After more than fifty years passed, Sidney Lumet’s Twelve Angry Men (1957) still seems to be a milestone in the genre of courtroom drama. Within these years, popular culture transformed, and more people wanted to watch and read thrillers which Hollywood has shown great interest on. However, the characteristic of other works, like forensic mysteries, have settings outside the courtyard, the thrill is easier to evoke if the characters are in action. Twelve Angry Men differs in this respect. Twelve “white and male” jurors sitting in a hot room sweating and prejudiced; trying to decide upon whether a young boy from the slums should live or die, by trying to solve if he murdered his father or not. While it is worthy of recognition that the film is shot mostly in only one room, it is also remarkable that the film is enlarging the perspective of the audience about the “truth” while dealing with the notions of “justice” and “prejudice”, and at the same time evaluating the American legal system which is dependant on jury system. However, the film has its discrepancies and defects regarding the legal issues.
The film puts the audience in the same shoes as a juror who has not followed the trial with attention. While in the room with the other jurors talking to each other, the audience gets affected by the arguments of the jurors, since the court is a complete unknown to the audience. The tendency of the jurors inside the room affects the audience through the film, it may almost be seen as a social/psychological experiment that the film performed unknowingly.
The film appears to have a deductive logic. There is an assumption that the boy is guilty at first, the events are quite clear, and the people who find the boy “guilty” have not thought about it much. However, with the arguments and the points which Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) draws attention on, slowly, the hasty decision of sending a boy to his death starts to wear off. A device used to metaphorically enhance this change may be the change of weather; the sweltering hot weather of the jury’s prejudiced death sentence changes into a refreshing summer rain with the “not guilty” votes. Juror #8, therefore, acts as collective common sense for the jury.
The film handles prejudice in such different perspectives; peer pressure, class struggles, and social order are some of them. It is hard to assert that the film used visual symbols in the movie; while the film heavily depended on dialogues and the script. The ideas of the jurors are acting as symbols which can be seen on larger scales among society. Juror #2 is a significant character in the film regarding prejudice. One of the most effective dialogues in the script is formed with the help of his temper concerning the accused. He has problems with his own son, and he had not seen him for two years. He says that he told his son "I'm gonna make a man out of you if I have to break you in two trying" when he run away from a fight at nine years old, and after he succeeds to make a man out of him, they had a fight. It is understandable that the Juror #2 is taking the case personally, for he thinks himself at the same spot with the deceased father. When he is called a sadist by Juror #8, because he advocates the boy’s death more than anyone, he yells “I’ll kill him!” and this is the breaking point of the jury in a way, for one of the witnesses heard the boy saying “I’m gonna kill you”, and Juror #8 was trying to prove that this sentence could be used anywhere, in any context, without actually ending up with a real murder. Thus, Juror #2 creates an anti-thesis for the rest of the jury, unknowingly. His antagonistic behavior is based on past experiences that mutilated his emotions, thus he is bitter and negative.
Juror #7, who is a baseball fan, is another key character. He wants to end the meeting with the jury soon, just to catch a baseball game on time, and he finds the boy guilty. When he talks with Juror #8, he tells that the meeting and the ball game has no difference at all. According to the film, it is true; it is like gambling whether the boy is guilty or not. When more and more people started to vote “not guilty” he changes his vote too . When Juror #11 asks why he has done it, he has no explanation, because for that man, the whole trial is just a game, just a transitory phase to something important. This man can be read as the negative side of the democratic elections, he has no idea about the trial whatsoever, but he is willing to choose wrong (or right) for his own purposes.
Juror #10 represents the prejudiced and narrow-minded attitude in democracies. He is depicted as a sweaty businessman, who does not like any minorities (the accused boy is a Latino) and people living in slums and thinks that they are capable of committing any kind of offence. He is “prejudice” incarnate. After several attempts to refute him, he starts his rant about how the minorities and slum residents are untrustworthy and evil, and most importantly, it is in their blood. The only thing the other Jurors do is to walk away from him, and ignore him. This ignorance is meaningful, for the old Juror #9 talked about a witness who is an old man, could have distorted the evidence just because he wants to draw attention; for a man wants to be heard, listened and cared. Juror #9 understands how it feels to be unheard and gradually lowers his voice and secludes himself to a corner. The film may be giving advice on how people should deal with mindless prejudice, shunning it off and ignoring.
Juror #8, the reasonable man, first brings the jurors most obviously not of the dominant group –who are dominant in every aspect of life with their racial and sexual identities; white males- to his side: the old man, the man from the slums, the immigrant, and the effeminate. Juror #3 calls the group "these old ladies." But, in the end, even he comes around. Reason is justified by first aligning the others with Juror #8 as representative of what is best about the dominant group, and then by demonstrating that the apparently most masculine representative (#3) of the group's reason is actually driven by suppressed emotion.
The film mostly leads the audience to think positively about other people. It indicates that individual good will towards all people would be to the benefit of society. Excessive strictness should not necessarily be beneficial, similarly to the methodic “guilty” vote of Juror #4 who is a broker. He represents the side of the society which had to be persuaded with logic and evidences. While he has the strongest argument about why the boy is guilty, he also has a relatively open mind compared to the others, and he was willing to listen. Thus, it has been possible to persuade him with facts, and to create a reasonable doubt in him.
The social issues are also addressed in the film, such as Juror #6 who lived in a slum in his whole life and this makes him bitter about the case. The old witness, who may have distorted the story of murder to receive attention for the first time in his life, the woman, who says that she saw the murder, is trying to look younger with make-up and clothes. Also, the boy who is accused with murdering his father lived in the slums for eighteen years, endured physical pain, and maybe being trialed for a crime he did not commit. The film does not bring any solution to any of these issues, but addressing them to be acknowledged or make people aware of them .
The film may be criticized in some aspects. One of them is while the film is sending explicit messages about the rights of minorities; the court has an all-white jury. In practice where a Latino or African-American is tried, the court tends to have an all-white jury. The jury selection is susceptible to manipulation and excluding members of minority groups is an abused and common practice . The film therefore may seem hypocritical at some point. There is only one immigrant in the jury, who has a European descendant, which is not really enough to say that the jury is diverse. The accused is a Latino, possibly Puerto Rican, and there is no in the jury that is a minority that can sympathize with him, be it a black person or a Latino. Also there are no women in the film or in the jury, and as a film which has its main theme as having no prejudice whatsoever, the film’s message seems a bit hollow. What is needed to be said here that the whole society cannot be represented by the selected Jury of Twelve Angry Men. American legal system based on juries is an effective but historically flawed formation. The society cannot be represented by twelve white males, while they are privileged already as being white Anglo males, (apart from the European immigrant) they are also deciding a suppressed and undermined young man’s life. They are therefore privileged in court too. The least privileged one, the one coming from slums, is in better condition than a woman, or a non-white.
However, what can contemporarily seen as defects can be also read as further criticisms in the film. The film clearly shows that the legal structure is important but the public conscience also matters. In the film, with the representation of the jury, the measure is the public conscience. The film shows the fragility of this structure, by depicting a case that can be affected by many prejudices. An intriguing thought is, in another case, where the person found not guilty and predefined values of the jury dictates them to execute him, an innocent people may go to death because of the personal interests and preconceptions of the jury. This may serve as a criticism and even warning to the American legal system which is constructed with jury system, showing how it can malfunction.
The film, Twelve Angry Men, is a remarkable production, not only for how it has been directed, its script, or the acting; but for its illuminative narrative that shows the audience how prejudice affects our judgments, and why it should be changed for good. It also rekindles a belief for democracy, where people can talk and decide on important matters equally and where everyone has the right to speak up. All jurors represent some behavioral pattern that can be attributed to the society in general, but at the end, all of them acknowledge the importance of having a “reasonable doubt” where necessary. Twelve Angry Men states the best case for keeping the jury system as it is. Juries can serve as the conscience of the community, as one final protection against the risk that the criminal law machine may falsely accuse an innocent person. As Time review on this film says, “the law is no better than the people who enforce it, and the people who enforce it are all too human” .
Works Cited
Abramson, Jeffrey. “Anger at Angry Jurors.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 82.2 (2007): 591-600. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.
Asimow M, Bergman P. “Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes to the Movies.” Andrews and McMeel Pres. 1996. 265-269
“Cinema: New Picture”. Time. Apr. 29, 1957: 94.
Denvir, John. “Legal Reelism: Movies as Legal Texts.” University of Illinois Press. 1996. 244-259.
DiPerna, Paula. “All-White Juries are no Accident.” The Nation Jan. 21 (1984): 45-48. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.
Greenfield, S, Osborn, G and Robson, P. “Film and the Law.” Cavendish Publishing Limited. 2001.
Lumet, Sidney. “Twelve Angry Men.” Perf. Henry Fonda. Orion-Nova Productions, 1957.
27.5.10
A Crooked Glance over the Second World War: Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is a film never to forget, and on its way to become a cult in the upcoming years. The film has a strong element of satire, and humor is blended inside the plot so well, we have nothing to do but admire the work which consists of unexpected or maybe shocking scenes, subtle messages on contemporary politics and the film industry, and a completely distorted even crooked viewpoint to the history. Although this unconventional point of view may seem like hypocrisy, as Jewish revenge depicted as it is equally be bloody as Nazi deeds, but it can also be seen just as an entertaining fictional movie using the icons of the Second World War.
