Lack of Femininity in "The Thing"

Throughout the entirety of the movie, The Thing, there are no female characters at all. What is the significance of this? Why would there be such a lack of the female gender in this movie? While there is probably not one specific correct answer to this question, Cixous may assist in helping us figure out what could be the reasoning for this.
Cixous says "Woman be unafraid of any other place, of any same, or any other." That statement right there may answer the questions we have asked. If a woman was in Antarctica with these men, she would not be blatantly afraid of this alien "thing" they have discovered, instead she would have tried to figure out what it was, and what it wanted from them. She also would not have been afraid of the people she has been around the entire time, or the same people, instead of fearing them she would calmly and rationally figure out how to figure out who was who they say they are. And finally, any other, she is not afraid of anything, but would rather figure things out and understand them rather than just immediately fear them.
Overall, Cixous would probably say that if a woman figure was present in this movie the entire plot would have had to been altered, because the way in which women view things are different from men, and the layout of the story would not have made sense, had a woman been present.

Gender Roles-Who Decides What is Right?

In Ma Vie En Rose, Ludo knows in his heart that he is a girl, so for the rest of this blog I would feel more comfortable referring to Ludo as a girl. Ludo tries to tell her family that she is a girl and she knows that is who she truly is. Irigaray's reading suggests that all women strive to be men to some extent, so what does that say about Ludo? Would Irigaray say that Ludo is just confused in general, because what person born in a boy's body would actually want to be a woman?
Even when speaking about a person's genitals, Irigaray refers to the woman's clitoris as a "baby penis." I believe that Irigaray would say that Ludo is just a confused child, because every person strives to be male, not female.
In the Schiavi reading, he seems to be more sympathetic to the problems Ludo faces in her life every day. He seems to understand that there really is something that can be fixed or changed to help children like Ludo live up to their full potential as who they really are, mentally as well as physically. He seems to have more of an open mind to situations such as this one, and that is what I believe every person needs to have. This is obviously a problem affecting quite a few people around the world. Every person should be able to live their life how they choose, whether it is a heterosexual lifestyle that is chosen, a homosexual lifestyle, or if they were born one sex and believe they are truly another. There is no reason why anyone should judge anyone else, based on their sexual preference, gender, race, religion or anything else. Everyone should be free to be who they want to be.

Far From Heaven

Throughout the movie, the children are never the main focus of the family, rather, they seem to be there just to make the "family" look better. As if they are there solely as objects, because the perfect family needs children, it's even better that their children happen to be a boy and a girl. Many times the film shows Mrs. Whitaker pushing the children on Sybil, rather than taking care of them herself, as a real mother should.
Even though Mrs. Whitaker rarely pays full attention to her children there are many small instances in the film in which you see Jancie striving to be exactly like her mother. She is exemplifying the Oedipal complex in women, or little girls. The ideal that her first love-object is her mother, who feeds and tends to her. Which leads me to ask, "What is the significance of this portrayal of Mrs. Whitaker, as the 'perfect woman?"
The portrayal of Cathy is stereotypical 1950s. Every woman, especially the wife of such a successful man, should have this perfect life that Cathy seems to have, the perfect husband, beautiful house, wonderful children, many friends, beautiful wardrobe she has everything. However, she is still not happy. This exterior or front she feels she has to put on is everything her daughter, as well as every other woman wants to be. Even though they may not understand the real Cathy, or the real life of Cathy, they all still want to be just like her, because, after all, she is perfect.

Blindness=Alienation

After reading Marx's article on alienation, and watching the film Dancer in the Dark, one thing stood out to me over everything else in the film. What is the significance of the blindness? Once I thought more deeply into it, I realized that the blindness facilitates alienation. It helps to further prove the alienation of Selma not only from her country or people around her, but to us as viewers as well.
Selma is immediately alienated from her country and the people around her the second she steps foot on the soil. She is not from the same country as them, so she does not share the same lifestyle or customs, not to mention she is a little strange. And everyone knows how people from a particular country treat outsiders or foreigners... The majority of the time the natives are not nice or courteous to the foreigners, further alienating them instead of inviting them in. Her blindness is nothing but a giant hindrance for her, obviously, throughout the entire movie. It makes her oblivious to quite a few things, and many of these things are extremely important, such as when she hides the money and other characters, as well as the viewers see right where she places the money, and she has no clue anyone saw her.
Her alienation from the audience is not only because of her blindness, but also because of the way the movie is directed. It seems to me that there are many other factors that help to alienate her from everything, and the blindness seems to be that final factor that pushes it over the edge. The alienation of Selma from the audience is mainly due to the camera angles, and the way we view her and the events surrounding her, her blindness just serves as one more thing she has to deal with that the majority of us do not, and makes her even less relate-able.
Overall, even though there are many things that lead the audience and most of the characters in the film away from relating to Selma, blindness seems to be the most apparent one. It is something that is so obvious in daily life, and the majority of the audience does not experience life the way a blind person does, so there is very little we can relate to with Selma, although we may feel for her, and sympathize with her, we do not relate with her.

