While American Beauty already shared many of the themes and theories that our course has centered around, however, with the addition of Cvetkovich's theories of trauma, the comparison become even more succinct.
As a means of running down a list of themes involved in the movie, it would be helpful to identify specifically some of these principles. American Beauty is an excellent example of embodiment (in terms of body image, self identity and mental instability), sexuality (misconceptions, homophobia and repression) and Freudian melancholia.
To start with, the embodiment, or rather issues of body and subjectivity come across fairly blatantly. Lester's desire to better himself physically is at first driven solely by an exterior source. He overhears Angela talking to Jane about his physique and immediately Lester goes and begins to lift weights. In this way, he comes to embrace his change in disposition in regards to himself. He loses the lethargy that he had felt before. This culminates at the end of the film in which he decides not to sleep with Angela, feeling that it would be a violation, but realized that he is happy with himself afterwards and the changes he has made in his life. The issues of embodiment and perversion therein come up in the mental issues of two characters: Ricky and his mother. Ricky describes having only come to his self assurance after being caught smoking marijuana and the subsequent military school enrollment and expulsion that left him in a mental institution. The root cause of this, Ricky's overbearing Marine father Frank, is also presumably the cause behind the unexplained problems Ricky's mother has. The two then become to sides of what this mental pressure can do. Ricky's mother is clearly beyond helping, but Ricky is still able to escape the mental crippling.
Sexuality plays an enormous role in this film. It is sexuality that drives Lester to reinvigorate himself. The basis behind Lester's reinvention in body is that of a drive to alleviate his own sexual repression. This is of course directly tied to the character of Angela. She believes that sexual discourses are thus the only means of achieving her own success. However, the most potent views of sexuality come in the forms of repressed homosexuality in Col. Frank Fitz. Frank constantly states his displeasure in seeing or hearing about homosexuals (like the gay couple down the street). He also goads Ricky into stating his own similar disapproval, although the excess of the statement can be taken as an implication that Ricky doesn't in fact believe in his own anti-gay statements. Frank's fear of homosexuality is derived mainly from himself and the thought that he might have "passed it on" to his son. Frank becomes violent with Ricky, expelling him from his house, upon mistakenly believing that Ricky was gay. This can be seen as a form of melancholia in that Frank is now internalizing not only his shame at his own homosexuality but also that of Ricky's. Frank's attempts to come to terms with this lead only to more mistaken identity (in an ridiculousness on Shakespearean levels) as he assumes Lester is gay. Frank's act of self-preservation is thus seen as a direct consequence of his homophobia and is thus a condemnation.
Lester alone accounts for much of the ideas of melancholia in the film, because of the internalization that he is in fact a hopeless loser at the start of the movie. Other examples of the ways in which melancholia is overcome are Jane's internalized self image problems stemming from comparisons with Angela. To the opposite effect, Carolyn's materialism does not end and in fact her melancholia can be said to deepen. She begins with an internalized view that she cannot succeed in her real estate business be she herself cannot project her success well enough, leading to her materialism. However, she doesn't solve this problem in a lasting or healthy way. Instead, she begins to feel that Lester has victimized her in some way, to the point that she had even contemplated killing him.
The final scene of the film, ending in Lester's murder, is a circumspection of what Cvetkovich would call the trauma inherent in the plot. Traumatic experiences occur frequently, from Lester quitting his job and the backlash at home, to the beatings Ricky endures at the hands of his father, the non-diegetic trauma Ricky describes in his institutionalization. And in a way, as is director Sam Mendes's repetitive theme, all of this can be traced back to what (Cvetkovich and Mendes might jointly term) the trauma of the suburbs. Inherent to this is the outsider view that informs so many of the choices and decisions that the characters make. Lester represents the escape from this system, however, his murder can then be seen as the penalty for leaving the system. Yet, the possibility of escape for Ricky and Jane can be seen as hope for escape from this trauma.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Meditations on Bersani's last paragraph. And some other stuff.
