Dalloway

While I realize we have already created an initial draft for this paper, I thought it would be a good idea to post on the blog.  For my essay I plan to analyze the passage on pages 8-9, in which Clarissa "remembers throwing a schilling into the serpentine."  Within this passage, we find many different references to different themes present throughout the book, the biggest of which being the mention of trees.  This is going to be the basis of my essay; I plan to explain how trees represent the vast reaches of the human soul.  By extension, I will be able to discuss feelings on life of Clarissa and Septimus, which will allow me to extend into many other topics.  In this passage we also find some mention of time.  Time is present in many different ways through the book, and I believe that it would be good to elaborate on the significance of time.

Human Nature

So, like I said in class, I'm going to use Dr. Holmes in conjunction with Septimus and his suicide to help "define" modernism and this "ego-centric predicament." The passage on human nature and Dr. Holmes on pg 92 will start my analysis, simply showing that Dr. Holmes is a type of symbol for the nature of humans to be ego-centric in the modernist's point of view. Fast forwarding to pg 149, Septimus' suicide, I'll use this "scene" to show how Septimus essentially rejects modernism. He commits suicide to escape Dr. Holmes and humans in general, who, according to the modernist, all live in their own 'bubbles' and each are central to themselves. I know I need to make all of this a little more clear by explaining it but, in a nutshell, that's what I want to write about.

For my essay a few sences appeal to me but the one i have selected is Richards resolve to tell his wife he loves her. With in it im inermingaling the relivence of time and Big Ben. I really like the scene and i think its crusial for the rest of the story. I think it can be seen as a great reprsentation of the rest of the book. and that there are alot of messages Woolf is trying to portray though Richard, Mrs. Dallowway, Big Ben and the events of this scene.

Essay Topic

Hey ya'll. So for my essay I'm going to explore three scenes, using Peter getting rejected by Clarissa as my main scene. My main theme is "major let downs". Thus using Peter's rejection, then Richard's inability to say "I love you" and then Septimus finally being happy and wanting to live before dying. I'm using the scene of Peter's rejection as an anchor because it seems to affect a lot of the characters later on (hence the flower/can't say I love you scene with Richard). At this point I'm thinking I might retract the septimus scene and instead focus on how the scene of Peter's rejection and Richard's I love you because they are similar. And then I will talk about how love can be a momentary event and how just the split seconds you feel in love...could forever change you life! My mind is running rampant and I can NO LONGER look at a screen. Gu-bye

Septimus

For my Mrs. Dalloway essay I have decided to write on Septimus' suicide. While writing on this passage I was going to try to bring in the similarities between his suicide and Socrates' suicide, and how Virginia Woolf herself committed suicide. For now, however, I am just going to focus on really dealing with the passage itself and the uniqueness of Septimus' suicide compared to how people would normally react.

Labels

For my analysis of Mrs. Dalloway I'm going to talk about labels. On page eight Woolf starts to talk about how a label doesn't define you. Woolf starts to talk about how Clarrisa is a upper class, party throwing, socialite, but she also starts to get into how Clarrisa is so much more than a socialite, the experiences she had as a young woman with Sally Seaton, and the fact that she decides to mend her own dress, so on and so forth. Also with Septimus, although he is a war vetran so much has happened to him that cannot be labled and yet the Doctor labels him as crazy. Basically Woolf talks about how everyone in the book has some sort of a label and yet they are so much more than that label.

Lobo's dalloway essay idea

I was thinking of primarily using Septimus's revelations (67-69) to look at the ego-centric predicament by exploring the nature of subjectivity. I would look at the vast differances between the world that Septimus (who is insane) sees and understands as opposed to what "sane" people (like Clarissa) see and understand of the world, and tie that into the ego-centric predicament as proof that everyone has the capacity to see the world in vastly different ways, and as such it is impossible to connect with another person (this being the prevelant theme I argue). I will probably also look briefly at Septimus's suicide (139-149), and the ideas that lead him to jump, as well as what he thinks right before jumping, I will probably also look at Septimus's musings (88-89).

Passage

For my passage I plan to center on the scene in which Mr Bradshaw brings death to the party, and in that moment, when Clarissa and Septimus, though they never encounter in life, seem to make a connection. I will also draw from the passages in which Richard and Clarissa share their unspoken communication, and additionally Septiumus' suicide as well as his being "alone together" with Rezia. However "death stalking the party" will be my main focus. I will also devote some of my analysis to the fact that even though people search for connections and a breaking of the ego-centric bubble, and how, as with Clarissa and Septimus, the breaking of this bubble is not always a good thing.

Dalloway Paper

Ok well I was sold on the topic of the ego-centric predicament from the moment we were assigned this essay, but picking a scene was the most important part of this essay. I decided that the Solitary Traveler passage would be the most intriguing scene to analyze this predicament, but in doing so I can still roam around the novel to passages like Septimus' suicide (and his connection to Reiza just moments before) and the moment when Richard and Clarissa connect, to demonstrate the "compromises" that are possible even in this predicament. I also can pull in references to the scene where Peter breaks down into tears by Clarissa's side. One passage that I really want to reference but cannot seem to find is where Peter is talking about how "Clarissa had a theory in those days..."

As for more abstract references, I was hoping to pull in the shared aesthetic experience music brings and how this is a perfect demonstration of the compromise that Modernists propose for transcending the ego-centric predicament.

Dalloway Discussion

For my essay i am going to write about the intersection of subjective and objective time. the scene i plan to render is the first few pages of the book when Calrissa is transported back to bourton by the squeak of a door hinge. The subjective form of time is a key element in the ecocentric prediciment, we are all inside out own worlds on our own time, but BIG BEN will always strike when hours have passed.

Septimus musing

"It might be possible that the world is without meaning." Septimus shows his feelings toward the world. The world is without meaning, this could be that the world is not important to septimus. War surrounds him, shell shock, and this could lead to his feelings. Septimus is like Shakespeare in many manners like the way he feels about love, and the way he feels about humanity.

mrs dalloway

Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway is a novel that is prevalent with themes and different scenes that further portray them. Themes that are commonly go noticed in the pages of this novel are love and religion, madness versus proportion, and subjective versus objective experience of time. The theme of “death” was best exemplified in the scene in which Septimus commits suicide. This scene in which has been chosen to be examined is one filled with shadowy and gloom traits. It starts with him and his wife enjoying a day at the park and later goes on to have a horrible event happen, Septimus throwing himself from a window.

clarissas theory

For my essay I decided to analyze clarissas theory(pg. 8 & 9) by bringing out how she sees everything as connected. The fat lady in the cab, Bond Street, death ending absolutely. Clarissa ties everything together. "Devonshire House, Bath House, the house with the china cockatoo, she had seen them all lit up once; and remembered Sylvia, Fred, Sally Seton—such hosts of people; and dancing all night; and the waggons plodding past to market; and driving home across the Park." The houses are lit up together, the hosts of people dancing together, the wagons plodding past to market. She can't seem to grasp how she can die, or cease to be, yet still be tied to everything.
At one point, near the end of the second paragraph of her theory, she says, "...on the ebb and flow of things, here, there, she survived, Peter survived, lived in each other, she being part, she was positive, of the trees at home; of the house there, ugly, rambling all to bits and pieces as it was..." Yet, in the first paragraph, she says, "She had a perpetual sense, as she watched the taxi cabs, of being out, out, far out to sea and alone..." If she is so connected with everything why is she still so alone? This theory seems to contradict itself. The first paragraph states how she is alone and will never say something is this or that. But in the second paragraph she says that she, Peter, and everyone/everything else is connected.

An Indictment of Wealth

In the book Mrs. Dalloway Wolf paints the picture of a rather pathetic and mundane group of central characters. Clarrisa, Peter Walsh, Hugh Whitbread, these area ll people creating a egocentric and falsified world for themselves. Hugh shuns reality by deluding himself with his letters, believing himself an involved philanthropist when he is, in actuality a lame gesture of British supremacy. Clarrisa fools herself into thinking than she is a prominent member of society, while she cant even got a lunch invitation with Lady Burton. Even the likable Sally Seton becomes yet another member of the boring aristocracy, forsaking the individuality that brought her immortality in the minds of her friends. I found Septimus the most likable of the characters because he actually has a reason for his pathetic state, and one that one person should deny him. Mrs. Killman delivers a tyrade against the wealth of the British aristocracy, going so far to say that Clarrissa's life was a "tissue of lies and deceit". She offers what I believe is Woolf's perspective on the whole thing, an indictment of the lives that wealth has brought so many.

Lav-Dawg,

Lav-Dawg,
I will use this opportunity to inquire of you about Peter's knife. FOr my essay, I wrote about the scene where Peter surprises Clarissa with a visit, and I need some verification about the knife. For one, I feel that the knife symbolizes myriad aspects of the novel. For one, because he has had the knife since Biourton (I think), it showcases the fact that he cannot/will not/refuses to relinquish the past. IN addition, because he is perpetually fidgeting with his knife, I feel that it is indictive of his uneasiness around Clarissa and the contemporary English society. Finally, the way that he is continually opening and closing the knife portrays the ambiguity in the novel. An open and closed knife equates to 50:50 or ambiguity. Peter is ambiguous towards Clarissa, Daisy, English society, etc. etc. I'm not sure if any of the aforementioned motifs and symbols actually hold any validity, but I'd appreciate your input.

