Ma Vie En -- OH SOMETHING SHINY!

Okay, I'm going to be the first that admits this: I had a ton of trouble paying attention during this film. It was not because it was a bad film. I was actually very intrigued by the premise. The problem was, I brought candy. And not just any candy: pull and peel twizzlers. So not only are you giving me sugar, you're giving me something to play with. I'm essentially an 8 year old with severe ADHD. I'd say it is what keeps me interesting. Also, in large settings, I always get distracted. You should see me at a Bulls game. I'll play "see how many 8 dollar margaritas I can drink." By the 3rd quarter, you'll be shoving me into a taxi as I scream about how I beat you at a margarita race you didn't even know you were participating in. It is just how I work.

Just off camera is me beating Obama at a Margarita Race

So, please bear with me if the film details are foggy.

This will be written as an open letter to Ludo.

Sup Ludsie (Can I call you Ludsies?)
Anyway, L-money. Why do you think society and even your family reacted so badly to your revelation that you wanted to be a girl?
Don't answer that Ldub, I've got it. It is what we in the biz call a rhetorical question. As you may know, I am the not-famous-enough author of the book "So You Think God Screwed Up" (Foreword by the parents of the cast of Jersey Shore.) I can tell you, as much as you daydream about it, you are always going to be rocking an XY setup. Now, I know you'd like to discard those boy-part, maybe trade them in towards the purchase of some girl-parts, but this isn't possible. Not at your age. But this is why they react so badly to you. The idea of a boy, possessing a phallus (for reference, look down), and wanting to discard that symbol of power. This is a glaring reminder of what Freud called "castration anxiety." Essentially, grown men are pants-crapping scared of losing those boy-parts that you dislike so much. So scared, that signs of femininity make them angry. I'm talking spilled a cast member of the Jersey Shore's Jaeger Bomb mad. This is where all this rage directed at you comes from.

Well then what does this mean for little Ludo?
Well, L-train, I've got some bad news. Without a firm sense of self, as the speaker told us, ther eis a darn good chance you're going to stick your head in an oven. So you must decide between either being who you know you are, or living a lie and possibly diving off a building early in life. I would go with the former if I were you. The castration anxiety demonstrated by the men in your life now will only continue throughout life. There is no escaping it.

Sorry bud, I wish i had better news for you. Also, hey, can you slip Pam my number next time you see her? Tell her I'm an author.

Cordially,
Dr. Professor Indian Chief Bobbito Max Chill, Esq.

Far From Heaven: Blackness, Marginalizatoin and Washboard Abs

Far From Heaven rocked my world with Dennis Quaid’s washboard abs, the All-State guy’s soothing voice and of course Julian Moore with a haircut that just doesn’t work for her. I’m a very shallow movie watcher, this we know to be true. Although, I did, through sheer willpower, I made myself pay attention to two things in the film. The use of color and what the use of colors even means. I suppose really it is paying attention to one thing and then expanding on it, but I’m really reaching here.

(What are you talking about with colors? You do know those mushrooms that your roommate keeps in his desk are NOT for your pizza, right?)

First, the intentional use of different lighting filters in different sequences is very clear throughout the film. For example, when Captain Washboard Abs (Quaid but from now on known as CWA) first ventures into the gay-bar (is there a better word for that? Alternative Lifestyle Hangout? That is waaaaaay too long. I’m sticking with gay-bar…which sounds like a delicious German treat…goodness I’ve stumbled far from my original thought.) the whole room is lit by a green hue. This green hue returns when Julianne Moore finds CWA philandering in his office. (Also sidenote: philandering is a word I don’t use nearly enough.) This hue continues throughout the film and seems to represent a shame of sorts. Whenever a character is acting outside of the role that has been assigned to them by society, it appears. The blue hue is the other hue that appears multiple times throughout the film. We see it when a character (typically CWA) is in the dark, grappling with their role in the world.

(Alright, I’ll bite, so if these colors signify different things, what does the film itself say about roles?)

So Fanon talks in his piece “The Fact of Blackness” about how his blackness is viewed through a lens comparing it to whiteness. He talks about cannibalism and slavery for a while, but when he finally calms down with the histrionics and makes a point, he makes a valid one. CWA is just as marginalized as say All-State guy is. He would be viewed poorly and treated badly because of his homosexuality, but the difference is he is capable of hiding it. Fanon very obtusely compares his blackness to the plight of Jews throughout the world and while I hold contention with some of the things he said, his overall point his true. Blackness is not something that can be hidden. Furthermore, blackness has a role assigned with it
and when a black man acts outside of those roles, as All-State did, there is an outcry. Eventually, that outcry led to All-State’s removal .

Essentially, there are many marginalized groups. If you aren’t a white, protestant, wealthy male, you probably fall into one of them. However, only a few are very apparent -- as apparent as the light of the room in a scene or the color of one’s skin.


