The brilliance of a film like McCabe and Mrs. Miller is that it is indeed a revisionist Western, and yet it’s very undefined in terms of the point that the director Robert Altman is trying to put across to the audience. For a Western, the film is very artsy. It’s almost as if the director were saying, in a situation like the one in this film, where’s the beauty and mystery in the material? Altman infuses those qualities in not necessarily the plot (what plot?) but more in the details; in the way the actors convey their character traits through improvised dialogue and “gimmicks” like the way McCabe (Warren Beatty) mutters to himself in times of crisis. Those times of crisis are basically present throughout the whole duration of the movie, and yet there is such a calm tone present throughout; a tone of almost trippy elliptical confusion on both the characters and the audience’s part.
For a non-mainstream art film, McCabe and Mrs. Miller is about as unpretentious as a film can be. (It’s over before you know it.) Altman loves his characters that inhabit this town, and makes us the audience come to love them as well. I think this is because all the actors here are fully inhabiting shantytown characteristics. It’s great seeing Julie Christie gussied up a bit, because she becomes more ethereal in the process. (The same can be said for Warren Beatty-I think the beard helps bring out his eccentric side). I think Altman’s theory on beauty is that beauty is more defined when it is submerged and hidden. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is an art film with low-down humor. (The cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is so evocative, it’s almost as if Carvaggio shot the movie in the muck.)
McCabe and Mrs. Miller is highly ambiguous personal filmmaking. McCabe’s wanting to have complete control over the whorehouse is always being thwarted by business men who want to take over the property. They eventually threaten his life if he doesn’t give in. McCabe is not allowed to make he deal in the way that he deems fit, and before he knows it the ground crumbles from underneath him. (That man who is experiencing inner turmoil and muttering under his breath might as well be Robert Altman.) This is a metaphor for Robert Altman’s wanting complete artistic control over his films and being thwarted by the movie business executives financing his endeavors. The fact that this thesis is highly ambiguous is the way that it ought to be. The meanings are hidden and submerged in the work in order to not get in the way of the audience’s enjoyment of the film. Altman’s way of telling a story cinematically is analogous to how a beautiful tree is covered in rain. (One of the shots in the film.) Ironically today’s audience may be so unused to this apparent negligence that they may not respond to the film at all. I feel that this makes the work even more mysterious.
The way that the town is depicted, gives an audience member a wonderful sense of the geography of Presbyterian Church. An audience member is aware of the places that are safe and not safe to traverse in, like in any other town, only those emotions are made more drastically vivid. Every detail is wonderfully elaborated here. The whorehouse is so playful and fun that ultimately you the audience member want to take residence there. It’s a place to stay warm from the harsh cold elements outside (both literally and metaphorically.) Each character that enters Presbyterian makes the town more interesting, and one begins to know the town like the back of their hand. Every single inhabitant has their own wonderful quirkiness. Eventually, the audience feels that we are taking up residence in this town, and that’s because we can imagine what it would be like once we have left it. We can imagine what goes on away from our prying eyes. The audience get this sense because we merely overhear or see certain events and miss others. This creates expansiveness of imagination; creates curiosity and frustration and interest in this town, almost as if it were a real place. We want that to be preserved by McCabe; we are both worried for the town and also are worried for McCabe’s well being. There’s freedom in the filmmaking here, because it seems as if real humans take residence in Presbyterian. What can be suggested or merely guessed at is what makes an audience member watching these characters love them exponentially. That sense of discovery might as well have died with McCabe.
For a brief period of time, McCabe and Mrs. Miller are the movers and shakers of the town. The film’s tone is tenuous because of McCabe and Mrs. Miller’s grip that they have on Presbyterian, which is constantly dissipating. The couple’s doom is written in the wind, and the two of them want to try to forget this sad fact. All of these plangent qualities are felt in Leonard Cohen’s evocative music. The songs in this film both portend the future and make one enjoy the present.
I feel that McCabe and Mrs. Miller is one of the most romantic films ever made, and that’s because we don’t really see the intimacy between the two protagonists. Their love can only be left to our imaginations, and besides, unrequited love is the most romantic kind of love presented on the screen because it’s of a tragic nature. (All though I do think they sleep together.) The fact that we can imagine what their relationship was like is a blessing rather than a curse. The void in their relationship is the entire film; because of this McCabe and Mrs. Miller has a wonderful feeling and tone to it that can only be accurately described as Canadian provocative. In the end, the town turns their back on McCabe, and it’s great that this isn’t stated outright. In other words, it’s not made depressing in anyway, much like how the personal feeling in the work is not stated outright. Altman does not want his audience to despair, but rather to enjoy the surroundings of the film. It’s great that the audience has hope for McCabe by the end of the film, and hope in his relationship with Mrs. Miller. We do not want them to be forgotten or lost; and yet they are.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Sicko
Sicko is a depiction of how the American health care system is a shambles. Michael Moore’s film shows, especially the American middle and lower class who are the ones that suffer the most from this situation, what the health care system is like in the rest of the world. The results are shocking and against our favor. In places like France and England, and even a place like Cuba (!), going to get an operation costs nothing. There is a wide margin here between the freedoms that foreign citizens in countries other than the U.S. receive in terms of free health care, compared to the health care prices here. The form of incense that Moore as a filmmaker transposes onto the audience come from the fact that doctors can and do live very comfortably financial lives in those countries; what’s the excuse for H.M.O.’s to be jacking up the health care prices here? The answer can only be greed and heartlessness. One has to be heartless if they do not perform a life saving operation on someone, just because they receive benefits from H.M.O. companies. That gonzo journalist Michael Moore, as always, stays true to his form of filmmaking (by falsifying facts and making certain individuals, like in the case of this film doctors, appear to be fools) and yet this time the gonzo journalism theatrics seem to be justified because of the imperative importance of this particular topic. How can one not joke in amazement over the fact that many of the firefighters who helped in the relief effort of 9/11 can be better treated medically (many have breathing issues) over in Cube (where Moore takes them) than in their own homeland? It’s a sick joke, and yet its reality. That joke has an underside of deep human caring and concern over the whole American health care situation and the people being affected by it.
I already knew that our health care system was a mess. Who doesn’t; everyone is affected by the enormous amount that one has to pay in order to have an operation and everyone implicitly knows the greed of the insurance companies. What I didn’t know was what initiated this mess. I learned from this film that John Ehrlichman convinced Richard Nixon to create a care system based on the belief that hospitals should give less care to their patients in order to obtain a greater profit. However, its one thing to already know something; it’s quite something else to actually see some of the worst examples of how innocent people are being affected by the high costs in health care. This is almost like fully exploring your feelings and concerns, which are in themselves highly upsetting emotionally. I feel that the reason Moore shows you cases like the one involving a retired couple who loses their home because of the expenses that they paid for dealing with multiple heart attacks and cancer (not to mention the many deaths that result from the insurance companies heartlessness), is to make you, the audience member, strife with anger against the system, so much so that we as a society cannot not deal with the high cost of health care anymore and, thus, ultimately try to fight the system in order to abolish this problem. This is what kept my interest not only during the movie, but long afterward as well. It’s a film that stays with you, and how can it not? The problem that’s in this film is always present in our daily lives. Moore ultimately wants that problem to go away. Moore’s desperate need to ultimately vanquish this problem is what makes him a successful director; his actually deeply caring about the people being affected by this, i.e. the audience. We are not left out of the implications of this film like we were in Moore’s other movies.
The filmmaker’s relationship to those being filmed is very interesting. He, like the audience, is incredulous upon finding out how affordable it is to just plain live, not let alone survive, in Europe and other foreign countries in the U.S. His relationship to the victims is entirely different. It’s almost one of care and consideration and great calm; examples of reassurance that this system will not last forever and something will be done about the situation.
One particular scene in the film that reflects the spirit of the movie is when Moore learns that in France, everyone is allowed six months paternity leave along with paid leave if they are facing a grave illness. Even though this is a minor scene, and really has nothing to do with the health care system, it shows the caring that is generally allocated to European citizens which is something that is not felt in America. It really is a shock to the system when an American audience hears this. Why doesn’t the government care about us over here?
