lines 16 to 21 all focus on differences between people: people who have youth vs. people who are old, people who have love vs. people who do not, etc. this then reminded me of our discussion in class about how we define ourselves and how one way is by what we are not. This poem hits on that exact relationship or method of self definition. As Jacques Lacan said in The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious "I think where I am not; therefore I am where I do not think." In other words, I think about what I am not and therefore I am the things I don’t think about. In terms of the poem, when the senior citizens wish they were young they are focusing on what they are not (young) and they are what they are not thinking about (old). The ‘lonely man’ cries for love, thinking about what he does not have/what he lacks—love—while being/having what he is not thinking about—loneliness. In the same way we often seem to go through life ‘thinking where we are not’. We are defining our existence through what we are not rather than what we are; because for everything you are there is a whole list of things you are not.
After I started to look closer at the poem I also noticed another relevant part. The line “Night time, to some a brief interlude, to others the fear of solitude” made me start thinking of what Lacan said about the unconscious. The same signifier (night time) is to some nothing more than an interlude between days, but to others it brings out the fear of being alone. Lacan would say that this difference has to do with eh persons unconscious—made up of experiences, fears, desires, random thoughts, etc—and would work to help them become aware of their unconscious through psychoanalysis in order to better understand themselves and why the same signifier makes them feel this way instead of that way.
Finally, I started to think of other Moody Blues lyrics and how they might pertain to Lacan. After giving it some thought I realized that the song ‘Nights in White Satin’ (also off Days of Future Passed) is also defined by lack. I won’t put up all of the lyrics because it is too long, but here is the link to them. In the song there are lines like “Nights in white satin, never reaching the end, letters I’ve written, never meaning to send”, “Beauty Id always missed” and “Just what I’m going through, they can understand” are all about lack—lack of beauty, lack of end, lack of understanding and so forth. Just as ‘I Can’t Get No Satisfaction’ was dictated by what the writer lacked, so is ‘Nights in White Satin’ dictated by what the writer lacked. As I said before, so much of how we see and define ourselves is dictated by lack, what we are not, ‘where we do not think’. This is not necessarily good or bad, simply an observation on how society defines itself. An observation that Lacan says in key to unlocking and understanding the unconscious.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Horror Films as a Synecdoche for Societal Morality
So last Sunday night I went to see Friday the 13th (which I would actually recommend. As far as horror movies these days go it was pretty good. It had some legitimately scary moments, especially when my cell phone vibrated at a moment of intense suspense. But I digress.) After the movie my friends and I were talking about it and speculating on how good of a chance we would have of surviving a horror movie. We figured it was a pretty good one because we would never, for example, enter and old abandoned cabin in the middle of the woods in the middle of the night. Whether that makes us smart or a bunch of pansies is irrelevant. The point is we would probably not die. But soon the discussion turned a little deeper. We started looking at who died and what they were doing when they died. We noticed a trend.
In horror films there is a trend that I believe is a metaphor for how society views the world, or at least morality. In horror films most of the people who die are the people who are drinking, doing drug/other illegal things and having pre-marital sex. Think about it. Look at who died in the last horror film you saw. Take Friday the 13th as an example. Four people die while or right after having pre-marital sex, 4 die while doing or looking for drugs and drinking alcohol, one dies while driving a bout he stole and another dies while wakeboarding (topless I might add, adding insult to injury) behind the stolen boat. Or look at the Saw movies. Jigsaw (the killer) targets people who are drug dealers, murderers and rapists for his twisted style of justice, and most of those he targets don’t survive. Now look at the people who survive horror films. It’s usually the person who spends the whole movie trying to help/protect others. It is the brother out day and night on his motorcycle looking for his missing sister or the girl who has spent the better part of the last few years caring for her sick mother. There is a definite trend through-out horror films regarding who lives and who dies.
And then it hit us. This is not a coincidence. There is a reason behind all the naked women (though never naked men…but I digress again, as that is for a whole other blog post) and the partying. There is deeper meaning and insight on society hidden behind all the gore. Though we tend to view society as a whole as ‘enlightened’, ‘tolerant’ and beyond what I will call ‘religious morals’ for lack of a better term, I think horror films show differently. Analyzing horror films shows us that we as a society have not really moved to far in what activities we think are moral/admirable and what activities we think are immoral. Clearly we have not really moved past these so called religious morals. Because the moral of these horror films seems to be ‘doing these immoral acts will bring bad things’. The ‘bad guy’ in a horror film—such as Jigsaw or Jason—can almost be seen as an almost god-like figure, albeit very loosely. Perhaps they are better likened to Satan in that they do not so much judge as punish those who have been judged. I guess it is kind of a mix of God and Satan. They become both judge and punisher.
This realization turns horror films into a kind of synecdoche. They are a smaller part of culture/society that represents the morals of society as a whole. The ‘bad guy’ and the graphic deaths are a metaphor for the coming judgment and punishment for people who do these immoral things. It is as if the makers of the films are saying “drink, do drugs and have pre-marital sex and doom is imminent.” So pay attention next time you watch a horror film. Watch who lives and who dies and think about how that shows societies true thoughts on morality, whatever the popular perception about our morals might be.
In horror films there is a trend that I believe is a metaphor for how society views the world, or at least morality. In horror films most of the people who die are the people who are drinking, doing drug/other illegal things and having pre-marital sex. Think about it. Look at who died in the last horror film you saw. Take Friday the 13th as an example. Four people die while or right after having pre-marital sex, 4 die while doing or looking for drugs and drinking alcohol, one dies while driving a bout he stole and another dies while wakeboarding (topless I might add, adding insult to injury) behind the stolen boat. Or look at the Saw movies. Jigsaw (the killer) targets people who are drug dealers, murderers and rapists for his twisted style of justice, and most of those he targets don’t survive. Now look at the people who survive horror films. It’s usually the person who spends the whole movie trying to help/protect others. It is the brother out day and night on his motorcycle looking for his missing sister or the girl who has spent the better part of the last few years caring for her sick mother. There is a definite trend through-out horror films regarding who lives and who dies.
And then it hit us. This is not a coincidence. There is a reason behind all the naked women (though never naked men…but I digress again, as that is for a whole other blog post) and the partying. There is deeper meaning and insight on society hidden behind all the gore. Though we tend to view society as a whole as ‘enlightened’, ‘tolerant’ and beyond what I will call ‘religious morals’ for lack of a better term, I think horror films show differently. Analyzing horror films shows us that we as a society have not really moved to far in what activities we think are moral/admirable and what activities we think are immoral. Clearly we have not really moved past these so called religious morals. Because the moral of these horror films seems to be ‘doing these immoral acts will bring bad things’. The ‘bad guy’ in a horror film—such as Jigsaw or Jason—can almost be seen as an almost god-like figure, albeit very loosely. Perhaps they are better likened to Satan in that they do not so much judge as punish those who have been judged. I guess it is kind of a mix of God and Satan. They become both judge and punisher.
This realization turns horror films into a kind of synecdoche. They are a smaller part of culture/society that represents the morals of society as a whole. The ‘bad guy’ and the graphic deaths are a metaphor for the coming judgment and punishment for people who do these immoral things. It is as if the makers of the films are saying “drink, do drugs and have pre-marital sex and doom is imminent.” So pay attention next time you watch a horror film. Watch who lives and who dies and think about how that shows societies true thoughts on morality, whatever the popular perception about our morals might be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)