Kifah Hannah Lecture

I was interested as to what Kifah Hanna was going to discuss, as I had minimal knowledge of Levantine literature or homosexuality as it related to arabic literature. When she mentioned the androgyny that was utilized in the works of the authors that she discussed, I was especially intrigued. Androgyny, or a space in which a person is neither characteristically 'male' or 'female', but maintains a biological sex, is a nice space in which to explore identity in its purest form, unobscured by societal constructs of gender. Oftentimes we only see ourselves within the female or male context, and for the main character in one of the works Kifah discussed, deviating from his masculinity and exploring his sexuality within a more feminine context was helpful. It broadened his perspective on his identity and caused him to be more accepting of his own sexuality.

Thinking about how ethics and desire played a role in levantine literature makes me think about how sex is treated in the States. It seems that sexuality and sex itself are see as taboo, although both concern everyone, even the asexuals. Why is it that something so natural and inherent to all of us is somehow made wrong, foreign, unwanted? How is our biological sex twisted into this strange set of societal norms known as gender? I see gender as separate from biological sex, as gender is seen differently according to what society you live in. In America, we seem to be very considered with making the line between girl and boy so thick you are inclined to believe that "men are from mars, women are from venus."

The lecture brought up these thoughts for me as I pondered what these issues meant in a context more familiar to me. I also thought about the stories that Kifah had us read, and how the severity of the censorship that these authors faced, especially the author of I Live, is not even that crazy to me, because you see censorship like that every day in some parts of the country. People feel as if they need to hide their sexuality, their lifestyle, etc. or else they will face societal repercussions. Sure, there usually isn't one action that occurs, but the silence is sometimes worse.

Overall, the lecture series this spring was a lot of fun. I especially enjoyed Steve Almond, Dr. Brown, and Jodie Mack's visits, but all of the lectures were valuable and gave me something different to think about.

Jodie Mack, Yard Work is Hard Work

I was amazed at how many people came to Jodie's screening/lecture- definitely the highest attendance of any lecture! I could understand why, as I was excited to hear from a filmmaker and see her work. Animation is a really interesting medium- it requires a serious passion and commitment to follow through with a project, the same makings of a long lasting relationship! Seeing an animation that is a serious work such as Yard Work is Hard Work was truly impressive.

The subject matter of the film was very applicable to the class. It tells the story of a young couple whose ambition came to haunt them as harsh economic reality set in, and sets it to the tune of a musical. I thought the musical/animation hybrid provided an ironic twist to the story, as it gets quite gritty and real, and a musical animation is about as far from "reality" as possible as film formats go. However, I think that's also how a situation like that is experienced- there's this naive optimism, that despite the problems the love that the couple shares will be the answer. Everything will end up being rainbows and butterflies! Of course, that usually doesn't happen, but the aesthetics and creative choices of the film enhanced the idea of this optimism, and enhanced its presence to me.

I also liked the ambiguous ending of the film- the couple doesn't have an epic break up, but they also aren't together in the way they were at the beginning. The break up is a subtle one between naive optimism and the relationship- they've been through something very real and tough together, so their relationship is automatically different. They are no longer the same, but that's not necessarily bad- sometimes it's even better. If they can survive the yard work, they are much more prepared for the next challenge they will face.

Garren Small, Fires Dare to Ignite

One poem that Garren read that really stuck out to me was about a father and daughter- I don't remember the name of the poem. It reminded me of a certain freudian primal desire for love that starts with the parents- for your parent to recognize you, see you as special, and have a devout love for you. These are the lines that, to me, had this theme:

"Working man vein hands

  Daddy, look at me.

  Ain't no telling where those fingers been."

There was also a theme of old vs young desire- how the father has the desire for a more individual, independent life as he had spent years putting selfless energy into his daughter, and the daughter does not have that sense of self and desire for independence yet, so she is especially tied to whatever the father is doing. 

I'd say my favorite poem of the night was "along the row." I think this poem, as Aven said, asked the question: "are we lonelier when we are with someone than when we are actually alone?" The following lines spoke to this:

"everybody dies of loneliness

 says the prophet on his bus tour

 your best friend

 will betray you

 between envy and desire"

"He wants to explode it to her.

 He wants to whisper it to her."

These lines speak to sexual desire and also romantic desire- the desire to be both a sexual being and also a romantic, loving being and for the two to coexist. To explode with a whisper, in a sense, seems hard to do, as the actions oppose one another, but the experience of love is often like this- two different people trying to align, trying to manage the sexual with the romantic. 

