I loved “The Metal Children”!! I couldn’t put the book down once: I read it in one sitting, tuning out the clamor in my house because I was so fascinated by the story.

In the play Vera tells Tobin “the novelist might be the only true cultural revolutionary left in America”. Vera is only sixteen and yet her words display more maturity than many characters in the play.

When first asked to do this assignment I assumed I would compare Vera to Travis of Taxi Driver (even though I know that Vera is not the protagonist of the play).

It just made more sense to me. Both characters are rebellious and are decided on the path with which they will achieve their goals. Tobin on the other hand appears to be so passive that at some points it disgusts me (as when he impregnates Vera). However, I digress. The more I think about it, there are a few similarities between the two characters.

Tobin, the protagonist of “The Metal Children” is a writer who is stuck. When we are first introduced to him we see that he is a liar, indifferent and a mess. Yet when we learn that his wife has left him we begin to pity him. However, Tobin is still very passive and shows little concern for the problems his book has caused. He does not even want to go to Midlothia to defend his book.

Throughout the play Tobin does not take a stand against anything; he is unsure of where he what path his life will take right up until the last scene of the play when he has finished writing a new novel. He has cleaned up his life and lost weight. Tobin’s tears at the end of the play shows that he finally cares for something.

In contrast, in the movie Taxi Driver I felt biased against Travis from the beginning. He was always alone, and the dirty colors and sad music that was supposed to draw me into his world only made me want to separate from it. Like Tobin, at first Travis is indifferent to the crimes he witnesses daily. He later becomes motivated to do what most people find hard to do: take action to better his own life and his environment. He does this by exercising to increase his strength and purchasing guns to make himself feel more powerful. In the movie he changes from passive to active, killing robbers and pimps to clean up the streets. He does not do this to impress Betsey or even for fame. He acts because he feels that he must, that it is his purpose in life.

Tobin reacts to authority by doing what he is good at: he writes. Although he did not write The Metal Children to criticize authority, his writing gives him a voice. His new novel at the end of the play is a criticism on consumerism. In real life Tobin is not out spoken, nor does he take action physically as Travis does. Instead Tobin uses his writing to tackle problems of society.

A common theme displayed by both characters is man’s strong desire to make a difference in the world. Both characters do so in a different way. Tobin makes a difference by writing while Travis helps Iris get her old life back.

Another theme the two works share is that in isolation one views society differently and is able to recognize its flaws. Travis is a loner: no one relates to him or understands him. Tobin is also alone; even though people often surround him they do not appear to understand him.

Also an important theme both works share is in individual’s responsibility of reforming society. As an artist, the author must inform the reader about what needs to be changed in a society. Once a good story impacts them, they are the ones who will take action. This also relates to Travis because he realizes he has a responsibility as he attempts to change his world. It’s like those Salvation Army people used to scream at me when I was younger, “only YOU can make a difference!”

| 1 Comment

Blog 4: Taxi Driver/The Metal Children

What really is the difference between a movie and play? Both have a text.  Both have themes, symbols, and characters. Both have specific scenes and imagery. I will sometimes watch a movie and analyze it as though it were a book, by paying attention to little nuances or to specific language.  To quote Vera, from “The Metal Children,” as she so wonderfully paraphrases Shakespeare,  “…storytelling’s function, whether is be spoken by the mouths of actors on a stage or discovered in the pages of books, is not to simply entertain…but… to help us understand the complexity and confounding realities of what it means to be human.” Whether it be through writing a play, directing a movie, or acting in one, Adam Rapp, Martin Scorsese, and Robert de Niro each embody this notion of telling a story in order to shed light on the intricacies of reality and the complexities of man.

These ideas are really what make “The Metal Children” and “Taxi Driver” each so raw and filled with reality. Normally in a movie or play, there will be this ideal hero, with all the characteristic, heroic qualities. Shiny hair, great body, gets all the girls, basically a Greek god. What I found interesting about these works is that each of their stories center around a fallible character.  In the “Metal Children,” I see Tobin’s main flaw to be his passivity as a person. His wife left him and he just mopes around instead of getting his life back together. He has a book due to be written; yet he is unable to write it by his deadline because his is completely paralyzed from his own despair. His aggressive manager is merely used as a foil to highlight Tobin’s own passivity. All these things build up to the moment he visits Midlothia, the town that wants to ban his book. Yet, the moment he gets there, instead of having some classic epiphany and becoming a hero, he is, shocker, still passive. He does essentially nothing when he is vandalized and has the same reaction when he gets beat up one night. His response to the authority of this town is no different. He does not make any extra effort to stand up to them. He just does what he came to do. Speak about his book. As a writer all the action is up in Tobin’s head, never materialized.

