Meghan's Blog

I never thought about remixing, “borrowing”, or even outright copyright infringement was a form of cannibalism. And to be quite honest Velesquez’s article is pretty eye-opening and I’d say close to out right sickening.

Aside from the fact that cannibalism is, well, as most civilized societies would claim, wrong, gross, morbid, or even satanic. Yet ask almost anyone who comes to mind first when they hear the word cannibalism, I imagine the highest rated answer you’ll get will be the Donner party. So first of all, if cannibalism is so taboo in civilized societies, why is it SO vital for elementary and middle school children to learn about the Donner Party? Why couldn’t we just skip over it and continue on with the History lesson of the Hasting’s Cutoff and the rest of the wagon trail stories of America westward expansion. I remember in my 6th grade History class, my teacher actually made my class play out being the pioneers and some of us (me) got stuck being the hopeless group with the Donner party that took the unfortunate Hasting’s Cutoff. We actually had to choose who we were going to eat for dinner. I guess it was a sort of reality tv Survivor type game, but seriously. ew. I came home crying the day I got chosen to be dinner. Seriously, teaching kids about cannibalism in that way, probably wasn’t the smartest of ideas.

Anyway, back to Valesquez. She’s absolutely right. We are cannibals. Though not we’re not eating each other literally. We are in a sense figuratively, or as she calls it “Digital Anthropophagy”. I love the way she incorporates quotes dating all the way back to ancient Greek Philosophy all the way up to Modern Philosophy discussion the notion of non-existent originality. Valesquez mentions social networks; how we put out our information to be consumed, and while we consume other people’s information. Figuratively, it’s the same thing as humans eating humans. As Root discusses the Brasilians would eat humans in the attempt to see through the other person’s eyes and to gain their “information”. In closinge I completely agree with Valesquez’s theory on Digital Anthropophagy. We are simply trying to gain more knowledge about other people through multiple multi-faceted mediums, whether its film, music or social networking, we want to know what they know. Just like the Brasilians, they consume others to know what they know. We just don’t put anything into our mouths, it’s all in the mind.

This really depressed me. I’ve seen this movie at least 5 times in my life, but never like the way I watched it today. Such a sad existence not knowing what real reality is. But then again, Seahaven was Truman’s reality. So which is real reality for Truman? Life outside of Seahaven, that he doesn’t know exists or life in Seahaven where everyone but his is an actor….

As Baudrillard says, “Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.” I think this is the perfect description for Seahaven and Truman’s life. Seahaven doesn’t have an origin because it’s not real, it’s a simulation. But for Truman it’s real. So that poses the question again of what is reality for Truman?

“No more mirror of being and appearances, of the real and its concept. No more imaginary coextensivity: it is genetic miniaturization that is the dimension of simulation.” I’m not exactly sure what to make of the mirroring of Seahaven. Would it even be considered mirroring actual reality. Because like Christof says, I believe during the interview or maybe it was when he was talking directly to Truman, that he was trying to create a perfect place for Truman, some place unlike the real world (badly paraphrasing, forgive me). But it’s like Christof wasn’t mirroring actual reality but desirous reality. Everyone would rather live in a town like Seahaven, where war, pain, and suffering don’t exist. But that’s impossible. So Seahaven is projected as more of a desire rather than actual reality. However, as per the second part of the quote about genetic miniaturization, Seahaven is just that. A miniature simulation of life within a bubble.. conveniently placed atop the mountain with the Hollywood sign. Could that even be saying something? That actual reality and simulated reality are mixed together in Hollywood?

Lastly, I will say I never picked up on all the bad propaganda before. Of course I recognized what Marol was doing with the cocoa, but before that scene and even after. All the labels… ahh! I understand that our life today is full of propaganda and general advertising, everywhere! But in The Truman Show, that was a bit ridiculous. But I think it was brilliant to add it in little places here and there. I don’t know whether the director, writer, Jim Carey or whomever came up with that, but brilliant. bravo!

okay, this is just creepy. This must be what it’s like to have an identical twin.

Although I didn’t understand all that was going on because I didn’t know who was who, and what a Cylon was exactly and why the humans were considered “bad” for the Cylons. I understand the point was the idea of copying.