GREEN

Is the reason the color green shows up so much because its suppose to symbolise envy? It seems that Peter is jealous of Richard, Richard is jealous of Peter. Clarissa is jealous of Sally Seton and Peters relationship. It seems Septimus is jealous of all happiness he is lacking in his life. And Rezia is jealous of Evens even though he is dead. In every scene we see the color green is it because most of the characters have a little green monster on their backs? Is the reason that Clarissa didn't marry Peter have to do with her fathers great disapproval of him?

Sally and Clarissa

For my paper, I am thinking of writing about the relationship between Sally Seton and Clarissa Dalloway. My main passage will be the one on pg. 35 where Clarissa explains the kiss between her and Sally. She describes it as exquisite, and says that "the whole world might have turned upside down". The kiss was like a freeing moment for Clarissa; she feels supressed by society, and therefore, Sally was something different from the norm. Mrs. Dalloway constantly is trying to be the perfect hostess, and she is often referred to as that. Also, on pg. 33, Clarissa says that she has always envied "a sort of abandonment, as if she could say anything, do anything; a quality much commoner in foreigners than in an Englishwoman". Again, this shows how Sally is different and out of the ordinary. Sally opened Clarissa's eyes to how sheltered life was in Bourton. Then, when Sally arrives as Lady Rosseter at Clarissa's party, Clarissa sees that she has conformed. Sally is now married has 5 strong children. This is a disappointment to Mrs. Dalloway because now even Sally is part of the routine, stiff world that Clarissa has been a part of.

Windows to our Souls

For my paper, I would really like to further investigate the metaphor between windows (and ultimately rooms as well) and our souls. I feel that Virginia Woolf consciously made the effort to depict our homes as our souls; that as we retreat into our rooms (as the old woman does at the end of the book) we are also retreating into our souls.
I'll start with Septimus' suicide--it seems to be the perfect example of this metaphor. With Septimus, a man who feels as though he is being torn apart by the strict norms of society, I found it rather odd (and fitting) that he would jump out of his window (thus leaving his "soul") and impale himself on a railing--literally a barrier between the home and society. I'd also like to see if Septimus' suicide is really a rejection or acceptance of society; by committing suicide he is rejecting society but the symbolism behind the window and the railing could mean that he is trying to accept society in his last moments. Or perhaps it was some cruel joke Woolf plays on him (how fitting that he just happens to land on a railing, of all things).
So this is what I'd like to write about, but knowing me I'll probably go off on a tangent somewhere in my paper about trees being a metaphor for souls as well :)

Essay Prospective

In my essay i want to explore why Woolfe approaches the concept of death in so many different ways through all of her characters. Also what the significance of using death or suicide in her novel to tie everyone together. I also want to point out what i think Woolfe is trying to say about human nature and how we all must die the difference is how we approach the act of it. Im thinking i might use Septimus's suicide scene as the central point and then also expand on Clarissa's first mention of suicide and her last mention of death, and comparing Dr. Holmes watching Septimus die to Clarissa watching the old woman go to sleep in the end.

Cursing Society?

Yes, I understand that if I am to curse society, I should yell it out with pure confidence instead of questioning if I actually curse it or not. It makes my statement weak. But, the reason for my question mark is confusion.
First of all, I love Mrs. Dalloway. Nothing really happens for a good 2/3Rd's of the book, but throughout all of those pages, so much is going on. I feel connection to this modernist style, because I've often felt that many people could miss out on a considerable part of life if they loose connection with other people; especially a large, diverse group of people. Yet, how do we connect with these people? How do we get inside other people's thoughts and begin to understand differences and similarities?
I refuse to believe that everyone reacts to art in the same way. My uncle and I live for poetry, yet my mother looks down upon the art form. And Erik and I don't perceive poetry in the same way whatsoever. Have you ever gone to a movie with someone? That right there on the big screen is a giant piece of many frameworks of art, and whoever is sitting next to you is not going to like every moment that you do.... You are both going to disagree on a number of things such as a) actors, b) music, c) script or plot in general.... Art may give us something like a common denominator a.k.a. a similar foundation, but, in the none Modernist view, doesn't the notion of God actually give us all a true string that can connect us all? However, even in the Modernist rejection of God, what of love? Is there such a thing as Universal love? Or can love only be between two people?
I also disagree that sex is the only other way to connect with a person. If sexual intimacy leads to connection, shouldn't there be a fundamental love between the two people before making love? I just don't believe that if you were to make love to somebody without the essential bond of love between that person it would 'expand this luminous halo' that we belong in.
So, we must establish some form of, some way, to communicate, and 'share the burden of your mind'. (I think that's from a song....) And it is true, as we go through life, we will find those who can go 'in and out of each other's minds,' and we don't actually need to speak before we are understood. "Happiness is this" because this alienation seems to disappear when our own confusing thoughts actually makes sense to someone who is outside of our own personal worlds. -At the beginning of this book, I was sincerely convinced that every person on the face of the planet was potentially insane to different degrees. My reasoning: because we are all confined to what is in our heads and our own perceptions, and we are living the lie of relative truths, we can never clue anybody else in on what we are going through, what we experience, and how we deal with everything.
But please enter in the word experience. Isn't it is our experiences that we are able to share that somehow connect us? Clarissa and Septimus never share the same experiences, but they do think in the same way, and because their thought processes are so alike. Because of this, do they automatically share a connection? Of course I cannot ask this question and avoid the crazy questioning of loosing a sense of self, and keeping. Egocentrecism. Which would be worse, the death of the soul, or death of companionship? Or can we have balance? And how do we communicate? With words, or with body language? How exactly do we execute the souls, or our friendships? Alienation? Individualism? How can we protect these equally important aspects of life????
But to finally reach my main point: Civilization has ingrained in all of us, to some extent, that alienation is the death of humanity. Therefore, in trying to maintain humanity, people loose their individuality. Yet, when people deny themselves, how are they to see in order to understand? (In less confusing wording: How are we as people expected to make any connection with anyone else if we have been taught to deny our individualism and become one with the masses?) Look at Clarissa, who is so concerned with keeping her own soul in tact. She loves and absolutely lives for parties! Well, what is wrong with this? She just loves the life that a party invokes in each person. One cannot be at a party and simply mope about with no uplifting life in them. And all this while, people look down at her for giving parties. Neighboring thoughts give way to the 'materialistic' and 'lazy' stereotypes associated with her. And here she is stuck between what she loves and what others may think of her. Her sense of self, of alienation, is ironically the exact opposite: She loves bringing people together. What would make her give this up? Simply: What others think poorly of her. So, another's alienation, or sense of egocentricism, forces her individual personality to be alienated.
And now we look at Septimus. (Who I absolutely love!) Anyways, poor Septimus is loosing his very soul. "The Death of the Soul!" Actually, I take this back. He is loosing his sense of alienation, while gaining this sense that his doctors wish to take away his Egocentricism. (I'm really sorry I've spelled this wrong just about three times.... and is it simply egotism?) By reaping Septimus of his Egotism, civilization is bearing down on his individuality saying this is completely wrong. I think Septimus represents God. Whoever is ruler of the entire universe knows EVERYTHING. Yet He has experienced OUR pains through his son, Christ. Anyways, Septimus has these moments when he is connected to the very roots of the trees and the wind blowing through the leaves all at the same time, and HE has 'understood things' (after the war of course) only through his prolonged invention of Evans. Evans tells him things that he must carry out. Maybe this connection is a little crazy. Maybe a lot crazy. Maybe even ridiculous. Unfortunately, Septimus did not want to die. But he has to escape somehow! Becoming one with the universe...is this really the worst fate? No, the worse fate was what Septimus was already living. Now he is an actual part of everything in the universe (according the Modernists, and I don't know how many agree with this...) and there is NOTHING out there to say to him "you cannot be this!" This death was not/ is not the worst Septimus and anyone can experience. I know Clarissa is wondering and perhaps even fearing death because 'will all of this even matter?' Well, we can go into this giant discussion about existentialism, but I'd rather not. Just to ponder though: Does our life only matter if we influence another's life? If we bring about change for the world, is our life better than someone who didn't do anything to invoke change? Finally, how do we grasp individualism without conforming to societies wish that we are never alienated?

Ego-Centric Universe

I feel like there's so much to focus on in this novel, choosing one passage when every one is so detailed and rich with clues and emotions is hard, but i find the idea of trying to escape our natural ego-centric universe fascinating. I've always thought about exactly what we've talked about in class for weeks, just how do you get to REALLY know someone else without losing yourself? It seems impossible until you enter a world such as literature where authors such as Wolf allow multiple points of view and the true "delving into" of multiple persons brains. Any person who walks by on the street Wolf will follow with her writing. Is this to know more about yourself (clarissa) or to really know more about that person. Clarissa claims to have a connection with people, as she does with Peter. Is she someone who can really complete that defeated cycle of REALLY getting to know someone or is she jsut like the rest of us, puzzled by the frustrating reality that we can NEVER get past that point? This brings me to the point of is Clarissa normal? Are the events happening in this day of her life simply normal for her or everyone else going on around her or is this special? Is the small fraction of her life we get to witness not available at any other time? Does this allow us to better get to see who Clarissa really is and perhaps go beyond that point? Honestly, I dont know. I dont know what to think because my own urge to truly know someone else as well as they know themselves is so great, but can never be achieved. It makes me doubt our knowledge of ourselves? Arent we a part of everything/everyone? Without really knowing them can we really know ourselves? Or is this all we ever get? this frustration of never knowing what we dont know?

