Identies in Blade Runner: Last Thought

Near the beginning of the film, Deckard is sitting at a dinner ordering food from an Asian man that acts like he doesn't understand any English that Deckard is telling him. Then when the authorities appear to apprehend Deckard speaking another language, the same Asian man translates to English for Deckard. All of the sudden he knows English, so why did he hide it?
In the world of Blade Runner, where big corporations rule and it is melting pot of all cultures, races and class, it seems to be really easy to hide who you are. And maybe, that's why Deckard lost his identity amidst the chaos of this society.
-Cassie

Voice Dubbing in Film

It was interesting talking about how translation is lost in the movie Contempt.

What exactly is Godard trying to say about translation in films?

Going back to the musical act scene, I noticed that the girl was lip-syncing to the music that was played. Not only that, she looked like her mouth movements wasn't even in sync with the music. The whole thing seemed funny and a joke.

When thinking about voice dubbing in films, I believe it makes the movie look more unrealistic. The audience tends to notice that the voice in the movie isn't matching the movements of the character's mouth. And because of this, I think some part of the movie's purpose to give a realistic impression of the storyline is lost. The artistic expression and emotion that the actor is trying to portray is gone, or even made it funny.

Is Godard saying that voice dubbing in film making is just a joke and loses the connection between the film and the audience? Does the scene actually lose it's seriousness when a voice is dubbed?

Here's an example of what voice dubbing in film looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfxFhn-atSk&feature=related

It just makes the scene hilarious. I'm not even going to get started on Kung Fu movie dubbing.

Another thing to think about is the idea of casting actresses or maybe even actors in lead musical roles. In some of these films, their singing parts were dubbed by someone else. One example is Natalie Woods and Marni Nixon in West Side Story.

West Side Story youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtYTqYrYXJs&feature=related

What does this say about the film making industry?

Olga Martinez

Last thought on Blade Runner

One last post from me on Blade Runner.

In the movie, it seemed like the whole planet Earth was just one big slum that are inhabited by poor people and rejects. It's interesting, because I believe all of the rich people that could afford to leave the plant had left. Sebastian was unable to leave because he had a biological defect. Which gave me the idea that perhaps the replicants weren't made to create some sort of higher race. The corporation was probably making a superior race with the humans by sending them to another planet if they had the money and the genes.

One of the things that I noticed was in the hustle and bustle of the streets of Earth. I have not seen ONE child in the movie. Usually in a busy area like that, especially in this day of age, you're bound to see one kid with their parents. I don't remember seeing any. Which made me wonder just where in the world they were.

Eugenics? Perhaps?

Hmmmm....

Emotion

There was a discussion in class regarding the Replicants emotions, actually there were many. I am referring to the one regarding the Replicants acting even more human than the humans themselves. It seems as though the Replicants were trying to be portrayed as examples of what it truly means to be human, something that has been lost up to this point. The film makes it seem as though the humans have forgot what it means to be human and the exaggerated emotions of the Replicants are representations of what being sad for example should actually look like. The woman Replicant that was killed in the film through the glass she looked completely terrified when she was running and was shot, where as Deccard lives with limited emotion.

Blade Runner

I really enjoyed the conversation that we had in class comparing Tyrell to a Pharaoh. I found it very interesting because I had never thought about it that way but it makes sense with him at the op of the pyramid with all of the replicants as his slaves. Created to be laborers and such. He even has one as his assistant to show how much control that he has, he can even have one working at his side without fear of being killed or overthrown.

What is the purpose of giving replicants emotions?

The discussion was brought up in class about the replicants having emotions. I agree that the replicants should not be given emotions. Why make them more human like if their purpose is to do dangerous labor. It's understandable for certain jobs to have some sort of emotion but giving them emotions makes them harder to separate them from actual human beings. I don't understand why the Tyrell corporation gave them artificial memory either. There slogan was "more human than humans" which makes me believe that the only reason for making these replicants was to make some sort of Utopian society of perfect beings. Any thoughts? -Danielle Holub

Blade Runner/Artificial Intelligence

I've always been interested in dystopian society novels movies, such as 1984 and The Anthem. I really enjoyed seeing the novels that I love come to life through watching Blade Runner. Also, being a psychology major, it was interesting to see how much human emotions and memories make up our identity in the within ourselves and the world. Although the replicants were convinced they were human, their lack of emotions separated them from humans.