The historical inaccuracies of this film cannot be examined, for it is made of those inaccuracies. Actually, the film itself is not a typical Tarantino work, since it is dealing with the Second World War, and the director is never known to work on these kinds of war topics. Thus, it is best to talk about the historical background of the film, and how it presents history with sarcasm, dark humor, satire and subliminal messages.
Firstly, within the film, we encounter scenes what we can deem as breaking the fourth wall. A truly remarkable scene at the end, where Shosanna changes the films and switches from a Nazi propaganda movie to a piece of film made by her, which is a statement of punishment, is shown to a theater full of Nazis. Stygian laughs in the burning theater and the image of Shosanna’s face reflected in the smoke are all references to a revenge taken by the Jewish people. The smoke with Shosanna’s face on it can be considered as the spirits of all the Jews who were killed and suffered. The locked burning theater is undoubtedly a parallel to the concentration camps. How those can be deemed as breaking the fourth wall is clear; as it can be seen at the end of the movie, Aldo Raine says that it might be his masterpiece, could very well attributed to the director himself, for the director, with the script and the scenes wanted to get an absolute intellectual and artistic revenge from the Nazis, and in broad sense, racism.
This war and revenge by the movies is the basis of the film. When Lieutenant Hicox is being charged to join the Basterds, he briefly interrogated by Winston Churchill, asking that who Goebbels (who is the propaganda officer and film producer of Hitler) can be a rival of in the Hollywood film industry, Louis B. Mayer or David O. Selznick, two Jewish film producers. The movie inside the film, Nation’s Pride is a propaganda movie and that movie too has its answer when the Bear Jew and Omar kill all the Nazi Party members with machine guns from a “bird’s nest”, as the same words used by the star of the movie, Frederick, who tells Shosanna where he has defended his country and killed nearly three hundred enemies.
Nazis were very well pictured in the movie too. Apart from the extremely picturesque and pathetic Hitler, all characters are well developed and precise. Colonel Hans Landa, a truly remarkable character maintains a new dimension to the movie with cunning, evil but also polite and cultured attitude. Also, the German officer in the shootout scene in the basement French tavern also has cunning and dangerous qualities among his characteristics. A good example how the Nazis see the world is when they play the game of guessing who their characters are by asking questions. After a number of questions, we see that the script is so carefully written, that we think the officer goes straight to the answer, King Kong, but eventually his answer would first be a “negro in America”. This may show that Nazis never saw black people or Jews as more than a mere animal, or a beast that needs to be taken care of. Another example to this can be Landa’s explanation of the Jewish people as rats. They see rats as a nuisance and objects for abhorrence, but there is no visible reason behind it; it is just a state of being of the Nazis.
While the Nazi characters are carefully developed, because of the story of Shosanna, the story does not focus enough on the Basterds. The Bear Jew, Donny Donowitz and Hugo Stiglitz could be unforgettable characters just like Tarantino created in his earlier films, like Jules Winnfield or Mr. Wolf in Pulp Fiction, who both and along many more have become cults, for example Winnfield’s constant quotations from the Book of Ezekiel has become a popular culture figure. The absence of the scenes of these characters can be seen a necessary measure for the film is already too long, but those characters could be worked on for the viewers’ pleasure.
There are several aspects which can be discussed for the film as the points where film does not have success. Firstly, it needs to be stated that a careless mistake has been made. While Hitler talks with the soldier who has been let to live by the Basterds, there is a huge map behind Hitler which contains where the German army and other countries are. There writes Otmanien (Ottomans), in contemporary borders of Turkey. This is either an overlooked mistake or the lack of knowledge.
Moreover, the historical references in the movie are only remotely connected with the real history. While no special Jewish American army groups or brigades served in the Second World War, the British Army had a volunteer Jewish Brigade from the British colony of Palestine. They also had German origin Palestinian Jews and they were very fluent on the German language.
Also, fighting behind the enemy lines in France is not completely fictional. In the same year as the film, 1944, nearly a hundred Jedburgh teams (among a secret operation of Britain and US secret services) were sent to France to create a fear as a part of psychological warfare. However, these Jedburgh teams only consisted of three or four men and they got their training in guerilla warfare.
Alongside the lack of real historical data considering the Second World War, a criticism can be made if we consider American History and how “war” is pictured in this film. An old enemy of Americans is the Native Americans and now the enemy is the radical Islamists for decades. As told by the Americans, this subjective history shows Native Americans as barbarous and primitive savages, who scalp their enemies as a tradition. They do not take prisoners in the war, for that is not in their culture. They make guerilla war, basically. When it comes to the radical Islamists, the most gruesome fact and the most feared thing attributed to them is the suicide bombings, where they have no intention to separate the military and the innocent civilians. In Inglourious Basterds, Jewish American soldiers use all this aspects, what Americans fear and oppose the most.
Basterds scalp their enemies, take no prisoners, and kill people with baseball bat. They literally use the Apache tactic to fight their enemies. Just like the Taliban tried to create a fear and terror by videos of killed American troops, Basterds mark their enemies to create a psychological pressure where they go. In the theater scene of the movie, Basterds decided to send two soldiers with dynamites wrapped around their legs to kill the top Nazi officers and to effectively end the war, just like the radical Islamist suicide bombers, but as it is also stated in the movie, there are not only the army officers, Gestapo or SS; there are also film critics, civilians and actors. The most feared and criticized civilian death is deemed as nothing in this fictional movie.
However it can be seen as a bit exaggeration if we attribute the making of this film to the US as a whole. Tarantino himself talks about the movie as follows: "... despite its being a war film, Inglourious Basterds is my spaghetti western, but with World War II iconography." Therefore this completely fictional and even distorted film cannot be seen as a historical film but as an action thriller, using the characters of the Second World War.
The movie, Inglourious Basterds is a really successfully shot, heavily satirical and humorous, and sentimentally revenge seeking masterpiece-to-be. The inadequacies of the film are not about the cinematography but the way it deals with the material. It can be seen as a mere hypocritical action thriller regarding the Americanization of the history, or a very innovative way to tell a story, using a history told by many people with many films and other medium, in a new and unconventional way. It is better to be seen as the latter one for the film never claimed to be a historical war movie, but an ingenious attempt of entertainment.
The historical inaccuracies of this film cannot be examined, for it is made of those inaccuracies. Actually, the film itself is not a typical Tarantino work, since it is dealing with the Second World War, and the director is never known to work on these kinds of war topics. Thus, it is best to talk about the historical background of the film, and how it presents history with sarcasm, dark humor, satire and subliminal messages.
Firstly, within the film, we encounter scenes what we can deem as breaking the fourth wall. A truly remarkable scene at the end, where Shosanna changes the films and switches from a Nazi propaganda movie to a piece of film made by her, which is a statement of punishment, is shown to a theater full of Nazis. Stygian laughs in the burning theater and the image of Shosanna’s face reflected in the smoke are all references to a revenge taken by the Jewish people. The smoke with Shosanna’s face on it can be considered as the spirits of all the Jews who were killed and suffered. The locked burning theater is undoubtedly a parallel to the concentration camps. How those can be deemed as breaking the fourth wall is clear; as it can be seen at the end of the movie, Aldo Raine says that it might be his masterpiece, could very well attributed to the director himself, for the director, with the script and the scenes wanted to get an absolute intellectual and artistic revenge from the Nazis, and in broad sense, racism.
This war and revenge by the movies is the basis of the film. When Lieutenant Hicox is being charged to join the Basterds, he briefly interrogated by Winston Churchill, asking that who Goebbels (who is the propaganda officer and film producer of Hitler) can be a rival of in the Hollywood film industry, Louis B. Mayer or David O. Selznick, two Jewish film producers. The movie inside the film, Nation’s Pride is a propaganda movie and that movie too has its answer when the Bear Jew and Omar kill all the Nazi Party members with machine guns from a “bird’s nest”, as the same words used by the star of the movie, Frederick, who tells Shosanna where he has defended his country and killed nearly three hundred enemies.
Nazis were very well pictured in the movie too. Apart from the extremely picturesque and pathetic Hitler, all characters are well developed and precise. Colonel Hans Landa, a truly remarkable character maintains a new dimension to the movie with cunning, evil but also polite and cultured attitude. Also, the German officer in the shootout scene in the basement French tavern also has cunning and dangerous qualities among his characteristics. A good example how the Nazis see the world is when they play the game of guessing who their characters are by asking questions. After a number of questions, we see that the script is so carefully written, that we think the officer goes straight to the answer, King Kong, but eventually his answer would first be a “negro in America”. This may show that Nazis never saw black people or Jews as more than a mere animal, or a beast that needs to be taken care of. Another example to this can be Landa’s explanation of the Jewish people as rats. They see rats as a nuisance and objects for abhorrence, but there is no visible reason behind it; it is just a state of being of the Nazis.