Dalloway Dalloway Dalloway

Personally, and although I may be one of few, I actually have come to realize how much I appreciate this book. The indirect tone shifts make it a challenging read, that you really have to get into, in order to understand fully. I really like how the reader is able to get inside the characters minds and I feel like Virginia Woolf does a really good job of realistically portraying a person’s thoughts. Woolf elaborates on how we all can view the same things, but it is our initial reactions and personal revelations that make the thought process so unique. We as the reader have the opportunity to experience the elasticity of time, and the characters reveal the past, present, and future are all inside their heads.
Woolf also distinguishes certain objects/things throughout the novel. The relationship with god and nature is continuously contemplated; Big Ben demonstrates a time change, flowers, waves and the color green are repeatedly brought up in different contexts during the story; as well as the direct correlation between Septimus and Clarissa.
The overall theme of the book that I really focused on was the “connectiveness”. There was the connection between people mind, the deliberate attempt of Clarissa to connect to people with her parties and the ultimate connection that Septimus had with nature. I think that this could be a possible center for my essay. I want to go off of the “most exquisite moment of her whole life” with Sally’s kiss and describe how this scene “sheds light” for the entire novel about the modernist perception of how other relate to each other and themselves. Modernists are dedicated to the individual mind, but at the same the same time there is a desire to connect with others. Clarissa is described as the “perfect hostess” because she is always wanting to relive her past “exquisite moment” and relate to people on that separate level. Septimus is on this level that Clarissa longs and searches for, but is portrayed as “mad.” The entirety of the novel is in this strange tone changing perception that further invokes images of connecting things from that initial reaction to your own life. Each experience is unique, but we all relate to it differently based on our own past experiences. It is the connection to each other that binds us, but are realization of individual perception that separates us too.

The woman he dreamt about.

I feel he dreamt of that beautiful woman, cuz that was what he wanted, his happiness, for others it could have been a canvas, or a journal, or a car or an opportunity to teach or praying for patience. What he got in reality was the complete opposite it seemed from the woman in his dreams, it was short hair, not long hair, tough and rude, not sweet and womanly, but all in all it was her, she just APPEARED a little different. I think that's one of the lessons packed into this heavy movie. We pray for patience, but we are blessed with an opportunity to practice patience, sometimes we can spot it, and sometimes we completely miss it.

bra zeel. sometimes it only TRULY makes sense to the author.

I think the craziest thing about the movie is how long ago it was made and how well it portrays what is still going on today...

the movie itself, visuals and all, was crazy... the ideas behind it are even crazier... and scarier.
It kind of makes you think.
Now, I could be wrong, but that's not something I really care about. I believe in ideas that come from your own experiences, whether right, wrong or too abstract. I think this year we are learning about perceptions of the world. This is an important year for all of us, where if we haven't already, to start cultivating our own ideas, beliefs and perceptions of the world we are living in. No one can do that if you haven't a clue what one is. It is true that the more you read, your vocabulary grows, and your writing improves, but it's not just your writing that is improving, it's your mind growing and taking what applies and leaving the rest. the association, or lack of, that helps or stunts your development. So we have these example perceptions of the world, coming from Flaubert, the guy who wrote flauberts parrot, Jane, mr. and m. bovary, and the writer of Brazil so far to help you develop your own perception that pertains perfectly to yourself. Here is the perception of the world I live in and one day hope to make a contribution towards healing.


if there is one thing im not, it's bored. life is crazy and amazing, even in the darkest of times there is light to be seen.
yeah i mean you wish and scream and cry out in our own ways desperately from the inside for someone to help and to listen or to understand or evn just to abuse substance with... and when someone finally presents themselves it's hard to actually acknowledge it and use their presence to your advantage cuz when you're finally faced with it you can't decide if you really even wanted it. you can't decide whether you even want change anymore, whether you don't just want to go on living with the way you've been living, after all, you've been doing it your whole life anyways, it's who you are.
that's what i'm tired of... this insane indecisiveness which i blame on all of man and man's history that i believe stemmed from man's one natural and evolutionary flaw. This state of egocentrism. a harmonious yet destructive song of me, Me, ME. I use the word evolutionary because one must always remember that things are changing all the time, and along with it, our mentality, which slowly narrows as we fulfill this growing need for self-indulgence.
some people aim to please, but why? what makes you this way? People are so caught up in their own world, you kind of have to in order to keep order, and order and new world order, online order, mail order, commercial order... blah blah blah. Why do we need so much order? because man wants control, man wants it his way, and naturally one makes the mistake of assuming that his way is BEST for everyone. in ORDER for him to get what he wants, he needs some kind of order for his fantasy to become reality. He wants his OWN reality cuz he thinks he's god.
but say, seriously, that many, men grew up believng they had to control everything to live happily, because they had no control over anything in their lives, and associated that with every wrong thing that happened in their life. Because he was lead to believe that all consequences came from his own misbehavior and that the punishment was dealt by god, he HAS to hate god, because he was innocent and god punished him. Now, it's up to him to make himself happy... Turning away from everyone else because everyone turns away from you, while thinking that you have to fend for yourself and look out for just you, is just another small link to a very big cycle...
this is where it gets a little confusing.
This whole power hungry idea, that buds from the whole god thing, doesn't come from god. Man introduced god, whether you believe in him or not, and WE pass on his teachings. Grown adults can't even play the telephone game. Imagine what kind of twist each mind could play on such abstract morales and philosophies that ultimately remain unclear. So, man passes on down this idea of God, which also comes from selfishness, because with everyone fearing such a mighty, unseen power (not saying nonexistant) there is this crazy amount of new, robotic order bestowed upon man. and in turn, it creates newer mindsets and more of those men who feel they need to rebel, or control. Two very different mindsets, three simultaneous connections.
The ones who feel they need to control pass on more lies for selfish intent. How do the rebels come about, exactly? they are surrounded by selfish people and are neglected by the ones who should love them the most, our parents. Now, our parents have their own ways of reacting to control, and the selfish air around them, which comes down to how they act with you, and as far back as you wish to go. It doesn't even have to be just our parents anymore, because nowadays it's common to neglect your kids, you can just hire a nanny, or send your child off to private school, or selfishly send them to a catholic school so they can learn to be well-behaved to make your life easier, or pair them up with satisfactory friends that contribute to the brainwashing that we are all subject to. So Now we have teachers, friend's parents, counselors, managers, friends, boyfriends, instructors, all these people that you feel should be caring about you, and it turns out, they have their own issues. Your family and friends (whom i consider family) are the ones who are supposed to be caring for you...and since they aren't doing it, you turn elsewhere. You have to remember, these people that are just thrusted into your life from 2 months old to adulthood have kind of forced to even know you in the first place. Can this cycle be stopped? I fear not.
it's not just rebels and control freaks either, psychos are both indirect and direct results of such, killers, hermit crabs, victims of suicide, sluts, models, teachers, lawyers, doctors, painters, photographers, gossip journalists and even more importantly, writers.
but hey... we're too far gone, why not just go with the flow, i mean, if we can blind ourselves into happiness, and everyone is doing it and living "peacefully" amongst eachother, why not? That's not to say that if the technology to learn and advance is at our disposal that we should not study. But more: what is the point of abusing it ultimately leading to our self-destruction?
Our stay here is transient, we are gifted with life on this earth, and we thrive off the hospitality of our gentle, though sometimes fierce and stern mother nature. Everything on earth is temporary, why must WE leave such a lasting destructive impression of just our ONE self, standing out among the other BILLIONS of people on this earth, why us? How much longer have our fellow creatures of the earth managed to stay within the boundaries of their own giant cog, part of an even greater, cosmic, universal, natural ticking system of life. Can we not be content with just passing on some kind of trade? Like oiling the cogs with each generation to ease the overall movement of the ticking clock of life? Why money with your face on it? Why wars? Why jobs?
because we became over populated... something else you can get deeper into yourself.
we all had our own jobs that belonged only to us, as we were part of one community, one that nourished and cultivated each natural, beautiful human instinct. We survived together as hunters, gatherers, shamens, mothers, warriors, wisemen, cheifs, elders doubling as teachers and later on blacksmiths and jewelers and tailors and armors and the designated teacher you hired for your child, political icons, and government officials that serve the newest system of government, then the system of mechanics, dance teachers, soccer coaches, principals, lawyers to defend the criminals we sculpted ourselves, judges whom we've also sculpted ourselves to put the criminals away and a teacher for every subject... where did the subjects come in? Matter of fact, where did the system come in? Where did the pay roll come in? Where did the machinery come in? Man! It seems to just slip right in, doesn't it? You worked to survive everyday when you were gathering and hunting, and then farming and now we don't need you to do that anymore, we've got machines and other people who can do that. However, we do have these other useless things we need you to do while we're doing all these REALLY useless and selfish things. And... since you already work for your life, we're going to replace your work with what we need done, and in exchange you get to live in the world we created for you so that we could have this other world to ourselves.... Who agreed to this? I didn't. How did we advance so far in our technology? That's when our population first slowly started rising, and we could only use our minds because all the physical jobs were taken and everyone was tired of the philosophical, romantic, natural way of thinking, so we turned to science! lets move on to a new revolution. Information age, here we come, full speed ahead!

