Gender and Race Roles in Far From Heaven

The two biggest aspects of the movie which call for some discussion are prominently the race and gender roles depicted throughout. As far as race goes, the black man (or any minority for that matter) is represented by Raymond. He is the well educated and upstanding black gardener with whom the main character, Kathy starts to fall in love with. No matter how much he accomplishes in his lifetime, he will still always be a black man in the white man's world. This related to Fanon's discussion of being black. He talks about how a black man will always be a "black man", whereas a white man is simply a "man". This is portrayed in the movie by the fact that Raymond is probably the most educated and civilized character in the whole story, yet he is looked down upon by the white community, who only sees the color of his skin. While this portrayal of complete and mindless racism seems exaggerated, it was commonplace for the time period and is still present in lesser degrees today.

The second issue of gender roles is also a very interesting topic within the film. First of all, the main protagonist is a female, a fact which is sort of uncommon. Because of this, gender roles are sort of reversed and mixed up throughout the whole movie. The most obvious example is the fact that her husband The Rookie is gay. This in itself completely boggles up his role and the expectations which one would normally have from a man. When the issue of her husband's homosexuality arises, she deals with it in a reasonable and mature fashion, sometimes the opposite of the reaction one might expect from a woman. Throughout the movie, Kathy keeps a level head in the midst of all sorts of turmoil, proving that she is a strong person and capable of living without the current family arrangement she is in.

So what is the significance or effect of portraying these gender and race relationships in the 1950s setting? I think the reason for the flat out displays of racism depicted in the film are meant to be a reminder of how illogical and downright stupid the beliefs were which spawned modern day racism. Race is still a prominent issue in society, albeit a seemingly smaller factor than in the past. The film makers were trying to show us how any sort of remainder of racism we may still have is rooted from a deep misunderstanding and is simply unreasonable. The gender roles portrayed are to show us that gender has always been an important factor in society. Woman have always desired to be with the man they want, even if it's not their current husband. And there have always been gay men. (this is debatable, but we will assume it is inherent at birth) These sort of issues were simply covered up in the past, so as to not upset the perfect family image which people wanted to convey. This film helps us to understand that people need to be free to be themselves and to be with the ones they want, not just to marry for money and good looks and stay that way forever.

Marx and Dancer in the Dark

Conrad Barber

Regarding Marx, the most interesting parts I discovered were in the first excerpt of the assigned reading. In it, he discusses the fact that when a person is employed in, for example, a factory setting, not doing any particularly skilled labor, their labor becomes an object, just like the product they are creating. The object of their labor then becomes separate from them as a person, and all three components - product, labor, and human, all simply become commodities in an economy. This is where Marx's theory of alienation roots from. The worker realizes this, and also realizes that someone else is in control of all this, and that alienation is established.

The character of Selma in Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark works in a factory, making some sort of tubs or basins. When she is at work, she is not Selma, but basically a tool in the manufacturing of these products. Her paycheck is simply an expense her employer must pay in order for his products to be made. Nothing more. Selma, at some point in her employment, realizes this, and Marx's alienation is established in her. She begins to see herself as that commodity, and starts to believe that she is separate and somehow a lesser person than her bosses. This is why she is so desperate to keep her job, even though she is going blind. She thinks she isn't capable of any other sort of work, because she has this mindset of alienation from persons with more technical or other different types of professions.

So what is the significance of this alienation present in the character of Selma? What is the director trying to convey? The alienation Selma feels in her workplace is one of many aspects which cause her to resort to the violent act she committed. Granted, she was first threatened with violence by her "victim", who had also stolen her life savings. What the film is trying to convey about Selma is the truly hopeless situation she found herself in, financially and otherwise. She was going blind, was out of work, and was under the impression that factory work was all she was capable of. Unfortunately this was no longer an option due to her recent total loss of eyesight. So when given the opportunity to possibly avenge the crime which had been committed against her by Bill, she took it. Also, this sense of total hopelessness is what drove her to refuse the second lawyer, as she wanted that money to go toward her son's operation. She knew she would never be able to pay for both the lawyer and the operation, so she chose the option which would benefit her son more, and possibly help him to stay out of the social and economic pit she had slowly fallen into.

Mulvey and Rear Window

Conrad Barber

The first thing Laura Mulvey mentions in "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" is scopophilia, or the sort of quasi-erotic pleasure humans can attain by looking at other people. This includes active or passive peeping, but definitely applies to cinema. When one watches a film, we are presented with the situation that there is nothing we can do to affect the characters or the outcome of the story. While this may seem obvious and ignorant to mention, it becomes significant when we consider the voyeuristic pleasure which is inherent in the act of watching an unknowing subject. Mulvey discusses how this pleasure roots from the viewer perceiving the person they are watching as an object rather than a living being.

So who cares? What does this have to do with movies? When applied to the cinema, this theory holds true in that we have a sort of separation from the characters and events portrayed onscreen. We cannot affect their world and they seemingly have no idea we're there watching them. Usually in hollywood film, we consider the view the camera presents as what our own eyes are seeing. It is as though we are standing there in the room with the characters, not as a fellow person, but as an invisible, intangible voyeur. This then helps to appeal to scopophilia, as discussed earlier.