This movie also made me think of how, ever since AI existed, people have had the fear that one day they will over power humans and take over the world. The other day my friend showed me a website (www.cleverbot.com) where you could talk to a robot and it will, for the most part, seem like you're talking to a human. If you try it, there will be certain instances where you think that there is no way this is not an actual person. Although the bot can be convincing at times, there will be many times where it will not understand what you're trying to say and reply with something completely off topic and not make any sense. Nevertheless, this is just one example of how technology has become so advanced, that even humans don't realize it's not human -- a very scary thought.

And Life is Brief: On Blade Runner

I should begin by pointing out that I am not the greatest fan of Philip K. Dick. I have always found his syntax prosaic and his thoughts far too heady and philosophical. Sociopaths (those cruel, wily creatures) make for wonderful literature, but Schizophrenics (which I've been assured from an avid reader of his, PKD suffered from and whose stories fill his texts) don't. As far as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? goes, I found the novella disenchanting. Both in its fondness for faux-philosophy and its philosophies concerning compassion. The film is decidedly more romantic (in the common, not the literary sense); however romantic one can be in LA, which is presented in its post-WWIII state, but seems in the present already dystopian enough. The lovely Rachael becomes the stories love interest that Deckard ends the narrative with, and his wife with her fake empathy machine is stripped entirely from the story. When first I saw Blade Runner, which was very long ago, I was thrown by the pacing. I was confused by its stretches of eruditness, violence and certain leaden, ruminating passages. The climactic battle of androids (Deckard and the "Aryan" Nexus-6 Roy) runs out of life at the end, and melts into poesy: Roy, clinching a dove dies with words pouring from his mouth: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...All these moments will be lost in time like tears in the rain." And there the lachrymose replicant fades. This late climax, this late linchpin of the movie seems poetic (too waxy, perhaps, a bit loud, maybe) but it does go out of its way (romantically, I'd say) to ensure that there is a hero. To install one in the story. Handsome and youthful heros are not easily found in PKD. And the most classically heroic character in Blade Runner (though Deckard seems to be reasonably gallant in the novella) is a replicant. Why is he heroic and why does he save his enemy? Because he has suffered. To be a replicant is to be a slave and the film quite eloquently summerized the psychological state of a slave. This fear of being chattel; the fear of having lost one's humanity is a fear that only those who maintain some humanity can have. And there we are; the replicant is more human than the human. (I'd go as far as to say the dolls, which Pris hides among show startling amounts of humanity as well.) Then again, how human is Deckard, himself? And how human is a replicant? Deckard shares a literary derivation with his character in Do Androids Dream and, shares an interesting daydream with Edward James Olmos and shots of his hands with Rutger Hauer. First and foremost, the character in the novella is a replicant, whose retirement is seeminly not approaching, and this man becomes the Deckard of the movie. The daydream sequence is recurrent in Gaff's origami, and most commonly associated with a ringing voiceover maintaining that Deckard's death is coming. But there are also shots of his hands (when Deckard's fists are broken and Roy's are decaying), and his opposition to the Rutger Hauer character in the final violent confrontation is also a sign; the two are classic foils, doubles almost and destine to retain similarly sythetic DNA. The two are simulacrum of themselves. (Though the geneticist in the novel and movie create their replicants with the flesh and the cellular structures of human beings.) Then there is Rachael and Tyrell. When Rachael asks if Deckard has "retired a human by mistake" Deckard, flustered by the question says no. That "is a risk" Rachael continues. And when Tyrell enters asking if this test Deckard has come to perform will be an "empathy test...dilation of the pupils." Even while Tyrell refers to Deckard's administering the test, it is Reachel inquiring about Deckard's empathy, or perhaps sympathy for his kills. It even seems Tyrell, who appears quite suddenly may be referring to Deckard's emotionality with his statement. Later, of course Rachael asks Deckard if he has taken the "Voigt-Campff" test himself. The answer is obviously no. Then again, how human is a replicant? The true climax, the destruction of the father by the son, contains I belive the most literate dialogue; this when two vastly intelligent men describe the true nature of the replicants, not only as beings that deteriorate, but as human beings, whose only distinguishing quality from the rest of humanity is the quickness, or to Tyrell, the expediency of decay. "What seems to be the problem," asks Tyrell. "Death," returns Roy. "The facts of life--to make an alternation in the evolvement of an organic life sequence is fatal." Every proposition made by the seemingly informed Roy (educated by his genetic engineer makers) is answered in the negative by Tyrell. Death, as it is commonly observed is part of life. The rest of the scene, becomes more muddled with violence, sexuality and religion; it is marked by this great rumination of science-fiction tropes. In fact, the whole rest of the film ruminates, only stopping for a moment so that Gaff can declare, oh and how life is brief! And what makes life worth living? To Deckard in the novella, it seems to be more intelectuallized (knowledge? understanding is what lifeforms desire?); but in the move it is clearly Rachael that brings out Deckard's humanity. Deckard will not hunt her down if she "goes north" in the movie. And only in the movie. The love scene however seems relatively ascetic. But then again, it is, is it not, if they are not fully human. The question of sexual desire works alongside the question of empathy, but no character ever denies that the Nexus-6 models own a certain amount of both. Empathy, the most human quality, is something denied lower replicants, but not the Nexus-6s. "A strange obsession," is found in these beings. If Tyrell acknowledges the humanity of the Nexus-6s, and he does in the case of Rachael and Roy, then does he or does he not know that Deckard is (or is not) a replicant? And are lesser replicants typified by shorter life spans? The story arc insists that they are. Deckard, Gaff insists, like anything "won't last." CMH