To begin with, I'd like to just go into a little bit more on some of my thoughts on that last paragraph we analyzed from the Bersani essay. I'd like to do this mostly to sort out what exactly it is I think of the concept (and also what the hell it means). I've heard before that writing is thinking, and I prefer to do both at the same time, so I am not really sure how this ends.
Bersani has a few key concepts, so let's get those out:
1. The inviolability of selfhood
2. Selfhood allows for violence as self preservation
3. Sex is dysfunctional in that it is a violent action that leaves the at least one party disenfranchised.
4. Sex as a union is a myth
5. The violence of sex is against the self (solipsistic-jouissance)
So that's established, individually none of these is controversial. Connecting the dots gets weird. As mentioned, the self and the belief by "a self" in the greater concept of "selfhood" (vis-à-vis selfishness) is how violence against another self is justified ethically. Someone else violates my selfhood, I kill them. Done. Now, to counteract that, the myth of sex arises. The myth is that this self v. self violence is put to an end by the pastoral view of sex in relation with matrimony and union and procreation and what have you. Bersani says this is a lie.
Basically Bersani is proposing then (in my interpretation) that because of the myth, people go into sex (and let's take another example than his of homosexual males, because if this is a principle it should apply all over, with a heterosexual pairing) with the maxim of unity. That is, they intend to form a union, and under this pretense the self destruction lies. Broadly consider the "insertee," Bersani's article would have that the submission and passivity of this participant is a disenfranchisement of power. Thus, the insertee submits in order to allow for the union, but in reality only allows the violence against the self, categorically destroying the self (the jouissance is then the act, compiled with the mental violence of technical self abasement).
For the "inserter," the violence comes in the literal concept of insertion as well the deprivation of power upon said action. The inserter has the maxim, or intention, of union, but with only a dictum of submission to show for the violence exhibited, the maxim is contradicted. Therefore, the self in contradicting itself commints self-violence, thus destruction (the jouissance is again the action on one hand and the psychic violence of self contradiction).
Simply adding a hyphen clarifies Bersani's "solipsistic jouissance." Solipsism alone would not support this self shattering, in fact it is the opposite. But solipsistic-jouissance is then the intense feeling of the destruction of the self, the solipsistic self to be precise. Thus, the self is destroyed as a concept, there is no indication that Bersani is proposing sex destroys one's identity and would then have to be reconstituted afterward.
Also, as an unrelated note, and maybe this will help with posting replies because it is a question (that is kind of out there), it seems that there is something very strong being said underneath Lars and the Real Girl to some extent, to a large extent in Misfortune and also in Foucault and more so in Butler regarding masculinity and femininity. So Butler calls gender repeated actions. Meaning that "normal" is just the average, and is baseless as far as gestalt views of total behavior. Rose seems the perfect example of this with her behaviors as a father and as a "feminine man" (scare quotes used to show impending clincher). What all these seem to be saying, is that these categories are an illusion to a very specific point. For lack of a better (and more satisfying) term, masculinity and femininity are complete and utter bullshit.
Bersani has a few key concepts, so let's get those out:
1. The inviolability of selfhood
2. Selfhood allows for violence as self preservation
3. Sex is dysfunctional in that it is a violent action that leaves the at least one party disenfranchised.
4. Sex as a union is a myth
5. The violence of sex is against the self (solipsistic-jouissance)
So that's established, individually none of these is controversial. Connecting the dots gets weird. As mentioned, the self and the belief by "a self" in the greater concept of "selfhood" (vis-à-vis selfishness) is how violence against another self is justified ethically. Someone else violates my selfhood, I kill them. Done. Now, to counteract that, the myth of sex arises. The myth is that this self v. self violence is put to an end by the pastoral view of sex in relation with matrimony and union and procreation and what have you. Bersani says this is a lie.
Basically Bersani is proposing then (in my interpretation) that because of the myth, people go into sex (and let's take another example than his of homosexual males, because if this is a principle it should apply all over, with a heterosexual pairing) with the maxim of unity. That is, they intend to form a union, and under this pretense the self destruction lies. Broadly consider the "insertee," Bersani's article would have that the submission and passivity of this participant is a disenfranchisement of power. Thus, the insertee submits in order to allow for the union, but in reality only allows the violence against the self, categorically destroying the self (the jouissance is then the act, compiled with the mental violence of technical self abasement).
