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!