Alright, better late than never. Now that I finally know what I want to say, here are some theories about House of Leaves, La Strada, and mythology.
Let's say Zampano, for the moment, is Theseus. He takes Gelsomina away from her home, and all that she knows, under the guise of giving her a better life. Gelsomina, then, is Ariadne, who helps Theseus thinking it will make her own life better. Of course, it doesn't, because in the myth, as in La Strada, Theseus/Zampano abandons Ariadne/Gelsomina as she's sleeping.
So, in the myth, Ariadne is made into the wife of Dionysus, who finds her sleeping on the island after she has been abandoned. In the movie, the abandonment drives Gelsomina crazy. We might say that the two outcomes are different, but consider one thing. Dionysus had followers, called the Maenads. They were crazy followers. I'm talking batshit-insane-will-tear-your-arms-off-because-they-feel-like-it crazy. And since Gelsomina goes insane, perhaps, if we want to follow the myth, we can say that it does, if Gelsomina becomes a follower of Dionysus, and loses her mind.
Something has been bothering me about all this, however. I keep wondering who The Fool is in all this, because I want to assign him a mythological character very badly, but am I trying too hard? I think the most logical choice would be Dionysus, because he wants to keep Gelsomina safe from Zampano. Of course, The Fool dies, but this could either prove or disprove his role. Since he's dead, we can say he can't be Dionysus, because he's not there to find Gelsomina and save her. But we can also say that he had to die in order to be elevated to the position of a god. And while we're at it, if we're liking Pelafina to Gelsomina and Johnny to The Fool, consider what Pelafina writes on page 592:
"I dreamt about you last night. You had long hands which glistened in the starlight. There was no moon, yet your arms and legs seemed made of water and changed with the tides. You were so beautiful and elegant and all blue and white and your eyes, like your father's eyes, were infused by strange magic.
"It was comforting to see you so strong. Gods assembled around you and paid their respects and doted on you and offered you gifts your mother could not begin to imagine let alone afford.
"There were some gods who were jealous of you, but I shooed them away. The rest kept close to you and said many great things about your future."
This presents a slight problem. If Pelafina is also Ariadne, what does that make Johnny in this context? His mother is elevating him to the position of god, which we could interpret to say that Johnny is Dionysus. Zampano of House of Leaves could also be Theseus, because if we say that he is Johnny's father and Pelafina's old lover or husband, it might be that he abandoned Pelafina in the mental hospital, especially since Pelafina seems to know who Zampano is.
So, is The Fool/Johnny Dionysus? It's difficult because of the family tree involved. For Johnny to be Dionysus, it would mean that he both Pelafina's son and lover, but from the Whalestoe Letters, where Pelafina says a lot of rather inappropriate things to her son, that doesn't seem like a huge stretch. Freud would love this one.
Who is who here? There's more than one correct answer, I'm sure, but this is just my take.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
film update
OK, I decided on the film we'll be viewing the last week of classes.
We're going to watch Eraserhead, David Lynch's first feature-length film. This is perhaps the most disturbing thing I've ever seen. But that's not the point necessarily... what we're going to do is watch the film and then I will have you write a response about it in class, and your task will be to consider, is this a postmodern film, or a modernist (surrealist or expressionist, perhaps) one? So brush up on your knowledge of the differences between modern and postmodern art and prepare to be unsettled.
We're going to watch Eraserhead, David Lynch's first feature-length film. This is perhaps the most disturbing thing I've ever seen. But that's not the point necessarily... what we're going to do is watch the film and then I will have you write a response about it in class, and your task will be to consider, is this a postmodern film, or a modernist (surrealist or expressionist, perhaps) one? So brush up on your knowledge of the differences between modern and postmodern art and prepare to be unsettled.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Ok, I know we're technically done with Zampano...
