Moving Past Orientalism

I think that we all have an Orientalist mindset, even if we don’t always realize it. We have perceptions of people from different countries even if we have never been there or have ever met anyone from that country. And, we use orientalism as a lens to create stereotypes about people from the middle east. Orientalism is portrayed throughout our society, in historical paintings, art, literature, films, and media. People wanted to explain others who look different than they do, so that they knew how to conquer them. But, people display these stereotypes that they create as though they are facts.

The same images of monsters, mystery, and women comes up when people research the Middle East, even though these images doesn’t accurately depict their culture or ideals. These images created stereotypes that all Middle Eastern people are mysterious or dangerous.

I think that we can’t avoid looking at media that perpetuates these harmful stereotypes. They are a part of our everyday society, whether we realize it or not.

Orientalism can be extremely harmful because It creates an fake image of what people are really like, without using history and facts. It makes more privileged people look down upon and mistreat people from the Middle East, even though they know nothing about them. It also forces Middle Eastern people to see themselves in a bad light, because they are constantly put down because of how they look to others.

I think that we can move past this by spreading more information about the Middle East, from Middle Eastern people. We have to spread historical information based on facts, rather than perpetuating stereotypes. I think that it’s important that it comes from a Middle Eastern person because they have actually lived through real Middle Eastern experiences. If the information comes from a privileged European person, they might view the Middle East with the prejudice they have gained from media, or their “oriental lens.”

Western Orientalism

Western culture has a Orientalist mindset and it is most clearly seen in film. It is very common to picture the enemy of a country as evil in movies. For example, Nazis during WWII or Russians during the Cold War. It is also common for Middle Eastern people, especially men, to be pictured as bad guys and this has only increased since 9/11. For example in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana finds himself accidentally arriving in India. A tribesman takes him into his village where the he learns of a Kali-worshiping group that has taken the village children as slaves at a palace near by. Upon arriving at the palace, the food served includes monkey brains, a snake with beetles inside, and many other foods that are supposed to be cultural but really aren’t real dishes eaten in India. The palace is also secretly hiding a cult that is still practicing inhumane rituals for the Hindu goddess Kali. This depiction of Indian culture and religion isn’t factual and warps people’s perception of the country and culture. Because Middle Eastern people are made to be the bad guy in films, this stereotype becomes ingrained into society both consciously and unconsciously. To overcome this Orientalist mindset, we need to not let our preconceived generalizations cloud our judgement when we learn about the Middle East or come in contact with Middle Eastern people. The assumption that they are all bad and terrorists is unrealistic as well as completely untrue. By having an open mindset, we can begin to diminish these stereotypes.

As You Wish

Let’s talk about The Princess Bride. Aside from being a hilariously witty and strikingly humorous fantasy/adventure film, it also fulfills Aristotle’s definition of a Comedy. In fact, it’s a Comedy within a Comedy! Both the grandson (of the “real world” plot) and Buttercup (of the fantasy plot) are of ordinary backgrounds and unfortunate circumstances: Buttercup is to be married to one she doesn’t love, and the grandson is sick, grumpy, and vehemently opposed to “kissy parts.” Over the course of the film, both main characters undergo a classic Comedic “rise” and improve their situations significantly. Buttercup finds true love, and the grandchild finds ease and comfort (even overcoming his hatred of kissy parts!).

The Princess Bride is one example of a meaningful Comedy. Although it is playful and light, one does not have to search long to find greater human truths. Perhaps it is the “criminal(s) with the heart of gold” or “true love will find a way” or “even those in power can be brought low.” While these ideas (which are most definitely not the only themes of the film) are a bit cliche, they serve as an important reminder of the positive power of humanity. Should The Princess Bride have ended as a Tragedy, with the death of Buttercup and Westley, many of the themes would remain the same. The conclusion of a happy ending does not diminish the meaning of the work.

In fact, all Aristotelian Comedies are inherently meaningful. They show a relatable hero rising to fortune and all the success of a happy ending. If the goal of Tragedy is to evoke catharsis and stir audiences to change the world around them, then Comedy serves as a reminder of to what end those changes serve. Comedy offers a place of stability, a goal point for those moved to fix the world. Without Comedy, Tragedy has no aim. Without Tragedy, Comedy has no pleasantness. The two Aristotelian forms exist in synergy, each giving meaning to the other.

