Thoughts about end of semister

After covering some pretty intense material this semester, like Interview with the Vampire, Cat on the Hot Tin Roof, and works by Plato, I think we should lighten things up and watch a few episodes of “Family Guy” as our ending project. I think that “Family Guy” is the best at comically making fun of stereotypical gender roles in a typical American family. For instance, Stewie, the infant child, and Brian, the dog, are the smartest, most witty characters in the show whereas Peter, the dad, is a total moron. If all was right in the perfect world, Peter would be smart, super dad and the baby and dog would be oblivious to everything. I think everyone in the class would enjoy critiquing this show just for the fact that it is hilarious. It points out and makes fun of very taboo issues in today society without drawing serious, negative attention. But maybe I’m just bias because I love the show. About the possibility of doing a Disney Classic, I think that could be a good idea but we would all have to agree on which movie to see. And there are a lot of them. I would personally suggest “The Emperor’s New Groove” or “Hercules” because those are my favorite Disney cartoons, no joke. I may be a dork but I think I just like cartoons that poke fun at certain adult jokes very subtly, trying to make a sarcastic undertone. Everyone knows the stereotypes and taboos in society, whether they admit it or not, and I like when attention is drawn to these things to show that people are aware of what is going on, instead of glossing things over. The “happy ending” with a hint of sarcasm.

End of the Semester Topics

During this semester we have mainly covered the ideas of Eros and how it applies to other works such as, Cat on the Hot Tin Roof and the concept of "Bittersweet". Gender has been explored through a broad area. Coming into this class I assumed that the literature and film that we were going to watch would portray more noticeable characteristics and terms of gender than what we have thus far discussed; however, from this class I have discovered that gender issues apply to almost every element of literature and film. For example, Interview With The Vampire does not directly attack the issue of gender, but by interpreting the movie and film we discover that gender and desire are some of the main topics of the story. The last few weeks of Gender Adaptations are dedicated to the class’s opinions on topics. Some feel that it would be appropriate to watch a Disney movie classic such as, The Little Mermaid or Mulan, while others would like to end the term with a more mature illustration of gender. I feel that the Disney topic would allow discussion for woman studies by reviewing the idea of the "perfect" woman that young girls associate with the main character. The other option that has been discussed is a more mature version of film. One example that I can think of is the film Brokeback Mountain because it is a controversial issue dealing with the concepts of homosexuality that we have been discussing in class. I would like to approach the topic of gender through a more modern and mature approach than the Disney examples because I feel that it would be more relevant to our lives in today's society.

I am writing in response to Beckyloo and their idea about the male gaze. I do agree with Beckyloo somewhat, however, I feel that the men are more representative of the ideal male rather than a sexual object to be desired. As in James Bond, Bond represents a strong man with brains and brawn and capable of capturing the women, who is the object to be desired. I feel like the male character is more for men, that he is the ideal that all males would like to strive for. His purpose is to reiterate what it means to be a man. As for the women, especially in James Bond movies, she is what is supposed to be seduced and succumb to the male. I think this also applies to the streets in that men are looked at for being men. Their sexiness is reiterated by their striving for what every man should be, and in turn what women ought to desire. You must remember, no matter how much it suscks, our roots are in patriarchy which is still very prevalent today. I think Mulvey states a good case, and is a legitimate argument about society.
As for what we should do the last few weeks of class, I really think we should read "The Awakening" by Kate Chopin. This is a great book written very long ago and represents a female perspective when women's perspectives were not acknowledged.

The male sex object

When writing my paper, it made me think about Mulvey’s point and go back and read her essay again and more thorough. I think she makes very good points about women being the object of desire and that there is a male gaze. However I think the male gaze is much more out there in society, like out on the streets. When it comes to movies I think the guy or the male is just as a sex object as the female. I don’t usually think of the woman as the ONLY one who is the sex object any more. Just as much as the women flaunt and look sexy on screen, I think men do it just as much. For example in the James Bond movies, the women are usually criticized for being the damsel or the sex object not only for Bond but for the men or women in the audience as well. If you think about the character and things that James Bond does himself, he becomes a male sex object. He is suave, rugged, the heroine, he is seen as sexy. He dose not get criticized for flaunting and being gazed at as a sex object, although he is doing the same thing. Maybe women do not whistle and yelp at men while walking down the street, but I think viewing men as sex objects, especially in movies is very there. Men and women alike are viewed as sex object and both receive “the gaze” whether or not society sees it or not. I think viewing people as sex objects is more of the problem today than who is being viewed as them. It has become much less of a gender problem, although what is sexy for each gender still has its rules.

The rules part comes across by what is expectable for each gender to be shown on screen. I recently went and saw the movie 300 in theatres. The movie is about the Trojan society and army. Although the movie was amazing, there were some things the audience acted towards when it came to gender roles and what is sexy. In the beginning of the movie there was a scene was a young girl, who was the oracle. She was half naked and flailing into the sky. Not a comment was made and no one seemed to have a problem with the girl’s breast and naked body failing in the air. It was not until the next scene when the king of the Trojans was shown with the back to the audience completely naked. From the three guys behind me I heard “Well, that was just unnecessary.” So does that mean it was unnecessary to show the half naked girl? Probably not, that would be considered sexy, but the moment we have to see the ass of the guy, it not sexy. Don’t get me wrong, the Trojan king sweating and fighting I’m sure would have been seen as sexy, just not his bare ass. Even in modern movies there are still “rules” to what is considered sexy or expectable to an audience.

