In that case, Mr. Emerson, you are certainly a great man. This line, as cliche as it is, happens to be quite ironic as well because it is viewed first as a great line and misunderstood, making it great: mind-blowing.
Being misunderstood is not really a sufficient condition for being great in my opinion. It can be argued that it is a necessary one, though. However, as a witty maxim, this does work. I can think of a lot of people who are misunderstood, but I would struggle to call these people great in any way.
Emerson's focus on genius of originality and greatness of misunderstanding is kind of awesome. For one thing, he makes himself a genius by his own definition. For another thing, he's probably pretty close to being right. Geniuses are well ahead of the thought of their time. Their though processes are either too radical or too unconventional for the rest of society to keep up with. As a result, they are often distrusted. For example: Jesus was martyred for his preachings, Newton wasn't understood widely until 200 years after his theories on calculus, Socrates was martyred, Galileo was martyred. Emerson mentions all these men and their greatness.
These are people who probably "got it" a lot more than anyone else. As a result, they become either feared, loved or both. Furthermore, the things geniuses say and theorize often go against the grain, causing their interpretation to be unclear, leading to misunderstanding, making them great by Emerson's definition.
The idea that genius must be achieved by orginality is admirable. I have no problems with defining a great thinker as someone who figured some profound thing out with out the help of many other sources. This does discredit many pre-approved geniuses though. Stephen Hawking loses a lot becuase he just improved on Einstein's and others' theories. Or what about Plato? He basically took many things Socrates said and made them better and easier to understand. That almost defies greatness.
It's easy to misunderstand a genius, I guess.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Relationships in The Great Gatsby
Perhaps my general worldview is a bit skewed, perhaps Fitzgerald just did a poor job of portraying depth, or perhaps these people are just superficial.
It seemed to me that in The Great Gatsby, the relationships between people were generally quite surface level and (in the case of romantic ones) generally infatuous (not a real word). Incidentally, or perhaps not, these relationships were a central focus of the book. My guess is Fitzgerald purposely made these interactions fairly superficial, or portrayed them that way through the often pensive but confused mind of Nick.
Let's just examine a few of the relationships one by one:
Nick & Daisy: A non-romantic one that actually has threats to become one. These two are cousins, but act more like they've been each other's booty call in the past. She flirts with him and he acts as a confidant for her. However, he doesn't reveal things she should know about her husband to her so I am confused about his allegiance.
Nick & Jordan: The fact that this one seems to be love-at-first-sight is a clear indication of the immaturity of it. The two don't seem to talk about many deep things, and if they do its by accident. In general, it seems to be a fairly physical attraction and attraction to the most surface-level parts of each other's personalities. There is romance, but it falls apart quickly and without much push. It seems about as deep as a summer fling between 15 and 16-year-olds. High schoolers should be doing that, not people in their late 20s.
Nick & Tom: These two aren't "bros." But I think Tom tries to be. Tom, like everyone, likes Nick, so he tries to get him to hang out with him. When Tom takes Nick with him to see Myrtle, he's basically indoctrinating Nick into some sort of sacred Manlationship. He trusts Nick enough to take him to meet his mistress and take part in his second life. Nick, on the other hand, has almost no trust for Tom.
Nick & Gatsby: Much like Tom, Gatsby seems to view his relationship with Nick as if the two are very close friends. Gatsby confides his deepest, darkest secrets in Nick as Nick just listens in wonder, awe, and distrust. Gatsby is the whole time the dominant half, but he doesn't really realize that Nick has the power to crush him--he just doesn't use it.
Tom & Daisy: Two attractive people who have very little in common except their ability to influence others. They seem like they could get along, but Daisy is too powerful and independent in her own right to make things work out the way Tom views them as working. There seems to be very little real love in this relationship.
Gatsby & Daisy: They've both fallen very hard for each other, Gatsby sickeningly so. It would appear that they had some sort of quality relationship in their past. However, Daisy's fidelity is questionable and she seems to be the type who is easy to be led-on by. She claims to love Gatsby, I'm sure she does on her terms, but who knows what her terms really are? Gatsby is just disgusting, he needs to get his head on straight.