Even though on the outset they may seem like completely different characters, I think Tobin and Travis are actually really similar. The beginning of the movie Travis says in a voice over that he wanted to drive a cab because he wanted long hours. The fact that he just sits in his cab and drives around all days makes him extremely passive. In his taxi he is a people watcher.  When people come in, he does not interact with the people he picks up. The most his does is look in his mirror.

Unlike Tobin, Travis has a rough interior that begins to germinate into something more as the movie progresses. He argues with Betsy’s campaign friend after she dumps him. And he boldly tries to get the 12-year-old prostitute, played by Jodie Foster, to flee her predicament. Unlike Tobin, Travis wishes to emerge from his own shadows and be noticed.

The theme of society vs. individual, of being a loner vs. part of a community, is what unites “Taxi Driver” and “The Metal Children” the most. Both characters are loners in their own right. Each one separated from their immediate surroundings. The Beginning scenes in “Taxi Driver” perfectly depict Travis as a loner. Walking the empty streets on his own, living alone, Travis is isolated. The audience can feel this by the way the camera is always inside the cab. Travis is stuck in his own world.

Tobin also is trapped. The part of the play that depicts his daily life only takes place in his apartment. To me, there is no better isolation that being constantly homebound.  Travis though, ends up taking action. His practice in front of his mirror actually comes to fruition. Tobin’s last action in the play is crying alone in his apartment.

Normally this would be the end of my blog, but last night I watched a really great movie called “A Single Man,” directed by designer Tom Ford. It was really interesting because he used eyes in his film similar to the way Scorsese uses eyes in “Taxi Driver”.  He always narrows in on people’s eyes and when the main character is in the car, Ford focuses on his eyes in the mirror, just like Scorsese does with Travis.

Something else to note, is that I felt a similar pain and excitement about Colin Firth’s performance in “A Single Man,” that I felt while watching de Niro in “Taxi Driver.” When an actor makes his character seem so real, so raw, so fallible, I feel it much deeper than I do with a typical acting performance. These kinds of performances make me want to act myself. They make actors seem like they understand something more about living and about man’s existence.

| Leave a comment

Week of 9.20.10

| Leave a comment

Columbia Sept 17

| 1 Comment

Backseat Sept 16

| Leave a comment

Taxi Driver and The Metal Children

The Metal Children was an amazing play to read.  I just couldn’t put it down.  And Taxi Driver was equally amazing. I totally understand why its one of the greatest and most influential movies.

The Metal Children and Taxi Driver both have protagonists who are thought of in a positive light- the Metal Children’s Tobin was a Young Adult author whose book was taught in the school curriculum and considered one of the greats.

It was pretty comical because whenever Stacey Kinsella or Vera discussed the intricate symbolism and hidden meanings in his book, Tobin had no idea what they were talking about.  I especially liked this part because in English class throughout high school we would always analyze classics and discuss what hidden meaning the author meant to reveal or what symbolism/ analogies he used and we would always wonder- what if we are reading too much into it?  How do we know the author meant anything by it at all?  Maybe we are wasting our time analyzing this book that wasn’t meant to be analyzed.  And that’s exactly what happened in The Metal Children.  Tobin wrote this book which was interpreted, analyzed, studied and declared one of the greatest pieces of Young Adult literature, when really Tobin had written the book when he was high on drugs and didn’t mean anything deeper in his writing.

Similarly in Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle searched to give his life meaning and a higher purpose than just driving taxis and watching all the scum- the pimps, prostitutes and hustlers who come out at night.  He is not in his right mind and becomes fixated on Senator Palandine, who was running for president, and made it his life purpose to assassinate Palandine.  When the time came to assassinate him, Travis’ plan was thwarted by the Secret Service and he just barely escaped.  He went psycho and started popping pills and drinking alcohol, and transferred his fixation onto a different mission.  He didn’t care- maybe it wouldn’t be Paladine, but he knew he would be killing people tonight.  He went to the prostitute house where Iris worked and killed a few people there (the pimps).  He was written up in the papers and hailed as a hero who killed the bad guys and freed Iris, a helpless twelve year old girl caught up in the prostitute business.

Both of these guys- Travis and Tobin- are perceived as heroes and geniuses, when in reality, they were just two messed up guys with troubled lives.  If they had known Tobin had written the book while high, would they have cared enough to even read it, let alone make it a Bestseller and add it to a high school curriculum?  Of course not- it would have been thought of as garbage.  And if the public had known that Travis wanted and attempted to assassinate Palandine, would he be hailed as a hero?  Of course not.