When Caprica 6 explained that all the memories from the dead copy gets transferred into the new copy, first made me think about it in terms of cds and dvds. There has to be an original somewhere and then copies of copies of copies with the memories passed on to each new copy. So, who owns the memories? If the originals memories get transferred to copy 1, and copy 1 has the originals memories stored plus memories of it’s own and then dies, copy 2 is born. Copy 2 has both the originals memories and copy 1’s. Does copy 2 now own both set’s of memories? Would copy 2 argue that copy 1 owned all the memories that got transferred to it because the memories came from one source to copy 2? Copy 2 may know the original exists, but copy 1 is more of a “parent” to copy 2. hmm… it’s kind of like genetics and having children, except the copy that dies is reborn into the exact same body… that would suck if you hated the body you were born into.

The one thing I didn’t understand which is probably because this is the only episode i’ve seen is, what happens to the body once it dies? I was confused in the beginning when 6 was reborn because a copy of her was standing over her. Which copy was that? was that the copy that died and is appearing as a spirit or is it just another copy? What’s happening with all the other copies while one is occupying one copy? Where do those memories go? and where does the new body come from, is it all of a sudden created as a blank slate for the dead copy to be transplanted into, or is it a copy that already has memories of it’s own and other memories from older copies?

This is confusing.

Just reading the first paragraph of “New World Order and Public Domain” I have so many questions relating to Battlestar Galactica. I guess the biggest one is, are these copies public domain? I mean the Cylon was trying to “box” Sharon and 6’s memories in storage. Is that public storage? Who owns the rights to those memories or does the public own them?

The best part of this movie is the brief humorous interjections of the Indian art narrating the story. Secondly, I feel either the artists of the film were on drugs when creating this, or they intended their audience to be on drugs.

Anyway, I didn’t understand the point of the American couple until about an hour into the film, when I realized the film was comparing Sita and Rahm to Dave and Anita ( i think that’s her name).  Of course I loved all the animation, the colors, the forms, the Post Impression artists would be proud.

The Animation of the American couple eventually made me sick looking at it, all the lines constantly moving, but it reminded me of the cartoonist who creates Mutts. The opening scene with the kitty waking up the woman, by far the best scene of the entire 1:20 film.

I haven’t read any of the articles yet, but I’m hoping they make reference to this film because as of now, I have no idea why we would watch this film just by looking at the titles of the essays we have to read.

Maybe the Contested Commons/ Trespassing Publics essay, just from the title, could have a direct reference to this film. The idea of the 8 headed guy, trespassing into Rahm’s kingdom to kidnap Sita. And then again Rahm trespassing into the 8 headed guys home to find Sita to take her home. I think the narrating art did a great job telling the story, it actually helped me understand what exactly was going on, especially because there was three different pictures of Sita and Rahm, so it took me a while to realize that all 3 different characters were actually one, just draw (completely!) different.

I understand why this is called “Sita Sings the Blues”, most of her songs were depressing, but they were all in a really up beat tone, so if you didn’t listen carefully to the lyrics, you’d think she was happy-which caught me off guard for the first few songs. Especially the first sad song after she sings the happy love song about being so in love with Rahm.

I’m interested to see what the reading has to say and how it relates to this very strange film. However, i’ll admit it was a lot better than Sukiyaki. Same amount of gruesome blood spilling but it’s different when it’s one eyed cartoon monsters. Felt like I was watching Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends for a minute.

I’m really not into the Western genre, but this movie did spike an interest for me. I liked it because I was able to look past the “old west” scene, the gun fights and the “get-up” to see the story behind it. Of course it was pretty much like any other movie I’ve seen, two rival groups fighting for an area.

The entire time I was really thinking about The Outsiders. The “higher class” group, the whites in Sukiyaki, were more sophisticated and well-rounded much like the Soc’s. The reds, the rough riding, Greasers. And of course there’s always a woman torn between the two groups.

The temptress, I can’t remember her name, but she is like Cherry Valance. She’s torn between the two groups. Of course in Sukiyaki she’s held captive by the reds and in The Outsiders she’s a Soc, but the point is, there is always a woman torn between the two sides.

