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 England is being run and managed. The reason I like his vocal voice more than say the English punk rebels of the 70’s is that it has more weight to it—there’s more of a vocal range there, which means emotions like fear and anger (especially of the political variety) are made more acute and real. This artist is not faking his emotions. The strange thing about Pills and Soap is that the song is incredibly calm and soothing to listen to; almost like a great Jazz record. It’s only after the audience realizes what Costello is singing about that the tune becomes truly terrifying. What he is singing about is manipulation of the highest order; manipulation with a smiling face.

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 England in 1983 around the time that Thatcher was reelected as Prime Minister. The song was withdrawn from circulation on election day. However, what really interests me is that this song also came out around the same time that Prince Charles and Diana married. There’s our “lord and lady muck.” Who’s our lord and lady muck now? A popstar/neurotic by the name of Britney Spears. It seems that as this song becomes older, the meanings behind it become more true because our culture becomes more debased; there are greater and greater instances of distraction to keep us from looking at the truth. Our forms of royalty have boiled down to an even worse commodity product. How does this affect our self esteem as a culture? It doesn’t, and that’s the whole point of Costello’s song.

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.

The Glass Cage

The Glass Cage deals with the McBanes, an Edwardian upper class family who share a one sided view of the world. Unless you are white and come from prestigious money than you do not fit into their equation. That is at least until the three siblings of the rebel in the family, by the name of Charlie, (who of course isn’t alive anymore), enter the picture. The play basically begins with these siblings being allowed to visit the more upper class McBane clan, in the hopes of making peace between the families. These siblings, by the names of Jean (Jeannie Serralles), Angus (Saxon Palmer), and Douglas (Aaron Krohn), all have come to visit their relatives, unbeknownst to them, in order to receive the deed for their father’s share of the family business. However, David (Gerry Bamman), Malcom (Jack Wetherall-David’s brother), and Mildred (Robin Moseley-David’s wife) all know that that’s exactly what they came for, and that’s because they never trusted Charlie. (How can these people hope to ever make peace with the rest of the family, if they always suspect them of being up to no good?). The three siblings have very irascible temperaments, compared to the waspier McBane clan. They may at first seem fresh to the audience (I mean in the form of relief; they are initially exciting to watch because of their rebellious nature against their devout pure minded relatives). However, neither this nor the pure quality of the upper class McBane’s lasts and this is because everyone’s true colors come up once the play has reach its duration. That color is one of grey.

The subtlety of The Glass Cage results from the fact that the three siblings don’t actually want the money owed to their father. The scene where Douglas tears the deed is shocking because the audience realizes that what the siblings really wanted was a strange form of revenge, that makes their relatives realize that their actions led to the death of their father. They want their relatives to realize that they are, in fact, better than them because they, like their father, were not greedy like they are. By the end of the play, the siblings each separately have their own epiphanies where they realize how wrong they were in the assumptions of their relatives. They realize that they are inappropriately placing all the blame on David when David never knew that his brother was shorted on the money owed to him. At the same time that this happens, David realizes that his brother and wife (the people in his life that he upmost cares about because they are complete opposites from people like Charlie and his three children) knew all along that they were shorting his brother on his end of the bargain. The whole family realizes that their presumptions were false. They realize that they should be more open to someone who is different, especially in terms of class and race.

The acting that is in this play is very exciting to witness. (The direction, and everything related to the production of The Glass Cage is solid—it’s amazing that the whole play takes place around a sitting room. The aesthetics are solid with the exception of the way that the set resembles a glass cage. The theme of the play becomes too obvious in this instance and too modernist as well. Modernism is something that Priestly was rebelling against upon writing The Glass Cage—he was against the notion of the modern young man rebelling against the system, which was a popular theatre conceit at that time, because of the presumptions implicit in that action.) The Mint theatre company has done a great job of utilizing their actors, particularly the three siblings. All of the main actors in this play change characteristics and emotional traits by the time the play ends. These characters have all learned something about themselves.

