Can a voyeur see his own life experience while watching the lives of others? In Rear Window, Alfred Hitchcock sets out to prove that L.B. Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart) does indeed peer into his own relationship with girlfriend/fiance socialite Lisa Carol Freemont(Grace Kelly) as he watches the lives of his neighbors through his rear window.
We see the ballerina as she practices her dance steps around her rooms which parallels with Jeffries own dancing around he does with Lisa as she tries to talk seriously to him about their relationship. He doesn't want to commit to marriage, and with a witty dialogue he outmaneuvers Lisa in the conversation. The ballerina entertains several men at once, the same as Jeffries work as photographer entertains many different subjects. He uses his line of work as an excuse for not being able to marry Lisa. She is not suitable for the rough environments that his work takes him. Although Ms. Torso entertains quite a bit, a soldier "comes home" and she greets him. He may represent the war that is going on between Jeffries and Lisa regarding marriage.
Then there is Ms. Lonelyheart who attempts to entertain an imaginary guest for dinner; this occurs at the same time Lisa is preparing dinner and wine for Jeffries but he is absorbed with his neighbor, and lifts a toast with Ms. Lonelyheart while ignoring Lisa. Ms. Lonelyheart eventually collapses in dismay at her failure to enjoy the evening. Jeffries and Lisa argue about their future or lack thereof. Later on in the film, Ms. Lonelyheart goes to dinner and brings home a young man. But when he tries to get fresh with her, she slaps him and makes him leave, collapsing again in tears. There is a sexual energy at play there across the terrace. There is distance between Jeffries and Lisa created by their different lifestyles, and each display a somewhat lonely appearance. Lisa shows frustration with Jeffries because their relationship is stagnant and not going anywhere. Jeffries is immobile and impotent. Lisa is all over New York City and and a whirlpool of sexual energy.
Now consider Mr. Composer. He composes a sad tune that reflects the sadness in the stalemate of the Jeffries/Lisa relationship. Then he entertains and the music is livlier and more festive. As Lisa joins Jeffries in solving the murder mystery they are more involved with each other; she becomes the sleuth that Jeffries needs, and their energy stimulates each other. There is excitement in the air!
The newlyweds enter their apartment in love as can be expected and close their blinds as they consummate the marriage. Eventually we see them quarrelling representing the future of marriage as Jeffries pictures it to be. Status Quo. So this may be a possibility for him and Lisa, but given her personality and character, highly unlikely. She's not your average woman.
The Thorwalds are the epitomy of the ruined marriage. The sickly, nagging wife, suspicious of the unfaithful husband, he carries out her murder and hides the body under the guise of sending her on a trip. Their relationship parallels with Jeffries pessimistic and unhealthy views of marriage. Lisa, on the other hand, confronts Mr. Thorwald, indicating that she holds the power in the relationship, and can outsmart the villian. Unlike the sickly Mrs. Thorwald, Lisa has personal power; by solving the murder mystery she shows Jeffries she has all the qualities of the woman he is searching for.
By allowing the viewer to see into the lives of the other apartment dwellers, Hitchcock reveals a number of possible relationship problems. When these issues are acted out openly, we can compare what is happening behind the rear window to the activity beyond it. Hitchcock puts in on the table in full view for Jeffries and Lisa to see and either relate to or resist what is being acted out. Hitchcock also plays upon the notion that what is obvious is not always what is readily seen. Does he turn it around to the notion that what is seen is not always what is obvious? You tell me.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Glengarry Glen Ross - Where ARE the Women?
So we're asked the question: "How are we to deal with the presence/absence of women in Glengarry Glen Ross?" My question to you is: "What women?" Yes, there are maybe 20 lines in the whole play that mention two women. That's about it. Okay, let's talk about why so little references to women in this play about real estate salesmen in the very early eighties.