The socio political context of this film is one of the system being rigged. Here’s an example: ex-congressman Billy Tauzin’s saying to Congress that they must pass a senior-citizens drug bill. Once Congress does, Billy Tauzin makes millions lobbying for drug companies. What kind of example does this illicit behavior set for this country? There is a plangent quality to this film, because it simply appears that in this country the poor and middle class lose and lose only. This is felt in the people being interviwed’s behavior, in the way the film is edited, the way it is shot, the narration, ect. Yet, there is also uplift as well, which is the ultimate American spirit. Moore does not want anyone in this country, this includes the insurance bigwigs, to forget what this country was based in: care for everyone along with voicing of one’s independence. Moore wants us to change the system and to not let us forget that we can.
I already knew that our health care system was a mess. Who doesn’t; everyone is affected by the enormous amount that one has to pay in order to have an operation and everyone implicitly knows the greed of the insurance companies. What I didn’t know was what initiated this mess. I learned from this film that John Ehrlichman convinced Richard Nixon to create a care system based on the belief that hospitals should give less care to their patients in order to obtain a greater profit. However, its one thing to already know something; it’s quite something else to actually see some of the worst examples of how innocent people are being affected by the high costs in health care. This is almost like fully exploring your feelings and concerns, which are in themselves highly upsetting emotionally. I feel that the reason Moore shows you cases like the one involving a retired couple who loses their home because of the expenses that they paid for dealing with multiple heart attacks and cancer (not to mention the many deaths that result from the insurance companies heartlessness), is to make you, the audience member, strife with anger against the system, so much so that we as a society cannot not deal with the high cost of health care anymore and, thus, ultimately try to fight the system in order to abolish this problem. This is what kept my interest not only during the movie, but long afterward as well. It’s a film that stays with you, and how can it not? The problem that’s in this film is always present in our daily lives. Moore ultimately wants that problem to go away. Moore’s desperate need to ultimately vanquish this problem is what makes him a successful director; his actually deeply caring about the people being affected by this, i.e. the audience. We are not left out of the implications of this film like we were in Moore’s other movies.
The filmmaker’s relationship to those being filmed is very interesting. He, like the audience, is incredulous upon finding out how affordable it is to just plain live, not let alone survive, in Europe and other foreign countries in the U.S. His relationship to the victims is entirely different. It’s almost one of care and consideration and great calm; examples of reassurance that this system will not last forever and something will be done about the situation.
One particular scene in the film that reflects the spirit of the movie is when Moore learns that in France, everyone is allowed six months paternity leave along with paid leave if they are facing a grave illness. Even though this is a minor scene, and really has nothing to do with the health care system, it shows the caring that is generally allocated to European citizens which is something that is not felt in America. It really is a shock to the system when an American audience hears this. Why doesn’t the government care about us over here?
The socio political context of this film is one of the system being rigged. Here’s an example: ex-congressman Billy Tauzin’s saying to Congress that they must pass a senior-citizens drug bill. Once Congress does, Billy Tauzin makes millions lobbying for drug companies. What kind of example does this illicit behavior set for this country? There is a plangent quality to this film, because it simply appears that in this country the poor and middle class lose and lose only. This is felt in the people being interviwed’s behavior, in the way the film is edited, the way it is shot, the narration, ect. Yet, there is also uplift as well, which is the ultimate American spirit. Moore does not want anyone in this country, this includes the insurance bigwigs, to forget what this country was based in: care for everyone along with voicing of one’s independence. Moore wants us to change the system and to not let us forget that we can.
RIZE
The narrative being told in the film of RIZE, is one that deals with how exactly a community rises above restrictions like poverty and even death. It’s not so much that the groups that dance in the poor areas depicted in this film become more economically rich because of their dance skills. Rather, they become more psychologically enriched from what they do, which in a sense is emoting through dance rather than through violence. The dance communities in RIZE emote their frustrations as well as their sadness.
I feel that the filmmaker was very successful in connecting the situations that these people as a poor community encounter, with that of dancing in order to get rid of their frustrations through art. If this connecting method on the filmmaker’s part didn’t occur, then the audience wouldn’t quite understand why it is so important that this community have a need to dance; the importance is that the dance is the means by which the community stays together as a functioning unit, no matter what the circumstances are. I know see not only how a community like the ones in poorer parts of California cope, but I’ve learned for my own needs how to cope; how to energize myself so that nothing negative affects me. Really, that’s what the communities in RIZE do; everything for them is a mindset.
The filmmaker’s successes were the fact that they got such good footage; footage that someone like myself never has seen before because I don’t live in any areas were krumping and the like is done. Te dance footage is simply exhilarating; what’s amazing is that the footage remains exhilarating even after the audience learns of certain deaths in the neighborhood. Krumping prevails over anything. I was also amazed that the interview footage was so good. These dancers tell you exactly what they meant to convey by their dance moves; something that other more “professional” dancers have a very hard time of conveying. Maybe it’s so easy for these dancers to express themselves because what they are experiencing is genuine and is a very urgent need, rather than a means to simply show off and gain prestige. Also, the great interview footage may have to do with the ease with which the filmmaker’s have with these individuals. He almost seems to be one of them, and the joking that both interviewer and interviewee partake in is very refreshing to hear because poorer individuals, especially in movies are never depicted at ease in any way which is somewhat insulting.
One particular scene that depicts the movie’s spirit for me is when the man who has started these dance contests learns that his house has been broken into. At first he is overwrought with emotion; he can’t believe that someone would rob the home of a man who is not only a good man at heart, but wants to spread his cause as well. One of his friends says to him that he shouldn’t worry; this is merely one more indication that he should move on to bigger and better things with his cause. There is something so realistic about this moment; these are two human beings actually having a conversation with each other in a movie and one is so not used to this that they may be overwrought with emotion as well. It also depicts what this film is all about; overcoming one’s repressions and feats of sadness in order to live and spread your cause-make your individual mark. The clown man’s cause is actually coming back and helping him out as well, which is the ultimate sign that his cause is important. The film aesthetically is very musical. I felt as if each and every shot was edited to the great pulsating dance beat that these individuals listen to. I wanted to start to dance like them; even though I knew that I ultimately just didn’t have their talent. Some shots are very raw and beautiful much like the spirit of these people.
I feel that the filmmaker was very successful in connecting the situations that these people as a poor community encounter, with that of dancing in order to get rid of their frustrations through art. If this connecting method on the filmmaker’s part didn’t occur, then the audience wouldn’t quite understand why it is so important that this community have a need to dance; the importance is that the dance is the means by which the community stays together as a functioning unit, no matter what the circumstances are. I know see not only how a community like the ones in poorer parts of California cope, but I’ve learned for my own needs how to cope; how to energize myself so that nothing negative affects me. Really, that’s what the communities in RIZE do; everything for them is a mindset.
The filmmaker’s successes were the fact that they got such good footage; footage that someone like myself never has seen before because I don’t live in any areas were krumping and the like is done. Te dance footage is simply exhilarating; what’s amazing is that the footage remains exhilarating even after the audience learns of certain deaths in the neighborhood. Krumping prevails over anything. I was also amazed that the interview footage was so good. These dancers tell you exactly what they meant to convey by their dance moves; something that other more “professional” dancers have a very hard time of conveying. Maybe it’s so easy for these dancers to express themselves because what they are experiencing is genuine and is a very urgent need, rather than a means to simply show off and gain prestige. Also, the great interview footage may have to do with the ease with which the filmmaker’s have with these individuals. He almost seems to be one of them, and the joking that both interviewer and interviewee partake in is very refreshing to hear because poorer individuals, especially in movies are never depicted at ease in any way which is somewhat insulting.
One particular scene that depicts the movie’s spirit for me is when the man who has started these dance contests learns that his house has been broken into. At first he is overwrought with emotion; he can’t believe that someone would rob the home of a man who is not only a good man at heart, but wants to spread his cause as well. One of his friends says to him that he shouldn’t worry; this is merely one more indication that he should move on to bigger and better things with his cause. There is something so realistic about this moment; these are two human beings actually having a conversation with each other in a movie and one is so not used to this that they may be overwrought with emotion as well. It also depicts what this film is all about; overcoming one’s repressions and feats of sadness in order to live and spread your cause-make your individual mark. The clown man’s cause is actually coming back and helping him out as well, which is the ultimate sign that his cause is important. The film aesthetically is very musical. I felt as if each and every shot was edited to the great pulsating dance beat that these individuals listen to. I wanted to start to dance like them; even though I knew that I ultimately just didn’t have their talent. Some shots are very raw and beautiful much like the spirit of these people.
