The first time I read Catcher in the Rye freshman year of high school it instantly became one of my favorite books. Perhaps I was identifying with Holden’s lost sense of self or his inability to cope with growing up, but nonetheless it spoke to me. If you asked me what I remembered from the book or what spoke to me most, I would not tell you that I wanted to rebel or thought the whole world was “phony.” I would tell you that I enjoyed the book because here was a character who didn’t try to over-impress me with his goodness or extreme badness. I felt he was real and identifiable. But then you examine Holden’s background and well what did I have in common with a rich prep school kid from New York who flunked out of an all boys school? I have come to question this myself and why this character spoke to me in order to understand how censorship of this book was developed.
I believe the censorship issue goes along with the idea of when are kids able to interpret information and possible adult topics in a manner which they can fully understand good choices versus bad ones. The issue with this novel I think has a lot to do with the case of Grease being banned in Missouri. Adults see adult topics like prostitution and sex and believe that kids and young adults do not have the capacity to differentiate right from wrong. It is easy for me to say that this is a ridiculous notion but then I think to myself of the idea of having my own children one day and subjecting them to this type of literature, and I do get a bit more skeptical of letting kids read this novel. However, the ability to learn and grow as a young adult can be a rupturing and inspiring time something that Catcher in the Rye seems to capture and allure readers with. I think that rather than shying away from sensitive topics like sex, we need to speak and communicate with the younger community in order to establish an open a discussion on right versus wrong for them. Let them read and learn and engage in the literature and the touchy subject matter but have someone there to guide them on their journey. But then again, I did not have this guidance and neither did my peers while reading this book and we were able to develop without the foreseen negative consequences of reading this novel. Perhaps we should have a little more faith in our youth and their mental capacity as well as engage with them in discussions on these matters rather than hide them from the world.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Holden Caulfield Smoked, So Now I Want To... Not.
It has probably been 5 or 6 years since I’ve read The Catcher in the Rye and I had all but forgotten everything about the book except the memory of enjoying it in high school. So going into this reading I was really curious to see if my taste has changed much since then. I was worried that this character I had liked so much would now seem obnoxious or impossible to relate to. Luckily, I found that I still get a kick out of Holden Caulfield. I think the fact that he is such a blunt and open narrator makes him likable, and to be honest I think he is somewhat of a badass. Not to mention his characteristic language makes him so quirky: lousy, crumby, phony, corny—all these great words that aren’t used very often. They give Holden a really distinctive voice. I think he is a pretty convincing narrator as well; when he describes Ackley I really sympathized with his annoyance and disgust towards the guy.
As far as this book being censored in high schools goes, I guess I can see where some parents would get nervous about it. Between the cursing and smoking and sexing, most people probably wouldn’t want teenagers emulating Holden. Then I thought back to high school, when I read it for the first time. Did Holden Caulfield have anything to do with me trying a cigarette for the first time? Seriously doubtful. My opinion is that, when it comes to activities like those of Holden Caulfield, there isn’t a huge connection between what teenagers read and what they do. It's like blaming video games for school shootings or violent lyrics for suicides. I think the reality is that people's behaviors are much too complicated to be caused by a book, song, movie, etc. and to point the blame in that direction is to oversimplify the issue.
Fighting the Principle for the principle of fighting
There have been many articles and essays written on the subject of our generation and how it is missing a purpose. We seem to be without a greater cause that we believe is bigger than us. We do not engage in any unified battles.
When you think about it realistically, banning a book doesn't really keep someone from reading it. We were all children once, and I'm mildly sure we all managed to do things our school did not condone. It's the principle of the thing, isn't it? We say " yes well they COULD just buy the books for themselves if they REALLY wanted to read it but then it's unfair to children that come from families who have very little money. It's the principle of the thing".
The fact is we LIKE feeling like we can fight for our rights on something. I personally have never been negatively affected by a book being banned at my school, yet I feel excited about things like banned book week. It's true that censorship has kept me from doing things I wanted to, but nothing serious. Censorship has never robbed me of a job or any sense of livelihood, but I still want to fight it.
I think we just want to fight for the principle of it all. We want to get riled up, we want to ban together and speak out against something...anything if we believe in it.
I guess hearing all of the discussions for and against banned books and censorship in general has given me the idea that perhaps the point of it all is just to feel passionately about something and fight for it.
"Someone Ate the Baby"
I really enjoyed going to the ACLU event on Monday night. It was fun and inspiring to be in a crowd of people who so obviously cared about the freedom to speak, sing, and read. Kristen and I were noticing that the crowd was generally middle-aged people or older, with only a few exceptions (like us!). That was a little surprising to me, especially because so many instances of banned and challenged books are relevant to a younger generation.
The event was held in honor of Judith Krug, who founded Banned Book Week. I didn’t know that she was a Pittsburgh native (and went to University of Pittsburgh) – that was neat to find out. At the event I was impressed by the large range of presentations and readings – there was a dramatic piece, Shel Silverstein’s poetry, songs, children’s books. It really made an impression on me in how censorship is present among all media, and I admired that even during a week dedicated to banned books, the planners of the event made the effort to make this clear.
The presentation I really enjoyed was the reading of Shel Silverstein’s poem “Paul Bunyan.” I grew up having these poems read to me, and this summer I revisted them as I read them at night to my campers at the overnight camp I worked at. It never once crossed my mind that they would be banned or challenged. In “Paul Bunyan” there is brief mention of an untraditional heaven and hell, and in other poem’s Shel writes of childhood disobedience, rebelliousness, or (my favorite) cannibalism. This particular reading made an impact on me because it made me see how something I associate with my childhood and innocence can be seen as threatening to others – how fascinating (and scary).
One of the most interesting points that were made during the evening was the cartoonist Joe Wos’s comment that nonsense in literature is dangerous because it leaves space for critics and censors to impose their own meanings on the language. I think this is an interesting view that highlights the degree to which censorship can manipulate or frame a piece of literature. Also, Sheila Jackson, Assistant Director of the Main Library of the Carnegie Libraries of Pittsburgh, said during her opening greetings that “we must always try to be neutral.” I think she meant that we must always try to be open to new ideas in books, even if they don’t align exactly with our personal beliefs. However, her statement made me think. Perhaps it is just as dangerous for us to be neutral as for others to censor or challenge books. After all, all the people at this event were not being neutral – instead they were coming out to support a cause, coming together to celebrate the freedom to read. This is the last point I would like to make. At first I was a little taken aback by the lightheartedness of the evening (since we were talking about what I see as a serious issue). But I soon realized that these readings were meant as a celebration, and that’s what this night truly was. It was a very neat feeling to be a part of that.
I will admit, I sang along to banned songs enthusiastically with the rest of the crowd, but please don’t make me demonstrate in class. Just take Kristen’s word for it.
The event was held in honor of Judith Krug, who founded Banned Book Week. I didn’t know that she was a Pittsburgh native (and went to University of Pittsburgh) – that was neat to find out. At the event I was impressed by the large range of presentations and readings – there was a dramatic piece, Shel Silverstein’s poetry, songs, children’s books. It really made an impression on me in how censorship is present among all media, and I admired that even during a week dedicated to banned books, the planners of the event made the effort to make this clear.
The presentation I really enjoyed was the reading of Shel Silverstein’s poem “Paul Bunyan.” I grew up having these poems read to me, and this summer I revisted them as I read them at night to my campers at the overnight camp I worked at. It never once crossed my mind that they would be banned or challenged. In “Paul Bunyan” there is brief mention of an untraditional heaven and hell, and in other poem’s Shel writes of childhood disobedience, rebelliousness, or (my favorite) cannibalism. This particular reading made an impact on me because it made me see how something I associate with my childhood and innocence can be seen as threatening to others – how fascinating (and scary).
One of the most interesting points that were made during the evening was the cartoonist Joe Wos’s comment that nonsense in literature is dangerous because it leaves space for critics and censors to impose their own meanings on the language. I think this is an interesting view that highlights the degree to which censorship can manipulate or frame a piece of literature. Also, Sheila Jackson, Assistant Director of the Main Library of the Carnegie Libraries of Pittsburgh, said during her opening greetings that “we must always try to be neutral.” I think she meant that we must always try to be open to new ideas in books, even if they don’t align exactly with our personal beliefs. However, her statement made me think. Perhaps it is just as dangerous for us to be neutral as for others to censor or challenge books. After all, all the people at this event were not being neutral – instead they were coming out to support a cause, coming together to celebrate the freedom to read. This is the last point I would like to make. At first I was a little taken aback by the lightheartedness of the evening (since we were talking about what I see as a serious issue). But I soon realized that these readings were meant as a celebration, and that’s what this night truly was. It was a very neat feeling to be a part of that.
I will admit, I sang along to banned songs enthusiastically with the rest of the crowd, but please don’t make me demonstrate in class. Just take Kristen’s word for it.
A Different Kind of Censorship
Reading Catcher in the Rye, and knowing the scrutiny it has been put under, I couldn't help but do some research on why it has been so often challenged and censored. For the most part, it seems to be censored for most of the same reasons R rated movies are restricted to people over 17. In most cases, school teachers or school districts criticized the vulgar language and sexuality, deeming the content unsuitable for high school aged children. This flavor of censorship, to me, is far milder, and more broadly understood and appreciated.
I found the literary criticism we read particularly interesting with this in mind, seeing that it focussed on the content and profound arguments and theme in Catcher, only briefly touching on incidences of banning. Additionally, the repeated bannings and resurgence of challenges against the book demonstrate how different the controversy it created was compared to The Crucible or Harry Potter. Catcher in the Rye continues, even in 2009, to be one of the most banned books in high schools.
"Don't give a damn about my bad reputation..."
