I had a difficult time choosing a single idea to address from this week's reading because there was so many interesting ideas and areas where the two schools of thought intersected. Ultimately I decided to go with a couple of Barry's points about what feminist critics do.
Barry stated that feminist critics "raise the question of whether men and women are 'essentially' different because of biology or are socially constructed as different". One of the feminist theories that I find most interesting is the idea that sex is a biological fact but that gender is performative and shaped by cultural norms, so that what we in America consider appropriate male or female behavior is shaped by our cultural expectations. Chosen is an action movie and action movies are designed to appeal to a male audience. Clive Owen is the stereotype of a male action star. He is tough, cool, and independent--clearly not swayed by any female influences. This is a genre made by men for men. Even in the few action films with a female lead the heroine is portrayed as being an exception to her gender. She is heroic because she acts like a man. Action films reaffirm the societal construct of male and female behaviors.
Of course Chosen is also a commercial and it's clearly trying to sell a product to a male audience by proclaiming this is what it means to be a man in a man's world. BMW is unconcerned about whether or not any women appear in the ad because in a patriarchal society media that highlights men and caters to men is the norm rather than the exception. The Bechdel Test is a simple rule used for judging female representation in media, the very existence of such a test makes a case for the limited presence that women have in media. Additionally, I would argue that societal misogyny makes it acceptable for women to like action movies-- see Timbre's example of female fans of the James Bond franchise-- while belittling any men who like media that is produced for a female demographic.
I was also interested in the idea that feminism criticism debates the idea of the death of the author and instead argues that "experience is central". I think that this has interesting applications for Chosen. Ang Lee is an Asian American male and in Chosen he's made a film that features Asians and men. This would seem to support the idea that experience is central in the creation of a text. Of course a look at his entire ouvre of work show's that he is capable of telling authentic stories about characters who are very much outside his personal experience but I do think it's interesting to question this idea of the role of experience in creating art. Is it possible for a white male to create a feminist film that accurately depicts female characters? Is it possible for a white film maker to create a story about African American characters? I'm not entirely sure that this was the point Barry was trying to make but I found the idea very interesting.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
TIPRR 12
Of the chapter readings, I was most interested in this idea of écriture féminine: or the inherently female-oriented language. It was interesting that feminists saw male-oriented language as authoritative and controlling and felt the need to pit the female-oriented against it as rule-breaking and looser (the opposite rather than a complementary). I have to admit I had similar misgivings to Barry, “And if femininity is socially constructed then it must follow that it differs from one culture to another, so that such overarching generalizations about it are impossible.” It was not without some humor that I found myself laughing when the idea of a female-oriented language was analyzed by Kristeva who said essentially that female-oriented language is best shown in poetry because it kind of made the idea of prose a little out of reach of this language. But I did like reading Kristeva’s perspective on the same subject – I leave this subject alone for now because my analysis is long.
With my textual analysis, I have to give the following caveat: I intend to give this a classical Freudian analysis. Chosen is about the fears of homosexual encounters and the necessity of the woman in a male world. Now that I have said that you might be saying, “Huh?” I’ll try to explain.
In the beginning the main character pronounces his availability by the turning on of his lights as a boat comes to harbor. He has effectively introduced his willingness to receive and be alternately pursued. Following the docking of the boat he is introduced to the little box – a hollow object with a surprise inside – symbolic of female genitalia. He is quickly told as he goes to open it, “Wait. It’s for later.” This introduces a pause between the time of reception and the time of revealing the secrets within the woman. The car could be seen here having two meanings; first, the ambition of the main character, and second, the three (man, boy, and car) as male genitalia, thus expressing the latent manhood of the main character.
