Rear Window

I'm a big fan of Hitchcock. I've always loved his foul humor and ability to keep the suspense alive. The movie was about a man named Jeffries watching his neighbors lives out of boredom as he is stuck in his apartment for weeks. Hitchcock makes it so as we see Jeffries watching his neighbors we are in a way watching what is going on in Jeffries world. He spends time watching neighbors like, the ballerina in her apartment jumping around and dancing freely. This can represent in his life what he feels being bachelor still gives him. The ballerina poseing to be so free is a symbol of what Jefferies sees his life without marriage. This mirrors his life because in the movie he is involved with a young woman named Lisa. Lisa desires to marry him and live happily ever after, but Jeffries is weary of marriage. Ms. Lonelyheart is another one of his neighbors that he watches from his apartment. She is older, and seems to be quite a drinker. He watches her carry on and at times she is pretending to talk to a imaginary man. She is ruined and miserable. This symbolizes for Jeffries what he fears he will eventually turn into if he pushes love aside forever. He fears that he will become lonely and depressed. His neighbor the composer is shown playing music throughout the whole movie. This I think is to play the music that fits into how Jeffries feels at the time. When he is confused and down then the music is low and somber. When things are coming together for him then the music is upbeat and hopeful. The newelyweds that move in across the building pose as the benefits of fresh love and the beginning of marriage. The undying romance is something that attracts Jefferies heart. This is used to show what Jefferies idea of marriage would be. Then finally there are the Thornwalds. Most of the core of the movie is about them, but they pose another use in the film as well. They the symbol for Jefferies of what marriage may turn Jeffries into. It's amazing how Hitchcock works these interesting sub plots into the movie, and only Hitchcock can do such an awesome job.

Glengarry Glen Ross

This is probably the hardest blog for me to write because I absolutely hated the play. Although it only took an hour or two to read it left me feeling lethargic, and my brain fried. Why did I dislike it so much? Most likely because it seemed to be about absolutely nothing! The style of the writing really got under my skin. Perhaps it was that I just finished reading Shakespeare. After reading Shakespeare you feel smart, and after reading this play I just felt plain old stupid.When I got to one section of the play where Mr. Lingk is telling Roma he has to back out because of his wife, I remember thinking hell yeah; go Mrs. Lingk, tell that bastard (Roma) to shove it up his ass. Then I got angry at Mr.Lingk because he had no backbone. He almost couldn't get what his wife has sent him out to say because he couldn't cut off Roma. What kind of man is that? I wanted to slap Mr.Lingk in the face and tell him to "Man up"! Then again, I guess that was what Mamet wanted readers to feel towards Lingk. The "invisible" women in this play have a strong meaning. It is almost like every deal that these real-estate men try to close, women keep them from finishing. Like women are the thorns in their sides. I personally kind of like this, because it shows how strong these women are. They keep their husbands or exes from making stupid deals. It is obvious that the characters feel differently about these women. They detest them and blame their failure on closing the deal on the women. At the same time, the women are what drive the men to do their jobs. Men are very competitive, so the women hindering them from achieving their goal, just drives the men to succeed even more. For example, Levene's daughter is ill, and so Levene pushes him self beyond the limit for her. I think it is fair to say that the women in this play represent the force that drives these men.

King Lear

I've been sitting here, maybe 5 minutes, thinking about how to start off this entry. I don't want to bore people to death by just mumbling out my immediate response to Coppelia Kahn’s essay. So, let me start off by talking about the play first and how much I absolutely loved it! In the beginning, it took me some time to get into the "Shakespeare" mode. After that minor adjustment, it was an amazing read. I must admit it was my first time reading King Lear, and what an experience it was. At the end I remember thinking, "well (insert expletive), who is left alive?" It was such a bummer. Everyone died, but it was a damn good and entertaining read. It was exciting to see everything unravel, especially with the evil sisters. It was also heart breaking to see King Lear go insane. It was true to its title as a tragedy, and I loved reading every minute of it.
Now let me get to the essay, entitled "The Absent Mother in King Lear ", written by Coppelia Kahn. In this essay it claims that the play can be interpreted as King Lear finding his feminine side, so he can re -connect with his daughters. I agree with this. In a way, King Lear's journey through the book is in fact a journey in finding the woman within himself. At first he was very serious and showed no emotion (100% man). Towards the end he softens up, and finds the softer side of him that he needed to acquire to understand his daughter, Cordelia.Now, my question is, does that mean that in order to accept your feminine side it requires someone to become insane? Towards the end, I think everyone can agree, King Lear lost his mind a little (became hysterical). So this means that being a woman, feeling emotion is associated with losing your mind? This was just a thought that happened to pass through my mind. I do believe that King Lear did accept and find his softer side, in order to connect again with Cordelia. I think it was something that he held inside of him the whole time. It took losing his daughters, to have it come out. However, as King Lear finds his maternal side, his daughters, Goneril and Regan, seem to have acquired their fathers "manly" ways. They plan against their father and become rather brutal. What does this mean? If King Lear becoming more feminine means he has found his maternal side, then what does it mean when his eldest daughters find their "masculine" side? This essay brought some interesting questions to my mind. I have already gone back to read a scene or two to see if I can see the puberty(becoming a woman) of King Lear in the play. I believe that it does happen, the only problem I am having is figuring out exactly where he knows he must accept his feminine side. Maybe someone can help me understand it a little better.

Blog on The Moviegoer

Let me start off by saying that I am new at this. I have never posted a blog before, so bare with me. The Moviegoer started out promising. I was actually into the book, up until page 50. It was on page 50 or so that I began to repeatedly ask the question, "does this make sense?", to myself. It was a difficult book for me to get through in such a short amount of time. This doesn't mean that I detested the book. I think if I went back and read it again, and then again, that I would find it amazing. I think I got lost in his rambling descriptions of objects/ people. For a moment I would feel like I was reading part of the storyline, and following it well. Then, it was like the author jumped deeply into the description of a man's pants or the fine description of a city. That threw me off. I'd find my mind wandering, and then feel my eyelids get heavier with every word I read. So, that's why I struggled through this reading. The book is based mostly on Binx's search. The search for what, we don't really ever know. Does Binx even know? In the Epilogue when he says, " I have not the inclination to say much on the subject.", I think he says this because he doesn't quite know if he found it or not. I think it depends on each reader to decide for themselves if in fact he's found what the search was for. In my opinion, I'm not sure if he finished his search, because he never exactly knew what he was searching for in the first place. How can you find something you didn't know you were searching for? You can, right? So it was after I asked myself this question that I decided that the book is a romance. No, not your classic romance, but a different kind. His search was for Kate, but he did not know it. That is how love is, you don't know that's what your heart desires until you're inlove.(By the way, it took my awhile to shake off the fact that somehow they were "cousins".) I give it the romance title because the book is about two, possibly insane, people lost and trying to find a way. In the crazy mix of their insanity, they find peace in each other. Now I feel like I'm rambling on like Percy so I'll end it with my favorite line from the book. " I watch her walk toward St. Charles, cape jasmine held against her cheek..." That is such a pretty line, I love it.