Love and Desire: It's Only Biological

It took me a few days to process Dr. Brown's lecture- it held my interest feverishly for its entirety as I've always been curious about how love and desire work in our brains. The message of the lecture was a romantic one- humans need love in order to have a good quality of life, without it we face a certain emptiness that makes everything else in life feel much less fulfilling. When love is in your life, you feel better about your work, your friends, and everything else you are passionate about. Sure, you can be happy without romance, but there's something very special about that first stage of a romance that makes the world an exciting, beautiful place.

Love is literally a drug- Kesha actually had a point! I always believed that love was akin to crack in the way it wholly possesses your brain, forcing you to always be multitasking with your thoughts as most of them are devoted to the lover in your life. I know that love and even lust have that effect on me. Recently I've been talking to someone and the flirtation/possibility of a romance have been distracting me and it's quite nice but frustrating! I need to be able to finish out my senior year but this person has made his way in, leaving me nervous and excited for what will happen next.

Django Unchained & Desire

As I had seen Django Unchained before, I was interested to see what Dr. Reed had to say about how the film is relative to the theme of love and desire that we've been exploring all year. When I first saw Django, I felt that Django's fierce desire to usurp his unfavorable position in society by using the same means that were used to oppress him (violence) was interesting. It was interesting because in all the years that slavery has been in our past, no film quite like Django has been out there, representing this desire for revenge so strongly.

Something else about the film that was interesting was Django's desire to do whatever it took to get back to his wife Brunhilda. Django joins the character King Schultz in order to make this possible- so in order to capture that love he desires he must utilize this friendship, as Schultz possesses the skills he needs to enact this violence. Also, the fact that Django calls her his wife, when slaves technically could not have wives, makes this theme of love deliberate.

Through this film, Tarantino explores what it takes to survive when there are multiple elements fighting against you. Does it take brawn and ability, which Schultz possesses? Or does it require the continued feeling of love for someone and desire to nurture that love, which is Django's mission? I don't know whether Django would have been so successful if he hadn't had both. The friendship between Schultz and Django makes both of them better, as Django becomes stronger and Schultz finds a greater purpose, a passion behind his work.

Dr. Freund's Lecture

(this is based on the audio recording, I unfortunately couldn't see the artifacts!)

I think what is really interesting about artifacts is that they contain the perspectives of these ancient people in pictorial form- Dr. Freund discussed the images carved onto various artifacts and their significance. These little etchings can really provide a window into the desires of these people- what they carved must have been important to them, and although we cannot really know what that importance means, we can learn from trying to figure it out.

I thought Dr. Freund's revelation of the process of figuring out what artifacts mean was especially interesting. Asking "What does that artifact say, without the context?" and then "What does it mean, within its context?" in that order is helpful when approaching any symbol for the first time. First, you see the symbol as a visual and then as a story, something deeper than its appearance that can be utilized in various ways. You can start to think about how the context is evident in the symbol, and if the symbol effectively tells the story of the context.

Before hearing this lecture, I didn't fully understand how religion factored into the perception and use of images as symbols. Usually we think of a symbol as belonging to a particular religion- their symbol of the purity they desire as a religion and the values they strive to embody, but one symbol could be used by multiple religions and mean something different to each of them. A symbol could have an erotic meaning to one religion but not to other religions who may use the symbol in a different way. I thought this was really interesting- a religion seeing the Cupid symbol could see the childlike Cupid as desire in a pure form, and another religion could see it as an erotic symbol of Eros, with the arrow and its physical implications (the arrow piercing its subject as love physically and emotionally "pierces" you).

I would have liked to see the artifacts, as I'm sure seeing them as Dr. Freund talked about them would enhance my experience, but I knew what some of the more popular symbols that he talked about looked like (such as the cross, Cupid) so it made it a little easier. I liked hearing about these common symbols in a different way than I'm used to- most people think of the cross as just a religious symbol but not as a symbol that's been used in multiple religions and could also symbolize death, love, etc.

Before Sunset

I was anxious to see this film, as Before Sunrise was so great and one of my favorite romantic films that is actually romantic and oddly realistic in its lack of the "forever" concept. I say oddly because you would think a film about two young people and their one-night tromp around Vienna would be unrealistic- but the film makes sure that doesn't happen. People meet by chance all the time and sometimes that spontaneous, instinctual connection happens. With Jesse and Celine, you believe the sped up progression of the relationship. I did think they would find their way back to each other, but needed some time to age and build more solid foundations, become more "adult".


"Do they get back together in 6 months?"
"It's a test of whether you're a romantic or a cynic."