Last Weeks of School

[Apparently when I was looking back on this blog…I realized that none of my posts were actually posted. So I must rewrite them. I think that I have been doing something wrong. So I will try again.]

Last Weeks of School

I think that the movie Transamerica would be a very good film to discuss, especially for this class. In the movie, a Bri, is a man getting a sex change to be a woman. The movie is about Bri, getting a phone call from a son in jail, she never knew she had. Her therapist decides that she needs to meet her son before she can even think about getting the sex change, and will not sign the papers. The only problem is that she has to meet the son, not as his father, but as a woman. She lies and says that she is actually from the church and wants to help him because she does not know how to tell him that she is his father. It is not until later that the boy finds out who she really is. The actress that plays Bri is actually off the Desperate Housewives show. She does an amazing job at playing a man trying to play a woman. If I did not know who the actress was, I probably would have thought that she was actually a man. I think this film would be great for this class because it really deals with the issue of gender identity. Transgender people are those that believe that they are women born in a man’s body, or a man born in a woman’s body. Psychologists see this as a mental disorder…and people wanting to go through with surgery have to go to years of therapy and counseling. The movie really makes the audience sympathize for Bri, as well as makes you understand what they are feeling and going though.

The Interview With the Vampire

[Apparently when I was looking back on this blog…I realized that none of my posts were actually posted. So I must rewrite them. I think that I have been doing something wrong. So I will try again.]

The Interview With the Vampire

I enjoyed both the film and the book very much. Interview With the Vampire used to be one of my favorite movies. I think that Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt were perfect actors to play the roles of Lustat and Louis. From the discussion that we had in class, where people were talking about how they felt about Louis, and how they felt sorry for him at first…but changed their minds, I disagreed. I felt sympathy for him the entire time reading the book. He had nowhere else to go, and had no choice either. Yes, he did have a choice whether or not to be a vampire at first. However Lustatt did not fully explain the loneliness and pain of being a vampire. In a way, I felt Louis was tricked.

The book was a bit different than the film. The scene that we discussed in class was the scene in which Louis is sad because he loses his wife and child in the movie. But in the book Louis loses his brother. This loss causes Louis to be so depressed that he does not care to live or die. I think the reason why the director chose to have Louis lose his wife and child in the film, instead of staying true to the book, was because it is more appealing to the audience. It makes a lot more sense for someone to mourn as much as Louis did for a wife and child rather than a brother. Perhaps its because with a wife and child, Louis had his entire life to look forward to. He had a family. The idea of family (wife and child) emphasizes his caring, father like nature. Just like how Louis was like a father to Claudia. Louis was not going to live his entire life with his brother. That would just be strange.

Homosexuality and Society

[Apparently when I was looking back on this blog…I realized that none of my posts were actually posted. So I must rewrite them. I think that I have been doing something wrong. So I will try again.]

Homosexuality and Society

I feel that, in society today, views of homosexuality are greatly related to the town someone comes from. Big cities, to me, seem a lot more welcoming to homosexuality than smaller ones. Lack of education and ignorance is what I feel builds the wall of homophobia for most people, as well as some religious views. Its amazing how someone can hate someone so much, yet know absolutely nothing about them. I come from a very small town, where a lot of people are extremely religious. Id say that most people there view it almost as an illness or a disease. My dad is a physician and takes care many gay individuals. He is popular within the gay community because he actually treats them like anybody else. In our town, many of the other doctors, would see them, but were extremely disrespectful to them, and would hardly give them the time of day.

My view on homosexuality remains the same as it always has. My parents really enforced in our heads that homosexuality was not an evil thing, despite being brought up Catholic, where a lot of people felt that it was. Ever since high school, I never really had a problem with it. I felt that people liked whom they liked, and that it was their business and no one else’s. None of us has the right to judge one another. I came from a pretty small town so I never really knew too many gay people. I don’t think that I really knew any at all. However, since I’ve been at college, I’ve met a lot. They are no different from any one else. A person is a person, now matter what sexual orientation they are.

Humans are meant to die

Anne Rice in her novel, “Interview with the Vampire”, raises many questions about a wide range of topics that truly made me wonder whether or not the traits that define our human race are more preferable to those of a vampire. The whole concept of immortality was what I gave the most thought to out of all the characteristics Rice gave the vampires in her piece. It happens to be a topic I have discussed in great depth last semester in my “Future of Technology” Course with President Duncan leading the discussions. Today, a lot of the world’s scientific efforts are aimed towards extending our life span. Cynthia Kenyon, a biologist at UC San Francisco and “one of the world’s leading researchers on aging” believes that “the reason we age is because the processes that prevent things from breaking down stop working. In principle, if you understood the mechanisms of keeping things repaired, you could keep things going indefinitely”. The mechanisms Kenyon speaks of have been located and studied in depth. Our leading scientists have made the technology to live longer a reality. The question is whether we really want that. Dying is part of the life cycle and is a big part of what makes us human. Technology can only advance, so when will our lives be considered long enough? Mortality is key to our existence. Without it problems such as overpopulation would pose serious threats to the global community. Not to mention the divide it would create between those with longer lives and those who do not have access to the technology or cannot afford it. Immortality is just not natural and will not make you live any more of a happier life. This realization hits the characters in “Interview with the Vampire” across the face. Louis and Claudia have a very hard time dealing with it. Personally I felt more sympathy towards Claudia. She is just a child and to live eternally without ever evolving into an adult will always continue to torture her. I think it is very interesting how Rice made Claudia such a young character. I was instantly reminded while reading her piece of how I perceived the world when I was little. If someone would have asked me to make a list of wishes, I would have definitely included living forever. It is easy to be naïve when you are young. Now I am mature enough to know that is not what I want at all. Claudia eventually realizes it too and it ends up tearing her up inside. Ultimately in the novel, Claudia and Louis become lonely to the point where they would do anything to become human once again. Having super abilities is great and all, but I will stick to being human because I believe we are the way we are for a reason.