Trust film

"Family is like a gun – you point it in the wrong direction, you're going to kill somebody"

-Matthew to Maria's mother


While Matthew is talking about the death of her husband to Maria’s Mother he is also saying this in a much more general sense versus just this specific situation. While in her mind she probably thinks he is talking about the one instance he is really inferring to both how his dad treats him and how she treats her daughter. He is implying that by a family doing the wrong things they can actually backfire and make lives worse than better. He is saying that only if they do the wrong thing can it have a negative impact and is largely speaking of suicide as he himself carries a grenade with him. Because his father, his family, is abusive so he only makes Matthew's life worse versus better as a family should. He does not mean that this is the case with all families, it is up to the family whether to point the “gun” in the right or wrong direction.

Welcome!

Welcome to the weblog for our AP Literature class  -- the place where we will be continuing conversations from class and starting new ones. We'll be discussing and debating literary conundrums, the meaning of life, and so much more. We might even see a little poetry.

So, what's a blog? And how will we be using it class? For information on blogging and how to join and post to our blog, see "All About Blogging."

We're looking forward to a great year.

Make sure you check your e-mail for your invitation to join the blog. Also – and this is very important – the first step you should take after you accept the invitation is to edit your user profile so that you control how your identity and your communication preferences.  Click on the pull-down menu next to your name in the upper right corner of the browser and click on “Blogger Profile.” Then click on “Edit Profile.”

You can fill out as much of it as you want, but the only requirement is -- under “Identity” -- make sure your “Display name” is your first name and last initial only -- so we provide some anonymity while still allowing your classmates and teacher to be able to identity who you are. For example, change “Bernie Heidkamp” to “Bernie H.”

Orientilism: Racism or Romanticism (& Why We Feel the Need to Risk it)

Aside from acknowledging that questionable Oriental depictions have long since swept Hollywood in a sort of derogatory renaissance, it is important to acknowledge why such "controversial" depictions of Eastern society market so successfully (I use the word "controversial" sparingly because it seems as if we seldom notice racism in oriental depictions unless we see other people complaining about it afterwards, negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that point it out, etc.  Be honest, when was the last time you actually stopped in the middle of the latest action flick and said to yourself "wow that's racist"? Although that isn't to say that it isn't there).

So where is the appeal? To explore this idea I ask you to consider why one may or may not enjoy the genre of western (cowboy shoot-em-up) films. Films, in general, tend to have a distinct tendency to both romanticize and to proceed "conveniently". In the case of western movies, there's something about the sun setting behind a looming Texas canyon, the trotting on horse-top through a barren desert expanse to the unknown, or downtime by the fireplace after setting up camp for the night that you can't help but envy, with an unfamiliar reminiscing of sorts. That strange sense of appeal for something that is not yours, that longing or attraction for a setting depicted in a film is the very definition of romanticism. The element of Now this iteration of Orientalism isn't the type that often presents itself in action or "Bond" type flicks. This is the depiction in such works as The Bridge on the River Kwai, or even Eat Pray Love where the foreign setting and culture is meant to be endearing and subtle, if not entirely culturally accurate.

The second type of orientalism is much more derogatory and offendable. The notion of a foreign entity or location being the antagonist (¨Villain¨) or place where conflict occurs is all too convenient, easy enough to CTRL-C/CTRL-V. This is the type of orientalist portrayal that will make you think all Muslims are terrorist, or that every Asian field agent is trained in the art of the Samurai. Frankly, Hollywood can be racist in their questionable portrayals because it´s easy. Its easy for the villain to be the ´other´ and the hero to be the bad-ass westerner. In film and TV, it´s convenient to use stereotypical portrayals of foreign individuals as the enemy because it cuts back the need for sophisticated plot points, thoughtful writing, or exposition. The mind has been wired at this point to connect the dots.