BUT! I though this was interesting:
"Both the body of need and the body of drive are real insofar as their source (Quelle) is in the body, but whereas need involves the inside of the body, the inner organs (the stomach, intestines, and other vital organs), drive involves the surface zones of the body and the erogenous openings. (The eye is a special case in terms of source in that it is an organ which is half inside and half outside, rather than a hole, as the mouth and ears are.) The openings are vanishing points where the inside meets the outside. The two bodily zones, though distinct, interface. They are superimposed and connected via the figure of interior 8. The continuity and connection of the zones makes transgression possible. The interior 8 writes or draws one body upon the other as in a palimpsest or pentimento... Perhaps it would be well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again." (From Reading Seminar XI - The Demontage of the Drive, p. 120) (My emphasis in blue and red)
I was just thinking that this seemed interesting in terms of Zampano's blindness, and the idea that replacement with a later choice might be a way of seeing again. What does that say about the minotaur, or perhaps Zampano's decision about the children's fate, which, if you read the image on the front cover-ish insert thing, talks about how perhaps he'll kill them. This idea of the drives as holes, or holes - houses? - and the eye as being half inside and half outside makes me wonder about Zampano's drives vs. his needs: If his organ which is able to straddle both worlds is blind, then is he in neither?
"Both the body of need and the body of drive are real insofar as their source (Quelle) is in the body, but whereas need involves the inside of the body, the inner organs (the stomach, intestines, and other vital organs), drive involves the surface zones of the body and the erogenous openings. (The eye is a special case in terms of source in that it is an organ which is half inside and half outside, rather than a hole, as the mouth and ears are.) The openings are vanishing points where the inside meets the outside. The two bodily zones, though distinct, interface. They are superimposed and connected via the figure of interior 8. The continuity and connection of the zones makes transgression possible. The interior 8 writes or draws one body upon the other as in a palimpsest or pentimento... Perhaps it would be well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again." (From Reading Seminar XI - The Demontage of the Drive, p. 120) (My emphasis in blue and red)
I was just thinking that this seemed interesting in terms of Zampano's blindness, and the idea that replacement with a later choice might be a way of seeing again. What does that say about the minotaur, or perhaps Zampano's decision about the children's fate, which, if you read the image on the front cover-ish insert thing, talks about how perhaps he'll kill them. This idea of the drives as holes, or holes - houses? - and the eye as being half inside and half outside makes me wonder about Zampano's drives vs. his needs: If his organ which is able to straddle both worlds is blind, then is he in neither?
Postmodern fonts
Found this today in a book my design prof wants me to read:
POSTMODERNIST (late 20th & early 21st century): frequent parody of Neoclassical, Romantic or Baroque form: rationalist or variable axis; sharply modelled serifs and terminals; moderate aperture.
Postmodern letterforms, like postmodern buildings, frequently recycle and revise Neoclassical, Romantic and other premodern forms. At their best, they do so with an engaging lightness of touch and a fine sense of humor. Postmodern art is for the most part highly self-conscious, but devoutly unserious. Postmodern designers -- who frequently are or have been Modernist designers as well -- have proven that it is possible to infuse Neoclassical and Romantic form, and the rationalist axis, with genuine calligraphic energy. (p. 15, 135 "The Elements of Typographic Style" by Robert Bringhurst)
These are the two examples they give in the book:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/agfa/itc-esprit/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/berthold/nofret-be/
Basically all the jargon up there has to do with the design of type faces. Basically they take bits and pieces from other, traditional fonts and stick them together to form Postmodern ones. Most of the snitching is done with serifs (the little feet thingies at the bottom and tops of letters) and they change how the font tilts on the page. If this isn't making sense, I can do a demo or something in class if people are really, REALLY interested. Just something small and kinda interesting to consider, especially given the amount of time we spend talking about language and how much it fails at being anything more than signifers. This is proven even more by the fact that type faces can be changed like this and give something a completely different feeling and message than just the words themselves. You can give a text an entirely look and it changes your intent and how the audience feels when reading it. Fonts can make you look pretentious, peaceful, studious and matter-of-fact, or like a dumbass making a parody of something serious. Generally the job of the designer or typographer is to pick a font and arrange the text that best portrays what said text is about. In this, typographers and designers author what the writer has already written.
