Involuntary Memory in film vs. literature

Monday's discussion was about Proust and involuntary memory and we were asked the question "did you think the film portrayed involuntary memory well?". I would say that the film was a pretty good adaptation from the novel but I still feel that you can get more from reading the novel than watching the movie. I honestly am one of those people that would rather see the movie instead of reading the book because I feel I don't have time to read a book and it is much easier to see a 2 hour movie. On the other hand though, when compared to watching a really good movie to reading a really good book, I always seem to get more "in to" the book. Meaning I get more wrapped up in the story line of a book than I do when watching a movie.

-Danielle Holub

Imaginary Personas in Film

In our discussion of our Persona we've addressed the question of whether or not the two characters are really one person and it got me thinking about the concept of split personalities or imaginary alter egos in film. Film seems to be the best medium for expressing this concept because in film, unlike literature, we are able to see through the eyes of the characters and see what they see. Even when what they see is not what is actually there. Coincidentally, a recently saw another film about a related concept. "The Machinist," a 2004 film starring Christian Bale, tells the story of a man with extreme insomnia. After a long period without sleep he starts to meet new co-workers that none of his previous co-workers have ever heard of. The movie is presented in a way that we can't tell if he's hallucinating or if these people actually exist. I won't give away the ending, but I wanted to point out that film is a medium that can effectively create this confusion between real and imaginary characters. As audience members we tend to assume that characters we see are real characters, and film makers can exploit this trust in our senses.

Neo-Realism

In appreciating film perception, this article discusses the fact that there was a time when audience members watched movement and listened to sound, in which the new cinematic experience has transcended, resulting in the view becoming involved in the film. Instead of watching what the characters do, the audience members feel involved, and by doing so, they also realize how much of a viewer the characters are as well.



I am a horror film junkie, and after reading this article, I couldn't help but think of all the horror films I've watched that encompass this notion of not even the character having control of their lives. In these films (or the better ones at least) we often get the feeling of being trapped, and become emotionally invested in the characters well being; and as much as we'd like to change the course of what's about to happen, we can't, and neither can they...we have no control. The plots to some of these films are sometimes lacking, and not drama ridden, so that the viewer is not investing in the storyline, but rather being absorbed, taken over by this terrific horror of the vision, and sound itself.

"He shifts, runs and becomes animated in vain, the situation he is in outstrips his motor capacities on all sides, and makes him see and hear what is no longer subject to the rules of a response or an action.....He is prey to a vision, pursued by it or pursuing it, rather than engaged in an action."

Also, I could not agree more on the articles take on "cliche". Often, I feel that sometimes we settle for the cliche. We think "Oh, I've seen a scene like this before, I can predict what comes next", or especially in horror films, not delving further because we use certain visions, and sounds as ques for prediction. We don't look any further because they have a trademark sense about them, an unfortunate situation for the film-maker, no doubt.

.:Brittany Potts:.

Persona...one person or two seperate people??

A little while back in class we had the discussion about if you thought Elisabet and Alma were two different people or one person. A lot of the movie led me to believe that they were two separate people that were becoming one person psychologically by taking on each others personality; but the one thing I did not understand is at the end of the movie, only one person (Alma) got on the bus to leave. Just that little scene makes me want to believe that maybe that the two were one in the same. What are your thoughts on this? This movie still leaves many questions in my mind which surprisingly doesn't bother me. I think movies are more interesting when you are left to figure out what you think the movie meant than having a definite answer.



-Danielle Holub

Persona and Close-Up Cinematography

In the movie Persona, Bergman effectively subjects Elisabet and Alma to a lot of close-up shots of their faces and I think by-in-large the reason that he does this is to effectively portray the two becoming the same person. Bergman strives for the audience to lose themselves in these two women overshadowing one another's identity and by shooting a multitude of face-shots he somehow makes it to where the audience is lost in the two women and also losing grips on the differences that set these two women a part. In one scene the women are stroking one anothers hair and although this scene personally was bizarre, Bergman uses this footage to portray the women becoming as one woman stroking her own hair.

Another scene that also portrays these two women meshing as one is when Elisabet's husband thinks he is talking to his wife when he is really talking to Alma. During this scene, Elisabet takes Almas hand and puts it on her husband's face. When this happens Bergman gets close-up footage and by doing this, in a way, blurrs the concept of the women being separate people because of the act of Elisabet urging Alma to do this. The focus in on the little details and actions that these two women play out is what really makes this movie effective in allowing the audience to get lost in these characters losing their identities to one another.

