Lostlogo on FacebookLostlogo on TwitterLostlogo on LinkdinLostlogo on etsy
/div>


Weekend in NOLA

 Subscribe in a reader

May 24th, 2010

Well more like a threemonthend but who’s counting.

This specific weekend though I actually got to take some photos around the ninth ward area. One of the areas most affected by Katrina but really popping back into action with new houses, awesome street art and some great classic little po-boy and BBQ places. I don’t eat meat but I stillĀ appreciateĀ some awesome history. I might not be able to eat there but I can get a drink or stand outside and stare.

The Joint, New Orleans by Katya LaRoche

Becoming Americanized?

 Subscribe in a reader

May 24th, 2010

I’ve never been a fan of “traditional lifestyles” and especially not the “American dream” lifestyle. Owning lots of crap, having credit cards, kids, spouse never appealed to me. This has always been hard for my mother to understand since I’m her best chance at grandkids but she’s learning to accept my pets as my kids.
Ever since we took to the road last October to live a very non traditional lifestyle in the Brougham (our 19 foot 1973 Dodge RV), Ross and I have been enjoying a complete lack of connection with the American Dream aside from Ross’s lingering car payments (for a car we don’t have with us), insurance and phone bills.

Lately this lovely lifestyle has been tapering off, especially for Ross. We upgraded our RV to a 31 foot trailer about a month and a half ago and today he is buying a truck to tow the trailer with. Both were used and very cheap for their condition, at least the trailer with maintain its value and the truck should, though depreciate a little depending on how many miles we put on it. Getting them used was non American dream thing to do which is great but not owning them, having them be partially financed through his bank, is. I always hate the feeling of having something I don’t really own, especially when its something I want to and should care about. It’s like caring about someone else’s pet just to have them move away later, you don’t want to get attached until its rightfully yours and in the case of the trailer and truck, they may never be ours at all. By the time we decide to move on to the next lifestyle, they might not be paid off yet and we’ll sell them in order to pay off the loans and have a few bucks left over. We will be taking good care of them because we hope to resell them but love them like my ’73 Datsun 710? Probably not.

I may never be able to get financed for things the way Ross can, but it is a definite benefit. I always think about one day owning a house in Argentina but I imagine I’ll be paying for it in money I’ve saved up, or I’ll be rich and be able to pay cash in a briefcase. Working for myself and not being much of a business person, or money minded at all, I don’t really include myself in financed America. I like owning everything I have and not having a credit limit larger than $150, for use only when I’m just that broke. I hate money and although necessary I don’t mind living without it for the most part, that being said, I would love to be able to travel without worry about money – anywhere I want and for any amount of time. This is part of why I got into web design in the first place. It was the only job I thought I could do and be able to do from anywhere (initially Argentina). Now I get to test the limits of it by traveling around the US but would like to one day be updating websites in Cairo or Australia. These things take money but I don’t think they have to take money that isn’t mine. Although life is too short to wait around saving up money when you could be borrowing it, I’m aware that I wont be retiring and will still be doing this whenever I can when I’m old, so, what’s the rush right?

Back to work! As always, I’m way behind!

Busy month

 Subscribe in a reader

May 11th, 2010

This last month has been pretty busy. Several individual sites (non long term jobs), and some still in the works (and more to come).
One of the jobs I’ve finished is www.rccme.com, a strange site for me since it was a ‘corporate’ website, a Saudi Arabian Construction Company to be exact. I never spoke with the clients once, having another client as a mediator, maybe for the best. I always wonder how a woman would be treated in a ‘professional’ position by men in the middle east. I know theres some modern cities there but its widely known as the worst place on the planet to be a woman. Either way, I was paid and wasn’t hassled much about the design or content, in fact I’m kind of waiting for them to find the time to actually look at the site and ask for changes they should have asked for during the creation process.

www.rccme.com

www.rccme.com

Its not really my style but it’s work and with student loans sneaking up on me, I can use all I can get. The only example they gave me of what they wanted was their competitors website, a Dubai Construction Company. I immediately recognized the style as “templatey” and that’s generally what they got except I built it from scratch and its WC3 Compliant and uses all css, as most crappy old template sites are not and do not.

