Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think you very effectively put into words one of the unavoidable downsides of the presentation. I have actually seen one of Ursula’s sculptures in person- although I didn’t realize it was hers before the presentation- by walking past it dozens of times outside the Barclays Center. I think that the aspect of having seen the sculptures in person definitely changed my perception of them. I don’t think the photo did full justice to how massive the sculpture outside of the Barclays Center is, and there’s definitely just an unspoken difference between seeing a sculpture on a screen and seeing it towering over you. On another note, I found it very humorous that as she was talking about the bad air quality of that intersection staining the sculpture black, I remembered how I had seen it being cleaned just a few days ago, when I was in Brooklyn to visit family. Although I am struggling to fully find the words, I do agree about the importance of seeing sculptures in person. I can’t explain how different the presentation felt once I knew I had seen Usula’s works in person, and how much more vivid and lively it made the rest of her works suddenly seem.
@Jane Ekhtman
I like that you mentioned Christy’s camcorder. I think that you’re right, it does serve to show her point of view in many of these situations. The other method I saw her perspective represented through is her three wishes she believes she has from her brother’s angel. These three wishes, and the scarcity with which they’re used, indirectly shows the audience what Christy values. She uses her first wish to “save” the family’s rent money at the street-fair game, by wishing that her father’s throw would be accurate. This shows that she’s perhaps inherited some of her father’s more logical focus on money and safety. In her wish, however, we also see a contrast between her POV and her father’s. Her father is the one arguably acting like a child- he gambles their rent money and doesn’t seem to be able to stop himself in the game. Christy’s POV is the more “mature” one, desperately hoping the game ends with her family keeping their money, and using one of her wishes to that extent. It’s a strange shift in perspective, from what we usually see in the movie. I think, however, Christy also clearly values her family and their emotions, and we also see a POV which is very family oriented. She uses her final wish for her father, asking Frankie to let him “say goodbye” and move on. In an extremely touching moment, we see the way Christy has always valued her family first, and places her father’s emotional wellbeing above anything else the wish could be used for. By letting us see what Christy uses her wishes for, the movie does a great job of presenting her point of view to the audience.@Coryweng
That’s a great point, the father’s performance was very touching. I especially think as such because it’s clear that the father still hasn’t processed some of the grief over his son’s death, so his moments of sudden emotion with his family are both sentimental, and a contrast to the lack of emotion, or uncontrolled emotions, he shows in some other areas of the film. Another moment which struck me as very showing of Johnny as a character was the seen at the street fair, where we see him waste some of the family’s precious earned money trying to win a prize for his daughters. The scene is painful to watch at first, both because of the daughters’ blind excitement and trust- they still believe their father cannot lose- and the father’s desperation at what should be a fun game, when he realizes he is losing more and not winning. It’s a sign that quite literally he feels as though he can’t provide for his family, in more ways than a carnival toy. The scene eventually comes to a head when Johnny puts down their entire month’s rent to win the previously spent money back and get the doll, which I think shows Johnny’s extreme desperation in the moment, and as a whole. What started as a two dollar game for a doll has become their entire housing for the month on the table. Similarly, I think that Johnny’s acting career may have started the same way- he feels as if he’s in too far now to give up, and refuses to let go of his dreams in front of his family. He’s a fascinating character, and it’s a very well done performance.I think that the setting, of the 1970s in New York, is very influential to the story, not necessarily just to shape the experiences the family endures, but also to serve as a backdrop to amplify what they experience. For example, we see the Sullivan family arriving and getting their apartment in Manhattan, where they live in poverty. As we know from Let The Great World Spin, the 1970s were a time of economic crisis for New York. The housing market was starting to sink, and many jobs which used to provide middle class wealth were shrinking. The Sullivan family’s experiences in their cramped tenement is far from abnormal. As well as the apartment, we see the environment of New York in the 1970s echoed by the tenants within the apartment complex. There’s Mateo, the photographer suffering from AIDs, the nameless drug addicts above and below the family’s apartment, and the crossdresser (Or transgender woman) implied to be a prostitute. All of these characters fit into a larger scene of New York. The AIDS epidemic wasn’t quite beginning in the 1970s, but would rapidly expand only a few short years later, eventually rising to dominate American minds and fears in the 1980s. Along with Mateo, we see many drug addicts throughout the film, usually in the background of the family’s life. Like we saw in Let The Great World Spin, drugs were far more widespread in the 1970s than they are today. Heroin, Jazzlyn’s vice, was among these, and is seemingly present in symptoms of the drug addicts who are shown on screen, with sunken, yellowed eyes, and track marks on their arms. Along with drugs, we see another connection to Tillie and Jazzlyn: The transvestite implied to be a prostitute living in the building. As discussed by many groups in our class presentations, prostitution in the 1970s was a thriving business. With a very clear link to that sexual freedom, open sexual and gender identity began to become more mainstream in the 1970s, along with a small but rising acceptance of transgender and non-conforming individuals. Recent documentaries and shows have began to study this cultural shift, such the documentary “Paris is Burning” (1990), which chronicles the transgender black communities in New York in the 1970s through the later end of the century.