Different Versions of Bladerunner

I noticed their are a few different versions of Bladerunner, theatrical cut, final cut, directors cut, etc., does anyone know what the major differences are between the different versions?

Deckard is a Replicant? Make up your mind!!!

Upon doing research, it was confirmed by Ridley Scott that Deckard was indeed a replicant.
But really, it's all up to interpretation from the audience on whether they believe this or not.

I watch all of my movies on Netflix, and so I watched the theatrical version of this movie. And I didn't see the whole unicorn scenes because I believe it was put in the movie later. So it never occurred to me that Deckard was a replicant. But the fact that they changed the movie to add those scenes shows that the director wanted to tell the audience that he was indeed a replicant.

Here are the youtube videos for references:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w&feature=related

Turns out Tyrell was suppose to be a replicant as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CkiDuHrxsM&feature=related

I guess I have to watch both versions of the movie to understand what any of these people are talking about. But it still doesn't make sense because Deckard was portrayed as weak compared to the other replicants. Personally, I think the movie staff can't make up their minds.

Olga Martinez

Dehumanization in Bladerunner

A core theme of Blade Runner, which goes hand in hand with fascism, is the notion of slavery. The old world methods of enslavement through ankle chains, iron cages and torture based coercion have been replaced by much more complex and ancillary forms of enslavement. What we precisely see in Bladerunner is this psychologically and economically weakened workers to prevent rebellion. They are treated like manufactured robots. Another way we see this idea of dehumanization in Bladerunner is loneliness. For example Deckard lives on his own and both of them take in seperated replicant females due to their desire for companionship. Deckard was encompassed by what we can assume to be humans in Taffy's bar, but he still chose to call Rachel and inviter her for a drink. We are given no indication that Deckard has any friends or any contact with his relatives.
In Blade runner, the replicants are frequently associated as being toys, dolls or playthings. For example (a strange one at that)-is the midget like group of creatures that try to steal items from Deckard's car. Sebastians apartment is full to the brim with assorted toys, which have varying degrees of life like animation. And the "love-Making" scene between the two had a very dark tone, almost like rape. Also, Mannequins are seen surrounding Zhora in the shop windows as she is executed. Mannequin like statues are also seen in the lobby of sebastion's apartment block. Rachel for most of the film is seen pale faced likea mannequin as well. I have more to say about this movie, but not the time, so I will post more later!