The boy is put into the backseat, where he is physically and metaphorically demonstrating that he is no longer in control of his life. As he and the boy– the boy being perhaps a symbol of the man’s own innocence – turn to leave, they see the lights of two cars turning on, thus revealing themselves and their intentions. From the passenger seats of both cars emerge unknown men. The symbol of three – the driver, the passenger and the car itself – reiterates the male genitalia. The initial interest is easily evaded as the BMW goes speeding past them only to run into yet another hiding car. What follows is a dance, symbolic of sexual intercourse, of the three cars but the dance is in the form of a chase, thus evoking a fear of homosexuality. The main character becomes trapped. There is penetration by the use of the rifle – a dangerously aggressive metaphor – and the main character’s escape by brute force.
There is a transition at this point in our story which follows by the acceptance of a home – a place where we should feel safe – and the introduction of a counterfeit monk (perhaps symbolizing our own religious faith and devotion). This monk receives the main character’s symbolic “innocence” (the child) and attempts to use a syringe (yet another symbolic form of sex) to inoculate the “innocence” with a pink/purple glowing material (purpose unknown but with obvious female connotations). The man returns (after seeing other monks tied up – three of them to be precise) and uses aggressive force to stop the kidnapper. Thus, the ordeal is completed, an important change symbolized in the main character’s life, he is finally able to go back to his car to find the box (the woman) sitting there, waiting for him. He finally opens the box (now that it is later) and finds a band-aid within – a symbol of healing. He is thereby healed on his ear – yet another possible symbol of being responsive and receptive – and finally conquers his own fears because of the woman. Of course, there is the Hulk image on the band-aid that perhaps could mean the woman holds something of innate manhood for the main character making him a “greater man” in the process. Also, it is not without irony, that the kidnapper wears cowboy boots, which leads to a future award-winning film by the director, “Brokeback Mountain,” that deals with issues of homosexuality – perhaps making this short film a dream of the director’s. In the end, the BMW commercial is a reiteration of the powerful machismo of heterosexual aggressiveness and the connection of the BMW to the sexual potency of the heterosexual male, but that potency is only applicable when he listens to women.
With my textual analysis, I have to give the following caveat: I intend to give this a classical Freudian analysis. Chosen is about the fears of homosexual encounters and the necessity of the woman in a male world. Now that I have said that you might be saying, “Huh?” I’ll try to explain.
In the beginning the main character pronounces his availability by the turning on of his lights as a boat comes to harbor. He has effectively introduced his willingness to receive and be alternately pursued. Following the docking of the boat he is introduced to the little box – a hollow object with a surprise inside – symbolic of female genitalia. He is quickly told as he goes to open it, “Wait. It’s for later.” This introduces a pause between the time of reception and the time of revealing the secrets within the woman. The car could be seen here having two meanings; first, the ambition of the main character, and second, the three (man, boy, and car) as male genitalia, thus expressing the latent manhood of the main character.
The boy is put into the backseat, where he is physically and metaphorically demonstrating that he is no longer in control of his life. As he and the boy– the boy being perhaps a symbol of the man’s own innocence – turn to leave, they see the lights of two cars turning on, thus revealing themselves and their intentions. From the passenger seats of both cars emerge unknown men. The symbol of three – the driver, the passenger and the car itself – reiterates the male genitalia. The initial interest is easily evaded as the BMW goes speeding past them only to run into yet another hiding car. What follows is a dance, symbolic of sexual intercourse, of the three cars but the dance is in the form of a chase, thus evoking a fear of homosexuality. The main character becomes trapped. There is penetration by the use of the rifle – a dangerously aggressive metaphor – and the main character’s escape by brute force.