For the "inserter," the violence comes in the literal concept of insertion as well the deprivation of power upon said action. The inserter has the maxim, or intention, of union, but with only a dictum of submission to show for the violence exhibited, the maxim is contradicted. Therefore, the self in contradicting itself commints self-violence, thus destruction (the jouissance is again the action on one hand and the psychic violence of self contradiction).
Simply adding a hyphen clarifies Bersani's "solipsistic jouissance." Solipsism alone would not support this self shattering, in fact it is the opposite. But solipsistic-jouissance is then the intense feeling of the destruction of the self, the solipsistic self to be precise. Thus, the self is destroyed as a concept, there is no indication that Bersani is proposing sex destroys one's identity and would then have to be reconstituted afterward.
Also, as an unrelated note, and maybe this will help with posting replies because it is a question (that is kind of out there), it seems that there is something very strong being said underneath Lars and the Real Girl to some extent, to a large extent in Misfortune and also in Foucault and more so in Butler regarding masculinity and femininity. So Butler calls gender repeated actions. Meaning that "normal" is just the average, and is baseless as far as gestalt views of total behavior. Rose seems the perfect example of this with her behaviors as a father and as a "feminine man" (scare quotes used to show impending clincher). What all these seem to be saying, is that these categories are an illusion to a very specific point. For lack of a better (and more satisfying) term, masculinity and femininity are complete and utter bullshit.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Lars and the Fake Girl & Misfortune and the Not-Girl
In looking at the film Lars and the Real Girl alongside the novel Misfortune, it is impossible not to notice some similarities. There is the issue of restriction of body for one, for example, in the film, Lars (Ryan Gosling) feels physical pain at the touch of others. Rose from the novel constantly mutilates herself, chewing her fingers, because of the years of bodily abuse she has received. Another example is the need for isolation in both Lars and Rose, and to go along with this isolation, both have a srong familial love that brings them out of their isolation.
While these themes and motifs, as well as many more, are present and important to each story, I believe that there is one central theme that is similar to both, though enacted in a different way. In each story, the plot revolves around the issue of an artificial or constructed femininity. In both, this is simultaneously a simple a complex relation. However, I think the outcomes are very similar.
In Lars and the Real Girl, a lonely man with deep feelings of guilt and desire for isolation (largely over his mother dying during childbirth and a depressive father) is driven towards developing the delusion that an "anatomical love doll" that he has purchased over the internet is in fact a living person, whom he met on the internet and is now in a relationship with. This causes alarm in Lars' family as they seek psychological help for him. Eventually, the town comes to embrace Lars' delusion. Because of all the attention that Lars and "Bianca" get it becomes necessary for Lars to invent an entire back story for Bianca. This story is often vastly similar to Lars' own experience, signalling his trouble to deal with his experiences in isolation and the need to form another identity with which to empathize. Lars begins to use this artificial ideal female version of himself as a proxy for deflecting his problems around. This artificial feminine shield becomes Lars' disguise as he learns to conquer his own personal issues.
Rose's situation, while seemingly different, is quite similar. While Lars manifested this artificial identity by imbuing it onto an external object, Rose was raised with a dual identity, causing her(/him) to have two conflicting identities, both of which feel at odds to her. While Rose, categorically a male, is raised female, her masculinity is thrust upon her at the advent of her physical development and deviation from the female body.
While Rose has strong feelings of alienation towards her masculinity, especially her anatomy and the uncomfortable feelings she encounters while wearing men's clothes. We see that Rose, despite often partitioning it and ignoring it, has accepted, if not her masculinity as an embrace of identity, that she is masculine. Therefore, a good deal of the plot is devoted to Rose's acceptance of the artificially created femininity that was imposed on her from birth. As physical ideals of this, Rose takes Sarah and ,to an even greater degree, Prudence. Prudence's stolen red dress thus becomes a symbol of Rose's femininity. Always in tow and hidden.
However, at the resolution of both stories there is simultaneously a loss of these feminine ideals, as well as a profound acceptance of the wholeness of identity through a connection with the feminine sides of both Rose and Lars.
