Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Catch up America: Gay Marriage is a Basic Civil Right
Ricardo Alvarez
Engl. 313
Professor Wexler
Final Paper
America views itself as a country established on the principle of providing civil rights for all people. Theoretically our country claims that “all men are created equal” but the road to egalitarianism has gotten off to quite an inauspicious start. One contemporary issue that exemplifies this is gay marriage. Both sides in the debate of whether or not to allow gay marriage in the United States provide logical arguments. Conservatives assert the importance of keeping the foundation of the family intact in order to keep the country “healthy,” but liberals contest there must remain a separation of state and church. Marriage itself is too complex to fully define in one way or another. Yet, our nation’s government has found it fit to step in and decide whether or not marriage should be deemed solely for heterosexual couples. Whether for or against, there are various factors that must be examined in order to fully comprehend the severity of banning gay marriage by governmental law. This essay asserts that gay marriage should be allowed because of political and economic reasons but it also examines the potential harm that could result from embracing another form of institutionalization. Politically, gay marriage has faced many battles. American politics has been firmly rooted in the separation of church and state but when it comes to gay marriage this dichotomy becomes less apparent. Perhaps this is attributed to the United States’ long history of puritanical beliefs. Many religions deem homosexuality as morally wrong and deviant. In Judeo-Christian text, God is said to have punished the village of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:5, Jude 1:7) because of their homosexual behavior. This fear of God’s wrath has even seeped into contemporary politics. As recent as this November, the conservative people of the country have come together to “salvage the sanctity of marriage.” This terminology alone is fundamentally wrong, due to the fact that “sanctity” is a religious concept. The fact that politicians have taken a liking to openly employing this jargon is reflective of a lack of adherence to the concept of the separation between church and states in the conservative sectors. Ann Ferguson sheds light on conservative anti-gay sentiment when she says,
There are religious objections that religious conservatives put forth by citing thousands of years of tradition of heterosexual-only marriage and interpreting passages in the bible. Most of these passages detail the complimentary gender roles that are ‘natural’ and god-given for women and men in heterosexual families, the biological procreative function intended by God in marriage, and the sinful nature of homosexual sex.
Ferguson is stating that the main point of marriage is to reproduce and to fulfill the intentions of God in the eyes of many conservative critics. In short, anti- gay marriage sentiment among American political conservatives is often tied to biblical explanations of the abomination of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.
Along with religious notions, many same-sex critics argue that they cannot morally accept gay marriage. Robert Knight, a conservative gay marriage critic, states, “[Gay] [marriage] would violate freedom of religion because people in civil society would have to tolerate as moral what their religion tells them is immoral” (Ferguson 5). If we were to apply Knight’s rationale on a bigger scale, then the country would have to outlaw any and every aspect of life that contradicts his or someone else’s religion. Knight’s statement is a contradiction within itself. He is utilizing that law in order to place it where it best fits his cause. The constitution allows freedom of religion and this in turn is what gives Knight the liberty to make this statement. Morality does not relate to marriage since it is legally a civil matter. Whereas anti-gay proponents argue that gay marriage is morally and religiously unacceptable, gay rights activists combat these notions stating that it is a matter of civil rights. In the twenty first century, American heterosexual married couples enjoy many benefits that homosexual partners have no access to. The Hawaiian Supreme Court case, Baehr v. Lewin, outlines a list of marital privileges:
1. a variety of state income tax advantages, including deductions, credits, rates, exemptions and estimates;
2. public assistance from and exemptions relating to the Department of Human Services;
3. control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property;
4. rights relating to dowry, courtesy, and inheritance (Egan 5).
These marital privileges would greatly benefit gay couples and the entire economy would also receive a boost.
