Knocked Up---10/26/10

Is this film a traditional romantic comedy or is it radical?

Knocked Up is a hilarious film that tackles modern social issues without beating the audience over the head with an agenda. These issues include:

Single motherhood
Pre-marital sex
Pregnancy
Abortion
Marriage
Social Class/ Status
Habitual Marijuana use
Allison is a traditional woman who seems to be seeking a traditional path to marriage and family. Ben us a radical man who does not work, runs a pseudo porn site and who smokes an excessive amount of weed. Allison and Ben’s stark differences in personality and family values eventually cause a riff in their relationship. Allison wants Ben to be more like the traditional man protects and defends his family. Ben at first resists the change, but in the end he changes to become the man that Allison wants.
The topic of abortion is discussed discretely at minimal length when the pregnancy is first discovered. The way it is discussed illustrates the filmmaker’s stance on abortion. The word is never actually used through out the film which suggests that it is never a viable or real option when faced with pregnancy. The different ways that abortion is tackled is telling of Allison and Ben’s socioeconomic class differences. Ben and his father discuss the pregnancy at an L.A. diner. The diner represents their class. Middle class and low status. Ben’s dad supports the pregnancy and never mentions an abortion. Allison and her mom talk about the pregnancy over lunch at a fancy restaurant. This feeds into the idea that Allison and her family are better than Ben and his family. Allison’s mother is unsupportive of the pregnancy. Although never actually saying abortion, Allison’s mother intimates to her daughter to “take care of the pregnancy”. She insists that the “baby isn’t real” because the pregnancy is a mistake. In Allison’s mother’s eyes it would be more socially acceptable for Allison to “take care of it”, than be an unwed single mother. In the end it Allison who makes the ultimate decision to keep the baby. Again this plays into society’s normative view of the mother as the sole decision maker during pregnancy.

"Feminafesto" 10/21/10

Charlotte and Emily Bronte are two of the most celebrated female authors of all time. Charlotte, Emily and their sister Anne published their novels under the name Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell.  These novels include Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. Charlotte wrote of their decision to publish under assumed names,
"Averse to personal publicity, we veiled our own names under those of Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell; the ambiguous choice being dictated by a sort of conscientious scruple at assuming Christian names positively masculine, while we did not like to declare ourselves women, because—without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called 'feminine' -- we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice; we had noticed how critics sometimes use for their chastisement the weapon of personality, and for their reward, a flattery, which is not true praise." (from "The Biographical Notice of Ellis and Acton Bell, from the preface of the 1910 edition of Wuthering Heights.

“Feminafesto”

In the “Feminafesto”, Anne Waldman argues for the complete overhaul of modern discourse. Waldman claims that all language is inherently male and ultimately alienating of female writers and feminine audiences. Waldman points out that, “much feminist criticism has centered on the misogyny of literary practice”. Throughout literature women are portrayed as wither good or evil. We women are either “angels or nuns, mothers or nuns, daughters or whores.” Waldman would like to completely change use of the feminine in our language. Women should not be judged first against their own femininity before even being criticized fairly against their male counterparts. An author is first defined as male or female. Male authors are simple Mark Twain or Charles Bukowski. Their gender is not made glaringly obvious in the way that it is for female authors. Anne Waldman would not just be writer Anne Waldman, but female author Anne Waldman. The inclusion of the author’s sex causes the audience to pause and possibly even second guess the credibility of the female author. This double standard for women, Waldman argues, needs to be stopped completely. She proposes, “…a utopian creative field where we [women] are defined by our energy, not by our gender”.

Sula Group Project Analysis--- 10/7/10

My group and I discussed Toni Morrison's Sula. As a group we decided that the book lent itself well to Derridian philosophy. So we broke down the novel into four key binary relationships: Medallion City and the Bottom, Nel and Sula, The Bottom before and after Sula, and male and female gender roles. There were eight of us in the group and we decided that we would work in partners to each work on a different binary relationship.  My partner, Jenny and I worked on the binary relationship between Nel and Sula.  We each formed two questions to present to the class during the discussion.  I started our portion of the discussion with a quote from Derrida's Differance and opened the floor for the class to share their thoughts about Nel and Sula.  I found that Nel and Sula were basically complete opposites in many ways. Nel is passive and rational and Sula is aggressive, forthcoming and explicit in her intentions. These opposite personality characteristics form almost a ying and yang. There is no Sula without her relationship with Nel. And same for Nel. Neither characters can stand alone without the other. There is no moment of absolute presence for either woman. I believe their binary relationship to each other drives each one's actions at all times. 

Overall, I enjoyed the novel immensely. It was telling of black experiences during Post WWII era America. I also had a great experience with my group. I often find group projects to be more trouble than good, but I was lucky to find myself in a group that cared about the book and their grade as much I did. I had a great time!!!

