English 67

Baudrillard lays out a scary picture of terrorism in The Spirit of Terrorism. Terrorism is presented as something intangible and undetectable, something that can’t be stopped by force. Since 9/11 terrorism has taken on a new face. Everyday we are bombarded by ideas of terrorism in the media—from constant images of the twin towers falling to the fear of anthrax. If 9/11 had just been an attack, one that we could look at and at least know the motives of the enemy and how to stop them, then it wouldn’t be such a shocking memory. What makes 9/11 different is that we don’t know how to stop events like that from occurring again. We don’t have a real enemy to fight. The U.S. may try to calm down its citizens by proclaiming a War on Terror, but it is impossible to fight this kind of terrorism with force. As Baudrillard points out, we are fighting against terrorists who will gladly take their own lives in pursuit of destroying America. How do you fight someone who doesn’t care if he lives or dies? When we faced Japanese suicide bombers in WWII we reacted with dropping nuclear bombs on their country. How will we react this time? We are fighting an enemy who has its own wealth, who may or may not have access to nuclear weapons, who in the six years since 9/11 we have not been able to really stop. This is true incalculable terror. We seem to be just biding time before terrorists strike again. This terror is mental terror. It comes from the knowledge that we could be attacked at any time, and that we don’t know when or how we can’t stop it.

John’s presentation definitely affected my reading of The Children of Men. I saw the movie first.  I saw it this summer and hated it.  But I love the novel.  I was pretty blown away by the two main themes I took out of just the first few pages–themes which remain significant throughout, in my opinion. 

The first concerns the format of the book itself.  It’s tricky to tell what the format of the book is.  But for the sake of this paragraph I’m going to go with the fact that there is something journalesque about it.  Theo expresses the need for some type of motivation to begin writing.  The new year, combined with his birthday and the death of the youngest person alive seem, to him, to justify an entry.  I too have struggle with starting journals.  I wrote in one when I was much younger and it kills me on a regular basis to think of how incredible and valuable for me it would be to be able to read my 13 or 15 or 17-year-old thoughts.  Yet I can never get a pen on a piece of paper because of the pressure I feel to recount all that my life has been so far.  That’s hard.  But that feeling has a sort of underlying presumption, I think.  It presumes that someone will be reading and judging your work, which is not something I expect of mine and is definitely not something Theo expects of his.  He says, “I shall open one of my tins of hoarded matches and light my small personal bonfire of vanities.”  He sees himself as relatively insignificant, or at least not as necessary for a future world to note and understand (a position that is arguable adjusted throughout the story, thus making the form of a journal useful).  I can’t say I sympathize with that.  On some level I think I suffer from the vanity he puts down and believe that my journal would be quite profound.  But I sympathize with his struggle with writing and with his considerations throughout the process.  

The second theme is one we mentioned in class today: science.  I again sympathize with Theo when he says “Science was never a subject I was at home with.  I understood little of it at school and I understand little more now that I’m fifty.  Yet it has been my god too, even if its achievements are incomprehensible to me, and I share the universal disillusionment of those whose god has died.”  I don’t like science much.  I’m not very good at it and never have been.  I am also not a religious person.  And yet this line reminded me of my dependence on science, almost as a god of sorts.  It forced me to recognize how much I trust and believe in it.  The spin this line of discussion took in class had to do with animals.  I stand by the idea that science in terms of technology definitely distinguishes humans from animals.  But I really appreciated Devin’s point about the idea that science classifies humans as being like animals, whereas religion brings man closer to a higher being. I think my connection to animals stemmed from the following idea:  “Like a lecherous stud suddenly stricken with impotence, we are humiliated at the very heart of our faith in ourselves.  For all our knowledge, our intelligence, our power, we can no longer do what the animals do without thought.”  Science as knowledge, intelligence, and power gives us confidence, and lack thereof humbles us.  It causes us to behave more barbarically, forgetting the structure of society and resorting to more primitive ideas.  Though a fight with guns is a very human thing, is the aggression of a fight not sort of animalistic?  It may not be.  I don’t really know.