Tom & Myrtle: I'm not going to lie, this is probably one of the deepest relationships in the book. There is more than business to be had here. Furthermore, they actually seem to have genuine love for each other. Or at least Tom has genuine love for Myrtle, Myrtle might just be gold-digging a young, athletic stud. The fact that Tom goes for an older, plumper, uglier woman as his mistress is telling: he's not hunting for new sexual satisfaction or anything of that sort, he's finding a real companion. The fact that they can't leave their spouses and commit is a blip, though. They clearly aren't so into each other that they would leave their old lives.
I don't really know what to think except that the characters of this book are generally just horrible people who don't know how to interact with other human beings on a level beyond chit chat and surface emotion.
It seemed to me that in The Great Gatsby, the relationships between people were generally quite surface level and (in the case of romantic ones) generally infatuous (not a real word). Incidentally, or perhaps not, these relationships were a central focus of the book. My guess is Fitzgerald purposely made these interactions fairly superficial, or portrayed them that way through the often pensive but confused mind of Nick.
Let's just examine a few of the relationships one by one:
Nick & Daisy: A non-romantic one that actually has threats to become one. These two are cousins, but act more like they've been each other's booty call in the past. She flirts with him and he acts as a confidant for her. However, he doesn't reveal things she should know about her husband to her so I am confused about his allegiance.
Nick & Jordan: The fact that this one seems to be love-at-first-sight is a clear indication of the immaturity of it. The two don't seem to talk about many deep things, and if they do its by accident. In general, it seems to be a fairly physical attraction and attraction to the most surface-level parts of each other's personalities. There is romance, but it falls apart quickly and without much push. It seems about as deep as a summer fling between 15 and 16-year-olds. High schoolers should be doing that, not people in their late 20s.
Nick & Tom: These two aren't "bros." But I think Tom tries to be. Tom, like everyone, likes Nick, so he tries to get him to hang out with him. When Tom takes Nick with him to see Myrtle, he's basically indoctrinating Nick into some sort of sacred Manlationship. He trusts Nick enough to take him to meet his mistress and take part in his second life. Nick, on the other hand, has almost no trust for Tom.
Nick & Gatsby: Much like Tom, Gatsby seems to view his relationship with Nick as if the two are very close friends. Gatsby confides his deepest, darkest secrets in Nick as Nick just listens in wonder, awe, and distrust. Gatsby is the whole time the dominant half, but he doesn't really realize that Nick has the power to crush him--he just doesn't use it.
Tom & Daisy: Two attractive people who have very little in common except their ability to influence others. They seem like they could get along, but Daisy is too powerful and independent in her own right to make things work out the way Tom views them as working. There seems to be very little real love in this relationship.
Gatsby & Daisy: They've both fallen very hard for each other, Gatsby sickeningly so. It would appear that they had some sort of quality relationship in their past. However, Daisy's fidelity is questionable and she seems to be the type who is easy to be led-on by. She claims to love Gatsby, I'm sure she does on her terms, but who knows what her terms really are? Gatsby is just disgusting, he needs to get his head on straight.
Tom & Myrtle: I'm not going to lie, this is probably one of the deepest relationships in the book. There is more than business to be had here. Furthermore, they actually seem to have genuine love for each other. Or at least Tom has genuine love for Myrtle, Myrtle might just be gold-digging a young, athletic stud. The fact that Tom goes for an older, plumper, uglier woman as his mistress is telling: he's not hunting for new sexual satisfaction or anything of that sort, he's finding a real companion. The fact that they can't leave their spouses and commit is a blip, though. They clearly aren't so into each other that they would leave their old lives.
I don't really know what to think except that the characters of this book are generally just horrible people who don't know how to interact with other human beings on a level beyond chit chat and surface emotion.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
A Note Regarding the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence, along with the Gettysburg Address and MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, is probably one of the most recognizable and defining documents in American history.