Thoughts about Persona

We have been disecting Persona in class and I am not one to speak up so I thought that I would voice some comments here.

On Friday we discussed the scene in which Elisabet talks and the nurse simply repeats what Elisabet said and goes to bed. I agree with the idea that the reason that the nurse ignored what Elisabet said was becuase she simply believed it was not Elisabet who spoke but instead believed it was just her own thoughts. I think that because it was so faint and Elisabet does not talk the nurse could concieve of no other reason for what she heard other than she simply heard her own thoughts.

Another scene that we watched in class involved the nurse talking with Elisabet's husband as if she was Elisabet. It was a bit confusing because I could not determine what was trying to be presented in this scene. I decided that the scene was in Elisabet's head, she was envisioning what the scene would be if it happened but with the nurse as Elisabet. That is why she has the nurse touch her husbands face and when they are in bed why she says that she is vile. It is a bit of a confusing scene but I feel like this scene was a struggle between what Elisabet wishes would happen and what would happen if she were to interact with her husband. Both the good and the bad, meaning she would tell him that she lives off his tenderness but that she would also break down and have to admit that at times she is a mess.

Balazs and the Language of Film: Camera "Shots"

We discussed this a little bit in class, but what I found fascinating about Balazs' writings was his focus on films as communicative devices. Over time our generation, having grown up with films and television as a matter of course, have naturally learned and acquired a sort of language of films that comes across in many unexpected ways.
A good way of outlining some elements of this language is by showcasing a few basic shots and trying to understand the message they try to get across. For instance, one of the most famous uses of perspective is in Citizen Kane. Much of the film is shot from a very low angle to portray Charles Foster Kane as an imposing figure, larger than life. Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReHAg29c-64

We've also spoken a lot about Ingmar Bergman's Persona, which utilizes many close-ups  and strange framing, but what really stands out to me among his works is the end of The Seventh Seal, shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzz9WuUdfQM&feature=player_detailpage#t=304s

We see what is known as an extreme long shot, showing the main characters upon a hill. It really speaks volumes about how we view the afterlife. They are so far away that they could never hear us. We can likewise never hear them, but they are together, holding hands like nowhere else in the film, united in death. All we have is this closing shot of what amounts to dancing silhouettes to remember them by, but it is a potent reminder of how final and all encompassing death is.

Finally, I want to showcase a bit of use of focal length.

As you can see here, lenses are differentiated based on focal length, which allows for wider shots in most cases, but can also be used to warp depth. As shown in the picture to the right, different lenses can show off elements of the background, but also communicate a sort of distance between two objects. In the bottom picture, it seems like the two containers are standing right next to each other. Compare this to the top picture where they are seemingly miles apart.
I see that top picture and imagine a tragic tale. What has the blue container done to alienate himself so much from the pink one? What obstacle separates these two? Lies? Infidelity? Murder? It reminds me of the distance between my family and myself. Though we are much the same (both containers) we lack the closeness inherent in familial bonds. Oh what a sad tale!
Such is the power of film to communicate such emotion so simply.

-Sergio L. Barrio





Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_%28filmmaking%29

Identities and Realities in Ingmar Bergman's Persona and David Lynch's Muholland Drive

Its fascinating to see how ideas are adapted and transformed to an artists' own interpretations, and a perfect example I found was the ideas that are parallel between Ingmar Bergman's Persona to David Lynch's Muholland Drive. As you should be familiar with Persona, Muholland Drive basically has the same theme that two women's identities get mixed between each other (Movie Trailer).

Of course, Lynch tends to weave reality and surrealism together in his films, a technique he uses to suggest the ideas of alternate identities within dreams, sort of like an identity the subject wishes to have or achieve. He does this with Naomi Watt's character, who is started out in the film as Betty, an innocent actress striving to make it big, and half way through she plays a bleak, failed actress Diane who seemed to have dreamed up the identity of Betty. As in relation to Bergman, the idea of a persona is an identity the subject wants other to perceive them as even though that may not be the subject's true identity. Both women's identities merge together to a persona, confronting each others hidden guilt they hide because of their persona. Additionally, both films work with in the subconcious, from Bergman's montage of images in the beginning to Lynch's dreamlike characters beside a dumpster and at a play. In addition, both films use close ups at a great extent to help portray emotional instabilities within their alternate identities. And even Lynch acknowledges his influence from Bergman in Muholland Drive, by splicing an image of both women faces into one just like Bergman did in Persona.

