“Couple in a Cage” dir. Coco Fusco
November 26th, 2007
The film “Couple in a Cage” documented the “reverse ethnography” performed by Coco Fusco and her collaborator Guillermo Gomez-Pena. The experiment allowed Fusco and others to see how “the gaze” and “othering” was performed first hand by people who would in normal circumstances consider the co-conspirators to be civilized members of Western society.
While watching the film I felt uncomfortable with the extreme performance as well as the reactions, which ensued because of the performances. I find it really strange that no one really protested the fact that these people were in a cage, an almost barbaric way to treat a fellow person. Although it has been done for many centuries previously, especially in the case of Saartjie Baartman, otherwise known as Hotentot Venus, who exhibited for her abnormally large behind. However, we would think that these types of practises had ended a long time ago, which should be enough for people to protest. One gentleman did comment on it, but that wasn’t the reaction of most people. In one scene, Fusco and Gomez are in the cage at a party and people are paying the male to show his genitalia to them. This act in particular was disturbing to me, and I would argue was actually too far for the purposes of this experiment. It was interesting to note that people actually paid for this at the expense of those “others”, but it seemed wrong and unnecessary none-the-less.
The gaze performed by those audience members was very similar to the gaze Laura Mulvey discusses. She insists that the gaze has a psychological relationship to power, and that the gazer is superior to the object of the gaze. Thus in the case of the couple in a cage, the people in the crowd, assumed more power than the couple. This was demonstrated when people were able to pay for the couple to perform some kind of act (ie. showing genitilia, telling a story, etc). The couple seemed to have very little control over how they were treated.
In her article “The Other History of Intercultural Performance,” Coco Fusco comments that “the cage became a blank screen onto which audiences projected their fantasies of who and what we are. As we assumed the stereotypical role of the domesticated savage, many audience members felt entitles to assume the role of the colonizer, only to find themselves uncomfortable with the implications of the game” (152). In the article I found it very surprising that people actually said that it made sense that the people were caged because they could attack or and basically because these people were different (157). Furthermore, Fusco describes Homi Bhabha’s essay “The Other Question” (153) as explaining, “how racial classification through stereotyping is a necessary component of colonialist discourse, as it justifies domination and masks the colonizer’s fear of the inability to always already know the Other.” She continues, explaining that her experience within the cage has shown that despite living in a society where democracy and equality are predominate ideologies; ideas of colonialism have been internalized within society’s population. This can be seen through the audience’s reactions of horror, humour, and voyeuristic curiosity.
The film demonstrated the array of reactions, however it would have been nice to have commentary or a voiceover from the artists talking about their experience in the cage, their interactions with the people and observations of the people. The article written by Coco Fusco provides context but as a film it would have been beneficial for the medium.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
“Cannibal Tours" dir. O'Rourke
November 13, 2007.
The ongoing colonialist ideas of the “Other” have been documented through an array of media and texts. Most recently, the Red Campaign, which seeks to raise funds for AIDS in Africa through Western consumerism, released its promotional ads that included the model Gisele posed with Masai, an African. The image of Masai as the stereotypical tribal African beside Gisele the “civilized” beautiful white model perpetuates ideas of the “Other, ” as Masai is only represented through a stereotype. The image gives no context to who Masai is. The Red campaign is problematic on many other levels but throughout the campaign there is a consistent usage of “othering” messages.
In the film “Cannibal Tours,” director Dennis O’Rourke confronts how the Western world has continuously exploited and “othered” certain groups that are considered primitive. However, what I really enjoyed about the film was that O’Rourke took a more complex approach then just demonizing the tourists who came to New Guinea. He showed both the tourists and the New Guineans in contentious positions. The tourists, in my view, were portrayed as dumb and silly. They were very much the stereotypical tourists, with their camera’s slung around their necks speaking in staccato to the New Guineans, in hopes they would be better understood. On the other hand, the New Guineans allowed themselves to be objectified and exploited by the tourists.
They performed their culture, exaggerating parts for entertainment and spectacle. O’Rourke highlights these problematic behaviours in his film. For example, before leaving the island, the tourists’ faces were “painted by Iatmul village men with designs traditionally used to decorate the skulls of their deceased ancestors, [then the tourists] are seen dancing in slow motion on the deck of the ship. We hear the music of Mozart in the background…” (Lutkehaus 428). This scene is especially problematic as it displays a kind of “blackface” or performance of the Black “Other” based on stereotypes. However as Lutkehaus continues, these acts allow people a “momentarily escape. It’s like erotica” (429).