While the Nazi characters are carefully developed, because of the story of Shosanna, the story does not focus enough on the Basterds. The Bear Jew, Donny Donowitz and Hugo Stiglitz could be unforgettable characters just like Tarantino created in his earlier films, like Jules Winnfield or Mr. Wolf in Pulp Fiction, who both and along many more have become cults, for example Winnfield’s constant quotations from the Book of Ezekiel has become a popular culture figure. The absence of the scenes of these characters can be seen a necessary measure for the film is already too long, but those characters could be worked on for the viewers’ pleasure.
There are several aspects which can be discussed for the film as the points where film does not have success. Firstly, it needs to be stated that a careless mistake has been made. While Hitler talks with the soldier who has been let to live by the Basterds, there is a huge map behind Hitler which contains where the German army and other countries are. There writes Otmanien (Ottomans), in contemporary borders of Turkey. This is either an overlooked mistake or the lack of knowledge.
Moreover, the historical references in the movie are only remotely connected with the real history. While no special Jewish American army groups or brigades served in the Second World War, the British Army had a volunteer Jewish Brigade from the British colony of Palestine. They also had German origin Palestinian Jews and they were very fluent on the German language.
Also, fighting behind the enemy lines in France is not completely fictional. In the same year as the film, 1944, nearly a hundred Jedburgh teams (among a secret operation of Britain and US secret services) were sent to France to create a fear as a part of psychological warfare. However, these Jedburgh teams only consisted of three or four men and they got their training in guerilla warfare.
Alongside the lack of real historical data considering the Second World War, a criticism can be made if we consider American History and how “war” is pictured in this film. An old enemy of Americans is the Native Americans and now the enemy is the radical Islamists for decades. As told by the Americans, this subjective history shows Native Americans as barbarous and primitive savages, who scalp their enemies as a tradition. They do not take prisoners in the war, for that is not in their culture. They make guerilla war, basically. When it comes to the radical Islamists, the most gruesome fact and the most feared thing attributed to them is the suicide bombings, where they have no intention to separate the military and the innocent civilians. In Inglourious Basterds, Jewish American soldiers use all this aspects, what Americans fear and oppose the most.
Basterds scalp their enemies, take no prisoners, and kill people with baseball bat. They literally use the Apache tactic to fight their enemies. Just like the Taliban tried to create a fear and terror by videos of killed American troops, Basterds mark their enemies to create a psychological pressure where they go. In the theater scene of the movie, Basterds decided to send two soldiers with dynamites wrapped around their legs to kill the top Nazi officers and to effectively end the war, just like the radical Islamist suicide bombers, but as it is also stated in the movie, there are not only the army officers, Gestapo or SS; there are also film critics, civilians and actors. The most feared and criticized civilian death is deemed as nothing in this fictional movie.
However it can be seen as a bit exaggeration if we attribute the making of this film to the US as a whole. Tarantino himself talks about the movie as follows: "... despite its being a war film, Inglourious Basterds is my spaghetti western, but with World War II iconography." Therefore this completely fictional and even distorted film cannot be seen as a historical film but as an action thriller, using the characters of the Second World War.
The movie, Inglourious Basterds is a really successfully shot, heavily satirical and humorous, and sentimentally revenge seeking masterpiece-to-be. The inadequacies of the film are not about the cinematography but the way it deals with the material. It can be seen as a mere hypocritical action thriller regarding the Americanization of the history, or a very innovative way to tell a story, using a history told by many people with many films and other medium, in a new and unconventional way. It is better to be seen as the latter one for the film never claimed to be a historical war movie, but an ingenious attempt of entertainment.
4.5.10
Submission, Delusion and Manipulation: The Art of Islam
The world of phenomena and objects are often cannot be seen as what they are, but they are perceived as what previous generations have told it to be. Controversies and challenges to existing values often undermined with learned wrongs. For example, atheists long supported that the image of god and the existence of religion is nothing but mere sedatives and directives of power focuses. Just like every other counterpart throughout the world, Islam in Turkey, like other dominant religions in other countries can be seen like misdirection from certain matters that some interest groups dictated on regular and inadequately educated people.
It would be best to start with the etymologic background of the word, Islam. Although it may be seen like a long shot and an inference can be too literary, it gives a hint to what kind of society that we sociologically grow into. The word, Islam comes from the Arabic root “s-l-m” which means acceptance or submission, not necessarily to god, but a general surrender. Oddly enough, we use the word not only to utter the dominant religion in our country, but we greet each other with a different derivative of this root, “selam”. All in our country use this word to greet each other, either formally or informally. Again, this may seem like a speculation, but saying each other that we submit to the will of someone, or we surrender ourselves into the hands of the people we greet, is a deep scar originated in Turkish language, adapted from Islamic religion.
Turkic people, who are originally from middle Asia, indigenously have Tengriism, a polytheistic religion that originated according to their lifestyles and behaviors. Until the 8th century, Turkic people scattered around the world, either continued to believe in Tengri or assimilated into other religions. 8th century marked a significant event, Battle of Talas, between Arabs (and Turks) and Chinese. With the success of the Arabs, and the cooperation formed in the war, Islam began to expand over Turkic people and culture. Arabs had close bonds with Turks for various reasons, and the question needs to be raised here, why Arabs, specifically Abbasids treated Turks well.
The answers lie within future profits of the Arabs. In the 9th century, a new form of army, Mamluks (also known as Kolemen – which means slave man or owned man) appeared within the ranks of Arabian army. They have gathered immense strength and become a powerful military caste. The military needs of Arabs could only be fulfilled by the decisive Islamic promises. Islam used as a sedative and a way for Memluks to go to heaven, and in return, Arabs ask them to fight Arabic wars for them.
After the battle of Manzikert, the peninsula of Anatolia was ultimately under control of the Seljuq Turks. The decline of the Seljuqs gave way to Ottoman State to be established. The primary goal of the Ottoman State has been to conquer Byzantium and Istanbul. For nearly two hundred years, it has been seen as a “Muslim crusade” and a job that has been given by the prophet Mohammed. The hadith –which means the sayings of Mohammed – about Istanbul is widely spoken at those times, and even it is widely known and revered today’s Turkey is goes like this: “What a beautiful commander who conquered Istanbul, and what a beautiful army who conquered it.” This hadith become a motto while motivating the conquest, and the army. However, while Islam is used to motivate the public again, Sultan Mehmed II has declared himself as Kayser-i Rûm, which means Caesar of Rome. That shows his true intentions are rather becoming a new Roman emperor, and using the words of the prophets is an effective way to do it.
Curiously enough, his grandson, Selim I went to Egypt to get the protectorate of Caliphate. It is hard to believe it is only for the religious matters, but he showed his people that the reason to attack Egypt was to protect the Caliph. However, the riches and the spoils of the war with Mamluks were immense, and there rose questions, that if he used Islam to gather more wealth for Ottomans. After he captured the caliph and put him “under protection”, he has become a savior of the Islamic faith. However the caliph suspiciously surrendered the title caliph to Selim I willingly.
The caliphate has provided many advantages to Ottomans. All Islamic lands and people were somehow under control of Ottoman Empire regarding religious matters; and the sharia (religious law) was the prominent law of that time. Thus, it provides a great power over people. Caliphates have continued until the modern state of Turkey established in 1923. Mustafa Kemal has made an attempt to abolishing caliphate in 1924. Laicism, which also means secularism, was one of the Kemalist ideologies and a blooming modern Turkey. According to Mustafa Kemal’s reformation programs, Islam and therefore the identity of Muslim was belong to Ottoman Empire, and without the caliph, and with a secular system will create a new “Turk” identity.
However, the abolition was a critical and controversial matter. The Islamic faith in Turkey is extraordinarily strong for a secular country, and establishment of secularism in Turkey was not a step-by-step process of separation of church and state like in the West. In the Ottoman Empire, all spheres of life, at least theoretically, had been organized according to sharia, and Sunni religious organizations had been part of the state structure. With abolishing the caliphate, the head of the Islamic faith, the importance of being Muslim in state matters have disappeared, and while religious people found it disturbing, they also tried to sustain their religion in every aspect of the state. That led to confusion in politics, like conservative parties in Turkey have become mostly religion oriented, and they usually exploited common people’s religious beliefs. These religion-oriented parties have more and more dominant in the politic sphere, and conservatism has gained a new meaning in Turkey. They used religious elements for their own benefit, like making the Islamic tradition of wearing turban into a sense of crusade, where women supposed to protect the right to wear a headscarf in public areas and universities, where secular education and life is going on. It became a symbol of freedom for some people, but secularism, which is the foundation of this country, was now endangered.
As told by Karl Marx “religion is the opium of the people.” Throughout the history, we have seen that Islam has affected Turkish people in many ways, but this effect was mostly used by power focuses to gain advantage over people. Thus, Marx’s argument cannot be retaliated; religion is a perfect sedative and also stimulating product of mankind.
It would be best to start with the etymologic background of the word, Islam. Although it may be seen like a long shot and an inference can be too literary, it gives a hint to what kind of society that we sociologically grow into. The word, Islam comes from the Arabic root “s-l-m” which means acceptance or submission, not necessarily to god, but a general surrender. Oddly enough, we use the word not only to utter the dominant religion in our country, but we greet each other with a different derivative of this root, “selam”. All in our country use this word to greet each other, either formally or informally. Again, this may seem like a speculation, but saying each other that we submit to the will of someone, or we surrender ourselves into the hands of the people we greet, is a deep scar originated in Turkish language, adapted from Islamic religion.
