So I am super-ly excited that I just found a trailer for the movie I had thought of in class. It's called "Trading Mom" and is based all around a family of three kids and their single mom. Ah, the great movies of my childhood.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A Few Film Single Moms
Most all mainstream popular movies have a man and a woman together at the end. I don’t think the majority of these have a huge amount of substance, or are the ones winning Academy Awards, but they seem to be the ones that a lot of people want to see. I could list tons of movies off the top of my head that end with the long-anticipated final kiss as the camera circles and zooms farther and farther out.
Anyways, coming back to that, my single-mom-portrayal for class tomorrow is the movie Mamma Mia. FYI, catchy songs and everything, but I didn’t love it. The single mom in this movie, Donna, played by Meryl Streep, is running her own inn on a Greek paradise island. Unfortunately, the place is falling apart. We hear about all of her worries and stress about her business in the song “Money Money Money,” in which she laments not having a wealthy man. (Who doesn’t love ABBA?!) (Here it is with the lyrics if you are interested.) But still, she’s shown as a pretty capable (walks around with a toolbelt at one point) wacky free-flying single mom. She fits Jane Juffer’s “single moms are hot” comment with her long bleach blonde hair and tight overalls (and she’s definitely over 50—more power to her). Her daughter, who is getting married, secretly sends letters to her 3 possible fathers, inviting them to the wedding. Donna is tired out, says she is lacking in the sexual gratification area, (Juffer cites that sex is seen as an “impediment which should be cleared for the single mom to function as a better mom”) and it takes the arrival of the 3 men and her two completely insane middle-aged bff’s to snap her out of it and remind her that she’s still a “Dancing Queen.” This movie is of course just about as frothy as you can get, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. She winds up with Pierce Brosnan who should never sing again in public in his life. Apparently they will be able to pick up right where they left off as teenagers and they conveniently get married right then and there in place of her daughter.
Thinking about this made me try and come up with a movie about a woman, let alone a single mom, who doesn’t have to end up with a man in the end. And then I remembered Waitress, starring Keri Russell. Her character is pregnant by her chauvinist, controlling husband Earl, and is not originally enthusiastic about the thought of the baby. She has an affair with her doctor, but refreshingly ends up without a man. The final scene shows her and her daughter walking hand in hand.
Anyways, coming back to that, my single-mom-portrayal for class tomorrow is the movie Mamma Mia. FYI, catchy songs and everything, but I didn’t love it. The single mom in this movie, Donna, played by Meryl Streep, is running her own inn on a Greek paradise island. Unfortunately, the place is falling apart. We hear about all of her worries and stress about her business in the song “Money Money Money,” in which she laments not having a wealthy man. (Who doesn’t love ABBA?!) (Here it is with the lyrics if you are interested.) But still, she’s shown as a pretty capable (walks around with a toolbelt at one point) wacky free-flying single mom. She fits Jane Juffer’s “single moms are hot” comment with her long bleach blonde hair and tight overalls (and she’s definitely over 50—more power to her). Her daughter, who is getting married, secretly sends letters to her 3 possible fathers, inviting them to the wedding. Donna is tired out, says she is lacking in the sexual gratification area, (Juffer cites that sex is seen as an “impediment which should be cleared for the single mom to function as a better mom”) and it takes the arrival of the 3 men and her two completely insane middle-aged bff’s to snap her out of it and remind her that she’s still a “Dancing Queen.” This movie is of course just about as frothy as you can get, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. She winds up with Pierce Brosnan who should never sing again in public in his life. Apparently they will be able to pick up right where they left off as teenagers and they conveniently get married right then and there in place of her daughter.
Thinking about this made me try and come up with a movie about a woman, let alone a single mom, who doesn’t have to end up with a man in the end. And then I remembered Waitress, starring Keri Russell. Her character is pregnant by her chauvinist, controlling husband Earl, and is not originally enthusiastic about the thought of the baby. She has an affair with her doctor, but refreshingly ends up without a man. The final scene shows her and her daughter walking hand in hand.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Attempt: Deconstruction
So I feel like I can understand Deconstruction at some points when we are talking about it in class but when I start thinking about trying to apply it myself, I have a much harder time. I’m just going to attempt to talk through it.