Gay marriage activists argue the importance of allowing all people in the United States to obtain civil rights in order to maintain the validity of the Bill of Rights. In order to remain a democratic nation, religion should not factor into any laws. Every citizen is offered many liberties, but Ferguson states, “one common argument for gay marriage is that government denial of the legal right to gay marriage deprives gays and lesbians of access to the social sanction and status that marriage confers, and hence to full adulthood, rights to familial or joint property and inheritance rights, and full citizenship” (Ferguson 1). If gay and lesbian adults cannot marry whom they choose, they are not being treated as adults under the law or even as citizens. In order to be considered a full citizen, the individual should obtain all rights established in our country’s Bill of Rights. In these times of economic hardship, gay marriage would provide a much-needed boost to our floundering economy. In Christine Halverson’s, Gay Marriage Makes Cents, she elucidates the fact that allowing gay marriage would bring in revenue to various struggling companies and the government. Halverson estimates that “legalizing gay marriage would lead to an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion” (Halverson 1). If these are substantial estimations in government revenue, then it seems only logical to overturn an outdated and heavily religious law. In basic terms of revenue, the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reported 601,209 unmarried same-sex partner households in the United States living in 99.3% of all counties in the nation. If same-sex marriage was legalized, then there are potentially 601,209 weddings that would contribute revenue to a sluggish economy. Halverson continues to express the magnitude of income lost with the banning of gay marriage as she states, “According to Bride's Magazine, the average wedding costs $19,000. Two hundred-fifty thousand more marriages at the average wedding rate would result in wedding costs of $4.75 billion! Mind you, this doesn't include the amount spent on wedding gifts. As a bonus, the first states to allow gay marriage will likely experience an influx of tourism and tourist-related economic activity” (Halverson 1). Legal fees, wedding cost, and all the way to simple small businesses like florists would find a boost in business and revenue. The natural reaction for a capitalist country is to find ways to create revenue, and gay marriage has the potential to quickly redirect the direction of the economy. Gay marriages would mirror the common trend in marriage; divorce. Halverson states, “For some marriages there is even the coup de grâce: divorce. As the majority of divorcés will tell you-the most expensive part of getting into a marriage is getting out. While divorces can range anywhere from several hundred dollars to millions, divorce is a multi-billion dollar-a-year industry. Assuming that gay couples divorce at the same rate as heterosexual ones” (Halverson 1). Regardless of morality, religion, or acceptance, gay marriage would fulfill a multitude of dilemmas. The revenue gay marriage would produce could help stop the downward spiral of the current economy.
In relation to all the positive outcomes of gay marriage, there is also chance of falling into a catch 22. Gays and lesbians have fought to assert their sexual identity in a society that is historically heterosexist. Could the enactment of gay marriage stifle their sexual identities? In order to answer this question one must define the concept of marriage as an institution. Michel Foucault expresses the dramatic implications of marriage when he states, “There are two great systems conceived by the West for governing sex: the law of marriage and the order of desires…” (Foucault 685). Thus by the 19th century, marriage was used to promote order and prevent ‘deviant’ acts such as polygamy. Marriage was also viewed as an organizing institution meant to also reproduce the efficiency of capitalist regimes (Horkheimer and Adorno 2000). As factories perfected the set-up and implementation of assembly lines, marriage was viewed as a tool, which could perfect order and efficiency in the home. The woman maintained the role of home keeper while the men took on the role of the breadwinner. Thus marriage played out the power dynamics from market economy ideology. Although politically and economically gay marriage can be seen as liberating, the institution of marriage confines two people to a structured power balance. Gays and lesbians will be placed into a culture that will divert the relationship towards what Foucault calls “the machinery of power” (Foucault 687). Degan also states, “while, gay marriage may appear to play the subversive role of challenging the institution of marriage, in actuality, it is rationalized by conforming to this institutional norm and invoking the language and logic of political economy to defend its position” (Egan 5). Thus regardless of whom it unites, marriage like most other institutions forces people to play out certain roles that at times can pose a challenge to their other formulated identities. Some theorists go further to explore the potential of marriage being divisive in the homosexual community. Ferguson states, “…Butler raises the poststructuralist concern that the discourse of gay marriage may be another way of disciplining the queer community so as to create a new hierarchy— the socially acceptable gay married versus the queer abjected Others, whose chosen kin and sexual practices continue to be despised” (Ferguson 7). For example, if gay marriage is allowed, the homosexuals who get married will extract themselves from the gay community and be one step closer to heteronormative ideals. Perhaps other gays and lesbians will be categorized as nonconformist and continue to be viewed as deviants by the homosexuals who have married. Another potential conflict could be the pressure to marry. If gay marriage is allowed, many homosexuals might succumb to the pressure to conform to the institution of marriage and become like their heterosexual counterparts and marry because it is what is expected of them.