Glengarry was probably written in 1980 or 1981, as we see it was published in 1982. At that time, few women were in marketing, as we call it now. Your average woman in the sixties was a housewife, and this changed very little in the seventies. But, in the seventies you have a movement called Woman's Liberation. There were women protesting the oppressive roles that they were stuck in. They were burning their bras in mass assemblies, and carrying signs that spoke their mind of their social prohibitions that were prominent then. All this to say, the Glengarry Glen Ross play did not have female sales representatives because that is the way our society was back then.
Like it or not, there are only references to women in this play. But the references to one Jinny Lingk indicate that she is a powerful woman who wears the pants in her family. Her husband, James, tells Moss that "She wants her money back" (90). She has given James strict instructions regarding what he is to do. James Lingk is obviously a husband who is used to his wife telling him what to do. Apparently, he is not bright enough to see through the con game that Moss played with him, and he admits he does not have the power to negotiate with Moss (or with his wife). Moss suggests that Mrs. Lingk has prudence. This is actually a compliment to her. It suggests that she is wise and is frugal in her affairs. This is unfortunate to Moss, who loses a sale based on this quality she has. But she is looking out for the family nest egg, and is aware of the steps to take if James is unable to get the check back. She is a woman of action. This is in contrast to the men in the play who are all men of talk, and very little action.
Given the signs of the times in the eighties, Mamet has not included women in his sales force at Premier Properties. The language that the men use amongst themselves is masculine, raw, and rough. Endless references to male and female sexual organs portray a battery of dialogue that is intended to intimidate each other, and attempts to diminish each other's manhood. This serves to perpetuate the crudeness with which men will talk to one another in the work place. Actually, the conversations of Glengarry Glen Ross could easily be overheard in a locker room or a pool hall. It's macho talk by men who think of themselves as macho men. But is this big talk just a coverup for their insecurities about their own manhood? Providing for a family is one way in which men exert their masculine abilities. But several of the guys at this particular office are struggling to make any money. This is no secret: the board displays whose closing the deals and who isn't.
Williams is the character who is emasculated by almost everyone on the sales force. More references are made to his manhood (and lack thereof) than anyone else in this drama. He seems somewhat weak when he doesn't defend himself against the ruthless attacks. But what could be seen as weakness could also be revealed as strength. The power of words can make or break a man, but these words hurled at him by the frustrated men who report to him do not appear to bother him; rather, they roll off him like water on a duck's back. In the end, Williams prevails by solving the robbery mystery. He shows that he has been listening to Levine who slips up and gives away the fact that he saw Moss' contract on William's desk during the robbery. Even though he is severely attacked, he maintains his position as the man in charge, and singlehandedly traps Levine into admitting his crime.
Simply presenting a cast of men, with limited references to women, does not make Mamet a misogynist. For God sake, freedom of speech should allow someone to have an all male cast without the verdict being "Mamet hates women." I believe he just gave the world a glimpse into a predominantly male environment. It's okay, everybody! Lay off the man! There are plenty enough literary pieces that are about women only that are not equally criticized, aren't there? That's my point. Enough said.
Glengarry was probably written in 1980 or 1981, as we see it was published in 1982. At that time, few women were in marketing, as we call it now. Your average woman in the sixties was a housewife, and this changed very little in the seventies. But, in the seventies you have a movement called Woman's Liberation. There were women protesting the oppressive roles that they were stuck in. They were burning their bras in mass assemblies, and carrying signs that spoke their mind of their social prohibitions that were prominent then. All this to say, the Glengarry Glen Ross play did not have female sales representatives because that is the way our society was back then.
Like it or not, there are only references to women in this play. But the references to one Jinny Lingk indicate that she is a powerful woman who wears the pants in her family. Her husband, James, tells Moss that "She wants her money back" (90). She has given James strict instructions regarding what he is to do. James Lingk is obviously a husband who is used to his wife telling him what to do. Apparently, he is not bright enough to see through the con game that Moss played with him, and he admits he does not have the power to negotiate with Moss (or with his wife). Moss suggests that Mrs. Lingk has prudence. This is actually a compliment to her. It suggests that she is wise and is frugal in her affairs. This is unfortunate to Moss, who loses a sale based on this quality she has. But she is looking out for the family nest egg, and is aware of the steps to take if James is unable to get the check back. She is a woman of action. This is in contrast to the men in the play who are all men of talk, and very little action.