As a first time reader of Catcher in the Rye, I knew more about the book’s reputation going in to this than it’s actual content. While reading the book, I couldn’t help myself from scrutinizing it especially closely for any possibly offensive or inappropriate content. Though the book itself didn’t exactly live up to its notoriety (which is hardly surprising), the fact that I was even approaching it in such a manner gave me something to think about. Before having read a single word of it, I already had a perception of Catcher in the Rye in my mind, based largely on the fact that many adults have found it objectionable for their children to be reading it. It reminded me of how many of the school board members in the Harry Potter censorship case we read about hadn’t even read the Harry Potter books and, therefore, didn’t actually know the content they were restricting access to. I was extremely offended by that fact in the case of Harry Potter, but then I found myself thinking of Catcher in the Rye in a similar way. It struck me how easily the banning or attempted censorship of a book (or anything) can so easily become part of its identity.
In the case of Catcher in the Rye, it seems almost possible to me that the book has gained its standing as a classic almost because of its reputation for being frequently banned or censored. I don’t know enough to say how popular the book already was when it first began being challenged, but it doesn’t seem to me to be quite the same situation as Harry Potter: that it was found threatening largely because of its popularity. Instead, it seems more like a lot of the book’s popularity stems from the fact that it is seen as so controversial. It even made me wonder how conscious Salinger and authors in general are of the way putting objectionable things in their work can actually make them more widely read. Though one would hope that the author would only write what they feel belongs in and adds to their story, I could easily see a wily author inserting some more controversial things into their work simply to draw attention.
In the case of Catcher in the Rye, it seems almost possible to me that the book has gained its standing as a classic almost because of its reputation for being frequently banned or censored. I don’t know enough to say how popular the book already was when it first began being challenged, but it doesn’t seem to me to be quite the same situation as Harry Potter: that it was found threatening largely because of its popularity. Instead, it seems more like a lot of the book’s popularity stems from the fact that it is seen as so controversial. It even made me wonder how conscious Salinger and authors in general are of the way putting objectionable things in their work can actually make them more widely read. Though one would hope that the author would only write what they feel belongs in and adds to their story, I could easily see a wily author inserting some more controversial things into their work simply to draw attention.
The Role of The Critic
A Case Study in Canon Formation: Reviewers, Critics, and The Cather in the Rye by Richard Ohmann persuaded me to think about the role of literary critics, or critics of any genre for that matter. I found myself asking throughout the article, “What is the purpose of the critic?” Are critics essential arbiters of meaning or are they parasites on literary works, making careers from authors’ hard labor? What are ones motivation in becoming a critic?
I must admit, in the twenty minutes I’ve contemplated these questions since finishing the article, I’m still far from a conclusion. However, one piece of evidence presented in Ohmann’s article has continually worried me. Ohmann asserts that critics jumped on the opportunity to write about The Catcher in the Rye given their need to publish, to build a career, and to obtain fellowships. In short, the critic seeks to analyze, and perhaps over analyze, Catcher for personal gain. I see this as presenting an entirely new problem, proving potentially detrimental to the relationship between the reader and the text. By offering a scholarly, privileged critique of texts, the lay reader may easily be intimidated into thinking the meaning they ascribe to a text is ill informed, and simply cannot compare.
While I may be rather critical of the critic, I do see at least one very important role the critic serves, clearly exemplified by Ohmann’s article: the critic serves to define the literary canon. With this in mind, we are all indebted to the critic, having been directed by their work throughout our academic careers. In short, the literary landscape of our high schools and colleges would prove dramatically different if not for the critic. Although I may assert that the critic detracts from the meaning a layperson ascribes to a text, the critic also plays an imperative role in directing the layperson to seminal texts.
I must admit, in the twenty minutes I’ve contemplated these questions since finishing the article, I’m still far from a conclusion. However, one piece of evidence presented in Ohmann’s article has continually worried me. Ohmann asserts that critics jumped on the opportunity to write about The Catcher in the Rye given their need to publish, to build a career, and to obtain fellowships. In short, the critic seeks to analyze, and perhaps over analyze, Catcher for personal gain. I see this as presenting an entirely new problem, proving potentially detrimental to the relationship between the reader and the text. By offering a scholarly, privileged critique of texts, the lay reader may easily be intimidated into thinking the meaning they ascribe to a text is ill informed, and simply cannot compare.
While I may be rather critical of the critic, I do see at least one very important role the critic serves, clearly exemplified by Ohmann’s article: the critic serves to define the literary canon. With this in mind, we are all indebted to the critic, having been directed by their work throughout our academic careers. In short, the literary landscape of our high schools and colleges would prove dramatically different if not for the critic. Although I may assert that the critic detracts from the meaning a layperson ascribes to a text, the critic also plays an imperative role in directing the layperson to seminal texts.
A little hope for Holden
When I first read this book in high school, my teacher had us read it under the pretense that Holden is just a bad kid, that he's going crazy, and that all us students were nothing like him. Moreover, we shouldn't try to be like him, since hiring prostitutes, smoking, getting in fights, and flunking out of school were all bad things. And that was really the view that stuck with me for the longest time, at least until I reread this. Now at a different point in my life, I believe that in between the black-and-white of right and wrong, there are tons of shades of gray, where what's right on paper may be wrong in practice. For example, early on in the book, we see him get in a fight with Stradlater, constantly throwing insults at him. But he does this to defend Jane Gallagher, in his own weird way. Certainly it was dumb and rude to start a fight with his roommate, but he had some good intentions which mitigates some of the bad in his actions. Similar situation when he goes and talks to his teacher. No adult would say that failing a class is a good thing. But at least Holden has the sand to go talk to him about it, and he respects his teacher enough to establish that it's not all rebellion, and that some adults deserve some respect. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but good intentions can form the basis of a solid human being, and Holden may not be as lost a cause as my high school English teacher said
Why Ban It?
This is my first time reading The Catcher in the Rye, and I am trying to understand why this book is banned so often. Yes, there is foul language, and some sexual content, but thus far there is nothing in this book that I find shocking or out of the ordinary. I’m pretty sure I heard most of my guy friends in high school say far worse things than Holden. I don’t find the profanity shocking because it is heard all over our culture these days, and I don’t find any of the relationship or sex talk shocking because sex is everywhere as well. So far, the most shocking thing is that he hired a prostitute, but he regretted his decision immediately and didn’t even do anything with her. Therefore, I don’t really see the harm in this part either.
I suppose it is just difficult to imagine why this book is so vilified when it seems so ordinary to me. Maybe it’s because I am closer to the high school age than the parent age, but I don’t find anything in this book that seems controversial. I know kids in high school still smoke, they drink, and they have sex, what a revelation. The ones that don’t do these things are not going to feel the pressure to start after reading this book. I suppose I just think that the people who ban this book are being naïve about how kids act in high school. It’s going to take more than a book to change how someone acts, and I don’t think that this book is going to somehow make someone start spouting out swear words or act out against others more so than any other book out there. Every idea in this book that seems to be so offensive to people is also readily available in movies, magazines, comics, and the internet. I frankly can’t even remotely fathom why this book is banned because it seems so harmless to me in this day and age. There are far worse things out there that kids can become exposed to than a book.
Peer Pressure
The public school system is an area in which censorship and banning of books is still alive and well. There are questions of what is appropriate for children to read, what language is acceptable, what ideas aren't too revolutionary or polarizing, what subject matter isn't too adult. Books can be called into question for any number of offenses, but there is always an inconsistency in what is chosen to be excluded versus what is not.
Something that occurred to me as I was reading Catcher in the Rye was the idea of relatability in the characters in a piece of literature. Is it possible that censors fear children will be more apt to pay attention to a dangerous activity or philosophy if the character introducing it to them is someone they can relate to?
In Catcher in the Rye we follow Holden Caulfield, a high school student with a foul mouth and a notable lack of drive or determination. This book is frequently banned in schools, despite being fairly mild compared to similarly banned literature. Is the fact that Holden is in the peer group of impressionable readers at all a factor? Take also the example of Harry Potter's trouble with censorship. In the case we discussed, the censors cited the characters' disregard for authority as one of the reasons that the books constituted objectionable material for students. Was the fact that Harry himself was a student viewed as more dangerous and persuasive in conveying these radical thoughts and ideas to children?
Peer pressure is a common phenomenon among children and teens. If your friends urge it, you may start smoking, drinking, and taking part in a wide variety of other behaviors that would make Nancy Reagan cry. If you think of Harry Potter or Holden Caulfield as your friend, then God knows what those other behaviors could involve?
The Genre-less Protagonist
Canon notes that when Salinger's Catcher in the Rye was being reviewed - reviewers were hesitant to place the novel in one specific genre. The book was noted as funny or sad or comedy or tragicomedy or satire. If anything, the book was just placed in a class of Twain or Hemmingway rather than being something of its own. If anything, this is a perfect description of Holden Caulfield. He just doesn't quite fit anywhere even though he's been bred to fit perfectly to live in a certain manner. If you did try to put Catcher into some category that it truly isn't - Holden would flat out call it phony.
In Canon it is quoted that "Holden becomes more and more a case history of us all." Frankly, I couldn't agree more. I don't think that I belong in just one genre - and Holden certainly doesn't. His beliefs vary from extreme to extreme... with the most consistent part being that he sticks to his guns. I think that while Holden is just perceived as young, wild, and rash he understands more of the world than I did at 17. Unfortunately, there is a lot of phony out there whether we like it or not. And while Holden lets phony drive him mad and infuriate him - I almost want to say "more power to him" while the rest of us just put up with it or fall into it. Holden was written into an interesting time period - a time where there was in fact a lot of phony and deceit and fear filled the lives of many. I don't think that Holden would be so thrilled with the 21st century either. He would most likely assess that all of the technology with which we surround ourselves is phony and that we're shutting ourselves off to something real. Holden's ultimate desire to rid himself of all things phony inevitably continued to drive him crazy but he raises an interesting question - why settle? If there's something better (or at least hopefully) out there why not try to pursue it?