Last few weeks of clases

On Thursday, Dr. Aggrawal said to post our opinions of what we think the class should do for the last few weeks of school. I think we should watch either The Little Mermaid or Mulan because btoh of those Disney movies have gender adaptations in them. On a more contempory note, I would choose American Beauty, Million Dollar Baby, Sin City, or television shows like Simpsons, Nip/Tuck or Desperate Housewives. All of those above mentioned movies or television shows have a lot to talk about that deals with gender. For example, Nip/Tuck deals with plastic surgeons and the majority of the patients that go to the doctors are women. Wonder why? In addition, Mulan deals with a young woman dressing up as a soldier and joining the army so her elderly father does not have to fight. She ends up being a good "male" soldier and is just a good inspirational movie for women. Million Dollar Baby is the oscar winner about a woman boxing and making it or not making it in the world. The title Desperate Housewives speaks for itself. Sin City is a modern movie that would be different and intereting to analyze and find gender adapations in it. All of those movies and television would be interesting to me to analyze. I look forward to going to Maya Angelou speak on Monday night because of what she has accomplished in her life. Being a poet, memorist, actress, and a figure in the Civil Rights Movement. I looked forward to hearing what she has to say. I would like to read "Why the Caged Bird Sings" one day but I haven't had time yet. I hope what she says is interesting.

Sexy Vampires?

I thought some of the questions that were brought up in Tuesday’s class were very interesting and brought up very good points. One of those questions was what are the qualities of vampires which then lead to if vampires have sexuality. Also something that was brought up is that if they do have sexuality why do they when many other "monsters" do not? Throughout the discussion many people listed qualities describing vampires as sexual creatures. However, the idea that vampires are pale was brought up as a negative thing against vampires being sexy. Thinking about that I think the fact that they are pale makes them even sexier creatures. If you think about the time period of when vampires were first discovered or created in society, being pale was a quality of being sexy. The whole idea of their obsession with blood is a passion and necessity. The whole thing revolves around the mouth and the neck, sucking, all sexual things. Vampires are extremely sexual creatures, they have to be. Being sexual is a requirement, they need to be suave and capture their prey. Vampires are not the kind of monsters who scare, but “suck” in their prey. They seduce humans, so they can suck their blood. If vampires did not have these sexy qualities they would not be able to seduce.

The whole idea of sexuality leads to the question at one point of how the sucking of the blood relates to sex. I think the sucking of blood, especially how it is described in Interview with the Vampire, is very similar to sex. They are both an exchange of fluids, exotic nourishment and both are a type of pleasure. Vampires receive pleasure for sucking on the necks of their victims the way humans receive pleasure from sex. I thought the similarities between the two were very interesting.

So…What’s So Unnatural about a Vampire?

The topic of discussion in the previous class was based on the seductive, sexual, and superfluous erotic behaviors of vampires in Anne Rice’s novel. The exaggerated supernatural abilities and vulnerabilities of vampires has inflated itself into a chillingly passionate aggregation of fables since the misconstrued, yet uncompassionate impalement of many thousands of Ottomans by the Romanian Emperor Vlad Dracula in the mid 1400’s.

Yes, vampires are erotic fabrications of the human mind from human bodies made by sexually and religiously inspired storytellers to entertain the notion that we may have alternatives to death. The human fascination with the afterlife and the consequences of a sinful or meaningless human existence has forever been a concern of the individual soul in avoiding eternal damnation. What constitutes a sin? In every religion, it is a condemnable immoral undertaking to take the life of another human being without the presence of an inclinational response instinctive in self defense. We kill to eat, Vampires kill to eat, but we also kill for land, capital, power, greed, and security, and most of all, religion. Historically we accept our societal religious norms and condemn the views of others, ironically causing more unnatural deaths and murders through war, terrorism, and sacrifice than any other reason or act all added together. Anne Rice has popularized an alternative to the fear of death. She made the vampire into a being that is more humanistic and erotic than originally intended, and for that she is genius. No dagger, no cross, no garlic. Instead of instilling fear, she advocates desire for relief, freedom of choice offerings, and a seductive method of nourishment almost “too easy” to quench, while keeping the closely held human traits such as the thirst for power, eroticism, sexuality, vulnerability, desirability, and compassion (at first).

Now we can relate to the interview. Instead of always wondering who, what, when, where, and how, there exists rather, a visible representation of eternal life after death portrayed by the vampire interviewee himself. The vampire is the middle ground, somewhere between life and death; somewhere between heaven and hell; somewhere between straight and gay. Instead of killing millions in pointless wars aimed at obtaining religious land and items, you can know your fate and just kill a few at a time for a sustainable and subsistent eternity. Everybody knows of the powers and consequences in obtaining the Holy Grail; pun intended.

The idea of the vampire is no more cruel or unnatural than the human being. The characteristics of the vampire is not surprising to me in any way. They seem to debatably represent more of what is natural to the normal behaviors of life-forms on Earth than do humans. The humanistic associations our society so obsessively and egocentrically applies to every aspect of our surrounding biome, whether fictitious or tangible, is apparent in modern social ideology. We fabricate a fictitious species, give it humanistic qualities and a slight divergent appetite, and then criticize its idiosyncratic behaviors… so humanlike to do so I think. Maybe we have a biased interpretation of what the order should be within the food chain.