In Hitchcock's Rear Window, L. B. Jeffries spends pretty much the entirety of the film looking into the windows of his neighbors, observing their actions while they are unaware. This is widely accepted to represent the medium of film itself, as his neighbors' windows are rectangular viewing spaces, much like a television or theater screen. Jeffries therefore represents the moviegoing and television watching society and his neighbors are the stars. But why would Hitchcock want to use this metaphor? What sort of point is he trying to make? In order to understand the underlying theme of the film in the way that I am analyzing it, one must remove oneself from today's society and imagine a world not ruled by television, movies, and computers. When the idea for television was first being developed, I imagine it was questioned by many regarding ethics. That is, isn't creating a visual record of another's actions in order to watch at a later time, alone or with anyone else, isn't that a sort of weird distant voyeurism? It is hard for our generation to imagine, but when a person is first introduced to the concept of a moving visual image, it would probably seem that way. This is portrayed in Rear Window by the maid Stella and by Grace Kelly's character Lisa Fremont's reactions to Jeffries' peeping tom past time. But sure enough, once they try it themselves, they become fascinated and obsessed, to a point where it becomes their own weird voyeuristic past time, exactly like what has happened with television and film in today's society.

Persepolis

Conrad Barber

Persepolis is a very interesting autobiography by Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian woman. She tells the story of her childhood in the form of a comic, which delves into her personal life growing up, while also presenting a historical account of the surrounding events. One aspect I found interesting is that every once in a while, the author will pause and present some little anecdote or tidbit of historical or cultural information, which is not necessarily vital to the story but helps to enhance the reader's understanding Iran in this time period. When this information is being presented, it comes in the form of a talk bubble from the author's character Marji, who is the sole item in the frame, seems to be looking directly at the reader, and is usually holding up one finger, indicating she is making a point.

So what is the significance of this pause in the storyline to present some facts? Obviously the biggest and most prominent effect of these kind of random statements is to present information that the reader probably did not previously know, such as "According to Shiite tradition, when an unmarried man dies, a nuptial chamber is built for him. That way, the dead man can symbolically attain carnal knowledge." These kinds of little factoids are not necessary, but they do help us as non-Iranian readers to better understand the culture and the story. If she hadn't inserted that frame with the quote I mentioned, we would have no idea of the significance of the nuptial chambers for fallen soldiers. Again, not absolutely necessary, but good to know.

So then if we can agree that the author wants us to become more educated on Iranian culture, then next question I will address is 'why?'. This can be answered with the argument that the author is trying to get us as readers to experience the lives of these people, to put ourselves into their shoes for a change rather than just reading headlines and prejudging them simply because they are from Iran. It seems like nowadays the entire Middle East is more or less considered hostile and terroristic by the general American public. Obviously these views represent an ignorant generalization and are totally unfounded. By really getting the reader to imagine life in wartime Iran, the author is able to present the opposite viewpoint, that not everyone is these countries hates Western civilization, and that we cannot judge the morals of any individual person based on the policies of their government. The other times we see the character of Marji facing the "camera" with her finger held up is whenever she is making some sort of claim, or stating some sort of revolutionary phrase or fact. This is probably not unintentional and the author meant to maybe connect the actual facts to the views of Marji and her revolutionary family, as if to say their standpoint is based on facts.

Conrad Barber

V for Vendetta


I hate to use a promotional picture from the movie, but this picture helps to demonstrate the shadow and darkness which I am discussing.

The artwork in V for Vendetta is very dark. Many frames are largely if not almost entirely black, with a small amount of action or narration. What is the significance of this? Why would Moore Lloyd want to have this story take place in such a dark setting? The character V operates almost exclusively during the night, and dresses in all black with a black cloak, almost as if he himself is a shadow.

So then what is the significance of placing the story in such a dark setting? What does this relative shadow represent? Probably the biggest reason for using the darkness is to represent the political atmosphere of this alternate 1997 England. The general public is greatly oppressed by the government and they are only allowed to see and hear what the government wants them to. This is the sort of shadow they live in.

Conrad Barber

Maus/White

What is the significance of the use of mice and cats to portray the characters in this story? These events obviously actually happened to humans, yet when Spiegelman retells them he makes the Jews mice and the Nazis cats. Why did he not simply record the events as they actually happened, with the correct species that was involved? The first reason is probably simply that by making the characters all look similar, it eliminates a real identity of each mouse and cat. They all have basically the same simply drawn faces, so that all the mice look the same and all the cats also. This sort of allows us as the readers to make the characters into whoever we want them to be.

So why would Spiegelman want his characters to not have their own visual identities? What is the significance of this intention? By making the faces generic, the results are that the only real differences between characters is whether they're a cat or a mouse. This helps to portray the complete separation of Jews and Nazis. It helps to break down the different sides and to make all Jews simply Jews, and likewise with Nazis. It was this stark generalizing and downright racism which started the Holocaust in the first place.

So how does this clear division of groups contribute to the telling of the story? Spiegelman is obviously pressing his own morals upon the reader, trying to gain their sympathy by portraying himself and the Jews as weak mice who are victimized by the big strong Nazi cats. It's like White said, could we ever narrativize without moralizing? The answer is pretty much no. Any account of any historical event is inevitably going to have some sort of spin on it, depending on who made the record. Every person wants to have his or her side of the story seem like the better side, and they want whoever is reading their account to agree with them, pity them, or whatever.

8) Comics is most obviously a visual medium. In what ways do other senses participate in reading comics? (see esp. p. 89)

The sense of sound is utilized through the use of onomatopoeia, which has become a specialty of comic artists. When these words are read, the pronunciations sound like the noise trying to be replicated. So, when you read a word such as "thwap" you essentially hear the sound.
Also, the goal of comics is to establish not just, a picture, but an entire setting. The reader uses the pictures and creates their own reality, consisting of sounds, smells, and everything else.