So often, it is analyzed from a wide range of perspectives, and unfortunately it is often read with out much feeling besides the patriotism behind it. When really considered, it's a beautiful complaint. Thomas Jefferson's prose is outstanding. Before he begins whining and listing the grievances, his first two paragraphs are filled with important words. I am convinced that not a single word in that paragraph is there as filler or just because he needed a word. His phrasing, eloquent syntax, and word choice are nothing short of masterful. Even as he moves into the pissings and moanings of the colonists, it's still the most put-together crying I've ever seen.
Moving beyond the surface or even the deeper meaning of that preamble, I'd like to address some things about Thomas Jefferson's Declaration vs. the one that was published and approved on July 4, 1776. Clearly, Jefferson drafted this document numerous times. My guess would be that the copy we know and love was on the order of his fifth or sixth revision. I have, however, a copy of the draft he submitted to the Continental Congress on July 2 (I believe that's correct) in order to be reviewed and submitted. This document bears a strong resemblance to the final copy. Mostly there are just some words changed around here or there, but there are some significant alterations.
Th e most important and provoking of these follows:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostitued his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this asslemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.
This is explosive.
This is the only ommission that is not merely rephrased or comes within another paragraph in the final copy. The Continental Congress choose to specifically NOT MENTION slavery at all. Thomas Jefferson himself held slaves, but he chose to write against the slave trade. He also makes a huge point with this to literalize the meaning of that much-debated "all men are created equal and [endowed with] Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Had this been left in the Declaration, I am quite sure that the character of our nation would be very different today and certainly in its first century. This clause would probably have been a catalyst in putting forth legislation to end the slave trade earlier and help to abolish slavery sooner. Or, perhaps we would have seen a nation that became divided over this issue in 1776 rather than in th 1850s. The result of this would have been disastrous. There is no way freedom from Britain would have been won by two divided bodies. In fact, the south would have been likely to remain loyal to Britain.
As much as that paragraph is a beautiful statement for human rights. Hindsight here says that the ends justified the means for America. Slaves got shafted big time and had to wait until 1865 for freedom and then wait again until 1965 for true equality.
Which is more just? Choosing to eliminate this paragraph to save AMERICA and give us our current nation with YOUR human rights in exchange for those of others. Or making a bold statement about HUMAN RIGHTS for ALL RACES and knowing it is likely to cause your society's demise.
So often, it is analyzed from a wide range of perspectives, and unfortunately it is often read with out much feeling besides the patriotism behind it. When really considered, it's a beautiful complaint. Thomas Jefferson's prose is outstanding. Before he begins whining and listing the grievances, his first two paragraphs are filled with important words. I am convinced that not a single word in that paragraph is there as filler or just because he needed a word. His phrasing, eloquent syntax, and word choice are nothing short of masterful. Even as he moves into the pissings and moanings of the colonists, it's still the most put-together crying I've ever seen.
Moving beyond the surface or even the deeper meaning of that preamble, I'd like to address some things about Thomas Jefferson's Declaration vs. the one that was published and approved on July 4, 1776. Clearly, Jefferson drafted this document numerous times. My guess would be that the copy we know and love was on the order of his fifth or sixth revision. I have, however, a copy of the draft he submitted to the Continental Congress on July 2 (I believe that's correct) in order to be reviewed and submitted. This document bears a strong resemblance to the final copy. Mostly there are just some words changed around here or there, but there are some significant alterations.
Th e most important and provoking of these follows:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostitued his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this asslemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.
This is explosive.
This is the only ommission that is not merely rephrased or comes within another paragraph in the final copy. The Continental Congress choose to specifically NOT MENTION slavery at all. Thomas Jefferson himself held slaves, but he chose to write against the slave trade. He also makes a huge point with this to literalize the meaning of that much-debated "all men are created equal and [endowed with] Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Had this been left in the Declaration, I am quite sure that the character of our nation would be very different today and certainly in its first century. This clause would probably have been a catalyst in putting forth legislation to end the slave trade earlier and help to abolish slavery sooner. Or, perhaps we would have seen a nation that became divided over this issue in 1776 rather than in th 1850s. The result of this would have been disastrous. There is no way freedom from Britain would have been won by two divided bodies. In fact, the south would have been likely to remain loyal to Britain.
As much as that paragraph is a beautiful statement for human rights. Hindsight here says that the ends justified the means for America. Slaves got shafted big time and had to wait until 1865 for freedom and then wait again until 1965 for true equality.