There is hope, we've just arrived at the Conceptual Age. Daniel Pink, author of A whole new mind: why right brainers will rule the future, failed to mention that even though left brainers have previously held the key to the kingdom, the right brainers have always had it first. You just have to look back far enough.


I'm praying to my god
the one I dreamt up in this dream
yea that means
nothing is as it seems

this god is mine
he belongs only to me
cuz you're not able
to see what I see

man just wants us all to agree
so he can control our minds
and never let us free

see we're all dreamin in our own hells
punishing and judging all of ourselves

we must let go of our
false poisonous agreements
and make new ones
true ones
this time, I mean it.

Agreement number 1
be impeccable with your word
don't just relay what ya heard

don't use words to hurt or decieve
cuz it has more effect than you can possibly percieve

can you pull on thru
to number two?

don't assume, if you got any doubts
pay a little closer attention
cuz you can clear the air
but just askin a simple question

back to the lesson I was passin on
back to mind every day at dawn
this is agreement number three
never take anything personally

we are more confident than correct
and most often times who they really are
is who they project
someone that is similar
is subject to rejection
and there is no protection
with the state we livin in
everyone's insane, not to mention
we stuck in this zero dimension,
zero money, yea we poverty stricken
but take a look at me cuz I'm still straight tippin
you know dis, cuz the clock is still tickin.

This is agreement number four
always try your best
never nothin more
never nothin less

put it to play
every day
like it's a life test

I promise your mind won't dissipate
only if you promise to participate

cuz your mind can only develop
as you use it every day.
don't let the man envelope
your mind in every way.

wow everyone's got their mouth open
whaddya know,
it just goes to show

what you can accomplish,
if you only apply.
you won't need an accomplice,
just open your eyes
it ain't worth it
don't compromise
it's like giving a gift
without the element of surprise

close your mouth
and open your brain
stop and listen
you won't be the same

close your ears to the man
open your eyes to the land
open your mouth to voice where you stand
wbat do you believe, I ain't askin again...

a Tru Lee Mad G Kul GLOriginal.
MC Mad G Kul
Ginger Lee Owens

This crazy movie summed up all that we have learned about the schools of writing since Romanticism. Romanticism is the fairy-tale of life. Realism is the anti-fairy-tailing of life; it is life as it is without any biased thought process of one person’s perspective. Modernism is this depiction of life through thoughts, imaginations and experiences- life as seen by the brain, not the eyes. Postmodernism is this quirky, rebellious teenager of literature. It takes all of the three and squishes them together with dull scissors and Elmer’s glue.
Postmodernism takes the actuality of life as seen in Realism. It addresses society as this reality that is too real and too simple. It combines the modernist perspective of thoughts and imagination and the happy ending and idealism of Romanticism as an escape from the realist society. Brazil is postmodernism. I can understand why people would watch it and be confused, but I think that the point of Brazil is to confuse us. Not confuse our thoughts, but rather turn upside down the way that we have viewed the world by placing things that generally are not even associated with each other right next to each other. We see Sam’s mother’s fancy house with super nice furniture and then these huge pipes that drape down from the ceiling. There are commercials for dressing up these ugly pipes with pretty covering, which reminds me of Sam’s dreams that are merely an attempt to cover up the ugliness of the life that he is living. Like the opposite of a simile, the movie shows us the meaning of something by comparing it with its complete opposite. There is society, and then there is its antithesis. Order, minute tasks, dullness, organization, status quo; then there is a dream world of beauty, love, chance, and happiness. The way that you jump over one side of the wall to the other is to go against the system-anarchy. We are showed two instances when the perfect order of the system are upset. When Mr. Buttle is taken instead of Mr. Tuttle and when the system is about to wrongly accuse Sam’s dream woman. These lapses are like our dreams. If we could just dull our minds down, we would make perfect machines. But when we start to think, to imagine, when we submit ourselves to this anarchism, then we cannot be happy with the work of the drones. This is Sam.
He starts off as a machine, and then he turns into a glitch, but from there he just decides to continue to be a glitch. When there are thousands of people doing the same thing, does it really matter if he just quits. Like a line of ants working in an anthill, all looking the same, does it make a difference when one decides to wander over to a picnic and himself under the magnifying glass of a sadistic boy? Sam is this curious ant. He disrupts the system, and finds ultimate happiness in his fanatical dreams. The ending of Brazil is much like the end of Flaubert’s Parrot, indeterminate, unsatisfying, and gratifying all at the same time. We are happy that he imagined that he was happy, we are sad that he is dead, but in a way his death is an escape. It is ironic that Sam has to go insane to be happy. Maybe we are the same way. I think that being insane is better than just going along with the drone army of society. Our brain is an escape from the restrictions of life. We can always retreat into the mushy couch of our cerebellum and enjoy the pleasures of creating our own life.

BRAZIL...

Honestly, I didn't even know what to think of this movie. There are a couple of words I would use to describe it, crazy, confusing and twisted. What was with the whole Buttle Tuttle thing? And why were they after this person? And who was after this person, the government or crazy people in back suits? I mean how could a plummer or air conditioning specialist or whatever he is, be a dangerous person, or a threat to the government? And the guys with the goofy hats, why did they just bombard his house and tear apart his stuff? There are so many questions I had about this movie when it was finally over. It was crazy when he just dreamed the whole escape in his mind towards the end. These people brain washed him, at the very end he was just sitting there like a vegetable completely zoned out in his own little world. I bascially had no idea what was going on throughout the entire movie, but I guess I enjoyed it.

Brazil

Ok first I want to apologize for not being able to post this sooner, but I've been having some problems with internet at my house.

As for that movie Brazil Terry Gillian said that he wanted to make a movie where the only happy ending was where the main character went insane. To me this was quite an interesting goal, and at the end it really did exemplify the descent into insanity, but I'm not entirely sure that this was a "happy" ending. The stereotypical happy ending would have had him run off with the woman. However, having the story play out in the way it did with the Ministry capturing him and torturing him was quite the horrific ending, yet even when he went insane, I didn't feel it was a relief of the pain, in fact it almost felt like it was more anguish then physical torment, so this confused me. However, Gillian also has said that he hates being quoted so he often lies about his work. Did he maybe lie about the inspiration for this movie was that the only happy ending was the main character going insane? I'm not sure. Maybe I'm just not detached enough from the steroetypes to appreciate this ending as "happy" but maybe Gillian also meant for it to be this way.

Brazil

This movie was insane i didn't understand half of what was going on. They seemed to be in a futuristic world with type writers. I wasn't to excited to watch it. But oh well... I wonder how the movie ended will we ever know what happened to Buttle? And if so what then happens to the main character? i wonder what would happen if we allowed our government to treat us that way. What would happen? can one be okay with simple little things or does one need more? Oh and what the heck was with that giant metal man?

Brazil

Oh my goodness, that movie left me speechless.  I very much enjoyed Brazil mainly because it felt like someone took a random string of thoughts and turned them into  screen play.  I liked the fact that it wasn't your traditional sci-fi futuristic b***s**t.  There was no happy ending, and while to some this is cynical, to me it's realistic.  Things don't always work out as planned and this actually displayed one of those times.  For me this movie was comical and unpredictable, albeit at times hard to follow.  The best part of this movie was the beginning, for starters there is that fly and that fly just screws everything up, the fact that in a world so secretive, so precise, something as small as a fly can make such a big difference just goes to show, there is no such thing as perfection.  I have to say my favorite character is either the mom or the freelance repair guy.  They were both such abnormal interesting characters.  The mom displayed all things stereotypical, not wanting to look your age, not wanting to admit that your life is nearing its end.  On the other hand there was this repair guy who disregarded they system, did what he wanted and went against the flow.  I guess I liked these two characters because the mom was just mocking society and the repair guy was just degrading society.  

This seemed like a very anarchist movie, the terrorist, the security, the bombing, the chaos in general.  It was anarchy.  

I truly enjoyed the movie Brazil, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Brazil.  The randomness, the chaos, the characters were all fabulous.  

brazil

This movie, although I only saw the beginning, was pretty interesting. I liked the new "inventions" we saw such as the one-personm car and the plastic surgery technique. these made us think the movie was set in the future, but weren't the movies the workers watching black and white? maybe the controlling government destroyed all the new films, or since this was made in the 80's the couldn't forsee the changes in motion pictures, even though they were pretty developed. I could see the post-modernist ties from the beginning. His dream seems to be his individual "truth" and by his mother trying to control his life she pushes him further away. I don't know what happens in the end, but I'm guessing its like any other part in the movie: open and confusing. Its hard to understand a movie when you don't know everything, but it makes it more interactive because you are left to come up with your own decision or view of the the events. If a movie tells you everything, it can be boring forgetable, but when it lets you think and find your own meaning, an important post-modernist theme, it engages you and I think is a better movie. Also, I like the theme song.