Rose's revelation comes when she is given the option to be a man who wears dresses first, and second at the sort of "fall from grace" that Prudence has had in Rose's mind. Stating that childbearing (a possible extension of femininity) has reduced Prudence to plainness and stripped her of her appeal to Rose. Rose loses her ideal of femininity at the confrontation with Prudence. However, she is able to retain a piece of it in her identity, evidenced by her request to be referred to as "she" while simultaneously fathering two children. That and the dress, of course.
Lars' acceptance of the feminine in his identity is perhaps even more dramatic. Lars, in his waning need for the external construct of Bianca, slowly allows the delusion to simply die. Lars literally kills his constructed delusion. However, when he should seem at his lowest for losing his shelter and proxy, Lars is finally able to connect with an actual person, namely Margo, the "real girl" who had been constantly after his affections. In the acceptance of another person into his life Lars actualized his stunted identity, accepting himself at the same time as Margo.
While these themes and motifs, as well as many more, are present and important to each story, I believe that there is one central theme that is similar to both, though enacted in a different way. In each story, the plot revolves around the issue of an artificial or constructed femininity. In both, this is simultaneously a simple a complex relation. However, I think the outcomes are very similar.
In Lars and the Real Girl, a lonely man with deep feelings of guilt and desire for isolation (largely over his mother dying during childbirth and a depressive father) is driven towards developing the delusion that an "anatomical love doll" that he has purchased over the internet is in fact a living person, whom he met on the internet and is now in a relationship with. This causes alarm in Lars' family as they seek psychological help for him. Eventually, the town comes to embrace Lars' delusion. Because of all the attention that Lars and "Bianca" get it becomes necessary for Lars to invent an entire back story for Bianca. This story is often vastly similar to Lars' own experience, signalling his trouble to deal with his experiences in isolation and the need to form another identity with which to empathize. Lars begins to use this artificial ideal female version of himself as a proxy for deflecting his problems around. This artificial feminine shield becomes Lars' disguise as he learns to conquer his own personal issues.
Rose's situation, while seemingly different, is quite similar. While Lars manifested this artificial identity by imbuing it onto an external object, Rose was raised with a dual identity, causing her(/him) to have two conflicting identities, both of which feel at odds to her. While Rose, categorically a male, is raised female, her masculinity is thrust upon her at the advent of her physical development and deviation from the female body.
While Rose has strong feelings of alienation towards her masculinity, especially her anatomy and the uncomfortable feelings she encounters while wearing men's clothes. We see that Rose, despite often partitioning it and ignoring it, has accepted, if not her masculinity as an embrace of identity, that she is masculine. Therefore, a good deal of the plot is devoted to Rose's acceptance of the artificially created femininity that was imposed on her from birth. As physical ideals of this, Rose takes Sarah and ,to an even greater degree, Prudence. Prudence's stolen red dress thus becomes a symbol of Rose's femininity. Always in tow and hidden.
However, at the resolution of both stories there is simultaneously a loss of these feminine ideals, as well as a profound acceptance of the wholeness of identity through a connection with the feminine sides of both Rose and Lars.
Rose's revelation comes when she is given the option to be a man who wears dresses first, and second at the sort of "fall from grace" that Prudence has had in Rose's mind. Stating that childbearing (a possible extension of femininity) has reduced Prudence to plainness and stripped her of her appeal to Rose. Rose loses her ideal of femininity at the confrontation with Prudence. However, she is able to retain a piece of it in her identity, evidenced by her request to be referred to as "she" while simultaneously fathering two children. That and the dress, of course.