- Cassie Hanks

The Birds

I really enjoyed the film The Birds. I think that Hitchcock did a great job with building up tension throughout the movie. It was slightly slow in some parts, but I think that was a way for the viewer to get to know the characters and for the film to be more suspenseful. I felt anxious throughout the movie, wondering in anticipation what was going to happen next. When Melanie Daniels, Mitch Brenner and his mom and sister were taking refuge in their house, I felt trapped in and claustrophobic.

Although I liked this film, I was disappointed in the ending. It felt like the movie had a plot-less ending. What was causing the birds to attack? According to IMDb, Hitchcock didn't want any explanation of what happened and said "If you provide an explanation for the phenomenon then the film becomes science fiction; we're not making science fiction, Birds is a thriller, hence we leave out any explanation." He called this a MacGuffin, which he defines as "The plot device, of little intrinsic interest, such as lost or stolen papers, that triggers the action."

So what do you guys think? Do you think that the movie would have been more satisfying if the cause of the birds behaving wildly was revealed or do you prefer it to be a mystery?

Persona

In the discussion of Persona the idea of mirror images is brought to light quite a bit. I could be seen in the the film when the two women's faces were split and formed into one. It was also seen when there was one woman in the background and one in the foreground. However beyond the blatant attempts at showing the mirror images of the women in scenes such as that I must say that I much preferred the mirroring of the two women in their personalities. I know that in a way they were suppose to become one and the same. They were to shift in a sense. I enjoyed the subtle changes that the nurse made such as learning to smoke and spilling her sexual exploitation. One of the scenes that I found to be a particular example that she was changing and was no longer the bright eyed pure person that she was at the beginning of the film was when she left the glass on the ground for the other woman to step on. I felt that there were so many great instances that were subtle but obvious that the nurse was changing and all because of her patient. Her patient that did not speak but simply listened.

The Experience of Close-Up Faces

The article from Balazs-Sichtbare Mensch gave me a lot to chew on in terms of film's function as a newer art form. The birth of film art is unlike any other art form, since it developed out of capitalism. This seems to be the case as the article points out because movies are an expensive art form, and they have always been financed in order to usually break even or generate profit. The article says that this is probably largely why the U.S. dominated the film production industry from the get-go, rather than say, Paris, France. The basis of the new form of film language is the cinematographic camera, which is capable of constantly changing viewpoints, photographing locations and scenarios in "real time" speed that a viewer would never anyways be able to experience on their own. However the camera can also focus on details, and direct the audience's attention based on where it's "placed". Obviously there's more to film production than simply tossing a camera around in a particular sequence, since editing is the key of holding the sectional shots together. Film editing is an art form all onto its own, and this is usually what becomes meant when phrases are thrown about as though the camera is doing all of the work. But with that aside,It discussed how facial expressions are the most subjective manifestation of a man. It's apparently more so than speech even, since expressions are far more universal than vocabular, grammar, and language. It can express sadness, joy, or a thousand indescribable words. So the close-ups serve as a great tool for letting you see your characters intimately and more personally than you probably would with a wider angle. The article goes on to suggest that close-ups even express a director's sensibility. It puts the viewer into the film, as though they're seeing through the character's eyes and experiencing what they're feeling. Along these lines, it gets into the idea of dualism between spectator and work of art. Since Joan of Arc and Persona both exemplify a lot of unique cinematography with close-ups and an emphasis on he face of characters, it attempts to put the viewers in their mindset, which is effective primarily because of the acting talents and facial expressions they have. This could mean that the viewer in film has an active role after all-- they "contribute an association of ideas, consciousness, and imagination that the film public first had to be educated with". It's a Freudian concept, and an interesting one to ponder about since the argument is sometimes made that visual stimulation (in the general sense) is mindless.

Persona and "Levinas and the face of the other."

I chose to read, "Levinas and the face of the other," for our group discussion. As I read it I thought specifically of the filming style of "Persona." In the article, it is discussed that the face is so much more than the literal way that we sometimes think of it in our culture. According to Levinas, the face of the other is not only a physical object, but almost like a doorway into the other person, connecting their body to something spiritual. The author discusses how our understanding of the word face has a lot to do with the physical images it creates. For example, the face of something could simply mean its front end. One interesting fact brought up that the word for face in Russian, lico, also means person.