The Catcher in the....Wait, why did I like this book again?
I have to say, I was excited when I saw The Catcher in the Rye on our reading list. I remember reading this book in middle school and falling in love with it, however the details of the book were rather vague in my mind. I always wanted to come back to it, fall in love with the book all over again. Sadly, that isn't turning out to be the case. I find myself wondering why I even liked this book at all and how could I have possibly related to Holden?! I even find myself disliking his character, thinking that if I knew a kid like him I wouldn't want anything to do with him let alone relate to him. Maybe this is just me, but I also can't stand that Holden has to repeat "I'm not kidding" after almost everything he says.
I'm realizing though that people don't need too much controversy to be afraid of something, to feel the need to ban and censor it from their world. Whether it is a book about two gay penguins, a play that requires an all black cast, or a 17 year old boy who talks about sex, drinking, and death, people will feel threatened. I guess it doesn't matter that we are faced with these realities everyday, it only matters when we write about them. I still don't get it though. I guess censorship through writing is just another attack on black people, on gay couples, on the corrupted youth in the world.
This makes me wonder at the same time though, why did I think The Catcher in the Rye was so appealing? For me, it was probably just Salinger's realist approach with Holden's character. I say realist approach because although some of the things he does are completely out of the ordinary (like call up a hooker, drive around in a taxi cab late at night, drink at a bar), he still shows raw emotion and gives us his upfront opinion about everything. It's almost like Holden had no external fear, and I guess I related to that or at least was interested by it. Kind of like how I wanted to be like Max from Where The Wild Things Are. Then again, I was probably tired of all the overly fairy tale crap that schools shove down your throat, and the cynicism of Holden appealed to me.
I'm realizing though that people don't need too much controversy to be afraid of something, to feel the need to ban and censor it from their world. Whether it is a book about two gay penguins, a play that requires an all black cast, or a 17 year old boy who talks about sex, drinking, and death, people will feel threatened. I guess it doesn't matter that we are faced with these realities everyday, it only matters when we write about them. I still don't get it though. I guess censorship through writing is just another attack on black people, on gay couples, on the corrupted youth in the world.
This makes me wonder at the same time though, why did I think The Catcher in the Rye was so appealing? For me, it was probably just Salinger's realist approach with Holden's character. I say realist approach because although some of the things he does are completely out of the ordinary (like call up a hooker, drive around in a taxi cab late at night, drink at a bar), he still shows raw emotion and gives us his upfront opinion about everything. It's almost like Holden had no external fear, and I guess I related to that or at least was interested by it. Kind of like how I wanted to be like Max from Where The Wild Things Are. Then again, I was probably tired of all the overly fairy tale crap that schools shove down your throat, and the cynicism of Holden appealed to me.
Black and White Vision
Ohmann's essay aptly historicizes The Catcher in the Rye in the context of the 1950s,, bringing in a great class reading of Holden Caulfield's actions. It does seem that the novel often loses its historical context in the popular imagination. As a coming of age novel, it is often discussed as representing American adolescence as a whole, despite its firmly gendered and classed themes. Holden clearly comes from an extremely privileged background, as evidenced by his prep schools, suitcases and the upscale hotel that he goes to in Manhattan. Ohmann's discussion of Holden's ambivalence regarding class provides an adroit reading of the novel and insight into Holden's frustration with bourgeois social forms but inability to discover a way out of them. This explains Holden's tendency to approach phonies (he invites Ackerman to see a movie with him) and phony places despite his disdain for them.
Coming, as we do, from an exploration of the red scare of the 1950s and the Hollywood blacklist, I see Holden's ambivalence and fears about capitalism directly related to the suppression of leftist discourse in America following WWII. Ohmann writes that the novel does not present the possibility of changing society, only of escaping the hypocrisy of the post-war bourgeois world or joining it and becoming a part of the system. This could be seen as the ultimate result of capitalism's victory over America and the silencing of voices that presented social alternatives. Holden lacks the language to fully express his desires for an egalitarian, humane world to live in, blaming it on his “poor vocabulary” and tendency to act like a 13 year old. However, he lives in a world that has been stripped down to black and white, as Ohmann points out. There is the red menace in Asia, or American democracy and capitalism. And this diametric vision—influenced by cold war logic—seems at the center of Holden's conflicts and refusal to see nuance or complication in the people he meets or the world he's trying to live in. Additionally, last week's reading about loyalty in the red scare illustrates the cold war logic of completely accepting the world as it is in order to prove loyalty. In this way, Holden's feelings of intellectuality and inability to alter his world seem to be symptoms of America's war on Communism following WWII.
Coming, as we do, from an exploration of the red scare of the 1950s and the Hollywood blacklist, I see Holden's ambivalence and fears about capitalism directly related to the suppression of leftist discourse in America following WWII. Ohmann writes that the novel does not present the possibility of changing society, only of escaping the hypocrisy of the post-war bourgeois world or joining it and becoming a part of the system. This could be seen as the ultimate result of capitalism's victory over America and the silencing of voices that presented social alternatives. Holden lacks the language to fully express his desires for an egalitarian, humane world to live in, blaming it on his “poor vocabulary” and tendency to act like a 13 year old. However, he lives in a world that has been stripped down to black and white, as Ohmann points out. There is the red menace in Asia, or American democracy and capitalism. And this diametric vision—influenced by cold war logic—seems at the center of Holden's conflicts and refusal to see nuance or complication in the people he meets or the world he's trying to live in. Additionally, last week's reading about loyalty in the red scare illustrates the cold war logic of completely accepting the world as it is in order to prove loyalty. In this way, Holden's feelings of intellectuality and inability to alter his world seem to be symptoms of America's war on Communism following WWII.
Monday, September 27, 2010
"Censorship Dies in the Light of Day"
I just got back from attending the ACLU banned book reading and honestly, I feel inspired. The event honored Judith F. Krug, who is responsible for my quote on this blog post title and also the founder of Banned Books Week. As a book nerd, I always had a huge appreciation for librarians and tonight only reinforced that. Sometimes I think the world takes librarians for granted, it’s kind of amazing how neutral they have to be when selecting what books to keep in a library. This might be a weird contrast, but hear me out. I see a library and church as the complete opposite. In church there is the priest trying to shove these morals and his opinion down your throat. In a library though, it’s like a haven where the librarian is opposite of the priest (in most cases anyway) and they want you to form your own opinions and beliefs about books and the world; they want you to grow. I guess it’s kind ironic though, how both of them end up being in such heated debates about what is right and wrong.
There were breaks in between the readings that played banned songs and encouraged the audience to sing along (ask Erica to perform some, she’s just dying to). Aside from Erica's lovely singing, the banned songs really struck a cord with me. I can't believe that songs could be banned for insane reasons. For example, "Lola" by The Kinks was about a transvestite, yet what offended the BBC was that the song was product "advertising" through music by mentioning Coca-Cola. Then Cyndi Lauper's song "She Bop" which was on a list known as the "Filthy Fifteen" because the song was about masturbation. One that made me laugh was The Beach Boys "Wouldn't It Be Nice", whose line, "we can say goodnight and stay together" was apparently condoning premarital sex.
Among the performances and readings tonight, there was a reading from Fences by August Wilson, which was banned rather recently in the 1990’s for be “demeaning to women” and the fact that it “might require an all black cast”. The language is distinct and the characters have ethnicity, race is definitely the underlying issue here. There was also a reading from Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein, which was banned because it “teaches children to manipulate their parents” and “suggest drug use and violence”. Also, there is the infamous line “Someone ate the baby”, which a school district pulled the book because this line could encourage cannibalism. In 1931 Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There was banned in China because “animals should not use human language” and “it is disastrous to put animals and humans on the same level”. While reading this piece, Joe Wos mentioned that “the most dangerous type of literature is nonsense”. People can easily attack nonsense, they can claim that it has hidden drug meanings, sexual connotations, or the promotion of suicide. Nonsense is full of the abstract and unknown, if it’s not concrete then some people think it just HAS to have a hidden meaning or implication.
The performance that struck me the most was the Highway Puppet Theater that performed from the children’s book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson. And Tango Makes Three was the most banned book of 2009. So what was the evil plot of the writers to corrupt the minds of children? “We wrote the book to help teach a child about same sex families...”, yeah sounds really evil to me. And it’s obviously sending the wrong message by using two male penguins who love each other and just want to start a family; love and affection are obviously two messages we don’t want to give our children! While watching the puppet show and listening to the words/meaning of the book, I thought it was adorable. There were even a ton of audience members constantly saying “awww” throughout the performance. It angered me and even made me sad to think that this was the most banned book of 2009. It made me wonder why people are so close-minded and what are they so afraid of? If I was a parent I would totally buy this book for my child, not only was it adorable but the overall effect of the book was positive and enlightening.
Throughout the reading I just couldn’t help but constantly wonder why people feel the need to censor things. It’s like the people who censor want this picture perfect world, but what is perfect and by whose rules/standards do we apply this to? Maybe some people think that sheltering children is sending them the right message, but they are only setting their children up for some fairy tale world that doesn’t exist. What about promoting creativity? I guess there will never be a real answer for all these questions I have, and although this frustrates me, I’m going to keep believing, promoting, and writing “nonsense”. And I just dare someone to try and censor me.
Also, enjoy some censored music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_VbImuG71M
There were breaks in between the readings that played banned songs and encouraged the audience to sing along (ask Erica to perform some, she’s just dying to). Aside from Erica's lovely singing, the banned songs really struck a cord with me. I can't believe that songs could be banned for insane reasons. For example, "Lola" by The Kinks was about a transvestite, yet what offended the BBC was that the song was product "advertising" through music by mentioning Coca-Cola. Then Cyndi Lauper's song "She Bop" which was on a list known as the "Filthy Fifteen" because the song was about masturbation. One that made me laugh was The Beach Boys "Wouldn't It Be Nice", whose line, "we can say goodnight and stay together" was apparently condoning premarital sex.