Anyyyyyyyway.  Having determined that movies suck, I decided I should step back and take a second to list some basic pros of both film and literature.  I came the conclusion that it totally depends on your taste.  Movies have actors.  Actors act.  That sounds dumb, but acting is an incredible medium.  The way that certain expressions express emotions and movements bring meaning and understanding to an audience is very appealing to a certain type of person.  Those who criticize films based on books sometimes cite the fact that they take away from your personal interpretation of a book.  This is true.  But they also then, by definition, do things you could never imagine!  They present spectacles that were beyond your ideas.  I prefer literature, though, for a similar reason.  Sometimes there are ideas that simply can’t be portrayed by face or gesture or scene.  Books force you to think about these ideas, like the two described above which have just gorgeous quotes (like the ones cited that put things ever-so-poetically).  You can’t miss these ideas.  When you’re reading a book you can’t happen to be looking at one character or background piece at one point and miss a main (or even not main) idea.  You read these lines and you get something out of them, just as I related to the two above in my own way.   I used to be really frustrated by language.  I couldn’t understand how certain feelings and experiences could ever be expressed or related to others.  But some actors and some authors can express the most seemingly intangible or inexpressible things.  For me, writing does this incomparably, and I just feel passionate about it.

The subject of “race” plays an interesting and largely unacknowledged role in the novel Children of Men. The term gets used without explanation or explication, but runs like a thread throughout the narrative, and I think plays an unexpectedly central role in the novel (which is overtly centralized in the film – but deflected from the character of Theo).

Continue Reading »

John’s presentation concerning film interpretations of books left me a little peeved. I realized I failed to articulate my arguments clearly, so here they are:

I completely understand the necessity of changing dialogue, modifying plots, emphasizing special effects, and so on. A movie can never reproduce a book in its entirety; the very idea is laughable. But, I cannot forgive movies that blatantly ignore honest characterization. Michael Gambon’s Albus Dumbledore is a perfect example of this unbearable insult to readers of J.K. Rowling’s work. Look at what Sir Gambon (yes, he is a knight) had to say on his portrayal of the much beloved Dumbledore:

“I don’t have to play anyone really. I just stick on a beard and play me, so it’s no great feat. I never ease into a role – every part I play is just a variant of my own personality. I’m not really a character actor at all…”

Clearly. And the fact that this man had the balls to admit that he did not even pick up a Harry Potter novel before failing so spectacularly on screen is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. This man’s very paycheck is the product of millions of fans standing outside in freezing weather on midnight to purchase a new Potter book. The fact remains: this actor would not be getting paid if no one read J.K. Rowling’s books. The least he can do is take ten minutes to read Dumbledore’s Wikipedia entry. But Gambon is content to take a dump over J.K. Rowling’s work and the millions of devoted readers who expect a decent performance. You might say: “But Andy, that’s his interpretation of the character, that’s not nice to attack him for it, LOL.” I can attack him for it because his interpretation is blatantly wrong. No matter how you spin it, some interpretations are clearly more wrong than others, because Dumbledore would rather stab himself in the face than shove Harry Potter up against a wall and threaten him with violence. If you need to use violence to make a scene intense and emote Dumbledore’s concern and disappointment, you’re a horrible actor and have no business landing roles, or you’re a horrible director and have “the emotional range of a teaspoon.”

The Lord of the Rings deviated quite a bit from the trilogy’s plot, as briefly discussed in class. However, did you see Liv Tyler act like a nymphomaniac strung out on drugs? Or Aragorn complaining about a broken nail during a battle scene? Do those images seem jarring, disturbing, or quite frankly disgusting? Now imagine how it must feel for me and a whole host of other people to see a much revered character butchered so shamelessly by an actor who makes no pretense of actually trying? Worse still, Gambon took over for the deceased Richard Harris and completely deviated from Harris’ performance. I can’t imagine a worse insult to Harris’ memory, who portrayed Dumbledore beautifully as one of his last acting roles prior to his death. I mean, did he even watch Harris’ performance?

A few people mentioned that movie directors are not interested in replicating books but rather making them their own–I understand that artistic, creative drive. However, encouraging lazy actors to butcher character portrayals merely to produce “original art” makes me want to puke. As stated above, I have no problems with editing certain aspects of the book to make it more movie friendly, but CLEARLY the Harry Potter movie franchise is doing something wrong, given the score of crappy reviews and piecemeal, shoddy plots apparently strung together by fourth graders who can barely string together misshapen macaroni necklaces.