The exploitation of those considered primitive is also discussed in the article “A World Brightly Different: Photographic Conventions 1950-1986”, which discusses how National Geographic relies on images of the erotic “Other.” Significantly, the author suggests that the Western world depends on these representations to define themselves (90). Furthermore, “the absence of violence or illness [in the National Geographic, help to] reflect back to Americans their own self-image as a relatively classless society…” (103). By shunning the poor, the ill and the hungry, those in first world nations are able to feel better about their positions in the world. This is particularly interesting in the case of the film; the New Guineans perform the images and stereotypes that are assigned to them by the Western world. By doing this, they receive a more positive response from tourists who are more willing to pay for pictures with the tribal-dressed people and buy cultural artefacts.
Despite the exploitation of the “Others” by the tourists, I really appreciated how O’Rourke portrayed the New Guineas with agency. One of the town’s elders, who speaks throughout the film, has several insights that would show that the New Guinean people knew that the way they were portraying themselves was for their benefit (in terms of money). When asked why they allow the tourists to come, he answers that it’s because they have money, they buy the carvings and they pay for pictures. However he also comments that when the tribe’s children go off to school, the children buy pictures of their own village (which have been made into postcards by tourists). Therefore, the New Guinean group has come to rely on the money made from their own exploitation; sending their own children to school is reliant on the revenues made from tourism.
The ongoing colonialist ideas of the “Other” have been documented through an array of media and texts. Most recently, the Red Campaign, which seeks to raise funds for AIDS in Africa through Western consumerism, released its promotional ads that included the model Gisele posed with Masai, an African. The image of Masai as the stereotypical tribal African beside Gisele the “civilized” beautiful white model perpetuates ideas of the “Other, ” as Masai is only represented through a stereotype. The image gives no context to who Masai is. The Red campaign is problematic on many other levels but throughout the campaign there is a consistent usage of “othering” messages.
In the film “Cannibal Tours,” director Dennis O’Rourke confronts how the Western world has continuously exploited and “othered” certain groups that are considered primitive. However, what I really enjoyed about the film was that O’Rourke took a more complex approach then just demonizing the tourists who came to New Guinea. He showed both the tourists and the New Guineans in contentious positions. The tourists, in my view, were portrayed as dumb and silly. They were very much the stereotypical tourists, with their camera’s slung around their necks speaking in staccato to the New Guineans, in hopes they would be better understood. On the other hand, the New Guineans allowed themselves to be objectified and exploited by the tourists.
They performed their culture, exaggerating parts for entertainment and spectacle. O’Rourke highlights these problematic behaviours in his film. For example, before leaving the island, the tourists’ faces were “painted by Iatmul village men with designs traditionally used to decorate the skulls of their deceased ancestors, [then the tourists] are seen dancing in slow motion on the deck of the ship. We hear the music of Mozart in the background…” (Lutkehaus 428). This scene is especially problematic as it displays a kind of “blackface” or performance of the Black “Other” based on stereotypes. However as Lutkehaus continues, these acts allow people a “momentarily escape. It’s like erotica” (429).
The exploitation of those considered primitive is also discussed in the article “A World Brightly Different: Photographic Conventions 1950-1986”, which discusses how National Geographic relies on images of the erotic “Other.” Significantly, the author suggests that the Western world depends on these representations to define themselves (90). Furthermore, “the absence of violence or illness [in the National Geographic, help to] reflect back to Americans their own self-image as a relatively classless society…” (103). By shunning the poor, the ill and the hungry, those in first world nations are able to feel better about their positions in the world. This is particularly interesting in the case of the film; the New Guineans perform the images and stereotypes that are assigned to them by the Western world. By doing this, they receive a more positive response from tourists who are more willing to pay for pictures with the tribal-dressed people and buy cultural artefacts.
Despite the exploitation of the “Others” by the tourists, I really appreciated how O’Rourke portrayed the New Guineas with agency. One of the town’s elders, who speaks throughout the film, has several insights that would show that the New Guinean people knew that the way they were portraying themselves was for their benefit (in terms of money). When asked why they allow the tourists to come, he answers that it’s because they have money, they buy the carvings and they pay for pictures. However he also comments that when the tribe’s children go off to school, the children buy pictures of their own village (which have been made into postcards by tourists). Therefore, the New Guinean group has come to rely on the money made from their own exploitation; sending their own children to school is reliant on the revenues made from tourism.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
“Twilight,” Anna Deavere Smith
November 5, 2007.