Jesus Camp
The documentary Jesus Camp is a depiction of the Evangelical Christian religion, and the disturbing fundamental aspect of that ideology and how it impacts children raised in an Evangelical household. The film shows how children who have Evangelical parents are not really allowed to express their own opinion, and are not even really taught reality. They do not attend school, but rather are home schooled in order so that they do not learn anything that counters the Evangelical beliefs. It’s highly disturbing how these children are given such a distorted view of religion. This religion speaks of how anyone who doesn’t believe in the Evangelical faith is a sinner and will be forever damned. The audience feels sympathy for these children who attend these camps, because the audience is well aware that this belief system is indoctrinated so much so into these children’s subconscious that they will subsequently have messed up adult lives; much like how the preachers of Evangelical Christianity are disturbed in personality. The film was obviously made for people who are not aware of what a disturbing phenomenon this really is; made for people who are not aware how these people are politicians (especially the modern Republican party’s) stool pigeons for votership. I wasn’t even aware at how this virus, as it were, is spreading; ¼ of Americans are Evangelical Christians, which is very disturbing and which is more of a reason for the importance of this documentary being made in the first place.
The filmmaker was extremely successful in keeping my interest. The rabid nature of the participants of this religion are almost out of a Horror movie; there doesn’t even need to be any narration to enliven the film in anyway. The footage speaks for itself; the corrupt nature of what’s going on here is so easily apparent. Kids around the age group of the ones attending the camp’s critical factors are so easily bypassed at a young age, and the corrupt Evangelical leaders and preachers know this. One is supposed to find religion for themselves, and not the other way around. I know realize after seeing this film, why this religion is spreading so rapidly; many Evangelicals simply don’t have a choice-they are not given a proper education and are basically deprived individuals. It’s shocking to consider that ¼ of all Americans are stuck in this predicament of being ensnared in a cult. The filmmaker was successful in capturing all of this because of the amount of empathy that the audience has for some of these children; they are naturally bright individuals and yet all of that is gone to waste. (Many want to use their talents to become preachers.) There were no challenges on the film makers part in depicting what they wanted to depict; the obviousness of the situation sadly is only apparent to anyone outside of this religion’s participants. Because of this, not only the filmmaker’s but the whole outside world seems withdrawn and separated from these people. The filmmaker’s merely document the footage and get out as fast as they can.
One particular scene that reflects this film’s spirit for me is when the preachers in the camp perform the ritual as it were of taping all of the kid’s mouths. These kids are not allowed to speak for themselves in anyway, and this fact (like the scene) is highly disturbing. A depiction of this is the home schooling scene, where its obvious that the children’s childhoods are obviously rigged and set up for one out come and one out come only; they have to be obedient servers of the Evangelical religion. (It’s shocking how even all of the children’s pop cultural references-even the drawings that they draw and the songs that they sing-all pertain to Christ. Evangelical’s excuse for this lack of freedom-the excuse that they always give-is that they don’t want pop culture, i.e., the normal way to grow up, to easily corrupt the children in a sinful manner.) There are very many close ups of the children. These are present in the film in order to emphasize the caring nature that we should have towards these individuals who are trapped; we the audience can subtly read their need to escape-their unhappiness-in their facial expressions. They all look like hypnotized zombies. The sounds that emanate these children when they prey are terrifying gobbledygook; they are not uttered in a wholly manner but more in a Satanic fashion. Everything about this religion, and the ways it is depicted aesthetically by the filmmakers, reeks of trouble.
The filmmaker was extremely successful in keeping my interest. The rabid nature of the participants of this religion are almost out of a Horror movie; there doesn’t even need to be any narration to enliven the film in anyway. The footage speaks for itself; the corrupt nature of what’s going on here is so easily apparent. Kids around the age group of the ones attending the camp’s critical factors are so easily bypassed at a young age, and the corrupt Evangelical leaders and preachers know this. One is supposed to find religion for themselves, and not the other way around. I know realize after seeing this film, why this religion is spreading so rapidly; many Evangelicals simply don’t have a choice-they are not given a proper education and are basically deprived individuals. It’s shocking to consider that ¼ of all Americans are stuck in this predicament of being ensnared in a cult. The filmmaker was successful in capturing all of this because of the amount of empathy that the audience has for some of these children; they are naturally bright individuals and yet all of that is gone to waste. (Many want to use their talents to become preachers.) There were no challenges on the film makers part in depicting what they wanted to depict; the obviousness of the situation sadly is only apparent to anyone outside of this religion’s participants. Because of this, not only the filmmaker’s but the whole outside world seems withdrawn and separated from these people. The filmmaker’s merely document the footage and get out as fast as they can.
One particular scene that reflects this film’s spirit for me is when the preachers in the camp perform the ritual as it were of taping all of the kid’s mouths. These kids are not allowed to speak for themselves in anyway, and this fact (like the scene) is highly disturbing. A depiction of this is the home schooling scene, where its obvious that the children’s childhoods are obviously rigged and set up for one out come and one out come only; they have to be obedient servers of the Evangelical religion. (It’s shocking how even all of the children’s pop cultural references-even the drawings that they draw and the songs that they sing-all pertain to Christ. Evangelical’s excuse for this lack of freedom-the excuse that they always give-is that they don’t want pop culture, i.e., the normal way to grow up, to easily corrupt the children in a sinful manner.) There are very many close ups of the children. These are present in the film in order to emphasize the caring nature that we should have towards these individuals who are trapped; we the audience can subtly read their need to escape-their unhappiness-in their facial expressions. They all look like hypnotized zombies. The sounds that emanate these children when they prey are terrifying gobbledygook; they are not uttered in a wholly manner but more in a Satanic fashion. Everything about this religion, and the ways it is depicted aesthetically by the filmmakers, reeks of trouble.
the Dark Knight updated
Here's a quote from Manny Farber:"Continuation involves constant attempts to stretch out the moment--as in L'Amour Fou--expanding its parameters step by step. In the Rivette, it involves moving back from a romantic discussion between two neurotics to see the space they occupy, then to perceive the space as a stage, then their discussion as a rehearsal, and so on; Altman does it with more and more layers of voices on the soundtrack.Continuation is about entry. It's anti-conclusive, it stresses involvement, and it grows out of the termite notion. You keep moving forward and extending the time element as you go"
This is what Christopher Nolan does with the Dark Knight. The film almost has an epic length, and newer and newer details are constantly introduced, consistently changing the audience’s perception of the characters that they are watching. Basically, this approach is rebellious against the whole notion of adequate movement of time and space in film; particularly a superhero genre film such as this one. So what? And yet, so many of my favorite critics writing today disparage of this idea. (They guise this in their description of the film being anarchic. Is this classy subtle film, which merely suggests anarchy as a possible outcome for Gotham's future, really that negative in spirit? For God's sake, the film encourages helping one another out, even at the risk of your own life. These critics are merely priggish in regards to even the slightest mention of anarchy, almost as if the concept didn't even exist.) It makes sense that the filmmakers of the Dark Knight want to rebel against the common way to make a superhero film. Batman is the ultimate superhero rebel; he's the badass of DC comics. My argument with the critics who don't like the film, has to do with their finding the movie too long, and too realistic; as if realism was not allowed to be an aspect of the superhero genre. Gotham is a troubled contingent society, and this wouldn't be felt in any sophisticated way unless the film were long in length. It also allows the film to have something called tension; ah, I was missing that for awhile! (An unsophisticated way of depicting a city in danger would be showing characters in desperate need of help in only a few scant scenes). I loved the movie because it was shot in Chicago, instead of a "great" fake looking Gotham set, which is programmatic. I couldn't leave my seat, even though I had to go to the bathroom the whole time. The deft use of space in this film ends up making the Dark Knight a conception piece: An ever-enveloping extended work that's progress is interrupted by a menace.