I loved how the film started with Jesse addressing his critics at the book signing- it reminded me of how some of the movie's critics might have responded to Before Sunrise. I think Jesse would consider himself a romantic, truly appreciating the romantic quality of the time he spent with Celine. However, a lot of people may look at their story and make assumptions about the existence of a future- they must end up together! Do they end up together? Why didn't they end up together? Why did they just carry on with their lives and leave their romance in Vienna? Surely such a great connection must be forever!

When Jesse and Celine reunite, it feels as if they picked up where they left off. They discuss politics and what has happened to their "selves"- it appears that their paths could have crossed but didn't. I think it would have been interesting if they had run into each other in American territory- would the romantic element be so strong? The cozy European backdrop to these films adds to that slightly carefree romantic quality.

It feels as if these actors are truly their characters, infusing their lives into the characters' stories. Their desire for something different, for a different past, perhaps, is evident throughout the film. This is especially seen when Jesse is discussing his marriage. He always really wanted Celine but knew that wasn't realistic, just like assume this high quality of romance is not always going to be there. Nothing is really forever, even marriage (which many people assume and take for fact that it is). Marriages almost don't account for the amount of change that happens throughout life. How can you always desire one person all the time? Desire changes just like we do and I'm sure the reality of marriage is hard at times (I can safely say this through my observations of marriages around me).

That's what made Jesse and Celine's night so great- there wasn't a great amount of change and there was no pressure, no promises, no commitment. Now that these characters are older and have made some commitments, they understand the poignancy of that night even more. They get what commitment can do to you, how desire can thrill you in a particularly powerful way when you haven't felt it in so long, held by this promise of forever (forever in marriage for Jesse and forever in independence for Celine).

Steve Almond Lecture

I don't even know where to begin when thinking about Steve Almond's lecture- for me, it was the best lecture yet. Steve's intelligence and acute awareness of the world makes him a great writer and I was immediately inspired to buy all of his stories after the lecture (unfortunately my bank account prohibits that!). I definitely got at least one of his books :)

His story "Skull" and the question/answer period afterwards inspired me. As a screenwriter, I love taking love and throwing it into odd contexts to test the boundaries and examine something that doesn't really get looked at. The screenplay I wrote and am producing right now is about androgyny- what happens when the societal construct of gender is thrown out entirely in a society? Is someone stuck in the prejudices of the old society able to adapt and see a person, in an intimate and personal way, for who they are? In writing and in film you can really escape from reality, construct a metaphorical world in which the tensions and issues faced in society are dealt with in an extreme or exaggerated fashion. Almond's story "Skull" does that, and I loved that he chose to read it although he usually wouldn't. I think "Skull" and my screenplay are similar and it was cool to see that.

I wish there was more time with Steve Almond- all of his answers to people's questions were insightful, devoid of bullshit and funny. He is genuinely hilarious and could be a stand up comedian, in my opinion. For all his funny moments he was also really serious about love, writing about it, and acknowledging that sex is always awkward. I couldn't have agreed more with that- sex is a really heightened act, both physically and emotionally, and the way our culture treats sex just exaggerates that.

Halfaouine Lecture, Dr. Lang, 3-4-13

How does someone maintain innocence whilst coming into knowledge? Can you be both innocent and knowing? What does a society in which women are truly equal look like, and how is it represented in the cinema?

This film examines those questions, using the character of Noura and the Tunsian society. I thought this film was really interesting as it came from a place I didn't know much about- a place that is unique in its point of view. I can see why this film was the most popular film in Tunsia- it feels authentic to the country.

As a viewer coming entirely from the outside Noura represented how I viewed the film- coming in entirely innocent and my knowledge "coming-of-age" at the end. The film was an awakening, a realization of what an equal society could look like.

Lang's comments on the police state influencing the events of the film and also the country as a whole were useful and true, and also something to think about. The theme of desire as nostalgia rings even truer, considering the eventual invasion of the political. When the knowledge is present, especially in the sexual realm, there's always that desire to go back. You always wonder if you could have done it better, how changing the past and going back to that innocent state of being would change you in the present. Did I make a mistake- should I have done that, sacrificed that innocence? How valuable is innocence? Desire as nostalgia in this film, and also in life, has a lot of significance to me.

Ultimately, this was a valuable lecture and its themes apply to love and desire in a broad sense. The themes of the film ring true to many situations and for that the film became more interesting.