Among the performances and readings tonight, there was a reading from Fences by August Wilson, which was banned rather recently in the 1990’s for be “demeaning to women” and the fact that it “might require an all black cast”. The language is distinct and the characters have ethnicity, race is definitely the underlying issue here. There was also a reading from Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein, which was banned because it “teaches children to manipulate their parents” and “suggest drug use and violence”. Also, there is the infamous line “Someone ate the baby”, which a school district pulled the book because this line could encourage cannibalism. In 1931 Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There was banned in China because “animals should not use human language” and “it is disastrous to put animals and humans on the same level”. While reading this piece, Joe Wos mentioned that “the most dangerous type of literature is nonsense”. People can easily attack nonsense, they can claim that it has hidden drug meanings, sexual connotations, or the promotion of suicide. Nonsense is full of the abstract and unknown, if it’s not concrete then some people think it just HAS to have a hidden meaning or implication.
The performance that struck me the most was the Highway Puppet Theater that performed from the children’s book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson. And Tango Makes Three was the most banned book of 2009. So what was the evil plot of the writers to corrupt the minds of children? “We wrote the book to help teach a child about same sex families...”, yeah sounds really evil to me. And it’s obviously sending the wrong message by using two male penguins who love each other and just want to start a family; love and affection are obviously two messages we don’t want to give our children! While watching the puppet show and listening to the words/meaning of the book, I thought it was adorable. There were even a ton of audience members constantly saying “awww” throughout the performance. It angered me and even made me sad to think that this was the most banned book of 2009. It made me wonder why people are so close-minded and what are they so afraid of? If I was a parent I would totally buy this book for my child, not only was it adorable but the overall effect of the book was positive and enlightening.
Throughout the reading I just couldn’t help but constantly wonder why people feel the need to censor things. It’s like the people who censor want this picture perfect world, but what is perfect and by whose rules/standards do we apply this to? Maybe some people think that sheltering children is sending them the right message, but they are only setting their children up for some fairy tale world that doesn’t exist. What about promoting creativity? I guess there will never be a real answer for all these questions I have, and although this frustrates me, I’m going to keep believing, promoting, and writing “nonsense”. And I just dare someone to try and censor me.
Also, enjoy some censored music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_VbImuG71M
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Loyalty
Of all of the readings for Monday, I particularly enjoyed “Who Is Loyal To America?” I think the piece raised several interesting points. Where can you draw the line between critiquing our society and offering alternatives to better it and acting “disloyal.” It isn’t hard to imagine that in the 1940’s, when this teacher gave her lecture, the line was rather fuzzy and pushed far to the right.
In particular this quotation stuck out to me, “Merely by talking about Russia, Mrs. Lewis was thought to be attacking Americanism.” With each text we read, this time period becomes scarier and scarier to me—threat of being a perceived communist, critiques been thrown out of proportion. What’s worse, Commanger argues that loyalty is conformity. Even though this piece was written about the 1940’s, I found it to be really eye opening. Even in our modern day, it seems this carries some light. Although in some communities it is cool to “hate the president” I believe there is still the underlying idea that loyalty is conformity. We have certainly made strides but there is something to me that still rings true about that statement.
Realism in The Crucible
In his essay “Realism and Intelligence: Some Notes on Arthur Miller,” Albert Hunt describes the peculiar version of realism Miller uses in The Crucible. It’s a kind of realism that is not based on historical accuracy, but on making characters seem as lifelike as possible. Hunt describes it as a specific style Miller uses, like simplistic language in the face of power situations, and the well-roundedness of a character like John Proctor. Hunt praises Miller’s characterization of Proctor, and the scene where Mary Warren tries to expose Abigail but eventually turns on Proctor. I’m not sure I agree with Hunt on the idea that Miller’s characterizations are realistic, but it’s true that the power of the play definitely comes from the sense that it is presenting a version of actual events. The fact is that the Salem witch trials actually did happen and people like John Proctor and Rebecca Nurse were indeed murdered. Reading about these innocent people going to their deaths has a powerful impact not just because of Miller’s style, but because the subject matter itself is horrifying. The language Miller uses is powerful too, especially in scenes where words and ideas are twisted around by the judges and accusers to create paradoxes that the accused could not escape from. The discussion where Danforth, Hathorne, Parris and Cheever try to interrogate Proctor about poppets his wife might have kept in the house is one example of this. Despite all of Proctor’s denials, the accusers can’t seem to accept that Elizabeth did not keep any poppets in the house. Parris asks, “Why could there not have been poppets hid where no one ever saw them?” Which is an impossible question to defend against, and Proctor’s frustration is clear when he replies, “There might also be a dragon with five legs in my house, but no one has ever seen it."
Hunt quotes heavily from the scene where Proctor makes his confession and then retracts it to make a point about realism. It’s an incredibly powerful scene because Proctor is presented in such an ordinary way. He is not, as he says, a saint. He cannot just give up his own life with a sense of righteousness so easily, and the simplicity of the language Miller uses in that scene serves to underscore the point of Proctor’s ordinariness, and the extraordinary choice he eventually makes.
Effect of Language
In the critiques and articles about Miller’s play, some critics have mentioned the language he uses. While Albert Hunt praises the effect the language has on the play (“There is a purity about the language which gives it great tragic power”) Gerald Weales writes “Nor was it such a good idea for Miller to attempt…to suggest the language of the period; the liens are as awkward and as stagily false as those in John Drinkwater’s Oliver Cromwell” (131, 150).
I think that Miller’s use of the language of the time, which we know from his writings was a conscious choice, does give the play power but in even more ways that Hunt mentioned. While the degree of connection the play has with the McCarthy era is so hotly debated, the language of the Puritans serve to ground the play in the historical time period. Obviously this does not rule out the parallels between the two situations, but it does place the viewer firmly in the historical context. Using this language is also significant because so many of the overall themes and ideas of the play are dependent on this context. Miller uses the language as a tool to form the society, and without this clear formation the conflict that Proctor and the other characters have would be less significant. The struggle between individual and society would not be noteworthy to the reader if there were not an established society to begin with. In a time where the public may not have a clear view of the historical background, Miller uses the language to transport them. It also helps him to shape the society into a framework that he can use to set his characters and action in.
In response to Hunt’s comment about the tragic power – I think that the simplicity (or “purity”) of the language does contribute emotionally to the tragic scenes. Take for example when Elizabeth lies because she thinks it will help her husband; here the dialogue is very short and simple (pg. 113). A similar thing happens towards the ends of the play when Proctor and Elizabeth meet again for the first time in months. While I agree that the purity of the language contributes the tragic emotion, I think this could also have been achieved with modern language. The more significant value of the language used is how it set the historical and societal context.
I think that Miller’s use of the language of the time, which we know from his writings was a conscious choice, does give the play power but in even more ways that Hunt mentioned. While the degree of connection the play has with the McCarthy era is so hotly debated, the language of the Puritans serve to ground the play in the historical time period. Obviously this does not rule out the parallels between the two situations, but it does place the viewer firmly in the historical context. Using this language is also significant because so many of the overall themes and ideas of the play are dependent on this context. Miller uses the language as a tool to form the society, and without this clear formation the conflict that Proctor and the other characters have would be less significant. The struggle between individual and society would not be noteworthy to the reader if there were not an established society to begin with. In a time where the public may not have a clear view of the historical background, Miller uses the language to transport them. It also helps him to shape the society into a framework that he can use to set his characters and action in.
In response to Hunt’s comment about the tragic power – I think that the simplicity (or “purity”) of the language does contribute emotionally to the tragic scenes. Take for example when Elizabeth lies because she thinks it will help her husband; here the dialogue is very short and simple (pg. 113). A similar thing happens towards the ends of the play when Proctor and Elizabeth meet again for the first time in months. While I agree that the purity of the language contributes the tragic emotion, I think this could also have been achieved with modern language. The more significant value of the language used is how it set the historical and societal context.
Lies in the Fire
To imagine the courtroom as a crucible as the name of Miller’s work suggests is to imply various connotations upon the court itself. Most literally it can be seen as a vessel in which all things melt and burn away, just as Danforth states in Act Three: “We burn a hot fire here; it melts down all concealment” (89). However, as we observed, concealment is not the only thing melted away. The truths which combat them also have a tendency to disappear as well. This was painfully evident as Mary Warren dramatically broke under both the spectacle that Abigail and here cohort contrived and the threatening words of Danforth. With the words “You’re the Devil’s man!” (118) Proctor was transformed from the voice of reason and truth to that of guilt and treachery.
Yet, not all truths burn in the crucible. Proctor was one of the few who chose death rather than submission to the court. He demonstrates an unrecognizable situation in which the act of confession and the value of truth are warped under baseless accusation. His act of confession to adultery was made in order to give weight to the greater truth he was trying to prove. However his punishment is not even for the crime he committed but for one he is falsely accused. As William Wiegand explains, “he dies gratuitously, bravely perhaps, but rather like the soldier on the battlefield who will not turn and run despite the fact he finds himself in a world he never made” (305).
Proctor’s “world he never made” was a result of the authority which ruled. One of the truths that this play shows (which is also applicable to those persecuted during the Red Scare) is that there is no proven way to fight against overwhelming authority. Even if one does not choose to recognize this authority, as Proctor did with Mr. Parris and many others did during various HUAC proceedings, the punishment which they can impose still exists. Richard Rovere highlights this truth as a product of an “orderly society.” One in which we forfeit “the protection of the law whenever we decide that a particular authority is unworthy of our cooperation” (322). The heat from the crucible has the capacity to burn us all, even those who don’t recognize the fire.