Turkic people, who are originally from middle Asia, indigenously have Tengriism, a polytheistic religion that originated according to their lifestyles and behaviors. Until the 8th century, Turkic people scattered around the world, either continued to believe in Tengri or assimilated into other religions. 8th century marked a significant event, Battle of Talas, between Arabs (and Turks) and Chinese. With the success of the Arabs, and the cooperation formed in the war, Islam began to expand over Turkic people and culture. Arabs had close bonds with Turks for various reasons, and the question needs to be raised here, why Arabs, specifically Abbasids treated Turks well.
The answers lie within future profits of the Arabs. In the 9th century, a new form of army, Mamluks (also known as Kolemen – which means slave man or owned man) appeared within the ranks of Arabian army. They have gathered immense strength and become a powerful military caste. The military needs of Arabs could only be fulfilled by the decisive Islamic promises. Islam used as a sedative and a way for Memluks to go to heaven, and in return, Arabs ask them to fight Arabic wars for them.
After the battle of Manzikert, the peninsula of Anatolia was ultimately under control of the Seljuq Turks. The decline of the Seljuqs gave way to Ottoman State to be established. The primary goal of the Ottoman State has been to conquer Byzantium and Istanbul. For nearly two hundred years, it has been seen as a “Muslim crusade” and a job that has been given by the prophet Mohammed. The hadith –which means the sayings of Mohammed – about Istanbul is widely spoken at those times, and even it is widely known and revered today’s Turkey is goes like this: “What a beautiful commander who conquered Istanbul, and what a beautiful army who conquered it.” This hadith become a motto while motivating the conquest, and the army. However, while Islam is used to motivate the public again, Sultan Mehmed II has declared himself as Kayser-i Rûm, which means Caesar of Rome. That shows his true intentions are rather becoming a new Roman emperor, and using the words of the prophets is an effective way to do it.
Curiously enough, his grandson, Selim I went to Egypt to get the protectorate of Caliphate. It is hard to believe it is only for the religious matters, but he showed his people that the reason to attack Egypt was to protect the Caliph. However, the riches and the spoils of the war with Mamluks were immense, and there rose questions, that if he used Islam to gather more wealth for Ottomans. After he captured the caliph and put him “under protection”, he has become a savior of the Islamic faith. However the caliph suspiciously surrendered the title caliph to Selim I willingly.
The caliphate has provided many advantages to Ottomans. All Islamic lands and people were somehow under control of Ottoman Empire regarding religious matters; and the sharia (religious law) was the prominent law of that time. Thus, it provides a great power over people. Caliphates have continued until the modern state of Turkey established in 1923. Mustafa Kemal has made an attempt to abolishing caliphate in 1924. Laicism, which also means secularism, was one of the Kemalist ideologies and a blooming modern Turkey. According to Mustafa Kemal’s reformation programs, Islam and therefore the identity of Muslim was belong to Ottoman Empire, and without the caliph, and with a secular system will create a new “Turk” identity.
However, the abolition was a critical and controversial matter. The Islamic faith in Turkey is extraordinarily strong for a secular country, and establishment of secularism in Turkey was not a step-by-step process of separation of church and state like in the West. In the Ottoman Empire, all spheres of life, at least theoretically, had been organized according to sharia, and Sunni religious organizations had been part of the state structure. With abolishing the caliphate, the head of the Islamic faith, the importance of being Muslim in state matters have disappeared, and while religious people found it disturbing, they also tried to sustain their religion in every aspect of the state. That led to confusion in politics, like conservative parties in Turkey have become mostly religion oriented, and they usually exploited common people’s religious beliefs. These religion-oriented parties have more and more dominant in the politic sphere, and conservatism has gained a new meaning in Turkey. They used religious elements for their own benefit, like making the Islamic tradition of wearing turban into a sense of crusade, where women supposed to protect the right to wear a headscarf in public areas and universities, where secular education and life is going on. It became a symbol of freedom for some people, but secularism, which is the foundation of this country, was now endangered.
As told by Karl Marx “religion is the opium of the people.” Throughout the history, we have seen that Islam has affected Turkish people in many ways, but this effect was mostly used by power focuses to gain advantage over people. Thus, Marx’s argument cannot be retaliated; religion is a perfect sedative and also stimulating product of mankind.
25.3.10
Rome as a Metaphor of Human Mind
In essence, Freud assumes it right that the history of Western civilization is part of our unconscious mental history as well. He uses the terms Eros for love and Thanatos for death, from the Greek Mythology which basically is the foundation of the Western civilization. Freud had an advanced classical education and love of literature, so it is no wonder that this book was abound with analogies. We see clearly in this part of the book, Freud uses many Italic and Latin cultural structures and famous people to maintain the metaphor between a city to human mind (Freud 18).
In this part, Freud relied on the city of Rome to represent the historical birthplace of society, and to explain the bad effects civilization had on the human mind. Rome has been destroyed and rebuilt in the same spot countless times since it has been founded. Rome contains ruins from all previous eras, which are mentioned as metaphors extensively by Freud himself in the book. This allows one to observe every stage of its developmental history and character.
Moreover, for the observation of the development process of human mind, Freud uses Rome as a metaphor. Similar to Rome, our unconscious possess ruins and signs of past, which make up a similar multi-leveled structure of the mind as well. The mind is the safe keep for all of its earlier stages of development and it allows them to coexist with the later stages of development.
Using Rome as the psychological development of mankind takes the interaction of individuals in the society into account, not just the psychological traits of them. Like Rome, different character traits can clash through individual lifelines, and like Goth attacks on Rome, the psyche or our mind may be harmed, but to grow new perceptions and approaches.
Also we can see the metaphor extends until towards the end of the book. While mentioning the sense of guilt, the civilization acts as superego and the ego‘s need of punishment, Freud draws a conclusion by saying that civilization takes the command over individual‘s desire of aggression, by weakening it, “and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city” (Freud 84).
Furthermore, Freud finds another use of this metaphor in the book. He argues that the same space cannot have two distinct structures, but by thinking Rome as a structural representative, we need to put different buildings on one another but in a timely basis. Freud says that we have not yet mastered our characteristics of mental life even to put them in a picturesque manner. Indeed, we would think as the buildings as blurred objects if we think the same spot in a timeline, that still shows us how the respective priorities affect our perception; a blurred building can only mean a respectively less important era of the Rome, and a barely remembered feeling is that less important in human mind.
The mind of a person remains intact on normal circumstances and it learns every time and unlearns or corrects mistakes of itself. This can be compared to a demolition and rebuilding of a city, no real ill effects strike the mind, but a mere reestablishment occurs. Also Freud points out that the destructions which are never lacked in a history of a city can be compared to the serious illnesses. However Freud thinks that a city like London, which hasn’t really suffered a enemy attack cannot be a viable metaphorical device to the human mind. This can be argued as it is said above, even a peaceful human mind, learns and corrects itself, without having ruins in itself; thus a peaceful city will still be suitable.
Also with the third section of the book, we can extend the metaphor even more, that the section argues the paradox of civilization that it is created to protect us from unhappiness but also this protection is a source of discontent. A city is now not the human mind but both the civilization and the social superego that develops with the impositions of the ideals of society.
For the last words, this metaphor establishes an alive understanding of human mind comparing to a city, built and destroyed many times over the centuries. Also it shows that how incompetent we are to depict our mind graphically, and how our perception is still narrow. And lastly, Freud maintains a metaphor so useful, that we can read as anything we like; psyche, superego and the civilization itself.
In this part, Freud relied on the city of Rome to represent the historical birthplace of society, and to explain the bad effects civilization had on the human mind. Rome has been destroyed and rebuilt in the same spot countless times since it has been founded. Rome contains ruins from all previous eras, which are mentioned as metaphors extensively by Freud himself in the book. This allows one to observe every stage of its developmental history and character.
Moreover, for the observation of the development process of human mind, Freud uses Rome as a metaphor. Similar to Rome, our unconscious possess ruins and signs of past, which make up a similar multi-leveled structure of the mind as well. The mind is the safe keep for all of its earlier stages of development and it allows them to coexist with the later stages of development.
Using Rome as the psychological development of mankind takes the interaction of individuals in the society into account, not just the psychological traits of them. Like Rome, different character traits can clash through individual lifelines, and like Goth attacks on Rome, the psyche or our mind may be harmed, but to grow new perceptions and approaches.
Also we can see the metaphor extends until towards the end of the book. While mentioning the sense of guilt, the civilization acts as superego and the ego‘s need of punishment, Freud draws a conclusion by saying that civilization takes the command over individual‘s desire of aggression, by weakening it, “and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city” (Freud 84).
Furthermore, Freud finds another use of this metaphor in the book. He argues that the same space cannot have two distinct structures, but by thinking Rome as a structural representative, we need to put different buildings on one another but in a timely basis. Freud says that we have not yet mastered our characteristics of mental life even to put them in a picturesque manner. Indeed, we would think as the buildings as blurred objects if we think the same spot in a timeline, that still shows us how the respective priorities affect our perception; a blurred building can only mean a respectively less important era of the Rome, and a barely remembered feeling is that less important in human mind.