Visual Pleasure in the Cinema

In the film, Rear Window, there is much emphasis placed on the gaze, meaning how people look at each other, and other things. A lot can be said with a simple gaze, some would say a gaze can tell a person more than words can. A gaze, such as the one you see Jeff giving Lisa quite often throughout the film shows his love and compassion for her. He may not be able to express his feelings of love for her with his words, but he shows how he truly feels simply in the way he looks at her.
Laura Mulvey discusses this exact ideal of the gaze, but she offers a word for it, scopophilia, or the pleasure in looking. She also brings up the ideal of women as the image and men as the bearer of the look. This is very evident throughout this movie in the way Lisa moves and acts as opposed to the way Jeff looks at her. She is always the image, or the ideal, and he is always looking at her like he wants nothing more out of this world than to be with her. He is not able to use his words to tell her this, but she is a smart woman, and has what she likes to call "a woman's intuition" and she knows that he loves her just as much if not more than she loves him.
The gaze is a powerful tool used in visual cinema. It tells the audience a lot, and is deemed a credible source of the characters feelings. Many people would almost consider it more credible than words, because a person can lie with their words, but the gaze tells all.

Persepolis vs. White

What is the significance of the point of view in which Maus is told vs. the point of view in which Persepolis is told?
The point of view in which Maus is told is through the son of the person actually experiencing the story. I do not believe this takes away any credibility from the story at all, I just feel while reading the story that it loses some of the "Wow" factor, if you will. Hearing the story, with the interruptions of the present day is an amazing way to tell a story, to remind the readers that this is a story being told from the son, hearing it from his father, but I feel as if there is something missing in the story when it passes through that middle person. The way Persepolis is told, directly from the pen of Satrapi fulfills the readers thirst for that feeling that they are actually in the story.
In the words of Hayden White, "So natural is the impules to narrate." In saying this, White brings to my attention how true this timeless statement is. Everyone loves to talk about themselves, or tell stories about things that happen to themselves, or loved ones. Both of these stories share that one strong common bond: The love the narrator has for the story they are telling. Satrapi loves telling her story because it is about her, and let's face it, who doesn't love talking about themselves. While in Maus, even though the narrator has a semi-strained relationship with his father, the reader can still detect the love he has for his father, and his story. He wants to get everything correct and do the story justice.
Both of these comics have extremely important stories to tell, despite the author. They both illustrate to the readers stories from events that are very rarely told anymore, because few survived, or just because the people involved do not enjoy talking about the hard times in their lives. Neither of these stories end or begin with an extremely happy ending, but both stories need to be told, because these events are extremely important in the history of not just people living in the Americas, but the entire world.

V vs. Tyler Durden

In Chapter 13 of V for Vendetta many of the actions and dialouge that take place between V and Evey are nearly identical to those actions that take place between Tyler Durden and The Narrator in the novel Fight Club. Which lead me to think "What do these similarities say about both of these characters?" V is all about justice and people being free to do what they choose to do, rather than do what the government wants the person to do. Tyler Durden is extremely similar to that in the sense that he is constantly pushing people to "hit rock bottom" to do what they want to do rather that just fill the norms of society.

There are some striking similarities in the actions of these two main characters. V tells Evey "Happiness is a prison, Evey. Happiness is the most insidious proson of all. Your lover lived in the penitentiary that we are all born into, and was forced to rake the dregs of that world for his living." While at the same time Tyler tells the members of the fight club "The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide. You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You are the all singing all dancing crap of the world." Both men, though expressed a tad differently have the same general idea of having personal freedoms rather than freedom as a country. Both also seem to have an extensive knowledge of how to turn household items into explosive devices and love to use those said devices to blow up the likes of govermnet buildings or buildings of credit card companies.

There are also some similarities in the colors of the comic and the colors of the movie, Fight Club. In V, the colors used are always very dull and the pictures have very murky tones. The same is true with the movie version of Fight Club. The majority of the scenes are shot in darker places, and most of what you can see is just the main characters. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud talks about how color takes a central role in comics. Which could be the reasoning for using such murky colors in V as well as Fight Club. The authors, directors, and illustrators would rather have the audience viewing the subject matter of the comic, novel, or movie rather than paying attention to the striking colors, and moving the subject matter into more of a secondary role.

The ideas of these two provocative characters are similar, but what are some differences? There is one main difference I noticed. V would rather use his words to convince his followers to believe what he believes. He uses his eloquence to draw Evey in to see his point of view. While, Tyler would rather use, lets say, extreme measures. These measures can start of simply, such as starting a fight with a random person and then lose the fight. But Durden never does anything simply. His final measure to get his followers to "hit rock bottom" was to burn their hand with a chemical. They are not allowed to use the vinegar to dillute the burn until he truly believes the person has reached "rock bottom." After their hands have been burned, each follower then sees the world in a more "Tyler-like" way.

Overall, both of these characters are two of the most interesting characteres I have ever read about. Both have amazing ideals for themselves and the people around them, and are willing to do nearly anything to have those ideals come to light, even if it means death. These extreme meansures taken by both V and Tyler Durden lead me, and hopefully many other readers to respect both of these characters, and deem them two of the most eccentric characters in literature.