Crucible - a trial of sins
In science a crucible is a container used to heat substances to great temperatures. If Arthur Miller intended his play, The Crucible to reflect this image, I think he may have misjudged the content of his play. In other words I think the reaction is more of a ‘heated’ debate than the text itself. Granted, Miller chose a historical and contentious setting, but the characters’ are seemingly too static in their motivations to accomplish the “discovery of human nature...” Eric Bentley calls Miller’s play a “melodrama because though the hero has weaknesses he has no faults. His innocence is unreal because it is total” (207). I wonder if the lack of conflict is too intangible for audiences to grasp - as much of it is internal. To compensate for this, Miller possibly over-compensates by materializing outside motives such as land disputes and children dying to give credence to the ‘other-worldly‘ conflict. Interestingly enough, as much as Miller elaborates on his characters, he never further colors the characters of those who are the accusers, such as Abigail and Mary Warren etc.- perhaps, believing that their characters speak for themselves. Going back to the definition of a crucible, I wonder if the title is more of an allusion to the seven deadly sins - wrath, pride, gluttony, lust, envy, sloth, and greed - pride being the most deadly (the one to which one might argue Proctor succumbs to). In this sense Salem becomes hell where each is struggling to get free. No one can escape Salem (if we’re still alluding to hell) as God is not present. Anyone can get in, but no one can get out. Does this allusion force the audience to reconcile with their own inner-conflict? Even the hands of the seemingly innocent are tainted (Abigail), thus perhaps bringing to the forefront a generational struggle? My one concern is that the criticism or allusions etc. is all based on modern thought. I wonder if, similar to the blacklist, we are imposing our own societal/ethical structures and simply can’t take the play for what it is- But then again is this not what drama is all about?
I guess the ultimate question is; does the play provide the conflict or does the audience?
"I cannot judge another"
I was very taken by what I saw as a blatant correlation between the naming of names in both The Crucible and during the blacklist. I first considered this idea of “naming names” while reading Rovere’s article “Arthur Miller’s conscience.” Rovere writes that “A healthy conscience, Miller seems to be saying, can stand anything but ‘informing.’” Rovere brings up a valid, moral dilemma. It is one thing to surrender oneself, but another altogether to provide the names of others. This obviously happened to many during the blacklist. They were told they should confess themselves or at least give the names of other communists in order to possibly save themselves from being blacklisted. This same instance can be seen in The Crucible. Danforth asks John Proctor to admit he did the devil’s work. This confession, however, is not enough for Danforth and those consumed by witchcraft hysteria in Salem village. Danforth proceeds to ask Proctor when he was in the presence of the devil if he saw any of the others accused also with the devil. As Proctor responds “I speak of my own sins; I cannot judge another” he lets his accusers know he has ruined his own life and will not do the same to those in his community.
As Rovere says “We refuse to inform, I believe, either when we decide that those whose names we are asked to reveal are guilty of no wrong or when we perceive that what they have done is no worse than what we ourselves have done.” I found this statement very profound and poignant to Proctor’s refusal to “name names” as well as Miller’s during the blacklist. Both men did not see any other men or women potentially to be placed in the same place they were as worthy of their own accusation. “Naming” another would not make Miller seen as any less a communist or Proctor any less a man working with the devil. Maybe naming others could lessen ones punishment but it would certainly leave one with a far more guilty conscience than the one that probably put them in the position they were.
As Rovere says “We refuse to inform, I believe, either when we decide that those whose names we are asked to reveal are guilty of no wrong or when we perceive that what they have done is no worse than what we ourselves have done.” I found this statement very profound and poignant to Proctor’s refusal to “name names” as well as Miller’s during the blacklist. Both men did not see any other men or women potentially to be placed in the same place they were as worthy of their own accusation. “Naming” another would not make Miller seen as any less a communist or Proctor any less a man working with the devil. Maybe naming others could lessen ones punishment but it would certainly leave one with a far more guilty conscience than the one that probably put them in the position they were.
Crucible Power!!
Despite the class discussion's criticism of the formation of the female characters in The Crucible, the women in this play have much more have internal motivations and can wield what few prerogatives they have to control much of the play's action. It is among the women that we see most of the hysteria, heartbreak, and jealousy viciously enacted. If one is to cast Arthur Miller as a male chauvinist simply because he chooses to set his this play in a socially oppressive era, and was lucky or unlucky enough to have married Marilyn Monroe, perhaps one would have been well-suited to jury duty in Salem. A quick reading of Truman Capote's beautiful memories of his friendship with, and the quiet genius of Monroe included in his Music for Chameleons would prove that casting impossible.
Abigail may be one of the most manipulative female characters in American Literature. As sexually powerful, and without parents to contain her, she is able to successfully tempt John Proctor and control him for a good part of the play. Furthermore, she essentially dominates the direction of the trials, and as a result, the town. It's hard not to cheer a little for her when Parris reveals that she has literally taken the money and run. As "Echos Down the Corridor" reveals, she even makes it to Boston, although as a prostitute. The extra scene included in the appendix, while an interesting look into John and Abigail's relationship, in fact undermines her power. Clearly, Abigail is far from being emotionally well balanced. But if she is in fact convinced of her claims, she ceases to be the potent villainess and is really just another victim of the mania. The play is all the more chilling with her wits and cunning intact. Elizabeth Proctor wields the knowledge of her husband's infidelity. And whether she uses it against him or not, it is this knowledge that frees her. Goody Putnam has the most compelling argument and the most dire "evidence." Her and Putnam's dead babies, and the frantic agony she that she harbors is perhaps one of the greatest factors in the initiation of the trials. Goody Nurse is the angelic grandmother figure, whose unjust death is the least dramatic, but one of the most resonant murders in The Crucible.
The power of the female characters is more all the more subtle, and all the more potent that is in fact subversive. It works against the order that is to be maintained in the patriarchal theocracy. Although it is power that they are never have supposed to posses, without it, the events that form The Crucible never could have taken place.
By the way, in regards to the title of the play- wouldn't it be easy to interpret a crucible as a symbol of female anatomy? Kind of hot, isn't it?
Abigail may be one of the most manipulative female characters in American Literature. As sexually powerful, and without parents to contain her, she is able to successfully tempt John Proctor and control him for a good part of the play. Furthermore, she essentially dominates the direction of the trials, and as a result, the town. It's hard not to cheer a little for her when Parris reveals that she has literally taken the money and run. As "Echos Down the Corridor" reveals, she even makes it to Boston, although as a prostitute. The extra scene included in the appendix, while an interesting look into John and Abigail's relationship, in fact undermines her power. Clearly, Abigail is far from being emotionally well balanced. But if she is in fact convinced of her claims, she ceases to be the potent villainess and is really just another victim of the mania. The play is all the more chilling with her wits and cunning intact. Elizabeth Proctor wields the knowledge of her husband's infidelity. And whether she uses it against him or not, it is this knowledge that frees her. Goody Putnam has the most compelling argument and the most dire "evidence." Her and Putnam's dead babies, and the frantic agony she that she harbors is perhaps one of the greatest factors in the initiation of the trials. Goody Nurse is the angelic grandmother figure, whose unjust death is the least dramatic, but one of the most resonant murders in The Crucible.
The power of the female characters is more all the more subtle, and all the more potent that is in fact subversive. It works against the order that is to be maintained in the patriarchal theocracy. Although it is power that they are never have supposed to posses, without it, the events that form The Crucible never could have taken place.
By the way, in regards to the title of the play- wouldn't it be easy to interpret a crucible as a symbol of female anatomy? Kind of hot, isn't it?
The Nature of Evil and Huxley's Infinite Capability
In one of the excerpts that was assigned, Aldous Huxley writes
Alas, there is no horror which cannot suggest itself to human minds. “We know what we are,” says Ophelia, “but we know not what we may be.” Practically all of us are capable of practically anything. And that is true even of persons who have been brought up in the practice of the most austere morality.In his book, The Devils of Loudun, Huxley says this in sympathy for a group of nuns who were convinced by their physicians and exorcists that they were possessed by demons and paraded around town in fits of hysteria. He basically asserts that the nuns were experiencing a psychotic break as a result of the severe repression they suffered, and the men who were supposed to help them exploited them for their own ends.
The parallels to The Crucible are obvious, but it's more interesting to think about Huxley's assertion in the context of Miller's claims that he wanted to make the Judge "more evil." Can there really be a true evil if there's no true good, if we're capable of anything and everything? In that case, Elizabeth is right, she can't judge John, but not because of any innate goodness in him. It's means that any one of us could become Abigail. Somehow, that makes her evil a little easier to take.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Front
Note: I wrote this before we saw the end of the film. The second part of my post is written after.
The film “The Front” has been very entertaining, comedic and suspenseful. Through all of this, the one part that will stick in my mind is Zero Mostel’s character, Hecky Brown. The desperation that Hecky shows to get off the list was incredibly convincing. Mostel’s face as he is pleading for his job showed so much fear and pain, I believed he was truly begging for everything he had ever earned. I know that what I am describing is one of the main goals of acting (bringing the audience into the world portrayed in the movie), but Mostel achieved something more.
As we discussed in class, the Woody Allen character is greedy, the female lead is wrapped up in her own issues, and the studio executives have their own agendas. The only character that I truly felt emotion for was Hecky. I know that we are not finished with the film, and in the remaining time I may learn more about other characters. Even so, I think that the way Mostel takes a drunk, egotistical, self-aggrandizing man and shows another side, one to be pitied is to be commended. When Hecky was first introduced I was repulsed by his actions and behavior. Slowly, I found myself hoping he would not get fired, and I was outraged for him when he was paid significantly less than his usual wage.