The mind of a person remains intact on normal circumstances and it learns every time and unlearns or corrects mistakes of itself. This can be compared to a demolition and rebuilding of a city, no real ill effects strike the mind, but a mere reestablishment occurs. Also Freud points out that the destructions which are never lacked in a history of a city can be compared to the serious illnesses. However Freud thinks that a city like London, which hasn’t really suffered a enemy attack cannot be a viable metaphorical device to the human mind. This can be argued as it is said above, even a peaceful human mind, learns and corrects itself, without having ruins in itself; thus a peaceful city will still be suitable.
Also with the third section of the book, we can extend the metaphor even more, that the section argues the paradox of civilization that it is created to protect us from unhappiness but also this protection is a source of discontent. A city is now not the human mind but both the civilization and the social superego that develops with the impositions of the ideals of society.
For the last words, this metaphor establishes an alive understanding of human mind comparing to a city, built and destroyed many times over the centuries. Also it shows that how incompetent we are to depict our mind graphically, and how our perception is still narrow. And lastly, Freud maintains a metaphor so useful, that we can read as anything we like; psyche, superego and the civilization itself.
Sarpedon’s Tale: Fate or the Gods
Sarpedon was a king from Lycia, today’s southwestern Anatolia. In Iliad, he fought alongside the Trojans, and he became one of the heroes of Trojan War. He is the one who tells off Hector, that Trojans were not fighting the hard battles, and leaving all the fights to the allies of Troy, like Lycians. The Trojans attack the wall that the Achaeans recently built, led by Sarpedon on the front lines. Great Achaean warriors like Ajax and Teucer’s attention turns to his division, which included Glaucus who will be wounded by an arrow fired from Teucer‘s bow.
Sarpedon comes across Patroclus in the battlefield and they met in combat. Just then, Zeus thinks over if he should save his son’s life, even if it means intervening the fate, that Sarpedon would die at the hands of Patroclus. According to the book, he would have eventually done that, if Hera would not come and reminded him that there are far too many sons of Gods, demigods on the battlefield, dying and fighting, and she states that if Zeus protects his son from inevitable destiny, all the immortal gods would like to do so, and that would cause chaos, both in Olympus and in the war itself.
Nevertheless, despite the noble demand of Sarpedon from Glaucus, the Greeks seize the corpse and strip it from his armor to give it to Patroclus. Even though Zeus cannot save his son, he preserves his dead body from Greek ravagers, washes it, rubs it with ambrosia (ritualistic drink of gods), and delivers it to Hypnos (the Sleep) and Thanatos (the Death) that they may carry it to Lycia where his kin and townsfolk will bury it.
Then Zeus weeps a rain of blood, which plays no part in the continuity of the events. Not any of the fighters in the battlefield seem to notice the darkness which falls to the field and the remove of the corpse. As it can be seen, legendary elements like, bloody rains, the darkness falling and that the Apollo’s arrival are subordinated and undermined by the epic chivalrous deeds. This also can lead to a different perspective, which is to be argued in later paragraphs.
What is remarkable here is, Hera’s words, saying “his doom sealed long ago.” regarding Sarpedon. Even if Zeus tries to go beyond the rules of the fate, he does not, by the warning of Hera. However this also can be seen as, Hera’s warning was a part of the fate, and Zeus is never meant to spare his son from the battlefield. The gods, with all their immortality, farsightedness and their might, are subjects to the destiny. This is what happens throughout the book, all the deeds, good and bad things attributed to gods, but every time there is a logical explanation for those occurrences.
As a literary work, Iliad seems to have gods all throughout its pages, however as it is said before, the godly actions are always explainable by logic, and if not, it has nothing to do with the plot. In Sarpedon’s tale, Glaucus was wounded by an arrow, and prays to Apollo to ease his pain and that he can continue fighting according to the will of Sarpedon, and than suddenly his pain is eased, which we can now explain by current science, as adrenaline, not god’s work.
In summary, in Iliad an attitude which is to do with only self purposes influences only the “image” of God. The believer selects a "god" like Achilles selects Athena, that is supposedly related with his powers and his self-image. That leads to the bliss comes from loving Gods, and damnation from non-loving Gods, but in Iliad, people are subject to fate and even if it is not mentioned also Gods; the external control is related to controlling Gods; which is science today, fate in those times and Gods in Iliad.
The easiest of the explanations is this, even those times, without today’s scientific achievements, the fate is seen as the most prominent factor that affects human lives. Gods’ presence in these epics, shows only the lack of science and explanations by a long lasted tradition. Their actions are not effective and their presence is vague. Only the literary supernaturalism makes Hera and Zeus argue about Sarpedon’s life, not that anything will change whatever Zeus decides.
Sarpedon comes across Patroclus in the battlefield and they met in combat. Just then, Zeus thinks over if he should save his son’s life, even if it means intervening the fate, that Sarpedon would die at the hands of Patroclus. According to the book, he would have eventually done that, if Hera would not come and reminded him that there are far too many sons of Gods, demigods on the battlefield, dying and fighting, and she states that if Zeus protects his son from inevitable destiny, all the immortal gods would like to do so, and that would cause chaos, both in Olympus and in the war itself.
Nevertheless, despite the noble demand of Sarpedon from Glaucus, the Greeks seize the corpse and strip it from his armor to give it to Patroclus. Even though Zeus cannot save his son, he preserves his dead body from Greek ravagers, washes it, rubs it with ambrosia (ritualistic drink of gods), and delivers it to Hypnos (the Sleep) and Thanatos (the Death) that they may carry it to Lycia where his kin and townsfolk will bury it.
Then Zeus weeps a rain of blood, which plays no part in the continuity of the events. Not any of the fighters in the battlefield seem to notice the darkness which falls to the field and the remove of the corpse. As it can be seen, legendary elements like, bloody rains, the darkness falling and that the Apollo’s arrival are subordinated and undermined by the epic chivalrous deeds. This also can lead to a different perspective, which is to be argued in later paragraphs.
What is remarkable here is, Hera’s words, saying “his doom sealed long ago.” regarding Sarpedon. Even if Zeus tries to go beyond the rules of the fate, he does not, by the warning of Hera. However this also can be seen as, Hera’s warning was a part of the fate, and Zeus is never meant to spare his son from the battlefield. The gods, with all their immortality, farsightedness and their might, are subjects to the destiny. This is what happens throughout the book, all the deeds, good and bad things attributed to gods, but every time there is a logical explanation for those occurrences.
As a literary work, Iliad seems to have gods all throughout its pages, however as it is said before, the godly actions are always explainable by logic, and if not, it has nothing to do with the plot. In Sarpedon’s tale, Glaucus was wounded by an arrow, and prays to Apollo to ease his pain and that he can continue fighting according to the will of Sarpedon, and than suddenly his pain is eased, which we can now explain by current science, as adrenaline, not god’s work.
In summary, in Iliad an attitude which is to do with only self purposes influences only the “image” of God. The believer selects a "god" like Achilles selects Athena, that is supposedly related with his powers and his self-image. That leads to the bliss comes from loving Gods, and damnation from non-loving Gods, but in Iliad, people are subject to fate and even if it is not mentioned also Gods; the external control is related to controlling Gods; which is science today, fate in those times and Gods in Iliad.
The easiest of the explanations is this, even those times, without today’s scientific achievements, the fate is seen as the most prominent factor that affects human lives. Gods’ presence in these epics, shows only the lack of science and explanations by a long lasted tradition. Their actions are not effective and their presence is vague. Only the literary supernaturalism makes Hera and Zeus argue about Sarpedon’s life, not that anything will change whatever Zeus decides.
The Last of the Mohicans: Historically Manipulated or Completely Fictionalized?
Michael Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans presents a widely known historical issue, from a different perspective, which seems it is intended to be neutral, but ended with the distortion of the image of Indians. The movie tries to lean on the romantic aspect of the book that it has been adapted from, but at the same time, it has historical inaccuracies.
During the Seven Years War, even though the sizes of the battles were smaller in the Americas, the dynamics of the continent made these battles more significant. A whole different culture, Native Americans participated in this war, under the command of both belligerents, France and England. The movie, The Last of the Mohicans, deals with the cultural ethic differences and gives an open ended justification for all views. The acts of some of the characters make this open-endedness even more apparent, as Magua’s tragic life story takes him outx of the stock villainous character.
However the simple historical truth cannot be denied; there had been a massacre at Fort William Henry. The different perspectives and cultural ethos are represented in the film, based on historical evidences and the book that the film was based on. The massacre of the surrendered folk of Fort William Henry is a matter of perceiving of the surrender terms. Indians did not have the tradition of letting go, or treating the surrendered well; for according to their point of view, the only surrender term was, ‘waiting death without any struggle.’
