Living in a Rear Window

Rear Window may seem like a simple story upon first glance and, by today’s standards, may not sound too terribly original (most likely because the premise has been blatantly ripped off so many times since. Disturbia, anyone?). But also because we have lived our whole lives in front of a television, a movie screen, and so many other “windows”, so much so, that we have structured our lives around what happens in these “windows”. When we step back from the film, Hitchcock’s genius shows and the story is just a poignant and relatable as it was back when it was first released, possibly even more so. In many ways, Hitchcock appears ahead of his time, speaking directly to us in our era of Big Brother-esq reality shows, Twitter updates, and Blair Witch style cinema. Voyeurism is alive and thriving within our culture and what we watch tells so much more about us than we’d like to think. Hitchcock plays with this human condition, giving us two relatable characters that start to observe the happenings of their neighbors. Jeffries and Lisa aren’t bland characters, but it is hard to imagine where they would be without the many characters that surround them. An obvious illustration of this would be the piano player in the studio apartment. What first appears to be the film’s soundtrack is actually coming from him. His practicing provides the music for key scenes in the film, especially romantic exchanges between Jeffries and Lisa. He is a contributing player to the soap opera that is Jeffries’ apartment building. We only get glimpses of his life and what troubles he might have, so it is up to our imaginations to decipher what he is going through. The music that he is playing (or not playing in certain scenes) is a great help. Like any show, there are the bit players whom only show up to give our characters a certain boost. The newlywed couple in the apartment close to Jeffries seems to solidify his assumptions on marriage and family life. Of course, the window shades are closed most of the time, only to open when the husband wants a little break from his wife. Jeffries only sees the negative because that is all that is presented to him. The window shades act as a filter to what he sees of marriage (a metaphor that can be easily applied to our media-obsessed culture). Here we are hinted at the danger of voyeurism. Isn’t it strange how little of the other family we see(the one with child in the upper right corner). They may be perfectly happy, but since Jeffries doesn’t see them, the positive gets ignored. Then we have the Thorwals, who are the product of Hitchcock’s clever storytelling. Sitting at our windows, we watch for some marvelous or scandalous event to take place, usually having to settle for the ordinary. Hitchcock throws us a curve ball with the Thorwals. Casually looking upon his neighbors, Jeffries actually witnesses (sort of) something of grave importance: a murder. Furthermore, this act is constantly juxtaposed with the ordinary happenings of the surrounding neighbors (the ballet dancer’s dinner parties, the pianist’s get-togethers) making it difficult to believe that something so horrible has actually happened. The murder of Mrs. Thorwal and the following investigation of Mr. Thorwal is what brings our two main characters closer together in the end. We are constantly taught to mind our own business and only address our own lives, but Hitchcock obviously believes in the opposite. He wants us to be actively engaged in what is happening in our respective “windows” because no matter what we think, it does affect us. It is as poignant a message today as it has even been.

Its a woman's world...

I find the role of women in Glengarry Glen Ross to be very interesting in peculiar. I would first like to note that the assumption that David Mamet is anti-feminist or misogynist is, I feel, completely ludicrous. Making the judgment solely on Glengarry Glen Ross, it seems to me that Mamet is making the opposite point. In a world where men are seemingly in control, it is the women surrounding them whose actions affect (both directly and indirectly) our main characters. In fact, the women of the play, at first, seem to play as a force of good or reasoning against our mostly despise-worthy cast of real estate salesmen. First we start with Mrs. Lingk, who stops her husband from making a purchase of land they probably don’t need and don’t have the money for. She stops her husband from being conned or taken control of by another man, for that matter. From this we can see that Roma is nothing compared to the control that Mrs. Lingk has over her husband. No matter what Roma says or what tricks he plays on Mr. Lingk, Mrs. Lingk is still the commander over her husband. It’s an interesting idea seeing as how the characters spend a great deal of time manipulating others only to be thrown off by what these men would like to call “the weaker sex”. Even odder it is that they constantly use femininity as an insult towards one another. Possibly to downplay how inadequate they really are. Even if a woman causes Roma to lose a deal, it is Levene who truly feels the wrath of the other sex. First there is Levene’s daughter, who I doubt would ever want to bring about her father’s demise, but nonetheless contributes to it. Her age is never specified, but I do get the impression she is fairly young. I’m not sure where this came from specifically, but the “ill-daughter-in-a-hospital-bed” cliché usually refers to someone in the 7-12 demographic. Her (perceived) age still does not stop her from being an influence on Levene. It is most likely because he needs money for her sickness that he decides to break into the office and steal the leads. It is his love and desperation that drives him to that act. With all that being said, I am sure that the result would have been the same if it was a son rather than a daughter, but Mamet picks a girl for this role to further illustrate his purpose for women in this world. Earlier I said that women could be looked at as a force of good, but that is not entirely true. Harriet Nyborg who cons Levene shows that even the other sex is capable of these men’s trickery, and can even trump them in it. Harriet’s motivations are not clear (she probably just wanted to get rid of some crappy crumb cake) and her husband’s involvement in the scheme could have been greater or smaller than hers. None of this is made perfectly clear. What is clear, however, is that because of her Levene has been taken advantage of. He is the subject of his own games. The final “fe-nail” (female + nail, Ha!) in the coffin is Mrs. Lingk. After Williamson blows Roma’s sale, Levene accidently exposes himself as the thief who broke into the office and stole the Glengarry leads. Because of a woman who Levene has no connection with at all, he is now exposed and sent to jail. This right here shows us how far the women in Mamet’s universe have control. Almost everything is at their will or because of their actions. The men in the story may have the ability to manipulate and control language for their own means, but it is the women who have the final call on what happens. The men’s words and language which they hold in such high regard is nothing but air.