In conclusion, gay marriage will remain a heavily debated topic for some time, regardless of the outcome. When speaking of gay marriage one must remove oneself from traditional views of marriage. Gay marriage is a political battle that has been pulled into judgment from a religious and moral lens, but the truth of the matter is that it should be solely a political matter. Civil rights are really what is at stake when confronting the issue of gay marriage. Americans find it intrusive to have the word God in the pledge of allegiance, but can live with the word God on our currency. We cannot haphazardly decide what should have religious implications in our society; rather the separation between church and state should be delineated more clearly. Civil rights are guaranteed to all citizens of America and at this time we are denying many Americans their basic civil rights with no other argument than that of religion and morality. Furthermore our country is reporting record losses and grim predictions of the future of our economic status. Homosexual couples are willing to pay whatever it takes to gain legal marriage status. As a country we need to place personal beliefs and morality to the side for the good of Americans and its economy. Gay marriage would become a business within itself. There would be a boom in jobs and revenue that could administer a much-needed boost in the economy. We as a people have come too far to continue to deny human beings basic civil rights and at the cost of millions of dollars on top of that as well. Although there are concrete political and economic justifications for gay marriage, the homosexual community must be weary of what they are fighting for. Marriage has the power to institutionalize its patrons. Marriage has been historically known as a power structure created to impose rules and regulations on sex and debauchery. The basic Mr. and Mrs. implications of Master and Property of Master are still heavily visible within the institution of marriage. The gay community has to contend that they do not succumb to assimilation into an institution that forces people to take a role within the relationship, society, and internally. This may also create a division within a community that will be detrimental to the cohesiveness of the movement. Overall, I think gay marriage must be allowed and made into a law. It is only common sense and legally there is no solid, comprehensive reason as to why this community should be denied this right. It is a blatant denial of a basic right to all citizens and to continue to deny the Gay and Lesbian community marriage, we as a nation have taken several leaps backwards in our fundamental belief that all men/women are created equal. Like the word God to the religious and progress to liberals, these words are an irrevocable part of American national identity.
Works cited:
Egan, Kevin D. Reason’s Bondage: On the Rationalization of Sexuality. University Park: Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, 2005.
Ferguson, Ann. Gay Marriage: an American and Feminist dilemma. Indian: University Press, 2007.
Foucault, Michael. The History of Sex. Webct.Csun,edu. Handout 683-691.
Halverson, Christine. Gay Marriage Makes Cents. About.com: Economics.2004
http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage.htm
Engl. 313
Professor Wexler
Final Paper
America views itself as a country established on the principle of providing civil rights for all people. Theoretically our country claims that “all men are created equal” but the road to egalitarianism has gotten off to quite an inauspicious start. One contemporary issue that exemplifies this is gay marriage. Both sides in the debate of whether or not to allow gay marriage in the United States provide logical arguments. Conservatives assert the importance of keeping the foundation of the family intact in order to keep the country “healthy,” but liberals contest there must remain a separation of state and church. Marriage itself is too complex to fully define in one way or another. Yet, our nation’s government has found it fit to step in and decide whether or not marriage should be deemed solely for heterosexual couples. Whether for or against, there are various factors that must be examined in order to fully comprehend the severity of banning gay marriage by governmental law. This essay asserts that gay marriage should be allowed because of political and economic reasons but it also examines the potential harm that could result from embracing another form of institutionalization. Politically, gay marriage has faced many battles. American politics has been firmly rooted in the separation of church and state but when it comes to gay marriage this dichotomy becomes less apparent. Perhaps this is attributed to the United States’ long history of puritanical beliefs. Many religions deem homosexuality as morally wrong and deviant. In Judeo-Christian text, God is said to have punished the village of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:5, Jude 1:7) because of their homosexual behavior. This fear of God’s wrath has even seeped into contemporary politics. As recent as this November, the conservative people of the country have come together to “salvage the sanctity of marriage.” This terminology alone is fundamentally wrong, due to the fact that “sanctity” is a religious concept. The fact that politicians have taken a liking to openly employing this jargon is reflective of a lack of adherence to the concept of the separation between church and states in the conservative sectors. Ann Ferguson sheds light on conservative anti-gay sentiment when she says,
There are religious objections that religious conservatives put forth by citing thousands of years of tradition of heterosexual-only marriage and interpreting passages in the bible. Most of these passages detail the complimentary gender roles that are ‘natural’ and god-given for women and men in heterosexual families, the biological procreative function intended by God in marriage, and the sinful nature of homosexual sex.
Ferguson is stating that the main point of marriage is to reproduce and to fulfill the intentions of God in the eyes of many conservative critics. In short, anti- gay marriage sentiment among American political conservatives is often tied to biblical explanations of the abomination of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.