Although, the term “massacre” can have an exaggerated meaning here. The film does not correct a historical misunderstanding created by the early adaptations of J.F. Cooper’s book, and in the book itself. Indians were promised with the possessions and “scalps” by the French, but the surrender terms says that British can bear arms and have their possessions. The historical truth is that Indians were mad, but among the 2300 British soldiers, only 69 was killed, and most of them captured and sold to Canadian government, for money and brandy (Steele 1180). Another historical inaccuracy is the General Munro’s tragic death at the hands of Magua in the film. After General Munro killed in a brilliantly shot scene of the battle, Magua victoriously tears General’s heart out. However the historical evidences show that all British officers including General Munro survived the battle without harm (Steele 1180)
While the cultural ethic differences are apparent, Native Americans are represented as allies with really weak bonds. They do not want to blend in with the white society, even the ones like Hurons (in the film, Magua) who want to be like whites, but apart. Hawkeye’s quote from Chingachgook, the Last of the Mohicans, makes it clearer to understand how the Native Americans see the white people: “Do not try to understand them and do not try to make them understand you. That is because they are a breed apart and make no sense.”
But how it can lead to the unavoidable assimilation of Indians? In the film, we see Indians fighting alongside the French and British, but they stay strictly bonded with their traditions and language. On the other hand, British policy of that time was stated clear enough to Webb by Duncan: “I thought British Policy is ‘Make the World England’, sir.” This approach was the prominent tenet of British Imperialism; and the Puritan ideal most probably supported it in the continental America. Even though the race issue was less important than religion in those times, national identities played a part. In the film, Webb, who is depicted as a somewhat irritable and grudging character, shows this national prejudice clearly, first by saying that the French do not have the nature for war, but for eating and making love. Also he constantly mentions Colonel Munro as the “Scotsman” with the hint of contempt. Therefore, it is expected that the Indians were suffering from discrimination and as a nature of those times, assimilation.
The tone of the film, with the romantic moments and battle scenes, is rather serious, but as a comic relief, the Hawkeye character is depicted to have a sense of dark sarcasm, which lightens the tone of the film. As it can be interpreted from the seriousness of the tone, the genre of the film can be thought of as historical epic, but immense romantic elements can be seen throughout the film. The character Cora’s actions changes the plot significantly and the change shifts the genre towards colonial romance.
As Hawkeye, Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance seems appropriate in the film; however, like all of the actors in the film, it cannot be said that he is actually acting. All he does -apart from the romantic moments and the sarcastic touch- is to aim and shoot with a rifle and stand in picturesque, charismatic poses. The film, as some kind of epic journey tale, maintains the direction by having the characters run away from obstacles. This creates little opportunity for us to see extraordinary acting or expressions. What we see mostly is the fear, and that is the limitation of some really great actors.
Although the acting is limited, the scenery, the stunt performance and the music are spectacular. The place that the movie has filmed is North Carolina and it has a real beauty and resemblance to the actual setting, New York. Fort William Henry is constructed according to the actual one, and the lifelike canon fight, and the large stunt armies of French, British and Indians, adds more realistic sense to the film. Lastly, the music can be thought of as the most important element in this movie. Alongside the setting, the place and of course director and screenplayer’s interpretation of the story, the music makes the most effective contribution on creating the ambiance. The tracks like “The Kiss” (can be heard on mostly romantic scenes) and “The Courier”, as well as the Main Title creates the atmosphere from the beginning and maintains to the very end (Jones & Edelman 1993).
The movie The Last of the Mohicans is a really successful historical epic - colonial romance adaptation, regarding the ambiance and historical accuracy of the setting. However, director Michael Mann did not correct the long continued mistakes about the real history, but he perpetuated them in the minds of general viewer. The negative but controversial image of the Indians in this film can be discussed a lot more; and until a historically accurate film about this events, the misinformation will stay on public viewers mind.
Bibliography
Jones, Trevor, and Randy Edelman. The Last of the Mohicans Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. 1993. Germany: Morgan Creek Music Group, 1993. CD-ROM.
Mann, Michael, dir. The Last of the Mohicans. Perf. Daniel Day-Lewis. 1993. Morgan Creek Productions.
Steele, Ian K. "The Last of the Mohicans by Michael Mann." The Journal of American History 80.3 (1993): 1179-81. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.
During the Seven Years War, even though the sizes of the battles were smaller in the Americas, the dynamics of the continent made these battles more significant. A whole different culture, Native Americans participated in this war, under the command of both belligerents, France and England. The movie, The Last of the Mohicans, deals with the cultural ethic differences and gives an open ended justification for all views. The acts of some of the characters make this open-endedness even more apparent, as Magua’s tragic life story takes him outx of the stock villainous character.
However the simple historical truth cannot be denied; there had been a massacre at Fort William Henry. The different perspectives and cultural ethos are represented in the film, based on historical evidences and the book that the film was based on. The massacre of the surrendered folk of Fort William Henry is a matter of perceiving of the surrender terms. Indians did not have the tradition of letting go, or treating the surrendered well; for according to their point of view, the only surrender term was, ‘waiting death without any struggle.’
Although, the term “massacre” can have an exaggerated meaning here. The film does not correct a historical misunderstanding created by the early adaptations of J.F. Cooper’s book, and in the book itself. Indians were promised with the possessions and “scalps” by the French, but the surrender terms says that British can bear arms and have their possessions. The historical truth is that Indians were mad, but among the 2300 British soldiers, only 69 was killed, and most of them captured and sold to Canadian government, for money and brandy (Steele 1180). Another historical inaccuracy is the General Munro’s tragic death at the hands of Magua in the film. After General Munro killed in a brilliantly shot scene of the battle, Magua victoriously tears General’s heart out. However the historical evidences show that all British officers including General Munro survived the battle without harm (Steele 1180)
While the cultural ethic differences are apparent, Native Americans are represented as allies with really weak bonds. They do not want to blend in with the white society, even the ones like Hurons (in the film, Magua) who want to be like whites, but apart. Hawkeye’s quote from Chingachgook, the Last of the Mohicans, makes it clearer to understand how the Native Americans see the white people: “Do not try to understand them and do not try to make them understand you. That is because they are a breed apart and make no sense.”
But how it can lead to the unavoidable assimilation of Indians? In the film, we see Indians fighting alongside the French and British, but they stay strictly bonded with their traditions and language. On the other hand, British policy of that time was stated clear enough to Webb by Duncan: “I thought British Policy is ‘Make the World England’, sir.” This approach was the prominent tenet of British Imperialism; and the Puritan ideal most probably supported it in the continental America. Even though the race issue was less important than religion in those times, national identities played a part. In the film, Webb, who is depicted as a somewhat irritable and grudging character, shows this national prejudice clearly, first by saying that the French do not have the nature for war, but for eating and making love. Also he constantly mentions Colonel Munro as the “Scotsman” with the hint of contempt. Therefore, it is expected that the Indians were suffering from discrimination and as a nature of those times, assimilation.
The tone of the film, with the romantic moments and battle scenes, is rather serious, but as a comic relief, the Hawkeye character is depicted to have a sense of dark sarcasm, which lightens the tone of the film. As it can be interpreted from the seriousness of the tone, the genre of the film can be thought of as historical epic, but immense romantic elements can be seen throughout the film. The character Cora’s actions changes the plot significantly and the change shifts the genre towards colonial romance.
As Hawkeye, Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance seems appropriate in the film; however, like all of the actors in the film, it cannot be said that he is actually acting. All he does -apart from the romantic moments and the sarcastic touch- is to aim and shoot with a rifle and stand in picturesque, charismatic poses. The film, as some kind of epic journey tale, maintains the direction by having the characters run away from obstacles. This creates little opportunity for us to see extraordinary acting or expressions. What we see mostly is the fear, and that is the limitation of some really great actors.
Although the acting is limited, the scenery, the stunt performance and the music are spectacular. The place that the movie has filmed is North Carolina and it has a real beauty and resemblance to the actual setting, New York. Fort William Henry is constructed according to the actual one, and the lifelike canon fight, and the large stunt armies of French, British and Indians, adds more realistic sense to the film. Lastly, the music can be thought of as the most important element in this movie. Alongside the setting, the place and of course director and screenplayer’s interpretation of the story, the music makes the most effective contribution on creating the ambiance. The tracks like “The Kiss” (can be heard on mostly romantic scenes) and “The Courier”, as well as the Main Title creates the atmosphere from the beginning and maintains to the very end (Jones & Edelman 1993).
The movie The Last of the Mohicans is a really successful historical epic - colonial romance adaptation, regarding the ambiance and historical accuracy of the setting. However, director Michael Mann did not correct the long continued mistakes about the real history, but he perpetuated them in the minds of general viewer. The negative but controversial image of the Indians in this film can be discussed a lot more; and until a historically accurate film about this events, the misinformation will stay on public viewers mind.
Bibliography
Jones, Trevor, and Randy Edelman. The Last of the Mohicans Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. 1993. Germany: Morgan Creek Music Group, 1993. CD-ROM.
Mann, Michael, dir. The Last of the Mohicans. Perf. Daniel Day-Lewis. 1993. Morgan Creek Productions.
Steele, Ian K. "The Last of the Mohicans by Michael Mann." The Journal of American History 80.3 (1993): 1179-81. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.
3.6.09
Aspects of Television in Jerzy Kosinski’s Being There
Jerzy Kosinski’s satirical and ingenious novel, Being There, introduces a new term to us: videots, who are the people whose language got depleted, whose dreams are advertisements, desires are videotaped, perceptions are fixed and their understanding of self and society has been stereotyped by television. Like so-called Chauncey Gardiner, who is actually Chance the Gardener, the citizens of this artificial video-web; which we can call the entire world of today, only “watches” but do or know nothing.