A gender-bending reading of King Lear

I find Coppelia Kahn’s argument that King Lear showcases the title character’s discovery of his inner woman to be very intriguing and enlightening, but I did have some trouble completely agreeing with it at first. It is no doubt that in the play, Lear’s pride and self-assurance lead to his demise (not the mention the demise of many others) and at the end of the story he understands the error of his ways and becomes a more remorseful person, but can this be classified as womanly when two (out of three) female characters in the play are volatile and corrupt? I am speaking of Regan and Goneril, who both show extreme cruelty and manipulation towards others, just like their male counterparts. As for caring, guiding, and “motherly” characters in the play, Cordelia and two other male characters (The Fool and Kent) fill this role. I was confused as to how a gender specific characteristic could be applied to a play which seems to have no regard for them. What would be regarded as motherly and wholesome is exhibited by both male and female characters, as what is “manly” and stern is blurred between the sexes. So, to me, the gender classification of King Lear did not seem to work. But alas, I started to see how I might be wrong, as I was equating “father” with “evil/power hungry/ arrogant” and “mother” with “love/goodness/sympathy”. I now know that Kahn is not saying Lear must recognize the “woman” inside of him so he can become “good”, but rather to balance out his masculine reign. I may have missed this detail, and I blame my reluctance towards Shakespeare’s writing style for it, but where was the Queen? (If this is disclosed in the story, please enlighten me.) Where was Lear’s “better half” as some would call it? Lear does not possess the balancing and rationality that a companion as close as a romantic partner would bring to him. The ideal leader would be able to conjure up that other half within himself and use both sides to rule, but as we can see in the story, King Lear has a rough road ahead of him until that revelation occurs. Perhaps at the end of the story, his tears and remorse come from his realization that he is missing that critical element (whether internally or externally) that would make him the great leader he only pretends (and forces others to pretend) that he is. This may be what Kahn is leading us to believe with her argument, but personally I do not believe assigning gender roles/stereotypes to the argument is the best way to go, especially if this criticism is recent, as gender roles are becoming more and more obscured in modern society. This is probably what lead to my original confusion with the topic, as I am not a fan of gender stereotypes. But looking past the actual wording of the argument helped me gain a greater understanding of what she might be saying. She sees King Lear a tale of self-discovery in that no one is without fault and that we each require the love of someone close. I would also like to point out Regan, Goneril, and Edmund and ask where these characters fit in this reading of the novel. Are they on the same path of self-discovery? Do they reach their goal? If not, what is blocking their way? Is it similar to what is happening to Lear?

