As I read both articles, it made me realize how people today do not get any messages or clues from watching movies since movies today lack something very important, uniqueness.As some movies have a message or point out a form of social change, the viewers and the people do not show any emotion to it, or probably do not get the messages that the makers were trying to convey.
As some students mentioned, Adorno definitely goes straight to the core and talks about the problems of the media in the present day. As he mentioned, all producers and directors care about is money, money, and money. Their concern is not about the quality of the film, but the quantity of the profits. Back in the days movies had a feel to it, it had a message, a good point. People were able to connect to it and feel for the characters and
the message of the film.As he stated, “Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies. The sound film, far surpassing the theatre of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part
of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film, yet deviate from its precise detail without losing the thread of the story...” (Adorno). This clearly states the fact that movies today leave no room for imagination whatsoever. What happened to the films where people actually had room for imagination. The movies today are just flooded with stories that contain no story at all which bumps down the stories
which actually do contain good stories. The quick money makers are being replaced with the good films because those in power chose that.
Benjamin on the other hand stated that the good films which does call out for social change are out there in the public for us to watch, but they are rare and hard to get our hands on. In other words, there’s not much choice for us. The film industry/entertainment world are just creating junk for the world which only creates money but no imagination or does not even produce a message of social change. I believe there should way more varieties of films out there for the public to view.
Monday, December 14, 2009
1984 - Howe 9/16/09
Irving Howe’s article about 1984 brings up many debatable topics. In my opinion, George Orwell’s “1984” is indeed a novel. It is a fictional story about a man who lives in a society similar to actual societies such as a totalitarian society. I both agree and disagree with what Howe states about the story. “In Oceania the sex instinct, particularly among members of the Outer Party (the lower bureaucracy), is virtually obliterated” (Howe). This brings to my first point on how I agree with Howe when he states that George Orwell slightly exaggerates about the obliteration of sex and sexual freedom. I understand how the leaders are trying to diminish feelings and enjoyment, but how in the world can humans who have been having sex for eons, can suddenly not have the urge to have sex. Sexual desires are not taught by parents or teachers, it is simply in our blood and minds, it is part of being human being. This is when Orwell does not make sense at all in my opinion. I can understand if sex was limited to human beings as a way of torture in their society, but totally diminishing something that cannot be diminished just does not make sense to me. Also, why would one be caught or killed if he has sexual desires. Are they not supposed to be human?
Another point that I do agree with Howe is that the society that 1984 takes place in is
indeed how a totalitarian society would fall under Totalitarianism does indeed destroy
personal behaviors, talents, religion, faith, and sadly memory. Totalitarianism tries to
mold a human into a machine, rather than an individual with their own chosen beliefs,
wants, desires both sexually and non sexually, and also a significant aspect called social memory, which makes each individual unique because of their own memories. By
cutting/destroying one’s memories and filling minds with programmed “memories”, this destroys the human population and makes every single being a molded machine or robot, with each individual to have the same thoughts, memories, and desires.
In the end, George Orwell’s 1984 is just a novel that has been altered by actual political systems. The article does in fact make me look at the book in a different perspective, and how one should question everything. People might believe that Orwell was in fact implying an attack on political systems such as Socialism or other systems, but I think Orwell’s 1984 is his imagination and belief of what might happen in the future. The novel 1984 opened my eyes and made me see today’s society in a whole new aspect. Orwell wrote 1984 to provide us with an educational and debatable novel, but he might have written it to open the eyes of the people and show them what can happen to society one day, to simply not be ignorant and be a little more observant of our surroundings.
Foucault 9/9/09
After reading Michel Foucault’s “Discipline & Punish”, not only was I glad that I was done reading, I was also depressed. It got me thinking of how free we are (Or that’s what we think), and that we are able to do and go where ever we are without boundaries and without the fear of being zapped by some Police officer. We are able to study what we want and even travel to where we want. In the reading, people have no authority to even THINK of what they want to do. The second sentence of the reading which states “the
closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, the killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct quarters, each governed by an intendant” (Foucault Par. 2) pretty much summarizes the reading and describes how “life” is turned into a prison, a prison where one does not even have freedom because they are being watched by intendants who will tell you what to do and what not to do. In fact, calling it a prison makes it sound good. Being condemned to death
all because one leaves the street is not what a human being should go to, if people are living under these rules, do you even consider this living? I mean what is the point of guiding people into living .There are millions of things that are morally incorrect in this reading, but it really got me
thinking. What if we are being watched today? The DMV has our pictures, name, signature, and all sorts of information that the Government has access too. At birth, or when one goes through the Naturalization process, they go through many questionings, and also are required to get their finger prints scanned and whatnot. What about the cameras which we can see on the streets today? Who says they are just for speeding or running a red light? Who says they are not just watching us every moment of our lives. The First Amendment says that we have Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression, but one can still fall in trouble by speaking too freely about the President or other people with high ranks. We as Americans are given rights, but are not completely free. I was also reading about how the Government records every phone conversation in the U.S. after 9/11. There are those who agree and those who disagree. But what if it is true, that would mean that the Government would know everything about us. Our private lives, our love
life, what we ate, what we did at school, what we get angry about, who we broke up with, and the list goes on...