The character of a person takes its shape with communication, however in contemporary world, there is huge gaps in communication. People tend to watch the events go by, rather than participate in them. This is the situation in important matters; such as political, environmental or religious issues that are needed to be dealt with an activist manner. Moreover, a more grave problem in “culture” emerges at this point. The society is so dependent on television and “watching”, that nobody really thinks it is necessary to question or even read. As in the novel, Chance tries to calculate the time needed to read a page (441) which is enough, for Chance does not know how to read, but the created society is so typical to the television, that he can easily fit and blend in. A man without any real comprehension or quality can be the celebrity of the day, like Chance does. As Andy Warhol said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes”. Television does not ask for a diploma, or a real work of art to make you known. It just creates a new you, reflects its own values on you so you become one of the unreal people of television, as you watch it, take it seriously, or appear on it. We can see this in the novel too, when Chance thinks about television with his only outside source of information, gardon which represents the whole real world before us:
“By changing the channel he could change himself. He could go through phases, as garden plants went through phases, but he could change as rapidly as he wished by twisting the dial backward and forward. In some cases he could spread out into the screen without stopping, just as on TV people spread out into the screen. By turning the dial, Chance could bring others inside his eyelids. Thus he came to believe that it was he, Chance, and no one else, who made himself be.” (433)
Television affects social behaviour, firstly its messages broadcast throughout the world, people with little knowledge or people who takes information as granted are the first victim of this messages. Secondly it reorganizes the social setting by changing interactions of people and by weakening the relationship of physical and social areas. It defines the social roles and behaviours, determines new masculine and feminine roles and overruns the borders of public and private lives. Also it creates “fictions” instead of facts, with the messages that mentioned earlier.
In the novel we see the ultimate creation (or maybe the creature) of television, Chance. There is no person that can really identify with him, but in reality, he is every one of us. After Chance appears on television as a public personality, both Soviets and United States intelligences starts to make investigation about him. The Soviets analyse his appearance on “This Evening” and says that it is “impossible to determine in any way whatsoever his ethnic background or to ascribe his accent to any single community in the entire United States!” (490). When we consider these sentences we eventually come with one result, the television creates clones of people with a blend of characteristics that appeared on it, like Chance. With all their awe, Sulkin makes the perfect metaphor for Chance; “a blank page” (490). A page which had been erased and had not been given permission to be written on. Its ultimate creature is a blank page, however the other minions of the television are nor blank, for none of them are really like Chance, but the same effect can be seen on anybody; as a page that shows letters that have been seen on television yesterday, acts as the person that is being seen every single week.
To conclude, Chauncey Gardiner, with the name he has been given by television upon his creation, deemed as a personable, well-spoken man, and looking good on television. Thus he identifies as one of “them”. He is their only chance (495). He is a beloved creature of the television, one of the best, with his lack of comprehension of world, with his lack of identity, he is perfect for constant recreation and re-characterization. Chance is one of us, an imitation of his unpicked observations of his creator, who lives his life by chance, and who has never been born.
The character of a person takes its shape with communication, however in contemporary world, there is huge gaps in communication. People tend to watch the events go by, rather than participate in them. This is the situation in important matters; such as political, environmental or religious issues that are needed to be dealt with an activist manner. Moreover, a more grave problem in “culture” emerges at this point. The society is so dependent on television and “watching”, that nobody really thinks it is necessary to question or even read. As in the novel, Chance tries to calculate the time needed to read a page (441) which is enough, for Chance does not know how to read, but the created society is so typical to the television, that he can easily fit and blend in. A man without any real comprehension or quality can be the celebrity of the day, like Chance does. As Andy Warhol said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes”. Television does not ask for a diploma, or a real work of art to make you known. It just creates a new you, reflects its own values on you so you become one of the unreal people of television, as you watch it, take it seriously, or appear on it. We can see this in the novel too, when Chance thinks about television with his only outside source of information, gardon which represents the whole real world before us:
“By changing the channel he could change himself. He could go through phases, as garden plants went through phases, but he could change as rapidly as he wished by twisting the dial backward and forward. In some cases he could spread out into the screen without stopping, just as on TV people spread out into the screen. By turning the dial, Chance could bring others inside his eyelids. Thus he came to believe that it was he, Chance, and no one else, who made himself be.” (433)
Television affects social behaviour, firstly its messages broadcast throughout the world, people with little knowledge or people who takes information as granted are the first victim of this messages. Secondly it reorganizes the social setting by changing interactions of people and by weakening the relationship of physical and social areas. It defines the social roles and behaviours, determines new masculine and feminine roles and overruns the borders of public and private lives. Also it creates “fictions” instead of facts, with the messages that mentioned earlier.
In the novel we see the ultimate creation (or maybe the creature) of television, Chance. There is no person that can really identify with him, but in reality, he is every one of us. After Chance appears on television as a public personality, both Soviets and United States intelligences starts to make investigation about him. The Soviets analyse his appearance on “This Evening” and says that it is “impossible to determine in any way whatsoever his ethnic background or to ascribe his accent to any single community in the entire United States!” (490). When we consider these sentences we eventually come with one result, the television creates clones of people with a blend of characteristics that appeared on it, like Chance. With all their awe, Sulkin makes the perfect metaphor for Chance; “a blank page” (490). A page which had been erased and had not been given permission to be written on. Its ultimate creature is a blank page, however the other minions of the television are nor blank, for none of them are really like Chance, but the same effect can be seen on anybody; as a page that shows letters that have been seen on television yesterday, acts as the person that is being seen every single week.
To conclude, Chauncey Gardiner, with the name he has been given by television upon his creation, deemed as a personable, well-spoken man, and looking good on television. Thus he identifies as one of “them”. He is their only chance (495). He is a beloved creature of the television, one of the best, with his lack of comprehension of world, with his lack of identity, he is perfect for constant recreation and re-characterization. Chance is one of us, an imitation of his unpicked observations of his creator, who lives his life by chance, and who has never been born.
Rocking in a Dystopian Culture
The punks, grunges, rockers. The ultimate musical creatures of the trends that had an effect on the Generation called “X”. The letter “X” defines a generation as “lost” but also open to an immense unknown. Although they have various musical tastes in their occult, the main difference comes to life as a dystopian cultural perception, for they all have the same kind of gloomy pattern in their way of thinking, but they are varying in the political activism embedded in the notes of their music. For that instance Rock music can be described as a mass medium that cultural values and meanings circulate, reaches far beyond the material nature of music (Wicke 9). Therefore, the songs are not isolated from the cultural context which owes their existence in social and political relations as well as to the particular environment of their listeners (Wicke 8). The content of rock music is not merely grounded in the musical form of the songs. On the one hand this content is determined by the contexts which its admirers give it, and on the other hand it is also precondition and distribution together with the institutional contexts in which these stand. In other words, these contexts become a component of the lyrics, a component of a cultural text formed from cultural symbols of the most varied kind (images, technology, leisure objects, the everyday materials of the consumer society), and the music is the medium for the formulation of this cultural text (Brottman 42). Because of this, rock music is a very complex cultural form in which the mass media, media images, styles of dress are included as well as music.
The time that covers the world is constantly changing, whether it is with generations, or milestone events. Music itself too, is constantly changing; the rock and roll tunes like Bill Haley’s Rock Around the Clock in 1954, or latter day’s phenomenon, The Beatles, and its constantly changing, evolving, and more and more involving perspectives to the world changed into a more dystopian activism in 60s and 70s. The year of 1967 was a milestone of this activism, when Rolling Stones made a big concert in San Francisco; the audience welcomed the crowd with a speech full of anarchist-communist propaganda, like as follows:
(…) they will not escape the blood and fire of the anarchist revolution. We will play your music in rock and roll marching bands as we tear down the jails and free the prisoners, as we tear down the State schools and free the students, as we tear down the military bases and arm the poor … and create a new society from the ashes of our fires. (…) ‘Rolling Stones – The youth of California hears your message! Long live the revolution!’ (Wicke 105)
The constant change would not ease in the years that were coming. Late 70s and 80s were the peak points of the Cold War era. Implicit and clear references and criticism directed to the authorities. Rock music was now placed in a context in which it no longer defined itself merely in musical terms, but also in political terms, however these were expressed in misleading manner (Wicke 105). Rock stars were also a big influence for they started to be differentiated from the ‘plastic pop stars’. Thus the political activism of the students, who are frustrated from isolation in the family, school or at work, flourished.
It can be said that the media saturated stars of popular culture were thrown into this newly founded arena of consumption. These so-called stars were not an influence, but mere tools of entertainment. However the youth of Generation X was still learning how to consume this cultural bombardment. They could not affect the culture on their own, even if they were studying in the universities and forming the future’s holders. They have just let the ‘culture’ come to them for it was impossible to maintain a standard and quality. The impossibility of affecting this cultural wasteland made it mandatory to make little dents of their own individualities throughout this big dystopian sculpture. That’s why the individual and anarchist depressive culture was born and grew this wide. Punk rock culture was the first thing that can come into mind alongside these characteristics. Therefore the origins of punk culture needs to be identified, the Sex Pistols, the band known as the first punk rock band, and their groundbreaking single, “Anarchy in the U.K.”
