Ma Vie En Rose

In Ma Vie en Rose, Ludo idolizes the fictional character Pam.

How might Irigaray see this idolization?

Irigaray says that “Woman…is only a more or less obliging prop for the enactment of man’s fantasies. That she may find pleasure there in that role, by proxy, is possible, even certain. But such pleasure is above all a masochistic prostitution of her body to a desire that is not her own, and it leaves her in a familiar state of dependency upon man.” I think this definitely relates to Ludo, as he (arguably as a man) has fantasies involving Pam. But is Pam, as a character, dependent upon man? She seems to be a fairly independent woman- living in a Barbie-worthy house with a Ken-worthy boyfriend. Yet Irigaray might argue that none of Pam’s happy life is her own responsibility- that she owes it to men, either her boyfriend, or Ludo.

Would Schiavi agree with Irigaray’s interpretation?

I think Schiavi would disagree with Irigaray. He explains that as “an avatar of postmodern femininity with blond extensions, deeply exposed cleavage, and pastel dreamhouse, Pam provides Ludo with a magical escape from the masculine expectation hampering his every move.” It seems that women, in contrast with what Irigaray believes, are capable of escaping “masculine expectation” and enjoy a role that is not dependent on enacting “man’s fantasies.” Schiavi goes so far as to say that “in Pam’s hyperfeminine milieu, to be extremely ‘girlish’ is to be rewarded…” We can see where Ludo might see the same rewards, and then attempt to express his femininity in an over-the-top way, applying heavy lipstick and wearing princess-y dresses.

Far From Heaven

“For several years certain laboratories have been trying to produce a serum for ‘denegrification’; with all the earnestness in the world, laboratories have sterilized their test tubes, checked their scales, and embarked on researches that might make it possible for the miserable Negro to whiten himself and thus to throw off the burden of that corporeal malediction.”

-Fanon

How does this quote shed light on homosexuality in Far From Heaven?

This quote immediately reminded me of the way Cathy and Frank address his homosexuality. They send him to Dr. Bowman, hoping to make him heterosexual. Today, it seems offensive to think that people once genuinely desired to “cure” people of their blackness, just as it seems offensive that people did (and in some places, still do) very earnestly attempt to “cure” people of their homosexuality. It’s as if a sort of sympathy drives these cures, and it’s interesting that in Far From Heaven, homosexuality is treated with that sense of sympathy, but racial differences are treated so coldly. One scene that comes to mind is the one at the pool.

What is the significance of addressing homosexuality and race in such ways in Far From Heaven?

One thing I find particularly interesting about Far From Heaven is the way that Frank is able to leave his wife and be with his male partner, and yet how Cathy will never be able to share a relationship with Raymond. Wherever they go, even acting just as friends, they will face violence. It’s important to remember that this film was released in 2002- in a time where we like to think of discrimination based on sexuality as being a much more common and existing problem than discrimination based on race. I think, because Far From Heaven portrays a homosexual relationship that’s possible and a bi-racial relationship that can never be, it attempts to highlight the fact that racism is still a problem in a “modern” or “enlightened” society, and that biracial couples are still unaccepted (even moreso than homosexual ones).

Something I hope many of you will enjoy:

Top 15 Unintentionally Funny Comic Book Panels

http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2007/03/top_15_unintent.html

:)

Dancer in the Dark and Marx

Karl Marx says, "...in his work...he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind." (p.298)

What is the significance of this description in relation to Dancer in the Dark?

This is one question I really struggled with. Does Selma fit Marx's description of the worker's experience? Certainly, if Selma can be considered "at work" while she's daydreaming in the factory, she lives in contradiction to Marx. But whether or not her musical daydreams count as taking place while she's "at work" is a very arguable idea. I would take the side that they do in fact take place "at work"- she does not, for example, create such fantastical scenarios at home, where she should be more free to do so. Even worse, when she's free from any necessary work, at prison, she feels tortured by the lack of rhythm, sound, and motion which really fueled her imaginings at the factory.

If Selma's musical daydreams do indeed count as taking place while she's working, how does she disagree with Marx?

I believe that Selma almost 100% opposes Marx's description here. Where he would describe her, at work, as being unaffirmed, malcontent, and barred from developing freely her "physical and mental energy," she seems to experience the exact opposite. At work, lost in the sound of the machines, even when she's not dreaming, Selma seems peaceful and content. In her daydreams, dancing with her co-workers, she was graceful, surrounded by friends, and affirmed. She definitely developed mental energy while working, through her colorful imaginings. In fact, the only agreement I saw between Marx's description and Selma's experience was the idea of "mortifies his body," as she did injure her finger as a result of working the machines blindly.