I was terrified of Heath Ledger; it was as if Laurence Olivier were playing the part. Our generation's James Dean was a much greater actor than James Dean ever was. It's a very inventive performance, with the most perfect vocal interpretation of the Joker you will ever hear. Ledger gave the film an Underground B movie sensibility, which so fits a high budget extravaganza such as this. I felt as if he were some insane kid who one day dropped everything he was doing, and decided to have some irresponsible fun with Gotham City. (This movie is not for kids—maybe that’s why it was such a good film.) This kid’s nerves are fried; it’s actually kind of funny. At some moments this crazed person is amazed himself that he is getting away with this; bringing Gotham to its knees overnight and having Batman in his grasp. At one point in the film, the Joker enters terrain very similar to a John Waters picture (although much more aesthetically pleasing), or something directed by Samuel Fuller out of the 1950's--you know what I mean? It’s enthralling to watch and is also a first for a superhero movie. It also may be the last time we see anything like this again--this anarchic blissfulness in a cop out genre. The termite approach can only exist (in this time period) in a continuous movie.
Christopher Nolan: "Taking on a sequel is actually quite liberating. Normally, however you're arranging the material, you have to show certain movements in the narrative in the first third to get to a particular point. With a sequel you don't have to do any of that. You can just jump straight in." Nolan takes that tone for the whole film. That tone applies to even the other characters that we as an audience never had the pleasure to meet; characters who hadn't appeared in the first film. He keeps everyone a mystery, and that's intellectually stimulating--a first for a superhero film. Superhero characters are so psychologically interesting anyway--no one should rob any of them (and in the Dark Knight that means any of them)--of their riches. Nolan is trying to make a work of art here--and he's not going to let anything, including franchise normative film making conventions, get in his way.
This film felt as if it were directed by Nicolas Roeg, and I was amazed that it was so good. (It’s similarly edited and also retains that Roegish Gothic feel.) It's the only Batman story I have ever seen or read that made me realize that Batman is not merely a crime fighting detective--that's him on his flawed days. Batman, and this is why we love him so, is a symbol that will do whatever he can to make the city he guards a hopeful place; whatever the cost. And that he does indeed have limits. That’s the inherent tension in this movie; he’s both human and non-human, and the Joker realizes this weakness and tries to exploit it. It’s hilarious that Batman influenced the creation of this monster, and the Joker knows this as well. So does the flawed plangent Batman. That's termite art. It's ever enveloping--ever extending; unresolved. This terrifyingly philosophic movie (Seeing the space these two--Batman and the Joker--occupy is very interesting visually. Imagine one character looking like a punk Francis Bacon image trying to psychologically unhinge someone who looks and acts like a black anvil) gives hope to every filmgoer that there are reasons to see a big budget movie. This would not have happened unless the filmmakers were of a rebellious nature. They are rebelling against all the detritus of movies out there, and against the studios that are causing the mess, and at the same they are using the studios money. Who would poo poo that form of revenge? This film fills in the gaps of the first Tim Burton Batman, and does it feel so good.
Postscript:
For once, we actually have real sentiment and emotion at this award show. Usually, the Oscars is an award show replete with fake tears; tears that represent actors, in particular, congratulating themselves rather than their fellow peers. (In many instances for awards that they didn't deserve.) Here is the exception; the moment when everyone there and everywhere else felt emotional towards someone else. Wasn't that the point of Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker (and the point of that film)? Ledger's simply wanting to join his fellow peers in being nominated resulted in something much greater. His acting career represented the notion of prospering a dying industry, and tonight I finally realized he succeeded. The rest of the show was superfluous.
This is what Christopher Nolan does with the Dark Knight. The film almost has an epic length, and newer and newer details are constantly introduced, consistently changing the audience’s perception of the characters that they are watching. Basically, this approach is rebellious against the whole notion of adequate movement of time and space in film; particularly a superhero genre film such as this one. So what? And yet, so many of my favorite critics writing today disparage of this idea. (They guise this in their description of the film being anarchic. Is this classy subtle film, which merely suggests anarchy as a possible outcome for Gotham's future, really that negative in spirit? For God's sake, the film encourages helping one another out, even at the risk of your own life. These critics are merely priggish in regards to even the slightest mention of anarchy, almost as if the concept didn't even exist.) It makes sense that the filmmakers of the Dark Knight want to rebel against the common way to make a superhero film. Batman is the ultimate superhero rebel; he's the badass of DC comics. My argument with the critics who don't like the film, has to do with their finding the movie too long, and too realistic; as if realism was not allowed to be an aspect of the superhero genre. Gotham is a troubled contingent society, and this wouldn't be felt in any sophisticated way unless the film were long in length. It also allows the film to have something called tension; ah, I was missing that for awhile! (An unsophisticated way of depicting a city in danger would be showing characters in desperate need of help in only a few scant scenes). I loved the movie because it was shot in Chicago, instead of a "great" fake looking Gotham set, which is programmatic. I couldn't leave my seat, even though I had to go to the bathroom the whole time. The deft use of space in this film ends up making the Dark Knight a conception piece: An ever-enveloping extended work that's progress is interrupted by a menace.
I was terrified of Heath Ledger; it was as if Laurence Olivier were playing the part. Our generation's James Dean was a much greater actor than James Dean ever was. It's a very inventive performance, with the most perfect vocal interpretation of the Joker you will ever hear. Ledger gave the film an Underground B movie sensibility, which so fits a high budget extravaganza such as this. I felt as if he were some insane kid who one day dropped everything he was doing, and decided to have some irresponsible fun with Gotham City. (This movie is not for kids—maybe that’s why it was such a good film.) This kid’s nerves are fried; it’s actually kind of funny. At some moments this crazed person is amazed himself that he is getting away with this; bringing Gotham to its knees overnight and having Batman in his grasp. At one point in the film, the Joker enters terrain very similar to a John Waters picture (although much more aesthetically pleasing), or something directed by Samuel Fuller out of the 1950's--you know what I mean? It’s enthralling to watch and is also a first for a superhero movie. It also may be the last time we see anything like this again--this anarchic blissfulness in a cop out genre. The termite approach can only exist (in this time period) in a continuous movie.
Christopher Nolan: "Taking on a sequel is actually quite liberating. Normally, however you're arranging the material, you have to show certain movements in the narrative in the first third to get to a particular point. With a sequel you don't have to do any of that. You can just jump straight in." Nolan takes that tone for the whole film. That tone applies to even the other characters that we as an audience never had the pleasure to meet; characters who hadn't appeared in the first film. He keeps everyone a mystery, and that's intellectually stimulating--a first for a superhero film. Superhero characters are so psychologically interesting anyway--no one should rob any of them (and in the Dark Knight that means any of them)--of their riches. Nolan is trying to make a work of art here--and he's not going to let anything, including franchise normative film making conventions, get in his way.
This film felt as if it were directed by Nicolas Roeg, and I was amazed that it was so good. (It’s similarly edited and also retains that Roegish Gothic feel.) It's the only Batman story I have ever seen or read that made me realize that Batman is not merely a crime fighting detective--that's him on his flawed days. Batman, and this is why we love him so, is a symbol that will do whatever he can to make the city he guards a hopeful place; whatever the cost. And that he does indeed have limits. That’s the inherent tension in this movie; he’s both human and non-human, and the Joker realizes this weakness and tries to exploit it. It’s hilarious that Batman influenced the creation of this monster, and the Joker knows this as well. So does the flawed plangent Batman. That's termite art. It's ever enveloping--ever extending; unresolved. This terrifyingly philosophic movie (Seeing the space these two--Batman and the Joker--occupy is very interesting visually. Imagine one character looking like a punk Francis Bacon image trying to psychologically unhinge someone who looks and acts like a black anvil) gives hope to every filmgoer that there are reasons to see a big budget movie. This would not have happened unless the filmmakers were of a rebellious nature. They are rebelling against all the detritus of movies out there, and against the studios that are causing the mess, and at the same they are using the studios money. Who would poo poo that form of revenge? This film fills in the gaps of the first Tim Burton Batman, and does it feel so good.