“Twilight”, a one-woman show performed by Anna Deavere Smith displays several different views of the frustrations experienced by people around Los Angeles after the results of the Rodney King case were announced. What I really enjoy about this film is the range of characters Smith plays. Although some or her performances are quite cartoonie (ie. the Korean woman) the overall message Smith is going for is much more important. According to Carol Martin’s interview with Anna Smith, she tires to “capture the personality of a place by attempting to embody its varied population and varied points of view in one person”- herself (46). It is very important that she has decided to show all points of view of an issue.
I hate to make the comparison, but “Twilight” reminds me of the film “Crash” (2004) directed by Paul Haggis. This is probably because both document different stories of similar occurrences. The comparison is also related to the portrayal of race relations within the Los Angeles area. However, what is most different is that Smith speaks for all racial groups, performing their most stereotypical and over-the-top personalities to get their messages across.
I find her overtly stereotypical and over-the-top performance of a personality to be somewhat problematic. She does this in her performances of the Korean people and black men. In the article, “Is Race a Trope? Anna Deavere Smith and the Question of Racial Performativity,” I find the final comment to be particularly interesting especially when applied to the content in the film. Smith refers to race as a trap—“a trap constructed by and upholding racism. And yet racism cannot simply be done away with my deeming the concept of race as a mere trap that we shouldn’t fall into, and that we can avoid by not invoking ‘race’. Race is a very real identity category which has become systemic, so to ignore racism would be to allow systemic racism to continue as it is.” The conclusion to the article congratulates Smith’s use of racial identity in her acting as performative. Be this as it may, I still believe Smith’s performing of race is problem because it relies on stereotypes.
I guess the question would then be, how should we act? If we decide not to perform race, are we considered “white-washed”? I know this is somewhat off topic to the film, but I think it’s important to ask? Is race performance imbedded so deeply that it’s all we know? It seems that the emphasis that Smith places on performing races brings their occurrence to the forefront.
The film “Twilight” shows the many faces and opinions of those who lived in LA at the time of the King verdict. Smith performs all of these while perpetuating problematic stereotypes of race.
“Twilight”, a one-woman show performed by Anna Deavere Smith displays several different views of the frustrations experienced by people around Los Angeles after the results of the Rodney King case were announced. What I really enjoy about this film is the range of characters Smith plays. Although some or her performances are quite cartoonie (ie. the Korean woman) the overall message Smith is going for is much more important. According to Carol Martin’s interview with Anna Smith, she tires to “capture the personality of a place by attempting to embody its varied population and varied points of view in one person”- herself (46). It is very important that she has decided to show all points of view of an issue.
I hate to make the comparison, but “Twilight” reminds me of the film “Crash” (2004) directed by Paul Haggis. This is probably because both document different stories of similar occurrences. The comparison is also related to the portrayal of race relations within the Los Angeles area. However, what is most different is that Smith speaks for all racial groups, performing their most stereotypical and over-the-top personalities to get their messages across.
I find her overtly stereotypical and over-the-top performance of a personality to be somewhat problematic. She does this in her performances of the Korean people and black men. In the article, “Is Race a Trope? Anna Deavere Smith and the Question of Racial Performativity,” I find the final comment to be particularly interesting especially when applied to the content in the film. Smith refers to race as a trap—“a trap constructed by and upholding racism. And yet racism cannot simply be done away with my deeming the concept of race as a mere trap that we shouldn’t fall into, and that we can avoid by not invoking ‘race’. Race is a very real identity category which has become systemic, so to ignore racism would be to allow systemic racism to continue as it is.” The conclusion to the article congratulates Smith’s use of racial identity in her acting as performative. Be this as it may, I still believe Smith’s performing of race is problem because it relies on stereotypes.
I guess the question would then be, how should we act? If we decide not to perform race, are we considered “white-washed”? I know this is somewhat off topic to the film, but I think it’s important to ask? Is race performance imbedded so deeply that it’s all we know? It seems that the emphasis that Smith places on performing races brings their occurrence to the forefront.