Another site I worked on was for the Spokane Songwriters Organization. The client is psudo-family and the organization is non profit so it wasnt the best paying job but fun to make a website that will be active and community based. I installed a forum, wordpress, events calendar, music player, photo gallery, shared user registration, group emailing and other features that will be useful for organizing events and sharing opinions, music and events for the users – once everyone is comfortable using it.

spokanesongwriters.org

spokanesongwriters.org

Another site I’m working on and almost done with is for an author ( I get lots of those!) Adrian Matejka. His work is urban themed, modern, cultural reference filled poetry and I like it allot. Seems like every author I get to make sites for is really great. Makes me feel guilty for not reading more modern books than War of the Worlds. I cant help myself though, I feel like I’m playing catchup with the last 2 centuries ( I read lots from centuries before in highschool so I’m slowly making it to the 21st century).

adrianmatejka.com splash page

adrianmatejka.com splash page

adrianmatejka.com

adrianmatejka.com

I also made changes to the homepage of www.shopadornonline.com, giving it more banner styles images on the homepage rather than just products.

http://www.shopadornonline.com/

http://www.shopadornonline.com/

For my mothers birthday in late March, I made her a website for blogging and selling some of her photos, www.dreamworksphoto.net, Unfortunately she doesn’t use yet it, but its the thought that counts right :(

dreamworksphotos.net

dreamworksphotos.net

Now I’m working on a site for a friend for his recording company, making regular updates to Shop Adorn and setting up for other jobs coming my way including another recording studio, a photography site, a baking supply site and of course my own badly needed site updates.

place with a view, a tree and a yard

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

Spokane is the closest place to a “home base” I’ve ever had. I was born in a hospital there, lived near there till 2nd grade, and went to highschool from 15-18 there. I moved away when I was 19 to Portland because as an adult out of school I found that Spokane was one of the most boring places ever. There was nothing to do but drink or do drugs. No young music scene, no place for people to hang out in general. I had bigger plans,and a way out, so I headed to Portland as soon as possible.

Theres something about Spokane that I’ll always love anyway. Maybe because it was the first place I ever really took photos. Something ominous and creepy about every part of this town and the scenery I choose to shoot. Its no wonder it’s one of Stephen Kings favorite towns and the home town of David Lynch who has based many films on Spokane, indirectly, and expressed beautifully the mood and feeling you get from this inland empire.

Spokane has produced some of the most awesome people I’ve ever known and since many of them still live there, their kids will be as awesome as they are. Maybe one day I’ll go back if I ever decide to stop traveling long enough to call anywhere home.

Imported Blogs & Homework

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

So you may notice a large amount of new blogs on this site. I just spent the last day or so editing and importing about 160 blogs, some from an old myspace account I closed a year or 2 ago – blogs going back as far as 2005, and lots of film analysis homework and essays for school. I dont expect anyone to read them, in fact many may make little to no sense out of context (like I may be answering a question that is not in the blog etc) but I just had to get them off my computer and online somewhere. Makes me feel safer knowing they’re here and exactly where to find them if I needed them.

After editing and importing all my blogs from my old myspace blog, I realized how much I used to blog when I had only one blog to deal with. Now with 3-5 blogs, I never want to blog about anything. I cant see anyway to cut back on them all but I do need to find a way to blog more one way or another.

chau!

4 and 20

Do the Right Thing (1989), Whatever That may be

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

The film Do the Right Thing is a moving, proactive and entertaining film made by an outspoken, proactive director. It was the third film by Spike Lee and what he considers his first real directing job (Logan,2). In his first two films he was still unsure of himself but in Do the Right Thing, his true capabilities as a director and a compelling screen writer became public knowledge. Created in controversy, the making of the film itself brought up some important stereotypes in society and forced not only the public – but producers, crews, studios, publicists and movie theatres alike to pay attention to what they were investing in, showing, promoting and helping to create. Do the Right Thing – like many Spike Lee films, has an important message to be told that many people are either uncomfortable with or threatened by. Racial issues are always a touchy subject for Americans and not many directors take on challenges with such collected cool. Lee approaches racial issues both between races and the inner battle of being black in a racist society like he eats if for breakfast ( and maybe he does).