"10"---9/30/10

Consider all three characters (Webber, Jenny, and Sam) in terms of the romance genre. What is the cultural work being done by each? How does the relationship between the three characters resist and/or protect “romance”?

In the film “10” the main character Webber (Dudley Moore) is suffering from a mid-life crisis at age 43. Jenny (Bo Derek) represents the dream girl for any man going through a mid-life crisis. Sam (Julie Andrews) is clearly Webber’s perfect match. She is smart, educated, talented and understands Webber. He obviously enjoys her company and is torn by his longing to be young and his love for Sam.

In the film, Webber essentially goes off the map in an attempt to meet and woo Jenny. He finally meets Jenny after saving her husband’s life in Mexico. The sex scene that ensues is a debacle of sorts. Jenny is young and aloof, she comes from a different generation of lovers. Webber is older and accustomed to the type of foreplay Jenny wants to engage in. The “10” he fantasizes about and the lovemaking he believes will be a “10” is instead awkward and clumsy. In the end, I assume that Webber realizes that the relationship he had with Sam is a “10” and goes back to her with his tail between his legs.

The relationships in this film protect romance by giving a glimpse at the “other side”. In a relationship, one or both persons involve will find themselves at some point wondering if they may be suited for someone else. And typically, if one of them decides to step out of the relationship for a while what they find is that it was not the relationship they were unsure of but rather themselves. Jenny’s character resists the notion of romance. Webber asks her during their fling if she likes him, her response is that she sleeps with whomever she wants if she feels like it. This crushes Webber, who clearly was hoping that Jenny would fall in love with him and the two could live happily ever after. His objection to Jenny’s liberal notions of love, sex and marriage further protect traditional romance.

Zombies and Radical Romance---Response Paper 10/14/10

Ashly Nelson

October 14, 2010

English 313, TTh 11:00 

Response Paper

Zombies: Radical and Romantic

     Zombieland is a film about an earth that has been ravaged by homicidal zombies.  The film follows geeky loner Columbus with a long list of rules on how to survive Zombieland.

  He begins his journey to Columbus, Ohio to find his parents.  Along the way he meets bad-ass, Twinkie loving Tallahassee and the beautiful and tough Wichita and her little sister, Little Rock.  Columbus quickly falls for Wichita.  I offer the argument that although the film centralizes around survival in this Zombieland, the film reinforces traditional romance under quite radical circumstances.

     In traditional romantic comedies the “boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back” formula is always employed McDonald 2) .  Often the leading man is handsome, strong and masculine.  In Zombieland, the leading man does not embody any of these qualities; rather he is cute, quirky, smart and witty.  He is likeable and you quickly find yourself rooting for him as the underdog.  The leading lady in traditional romantic comedies is beautiful and relatable.  Wichita is certainly beautiful but she is a tough con who will not allow anything to stop her and Little Rock from surviving.  It’s at first hard to relate to Wichita but like Columbus you find yourself liking her more and more as her personality is uncovered.  A common trope or narrative pattern used in romcoms is the “meet cute”.  The “meet cute” between Columbus and Wichita happens in an abandoned grocery store.  Wichita and Little Rock pull a con Columbus and Tallahassee to gain their truck and weapons.  Columbus is immediately drawn to Wichita.  For her the attraction comes on slower.  Columbus definitely has a few Woody-Allen-esque neuroses.  He is afraid of clowns and has an almost OCD type list of survival techniques that he swears by. 

     Not long after meeting Wichita, Columbus is faced with the option of leaving Wichita and continuing his journey east solo.  Columbus realizes that “…where this girl [Wichita] is where I wanted to be” (Zombieland). Soft, melodic music plays in the background after Columbus’s subconscious narrates his feelings and the way Wichita regards him almost immediately softens.  The music and soulful looks at each other are examples of specific iconography that is displayed in all romcoms.  Another example of romcom iconography is the scene where Columbus and Wichita are expected to share their first kiss.  They are sitting in a shadowy candlelit room in Bill Murray’s (possibly the greatest cameo ever) sharing a bottle of wine.

  It is a scenario that can be scene in just about every romantic comedy.  The mood is set and kiss is just about to happen…. And then of course the moment is ruined by some intrusion.  In this film Tallahassee fumbles the moment and as always the moment can never be rekindled until the perfect moment usually at the end and after some heroic feat.  After the awkward almost kiss, Wichita and Little Rock take off leaving Columbus and Tallahassee.  Columbus boldly decides to go after her.  Although the film’s main theme is survival against all odds, it must be noted that Columbus’ actions from this point on are driven by his love for Wichita. 

     In the traditional romantic comedy, after the boy loses the girl he must win her back through some lavish declaration of his love for her.  In Zombieland, what better way to profess love than by saving the damsel in distress from flesh hungry zombies? 

