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!)