To get the most from his films, it’s important to know where Lee himself comes from and what motivates his themes. It’s easy to be confused or threatened by a controversial messages likes those in Lee’s films if you don’t fully understand the intentions. Lee came from a very stable home life. His father Bill Lee, is a Jazz composer who composed music for many of his films, his sister Joie Lee has acted in several of his films and brother David did the still photography for his first three films. His mother, Jacqueline Shelton, a teacher of arts and black literature, passed away in 1977 – years before she would be able to see Lee’s vision come alive in film (Wiki). But her influence over his convictions, the benefit of having educated parents and a proud and encouraging family are all factors that likely gave Lee confidence and support in his endeavors. Ruby Dee, a noted actress in several of his films once stated, “Racism usually erodes self-confidence; it seems to have triggered his.”(Lynn,6). Early on he developed a reputation as a man who needs no approval, is self-assured in his causes and mindfully introverted and intelligent. On the negative end, “blacker-than-thou” has been used to describe his attitude due to his consistent outspokenness towards the black community and he’s been called a racist himself, because his films often point out specifically white and black culture clashes.

Although the racial clashes he portrays between whites and blacks are in reality the most prominent American racial tensions of our time (and all American time) – and being black, he speaks from his own black experience

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

I think Slumdog was an excellent film and I completely understand several arguments given in the NPR show and the articles. I have lived in South America before, and although I didn’t live in a slum, I definitely had my share of interactions with people who did on a daily basis, as well as seeing and reading about the direct effects and issues within, like slum children being kidnapped and sold to US orphanages and a rainy day for me being the wipeout of an entire neighborhood by mudslides. My perspective isn’t going to be the same as Divakaruni called the average “Pepsi-sipping, popcorn-munching, affluent Western audience”. I appreciated the opportunity of exposure so greatly that I made it a point to try to understand the whys,hows and who’s of the situation and I intend to move back when I finish school. I grew up very poor in small towns, foster homes, group homes and on my own at 15. I went to south America with $600 in my pocket and my dog, I spent the $600 in the first week to get a place to live (and no I didn’t have parents to call for money). Before I go into some long story, Ill divert back. Living in another country where essentially my net worth was as much or less as some of its poorest inhabitants was humbling and gave me a greater appreciation for life, friends, family and things that really matter, and I will honestly say in my opinion that one will never understand that fully without experiencing it. Any residual effects of growing up in a very capitalist society mostly drained from my system into the gutters of Argentina, and gladly (vivid?).

I do not agree with the voyeuristic “poverty porn” concept at all, and although I know the prospect of actually walking among and hanging out with people some may consider very different than themselves may be scary to some, I think its important to keep the human element and not peek through tinted glass windows with pity or superiority.

I definitely agree with Priya Rajsekar on her perspective of exploitation for several reasons, but maybe not in the same respects. Mainly I think that some “Pepsi-sipping, popcorn-munching, affluent Western audience” who have little to no idea what poverty is, tend to forget that people in slums are people, not characters on a screen or in a photo in the news. And that sounds extreme but to take away dignity from a person in life or in film is basically to lower them to that of a dog, and like Rajsekar said

Oklahoma!

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

Oklahoma! and Maintaining the Social Standard

Oklahoma! is most often expressed as a light hearted, dark tinted ‘romp in the field’ American classic. It is exactly because of this that I chose to analyze this film and its idyllic fundamentals for society. The film is set in Oklahoma territory in 1906, just before the state was made the 46th in the union. Throughout the film, a general feeling of playfulness, carelessness and ignorance of the looming truths of reality weave the viewer into either a blissful sing-a-long or a teeth-clenching rage. Unfortunately for the sing song types, “it’s just a movie, lighten up” won´t take away the classist, sexist and minority absent elements of this film for me.