The most important question this film made me ask is two-fold: how many situps does Dennis Quaid do a day and why wasn’t he cast as King Leonidus in 300?

Seriously. I want to meet this man's trainer.

Conversations With Myself: New Blag Format to Keep It Fun (For Me, Not You)

Sup blag.

(Sup.)

Good to see you again. Boy, do I have a doozie for you today. I got to watch a lady be hanged.

(Sounds terrible.)

Oh yeah, I openly wept and hid under the covers for like 45 minutes. Don't tell anyone.

(Secret is safe here, chief.)

Thanks buddy. Wanna hear about it?

(Not really, but I'm going wager that you'll tell me about it anyway.)

Bingo. You just get me, blag.

I Can't See S*@t: Dancer in the Dark, Blindness and Alienation

I'll be honest, I've read a lot of Marx. No, it is not because I'm a communist revolutionary. More out of curiousity. Growing up under possibly the most Republican (they're calling themselves Libertarians now, get with the times) parents to ever exist, one begins to wonder why everything they dislike is "Communist", "Socialist" or "Marxist." So I'll preface this with saying, I was pumped to do some stuff on Marx. Also, Bjork has always topped out my weird-o-meter. (Like that time she wore a swan as a dress?) Exactly like that. Dancer in the Dark did not disappoint on the weird scale. The whole film is about the alienation of Bjork's character. (Didn't Bjork alienate herself by being weird and from a part of the world that no one cares about? What even is a fjord?) No, alienated in the way Marx spoke about in his writing. The alienation of the worker, of labor. (You're gonna make me ask it, aren't you?) Absolutely, that is why I keep you around.

(In what ways was Bjork's character Selma alienated and how does it parallel Marx?)

The most obvious answer to this of course is her place in the world. She was a worker doing manual labor in a plant, living on someone else's land in their trailer. This is just in content alone. How does the director represent her alienation? Her blindness of course. This is the most obvious symbol in the entire film. (Not obvious to the point of being lazy I hope.) Nope, it is well executed. Her blindness is representative of her alienation. (You keep saying Marx's alienation, just assuming I know what it is. You always do this. This is why you have no friends.) Fine, I'll explain it, quickly and simply. (If you did it any other way, I'd stop listening.)

"Labor produces not only commodities: it produces itself and the worker as a commodity." (What in the heck does that mean?) By making labor something that can be bought, something that has value, the worker is "objectificated." (That's not a word.) Yes it is. (Then why is there a red line below it.) Stop, just let me finish. "The more objects the worker produces the fewer he can possess and the more he falls under the dominion of his product, capital." Essentially, the worker eventually becomes nothing more than his product. The worker finds him or herself in the product. These workers live to work. They are no longer human. They are alienated and most importantly, they have no idea this is happening. They are blind to this process. Blind to the power over them. (Oh I get it. So she is blind to her dependence on the product.) I just said that. (No you didn't.) Whatever. It is a bit deeper than that. The worker eventually realizes their work is not theirs but belongs to someone else. That is where the alienation stems.

(Got it) No you don't. (But if I say I do, you'll move on to the important stuff.) True. So now that we're talking about Selma again, that is her blindness: her alienation and dehumanization. The most important part of the blindness: it is genetic and will be passed on to her son. (Oh sad.) Her work all goes to her saving for her son to recieve surgery to avoid the blindness. This is the same as a worker spending 60 hours a week in a factory trying to keep from perpetually having their offspring be int he same place, alienated.

(So I guess my next question is: did the film itself alienate the audience? because this film sounds pretty brutal.)

That is actually a point of contention in my class. (A simple yes or no would've been better.) It isn't that simple though. (It never is.) The audience never actually connects with the character of Selma. She is too awkward and strange. (Just like Bjork. Bjork as Bjork, brilliant!) The argument is made that since the audience is estranged from Selma, we are estranged from the situation. Always the contrarian, I say this is not the case. (You would.) The film does a couple things that actually make the audience more connected to the situation, even though they are disconnected from Selma. (Oh God, a list...) 1. The handy-cam filming makes one feel as though they are baring witness to the events. The camera is not intended to be a view from any particular character, but it does give the feel that you are standing there when she is hanged, when she walks home on the tracks, when she day dreams int eh factory. 2. The candid moments. The moments when Selma does not think anyone is watching her. For example, when she walks home, kicking the tracks to know where they are. Or when she places her finger in her water glass to know when it is almost full. Little things like these bring the audience closer to the events and give them a sort of authenticity. (No three?) No three. I said a couple. (I always forget, a couple is two, a few is three or four and many...oh I'll never get your ambiguous crap.)

So, wrapping it up (finally!), the blindness plays a key role in not only demonstrating Marx's Alienation, but also in bringing the audience closer to the situation, even if this distances ourselves from Selma. (WOO!)