Rear Window

"film on the other hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives; on the other hand, it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action." - Walter Benjamin. I directly linked this closing argument to Rear Window. What is the significance of Miss Torso's role in this film.

Miss Torso is a complicated character presented to us only through the peeping eyes of L.B. Jefferies. In the beginning she totally satisfies Freud's / Mulvey's interpretation of a woman's role in film. As Mulvey says, "The determining male gace projects its fantasy onto the female figure." L.B. Jefferies sees her as purely physical as she trounces about in her scandalous attire. What is the significance of her being presented as a sexual spectacle right off the bat?

"liberal use of subjective camera from the point of view of the male protagonist draw the spectators deeply into his position, making them share his uneasy gaze.-Mulvey. We are blatantly aware of the sexual spectacle that Miss Torso represents. Since, the audience is aware of this feeling it allows for us to agree with it, or disagree. What is the significance of being able to form an individual opinion on a sexual spectacle?

When we are aware of such a spectacle we can start to question the correctness of our assumptions. The entire movie the characters look in on Miss Torso and make assumptions about her. Just like in society pretty young women who put themselves on display immediately are judged and put into a certain category. However, in the picture above is the twist. Hitchcock shows her with her lover. A short, dorky, military man. Completely smashes all the assumptions about her. What is the significance of Miss Torso not being what we expect?

The fact that Miss Torso does not chose to love any of the wealthy (sleazy) men who come over for her party show her in not just a sexual light, but shows her as a woman of substance. She obviously loves for love (not money or looks which you would expect). I think that setting her up as the standard "woman spectacle" and then proving it wrong makes the viewer think twice about making assumptions in the real world. Just like you can't judge a book by a cover, you can't judge a woman on sex appeal alone.

Persepolis and Epileptic

I have never read a "graphic memoir" so to speak, and really enjoy the depths both of these works were able to traverse. In White's article he says, "that narrative discourse serves the purpose of moralizing judgments." I think these works would support his thesis. Persepolis argues for a different world view of Iran and Epileptic argues for an understanding of incomprehensible diseases; while at the same time coping with issues of identity, family, and suffering.

Epileptic and Persepolis both stick to black and white but the effect is different. What is the significance of the different effects created by black and white in these two works and how does it add to there storyline or mood?

Persepolis employs very cartoonish drawings and never employs fully realistic drawings. It also keeps to a simple black and white format with very little shadowing. It is a linear story and allows the reader to be drawn into that world completely. The black is not a looming threat or a depressing tone (pg. 52). It is simply performing its function as a background, color of clothing, etc. It allows the focus to be on the storyline and makes it that much more translatable to the masses.

Epileptic also uses cartoonish drawings but also uses some realistic drawings and that is a ton of shadowing throughout. In this book the darkness seem ominous, desolate, and insatiable. Page 42 uses just blackness to show the doctors and the reader immediately knows its bad. On page 113 it seems to be trying to swallow Jean-Christophe and on page 122 you can see how the shadow use can add a dark tone on a character.

So in Epileptic the darkness is there for a very specific reason. What is the significance of darkness being so ominous and looming?

The way I saw it, darkness was a symbol of sickness. And not just Jean-Christophe's sickness but also to the subsequent sicknesses of the family. His mother is haunted, his sister severely depressed, and David contains a rage (maybe from inability to express his feelings or save his brother). If seen in this way it can represent a visual balance of Characters vs. Darkness. It threatens to engulf every person and one must not succumb. Towards the end (pg 144) Jean-Christophe is shown as in all black. He is unable to fight of this Epilepsy and the visual rendering impacts the reader on a very symbolical and emotional level.

Blues and Reds

I have never read anything like "The Sandman." I loved the way it invoked realism and also incorporated fantasy and even symbolism. It is the type of book that after finishing it, I cannot seem to stop thinking about it. I wanted to know the significance of Dream's dark personality.

He is usually wearing something dark/blue and something ominous like a massive cloak or trench coat and is very often pessimistic seeming. I thought this could be a commentary on the nature of dreams themselves (that we often dream of things we are scared of) or if it was intended to turn our concept of death upside down (the fact that his character could easily be taken for Death, but is actually DREAM is interesting to me). This led me to ask what is the significance of the color blue and its relationship to Dream?

In almost every panel of Dream blue is accented or stands out. His hair, skin, cloak, and even his eyes. When we see things from his perspective everything is in blue.McCloud says, "Colors could express a dominant mood and whole scenes could be virtually about color." Page 34 you see Dream's face for the first time and his eyes, hair, and the bubble he is in is blue. Normally blue indicated calmness or serenity. To me, this effect of blue makes me think of Dream more as the ocean. It can be calm and beautiful yet it can also be powerful and dangerous.

I also wanted to find the significance of Dream and the red. Dream's cloak is the only thing that ever is seen as red. It seems to me that red signifies the supernatural. His cloak is always red when the hem of it is contains faces (maybe dreams?? pg. 89) and most of the time in hell or the dreamworld its red (pg 191). If red usually means anger and blue usually means calm then what is the significance of that?