Firstly, to approach the film on a cultural note, Oklahoma got its film worthy start by thwarting the attempts to make an all-Indian state of the same name(Various, Wiki). The location offered the promise of oil and farming fortunes for ambitious white Americans, reason enough to leave American Indians with not even so much as a single reservation in the state to this day. Oklahoma at the time also had a fairly large population of black settlers as well as several black towns. There were even appeals made that Teddy Roosevelt should officially call Oklahoma a majority-black state(Various, Wiki). Although a majority white settlement at that time would have likely had a low population of black or American Indian residents, the film in its idyllic fantasy portrays the absence as a part of their perfect, conflict-free society, not as reality. The film showed an extremely one sided win for the “moral and upstanding” settler and complete avoidance of the topic of “the other”. Aside from the absence of minorities, the film was not completely without cultural variety. A Persian man, Ali Hakim, played the part of a sexually immoral traveling salesman. From the beginning of this characters development, the stereotype of both a charismatic gypsy and untrustworthy peddler were without doubt present. Contrary to this unjust representation, Ali was overall represented as a man of decent human character. He was given a major part in the ruin of Jed’s first attempt at murdering Curly and shared in the towns suspicious of Jed’s outcast characteristics. Ali was not a minority in the same right as black Americans and American Indians, he was an immigrant played by a white American actor. Perhaps Roger and Hammerstein’s roots played a part in this characters role or possibly it was an attempt at appeasing the overall lack of diversity.

The portrayal of women’s role in society did no one any favors in Oklahoma!. This film was made before women could vote in the United States but while Europe was making leaps and bounds in the suffragette movement and women’s rights. This is not to say that the film was not accurate on that note either, but that doesn´t make it any less offensive. What is most offensive about the way women are portrayed is how joyfully it’s done. There was not one character who was against the intensely patriarchal way of thinking, as was (to an extent) the well educated Marian in The Music Man. The female characters were flighty and giggling throughout the film; many were portrayed as poor speakers, under educated, materialistic and overall shared one main goal in life, marriage. The concept of female ownership is reinforced by the role of Ado Annie’s father who basically auctions his daughter off to the highest bidder. Ado Annie herself is a frightful stereotype of a mindless, flirty, cheating , untrustworthy girl. At one point in the film the girls are rated on their cooking abilities in a charity event. Throughout the film, no one mentions any other quality the girls may have that would put them of use anywhere but a kitchen. Releasing the film in 1955 was an ideal time for its success. With cold war, segregation and women’s traditional place in the home, it´s no wonder this film was a hit. Society in 50′s America was hooked on the ideal of its white picket fences, nuclear family and “outsider-free” society. Something I´m sure the studio was well aware of before its release. Sadly even after WWI, when many women replaced men in the workplace, and after 1920 when they were granted the ability to vote, the 1950′s held as true to the old song and dance as Oklahoma!.

Aunt Eller was the only female character who showed any independence from the hormone driven men and submissive women of Oklahoma!. As an older woman, she was not “attractive” anymore so she no longer bore the burden of a woman subject to man´s rule, sexually. She was still under the rule of a male driven society but had ownership over her own property, although depending on Jud for working the land. Her character brings up the issue of age discrimination in the film. Although a much less prominent issue than the gender, race and class issues it is none the less unfair. She has won the right to speak out and be “herself” only because of her age and growing uselessness to society, not because she is a human being. She is referred to as a “silly old woman” Although she is a different character than the other women in the film, she is no less committed to the importance of marriage and has fully accepted the role of women and men in her society.

Men are also subject to their own share of stereotyping in the film. They are portrayed as masculine, macho, dominating, poorly educated, sexually obsessed and inherently risk taking. Although many of these ideals are so accepted that people rarely questions them, they are no less fair than stereotypes about women. Jud is one character who falls victim to numerous gender stereotypes as well as stereotypes directed to the poor and/or working class. When Jud is first introduced to us, he is carrying a pile of wood with muscles abound, his shirt is open and he is covered in dirt and sweat. This does not necessarily mean he is a negative character but in the film that is what we are meant to feel when everyone else is picture perfect and clean. The film actually depends on us to discriminate against him based on nothing else but the way he looks. Curly brings his opinion of Jud to our attention by calling him a “bullord colored rally hire hand”. This is thwarted by Aunt Eller saying Jud is the “best hired hand I ever had…two woman couldn´t do it”. Although Aunt Eller is defending Jud and doesn´t judge him herself (to begin with) her opinion is likely dismissed because of her age and gender. Laury is also guilt of senseless judgment of Jud’s character in this first scene. When she changes her mind about going to the dance and attempts to tell him, her seemingly senseless fear of him makes her hold her tongue. His mannerisms and polite statement about picking her up for the dance reveal that he is completely unaware of her cruel intentions.