Vampires reproduce through choice, most often using their own sexual charisma to seduce humans, seemingly their prey of choice, into an expendable beverage provider. What is so surprising about the use of sexuality in nature to facilitate the acquisition of prey for nourishment, companionship, or reproduction? Whether mutually beneficial, exploitive, or competitive, the seductive methods of one “species” to beguile another is an instinctive, integral, and unalienable characteristic of every organism that has existed since the dawn of life on Earth. For instance, the cannibalism of one life-form is the only reason we even exist today. Cells that engulf others by sucking the cytoplasmic proteins from one another were imperative in the fundamental stages preludial to primitive multicellular initiation. The first nucleus of a cell was said to be formed in this way. Multicellular organisms were not possible without the ability of nuclei to designate the exclusive functions and formations of cells into contemporary tissues and organs using DNA codes. Killing for survival and upward mobility seems to be everywhere in nature, but some might ask what this has to with desire and gender adaptations.

One of the most common uses of attraction between species is the mutual benefit flowers use in germination. Insects and birds are often used to disperse the seeds of brightly colored flowers to varying locations by feeding on otherwise useless nectar. Other organisms, such as many Fungi use flies to spread spores. Even more concrete examples might include the Venus fly trap, which entices flies with odors and colors only to trap and suck the nutrients from the secreting fluids of the decomposing fly. The female praying mantis will often kill its male mate after a seductive gesture in order to nourish its body for successful reproduction.

Of all the aspects of nature, there is only one “organism” that vampires can completely relate to: the virus. The virus is neither living nor dead. It is a parasite that feeds off of the DNA of other organisms, yet does not hold a cell structure and does not have its own DNA. Their bodies repair themselves often by feeding on the blood of humans and animals alike and reproduce by attaching themselves to the living and using part of their own bodies to form new wholes. They mutate and become more powerful with numbers and age by becoming resistant to certain medicines and treatments while if exposed to sunlight they die from the lack of a cell wall. To shelter from this, many viruses, like herpes simplex, will hide in the deep, dark coffins at the base of the spine only to come out to feed, reproduce, or travel to another home. Once their host environment is expired, and their resources exhausted, they move on to other environments and adapt. Actually, the only other organism on Earth that this last fact also pertains to is Humans (and possibly locusts).

These are just a few of the ways in which our vision of the erotically seductive killer portrayed within the vampire relates to immediate reality. If vampires existed, I don’t think I would make a big fuss about their use of attraction for consumption. Their lure to the dark side may even put Dr. Kevorkian out of business by providing an alternative to Euthanasia.

Question: What would you do with Eternity?

The “existential despair and the sheer boredom of lifeless immortality.”

How does Interview with the Vampire relate to Greeks? Foucalt and Halperin state that humans become bored and will move to the opposite sex for pleasure. Is eternity long enough for this to be true in all cases? How do vampires relate to sexuality? Do they even have sex? How do you have sex in a coffin? There is no need for sexual relationships with asexual reproduction. They use seduction to take lives, fulfill their desires and quench their thirst. Without a sexual desire, what is the difference between companionship between man and woman? Perhaps Love is an asexual entity at this level. This work of fiction takes sexuality to a whole new level, defying the norm that heterosexuality is most common in nature and vital to the existence and continuation of life on Earth. Any thoughts? I think I got carried away again.

Vision in Interview with the Vampire

In the book Interview with the Vampire, the section that troubled me the most was when Louis visited the church. He seemed to be forced unconsciously into the cathedral, which is compared to a nightmare of searching ruthlessly for Claudia’s lost doll that will never be found. Once Louis is inside, he seats his troubled self in one of the wooden pews and instantly senses all the aspects of the church, such as the smell, sound, feel, etc. While seated at the pew, Louis then has a very disturbing vision of himself ascending the alter, throwing and stepping on the sacred Eucharist that represented the Body of Christ. He than states that, “I knew full well the meaning of it. God did not live n this church…I was the supernatural in this cathedral.” (pg 144). The vision then progressed to show the church falling to ruins, Lestat in a coffin proceeding down the isle, Claudia announcing that Louis’s soul is damned, and finally Louis’s immaculate brother laying the coffin in Lestat’s place.

It seems to me that this vision represents a very interesting point in Louis’s thinking about his nature. He finally acknowledges that he is truly a supernatural being because he is not harmed by the crumbling church, but at the same time, he still cannot break away from his mortal side that was connected with his perfect brother. Then Claudia states, “And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength”(pg. 145). It seems as though Louis damns himself for “killing” his brother as well as Lestat, which seems to imply the reason that grotesque Lestat is replaced by his angelic brother in the coffin. I think the whole vision is meant to convey a sense of confusion in Louis about his place on earth, and how is past will affect the future.

Interview with a Vampire

At class yesterday we discussed certain topics relating to vampires such as a vampire's sexuality, alternative sexuality, and the vampire metaphor. In addition we also talked about such issues as Claudia as a sexual being. It is weird to think of children as sexual but according to Freud, children are very sexual. That is the age when most children start to experiment either with themselves or with others. Freud even has psychosexual stages of development. They are oral, anal, phallic, latency period and genital stage. According to Freud, the phallic stage is when boys start to experiment with their male genitals. Freud's research was based on previous psychosexual stages that influence people in later life. We were talking about Daniel Radcliffe being nude in the play, Equus. It was such a big deal in America that someone was not going to have any clothes on at all because that is not common in America. But unlike America, Europe is more socially open and did not mind that there were nude actors in the play but were surprised that such a young boy would do it. Daniel Radcliffe is only 17 or 18 years old. Even though the scene only lasts about seven minutes, it was written up in all the papers and made a big deal of. The scene should not have been a big deal because it was in almost complete darkness, and most of the time Radcliffe was facing the other way. It was weird when Claudia turned into the vampire because it all of a sudden made a little girl, who was innocent at first, erotic. The second that Claudia turns into a vampire she is no longer innocent and starts sucking people's blood with Lestat. It was also perverted that Louis, who acts as a father figure, is in love with Claudia. He describes her as beautiful and with great detail. It is uncomfortable for me to think as children as sexual beings because they are so young and innocent.

