[elange]

I completely agree with you. I had the same reliance on structured assignments when it comes to writing. This was evident when I would try to write my blog posts this semester. Stemming from the complete lack of instructions, my mind would draw a blank and I would have no clue what to write about. This was very strange as I always am thinking or talking about something, whether it be recent political news or recently released music. However, when I sat down to write about something, I couldn’t get the “words onto the paper”. This showed me that I should not rely so heavily on writing structure, as you said you once relied to heavily on your studio art assignments’ structures, and write more open-ended and meaningless pieces.

[elange]

It is very inspiring that Michael was able to achieve so much through a path that most would pass off as improbable and impossible. However, I disagree with your assertion that human nature seeks money as the ultimate meaning. The one thing in life that children, the purest expression of (innocent) human desire, want is to have fun. If you gave children a choice between playing a soccer game with their friends and five dollars, most of the time they would choose to have fun with their friends. Money is the gateway to many fun things, but I feel that humanity’s drive comes not to money, but to amusement and enjoyment. Our society then associates money with fun, perpetuating the cycle that you describe. The foundational drive is happiness itself, not money.

[elange]

The docile aspect of nature and the perceived place of women is a very interesting point to bring up. It is quite true that many things, like the ocean, moon, and earth itself are usually referred to as female. However, it is slightly contradictory in the case of storms, as many people often refer to hurricanes or tropical storm as female saying things like “she’s sure a-blowin!” No person would ever refer to a hurricane as docile, and yet it is still mostly referred as female. I believe that things were mostly named female so that men can feel as if they have control over it, such as naming a boat or car using a woman’s name. Then, men would be trying to take control of the dire situation that is a hurricane, making the naming still very much inherently sexist.

[elange]

I definitely agree with your comment on the Met under-representing women artists. It seems as if they have every single piece done by Pablo Picasso, but it was almost impossible to find paintings done by women artists. Also, it seemed as if every exhibit was for a male artist. For example, the Epic Abstraction Exhibit, though including female artists such as Carmen Herrera, highlights mostly the male artists Pollock and Rothko as the supreme defining artists. More female representation in the Met would be very beneficial in showing the world that men aren’t the only ones who can lead artistic movements. Ecofeminism shows that perfectly.

[elange]

Hi Zara,
Frankie is not a secondary character but the main character of the story, so much so that the movie title could have (and I think should have) included Frankie. He is always the elephant in the room, and even at the end of the movie when Johnny finally allows himself to grieve, Frankie is still a hard name for the whole family to say out loud. Frankie is integral to every character’s story arc, even Matteo who is not even related to Frankie. He feels for the Sullivan family, especially since they are grieving their loss of Frankie and he is grieving his own soon and inevitable death. Also, the movie can be split into sections by who is taking the blame for Frankie’s death, as guilt is tossed around from Sarah to Johnny and even to Cristy. He even contributes to the story from the grave through “granting” wishes for the family such as Johnny winning the ball-throw. Protagonist himself, Frankie is the story of In America.

[elange]

Hey Ash,
I love the way you connect the hardships experienced in both In America and Let the Great World Spin. 1970s NYC seems to be a very common setting. However I believe that by setting it in the 1970s, they muddled the themes to create a more true and real story. The turbulence of the 1970s and the sprawling, densely populated NYC setting creates its own themes of the vastness of the earth and diversity in life. I feel like the central, family and tolerance of others themes were half-covered over by the overarching setting themes. In America did keep to their central themes more than most other 1970s stories by following a single family, as often stories have multiple main characters such as Let the Great World Spin.