The entire character development of Jud and the surrounding plot refers to a critical social issue that this film unfortunately does not approach comprehensively. Jud is considered a “social misfit” and one that is lower class/working class at that. He is, from the beginning, “not one of the community” and therefore does not have the right to “its women” or even friendships within it. People who express any behavior that deviates from the group norm are easily singled out. Whether the person is shy, aggressive, has underdeveloped social skills or is only seemingly different because of class or culture, are all common reasons for rejection. People who are rejected usually withdraw; withdrawal causes more social rejection and a cycle continues. When Curly approaches Jud to talk about Laury and the dance, he chooses to take an approach of rejection and machismo by telling him to commit suicide. During the song “Jud is Daid”, Curly mocks Jud by saying he “Loved the beasts of the field, loves his fellow man, loved the little children” etc, while Jud appears to honestly believe this of himself. He slowly comes to realization that he will probably never fit in with the other characters. When Curly blatantly asks Jud, “how’d you get to be the way you are anyhow? sitting in here in this filthy hole”. Curly makes the classic assumption that the poor choose to be poor and the misfit, outcast. He has initiated the cycle, to no fault of Jud’s, and causes Jud to react with anger (Wever-Rabehl). Thus his sudden search for a weapon and an aggressive “she better not change her mind”, referring to Laury going to the dance. It’s heartbreaking to see his character and future in the film degrade so quickly at the joy of others, especially ones so hypocritical and unwelcoming.

Given the roll of Jud, his lines and aggravation to turning “misfit”, it seems at first confusing as to whether we are to pity or loathe Jud. It seems so harsh to assume the writer wants us to believe that Curly merely brought out the true personality of Jud, not the other way around. Curly, although fitting into society quite well, is the true misfit and a wholly horrible and unsavory character. Laury as well is hardly better than Curly by the end of the film. Her “vision” of Jud´s “true nature” cause her to act fearfully and reject Jud after agreeing to go to the dance. She never had a conversation with Jud as a person or got to know better his intentions, which as shown are good, as he tells her on the ride to the dance “I remember everything you´ve ever done”. Up to the point of the dance itself Jud never fully realized how different he was. He may have forgotten completely about ever killing anyone had he not got his heart so brutally stepped on. In many films a heartbroken man who tries to kill the girl’s “winner” is seen as a villain but the “winner” who kills the heartbroken man (even in an equal duel), is a hero. It seems that the winner of love is always the winner in life, and those who are rejected, just as in society, are losers, and sometimes losers who don´t deserve justice

Oklahoma! although colorful and comedic does not represent an ideal society we should be proud of. It contains numerous overtones and undertones of social injustice and even legal injustice. It’s movies like this that reinforce so many of the worst wrongs in society. After all is said, “it´s just a movie” still doesn´t ring true. A movie, a book, a sexist remark, are never just that, they are the reflections and models of our culture and should be approached critically as if our futures depended on it.

Hedwig & Jarreth Forever

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

Hedwig & Jareth Forever

Throughout my film studies and 28 years watching films, good and bad, Labyrinth has remained one of my favorite films just as Bowie is one of my favorite musicians. This class has introduced me to a new and equally fascinating love, Hedwig and the Angry Inch and the musical performances of Hedwig herself. Both films are endlessly dynamic and star two very creative players in modern pop culture, for reasons similar and apart. The characters themselves also play equally dynamic roles, both with deep emotional issues, intentionally and symbolically. Although the films are in no way tied, for me, they represent meaningful aspects of emotional growth and represent elements of nontraditional cultures often overlooked or ignored by mainstream culture.