Take the design of this blog, for instance. It's a set default layout which is used a bizillion other places, most of which are simple blogs about people's lives, but mostly their egos at work needing to express themselves. The fonts they use are legible, which is important, but also casual. You don't feel like you're reading a textbook or an official document by any stretch when you see this page. Certainly there are people out there who use blogs, similar layouts and fonts and, I'm sure, post amazingly thought-out things. Unfortunately, one must wade through lots of "i fUcKeD dis chic tday" or "OMG my 'rents SUCK", therefore a blog generally carries the stigma of informality and fluff.
POSTMODERNIST (late 20th & early 21st century): frequent parody of Neoclassical, Romantic or Baroque form: rationalist or variable axis; sharply modelled serifs and terminals; moderate aperture.
Postmodern letterforms, like postmodern buildings, frequently recycle and revise Neoclassical, Romantic and other premodern forms. At their best, they do so with an engaging lightness of touch and a fine sense of humor. Postmodern art is for the most part highly self-conscious, but devoutly unserious. Postmodern designers -- who frequently are or have been Modernist designers as well -- have proven that it is possible to infuse Neoclassical and Romantic form, and the rationalist axis, with genuine calligraphic energy. (p. 15, 135 "The Elements of Typographic Style" by Robert Bringhurst)
These are the two examples they give in the book:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/agfa/itc-esprit/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/berthold/nofret-be/
Basically all the jargon up there has to do with the design of type faces. Basically they take bits and pieces from other, traditional fonts and stick them together to form Postmodern ones. Most of the snitching is done with serifs (the little feet thingies at the bottom and tops of letters) and they change how the font tilts on the page. If this isn't making sense, I can do a demo or something in class if people are really, REALLY interested. Just something small and kinda interesting to consider, especially given the amount of time we spend talking about language and how much it fails at being anything more than signifers. This is proven even more by the fact that type faces can be changed like this and give something a completely different feeling and message than just the words themselves. You can give a text an entirely look and it changes your intent and how the audience feels when reading it. Fonts can make you look pretentious, peaceful, studious and matter-of-fact, or like a dumbass making a parody of something serious. Generally the job of the designer or typographer is to pick a font and arrange the text that best portrays what said text is about. In this, typographers and designers author what the writer has already written.
Take the design of this blog, for instance. It's a set default layout which is used a bizillion other places, most of which are simple blogs about people's lives, but mostly their egos at work needing to express themselves. The fonts they use are legible, which is important, but also casual. You don't feel like you're reading a textbook or an official document by any stretch when you see this page. Certainly there are people out there who use blogs, similar layouts and fonts and, I'm sure, post amazingly thought-out things. Unfortunately, one must wade through lots of "i fUcKeD dis chic tday" or "OMG my 'rents SUCK", therefore a blog generally carries the stigma of informality and fluff.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
another postmodern approach to film making: the tracey fragments
bruce mcdonald's (hard core logo) latest film, the tracey fragments, offers a new look at film making and (possibly) a new way for people to think of file sharing and the spread of media on the internet.
the movie stars ellen page (who i'm sure everyone now recognizes from juno) and follows tracey burkowitz, a 15 year old girl searching for her lost younger brother.
what i think is really cool about what mcdonald did with this film was that after he shot and edited the whole thing, he uploaded hundreds of hours of raw footage, the soundtrack (by broken social scene) and the script to the internet for people to download, with the idea that they could then re-edit the material and make a new project of their own -- "a new feature film, rock video, trailer or personal manifesto."
each scene is shot from multiple camera angles, and many of the frames have a fragmented collage of multiple shots and perspectives, which allowed people a lot of options when re-editing the footage.
i think, aside from being a really fun & interesting idea on mcdonald's part, putting up the footage on the internet is forward-thinking and a bit avant-garde as well. especially considering how much in our lives is connected to media, entertainment, and the immediacy in which we're able to get it. not only is he making the media readily available, he's putting it out there with the intent that people will download it and make their own art out of it. going back to the isolating feelings of a postmodern society, media culture, etc, in a small way mcdonald is promoting something interactive, creative and personally meaningful with this project. (this could also point back to what i mentioned in the four eyed monsters post.)
the trailer and the re-fragments are up on the film's website.
the movie stars ellen page (who i'm sure everyone now recognizes from juno) and follows tracey burkowitz, a 15 year old girl searching for her lost younger brother.