The film “Twilight” shows the many faces and opinions of those who lived in LA at the time of the King verdict. Smith performs all of these while perpetuating problematic stereotypes of race.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Police Brutality Re-framed Through Video
October 30, 2007.
The Rodney King trial demonstrated how the graphic representation of King’s beating by police could be manipulated through a barrage of tactics (including coding, highlighting and the breaking down/ overly complicating the graphic representation) to result in drastically different perceptions (Goodwin 607). These perceptions created a criminal and dehumanized image of King and resulted in the innocent verdict for the police involved.
After watching The Rodney King Case: What the Jury Saw in California v. Powell, I was perplexed with the idea that someone could be treated so brutally and then have their perpetrators’ actions sanctioned. In King’s case, the action taken by police seemed blatantly motivated by racism, as in many portions of the trial, King is referred to as being bear-like and similar to that of the gorillas in Gorilla’s in the Midst. He is also accused of being high on PCP and thus exerting super-strength. One of the police officers actually celebrates his actions that night by saying, “I haven’t beaten anyone like this for a long time” over his police radio. King’s lawyer Terry White used these indications of racism dismally; instead he relied completely on what the jury saw on the videotape.
The defendants, however, used the footage frame by frame to show that King was in complete control of the situation and the police present were following normal protocol for the situation; Charles Goodwin explains these tactics in his article, “Professional Vision”. Through coding schemes the defense was able to prove that the actions taken were based on King’s body movements and a system of escalation and de-escalation (Goodwin 616). This was especially successful in showing that the police were just following what they had been taught. In order to back this up, an “expert” was brought in to support the actions and perceptions the police had during the event. The use of an expert who was not present at the event, but who could support the actions of the police proved very valuable to the case.
The grouping of the police based on profession worries me however. Especially in the United States there is a high sense of respect for the men in blue by white America, especially after 9/11. Although the King beating occurred before 9/11, these ideologies probably still resonated with white America, which was probably why the trial was held in a Los Angeles suburb instead of in the inner-city where police brutality and corruption are more frequent. The anger and riots that ensued once the tapes were shown by the media demonstrated the already present distrust those who were lower class or not white had. It seems really problematic that the police were built as being a collective entity who acted in a responsible way while King was individualized and turned into an animal amongst over 14 police officers who could have easily restrained King in a much more humane matter.
Other tactics used by the police that Goodwin discusses are highlighting and reframing of the video. Similarly to the Kuleshov Effect (as discussed in class) the defense was able to give context to paused video/pictures that as a whole was not previously present. Instead of portraying King’s actions of having a “cocked” leg as being a reaction to being beaten and tasered, they were able to portray King as someone they had to fear and keep control over, thus ending the de-escalation period.
Overall this video showed that through convincing evidence that previously didn’t exist, and dismal representation from the prosecution, a black man could be beaten and dehumanized without the police being punished for it. Although in a re-trial, two of the police were found guilty, the fact that a result like this could happen brings into question how many other times have the police and those who are idealized by our culture gotten away with criminal acts of these and lesser proportions.
The Rodney King trial demonstrated how the graphic representation of King’s beating by police could be manipulated through a barrage of tactics (including coding, highlighting and the breaking down/ overly complicating the graphic representation) to result in drastically different perceptions (Goodwin 607). These perceptions created a criminal and dehumanized image of King and resulted in the innocent verdict for the police involved.
After watching The Rodney King Case: What the Jury Saw in California v. Powell, I was perplexed with the idea that someone could be treated so brutally and then have their perpetrators’ actions sanctioned. In King’s case, the action taken by police seemed blatantly motivated by racism, as in many portions of the trial, King is referred to as being bear-like and similar to that of the gorillas in Gorilla’s in the Midst. He is also accused of being high on PCP and thus exerting super-strength. One of the police officers actually celebrates his actions that night by saying, “I haven’t beaten anyone like this for a long time” over his police radio. King’s lawyer Terry White used these indications of racism dismally; instead he relied completely on what the jury saw on the videotape.
The defendants, however, used the footage frame by frame to show that King was in complete control of the situation and the police present were following normal protocol for the situation; Charles Goodwin explains these tactics in his article, “Professional Vision”. Through coding schemes the defense was able to prove that the actions taken were based on King’s body movements and a system of escalation and de-escalation (Goodwin 616). This was especially successful in showing that the police were just following what they had been taught. In order to back this up, an “expert” was brought in to support the actions and perceptions the police had during the event. The use of an expert who was not present at the event, but who could support the actions of the police proved very valuable to the case.
