Karen Carpenter and The Unrealistic Truth

-The scary images highlighting Karen Carpenters downward progression with anorexia.

COMPLETELY IN THE MAKING-ROUGH!

“With both laughter and chilling actuality, the conflation of patriotism, familial control, and bodily self- revulsion that drove Karen Carpenter and so many like her to strive for perfection and end up simply doing away with themselves” (Hilderbrand, 60).

Barbie dolls were an appropriate choice to depict eating disorders because of the deeper meaning which they convey in terms of ideal body image. I think that the parallel between Karen’s eating disorder and the disproportionate aspect of Barbie’s body was by no means an accident. Clearly, both Barbie and Karen alike show visible traits of severe weight abnormalities, but the later of the two is widely coveted for her ideal physical form.In an abstract way, depicting Karen as a Barbie represents her inner struggle to become something that she could realistically never become- that being, a picture-perfect, flawless specimen that is exempt from all physical flaws... Barbie’s function as a role-model can indeed have damaging effects on multiple levels, primarily because her image sets unrealistic standards and expectations for young women that are impossible to live up to-as exemplifies by this film.

Moreover, the use of Barbie dolls reinforces these extreme expectations of beauty and perfection that are all too prevalent within Western culture. From an early age we are being taught how we are supposed to perform our gender roles through mediated depictions, like Barbie, that tell us what’s considered beautiful. Because these feminine depictions are impossible to live up to and are simply unattainable they create insecurity and vanity issues as well as eating disorders (among other things). This is worth while to mention because just as young girls are convinced of what is considered typically beautiful (by Barbie's standards), Karen is likewise falsely convinced of being overweight by mainstream definitions when an article descripes her as "chubby". As we can see by this instance in the film, people in the public eye are especially criticized about being over weight as illustrated by the this absurd remark about Karen being noticeably chubby at the beginning of the film. This is clearly not the case, but Karen is convinced that this is the truth because of the powerful influence that mediated representations have on women conceptions of themselves. In this sense we can see how mainstream representations of women-from Barbie to celebrity criticisms, can have tremendous effects in terms of how women perceive themselves and evaluate their self-worth. In essence, the incorporation of Barbie dolls reminds us of the ever present pressures that exist in a world dominated by media messages and the deathly consequence that those prevalent representation can have.


-How perfect and appropriate?

Anna Devere Smith: Performing or Informing?

-The difference between acting and interviewing/documenting...


Despite Anna Deavere Smith’s clear talent as an actress and ability to perform multiple roles with great integrity, I found myself annoyed and agitated by her performance by the end of it all.

Her documentation approach is in the least, very unique, a kind of hybrid so to speak: not quite a documentary and not fully fiction. So, what does that make her, an actress or an interviewer? I personally think a little of both. I think that she is able to convey each account in a way that maintains close truth to what was actually said, but at the same time what is said is sometimes partially overlooked because the viewer is drawn towards her performance and eccentricities as an actress instead of focusing on the hard facts. Clearly, she is putting on a show with her exagerated stereotypical depictions of how different ethnicities speak and how they typically dress, but at the same time she transcribes the interview almost by verbatim. In this sense she is both acting while simultaneously documenting true accounts on what a wide variety of people had to say about the riots.

Arguably Smith’s style both adds and takes away from the complete truth on the matter. On the one hand she is able to encompass a variety of different perspectives and opinions on what happened, focusing on their raw emotions and delivering them with great intensity and truth. On the other hand, her overt stereotypical representation of these people are not all factual as we can see by Smith’s performance of Angela Davis where she exaggerates her large Afro, which was at one time her trademark/key identifier but hasn’t been for some time now. Here, it seems that she has a propensity to exaggerate cultural stereotypes for the sake of visual appeal and aesthetics.