¨Oh? The supervillain is a Muslim? Oh so he´s being depicted as a terrorist. I know from the sketchy foreign setting and strange behaviors portrayed of these people that this is a hostile environment, and since terrorist hate Americans that must be the motivations of all their evil-doing. That´s enough exposition for me. Bring on the gun fight!¨

At this point, it is important to remember that the word ´orientalism´ does not have any negative connotation on its own (it is only seen as negative because of the trend of racist or inaccurate depictions of it in media). Orientalism simply means the interpretation of eastern culture in western art/media affirming that it could be accurate or inaccurate, realistic or exaggerated. It is the standard by which we critique it that our ethical opinion is formed. To some, even the more endearing portrayals of Orientalism can be viewed as offensive so long as they are not entirely accurate. Is it just as racist to exadurate the 'good' in eastern society as it is to stereotype the 'bad'? In the same light, is any work that expresses Orientalism negatively a sign of the racism of the creators of the cinema, or the craving of the audience that eats it up without question? I personally find it hard to call Yimou Zhang derogatory and offensive for a work like The Great Wall, especially considering it is his own culture he is projecting.

And this leads me to my final point. People watch questionable oriental portrayals in film because they love it. They don't love it because it's racist or offensive though. They love it because it has become a standard in cinema and it's what the big corporations know will sell. It's often entertaining, it's different enough from our daily experience, and it's not there to challenge what we think we know.  The long game of "playing it safe" if you will. Does this place the blame on the viewer for lapping it up like brainwashed dogs at a watering hole? Perhaps we are the source of the problem but I'm not going to be enjoying Raiders of the Lost Arc any less the next time. That isn't to say that the underlining epidemic of racist and stereotypical portrayal isn't present, but for now, pass the popcorn please.

Respect+Admiration+Trust= Love

When you ask people what love is they usually can't describe it. They say something along the lines of, "You have to experience it to know what it feels like," or "It's not something you put into words." In the film Trust, the character of Maria believes that love can be defined, and that there is a simple formula for it--respect, admiration, and trust. In this film, Hal Hartley explores many socially constructed systems, some of which being love and marriage.

None of the characters in the entire movie had happy marriages. Maria's mom was freed when her husband died, Matthew's dad lived alone, the woman at the bus stop was so bored of her marriage that she stole a baby, and Peg is divorced and has kids. Marriage is portrayed as just something that people do, and then they always end up being unhappy because of their choice. Maria asks her sister, if she misses her kids and hates her husband, and Peg answers yes to both questions. Maria then asks if she would get married again, and Peg replies "of course." Like many of the characters in the film, marriage ruined them, but they would still do it again. This is a clear commentary on the downfalls of the societal construction of marriage. If it makes people unhappy, then why do they do it? There is no reason other than it is what society expects people to do.

The one relationship that I have not yet mentioned is that of Maria and Matthew. Though they do not end up getting married, they do get engaged and discuss the concept of love. Matthew accepts Maria's equation for love and asks her to marry him. However, on their path to get married, the viewer sees them prematurely slipping into the consequences that come along with marriage. Most notably, there is a scene where Maria comes home and see Matthew sitting on the couch watching TV. She says to him, " Your job is making you boring and mean," and he replies, "My job is making me a respectable member of society." They are on their way to marriage, jobs, and other systems people have to buy into to be considered "respectable members of society,"and because of this, Matthew is already becoming boring and loosing the characteristics that make him special to Maria. This exchange is an example of the ways that socially constructed systems change people in a negative way and stop them from living happy lives.

From Maria's formulaic view of love to the overwhelming portrayal of characters unhappy with marriage, Hal Hartley's Trust causes the viewer to question the ideas of love and marriage. Could Maria and Matthew ever be happily married? Do they love each other? Could they ever be together without changing each other or letting society change them?

M&M

The movie Trust is a very peculiar movie. Throughout the film there are many interesting aspects of each character and how their interactions express a unique way of life. What I found most interesting in the film was the relationship between Maria and Matthew.

Maria seems almost the opposite of Matthew in the beginning. Her careless and spoiled attitude to others is what brings her to realize that she knows nothing of what life is, and how to live it. Having a baby with a football player that doesn't actually love her also pushes Maria to this realization. After the death of her father, her mother became strict and dominated over her. Throughout this whole process she changes into a new character with the help of Matthew. Matthew is ill tempered and very discrete individual who has a negative reputation. Also like Maria, he is dominated by a parent figure. He is constantly obeying his father by cleaning the house, particularly the bathroom. Maria and Matthew's relationship is unique and interesting in different parts of the film.

One part in the film that is unique is the conversions between Maria and Matthew. When they talk to each other, you can feel little emotions and meaning to what they are saying, They sound robotic and speak fast with each other, which is amusing. They don't respond like this to others, its just them.