Both The Metal Children and Taxi Driver show the power of perception and misinterpretation.  Travis is a perceived as a hero because his actions were misinterpreted, and Tobin is considered a literary genius because his intentions were misread, too.

| Leave a comment

Andy Warhol/Artist as a Social Critic

Of course the artist can serve as a social critic and an active member of the community. The hypocrisy only shines through if the artist is hypocritical through his or her actions. Say, for example, if an artist uses art to deliver positive messages to the community about the environment such as encouraged recycling/water conservation/electricity conservation etc., yet owns a SUV and takes 45 minute showers, then of course theyd be hypocritical. Art is merely a vehicle through which society can be critiqued, and it can never be one hundred percent objective. In the case of Andy Warhol, i had no idea he was allegedly being critical of society, in terms of subject choice, it didn’t really shine through; in terms of aesthically though, he was definitely commenting on what he though art could be.

Why must we assume that the artist is always trying to come up with an underlying theme or meaning when he/she is creating a work of art? Maybe, seeing as he was a professional artist, he just had a certain inspiring though in his mind that he wanted to put onto canvas. He assessed the work from an art perspective, and simply liked and decided to arrange the shapes and colors the way he did. I know often time I do that with my artwork. For example, I don’t think the bright colors of the camouflage were an anti war statement. In fact, if anything, he was propping up the military and the beauty of the patterning used on their clothes.

I don’t particularly care for the artist acting as a social critic anyway. I find the art to be like one line emboldened statements, like commericals that pander to the masses and appeal to a select group of people who will follow the statement. Often their work is based off of scant facts that mislead the public about a specific eventt. Its like reading political cartoons for the full scope of the news. Sometimes there main purpose is not to inform, but merely instigate. There is this innate sense within artists that they are always the underdogs whose job is to challenge the “status quo.” I believe though, that everyone is connected to the status quo so there is no point in trying to distance oneself from it.

So Andy Warhol commented on society with works such as the Cambell Soup Cans, Jesus, Last Supper, and other such American icons, yet its not as though he lived independent from these things. To me, it seems like he is poking fun at things people cherish yet reaping the rewards of what he criticizes.

| Leave a comment

Mr.Andy Warhol

I do believe that an artist can be both a social critic and an active member of their community, although I think that to be both, an artist sort of becomes more of a social observer than a social critic. To be a social critic I think you have to have some feelings of hate towards the community and you probably wouldn’t live there or even be a part if it. On the other hand to be a social observer, you might see things you don’t like in your community but you know that you must still live there, so instead of criticizing you are commenting. For example, you might live in one of the worst neighborhoods in the world, where violence and injustice roam around freely, and you might stand up against that and comment on the issues your community is facing through your artwork. Nonetheless, you are still going to be inhabiting there and making a living and in essence nothing would ever really change. You would be an observer and a citizen of your community at the same time.

Now, as I did some research on Andy Warhol I came upon something very interesting. According to a website, published by The Andy Warhol Museum, Warhol himself “rejected the idea that his work functioned as social criticism and instead described himself as an American artist who was merely depicting his environment”(Diversity of Voice). Warhol commented on various aspects of American society including religion, violence and our fascination with celebrities. I truly believe that he was just commenting on his environment like he said. I don’t think  he was criticizing it since he was a celebrity himself.

My favorite artwork of his were the celebrities’ pictures on the magazine covers. I also like how the magazine was dedicated solely to celebrities and the interview he had with the young Jodie Foster was really interesting. It made me see a whole new side of her. The Interview made the audience feel closer to various celebrities which I think is great because it reminds us that they are not gods and goddesses. They are people, just like us.

I believe that Andy Warhol opened a whole new world to us. Through his artwork we got to experience a little bit of what it was like to be a celebrity. We got to live our “15 minutes of fame.”


“Diversity of Voice: Views on Guns in the United States.” The Warhol:             resources and lessons . The Andy Warhol Museum, 2009. Web. 19 Sept.     2010. <http://edu.warhol.org/aract_guns.html#about>.

| Leave a comment

Andy Warhol Blog

If Andy Warhol is a social critic, then I have no clue what he is talking about. The Last Supper, camouflage, self-portraits, Easter eggs, paint splatter, and urine paintings fail to, for me at least, send any kind of message.

I think that the artist, or any other individual for that matter, has the right to be a social critic but I don’t think that every artist must have a political motive to his or her artwork for it to be considered art. Sometimes a painting is nothing more than a pretty painting and a film is solely meant to be entertainment. The truth is, the viewer will never be able to know the artists exact thoughts while creating a piece of work. Most of our “symbolic interpretation” is just speculation.