Postscript:
For once, we actually have real sentiment and emotion at this award show. Usually, the Oscars is an award show replete with fake tears; tears that represent actors, in particular, congratulating themselves rather than their fellow peers. (In many instances for awards that they didn't deserve.) Here is the exception; the moment when everyone there and everywhere else felt emotional towards someone else. Wasn't that the point of Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker (and the point of that film)? Ledger's simply wanting to join his fellow peers in being nominated resulted in something much greater. His acting career represented the notion of prospering a dying industry, and tonight I finally realized he succeeded. The rest of the show was superfluous.
Fifty Words is Not Enough
The subject of a couple breaking up is a difficult topic for any art form to handle, much less the theatre, where all subject matter is compressed onto one stage. The whole workings of a relationship, including its tribulations and successes, has to be implicitly understood through limiting means. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the topic of marital strife cannot be done on the stage. I merely mean to imply that it’s a much harder task for a playwright and theatre actors and director to handle than say if the topic were shown in a movie. If one were to compare Michael Weller’s Fifty Words to a film like Alan Parker and Bo Goldman’s Shoot the Moon, then one can very well see the problems implicit in a stage setting when the topic of divorce is being discussed.
Fifty Words, which deals with only the couple and not their child (he’s merely a concept), is a far different work than Shoot the Moon. Yet, both works deal with the same topic. Ultimately, it comes down to which work has more artistic merit because their topics are so similar, and yet their handling of this topic is so vastly different. In Shoot the Moon, George (Albert Finney) and Faith’s (Diane Keaton) divorce is handled very beautifully because the audience sees how this relationship is under strain, because we have instances when we can see how their relationship affects other people, including their children. We have a real sense of the inherent tragedy of this couple and how this relationship can’t last, even though they deeply love each other; it’s simply a too chaotic and harmful form of love but its love alright. I feel that film is the most realistic example of a depiction of the strife inherent in a relationship than probably anything else before or after it. (More on the reasons for that later). The complexity in Fifty Words is much more limiting, because of the structure imposed by the playwright Michael Weller.
The inherent flaw in the play is the fact that it takes place within a day (or the evening and then the morning.) A relationship is a complex thing to depict, and I do feel that the audience has to, in the end, in some strange way understand the couple in front of them. How else are they supposed to have any empathy and emotional understanding of their situation? Fifty Words is simply one gigantic argument, while Shoot the Moon is the slow disintegration of a relationship. In Fifty Words, the audience has to see the strain that their relationship has had on them over the years. One night and a day does not give you that. Shoot the Moon is therefore a more complex work that constantly surprises like any relationship. I was not surprised in anyway by Fifty Words and I was not moved either. I felt as if I was being assaulted by the actors playing Jan (Elizabeth Marvel) and Adam (Norbert Leo Butz). This is not meant to be a negative appraisal of their performances (Although I did feel that Marvel overdid her anger scenes. If you compare her to Diane Keaton, than she is sunk. Her anger is inadequate to the situation.) Rather, I am criticizing the limiting structure of the argument. Everything is condensed so that there is anger and reconciliation and then anger again, like in any relationship. That means that the audience has to be trapped in this debacle, rather than having a reprieve in which to think about what we just saw. (The reprieve’s in the play come in the form of verbal silences.) It’s the contemplating about what just happened that makes one understand the sadness that is connected with the trials and tribulations of a relationship. We have to see this couple away from one another, like in Shoot the Moon, in order to see how lonely they are without one another. That inherent need is what makes a relationship that is not meant to work out a tragic one. We don’t see that inherent need in Fifty Words; the whole play is verbal abuse and consequently the audience feels intimidated by this couple. They are supposed to be intimidated by each other.
It’s interesting how similar both works are to one another. Yet their implications are entirely different. Yes, in both works there is the scene where the wife realizes that her husband is cheating on her, and starts throwing objects like plates. However, in Shoot the Moon, we the audience are initially confused by this form of violence. We are always confused by George’s actions, and then understand them after the fact. I feel that George realizes this too; this reconciliation is always too late and that’s a metaphor for troubled relationships. I didn’t feel that in Fifty Words. I saw the plates being thrown a mile away, and that’s where my dislike for these characters began. Their arguments are too much justified; these two understand each other like the back of their hand and can’t wait to assault one another. That in itself is an insulting form of characterization. The yelling and reconciliation scenes should be more petty and inane; the arguments should be over stupid little objects that have no significance, like in real life. We should initially back away from them, and then by play’s end want them to stay together. We can’t feel that way if we feel as if we are being verbally assaulted as well. Grace leads to more pain because grace doesn’t last. Scenes should reverberate, like in real life.
The house should be a representation of the couple’s marriage, because verbal abuse is initially so hard to understand. The house in Shoot the Moon is George and Faith’s relationship. Faith has a tennis court built, which is a representation of her moving on. George hates that tennis court, because it’s a representation of how he’s losing his house, his family, and his identity. That tennis court is built by Faith’s new man. We don’t get any of that complexity in Fifty Words; all of the themes in the relationship are forced upon us by an argument. The house in Shoot the Moon is the only way for the audience to understand these two people yelling at each other. It’s an example of the stakes that always eventually appear in a relationship and in a break up. Who’s going to take care of the house? Who’s going to take care of the family? (Why this play doesn’t show how this relationship affects their child is anybody’s guess.) There’s no contrast between the scenic beauty and the painfulness in the relationship, like there is in Shoot the Moon. I know that what I am saying is a little unfair, considering that the play form can’t possible contain these considerations (the stage format is too limiting) but I also feel that this is the type of play that makes one aware of the limitations of the stage format.
We as an audience are also aware of the showboating in the writing. These actors talk to each other theatrically, opposed to how people talk in real life. That line of Jan’s, where she says, “Give me back my power,” is an example of what I am talking about. The audience should understand what’s underneath the words. A couple that is experiencing problems in their relationship, experience them because they can’t outright articulate their feelings toward one another. The way things are articulated in Fifty Words makes what the work means obvious, opposed to this conversation in Shoot the Moon:
Faith: Just now for an instant there—I don’t know—you made me laugh George—you were kind.
George: You’re right, I’m not kind anymore.
Faith: Me neither.
George: You’re kind to strangers.
Faith: Strangers are easy.
My ultimate main problem with Fifty Words is that we don’t see how this couple interacts with other people. We should see that they can’t put up a front, which is the final example of disintegration. This is what ultimately makes the couple tragic and romantic. If Fifty Words were a movie, than it would be cut very rapidly like a Borne film. There would be camera angles emphasizing the actor’s ferocious anger towards one another. The problem with the play is the fact that there are no family members getting in the way of their lunges toward one another. This, ironically enough, makes the situation less depressing and more contrived. You have to feel other people’s pain as well, in order to feel your own. In Fifty Words, the audience daydreams because all we are doing is looking at this couple, and the actors yell at us to wake us up. When a divorce happens, nothing is the same afterwards. A line has been crossed, which is what leads to violence. One partner has a need to tear themselves back into the relationship, when family is involved (that would be George). Because there is no family present in Fifty Words, the audience doesn’t understand the violence. Why was it the playwright and the director’s (Austin Pendleton) choice not to show the son in this play? He would have made the audience torn up about the situation. The least the playwright could have done would have been to show that there’s calm before the storm in a troubled relationship (this leads to tension, which is a quality that this play desperately tries to get at). In Fifty Words, all that’s given to us is tempestuous storm, and what’s ultimately lost is despair.
Fifty Words, which deals with only the couple and not their child (he’s merely a concept), is a far different work than Shoot the Moon. Yet, both works deal with the same topic. Ultimately, it comes down to which work has more artistic merit because their topics are so similar, and yet their handling of this topic is so vastly different. In Shoot the Moon, George (Albert Finney) and Faith’s (Diane Keaton) divorce is handled very beautifully because the audience sees how this relationship is under strain, because we have instances when we can see how their relationship affects other people, including their children. We have a real sense of the inherent tragedy of this couple and how this relationship can’t last, even though they deeply love each other; it’s simply a too chaotic and harmful form of love but its love alright. I feel that film is the most realistic example of a depiction of the strife inherent in a relationship than probably anything else before or after it. (More on the reasons for that later). The complexity in Fifty Words is much more limiting, because of the structure imposed by the playwright Michael Weller.