Ugh...Yet Again

Well this movie seemed to puzzle me just about as much as the book. This genre of postmoderism appears to be almost purposely frustrating. The lack of truths and information seems to spin ideas and concepts of what could be true in circles around and around in your head. Unlike the novel, the story did have a basic plot line that seemed to grow as the movie went on, but still the whole idea of the randomness about it just throws me for a loop. The eccentric ideas that make up the disastrous story are hilariously comical in their unrealistic nature. I'm sure if the random concepts that are toyed with in Barnes' novel were thrown onto a screen in a motion picture of sorts it would be just as comical. It's almost as though the movie Brazil is showing the unvoidable confusion of this genre. The movie shows the uncertanties that claim to be totally untrue. Whatever the message that is trying to be portrayed, it is confusing, messy and somewhat frustrating. The novel, not being able to connect text with a picture is even more so, the genre absolutely falling on my bad side.

I thought movies like this didn't exist.

At last! A movie that stimulates the mind! Typically films tend to tell a story without invoking thought upon viewers. Only the best of movies can entertain and stimulate the viewer at the same time. Brazil is an ironic film that posed an extremely interesting and valid depiction of the future. This society is one in which nothing can be done without the proper paperwork, people solely care of material possessions, women think of their bodies as works of art that can constantly be improved upon by plastic surgery, and a militaristic government uses "Marshall Law" to enforce order that turns citizens against eachother, you're either a conformist patriot or a terrorist rebel. In many ways a stereotypical American embodies the ideas revealed in Brazil. Is it not true that in America, for anything to get done it must first be made official and for anything to be officialized the proper paperwork must be completed? Is it not also true that many wealthy Americans would buy a 4th home before donating to a charitable cause? These are just some of the questions I thought of while watching Brazil. I wondered just how accurate this depiction of the future really was, I contemplated the ironies involved, and I mused over the ridiculous nature of the film itself.

I could go on and on about how much thought Brazil invoked but I'd rather just hope you trust me and appreciate a rare, stimulating film.

brazil

at first i didn't really understand the movie but as it went on i really enjoyed it. i thought that this movie was good, but there where definitely times where i had no idea what was going on. i like the way that in the end you walked away not knowing how it ended or if he was really getting tortured the whole time. i think that he was tortured from the beginning and he just made up that story in his head to escape what was really happening. Good movie made you really think.

Brazil

I really liked this movie because of the way it made you feel. Sometimes the movie made you pissed off and frustrated at what was happening and sometimes it made you laugh at what was happening. The structure of the movie was very chaotic and at no point did you really know what was going on. It seemed that the movie was trying to show that obeying the system is not always the best thing to do. Somtimes it's good to be independant. In the movie, their world had so much order that it backfired and made everything very unorderly and it seemed that nothing really went the way it should of. In the end of the movie, the main character is sitting in the chair and he is about to be tortured but Robert Dinero comes and saves him. Then you find out that he really wasn't saved and that he is still in the torture chamber. I like the ending because it leaves you thinking. You never really know whether the whole movie was in his head or if all of it really did happen.

Brizil

This movie was one of the most random things i have ever read? what was the point behind it? What would happen if we lived in a futuristic world with typewriters? Would we have the technology that we have today? Will we ever truly know what happened at the end of the movie? What is one to do when they watched a whole movie without the end? can one preclude what happened with the information given? Not in this movie obviously.

brazil?

After watching Brazil, i felt as though i had been sucked into an acid addict's attic worst nightmare. The whole movie was just twisting my mind and contorting my inner thoughts. Ultimately i feel like there was defiantly some underlying themes, of which i did not understand. It defiantly depicts a totalitarian government that censors and abuses natural right of the people, hence why there are constant terrorist attacks. There is defiantly a "fight for what you believe in message", but i feel it is heavely watered down by a confusing plot and random inserts of useless information. I feel the approach to this movie almost hid the message and rendered it almost useless. Rather than a theme and massage people can easily walk away from, they are instead walking away confused and wondering if someone put acid in their cereal this morning. I'm defiantly not a huge fan of the post-modernistic style of writting and movies. It can defiantly work, I would defiantly say Flaubert's Parrot was succsessful in it's intent because i walked away form the book knowing more about the author and his sence of humor.

The Brittish

Alright, let me start off by marking that Brazil, was the best movie I've seen in awhile. After seeing a few of my peer's faces, they didn't seem to agree, and then reading the little pink packety thing, turns out a common consensus among Americans is that Brazil is just too weird. According to the pink thing, Universal Pictures of America wasn't interested in promoting the film. Brittan on the other hand was warm-welcoming the film of many faces, crazy, iron man meets fairy world and all. Then I got to thinking...wait, isn't Flaubert's Parrot British as well? So, not that I want to jump to some huge conclusions but, are the English the birth place of post-modernism? Some more thinking and, wait, isn't England and that general area the birth place of literature in general? So basically, they figure, eh...well Shakespeare did that romanticism thing pretty well, realism you go Flaubert (granted he's French...but that goes with the "general area" quotation), and now they're bored with their normal fiction, and want to switch it up a bit. Leave it to the British to turn a story topsy-turvy in hopes of something "bloody brilliant". Gotta hand it to them, it worked. Now how long before we see a huge Po-Mo (quoted by Lav-Dog) spree in our homeland? How long before Americans bust down their walls of what's real, what's acceptable, and embrace off-the-wall. Keep in mind I'm not generalizing the whole nation into the classification of, well, blah...but this is the nation that sees radical book-burnings and what not, of classical literary fiction...not even controversial works like the Bible or something. We are the people that burn The Lorax because it could imply homosexuality (I'm not saying it does, I'm just trying to bring it home). Basically we could look at this as a double blow to our society that wanted to break from the evil throne so badly; now they are much more creative, accepting and witty (not mentioned above, but noteworthy) than we are...and our land of tolerance and freedom is all a sham. Bloody hell.

the break down on Brazil

At first  really didn't understand the movie and I found little interest in the plot. It confused me because I didn't know when the movie was produced and all of relations to time did not make since to me. Then over the weekend we had to read "Kitsch and Postmodernism in Brazil" by Kieth James Hamel. I have to say that I enjoyed this a whole lot more than watching the movie. This actually gave me the answers to why the movie was so odd. I began to understand the movie a little bit more and the plot and characters grew on me a little bit more after I gave it a chance. when I first watched the movie I was confused about the odd dreams that kept on occurring. In the midst of the average all day workers and huge boring cit he has these intricate dreams of him flying and attempting to save a women. Is this just his escapism from the ever day hell that he has to deal with. I also noticed that His dreams were from a different time period. He was fighting monsters with a sword in stead of the modern day weapons. This tied in with the odd assortment of gadgets in the movie that were from different time periods. For example, It seems that the director of the movie was attempting to make a "future like scene" in the whole movie. Although a lot of the gadgets are from the future like computers and such, their are some from the past  like the old typewriters. The middle of the film was good but then when we were edging to the end I was simple tired of a everything about the movie. Too much weird stuff was going on and it became hard to follow. 

Brazil

The film Brazil was certainly an interesting one; though I suppose it's fair to say that all post-modernist creations are fairly interesting by nature. Much like in Flaubert's Parrot I felt lost in the story's complicated ups and downs. I was even more confused when Robert DeNiro showed up and the main character spun an entire fantasy ending for himself. I will say, however, that the movie was pretty amazing. The futuristic-esque setting really brought the characters and plot to life and I couldn't help but laugh at the random pipes and tubes dropped into the film at completely awkward moments. Still not sure what the overall theme (or should I say themes?) of the film was—but being as it is post-modernist, I suppose the point is not to convey some sense of a universal truth, but rather to complicate matters to such a high extent that a universal truth is neither universal or the truth.

Completely Confused!!

To be honest, I really didn't understand this movie at all. I entered halfway into it, and the first scene I saw was his room covered in exposed piping. The characters were dressed weird and the scenery was really out there, so I couldn't help but be completely bewildered. As the movie progressed however, it became more and more intriguing. I could tell that the plot was playfully bouncing between reality and fantasy. This part of the movie I didn't fully understand until the very end when Sam had a wild fantasy of escaping with his dead beloved through the bottom of a coffin and off into a beautiful billboard landscape, when in reality his mind was being broken by the torture. As far as sci-fi movies go, I thought Brazil was interestingly filmed and its setting oddly charming. The office scene, where the twenty men follow the head of the floor around, is pretty interesting when the office people go behind pillars and disappear: reappear, disappear. I will have to go back and watch the entire movie so that the intricate plot makes sense.

"Po-Mo" and Brazil

I began to understand more of the artistic and creative side of the film after reading "Kitsch and Postmodernism in Brazil". Hamel helped me understand what this movie was trying to achieve as far as postmodernism goes. The futuristic past is achieved well but at the same time helps to confuse the viewer. After reading the Frequently Asked Questions, I can understand more of both what Gilliam has achieved with his main character and also the multiple problems going on world-wide. As trippy as this movie was, one could really get inside of Lowry's head and kind of see why he became so crazy. The world in which he lived was wild, with censorship, lust, comedy, and killing. Reading those handouts really helped me realize that this movie is actually really good. i'd like to see it again so I could pick up on some of the clues that the packet was talking about. Still though, it helped me understand postmodernism a little bit more.