I am just going to discuss one scene in terms of the acting aspect of this production. It involves the three siblings when they have a moment of peace away from their upper class relatives. They start to sing and dance to a Canadian tune; the way that these people suddenly become animated is in such stark contrast to the acting in other plays that I have witnessed. They are actually inventive in the ways that they dance to this jig; in the ways that they play their parts. That jig represents on the actors end their rebellion against the ways in which a part should be played, in much the same way that the three siblings rebel against the ways in which they should behave in this household. The acting in this play is inventive, and adds layers to Priestley’s initial intentions.

The first appearances in this play are very deceiving: In the beginning of the play the audience assumes wrongly that the three siblings are merely greedy, when in fact they are entirely not, and the purpose of this on the playwright J.B. Priestley’s part is to show that first appearances are not appropriate ways to characterize someone. To begin with, the play initially appears to be merely a very entertaining Edwardian farce. By the end of the play, I was glad that it transposed into something else entirely; something that was very moving. The Glass Cage becomes a type of play where every character that constitutes this family’s pretensions and facade’s leave them. This proves to be a highly emotional experience for this family because these facades where all that they lived by. Their lies were their identity and once the three siblings enact out everything that they have been working towards, they realize how inadequate their point of view really was. These characters realize by the end of the play that the reason for why they held a false view of the world (the false view being there in the first place because the siblings were so disguised that they even forgot how to view the world in the proper way) was what got in the way of their being successful financially. It’s a false view for one to have because it’s not logical in anyway. One should not make themselves suffer financially, in order to rebel against (supposed) greedy people who in their pasts have made others suffer financially. The three siblings, by the end of the play, realize that everything that their mother taught them was false because living simply to act out revenge begets the problem, and ultimately promulgates it for future family members. In the process of acting out revenge you begin to view everyone who doesn’t conform to your viewpoint negatively as well. Revenge is not the adequate means of doing something, if it deprives you and your loved ones in the process. All of this goes through Jean, Angus, and eventually Douglas’ mind by the end of the play. What’s great about The Glass Cage is that this goes through their mind implicitly rather than it being merely stated to the audience.

If an audience member doesn’t pick up the subtleties of the play, then I can very well see why they don’t get The Glass Cage; they want a more obvious form of class warfare depicted on the stage. These people who don’t get J.B. Priestley’s sensibility, are living in their own glass cages and they don’t realize it. They don’t want to see a play where the characters double back on their form of revenge. They want to see the revenge carried out to its fullest potential, for entertainment purposes. The problem with this is that an audience member, in my opinion, doesn’t learn anything about their own consequences if the material isn’t presented in a subtle fashion. The Glass Cage is the type of play where “action” doesn’t get in the way; doesn’t distract an audience member from the implications being directed towards them. What happens in the process, is that J.B. Priestley is basically pointing his finger on all of us for simply using inadequate (for being merely based on presumption) base judgments on people. We all have done this in the past, and that’s why certain people don’t like the play; they don’t want to reflect on their own flawed actions. These audience members who say that the play is too classical (who say that the play is just another Edwardian play that’s too negligent in terms of characterization) don’t learn anything in the process, because they are shutting themselves off from the experience. They merely want to go on hating their relatives. Shouldn’t these fickle people realize that this play has a happy ending (or do they want to merely witness “deep” tragedy where nothing is resolved at the end?). I’m sorry, but I would rather take classical dramaturgy, and so would I feel the actors playing these parts. This is what I feel was going on in the actress Jeanine Serralles’ mind; she was teary eyed by the end of this play (and moved beyond comprehension by the writing of J.B. Priestley) because people weren’t getting it. How more modern can a play be?