The inherent flaw in the play is the fact that it takes place within a day (or the evening and then the morning.) A relationship is a complex thing to depict, and I do feel that the audience has to, in the end, in some strange way understand the couple in front of them. How else are they supposed to have any empathy and emotional understanding of their situation? Fifty Words is simply one gigantic argument, while Shoot the Moon is the slow disintegration of a relationship. In Fifty Words, the audience has to see the strain that their relationship has had on them over the years. One night and a day does not give you that. Shoot the Moon is therefore a more complex work that constantly surprises like any relationship. I was not surprised in anyway by Fifty Words and I was not moved either. I felt as if I was being assaulted by the actors playing Jan (Elizabeth Marvel) and Adam (Norbert Leo Butz). This is not meant to be a negative appraisal of their performances (Although I did feel that Marvel overdid her anger scenes. If you compare her to Diane Keaton, than she is sunk. Her anger is inadequate to the situation.) Rather, I am criticizing the limiting structure of the argument. Everything is condensed so that there is anger and reconciliation and then anger again, like in any relationship. That means that the audience has to be trapped in this debacle, rather than having a reprieve in which to think about what we just saw. (The reprieve’s in the play come in the form of verbal silences.) It’s the contemplating about what just happened that makes one understand the sadness that is connected with the trials and tribulations of a relationship. We have to see this couple away from one another, like in Shoot the Moon, in order to see how lonely they are without one another. That inherent need is what makes a relationship that is not meant to work out a tragic one. We don’t see that inherent need in Fifty Words; the whole play is verbal abuse and consequently the audience feels intimidated by this couple. They are supposed to be intimidated by each other.
It’s interesting how similar both works are to one another. Yet their implications are entirely different. Yes, in both works there is the scene where the wife realizes that her husband is cheating on her, and starts throwing objects like plates. However, in Shoot the Moon, we the audience are initially confused by this form of violence. We are always confused by George’s actions, and then understand them after the fact. I feel that George realizes this too; this reconciliation is always too late and that’s a metaphor for troubled relationships. I didn’t feel that in Fifty Words. I saw the plates being thrown a mile away, and that’s where my dislike for these characters began. Their arguments are too much justified; these two understand each other like the back of their hand and can’t wait to assault one another. That in itself is an insulting form of characterization. The yelling and reconciliation scenes should be more petty and inane; the arguments should be over stupid little objects that have no significance, like in real life. We should initially back away from them, and then by play’s end want them to stay together. We can’t feel that way if we feel as if we are being verbally assaulted as well. Grace leads to more pain because grace doesn’t last. Scenes should reverberate, like in real life.
The house should be a representation of the couple’s marriage, because verbal abuse is initially so hard to understand. The house in Shoot the Moon is George and Faith’s relationship. Faith has a tennis court built, which is a representation of her moving on. George hates that tennis court, because it’s a representation of how he’s losing his house, his family, and his identity. That tennis court is built by Faith’s new man. We don’t get any of that complexity in Fifty Words; all of the themes in the relationship are forced upon us by an argument. The house in Shoot the Moon is the only way for the audience to understand these two people yelling at each other. It’s an example of the stakes that always eventually appear in a relationship and in a break up. Who’s going to take care of the house? Who’s going to take care of the family? (Why this play doesn’t show how this relationship affects their child is anybody’s guess.) There’s no contrast between the scenic beauty and the painfulness in the relationship, like there is in Shoot the Moon. I know that what I am saying is a little unfair, considering that the play form can’t possible contain these considerations (the stage format is too limiting) but I also feel that this is the type of play that makes one aware of the limitations of the stage format.
We as an audience are also aware of the showboating in the writing. These actors talk to each other theatrically, opposed to how people talk in real life. That line of Jan’s, where she says, “Give me back my power,” is an example of what I am talking about. The audience should understand what’s underneath the words. A couple that is experiencing problems in their relationship, experience them because they can’t outright articulate their feelings toward one another. The way things are articulated in Fifty Words makes what the work means obvious, opposed to this conversation in Shoot the Moon:
Faith: Just now for an instant there—I don’t know—you made me laugh George—you were kind.
George: You’re right, I’m not kind anymore.
Faith: Me neither.
George: You’re kind to strangers.
Faith: Strangers are easy.
My ultimate main problem with Fifty Words is that we don’t see how this couple interacts with other people. We should see that they can’t put up a front, which is the final example of disintegration. This is what ultimately makes the couple tragic and romantic. If Fifty Words were a movie, than it would be cut very rapidly like a Borne film. There would be camera angles emphasizing the actor’s ferocious anger towards one another. The problem with the play is the fact that there are no family members getting in the way of their lunges toward one another. This, ironically enough, makes the situation less depressing and more contrived. You have to feel other people’s pain as well, in order to feel your own. In Fifty Words, the audience daydreams because all we are doing is looking at this couple, and the actors yell at us to wake us up. When a divorce happens, nothing is the same afterwards. A line has been crossed, which is what leads to violence. One partner has a need to tear themselves back into the relationship, when family is involved (that would be George). Because there is no family present in Fifty Words, the audience doesn’t understand the violence. Why was it the playwright and the director’s (Austin Pendleton) choice not to show the son in this play? He would have made the audience torn up about the situation. The least the playwright could have done would have been to show that there’s calm before the storm in a troubled relationship (this leads to tension, which is a quality that this play desperately tries to get at). In Fifty Words, all that’s given to us is tempestuous storm, and what’s ultimately lost is despair.
Friday, December 12, 2008
We Are Going to Melt Them Down For Pills and Soap
Elvis Costello’s Pills and Soap is a brilliant song. It’s probably the greatest Costello tune about what he most feared as an artist: subtle annihilating oppression. Costello was always singing about that concept, especially on his album Armed Forces. A listener could always hear that terror in the back of his voice; almost as if someone were pointing a gun at the back of his head. Costello’s voice is one of trepidation against how his homeland of
Many great musical artists of the time (at least the ones that showed they cared an inch about politics) were afraid of the implications of Reagan’s politics, and how many were buying his message. The English equivalent was fear against Margaret Thatcher. Artists like Costello feared that this woman was ushering in an age of subtle fascism; the kind that supposedly accommodates everyone, when in reality it turns those noble spenders and consumers and hard workers into products. The co modification of flesh is what Costello sung about in his early songs. However, it’s ironic that in Pills and Soap Costello sings the tune as if he were responding to this whole procedure in a soothing way. That’s what the song’s about; the comfort that this form of propaganda gives to the working class individual, and how this sort of phenomenon is unexplainable. Costello’s anger is startling because it is so calm.
The song is incredibly catchy; almost as if it were a child’s ditty. That’s where the song gets its terrifying nature from. Costello’s propagandistic statement is that Fascism can be so endearing, so comforting a statement. This is a much more complex song that punk songs of protest of previous years, ant that may be because it doesn’t sound like a form of protest. It sounds like a song of transfixation; almost as if you are under Thatcher’s spell. The singer sings as if he is under that spell, in order to alert others to wake up. Costello’s form of propaganda is a subtle one, in much the same way that Thatcher’s form of propaganda was subtle. That’s what truly makes this song terrifying. This is now the only way to fight the beast, is what Costello is basically telling his listener.
“They talked to the sister, the father and the mother
With a microphone in one hand and a chequebook in the other
AND THE CAMERA NOSES IN TO THE TEARS ON HER FACE
The tears on her face
The tears on her face”
Right away, the singer is telling the listener what the situation is. There is no situation; it’s just business as usual, and that’s what’s so terrifying about updated fascism. Our notions of reality are becoming simply commonplace forms of usury. Costello is singing about how he can’t really do anything about the situation. The only thing he can do is lament about it; this song is Costello’s last ditch effort before he gets sucked in to this mess. (That’s not really what actually happened to the singer; he still remained very political, but that is how the song’s tone feels). He’s not singing songs of protest anymore; he’s simply watching this scene on television like everyone else, and trying his best in his zombified state to sing about the injustice of the situation. This song is the subtlest form of propaganda—the subtlest form of anger—that I have ever heard. The singer loses himself in the role of the working class stiff being used, in order to fully embody that stiff’s feelings. The song is propagandistic and yet its not, because the singer loses himself in the process. That’s really the ultimate statement of propaganda, in my opinion. “You can put them back together with your paper and paste, but you can’t put them back together You can’t put them back together.” The song is a modernist statement on its subject matter; it shows that even the singer can lose out to the concept that he is against.