Brazil

Although I was only able to see the beginning of the movie, it definitely helped me perceive what postmodernism actually is. Like most of the other students, I found it a little confusing. It was corny filming, but still acceptable. Like Hamel points out in his review, the "past/futuristic" combo makes the film idealistic and kinda cool. It's interesting to see how the future is really turning out, with the terrorist, innovative technology ect. I really liked the beginning because as a viewer I felt like the film was completely crazy, but super engaging.

This Post-Modernism Thing

Looking back, I really did enjoy Brazil. For some reason, it didn't really register at the time of viewing, but in retrospect this film was so intricate and thought-out to a tee that I feel like... how could you not like it? I think the reason I like it now is because I understand it a little more (I just read both of the handouts on it) and simply thinking about all the different messages and events in the film makes my mind spin...in a good way. At the time, I was taking it all in: all the action and obscurity, combined with the obvious confusing nature of it. It's so interesting to think that every single background image or seemingly unimportant character had so much significance and that each and every one of the events and every bit of dialogue fit into a, not the, larger theme. That's another fascinating thing: there are so many themes and subtle hints to direct the viewers to these. All those odd quotes above doors and on crumbling brick walls in back alleys have significance: they either help "explain" a theme such as time or are simply post-modern-like phrases. I completely agree with the author of the answers to that Internet Brazil blog: you definitely have to see the movie more than once. I mean, I feel like I picked up on a few of the themes even without reading the handout or at the very least, saw some common aspects with Flaubert's Parrot, but it's like I almost want more. I know there is more out there to figure out and find in the film that I didn't see at all. Finally, actually seeing images of " this whole 'po-mo' thing" helped me appreciate Barnes' book a little more. Understanding, little by little, is still understanding. Ha.

Brazil and Post modernism

The movie Brazil was a interesting and insightful look into the harmoniously random and sublimely odd. While at a first hurried glance the movie may look like a badly stitched patchwork quilt the reality is quite different. Just like Flaubert's Parrot the jumpy sequence is full of meaning. Each transition is intentional and each coincidence real. The beauty of Post Modernism is that a work does not have to make sence or righ true to everyone, but to those that enjoy it the reward is greater. Brazil represents it, having thrilled some critics and been despised by others. It is a simple proble of how far you are willing to let reality stretch. the further, the better. Post modernism lets you, the reader or viewer, choose how compare the mediums reality with your own.

will on Brazil

i watch movies to be entertained, which this movie was very good at. However, i thought it was very confusing. I thought i had a good grasp on it in the beginning but as the movie progressed i founded it harder and harder to keep pace with what was going on. And i'm sorry to say that I'm still not completely sure why you showed this film to our class. Is postmodernism just all over the place and hard to keep up with? or is it like a weak attempt at showing what the future might be like? but one thing is for sure.. no straight guy would have dreams like sam, maybe thats why he chose the chick with the dude hair cut.

Emma G's thoughts on Brazil

Gilliam uses an arresting and original cinematic style to "demonstrate the demoralizing and oppressive nature of social modernity".  This is especially true for his movie, Brazil.  It is clear that while producing this film he took advantage of his choices as director and solidified his themes through setting, colors, dialogue etc.  Gilliam successfully bags on modernity throughout the movie, however, some specific examples include; a) when Sam Lowry wakes up late because his alarm clock is broken, then his breakfast is ruined from all of the modern technology that was initially invented to make his life easier--it clearly only made things more difficult in Sam's case, b) when a tiny insect created a huge flaw in the system and had catastrophic results for many many people, and c) when Sam's mother dies because of her plastic surgery addiction. 

I liked how Gilliam parallels Lowry's daydreams to his real life;  the contrast between Lowry's paradise and his reality clarify Gilliam's message tremendously.  

I also liked how Gilliam used different versions of the song "Brazil" to set the tone for each scene, playing it slower, faster etc... 

I am a little confused about his subtitle in the beginning "Somewhere in the 20th century" because it sounds to me like he was pretty insistent on the title 1984 and 1/2 for his movie. This is obviously a play on George Orwell's 1984 and not specifically a reference to the date, but it's still confusing.  If they wanted the date to be unspecified, why did they have to mention the 20th century at all?  Did Gilliam want the audience to think this movie is of the past, present or future? I personally prefer to believe the movie is of the present/future because then you can make connections to our own government/society and hear the sad truths of our time.  But who knows?  As Lavender mentioned, he does say "Somewhere" not "Sometime" so maybe the beginning subtitle has nothing to do with the date but only with the place...  The ending subtitle does indeed say "Sometime soon", this subtitle to me epitomizes post-modernism.  I say this because the movie was created in 1985, about the future, but still in the 20th century (which is now in the past).  This is JUST like 1984, a futuristic novel written in the 50's, but is now in the past.  I'm not entirely sure, but those subtitles definitely sent me for a spin. 

OVERALL- I was very very impressed by this film. 

ill Brazil

Wow! Brazil what a crazy futuristic film. At the very beginning I was extremely confused, but then all of the pieces came together. When I was watching this film it was interesting how they thought the futuristic world would be. They did predict about the terrorist attacks, but the way they thought the futuristic world would look like was way off. From the cars to the computer screen and everything else was way off then it looks today. About the terrorism they were right about it happening, but the way the government handled it was kind of bizarre how they put the bag over their face and took them to get tortured. At the same time the torturing is kind of like the current Guantanamo Bay prison. The only part I didn't like was the dream at the end and how they ended the film. I thought it was going to be way more clever than how it did end. Overall I enjoyed the film.

movie

so that movie was pretty confusing. i cont confused as to when he was dreaming and when he wasnt. especially during the end of it. like how he escaped from Jack and then all of a sudden he was back into that chair singing. I did feel kind of bad for him though becuase if he had not make his dream girl crash that truck and cause a big scene, she would have no bad record. but becuase he assumed she was the bad one, which caused her to die in the end. also im still confused to why the creachures with the baby faces in his dream kept on saying "what have you done." that was left unanswered. it wasnt a bad film though.

Brasilia!

Brazil, to say the least, was a very interesting movie.  Although really farfetched and awkward, I did enjoy the movie.  Overall, the plot was intriguing, and it was very nice to watch a movie like to as a change in pace of all of the other movies I watch.  Although inaccurate, I enjoyed the futuristic aspect of this film.  I am not sure what time period the movie was set in (was it ever mentioned?), but I liked how it attempted to create an image of the future.

What really bothered me about this film is the recurring dream that Sam had.  It was so ridiculous to watch him battle a machine that spews fire when injured, or watch his "dream" woman being help captive by what appeared to be babies.  The fact that he somehow stumbled upon this woman is completely farfetched, and it really bothers me that he did find her.  When would this ever happen in real life?  Coincidence or irony?  

I noticed many instances in this film where the thoughts were parallel with that of Barnes and Flaubert.  The most prominent one that I noticed was the events that questioned coincidence or irony.  Like I noted in the last paragraph, when Sam found his "dream" (literally and physically), this could either be coincidence or irony.  Another part of the film that begs the question coincidence or irony is the presence of Harry Tuttle.  He was there whenever Sam needed to get out of a tough situation.  Another similarity that I noticed between Flaubert's Parrot and Brazil is the disorder of both.  They are both very scatterbrained jump from scene to scene very frequently.  In Brazil, this left the viewer trying to piece together scenes at the end of the movie, in order to understand what the hell was going on.  

Overall, I enjoyed the film Brazil, despite the disorder and farfetched plot.  It was interesting to see a film that was unrelated to Flaubert's Parrot, but yet had similarities.  

Brazil?

I'm not really sure what to say about this film. It was very odd and confusing and jumped around a lot. It was interesting how the main character Lowery had a series of strange dreams where he was always some hero, almost replacing his real life. His regular day to day life was very monotonous and routine, so it's almost like he is, just like Barnes, replacing life with fantasy. However by the end of the movie Lowery's real life starts to intertwine with his real life. I guess its trying to prove a point that life is only as exciting as you make it. You could just sit around and dream about the life you want to live, or you could go out there and make your dreams into reality.

Parrotry at it's... finest?

I did not respond to the end of the book, so I thought I would do so now.  Flaubert's Parrot was an awkward book at best; the entire premise of the book was very strange.  For someone to be so obsessed with someone to write a book such as this about someone else is a little obsessive.  Barnes explored many parts of Flaubert's life, in some cases revealing how obsessed he actually was.  Take, for example, chapter 12 in Flaubert's Parrot, Braithwaite's Dictionary of Accepted Ideas.  In this chapter, Barnes goes through many people, places, and events that are related to Flaubert's life.  Although I liked the definitions provided for each letter of the alphabet, it was a very strange chapter.  I believe that Geofrey's character is actually Barnes's attempt at showing his obsession with Flaubert, without revealing that he is actually the one infatuated with Flaubert.

I really did enjoy the content of chapter 14, Examination Paper, although I don't believe that it was sufficient in wrapping up the story.  I enjoyed how it offered all of the different analysis on the different matters, and related them back to Flaubert's life (ie. criticism, economics, psychology).  This was great, but it was sort of a strange ending to a story with characters.  I understand that the overall point of this book was to offer an analysis on Flaubert's life, but it didn't really end the story of the characters.  Chapter 13 did this to some extent, telling the story of Ellen's death and Braithwaite's feelings on it, but I feel like some more closure is necessary. 