In short, the backdrop of the 1970s serves to remind us that what the Sullivan family experiences isn’t an isolated event, and is only one of a thousand stories like it.
(c. 410 words)I like your description of Claire as a “remarkable, empathetic” character. I think you’re right. She is extremely privileged, and very naive about what others endure. However, despite this ignorance, she has a genuinely good heart, and doesn’t want anyone to suffer. One thing that struck me throughout the chapter narrated by Claire is that she always, genuinely, has the best intentions at heart- any offense or hurt she causes is authentically accidental. For example, when she offers Gloria to be her maid. This is a very racially charged suggestion, and offers a level of venom towards Gloria, which can be interpreted by her as the fact Claire will never see her as anything other than a maid. In reality, however, we know this isn’t the case. We know Claire would have offered a white woman in Gloria’s position the same offer (Or at least, we have great confidence she would), race never factors into Claire’s mind. But that’s exactly the epitome of her privilege; She is allowed to not take race into account. Her experiences make it so that she never has to consider the finer points of racism, only the glaring examples, like her father.
But despite all of that, we, as readers, feel vaguely fond towards Claire. It would be so easy for her to simply embrace her father’s ideals or never socialize with those of lower classes than her. Her choice to struggle and try to make other’s lives easier, although she may go about it in the wrong way, endears us to her.I think your character analysis of Lara is a very solid one- she is the very representation of a middle class trying to handle a culture made of excessiveness. While she first indulges fully in this excessiveness, with the partying and the drugs, she eventually convinces herself she needs to change. As we see however, rather than find the middle ground between materialism and spirituality, she just swings the pendulum back the opposite direction, giving up everything and going to to live in the woods. While on the surface, this life would seem to make her happy (She was unhappy with the excessiveness, so she’ll be happy with the total lack of excess), the country life she imagined is actually just as hollow as the partying. Her and Blaine may have convinced themselves they’re spiritual gurus, tapped into an artistic Nirvana, but the car crash and it’s aftermath rips that veil from Lara’s eyes. She suddenly sees what’s actually happening- when the rain ruins their paintings and Blaine doesn’t care, she realizes that their artistic process has always been a lie, and when Blaine speeds away from the consequences of his actions, she realizes that their life together, too, is a lie.
@Chris Wow, I completely glossed over the symbolism for Christ in the book, thanks for bringing that up. I don’t entirely believe Corrigan literally sees himself as Jesus, since that would be blasphemy, but I think he is going to great lengths to try to personify him. To add another layer to that symbolism for Christ, for all of my Christians in the class, the Bible goes to a lot of depth to say that Jesus was fully human, but also fully divine, perhaps making him another perfect metaphor for Corrigan’s simultaneous near-divine patience and generosity, but fully human flaws. He is extremely giving to all the prostitutes, risking beatings and even death to offer them smallest kindness like coffee, or his bathroom. But, as his brother and the book also point out at many points, Corrigan is also very flawed as a person. He doesn’t let himself get close to his brother, and locks the people closest to him out of his life. He is a very two-sided person, which, exactly like you said, leads to his hypocrisy with being judgmental and non-judgmental at the same time.
