Using 3-4 quotations from Rushdie's Wizard Of Oz, tell how he would interpretation this video of Indian children singing a song from the American film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf5svfS_bnc
I think Rushdie would say that the video exemplifies the vivid and realistic fantasy world of The Wizard of Oz -- he speaks of its "realistic surreality" (Rushdie 27). The children are fully absorbed in this world...smiling, carrying on with their pantomimes of real behaviors, which probably seem quite real to them. As Rushdie says of Oz, it "finally became home" (Rushdie 57). This is also consistent with the fantasy-filled Bollywood cinema Rushdie recall that these children have likely been exposed to: "'We are all dancing out our stories," (Rushdie 11), as Rushdie quotes a Bollywood director.
The video also captures the pure happiness of some of the best parts of The Wizard of Oz, what Rushdie calls the "pure, effortless and somehow inevitable felicity," which he observes is as near as possible to an "authorless text" in its seeming inevitability -- perhaps reflected in the video by the absence of any director, or any adult (Rushdie 16). Consisting only of happy children capably performing their routines, the video would remind Rushdie of what he calls the "driving force" of the film: "the inadequacy of adults" (Rushdie 10), reflected in Dorothy's taking charge of her own life, the delight of the Munchkins and the weakness of both her adult caretakers in Kansas and the exposed wizard.
Rushdie could also not help but comment on the children's skipping, an imitation of Dorothy's skipping down the yellow brick broad which he admires and states is the "clever, shuffling little skip that will be the leitmotif of the entire journey," representing Dorothy's -- and perhaps the children's -- "steps out along the road of destiny" (Rushdie 44).
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Blog 9
What would Fredric Jameson say about the following image:
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/mona-lisa-on-the-simpsons1.jpg
Jameson would say that this picture of an older Lisa Simpson substituting for the woman in the classical Mona Lisa painting is a perfect example of postmodernism. It makes fun of classic 'high culture', merging it with popular culture and thereby elevating popular culture, as here represented by a female member of of a dysfunctional, working class, TV family. In Jameson's words, the picture can be said to represent 'the effacement...of the older...frontier between high culture and so-called mass or commercial culture and the emergence of new kinds of texts infused with the forms...and contents of that very culture industry [TV, for example] so passionatelely denounced by all the ideologues of the modern..." (Jameson 2). Artworks like the Mona Lisa that have been considered high art are now viewed "as a set of dead classics" (Jameson 4). Jameson goes on to say that while this sort of postmodernism and "complacent (yet delilrious) camp-following celebration...is surely unacceptable" -- at some level we still emotionally reject the degradation of a classic work of art -- we must still "reject moralising condemnations of the postmodern "when it's compared with the equally ridiculous 'high seriousness' of the great modernisms'" (Jameson 6). The postmodern challenges our conceptions, and while it may sometimes make us uncomfortable, we also realize (and laugh at) the truth in that challenge.
Jameson might also observe that this picture is postmodern because it puts on display for both admiration and ridicule a TV example of the latest and most current form of capitalism: an ugly, homogenized city like the Springfield of The Simpsons, with its visible and generic 'Bowlarama', and the Simpson family, who spend their time trapped in American working class conditions and roles as they watch TV, drink (Homer, at least), fight with each other and scheme for a way out of their social and economic constraints.
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/mona-lisa-on-the-simpsons1.jpg
Jameson would say that this picture of an older Lisa Simpson substituting for the woman in the classical Mona Lisa painting is a perfect example of postmodernism. It makes fun of classic 'high culture', merging it with popular culture and thereby elevating popular culture, as here represented by a female member of of a dysfunctional, working class, TV family. In Jameson's words, the picture can be said to represent 'the effacement...of the older...frontier between high culture and so-called mass or commercial culture and the emergence of new kinds of texts infused with the forms...and contents of that very culture industry [TV, for example] so passionatelely denounced by all the ideologues of the modern..." (Jameson 2). Artworks like the Mona Lisa that have been considered high art are now viewed "as a set of dead classics" (Jameson 4). Jameson goes on to say that while this sort of postmodernism and "complacent (yet delilrious) camp-following celebration...is surely unacceptable" -- at some level we still emotionally reject the degradation of a classic work of art -- we must still "reject moralising condemnations of the postmodern "when it's compared with the equally ridiculous 'high seriousness' of the great modernisms'" (Jameson 6). The postmodern challenges our conceptions, and while it may sometimes make us uncomfortable, we also realize (and laugh at) the truth in that challenge.
Jameson might also observe that this picture is postmodern because it puts on display for both admiration and ridicule a TV example of the latest and most current form of capitalism: an ugly, homogenized city like the Springfield of The Simpsons, with its visible and generic 'Bowlarama', and the Simpson family, who spend their time trapped in American working class conditions and roles as they watch TV, drink (Homer, at least), fight with each other and scheme for a way out of their social and economic constraints.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Blog 8
How would Freud describe Jack Bauer's masculinity?