Along with religious notions, many same-sex critics argue that they cannot morally accept gay marriage. Robert Knight, a conservative gay marriage critic, states, “[Gay] [marriage] would violate freedom of religion because people in civil society would have to tolerate as moral what their religion tells them is immoral” (Ferguson 5). If we were to apply Knight’s rationale on a bigger scale, then the country would have to outlaw any and every aspect of life that contradicts his or someone else’s religion. Knight’s statement is a contradiction within itself. He is utilizing that law in order to place it where it best fits his cause. The constitution allows freedom of religion and this in turn is what gives Knight the liberty to make this statement. Morality does not relate to marriage since it is legally a civil matter. Whereas anti-gay proponents argue that gay marriage is morally and religiously unacceptable, gay rights activists combat these notions stating that it is a matter of civil rights. In the twenty first century, American heterosexual married couples enjoy many benefits that homosexual partners have no access to. The Hawaiian Supreme Court case, Baehr v. Lewin, outlines a list of marital privileges:
1. a variety of state income tax advantages, including deductions, credits, rates, exemptions and estimates;
2. public assistance from and exemptions relating to the Department of Human Services;
3. control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property;
4. rights relating to dowry, courtesy, and inheritance (Egan 5).
These marital privileges would greatly benefit gay couples and the entire economy would also receive a boost.
Gay marriage activists argue the importance of allowing all people in the United States to obtain civil rights in order to maintain the validity of the Bill of Rights. In order to remain a democratic nation, religion should not factor into any laws. Every citizen is offered many liberties, but Ferguson states, “one common argument for gay marriage is that government denial of the legal right to gay marriage deprives gays and lesbians of access to the social sanction and status that marriage confers, and hence to full adulthood, rights to familial or joint property and inheritance rights, and full citizenship” (Ferguson 1). If gay and lesbian adults cannot marry whom they choose, they are not being treated as adults under the law or even as citizens. In order to be considered a full citizen, the individual should obtain all rights established in our country’s Bill of Rights. In these times of economic hardship, gay marriage would provide a much-needed boost to our floundering economy. In Christine Halverson’s, Gay Marriage Makes Cents, she elucidates the fact that allowing gay marriage would bring in revenue to various struggling companies and the government. Halverson estimates that “legalizing gay marriage would lead to an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion” (Halverson 1). If these are substantial estimations in government revenue, then it seems only logical to overturn an outdated and heavily religious law. In basic terms of revenue, the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reported 601,209 unmarried same-sex partner households in the United States living in 99.3% of all counties in the nation. If same-sex marriage was legalized, then there are potentially 601,209 weddings that would contribute revenue to a sluggish economy. Halverson continues to express the magnitude of income lost with the banning of gay marriage as she states, “According to Bride's Magazine, the average wedding costs $19,000. Two hundred-fifty thousand more marriages at the average wedding rate would result in wedding costs of $4.75 billion! Mind you, this doesn't include the amount spent on wedding gifts. As a bonus, the first states to allow gay marriage will likely experience an influx of tourism and tourist-related economic activity” (Halverson 1). Legal fees, wedding cost, and all the way to simple small businesses like florists would find a boost in business and revenue. The natural reaction for a capitalist country is to find ways to create revenue, and gay marriage has the potential to quickly redirect the direction of the economy. Gay marriages would mirror the common trend in marriage; divorce. Halverson states, “For some marriages there is even the coup de grâce: divorce. As the majority of divorcés will tell you-the most expensive part of getting into a marriage is getting out. While divorces can range anywhere from several hundred dollars to millions, divorce is a multi-billion dollar-a-year industry. Assuming that gay couples divorce at the same rate as heterosexual ones” (Halverson 1). Regardless of morality, religion, or acceptance, gay marriage would fulfill a multitude of dilemmas. The revenue gay marriage would produce could help stop the downward spiral of the current economy.