Buffy in relation to Freud’s Belief in the Id, Ego, and Superego

The statement in chapter 5 on the book on Freud that discusses, “Freud’s pursuit of the byways of sex and aggression…becom(ing) transmuted into a cosmic vision of opposing forces of good and evil…” (Freud packet, pg. 68) is basically the template for the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer and specifically the episode from season 3 entitled Bad Girls. What’s so important about this episode is that it pertains to this idea of sex and aggression and how it resembles the fight between good and evil, or rather the fight between the ego, id, and superego of the psyche.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show that deals with how different characters obtain power. In order to obtain power, one has to (at least on this show) start to question who they really are as an individual. The mission statement of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is that a slayer has to know who she is in order to fight the demons of the world. Buffy season 3 is a particularly interesting season of the series. It represents the last year that the Scoobies attend high school, so in a sense the season represents a very strange juncture in particularly Buffy’s life. By the time of season 3, Buffy (and I presume the Scoobies as well) are in a state of limbo emotionally where they don’t really know who they are, or are discovering who they really are. This confusion on the Slayer’s part is represented by her boyfriend Angel-the Vampire with a soul. Buffy can’t sleep with her boyfriend because he has a gypsy curse on him that disallows him from experiencing true happiness. If he does, he will return to his evil ways as Angelus. Buffy being torn between sleeping with her boyfriend and not is something that teenagers in her age group can relate to. It’s a representation of being torn between being a responsible child and being an independent adult. This limbo state is a form of being torn between the ego and the id. It’s the crux of this season, and possibly the crux of the whole series; being subservient and being independent. Willow, Buffy’s best friend, is experiencing similar turmoil where she is torn between being a full on Wicca (or witch) and holding her powers in check and being a responsible, watchful, and morally guided individual.

Throughout the season Buffy is trying to figure out what Freudian stage she is in. She feels, and so does the audience, that she is a representation of the ego, because as the slayer she has to ultimately be in control of her emotions and intercede between the id and superego. She, in a sense, is not allowed to exploit her strength at the same time that she is not allowed to enforce her opinion. The way that the male hierarchy of the Watcher’s Council is set up (the Council that looks after the Slayer) all of those qualities mentioned above are only allowed to be exploited by the Watcher looking after the Slayer. However, as the audience watches this season it appears that Buffy is very much attracted to the freeing id state, in the representation of the new slayer in town by the name of Faith.

(In the episode before the one about to be discussed, Giles Buffy’s Watcher, was fired for letting the Slayer think on her own and decide her own actions. A watcher by the name of Wesley replaces Giles position. Luckily Giles gets to keep his job as high school librarian, where the Scoobies have their meeting place.)

Bad Girls is the ultimate representation of Buffy’s attraction to Faith. She basically becomes enticed by Faith to share her viewpoint of the world. This viewpoint involves totally lack of subservience to anyone or any guiding principle. Faith’s only rule in life is to obtain pleasure. The episode revolves around Buffy and Faith basically searching for this medallion that’s a giant maguffin; really the episode is about Faith’s spiraling down the wrong road morally, which ultimately repels Buffy away from her. Faith accidentally kills a human being, and rather than listening to Buffy and notifying the authorities she takes care of the evidence. The villain of the season, Mayor Wilkins, ascends to a state where he is immortal (because of the medallion) and the vampire who initially tried to obtain the medallion warns Buffy before he dies that she wishes that he killed her, because what she is about to face (i.e. the Mayor but also Faith as well) will destroy her and Sunnydale.

If one were to run through this episode in a specific and systematic fashion, then they will see that Bad Girls really primarily has to do with the id, ego, and superego. Bad Girls opens up in a typical enough fashion for this show: Buffy and Faith are both dusting vampires in the Sunnydale graveyard. Faith as a character seems feisty and aggressive in a sexually innocent enough way; she talks to Buffy about Xander’s sex life (a Scooby that she slept with two episodes before). The interesting thing to note in this opening moment is how different the Slayer’s fighting techniques are. Buffy plans ahead before she attacks, while Faith just plunges right in for the kill. Faith says that Buffy thinks too much, meaning she should let go of her controlling instincts that hamper her as an individual. We as an audience then enter the library and encounter the new Watcher Wesley. The contrasts between Wesley and Giles are startling; this is ironic considering that Giles on this show used to be the stiff upper lip father figure to Buffy. He’s much more liberal in his nature compared to someone like Wesley. This is an indication of how the super ego state is not as simple as some people think it is. It is an ever fluxing state (Willow goes through similar set of circumstances in this season). One eventually moves out of that state, unless you’re part of the Watcher’s council.

The next scene is a very telling one in terms of the Slayer’s character. I will quote it basically in verbatim:

Faith: “You’re actually going to take orders from him?”

Buffy:”It’s the job. What else can we do?”

Faith: “Whatever we want. We’re slayers girlfriend. The chosen two. Why should we let him take all the fun out of it?”

Buffy:”Tragic. Taking the fun out of slaying, beheading.”

Faith: “Oh, like you don’t dig it?”