Freud (or some other psychoanalyst) would need to analyze Jack in order to determine what problems he has and what the roots are of his hyper-masculinity. But the best guess is that Jack has an unresolved Oedipus complex. The Oedipus complex for a male describes a young child's attachment to his mother and his unconscious wish to replace his father as his mother's lover. This leads to fear of the child's father's resentment over being displaced -- specifically fear of castration by the father. When the oedipus complex is resolved, the child bonds with and identifies with the father, no longer fearing him, no longer sexually desiring his mother and developing a healthy sense of his own masculinity using his father as a model. The result of this resolution is the formation of a healthy superego -- the fear of the father becomes internalized in the child as a conscience, an internal (no longer external) authority, and the resolution of the child's infatuation with his mother paves the way for normal relations with the opposite sex.
It's unclear exactly what problems are produced if the oedipus complex is not successfully resolved, but Freud viewed it as central to much if not all later neurotic problems. From Jack's history in 24, we can assume there were problems in resolving his oedipus complex. Jack's father is portrayed in seaon 6 of 24 as a controlling and dishonest (if not evil) figure who Jack confronts over the course of multiple episodes. Mention of his father before these confrontations is almost absent (repressed?). Jack has similar problems with his brother, who sides with Jack's father. As a result of unresolved Oedipal tensions we might assume both a problem with Jack's superego and view of authority as well as with his masculinity.
Jack's superego and view of authority is clearly not a typical one. Jack's conscience drives him to do things that others would consider extreme -- torture, extreme self-sacrifice, etc. At the same time that he can flout convention or authority he is also strangely bound by it, as evidenced by his repeated deference to various presidents, who he obeys completely (at least the honest ones) and goes to great lengths to protect.
Jack's masculinity is also super-charged and his relationships with women problematic, perhaps owing to failure to identify with a mature and stable masculinity because of the lack of a healthy relationship with his father. He has an affair while married to his wife. He has an overprotective devotion to his daughter that is extreme, even given an often selfless dedication to daughters by many fathers. He has a conviction in his near invulnerability, willing to undertake even the most risky endeavors with an expectation of success (or a more than usual willingness to die trying). While not necessarily enjoying violence (or does he?), he has an amazing ability to engage in it with a non-emotional, almost mechanical efficiency, even sacrificing friends when the greater good seems to demand it.
Freud (or some other psychoanalyst) would need to analyze Jack in order to determine what problems he has and what the roots are of his hyper-masculinity. But the best guess is that Jack has an unresolved Oedipus complex. The Oedipus complex for a male describes a young child's attachment to his mother and his unconscious wish to replace his father as his mother's lover. This leads to fear of the child's father's resentment over being displaced -- specifically fear of castration by the father. When the oedipus complex is resolved, the child bonds with and identifies with the father, no longer fearing him, no longer sexually desiring his mother and developing a healthy sense of his own masculinity using his father as a model. The result of this resolution is the formation of a healthy superego -- the fear of the father becomes internalized in the child as a conscience, an internal (no longer external) authority, and the resolution of the child's infatuation with his mother paves the way for normal relations with the opposite sex.
It's unclear exactly what problems are produced if the oedipus complex is not successfully resolved, but Freud viewed it as central to much if not all later neurotic problems. From Jack's history in 24, we can assume there were problems in resolving his oedipus complex. Jack's father is portrayed in seaon 6 of 24 as a controlling and dishonest (if not evil) figure who Jack confronts over the course of multiple episodes. Mention of his father before these confrontations is almost absent (repressed?). Jack has similar problems with his brother, who sides with Jack's father. As a result of unresolved Oedipal tensions we might assume both a problem with Jack's superego and view of authority as well as with his masculinity.
Jack's superego and view of authority is clearly not a typical one. Jack's conscience drives him to do things that others would consider extreme -- torture, extreme self-sacrifice, etc. At the same time that he can flout convention or authority he is also strangely bound by it, as evidenced by his repeated deference to various presidents, who he obeys completely (at least the honest ones) and goes to great lengths to protect.
Jack's masculinity is also super-charged and his relationships with women problematic, perhaps owing to failure to identify with a mature and stable masculinity because of the lack of a healthy relationship with his father. He has an affair while married to his wife. He has an overprotective devotion to his daughter that is extreme, even given an often selfless dedication to daughters by many fathers. He has a conviction in his near invulnerability, willing to undertake even the most risky endeavors with an expectation of success (or a more than usual willingness to die trying). While not necessarily enjoying violence (or does he?), he has an amazing ability to engage in it with a non-emotional, almost mechanical efficiency, even sacrificing friends when the greater good seems to demand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)