After class,I found the movie and book, Interview With the Vampire, more interesting than I had previously. I hadn’t thought about many of the characteristics that we talked about in class. One comment I found intriguing what that vampires suck all the life out of you, where as the sun and reality of life sucks all the life out of the vampire. They seduce you and trick one into thinking their intentions are differently. The vampires in the movie seemed as though they not only used their actions, but they also used glamour to lure the women in. Their mystery lead the women into wanting to know more, as the men make the situation not only intriguing, but also erotic. The women think they are being seduced and the vampire is into them, where it is the kill that because more erotic rather than the women. The movie and the book portray this idea of the vampires of having a hidden identity that no one can unveil, which vampires do demonstrate. I think that this also goes back to the idea of hidden identity, such as in Minority Report. People and/or vampire use an identity or cover themselves up to better their lives or reach their ultimate goal. I found the discussion in class interesting, although I didn’t really like the book or movie. Even though the book gave good imagery, I found it very word an drawn out. As for the movie, I also thought it was a little long and didn’t really like it. Although, I may being bias because I really don’t like fantasy, fake, or unrealistic movies.

Interview With The Vampire

During yesterday’s class discussion regarding Interview With The Vampire we discussed the sensual and seductive qualities of vampires. I had not watched the film until today, so I had my own interpretations and imagery of vampires from the book. Anne Rice’s writing technique uses a very descriptive and wordy approach to explain her story, which made me easily visualize the story. Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise were excellent choices for vampires because they both have a previously established reputation and allure. Both celebrities have desired sex appeal and because of this, their role of playing a vampire is emphasized through mystery and beauty. The movie dramatically captured the act of becoming a vampire through visual stimulus. The sexual aspect of a vampire is derived from the touch of the neck. Humans connect this physical connection with sex because it stimulates sexual emotions, while immortal such as vampires use this seductive act as a method of survival. Although the act of sucking blood is not attractive or sexual, the movie made an effort to create a sexual representation through a physical closeness and emotional feelings. For example, when Lestat took the life of Louis there was a clear indication of sexual tension and emotion. The hidden attraction that Lestat possessed for Louis also made the scene more dramatic because Lestat was so intrigued by Louis’s beauty and strength. Vampires are mysterious, and mystery usually attracts people because there is an unknown desire and lust. Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise portrayed the ideal example of vampires because of their physical appearance. Although vampires are monsters, the movie and the book portray mysterious and beautiful characters that enhance the appeal of a vampire’s sexuality.

Interview

In class yesterday we talked about the cultural associations made with vampires and the one that seemed to come up most is that they are perceived as seductive. I don’t know if it is because I get queasy around blood or that I never found interest in vampire novels or movies, but I do not find vampires seductive at all. The scene in the movie where Lestat turned Louis into a vampire disgusted me if anything. I can see how the fact that they are unknown can make vampires appealing.

While reading the novel, I felt pity for both Louis and Claudia. Besides their love for each other, they both seem lonely and unhappy. Being immortal and unhappy does not seem appealing. Until Claudia came along, not matter how much Louis hated Lestat, he could not leave him because it is better for him to live with somebody he cannot stand than to live alone. Louis says that he stays with Lestat because he is afraid that he has not learned everything Lestat knows, but I think it is more because he fears living forever with nobody to relate to.

On a side note, while watching the film, all I kept thinking was how I wished that they could have found somebody else to cast as Lestat than Tom Cruise. Something about him makes me uninterested in his character. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if he wasn’t in it.

Interview with the vampire

During our class discussion yesterday, we talked about the characteristics that vampires possess. The class said things such as vampires were seductive and erotic, they thrived at night, etc. One characteristic that we did not touch on is the fact that they are immortal. I think this characteristic is played up in the movie and by Anne Rice in the novel. Being immortal is the one characteristic that humans cannot possess and vampires can. Vampires never die, which is an underlying theme in the book and novel and causes emotional anguish for Louis and Claudia. Being immortal casts a shadow over the characters because who wants to be immortal without happiness. The characters are ultimatley lonely, and have to live with this lonliness without feeling for eternity. Now in the case of Claudia, her unrest about being immortal lies in the fact that she cannot grow up. For years and years she will be exactly the same as she was when she became a vampire.
Now the movie and the book are not quite the same, so the interpretations are also different. The book really has an underlying sensual aspect of relationships between Louis ad LeStat, Claudia and Louis and LeStat, and just their relationships with killing people. Although the movie does catch the sensuousness, it is mainly between male and female character. The females are close to climaxing as the two studly vampires are sucking their blood as portrayed in the movie. The book analyzes the relationship between Louis and LeStat more. In the beginning their is a sort of erotic relationship between the two. LeStat provides Louis with life, Louis even sleeps in the coffin with LeStat on one occassion. LeStat acts as a sexual and motherly figure, which Louis loves and hates. Also, with Claudia having two fathers really creates an interesting dynamic. Louis loves her, but in a borderline sexual way; whereas, LeStat acts more like an educator. Anyways, I feel that the novel focuses on relationships that are not typical relationships and can raise questions. I feel like the movie left out that aspect, which I think is key for the novel.