Which is more just? Choosing to eliminate this paragraph to save AMERICA and give us our current nation with YOUR human rights in exchange for those of others. Or making a bold statement about HUMAN RIGHTS for ALL RACES and knowing it is likely to cause your society's demise.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
On Pocahontas
I have a confession: I think I am in love with the title character of Disney's Pocahontas. In my mind, she is the most beautiful of all the Disney princesses.
Now that I have that off my chest, let's talk about Pochantas the movie.
Being one of the few Disney movies that is historical fiction and attempts to recount real events, this is an outlier among Toy Story, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid. Still, it is extremely fictional.
The characters in the movie bare little resemblance to their real-life counterparts. John Smith's golden hair, blue eyes, and strong jaw are pretty funny though because he is made to be the ideal man he really felt he was. William Ratcliffe on the other hand is much like the Scar character in Disney's Lion King: disproportionate, self-absorbed, alternatively motivated, and a flaming homosexual. Thirdly, Pocahontas is portrayed as a beautiful young woman of about 19 to 20 years old with a slender yet voluptuous figure that not even the most desirable models have today. Not to mention that hair! Sorry, my point is, she's unbelievably attractive. In any pictorial documentation I have seen of Pocahontas though, she is not a very attractive woman. Additionally, let's not forget that she was 12 or 13 at the time of the British landing in Jamestown.
The depiction of the landscape makes 17th Century Virginia look more like the serene, rugged forests and mountains of the Sierra Nevada or Yosemite National Park. The waterfalls, towering pines, and babbling brooks are far too perfect.
Furthermore, the depictions of the whites and the depictions of Indians are so stereotypical it was almost laughable.
I understand the focus of catering to children for the movie, but the ideas and scenes that the catchy tunes and beautiful animation put in my mind as a child are startling. I haven't seen much of Disney's more recent works, but I hope they are trying to be a little more accurate if they intend to do any historical fiction or use human characters.
Now that I have that off my chest, let's talk about Pochantas the movie.
Being one of the few Disney movies that is historical fiction and attempts to recount real events, this is an outlier among Toy Story, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid. Still, it is extremely fictional.
The characters in the movie bare little resemblance to their real-life counterparts. John Smith's golden hair, blue eyes, and strong jaw are pretty funny though because he is made to be the ideal man he really felt he was. William Ratcliffe on the other hand is much like the Scar character in Disney's Lion King: disproportionate, self-absorbed, alternatively motivated, and a flaming homosexual. Thirdly, Pocahontas is portrayed as a beautiful young woman of about 19 to 20 years old with a slender yet voluptuous figure that not even the most desirable models have today. Not to mention that hair! Sorry, my point is, she's unbelievably attractive. In any pictorial documentation I have seen of Pocahontas though, she is not a very attractive woman. Additionally, let's not forget that she was 12 or 13 at the time of the British landing in Jamestown.
The depiction of the landscape makes 17th Century Virginia look more like the serene, rugged forests and mountains of the Sierra Nevada or Yosemite National Park. The waterfalls, towering pines, and babbling brooks are far too perfect.
Furthermore, the depictions of the whites and the depictions of Indians are so stereotypical it was almost laughable.
I understand the focus of catering to children for the movie, but the ideas and scenes that the catchy tunes and beautiful animation put in my mind as a child are startling. I haven't seen much of Disney's more recent works, but I hope they are trying to be a little more accurate if they intend to do any historical fiction or use human characters.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
We Silly Whitefolk
The reading by Valerie Babb really got me thinking about whiteness in America. In a lot of ways, the fundamental formation of whiteness in America remains the same. Certainly, there have been changes from the Puritanical Christianity of New England and the loose and rough living of Virginia. However, certain elements of each of these have contributed greatly to the way whites in America live today. What I enjoyed greatly about the reading by Babb and also the capture narrative of Mary Rowlandson, the John Smith piece, and the Cotton Mather writing is the way that one can pick out some nuances of the way these people chose to portray their white culture in comparison to other cultures. The nuances include word choice and the hidden emotion they used as well. Also, many of the attitudes (especially towards other races) they reflected are considered disgusting today by whites, and we as white people like to try to make up for our ancestors' mistakes. This is what leads to the current American whiteness--a comic thing, really. Be sure to remember number 20 for later.