As I read this article, I had the imagery from Persona stuck in my head. The way everything was filmed, with such close-ups of both of the women, often even when they were having a conversation with someone else really stayed with me. I felt this painted the characters in a completely unique light. The viewer was able to get much more insight into each character, as you could truly see their emotions through the movement and reactions of their faces. In a way, as the article described, their faces where a window into their souls, their true beings.

I really enjoyed this filming style, but I'm not sure how it would be received in a modern setting. What did yall think of this filming style?

RSD

The Photoplay

For our group discussion I chose to read "The Photoplay" by Hugo Von Munsterberg. I found this chapter to be very interesting because I never really thought about what goes on when we focus our attention on a particular object. In the chapter Munsterberg explains that in the real world we differentiate between voluntary and involuntary attention. He says, "we call it voluntary if we approach the impressions with an idea in our mind as to what we want to focus our attention on" (Munsterberg 74). In other words, we take a personal interest in the object that has captured our attention. Our attention has chosen its aim from the beginning and it blocks out that which does not attract our interest. This is quite the opposite of involuntary attention because we have not already chosen the object that caught our attention. Something unexpected must occur in order for our attention to be reeled in. He further explains that both voluntary and involuntary attention are always intertwined and both types of attentions will compromise with each other.

The main topic of Munsterberg's chapter deals with how attention in real life compares to the way attention works in respect to theater or film. He asks, "might we not say that voluntary attention is eliminated...and the audience is...following the lead of an attention which receives all its cues from the work of art itself and which therefore acts involuntarily?" (Munsterberg 76). To some degree I would agree with Munsterberg that if we were watching a performance then our attention involuntarily moves in the direction of the main character. However, I believe that our attention first acts voluntarily and as the performance progresses our attention begins to blend in with the involuntary. I wouldn't necessarily say that the voluntary part of our attention is completely eliminated because an individual chooses to focus on an object voluntarily. One cannot function without the other. Both forms of art, the theater and film, use different techniques to grab our attention. For example, in a play our attention is focused on the actor who is speaking and all other actors on stage who are not talking are faded out. On the other hand, film makers will use the "close up" to grab the audiences attention. In the film "Persona" we see this type of technique being used at the end of the film where Sister Alma is talking to Elizabet about why Elizabet was covering the photo of her son. In the scene all we see is Elizabet's reaction as Alma speaks and again, but this time only showing Alma's facial expressions. In "Joan of Arc" we also see the same technique being used but maybe a little too much that it loses its effect after awhile. Another example that reminded me (it's not really a close-up but I love this scene) of this was in the 1993 film "Schindler's List" by Steven Spielberg. The movie was filmed entirely in black and white expect for this one scene that depicts a little girl in a red coat walking aimlessly through the streets. The color red plays a symbolic role in the film because the little girl is later shown again in a cart full of dead bodies.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Little-Girl-in-the-Red-Coat-Schindlers-List

Munsterberg explains that "the close-up has to furnish the explanations." The scene in "Schindler's List" was not only artfully done but it immediately grabbed the viewer's attention and although there is only music playing the viewer knows that the red coat is important. Thus, the individual keeps this piece of information in the back of their mind as it will serve a purpose later in the film.

When it comes to our attention there are many different things that go on. What are your thoughts on this idea of the voluntary and involuntary attention?

Trying to wrap my mind around Persona

First of all, I found Persona to be extremely entertaining and it maintained my interest from beginning to end. However, as soon as it was over I found myself trying to piece it together and I had an extremely hard time explaining to a friend what I had just seen.

My interpretation was that several of the events in the film did not actually happen in the narrative between the two characters. They were representation of the mental activity of Elizabeth. The scene at the end that essentially gets repeated from different perspectives was an example of this. The scene doesn't actually make sense within the context of the story because how could Alma possibly know that information about Elizabeth's history. My take on that scene was that it was a journey into Elizabeth's past and the reason it was told by Alma was because of the blending of the two personas. Elizabeth imagines her thoughts told to her by Alma because Elizabeth has suppressed her past. Alma is telling Elizabeth her thoughts and Elizabeth responds like she didn't know because she is essentially relearning her own history. Alma becomes the spokesperson for Elizabeth's repressed thoughts.