Although Smith does a good job performing each role, maintaining close truth to what was actually said in the interview, she is in the end exactly that-a performer. Some may argue that Smith’s hybrid approach to documentation is just as effective, if not more so than typical styles, because it adds a new element of entertainment that may better hold the audiences attention. Despite this, I must maintain that the incorporation of role play slightly discredits Smith as an interviewer and documentarian. Her over-the-top performance continually reminds us, regardless of the element of truth, that this is simply a performance that is slightly exaggerated, edited and tampered with in order to get a certain desired point across. In this sense, Smiths' performance is not completely truth, but only a version of it.

Cannibal Tours-what we think we can see and what we don't see at all

-Photos that capture New Guineanans facination with technology and Westerners facination with them and their culture

“The filming process must be an ordeal of contact with reality. I must place myself within the perceived reality of what I am attempting to film in order to discover the authenticity of people and places”. But... can we ever truly discover the authenticity of people and places with only a limited understanding and frame of time? I think not!

In the film “Cannibal Tours” the New Guineanans were portrayed in a light that accentuated the enormous gap between them and Europeans, focusing on their pagan rituals, tribal mentality and their somewhat uncivilized, tendencies. As an individual living in the Western world it is clearly apparent, through a vast array of medians that grant me a glimpse of life abroad, that their exist tremendous differences between how we live in comparison to those living in less technologically advanced regions. Simply, we are in the know-how because we possess the technology to capture, than study and expose what we see through a lens- allowing us to acknowledge the vast differences between cultures-a luxury that New Guineanans do not have. Strangely enough, it seems that the New Guineanans do not acknowledge all the differences between themselves and the Europeans on the same level-maybe because of their lack of resources to see alternative cultural environments. “New Guineanans rigorously maintain that there are no differences with the single exception that the Europeans have money and they don’t” as quoted in the article “”. Because they are not the ones traveling and exploring abroad, hastily snapping pictures at every opportunity, they are unaware of the extent of the differences between their way of life and the Western/European way of life for a lack of an alternative outlook.

What is truly important here, is that despite Westerns perception and pre-constructed stereotypes concerning the infamous ‘other’, molded by mainstream depictions and representations, Westerners are not in any sense fully aware of their ways of life abroad, possessing only a fragmented outlook of their culture. Just as the New Guineanans are in the dark about our culture and way of life, we are also likewise unaware of theirs -for we are only granted a small (and far from all encompassing) depiction of their far away reality…

Arguably, the lack of exposure of European culture, in terms of what the New Guineanans are aware of, may be beneficial to both parties. I have recently come across some studies revealing a growing concern about the extension of technology into 2nd and 3rd world countries. The situation revolves around the notion that people and communities from all around the world are increasingly being exposed and taking part in the integration of technology that ultimately glorifies Western consumer culture. This inevitably makes for an even greater divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ by showing non-Westerner's what they could have but simply don’t, stimulating animosity, jealosy and to an extent hostility towards the Western world.

As illustrated by the accounts of the elderly lady in the market, we can see the adverse affects of bringing attention to the financial divide that exists between them and the Europeans-reinforcing the notion that the European’s are the haves’ and they are the have-not's. Had they never been exposed to Europeans and their dependence on money in the first place, New Guineanans' would have never known the concept of money and thus would not envy it. In this manner, clearly outlining what the Western world has, fuels animosity and resentment on behalf of those who can only see what they do not have.

On a completely different note... As illustrated by the film “Cannibal Tours”, Europeans are the possessors of the gaze, allowing them to look while not being seen. As covered in lecture, this signifies a psychological relationship of power, in which the gaze of the Europeans is superior to the object of the gaze-the New Guineanans'. Just as Mulvey concludes that males in cinemas are always the lookers, and females always the observer-Europeans are likewise granted the same dominant viewpoint of onlooker while the New Guineanans mirror the females role as observer. This gaze often causes the spectacle to internalize the gaze, which changes their perception of themselves and makes them think of themselves as objects. This ideology of objectification through a dominant gaze is clearly evident by the New Guineanans acceptance of money for a photo opt. We can see how the the European gaze (through a lens) causes the New Guineanans' to objectify themselves by selling a part of themselves and their culture for a little bit of money.