Is the author trying to say that life is more calm then dreams or that dreams are filled with anger and the supernatural? Even Death's character is more happy and peppy than Dream. Maybe it is as simple as we are being warned of the power of dreams and being told to pay attention to them.

Maus

Maus By Art Spiegelman is an amazing accomplishment. It is able to present difficult material to in audience in a way that is easily translated to all humanity. It builds a bridge of communication that other forms like essay or straight up biography would not be able to accomplish. It uses cartoonish animals to draw you into its own world. Understand Comics by Scott McCloud states that, "By de-emphasizing the appearance of the pysical world in favor of the idea of the form, the cartoon places itself in the world of concepts." This idea struck me. If Maus is a world of concepts filled with icons and symbols then is it meant to be reality or only conceptulize reality. Hayden White's article on The Content of Form implies that narration naturally makes reality ideal. It makes the world whole and with meaning. However, in Maus, I think it has the opposite effect. The cartoonish quality absolutely draws us into this world. This world does has icons and concepts within this world. However, this world is not ideal. This world is not whole and nothing fits neatly into shelves. Art and his father do not get along at all nor do they even seem to relate to each other. His father is still left dealing with all the pain of his past. Art is left with all the pressure for not being his Richieu. Vladack is a racist. Art is fighting with the moral issue of turning this history into a commodity. Everywhere you look nothing is ideal. Especially the past parts of the story. I do not think anyone would find the holocaust ideal. So in my opinion Spiegelman is able to tell a narrative story with some quality of a whole and complete story without giving us a whole and complete story in White's terms. It is quite paradoxal.
Also reading Maus the use of masks was intriguing to me. I did not see while Spiegelman would do this. After a while I made the connection to identity. Spiegelman brings the complicated issue of identity/nationality to the forefront by not only each animal signifying a nationality but also with the use of masks. To wear of mask one hides one's true self. The characters do it often to hide they identity for their own safety. However, in part 2 Spiegelman himself wears a mask. The matter of his own (which makes it the reader's own) identity is up in the air at times. For many people who are second generation to a horrible event have a sense of survivor guilt for not going through what their parents went through. Art seems to have this self loathing at points and even on the cover of part 1 is seen to be smoking ciggerretes that are "crematorium" brand. He obviously is caught up with where he fits into the world. Vladack also seems to not be able to re-enter society in a normal fashion. The reader relates and can connect to this idea and that is why the use of masks is so great. This led me to ask why he used such standard paneling. Most of the panels are in a orderly fashion with no abstract paneling occuring. Then when I looked more closely I realized every once in a while he did break this form and throw in a giant frame. When I re-read these sections I started to understand that this makes the reader pause and really take in the view of the larger image. It's almost like a dramatic pause in movies. When they finally get to the camp it is a huge panel and you almost hold your breath as you take in this ominous image. Art Spiegelman did wonderful things in Maus that everyone can recognize. I think White would be proud and a little confused all at once.

Scott McCloud's Wisdom on Faces

Describe the difference between a cartoonish face and a more realistic face in comics. What is the effect of each? What is the significance of their differences?

A cartoonish face achieves amplification through simplification. This means that by getting rid of very detailed images it allows the reader to focus on specific details that strip the image down to its essential meaning. A face becomes not just any face but a face that you can see yourself in. It allows for reader participation to the point where you see a cartoonish face and you really see your own.
A realistic face face is drawn to be realistic and detailed thus when you view such a descriptive drawing you see the face of another and it shows a world outside. It is a complex and realistic, even specific person you are looking at. Instead of looking within at yourself. A cartoonish face allows for identification and a realistic face allows for a real look at a story that is going on outside of your world.

Reading this work I could not help but notice how directly the author addressed his readers. At first, I found this to be quite distracting and a little overbearing. As I kept reading I realized that this technique allowed for the learning process to be much for hands on and interactive. I then wondered if the book had addressed this material in a action story form if my attention would have been held even better. Lots of big panels with detailed scenes, I thought, would invite the reader into a learning world. After giving it a little more thought I came to the conclusion that directly addressing the reader not only was interactive but also allowed for me to connect to a simply drawn person who was simply addressing me. Not only addressing but making a plea for comics as an art and struggling to show that to the world. This form allowed for the honesty that I think, was needed to connect and care about the book. It was great.

American Pyscho Spectacle Extravaganza

"Though separated from what they produce, people nevertheless produce every detail of their world with ever-increasing power. They thus also find themselves increasingly separated from that world. The closer their life comes to being their own creation, the more they are excluded from that life." - DeBord


This cult class movie poster really sums up the above statement regarding spectacles. As a movie that symbolizes and explores how society pretends to be so perfect while at the same time society feels the need to criticize and crush those they find inferior. This shows the slip of society from its so-called perfection into the very dark depths of a monster. The main character strives for everything in life that he should and is very successful. He also finds himself alone and transforming into someone who he had always viewed with extreme disgust. He finds himself unable to connect with any human being but only able to feed the evil desires in his mind.