The grouping of the police based on profession worries me however. Especially in the United States there is a high sense of respect for the men in blue by white America, especially after 9/11. Although the King beating occurred before 9/11, these ideologies probably still resonated with white America, which was probably why the trial was held in a Los Angeles suburb instead of in the inner-city where police brutality and corruption are more frequent. The anger and riots that ensued once the tapes were shown by the media demonstrated the already present distrust those who were lower class or not white had. It seems really problematic that the police were built as being a collective entity who acted in a responsible way while King was individualized and turned into an animal amongst over 14 police officers who could have easily restrained King in a much more humane matter.
Other tactics used by the police that Goodwin discusses are highlighting and reframing of the video. Similarly to the Kuleshov Effect (as discussed in class) the defense was able to give context to paused video/pictures that as a whole was not previously present. Instead of portraying King’s actions of having a “cocked” leg as being a reaction to being beaten and tasered, they were able to portray King as someone they had to fear and keep control over, thus ending the de-escalation period.
Overall this video showed that through convincing evidence that previously didn’t exist, and dismal representation from the prosecution, a black man could be beaten and dehumanized without the police being punished for it. Although in a re-trial, two of the police were found guilty, the fact that a result like this could happen brings into question how many other times have the police and those who are idealized by our culture gotten away with criminal acts of these and lesser proportions.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
"Nobody's Business" dir. Alan Berliner Oct 22
In the documentary film “Nobody’s Business,” I was really surprised that the father, Oscar, was uninterested in his ancestry. I think ancestry is one of the most profound and complicated thing in our lives. There is so much history that with every new generation is lost. I met three of my great grandparents. My
mother’s grandparents were French and didn’t speak any English. As a child, I remember playing games with my great grandfather. I remember how old he looked, I remember his big smile and his big hands. I don’t remember if I understood him. I don’t remember much more about him or my great grandmothers. They died when I was old enough to have met them and make memories with them but there is still so much about their lives I will never know. (picture: my great grandparent's- mom's side, Laurette & Lionel)
I really appreciated that Alan tried to revisit his family’s past. Maybe this is a more recent phenomena, where people are seeking to have a connection with their past. In Oscar’s interview it didn’t sound like that was something the people of the times ever really talked about. Like Oscar said, “I’m just an ordinary guy, with an ordinary life.” For him, life was just life, and the memory of other ordinary people was redundant.
What I found most interesting in the film was Alan’s reference to the Vaults in the Salt Lake City mountains. I actually decided to do some research on them and find out what they were. Here are some links:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.07/mormons.htmlons.html
http://www.lig/htplanet.com/mormons/daily/family_history/granite_mountain_eom.htm
Although there is religious connotations to the purpose of the collection, I think this is an amazing opportunity for people to find out specifics about their past. The collection as Alan says holds birth, death and marriage certificates. It has immigration and other government documents all on microfilm available for viewing by the general public. My great grandfather on my dad’s dad side (where I get my Lewis name) was actually adopted and thus the last name would be his adoptive parent’s name. I find it fascinating and unfortunate tha
t all the records of his adoption are no longer available, because it would have a big impact on my identity. I don’t know if Canada has values similar to those in Salt Lake City but if I was researching my genealogy, these vaults would be an amazing resource I would take advantage of. I think this is why I was surprised that Oscar didn’t want to know his past.
picture: My grandpa (Arseneault/mom's side) and me, he's 83!
Alan used a lot of symbolism in his film in different ways. One way was through sound. There was the constant clicking sound that was both distracting and annoying. I would interpret this as being representative of how Oscar viewed life. He knew time was passing, he watched his eleven siblings complete their lives and he was distracted by their deaths and reminded how little time he had left. I’m guessing this made enjoying life more difficult and the thought of the past just started to annoy him because it reminded him how little time he could spend with his great granddaughter. 
Alan also used visual symbolism to show his fathers frustration (the boxing match) with the questions being posed. I thought this was clever, but it also made light of how his father did feel.