-Desperate and angry for money... only because of their exposure to it!

Rodney King's Conviction

-What this should say: Normally, I don't judge a person by their colour.

Prior to watching the documentary film " ‘Rodney King’ Case: What the Jury Saw in California v. Powell", I had only a few tidbits of information in terms of background knowledge concerning this event. Although the film was, at the very least, dry from time to time, I thoroughly enjoyed bearing witness to what truly happened that night-hearing and seeing both testimonies unmediated by mainstream media...

One of the things that bothered me throughout the duration of the film was the persecuting lawyers approach and strategy towards Rodney King’s case. By my standards, White clearly illustrated his incompetence as a lawyer, was unsuccessful at delivering and coming to a clear point, and played a substantial role in the loss of the case. I am aware that this is a very strong statement to make, but there were too many incidences where White failed to elaborate on crucial points in King’s favor- altogether missing ample opportunities to nail the involved officers for excessive force and racism. For instance, White failed to make an overarching point that connected Powel’s supposed racial slur about the 'Gorilla's in the Mist' to a blatant account of racism. Although White should have had the upper hand in this argument, having a perfect opportunity to pin the defendance as racists, he danced around the question and gave the defendance ample opportunity to discredit the point that White was attempting to make. Instead, White asked tedious and irrelevant questions like: 'where there any gorilla's there that night' etc. allowing Powel to respond to them in a tone that gave all persons present in the courtroom the impression that there was no point to be made, or better yet, that the questions did not have any validity in the first place. This is only one of many examples that illustrates White's incompetence as a lawyer.

I personally believe that it would have been an effective strategy, on behalf of the persecutor, to compare Rodney King's incident and reaction to that of another victim at the mercy of a large group, equipped with weapons. What becomes immediately apparent is that in almost all instances the victim will attempt to get on his/her feet to escape pain or even death- regardless of who is responsible for the beat down. As someone that has already been exposed to video footage capturing extreme gang beats and witnessed a barrage of police beating teenagers (that were arguably innocent) for drinking in a park, I can confidently say that it is a natural instinct for someone who is being beaten to attempt to stand up. I’m not trying to say that this is a perfectly valid argument that could hold up in court, but I believe that if White were not so convinced that it was an open and close case, and had he put more thought and creativity into it, the case may have gone over in Kings’ favor.

Generally speaking, I would have to say that White did not make good use of the footage, presentation, witnesses and the sympathy appeal-altogether delivering a weak persecution. That footage most definitely should have worked in Kings’ favor, but because the defendance where more creative and tactical with their deliverance, reasoning and conclusions-they were the ones who reaped the benefits in the end. It seems to me that White was overly confident, and thus did not spend enough time collecting, building and reinforcing arguments that framed the officers as brutal, racist, unprofessional police officers who took advantage of their supreme power.

-How could the jury look at this man in the eyes, and say that police brutality was not an issue. Had White decided to bring Rodney up to the stand (especially if he still showed visible signs of injury) the people of the court may have seen that Rodney King was a REAL person and did indeed suffer from the extreme force that was so readily inflicted upon him.

Studs Terkel-an interview with a hooker

An Interview with Studs Terkel
I thought, at least briefly, that I would touch on Terkel’s tactical and impressive interviewing style than narrow in on one interview that particularly caught my attention. Terkel, deployed a strategic and flowing compilation of interviews that virtually touched on every occupation imaginable. I particularly liked how he set up every interview with a quote, a short synopsis or outlook on
each profession. He edited the interviews in an unbiased way, that both focused on the negative as well as positive aspects of each job-not focusing too much on one. Furthermore, the way that he positioned each interview as a story made for a most enjoyable and intriguing read that left me wanting more (even after five-hundred pages).





-Prostitution combined with drugs makes for a lethal combination.

The eye opening story of Roberta Victor, if that is her real name, shines light on the slippery slope effect of drugs and hustling and how society plays its role in shaping a women's identity. Roberta Victor`s story was so captivating not only because it showed a downward progression of a life of drugs and prostitution, but also it compared a women’s expectations as a hooker to the expectations bestowed on every young women living within society. She makes a direct correlation between the content of magazines and the influence it plays in moulding a young women`s ideals, beliefs and identity.