Love and Desire in the Penny Press, 2-26-13

What I took away from Dr. Burt’s lecture is that people have always been enamored with other people’s drama and tragedy, especially within the context of love and desire. The headlines in these old newspapers are not that much different from headlines you might find on TMZ or within the pages of US Weekly. I noticed that the language was even more dramatic- “Most Atrocious Murder”, “the most foul and premeditated murders that ever fell to our lot to record.” During this period of time, horrific and tragic situations like murder were turned into a kind of fiction. The stories may have reflected true events, but were not purely factual- there was exaggeration, fancy language, and glamorization, especially in the illustrations accompanying some of the articles. This was interesting to me, especially with the more clinical and detailed article that was read aloud about a murder. There were elements of fantasy and gritty, sensational realism happening at the same time, creating a very dramatic and intense situation that was interesting to read about.

Dr. Burt also discussed how the private sphere began to appear in the public sphere, removing the sense of home and comfort that was common to the domestic space. Celebrities- usually people pushed into the public sphere through their chosen profession- almost forfeit the safety of their private sphere because they have no control over the extent of the media’s penetration into their lives. It seems like anytime there is a slight difference in the way Jennifer Aniston’s stomach appears, there is an article claiming that she is definitely pregnant. The magazine has no evidence that she is, and there’s absolutely no way to confirm the claim, yet it doesn’t matter. The media can say whatever they want about your private life, even if it isn’t true (almost especially if it isn’t true!) 

Love After Divorce Lecture

Dr. Miller-Ott's lecture was an enjoyable experience- I liked that she was interactive with the audience and gave us little "quizzes" to keep us engaged with the talk. Her research was also quite interesting, because I don't think many researchers are thinking about divorce and the dynamics of seeking a new relationship after divorce. It brings a whole new kind of struggle to dating, with this heightened "baggage" that people believe they have after divorcing. Divorce is a strenuous, taxing experience that takes a long time and makes the dissolution of a relationship ten times more difficult- how do you recover from that, and how do you make yourself available once again? How do you open up and share your struggles without looking as if you are seeking pity? Especially with children?

When I heard about the research with the children from divorce who just wanted to be involved in the process of the parent being with someone new, I thought that made a lot of sense. Especially when you are younger, you want to be involved in your parents' lives and being kept out of a new relationship is bad. It leaves the child with the impression that they are being replaced, in the name of "protection". Children are also people, and at some point need to be exposed to reality just like anyone else. Having them somewhat involved, at least knowing what is going on, is a good idea. I don't know any of this first hand, but hearing Dr. Miller-Ott's talk, I felt as if I did. Her interviews provide knowledge that any of us can take something away from, even if some did not have personal experience with divorce.

I felt very connected to the talk, even though I did not have a personal connection. Divorce is a topic that isn't often discussed in a general sense, because most people want to push it under the rug. Admitting that your legal union to someone has failed makes it seem so much more epic than a breakup with no legal ramifications- a breakup that both people really have to want because it is hard work to make it happen. It is something no one wants to go through and makes me think twice about marriage sometimes- what if I change my mind? What if I spend years and years with someone and discover one day that I never really knew them? The sheer randomness of the world makes it hard to make decisions about relationships, especially romantic (and legal) ones. Marriage as a legal construct and marriage as a romantic construct- can they work together when the romance fails? Seems like the divorce rate gives us that answer.

Reactions to Professor Borck's Lecture

I enjoyed the topic that Professor Borck was speaking on- the idea of platonic friendship and how it has an inevitable affect on the world of politics is a different way of thinking about love, as usually we focus on romantic love. At times it was hard for me to follow the lecture, since she hit on so many important and philosophical points, but I felt the lecture was very smart and different from anything else I had heard.

The point that struck me the hardest was that to have a friend, you must have an enemy. Love, which is embodied within friendship, must always be accompanied by hate, embodied within the enemy. This feels very true to me, as I think, generally, that we experience a balance of good and bad in life. Life cannot be purely good or purely bad- the balance is what makes the experience of life unpredictable and worthwhile. There must always be the lack, the lack that affects us so deeply and motivates us to succeed, to learn and grow whether we like it or not.

This is especially true in war- when you choose someone to align yourself with, you also choose someone to be against, someone to fight. The extremity of the love and hate divide in war sometimes causes wars to go on indefinitely, because no one is willing to budge and love nor hate have entirely succumbed the other.

I thought Borck did a great job of comparing the two philosopher's perspectives on this issue- she really did her research and it was clear she cared about what she was saying. However, I felt the lecture could have used some visuals- as a visual person, I learn from seeing what the lecturer is speaking about and it is also nice to have as a focal point so I am not staring at the lecturer the entire time.

