Uncut Humor

Laughter or holding a sense of humor seems to be an important part of our culture. Many ice breaker type of activities involve or attempt to involve activities that will hopefully induce laughter. As Critchley points out, laughter or jokes serve to break tension. Laughter or joking can be a positive and enlightening experience if one assents to the joke and think critically of the subliminal message that the comedian is hoping to bring awareness. However, joking can become a hindrance to society because jokes such as ethnic or sexist jokes sometimes create more of an illusion of acceptance opposed to seeing the true matter of the problems that exist.

As Critchley writes, jokes serve as "anti-rites" and usually "mock" the subject of the joke; this mockery is more inline with the reactionary type of humor that serves to perpetuate existing stereotypes or norms. It is this type of humor that creates an illusion of acceptance of those norms because laughter and humor breed a type of " shared consensus". This could result in people thinking that whatever is said is acceptable type of humor especially if the majority of the audience and even some of the target audience of the joke are laughing then some people miss out on the "truth". When the only or most broadly used type of humor is reactionary, people are not given as much "[liberated] will and desire", which is essential to having people's voices heard. Thus, there should be more "changing the situation" humor to alleviate the tension and silence of other issues.The anti-rite nature of joking and laughter lays more ground for saying things that for our time may be socially unacceptable; furthermore, laughter helps to break the tension better.

Recently, I heard Tyler Perry say on the radio that with all the tension that is occurring in society we all need a good laugh; this is supported by the number of people that preferred to see his comedic film Boo over a film that dealt more with racial issues. In consensus with Critchley's idea of a "real comedian", I think Louis C.K does a good job by using comedy to make fun of the power that whites hold, illustrating how "fixed and oppressive [ways] should be mocked and ridiculed". His comedy act also alludes to how messed up other nonwhite races have had it throughout the many years.

I watched South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut. I watched the movie twice because at first glance there's nothing philosophical about the movie. Fortunately, after viewing the movie a second time, I was able to uncover some examples that illustrated different forms of Critchley's humor examples. One thing I noticed was an incongruity type of humor. The Canadian government's economy relied solely on two people. Even though it seems totally non-sequitur, I thought about America and how the untouchable 1% of the country is controlling 70% of the country's wealth. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. Despite how nonsensical the idea seems, I could not help but wonder what would happen to our country's economy if that 1% was to be completely eliminated. The second and last take away I want to mention is the quote "see the homeless but just don't care". I feel that happens a lot especially here in America because of the individualistic mindset everyone tries to adopt. The idea that anyone can achieve the "American Dream" and that if you're homeless or less fortunate it's a price of being lazy or immoral. Moreover, there's little to no media coverage about America's homeless and poverty problem yet the country is always extending resources to people who are three seas away from us when they're people who are suffering and dying every day right here. I was actually surprised that there was anything to be gathered from that cartoon just goes to show that lessons come in all forms.

Humor At It's Philosophical Finest!

This week's theme was Humor and it was a rather different topic because you wouldn't think a philosopher would have a sense of humor nor there would be anything philosophical about humor but there actually is. Critchley's article on Humor does highlight an interesting perspective on the different forms of humor and their inner workings. I chose to watch the movie South Park: Bigger Longer, Uncut and I must say it was just a bit much for me. It was shocking to a lot of the class that I had never seen the Hangover but what will floor you all is that I've never watched south park till now and I will dive into that. From the displaced anger in South Park to off the wall drunken mishaps in Hangover we can see the different ways we process and perceive humor; in the forms of Relief , Superiority, or Incongruity.

Watching Hangover was an experience I would have wanted to watch in a more personal setting because of how outrageous it was. I know that crazy things happen, from experience, but the degree in which they took that having a crazy getting wasted night was taken to the extreme. I didn't trust the socially awkward guy, I had a feeling he "Roofied" the alcohol. That could be the only explanation that would be to not remember such an insane night. I saw examples of Reactionary Humor, from Critchley's piece; like the humor made from the cool guy in the group about the socially awkward brother of the bride. The other guys didn't want to make a mockery of him but it was so funny in which he laughed at himself. Everything from the Asian man in the trunk of the car, the random baby in the closet, and to the robbery of Mike Tyson's tiger was plays on different forms of humor like Dark humor, laughing at an eerie gloomy situation and isn't socially acceptable.

In viewing South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, that was quite a watch. I wasn't allowed to watch cartoons like South Park because I came from a strong christian background where they are heavily indoctrinated. Watching things like South Park would corrupt youth and create evil in the world, the children's innocence should be kept and exposure to negativity kept at a low. When I sat down to watch it and began to realize it had the same inappropriate, provocative, and obscene things I was warned about however I could view it because I'm an adult now. Knowing back in 1999, so many children were watching this and their parents were just okay with it.

 It was extremely hilarious from the crazy sing-a-longs, the MAC instigated war on Canada, and the coming back of Satan. I finally get the "Who killed Kenny" reference! There were so many references to the Common and Uncommon Sense  part of Crichley's piece. The bases of the angry parents motivation for war on Canada came from a racist and misplaced place. They should have been parenting their children instead of taking out adult content that wasn't rated for children in the first place. From there the silly adult cartoon got turned upside down on its head when Kenny came back with Satan and Saddam.

The funny thing in particular about this week's theme was the Sunday before class I had a humorous conversation with someone about my major because they felt as if it s useless. I felt obliged to show him otherwise. I, from a combination of Philosophy classes, showed how a Philosopher is the best person for the job and have all the necessary skills to tackle the problem of thinking outside the box. I also reduced him down to an contingent and unnecessary in the big grand scheme of things and laughed at him out of Superiority because he left like existence was pointless after that. I didn't mean to belittle him so but who says a philosopher can't be funny.

Is It Barbershop Funny?

Humor is at its best when it is unexpected and organic, in my opinion.  I love to laugh, but comedy is not my favorite genre of movies. I’m not the first to choose a movie that is intended to make me laugh because the intentional silly things are usually not funny to me. A good comedy comes about when there is a good story line and message that catches the funny moments within a realistic situation. Even a successful comedy doesn’t appeal to everyone though because everyone doesn’t have the same sense of humor.  “What is it like for people not to have the same sense of humor?” What makes something worthy enough to be barbershop funny? 