We add attachment and meaning to artwork to explain things we don’t understand.  This makes art very much like religion. Art connoisseurs migrate from all over the world to see exhibits. They can’t explain rationally the piece in front of them so they make up reasons why the sculpture or painter chooses to sculpt or paint a particular image. It’s the same with religion. People, Christians in particular, wonder why something bad happens and give it meaning. All of a sudden a tragedy becomes part of “God’s plan.” Just as the follower’s faith gives religion it’s power, the viewer gives the artist his or her power. Like religion, people blindly believe in art. They trust that it will reveal to them some profound truth.

Realistically, it is the viewer, not the artist who is the social critic. The viewer is the one who gives the art meaning and sometimes the viewer is wrong. In 10th grade, my English class read The Catcher In The Rye, one of the “greatest books of all time.” I however was not impressed. My teacher ruined the novel by forcing clichéd “meanings” on arbitrary details, like turning Holden’s red hat into cry for attention. Whether or not J.D. Salinger included the stupid hat with the intention of showing the reader something about Holden (aside from his fondness of the color red) who the hell knows?

My point is, the artist can do whatever he or she pleases. They can make a statement or not. Either way, people viewing the artwork, will give it meaning. It will become for the viewer some kind of statement because if the viewer cannot identify with the artwork, they won’t see the point. In today’s society, everything is given a purpose because admitting to not understanding is terrifying.

Every member of society who dares to think is a social critic. While some might argue that you need to be an impartial third party to see a situation clearly, it is the people at the heart of the community who feel what is around them and make the truest criticisms. Great artwork is not just seen, but felt by both the artist and the viewer. It is for this reason that I think that the artist must be member of the community they are criticizing to fully understand what the hell they are talking about.

| Leave a comment

What do you say? What do you think? What affects you?

Music. We’ve listen to the beats and rhythms of songs. Sometimes they become earworms or slowly disappear from our memory. What about the lyrics? Do they stay in our heads? Yes and no. But do we really KNOW the lyrics – know what they’re trying to say, what they mean? Take Coldplay’s Politik as an example. What do you think those lyrics mean? I know that at first glance I was confused. I didn’t know what it was about. I only knew when I read album. This is how I felt when I saw some of Andy Warhol’s works. I only realized some things after being reminded of the words, “social critic,” “hypocrisy,” and “community.”

Honestly, I can’t describe Andy Warhol as a hypocrite because he was just exposing the world of the rich and famous. And, in order for him to do that, he had to live like they did. You can say that he was acting like an anthropologist by taking part in their rituals and lifestyles, understanding their morals and actions. If you want to understand a culture, you have to understand their reasons for their lifestyles. You can’t just stand and watch a society live and think you can understand their actions as an outsider. You need to become immersed albeit detached at the same time. So, rather than saying Andy Warhol’s works are hypocritical of his lifestyle, I would say that it’s paradoxical. He wanted to show the world their lifestyles and he can’t do that standing outside clubs.

As for being an active part of his community, I believe that Andy Warhol is more than that – he exposed another world to the world. He showed us how they really lived. The lifestyles of the rich and famous are no different than our own. Maybe Warhol is trying to show us the extravagantness of life and how we can live and waste life simultaneously. Or maybe Andy Warhol is trying to go even deeper than that.

Although Andy Warhol was religious, I felt differently when I saw his artwork, The Last Supper (Be Somebody With a Body). It spoke volumes. I thought, at first, that it was telling us that we should have our own values and morals that pertain to our society today instead of keeping old ones. But, in reality, Friedrich Nietzsche’s words, “God is dead,” was raging in my head. I remembered how “God is dead” because of our actions, i.e., our lifestyles. Our morals and ethics have “killed” the god. The slow decay we have fallen into is shown through Andy Warhol’s work. We need to become “somebody with a body.” We cannot live on religion alone. We have to regain our mortality and sight to see that we have to start living differently. Whatever pertains to the past, does not always relate to us – it has to change. Thus, I believe that Andy Warhol is trying to tell us that our view on any religion has to change. This, to me, is his way of criticizing the religious worlds.

But how do we find the message(s) Andy Warhol is trying to get across? Well, if you can somehow telephone the dead, then yes, you can ask him. The problem is that, if it was possible to contact the dead, he might not have the answer. We have to dig through on our own. The artist’s works make us think, see, and know the truth. They, most probably, have the answers to life’s questions. Or not. But they will have an opinion about it. Their thoughts and views do not necessarily have to be imposed on us, the viewer. We can see artwork and not be affected in any way or see them and be affected. Everything depends on how the artist portrays the truth and on the viewers and the world.

How does it happen? Well, the world affects the artists, but Andy Warhol affects the worlds of society. We may not fully see or understand his works, but there are others who will understand.

Oh! I thought this was interesting: http://blogs.artinfo.com/16miles/2010/06/18/andy-warhol-david-salle-fan/

I found it while I was researching the title for The Last Supper because I knew I was missing another part of the title.

| 2 Comments