To View Clips: http://www.alanberliner.com/flashdev3/viewing.html
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
“Tarnation,” dir. Jonathan Caouette Oct 16
The film “Tarnation” was an amazing tour-de-force of personal struggle and growth. It was one of the most moving films I had ever seen. A collaboration of home videos, recorded messages, horror film/television/commercial footage, photography and music which were constructed and edited on iMovie to create a biographical documentary of the director’s life and his relationship with his family.I found myself summarizing the film for a lot of my friends and family. I was intrigued by Caouette’s journey and how he was able to cope with a family that was not the American Dream ideal.
In the opening scenes of the film, I felt that it was a little stagy. Jonathan and his partner, David wake up and Jonathan tells him he’s had a bad dream. That whole scene until he goes to the bathroom and starts crying looks very scripted and fake. I initially wasn’t very impressed with the film because of the staginess. However, the performance aspect of the beginning and ending scenes are representative of the director’s identity. He was a performer, an actor, even from the age of eleven. It wasn’t until Jonathan showed his ability to be a performer and show how his performances were used to understand and cope with his problems, did the film really grab me emotionally.
Overall, I liked how the film didn’t use a narrator or a voice over that told the story. I thought that Jonathan’s use of text to explain what was happening and to move the story along was really interesting and it made the viewer pay attention that much closer. I don’t know much about movie editing but I really like the sort of psychedelic spin he added to many of the scenes where 4 different screens had different things going on at once with a multitude of colours and sounds. This experience was probably Jonathan’s way of portraying the disorder he experienced called depersonalization disorder, described as a “feeling of disconnection from the body and a constant sense of unreality” (Arthur, 19) The music also played an important part in setting the tone to how the director and the other characters were feeling in the film. It was a mélange of softer as well as faster music.
In Paul Arthur’s article, “Feel the Pain: First-person docs are soothing the angst of their makers. What do they do for us?” he discusses how filmmakers are “eager to tell their own stories in feature-length treatments” (17); Similar to a therapist session but on screen. Ideally the film would create clarity for the filmmaker and help them to resolve the problems they’ve experienced throughout their lives. I agree that there has been an upsurge of films that are dominated by the voice of the filmmaker and actually portray their opinions and ideas, but I also think that this is a valuable way of getting the filmmakers message across, even if it’s a personal therapeutic message to themselves.
One of the most moving scenes in the film, is in the end when Jonathan admits that he doesn’t want to become like his mother. I know that Arthur also talks about this in his piece, but I think this is the crux of the film and the most important message Jonathan gives to himself. I think he tries to show his journey into becoming more than what his mother was. In the film you meet the grandmother and you see how her mental state has deteriorated and has led to her becoming mentally unstable, and then you see the mother in one of the final scenes (after her Lithium overdose) with the pumpkin, and she acts almost identically to the mother. It makes sense that he would draw this parallel between them, and then make a point of saying he doesn’t want to become like them.
I think overall, that this film is an important artifact and story for Jonathan to tell and remind himself of. His life wasn’t easy, and it seems like he was still able to make something out of himself (a filmmaker); his story is an inspirational one.
Citation:
Arthur, Paul. “Feel the Pain: First-person docs are soothing the angst of their makers. What do they do for us?” Film Comment. Sept/Oct 2004; 40, 5. 17-20.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
“Working,” Studs Terkel Oct 9
Terkel’s documentary collaboration of interviews is a telling and descriptive look into the lives of those we usually overlook in the workspace (steelworker, farm worker, domestic workers) as well as those we idolize, worship and dream to become (actress, model, baseball player).
One entry that stood out to me the most was “Who Built the Pyramids?” The first preface is an interview with Mike Lefevre, a steelworker from “somewhere in Cicero” (xxxi). He talks about those in our everyday, the laborers, who are ignored or not given any credit for the line of work they take on. He points to the work of the Egyptian slaves who built the pyramids but are ignored when people marvel over the enormity and beauty of the project.
Lefevre talks about the hopes he has for his children, the emergence and threat technology has on his job, the difference between being a thinker and a doer and about leaving a mark on your work (so people remember you). He uses a lot of jokes and makes a lot of sincere comments about these things. Overall, he seems like a father who would like to spend more time with his kids and give them more and better opportunities than he’s had.