     In “Did You Hear The One About The Philosopher Writing A Book On Humor?” , Simon Critchley notes that joking is a specific and meaningful practice that the audience and the joke teller recognize as such and that a specific social contract exists. It appears that there is a general social contract in addition to more specific social contracts depending on the community one belongs to.  Also, I find it interesting that the theories of humor depict just how revealing humor is for the joke teller or funny character as it is for the one on the receiving end.

     Barbershop (2002) , featuring Ice Cube and Cedric the Entertainer, is about the happenings in a barbershop & the importance of it in the black community. The owner, known as Calvin Jr, is struggling with his recent decision to sell his shop that was passed down to him and that has served as a true place for community through the years. While Calvin Jr is figuring out how to get the shop back, several funny (seemingly unintentional) moments occur. Several moments in the film are objectively funny. For example, an angry woman began destroying a car outside of a barbershop, seemingly out of vengeance for a man that she was upset with. The loud noise caught the attention of the men in the barbershop who begin crowding around the window laughing at the woman. One man who was getting his hair washed and joining in on the laughing asked a few questions to realize that his car was being described. This was funny to me and likely funny to other viewers and also of course funny to the other actors.

     There were also some moments that were subjectively funny. A group of people who have shared experiences are likely to begin to develop the same sense of humor. In this case, men in the barbershop could especially laugh at the woman destroying the car, not because it was so odd, but because they are men who had likely experienced relationship problems before and had been in that position. (If not, it’s just easier to laugh at another’s misfortune when you are not affected). If most men can relate, it's barbershop funny. Also, there were certain jokes or gestures that might have been geared towards the black community in attempt to appeal to a shared sense of humor that may exist.  How is it that people can have a different sense of humor? Because they belong to different communities. How is it that people within the different communities have a different sense of humor? Because everyone is an individual with certain values, beliefs, experiences, and patterns of thought that guide one’s sense of humor by situation.

      As stated in the film, the barbershop is the place for “talking straight” and “keeping it real”.  One of the older barbers shared his controversial opinions about well - known black leaders and figures. Although some comments were made in a funny way, they were not necessarily taken  as funny by the other characters, even though they may have had the same sense of humor. We learn a little more about who is joking and who is laughing by the content of the message. Humor (especially in this film) creates community for both the characters in this film who found common ground to laugh and congregate in the barbershop and for the viewers and groups of viewers that laugh at the funny moments in this film with others.  It was the funny moments that happened in the barbershop that drove the owner to reclaim it again. It was those same funny moments that allowed the owner to be less concerned with his stressful financial situation and more concerned with taking care of others. While much of the humor in this film seemed to be purely for entertainment, much of it illustrates the point that humor exposes who we are, creates community,  and eases the tension or lightens up day to day situations.  It has a place in our everyday lives and therefore in film that highlights who we are. What makes something worthy of being barbershop funny? If its "talking straight" , then it might just be barbershop funny. 

Critchley and The Big Lebowski

I watched The Big Lebowski this week despite having seen it before, yet I realized how many different types of humor it executes throughout for the first time. In fact, studying humor this week in my philosophy class has explicitly pointed this out; I feel that we watch comedies often times to get our minds off of serious matters and therefore we often overlook different types of humor. Instead of critiquing the type of humor, we either find the joke funny or we don't. I find this interesting and reading through Simon Critchley's text on humor, I was able to explore the topic even further than I had ever thought before. Critchley makes the claim in his text that "Joking is a game that players only play successfully when they both understand and follow the rules". I would like to argue, however, that The Dude (the main character in The Big Lebowski) is hilarious because the strangers he meets throughout the film do not understand him in the least. While all of The Dude's friends obviously understand him, hence the name he is given, The Dude still operates in the same type of humor around everyone that he meets. These moments are often the funniest simply because the people that he meets do not understand the 'game', as Critchley calls it. For instance, towards the beginning of the film during the scene where The Dude's rug is urinated on, one of the culprits is holding a bowling ball and poses the question, "What is this?". The Dude remarks, "Obviously, you are not a golfer". This joke works so well because the culprit is not playing the game. The same man has just been dunking The Dude's head in the toilet and is in no way ready to be joking in any shape or form. It is The Dude's calm personality that makes him able to pull off this joke despite the fact that the recipient has no idea a joke has even been played. He does not laugh, yet the audience loves it. In other words, my argument here is that certain types of humor exist without two people having to play the game.

Critchley goes on to describe this game as throwing a ball: "It's as though there were a custom amongst certain people for one person to throw another ball which he is supposed to catch and throw back; but some people, instead of throwing it back, put it in their pocket". Critchley claims that when the ball goes in the pocket, the joke is lost or the 'game' is unsuccessful. My second argument is that sometimes it is indeed the fact that the recipient puts the ball in their pocket that makes the joke funny in the first place. To explain, if the culprit above laughed in response to The Dude's remark, then it would not have been nearly as funny. It is the fact that the culprit and The Dude are not on the same page that makes the joke successful in the first place. Besides, if the culprit had laughed, then it would be assumed that he actually did know the object was a bowling ball, rendering the joke useless. Also, to counter the fact that someone could claim the 'game' is being played in this sense between The Dude and the film's audience - it still works in the same way. The movie has just begun and we do not yet know The Dude well enough to know his sense of humor, same as the culprit. We laugh simply because we know what a bowling ball is, not because we are any more invited to play any sort of 'game' than the culprit himself. To conclude, Critchley does a fine job describing certain types of situations in humor, but does not cover all of them with this particular theory.

Bridesmaids: Situational Satire

“Bridesmaids” is filled with over the top situations. They go to the full extreme of whatever the scenario could be and then some. As Critchley describes it, the ordinary is made extraordinary and the real is rendered surreal. This can be seen within the movie in such parts as when Annie, Lillian, Becca, Rita, Megan, and Helen all go out to eat at a very suspicious restaurant before they go to try on and decide the bridesmaid dresses they will be wearing at the wedding. The build up for this obviously seems to be a treacherous one, but the actual outcome is completely unforeseeable.