There is a transition at this point in our story which follows by the acceptance of a home – a place where we should feel safe – and the introduction of a counterfeit monk (perhaps symbolizing our own religious faith and devotion). This monk receives the main character’s symbolic “innocence” (the child) and attempts to use a syringe (yet another symbolic form of sex) to inoculate the “innocence” with a pink/purple glowing material (purpose unknown but with obvious female connotations). The man returns (after seeing other monks tied up – three of them to be precise) and uses aggressive force to stop the kidnapper. Thus, the ordeal is completed, an important change symbolized in the main character’s life, he is finally able to go back to his car to find the box (the woman) sitting there, waiting for him. He finally opens the box (now that it is later) and finds a band-aid within – a symbol of healing. He is thereby healed on his ear – yet another possible symbol of being responsive and receptive – and finally conquers his own fears because of the woman. Of course, there is the Hulk image on the band-aid that perhaps could mean the woman holds something of innate manhood for the main character making him a “greater man” in the process. Also, it is not without irony, that the kidnapper wears cowboy boots, which leads to a future award-winning film by the director, “Brokeback Mountain,” that deals with issues of homosexuality – perhaps making this short film a dream of the director’s. In the end, the BMW commercial is a reiteration of the powerful machismo of heterosexual aggressiveness and the connection of the BMW to the sexual potency of the heterosexual male, but that potency is only applicable when he listens to women.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
tiprr 12 Freudian Psychoanalytical Critique
The major goal of what psychoanalytical critics do is identify the conscious (or overt content) and unconscious (or covert) within the text.
Some of the overt content or conscious mind in the text, Chosen, is the coming together of two cultures, the dark calm mysterious hero vs. bad guys, the wisdom of the children, etc. These are elements and possible themes that the director, Ang Lee, wants the audience to leave the theatre or viewing considering.
Jacques Lacan’s theories are rooted in the work of Freud. Lacan helps us search to identify the covert or unconscious mind with the phrase “I am where I think not.”
We pay close attention to the unconscious because that is the meaning of the text. And we will understand this by the motives of the author and characters’ unconsciousness.
The unconscious mind of the text is the BMW itself. Although the vehicle is the sole purpose of the party funding the film, in my analysis of the text I find that the director is telling a story while using a car, not overtly telling the story of the BMW. The car is there because it must, but it does not tell the story. The hero, Driver, is saving the day and he never gives credence to the car as a hero or anything more than a device he controls. Driver uses the car to navigate around the bad guys, but the car is not even present when the day is really saved.
BMW wants their car and purpose to be covert, therefore, they hire a successful director to tell a story that will incorporate a vehicle, not tell the story of a BMW. The director is the author of the film and his story is not BMW specific, but the fact is that he did use the BMW.
Because the indestructible vehicle is the choice of the author and hero, then it will be my choice as well.
Some of the overt content or conscious mind in the text, Chosen, is the coming together of two cultures, the dark calm mysterious hero vs. bad guys, the wisdom of the children, etc. These are elements and possible themes that the director, Ang Lee, wants the audience to leave the theatre or viewing considering.
Jacques Lacan’s theories are rooted in the work of Freud. Lacan helps us search to identify the covert or unconscious mind with the phrase “I am where I think not.”
We pay close attention to the unconscious because that is the meaning of the text. And we will understand this by the motives of the author and characters’ unconsciousness.
The unconscious mind of the text is the BMW itself. Although the vehicle is the sole purpose of the party funding the film, in my analysis of the text I find that the director is telling a story while using a car, not overtly telling the story of the BMW. The car is there because it must, but it does not tell the story. The hero, Driver, is saving the day and he never gives credence to the car as a hero or anything more than a device he controls. Driver uses the car to navigate around the bad guys, but the car is not even present when the day is really saved.
BMW wants their car and purpose to be covert, therefore, they hire a successful director to tell a story that will incorporate a vehicle, not tell the story of a BMW. The director is the author of the film and his story is not BMW specific, but the fact is that he did use the BMW.
Because the indestructible vehicle is the choice of the author and hero, then it will be my choice as well.
TIPRR 12-The One after Thanksgiving Break
WARNING: Too much turkey inhibits analytical abilities.
So...Psychoanalytic or Feminist Criticism, eh? While both address very interesting ideas, I think that for this week, I will focus on the feminist lens.