This is a somewhat far fetched theory but did anyone get a similar impression?

Why Women?

In the movie The Stepford Wives and in Freud's The Sandman, there is a reoccurring theme of the 'ideal' woman. I find it interesting that the desire for a perfect woman has to be a mechanical version. The reason that I find this interesting is that are these aspects of women in fact feminine qualities that all women have but just lack in daily executing them, things such as poise and beauty and homemaker? Or are these aspects of women grossly over idealized by men and their desire to have someone to do it all for them and make them feel like a 'man'?
With that idea in mind, it begins to beg the question when looking at these productions, if in fact the 'ideal' woman is not really ideal but rather a misconstrued perfection that turns into a living horror. In theory these men wanted something to appease their visual appetite and ego that they could 'do it better.' I guess my question is, why are women chosen to be the ones perfected rather than being the ones perfecting? And when it comes to fulfilling the male ego of being 'in-charge' or in these cases the 'creator' where is the line?

"Because we can"

I found the Stepford Wives to be a decent film, but enough of it didn't add up for me so that I wasn't thrilled with it. Basically the men just did not seem realistic and I couldn't get past that. We're supposed to believe that these men who love their children, and at least used to love their wives, could conspire to kill and replace the mother of their children with sexy robots. I could only believe someone would do that if they were presented as cold-blooded but the men, for the most part, weren't. We even saw Joanna's husband struggling with the grief at times (when he's crying and tells Joanna he loves her early in the film).

Now to my point... I absolutely loved Dis' response to Joanna when she asks him why they did it. Rather than try to justify what they've done (saying it's for the greater good or some bs like that) he responds with a very cold, "because we can." I found this to be the highlight of the film because we finally see the face of the evil of whats been going on. I liked this response so much that it saved the movie for me because we finally had a clear villain, or evil mastermind, we could point to.

Did anyone else react in this way? Or does anyone else share my critiques of the men in general?

The Stepford Wives - What We Want To Believe

During our discussion of The Stepford Wives someone made a point to question just what happened at the end. Did the lead wife die, or was she simply playing along with the "perfect wife" gimmick in order to stay alive?

I'll admit when I started watching the movie I expected to see just an older version of the remake that came out with Nicole Kidman, so when the movie started getting more and more into it's own plot I started second guessing the remake's faithfulness to the original which turned out to be so much better. (The newer one was just corny.) It seems like they took the idea of the original Stepford Wives and just made it into a happy, feel-good movie whose goal it was pretty much to say how we should appreciate the imperfections of each other and value a woman for not being that "robotic-perfect" we all think we need at times. Anyway, in the end of the movie Kidman's character lives and everybody goes home happy, or something like that (and Christopher Walken turns out to be a robot...like no one saw that coming. :-P ).

Because I had seen Kidman's character live in the new one I expected to not only get attached to this lead female (I think her name was Joanna or something like that) in her plight to prove conspiracy while surviving the average wives' purge, but also to see her live at the end of the movie. When the scene comes up that shows her double in the room looking pretty intent on taking Joanna out of the picture we can assume what is going to go down, however they never really show it happen. Instead they go to the next scene at the supermarket and show her functioning with all the other robotic housewives. While I am pretty sure Joanna is toast at this point and that what we are seeing is another robot, the person who brought the idea that Joanna might not be dead raised a pretty good argument. You don't really see Joanna die, however all the evidence is there supporting that Joanna is dead.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that, and I bet this is with anyone who saw the new one first, we grew so attached to the main character that when the end finally came so abruptly like that we wanted to believe that she found a way out, that she survived. It's amazing how films and stories, clearly about fictional characters, can get us to attach ourselves across dimensions from our reality to their fictional one. Perhaps it's not so much the character as much as what the character represents in conjunction with the audience personally?
-MT

The Stepford Wives

I know we discussed The Stepford Wives a little while back, but one thing has stuck out to me and I was going to see if anyone else wondered this. I thought the movie did a poor job with showing how Joanna's husband came to the decision of having his wife killed and replacing her with a robot. It seemed that, in the beginning,he was very in love with his wife and it didn't really make sense that he would want a submissive, "perfect" wife, especially since he married such a strong-willed woman.

I just find it very odd that he would even consider it and I think the movie should have shown the process of him coming to that decision, but maybe this contributed to the suspense of the film and wouldn't have left us guessing until the end.