Given the signs of the times in the eighties, Mamet has not included women in his sales force at Premier Properties. The language that the men use amongst themselves is masculine, raw, and rough. Endless references to male and female sexual organs portray a battery of dialogue that is intended to intimidate each other, and attempts to diminish each other's manhood. This serves to perpetuate the crudeness with which men will talk to one another in the work place. Actually, the conversations of Glengarry Glen Ross could easily be overheard in a locker room or a pool hall. It's macho talk by men who think of themselves as macho men. But is this big talk just a coverup for their insecurities about their own manhood? Providing for a family is one way in which men exert their masculine abilities. But several of the guys at this particular office are struggling to make any money. This is no secret: the board displays whose closing the deals and who isn't.
Williams is the character who is emasculated by almost everyone on the sales force. More references are made to his manhood (and lack thereof) than anyone else in this drama. He seems somewhat weak when he doesn't defend himself against the ruthless attacks. But what could be seen as weakness could also be revealed as strength. The power of words can make or break a man, but these words hurled at him by the frustrated men who report to him do not appear to bother him; rather, they roll off him like water on a duck's back. In the end, Williams prevails by solving the robbery mystery. He shows that he has been listening to Levine who slips up and gives away the fact that he saw Moss' contract on William's desk during the robbery. Even though he is severely attacked, he maintains his position as the man in charge, and singlehandedly traps Levine into admitting his crime.
Simply presenting a cast of men, with limited references to women, does not make Mamet a misogynist. For God sake, freedom of speech should allow someone to have an all male cast without the verdict being "Mamet hates women." I believe he just gave the world a glimpse into a predominantly male environment. It's okay, everybody! Lay off the man! There are plenty enough literary pieces that are about women only that are not equally criticized, aren't there? That's my point. Enough said.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
King Lear completes a transformation in the play King Lear that is powerful and noteworthy. As the play progresses, he embraces his emotions and becomes willing and able to shed tears. In the beginning, he tells his daughters that they must confess their love for him in order to receive their portion of the kingdom upon his retirement. This indicates that love, being an emotion, is something of great importance to him, even utmost importance. Coppelia Kahn, on the other hand, would have us believe that Lear is a power wielding, oppressive father that lacks emotion as a result of his patriarchal world. Is this a fair assessment? Or is it an attempt to further a feminist agenda that places all men in a class of unfeeling, uncaring, cold-hearted bastards?
King Lear was responsible to provide for their basic needs, educate his daughters, and see that they married well. He may very well have been affectionate towards them. However, each child is born with her own personality. It’s possible the three daughters were spoiled. The fact that they all grew up in the same environment cannot account for the greed the older two power-hungry sisters exhibited, compared to the apparent humility, honesty and love that the youngest daughter was endowed with. Is the king responsible for their behavior? No, these women are adults and must take responsibility for what they say, think, and do.
For Kahn to infer that the absence of the mother “points to her hidden existence” is farfetched. The late Queen is not mentioned in the play. It is possible that the king played a larger than normal role in nurturing his daughters. The fact that Goneril and Regan have less than desirable character traits, and play the antagonist roles, doesn’t constitute a flattering tribute to a mother figure that didn’t exist in their life.
Kahn is quoted as saying, “He learns to weep and, though his tears scald and burn like molten lead, they are no longer ‘women’s weapons’ against which he must defend himself.” This quote can be taken several different ways. I believe Kahn would have us believe that Lear opposed the shedding of his own tears, and felt that he must have a defensive strategy to keep them at bay. However, consider that women will use crying as a way of appearing hurt, defenseless, vulnerable, weak, etc. in order to manipulate the men in their company to take a certain action, make a certain decision, and such as that. Could Lear have meant that women used their tears as a tool or weapon to try to overcome the opposite sex, and, subsequently, put the male counterpart on defense? The audience must draw its own conclusion to these questions.