I think that the concept that I found to be the most intriguing in the reading is the idea that prose writing "is essentially a male instrument fashioned for male purposes" (121). With Virginia Woolf's statement "That is a man's sentence," it necessarily follows that there is a "woman's sentence." The ecriture feminine is obviously a realm of much conflict, but the idea that "men's writing" and "women's writing" differ seems kind of like a "duh" concept to me. It's in Kristeva's examination of the symbolic and the semiotic that some of those differences are made explicit.
So, how does all of this relate to Chosen? Well, after watching it again, all I have to say is this: apparently women don't need to buy cars. Or at least, they are not the target audience for this particular advertisement; there's not a single depiction of a woman in the film. In fact, one could argue that this particular brand of filmmaking is very NON-ecriture feminine; it screams "MANLY" in every way, from the male characters to the car chase to the cowboy boots that we have discussed extensively. There are guns, a (brief) fistfight, and most importantly, a rockin' vehicle, all things that appear extensively in films created by men, for men. Is this particular "language" accessible to females? Sure; all it takes is one glance into the theatre on opening night of the new Bond film to see that women can "get it" (though there could be some argument that the item that is the most accessible to women is Daniel Craig himself).
So, how about an ecriture feminine for film? Much like the elements discussed in the text, I would assume that they would include much more "poetic" filmmaking-longer shots with softer lighting, more romance, and less fighting. What would Chosen look like from this angle? I'm guessing it be more reminiscent of a Jane Austen adaptation rather than a Bond film.
Here's My Psycho Analysis
Okay everyone, I gave you at least a week to be the first to post, so no whining about how I said what you wanted to. Also, I hope that your respective Thanksgivings were very nice. I spent mine throwing up, which was just about as bad as it sounds.
Psychoanalysis is really interesting to me because I find myself simultaneously accepting and rejecting it. Lacanian psychoanalysis is of particular interest because it seems to me that without saying the words, he seems to support the idea of a "collective unconscious" in that the unconscious is tied to language, which is a shared and complete system shared by all people (or at least those who speak the language in question). So, there are systems at work that govern our own actions more than our conscious selves do, and that's crazy. I find it interesting that we can regard characters "as assemblages of signifiers clustering round a proper name" (108), which seems to relate directly to the ideas of metonymy and metaphor. So, while Lacanian psychoanalysis seems to disrupt or deconstruct many of our traditional notions of self-hood and consciousness, it still asserts that there is some meaning to be had in the world, and that reading texts correctly can uncover this meaning.
All this said, I thought for some reason that psychoanalytic criticism would somewhat easy. I started making a list of the things that the characters could possibly stand for:
The Hire: Western Culture
His Noble Steed: Products of capitalism
Mason Lee: Eastern Culture
Ignoble Steeds and associated drivers: Colonizers, perhaps? Oppressors? Power grabbers?
Wicked Monk of the East/West: Those who would exploit/expose their own culture for status among the Other.
The Box: The unconscious.
However, as I finished this list, I realized that it was just starting to sound like the already hashed out Postcolonial or Liberal Humanist reading I've already done, with the exception of the last element. I also remembered that psychoanalysis (this time of the Freudian type, but what's a good analysis without some hybridization?) privileges "the individual 'psycho drama' above the 'social drama' of class conflict" (101). So, with that in mind, here's take two of my attempt at psychoanalysis, treating the whole thing as an attempt to understand and uncover one's essential selfhood:
The Hire: The individual, lacking in understanding of self
The Chosen: The Other, at peace with the interaction between his conscious and unconscious
The not-as-good-as-Clive Owen-drivers: Distractions that function as screen memories for the hire.
Evil Monk: Another individual, living in denial.