Case in point: the best reviews generated by Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix film were directed toward the performances of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), and Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter)–all of whom stuck to the original book portrayals perfectly. Helena Bonham Carter was labeled as a “shining but underused talent” by the Times, and Imelda received similar praise as “exquisitely dislikeable.” Quick, test your common sense IQ: if the best reviews were directed at the three actresses who stuck to the book and researched their characters, and the worst reviews were directed at crazy, loopy plots that deviated from the book, what do you think the script writers need to do for future movies to generate the best reviews? If you answered: why, adhere more closely to the plot that made J.K. Rowling a millionaire, of course! Then congratulations, your common sense IQ is somewhere between 40 and 200.

Hermione Granger, portrayed by Emma Watson, is a rather plain looking girl whose lovable personality and brainpower endear her to her fellow students. The directors feel a plain girl would not sell nearly as well as a very attractive buxom teenager. But honestly, does Emma Watson’s chest make or break ticket sales? Her beauty cheapens the character to a dull “Mary Sue:” she’s pretty, talented, beloved, smart, etc. Where the hell are her flaws? In order to make Hermione a worthwhile on screen heroine, the directors gussy her up needlessly. From a feminist standpoint, it’s disgusting.

I’m detracting a bit from the actual debate, so let me summarize: change plots to make the book more adaptable to the screen–but mess with the characters and hear the wrath of angry fans through college freshmen English blogs. Bleargh I’m going to do something less painful, like douse myself in liquid hot magma.

Since the Omegas were grouped together and treated as gods among men they did form a very distinct clique. Like the book says the Omegas were the most studied and revered generation of all time. The intrigue was almost too great for society to handle all at once. I think the book “Children of Men,” has some truth with in its story. If all of mankind were threatened with extinction because of infertility our society would change each year. Instead of out with the old and in with the new it would just be out with the old. First we would lose the love of children, next we would lose our jealousy of young adults, then the work force that drives our economy, until we would be left with old hags that knew nothing of the past. The last generation, like in the book, would lose all interest in education. Do you think that the main reason the omegas have no interest in education because they were the only generation that knew they were the last humans that will ever be born? I think so. I could never imagine what it would be like to grow up in a society where I would never have to worry about the continuation of life. In my opinion if I grew up as an Omega I don’t think I would have any feelings for anything either. As an omega I would constantly see everything I held dear a year earlier being destroyed or lying desolate. As an Omega I would be the last to do everything. Even something as a menial as reading a children’s book would no longer have purpose other than to torture someone with the fact there are no longer children to read them to. What is life other than society contributing to the advancement and continuation of life? Without continuation of life what’s the point in advancing society economically, socially, and technologically?

The struggle for social control through economic and political manipulation has been a problem that all great civilizations have had to deal with. To gain a level of control sometimes the legitimacy of some regulations or policies have to exaggerated a little bit by those in power for the “benefit” of society. This is where the true conflict lies. The conflict lies in the bending of the truth for economic and political stability. “There is a battle for truth or at least around truth.”(Foucault)  it describes that our society is not in search of “truths” that are accepted or discovered as factual, rather that we are looking for truth that makes us feel safer in the reality we live in. Those that wish to have power or already are in control on some level find a way to gain our trust or further our trust by veiling our vision of societies current state. These “leaders,” and I use the term loosely, feed on our accessibility to be convinced that the decisions they make are in truth what are best for the vast majority. Shouldn’t we question more often than not the possibility that not all people in power know what is truly best for a society. For example there once was a guy name Adolph who decided that if the world was entirely composed of an Arian race and void of all lesser peoples that the world would be better off. This is just another case where one view of a “Truth” can be blindly followed because of the persuasive power of individuals with authority. So I guess my question is where is the line drawn between ‘truth’ and ‘power?’

I just had a thought about another possible example of an Ideological State Apparatus. I think it might have surfaced from Alison’s presentation with the hugs and middle schools. Could the prototypical cliques in such middle schools be an example of a type of cultural ISA? They function beneath the “ideology of ‘the ruling class’” (Althusser 1491), or the contemporary vision of popularity epitomized by the “queen bees” or popular icons or whatever. Then there are various other groupings that revolve around a different set of icons. Those who go through the educational ISA usually encounter some form of these groups and the judgments they pass that interpellate individuals as subjects. (Even if they aren’t susceptible to changing their behavior because of this judgment, most still recognize its existence and influence on the school community as a whole.) I guess this example’s validity as an ISA would depend on whether or not you thought that the groups had any bearing on society outside of the school. While according to Althusser, the educational system establishes attitudes in regard to “rules for respect for the socio-technical division of labour and ultimately the rule of the order established by class domination” (1485), I think that cliques in schools might play their part in establishing social attitudes too. Could this possibly work as some sort of ideological apparatus too?