[elange]

The acting in In America is quite phenomenal. The characters of Matteo and Johnny were especially well done, as they perfectly expressed their extremely complex relationship through subtle and excellent acting. Being that Johnny wanted to be the man of the house and was feeling low from not getting any acting callbacks, he is at first very mean to Matteo and unaccepting. The actor shows this uncomfort perfectly through his distaste whenever Matteo wins the food challenges and finds the money and doll in his food. It shows while Matteo is trying to connect to their family, Johnny feels threatened and pushes him away as much as possible. It’s wonderfully close to what would actually happen in the real world, with the hard-working not being very tolerant of strangers, especially when they have lower self-confidence. Not everything is a Disney movie where everyone loves everyone, and the griminess and reality of this scene’s acting drips with this fact.
Also, Matteo had an amazing scene when Johnny comes to confront him about talking to his wife about her baby. There, he is able to express that he is dying perfectly through body language and intonation well enough that the audience goes for the same emotional ride that Johnny has to express in the scene. From anger at Matteo for telling Johnny’s wife to risk her life for the baby, to sadness and guilt at the fact that Matteo is a dying man. An extremely powerful line Matteo shouts as the tension between him and Johnny rises is, “I’m in love with anything that lives!” Johnny, thinking he’s trying to get with his wife, is fully taken aback by the power in Matteo’s words. Hearing him shout that in the face of angry Johnny and watching Johnny’s expression of anger melt into one of deep regret paints a very realistic picture; everyone has their own personal struggles and no one is ever a simple, stereotypical character. Such a great piece of acting lets the audience feel like they are transported into the scene, that they are fighting with Matteo themselves. This scene achieves this with ease with great acting from both characters.
Finally, Johnny’s performance of pain while watching Matteo die is so beautiful and real. Once he knows he always acts with the intention of trying to cherish all of Matteo’s last moments. Heartbreakingly, Matteo gets hospitalized right when Johnny needs a friend most, and Johnny does a great job of slowly devolving his character into a crazed and stressed out man that just longs to lean on the shoulder of his best friend, Matteo.
These performances are all heartbreaking and uplifting, and Matteo’s and Johnny’s actors deserve Grammys galore. Through tension and realistic, painful acting, they expressed the beauty and tragedy of life in 70s New York City.

[elange]

Your assessment of Tillie is perfect. I also totally agree that Tillie’s best trait is her self-awareness. She knows she is a “bad character” and her knowledge of this makes her one of the most relatable characters in the novel. Stemming from her self-awareness, she is also brutally honest, often times in humorous ways. Even when being honest could put her in harm, such as when she sees her tricks while not working or after doing the deed and cracks jokes about them to their face. Especially with her weatherman trick, the fear of exposure is extremely strong with people soliciting prostitutes, so Tillie revealing that she know their profession and name could easily lead to violence. Violence and sex work constantly go hand and hand, and yet Tillie and fearless when confronting tricks, even with the risk of bodily harm or death.

[elange]

His love of graffiti is certainly a main aspect of Fernando’s life, however I feel that you missed a large part of his personality. Not only is Fernando introverted, but he is secretly quite selfish. His obsession with graffiti ties in to this selfishness, as he mostly takes photos of the tags so that he can “own” them forever. By preserving them in his porfolio of photos, he defeats the original purpose of the graffiti. To actually see some of the graffiti, people have to put themselves into danger, thus proving themselves worthy to view the graffiti. If the tags are easily available through photos, the dangerous aspect is lost and I believe a sense of community is lost as well.

[elange]

While watching “Smoke”, I focused more on the relationships between the characters and how they showed growth. Because of this, I missed out on this great theme of individuality that you so very well expressed. I agree that a major point that the writers of “Smoke” were trying to show was the great diversity of New York City. Even in the tobacco products was individuality shown, as each character had their favorite nicotine delivering device (i.e. Paul with his natural tobacco leaf cigarettes, Auggie with his classic looking cigarettes, and Cyprus with his cigar-like product).

Thanks,
Eric

[elange]

Hey Chris,
First off, you are an excellent writer; you got some good words. I also agree with the fact that, although smoke is a large symbol in the movie, it is outshined by the symbolism in the movement and relationships between the characters. Also, I don’t really see the smoke as playing a large part in the movie, because-while all the characters are smoking-the smoke rarely plays a part in the conversation outside of common courtesies. To add to what Javier said, I think the writers chose the name smoke mostly because it was set in a tobacco shop. Furthermore, smoke is a name that calls out action in my mind, relating to the old westerns with titles like “Gunsmoke”. The writer say a catchy title and went with it.

Thanks,
Eric

[Author]

Posts