By the time we, the audience, is introduced to the bridesmaids shop and banter between Annie and Helen subsides, a much more pressing matter occurs. Suddenly they all become violently ill and what Critchley describes becomes obvious in this seen. The script of the movie dares to put such an obtuse and unbelievable scene, and suddenly the realistic movie takes a turn to the surreal and the ordinary becomes extraordinary. It is sudden and hard hitting to the audience and unbelievable which brings humor.

Critchley also dives into what is called Reactionary Humor. This kind of humor reveals what is repressed, and ultimately reveals us. Sigmund Freud coined, ‘a return of the repressed’, which he serves to mean revealing a person that we would much rather not be. For the audience, this person is Annie. Her confidence is entirely dependent on her sexual endeavors with men and their approval. She had a business that failed and when it did, her late boyfriend dumped her. She seems to be losing her best friend to a woman who is richer, more successful, and prettier than her. And she goes from living with two crazy roommates to living with her mother. Annie’s character is funny because she allows the audience to feel better. Annie gives the audience someone to point and laugh and say, “I am so glad that is NOT me,” or, “At least I’m not her!” Kulka tips his hat to this theory in his discussion of The Superiority Theory. This says that the one providing the laugher is perceived as inferior and by laughing, we are meeting the realization that we are superior to the one providing that laughter.

In Kulka’s “Incongruity” he explains that jokes and humor ride a very thin line. When a character seems to be in a problematic situation, it is in a way that is humerous, not serious. For example, back to the scene where the bridesmaids are violently ill, we are not worried for their health. Although it could be turned into a very serious situation, it is not. It is a catalyst for laughter. And the audience is left questioning, “How are they going to get out of this situation?” We are looking for the resolve of this situation, rather than a genuine worry or concern.

Humor: Society's Double Edge Sword

Humor is part of everyone's daily life and in fact some of us require it. We tend to say to people, "lighten up," when we find someone a little too overwhelmed by life's many difficulties. We rather see the world in a more humorous way than to be dragged down by it. The movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), does exactly that, they take the old mythical search for the Holy Grail and lighten it up. The Holy Grail represents the truth of Christianity because it is a religious artifact that helps prove Jesus' existence. So then why do we find humor in an artifact that, if found could transcend humanity as a whole?

In order to fully appreciate what is going on during a joke, we as an audience must understand a couple of social constructs that are actually true in society. Because if someone tells a joke about something that no one knows than how is it funny? Simon Critchley, author of Did you Hear the One About the Philosopher writing a Book on Humour?, believes that first there has to be an overall consensus about what constitutes a joke. Critcley says, "most jokes work through the experience of a felt incongruity between what we expect to be the case and what actually takes place in the joke." In the movie, King Arthur and his knights are riding imaginary horses and their squires are knocking coconuts together to make the sounds of the horses' feet. This is funny because we have socially constructed the idea that knights are always on big armor-plated horses and when we hear the sound of the horses stomping we also associate it with a horse not a squire knocking coconuts together. We find it funny when our expectation is not met or when we know it did not actually happen like that.

Knights being followed by their squires knocking coconuts together

Furthermore, Critcley says that in order for a joke like this one to actually be successful we as a society need to know the socially constructed context of the horses, knights, the Holy Grail and the coconuts; since there are no coconuts in England. This is also another joke the movie plays and there is a scene where King Arthur rides up (with an imaginary horse) to a castle requesting knights to accompany him in search for the Holy Grail. There are two guards on top of the castle wall that begin to question King Arthur how he has those coconuts that his squire is knocking together since there are no coconuts in England. The movie takes it a step further when the guards actually have a philosophical debate about how the coconuts got to England. They debate over which bird carried the coconut and how heavy the coconut is and how heavy the bird that carried the coconut had to have been. There are two incongruities that are lying underneath this joke. First, we as a society picture guards as stupid and at the bottom of the hierarchy, so why are these two guards having a really good philosophical debate on the transportation of this coconut? The second one, is the fact that King Arthur is suppose to be a king and this guards are actually questioning him and taking up him time. It is clearly understood that the king had complete power and could do away with someone if he wanted to. It is also understood that King Arthur is on a quest to find the Holy Grail and he is being caught up by these two guards, when he should be on his way. The urgency causes us to laugh because of his frustration.

As seen Humor is a social construct. What one member of a particular society might consider funny another  might not. It is crucial for everyone to know what is going on in order for the joke to be successful. I believe this is why stand up comedy is funny. They know and the audience knows they are there to make you laugh and they do this by picking at society. In a sense, stand up comedians make fun of the very thing that created them and we love it! On the other hand, parodies like this movie do the same thing and are funny because they take a serious situation and turn it into a comical one by distorting what we have constructed.

Not Your Typical Wedding

Bridesmaids, in my opinion SHOULD be a classic. It was just so successful at being hilarious, and not being cliche that I believe it allowed a whole new style of comedy for women. When I think of Bridesmaids, I think that it has the classic neat love story that every girl wants and needs in the end, but with all the raunchy uncensored reality everyone enjoys in between. I feel like Bridesmaids phenomenal success is due a lot in part to what Critchley referred to as making the "ordinary extraordinary and real surreal". Bridesmaids just had so many shifts, that at times were so uncomfortable, you couldn't help but laugh about it. For example, probably the most notorious scene is the one when they get food poisoning in the bridal shop. They are supposed to be bridal shopping in this super fancy place that has these billion dollar dresses, and they end up shifting the angle and have everyone crapping and throwing up everywhere. I mean, yes everyone has had food poisoning, that is a very real thing. However, to get food poisoning while you're shopping for the dress that you have been dreaming about since you were six and is suppose to make you feel like the most beautiful princess on Earth only to end up crapping in it in the middle of the street with cars honking at you? Unreal. It's comedy gold. Not to mention Melissa McCarthy's character Megan's parallelism to Alan in the Hangover. Their characters show the reality of the rigidity within the confines of the upper class. The movie's both use their characters to poke fun at the idea of how we view rich people, and in a way how we relate more to Alan and Megan rather than Helen. I mean one of the most memorable ideas of reactionary humor I can think of from the movie is the way that they made fun of the upper class by showing the ridiculousness of Lillian's bridal shower. I mean, her wedding invitations had butterflies coming out of it, having dogs as party favors, and I mean the giant fucking cookie and their bleached you know. There's a lot of comedic gold in Bridesmaids, and it's because we can relate so much to each of characters and thinking all throughout ME AF. Yet, I think the biggest reason for it's success is because it's not congruent with our way of thinking. Romantic comedies are supposed to be more cute than funny, and aren't supposed to be that crude and honest, but it was and that's what makes it great.