She goes on to say, that women's roles set out by magazines and television present the underlying message "that the way men feel about you is the most important thing in life", which is a dangerous message to be putting out there. Sadly enough, as I look at the cover of one of my 'Cosmopolitan' magazines eight out of the ten cover titles directly pertain to what a man wants and how women ought to give it to him. Titles like “Read his Dirty Mind”, “The Surprising trait that 80% of Men Find Sexy", or "Ten Things that Guys Crave in Bed" , are three perfect examples of what Roberta points out as learning how to hustle at a young age from various forms of media. Slowly I have begun to understand what Roberta meant when she said that "woman are taught to play certain roles and than expected to become what they act". Women are thought to be subservient to men through mimicking and idolizing stereotypical and hegemonic ideals/depictions of women's that virtually surround us in every aspect of life. Woman of all ages, are constantly being reminded of how exactly to please men and are basically trained at a very young age to look beautiful, be sexy in bed, to cow-tow to every unspoken desire of men, all the while maintaining financial stability and emotional independence. So, in other words, media is basically teaching women how to be professional prostitutes because when a comparison is made between the expectations of a hooker and an everyday working woman, there exists profound similarities. It's sick really!


-Just to get an idea of how blantant these representations can be, take a closer look at some of these cover titles.

In essence, this interview illustrates how women are taught from a very young age that a women’s role in life is, at least partly, to please a man in all aspects of life. In this way, Roberta`s comparison of a hooker to the reality of American womanhood in general, is not all that farfetched.

Grizzly Man

-Image corresponding to Treadwell's notion on bears; seeing them in light of their peaceful, serene side.

Grizzly Man...Ggggrrrr... Where exactly should I begin? First, as a little side note, I must mention how deeply moved and inspired I was after watching this spectacular masterpiece. When I refer to this film as a masterpiece, I am specifically speaking about Timothy Treadwell’s spontaneity, incredibly risky behavior and undying love for Grizzly bears. In my opinion, the editing side of things were far from impressive, but rather manipulative and degrading. Herzog seemingly framed Treadwell’s profound curiosity and love towards these creatures as a complete and utter joke. Although, Treadwell’s behavior is by mainstream standards less than normal, who are we really to judge him or his passions? There are plenty of people who are equally motivated and encapsulated by politics, professional aspirations or what have you-that figuratively live and breath money, but strangely enough they are not the ones labeled as disillusioned extremists. Personally, I think there is a deeper embedded message here that isn’t being confronted.

In another class, I am learning how people living in the system world deploy instrumental logic/rationality to discredit the values of those who oppose their views/goals by framing them as irrational and uncritical. And I think this is the case in this film. In the article “Beyond the Limits”, Treadwell is labeled as a “beach bum, self-dramatizer with a thirst for abject camera exposure” and his studies/observations deemed unworthy because he does not draw on scientific research. Instead of Treadwell's efforts being recognized as beneficial (by helping scientists to understand these creatures patterns, social/mating/eating habits in a more in depth light-which is indeed crucial in terms of animal conservation and the survival of their species), he is seen as an extremist, unworthy of political attention. Tredwell’s ultimate goal was more or less to protect Grizzly bears and bring about some general understanding about there way of life…maybe in hopes of sending the message that these bears need a lot of terrain and greatly depend on the functionality of their delicate ecosystem to survive. No mention of this was ever clearly mentioned, but rather the concluding point was that the Grizzly who killed Treadwell and his companion was in the end killed-which is entirely contradictive to what Treadwell would have wanted. No over-arching message was conveyed about the alarming state that these bears are living in. Rather the focal point of the film was Treadwell himself, along with his eccentricities, and personal quirks, which for the most part removes any possible emphasis on the BEARS themselves-which are OBVIOUSLY the focal point of Treadwell's study. Simply put, depictions of Grizzly bears were framed within an unrealistic light by depicting them in perfect living conditions-free from poachers, environmental threats and land excavation. The editor failed to mention, or rather include any information concerning the circumstances these bears are facing, their status in the wild, what threatens there habitat and what we can do as individuals to play a part in protecting them, which arguably is what Treadwell would have wanted. As you can probably tell by his website, Treadwell was proactive and dedicated to building research to protect the entire species, which seems to have been overlooked in this documentary. So, I must ask now, how exactly is society supposed to recognize that there is a problem and work to solve it, if there is no information about the problems Grizzly's are facing? The dieing wish of Treadwell would have probably been to shed some critical light and understandings on bears, most definately wanting his footage to go towards that purpose.