The box: The unconscious itself
So, at the beginning of the film, the boy gives the hire a box and tells him not to open it--it's for later. The desire to understand what is inside the box--and hence, the boy's motivation in giving it to Clive Own--is the mystery that subtly drives the entire narrative. As viewers, we forget that we care about the box, but once it's opened we realize that perhaps a desire to understand what was in the box is what drove the hire to act as he did in preserving the boy. All the distractions along the way function as screen memories, making us forget the box. Perhaps Clive Owen's adept driving is simply his way of transferring his tension with the mystery of the box into physical action.
The end of the film, the opening of the box, could represent pushing away all distraction and allowing the individual to uncover the unconscious thought that has shaped the whole narrative. A hulk bandaid. The use of the Hulk itself suggests the fragmentation of self, the duality of our identities. It is only in accepting and acknowledging his unconscious that Clive Owen becomes whole (after all, psychoanalysis of the Freudian nature was supposedly therapeutic...).
I feel at once insightful and stupid. Is this normal?
Psychoanalysis is really interesting to me because I find myself simultaneously accepting and rejecting it. Lacanian psychoanalysis is of particular interest because it seems to me that without saying the words, he seems to support the idea of a "collective unconscious" in that the unconscious is tied to language, which is a shared and complete system shared by all people (or at least those who speak the language in question). So, there are systems at work that govern our own actions more than our conscious selves do, and that's crazy. I find it interesting that we can regard characters "as assemblages of signifiers clustering round a proper name" (108), which seems to relate directly to the ideas of metonymy and metaphor. So, while Lacanian psychoanalysis seems to disrupt or deconstruct many of our traditional notions of self-hood and consciousness, it still asserts that there is some meaning to be had in the world, and that reading texts correctly can uncover this meaning.
All this said, I thought for some reason that psychoanalytic criticism would somewhat easy. I started making a list of the things that the characters could possibly stand for:
The Hire: Western Culture
His Noble Steed: Products of capitalism
Mason Lee: Eastern Culture
Ignoble Steeds and associated drivers: Colonizers, perhaps? Oppressors? Power grabbers?
Wicked Monk of the East/West: Those who would exploit/expose their own culture for status among the Other.
The Box: The unconscious.
However, as I finished this list, I realized that it was just starting to sound like the already hashed out Postcolonial or Liberal Humanist reading I've already done, with the exception of the last element. I also remembered that psychoanalysis (this time of the Freudian type, but what's a good analysis without some hybridization?) privileges "the individual 'psycho drama' above the 'social drama' of class conflict" (101). So, with that in mind, here's take two of my attempt at psychoanalysis, treating the whole thing as an attempt to understand and uncover one's essential selfhood:
The Hire: The individual, lacking in understanding of self
The Chosen: The Other, at peace with the interaction between his conscious and unconscious
The not-as-good-as-Clive Owen-drivers: Distractions that function as screen memories for the hire.
Evil Monk: Another individual, living in denial.
The box: The unconscious itself
So, at the beginning of the film, the boy gives the hire a box and tells him not to open it--it's for later. The desire to understand what is inside the box--and hence, the boy's motivation in giving it to Clive Own--is the mystery that subtly drives the entire narrative. As viewers, we forget that we care about the box, but once it's opened we realize that perhaps a desire to understand what was in the box is what drove the hire to act as he did in preserving the boy. All the distractions along the way function as screen memories, making us forget the box. Perhaps Clive Owen's adept driving is simply his way of transferring his tension with the mystery of the box into physical action.
The end of the film, the opening of the box, could represent pushing away all distraction and allowing the individual to uncover the unconscious thought that has shaped the whole narrative. A hulk bandaid. The use of the Hulk itself suggests the fragmentation of self, the duality of our identities. It is only in accepting and acknowledging his unconscious that Clive Owen becomes whole (after all, psychoanalysis of the Freudian nature was supposedly therapeutic...).
I feel at once insightful and stupid. Is this normal?
Monday, November 16, 2009
First, I apologize if anyone tries to load this on a slow internet connection. I'm using a lot of embedded clips to illustrate my points this week and I hope it won't inconvenience you.
