Upon second thought, I'm not so sure if I had seen "O" before. But that doesn't make it any less interesting. We've covered some interesting aspects about the movie in class. One of the things that has caught my attention the most that I don't think was brought up in class is the color contrast between Julia Stiles and Mekhi Phifer. Obviously, casting had their choice of who they would put in that role, but the choice of the two really highlights the difference between white and black. Phifer is exceptionally black; and Stiles is exceptionally pale, though not as bad as Winona Ryder, but close enough. I don't want to sound racist, but like white people, there are different shades of black. If we were to compare someone like Barack Obama and Mekhi Phifer, there would be an obvious difference. And I think this choice was done on purpose because we have covered in class all the imagery and associates of white and black from the black and white birds all the way down to the location of the movie. It seems like everything was done deliberately to emphasize that main aspect of white versus black.
The question was also brought up in class about Shakespeare being universal. I really do think that he is and I think movies like "10 Things I Hate About You" and "O" are good examples of how not only universal Shakespeare can be, but as well as timeless. The things that Shakespeare wrote about, such as love and deception and as we have in "Othello," even racism. Movies like the ones that I have just mentioned prove that Shakespeare can be adapted in so many different ways, even a setting so mundane as high school. Shakespeare isn't necessarily the easiest thing to read, but the things that he writes about once one gets through the language is definitely relateable to just about any person on Earth.
I'm looking forward to watching "O" in class. I'm pretty sure I have seen it before in middle school, but I don't remember much of it.
It's interesting to watch all these different productions of the same thing because of the different interpretations that can occur. As we saw in class, the same scene was interpreted in four or five different ways. The same thing is often done on a much grander scale. Earlier this year, I watched opera's take on Othello after having just read the play in Italian (which is quite the feat if you think reading it in English is hard). I thought it was a really good production, though I am not much into opera.
One of the things that struck me about this production was how well they got Placido Domingo to look of African decent. This sounds really bad, but every time they had a close up on him, I would look to see if there were any make-up lines on his face or on his arms. But the job was so well done that I didn't see any. And then I got to thinking... I understand that Placido Domingo is one of the most revered opera singers on the planet, but couldn't they have picked an opera singer of African decent to play the part? As I said, I'm not that well-versed in opera and who's considered the tops of the tops (other than the obvious), but I'm sure there had to be someone that could have been selected in order to play the part. It seems to me kind of a faux pas to make someone out as a black man, when there were options of the real thing and thus brings into the picture the argument of race, again. Did the directors not think that an African opera singer was good enough for this production? Perhaps research would answer these questions, but I find it hard to imagine that there was not someone of African decent available, willing, or good enough to play the part. Aisde from Placido Domingo being world-reknown and thus, becoming a money/profit issue, what might have been wrong with selecting a lesser-known opera singer who could have used the opportunity to launch his career and become as beloved as Domingo?
Right. So. I here I am doing my weekly Wednesday posting and I have legitimately nothing to write about Kind of scary. So I'm going to have to wing it. Needless to say, this will probably be one of the posts that I won't be including in the few that I want graded.
One of the things we discussed in class last Thursday was the concept of displacement. A lot of people had some really good input, and the idea that I wrote down was being out of one's own realm. I kept it kind of general because there could be many conditions in which one is displaced, and this is one of those definitions that I don't think could be accurately described because there are quite a few circumstances to which displacement can occur- it could be by force, or it could be by choice. When people travel, obviously, there is a chance of feeling displaced, especially if it's to a country in which they are not used to the customs or they have the same skin color. I think the other half to this definition is the sense of belonging. To me, being displaced also means not being assimilated or welcomed, or perhaps even secure. I think about all the times that I've been somewhere else, either in the country or abroad, and granted the choices I've made in my travels have always been safe, I've never really felt displaced. I have tried my best to relate myself to a culture and try to be like them so that I wouldn't feel out of place.
Though the word displacement often has a negative connotation to it, I don't think bad every time it happens. It could be viewed as a learning experience, as most things in life. I think Sam was the one who came up with relating displacement as a journey, which I really liked hearing. There's almost a romantic notion to it, knowing that there's a start and an end. Very often life is described as a journey and I was trying to figure out if there is a reciprocal way of putting it, but nothing seems to be coming to mind. If life is this so-called "journey," what exactly are we displaced from?
.
Last night I was watching my nightly installment of Sex and the City and the main storyline was Carrie finding and enjoying the company of her high school sweetheart, who was played by David Duchovny. It wasn't until some time in the relationship when he confessed to her that instead of "taking time off" like he had told her, he was actually institutionalized (for what, I don't remember). And one of their dates was on the institution's front lawn for a picnic. I looked up the title of the episode, and coincidentally enough, it was entitled, "Boy, Interrupted."