The point I am trying to make is that without Hecky, this film may not mean as much. Another point we discussed during class was how easy being a front seems in the film. This fact really distanced me from feeling much for any of the characters, sure they seem a little stressed but other than that the audience is not shown too much of the actual damage the blacklist caused. That is until Hecky really spells out the impact it is going to have on his family and entire life if he is fired. I tried to imagine the film without him, and honestly I think as adverse to his character as I was at first, Hecky makes the film more compelling.
After we watched the end of the film:
I was in disbelief that Hecky jumped out of the window, especially after writing an entire post about how crucial he was to the film. Once again, Hecky drove the point that the blacklist was a career-crushing and life-destroying problem. All of the sudden, a man who was famous and well loved was in so much personal pain that he took his own life. Even though it was terribly depressing, the downfall of Hecky Brown was necessary for The Front to step away from the comedic viewpoint of Prince’s character and take a hard look at how devastating the blacklist was.
The film “The Front” has been very entertaining, comedic and suspenseful. Through all of this, the one part that will stick in my mind is Zero Mostel’s character, Hecky Brown. The desperation that Hecky shows to get off the list was incredibly convincing. Mostel’s face as he is pleading for his job showed so much fear and pain, I believed he was truly begging for everything he had ever earned. I know that what I am describing is one of the main goals of acting (bringing the audience into the world portrayed in the movie), but Mostel achieved something more.
As we discussed in class, the Woody Allen character is greedy, the female lead is wrapped up in her own issues, and the studio executives have their own agendas. The only character that I truly felt emotion for was Hecky. I know that we are not finished with the film, and in the remaining time I may learn more about other characters. Even so, I think that the way Mostel takes a drunk, egotistical, self-aggrandizing man and shows another side, one to be pitied is to be commended. When Hecky was first introduced I was repulsed by his actions and behavior. Slowly, I found myself hoping he would not get fired, and I was outraged for him when he was paid significantly less than his usual wage.
The point I am trying to make is that without Hecky, this film may not mean as much. Another point we discussed during class was how easy being a front seems in the film. This fact really distanced me from feeling much for any of the characters, sure they seem a little stressed but other than that the audience is not shown too much of the actual damage the blacklist caused. That is until Hecky really spells out the impact it is going to have on his family and entire life if he is fired. I tried to imagine the film without him, and honestly I think as adverse to his character as I was at first, Hecky makes the film more compelling.
After we watched the end of the film:
I was in disbelief that Hecky jumped out of the window, especially after writing an entire post about how crucial he was to the film. Once again, Hecky drove the point that the blacklist was a career-crushing and life-destroying problem. All of the sudden, a man who was famous and well loved was in so much personal pain that he took his own life. Even though it was terribly depressing, the downfall of Hecky Brown was necessary for The Front to step away from the comedic viewpoint of Prince’s character and take a hard look at how devastating the blacklist was.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
But What About the Actual Play?
I found it really interesting how worked up the reviewer from New York Post was in their critique of The Crucible titled “Witchcraft and Stagecraft”. They became really defensive of the actions of the U.S. government in response to international Communism. They were also very dramatic in their description of the threat Communism posed to the U.S. For example, the reviewer wrote, “The threat is as real as it was when Nazism was overrunning the world. International Communism is a disciplined, fanatic movement whose secret battalions have seized whole nations and enslaved millions of people” (198). While this review reads to me a lot like fear-mongering, it does show how people were genuinely caught up in the hysteria of Communism. In The Front, many of the people who were enforcing the blacklist, for example the studio executive, were portrayed as being apathetic toward or even opposed to it and simply going along because of pressure and the threat of unemployment. Even the government officials in the movie did not sound genuinely concerned about sniffing out Hollywood Communists; their actions seemed more motivated by the desire to control people and demand submission. In Walter Bernstein’s memoir we heard one point of view and through some of the essays in this edition of The Crucible we are hearing some of the opinions in favor of the blacklist and McCarthyism. After reading this review, it is clear that some people really were panicked about the idea of Communism taking over the U.S. and felt very threatened by it. This particular reviewer was so concerned with stating the danger of Communism and defending McCarthy that they hardly even mentioned actual details about Miller’s play. In this political and cultural environment, it is no surprise Miller faced so much criticism.
A Rock and a Hard Place
I've read The Crucible many, many times. Yet each time I read or discuss it, new things feel most important. In this instance, I was immediately struck by the "rock and a hard place" those accused of witchcraft found themselves in. If they didn't confess, they would likely be hanged (a craft way around this snafu apparently was to get pregnant. This is yet another topic entirely), and if they confessed, religious and personal beliefs were shattered. In many cases, the only way out was to continue to point the finger, forcing those accused to become even more secluded from their community. There was no clean way out.
I find this strikingly similar to the situation those accused of Communism found themselves in. It is interesting to consider the endemic similarities in the two periods; needing someone to blame, something to claim responsibility, and to create fear and subsequently control within a community. These themes are clearly visible, though not at this point to the same magnitude, in current politics. The spreading of blame, pointing fingers, and declaring evils is the name of the game in discussing our country's leadership. I am sure this is the case elsewhere in the world as well. Which raises the question of exactly how inevitable witch hunts, for lack of a better term, are. Do they occur over certain periods? After a community endures struggles? At what point might we be able to expect them, and if we can predict them, does it do us any good?
GET THE GOATS!
We all know the term scapegoat, correct?
Merriam Webster defines a scapegoat as "One that is made to bear the blame of others" or " one that is the object of irrational hostility"
This sounds fitting in both the case of the communists and salem witch trials. Someone has a problem that is very difficult to fix, but they need to fix it in order to cope. So what do they do? They target someone as the cause of all their trouble. If they give their fear a real form, they will know how to fix it. If they know how to fix it ( or think they know) then they can sleep easy at night knowing everything is on its way to getting better.
When scapegoating , it is important to align yourself with something you consider to be stable and reliable. To have on your side, a real force to be reckoned with. For the blacklisters, it was democracy and, more importantly, AMERICA. In The Crucible its the glory and righteousness of THE CHURCH.
This really all goes back to what I was saying in class about how the desire for security is what drives people to persecute others. It just amazes me that we can find this one need to be the root of almost all persecution. The Nazis believed the jews threatened their way of life. The americans didn't feel safe around japanese after pearl harbor so they threw them in internment camps. History is riddled with these examples.
What also amazes me is that it isn't the desire to BE safe that fuels this horror, its the desire to FEEL safe.
Fidelity and Innocence
“I think the answers will be found in the nature of the creative act. A good play is a good thought; a great play is a great thought. A great thought is a thrust outward, a daring act. Daring is of the essence. Its very nature is incompatible with an undue affection for moderation, respectability, even fairness and responsibilities.”
I was struck by this paragraph in the Many Writers: Few Plays essay because I think it says something important not only about creativity, but also about Miller himself. The fact that he wrote The Crucible in the 1950s when there were so many people facing persecution for being a communist is significant. To many, the play is an allegory of the time period, and it shows that Miller wasn’t afraid to speak out against the persecution happening around him. The story comes from history, but it does speak out against “witch hunting.” Writing this play in the 50s was a daring act because of the potential repercussions of doing so. This is what he wants from other playwrights as well. He wants people to take some kind of stand on something they believe in. I don’t know that Miller is saying that storylines cannot be recycled, since it is hard to find one that hasn’t been, but rather he want writers to bring something else into the story. Miller wants the writer to be able to make it original for themselves. I think that in order to prevent Japanism, people have to be able to express their ideas as original in some way even if they are using a storyline that has been done a number of times. How can writers take something old and make it feel new? I think that’s what Miller is trying to get at. His play The Crucible does that by taking a stance on something he believes to be wrong, McCarthyism. Miller wants writers to use their creativity to “reflect the soul-racking, deeply unseating questions that are being inwardly asked on the street.” He wants writers to be daring enough to answer these questions in their plays.
I was struck by this paragraph in the Many Writers: Few Plays essay because I think it says something important not only about creativity, but also about Miller himself. The fact that he wrote The Crucible in the 1950s when there were so many people facing persecution for being a communist is significant. To many, the play is an allegory of the time period, and it shows that Miller wasn’t afraid to speak out against the persecution happening around him. The story comes from history, but it does speak out against “witch hunting.” Writing this play in the 50s was a daring act because of the potential repercussions of doing so. This is what he wants from other playwrights as well. He wants people to take some kind of stand on something they believe in. I don’t know that Miller is saying that storylines cannot be recycled, since it is hard to find one that hasn’t been, but rather he want writers to bring something else into the story. Miller wants the writer to be able to make it original for themselves. I think that in order to prevent Japanism, people have to be able to express their ideas as original in some way even if they are using a storyline that has been done a number of times. How can writers take something old and make it feel new? I think that’s what Miller is trying to get at. His play The Crucible does that by taking a stance on something he believes to be wrong, McCarthyism. Miller wants writers to use their creativity to “reflect the soul-racking, deeply unseating questions that are being inwardly asked on the street.” He wants writers to be daring enough to answer these questions in their plays.
Be Daring and Answer the Questions
“I think the answers will be found in the nature of the creative act. A good play is a good thought; a great play is a great thought. A great thought is a thrust outward, a daring act. Daring is of the essence. Its very nature is incompatible with an undue affection for moderation, respectability, even fairness and responsibilities.”
I was struck by this paragraph in the Many Writers: Few Plays essay because I think it says something important not only about creativity, but also about Miller himself. The fact that he wrote The Crucible in the 1950s when there were so many people facing persecution for being a communist is significant. To many, the play is an allegory of the time period, and it shows that Miller wasn’t afraid to speak out against the persecution happening around him. The story comes from history, but it does speak out against “witch hunting.” Writing this play in the 50s was a daring act because of the potential repercussions of doing so. This is what he wants from other playwrights as well. He wants people to take some kind of stand on something they believe in. I don’t know that Miller is saying that storylines cannot be recycled, since it is hard to find one that hasn’t been, but rather he want writers to bring something else into the story. Miller wants the writer to be able to make it original for themselves. I think that in order to prevent Japanism, people have to be able to express their ideas as original in some way even if they are using a storyline that has been done a number of times. How can writers take something old and make it feel new? I think that’s what Miller is trying to get at. His play The Crucible does that by taking a stance on something he believes to be wrong, McCarthyism. Miller wants writers to use their creativity to “reflect the soul-racking, deeply unseating questions that are being inwardly asked on the street.” He wants writers to be daring enough to answer these questions in their plays.