what i think is really cool about what mcdonald did with this film was that after he shot and edited the whole thing, he uploaded hundreds of hours of raw footage, the soundtrack (by broken social scene) and the script to the internet for people to download, with the idea that they could then re-edit the material and make a new project of their own -- "a new feature film, rock video, trailer or personal manifesto."
each scene is shot from multiple camera angles, and many of the frames have a fragmented collage of multiple shots and perspectives, which allowed people a lot of options when re-editing the footage.
i think, aside from being a really fun & interesting idea on mcdonald's part, putting up the footage on the internet is forward-thinking and a bit avant-garde as well. especially considering how much in our lives is connected to media, entertainment, and the immediacy in which we're able to get it. not only is he making the media readily available, he's putting it out there with the intent that people will download it and make their own art out of it. going back to the isolating feelings of a postmodern society, media culture, etc, in a small way mcdonald is promoting something interactive, creative and personally meaningful with this project. (this could also point back to what i mentioned in the four eyed monsters post.)
the trailer and the re-fragments are up on the film's website.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wizard People, Dear Reader
First, a brief introduction to what you are about to see, because if you haven't heard of "Wizard People, Dear Reader," you will probably not have a damn clue what's going on.
This is the creation of Brad Neely, who you may also know from his work on Superdeluxe.com (he created the Professor Brothers and Baby Cakes shorts), and helped write three episodes of South Park last season (The List, Imaginationland Part II, and Le Petit Tourette, if that means anything to you). The clip that basically follows is the first chapter of his work, which is a redubbing of the first Harry Potter movie. In a voice that is oddly reminiscent of both Peter Lorre and Clint Eastwood, he re-narrates the entire movie in the style of a drunk beat poet. Let's watch.
Now for discussion.
This project, of course, has caused controversy. Warner Brothers considers it a copyright violation, but supporters of "Wizard People" believe that it's a work in and of itself, and is, in fact, a new form of art. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I would much rather see it as art, especially as a postmodern work, because it takes something that already exists, that isn't even that old or dated, and reworks it for a different kind of audience. But this is subjective, so, as Kathy Acker called her own work plagiarism, but others disagreed, you can decide for yourself: illegal or art? Or illegal art, as it is on a website with that name. Perhaps even you'd consider this little more than crude parody.
A lot of people are saying that this is a new art form, but if it is, that means it should theoretically work with other movies, but it seems that choices are limited, because the form is really only relevant to the audience if the audience is already at least semi familiar with the movie they're seeing. Would this work with a movie like Lord of the Rings? What about with something lesser known, or as widely liked, or even a movie that nobody knows, like a Bollywood film? Does the film have to be serious for the result to be funny?
This is the creation of Brad Neely, who you may also know from his work on Superdeluxe.com (he created the Professor Brothers and Baby Cakes shorts), and helped write three episodes of South Park last season (The List, Imaginationland Part II, and Le Petit Tourette, if that means anything to you). The clip that basically follows is the first chapter of his work, which is a redubbing of the first Harry Potter movie. In a voice that is oddly reminiscent of both Peter Lorre and Clint Eastwood, he re-narrates the entire movie in the style of a drunk beat poet. Let's watch.
Now for discussion.
This project, of course, has caused controversy. Warner Brothers considers it a copyright violation, but supporters of "Wizard People" believe that it's a work in and of itself, and is, in fact, a new form of art. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I would much rather see it as art, especially as a postmodern work, because it takes something that already exists, that isn't even that old or dated, and reworks it for a different kind of audience. But this is subjective, so, as Kathy Acker called her own work plagiarism, but others disagreed, you can decide for yourself: illegal or art? Or illegal art, as it is on a website with that name. Perhaps even you'd consider this little more than crude parody.
A lot of people are saying that this is a new art form, but if it is, that means it should theoretically work with other movies, but it seems that choices are limited, because the form is really only relevant to the audience if the audience is already at least semi familiar with the movie they're seeing. Would this work with a movie like Lord of the Rings? What about with something lesser known, or as widely liked, or even a movie that nobody knows, like a Bollywood film? Does the film have to be serious for the result to be funny?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)