Labyrinth is a film created by a swarm of amazing and creative talent. Jim Henson thought up the film following his work on the Dark Crystal . Along with writer Dennis Lee (writer of the Fragle Rock theme), they drafted up a rough storyline and pitched the idea to George Lucas and Terry Jones. Terry Jones had been a writer and actor for Monty Python, and already had a very sucessful career prior to the film. Adding David Bowie to the equation only further motivated its unavoidable success (Scarlett). Over the course of the making of the film, the story line changed as each player in its creation wanted their say on different elements. Although the film was intended for children, the various opinions greatly shifted the film from its original intentions, creating a movie for people of all ages. Jim Henson, childern’s writer, puppeteer and creative genius, was the brain behind numerous children´s shows like The Fraggles, The Muppet Show and Sesame Street to name a few (IMDB). When he worked on the Dark Crystal (there is sadly a sequel coming out), he entered into a whole new world; A twisted, spooky, fantastical place for adults and children alike. It’s obvious by the characters and theme that his Dark Crystal experience left him wanting more, but was it his history with children´s material that limited his abilities to give the film true depth? Without Terry Jones and David Bowie, the film may have been without any depth at all.

Bowie had his own idea of who Jareth was, describing in the documentary that Jareth is, “a big kid”, who is “fed up” and “would rather be down in Soho” (Scarlett). Henson is traditionally a happy ending kind of guy, and admits in the documentary that he wanted the film to be about life and leave people with an up feeling. He saw Jareth as an all-powerful magic character that Sarah would somehow overcome, and also someone who only existed in her mind. Both Jones and Bowie wanted to give Jareth and the labyrinth a little more depth and complexity, both having far richer and more psychological explanations for Jareths position. Bowie’s Jareth was not only a confused man with inner battles, but also a man who was not fully in control of his world. He suggests in the documentary that against his will, the goblins steal yet another baby. Implying that not only does Jareth exist beyond Saras’ world, but is also at the mercy of the rules of the labyrinth. Each goblin in the labyrinth, to me, was always someones missing little brother or sister, especially since Jareth says in the film that Toby will turn into a goblin if Sara fails. Jones describes the result of Jareth’s odd existence as leaving him “a hollow man… [who] was using the labyrinth to protect himself to keep people away. He was trying to control the world but he was really empty in himself”(Scarlett). To Jones the film was about Jareth being representative of people who intend to manipulate the world without any real emotional investment, people who expect to get what they want while giving nothing in return. Like Bowie says “a big kid”, overall I think both statements imply he just has some growing up to do.

When I first saw this film I was nine and it was new. It became obvious to me upon watching it, that my family had never seen the film, and probably didn´t even know who David Bowie was. They never would have let me if they had. I immediately became obsessed with the film, its characters and of course, Jareth. Telling everyone that I was going to grow up and be the Goblin Queen, or in the least Mrs. David Bowie. I didn´t understand what it was that I loved about him at the time, but I knew I was in no way sympathetic with Sara and was greatly disappointed in her refusal to become the Goblin Queen. Although Sara does not end up with Jareth (a twisted intro to relationship doesn´t help), the entire film is loaded with bulges, gyrations, spandex, love triangles and comeons, but more than all that, a young girl turning into a woman. The wikipedia entry on the film states that the film may be seen as “a symbolic tale of a young girl´s acceptance of her sexuality”. Aside from the obvious intentions of Jared, Sara does indeed have some growing up to do in the sexuality department. Sara is basically a big girl living in a little girl’s world at the beginning of the film. She idolizes her mother, who abandoned the family for an acting career. She puts on lipstick while looking at a photo of her, who just happens to be standing next to, who else, David Bowie (This subtle element in the film greatly confuses the reality vs reality struggle in the film). The idolizing of her mother’s sexuality and dressing like a princess can be seen as hints that she wants to transition into womanhood, but so many other elements, and maybe the lack of her mother itself, imply that she is afraid to step out of childhood fantasy (Allen). She enters the labyrinth and uses the same lipstick as a tool to mark where she has been. When she discovers that where she has been is not as it seems, her metaphorical identity crashes down and she throws the lipstick aside. According to Jones intentions for the film “eventually the girl learned there was no answer, no solution. The only thing you could do was to go with it and enjoy it. When she did that she got to the centre of the labyrinth”(Scarlett). This intention can be said of a girls sexual development as well, she couldn´t force herself to be a woman, she just had to let it happen.