Buffy:”I don’t.”

Faith: “You’re a liar. I’ve seen you. Tell me staking a vamp doesn’t get you a little bit juiced? C’mon say it. You can’t fool me. The look in your eyes after I see you kill; you get hungry for more.”

Buffy:”You’re way off base.”

Faith: “Slaying is what we were built for. If you’re not enjoying it, than you’re doing something wrong.”

What initially appears merely harmless in Faith, her sexual nature (a quality that Freud feels initially appears in the id state), is actually something that is very complex and eventually, once this episode reaches its conclusion, a characteristic that is very dangerous. The innocence that appears in this conversation is much more heinous and telling, concerning Faith. It also is very telling in terms of Buffy’s nature as well. The fun that Faith talks about, in terms of slaying, has to do with her id states need for pleasure and pleasure only; pleasure without any moral considerations. Faith truly does have an obsession with this concept of obtaining pleasure. Isn’t pleasure something that should come easily to one? Faith’s “obsessional neurosis” (Freud packet, 59) need of pleasure is something that is not really normal. She does not notify the authorities about the person that she killed. Unlike Buffy’s need to save other people, which is an indication of Buffy’s ego, “…affirming that love of others was self-love turned outward” (Freud packet, pg. 58) Faith has no need for anyone else because they represent “outpouring of stimuli” (Freud packet, pg. 59) which is something that is too much for her to handle. Her pleasure drive is a way to shut out the rest of the world; it has to eventually cancel out or get rid of the outside world if it ultimately manifests fully and completely. Hence Faith’s need to team up with the Mayor; here is someone who shares in her point of view.

However Faith is right about one thing concerning her basic enticing of Buffy to share her point of view, and that is that these two are connected. They are Slayers after all, and this is a representation of how the ego, which is narcissistic like the id, “…is originally derived from the id” (Freud packet, pg. 62). The connection that Faith talks about in relation with Buffy is what tempts Buffy to become like Faith because Buffy is not really sure who she is at this point in the show. The scene where Buffy and Faith are outside the manhole containing vampires is very telling about these two Thelma and Louise like characters. In reference to the manhole Buffy says to Faith, “It’s a manhole. Tight space; no escape.” This reference to a tight dark space is very important because this space is where Buffy and Faith both enter in this show. It’s the space without any moral boundaries guiding one. It’s the space that Buffy eventually leaves, and the space where Faith remains. Buffy then says to Faith: “You’re just going to go down there? That’s you’re plan?” and Faith responds with, “Who said I had a plan?” So far, nothing appears to be new in terms of the development of these characters. Faith is the ever, “primitive, unorganized, and emotional” slayer (Freud packet, pg. 60). She is, “…a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations…filled with energy reaching…from…instincts, (that) has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of instinctive needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle” (Freud packet, pg. 61). Faith at one point in the episode says to Buffy that, “Life of the Slayer is very simple. Want, take, have.” She is in “…contrast to the ego” (Freud packet, pg. 61) or Buffy. Or is she? Here’s Faith’s response to Buffy: “If you don’t come in after me, I might die.” Buffy is putty in Faith’s hands and this is because the ego is intrinsic from the id.

If one were to read into the first diary entry that Giles wrote about Buffy, and which Wesley recites to Giles, than the viewer will see everything they have to about Buffy’s nature. The entry reads: “Slayer is willful and insolent.” This is the connecting link that Buffy shares with Faith. She certainly appears insolent to Wesley, who is the ultimate super ego character. (It seems that the Slayer’s ultimate goal-both the ego and id-is to be insolent to paternalistic authority figures). However, I feel that Giles’ response to this statement is even more telling. He says to Wesley that, “You have to get to know her.” Throughout this episode, it almost seems that all the psychological states are in flux. Giles, who really is a form of the superego, in a sense moves out of his position, i.e. does not get into Buffy’s way, in order to let her enact her id daydream in order to let her realize on her own that she is not like Faith, and is not ultimately id based.