Here’s an interesting fact to learn: the song was released in
Donne Updated
Oh, to no end…Donne’s Need for Continual Religious Contradiction
If one were to closely analyze Donne’s Holy Sonnet number 16, and compare that poem to some of Donne’s other poetry, then that reader may realize that their reading of the poem may counter what sonnet 16 is supposed to be about. This contradiction or paradox of analysis correlates with the way that Donne saw the world. The problem with the paradox or contradiction is eventually that contradiction will reflect upon itself and create a new contradiction which will then create a new contradiction, etc. This form of imagery of copies and reflections is a device that Donne wholeheartedly believes in. Sonnet 16 is essentially an argument for how humanity’s need for more is what makes humanity exciting.
However, first let’s discuss the initial popular way of viewing this poem. Holy Sonnet number 16 is deemed highly controversial by readers because it depicts Donne’s desperate need to be conquered in a sexual way by God for the purposes of becoming a more devout being. It appears that Donne wants to transcend his state because humanity in general is so despicable.
It’s ironic that Donne needs violent aid in order to transcend. Why does Donne’s aid have to be violent? The answer could be that Donne continually needs life’s thronging temptations. It appears that this poet enjoys this process of ecstasy like transformation much more than the prospect of becoming a more devout individual. This is no more felt than in the end of the poem when Donne exclaims to God, “Take me to you, imprison me, for I/Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,/Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me” (lines 12 through 14 of Holy Sonnet 16). The problem here is Donne’s need to go beyond spiritual devoutness to a much higher plain. The confusion that a reader may feel upon reading this poem is the concept of Donne’s feeling sinful for merely being devoutly spiritual. How more spiritual can a human being be? Donne will always feel that he is damning God’s name, because of his need for continual religious conflation, as in the sentence where Donne states that, “That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend” (line 3 of Holy Sonnet 16). Why does Donne think that man is too weak to receive redemption on his own, through prayer?
In order to realize why there is a contradiction in Donne’s argument, one should examine Donne’s secular poetry. In The Flea, Donne is frustrated by always being played the unrequited love card. The only thing that Donne receives from the women that he tries to fall in love with is simply flirtation and that is all. Donne becomes so desperate that he invents this argument for consummation based on a flea. In The Damp, Donne metaphorically writes about his frustrations over constantly finding facades inherent in his relationships; Donne would love to strip these facades bare in order to receive the truth. Donne feels that lovers should be equal beings and should not be involved in conquests and wars and “poor victories” (line 9 of The Damp). However, warfare cannot be separated from sexuality, no matter how hard one tries to do so. Façade or conquest and inequality are inherent in human nature. This is why Donne deems it fit to criticize human nature
Interestingly, Donne’s efforts to separate warfare from sexuality in his secular poetry lead to his criticizing humanity and wanting to move beyond to a higher state in his religious poetry. However, in order to evolve, Donne would have to be an unequal in the relationship with God, which Donne equates to a sexual relationship. The contradiction is that Donne has to be conquered by God in order to not be conquered anymore. This is a highly illogical argument. Perhaps one should read and interpret Donne’s frustration in another way. What if Donne, without fully realizing it in his secular poetry, enjoyed being shut out by his paramour? Isn’t this a very human impulse that one would not care to admit? In unrequited love situations, there is always some strange form of hope on the part of the one pursing the uncommitted party; almost as if that person enjoyed the chase more than the actual consummation. It’s apparent from his poetry that Donne has a highly ambitious nature which never ceases. His need is to encompass more and more and to never be satisfied. What Donne writes about in his poetry is a very human impulse. This is interesting, considering that it appears upon first reading of sonnet 16 that Donne is criticizing humanity.
All of this is intrinsic in Donne’s Holy Sonnet number 16. Donne’s asking God to conquer him would inevitably lead to the ecstasy of that moment ending and Donne being metamorphosised. Does Donne really want this to happen? Isn’t it exciting to believe that we want to metamorphosise, when in reality we merely want to look for that beyond and not find it, and ultimately tell everyone about our experience? That’s what Donne does in his poetry. If one were to compare the way God is depicted here (the dispassionate creator who only acts through the two person trinity and not the third (Paglia, pg. 31)) to the passionate Donne, than one would realize that what Donne is writing about in this poem is the exciting aspect of human nature. Donne ultimately feels that if one’s needs are not fulfilled then that makes life more exciting; there is never an end to this process, because one is always searching for new possibilities. This is felt when Donne says , “…but oh, to no end” (line 6 of Holy Sonnet 16). What appear to be criticisms of human nature may not be criticisms at all. Donne, in actuality, is very much in sync with human nature.
There is a similarity here between sex and religious devotion. Donne enjoys being shut out by the one that he loves in much the same way as he enjoys not seeing God’s face; in not transcending to a higher state of being. He doesn’t want the ecstasy of the moment to ever end. Donne may indeed realize this, and this is why he constantly experiences religious guilt, like many other religiously devout people. This is a man who never wants to be fully formed; he never wants to find the final answer to a question. There is a similarity here to Good Friday, Riding Westward. Religion is very enjoyable to Donne because he can never see God’s face; just as in this poem Donne never really wants to see his transformed self. This occurs in the poem when Donne states that, “Yet dare I’ almost be glad I do not see/That spectacle of too much weight for me” (lines 15 and 16 of Good Friday, Riding Westward). Donne’s form of complexity; his always finding his own answers to his questions with another related question, may be present because he can’t make a touching moment of admission like this obvious, or else the moment would become maudlin and false. There is a flaw in this man’s nature; it’s what makes Donne stay a human being.Marvell
The Complications of Rebellion
In examining Andrew Marvell’s different poems, there is a constant elaboration of the poet’s main theory on life. The greatest case of this occurred in 1681, when Marvel hit an epiphany in his observations. This epiphany first occurred in Marvell’s Mower poems, and were thus elaborated and given final shape in To His Coy Mistress.
The Mower poems and To His Coy Mistress both are similar in that they deal with a man (who is a stand in for Marvell) suddenly discovers that nature is a more freeing environment that the one that man has created. The mower is against gardens because they impose an artificial organization of nature, which inevitably imposes on man as well. This mower realizes that he has to rebel against societies norms which are artificial, and which keep him restricted in terms of expression. Unfortunately, along with this realization comes the more negative implication that very few people share in this viewpoint. This fact is what makes Damon believe that he can’t have a lover. He doesn’t want his viewpoint to be corrupted by anyone. However, Damon can’t be an isolationist because he realizes that, “…there is no escape from love’s tyranny within the bounds of time” (Berthoff, pg. 133). In To His Coy Mistress, Marvell still has realized that he has to rebel against societies norms, but his rebellion has become elaborated to the point where time is included as one of the concepts that he has to rebel against. To His Coy Mistress is a more hopeful poem than the mower poems, because Marvell actually has the belief that he can defeat the constraints of time, opposed to wallowing away in those constraints.
The tragedy inherent in Damon’s position (the reason for why he becomes an isolationist) occurs because, “Damon the Mower seeks freedom not from time but from love, for it is love which has destroyed the ground of his being, his life in nature” (Berthoff, pg. 132). This sentiment is felt when Damon states, “How happy might I still have mow’d,/ Had not love here his Thistles sow’d” (Damon the Mower, lines 65 and 66)! Marvell has run into the problem of expressing his feelings to the reader because, “Though only an authentic countryman could cite the real joys of country life, only a poet would be free to express the joy” (Berthoff, pg. 133). Marvell has lost that innocent feeling that he can express his thoughts to anyone, because his thoughts are of such a negative nature. The writer at the point of writing Damon the Mower doesn’t realize why this is so.