- Brittany Potts

Technophobia in Blade Runner: Technology vs Humans

Obviously technology was a predominant theme in this film, thus introducing the idea of Technophobia: a fear or dislike of advancement of technology. In the film technology invades every space possible, thus not allowing characters to ever feel natural. In the industrial world of the city, hardly any nature elements exists, even animals themselves are robots thus leaving one to wonder how rare the natural environment is (one robot referring a real snake is way too expensive). In addition, technology even invades the characters mind by implanting memories and dreams, therefore causing a character to be unsure of their own reality, leaving them unnatural by denying their own emotions (as in the scene of Rachel denying her emotions to Ford, or Ford's unicorn dream possibly revealing his status as a replicant). Even the set design implies this invasion of space through towering sky scrapers and flying vehicles that cover both horizontal and vertical space.
Ironically the replicants seem to possess human qualities because of their family unit because of their loyalty. The only love explicitly shown is between Pris and Batty, and somewhat Rachel and Ford (replicant?). Every other known human shown in the film is isolated from others, loners and somewhat disconnected from their own self. Such as Dr. Tyrell, who again is by himself, and seems more concerned with the advancement of technology to the point that he's machine-like himself, forgetting the morality of creating half lifes to live like slaves.
So it makes you ponder, who is more human, humans or replicants? And does a man made environment make humans less human?

-Cassie

Product Placement in Films

Don't lie, you know you saw the product placements in Blade Runner.

I remember talking about product placement in films during the first week of class. And I thought to bring it up again to get everybody's opinion about it in Blade Runner.

For me personally, it's really distracting. I know when the huge Coca-Cola sign showed up in the movie it really threw me off guard. I was trying to see what the character was looking at and all I saw was the huge digital product placement. I think product placements in movies is just plain distracting and can sometimes ruin the scene.

Even though the Coca-Cola one wasn't so bad despite it being huge, I must say the Polaroid one was irritating. It's the scene where Deckard, Harrison Ford, is looking through the pictures to get clues to find the replicants. At the bottom of the pictures said Polaroid. It wasn't so distracting at first, except when it got to the point where he moved the pictures in such a way as to make sure he wasn't hiding any of the letters in POLAROID.

I guess I notice these little things. But really? Really?

I just want to know what you all thought about product placement in films. Does it ruin the scenes for you? Or is it just me?

But I also think it enhances the themes in the movie. One of the themes is the idea of big corporation take over. Coca-Cola and I guess you can say Polaroid back in the days was considered huge corporations. Which goes on to show that in the movie, their world is ruled by corporations. I wonder if the directors, producers, and etc intended it to be shown that way.

Hmmmm....

Olga Martinez

Blade Runner Themes

I really thought Blade Runner was very interesting.

One of the main apparent themes in the movie is the dystopia future that the movie portrays. What strikes me the most is the idea that the the world the movie shows is one that is not very clean and extremely poor. Everyone in the movie wore shabby and dreary clothes except for the big boss with his bright, rich room. The world is corrupted and ruled by big corporations. You see people in the streets often and police enforcing the rules in the streets as well. It's a theme that is often used over and over in books and movies.

It's funny how the Tyrell Corporation and the big boss, or the person who designed the replicants, are portrayed as this massive corporation playing god in designing these replicants. Heck they even make fake animals. Could it be because there are no animals left? But they also make these replicants as slaves for work.

What did you all think about the corporation and it's massive power in designing these creatures?

Another theme is the soul and the eyes. There are plenty of scenes concerning the eyes in Blade Runner. The guy who makes the eyes, testing replicants by also showing close ups of their eyes, and killing people by crushing their eyes and head. Coming back to the eye stuff we talked about early in the semester, the eyes are a pathway to the soul. Could the movie be saying that the replicants could have a soul considering they have emotions?

Just something to think about.

Olga Martinez

Mrs. Dalloway

As mentioned in class time plays an important role in Mrs. Dalloway. Big Ben in particular serves as a symbol of time (obviously being a clock) and is used as a constant reminder that time is passing and death in eventually coming. Time breaks up the fluid thoughts and memories of the different characters bringing to mind how the character have spent their lives through the years. This is particularly evident with Clarissa who is constantly looking to the past. Time is played with in many lights throughout the novel but one of the most obvious points is that time is circular not simply linear. Big Ben is used to portray time as I mentioned before and what should be noted about Big Ben is that it constantly ticks on. It continues keeping time time never stoiing for death or birth. This is just one thought on time but it should be kept in mind that time was so important throughout Woolf's novel that she almost named it The Hours.