Jareth’s role as an antagonist/protagonist clad in spandex and chasing after a young girl, made it an especially interesting “coming of age” story. I think that unknown things about Jarreth’s past, as Bowie and Jones saw him, intended him to be at the same emotional age as Sara in many ways. To Bowie, Jones and countless fans, Jareth was himself brought into the world of goblins against his will. Hes poor socialization with humans caused him to behave certain ways, similar to a child who’s never played with a puppy and picks it up by its ears. He is not hateful or evil, you can see that in the song “Magic Dance” when he makes Toby laugh and when he looks sad and heartbroken at Saras rejection. He is an unhappy, lonely man with great power and access to unlimited knowledge, and he simply wants someone to share it with. Ultimately Sara gets to learn lessons, yet not the ones Jarreth intended for her. Jarreth in return gets disappointment, pain, rejection and possible the loss of his entire world. Had he learned any social skills, he may have learned that bribery, authentic or not, doesn´t go over well most the time. At the end of the film Jareth says, “Do as I say and I will be your slave”, encompassing in one statement his confusion on “how it works”. Even if he only wanted to be considered a friend, he doesn´t even have basic skills like fairness, consideration for others, sharing or anything else most people are taught before they´re 3, and it’s not his fault.

Still on the subject of sexuality, and very much in the realm of confusion, Hedwig and the Angry Inch is a great place to start. Hedwig was written by a man who himself had similar toils in life as the protagonist, both appropriately, John Cameron Mitchell. The story was originally written as a stage musical premiering in 1998 and quickly rising to popularity. Soon after, it was touring the world, donning a dedicated cult following, Styrofoam wigs and all. The theme and meaning of the film has different meanings for many people, and this is’nt due to the same pre-production disagreements that Labyrinth experienced. Because of the nature, plot and characters of the film, Mitchell reports hearing fans regard the film as anything from “a new and improved Rocky Horror Picture Show” to “moving and comforting”. The range of emotions persuading people’s opinions is to be expected from a story so modern, dynamic and intimate.

The persuader of our emotions is Hedwig, and the complicated story of his (to her) life. The film skillfully uses music and flashbacks in conjuncture to tell the story while we watch Hedwig’s emotional reaction in the form of singing. We learn early in the film of Hedwig’s background full of emotional and physical trauma. Even in all of Hedwigs strength and go-toitiveness, for the majority of the film she is hurt and hiding behind a fun attitude and a consistent humor about her own traumatic past. She is not without confidence and knows what she needs to do to deal with “what she has to work with”. Not only referring to her angry inch, but the lot in life that she was handed and a scarred emotional past. Throughout the film we see her sexual identity take on many forms, and although it’s clear he is gay (as it were), his orientation has little to nothing to do with the film itself. The writer himself is a gay man, and states that upon coming out of the closet he found he didn´t fit into “gay culture,” as identified by many gay people. He found that it was just as confining and rule stricken as straight culture was, finding that bisexual people, although perceived by many as “not able to make up their minds” may have somewhat of an advantage (Fuchs).. He portrays this idea of an orientation-less lifestyle in the film consistently. Early in the film, Hedwig (then Hansel) is proposed to by an American military man, Luther, at the condition of losing his genitalia. Hedwig was never portrayed as having the desire to do this unprovoked, but for the sake of love and the adventure of escaping his Aryan gummy bear world, he saw little reason not to. Not long after the complicated and sacrificial escape, he finds himself dumped and having lost his gender pointlessly. The Berlin wall falls at the same time his heart breaks. This is where the personal identity crisis begins. He was loved by Luther, unconditionally he thought, woman or man or neither. Now that he’s alone, having sacrificed so much (for such a small player in the film) should he be a woman or a man? He just as easily could have been a man again, but instead pulls down another “wig in a box”. This isn´t necessarily a conscious decision to be a woman over a man, since gender never really meant much to Hedwig in the first place, but it is a decision on how he chooses to deal with the pain and go on with her life. This is also a moment for Hedwig to reinvent herself as no one knows her (and finally drop the Hansel). After all, being known means being close and being close has only hurt. Mitchell explains this film wide topic much simpler: “She [begins thinking] of herself as neither man nor woman, or half a man, but she realizes that she´s both, by accident. And it´s better than being one. The way she got there is very painful.”