Marjane's Mission

Marjane Satrapi’s father‘s loaded statement about how “politics and sentiment don’t mix” isn’t necessarily false, but I believe Satrapi thinks that this statement is more complicated than a simple “agree or disagree” matter. We are all aware that emotions and snap judgments can lead people to do things that are regrettable and dangerous, but also without the awareness of human emotions and sentiment, brutality and a lack of compassion emerges. However, as seen both here in this story and across history, political matters have been left to decision by green and self-interest, not by compassion and sentiment. This, I believe, is why Satrapi chose to write Persepolis, to merge to two so that we can see with our own eyes (literally, it is a graphic novel after all) what a lack of sentimentality does to a country, a family, and to one little girl.
The guardians of the revolution act out of their own self interest to kill and maim anyone they see fit. There is even a moment in the book where Satrapi’s father successfully bribes them with money so that they will not search his house for contraband. So these men are not acting out of religious ideology, but instead to feed their power hungry and greedy personalities. Many governments have acted in this way as well. Laws are always being passed and enacted that supposedly help the population while hurting the individual. In Iran, and in Persepolis, the government regulates people so that decency and religious morals can be upheld, this includes imprisoning and executing people who differ from what is deemed immoral. It is important to point out who is behind the revolution and who is gaining from it. In the film, we saw a scene in which Satrapi stands up during an assemble at the university to point out to her supervisors that women are constantly being suppressed in the name of decency, but men however are not subject to a dress code. We can see clearly here the hypocrisy in the rules and how the rules don’t seem to be interested in religious morals but only in making men feel empowered.
Satrapi wants us to look at our politics with an eye for humanity. After the terrorist attacks occurred, there was a great amount of anti-Middle Eastern thought throughout America. Many people sought justice and hastily proclaimed that anything Middle Eastern was to be deemed terrorist or evil, and this lead us to labeling an entire region as an enemy, or “Axis of Evil”. Satrapi uses this book to remind us that the terrorist, the region, the government, and the people are entirely different things, and we should not resort to simply lumping them all together. The story of growing up, while radically different from my own, was completely relatable. She was a child, just like we all were at one point, and when we make the decision to drop another bomb or fire another weapon, it affects her. So while it is easy to think of her, her parents, her neighbors, and her friends as blood-thirsty, anti-American, murders, it is much, much more difficult to accept the reality that she is a kid who likes to dress up, spend nights with her grandmother, listen to synthesized 80’s music, and hang out with her friends on lazy afternoons. Satrapi promotes understanding and hopes that one day that will be our foreign policy. We should strive to connect sentiment and politics in order to connect with our humanity.

The Great Gatsby Post

Towards the end of the book, I began to realize that Nick, who in every other novel would have been the main character of the story, did not seem to be the main focus of The Great Gatsby. We were essentially hearing the story of Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, and their upper-class shenanigans through Nick, and not Nick’s actual story. This revelation came to me during the hotel room scene where Tom confronts Gatsby and Daisy about their affair. After the climax of the event has taken place and things seem to calm down for a moment, Nick suddenly realizes that it was his birthday. Something he would have probably noticed much sooner, had be not been entangled with other people’s affaires. There is a very small portion of the novel devoted to Nick, except of the very beginning and a few moments between him and Jordan (a love story that is tossed aside to make room for the more scandalous story of Gatsby). We, as the readers, don’t even get a clear picture of Nick as a character. While other characters, like Gatsby and Tom, have various characteristics pointed out to us, Nick’s characteristics remain a mystery to us. This is most likely due to the fact that this is a first person narrative, but could also relate to the theme of the novel.
The Great Gatsby is known to be a story that encapsulates the lust for spectacle that overtook America in the 1920’s. Gatsby’s parties drew upper class people out of their expensive houses to dance, socialize, and hopefully have some outrageous story to tell the next morning. When they didn’t have those stories to tell, they had rumors, much like the ones that followed the mysterious Gatsby around. Nick becomes our eye into their world, showing us how one can lose himself in the fast passed world illustrated. In fact, as the book opens, and before Nick meets the subjects of his story, he tells us of his past, and this is the only insight we are given into Nick. Once he comes into contact with the other characters, he is immediately lost in their lives. He pursues their stories so much that he disregards the other happenings of his life. When time elapses between confrontations with these other characters, Nick simply skips them and lets us know that we are now several months into the future without any tales of in between.
At the end of the novel, I do think Nick is taking hold of his life once again. First there is the sobering accident in which Myrtle is killed, and Nick sees that Gatsby and the others have also lost themselves in some form or fashion. Gatsby gives his life over to the dream that him and Daisy will be together, Daisy has receded back into her marriage where she can be safe from all the trouble of the outside world, and Tom has hidden under his masculine persona to rid himself of guilt for what he put the people around him through. Nick then breaks ties with the people that he’s met, most notably Jordan Baker. This comes with a line from Nick where he tells Jordan that is too old to lie to himself, signaling his growth from the beginning of the novel. He is now too old to play with dreams and desires of his youth, especially now that he sees the danger in living childishly. Right before Nick leaves West Egg, he walks up to Gatsby’s stairs and erases a vulgar word that a child has etched. This is Nick trying to clean Gatsby’s name. For a man that did so much in his life, Nick knows that the final days he lived should not be what he is remembered by. The story has shown Nick that the entanglement in the lives of others come with the price of your own story. He leaves all of this behind to create his own story and not simply be a part of somebody else’s.