I consider myself to be affiliated with the “Pro-Life” group as opposed to the “Pro-Choice” group. I am well aware of the hypocrisies and ideologies found in this political stance, and I’m also well aware that a bunch of you reading this will disagree with some things I say so feel free. Many persons who profess themselves to be Pro-Life speak out loudly about abortion, making it the main focus, but then don’t have a thing to say about capital punishment. I started especially noticing the chasm between abortion and capital punishment after watching the movie “Dead Man Walking” with Sean Penn in high school.
It seems like even though you are dealing with completely helpless infants in one case, and completely guilty (supposedly) adults in other cases, that the stance to respect life should be unconditional for all life—who are we to pick and choose who gets a right to life? This is most likely where their problem comes in, otherwise more people would affiliate themselves with a group that emphasizes the importance of all life (nothing wrong with that); I can’t imagine that anyone considers themselves “Pro-Abortion.” Like J.Lo and her credibility at representing the Bronx—maybe they are just protesting (literally, ha!) too much to make up for some sort of lack. Many “Pro-Lifers” outside the abortion clinics often are not the same people you see protesting at the Capitol against war. But in war, not only are women and men from our own country killed, but what about civilians? I re-found this article by Jack Hunter that I had read kind of recently. A line had stuck out to me: "It's a Child Not a Choice"? How about "It's a Kid Not Collateral Damage"?
In order to deconstruct this we can make a binary opposition. However as I’m trying to write this list, it is getting more complicated because depending on how you feel on the issue, your binary oppositions would look different. So hm maybe this wasn’t the best issue to pick.
One person might say this:
Pro-Life—Not Pro-Life
Life—Death
Natural/God—Artificial
Birth—Death
Save—Kill
Human--Government
Another person might say this:
Pro-Life—Not Pro-Life
Death—Life
Misogynist—Feminist (*I think this one is absurd *)
Conservative—Liberal
Government—Human
Punish—Forgive
Maybe though, as Derrida pointed out when he talked about animals, labeling and categorizing ourselves is a violent act. We like to categorize ourselves constantly: I’m a student/ boy/ Democrat/ conservative/ Catholic…perhaps this is a big part of the problem with our politics not being able to see eye-to-eye. We have already placed too much on the label.
Help would be appreciated here—I’m not sure I got to the actually deconstructing part!
I consider myself to be affiliated with the “Pro-Life” group as opposed to the “Pro-Choice” group. I am well aware of the hypocrisies and ideologies found in this political stance, and I’m also well aware that a bunch of you reading this will disagree with some things I say so feel free. Many persons who profess themselves to be Pro-Life speak out loudly about abortion, making it the main focus, but then don’t have a thing to say about capital punishment. I started especially noticing the chasm between abortion and capital punishment after watching the movie “Dead Man Walking” with Sean Penn in high school.
It seems like even though you are dealing with completely helpless infants in one case, and completely guilty (supposedly) adults in other cases, that the stance to respect life should be unconditional for all life—who are we to pick and choose who gets a right to life? This is most likely where their problem comes in, otherwise more people would affiliate themselves with a group that emphasizes the importance of all life (nothing wrong with that); I can’t imagine that anyone considers themselves “Pro-Abortion.” Like J.Lo and her credibility at representing the Bronx—maybe they are just protesting (literally, ha!) too much to make up for some sort of lack. Many “Pro-Lifers” outside the abortion clinics often are not the same people you see protesting at the Capitol against war. But in war, not only are women and men from our own country killed, but what about civilians? I re-found this article by Jack Hunter that I had read kind of recently. A line had stuck out to me: "It's a Child Not a Choice"? How about "It's a Kid Not Collateral Damage"?
In order to deconstruct this we can make a binary opposition. However as I’m trying to write this list, it is getting more complicated because depending on how you feel on the issue, your binary oppositions would look different. So hm maybe this wasn’t the best issue to pick.
One person might say this:
Pro-Life—Not Pro-Life
Life—Death
Natural/God—Artificial
Birth—Death
Save—Kill
Human--Government
Another person might say this:
Pro-Life—Not Pro-Life
Death—Life
Misogynist—Feminist (*I think this one is absurd *)
Conservative—Liberal
Government—Human
Punish—Forgive
Maybe though, as Derrida pointed out when he talked about animals, labeling and categorizing ourselves is a violent act. We like to categorize ourselves constantly: I’m a student/ boy/ Democrat/ conservative/ Catholic…perhaps this is a big part of the problem with our politics not being able to see eye-to-eye. We have already placed too much on the label.