 In the film’s climax Columbus must face his fear (clowns) and break all the rules he sets forth for himself.  During the film Columbus narrates, “I really want to impress Wichita, but it would be a direct violation of rule #17, maybe the most important rule of all. Don’t be a hero.” But this is exactly what he does.  Columbus loves Wichita and he must prove that by completely abandoning all his hang ups to save her.  This reinforces the idea that love will conquer all.  Columbus’s actions “…continue to reinforce the old fantasy” (McDonald 14).  The film amidst all the blood and gore has a happy ending in which the nerd gets the hot girl.  In real life it’s hard to believe that someone like Columbus could land a girl like Wichita. But the circumstances that they fall in love are so radical in nature that you begin to believe anything could be possible.  

Works Cited

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy. Great Britain:

     Wallflower Paperback, 2007.

Zombieland. Dir. Ruben Fleischer. Perf. Jesse Eisenberg, Woody

     Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin. Sony Pictures, 2009

Ethnography: Observing Romance in Public Spaces---9/21/10

Observation:
I work as host in a hotel restaurant. I decided to do my observations from my greeter’s stand at the front of the restaurant. I observed restaurant patrons for the length of my Friday night shift. I have decided focus on three couple’s for my observation and analysis. While more patrons were observed, I believed these three couples to be the most significant in analyzing and relating to back popular culture and romance.
Couple #1
In the restaurant I first observed an older couple in their fifties. This couple is regulars; they sit in the same booth every Friday and order the same meal. There was very little chat or interaction between the couple. Very little affection like hand holding or hugging was observed. They seem to have been married for many years.
Couple #2
Another couple observed was a family of three. The parents looked to be in their forties and the child was elementary school aged. The couple was celebrating a wedding anniversary as noted in the reservation book. The husband made the reservation and had a large floral arrangement delivered to the table before their arrival. Once the couple arrived there was very little affection between the couple. The husband entered the restaurant before his family. He simply states that he has a reservation and nothing more. The wife follows in with their child. The wife and child are enthralled in their own conservation and the husband is promptly ignored. I sit the family at their table that has been adorned with a lovely bouquet. The wife sits in the booth with their daughter and the husband opposite of them. It is not until after I have handed out menus that the wife acknowledges the flowers and meekly offers thanks to her husband. Throughout the meal the female remains unengaged with her husband. Little conversation or affection is exchanged between the couple. The wife’s attention seems to be solely on the child and the husband seems to be focusing his attention on the activity outside their window.
Couple#3
Much different than the couple celebrating their wedding anniversary is a young couple on a date. This couple is in their mid to late twenties, both are attractive and well dressed. When they enter the restaurant they are holding hands and laughing and smiling at each other. I seat them at their table and both sit on the same side of the booth. The man remarks to me that sitting across from her is just too far away. For the duration of their meal the couple can be seen canoodling and whispering into each other’s ears. There is a lot physical interaction among the two and lots of eye contact is made. When they leave, again they are holding hands with very little room between their bodies. They are smiling and thank me profusely for a wonderful meal.
Analysis:
I chose to analyze these three couples out of all the other people observed because I believe that cumulatively they represent the traditional American romance. All three couples are white, and most likely from an affluent background given the pricing of the restaurant and their attire. The couples represent what Americans tend to expect in different stages of a long relationship. In the beginning, there is a certain level of affection that all new couples exhibit. The constant touching, hand holding and whispering sweetly to one another is expected. Couple #3 clearly exhibits all the characteristics of new love. The man wants to sit next to his woman and is unashamed of making his intentions and feelings for her known to a stranger. Throughout this couple’s dinner a steady conversation takes place, along with flirting and lighted hearted jokes that is evidenced by giggling and hand gestures. The sharing of intimate moments in public without regard to who’s watching is also typical of new love. New couples are so enamored with each other and the idea being in love that little else enters their periforary. Couple #3 is a clear representation of what I believe all relationships resemble in their early stages.
Moving on to Couple #2, this couple represents the way children can change any relationship. I do not know how this couple used to interact prior to having a child, but I do assume that the relationship was at some point very much like Couple #3’s relationship. This couple’s daughter is clearly the wife’s most important priority. I wonder if the child had not been there if the celebration of their anniversary would have gone differently. The wife seems to mostly ignore her husband and barely offers any thanks for the thoughtfulness of flowers on their anniversary. Children usually add a new kind of stress to a marriage that does not subside until after the children have moved out of the house and the couple can reconnect with one another. This is clearly shown by Couple #2. The husband seems unfazed by his wife’s lackadaisical response to the bouquet of flowers. This suggests that maybe this was not the first time that he had been ignored by his wife in the presence of their daughter. I have to wonder what reaction the husband was hoping to illicit from his partner because neither one seemed too thrilled to be there having dinner together. In fact the only person who seemed excited about the flowers and the restaurant was the daughter. She was more excited about seeing the flowers than the man’s wife. Although the couple is supposed to be celebrating their anniversary, had it not been for the flowers, onlookers would have been hard pressed to see anything other than a couple and their child eating dinner out. This couple probably at one time adored each other, but their adoration has turned into steely demeanors and a noticeable longing to go home and find solace on their own side of the bed.
Couple #1 seem to have a steady routine within their life. They regularly come to the restaurant and have dinner at about the same time every week. During that time, the same behavior can always be observed between. Although there is very little affection, there does seem to be a comfortableness between them. This is what leads me to believe that they have been married for a very long time. They seem content with habitualness of their actions. Every Friday the wife orders the same entrée, and every Friday she forgets exactly how she likes it cooked. It is as though they are each playing a part and each knows their lines by heart. The only thing different about Couple #1 this Friday, than most other Fridays is that they ordered a dessert to share. Normally they order their entrées within the first five minutes of sitting down and after that has been eaten there is very little lingering. They are usually out with in an hour. However on this night they shared a dessert from across the table. It was the most intimate interaction I have observed between the couple. Couple #1 seems comfortable with the identies they formed for each other within their marriage. The wife is talkative and often answers most inquiries about their day and lives. The husband seems content to remain silent and allow his wife to do the talking.
From an observational stand point there is by no means anything that one would define as radical about any of the romances I observed. This in my opinion makes them even more interesting. Perhaps the radical romance does not actually exist. I’m not quite sure what would make any real life romance, radical, outside of the realm of fiction. Even gay and lesbian romances, fit the same bill. The only difference is that the sexes of the partners are the same. Every romance starts out in the same way. Maybe the real radical romances are the ones that begin and end the same. Still as happily and affectionately as they began.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof--- 9/12/10