Overall, I think that Treadwell's intentions and goals as a animal conservationists were overlooked in this documentary. I think that there was too much emphasis on Treadwell's eccentricities and not enough on what is critically important about Grizzly's themselves (common in news and popular culture). Herzog failed, as a directed, to capture the true importance of Treadwell's studies.



-Photo capturing the Vicious, Aggressive, Dangerous aspect of bears, which is seemingly the message that Hertzog was trying to convey.

Brakhage: The Act of Seeing

-With no sound of course. What this tag should really say: WARNING! Don't eat prior to watching this film for your own safety.

Stan Brakhage's "The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes" was an intense viewing experience, which regularly compelled me to look away from the screen. This response is quite irregular for me. I am not really the squeamish type, but the blood, the cutting, the removal of the organs, and in general the plain gore and to an extent, the brutality of this 'regular' procedure was completely unexpected. Considering I routinely watch documentaries of live surgeries, am not afraid of blood or death and consider myself a well exposed individual, I was genuinely shocked that this film had such a strong and negative effect on me. After a little too much reflection, I realized why I was so profoundly effected: I wasn't simply "watching" the film as I usually do, but rather I was "seeing" it. It felt as though I was actually there in the morgue watching over the coroners shoulder. As Bart Testa puts it, “this film is not about 'showing', but about bringing us very close to actual bodies in a morgue, in other words, this film is rigorously about 'seeing' ".

What separated this viewing experience from others must have been the lack of commentary that usually guides the experience and walks us step-by-step through the entire procedure. The seemingly intellectual, scientific voice between us and the image can be seen as the voice of reason, that constantly reassures us that this is a mere scientific procedure- necessary to find specific results. Voice-overs attach significant meaning to otherwise brutal images, making it seem more justifiable and humane. In the case of this documentary, commentary was not present thus reinforcing the brutality.

I felt as though I was awkwardly witnessing the event first hand, kind of like I was trapped in a room, peering out onto something that I was not supposed to see. This made sense after reading about avant-guard cinema, explaining that films of this genre regularly draw on subject matter that “goes unaccounted by, or seems incomprehensible, mysterious, and forbidden”. It seemed as though I was exploring the unexplored and felt as though I was going somewhere that I otherwise was not allowed. With the exclusion of exposition, explanation, and argument I was solely focusing on the image (on the act of "seeing" rather than the emotions involved, the scientific reasoning, or compelling background story that accompanies the body-simply because nothing of this sort was presented.

For the first time I wasn't in Hollywood-so to speak. There was no happy ending, no magical findings that lead to any answers; the slate was wiped clean and I was forced to put the pieces of the puzzle together. In the end I saw it for what it was, or at least what I thought it was: numerous rogue corpses that held no place or significance in society (no one cared/ or was present to identify their bodies) and no one likewise cared to hear their story. They were shown no dignity in life (as demonstrated by no one disputing their inclusion in the film) and in death where we bear witness to the unforgiving image of scissors and knives ripping the bodies in every which way. Seemingly, no results are needed because there is no one asking for them. In this sense, the surgery seemed purposeless, which reinforced the unnecessary brutality of these images.




-Simply, this photo is my weak attempt to repay you, (professor Reed), for exposing me to those wonderful images- that will of course haunt me for the rest of my life!