I appreciate his interview a lot and I connect with this entry because I belong to a family of labourers: not very educated, but very intelligent people who must use their physical strength to make their daily pay. Most of the men in my family work in some form of construction, or metal stripping while my mother & grandmother are cleaners. While I’ve been fortunate to come to university and utilize a different kind of learning (analysis, critical discussion, etc), a more valued type of learning, I can’t forget where I’ve come from and the struggles I’ve seen my family endure by having a very physically draining lifestyle. Lefevre admits, “Somebody has to do this work. If my kid ever goes to college, I just want him to have a little respect, to realize that his dad is one of those somebodies” (xxxv). I may not have to use my hands to make ends meet, but I appreciate the people who do, because they are doing the real ground work for our society, doing the work that us on our pedal stools refuse to submit ourselves to.
One of Lefevre’s most thoughtful remarks says, “If you can’t improve yourself, you improve your posterity. Otherwise life isn’t worth nothing. You might as well go back to the cave and stay there. I’m sure the first caveman who went over the hill to see what was on the other side—I don’t think he went there wholly out of curiousity. He went there because he wanted to get his son out of the cave. Just the same way I want to send my kid to college” (xxxii). Similarly to what I was saying above, my family has worked hard to push me to do more with my life, especially knowing the hardships they’ve had to endure living a difficult and hard lifestyle.
I like how Terkel connected the stories of all these people, how he gave a voice to the previously ignored and how he allowed people like Lefevre to leave a mark somewhere, where someone could remember him.
One entry that stood out to me the most was “Who Built the Pyramids?” The first preface is an interview with Mike Lefevre, a steelworker from “somewhere in Cicero” (xxxi). He talks about those in our everyday, the laborers, who are ignored or not given any credit for the line of work they take on. He points to the work of the Egyptian slaves who built the pyramids but are ignored when people marvel over the enormity and beauty of the project.
Lefevre talks about the hopes he has for his children, the emergence and threat technology has on his job, the difference between being a thinker and a doer and about leaving a mark on your work (so people remember you). He uses a lot of jokes and makes a lot of sincere comments about these things. Overall, he seems like a father who would like to spend more time with his kids and give them more and better opportunities than he’s had.
I appreciate his interview a lot and I connect with this entry because I belong to a family of labourers: not very educated, but very intelligent people who must use their physical strength to make their daily pay. Most of the men in my family work in some form of construction, or metal stripping while my mother & grandmother are cleaners. While I’ve been fortunate to come to university and utilize a different kind of learning (analysis, critical discussion, etc), a more valued type of learning, I can’t forget where I’ve come from and the struggles I’ve seen my family endure by having a very physically draining lifestyle. Lefevre admits, “Somebody has to do this work. If my kid ever goes to college, I just want him to have a little respect, to realize that his dad is one of those somebodies” (xxxv). I may not have to use my hands to make ends meet, but I appreciate the people who do, because they are doing the real ground work for our society, doing the work that us on our pedal stools refuse to submit ourselves to.
One of Lefevre’s most thoughtful remarks says, “If you can’t improve yourself, you improve your posterity. Otherwise life isn’t worth nothing. You might as well go back to the cave and stay there. I’m sure the first caveman who went over the hill to see what was on the other side—I don’t think he went there wholly out of curiousity. He went there because he wanted to get his son out of the cave. Just the same way I want to send my kid to college” (xxxii). Similarly to what I was saying above, my family has worked hard to push me to do more with my life, especially knowing the hardships they’ve had to endure living a difficult and hard lifestyle.
I like how Terkel connected the stories of all these people, how he gave a voice to the previously ignored and how he allowed people like Lefevre to leave a mark somewhere, where someone could remember him.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
“The Act of Seeing with One’s Own Eyes,” dir. Stan Brakhage Sept 17
This film confronted me with my most honest and intimate thoughts and feelings about death. I’m not usually one for gore and although at times I felt this film tip-toed that line, it still demonstrated an amount of artistry. What I found most uncomfortable about it was the lack of sound. But as I think about it, maybe that’s what made it more comfortable. I don’t think I would have been better off hearing the cracking sounds of body parts or the grunts and hums of the coroner. Complete silence is the sound of death, so maybe it was better off that way, even if it did only emphasize the images we were confronted with on the screen.
The camera shots were very close up to the point where body parts were no longer recognizable. I think I appreciated that. A bird’s eye view of a dead body and the autopsy process would probably have been overwhelming. However, even in the format it was shot in the film caused me to question ideas of humanity and of aliveness.
Ethically I’m wondering if this should be filmed? What was the purpose of the filmmaker in making this film other than fulfilling curiosities about death? Our television networks have created now formulaic shows that investigate the death of a person, including graphic scenes that fed that same curiosity (but in a fictional format).