Interview with the Vampire and Minority Report- Original Text vs. Film Adaptation

In our class discussion yesterday, we briefly compared Anne Rice’s, Interview with the Vampire, with the film adaptation of the book. It was interesting that the book’s plot slightly differed from the film. Rice’s original version of Louis’ early life story was altered in the film. Instead of his brother tragically dying, as written within the book, in the film, Louis dealt with the loss of his beloved wife and child. Interestingly, the class agreed that the loss of a wife and child was considerably more tragic than the loss of a brother or sibling. It seems like the loss of a wife and child tugs at the heart strings of movie goers far more than the loss of a brother ever could. Knowing that a man has fallen in love, started a family and built a life of his own, only to suddenly lose that life, defines tragedy in our culture. In a sense, it also defines romance. Often times in film, it seems like there is nothing more romantic than the death of a lover.

This is also evident in the film Minority Report. The film incorporates a tragic element into Anderton’s life story, the loss of his young son. In addition, the film depicts how this heartbreaking loss ultimately led to a divorce with his wife, a woman who he cared for deeply and had a happy, loving life with. This added plot twist, however, was not in Philip K. Dick’s original short story at all. It seems that it was placed within the film to allow the audience to further identify and sympathize with the main character.

Interview With A Vampire

I thought the class discussion on Interview with a Vampire led us to some very interesting ideas about vampires associated with the novel and the film. First, we thought of words most commonly used to describe vampires, such as seductive, dangerous yet delicate, mysterious, lustful, unknown and alluring. We agreed that vampires are thought of as sneaky, blood-thirsty, life-sucking villains that will stop at nothing to get what they want from you. They have a certain seduction about them in that they need you and your blood for their very survival; if compared to a modern relationship the vampire would hypothetically be the addicted, codependent one. There is a mystery about vampires that causes one to ask whether or not we should feel bad for them because they are perpetual outsiders forbidden to have a daily existence. However, then we realize, for a minute we let our emotional side control our mental side which led us to forget that they mercilessly kill people, or even worse turn them into the terrible beings that they are.
I thought it was very interesting when we came to the idea that perhaps Lestat made Louis a vampire to have a companion, that he felt this companion would help him to transfer his repressed sexual desire to blood desire.
I liked reading the novel and seeing the film through the eyes of the vampire. I did not have trouble identifying with Louis. In the film, Louis was shown agreeing to become a vampire at a very vulnerable state which immediately made me feel that the situation was not under his control. Even though he later became a real vampire and killed humans for his survival he had no choice; he was stuck as this monster and he had to do what he had to do. I felt bad that Louis could not embrace his love interest for fear that he would want to suck her blood. He cared for another by demonstrating a deep love for Claudia as his daughter. He felt he was in a love/hate relationship with Lestat, who was his companion, but who was also the one responsible for making him the monster that he was; he was forced to stay bonded to him.
One last thing I found interesting in our discussion was our realization that in the novel Louis’ brother dies and in the film version Louis’ wife dies. The novel seemed accurate for the late 1700’s in that he would have a close bond with his brother who he cared for and idolized. Also, it would make perfect sense because Lestat’s character would replace his brother as a companion. However, the film makes it so his wife dies in childbirth. We thought of several reasons as to why this change might have been implemented. If his wife dies during childbirth it demonstrates that he is a devoted family man; it is more of a sorrow/sad story, very Hollywood; it makes for a more modem movie; it makes him seem human, we feel sorry for him because he has no one; and it portrays a straight and “normal” trajectory to be identified with.
In all, I enjoyed the class discussion and I especially liked the film.

After discussing in class the conversation between Brick and Big Daddy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" several interpretations of the characters relations were mentioned. First was the relationship between Brick and Skipper, which in the play plays up the homosexualism of Brick and Skipper. The play doesn't exactly state whether their is a homosexual relationship, but Brick becomes very defensive when Big Daddy tries to ask whether he is. Because he becomes defensive their is reason to believe that their was a relationship between them, but Tennessee Williams leaves this end open. Therefore, another interpretation of their relationship is that they were extremely close friends, and "loved" each other like family. Speaking of family, during this confrontation we see different sides of Big Daddy. We actually see a conversation between a father and a son, with emotions involved which we haven't seen from either of them thus far. Also Big Daddy is sort of consoling Brick if they were lovers, and even goes so far as to maybe mention that he himself consorted that way back in his younger years. This is far from the tough, powerful, hard working Big Daddy before. I like the fact that Tennessee Williams has added this new dimension to character relationships. The interpretations can sort of go whichever way you want them to, but Tennessee Williams makes you think of something other than the inheritance and the relationship between Maggie and the other family members. Depth is added to the plot. In the movie, however, this confrontation is not shown and the Skipper/Brick relationship barely mentioned. The attention is then placed mostly on Maggie and Brick, which makes sense when Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman are the stars playing those roles.

Brick and Big Daddy

"Brick, nobody thinks that that's not normal."-Big Daddy

The coversation between Brick and Big Daddy (the one we discussed that spanned several pages) provided the reader with enough leeway to read between the lines. I personally think that Big Daddy experimented with other men when he was younger. He was also trying to tell Brick that it's okay. That men can have relationships with other men. Brick on the other hand, tried to completly disregard who his father was saying. Brick was afraid to admit that he has/had a relationship with Skipper. The movie does a horrible job at portraying this. Tennessee Williams wrote this play as a critique of contemporary attirudes regarding homosexuality. In that sense I did not like the movie.