Overall, this was a very awkward book due to the Braithwaite/Barnes character and the infatuation with Flaubert, but I did enjoy some parts of it.

Era and Plot

As soon as the movie Brazil started it was odd. The tiny computer screens but set in a more futuristic time period while using decor and dress from the past. These changes in setting confuse viewers and make it difficult to assume ideas about that era. Furthermore, you wonder if it is set before the constitution and bill of rights were written because for some reason the government has the right to break into homes and capture citizens. Yes these citizens may have done something "wrong" according to them but people still individual rights. These men in suits break into houses through windows, drill out the ceiling, and throw bags over their prisoners. This is a traumatic experience and for the bagged and those in the area. Additionally, the "crimes" these people commit are not necessarily wrong but according to this group they are. The part about "we never make mistakes" is incredibly hypocritical for us viewers we see the mistake in names. They capture and mix up Tuttle with Buttle and do not even care to fix or admit their mistake. This frustrates us viewers and the movie never cares to explain why. Another part that does not particularly contribute to the plot is the whole part about his mother having humerous plastic surgerys. I do not understand how his mother needs to look younger or how it affects her son in any way. Lastly, all these day dreams or visions of his with wierd men in armour attacking him of flying away to his angel in white. These do not help the plot but just seem to waste our time with what would happen in fantasy movie.

Flauberts Parrot Call and Response

Life is eternally in balance. People are scales with life in one hand and imagination in the other- trying to figure out which is heavier without confusing one for the other. Life is heavier than imagination. It is like a dead weight pulling your hand to the ground, while imagination is like a helium balloon trying to pull you into the sky. Humanity does not like to be held down. Continually it searches for enough helium balloons to be lifted off the ground. Our minds do not like to be pinned down, and that is exactly what the reality of our existence does to us. We don’t like to think about what we have done, what we need to get done, and what has happened; instead, our minds want to drift into the fantasy of what will happen. This continual game of tag is “childish, even for adults. Especially for adults” (189). But we do it anyways. We want to pretend that we can fly, and we use books as our wings. Books are “a bit more cheerful, a bit more… life enhancing” than merely living (133). But the ball and chain of reality kicks in when we set the book down and “that happiness exists only in the imagination” (119). We prefer life through this skewed looking glass of imagination that makes everything seem more beautiful, and makes everything seem so much more related. Novels tie imagination and reality together so that we don’t feel stretched in the widening gap between the two. This idea is reinforced in the scene with the reflection in the train window. The man says that to look at him is “misleading”; to see him for only what reality can portray, somehow is not enough to capture the essence in him (96). “Study[ing his] reflection in the window” is much like reading books and chasing our imagination- “you know its presence is conditional” (96). But when the transparent reflection of the man has passed, we still know that it was there. This is why “directness also confuses” (102). When we look at “full face portrait staring back at you, [it] hypnotizes” you into imagining what its reflection would reveal (102). We cannot see a person without creating a persona, because we don’t see ourselves only as reality portrays us. Sometimes, we don’t want to face reality, and this is what has happened to Braithwaite and his wife. He is stuck hiding in a novel, for fear of his return to reality. He has removed himself of the reality that bounds him to the ground, and is floating on the balloons of Madame Bovary.

Bizzare Brazil

To be completely honest, I have no idea what to think of the movie Brazil even after seeing it twice. The part about it that I find most similar to Flaubert's Parrot is the chaos of both. Both seem to jump around a bunch and seem as if they are purposely meant to confuse the viewer/reader. Just as with the book, after seeing Brazil I'm left with no definite idea, theme, or explanation as to the craziness. Perhaps the oddest part in Brazil is Sam's dream of him flying and fighting that odd creature who ends up being him. I don't understand what this is supposed to tell the viewer. Not only is this whole dream scene confusing and whatnot, but it turns out in the end that Sam is killed and his escape is also a dream. Maybe Gilliam was trying to tell us that we can't escape from some things in life. As I said before, I really have no idea. This whole post-modern thing is throwing me off guard and I don't know what to think of it. It is an interesting yet bizzare topic which I have yet to understand. Perhaps Mr. Lavender can help enlighten me.

This was a very unique and interesting movie. I found it to be kinda good dispite its confusing plot to follow, romantisism and post modernism. I even found humor with Sams fantasys of being to romantic charming man who saves his love. Then in reality Sam isnt that person. He is awkward during most his time while chasing after the girl he loves. I also found the older ladies like his mother and her friends to be very funny because they are so caught up in looking good even though they are neirly elderly. What made this movie interesting to me is how the world evolved in such a dark way. Sam fit as a good character because he wasnt satisfied with the susiety and couldnt conform to it dispite his mothers wishes. When he worked for the government the offices, building and pace at which it operated would have been terrrible to work in. The halls were dull and empty until a group franticly walked though trying to talk to a man. I liked the individuality of this movie because is different from any movie we are used to and takes us into a society that we have never seen. I didnt like how it scattered its sences which forced you to focus closely on what was happining.

O

I enjoyed this movie.  Although the story was interesting and the scenes were odd, my favorite parts were the cinematography, all of the camera angles and lighting, and the music.  Brazil was very similar to other futuristic stories but was also a little bit unique in its own way also. 

Brazil

Brazil was a really strange movie. I found it to be very similar to Flaubert's Parrot. The smaller themes, and instances that took place didn't make much meaning, however, the main ideas were clear. Brazil, was one of those movies that are just so different, they keep you interested. It was so random that it kept you wanting to watch more. I liked the part about the people who came to fix the heat. They wouldn't go through with it without a document. That is how the world is becoming, we are so untrusing of everything that we need documents to keep order. I thought that it was interesting that the creators of this movie were able to predict so much about the future. All in all this movie was, random, yet it held my attention. I enjoyed taking a break from work, and kicking back and watching a movie.

Brazil

At first this movie makes not much sense. When you sit down and really interpret what you have watched it starts to make sense. He is a government employee stuck with his job, and escapes it by dreaming into a fanasty world of love and adventure. Which I believe is where the title Brazil comes from. He flys over beautiful greenlands. His life just gets increasingly worse, they accidentally kill Buttle in mistake of a man Tuttle. They kill him because Tuttle is a terrorist and the system mixes up the names. In the end killing an innocent man and letting a guilty one roam free. This mistake helps out Sam. In the end I begin to believe that he might be schizophrenic. When he is at the chair in the middle of the room Tuttle comes down to save him. But before the credits he is still in the chair. So maybe he had one of his spacy dreams while he was going to be interrogated. The ministry is basically a giant office that runs everything. It is efficient and everything gets done, except for when the workers watch TV. The ministry is like a government that cannot be overthrown. If something breaks or if someone complains they have to get a lot of paperwork to get something simple accomplished. For example when Jill goes into to complain, they tell her she has the wrong papers and she needs to get them stamped. In numerous plot analogies of this movie, they all say its dark comedy. I did not find anything funny about this. This was directed by the same guy who did Monty Python and the Flying Circus. Brazil really was not funny it was just bizarre and strange. 

WTF MATE!?!

this movie is the craziest i have experienced. this whole movie is based on post modernism and this makes it a rather difficult movie to follow. it jumps around from scene to scene  and it is tuff to participate it in. this movie is fun to watch and entertaining to be a part of be is hard to fully understand. the plot of this movie is something that i dont really recognize and the post modern style is rather confusing.

BRAZIL

This movie was a movie that i was hesitant to like. at first it just seemed like a bunch of random events and a very misconstrewed perception of the furture. at first i wanted to think this was a scene right out of a brave new world but as time went on i could see that these ideas were far apart. 

Strange but Intelligent

The movie Brazil was very odd. In the beginning I could not understand a thing that was going on. It was kind of like Flaubert's Parrot in the fact it jumped around, and I really had no clue what was going on. For instance, it would jump around from Sam's dreams to his actual life without really giving any reason as to why Sam was having those dreams until the end of the movie. However, atleast Brazil had a noticable plot closer to the beginning. I started to get into the movie when he saw that girl, and began to almost hunt for her due to the fact he was convinced she was the girl in his dreams. This is when I realized that his dreams and his life connected for him. Not only did he go against what he said about not ever accepting a promotion, but he also went around the rules and guidelines to find this girl. Apparently the society he lived in and the work that he did did not please him enough, and he started to realize that it was a corrupt society. Therefore, I believe that is why Sam "left" them at the end of the movie. He realized that living in his fantasies was much more appealing and rewarding then living in such a place as he had been. To him his fantasies made sense, and the outside world no longer did.

JZ's thoughts

Well, I have no idea what we are supposed to say, so I suppose I will impart to you all my initial reactions to the movie.  To begin, I truly found this movie entertaining, compelling, and engaging.  I feel that I have a sufficient comprehension of the plot despite the fact that our class had to endure freezings and jumps in the chronology.  I couldn't help but noticing that this society, almost if by design, was conveyed in an ominous and sinister light.  This gives me reason to believe that the author of this movie was endeavoring to portray this society as a dystopia.  Truly, I now want to read 1984.  I think the author was showcasing the idea that we shouldn't allocate so much power and such to the fascist government and ministry of information in the movie.  Truly, they controlled all aspects of society, andf created a terrible world.  The whole ministry of information was also really pointless, and didn't do anything productive.  JZ out.   