The Fantastic in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment

I can't remember if we were talking about Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment in this class or my other class, but throughout reading Todorov's "The Fantastic" I saw a lot of similarities between the two pieces. Crime and Punishment focuses on Nietzsche's "super man" theory which basically believes that a "superman" can get away with any crime because he is about the moral code and guilt that other humans are subject to. Just like Nietzsche's theory and Dostoevsky's main character in Crime and Punishment, their is a fantastic element about being able to kill a man and get away with it. The crime is compared to other men's reality and the imaginary concept of being able to beat this guilt compare to other men. The main character confronts a situation where he is able to kill a pawn broker and attempts to inexplicably get away with a crime that other men would be condemned for. But the main character experiences a break in the natural order of his life and experiences physically the guilt he was attempting to escape to prove his "superman-ness."
The crazy part of this novel is that, as a reader, you almost want this man to prove his "superman" ability. I was fully immersed in the concept he aimed to fulfill and felt that I was integrated and believing in the goal. But then there were also times that I was hesitant and just as Todorov describes, I identified with the character but was hesitant in supporting him. It seems like this novel fulfills the description of the fantastic nicely.

The Birds

It was mentioned in class that the change from a male to a female character in the lead role may have had some significance when discussing the change from book to film. Along with this there were many other changes made from the time period, location, first attack by the birds and so on.

Thus my question is whether or not these changes had a huge impact on the overall story itself?
Did the story loose some of its meaning or get changed along the way with all of these differences?

In the end there is still confusion of the overall purpose of the birds in both the book and the movie. Needless to say with that much left to be desired by both portrayals of this story I personally think that maybe there wasn't that much of an impact made on the story itself with these changes because maybe the whole point was to keep the reader/ watcher guessing, wondering, making up conclusions in their own mind.

An Analysis of the Use of Sound in Hitchcock's "The Birds"

Sound is an important part of any movie. Certainly it's possible to watch a movie on mute but ascertain all the essential information through subtitles or visual cues, but this is still a fraction of the true experience. You miss out on things like actor's voices, like a quivering of the voice betraying a hint of fear or a a soft tone from an otherwise gruff and wizened character indicating a tender reprieve from the norm. But you would also miss out on the ambiance.
Now for horror movies, and Hitchcock in particular, ambiance is a vital component to the overall film. It's hard to feel scared if their is no tension or hint of danger which often owes a lot to a background score or plentiful background noise. However with The Birds Hitchcock goes against the norm and goes entirely without background music. The only sounds for the movie are voices, a few ambient effects, and (most prominently) the sound of the birds.
This is because Hitchcock, when doing research for the film, found a new means of altering sound with the use of computers. Though there are certainly instances of natural bird sounds, many scenes were manipulated in a manner that the sound of the birds almost becomes the films missing score. What's more is that the altered the natural sounds to make the birds sound more otherworldly and sinister. The effect is a classic example of the uncanny, we have a common animal given the sound of some horrible alien creature. Personally, at certain parts, I thought the birds sounded like the devil.
But the absence of a formal score also helps to establish a sort of tension or unease. Take a look at this re-edited version of the final attack scene, where a composer added a soundtrack created to match it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw0FP9putKM


No really, watch the whole thing.
Okay, did you notice a distinct lack of stress? Does it not all of the sudden take on the air of a Disney film or cartoon? The score tends to completely overpower the visuals. It takes the smooth, steady speech of the original scene and turns it into a loudmouth hooligan. There's a subtle removal of the sense of the unknown. Melanie isn't a curious women exploring the house on her own anymore, she's a mannequin being followed by a full orchestra. We are so removed from the scene by these instruments that we are no longer able to relate to the character, but instead hinge our attention on the intrusive sounds. The scene isn't quite ruined, but it is beyond salvation.
Having seen that re-authoring of one of the film's pivotal scenes I think we can say with confidence that Hitchcock made the right choice. In eliminating background music and keeping speech to a minimum he's trimmed the excess from his scenes and presented a much more succinct and effective experience.