Humanity and respect for the dead in particular are questioned when we allow our filmmakers, entertainers and artists to go to far. But do we have the right to make them stop? At points I felt the bodies were there to be put on display, similar to what the title suggests (The Act of Seeing). It felt too meat market for me. My own humanity and the humanity of my family and friends who will all die made me very uncomfortable with the concept of viewing them through a gaze of anything other than respect and love. Especially poignant is the shot where the coroner rips the face off the body, symbolically removing their identity and their history. Similarly with the removing of the body’s brain: that was $40,000- plus of university; over 16
years of school; memories and thoughts all removed from a person’s skull. In death we are almost treated like animals at the butcher. They take our most valuable parts in life and dispose of the rest of us (either in the ground or in a metal case in a wall).
When a person close to me died recently, I couldn’t help but to think how he was treated when he was in the coroners. Did they take away his identity? Does he deserve an identity now that he's dead? What will happen to me when I die?
I guess my irrational feelings about life and death have taken over, but the film allows us that space. It gives us a way of seeing and thinking that we would otherwise push to the side and not consider (until we are closer to death).
I think a quote from the article, “Seeing with Experimental Eyes” by Bart Testa best sums up what Brakhage was trying to convey, “We witness what exceeds our sight and grasp. The camera gazes. It presents evidence destined to disturb. The evidence cries out for argument, some interpretative frame within which to comprehend it. Nowhere is this need more acutely felt than in a film that refuses to provide any explanatory commentary whatsoever” (270).
The camera shots were very close up to the point where body parts were no longer recognizable. I think I appreciated that. A bird’s eye view of a dead body and the autopsy process would probably have been overwhelming. However, even in the format it was shot in the film caused me to question ideas of humanity and of aliveness.
Ethically I’m wondering if this should be filmed? What was the purpose of the filmmaker in making this film other than fulfilling curiosities about death? Our television networks have created now formulaic shows that investigate the death of a person, including graphic scenes that fed that same curiosity (but in a fictional format).
Humanity and respect for the dead in particular are questioned when we allow our filmmakers, entertainers and artists to go to far. But do we have the right to make them stop? At points I felt the bodies were there to be put on display, similar to what the title suggests (The Act of Seeing). It felt too meat market for me. My own humanity and the humanity of my family and friends who will all die made me very uncomfortable with the concept of viewing them through a gaze of anything other than respect and love. Especially poignant is the shot where the coroner rips the face off the body, symbolically removing their identity and their history. Similarly with the removing of the body’s brain: that was $40,000- plus of university; over 16
years of school; memories and thoughts all removed from a person’s skull. In death we are almost treated like animals at the butcher. They take our most valuable parts in life and dispose of the rest of us (either in the ground or in a metal case in a wall).When a person close to me died recently, I couldn’t help but to think how he was treated when he was in the coroners. Did they take away his identity? Does he deserve an identity now that he's dead? What will happen to me when I die?
I guess my irrational feelings about life and death have taken over, but the film allows us that space. It gives us a way of seeing and thinking that we would otherwise push to the side and not consider (until we are closer to death).
I think a quote from the article, “Seeing with Experimental Eyes” by Bart Testa best sums up what Brakhage was trying to convey, “We witness what exceeds our sight and grasp. The camera gazes. It presents evidence destined to disturb. The evidence cries out for argument, some interpretative frame within which to comprehend it. Nowhere is this need more acutely felt than in a film that refuses to provide any explanatory commentary whatsoever” (270).
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Keeping a Blog Journal
This is where I'll gather my thoughts and responses to the readings, screenings and discussions.
Due Dates: First 4 entries- October 23
Second 4 entries- December 4
Questions to consider: -How did I respond while viewing it? -How do I feel after some reflection?-Why did I respond the way I did? -What kind of technical or formal issues struck me?
Try to connect to readings, cite, include images, screen shots, video, articles, etc.
Make sure to provide a critical analysis!
Due Dates: First 4 entries- October 23
Second 4 entries- December 4
Questions to consider: -How did I respond while viewing it? -How do I feel after some reflection?-Why did I respond the way I did? -What kind of technical or formal issues struck me?
Try to connect to readings, cite, include images, screen shots, video, articles, etc.
Make sure to provide a critical analysis!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