I think my favorite character is Bloody Benton. Even though you don’t see her as one of the main characters between the reds and the whites, I think she plays the most important role. She holds the answers, she holds the history. I love the flashbacks in the movie she provides. So many layers within the text that I think with out such amazing directing it wouldn’t have been easy to understand what all was going on.

Lastly, in the end when the gunslinger and the white were in the snow about to battle it out for the gold. I was looking for symbolism and foreshadowing because that’s what I was taught to look for, so I immediately thought, like I’m sure many of my classmates did as well, that the snow foreshadowed the whites winning. What a surprise that was when he got shot in the head. ha.

I guess the most important thing I learned from this movie is not read/watch everything with a literary eye because it just might surprise you. I’ve been trained to look for symbolism, foreshadowing and so many other literary tropes that I think I’m missing certain aspects of films and “read for fun” novels that those who don’t have a literary background pick up on.

I wonder what Freud would say about this movie, or Lacan. Mirrorings and subconsciousness- it has Freud and Lacan written all over it.

I wouldn’t necessarily put this into the Doppelganger category. I mean I get what Cassar is saying about the Doppelganger being a second image of yourself and “the doppelganger unsettles the existential certainty we have about our
individuated selves”. But I don’t look at the Doppelganger that way. To me, as is to Freud, the Doppelganger is associated with evil, raw desires, the you you wish to be but never will be- basically. I.e. FIGHT CLUB.

Being John Malchovich is more about mirroring and viewing the world through someone else’s eyes. Like the woman from Cassar’s article, Valie Export with the camera’s strapped to her front and to her back. You’re seeing the world as she moves through it, you are consciously aware that you are in fact not Export, but you can almost put yourself in her place as you watch her film because you see it as she see it which makes it like you’re actually seeing it yourself…. if that makes any sense what-so-ever! Maybe an example will help: When Craig goes through JM’s portal the first time, you see toast, coffee a newspaper.. but the only time we ever see these images in this exact space, order and point of view is when we ourselves are eating toast, drinking coffee and reading the newspaper. Any time we experience someone else doing this, we see them doing it from our perspective not theirs. Which is pretty cool, kind of creepy but it’s interesting to really “be in someone else’s shoes”.

Lastly, Craig’s puppets.. First time I ever experienced the uncanny and consciously aware of the feeling. I think we could have used this film last week when talking about the uncanny too.

Dear Judy,

That’s what you get for letting a man change you.

Sincerely,

Meghan

_________________________________________________________

I know this was in the 1950’s and Judith Butler and feminism was still changing the world, but seriously Judy?! didn’t your mother ever tell you never to change for a man, if he can’t accept you just the way you are then he’s not good enough for you. (i’d love to do a feminist reading on this movie.)

Anyway on to DJ Spooky. The first thing that caught my eye in his essay was the phrase, “prosthetic realism”. With this phrase, I think of Madelyn’s continual recollection of the church and the carts and horses. Which is a good example of prosthetic realism, when Scotty and Madelyn are at the church aka museum, trying to figure out “where she goes” inside her head.  Madelyn is giving recollections of the gray, black and white horses, and how there used to not be so many carts. She’s having these flash backs but can’t quite remember when she’s been there before. Prosthetic Realism.  As DJ Spooky says, “Names at the edge of thought. Just beyond recall. Particles of meaning, waves of thought, blurred immediate recall.” I think this is similar to what we call a brain fart.

I assume we all know what a brain fart is, but just in case some don’t, it’s when you know you know something but just cant quite remember what it is. Basically.

But I think the real point to reading DJ Spooky’s article and watching Vertigo is the relationship between Scotty and the objects that haunt him. Not necessarily the “thing” that haunts Madelyn, be it demonic possession, reincarnation or plain insanity, but more about Madelyn haunting Scotty. I think the point here is the uncanny relationship between the physical and the mental, as DJ Spooky discusses in his essay.

Physical-the woman(Madelyn/Judy), the museum painting, the hair color, the bouquet of flowers, the necklace (oops!)

Mental- love of the woman (Madelyn/Judy), the haunting of the bouquet of flowers, the museum painting showing up in his sister’s (I think) painting she wanted to give him, and finally the uncanny recollection of the necklace that reveals Judy in the end.