Help would be appreciated here—I’m not sure I got to the actually deconstructing part!
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Metonymy
When you buy a Louis Vuitton bag for $4000 (I actually found one right away for $4,360 on their site by typing in "bag" in the search engine), what is occurring? What appears to be happening is that you just have to have that bag, but there is really something else going on: a displacement is demonstrated, a metonymy, because buying that bag is a reassurance of status.
In class, it was brought up that Jacques Lacan, in his “The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious” points to the idea that we are terrified that we are nothing. We are insecure and looking for assurance that we are worth something, or even worth more than everyone else. It would seem like this fear results in much of our displacement, and money demonstrates displacement in this is a pretty visible way, as with “Silk Stockings” and with the Louis Vuitton bag. It could be the fundamental reason for gluttonous consumption, and the complete saturation of our society with logos and brands that we had discussed before.
I’m still not entirely sure I know what’s going on with metonymy vs. metaphor, so I would appreciate comments letting me know if I’m on the wrong track. Thinking back to a lot of books I’ve read, it seems the displacement associated with metonymy shows up a lot. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby uses his riches to fashion an elite lifestyle when what he wants is Daisy, who is put up on a pedestal in his mind; in Dubliners, a father abuses his small son because he gets belittled at work; even in Bridget Jones’ Diary, Bridget smokes, drinks, and eats away her body image woes and her depression of being a single woman.
We just read “Home Sweet Home” by Hannah Tinti for Creative Writing Class. I loved this short story and recommend reading it, she apparently has a book called Animal Crackers of short stories, which I saw we have at the CSB lib. Anyways, I thought that it possibly was another example of metonymy but I’ll try not to spoil too much. It begins with the line, “Pat and Clyde were murdered on pot roast night,” which is fantastic, don’t you think? It turns out that Pat and Mr. Mitchell, the neighbor, had a raunchy affair going on. Mr. Mitchell’s wife is portrayed as being a pretty saintly woman, and Mr. Mitchell is constantly worrying that she will leave him because she is too good for him, and eventually he grows to actually hate her for it. The metonymy might be present because he displaces his feelings of powerlessness and insecurity by having sex with the next door neighbor in increasingly public places like parks and movie theaters, and even on a welcome mat that says, “Home Sweet Home.”
In class, it was brought up that Jacques Lacan, in his “The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious” points to the idea that we are terrified that we are nothing. We are insecure and looking for assurance that we are worth something, or even worth more than everyone else. It would seem like this fear results in much of our displacement, and money demonstrates displacement in this is a pretty visible way, as with “Silk Stockings” and with the Louis Vuitton bag. It could be the fundamental reason for gluttonous consumption, and the complete saturation of our society with logos and brands that we had discussed before.
I’m still not entirely sure I know what’s going on with metonymy vs. metaphor, so I would appreciate comments letting me know if I’m on the wrong track. Thinking back to a lot of books I’ve read, it seems the displacement associated with metonymy shows up a lot. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby uses his riches to fashion an elite lifestyle when what he wants is Daisy, who is put up on a pedestal in his mind; in Dubliners, a father abuses his small son because he gets belittled at work; even in Bridget Jones’ Diary, Bridget smokes, drinks, and eats away her body image woes and her depression of being a single woman.
We just read “Home Sweet Home” by Hannah Tinti for Creative Writing Class. I loved this short story and recommend reading it, she apparently has a book called Animal Crackers of short stories, which I saw we have at the CSB lib. Anyways, I thought that it possibly was another example of metonymy but I’ll try not to spoil too much. It begins with the line, “Pat and Clyde were murdered on pot roast night,” which is fantastic, don’t you think? It turns out that Pat and Mr. Mitchell, the neighbor, had a raunchy affair going on. Mr. Mitchell’s wife is portrayed as being a pretty saintly woman, and Mr. Mitchell is constantly worrying that she will leave him because she is too good for him, and eventually he grows to actually hate her for it. The metonymy might be present because he displaces his feelings of powerlessness and insecurity by having sex with the next door neighbor in increasingly public places like parks and movie theaters, and even on a welcome mat that says, “Home Sweet Home.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