Mrs. Dalloway

One of the things I liked most in Mrs. Dalloway is the theme of existentialism that radiates throughout. Mrs. Dalloway is essentially a novel without a plot; however, the insight into other people's lives told by their point of view more than makes up for the lack of action and drama. The essence of life is emphasized beyond merely the positive aspects but does so in a way that doesn't give a completely negative tone for the darker side of life such as the passing of time and the impermanence of life.

Despite the sense of isolation, there are also themes of community and interconnectedness. My favorite passage is where Clarissa is admiring the essence of life that surrounds her and how everyone is connected even if they do not know each other:

Did it matter then, she asked herself, walking towards Bonds Street, did it matter that she must inevitably cease completely; all this must go on without her; did she resent it; or did it not become consoling to believe that death ended absolutely? but that somehow in the streets of London, on the ebb and flow of things, here, there, she survived, Peter survived, live in each other, she being part, she was positive, of the trees at home; of the house there, ugly, rambling all to bits and pieces as it was; part of people she had never met; being laid out like a mist between the people she knew best, who lifted her on their branches as she had seen the trees lift the mist, but it spread ever so far, her life, herself.

I think we all have wondered why we're here and what our purpose is, and how we are all connected simply in the fact that we're all human.

Is Blade Runner Outdated?

Blade Runner is kind of an old movie. Don't get me wrong, it isn't Gone With the Wind old, or even Nosferatu old. But for an extremely technologically savvy science fiction movie going on 30 years old is downright ancient. Of course the movie is well made and has no reliance on effects that would become outmoded within a few years, and also has been refurbished and mastered time and time again so the visuals are no longer at issue either. What I'm talking about are the themes.

Themes are what make good science fiction timeless. We can always look back on Nineteen Eighty-Four and see warnings of a dystopian state, or The Time Machine for environmentally friendly messages. But Blade Runner has perhaps one of the most timeless themes of all: what does it mean to be human?

The original story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was published in 1968 and presumably in response to increasing industrialization and rise in synthetic materials. Phillip K. Dick took the concept of such things as imitation foods and tract housing then extrapolated the idea to humans. He asked, what if imitations became so good we can no longer tell the difference?

I only assume this because there were no major technological advancements or focuses at that time that could make any bit of this story feasible, and this was just kind of the concern of the era.

The Ridley Scott film however, made in 1982, sits on the cusp of the future. The personal computer has begun to boom, mankind is exploring space, and an endless sea of possibilities awaits us. Maybe the synthetic android really could happen. Maybe we really will need an expert to differentiate human from non-human. But sitting here, in 2011, I can safely say the future isn't what it used to be.

Scott's vision of the future is one of sprawling cityscapes and dominating structures of the corporations. The future is impersonal, all but the giants on the billboards are practically insignificant. Who wouldn't worry about the tiniest bit of humanity shining through in such an impersonal metropolis?

The problem is that our future is nothing like that. The leaps and bounds of our technology today only help enforce our humanity. The internet allows anyone to carve out their own personal space and let their voice be heard, free of corporations or suffocating city streets. Our smart phones keep us in contact and familiar with our friends and family, practically empathy tests on their own depending on their usage. In our future there is no fake or real dichotomy, there's just this interconnectedness that really no one could have foreseen.
 
So what are your thoughts? Is the question of humanity and it's potential mimicry still relevant today? Or have these issues been overshadowed by more salient topics like the internet? Or this guy?

Back to The Birds

So I was thinking back to The Birds and I noticed something that I'm not sure if anybody talked about in class or not. If we did mention it, oops.

We mainly talk about the double in film, or perhaps the role of the double is such a recurring theme in film it's almost inevitable to pick up on it. But one of the things I noticed is that Melanie and Lydia in the film look alike physically but different by age. These two links should remind you of what they look like.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/br4.jpg

http://franklin.davidson.edu/academic/music/public/nelerner/gaparriott/mom.jpg

I didn't catch up on this earlier, and I can't remember if we talked about it class. And I'm wondering if Hitchcock did this on purpose with the hair style, eyes, and everything.

What do you think he was trying to say in doing this? Are they doubles in the film? And in what way?

Again, something to think about...again.