It the repetition of the physical and mental that rules Scotty’s drive and desire for Madelyn, but in the end it’s the repetition of the physical and mental that Scotty overcomes. Physical- realizing Judy is Madelyn, Mental- overcoming his Vertigo. YAY!

I’ve seen this movie about 5 times already making this the 6th and FINAL time I’ll ever watch it. I really really don’t like this movie, I think it’s because I don’t like the fight scenes. I think you could take out the entire “fight club” aspect and it would be a great movie. I will say though that after having read the Vardoulakis article I was opened up to an entirely different perspective of the movie. Of course I always knew Tyler Durden was Edward Norton’s “other” but I never really put it into terms with Freud’s Uncanny or the Doppelganger theory.

I took notes throughout the entire movie, picking up on points where Edward Norton says or does things that reveal very early on that he is in fact Tyler Durden. On a very shallow level of observation, I realized that it wasn’t until the very end when Norton began to figure out that he was Tyler that no one had said his name. His boss called him “kid” or “man” or any other unidentifiable name but once he finally began to figure out that it was his unconscious becoming conscious that Marla called him Tyler. In the very beginning of the V. article it says, “Doppelganger characters tend to be associated with evil and the demonic; thus one can infer that the Doppelganger presents a notion of the subject/subjectivity that is defective, disjunct, split, threatening, spectral (100).” This is a great description for Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden. You see Norton was just a lonely, depressed employee until Brad Pitt showed up on the airplane in which Pitt becomes the “evil and demonic” other half of Norton.

I particularly like the fact that V. says “The unconscious does not have “No” in its vocabulary (101).” Going along the lines of Fight Club I wouldn’t say this is a optimistic, proactive approach to life. It’s more the unconscious coming alive and as Freud puts it, fulfilling our innate raw desires. And with these raw desires “No” is not an option. Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden doesn’t have the concept of “No” in him.

Later on in the V. article it says, “The Fichtean position can be summarized by saying that the absolute ego has an immediate cognition of itself within reason, or the self reflects itself. Within this space of reason, the negation of the I is a logical necessity that re-affirms the originary positing. In other words, within this unconscious realm, the I cannot truly say “No” to itself; it is merely compelled to admit that it is logical to say “No.”" Again, reasserting the fact that Norton never really stands up to Pitt and says no. Norton now enjoys life since Pitt has come alone, since the revealing of his unconscious. And like all humans nobody wants to say no to the unconscious because it is in fact what we REALLY want.

I think an important key scene in Fight Club that begins to reveal Pitt as Norton’s Doppelganger is when the two are in the bathroom talking about their fathers and how they grew up. Pitt says “my dad never went to college, so it was important that I go.” Norton responds with “yeah, same here.” The conversation progress as Pitt and Norton continue to talk about their lives, and all Norton can say is “same here, me too, sounds familiar.. etc” thus showing that Norton and Pitt not have just similar lives, but are in fact one person. The last thing I will say is about the Doppelganger being revealed throughout Fight Club, is the scene when Norton’s boss is asking him about the Fight Club flyer he found in the copy machine. Norton says, “it might be someone you’ve known for years, someone very very close to you, Tyler’s words coming out of my mouth and i used to be such a nice guy.” this proves that Pitt’s character has gotten into Norton’s head, or so the naive audience would think. However, by watching and listening very closely you will see the uncanny resemblance between Norton and Pitt. Thus further proving the Doppelganger theory, in which Pitt is Norton’s unconscious part of his conscious self.

I felt sorry for Count Orlok and I didn’t like it. I was expecting to not like Count Orlok or Max Shreck or Nosferatu, which ever you prefer to call Willem Dafoe’s character. But the problem is he talked too much, he revealed too much about himself. Especially when he was talking to the two crew members, drinking and eating the bat. (I’m sure I’m not the only one who instantly thought of Ozzy Osbourne during that scene either…) I wanted to hate Count Orlok, he’s a vampire, he steals lives, reveals darkness, is the epitome of every little child’s nightmare. But when he began talking about how he doesn’t remember how he became a vampire and such, I wanted to hate him still, but instead I felt sympathy. As you can see in the picture I posted as well, the director is putting his arm around the vampire, comforting him, offering the human emotion of sympathy from not only him, but the audience as well.