One of the things that I really enjoyed about this week's reading was how easily a critique of Chosen fit into the theory. Marxism is a criticism of the way that class, economics, and structures impact the art we create and here we have a commercial dressed up to look like a movie and isn't it marvelous how easily it fits into this model? Then I started trying to look at the movie through some of the more specific Marxist critical lenses and that's when it started getting really entertaining.
According to Barry one of the methods used in Marxist criticism is to "explain the nature of a whole literary genre in terms of the social period which 'produced' it. Commercials are a genre that are extremely representative of our modern consumerist and materialist culture. I would argue that Chosen is a commercial overtly presented as art and that most modern movies and television are just as intent on selling a product they are just more covert in their presentation. That Chosen is not unique because it blends art and commercialism but that it is unique for that overt way in which it does so.
Take a look at the following clips from some popular movies,
How many products were on display and being sold in thatcommercial film? Granted that's part of the joke there but what about this example?
In just that short clip there were plugs for ipods, apple computers, hewlett packard, pepto bismol, panasonic, x-box, and naturally lots of cars, porsche, hummers, GMC, even the t-shirt Shia LaBeuf is wearing is advertising The Strokes.
We live in the age of product placement.Advertisers aren't as interested with placing during commercial breaks because they know that we don't watch them, instead they want to find a way to advertise their product in the program itself. This clip from 30 Rock beautifully illustrates how money really is the bottom line.
I have many more thoughts on this topic but I'm going to save them for my presentation and I will leave you with this last clip from Neil Young. The video for "This Note's for You" was intended as a commentary on the commercialization of art. Initially banned by MTV because they worried that many of the ads and companies parodied in the video would sue the network of course in true MTV fashion they milked the controversy for all it was worth and then eventually rewarded it with a video of the year award. This Note's for You
One of the things that I really enjoyed about this week's reading was how easily a critique of Chosen fit into the theory. Marxism is a criticism of the way that class, economics, and structures impact the art we create and here we have a commercial dressed up to look like a movie and isn't it marvelous how easily it fits into this model? Then I started trying to look at the movie through some of the more specific Marxist critical lenses and that's when it started getting really entertaining.
According to Barry one of the methods used in Marxist criticism is to "explain the nature of a whole literary genre in terms of the social period which 'produced' it. Commercials are a genre that are extremely representative of our modern consumerist and materialist culture. I would argue that Chosen is a commercial overtly presented as art and that most modern movies and television are just as intent on selling a product they are just more covert in their presentation. That Chosen is not unique because it blends art and commercialism but that it is unique for that overt way in which it does so.
Take a look at the following clips from some popular movies,
How many products were on display and being sold in that
In just that short clip there were plugs for ipods, apple computers, hewlett packard, pepto bismol, panasonic, x-box, and naturally lots of cars, porsche, hummers, GMC, even the t-shirt Shia LaBeuf is wearing is advertising The Strokes.
We live in the age of product placement.Advertisers aren't as interested with placing during commercial breaks because they know that we don't watch them, instead they want to find a way to advertise their product in the program itself. This clip from 30 Rock beautifully illustrates how money really is the bottom line.