However, first Buffy has to tread down Faith’s viewpoint in order to ultimately be repelled by her. Buffy’s change of state happens when she, in a sense, goes down that rabbit hole or manhole. In the manhole, she is temporarily drowned by a vampire, and in a sense for the time being becomes re-born. When Faith says to Buffy, “Tell me you didn’t get off on this?” Buffy responds by saying, “Didn’t suck.” Buffy even starts to wear a black coat in this episode. However, I feel that in the back of her mind Buffy knows that she is merely trying on this role for the time being. She is always in control; forever a representation of the ego. When Giles asks her if she is ok after the manhole incident, Buffy responds: “…Had to get the sewer out of my hair. But I’m good; thanks for asking.” This is an example of what I stated earlier about Buffy’s and Giles relationship, and how this metaphorical father figure basically lets his daughter discover who she is on her own. In a sense, Buffy and Faith’s Slayer relationship is very similar to Giles and Wesley’s Watcher relationship. The one is the extreme case of the other, reminding the other that they are not what they fear.

This not being able to differentiate night from day that Faith has (Buffy: “What’s up?” Faith: “Vampires.” Buffy: “Uh, unless there’s a total eclipse in the next five minutes. It’s daylight.”) is what ultimately proves to be Faith’s downfall morally. She can never escape her id state. Freud felt that the id, “…ignores the categories of time and space, and treats contraries like dark/light or high/deep as if they were identical” (Freud packet, pg. 61). This is what ultimately leads to Faith’s mistaking a human for a vampire, and what ultimately leads to Faith’s downfall. This is the primary difference between Faith and Buffy. Buffy, who is a representation of the id, “…represent(s) consciousness. (She) employs secondary process: that is, reason, common sense, and the power to delay immediate responses to external stimuli or to internal instinctive promptings” (Freud packet, pg. 61-62). The difference between Buffy and Faith is that Buffy ultimately feels guilt over the innocent person’s death. We the audience never see Buffy wash her hands of the blood from the innocent victim, while we endlessly see Faith washing the blood off of her shirt.

I think the comment that is the true essence of this episode comes from the commentary of this episode by Doug Petrie. He states concerning Willow that, “She feels like she is being left out, or that the dynamic is shifting. And she’s right. She knows that she is being left behind because she a’int got superpowers. Faith never liked Willow much. But Faith missed a lot. Willow feels things.” This episode is, finally, a representation of how the super ego and ego states are undervalued and how they shouldn’t be, and that the id state is ultimately a very over-valued and dangerous state for one to be in. The question that is implicit in the tv series is: yes, power is a great and liberating concept, but how far can one go in terms of obtaining power before one loses control? Buffy’s (and the character’s in this show’s) questioning of her identity is the tension that is always implicit in this show; what moral road will she eventually end up at? Will she ultimately lose control like Faith? The characters emotions are much scarier than the monsters that figure in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

A Female Cabby in Sidi Bel-Abbes

A Female Cabby in Sidi Bel-Abbes is a documentary that deals with the only woman taxi driver in Algeria. The reason for why her being a taxi driver is so significant and controversial has to do with the fact that the government is highly restrictive of the female sex obtaining their rights; they try to postpone female empowerment as much as possible and frown upon the female sex in general. The audience can sense this whenever there are images of the men looking upon the female protagonists of this film. The suspense in this film is felt very acutely, even though barely anything happens in the movie. All the audience sees throughout the movie is the woman cabdriver and her friends chitchatting about how ridiculous the situation is over there in Algeria. The audience gets a sense that these heroic figures are constantly looking over their shoulders to make sure that no one but us (the audience) are watching them tell their tales of plight. That’s all these women are doing. It’s ridiculous to believe that what these women are doing is so heinous; but that’s what the men over in Algeria feel.
It’s a terrifying movie because we as an audience do not know why we are so on edge until we hear of the deaths of the teachers. This is a metaphor for how one cannot do anything about the situation in Algeria until it’s too late. That’s certainly what these women feel, and yet they perservere anyway even with threats against their lives. This certainly kept my interest going, even though there wasn’t much “action” in the film. But isn’t that the whole point of what is going on politically in Algeria. This imposition, as it were, is something that is very hard to fight against because it is so subtle in appearance. It’s only simple ignorance as it were on the men’s part, right? That is the terrifying quality that is in this film. There are no resolutions in this movie because the story in that region is just starting to emerge for one to fully comprehend and do something about politically. The great quality of particularly the woman cab driver is that she always knows what to do and is not intimidated in the least bit by the male opressors in Algeria.
The problems that the filmmakers faced must have been trying to get some kind of flow in the footage that they shot. After all, all these filmmakers could shoot is the testimonials from the women. How does this build up suspense? Yet, I feel that A Female Cabby in Sidi-Bel-Abbes is one of the most suspenseful films I have ever seen. The suspense is the kind that is ever pervading and not really apparent. It’s like an invisible monster that is slowly seeping to the surface and killing all of the oppressed in its sight.
Really, I didn’t detect so much of a relationship between the filmmaker’s and the people on the screen. For the most part, there is simply a camera placed in the taxi and that is all. Perhaps this builds up suspense as well; it definitely provides a sense of cool detatchment on the part of the filmmakers. I think this actually adds to the films quality.
One particular scene that is truly terrifying is when the taxi driver hears that there is a rumour that she has been killed by someone. This strong heroic woman starts to cry in front of camera. Her whole purpose for being in this documentary in the first place, for showing how one fights oppression-for encouraging action-just went out of the window at this moment and she knows it. These oppressive men are crushing this woman’s spirit without even being present and she also realizes this as well and stops crying.