Lear is an old man who becomes emotional in his last days. I would dare say that as king, he did not allow himself to cry in front of others. So, naturally, he prefers a noble anger instead of shedding tears from the hurt inflicted by his daughter, when he speaks so eloquently:
“I have full cause of weeping; but this heart
Shall break into a hundred thousand flaws,
Or ere I’ll weep. O fool, I shall go mad!”
Later, when he is at last reunited with Cordelia, he is overwhelmed with emotion, and says:
“ …but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead.”
He is finally crying, and without shame or difficulty. As Lear undergoes an emotional transformation, he truly begins to know himself better than in any other time of his life. I believe he comes to complete acceptance of his true humanity.
King Lear was responsible to provide for their basic needs, educate his daughters, and see that they married well. He may very well have been affectionate towards them. However, each child is born with her own personality. It’s possible the three daughters were spoiled. The fact that they all grew up in the same environment cannot account for the greed the older two power-hungry sisters exhibited, compared to the apparent humility, honesty and love that the youngest daughter was endowed with. Is the king responsible for their behavior? No, these women are adults and must take responsibility for what they say, think, and do.
For Kahn to infer that the absence of the mother “points to her hidden existence” is farfetched. The late Queen is not mentioned in the play. It is possible that the king played a larger than normal role in nurturing his daughters. The fact that Goneril and Regan have less than desirable character traits, and play the antagonist roles, doesn’t constitute a flattering tribute to a mother figure that didn’t exist in their life.
Kahn is quoted as saying, “He learns to weep and, though his tears scald and burn like molten lead, they are no longer ‘women’s weapons’ against which he must defend himself.” This quote can be taken several different ways. I believe Kahn would have us believe that Lear opposed the shedding of his own tears, and felt that he must have a defensive strategy to keep them at bay. However, consider that women will use crying as a way of appearing hurt, defenseless, vulnerable, weak, etc. in order to manipulate the men in their company to take a certain action, make a certain decision, and such as that. Could Lear have meant that women used their tears as a tool or weapon to try to overcome the opposite sex, and, subsequently, put the male counterpart on defense? The audience must draw its own conclusion to these questions.
Lear is an old man who becomes emotional in his last days. I would dare say that as king, he did not allow himself to cry in front of others. So, naturally, he prefers a noble anger instead of shedding tears from the hurt inflicted by his daughter, when he speaks so eloquently:
“I have full cause of weeping; but this heart
Shall break into a hundred thousand flaws,
Or ere I’ll weep. O fool, I shall go mad!”
Later, when he is at last reunited with Cordelia, he is overwhelmed with emotion, and says:
“ …but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead.”
He is finally crying, and without shame or difficulty. As Lear undergoes an emotional transformation, he truly begins to know himself better than in any other time of his life. I believe he comes to complete acceptance of his true humanity.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Aunt Emily declares "Checkmate!"
Search: To uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny: SEEK. Thus, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the term that Jack “Binx” Bolling uses in his own linguistic repertoire of words that hold special meaning to him in Walker Percy’s novel
The Moviegoer. Yes, Binx has a special vocabulary for certain aspects of his life, and his
Search: To uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny: SEEK. Thus, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the term that Jack “Binx” Bolling uses in his own linguistic repertoire of words that hold special meaning to him in Walker Percy’s novel
The Moviegoer. Yes, Binx has a special vocabulary for certain aspects of his life, and his
original conception of the search came to him while in the Orient. In a state of intense curiosity, his mental faculties became acutely aware that he “was onto something” (11) and the search was conceived in Mr. Bolling.