I have many more thoughts on this topic but I'm going to save them for my presentation and I will leave you with this last clip from Neil Young. The video for "This Note's for You" was intended as a commentary on the commercialization of art. Initially banned by MTV because they worried that many of the ads and companies parodied in the video would sue the network of course in true MTV fashion they milked the controversy for all it was worth and then eventually rewarded it with a video of the year award. This Note's for You
Sunday, November 15, 2009
TIPRR 11
Looking at Barry, one of the things that was especially interesting to me was his outline of how Marxism is interpreted. In other chapters, he had one or two variations on a theme, but with Marxism, it seemed like there were so many cooks in the kitchen it was almost entirely impossible to differentiate the head chef: Marx, Engels, Hegel, Eagleton, Belsey, Lenin, all those Russian Formalists, Althusser, etc. When I finished, I found it interesting that his section, “What Marxist critics do,” had to be separated into “methods” rather than generalized directions (as I interpret other chapters) because you can choose to make a division between the overt and the covert, or you could relate the context of the work to the social-class status of the author, or you could explain the whole literary genre in terms of the social period that produced it, or you can look at the social assumptions of the time it which it is consumed, and lastly, you can claim that literary forms are themselves are determined by political circumstance. Wow, the possibilities! Oh, and I should mention that there are varying degrees of each method that you can take (as explained in the Stop and Think section). Because of my own personality, I think that I end up in the Althusser realm in my philosophies (if I were to related myself as a Marxist) and like looking at those subtle views of how society works. To me it felt like he was one foot in Marxism (because there is a meaning) and one foot in postmodernism (because he likes looking beyond the “sign” to what is going on underneath).
Now, because of the variations on Marxism that exist, the matter that I had more than one choice to focus on was a little unnerving: How do I look at Chosen? Can’t really say for sure. I could look at the helplessness of the lower-class monk to the upper-class car driver (though I think it up to debate that the monks are particularly destitute because they had the funds to hire “the hire.”) I could also look at how Ang Lee was a recent addition to the A-list directors because of his most recent award-winning hit: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and the possible pretention that comes with an Asian director “proving” the spiritual superiority of Asian mysticism in the face of the BMW western world. On the other hand, this film is pre 9/11 and the Western power over the threat of subtle conspiracies was unquestioned at this point in time, perhaps never even looked at, thus heightening the superiority of the western social structure and the prominence of such iconic forms of “upper class” as having a BMW as a vehicle used in conjunction with a “transportation” job – we are so rich that even our menial jobs of transporting people are done in luxury cars. At the time (May 2001), Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun had been out for roughly 4 years (both released in 1997), the reality of Tibetan monk refugees was easily accepted and China’s involvement in Tibet and the need for westerners to intervene in their time of need was a topic of debate. In 2000 the Dalai Lama made the statements, “we need to develop more altruism and a sense of caring and responsibility for others in the minds of the younger generation” and “As long as there is no freedom in many parts of the world there can be no real peace and in a sense no real freedom for the rest of the world” – both the boy showing his superior altruism and the lack of peace and freedom explicit in the film reflect these statements that have direct political circumstance relations. But what “method” should I choose to elaborate on? It does make for a fun game, though.
Now, because of the variations on Marxism that exist, the matter that I had more than one choice to focus on was a little unnerving: How do I look at Chosen? Can’t really say for sure. I could look at the helplessness of the lower-class monk to the upper-class car driver (though I think it up to debate that the monks are particularly destitute because they had the funds to hire “the hire.”) I could also look at how Ang Lee was a recent addition to the A-list directors because of his most recent award-winning hit: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and the possible pretention that comes with an Asian director “proving” the spiritual superiority of Asian mysticism in the face of the BMW western world. On the other hand, this film is pre 9/11 and the Western power over the threat of subtle conspiracies was unquestioned at this point in time, perhaps never even looked at, thus heightening the superiority of the western social structure and the prominence of such iconic forms of “upper class” as having a BMW as a vehicle used in conjunction with a “transportation” job – we are so rich that even our menial jobs of transporting people are done in luxury cars. At the time (May 2001), Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun had been out for roughly 4 years (both released in 1997), the reality of Tibetan monk refugees was easily accepted and China’s involvement in Tibet and the need for westerners to intervene in their time of need was a topic of debate. In 2000 the Dalai Lama made the statements, “we need to develop more altruism and a sense of caring and responsibility for others in the minds of the younger generation” and “As long as there is no freedom in many parts of the world there can be no real peace and in a sense no real freedom for the rest of the world” – both the boy showing his superior altruism and the lack of peace and freedom explicit in the film reflect these statements that have direct political circumstance relations. But what “method” should I choose to elaborate on? It does make for a fun game, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)