Happy Coming Out Week!

This week was Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Week in class and little did I know it was also the week of Coming Out Day. We did an interesting reading on Sexuality and watch one of my favorite movies, But I'm A Cheerleader. Instead of watching the movies on the list and do a deep critical analysis on the articles we read, I think this time I will be introducing a more personable and modern account on Sexuality, e.i. Me coming out up to now.

All in youth, I was deeply rooted in the Church. Everything from Choir, Usher board, and Youth Committee I was apart of it. At that time I "Loved the Lord and I Wouldn't Take It Back". The church was that little light that gave hope to people who were non believers to come to Christ and repent for their sins. Their sins?  They range from many things but you do come across a few sins that gets you called things like abominations, disgusting, and gets you condemned straight to hell. Little did I know, my "Sin" would set me apart from the rest lol. As time progressed, I grew up noticing my interest in guys but never acted upon it because I didn't wanna go to hell. Sadly that's how I thought about it but I was young and dumb. Until that one day where I was hanging out with a friend from church at bible camp and it was confirmed.... I like guys lol. That moment was never discussed between us and it never resurfaced, it was almost like that moment someone says, "Hey try this flavor of ice cream!", and it tastes like a spoon full of heaven but you can never find that brand when you go grocery shopping again.

Now in the reading Sexuality, MacKinnon made some points about Sex and Gender being about Power. I would have to beg the differ and say it s about pleasure; those caught up in motives outside of sex and gender expression just find the power inside the abilities of sex. I was not on board with the perspective MacKinnon took on diving and discussing  sexuality because it felt like she was running a Critic on Sexuality. I can understand that at the time it was very taboo and slowly rising about the many layers of thing that pop up in modern day discussions however I just feel like MacKinnon could have given a more holistic account of sexuality then just bashing the status quo. Sex is more than just centering one gender or the other as the pagan god of our hormones but the fulfillment of the sensual stroke and to bring forth an offspring.

After some years that moment came again and the same person who validated my peculiar tastes engaged me in a more evolved form of interaction. It was not as the curious cat flowing the laser dot anymore, it because the curious cat , touching itself in its reflection. He was just as curious and enticed as I was but the moment came to a halt because he didn't want to go to hell either, which is understandable. I didn't feel the same way, in retrospect. Who was this group of people to justify what I found as pleasure and enjoyment as a unclean sin. What puzzled me even more was there was different sins being flashed in all forms and ways but hinting to being queer, the people's faces curl in disgust and others grin with dirty thoughts.

In the movie 4th Man Out is a movie about a young man coming out to his group of friends and they end up overcoming their initial homosexual fears to help him find love. They try to give him pointers and suggestions via dating tips but the gay friend wasn't having any luck because, bless his soul but, he was not a charmer. He had no kind of game and seemed a bit out of touch with himself. Sex was not trying to climb the corporate ladder and take over the next billion dollar company. Sex was not trying to manipulate anyone into getting him into the exclusive hot spots. Sex for him was just trying to settle down and find his happiness in someone else.

Granted after that interaction with the guy that thought our interactions were sending us to hell whether we liked it or not, I started to align myself outside of the church because I couldn't continue to see myself believing in something that wished nothing but damnation on my soul lol. I started to enlighten myself about sex, sexuality, and other religions that aren't so damnable to those who have different tastes than others and honestly, I feel a hell of a lot better. Not because I fear "hell", not because I want power (well...... in other ways) but because I embraced me, my gay, my queer, and my own experience.

Updating my fairytale

LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX BABY... and by that I mean let's talk about people's private parts. Ok, well not really cause that would be a little too much, but really, I watched Friends With Benefits, and let me just say a lot of it was cringe-worthy. Why? Because, apart from it's incredibly predictable plot and awkward butt-flashing sex scenes, the generalization of gender roles were downright sinful. I mean come on, literally, in one scene Tommy says, "Does she have a penis where most girls have a vagina? [Dylan: No] THEN SHE'S NO DIFFERENT." So here's the thing about that, it's annoying, because it is not a gender assigned characteristic for others to want intimacy and connection. Yet, in nearly every romantic comedy, in every boy and girl friend situation, it is always assumed that women are the only ones that make it messy. That we are the only ones that desire connection. Even worse, is the shit we get when we aren't like that, hence the expression, "I'm not good at being a girl," But how can people be bad at being a girl? They'll say because they are not feminine or because they can't have children, they aren't good with feelings, but none of this means they are bad at being girls does it? It's insane. But what's worse is that we've come to accept it as true. Another thing I noticed was what MacKinnon said about the way that sexuality is a lot about male dominance. Not particularly in the ways she mentioned, but the need to be dominant within their relationship and reducing women as things. Like the case with the doctor in the movie, he saw Jamie as more of a prize. She gave him a rule and that made him want to win her and make her submiss through manipulating her. He wanted to be in power and did not think of her as a human being with feelings but as something to be dominated and powered over and a prize. I mean, like Mackinnon states, relationships and sexuality are normally male dominant and female submissive. I saw that in the way that Dylan has a lot power in the relationship, even though Jamie was very blunt and honest and did have power, in the end it was Dylan who had the power to define the relationship. Jamie's mom even says that relationships are equal and that they're about being equal partners and that prince charming should be redefined. I agree. I think that women and men should be seen as more fluid and not limited to definitions. Prince charming does not have to be a man or the person you marry, and sexuality should not be determined by your gender. In the movie I noticed a lot that they tried to shift the roles a little, make Jamie more dominant, but it also showed the insecurities men have in that role like when Dylan climbed the fence because he was called out. It sucks, and really, everyone's guilty of doing it. I think however, it's time that we stop the inequality and realize that it's not always great to label people no matter how much easier it maybe because then shapes the people we become and doesn't allow us the freedom to really become all that we could be.