Favela Rising

The documentary Favela Rising focuses on Anderson Sa; a remarkable man who singlehandedly through his music (aided by the other members of his group AfroReggae) lowered the crime rate and drug dealing done in his homeland of Rio De Generio. It’s amazing, considering the amount of information given in the film of how much the area was swimming in drugs and violence, how through simply music and a good role model public image a whole area can clean up its act. That this all was done because of one man’s efforts is extraordinary. The film details this man’s struggles through his life, as well as Rio De Generio’s troubles, and how they both ceased after AfroReggae.
> The film was extremely successful in capturing my attention. First, through making me as an audience member extremely on the edge of my seat, watching how terrible the situation was over there. However, eventually this feeling left me and was replaced by uplift and happiness over the creation of AfroRegae and the ceasing of the problems in Rio De Generio. Anderson’s determination, after everything that he had been through, and then him finally seeing his plan come into fruition, was awe inspiring. I guess I was much like the citizens of Rio De Generio at that point—initially anxious and then simply in awe of Anderson Sa. I also learned a great deal about Rio De Generio and AfroReggae, which I knew nothing about before watching the film.
> The filmmaker’s challenge must have been documenting how dangerous it was over in Rio De Generio. After all, they can’t be privy to a drug deal with out fear of being killed in the process. However, the filmmaker’s seemed to have caught many moments of strife through the use of surveillance film cameras. That general feeling of initially paranoia is very much felt in the film (probably due to simply documenting the citizen’s faces). As I stated earlier, once AfroReggae comes into fruition this feeling is replaced by confidence, happiness, and hope. The audience perfectly understands what Rio De Genrio’s citizens are going through. The filmmaker’s are simply in awe of the members of AfroReggae. These members are living heroes that the filmmaker’s are lucky enough to have documented with their cameras. One feels that these filmmakers are particularly in awe of Anderson Sa, as they should be.
> The one particular scene that I feel epitomizes this film is the whole section detailing Anderson’s paralysis due to his surfing accident. One immediately gets a sense of this man’s knowing how important he is to Rio De Generio. I almost got a sense that Anderson is like the land and if he is paralyzed, Rio De Generio’s people would be also and the land’s progress would come to a halt. This is the section where the audience becomes completely in awe of Anderson. He eventually walks again and continues AfroReggae. Why aren’t there more inspiring karma-imbued men like Anderson?
> The film initially is edited and shot in a very rough fashion, which very much reflects the turmoil that Rio De Generio is going through. Once AfroReggae comes into fruition the film’s tone becomes more calming and peaceful and more beautiful to look at. The shots of the sea that Anderson frequents in, combined with the happiness on the faces of Rio De Generio’s citizens inspires hope for a better future—a future that is already happening.
> The way the members of AfroReggae move in their dance moves is very much a reflection of their feelings and the hope and confidence that they want to project to the rest of the citizens of Rio De Genrio. It’s amazing that this music has so much power. What AfroReggae does for Rio De Genrio is almost a subconscious process. All music should have this impact and power.