References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke1b1j777wU
http://www.zx.nu/ss/chapter8.htm

"The Birds"

On Monday we saw the film "The Birds" by Alfred Hitchcock. This film was definitely interesting to say the least. To be honest I think I enjoyed wathcing "Rebecca" more because I was able to understand the plot better. "The Birds" takes an interesting view on the functions of individuals in soceity. At first I didn't really understand what role the birds were suppose to play in the film but that they must be a "reflection" of Melanie's personality. In other words, Melanie is seen as a very well put together individual. She is neither intimitated by others and is very sure of herself. However, once Melanie decides to pay a surprise visit to Mitch's house in Bodega Bay we then see a turn of events. All of a sudden birds are starting to form into giant masses and strangely begin attacking anyone in sight. Not much background is given on Melanie's character other than that she is a rich solcialite and always gets what she wants. Although, the one thing that Melanie most desires is the love and affection from her mother, who is no longer present in her life. The notion that I was getting throughout the film was that the birds symobolized the challenges we face in our everyday lives. As human beings we must play a certain role in soceity and that is exactly what Melanie is doing. She holds a particular status but once that is challenged (in this case Mitch's mother Lydia) Melanie no longer is seen as the confident and strong person. Towards the end of the film we see Melanie hold on dearly to Lydia in the car. Here we finally see Melanie put down her guard and lets herself become embraced by Lydia's touch.

Algeria Unveiled and Concerning Violence

When reading Algeria Unveiled and Concerning Violence, I couldn't help but think of the events currently taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. troops have entered the countries and have made changes and have tried to introduce our own ideas (democracy, etc.). While there are people in these two countries that support U.S. actions and greet the troops with open arms and gifts there are others who greet them with gunfire.

What I'd like to ask the class is this: What similarities can be found between our readings and the current events taking place in the Middle East? What differences are there?

-James Kennedy

The Uncanny in Coraline

When reading the Uncanny, a movie that stood out in my mind was Coraline, which seemed to exemplify every aspect of Freud's uncanny. For those who aren't familiar with the movie or needs a refresher, here's the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js7wxoqeVK0 . The film Coraline is an adaptation of a children story about a girl who is bored with her life and wishes for a more exciting world. She finds the world within her house, but in order to stay in the world she must give up her eyes for buttons. The story seems to have Freud elements written all over it. First off, it's from the perspective of a child which whom Freud associates their perspective to be easily altered in seeing the Uncanny. In addition, the girl is basically trapped in the house from all the bad weather, thus developing a sense of claustrophobia and later on in the story posing magical elements to the point of being dangerously haunted. Another element is the idea of doubles and repetition. Freud suggests the idea of twins being uncanny, to the point of repetition becomes no longer a coincidence but odd. In Coraline's fantasy world, everyone she knew in the real world are almost exact doubles but has buttons for eyes. Thus bringing up another obvious element, the loss of eyes. This element becomes uncanny because something familiar in her world is almost the same but is odd in the sense of having button eyes. And in Freud's view, Coraline fears loosing her eyes because she may loose her own perception of reality.

-Cassie Hanks

The Uncanny Zone

What do we find to be uncanny? In class I brought up the film "Polar Express," as an example of something that is close to human; the characters sound human and look extremely close to flesh and blood bona fide homo sapiens. It's the eyes, for me, that do them in though. They say that the eyes are the gateway to the soul and when the eyes look dead, we consider the owner of the eyes to be dead. Look at zombies (a great example of the double or doppelgänger) and you can see their uncanny appeal. They are conscienceless beings whose only desire is to bring us into their uncanny fold (usually by the devouring of our brains or flesh; flesh only if you're a Romero purist). I'd also like to add that I don't think it's only the lack of an inner consciousness in something that looks so close to human that gives us a sense of it being uncanny, but also something or someone who obviously has a soul or conscience, but is removed from us by their outward appearance alone that can be perceived as uncanny. Joseph Merrick, the elephant man, was a man, not a "man." Here is a clip from David Lynch's film, "The Elephant Man," that I think showcases what my previous statement refers to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF19L00KbAI We're also about to watch "The Birds," by Alfred Hitchcock. Are the the birds in the film not uncanny because they go against our preconceived notions of what birds are and do?

In closing, I'd just like to say that I view the uncanny as that second or third cousin. They're family, but you really just don't want to spend time with em'.

The Sandman

We were asked to discuss different aspects of The Sandman in class in small groups. My group had not spoken yet so I thought that I would present my question here.

My question is Olympia suppose to represent the perfect women?