Emasculated

In the film, “Friends With Benefits” the two main characters are Dylan and Jamie. Jamie’s character is an example of a woman trying to break gender norms. She refuses to be a submissive person both sexually and socially. Her personality is seemingly off putting but when looking into her personality piece by piece you being to realize that she is breaking the stereotypical norm of what society says that the typical woman should act like. She is introduced as a woman with a stable job and doesn’t allow her work life to effect her social life. Although she does mix the two, her professionalism is still kept above it. Additionally, she is not quiet about her thoughts or feelings. She is very forth coming and blunt, which is something that stuns Dylan.

Dylan sees women as all the exact same, and wanting the same thing out of a relationship. They want someone who will be with them every single day until the day they die and this is something that causes Dylan a lot of anxiety because of his own family history. From his mother and father’s relationship he learned that not everyone will be together every single day until they die, and that there is no “the one”. Which is very much contrary to Jamie’s beliefs. Although she does believe there a “the one”, she does not base her entire life around it. She understands that she needs to be a strong individual for herself and needs to be self-reliant but also emotional validation and support are something she looks for in a potential significant other.

However, out of all of Jamie’s unique characteristics, the one that Dylan is most impressed with is her sexuality. She is willing to embark on a relationship with him that is simply just sexually based. There would not be any intention of a relationship. Jamie is not a submissive person both socially and, as the movie goes to show, sexually. In MacKinnon’s ‘Sexuality’, it is said that sex is equated with man’s power and thus making a woman the inferior. This definition is forced upon women.

 This is even illustrated within the context of the movie. Dylan and Jamie begin to have sex with each other when Jamie is on top of Dylan. This dynamic in the context of male power and sexuality, makes Jamie (the woman) the dominant one and Dylan (the man) the submissive one. This sparks Dylan to say, “I gotta be honest, I feel a little emasculated.” Although he has nothing to feel emasculated about as Jamie points out, he still has her switch positions so that he can be in the more dominant position—on top.

Emasculated Scene from Friends With Benefits

Sexuality: The Dominate Male Power

Sexuality is something we are not used to talking about but it is part of everyone's everyday experience and it influences the way people act towards others. In most cases sexuality is the underlying factor for sexual arousal. But before that, sexuality can serve to identify someone as beautiful and attractive because it sparks something inside us that makes us want to be with the other person. But, as highlighted by Catherine A. McKinnon author of of Sexuality, sexuality also has a negative effect because it is a product of male dominance. Sexuality, in this sense, is an oppressive tool used to place the male on top of the social hierarchy. We are so accustomed to this version of sexuality because it has been taught to us from a very young age. The movie Pretty Woman (1990), is one such movie that highlights the established male and female roles, the negative view it holds on women prostitutes, and the narrative of the wealthy elite saving a woman prostitute from a horrible life.

In the movie Pretty Woman, Mr. Edward Lewis (Richard Gere) needs an escort for a social event and hires Vivian Ward (Julia Roberts) and by the end of the movie they fall in love and live happily ever after. First of all, lets address the male and female roles that are used to categorize male constructed sexuality. McKinnon says, "the male sexual role... centers on aggressive intrusion on those with less power" (127). Mr. Lewis drives up in a grey 1989 Lotus Esprit SE (if you do not know it is a very expensive sports car for that time) to a really bad part of the city, most likely the "ghetto," where there are women lined up displaying their bodies and services. Ms. Ward is first seen having a pep talk by her friend and then takes off her red jacket to display her body as she walks towards Mr. Lewis' sports car; where they negotiate. This behavior is all for the male power. Mr. Lewis is wealthy not rich, he has the contacts to acquire a beautiful escort but he goes to the ghetto to find someone "different." In addition, Mr. Lewis parked ten feet or more ahead of Ms. Ward, making her walk towards him. Both of these aspects are putting male dominance on a pedestal by Mr. Lewis, the wealthy male, as the shot caller and Ms. Ward as the female servant.

In the movie, Ms. Ward represents a male constructed type of woman that men have created for his pleasure. To name a few, Ms. Ward is snappy, venturous, strong but also in need of someone, lost, and unhappy. This characterization of Ms. Ward is oppressive to females. McKinnon says, "men author scripts to their own advantage, women and men act them out; that men set conditions, women and men have their behavior conditioned" (128). Just like in the movie, Ms. Ward and Mr. Lewis are playing certain roles that were constructed even before him. Ms. Ward believes she has to act like this in order to portray the female prostitute and Mr. Lewis believes that he has to act that way in order to portray himself as of that class. So, what we have here are male constructs oppressing the female. This sexual construct does not only play in the client-prostitute formate but also in everyday experience. The man of the house is suppose to be the provider for the household is another one of these constructs commonly known to most of us.

This leads to the third factor occurring in the movie. The narrative of the wealthy elite saving a woman prostitute from a horrible life. This resembles everyday experience because the male is suppose to be the provider and keeper for the female since "the female cannot take care of herself" and when the dominate male experiences an independent dominate female, he gets scared and fears the uncontrolled. This is seen in gender inequality, males are afraid of the unknown and uncontrolled. However, in the movie Mr. Lewis and Ms. Ward fall in love. How is it possible for two people of the opposite socioeconomic status find each other in a street corner and fall in love? This does not happen everyday and it resembles the whole prince charming story. The prince somehow overcomes horrible obstacles to climb up the tower to rescue the beautiful (actually good) woman. This prince charming story is overplayed in our everyday lives and we do not acknowledge it but it plays a tremendous influence. The sexual role of Mr. Lewis is the dominate savior of the the fragile lost Ms. Ward.