In relation to all the positive outcomes of gay marriage, there is also chance of falling into a catch 22. Gays and lesbians have fought to assert their sexual identity in a society that is historically heterosexist. Could the enactment of gay marriage stifle their sexual identities? In order to answer this question one must define the concept of marriage as an institution. Michel Foucault expresses the dramatic implications of marriage when he states, “There are two great systems conceived by the West for governing sex: the law of marriage and the order of desires…” (Foucault 685). Thus by the 19th century, marriage was used to promote order and prevent ‘deviant’ acts such as polygamy. Marriage was also viewed as an organizing institution meant to also reproduce the efficiency of capitalist regimes (Horkheimer and Adorno 2000). As factories perfected the set-up and implementation of assembly lines, marriage was viewed as a tool, which could perfect order and efficiency in the home. The woman maintained the role of home keeper while the men took on the role of the breadwinner. Thus marriage played out the power dynamics from market economy ideology. Although politically and economically gay marriage can be seen as liberating, the institution of marriage confines two people to a structured power balance. Gays and lesbians will be placed into a culture that will divert the relationship towards what Foucault calls “the machinery of power” (Foucault 687). Degan also states, “while, gay marriage may appear to play the subversive role of challenging the institution of marriage, in actuality, it is rationalized by conforming to this institutional norm and invoking the language and logic of political economy to defend its position” (Egan 5). Thus regardless of whom it unites, marriage like most other institutions forces people to play out certain roles that at times can pose a challenge to their other formulated identities. Some theorists go further to explore the potential of marriage being divisive in the homosexual community. Ferguson states, “…Butler raises the poststructuralist concern that the discourse of gay marriage may be another way of disciplining the queer community so as to create a new hierarchy— the socially acceptable gay married versus the queer abjected Others, whose chosen kin and sexual practices continue to be despised” (Ferguson 7). For example, if gay marriage is allowed, the homosexuals who get married will extract themselves from the gay community and be one step closer to heteronormative ideals. Perhaps other gays and lesbians will be categorized as nonconformist and continue to be viewed as deviants by the homosexuals who have married. Another potential conflict could be the pressure to marry. If gay marriage is allowed, many homosexuals might succumb to the pressure to conform to the institution of marriage and become like their heterosexual counterparts and marry because it is what is expected of them.
In conclusion, gay marriage will remain a heavily debated topic for some time, regardless of the outcome. When speaking of gay marriage one must remove oneself from traditional views of marriage. Gay marriage is a political battle that has been pulled into judgment from a religious and moral lens, but the truth of the matter is that it should be solely a political matter. Civil rights are really what is at stake when confronting the issue of gay marriage. Americans find it intrusive to have the word God in the pledge of allegiance, but can live with the word God on our currency. We cannot haphazardly decide what should have religious implications in our society; rather the separation between church and state should be delineated more clearly. Civil rights are guaranteed to all citizens of America and at this time we are denying many Americans their basic civil rights with no other argument than that of religion and morality. Furthermore our country is reporting record losses and grim predictions of the future of our economic status. Homosexual couples are willing to pay whatever it takes to gain legal marriage status. As a country we need to place personal beliefs and morality to the side for the good of Americans and its economy. Gay marriage would become a business within itself. There would be a boom in jobs and revenue that could administer a much-needed boost in the economy. We as a people have come too far to continue to deny human beings basic civil rights and at the cost of millions of dollars on top of that as well. Although there are concrete political and economic justifications for gay marriage, the homosexual community must be weary of what they are fighting for. Marriage has the power to institutionalize its patrons. Marriage has been historically known as a power structure created to impose rules and regulations on sex and debauchery. The basic Mr. and Mrs. implications of Master and Property of Master are still heavily visible within the institution of marriage. The gay community has to contend that they do not succumb to assimilation into an institution that forces people to take a role within the relationship, society, and internally. This may also create a division within a community that will be detrimental to the cohesiveness of the movement. Overall, I think gay marriage must be allowed and made into a law. It is only common sense and legally there is no solid, comprehensive reason as to why this community should be denied this right. It is a blatant denial of a basic right to all citizens and to continue to deny the Gay and Lesbian community marriage, we as a nation have taken several leaps backwards in our fundamental belief that all men/women are created equal. Like the word God to the religious and progress to liberals, these words are an irrevocable part of American national identity.
Works cited:
Egan, Kevin D. Reason’s Bondage: On the Rationalization of Sexuality. University Park: Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, 2005.
Ferguson, Ann. Gay Marriage: an American and Feminist dilemma. Indian: University Press, 2007.
Foucault, Michael. The History of Sex. Webct.Csun,edu. Handout 683-691.
Halverson, Christine. Gay Marriage Makes Cents. About.com: Economics.2004
http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage.htm
Monday, November 17, 2008
The most enlightening five minutes of television.....EVER!
