Rear Window

Hi All!
I wanted to address three apartments in relation to Jeffries. The first is Miss Lonely Hearts. During her trial/run through dinner the parallel between her and Lisa becomes really obvious. They have similar movements during the scene and the two respective tables they are at even have the same candle sticks (and absent man). Even though Lisa and Miss Lonely Hearts are both in an empty relationship of sorts I argue that Jeffries is more like his neighbor than Lisa. Lisa gets to leave. Miss Lonely Hearts and Jeffries cannot really do that. The one time that we know Miss Lonely Hearts leaves she is still in the frame of the rear window. Lisa leaves for hours at a time, has a job, other people that she sees who we don't get to see. She has a life outside of the window, unlike Jeffries and Miss Lonely Hearts.
Even though he does have a job and a significant other, if one of his neighbors looked in his window most of the time he would be looking back. They might not see Lisa or Stella and they probably wouldn't know about his career. To them he would look lonely- maybe they would call him Mr. Lonely Hearts? Speaking of significant others, even though Miss Lonely Hearts and Lisa have similar roles in that dinner scene, so do Miss Lonely Hearts and Jeffries. She is toasting to someone who is imaginary and he is toasting to a fill-in-the-blank spot. I think no matter who Lisa was she would not have been enough, therefore replaceable. Especially during that dinner scene, I think Jeffries wouldn't mind trading spots with Miss Lonely Hearts. I won't lie, at the beginning I though Jeffries would end up with her because of Lisa asking him if there was anyone that Lonely Hearts could be set up with who was available.
The next two apartments are ones we kind of skimmed over in class- the Family in the upper right corner and the newlyweds on the left. I agree that the newlyweds provided some humor in the movie, but I think the placement of the two apartments in the kind of sent a message. Reading left to right like Barney taught me, first I look at the rough patch, then you look at the happy family: Even though there are bad times, there are good times too. And because (assuming)we all left to right it could even be read as a progression: you have to go through bad to get the good.
As a side note, they usually showed the husband looking out right after they had shown Miss Torso's apartment, so I assumed he was looking at her. That goes along with Jeffries being more interested in what is going on outside his apartment than inside.

Either way, I'm convinced Hitchcock was a genius.

Happy Semester!

Blues Poems- Ex Cred Blog

Here we are marching through
marching through
We have papers to write
and the project is due
there is (more) work to be done
- and on top on all of this there's
someone elses last cigarette to smoke
men to see and then not see
cycling through, cycling through
because we all just want work to do
and to start being who we are, what
we do- like these university blues
will leave us, like we hope to leave them too.



I'm sure it's not the right form or verse, but it gives me the feeling that I think should be there. It's also not 500 words, so I'll post a picture- they're worth 1000.

Glengarry Glen Ross

1) This question involves the women in the play--that is, the women mentioned in the play. Mamet has been accused of being anti-feminist at best and misogynist at worst. Yet certainly we can't say that he wants us to admire the "world of men" in this real estate office, or to agree with the characters' attitude toward women (or toward anyone outside their white male world). So what are we to make of the influence of women in the play? What of Mrs. Lingk, who ruins Roma's deal and indirectly brings about Levene's final fall? What of the "ex" Levene mentions early in the play, the one who "kicked out" of another deal? What of Levene's "daughter? And what of Harriet Nyborg, even, who serves Levene store-bought crumb cake and, along with her husband, agrees to sign a contract for land she has no intention or means of purchasing?

My question is, quite simply, how are we to deal with the presence/absence of women in Glengarry Glen Ross? How might you construct an interpretation of the play that takes these women into account?

I don't think Mamet meant this play to empower women. If he meant it to empower them, I think he would have put women in the office place, and not along the background.

The mentioned women in the play do seem to have a little power over some of the male characters because they break up a crucial deals. However, there is never a deal mentioned where a woman uses her influence to help the salesmen. There isn't a place in the play where women are mentioned with a positive note. I think if Mamet wanted to portray a powerful female figure he would have played both sides- maybe a wife who convinces her husband to buy a plot of land instead of the two who kick out the other deals.

I think what went against the idea of feminism the most is the mention of Levene's daughter. I think she was the most mentioned female in the play, and we don't even know her name. She is a weak woman (she is sick) who needs her dad to pay her medical bills. How is that empowering? She is also his downfall- without her, Levene didn't need to steal. She brings in this idea of women needing to be cared for and women being a constant weight to men.
If Dr. Watson wouldn't have posed this question on feminism, then I probably wouldn't have seen the play either way.

Sorry, Mamet, you may be a good writer, but not a budding feminist.

Taylor

King Lear

This is my third attempt to write and post this blog. Fingers crossed, all mirrors unbroken, and ladders avoided. Here we go.

3. This passage relates to the reunion scene with Cordelia (Act 4, Scene 7): "These are the tears of ashamed self-knowledge, manly tears caused by a realization of what his original childish demands on his daughters had led to. In this scene, which I want to compare with the next scene with Cordelia, Lear comes closer than he ever does later to a mature acceptance of his human dependency."

I have posted the selection of Kahn's text I am discussing above, for reference.

I think something that is really remarkable about this scene is how it is completely different from our first encounter with King Lear and Cordelia. In that first scene it is all about King Lear; How much his children love him and what he has the power to give them. In the mentioned scene, he is bowing to his daughter. I think Cordelia is a also changed. In that first scene she comes across a little removed and cold. Even though we know she is the most sincere, I think it's strange that she wouldn't even say "I love you more than them." This wouldn't have been untrue, and this whole story would have been averted. In this later scene I think she expresses how she feels much better (and maybe even more?) than her bound says she should.