Overall, the lecture was worthwhile and some deep, interesting perspectives considering love as it applies to friendship in politics and war. It was not a topic I knew much about beforehand, and I am glad I recorded the lecture so I can revisit it in the future.

Before Sunrise

Love through conversation vs. love at first sight:

Celine and Jesse's connection happens primarily through language, which was ironic to me at the beginning when they are discussing the stereotype of American travelers only understanding English. When they first see each other, it is a sort of "love at first sight moment", but the true spark ignites as they begin their initial conversation. Their conversations are not very spectacular or symbolic as they tend to be in romance films- just simple, everyday conversation you would share with a good friend. The topics are fairly normal- parents, family, their youth. I really liked this about the film- it gave it an authenticity that made these characters feel like people I knew. It felt entirely plausible that the story of this film could happen in real life. I like that the sexual connection happened through language- the mind is the biggest sexual organ, after all. 

Self fulfillment and self discovery in the "other:

This film does such a good job of reflecting the self in the other, and not in an overly pained or exaggerated way. The first scene that comes to mind is when Celine and Jesse are making the "phone calls" to their friends describing how they met each other. It is interesting how they can be so honest, so willing to reveal the details of their thoughts that we would normally see as too mundane to share, when they think they are talking to someone else. People should really do this more often, because oftentimes we want to know those details. There is so much information about someone's feelings that is left behind, and I know that I tend to dwell on what that person didn't say, the little details that might make a big difference. This conversation was also one of the most touching and romantic of the conversations in the film- you can feel the sweet and playful intimacy that is created through the scene. 

I really enjoyed this film because it was a realistic romance- just two people with a sexual connection talking to one another and living in the moment. The moment in the record shop when they are looking at each other and then look away reminded me of moments in my life where I liked someone but would only allow myself to stare when I knew they couldn't see. As soon as they would look my way, I would avert my eyes, blushing a bit at what had happened, wondering if I had the courage to stop stealing glances and say something. 

This film inspires me to truly live in the moment, and stop focusing so much on the past and the present. We cannot change the past and cannot control the future from happening- we have control over the present, and it is up to us what we do with it. Whenever I have travelled to a foreign country, it has always been my dream to end up in this exact situation- meet someone, forge a strong connection, and end up exploring a dreamy European city for a day.(the location is definitely important- could you see this film happening outside of Europe and maintaining its romantic, airy feel?) Before Sunrise makes it feel possible, due to its realism and warmth, and for an hour and a half I could escape into the moment with Celine and Jesse. 

Annie Hall Reflection

"The script was written by Mr. Allen and Marshall Brickman as a comic, Bergmanesque ''stream of consciousness showing one individual's state of mind, in which conversations and events constantly trigger dreams, fantasies and recollections."

Annie Hall definitely challenges our preconceived notions of what a romantic comedy is and suggests that the "comedy" of these films lies in its disfunction, and not in its happy, gilded moments. What is ironic about this is that the romantic comedy genre as we know it now had not been established at that point in time. Woody Allen was simply telling a story that was true to his life, but also universal enough that anyone could relate to it. It stumbled its way into becoming a romantic comedy and in doing so, is one of the best romantic comedies out there.

Remove the idiosyncrasies of the characters and you have two individuals trying to understand each other, to find a mental space in which they can just "be". This is tough to do- there's no way you'll fully understand someone else and the relationship is usually done before you've found your way beneath the surface.

The way the story is told is, in my opinion, accurate to how we reflect upon our relationships. When we are in the moment, sometimes we'd like to reach out to someone else and confirm our feelings, which Alvy and Annie do by breaking the fourth wall. You never know for sure if the action you are taking will play out as intended, and usually the process of thinking and acting happens within the mind as a in the moment decision. Also, memory tends to be random- something in your environment reminds you of a memory, and it could be anything. Alvy's monologue at the beginning establishes him not only as a comedian but establishes how the film will approach the experience of a relationship- memories that are random and strongly stained with subjective thought and feeling. 

I think my favorite scene in the film is the golden-hued conversation between Alvy and Annie when he comes to see her in California. Annie's honesty is straightforward, simple, and hits home- sometimes, relationships just don't work out, and it can't be something to be figured out. Alvy doesn't get this and becomes very frustrated, and Annie's empathy has run dry. I liked seeing Annie's character grow throughout the film- at the end she's much more secure, less paranoid and frantic and comfortable with her quirks. 

If all romantic comedies were as smart and personal to its creator as this one, I might like them more! There is no happy, sun washed reunion in which the characters have to be together to be happy- it's not a straight and linear story and that is its strength.