As part of the discussion on Brick and Big Daddy's dialogue, we in class looked at modern views of homosexuality. There were many strong points made during this discussion.
1- The internet and global;ization has drastically changed society's attitudes towards homosexuality
2- Rural areas are not up to date
3- Our generation overall has a very accepting view of homosexuality
4- Ignorance is still present in a number of cases

I would also like to add to this. I firmly do believe that homosexuality has moved to the forefront of pop culture. People who see homosexuality as wrong or a sin are ignorant, uneduacted, hypocritical assholes.

Bigots are no one's friend, and a sign of insecurities. People act like morons when it comes to something they don't know. Anyways, who in this class does not know at least one gay person? If you don't your probably blind, close-minded, or not exposed to diversity, or have access to global society, or history. Look at the Greeks and Romans- founders of western civilization.

Cat and Eros

Cat on the Hot Tin Roof and Eros the Bittersweet went very well together. I think Tennessee Williams play was a great example of love/desire as bittersweet. For Maggie she was married to someone that she truly thought was beautiful and was able to improve her social status through this marriage. However, she eventually had to face the realization that the person she loved did not love her back and did not want to be with her. This arrangement was both beneficial and pleasurable to her but also was depressing and hard to deal with at times. Cat also emphasizes the point that desire is the act of wanting and often once you have it you don’t want it any more. I think this was true of Brick towards Maggie and also Maggie towards Skipper. Once they had the object of their desires they no longer wanted those things.

Cat along with many of the other stories we have red such as Maurice and the Symposium expressed the idea that true connection was or could only be between two men. The Symposium spoke of how only relationships between two men could be “heavenly” and that women could never have this connection. Clearly in Cat the true connection that Brick felt was with Skipper and not with Maggie. This same idea was true of Brick and his relationship with his parents. He felt more connected or closer to Big Daddy, his father, and not his mother.

Big Daddy- A Character of Tolerance

After rereading the scene in Act II between Brick and Big Daddy in which Big Daddy questions Brick about the true nature of his relationship with Skipper, I was able to see their father/son relationship, as well as Big Daddy’s character, in a different light. The scene is almost comical in a sense. During the course of their dialogue, it seems that Big Daddy assumes that Brick is a homosexual, and takes on the role of this overly understanding and accepting father. As he questions Brick about the nature of his relationship with Skipper, Big Daddy seems extremely tolerant of the possibility that his son may be gay. No matter how many times Brick denies that he is gay and exclaims that homosexuality is wrong, Big Daddy refuses to take no for an answer.

Big Daddy makes several statements of understanding, attempting to get Brick to “come clean” about his assumed hidden sexual orientation. Big Daddy says things such as, “I knocked around in my time…I bummed, I bummed this country…Slept in hobo jungles and railroad Y’s and flophouses in all cities…” (Williams 90). It is as if Big Daddy is encouraging Brick to be a homosexual and desperately wanting him to confide in him about it. Big Daddy states, “Well, I have come back from further away than that. I have just now returned from the other side of the moon, death’s country, son, and I’m not easy to shock by anything here. Always, anyhow, lived with too much space around me to be infected by ideas of other people. One thing you can grow on a big place more important than cotton! - is tolerance! - I grown it” (Williams 94). For a man who comes of quite stubborn and old fashioned, Big Daddy is certainly open-minded with Brick.

Film vs. Williams

Tennessee Williams’ original play “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, just like every piece we have read in class so far, had noticeable changes in the movie version. I was not disappointed as I have been with previous film versions of the books we have read because for the first time I honestly liked the movie better. Paul Newman, who I had not really acknowledged as an elite actor before watching “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, was very close to perfect in playing the role of Brick. Besides being a convincing alcoholic, Newman was emotionless and stone-cold just like Brick was in the play script. I remember we discussed how Brick’s name was chosen purposely by Williams in order to convey how “impenetrable” and “unbreakable” he is. Newman always gave that impression to me. I watched the movie with a close friend who had not read the play and he described Brick as “a lost cause”, which I recalled thinking the same of him while reading the play. I never thought he could break down, and was positive there was nothing Maggie could do to get Brick’s undying love and passion towards her. The only emotions he showed towards Maggie in the play and the movie was anger and a complete lack of concern for her happiness. Skipper’s suicide is the reason for Brick’s alcoholism and behavior around his family, which brings me to one aspect of the film I was a bit unhappy with. Although I enjoyed the movie more simply because I fell in love with the acting abilities of Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor, there is no doubt in my mind that the play was a lot deeper in meaning and raised important questions. Williams asked her readers if marriage is truly what it is made out to be, an eternal union between two lovers, or if it is just a societal expectation that humans give into. Williams also makes Skipper and Brick’s relationship much more romantic than the film, which raises questions of his true desires. We have discussed many times about the concept of “desires” in most of the assigned readings, and here it is again. By the end of this course, I feel like I will be completely lost as to what my real desires are from life. I will always question whether I want something because of the environments I have been a part of in my life so far, or because of my human nature and instincts. We saw it in Maurice and now in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, when you do not follow your desires, regrets will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Mulvey and Williams