Lars' acceptance of the feminine in his identity is perhaps even more dramatic. Lars, in his waning need for the external construct of Bianca, slowly allows the delusion to simply die. Lars literally kills his constructed delusion. However, when he should seem at his lowest for losing his shelter and proxy, Lars is finally able to connect with an actual person, namely Margo, the "real girl" who had been constantly after his affections. In the acceptance of another person into his life Lars actualized his stunted identity, accepting himself at the same time as Margo.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Meta Gothic and Gender Confusion
I think in order to suss out this novel, Misfortune, it is important for me to just simply state all of the various facets of the largely ambiguous and troubling scenes and themes. To start with, like I stated in class, there are seemingly a lot of similarities to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The first of which that I found is the elaborate experiment regarding the capacities of human life that Anonyma engages in with baby Rose. Now, this is obviously not reanimation or anything as extreme or scientifically improbable (improbable should really have scare quotes around it), however, Anonyma does in fact take on an experiment whereby she is taking certain boundaries that persist to human life and seeing at what points she can bend, shape and basically erase them. And, just like Victor Frankenstein, Anonyma is present for the duration of the process. She knows all along that Rose is a boy in girl's clothing. It should be as little a surprise that Rose would eventually discover "her" anatomy than it was to Victor that he was building a human form out of various large cadavers. How can Victor think these dead rotting tissues wouldn't be horrifying when they stood up and looked at him? Similarly, how did Anonyma think that, without informing Rose of the availability of the proposed gender choice that she had tried to afford her, Rose would grow to be anything but confused and self-destructive? To be fair, Anonyma's experiment was cut short by external machinations.
I also found odd, as I'm sure the author intended, the three sort of sex scenes discussed in class: first with creepy old Uncle Edwig (who reminds of the child molester uncle from Tommy), then the encounter with Sarah, and finally Esmond's (deserving) torment. To start, the scene with Uncle Edwig is nothing short of horrifying. There are multiple factors and cues that Stace gives us to interpret. One, there is a sensational quality to the disgust. The old man has spilled food strewn over him, he smells awful, and he has a dubious manner of speaking. Other things include the obviousness that he is an alcoholic in withdrawals and that he makes extremely unwanted advances at all manner of women in his own family. Finally, we have the omniscient view point's sense that Rose really has no idea of the disturbing quality of the situation she is in. There is (or was for me) a palpable sense in the reader of wanting Hood to simply stroll out and end the debauchery. Which of course doesn't happen. To Rose, it becomes an exploration of anatomy that becomes something of a comfort, in that "she" seems to think there is nothing wrong with "her" body. This juxtaposition is simultaneously brilliant and demented. Finally, Rose gets the stigma of Edwig's death, in association with what she believes is the "tuning" that she feels from Edwig.
This stigma carries over to the sensation that Sarah has during the encounter between her and Rose. This scene is especially ambiguous because it casts into light so many different ways of observing the relationship. It seems apparent that Rose looks up to Sarah. Sarah is an exceptional model for what a girl should be (Prudence is as well, physically, but is lacking in character). Rose wants to be like Sarah. In discovering the disparities in their anatomies, Rose becomes sorry for Sarah at what she perceives as a loss. If the male uncle Edwig had this appendage, and the "female" Rose does as well, then everyone should right? After some fears, Rose finally pieces together the only logical solution: that "she" is a not a she.
Where this matters for the sake of the theme of gender identity/roles and how these play into sexuality lies in the analysis of the intentions in this scene. We know that Sarah and Rose have kissed multiple times, with varying degrees of romantic (or maybe proto-romantic) weight. So. The many, many possibilities in this situation play out like this. Sarah is embracing this as much as Rose is enacting it. Intentionality towards continuation from both. But. Sarah is literally a girl, who thinks that Rose is also a girl. Rose is not a girl. This can mean many things, not all of which could have changed due to whether Rose had been raised the way she was or not. Is Sarah accepting the pleasurable feeling from the simple attention of the friend she is extremely close with, or does she have an implicit attraction to other females in general. Does she have an attraction to Rose only because of her androgynous qualities? Also, does Rose, raised as a girl, still hold all alleged biological propensities towards heterosexuality despite not really even knowing what that means for "her." It is almost impossible to say whether this experiment had an effect on the situation. There are a lot of questions here, but I think to strengthen the theme, it is important to isolate perhaps a stronger teleology. Reading more of the story might clear this up (what a novel concept). Yet at the same time, in the spirit of deconstruction, perhaps it would make the utterly confusing quality of Rose's position even stronger if there was a disharmony between this scene and any further evidence we get from Rose and Sarah as they develop.