There are many factors involved in making this the most enlightening five minutes of television. The creators of South Park were able to use humor with facts in order to elucidate the truth behind one of the most controversial topic of our times. They have utilized satire to connect to various audiences and allows the viewer to find fact and humor in the clip.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Annie Hall is not a Sex Comedy, but ............?
Ricardo Alvarez
English 313
Professor Wexler
October 14, 2008
Response Paper
There are complex films with dense plots, but all can eventually be placed within a certain genre. Each film seems to follow a formula close to historical make-up of these films. In order to examine the structure of a film genre, one must know the history of film and how it incorporates the social climates of the current times. In McDonald’s Romantic Comedy, he states both of these factors as contributors to the direction of the genre. In examining the film, Annie Hall, there were several factors that could have placed this movie into an awkward grey zone. Woody Allen has a style that can umbrella over several genres, but Annie Hall elucidates a need for love and relationship with aspects of the Sex Comedy, gender role reversal, and social commentary.
McDonald states there are several elements needed to call a film a sex comedy, such as people suffer under their intoxication— passion or emotion— behave like idiots. In Annie Hall, Woody Allen’s character, Alvy, is intoxicated with Annie. He is falls in love with her extreme contrast in personality and loses his cynical guard that he employs in his everyday life. Due to Allen’s intoxication, his character goes through some typical high jinks trying to express his love for Annie. This film was made in between the high points of the genre. Its 1977 release date places it in the middle of the birth and resurgence of the genre. The film does not fit all of McDonald’s criteria for a film to be considered a Sex Comedy, but this is mainly due to the strong gender role reversal.
In Annie Hall, the view is greeted with Woody Allen speaking directly to the camera giving a social commentary. His character is neurotic and very cynical, but is always thinking of female counter-parts. In contrast the film has Annie, she appears to be a free spirited woman who is enjoying all aspects of life and does not have as many personal conflicts as Alvy does. As the film plays out, the couple has trouble in their sex life. Annie coupes with her sexual frustration with drugs as Alvy plead for her to refrain from drug use and see a therapist like he does. Men are usually the one expected to be carefree and do haphazard things in order to make life easier. The character of Annie is secure with herself as a person and feels she is enjoying life as thoroughly as possible, somewhat taking the typical male role in a relationship. Alvy on the other hand is nervous and concerned the relationship will end due to their differences and seeks help from a therapist. Simone de Beauvoir writes, “thus humanity is male and man defines women not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being.” With in this film, Alvy’s character would not fit in as a “typical” male due to his passiveness of the females in his life. He had two ex-wives and Annie also seems to grow tired of Alvy and no longer needs him in her life; she is independent of any need for him in her life. All of these women are not defined by Alvy as a man, but contrast his passive unusual male characteristics.
In all media, viewers see influences of the social climate interweaved into the usual criteria for its genre. In Annie Hall, there is a lot of commentary of life being cruel and art allowing life to play out more happily. Alvy’s character is distressed throughout the entire film due to his uncertainty with himself in a changing world, and contrast between the world he is accustoming to and the evolving world. His struggles led him to the point of loneliness and he begins to see the contrast of locations more drastically. Annie leaves to live in Los Angeles and Alvy goes after her to win her back. He finds the environment fitting to Annie’s personality, but he thinks that New York is a better place for them. There is also a heavy influence of drugs in the film. At the time of the film, drugs are past its taboo and are integrated into the movie to express the contrast of people who use or don’t. Annie uses drugs to enhance her sensation of freedom, but Alvy refrains due to his concern of his self-image as “unhip” or too old. The time frame of this film is right at the beginning of the free living cocaine 80’s that are depicted in the Los Angeles scenes.
Annie Hall is a classic film that incorporates several factors of the Sex Comedy, gender role reversal, and social commentary. Woody Allen is well know for his cynical outlook on life and humanity, and utilizes this in his films mood and direction. Viewers are invite to view life through the lenses of a cynic, but also find his belief that art can allow life to play out as one may hope. Allen uses humor to guise pain and confusion, but this scenario may be as organic a human condition as possible.
Work Cited
Allen, Woody. Annie Hall. MGM.1977.
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. Vintage Books. 1949.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. The Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. Wallflower Press.2007
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Comedy de Sexo...
McDonald lays out the three key events that led to the sex comedy:
1. Alfred Kinsey's report on Sexual Behavior in the human female. This was released in 1948 and stirred things up. It stated that half the women in the country are having unmarried sex. He interviewed 5,940 unmarried white 30-year-old women and over half were having sex.