Another particular part was when Matthew invites Maria to sleep in his house. After Matthew leaves, Maria gets comfortable, she makes a mess with the food and the milk.  She leaves it there almost knowing that someone might clean it up. Matthew's father arrives and sees this mess, and shortly after Matthew arrives as well . Then there's this tension building up between father and son. Father abusing his son because of the mess, because of Maria. What stuck out to me was when Maria invited Matthew to stay with her, to get away from his father. She is saving Matthew from this dominating parent figure and later on Matthew tries to do the same. Maria's mother dominates her by making her do all these chores and also taking care of her by combing her hair and fixing her food. Matthew sees how controlling Maria's mother is and wants Maria to leave with him and drinks for it. This part shows the similarities of parent aggression and how both rescues one another from it. Also just to mention in both cases the parents needs the child to be under them and would fight to keep it that way.

Matthews and Maria relationship is very odd that I have never seen before. The film Trust truly brings out a new perspective on human relationships to its audience.

Awkwardness in Trust

In the 1990 film, Trust, director Hal Hartley introduces a unique take on 'the theater of the absurd'. Although this film was created 40 years after the peak of the theater of the absurd movement, the film is known as a modern adaptation of the movement.

I think that one of the most notable aspects of the film is the intentional awkwardness it portrays. In the interactions between each of the characters, Hartley displays a level of awkwardness and realness that is uncommon in most mainstream films. One moment Maria is sitting on a bench with a stranger, and the next moment she abruptly demands that the stranger give her five dollars. This level of absurdity is key to the film and how it stands out from major Hollywood productions.

I think that this strategy shows the audience their own expectations of movies that society has imposed upon them. The audience expects Maria and Matthew to rejoice and embrace one another when he asks her to marry him, but of course that is not what happens. Maria climbs onto a ledge and does an impromptu trust fall. I think that this unexpected response in one example of how Hartley uses awkwardness to express the theatre of the absurd in the film Trust.

Escape From Spiderhead and A Clockwork Orange- Similarities

When I read escape from spiderhead, the one thing I was thinking about was A Clockwork Orange-- a work of literature by Anthony Burgess in 1962. Similarly, it's about a semi-delinquent teenager who brushes with the law and then gets a lengthy sentence. Though a delinquent, he in reality is quite smart and heard about a new program that would get him out of jail in two years. He works his way up the ladder and gets himself into the program to find that it's much worse than he thought. He's become a psychological lab rat to see if they can reverse his criminal tendencies through intense psychological torture and institutionalization. When he gets out it seems like things could be good-- but that isn't quite the case. For sake of not spoiling, (because you really should read/watch it,) I won't go any further about A Clockwork Orange. In Escape From Spiderhead, there are clearly many similarities-- but it's almost a continuation, with multiple criminals being treated as lab rats for the sake of the state, rather than (almost) for their own benefit. Interesting.

Can We Truly Venture Into the Wild?

(Huge spoilers for those who haven’t seen the movie, I apologize in advance) 

Today Mr. Heidkamp mentioned the film Into the Wild in comparison with our discussion in class. In the film, a top student and athlete named Christopher McCandless, who recently graduated from college, decides to leave his life behind. He abandons his family, his money, and most importantly, social constructs. This relates a lot to the question as to whether or not it is truly possible to become existential beings, and whether or not we would be able to live away from systems. Into the Wild examines what would happen if someone attempted to become separate; and the ending of the film could be interpreted in two different ways. 

Unfortunately, at the end of the movie, Christopher doesn’t make it through his journey. He ends up dying from accidentally eating a poisonous seed known as Hedysarum mackenzii (wild sweet pea). The film basically suggests that even if we are motivated enough to spend 119 days in the Alaskan wilderness, we cannot strip ourselves from these systems. We cannot abandon social constructs because we need them to survive. This is the first interpretation.

The second interpretation relates to our fear of death. Part of existentialism revolves around accepting pain and suffering, and knowing that eventually we will die. At the end of the film, Christopher seems okay with dying. He is happy for the life he was able to live and isn’t afraid of leaving it behind. I am posting the video to the ending, but keep in mind that it is a death scene (and it ruins a big part of the movie). I’m going to let you choose whether or not you want to see it.