Ideology: When Friend Becomes Foe
Throughout Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, I found myself most often reflecting on the problematic nature of unrelenting ideology. Obviously, this play, and more importantly the incident that it draws from are incredibly tragic. This is my third time reading The Crucible, and each time I find myself sitting there hoping Mary Warren doesn’t concede to the will of the other girls, but of course, she does. Further, in light of the recent “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, I find myself drawing connections between the zealous adherence to religious ideology in The Crucible, and the religious tensions between Christianity and Islam today. Given these reflections of mine, however, I found Henry Hewes’ conversation with Arthur Miller incredibly interesting (182 – 196).
I fully expected Miller to demonize strict adherence to ideology during this discussion, but Miller actually provides some brilliant insights on both ends of the spectrum. While Puritan ideology resulted in the tragedy of the Salem which trials, at the same time, Miller asserts, this ideology is also what allowed the settlement to survive (unlike the individualist Jamestown colony). With this is in mind, I think it is also important to reflect on the benefits of ideology, even when they come with sometimes-tragic consequences.
In my observation, it seems that ideology often serves to help improve the quality of life of those who follow it. However, it is when ideology is taken to extremes that tragedies such as the Salem witch trials occur. As Miller states, the Puritan ideology kept the Massachusetts colony alive, “But, by 1692, the usefulness of the ideology had passed and it had become an orthodoxy which had to destroy the opposition or be itself destroyed” (184). In my eyes, this is a brilliant observation by Miller that holds special relevance today. However, difficulties arise inevitably arise with ideologies face such resistance. I suppose, then, the most important question we must ask ourselves is, “When ideologies that have helped us, and thus have ardent supporters become pure Orthodoxy, how do we reconcile our past with our future?”
I fully expected Miller to demonize strict adherence to ideology during this discussion, but Miller actually provides some brilliant insights on both ends of the spectrum. While Puritan ideology resulted in the tragedy of the Salem which trials, at the same time, Miller asserts, this ideology is also what allowed the settlement to survive (unlike the individualist Jamestown colony). With this is in mind, I think it is also important to reflect on the benefits of ideology, even when they come with sometimes-tragic consequences.
In my observation, it seems that ideology often serves to help improve the quality of life of those who follow it. However, it is when ideology is taken to extremes that tragedies such as the Salem witch trials occur. As Miller states, the Puritan ideology kept the Massachusetts colony alive, “But, by 1692, the usefulness of the ideology had passed and it had become an orthodoxy which had to destroy the opposition or be itself destroyed” (184). In my eyes, this is a brilliant observation by Miller that holds special relevance today. However, difficulties arise inevitably arise with ideologies face such resistance. I suppose, then, the most important question we must ask ourselves is, “When ideologies that have helped us, and thus have ardent supporters become pure Orthodoxy, how do we reconcile our past with our future?”
The Invisible Truths
In Salem if you are deemed a witch you are banished from the community. On the other hand, if one confesses during the McCarthy era to communism though you may not be physically removed, we should look at it as a metaphorical removal from society through ostricization. It’s hard for me to believe that if one repented one’s communism that everyone behaved normally toward you and welcomed you with open arms. In my head it mirrors the idea of the scarlet letter painted on ones chest forever, metaphorically speaking of course. The most fervent idea that Salem and the McCarthy era have in common is the idea that everyone either belongs to either God or the devil, for the United States or a communist. It became a very black and white issue where you couldn’t have feelings in the middle about an issue or else you were considered suspicious. We can see a very strong notion of this when in The Crucible, Act III, and Danforth says “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it.”
This sort of theme continues on with the invisibility of the crime, as Danforth calls it, and the idea that some evidence is hard proof while anything that could possibly support someone not being a witch is considered faulty or unreliable. When Danforth looks at the evidence presented of witchcraft he almost blindly trusts the children’s accounts. However, when the evidence against Abigail’s testimony against Elizabeth arrives, they are smarter about questioning its validity. It’s almost a blind faith in the accuser only if it brings someone to be charged with witchcraft. Most of this has to do with the extreme paranoia with the time period in that finding and putting someone to death would eliminate this problem of unsuspected tragedies such as sickness, death, etc. Did the people of Salem believe themselves so pious, so perfect that they became full of their own imagined godliness, enough to think themselves undeserving of misfortune, or above natural happenings? This almost seems blasphemous according to their religious statures.
This sort of theme continues on with the invisibility of the crime, as Danforth calls it, and the idea that some evidence is hard proof while anything that could possibly support someone not being a witch is considered faulty or unreliable. When Danforth looks at the evidence presented of witchcraft he almost blindly trusts the children’s accounts. However, when the evidence against Abigail’s testimony against Elizabeth arrives, they are smarter about questioning its validity. It’s almost a blind faith in the accuser only if it brings someone to be charged with witchcraft. Most of this has to do with the extreme paranoia with the time period in that finding and putting someone to death would eliminate this problem of unsuspected tragedies such as sickness, death, etc. Did the people of Salem believe themselves so pious, so perfect that they became full of their own imagined godliness, enough to think themselves undeserving of misfortune, or above natural happenings? This almost seems blasphemous according to their religious statures.
Reviewing The Crucible and Its Author
In the various reviews of productions of The Crucible that we read, I was surprised by how directly the reviewers addressed how the events of the play related to the issues of the time regarding communism. Reading Walter Bernstein’s book gave me the impression that the government and the press made every effort to downplay the controversy surrounding the communist accusations: they promoted the message that communists were the enemy, and things like the blacklist were hardly public knowledge. However, the reviews are fairly open in addressing the fact that the literal witch-hunt taking place in the play could easily be compared to the witch-hunt taking place in America. One refers to how “Mr. Miller pursues his very clear contemporary parallel” and admits that many of the themes he presents in 17th century Salem are “an accurate reading of our own turbulent age” (190). Another goes further and asserts that “neither Mr. Miller nor his audiences are unaware of certain similarities between the perversions of justice then and today” (192). I was surprised that the reviewer was able to state so publicly that it was common belief that “perversions of justice” were taking place in regards to how the government was dealing with the communist threat. Perhaps I simply had the wrong impression of how the general public perceived and spoke of the way accused communists were treated at the time. Another possible explanation I thought of, however, was that the theater community was by a nature a more liberal one, and so those reviewing plays were more prone to speaking their minds.
The reviews and Miller’s own writings also made me curious about Miller’s experience with HUAC and the like. The review make it seem like it was no secret that Miller had some fairly liberal views, and the fact that the reviewers so readily considered his work an allegory for the trials of communism reinforces that. However, unlike the many people in the entertainment field named in Bernstein’s book, Miller was still working. Were his more radical beliefs overlooked because he was such a popular and talented playwright? If that is indeed what spared him, it is still somewhat surprising in comparison to the issue of banning Harry Potter: in that case, it seems that the huge popularity of those books were a huge factor in making them so controversial.
The reviews and Miller’s own writings also made me curious about Miller’s experience with HUAC and the like. The review make it seem like it was no secret that Miller had some fairly liberal views, and the fact that the reviewers so readily considered his work an allegory for the trials of communism reinforces that. However, unlike the many people in the entertainment field named in Bernstein’s book, Miller was still working. Were his more radical beliefs overlooked because he was such a popular and talented playwright? If that is indeed what spared him, it is still somewhat surprising in comparison to the issue of banning Harry Potter: in that case, it seems that the huge popularity of those books were a huge factor in making them so controversial.
Breaking The Surface
"For all its power generated on the surface, The Crucible is the most moving in the simple, quiet scenes between John Proctor and his wife. By the standards of Death of a Salesman, there is too much excitement and not enough emotion in The Crucible."
This passage stuck out to me in Brooks Atkinson's "At The Theatre" review of The Crucible. He further notes that after some corrections and the added scene between Proctor and Abigail, that "the hearts of the characters are now closer to the surface than their nerves". I'm not sure I completely agree with Atkinson though. John Proctor and Elizabeth are the core of this play, you can instantly feel the tension in their first scene together. I think despite what Atkinson says about Miller, he does manage to capture emotion between the two characters, which propels the play beyond the terror of a witch hunt. At the same time, I feel like Miller could have pushed it so much further.
It really struck me when Miller went on about writers pushing themselves and not holding back, because it honestly felt like he held a lot back in this play. For example, Elizabeth is an extremely strong character and Miller left her in the background. I understand that the play is about Proctor and his struggle with being a good man, but doesn't that leave so much out? Another example is the way he just threw Abigail out of the play, that part always leaves too much to my imagination. I do realize this is Arthur Miller I'm criticizing, but my one complaint about The Crucible is that it leaves so many unanswered questions. It's like there is this huge build up and we are left to find out that everything led to Proctor finally finding himself. It's almost as if Miller is just scratching the surface, I wish he would have went deeper as a writer. Maybe I'm being pretentious, but every time I read this play I'm sucked in and left with a feeling of disappointment at the end. I want more expansion on the witch hunt, I want those feelings of confusion and anger to come through. It felt like just when Miller was pulling me into it, the focus switched to Proctor and stayed there. I really dislike the fact that Elizabeth was pulled into this because of Proctor, yet we never get to hear her side of things. Miller even mutes her in the end, not even allowing her to place judgment on Proctor. Maybe I'm asking for too much, but then again, isn't that what Miller is asking of future writers?