I agree that it is unlikely that a war on “terror” could ever be won, but I would like to play devil’s advocate for a moment. As stated in class, terror is a method, not something concrete which can be located and destroyed. However, there are offensive security measures that can be taken to effectively reduce the occurrence of terrorism. In my ID 1 class we are currently studying the Israel-Palestine conflict. We have read texts in which Palestinian extremists admit that security measures taken by Israel in occupied territories (regardless of whether they are just or unjust) have made it more difficult for for these extremists to carry out terrorist attacks. Though in no way am I arguing for the war on terror, or the L.A.P.D. gathering of data on Muslim communities, it should be noted that proactive actions taken with the goal of eliminating terrorism can prove effective in thwarting attacks.

The Prisoner is stylistic precedent for later dystopian films: especially Brazil. The last episode of The Prisoner reminds me a lot of the end of Brazil. I am thinking of making this the final exam: watch the last episode of The Prisoner. Literary Interpretation? Interpret this: number six and the little butler guy machine gun their way out of a control center underneath the Village to the strains of the Beatles’ “All You Need is Love.” No. six ends up back at his flat in London, followed by the same hearse and undertaker who kidnapped him in the opening credits. The process is about to start all over again. Be Seeing You.

The Prisoner, like Foucault, seems to laugh at the notion of individual liberty, which is frequently held up as the antidote to the U/dystopian. The Village’s repressive apparatuses are also its ideological apparatus: the enforced leisure and resultant vapidity, the cheerful reminders of constant surveillance (”Be seeing you”), The Village could have been designed by someone who studied Foucault’s theories of the “carceral” as a principle of social organization. The prison serves as model of the modern state: surveillance and classification which predicts the contemporary information driven dystopia (information gathering now accomplished by Internet service providers, handed over to the government without warrant or judicial oversight). No one is free who is implicated in the state. You can choose to obey or choose to resist, but not opt out. Be Seeing You.

Where Althusser had the State, its interpellation that creates “subjects” – under consumer capitalism, you can substitute “the market.” Advertisement is the process of interpellation – hey you, desire this thing that you do not need. The “market” and the state have now converged: Vons gathers our buying habits, ISPs gather our communications habits to sell to marketers, and to hand over to the NSA, FBI. And we let them, without a second thought. “The Information you have in your head would be quite valuable on the open market” says number two to number six in the first episode. So is the information in yours.
Be Seeing You.

“The carceral texture of society assures both the real capture of the body and its perpetual observation” by science, by culture: information and taxonomization (1645). We internalize this carceral mentality in a million ways, notably in this country by obsessing over our bodily appearance and food intake: we police ourselves constantly.
Be Seeing You.

Truth is a commodity produced in various contexts for various purposes of contesting power. Truth does not ‘exist’ – it must be made to exist. There is no ‘truth’ outside of a political and social regime. (1669).
Who is number one? You are[,] number six.
Be Seeing You.

I mentioned the Republican Party’s “God, Guns & Gays” strategy for instilling what I see as a false consciousness, which in Althusserian terms is the ideology of the Republican “base” (i.e. “values” voters). When middle and lower-income people vote “values,” they are also voting for an economic agenda that favors the wealthy. There are also of course plenty of lower and middle income people who vote Rep. for economic reasons because they believe that lower taxes for the wealthy is good for everyone else (trickle down economics, job creation), and who hold relatively progressive social values. But the point of the strategy is that the Rep. Party found a winning formula: attract the wealthy donor classes’ (the top economic 1%) money for campaigns with promises of tax cuts, and de-regulation of industries, and talk the rhetoric of “family values” to attract a large contingent of the rest to win sizable majorities outside the urban coastal areas. Despite the recent downturn in Republican electoral fortunes, this is still a winning strategy that many GOPers believe is enough to ensure nearly perpetual majorities.

Of course, when I voted for Clinton the first time, I believed I was voting for both a progressive economic and social agenda, and we really got neither. So false consciousness is one of those universal political phenomena.