Mitchell chose communist Berlin as Hedwig’s home base for more than one reason, though not intentionally for metaphors. He was inspired by the documentary I Am My Own Woman (1992) about a man who lived as a woman through the Nazis and the Communists. “The story of the ultimate outsider” Mitchell states (Fuchs). Mitchell was also the son of a commander in the U.S. sector of Berlin. He had several times visited him, often hanging out in local gay bars. His experiences there and personal experiences as a gay man were a catalyst in creating the moving story of Hedwigs life. If only Jareth had received such intensive background and character development his sexuality may have taken on a similar direction. David Bowie is notoriously androgynous and has at times renounced the purpose of “picking sides” in orientation. Mithel explains a direct inspiration for the rock-androgyny theme from performers like Bowie saying “androgyny is traditional in rock…. From Little Richard through the British androgynous, Mick and Elton and Bowie”. Bowie cant help but show this in Jarreth, though only so much as big names like Lucas and Henson would be associated with harmlessly (to their family values career). It would be interesting to see Labyrinth directed by a person like Mitchell. Anyone who cared so much about a character as to have to play them himself in order to get it right. If Labyrinth had been an on stage musical first, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (The Rocky Horror Show) and Hedwig and the Angry Inch, would it too have had a cult following? Maybe its not too late.

Laura (1944)

 Subscribe in a reader

March 16th, 2010

This film, book and lecture gave me allot to think about this week. I was glad to find while reading the lecture that I wasn’t off in thinking that Waldo seemed as though he was intended to be gay, in many ways. I wasn’t sure if this was because of the writing style, the authors idea of an over-educated man or what it was until I saw the film and book in its intended light.

Just the night before I finished the book and film I watched the documentary “Celluloid Closet”. It’s an analysis of gay culture as represented through film, mostly during times when it was highly censored. Most directors and screenwriters eventually found ways around this censorship and used the censors ignorance against them. How would they know how an over-educated, spoiled old rich man acts? or an interior designer for that fact… or any other stereotypes many films not only reinforced but partially caused gay people everywhere to live up to. It was interesting to see this film in that light, with Waldo, a self denying gay man who, through his frustrations, convinced himself that his love and standards for Laura must be deeper than obsession, and more important than personal psychosis. I also found it interesting, just as “Celluloid Closet” showed, that many potentially or obviously gay characters were eventually killed off, in some sort of moral accomplishment. I felt this film was different in that sense but im not sure why, possibly because I read it as well, does that pattern repeat in books?

I also like how the lecture points out Laura’s transformation from what we know of her past and who she becomes over the course of the story. She seems to repeatedly wake up to realizations she never allowed herself before. Shedding her attitude about men for a more self respecting one, finally telling Waldo off (in the book mostly – saying that he’s always trying to shame men she likes) and finally allowing herself to fall for a guy like Mark – “a real man” as hes’ called. I did not like the development of the relationship in the film as much as in the book, especially the complication of the aunt who is trying to steal her fiance? unnecessary. I did however like the way Mark was so socially awkward in the film, never really giving off any emotion, playing with his toy when he was in a stressful or uncomfortable situation. The way he kept asking Laura about why she lied about the engagement, as sly as asking a friend to ask someone out for you but shy and endearing all the same.

The lecture also points out the missing aspect of Laura I found especially interesting in the film, the parts of Laura that tell Mark that shes a more down to earth and real woman than she seems to have been (she likes baseball, etc). By the end though, Laura ultimately is allowed to stop the self Waldo tried to hard to make her and allow herself to slow down and rethink her future and past and who shell turn into. Because of Laura’s overall character in the book, I saw it as fairly modern in regards to women’s roles and rights to non-generic personalities, something even movies today leave out sometimes.