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.