#blogresponse

Thek begins the stream of questions with the basics you find on pretty much any government form. These are the things that Identify you or categorize you in this world. They also measure how much a person is worth to society. An example would be “What income do you have?” In the third set of questions, he begins asking questions that remind me of a dating questionnaire. They start out light and then move on to serious from “What are your requirements in a friend?” to ” What happens after death?” He follows this pattern of asking questions relating to your place in the world and your opinions to questions that frame what people would be convicted about in life. The topics seem to try and aim the reader at answering questions that show what they know about themselves and what they know about the world, They reveal status and knowledge as well as culture. I assume the answers for an American to “Who is Roosevelt?” would be different from someone in China. In one set of questions he says “Make a paper doll of yourself.” and the next “What is theology?” Asking essentially, how do you see yourself and then what do you understand about this large topic? Even when he does ask those big questions that are from the outside world the answer would still reveal more about the individual's identity, not necessarily who they are to everyone else, but who they are to themselves. I believe if you answered every question here you would have an intimate idea of who someone is or who you are. His final paragraph is reflective of how the world will treat you for your answers to these questions. They will judge you as worthy of reward or punishment, recognize insincerity and target your weaknesses. 

Love this! Now this is the proper way to blog. :D

Social standards of beauty and success can cause as much pain as they can bring pleasure.  Often times it seems like social definitions of success are limited to those things that only a few people have.  In the case of beauty pageants it seems limited to a body type that very few have.  A societal problem that is caused by this is that it comes to glorify things that others don't have access to.  Especially in a case like this, where a body type is not something that others can choose.  This places a burden on those who have ambition of success in society.  When success is limited to this extent, and others do not have the means to achieve it, it causes social friction.  It can cause tension between those who do have access and those who don't have access to the means to success.  The question is, how do we address these things?  In this case, being aware that success is a social construct is an important cure.  Remembering that they are constructs reminds us not to put too much stake into these definitions. 

The idea of Walter White as a pursuer of the "American Dream" creates an interesting dialogue on what it means to strive for success in America.  We see an individual that is facing great health struggle while striving for economic success.  Because of the difficulty of his situation, he finds himself turning to legally subversive means to pursue economic advancement.  In a sense, he is successful in pursuits.  Eventually the money begins to flow.  What he finds however, is that the struggles in his life and the dangers he is facing have grown ten-fold. This story shows us that, while the American Dream reviews to a certain level of success, it is a bit of a moving target and somewhat difficult to define.  Simply constraining it to a level of economic success is not sufficient, neither is being able to support a family, a home, and a car.  In the end, one's ability to achieve this dream is constrained to their ability to succeed within a certain set of standards and limits laid out by others.  Many would say that one who succeeds by selling drugs, could never truly achieve the American Dream.

This blog response is a comment on the clip shown from the end of the 1994 film Vive L’Amour, directed by Tsai Ming-Liang. The piece was a collection of longshots strung together of a woman walking through a park in a large city, eventually settling on a bench to wail and sob. I was shocked by the initial reaction of the class’ reaction to the scene; laughing at the woman’s tears and talking through the entirety of the scene. Many stated that the laughter was in relation to the inability to understand the woman’s tears in accordance to framing and formality. I, however, took an opposing stance on this scene. I believe that the director used this scene to create the feeling of helplessness in the spectator. The Ming-Liang desired the viewer to want to help her, though she is rendered helpless. Out of the massive amount of people within the scene and within the city, nobody considers to comfort her or help her. Even the man sitting a mere minute away from her did nothing to soothe the crying woman. He was used purposely to establish the idea in the audience’s mind that someone is able to help, but he does nothing, leaving the viewer waiting anxiously for his entrance that is nonexistent. The close up to her face while she cries inhibits feelings of pity and empathy. There is an esteemed amount of countenance in this clip and it strikes the viewer mercilessly out of a tense, patient buildup while she walks to the benches. This scene is both realistic and engaging. It is effective at presenting a realistic method to crying; the woman thinking inwardly about something as she pauses, hyperventilates, and lights a cigarette. Her pensiveness invokes pensiveness within the viewer. That is the reality of contemplative cinema. Next time, I hope that the class considers this while viewing film, as they already should; exhibiting a passion for cinema, indifferent to style, form and narrative.

I HIGHLY recommend reading this blog post, it definitely helped me.