The opening chapter informs us that on this very day, as Binx dresses to go out for lunch, he sees his personal items on his dresser in a rather peculiar, impersonal way which causes his awareness of the ordinariness of his life to confront him. Immediately the search is invoked to rescue him. Binx explains about the search as follows: “To become aware of the possibility of the search is to be onto something. Not to be onto something is to be in despair” (13). Throughout the novel he thinks about the search and he speaks of the search in his dialogues with Kate. The epilogue to The Moviegoer brings forth the matter of the search whereby Binx indicates he is not inclined to say much about it. However, he makes several remarks which indicate that, according to Kierkegaard, he doesn’t have the authority to speak of the search except to edify it; that since it is past Kierkegaard’s time he shouldn’t even be edifying the search; and as a member of his mother’s family, he needn’t even speak of religion. What does Binx mean by all this? I believe it is his eloquent discourse of a subject matter that is very important to him. He finally accepts that he is seeking a spiritual life that is alive in contrast to his physical life that is dead, just like everyone else’s life that he encounters is dead.
Binx undergoes a transformation when he returns home from Chicago. His meeting with Aunt Emily where she grills him about his sexual relations with Kate on the trip does not end well for him. In her lecture his aunt reveals that her assumptions about Binx have been incorrect in believing him to be of the same noble class as she. She allows that when someone faces adversity their reactions show their true character. She clearly indicates that Binx is not of a traditional type person, he is not of her class of people, and her objectivity and lack of former warmness towards him indicates he is no longer part of the inner ring of the family.
What is Binx’s response to his aunt’s treatment? He tells us, “My search has been abandoned; it is no match for my aunt, her rightness and her despair, her despairing of me and her despairing of herself” (228). Aunt Emily’s despair places Binx’s search in checkmate. Binx is no longer a knight in shining armor on Aunt Emily’s chess board. He is reduced to a pawn’s status, and is no longer expected to be the chivalrous warrior fighting for the cause of good and honor. With this change in status he has more freedom to be who he wants to be, and he no longer feels the despair of “the noble life” and all the expectations that come with it. Therefore, he has no more need of the search.
The opening chapter informs us that on this very day, as Binx dresses to go out for lunch, he sees his personal items on his dresser in a rather peculiar, impersonal way which causes his awareness of the ordinariness of his life to confront him. Immediately the search is invoked to rescue him. Binx explains about the search as follows: “To become aware of the possibility of the search is to be onto something. Not to be onto something is to be in despair” (13). Throughout the novel he thinks about the search and he speaks of the search in his dialogues with Kate. The epilogue to The Moviegoer brings forth the matter of the search whereby Binx indicates he is not inclined to say much about it. However, he makes several remarks which indicate that, according to Kierkegaard, he doesn’t have the authority to speak of the search except to edify it; that since it is past Kierkegaard’s time he shouldn’t even be edifying the search; and as a member of his mother’s family, he needn’t even speak of religion. What does Binx mean by all this? I believe it is his eloquent discourse of a subject matter that is very important to him. He finally accepts that he is seeking a spiritual life that is alive in contrast to his physical life that is dead, just like everyone else’s life that he encounters is dead.
Binx undergoes a transformation when he returns home from Chicago. His meeting with Aunt Emily where she grills him about his sexual relations with Kate on the trip does not end well for him. In her lecture his aunt reveals that her assumptions about Binx have been incorrect in believing him to be of the same noble class as she. She allows that when someone faces adversity their reactions show their true character. She clearly indicates that Binx is not of a traditional type person, he is not of her class of people, and her objectivity and lack of former warmness towards him indicates he is no longer part of the inner ring of the family.
What is Binx’s response to his aunt’s treatment? He tells us, “My search has been abandoned; it is no match for my aunt, her rightness and her despair, her despairing of me and her despairing of herself” (228). Aunt Emily’s despair places Binx’s search in checkmate. Binx is no longer a knight in shining armor on Aunt Emily’s chess board. He is reduced to a pawn’s status, and is no longer expected to be the chivalrous warrior fighting for the cause of good and honor. With this change in status he has more freedom to be who he wants to be, and he no longer feels the despair of “the noble life” and all the expectations that come with it. Therefore, he has no more need of the search.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)