Olga Martinez

Our Hours

When talking about time in class, one thing I mostly thought about is the importance of time in our lives. I read somewhere that Virginia Woolf was going to name her her novel Mrs. Dalloway "The Hours". And it reminded me of the fact that the idea of time is important in our lives based on hours. We do things according to the time of day. (Well this mostly applies to non-college students since most of college student's time is not considered stable compared to others.) But it makes me think that time is important in our lives as well as the hour of each day in the way we live each day of our lives. I thought it was interesting when Mrs. Dalloway takes notes of the time of day the same as we take note of the time of day as well. And as time passes, we count down the hours to our day, to our week, to our month, and to our year.

Which brings me to ask the question, what if we didn't much care about the time of hour in our lives? Or even time itself. How different would our lives would be? It's something to think about that crossed my mind.

The Picking and Choosing of Memory

So last class we were talking about how people choose to recollect events or people throughout their lives, and I think that is a very interesting concept of how people choose to recall facts of life. I think it was in my Criminal Justice class in high school that we talked about the reliability of witnesses and how different people choose to remember events such as murders differently. It makes me thing of involuntary memory. Obviously these people are sworn to oath and aren't necessarily meaning to lie or distort the truth, but it happens every time. I feel like the only difference between the court room and literature is an author's affinity towards making things sound more eloquent. I know that when I tell stories I sometimes choose to omit things that make me seem like a bad person or things that will harm my argument.
Reconsidering last class, I think it was a good point to mention the trustworthiness of Mrs. Dalloway. There certainly are a good number of coincidences that don't tend to lean towards reality (if we could see the whole picture).
Can we trust an author's "aha" moments? they are the ones who recall this "coming to being" moments. Hmmm.

The Hours

I really enjoyed this movie and agree with a lot of the posts that the focus was on homosexuality and suicide. I haven't read any of Virginia Woolf's other novels (that I know of anyway) so this movie (and novel) on its own merit seemed to be Woolf's innermost thoughts come to 'life'. Virginia herself had a homosexual relationship with Vita Sackville-West whom she remained close friends with til her death. Woolf's novel Orlando contains her feelings for Vita in what has been described as the "longest love letter in literature". Richard's poem in The Hours, as we are informed by some of the minor characters, is also a love letter to Clarissa. That Richard is the one who dies seems appropos given that a little bit of Woolf can be found in all of the characters of The Hours.

The Hours

The hours was an intriguing film that I was having difficulty linking together until the end of the film when everything all fell into place.

I wanted to discuss suicide in The Hours. In paticular I found it interesting that the film ended with the mother not killing herself. I was completely surprised that she was still alive. I was even more surprised to learn that she had simply left and thats how she survived. My first thoughts when I saw that she was still alive were that she just did not have it in her to kill herself and that is why her son killed himself in the end. He did what she could never do. But to learn that she had simply left was even more sad for me because it made me feel that her son ended up killing himself because he was unwanted.

Suicide and Homosexuality in the "Hours"

The movie the "Hours" was really intriguing and attention grabbing. This one had me guessing the entire time as to who fit where and how the stories related to one another. A couple of the themes seemed that kept reoccurring were suicide and homosexuality. The relation between the two intrigued me. It seemed that these two themes fed off one another. The ideas of hopelessness in life or the depreciation of life is what spurred Virginia Woolfe to be consumed by suicide both personally and in her novel. Along with this hopelessness it seemed that by grasping at any reason to live would have spurred her or her characters to continue on living. Therefore when both Virginia and Richard's mother kiss other women and fail to have the same passion reciprocated is when they both revert back to ideas of suicide.
As for her other characters Clarissa and Richard who actually are homosexual, it causes a tease almost because even they have not found complete happiness with their sexual orientation either. I think that this could cause for further exploration. Raising the question that if relationships heterosexual or homosexual, do not take away the feelings of hopelessness that can lead to suicide, then in what other ways is Virginia Woolfe trying to tell us is the root to having real appreciation for life? And is the only way to have appreciation for life is for someone to take their own life?

Postmodernism in Jarman's Edward II

Peter Brooker's article on Postmodern Adaptation discusses how we look at authorship in literature versus films. The auteur theory is really interesting since it becomes a term we can use in identifying common themes, personal view of the world, and part of the soul of a director's human nature in a body of works, and especially in one's filmography. It brought to mind an auteur who definitely works within a certain branch of style, has consistent themes and political expressions-- Derek Jarman.