Brazil

Well, my first reaction to Brazil was pretty much WTF? It's definitely similar to Flaubert's Parrot in the sense that it's totally disjointed and confusing, and nothing comes together. All this random crap is just thrown in together, like the director was drunk or something. But like FP, it sort of grew on me, and I kind of liked it. That's not to say I had a clue what they were talking about.
The movie is supposed to be futuristic, but it was made 30 years ago, so there's a weird mix of antiques and imagined futurama. Sometimes the gadgets are fairly simlar to modern ones, and sometimes they are way off. What I find more interesting is how synically accurate the filmmakers are with respect to things like terrorism and beaucracy. Though we haven't reached the low point shown in the movie with these things, we are far closer than anyone would have imagined. The looming govermental buildings, gas-masked soldiers barging into homes, heavy mistrust, torture, and dehumanizing of everybody seems like WWII, which was probably intended. Covering the faces of victims (hanging grey bags) and torturers (baby mask) alike makes everything so impersonal it becomes much easier to do terrible things. Having the terrible things happen on a seemingly distant island helps too (Guantanamo Bay). Despite its creepy predictions, Brazil is still incredibly strange. What kind of messed up movie has a happy ending where the main characters, the lovers, are killed and tortured to insanity, respectively? The writer must have been an...interesting guy.

Brazil

Brazil. I don't even understand why it was named such a thing if it has nothing to do with the country. I mean, honestly? What the hell????? I don't think I followed the plot line the whole time. I got that it was this society that was completely controlled by Information gatherers. But the combination of futeristic dominance and old-school gadgets just totally screwed with my mind. And I somehow got that terrorists were trying to take over. But this whole thing with Sam's dream and that girl being real...man my brain hurts just thinking about it.
I really wish I could have understood this movie. I mean, I'm sure if I'd gotten it, it would have been amazing and really interesting. But because I didn't, it was like tripping on some really crazy drug the entire time. And what a strange way to present postmodernism. Flaubert's Parrot was nothing like that! It wasn't nearly as confusing, nor as (no offense, Mr. Lavender) pointless. It had the pontential to be really cool. Maybe I wasn't in the right mind set. I don't know.

It's over?

Well after finishing the novel there isn't much to be said.  It was certainly an interesting and some times disturbing read (the  necrophiliac part).  Barnes leaves the readers with many unanswered questions, kind of like a maze that we can't get out of.  We know of all of the passages like questions but they don't really come together to let us out.  In the chapter about Louise Colet, I begin to wonder if Barnes really appreciates Flaubert or if he is using all of the irony to mock him.  Although, all of the irony presented brings very much humor, I get the sense that Barnes just makes fun of Flaubert and gets this sense of ascendancy over Flaubert.  This novel does present some funny times. Rarely do I laugh out loud when I read but Barnes did force a couple little tiny laughs.  The biggest question this book leaves me with is why? I still don't know of Barnes' intentions for the novel, was he paying respect to Flaubert or showing that he knows more than him and is better. The two tones and authorial presences differ and I am left wonder why Barnes decided to take this path with writing this novel.  It was a book that presented much curiosity and even more confusion but it was kind of entertaining to read.  

        

Necrophiliac!!!

Sorry but i have to take a moment for this necrophiliac stuff... In my opinion Flaubert is just as guilty of being a nasty person. For anyone who finds joy in watching a mental person having sex with a corpse is obviously a twisted psycho! And the fact that he has the audacity to call him a coward because he couldn't stomach a decapitated corpse! Who is the coward? Flaubert? For in my eyes it is Flaubert! He constantly needs to make himself feel normal and will use any method the sick freak can get away with.

About the Parrots

The end of the book leaves the reader without a concrete resolution. In a sense isn't this what happens in our own lives and isn't this why we search for answers in literature? Barnes dedicates this entire book to Flaubert's insights, Flaubert who was the master of realism, and here at the end of the novel we are left with an answer we no so well, which is not having an answer. Flaubert's Parrot analyzes a realist and leaves the reader with a realization that sometimes the answer is unknown. We never find out which was the true parrot, and Geoffrey will never no the reason why his wife cheated on him. Sometime the realities of life, just are, and Flaubert's Parrot diverged away from the norms of literature and didn't have a "because". This book left us hanging and realistically portrays life because this happens all the time in the real world.

Not So Bad

I don't think it's so much that I don't like this book itself, I think it's more I don't like what the book leaves you with; nothing, questions. The amount of questions I have gained from the spontinuity, randomness, and depth of this story/novel/piece of literature has left me frustrated. They all tie together and what could seem to possibly be the answer feels within my grasp but honestly I dont know what my final question is.
Chapter 14 about the examination leaves me with even more questions but also seems to sum up the book in what is really important. Again, Barnes visits the idea of critics but the ideas seemed concluded, finally stating why Flaubert himself hated critics. Things that are left unfinished in this chapter seem correct in their unfinished ways, like they really dont matter that much. These unfinished ideas and notions seem concluded by the restated fact of Flaubert's suicide. Through out the entire book there was a sort of mystery that was building in the questions and the ideas that were formed, but by the end it seems like it was supposed to be that way, unfinished, still searching, because really we (or Barnes) will never know the whole truth.

Flaubert's Parrot

So out of the books we have read this year is easily the most understandable. When you read it, it is pretty straight forward. I liked how he would talk about Flaubert then randomly go off on some tangent about his life. It is funny because so many people talk and go off on tangents. What I liked most about the book was how he compared Flaubert to a bear. That description was quite interesting and useful. It really conveyed a sense of what he was like. He was very good at critiquing Flaubert. Is it ironic about his views of critics when he is a critic? There is a lot of critiquing in his life, some dealing with Flaubert, some dealing with himself and his past. He dislikes critics for what they say, and maybe he feels that because of himself critiquing others he feels that it is useless. It doesnt serve a purpose?

Flaubert's Parrot

This is by far my favorite book we've read this year.  I think I like it so much because Barnes' train of thought is pretty identical to mine.  He starts with one thing and quickly gets sidetracked from there and continues to get sidetracked time and time again until both the reader and Branes has forgotten what he was talking about.  For some this may seem confusing but for me it keeps the book interesting.  Who knows what tangent Barnes will get onto on the next page.  While Branes does get sidetracked often he still manages to keep the book revolving around Flaubert and his parrot.  Although it's been a while since the parrot came up.  

One thing that Barnes keeps doing that I feel should have some significant meaning is he keeps using numbers.  He uses dates to give us a sense of when Flaubert did something.  He uses numbers to list books that should be banned and I think that there must be some underlying meaning to Barnes' fascination with numbers.  In the past few sections we have encountered numbers in at least two places if not more, so either Barnes is following the perfect outline of postmodernism, he's trying to relay and underlying meaning through his numbers, his so random that he just puts numbers down when they pop into his head or a combination of the three.  Personally I'm leaning to a combination or the last one.  

I have truly enjoyed reading Barnes because nothing is predictable, nothing is sappy and romantic everything is either blunt or so random that you can't help but laugh or rather cackle out loud.  

Biggest Ahhh Moment

Biggest "Ahhhhh" moment is when you've written a blog; push post, and then the screen resets. No. No bueno. No me gusta. But, I guess what that paves way for is a new opportunity to write a better blog. Right? Starting with the Train chapter. So what? It's wierd though, because now that we have this sense of Braithwraite and Barnes (being one in the same), and it almost sounds like a personal bicker between the two authors. Once again, however, we see this in the Case Against champer. This time, the voice is turned towards the audience, (or Braithwraite). This is where I'm slightly confused. First, who is suggesting the questions that prompt the myths of Flaubert. Are these audience questions, in which the dumbness of them gets to Barnes/Braithwraite. As if the questions were just so obviously answerable. Otherwise, it was confusing to see who Barnes was officially directing his claims of ignorance to. I do still like these books, 98-100 is still hilarious beyond all reason. That part made me weep in tears, and while the humor is waning, I'm still enjoying the novel

Self Critic

Barnes/Geoffrey asks so many questions. When we finally find out the truth behind Ellen and her story that was "so hard to tell" Barnes/Geoffrey is never sure. Was it this? or Was it that? Am i STILL wrong about that? Now, I ask a question myself, does Barnes/Geoffrey find such a passion in critiquing the life of Flaubert because there is simply nothing else left to critique. Apparently in his mind he has critisized himself for not making his love Ellen better, not making her love him back. Even though he says they were happy, he then says they were not, proving he has thought about it more than once, obviously critiquing the past...is that why he hates critics so much? Because he himself is such one that has realized it gets you no where?

On page 136 Barnes states that Flaubert "did not believe art had a social purpous." In this I assume he meant a form of propaganda was not needed to be formed in the artwork, or did he simply mean that art can be personal? It can be done within the self, for the self, or possibly for someone close to the self. His relationship with Louise Colet existed with an artistic vibe. Louise herself was aware of the art they shared. Also, in the following chapter the section about louise refers to Flaubert's art for her.
Something else that caught my interest was the use of the word "transvestism" in the dictionary. This strikes me as interesting because of the numerous previous accounts given to the similarities between Flaubert and Emma. Whether he was truly like "a hysterical old woman" or not, Flaubert apparently found within himself something that was easy to relate to that of a woman...or was it more that Emma was similar to him, as a man?