This passage stuck out to me in Brooks Atkinson's "At The Theatre" review of The Crucible. He further notes that after some corrections and the added scene between Proctor and Abigail, that "the hearts of the characters are now closer to the surface than their nerves". I'm not sure I completely agree with Atkinson though. John Proctor and Elizabeth are the core of this play, you can instantly feel the tension in their first scene together. I think despite what Atkinson says about Miller, he does manage to capture emotion between the two characters, which propels the play beyond the terror of a witch hunt. At the same time, I feel like Miller could have pushed it so much further.
It really struck me when Miller went on about writers pushing themselves and not holding back, because it honestly felt like he held a lot back in this play. For example, Elizabeth is an extremely strong character and Miller left her in the background. I understand that the play is about Proctor and his struggle with being a good man, but doesn't that leave so much out? Another example is the way he just threw Abigail out of the play, that part always leaves too much to my imagination. I do realize this is Arthur Miller I'm criticizing, but my one complaint about The Crucible is that it leaves so many unanswered questions. It's like there is this huge build up and we are left to find out that everything led to Proctor finally finding himself. It's almost as if Miller is just scratching the surface, I wish he would have went deeper as a writer. Maybe I'm being pretentious, but every time I read this play I'm sucked in and left with a feeling of disappointment at the end. I want more expansion on the witch hunt, I want those feelings of confusion and anger to come through. It felt like just when Miller was pulling me into it, the focus switched to Proctor and stayed there. I really dislike the fact that Elizabeth was pulled into this because of Proctor, yet we never get to hear her side of things. Miller even mutes her in the end, not even allowing her to place judgment on Proctor. Maybe I'm asking for too much, but then again, isn't that what Miller is asking of future writers?
Turning Japanese. I think I'm turning Japanese. I really think so.
"All this means to me, if true, is that this generation is turning Japanese."
In 1952, Arthur Miller lamented the formulaic writing of the current generation, his major complaints being that writers weren't taking enough risks, that writing itself had fallen into the Japanese practice of telling and retelling the same story.
Yet writing is, and always has been, the act of striving to tell a familiar story in a new and exciting way. At its core, Middlesex is nothing more than a coming-of-age tale. 100 Years of Solitude is Biblical lore. The Lorax is a morality play. The Crucible itself is an adaptation of actual historical events.
Far more important than risks in content are risks in intention. Miller has confused his lofty aims and allegories for The Crucible with genuine literary originality. The story of a group persecuted simply for there to be someone to point the finger at had been often seen and told at this point in time (see: McCarthyism; the Holocaust), but the way in which it was told is what differentiates it from the pack. Must Love Dogs follows the classic "boy meets girl" formula and tanked. When Harry Met Sally did the same and shined.
The risks writers take can't be restricted to just the content of the story. If they were, we all would have turned Japanese a long time ago, and I'd be munching on sushi and taking a break to read some manga. Not that I don't do that anyway.
Just kidding. I hate sushi.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Mindless Masses
The Mindless Masses
(Sorry this is late. I work at a restaurant and it was a lot busier than I was expecting and I’m just getting off)
- Arthur Miller, Introduction to Collected Plays, 163
Back to The Front
"There is laughter because there is nothing to laugh at. Laughter, whether conciliatory or terrible, always occurs when some fear passes."
- The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception
Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno
In Wednesday's edition of the New York Times, Woody Allen was interviewed about his next movie, in which a woman finds help from a fortune teller. Rather than explaining the movie however, Woody Allen instead revealed some, if not typically Woody Allen, surprising facts about his work. In light of our screening and discussion of The Front, his comments only heighten suspicion as to the purpose of this film.
In The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Horkheimer and Adorno bemoan the fact that the prime sources of entertainment are in fact means to subdue the masses. Serious themes are watered down to provide cheap entertainment; Tolstoy is Hollywood-ified, and "…pleasure promotes the resignation which it ought help to forget." Is The Front satire or merely a snicker? Was Inside Out merely fodder for another Hollywood hit, or a way to make a pointed criticism? Adorno and Horkheimer note that in much of cheap entertainment and the "false society" that follows it, "to laugh at something is always to deride it."
Bernstein remarks that the only way that Inside Out could have been made, even in the 1970's, was as a comedy. Walter Bernstein explains that he and fellow blacklisted writers were no strangers to the "hilarity of doom." This is after all, Woody Allen's formula for comedy in most of his movies. If a situation can be awkward, it's bound to be- and only get worse. However, even as a fervent Woody Allen fan, I found myself a little startled at his answer when he was asked whether aging has changed his approach to making films:
"There’s no rhyme or reason to anything that I do. It’s whatever seems right at the time. I’ve never once in my life seen any film of mine after I put it out. Ever. I haven’t seen “Take the Money and Run” since 1968. I haven’t seen “Annie Hall” or “Manhattan” or any film I’ve made afterward. If I’m on the treadmill and I’m scooting through the channels, and I come across one of them, I go right past it instantly, because I feel it could only depress me. I would only feel, “Oh God, this is so awful, if I could only do that again.”
Does Woody Allen's trademark wistful inadequacy belittle the struggle that blacklisted writers had while only endearing him more to his audience? I hope not. Being bumbling and perverse is hilarious in illicit love affairs, but is it when addressing political oppression that wrecked lives? Perhaps Allen's self-consciousness about his movies expressed above reveals a certain sensitivity. However, whatever the motivation for The Front, it addresses an important part of American history, and raises vital questions about the purpose of humor. Woody won me back over when he commented:
"This sounds so bleak when I say it, but we need some delusions to keep us going. And the people who successfully delude themselves seem happier than the people who can’t."
- The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception
Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno
In Wednesday's edition of the New York Times, Woody Allen was interviewed about his next movie, in which a woman finds help from a fortune teller. Rather than explaining the movie however, Woody Allen instead revealed some, if not typically Woody Allen, surprising facts about his work. In light of our screening and discussion of The Front, his comments only heighten suspicion as to the purpose of this film.
In The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Horkheimer and Adorno bemoan the fact that the prime sources of entertainment are in fact means to subdue the masses. Serious themes are watered down to provide cheap entertainment; Tolstoy is Hollywood-ified, and "…pleasure promotes the resignation which it ought help to forget." Is The Front satire or merely a snicker? Was Inside Out merely fodder for another Hollywood hit, or a way to make a pointed criticism? Adorno and Horkheimer note that in much of cheap entertainment and the "false society" that follows it, "to laugh at something is always to deride it."
Bernstein remarks that the only way that Inside Out could have been made, even in the 1970's, was as a comedy. Walter Bernstein explains that he and fellow blacklisted writers were no strangers to the "hilarity of doom." This is after all, Woody Allen's formula for comedy in most of his movies. If a situation can be awkward, it's bound to be- and only get worse. However, even as a fervent Woody Allen fan, I found myself a little startled at his answer when he was asked whether aging has changed his approach to making films:
"There’s no rhyme or reason to anything that I do. It’s whatever seems right at the time. I’ve never once in my life seen any film of mine after I put it out. Ever. I haven’t seen “Take the Money and Run” since 1968. I haven’t seen “Annie Hall” or “Manhattan” or any film I’ve made afterward. If I’m on the treadmill and I’m scooting through the channels, and I come across one of them, I go right past it instantly, because I feel it could only depress me. I would only feel, “Oh God, this is so awful, if I could only do that again.”
Does Woody Allen's trademark wistful inadequacy belittle the struggle that blacklisted writers had while only endearing him more to his audience? I hope not. Being bumbling and perverse is hilarious in illicit love affairs, but is it when addressing political oppression that wrecked lives? Perhaps Allen's self-consciousness about his movies expressed above reveals a certain sensitivity. However, whatever the motivation for The Front, it addresses an important part of American history, and raises vital questions about the purpose of humor. Woody won me back over when he commented:
"This sounds so bleak when I say it, but we need some delusions to keep us going. And the people who successfully delude themselves seem happier than the people who can’t."
Lethal Weapon
In the "Arthur Miller and how he Went to the Devil" article Arthur Miller says that, "Literature is a weapon, but not in the sense that Marxists, Fascists, and our own 'Americanists' believe. It is possible to read a royalist-Catholic writer and draw sustenance for a Left-wing position from him; it is possible to draw a conservative moral from an anti-conservative work. A work of art creates a complex world, and as the past hundred years have proved, the special 'truth' of one decade may turn out to be the reactionary falsehood of another. It is a poor weapon whose direction is so unstable to serve one side at one valid moment and another side the next." Miller poses such a great idea with this metaphor. This class, focused on censored texts, simply proves the power of literature. Some people believe a book/play can corrupt families, ruin societies, and expose falsities or dangerous truths. The instability Miller points out is also incredibly accurate. In class so far we have discussed incidents with both Grease and Harry Potter. I remember watching Grease at quite a young age. Granted, I did not understand any of the sexual innuendos within the musical. The last thing that I would ever consider Grease to be would be a weapon. I think of it as a classic or just relatively standard - I would have never been aware of its "dangerous" nature until it had been pointed out. Similarly, I read each Harry Potter book as they were released. I was exposed to this world of magic and wizardry in elementary school and continued to grow up with the books. I could not fathom this being a weapon or even the least bit threatening but with any work of art - it's effects are not stable.
Miller addresses censorship early on in The Crucible. Immediately, we are taken into a time with people living on edge - attempting to protect themselves and their loved ones from the unknown/ anything different. Betty & Abby behave just like typical teenage girls - slightly rebelling and going against the wishes of their parents/guardians. The adults in their lives attempt to protect/ censor the girls from this overwhelming theme of witchcraft. Similarly to the Harry Potter and Grease situations - if the adults had just taken some time to read/ learn about the subject matter - I believe that the danger that lies within these topics would virtually vanish.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)