This reading does remind me of how the Party members live life in Orwell’s novel 1984. The Party members have to live their life controlled and watched by the government. They cannot do or go anywhere they want, only certain “accepted” areas. If one falls in love, or speaks bad about “Big Brother” they will be taken and most likely shot. They cannot even think or write any negative remarks, because the Thought Police will accuse you of a Thought Crime. Talk about freedom.But who says our society is not turning into a world similar to 1984, or who says the Government isn’t spying on us without our awareness?
Utopia 9/2
Reading Frederick Jameson’s “The Politics of Utopia” sure did make me more
knowledgeable about the Utopian society and its’ details, but I have to admit that I highly doubt that this perfect place or island with perfect laws and perfect people will never come true in this lifetime, or even this world. The chances of that ever happening is very scarce, and unfortunately it seems impossible. No matter what we do and how hard we try, we will always have unemployment, misery, poverty, starvation and whatnot, because people today, especially Americans will never want to give up the freedoms and rights which we have gained, just so we can be equal with other countries who are suffering with problems such as poverty, unemployment and
whatnot. The part that quickly made me realize how impossible a Utopian Society would be was when Frederick Jameson spoke about the Politics of the society. Based on what he said, a Utopian Society would consist of a different type of “Political System” which is actually a non-political system. How can one have a political system where only one person sets the rules, or even worse, “technolgy” and everyone else will be happy with everything? How can a world exist where everyone will be blinded by the society they live in and just go with everything they are given?
Jameson also stated that a Utopian society consists of full employment with everyone to be happy with the life they have, a life that lacks evil which he stated that comes from money and gold. Are we all supposed to have the same amount of money and just be happy with that amount?
One major factor that made me feel uncomfortable is that in a Utopian Society, there is
only one equal and common good that we will be living for, sure it will make us all
peaceful and blinded by the outside problems, but there wouldn’t really be a point in life, a point in having a brain of our own personal decisions and choices. As one student mentioned, this Utopian Society did remind me of the movie Equilibrium. In Equilibrium, everyone was forced to take special “shots” without even questioning why and was forced to live the life that was though of by a Leader, a leader that was magically chosen without any votes. In this society, people were blinded by the real beauties of life such as love, art, music, food, clothing. Their goal in life was just to work a job that was not fun at all, eat food, take the shots, and just live until you die. But towards the end, Christian Bale who played the main character finally began to question himself and his doings, so he stopped taking those shots and began to feel love, hatred, anger, he began to read and started to live a REAL life. Even in a Utopian Society, regardless of how perfect and equal something is, someone will begin to question, or will want to change because in the end we are human beings. People will always want to be higher than someone who can make higher decisions, who makes more money to have more power and MORE rights. By living a Utopian Society, people will be deprived from their rights to live their own life where they can work hard to be and do what they truly want, and to have personal tastes. Talent would be an isolated and useless thing in life. In reality this freedom town also known as a Utopian Society would be a life that actually lacks freedom
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Marx and Ebert
I also believe that the stated quote
"Wednesday: There is no middle class. The middle class is an
ideological illusion used to obscure class binaries and conceal the fact
that under capitalism society is breaking up more rigidly into two
classes whose opposition cannot be dissolved in the hybrid of a playful
in-between-ness" (Marx/Ebert)is an interesting quote indeed. As stated, people feel
safe falling under the middle class because they are in between the upper and the poor. This
is a man made thing, to have class is simply to categorize people in different "classes". Rich,
medium, or poor. Why can't we all be one? Why can't we all be equal.
As times change and the economy gets worse, I believe the middle and the poor are going
to fall under one roof and the upper will stay upper, because it is the middle class who is
suffering great losses (the lower class/the poor have always suffered).
Cyborg - Haraway
Based on the reading, a Cyborg is " a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction" (Haraway Par. 2). In other words, a cyborg is a creature or an organism that works/lives by itself like a real living person. But it cannot act or live identical to an organism similar to a human. It is not fully artificial like a robor or 100% natural like a human being, hence the name cyborg. The positive side to a cyborg is that it can have all the good or positive sides/characteristics of a human beging and avoid all the negative or bad ones. Some bad characterisits would contain obesity, diseases, sicknesses, cancer, weakness, hunger. Specific detailed CLASSES, like in London's novel do not exist in cyborg's, because they are all perfect creatures, all falling under that same one class. But at the end of the day, a cyborg is not an organic material like a human being and is man made. "The cyborg is a matter of fiction and lived experience that changes what counts as women's experience in the late twentieth century. This is a struggle over life and death, but the boundary between science fiction and social reality is an optical illusion" (Haraway Par. 2). When the author spoke of women's experience, he meant all the duties that women have. But these so called given experiences are what men have created, it is something that us, as a society has come up with and accepeted to which is what creates roles/classes. I believe cyborgs will terminate classes, and struggles within classes because they are artificial beings, who perfrom tasks in perfect manners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)