The comic side of it is what white people like to do these days. They go out of their way to do things that make it clear they are good white people and try their hardest to be cool. This has given birth to social awareness movements, yuppie culture, hipster culture, indie rock, music or film festivals, Barack Obama's fame, McDonald's SnackWraps, Hollister Co., vegetarianism, popular R&B music, and so many other funny little white people things.
White people like to make sure they are seen as tolerant to other races. It is not enough to be siliently tolerant, a white person must be blantant about it.
White people like to make sure you know your lifestyle is OK to your face.
White people like to secretly hate or envy others' lifestyles.
White people enjoy being offended on behalf of other people. Especially when it's a group of people that they do not belong to (eg. A white straight female being offended by the word "faggot" in reference to a homosexual male; a white 50-something making it clear he is not okay with someone making fun of the poor black kid.)
White people love you. Just accept that.
White people hate you. Just accept that.
White people will go out of their way to make it known that they liked your favorite band long before that band had any Top 100 hits. In fact, they have a copy of that band's first album (the self-titled Your Favorite Band: Before They Were Cool) on vinyl and it was recorded using analog. Which brings me to two new points.
White people love the irony of indie culture. In fact, they love irony in general. They also like struggling to be cool, but hate actually being cool.
White people love vinyl records. It's not just vinyl records, though. They love the vinyl records because they are described as something that is ever-so-important to white people. That is vintage.
White people like black people.
White people hate white people who don't like black people.
White people hate black people think they are white people.
White people like Asian people.
White hate it when you make jokes about Asian drivers and Asian kids in math classes who play the violin.
Remember #20.
White people hate Asian drivers and Asian kids who do better than they do on math tests and can play classical music on stringed instruments.
White people love texting.
White people love making up words like texting.
White people probably hate me.
White people like sex.
White people do not like sex on TV before 9 PM.
White people love sex on TV past 9 PM.
White people love Old Spice.
I could go on so far with this list. I have more right on the top of my head, but I think you get the point.
This post was largely inspired by the blog "Stuff White People Like." I feel that the list is very in complete. Some things are missing like Dave Matthews Band, Labrador Retrievers (referenced in Dogs), Acoustic Guitars, The North Face jackets (referenced in Outdoor Performance Apparel), and other things. However, you must take the time to read some of the blog. Or at least glance at some of the titles. After doing this, go back and score yourself on how many you must admit that you like. You don't need an actual number just get an idea. You'll find out just how white you really are despite your counter-productive attempts not to be.
Some of the one I really enjoyed because of the silly truth are: #3, #8, #11, #12, #18, #20, #35, #40, #41, #66, #88, #93, #106, #108, #116
The comic side of it is what white people like to do these days. They go out of their way to do things that make it clear they are good white people and try their hardest to be cool. This has given birth to social awareness movements, yuppie culture, hipster culture, indie rock, music or film festivals, Barack Obama's fame, McDonald's SnackWraps, Hollister Co., vegetarianism, popular R&B music, and so many other funny little white people things.
White people like to make sure they are seen as tolerant to other races. It is not enough to be siliently tolerant, a white person must be blantant about it.
White people like to make sure you know your lifestyle is OK to your face.
White people like to secretly hate or envy others' lifestyles.
White people enjoy being offended on behalf of other people. Especially when it's a group of people that they do not belong to (eg. A white straight female being offended by the word "faggot" in reference to a homosexual male; a white 50-something making it clear he is not okay with someone making fun of the poor black kid.)
White people love you. Just accept that.
White people hate you. Just accept that.
White people will go out of their way to make it known that they liked your favorite band long before that band had any Top 100 hits. In fact, they have a copy of that band's first album (the self-titled Your Favorite Band: Before They Were Cool) on vinyl and it was recorded using analog. Which brings me to two new points.
White people love the irony of indie culture. In fact, they love irony in general. They also like struggling to be cool, but hate actually being cool.