Other than feeling sympathy for Count Orlok, I found it quite clever that E. Elias Merhige created Shadow of a Vampire within the same story of Nosferatu. According to Umberto Eco, it’s a Remake. Although it was a straight forward remake of Nosferatu it was the same story: 1 man, 1 vampire – they both need something from each other, ends with trickery and kills the vampire. I felt Shadow of a Vampire was a more “behind the scenes” type of movie rather than just a movie itself. Which I think we should have watched Nosferatu first, then watched Shadow of a Vampire. Because upon watching the original, I had expectations that weren’t fulfilled, and every time I looked at Count Orlok in Nosferatu- I saw Willem Dafoe… No, I saw the Green Goblin. Kind of ruined it for me.

However, going with the “behind the scenes” theme, I thought the setting and actions of the characters were very well played and placed in the time period. The morphine, the laudnum, the hand crank cameras, the goggles, everything. The part I liked the best out of everything is the fact that E. Elias Merhige used actual clips from the original Nosferatu in Shadow of a Vampire. Although, I think they should have actually showed them making the entire movie. E. Elias Merhige spent so much time making sure the audience knew that Count Orlok would not sail on the ship for the ship and final scenes on the island. But then when they showed the brief clips of the movie on the ship it did not do justice to what the original Nosferatu gave the audience. I think E. Elias Merhige could have expanded this more.

All in all, it was a good movie and I enjoyed seeing a remake of the original in a more clever kind of way. Rather than seeing two different adaptations of Shakespear’s Romeo and Juliet. But still the part that really bothers me is feeling sympathetic towards Count Orlok, I don’t believe Bram Stoker or F.W. Murnau wanted the audience to feel any type of emotion except fear for the vampire.

This picture is classic, both literally and figuratively. I’ve seen it my whole life, I just never knew where it came from.

Was that boring or what? I tried to  count how many times I started to nod off during Nosferatu, but I lost count- I fell asleep. I think the hardest part of watching the film was the fact I had to use my eyes the entire time. I’m not used to that. This is definitely the Age of the Multitasker. I successfully held two different text messaging conversations and ate dinner during the movie. This is because I could hear. I did’nt need to watch the entire film to know what was going on. This was not the case in Nosferatu. I tried to eat dinner during the film, but needless to say my dinner went cold, I was incapable of doing anything else during the silent film. It was weird.

I had to rewind and replay some scenes a few times to understand what was happening, and those parts i accidentally fell asleep during. On the technical side of the film, I understand that this was made in 1922, so naturally I expected the film quality to be significantly less than that of our HD…3d… DVR… special effects crap. Which of course it was, but I kept getting confused between the sepia tones and the blue tones. I assumed the blue was representing nighttime and sepia was day time. It took me until about half way through the movie to figure that out. But then it all changed on my when the Count Orlok was on the ship, out and about on the deck yet the tones were sepia. Wait a minute?! Vampires don’t come out during the day! Then I questioned myself by asking if maybe that was something I learned from Trueblood. Nope. I started the entire movie over and read the section again when the vampire says he sleeps during the day.

Whew, I thought the entire 3 seasons I religiously watched of Trueblood was a lie.

So even though I still don’t fully understand the color schemes, I think the second hardest part of watching this movie besides my inability to multitask, was the amount of time the film showed the text on the screen. In the beginning of the film when a whole sentence (or maybe even two!) were on the screen, I was allowed a good 45 or so seconds to read these. But when Ellen would cry “Hutter! Hutter !!!” this would be posted on my screen for AT LEAST 45 or more seconds… sure the film makers probably wanted to keep everything around the same speed, however it does not take me 45 seconds to read “Hutter! Hutter !!!” (Another thing that bothered me, the several punctuation errors!! grrr!!)

Okay, so i’ve told you three things I didn’t prefer in the film, and even though it may sound as if I strongly oppose this film, I’m actually partial to it. It was my first exposure to a legit silent film, and I feel the film hold a certain historical and reputable value compared to Shadow of a Vampire, or any other remake of Dracula. Lastly, I will admit I do not watch horror films, I get too scared too easy. But when I began Nosferatu I laughed because I was so sure the film wouldn’t be scary. And it wasn’t scary at all. Freud’s uncanny certainly didn’t appear at my door, but once I fell asleep. Count Orlok came to haunt me.