Finally, I have to mention the scene with Esmond just because I thought it was, for lack of a better term, super badass. I laughed openly throughout it. The powerlessness that Esmond encounters is such great vengeance for the slew of awful attitudes and behaviors that most of the Loveall's extended family exhibit. Also, there is one more thing that I thought was great about this scene. Anonyma had intended to create a being that was, at least as close as possible to, equally feminine and masculine. And it is in this embracing of a male body and a feminine mind that Rose is completely in control of her full faculties of embodiment, wit and personality.
I also found odd, as I'm sure the author intended, the three sort of sex scenes discussed in class: first with creepy old Uncle Edwig (who reminds of the child molester uncle from Tommy), then the encounter with Sarah, and finally Esmond's (deserving) torment. To start, the scene with Uncle Edwig is nothing short of horrifying. There are multiple factors and cues that Stace gives us to interpret. One, there is a sensational quality to the disgust. The old man has spilled food strewn over him, he smells awful, and he has a dubious manner of speaking. Other things include the obviousness that he is an alcoholic in withdrawals and that he makes extremely unwanted advances at all manner of women in his own family. Finally, we have the omniscient view point's sense that Rose really has no idea of the disturbing quality of the situation she is in. There is (or was for me) a palpable sense in the reader of wanting Hood to simply stroll out and end the debauchery. Which of course doesn't happen. To Rose, it becomes an exploration of anatomy that becomes something of a comfort, in that "she" seems to think there is nothing wrong with "her" body. This juxtaposition is simultaneously brilliant and demented. Finally, Rose gets the stigma of Edwig's death, in association with what she believes is the "tuning" that she feels from Edwig.
This stigma carries over to the sensation that Sarah has during the encounter between her and Rose. This scene is especially ambiguous because it casts into light so many different ways of observing the relationship. It seems apparent that Rose looks up to Sarah. Sarah is an exceptional model for what a girl should be (Prudence is as well, physically, but is lacking in character). Rose wants to be like Sarah. In discovering the disparities in their anatomies, Rose becomes sorry for Sarah at what she perceives as a loss. If the male uncle Edwig had this appendage, and the "female" Rose does as well, then everyone should right? After some fears, Rose finally pieces together the only logical solution: that "she" is a not a she.
Where this matters for the sake of the theme of gender identity/roles and how these play into sexuality lies in the analysis of the intentions in this scene. We know that Sarah and Rose have kissed multiple times, with varying degrees of romantic (or maybe proto-romantic) weight. So. The many, many possibilities in this situation play out like this. Sarah is embracing this as much as Rose is enacting it. Intentionality towards continuation from both. But. Sarah is literally a girl, who thinks that Rose is also a girl. Rose is not a girl. This can mean many things, not all of which could have changed due to whether Rose had been raised the way she was or not. Is Sarah accepting the pleasurable feeling from the simple attention of the friend she is extremely close with, or does she have an implicit attraction to other females in general. Does she have an attraction to Rose only because of her androgynous qualities? Also, does Rose, raised as a girl, still hold all alleged biological propensities towards heterosexuality despite not really even knowing what that means for "her." It is almost impossible to say whether this experiment had an effect on the situation. There are a lot of questions here, but I think to strengthen the theme, it is important to isolate perhaps a stronger teleology. Reading more of the story might clear this up (what a novel concept). Yet at the same time, in the spirit of deconstruction, perhaps it would make the utterly confusing quality of Rose's position even stronger if there was a disharmony between this scene and any further evidence we get from Rose and Sarah as they develop.
Finally, I have to mention the scene with Esmond just because I thought it was, for lack of a better term, super badass. I laughed openly throughout it. The powerlessness that Esmond encounters is such great vengeance for the slew of awful attitudes and behaviors that most of the Loveall's extended family exhibit. Also, there is one more thing that I thought was great about this scene. Anonyma had intended to create a being that was, at least as close as possible to, equally feminine and masculine. And it is in this embracing of a male body and a feminine mind that Rose is completely in control of her full faculties of embodiment, wit and personality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)