White people love vinyl records. It's not just vinyl records, though. They love the vinyl records because they are described as something that is ever-so-important to white people. That is vintage.
White people like black people.
White people hate white people who don't like black people.
White people hate black people think they are white people.
White people like Asian people.
White hate it when you make jokes about Asian drivers and Asian kids in math classes who play the violin.
Remember #20.
White people hate Asian drivers and Asian kids who do better than they do on math tests and can play classical music on stringed instruments.
White people love texting.
White people love making up words like texting.
White people probably hate me.
White people like sex.
White people do not like sex on TV before 9 PM.
White people love sex on TV past 9 PM.
White people love Old Spice.
I could go on so far with this list. I have more right on the top of my head, but I think you get the point.
This post was largely inspired by the blog "Stuff White People Like." I feel that the list is very in complete. Some things are missing like Dave Matthews Band, Labrador Retrievers (referenced in Dogs), Acoustic Guitars, The North Face jackets (referenced in Outdoor Performance Apparel), and other things. However, you must take the time to read some of the blog. Or at least glance at some of the titles. After doing this, go back and score yourself on how many you must admit that you like. You don't need an actual number just get an idea. You'll find out just how white you really are despite your counter-productive attempts not to be.
Some of the one I really enjoyed because of the silly truth are: #3, #8, #11, #12, #18, #20, #35, #40, #41, #66, #88, #93, #106, #108, #116
Monday, November 2, 2009
A quick note on satire
I don't mean to pick on my class, perhaps its my own shortcomings, but I wrote my Op-ed piece as a satire, and no one picked it up.
I intended my op-ed to be a satire on big government programs with hints at the healthcare bill etc. I thought it was a fairly scathing satire with comparisons to the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and some ridiculous arguments like how I was twisting free speech to be a bad thing. However, of four peer editors, none realized my argument was satirical. All of them thought I was arguing for a "universal media" rather than degrading the idea of state-supported and controlled media.
Assuming I did a halfway decent job of making the piece satirical (hopefully I did), there's a problem with the way people are reading things. Everyone is too serious. If this trend is widespread, I could post articles from the Onion all over and people would think they're legit news!!
In the future, be careful to take everything you read lightly and with a grain of humor!
I intended my op-ed to be a satire on big government programs with hints at the healthcare bill etc. I thought it was a fairly scathing satire with comparisons to the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and some ridiculous arguments like how I was twisting free speech to be a bad thing. However, of four peer editors, none realized my argument was satirical. All of them thought I was arguing for a "universal media" rather than degrading the idea of state-supported and controlled media.
Assuming I did a halfway decent job of making the piece satirical (hopefully I did), there's a problem with the way people are reading things. Everyone is too serious. If this trend is widespread, I could post articles from the Onion all over and people would think they're legit news!!
In the future, be careful to take everything you read lightly and with a grain of humor!
Friday, October 30, 2009
On "Apocalypse Now"
SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON'T WANT IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE PLOT REVEALED TO YOU DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.
I decided to put in Apocalypse Now tonight because it's one of those movies all young men have to see, and we're doing the Vietnam unit so I figured it was relevant to class.
The movie is a work of art. It goes beyond a normal war film. Many war films do have some deeper meaning linked to them, but this one is just loaded with the deeper meanings, and for a movie that's thirty years old, the special effects are wonderful. This easily makes my list of top 10 best movies I've seen. With a cast so star-studded that Harrison Ford, Jon Voight, and Laurence Fishburne play minor roles, how could it not be?
Multiple themes and motifs emerged as I watched it. The main ones I spotted and will focus on were noise and the degradation of morals and civilization towards Hell.
First the noise: I noticed this even in class when we watched the scene involving the 1st of the 9th Brigade. Throughout the entire movie, there was all sorts of back ground noise that tells me the director is trying to overwhelm the viewer. During the early parts of the movie, there were helicopters everywhere; towards the middle, shots and flares were all over; by the end, it was just strange music. The music actually showed up often, and it creeped me out. The music described by Mitchell Sanders in The Things They Carried definitely seemed to be being played in the background of Apocalypse Now. I think the goal of overwhelming the viewer was a way to make the war even more real. It begins to wear on you and it actually takes a physical and emotional toll after about an hour, making the movie hellish.