After class, I got to thinking about how Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema” relates to the film version of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” Mulvey suggests cinema gives men the power of “the gaze” thereby transforming women into objects of desire. In the film, Elizabeth Taylor plays a more attractive, glamorous Maggie than is depicted in the play. She is shown doing mundane things such as changing her stockings, but it is done in a proactive manner in order to obtain Brick’s gaze and quite possibly her male audience. Elizabeth Taylor, I believe, was casted perfectly for this role because she illustrated a great depiction of Maggie. She is a talented, classic beauty whose character I felt I could truly get into. However, as beautiful as she is, I feel Elizabeth Taylor was not the central object of desire in this story. Brick, played by the most handsome of all actors, Paul Newman, was the most intriguing character to follow. He, more than Maggie, represented this idea of “the gaze.” He was the most desirable figure and the most impenetrable figure within the play. 1) Brick’s wife, Maggie, wanted nothing more than for him to show physical and emotional affection for her, but because of his covert love for Skipper and disgust with himself, he could not show Maggie this affection. [play version—) 2)Out of the fear of what was not socially acceptable, Brick hung up the phone when Skipper confessed his love for him. Though Brick had strong feelings, Skipper could not get to him.] 3) Lastly, Big Daddy and Big Momma both desire that Brick be happy, but it is not until his and Big Daddy’s talk that Brick truly understands his situation within the family so to make himself happy. I may be a sucker for a Hollywood film ending, but I rather liked the end of the film as opposed to that of the play. I feel that after having that long talk with Big Daddy, it is possible for Brick to understand the inner-workings of his family and want to better his situation with Big Daddy and Maggie.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof/Interview with a Vampire

I watched the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and thought that the movie director changed it quite a bit from the play. Big mama did not look how I imagined her to be. I imagined her to be a big boned, big breasted, and pretty much big all around woman instead she was so little compared to Big Daddy. I thought she would only be a little smaller than him. The ending was also different than I both endings because even though Maggie did tell everyone that she was pregnant, the two play endings inferred that they were going to have a baby but the movie ending they actually started to create a baby. In the beginning when Maggie is trying to seduce Brick, Brick shows no emotion at all in a close up of Maggie getting close around Brick, she has her shirt off and only bra/undershirt with a medium shot. I think the casting director chose Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie because she was considered a sex symbol when she was younger. The director could also have chosen Marilyn Monroe, another sex symbol. Because she is considered such a sex symbol, the director was making a point to the viewing audience that this guy (Brick) must be gay or crazy not to fall for her. If the casting director chose someone not as big of a sex symbol, the point wouldn't have been so clear. Brick was also the object of desire for Maggie because even while he was an alcoholic, she said that he was still pretty. I enjoyed watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.
I also started Interview with the Vampire. I am enjoy reading it a lot and I couldn't believe that Dr. A said that Interview with the Vampire is an erotic book. I was at first dumbfounded because I could never imagine that until I started reading the book. I agree with her because the scenes between the vampires and the way in which they are sensual could be considered erotic. It is a very interesting story and I can't wait to see what is going to happen. Also, I can't wait to see the movie with Brad Pitt!

03/06/07 Class

In class today we talked a lot about homosexuality and its acceptance in today’s society. I feel that our class in general is a lot more optimistic about how society views homosexuality than how it is viewed in reality. During my freshman year of college, two of my good friends from high school came out that they were gay. They are twin brothers and I am from a small town, so coming out was like giving a speech to the entire town, because everyone knew it would spread in a matter of days.

To me, finding out did not change my relationship in any way. I actually gained more respect for them and am happy that they no longer feel that they have to hide such a big part of their lives. A lot of my friends reacted the same way as I did. But there were others who told the boys that they were happy for them, but would go behind their backs and talk about them. To them, this was just more gossip to spread and the new topic of numerous conversations.

The most upsetting comment that I heard—and I heard this in more than one conversation—was when people assumed that just because they were gay, that there was a good possibility that they hooked up with each other. I was just appalled when I heard this. My reaction was the same every time. If a male said this, I would ask him if he had a sister and if he did, I would ask if he would want to hook up with her. If it was a female, I would ask the opposite. I would say just because they are homosexual does not mean that they are attracted to their own family members and it is not right to make that assumption.

I understand that we were all only freshman in college and still had a lot of maturity to gain, but if this how my friends and community reacted, I am sure that other people would react the same way. I will say that as a society, we have come a long way in our acceptance of homosexuality than the previous generation, but we still have a lot more room to grow. So I do not completely agree with what many people were saying in class. I do not think our society is fully accepting and I do not think that we should believe that we are or else I think there will be little motivation to become fully accepting.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

I really enjoyed watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. After class on Thursday I went and rented the movie and watched it after we had watched the first part in class. I loved how we were able to watch the first scene and follow along in the original script and see how Hollywood changed certain things. It was very interesting to think about what their motives may be to changing those things and what they did change. Even from the beginning they added the scene of Brick out by the football field drunk and trying to hop over the hurdles, the producer changes the way the story begins. Through out the movie this continues to occur. The play is altered many different times in order to make it a “Hollywood” film. The entire plot about Brick and Skippers relationship is altered to make the movie more audience friendly during that time period. Bricks drinking problem becomes about Skipper and Maggie’s relationship and not Brick and Skippers personal relationship. Their relationship is viewed more as just friends in the movie where in the play it is implied that it was more than just friendship.

Other times in the movie entire parts were just cut out, such as the scene where Big Daddy confronts Brick about his homosexuality and even says that he understands. Entire scenes were also added in the movie, such as the cellar scene. Overall I found this comparison between the movie and the play script to be very interesting. It really made me want to follow along and figure out what is different and what was changed. It made me think about why Hollywood would do that. What was going on during that time period to make the producer need or want to do that?