I like how Kahn uses the term 'self-knowledge'. This scene is probably the first where Lear is completely aware of himself and surroundings (excepting when he was just waking). It kind of reminds me of a scene in Harry Potter- when Professor Trelawney (awful divination professor) has a moment of clarity and actually prophesies something worth listening to. She then drops back into what seems like a fog, much like what Lear does in the following scene. How clear is his mind if he thinks that prison will be just jolly with his daughter? He seems to go a little delirious since he reunites with Cordelia. I think his dependency goes full circle in the final scene- when he dies because she died. Can't get much more dependent than that.

On another note, Kahn's overall idea about Lear acknowledging the woman in himself reminded me of another play written a couple of years after Lear. There was a play written around 1608 called "The Roaring Girl" which was about a woman who went around dressed as a man. Maybe Lear inspired someone else to a similar idea a loooong time ago.

Over and out,
Taylor

Persepolis

Hi! For starters I just want to say that I really enjoyed this book, graphic novel, or whatever we’re calling it. I think Marjane told her story wonderfully.

I thought that her father saying that politics and sentiment do not mix was really strange. Maybe he didn’t want her to become emotional about politics because some part of his family always seems to be caught up in a conflict. Also, so many members of their family dies from their consequences of getting caught up with politics. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was disgusted and didn’t want her to be caught up with the different movements happening at the time. Since she was so young, she could have been easily influenced, and I think the main reason he said that was to give her a grounding- Not everything you hear is true, think about it first.
I think that it was a strange comment for him to make; because it seems to be contrary to what he felt some of the time. On page eighty three, her father is crying because the national anthem is playing. He does use his more rational side later by saying that the government wouldn’t play it for no reason. Also, on the next page he’s jumping around because Iran had bombed Iraq. I think that there has to be a kind of emotion in that.

Although her father is rational most of the time, I think this line about not combining sentiment and politics should have come from her mother. To me, she seems like a blunt character, almost black and white, while her dad is more careful? Like on page one hundred and three, in the bottom corner: the father wants her to hide her cigarette, but the mother seems a little defiant by continuing to smoke (like mother like daughter). Also, back to page eighty three, she and her father are crying because of the national anthem, but her mother is not. I’m not sure if that’s because the mother hides her emotions about politics more than the father, or if she separates them more successfully.

Just an insert, I’m not saying that her mother doesn’t care, because I think it’s impossible not to. I think the way she presents her parents is interesting because he father seems to do a lot of the talking- sometimes putting in his feelings and sometimes not, BUT her mother doesn’t seem to do this very often. Maybe she keeps her thoughts to herself more often than her husband. Also, it could just appear that way to me because Marjane’s relationship with her father and grandmother is apparently strong than the one with her mother. I think she realizes this later because of page one hundred thirty, Marjane compliments her dad on his great idea when it was actually her mother’s idea. Her mom is depicted to be annoyed/perturbed by this- but I think it’s a little more than that. Since Marjane can’t spell out every thought in a graphic novel, I think that frame shows that Marjane’s mom got the short end of a stick more times than once. Marjane is shown ebelling against her, but not really her father. It’s interesting- anyway, sorry if I got off on a tangent!

Taylor

The Great Gatsby

Hi! Ok, for my first entry I am going to stray a bit from the topic Dr. Watson gave us, and focus on someone we didn't talk much about in class.

Jordan Baker when we first see her in chapter one doesn't seem like she would be any different from Daisy or someone like her with less of a voice. She is seen floating, but this initial impression changes when Nick mentions that he recognizes her from the papers. Instantly she changes from just being a lesser version of Daisy- she has a job! Which no one else in this book seems to have most of the time. She also has no family and doesn't seem to be tied to anything except golf. The second encounter he has with her notes another difference- she has a brusque manner. In chapter three, when Nick meets her at Gatsby's party, she remarks that the 'twins' have dyed their hair. I don't think Daisy would be so blunt (honestly, rude) to say that to someone she met once a month before. Physically she was slender, tan, has gray eyes, and a "bored, haughty face." As for her character, she does try to keep peace, especially in the argument between Gatsby and Tom as a terrible marriage is exposed. However, Nick, in the end of chapter four, calls her incurably dishonest. Even though there is this blemish in her character, Nick does admit that he likes her, and she even says that she likes him.

I thought it was weird that said she liked him because he wasn't a careless person, because she seems to be proud of the fact that she is careless. Maybe it's a lovable defect to her?

Anyway, the reason I laid this all out about Jordan is because she is the antithesis to Daisy, and I think that is crucially important to figuring Daisy out. In almost everything Jordan is just opposite Daisy. Daisy is giggles, rapid emotions, basically whimsical. Jordan doesn't seem to fit into any of that. Even physically, Daisy's eyes always seem to hold importance when Nick describes them, and Jordan's are always refereed to as gray and sun-streaked. When this contrasting is taken to its limit, we could take any characteristic of Jordan's, turn it around, and make it Daisy's. Jordan works, doesn't really have a connection to her family, and is blunt and cynical. Daisy, though her 'connection' to her family is under review, does at least have one, no job, dances around things unless she is in a sobering moment, and seems to be in a far off land half the time. When she is with Gatsby, that is where she wants to be, but it isn't always like that, as we see in her discussion with Tom at the dinner table. This comparison could even be used to discover her physical appearance which is not just spelled out. As mentioned earlier Jordan is slender and tan. Daisy could, especially after a child, have a more rounded figure and indoor skin.

So, my question:
Is Daisy as big of a mystery as we think she is?

Taylor