2. The new climate of anxiety and excitement over sexuality, both in men and women. The magazine Playboy first published in 1953 and was dedicated to enjoy a range of sensual pleasure;... Playboy was happy to pursue a resolutely urban line, celebrating indoor activities of which sex was the only one.
3. The release of the film, The Moon is Blue.
All of these factors contributed to the creation of the sex comedy genre. The films seem innocennt at the times, but what impact did it have on the affirmation of gender roles. McDonald later writes about the shift or reversal of roles, but it still demeans the woman. Simone de Beauvoir wrote, "To decline to be the Other, to refuse to be a party to the deal – this would be for women to renounce all the advantages conferred upon them by their alliance with the superior caste."
This is reflected in the films when the female role has to switch to correspond with the "mood" of the male. The female in these movies is always the "Other."
In arguement to the first statement, it could also be argued that the sex comedy just portrays the changes in real life. If women are more sexually open, then why not make films that portray this. There is nothing overtly radical there.
But to play Devil's advocate again, in both scenarios, the woman is still portrayed as a "slave" to the man. Whether it's the woman wanting or avoiding sex, it still depicts the woman as the one chasing.
Regardless, it was interesting to see the historical context of the Sex Comedy and realize that it's been around longer than I had imagined. I guess when I heard Sex Comedy, I automatically thought over the top sex, like Porky's. Good article.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Desayuno at Tiffany's
Great book. The group that presented prompted a lot of great discussion questions. Good job people.
I think there was a lot of ambiguity like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Capote seems to place Holly's character into an awkward situation for the times and the social setting. We find her somewhat lost in life-- some may say she knew exactly what she was doing, but did she really? There are many other characters that Capote places into not "normal" roles. We have the bartender who comes off as being gay, the narrator who seems to not be sure what he is ( asexual? metrosexual? gay?) who knows, and Capote utilizes all of them to elucidate to the fact that people can not be categorized.
Another aspect to examine could be the view that Holly Golightly is a representation of Truman Capote in American society at the times. We see Holly as a person who is afraid of being held down and constrained by life. Holly also represents a character who portrays one thing, but is experiencing another thing. Capote at the times would be frowned upon and would either have to restrict who he was or be open and be looked upon as a manifestation of homosexuality. This is a great connection between the two, Holly and Capote, and also ties into what Prof. Wexler told us Prof. Andrews said. Andrews said to read the story with Holly as a gay man. Makes sense now...
Ethnography
So, I had planned on going to the Peet's near my place in Westwood. Before I could go, my lovely girlfriend informed me that I was going to take her to the dentist and blah blah blah. So, here I am at the dentist office on Ventura in Encino. We were in the waiting room with a woman with a small child, and a young couple. Score. I was trying to listen to their convo and was preoccupied so my GF accused me of being distracted by the female of the young couple across from us. I explained the task at hand and here we go. I hid my observant face with an issue of ESPN the Mag and I love people who think they're whispering, but they're NOT! So I could hear their entire convo.
They had to be in their early 20s and seemed to be in a higher socioeconomic area then my GF and me. They had on all kinds of fancy name brand clothing on, and the male was spinning a Benz key on his finger as his GF was talking to him. She was telling him that it's not ok for him not to LET her go out with her friends. She was upset because she wanted to go out that night, but he responded that he doesn't like her to go out with her "slutty" friends. She was offended with his comment. His body language was totally disengaged. He was looking the other way as he spoke to her and she was staring right at him with a look of sadness and genuine concern. He never really seemed to break his position.
She tried another time and asked what evidence he had to prove her friends were "sluts." He responded the way they dress and act. (Pretty vague, huh?). At this point she turned away and they he was called in a bit later. They went in and were gone a bit. My girlfriend came out before them and I didn't get to see the outcome of this one-sided quarrel.
It was weird to see them, first they obviously were younger than my girlfriend and I, but definetly had a lot more money. They seemed to be in a totally different relationship too. The male in that relationship seemed to really control the female. Everything she said was shot down with a rude, and short answer. End of discussion for her. The only closure to the interaction may have been that they held hands going into the back. Maybe she knew this was a no-win battle for her. Who knows, but thats what I observed and wow, no thanks. I wouldn't want a partner who is going to do everything I say or allow me to control her. Yuk! Maybe its their age bracket. Who knows, but I hope she went out with her "slutty" friends. Word!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)