There is so much time and effort put into the creation of Olympia and there is so much time and effort put in to discussing how she has "heavenly eyes" and is a great listener. Nathanael even falls in love with her because she does not challenge, that being the whole point. Olympia unlike Klara does not challenge Nathanael's thoughts and ideas, she is simple. Thus portraying the perfect woman to be simple and not intellectually challenging. Just a thought.

"The Sandman" and "The Uncanny"

On Wednesday we were asked to form into groups to discuss both "The Uncanny" and "The Sandman." For my group I was suppose to talk about this idea of the 'double' that Freud mentions in "The Uncanny" but I was unable to elaborate on it. After doing some research I came across a website called The International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis and it says that "the theme of the double is taken up by Freud and integrated in his concept of the uncanny. "The 'uncanny' is that form of terror that leads back to something long known to us, once very familiar" (1919), but has become terrifying because it corresponds to something repressed that has returned"(Mellor).

We have this idea of the 'uncanny' being something that is unfamiliar but familiar at the same time. However, as human beings we refuse to try and make sense of the unfamiliar which gives meaning to the word 'uncanny.' In "The Sandman" Nathanael is struggling to deal with the death of his father. As a result leading a normal life has become an everyday challenge for him. Nathanael has come to learn that The Sandman is not only the lawyer Coppelius but also the optician Coppola. Here we see an example of the 'double' in the sense that Coppelius and Coppola are the same person in Nathanael eyes. It is as if Nathanael will never be able to escape The Sandman because of his childhood experience of his father dieing. In the article, Freud writes "when all is said and done, the quality of uncanniness can only come from the fact of the 'double' being a creation dating back to a very early mental stage..." (Freud 212). The 'double' can take on many different forms whether it be a person, symbol, or simply figment of our imaginations.

The Uncanny Valley and Video Games

I am what you would call a video game enthusiast. Because of this when our discussion on Wednesday steered towards the Uncanny Valley I was in familiar territory.
The Uncanny Valley refers to a chart created by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori. He noticed that, when building robots, as he added human-like features to a robot ordinary people would respond more positively than if it were some abstract collection of steel and wires. However, as he added more human-like features the familiarity with which people responded began to crest and then take a huge drop into unsettling territory. The valley itself comes from this chart:

Basically this was what he was referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3coBKBC0

You can see that this robot has all the physical features of a human being, but it lacks true human-like movement. Notice the way it shudders and sways with every major movement, and the way it's mouth seems to only open and close, very unlike the human mouths broad range of expressions. It is clear that the woman in that video is a robot, but the way that the likeness of a human has been tainted makes it even seem a bit frightening.

The Sandman and The Stepford Wives

Okay, since we're on the subject of the The Sandman, The Uncanny, and the Stepford Wives, I've been doing a little research.

I found two youtube videos about The Sandman that I thought was very interesting to share. They are both based on Hoffman's The Sandman.

The first is about The Sandman. It's a clay animation that I thought was interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqPCJQGeTlQ

The second is about The Sandman and Olympia. I thought it was interesting as well. Apparently it was done and made a few years back, but I haven't been able to find the finished version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqcx6r57GRI

I also wanted to mention about The Stepford Wives and The Sandman. In both of these stories, it seems that the men only fall in love with or want women that do not challenge them intellectually. In the Stepford Wives, we see that the robot wives are only able to talk about their domestic chores and pleasing their husbands. It seems this is exactly what the men want. In The Sandman, we see that Nathanael also falls for a woman that doesn't challenge him like Klara does. When Nathanael writes to Lothar about Klara on page 103, he says "As a matter of fact, one would not think that Klara, with her bright-dreamy child-like eyes could analyze with such intelligence and pendantry. She refers to your views. No doubt you are giving her lessons in logic...Do stop that!" We also see that he gets annoyed with Klara in the story. And when he finally meets Olympia, all she does is say "Ahh! Ahh!". She doesn't say much, and only listens to Nathanael which is what he wants. Which I think was the reason why he was so eagerly to dismiss Klara so quickly because he found his true woman. HA! I thought it was interesting to think about.

Another thing, about the eyes. I believe there's a saying that the eyes are a pathway to the soul. I think when Nathanael saw Olympia without her eyes in the end, it could signify that he realized that Olympia has no soul and is empty inside. That he fell in love with a non-human being. He became horrified when he realized that the one woman he loved, the one who doesn't intellectually challenge him, doesn't exist at all.

Just a few things I thought about and to mention.

Olga Martinez