As seen sexuality has been used as a tool for male power. It has been taught to us from a very young age and it is part of us. But what can we do to change this? Why can we not depart from this way of thinking? Is it just natural for us to separate ourselves? Hopefully one day we can truly be equal.

Society's Effect on Gender and Sexuality

Do you ever pick up on odd coincidences? For instance, a few weeks ago I was sitting in my rhetorical theory class and we were discussing the value of images over words in digital spaces. Later that night I went to a Sturgill Simpson concert (a country music artist) and the lyrics to one of the songs went, "A picture's worth a thousand words but a word ain't worth a dime". Some would simply label these odd occurrences serendipity. Regardless, things like this happen to us more often than not and many times we just fail to notice. Another one of these occurrences hit me this week. I was having a conversation with one of my friends about sexual preferences yesterday and she brought up that one her close friends hardly goes out on dates and is simply not interested in sexual relationships. She mentioned that they had a conversation about it and the friend claimed to be asexual. Her friend is completely content with having many close friends and does not develop physical feelings like many of us do towards others. My friend and I continued our conversation and discussed how we all, as humans, have different preferences when it comes to sexuality and that it is absolutely justifiable. Unbeknownst to my friend, we are studying gender and sexuality in my Philosophy of Film course this week.

While going through the reading material for this week's class, Perfomative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory by Judith Butler, I couldn't help but think of the conversation I had with my friend. Specifically, I was exploring the idea of 'action theory', which Butler points out is "a domain of moral philosophy [that] seeks to understand what is 'to do' prior to any claim of what one ought to do". I thought of it this way: what would the world be like without social norms? In other words, if it was more 'normal', for lack of a better term, to be homosexual in the 90s as it is now (with the legalization of same-sex marriage nation wide), would there be more people interested in same-sex marriage today? In this case, the social norms before the legalization of same-sex marriage could be perceived as insinuating that we ought to be heterosexual. Butler further explores the nature of sexuality and gender by discussing the phenomenology theory of 'acts' that "seeks to explain the mundane way in which social agents constitute social reality through language, gesture, and all manner of symbolic social sign". This offered all new clarity on the conversation I had with my friend. Her friend simply ignored the social norms that society will forever continue to plant in our system and chose to undertake what he felt was comfortable instead. He did what he wanted 'to do' instead of what society says he ought 'to do'. This, if anything, should be lauded as courageous, should it not? I, for one, wish that I did not so easily bend to society's normative push on a daily basis. As with serendipity, we often do this without realizing it. 

This brings me to a quote from a movie I watched this week, Friends with Benefits. 

Jamie: "I really have to stop buying into this bullshit Hollywood cliché of true love."
Jamie: "Shutup, Katherine Heigl, you stupid, little liar!"

Why do we buy into the Hollywood clichés so easily? Rarely are these clichés actually applicable to our lives, yet we are so easily angered when they don't. We are often drawn to films that are relatable to our everyday lives, but, as Jamie and Dylan point out in Friends with Benefits, we are also too often looking for a Hollywood cliché that will never come. We dream of the Titanic scene between Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. My argument is that perhaps if you don't focus on the social norms created by films, media, celebrities, music, etc., that perhaps your own original, magical fairytale ending will occur. We can't all fit the stereotype. After all, films remain relevant by coming up with new, original fairytales. Films are made about the people that ignore the influence of such clichés.

Judith Butler's words seemed to lean in this direction. I believe that she is trying to strip away society's overbearing effect on our personal lives and in turn she demonstrates that sexuality and gender is in actuality not determined by these things. I've come to find that this world is much more serendipitous than it seems and that if we ignore certain ideas that society deems normal, we can write our own fairytale. 

Life is a Stage

This week, I watched TransAmerica for my film, and I had no idea what to expect. This movie was difficult to watch at some parts because of the fact that you knew all of Bree's secrets would blow up in her face. It was also tough to see her have to go through knowing that she was at one point a father and not a mother, in the technical sense. In regards to Judith Butler's idea of gender being performative I think both of these films definitely outline that theory, and makes it seem like truth to me.

It is extremely difficult to deem gender as intrinsic or something that society decides for us. This is because it is absolutely impossible to separate us from society. My sex is female, and I, for the most part, follow the gender qualities that are labeled as feminine, but I also have qualities that are deemed masculine–are these who I am or how society has conditioned me to be? I will never actually know.

Butler compares this performative quality of genders as theatrical in a way. It reminds me highly of the existential concept of "life is a stage" found in many post modern writings like Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead where the characters are playing out their part in a play and not actually making decisions about the course of their life. It makes me think about whether or not I or a lot of people I know are actually making decisions about our gender or whether or not we are just    playing roles already spelled out for me. Bree, though, deliberately makes the decision to be herself and "perform" a gender that sides with famine attributes.

The films that we watched this week really gave me something new to think about when it comes to gender and sexuality, and I am appreciative in that:

"Gender is what is put on, invariably, under constraint, daily and incessantly, with anxiety and pleasure, but if this continuous act is mistaken for a natural or linguistic given, power is relinquished to expand the cultural bodily through subversive performances of various kinds."

I admire the "with anxiety and pleasure" part because by both performing a desired or undesired gender, it will give everyone both of these feelings. When trying to live up to masculinity, men can feel anxiety, while a transgender woman may finally get to fully perform her desired gender as being feminine. After all, life might really just be a stage.