The decay in humanity that was portrayed in the movie certainly goes along with the title and was certainly a purposeful method of embodying the immorality of the Vietnam War and war in general. The movie begins in Saigon with the main character, Captain Willard, drunk and in poor spirits, utterly depressed. This is shows a personal decay.
During the scene we watched in class, the colonel played by Robert Duvall is just nuts. He's got his crap together and is actually an excellent officer, but he's freaking crazy! A bad-ass, but crazy! This scene does a good job of showing an eccentric stage on the trail to insanity.
As Willard progresses on his journey with a crew of four on a small PT boat, they come across a few army outposts. At the first, the scene is a bit of a sensory overload, but then again the whole movie is. Starvation and desire for America and the licentiousness of America is portrayed at this outpost. The 500+ some troops at the outpost are treated to a USO show featuring Hugh Hefner and the best of the Playmates. Things get out of hand when the girls are dancing as the young soldiers have a hard time containing their lust. Nothing too much happens, but the message that they are being starved and are losing conscience is clear.
The next outpost they come across is not nearly as civilized. The soldiers can't even name their commanding officer and bombs, flares, and shots go everywhere. As the boat pulls through the river, soldiers swim after it crying "Take me home! Get me the #$%^ out of here!" It's absolutely shocking to watch. The horrors of this scene make it seem like a living Hell. The scene is filmed at night and only the erratic spurts of muzzle light and flares light the scene. As a viewer, I was rendered speechless and thoughtless. I could only think, "how terrible." When it was emphasized multiple times that there was no CO, it became clear that the reason this scene was there was to emphasize the incompetency of the American commanders and FUBAR situations that occured. I wondered if it could get worse.
As the boat proceeded down the river into Cambodia, they did. When Willard finally got to his destination, the true Hell became apparent. Dead, mangled bodies were everywhere yet there were hundreds of people to care for them and do something about it. The colonel Willard was instructed to kill, played by Marlon Brando, is a heck of a character. There are many strange people in the movie, but he is just insane. As you learn more about the character in the final scenes of the movie, you realize he seems to believe he's not taken steps backward on the continuum of humanity, but has transcended it. Early in the movie, you learn that this colonel, Colonel Kurtz, is a very intelligent and ambitious man but has gone renegade and likely insane. He has come to be a complete autocrat, a demigod more, of a tribe of native Cambodians. Having only watched the movie once and not being a psychology or sociology buff, I don't have much to say except that I was absolutely stunned by the Hell he created.
Besides "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," there are tons of great lines in the movie. Some are just a bit too corny, though. The narration seems to offer tons of cliches like "Oh man, the bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. " or "charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500." There was one that stood out as particularly meaningful to the plot, though. "We had reached the end of the river." This just made it obvious that the brink between sanity and insanity had been reached and it was further than anyone thought.
Before I close, there's one more thing I'd like to bring up. The idea of truth and true war stories. We've seen this mentioned in TTTC, but I definitely seems to spread to other Vietnam media as well. If someone tried to tell me that Apocalypse Now actually happened, I would refer them to a doctor. The movie is wacked-out, man! Just FUBAR. Then again, maybe that's why it could be true.
Without seeing Apocalypse Now, there's no way you could ever understand it. It's so powerful and so provoking that it would take three or four viewings to really get it. These are only half of the reactions I got from it in one viewing. I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight...half because I'm thinking about the depth of the movie, half because it scares me a bit too.
I decided to put in Apocalypse Now tonight because it's one of those movies all young men have to see, and we're doing the Vietnam unit so I figured it was relevant to class.
The movie is a work of art. It goes beyond a normal war film. Many war films do have some deeper meaning linked to them, but this one is just loaded with the deeper meanings, and for a movie that's thirty years old, the special effects are wonderful. This easily makes my list of top 10 best movies I've seen. With a cast so star-studded that Harrison Ford, Jon Voight, and Laurence Fishburne play minor roles, how could it not be?