@Jane Ekhtman, I think you have a very interesting point by comparing Corrigan and Claire. They do have a lot of similarities, but I wanted to disagree about the idea that they’re both born “well-off.” Assuming my mental math for the time is accurate, Corrigan is born Catholic in late 20th century Ireland, which is absolutely not a position of privilege. With the tightrope walker providing a concrete date- 1974- we know that Corrigan’s homeland is currently consumed in The Troubles, an extremely violent conflict in Ireland between religions and nationalities (Which rose from English Protestant “unionists” oppressing Irish Catholic “nationalists”). Since Corrigan is Catholic, the “rebellious” side of the conflict, which was targeted both by the Protestant class and the UK government, he can be considered an oppressed minority in his home country. Additionally, since we see his mother surviving off a once-a-week check from their father with no further assistance or money, it’s safe to say they’re not economically well off, either. I think this highlights the way that it’s easy to fall into an American-centric view, since Corrigan is white, he must be privileged. This isn’t to say he isn’t racially privileged in his new home, America, but it’s definitely not accurate to say he’s privileged in his home country, or grew up with privilege. Looking back on it, this may be exactly why he relates to personally to the prostitutes- although he doesn’t understand African-American suffering, he does understand being an oppressed minority in some form.
I didn’t pay much special attention to that scene, or that theme throughout the movie, when first watching it. However, with your post analysis, I want to go back and re-watch it just to find more details. Paul is absolutely a rushed man, which is ironic considering that for all that he’s rushing ahead, he’s actually still stuck in the past- on his wife’s death. I think his hurried state is a sign of his personal attempts to distract himself- to move fast enough and work to exhaustion often enough that he has no time for thoughts which cause him sorrow. Auggie and Aunt M’s reminders to slow down, however, are the points in the movie where Paul finally embraces his emotions- crying at his wife’s picture in Auggie’s store, and finally having a heart to heart with Rashid.
I think this theme of slowing down is also connected to the real world- although we lack the ability to physically slow time, it’s astounding how much we can slow our perception of time down just by focusing on our surroundings. What feels like five minutes when engrossed in a mobile game can stretch into an hour when you’re watching those around you. New Yorkers, it seems, do have time travel abilities- just not in the way you’d think.I agree completely, the relationship between Paul and Rashid is very symbolic of a lot of the core messages of the movie. What I also found interesting about their relationship was the way that their friendship and kindness towards each other ends up allowing both of them to heal. In Paul’s case, with the tragic death of his wife and his unborn child, we get the feeling from very early on in the movie that he is deeply lonely. He speaks to Auggie like he hasn’t spoken to anyone else for a while, and his breakdown over the photo of his wife suggests that at the very least, he has no allowed himself to process her death. I think in many ways, having Rashid in his apartment- which we can assume has been sitting mostly empty since his family died- is already a physical step towards positive change for him. We also see, through those caring acts you mention, Paul start to become more of the man which it was suggested he was to begin with- a writer who speaks freely and experiences emotions in full, instead of purposefully isolating himself from them. On the other hand, although I admit most of this is in subtext, it seems like Rashid is also improved through his friendship with Paul. We know that he has been mixed up in some less than preferable crowds in the past, the source of the stolen 5,000$. But as the movie develops, Rashid goes from very preoccupied with that money, to slowly rebuilding his life. He goes to find his father, which brings closure about his childhood and his mother’s death. He also gets a job with Auggie, thanks to Paul, and eventually ends up passing the guilty 5,000$ on, a symbol of him departing from his previous lifestyle. In many ways, Paul and Rashid’s friendship brings closure for both of them, and allows them to move on in their lives from what had been previously plaguing them.
As one final note, I appreciate you connecting Rashid and Paul’s story to the larger world- “that deeper human connection by selfless acts could serve to anchor the otherwise carless world.” The inherent selflessness which Rashid and Paul both possess allows for them to be an anchor throughout the film, and also suggests that we, as real people, could follow in their footsteps, finding and healing each other in the otherwise chaotic background of the city.