Rebellion is thematically apparent in all of director Derek Jarman’s works. The film Edward II (1991) uses postmodernism to its advantage in contextualizing queerness, in the context of postmodern art as a rejection and response to modernist trends, such as formal purity, medium specificity, authenticity, and originality. A characteristic of postmodern art in this sense is its conflation of high and low culture through the use of industrial materials and pop culture imagery, which Edward II captures in its content and form. Visually it juxtaposes traditional sixteenth-century and modernist styles of costumes, settings, props while language, actors’ performances, and narrative elements accomplish similar feats. It is truly unique in its critique of the sixteenth-century history from its source material and modern-day English society through the parallels it draws. Because of the traditional approach to period pieces in cinema, Edward II stands out as a unique postmodern-style adaptation as it speaks to contemporary concerns. The viewer ends up recognizing points of contrast between how little things have changed in history. As a side-note, Lady Gaga's music video for "Alejandro" seems to be a direct homage to Jarman's Edward II. And interestingly enough, the music video has probably been seen by more people in the world by now than Jarman's film on which it is deriving visual style and elements from. So it begs the question (if we are to play into the definitions of postmodernism in the article) of which one is more "postmodern".

The Hours...again

I really like the movie the Hours. It was my first time watching it and I really enjoyed it. I must say though, I think one of the most recurring themes is the idea of life and death. Which is pretty obvious so I'll talk about it a little bit.

Most of the characters are in some way trapped by the society and people around them.

We have Virginia Woolf who is trapped in the small little area that she is in because people are afraid for her sanity and health. I think the small place she is stuck in is sucking the life out of her little by little. She thinks about death most of the time and she eventually feels that the only way out is by suicide.

Then there's Laura Brown who also feels trapped in the lifestyle that she is in. I once took a marriage institution class and we talked about the role of the mother during the 50s and it wasn't pretty. To sum it all down, the bigger society, the government, wanted families to be a certain way when really it was too much to ask for. I think Laura feels trapped in that suburban Leave It To Beaver lifestyle when really it wasn't for her. It was never for her but she felt obligated to be that kind of person for her husband and perhaps for the society around her. She thinks about suicide, but unlike Woolf, she chooses life instead.

And then there's her son, Richard, who also feels trapped in his body because of Clarissa. He chooses death as well because for him because he feels that's the only way out.

I think it's a very powerful movie about the being trapped and the choices that we make pertaining to life and death. That's just something to think and post about. I'm pretty sure there are other themes out there as well.

"The Hours"

I really enjoyed this movie, like others we have watched, you are tossed into the middle of the plot and are forced to figure it all out. Virginia Woolf's character struck me particularly in the end of the movie. When asked by Leonard Woolf why a character had to die she replied, "So that we all appreciate life". It seems as though all of the characters are having personal problems constantly throughout the movie. Laura Brown is debating on committing suicide periodically while Clarissa Vaughan clearly has a couple of mental breakdowns of her own. We all know that Virginia Woolf was unstable with trying to kill herself and overall somber attitude. I think her idea of having death to remind us of life is valid, what better way to truly evaluate ones own life than to have death staring at your face.

Persona

I just had the chance to watch Persona. In response to what a lot of people were asking on the blog, I think that Elizabet is a real person while Alma was made up by her during her mental breakdown. She is starting to lose grasp on reality and maybe creates Alma to deal with her loneliness.

This may sound far out but when Alma and Elizabet are in front of the mirror stroking each other's hair, I think that this is when Elizabet is dreaming. Reality starts to sink in while she is asleep. She realizes that they are not two different people while she is asleep (when she can't consciously fabricate Alma's existence).

While I was watching the movie, I thought it was really interesting that both Alma and Elizabet had pregnancies that were far from conventional. Alma had an orgy and then had an abortion while Elizabet just had a baby to prove that she would be a good mother, but didn't really want the baby after all. Perhaps Alma had certain parts about her that Elizabet wanted, such as her having an abortion. What Alma says reflects Elizabet's true feelings. This corroborates with the theory that Elizabet is real whereas Alma is just a figment of her imagination.

I'm sure that my theories/thoughts could be disproved but these were just a couple of things I thought while watching Persona and it was made to be interpreted in many different ways.