Multiple themes and motifs emerged as I watched it. The main ones I spotted and will focus on were noise and the degradation of morals and civilization towards Hell.
First the noise: I noticed this even in class when we watched the scene involving the 1st of the 9th Brigade. Throughout the entire movie, there was all sorts of back ground noise that tells me the director is trying to overwhelm the viewer. During the early parts of the movie, there were helicopters everywhere; towards the middle, shots and flares were all over; by the end, it was just strange music. The music actually showed up often, and it creeped me out. The music described by Mitchell Sanders in The Things They Carried definitely seemed to be being played in the background of Apocalypse Now. I think the goal of overwhelming the viewer was a way to make the war even more real. It begins to wear on you and it actually takes a physical and emotional toll after about an hour, making the movie hellish.
The decay in humanity that was portrayed in the movie certainly goes along with the title and was certainly a purposeful method of embodying the immorality of the Vietnam War and war in general. The movie begins in Saigon with the main character, Captain Willard, drunk and in poor spirits, utterly depressed. This is shows a personal decay.
During the scene we watched in class, the colonel played by Robert Duvall is just nuts. He's got his crap together and is actually an excellent officer, but he's freaking crazy! A bad-ass, but crazy! This scene does a good job of showing an eccentric stage on the trail to insanity.
As Willard progresses on his journey with a crew of four on a small PT boat, they come across a few army outposts. At the first, the scene is a bit of a sensory overload, but then again the whole movie is. Starvation and desire for America and the licentiousness of America is portrayed at this outpost. The 500+ some troops at the outpost are treated to a USO show featuring Hugh Hefner and the best of the Playmates. Things get out of hand when the girls are dancing as the young soldiers have a hard time containing their lust. Nothing too much happens, but the message that they are being starved and are losing conscience is clear.
The next outpost they come across is not nearly as civilized. The soldiers can't even name their commanding officer and bombs, flares, and shots go everywhere. As the boat pulls through the river, soldiers swim after it crying "Take me home! Get me the #$%^ out of here!" It's absolutely shocking to watch. The horrors of this scene make it seem like a living Hell. The scene is filmed at night and only the erratic spurts of muzzle light and flares light the scene. As a viewer, I was rendered speechless and thoughtless. I could only think, "how terrible." When it was emphasized multiple times that there was no CO, it became clear that the reason this scene was there was to emphasize the incompetency of the American commanders and FUBAR situations that occured. I wondered if it could get worse.
As the boat proceeded down the river into Cambodia, they did. When Willard finally got to his destination, the true Hell became apparent. Dead, mangled bodies were everywhere yet there were hundreds of people to care for them and do something about it. The colonel Willard was instructed to kill, played by Marlon Brando, is a heck of a character. There are many strange people in the movie, but he is just insane. As you learn more about the character in the final scenes of the movie, you realize he seems to believe he's not taken steps backward on the continuum of humanity, but has transcended it. Early in the movie, you learn that this colonel, Colonel Kurtz, is a very intelligent and ambitious man but has gone renegade and likely insane. He has come to be a complete autocrat, a demigod more, of a tribe of native Cambodians. Having only watched the movie once and not being a psychology or sociology buff, I don't have much to say except that I was absolutely stunned by the Hell he created.
Besides "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," there are tons of great lines in the movie. Some are just a bit too corny, though. The narration seems to offer tons of cliches like "Oh man, the bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. " or "charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500." There was one that stood out as particularly meaningful to the plot, though. "We had reached the end of the river." This just made it obvious that the brink between sanity and insanity had been reached and it was further than anyone thought.
Before I close, there's one more thing I'd like to bring up. The idea of truth and true war stories. We've seen this mentioned in TTTC, but I definitely seems to spread to other Vietnam media as well. If someone tried to tell me that Apocalypse Now actually happened, I would refer them to a doctor. The movie is wacked-out, man! Just FUBAR. Then again, maybe that's why it could be true.
Without seeing Apocalypse Now, there's no way you could ever understand it. It's so powerful and so provoking that it would take three or four viewings to really get it. These are only half of the reactions I got from it in one viewing. I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight...half because I'm thinking about the depth of the movie, half because it scares me a bit too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)