Mind Travel Is Time Travel

Often times we think that our days will be different, better, and brighter if our seemingly unbearable, and painful memories are erased. I’m sure we’ve all seen the post breakup scenes in movies, in which one tries to get rid of anything that reminds them of a former friend or special someone, thinking that losing memory of the painful past will set them on a new path and make everything better. However, I think that this assumption is not always true. “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is a film about a couple running from the difficulties of love and relationships; both people end up seeking to erase their memories of the other that hurt them. As the memories were being erased, Joel and Clementine realized the value in their memories and went back in time to past memories to try to recapture them. Painful memories have value and should not be erased. Memories from a painful relationship are a gift even after the relationship that did not end so well. In this dreamlike, shifting film, it is revealed at some point that the quirky couple breaks apart. When Joel finds out that his ex-girlfriend erases him from her memory, he sets out to do the same. During the erasing process, Joel is now living inside of his memories and doesn’t like to watch them fade and tries to recapture them. By revisiting the good and bad memories, he realizes more about himself and the root of some of his personal issues. He also realizes how most of his memories were of good times that were shared with Clementine. Painful or not, memories are valuable. Erasing humiliating memories can turn out to be humiliating. When we are blind to the mistakes of our past, we are bound to repeat it again. In the film, the doctor who was the master of erasing memories had secrets exposed. The receptionist found out that her strong crush on her boss was stemmed in a past erased memory of her relations with the boss. To move on from his adulterous past, he erased the receptionist’s memory but also her dignity. Memory, in my opinion is a form of time travel, although it’s a quite blurry and sometimes unreliable. I think that memory is the closest we’ll literally get to relive the past, even though nothing is nearly as clear as the actual moment. Traveling through the mind or memory , which contains moments in time, is time travel. In Paradoxes of Time Travel, Lewis suggests that time travel is possible and in terms of memory, I agree. He also suggests that the purpose is often to change something of the past. Time Travel independent of recalling memory seems more impossible. My question: why isn’t the continuation of time enough to change the past? In other words, are not the present and the future a way to address the past and make things better? Other Time Travel Questions: If one is going back in time to try to stop genocide, for example, how can one assume that their actions alone will necessarily stop the genocide? Even if the leader is killed, if he is killed before he does this, is it right to kill him? Even if we would successfully stop some bad things of the past, are not there things in the present to keep from becoming painful memories?

Time Traveling: Sure Let Me Erase Your Memory

Have you ever said something or done something that you were not entirely proud of or maybe you did not say "hi" to the cute girl or boy waiting in line? We have all felt that regretful discomfort feeling of "what if." Throughout history time travel has been a fascination of human reasoning because we all would like to go back in time and do something differently. But, assuming time travel would be technologically possibly, would time travel even be logical? Would it not create some vortex or mess with the overall chronology of time? Some of these questions are asked by many contemporary physicists and philosophers that indulge on the "what if" feeling. Michel Gondry, director of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), brings a different type of time traveling that may not be so far from the distant future. In his movie, the possibility of erasing parts of one's memory is possible, giving the patient a new start in life. Though this is not seen as the more traditional form of time traveling, Gondry does open the window to exploring the "what if" feeling in a more subtle and less universally effecting form.



Richard Taylor, author of Space and Time, describe the events that have occurred and will occur as changeless because time and space are two distinct things in relation to one another. In his literature he writes,

"time and space, we should speak of temporal and spatial relationships between  things. And the temporal relationships between things and events it should now be noted, do not change... Viewing the matter this way, then the whole history of the world, together with its entire future, can be regarded as fixed and changeless, for the relationship which any event whatever has to every other event that ever occurs, whether past, present, or future, is quite unalterable"

So, is gong back in time and altering an event to effect the future possible? Taylor claims that the past and the future will not change because these are ideas that are separate but linked by the present. This is something that is reoccurring in the movie because even though they erased parts of their memories they are still ultimately linked by the present that was (or the past).  Taylor is saying that something in the near future will become the present and the past. So, it technically does not matter what occurs because time is in a linear setting therefore "pure becoming" because one cannot alter this stable aspect of time. If time travel were possible and someone went back in time and did something to alter the future then it would be technically possible because time would continue. In a sense its like the movie because one would go into the memory and erase the parts that they no longer wanted. Therefore creating a new beginning a new life and a new direction in the present that will ultimately become the future and ultimately the past.
.

Time & Space Unfolded....

"Thus time is thought of as something that flows, like a river, at a constant rate and in one direction only. A river wears down the things in its path, and things similarly age and decay over time. A river has a distant and obscure source, and eventually flows into a vast ocean...Space, on the other hand, is popularly thought of as resembling not a river but a great and motionless vessel within which everything is spread out and contained. Thus we think of objects as moving through space, much as fish move about in a vast lake."

-Richard Taylor

Reading up on the topics of Time, Memory, and Mortality; Richard Taylor stood out the most in trying to understand these vast concepts in the most philosophical way possible. He added a certain something for me in my understanding of time, space, and the relativity of the concepts (or entities) themselves. Taylor truly explored different aspects of  Time and its relation to Space. The one that really stood out was excerpt from the section where he talks about the relativity of Time and Space, shown above. 

It truly describes Time as a river that flows into the vast ocean, which I would think that vast ocean is the great and motionless vessel which everything is spread out and contained. That is the great ocean that time runs into that provokes existence. I believe the two are interconnected and intertwined in some way. The movie I watched was Interstellar and it truly was awesome because it does discuss the possibly of the two having a relation to each other; plus it had Mathew McConaughey in it! The two intricate descriptions of time and space play into my own person theory of time that I learned in Philosophy; Leibniz's theory of the unfolding monad.  

The movie Looper was a very interesting movie that dived into the theories of 'Time Travel' and 'Time and Change' that Taylor talks about in Space and Time. In the movie there were people in the future who created time travel but it was outlawed. Bad people ended up with the technology and used it to dispose of loose ends in the business. At one point in time, there were incidents of closing loops which means the people who disposed of future bodies were sent back into the past to die by their own hands. This was made possible because the people sent back in time to be killed had their faces covered so you would never know who was being selecting for reaping. This one particular time, The young man himself was sent back but with nothing covering his face. The story takes a strange but interesting turn to a Man versus Self conflict, quickly. Come to find out in the end, the young man that became a Looper had to kill himself to prevent the endless cycle of creating a monster inadvertently. 

Richard does say about Time and Change that, 

"there is a more general sense of 'change' however, according to which something is said to have a more or less interesting history. Something changes in the sense, in other words, in case it acquires and loses various properties and relationships over an interval of time - in case its temporal parts are dissimilar... A thing would change temporally, in the sense we are considering, in case it was, for example, blue at one time and red at another. But then something such as wire, might be blue at one end and red at the other, and perhaps various other colors between these two places"(484-485).