Marvell’s epiphany of man’s relation to nature should be joyful to read, and yet it isn’t because the concept of sharing one’s insights is left out of the equation. Ego naturally has to occur if there’s no one around to share your sentiments. Part of the problem might be that Damon, “…fancies life in all its forms and can see himself in any role” (Berthoff, 134). He would have to in order to basically keep any self integrity in his isolationism. There’s something off in a stanza like the one where Damon states that:
“My mind was once the true survey/Of all these Meadows fresh and gay;/And in the greenness of the Grass/Did see its Hopes as in a Glass/When Juliana came, and she/What I do to the grass, does to my thoughts and me” (The Mower’s Song, lines 1 through 6).
It makes sense that this man would naturally be put off by a person if he were rebelling against how society negatively affects nature. However, who does this man interact with? This first stanza in the poem makes the reader worried for the Mower’s well being, particularly in relation to his mental state. Subconsciously the reader is aware that this mower has to try to fall in love with Juliana, and this is because he simply feels inadequate in his isolation. The mower’s time is running out, and because of this limiting device, he doesn’t realize that there are ways to share his viewpoint in a way that will win over the one that he loves. The mower doesn’t realize any of this because he is rushing to beat the oppressive clock; time is a concept that the mower is never aware that he can rebel against. The mower thinks that, “…love has no place in the scheme of…paradise (Berthoff, pg. 139). This sadness is felt when the mower states that, “For She my Mind hath so displac’d/That I shall never find my home” (Berthoff, pg. 139). What the mower doesn’t realize is that love not only has a place in paradise, but that love is the most important concept for one to uphold if they wish to live in paradise.
The problem with the lack of a brotherhood concept is that once one dies the only consolidation given to an isolationist is not adequate enough. The consolidation doesn’t renew the isolationist’s belief in life. Ann E. Berthoff explains this perfectly when she states that, “This bleeding (the mower’s bleeding) can be staunched by herbs and flowers, but the wounds of love are closed only in death. The sweet address—‘For Death thou art a mower too’—is delivered as if to a brother. It is the only consolidation left to him, the thought of the sympathy like that shown by the Sun himself in greener days” (Berthoff, pg. 139). It doesn’t help that, “Damon is lost and withered, but the meadows flourish” (Berthoff, pg. 139).
An example of this is when Damon states that:
“Unthankful Meadows, could you so/A fellowship so true forego,/And in your gawdy May-games meet,/While I lay trodden under feet” (The Mower’s Song, lines 13-16)?
All of this sadness results because the Mower never believes in passion.
In To His Coy Mistress, Marvell realizes that non-artificial excitement in an ideal can only result from a belief in humanity. It is artificial to not believe in humanity. Marvell realizes in writing To His Coy Mistress that a concept like time is the ultimate societal construct repressing freedom. This concept even subverted Marvell’s ideological beliefs in his mower poems, so that he feels that the only way he can rebel against society is to become an isolationist. Marvell wakes up in To His Coy Mistress.
As soon as Marvell figures out the pertinence of believing in love (and not just as a concept, but as a whole-hearted action) he realizes that there are ways to share his viewpoint in a way that will win over the one that he loves. This concept is the stumbling block that the mower constantly trips over, and doesn’t realize he is missing. The belief in love leads to the realization that one should have a logical argument to back up what they have to say, because one inevitably has to learn to explain the concept that they believe in to someone else. This explanation makes the explainer more confident of their own ideas, because explaining one’s ideas makes that person’s argument more logical in the process. The mower can never explain his beliefs to anyone because he is isolated. The belief in love is what leads Marvell to realize that he needs to utilize the syllogism, in order to win over his lover. The syllogism is what eventually convinces Marvell’s lover that they as a couple need to rebel against society.
Marvell also realizes that the quality that is missing from his rebellion against societal constructs is passion. Passion is not only what the mower lacks; it’s also what the lady who Marvell is trying to seduce lacks. This is what connects the two lovers; they suffer from similar deficiencies that they realize they have to overcome. The lady’s deficiency is, “The lady’s coyness—her reserve, distance, or affectation of disdain—is not merely a frustration for the poet but a ‘crime’: we must make the most of life’s gifts” (Paglia, 49). The carpe diem message results in the poem because of Marvell’s realization of the importance of love. Finding a lover who believes in what you believe in is the same concept as seizing the day, in Marvell’s eyes. This idea is what finally gives Marvell that passion that he was lacking in his mower poems.
Marvell’s rebellion becomes more intricate and grand (along with being more logical) in the processes of the realization that he needs to include passion and a lover in his rebellion against societal norms. It’s almost as if as soon as Marvell realizes that he shouldn’t be an isolationist anymore, he consequently realizes the many different societal constructs that he has to rebel against. Not only is time one of them, but the seduction format is one as well. Marvell realizes in To His Coy Mistress that there is a way to write a seduction poem that completely counters the typical way to write a seduction poem. The seduction poem is intrinsically sexist because the woman being seduced is always the powerless character. Consequently, the woman has to believe that she should be coy, just as Marvel believes that he has to be an isolationist. These assumptions in how one should act exist because of societal norms, and To His Coy Mistress rebels against this concept. This new way of writing a seduction poem occurs because there’s cultural criticism involved in what Marvell is writing about. He’s not simply writing about seduction. Also, “…normally, it is men who blithely roam and women who pine and wait. The couple would defy time too” (Paglia, pgs. 49 to 50). These are qualities not apparent in the mower poems.
The idea of vegetable love is key to what is being discussed in this paper. Now that Marvell believes in brotherhood and love, he uses a metaphor to not only entice his lover to believe in his ideals, but to also spread his cause. When Marvell states that he feels that his, “…vegetable Love should grow/Vaster than Empires, and more slow” (To His Coy Mistress, lines 11 through 12), what he is stating is that his and his lover’s ideals should be spread throughout the land, possibly in the forms of a child. This idea is completely the opposite of an isolationist’s, and is also more successful in terms of creating societal differences. The rebellion is in that this couple will not be deterred in anyway, even though the societal patriarchy deems it fit that they should. Marvell’s rebellion, like his vegetable love, has expanded beyond the parameters that he sets in his mower poems. The rebellion, which initially only deals with society’s artificial norms, has now been expanded to a rebellion against time and a rebellion against how a couple should act. This couple is one made of equals, which is the ultimate form of rebellion on Marvell’s part.
However, first Marvell has to entice this woman to share his viewpoint. The strongest instance of this occurs in stanza 2, where Marvell shows the woman he’s enticing what time does; what in a sense being coy and not consummating love does to the body. Marvell is basically saying to the woman that he is enticing: “…why let life go to waste” (Paglia, pg. 51) as I (previously in the form of the mower) have done in the past? He’s basically saying; don’t make the mistake that I have made in the past, in believing that love does nothing for me. This makes the poem a truly romantic work, opposed to a typical seduction poem which deals with simple usury. This is felt in To His Coy Mistress; particularly when Marvell states:
“And your quaint Honor turn to dust,/And into ashes all my lust:/ The grave’s fine and private place,/But none, I think, do there embrace” (To His Coy Mistress, lines 29-32).
As mentioned earlier, in regards to the mower’s poems, the consolidation is not adequate enough if one is an isolationist; if one is coy and doesn’t believe in love.
The last stanza is a revelatory moment for Marvell because he finally has a partner that believes in his ideals. Now, there’s a lot of work to be done, and the couple know this. They have to beat the oppressive nature of the clock. This is something that Damon the Mower never does. He consequently suffers because of his inaction and because of his not realizing that time is the problem.
The couple’s rebellion is complete in the last stanza. They become what they have always been afraid of becoming, which are “amorous birds of prey” (To His Coy Mistress, line 38). The couple in To His Coy Mistress do not care about the consequences of their actions, and this is because they are of a passionate nature. They aren’t worried in anyway. They are not afraid of the determents in lines 35 and 36; they actually use the “instant fires” to their advantage, in the form of passionate sensuality. They even feel that the limited time accorded them makes their passion more essential, because there is no time to be wasted here. They will devour time, rather than having time devour them (Paglia, pg. 52). The couple won’t let the iron gates of life, or the fact that the Sun never can stand still, get in the way of their accomplishing their goal. Even if their actions don’t prove fruitful for them, the couple will not even let this fact get in their way. The couple’s feeling is that their passion can change the world; can convince people to not be deterred in anyway, like they were in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