I came to thinking about these two characters in both the TV show and the film and the funny thing about them in comparison to the rest of the patients at the institution is that, unless you really know them, one would have never have guessed that they had any sort of mental illness, either from a visual perspective or by what they do or say. Though Suzanna was institutionalized in Girl, Interrupted, I think it was taking it one step too far. I say this because there were a lot kids when I went to high school who tried some sort of self-harm, such as cutting or other means. And more often than not, they received outpatient help and weren't institutionalized. In Suzanna's case, it wasn't until she started to associate with Lisa that she started to do things that were really out of line. Lisa had the dominant personality, and Suzanna was really influenced by this girl. I think she almost felt a pressure to associate with her so that she wouldn't become a victim of Lisa's tirades.
The question was brought up in class about the title of the film. Looking at the big picture, I would have said the interruption would have been the stint at the institution. But upon further inspection, I really think the interruption was Lisa. I think had it not been for Lisa, Suzanna would have gotten out of the institution a little quicker because before and after Lisa, Suzanna had be doing fine. After meeting Lisa, I think Suzanna realized the value of her own life, and thus, pushed herself to be more cooperative, more willing to participate in therapy so that she could get better and get out of the institution.
It seems like these days, mental illness is almost commonplace, and that's probably because we know more about such illnesses and these people that are afflicted aren't just freaks of nature. Girl, Interrupted is a good gauge to see how far we've really come in trying to understand mental illness and the treatment involved in helping the patient. There is definitely more respect towards them, and more things that can be done to help people cope with their illness. I somewhat enjoyed the movie, and if I can find the time, I wouldn't mind reading the book because I feel like some things could be better explained in the novel than in the movie.
I'm not going to lie. I'm a very shallow person. And perhaps that's why I don't do very well in analyzing text- but that does not necessarily mean I can't do it. So needless to say, when I was sitting in class on Tuesday, I was going through one of my shallow phases when we were talking about this crazy wallpaper that the narrator became so entranced with. When someone mentioned that the narrator saw the woman in the wallpaper, I was reminded how weird that was and joked with myself that this narrator must be really strung out on something strong. Well, for whatever reason, I was reminded of this "art" craze in the 1990's when everyone was all into this 3D art that, if you stared at it long enough, you would get a vision amidst all the craziness. And then I realized, in context of "The Yellow Wallpaper," yes, the narrator was crazy. But at the same time, we all had to look pretty ridiculous even though we were all perfectly sane in the 1990's crossing our eyes and telling everyone to shut up so we can get at this image behind the pattern.
Despite my shallowness and the whole 3D art thing, I did manage to come up with two themes about "The Yellow Wallpaper," and they both kind of tie into each other. "The Yellow Wallpaper," to me, is about truth and perspective. One of the questions that came up in class was, "how can we trust the narrator knowing she's got a mental illness?" My response to that is why should we have to trust her? After all, this story comes from "Anthology of the American Short Story," not the New England Journal of Medicine. It appeared that the narrator was writing this stuff down because she needed an outlet because her turd of a husband only cared about her medical condition, not her as a person and she really had no friends that she spoke of to let out her feelings. For this to be her outlet, much like these blogs, she's free to write whatever she wants without having the criticism of others- that's what she had her husband for. Therefore, why does it it really matter what she was speaking was the truth or not?
Perspective is also important for this story. From the perspective of a perfectly sane person, the wallpaper could have never come to life and start sprouting women. It's just not possible, unless you're in Disney World and they can trick your mind into thinking so. As for the narrator, there are a couple things that might attribute to her hallucinations. As we covered in class, she was clearly suffering from postpartum depression, which is never good. And secondly, I think her living a very solitary and lonely life for these few months inside this rented house did not help her situation at all. I hardly consider myself a medical doctor, but I think if she had more stimulation or at least more people surrounding her, she would have been a little better off. Her husband was so wrapped up in himself, and she had no friends to confide in otherwise. Having such a secluded life probably made the situation ten times worse because she had all the time in the world to think about the things that would bring her down. And in a way, perhaps in this middle of all this bleakness, what she really wanted was a friend, and her hallucinations were really a subconscious want for a friend. So maybe from her perspective, this was a way of entertaining herself, which in turn, turned out to be entertainment for other people in this published writing. So in short, the author, in my opinion had a very valid perspective. What she saw was what she saw and thus, wrote about it. It's as simple as that.
My last question about all of this is... because of our individual perceptions, do we ever know what the truth really is?? It's definitely one of those long, philosophical questions that I'm sure we can go on for days with, but it's one of those questions that cause us to really think about the truth and our relationship to it.
Oh, and by the way- the 3D art is a guitar and musical notes :)