That is a good example of how an major event change in history could be displayed through the example in the wire where at some point along the wire, the wire changes from blue to red. In comparison to the movies I watched; Interstellar showed the change when Matthew pushed out the books in the beginning to warn his daughter, that was the same time that he was stuck in the library of time out in space. In the film Looper  the best example was when the young version of the young man killed himself in order to stop the older version from killing the kid's mother and creating the Rainmaker. This week threw me for a mental loop and played games with my mental faculties, however I did learn a lot!

The Traveling Mind

Time travel, is it or is it not a future possibility? The idea of time travel seems to focus on time as being on a continuum and that what happens remains trapped in a time warp (at least this is my interpretation). I do not believe in a physical ability to travel back and forth through time as in we will not be able to hop into a capsule one day and blast ourselves back to the era of the dinosaurs or 100 years into the future. After viewing Inside Out, what I do find plausible is our innate ability to mentally time travel, meaning that we're able to go backwards or forwards  through time in our minds. Past memories and hypothetical thoughts are our "loops".

One theory that I noticed in Inside Out was from Making Things Happen which is the theory that in order for one thing to exist another thing must be or not be present. In the film, Joy believes that two contradictory emotions could not occupy the same space at the same time, illustrated in how she doesn't allow the other emotions to touch the memory balls and works hard to make sure that Riley, the protagonist, is always happy even when happiness was not the appropriate emotion. Moreover, in order for happiness to exist, there could not be a presence of another emotion, shown by the memory balls being one entire color thus even though that sadness or other emotions were "necessary" they were not "sufficient" amongst the presence of Joy. However, in the falling action, Joy begins to realize that "neither A nor B needs to be designated a single condition or event for the cause of any event is almost invariably a set of these" (477). When Sadness touches Joy's favorite memory of Riley winning the hockey game causing the memory to become sad, Joy realizes that it is because of the sadness Riley felt that caused her parents and friends to cheer her up which in turn causes the memory to become more joyful. It is not sadness alone nor joy alone but rather a set that occupies that space which creates the conditions of the event.

The film illustrates our ability to alter our past, one aspect of time traveling. Let's take trauma victims for instance. Those who have experienced trauma may time travel back to painful events and block them out or erase them from their cognitive time line or cognitively restructure the event. This is when you see someone legitimately forgetting what happened to them or believing their oppressor is dead because they killed them in her or his mind. Does this change reality? For the individual, yes but nothing happens to the entire world because one person altered or erased his or her past experiences as Taylor mentioned "to revisit an occurrence is to imagine that event with all things the same except for ourselves" (484). Instead of being bullied, you go back and stand up to your bully and beat him or her up. Secondly, we have the ability to travel to the future through hypothetical thoughts. As old Joe says in Loopers, the more steps one takes in the direction of that hypothetical the more clearer and likely that future goal becomes reality. For the more forward thinkers like myself, it's always like occupying multiple spaces at once, one foot in the present and the other in the future (483). Spatially, today and tomorrow are relatively the same time for us. I can sit in class and fast-forward to eating dinner and then go actually eat dinner after class. The future is only a possibility until it is actually done which is why in Loopers present Joe could kill future Joe and still be alive but if the present Joe dies all the possibilities and old Joe die with him. We are our own time machines. What we recall; what we envision for the future are unique solely to us. We can dare to enter our portals.

Lesson of Survival

“Human beings are animals” (George). According to Human and Apes, what sets human animals apart from other animals is our innate ability to adapt to environments. For instance, Asian or Chinese panda bears do not live in the safari with lions, tigers and what not oh my because they cannot easily adapt to that environment. It would take many evolutions for the panda to be suitable for such an environment, but they will likely all go extinct before that evolution takes place. Though adaptive we are, we are still also unfit for animal environments in many ways which is why we usually see humans set up their civilizations on the outskirts of the animal kingdom opposed to living inside of a bear’s cave. Despite our differences, March of the Penguins illustrated what we have in common which is the need for one another for survival.

In the film, I saw how the penguins worked together to get to where they could safely procreate. They walked together and huddled together to keep each other warm. It was self-evident that each survival was in link and dependent upon one another. This was shown when the penguin lagged behind and died because it was on its own. In the simplest unit, I saw the family. It was evident how the child’s survival was based off the parents’ survival. In opposition to the media’s portrayal of human fathers, in March of the Penguins, the mother and father equally sacrificed. If the father died so did the baby if the mom didn’t make it back with food the baby died. They both made the same perilous journey multiple times. Though the penguins were strange to me, I thought of the point George brings up about rather we can accurately say that animals are incapable of abstract thought. I wonder what the penguins were thinking maybe something like “Damn, it’s cold” ot “I wish she would hurry back”. Humans say animals can’t experience complex emotions but whether it was love or lust I saw something quite complex when the male and female mates found each other. Or perhaps their connection was an admission of need; she needed him just as he needed her.

In American society, even though we are so individualistic, our survival is still reliant upon one another.  Our inability to sometimes see our animal-like need for one another demonstrates our loss connection to our human nature. We view each other as means to ends to prevent from admitting that we just need one another. If the inventor of Apple was the only human in his area, his invention would have never left the drawing board or even his head for that matter because there would be no one to have any use for that invention or to help him start the idea. Here survival is dependent upon the capital a person is able to bring in, ignoring our general need for one another instead we focus on the roles that need to be filled. But by who? People! Rather we realize or acknowledge it or not we are key to one another survival. We help each other degenerate the capital we need to be able to survive in this country. In our society, our homeless are the lost penguins. When we allow them to fall behind, they wither away with little to no chance for survival. People spend so much time cooing about how cute animals are, never realizing the lessons they have to offer us. We are not different from animals. We have a different look and a different language and do things a bit differently, but nonetheless we have much to learn from them about survival and conservation. Once we acknowledge the nature within us, we will be able to prosper.