The last couple of class sessions we have been talking about the Tennessee Williams play, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. For those who not read it (and everyone should, it’s an amazing piece of work) the play tells the story of a wealthy Mississippi family. The events are untold through the course of one day. During this day, issues of mortality, marriage, addiction, birth right and homosexuality are addressed with searing passion. The Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, written in 1955, was progressive for its time and still resonates with its contemporary audience

Big Daddy is the patriarch of the Pollitt family. He is a man who believes in hard work and is proud of the immense fortune he has made for himself. He is every bit the stereotype of a Southern plantation owner, but in many ways he much different than what you would expect. In my opinion Big Daddy is the most important character in the entire play. Throughout the play every character makes an attempt to understand Brick. Every character has their opinion about both Brick‘s alcoholism and his sexuality. Maggie, Brick’s wife, and Big Mama, his mother, try throughout the play to get answers from Brick, but they are never able to get more of a few words from him. Brick’s older Gooper and his wife Mae make up their own assumptions about Brick from conversations overheard through their shared walls. But it is Big Daddy who gets Brick to open up and speak truthfully about his relationship with Skipper and the source of his drinking problem. Big Daddy is persistent with Brick, just as the others are, but he relates to Brick’s “disgust with mendacity”. Big Daddy admits to hating his wife, his eldest son and his wife and kids. He admits that every day he lives a lie because “you’ve got to live with it, there’s nothing else to live with except mendacity…” (Williams 81). Hearing Big Daddy’s own admonition of hatred for his family seems to cause Brick to also release his own secrets and regrets. It is for this that I believe Big Daddy to be the most important character in the play. This strong wealthy, plantation owning Southern man was able break down his son’s defenses and extract more of the truth than any other character was able to. This symbolizes the type of man that I expect Big Daddy has been his entire life. Unafraid of obstacles, ready and willing to tackle them head first even if they are his own son‘s troubled life. So it seems understandable that Big Daddy is the only person Brick talks to about Skipper. Big Daddy seems invincible and strong, having returned from the doctor with what seems a clean bill of health, and the only one capable of carrying the burden of Brick’s secret. Any other character would have been too shocked to cope properly. Big Mama would have faint or sob, and Maggie would whine and baby Brick. But Brick is not looking for sympathy from anyone. He has too much pride for that, and so he tells Big Daddy. Who only listens as a friend and reassures his son. I was shocked by the reaction Big Daddy has to Brick when he talks about his relationship with Skipper. As I said before, Big Daddy is in many ways a stereotypical Southern farmer, but he is also incredibly atypical. I assumed that as a Southerner he would have little tolerance for a possibly gay son. But he does not get angry or shout at his son; instead he asks questions and delves even further into the truth. Most importantly Big Daddy does not allow Brick to “pass the buck” any longer. Big Daddy lays the truth out to Brick, “…We have tracked down the lie with which you’re disgusted and which you are drinking to kill your disgust with, Brick. You have been passing the buck. This disgust with mendacity is disgust with yourself.” (Williams 92).