The Difference Between Modern and Post Modern

I've noticed lately that these two distinctions have been coming up a lot in class, so I decided to do a bit of research into this and share so that we could maybe use the two a little more readily and without getting into arguments of semantics over exact definitions.
To start with, Modernism is most basically described (by Wikipedia) as a revolt against "traditional" values. It started out as the antithesis to Realism, which was an artistic movement that placed merit in accurately portraying subjects. The picture on the right pretty clearly exemplifies this, the artist did not make this particular painting with realism in mind. Modernism emphasizes the human power of creativity and creation, it concerns itself with breaking down barriers of traditional means of art like chronologically bound sequences of events. Essentially, Modernism holds that works of art need not be created under any sort of barriers and so bizarre, surreal and seemingly random scenes are usually associated with Modernism.


Post Modernism does not directly oppose Modernism the way Modernism opposes Realism. In fact, it doesn't directly refer to the Modernism I discussed at all. Instead it refers to "modernist" viewpoints and symbols of societal progress. Post Modernism deals with expressions of skepticism among what would be considered progress. For instance, the internet is a sign of technological progress, however Post Modernism is wary of information available from it as literally anyone can put it there regardless of background.
The basic ethos of Post Modernism is skepticism and uncertainty, focusing on ideas or concepts that have the potential to warp reality. The picture below is perhaps the most well known Post Modernist piece:

 

This roughly translates to "This is not a pipe." The intent here is to illustrate the shortcomings of language as well as the capability of words and/or images to lie, or at the very least not offer the greatest accuracy.

I hope this clears things up a bit. A work can be Modernist, Post Modernist, neither, or even both due to their unrelated genesis. Hopefully now we can bring up one or the other without everyone in the room rolling their eyes.

-Sergio L. Barrio

Persona and Carl Jung

I was studying for a personality exam and I came across this that really reminded me of the movie Persona. Besides the fact that it has the same name as the movie.

Carl Jung developed the idea of analytical personality which was his theory of personality. In his work, he said there were four main archetypes that are universal experiences contained in the collective unconscious. The first one was the persona archetype. He said it was basically a mask we wear to present ourselves as someone different than who we really are.

He also described that that the persona archetype can be harmful. He claims that instead of merely playing the role, we may actually become that role. So eventually the ego will recognize and identify with the role instead of the person's true self. So eventually we come to deceive ourselves.

I thought this was particularly interesting because I believe Alma and Elizabet is the same person. Which makes me think that Alma/Elizabet was deceiving herself throughout the whole movie of who she really was. But then again, I'm not sure what the answers to the movie really are since I believe it's left open for interpretation.

Olga Martinez

"The Hours"

Monday’s screening was over the film “The Hours.” The film was intriguing and although I have not started reading “Mrs. Dalloway” yet it will be interesting to see how the film matches up to the novel. So far, we have seen one major recurring theme and that is death. In the film, all three main characters at some point come face to face with death whether it is the thought of committing suicide or dealing with the death of a beloved friend. Although the story follows three different women in three different decades they are all somehow connected through a piece of literature. The film really teaches us the lesson of how fragile life can be and how for some it is often taken for granted. For instance, Laura Brown (played by Julianne Moore) is unhappy with her life and contemplates with the idea of taking her own life while reading in her hotel bedroom. However, she realizes that she cannot go through with it but we later find out that she does in fact leave her family after the birth of her second child. Another theme that occurs in the film is abandonment. The little boy name Richie, who is longing for his mother, is also Richard in New York. As a result of his mother’s abandonment and the constant reminder of his disease Richard reaches a point in his life where he can no longer face the “hours.” The only reason for his living was for Clarissa but even that was not enough. We have this idea of death being an escape route from all our prior obligations and duties. For Richard and Virginia Woolf committing suicide would mean the end of pain and suffering or insanity. In one scene we see Virginia tell her husband that she would rather choose death then to live in Richmond. On the other hand, Laura Brown chooses to live only to become abandoned by her entire family. All in all, “The Hours” takes a deeper look inside the struggles of three women's lives and how they manage to get through the hours rather than the days.

My question to you guys is what are your thoughts on the film? What other themes can we find in the film and how does it compare/differ to “Time Regained?”