The Sex Pistols were the embodied anarchist – politically disengaged Generation X prototype and “Anarchy in the U.K.” was the peak point of political disengagement of Generation X. Actually they made fun of and despised anything that contributes to the boundaries of constitutions. They made non-academic criticism (it can be said that was why they were influential on general public) on monarchy, the queen of England (“God Save the Queen”), the government (“Anarchy in the U.K.”), the human body (“Bodies”), multinational corporations (“EMI”), and the Jewish Holocaust (“Belsen was a Gas”) (Brottman 15). The Generation X youth made out a hero of Sid Vicious, name of the Sex Pistols’ front man, who was the “Punk God”, the alias given to him by his admirers. He was a kind of “god”, who accused of killing his girlfriend in a hotel room, let out from prison with bribery, a heroin addict, and a man, who tried to commit suicide several times, but died of heroine overdose. That can depict the view of Generation X to the world. The anarchy they wish destroys the authority and implements chaos. To some people, punk rock was the direct musical expression of unemployed teenagers’ political protest against a society that had turned them into useless outsiders (Wicke 137). Generation X determined its life with the help of disbelief and its offspring, indifference, but also they were in need of any hope, even though it would come from a drug addict, ignorant, teenager, who says he was the anti-Christ as in the song “Anarchy in the U.K.”.
But what was the rock’s part in this depressive play? Was it only an artistic outcome of the time, or had it created its own generational characteristics from one point on? The answer can be given within the generational context. The predecessor generation of Generation Xers, the Baby boomers (1945-1960) have failed to bring about most of the benefits outlined in the rock & roll ‘to save the world’, whales, rainforests, ozone, or on political context, to bring down the bourgeoisie, or even legalizing the marihuana. The basis of rock entwined with these failures. From the time of Bill Haley, for 20 years, rock music said so much on behalf of the boomers and did nothing (Pollock 284). However, from late 70s and on, Generation X emerged as anti-utopian listeners and contributors of rock music culture. The public policy of those times in the U.S. was not different from the implemented social plan called the New Deal by Roosevelt in 30s after the Great Depression. Public policy was moved to right wing policies, and so the hope of a normal politics into which the pursuit of equality and social justice could be incorporated never came to life. However, the movements were institutional, the civil rights, women’s, peace and environmental movements peaked (Darnovsky, Epstein and Flacks 258). Nevertheless these activists were boomers, and as their age grew older they forgot their activist past, and only wanted a settling down. They raised their children to think as their old selves, and to be politically disengaged. Therefore, the late 80s were times that the movements lost will and capacity to mobilize direct action protest (Darnovsky, Epstein and Flacks 258). The general cynicism and pessimism affected Generation X activism, they were no longer the “Paint it Black” anti-authority anarchists of Rolling Stones, but they were the depressed kids that think no one loves them. They started to make songs saying that they were “negative creeps” and “they were stoned”, like in Nirvana’s “Negative Creep”. With the help or as the outcome of this cultural U-turn, the submissive behavior became widespread in Generation X. They submitted the facts that they will always have McJobs, the Cold War, gender and race discrimination and unsuccessful lives. The reason that generated economic, social ,sexual and psychological problems –even the deficit to the divorce rate to AIDS- inherited by Generation X, from the “hippies” and “yuppies”, both successful and self-indulged collective of figures. As Neil Howe and William Strauss says, Xers are, “the clean up crew” of hippies and yuppies (qtd. in Ortner 5).
A point should be made here regarding their cultural breakdown. The haven they have taken refuge in was MTV and the culture that MTV was imposing that ‘the Generation Xers were truly damaged by the world in which they find themselves’: they feel themselves to be worthless losers (one anthem of the generation was a rock song by Beck, of which the refrain is, “I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me”; the band in Richard Linklater’s Slacker was called “The Ultimate Losers”) and are deeply depressed. The suicide of rock star Kurt Cobain (of Nirvana), and the empathetic responses to it, typifies this cluster of images (Ortner 6). The media made it essential to be one of the so-called ‘losers’ for it was the only way of being. Apocalypse and depressive images are also significant in MTV’s generation creation. One ultimate creature of this perception was the band, Duran Duran; clearly making simple music, a synthesizer based rock, dance tunes and such, but MTV comes into action beyond the lyrics or music. Their single “Wild Boys”, had a video in 1984 that has an immense effect on viewers for it was an exemplary video. The simple, basic rhythm some whining high pitched voice of standard song, made a hit by video. Video of this song shows a surrealistic and apocalyptic world full of confusing symbolism. Nightmarish, dark, unconnected images rush by frantically in no particular order, bathed in a pale blue light or in the flickering of flames. There are really vivid scenes of torture and the scenery is dominated by battle, attack, aggression and stylized force (Wicke 164). However, the attackers (here they can be interpreted as activists) are wild, prehistoric, half-naked men with leathers. The political awareness, the activism is undermined to savages and they were getting tortured ‘because of their actions’. As a conclusion, while the video industry was making enormous profit and gaining success, implicit messages were given to the typical Generation X audience: “watch and do not act.”
Nevertheless, it would be an overstatement to say that every member of this generation shares the same characteristics in rock music culture. For example, in the late 1980s, one of the most popular forms of rock & roll was ‘heartland rock’. It was characterized by a straightforward musical style, a concern with the average, working class American life, and a conviction that rock music has a social or communal purpose beyond just entertainment. It was going on par with the blues and rap culture, for the heartland rock were criticizing the social, economic, and physical inequality and isolation with the help of real rock music. Bruce Springsteen, Bob Seger and Tom Petty were making decent comments about the society, about discrimination and freedom with rock music. Their voice, however, can never be louder than the MTV strengthened “grunge”. The rock in late 80s made a name with its unawareness and non-challenging lyrics and images of bands. R.E.M., which is still a band that is being known and loved by many people, had not started helping raise funds for environment, feminist or human rights since 2000s. Another popular culture icon, The Cure, first mainstream ‘gothic’ band, just tossed gloominess, horrific elements and again, deep depression to their cohort. The bands which were advanced Lyric-wise also were not contributing the political awareness. The Smiths, whose lyrics is said that full of implicit political references were just seen as superficially depressing and sometimes sarcastic (Pollock 297). It is not a surprise that Generation X became apathetic and depressive in their youth, while the cultural influence center of this generation was MTV which was pumping a constant gloominess through its viewers.
Generation X is the most typified and stereotyped generation of all. However some may say that they are only a collective of experiences and emotions to create a generational identity with big voids. This eclectic life and culture of Generation X made them vulnerable to any cultural change and it leads to submissive behavior for their identity was also open to change by mass cultural effects. The late 70s destructive anarchist punk rock, gave way to more and more disturbing grievances of grunge rock, and complete apathy. The cultural wasteland made them be individuals of their own selves and own problems only. Sense of collectiveness, feel of productivity was discarded for ‘self’s sake’. The nature of rock music was important for any political involvement with it, for it is mainly an underground cultural aspect. However, behind this music, very contradictory and socially conflicting cultural processes lie. If the music itself to be taken as a textual embodiment of ideology, it can be said that throughout the years rock music become more and more apathetic, indifferent, passive and depressive instead of aggressive and active; and also made the Generation X gain these epithets.
Works Cited
Brottman, Mikita. High Theory / Low Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks, eds. Cultural Politics and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995.
Ortner, Sherry B. "Generation X: Anthropology in a Media-Saturated World." Cultural Anthropology 13.3 (1998): 414-40. EBSCOhost. Bilkent Library. 15 Apr. 2009.
Pollock, Bruce. Hipper Than Our Kids: A Rock & Roll Journal of the Baby Boom Generation. New York: Schirmer Books, 1993.
Wicke, Peter. Rock Music Culture, aesthetics and sociology. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1991.
The time that covers the world is constantly changing, whether it is with generations, or milestone events. Music itself too, is constantly changing; the rock and roll tunes like Bill Haley’s Rock Around the Clock in 1954, or latter day’s phenomenon, The Beatles, and its constantly changing, evolving, and more and more involving perspectives to the world changed into a more dystopian activism in 60s and 70s. The year of 1967 was a milestone of this activism, when Rolling Stones made a big concert in San Francisco; the audience welcomed the crowd with a speech full of anarchist-communist propaganda, like as follows:
(…) they will not escape the blood and fire of the anarchist revolution. We will play your music in rock and roll marching bands as we tear down the jails and free the prisoners, as we tear down the State schools and free the students, as we tear down the military bases and arm the poor … and create a new society from the ashes of our fires. (…) ‘Rolling Stones – The youth of California hears your message! Long live the revolution!’ (Wicke 105)
The constant change would not ease in the years that were coming. Late 70s and 80s were the peak points of the Cold War era. Implicit and clear references and criticism directed to the authorities. Rock music was now placed in a context in which it no longer defined itself merely in musical terms, but also in political terms, however these were expressed in misleading manner (Wicke 105). Rock stars were also a big influence for they started to be differentiated from the ‘plastic pop stars’. Thus the political activism of the students, who are frustrated from isolation in the family, school or at work, flourished.
It can be said that the media saturated stars of popular culture were thrown into this newly founded arena of consumption. These so-called stars were not an influence, but mere tools of entertainment. However the youth of Generation X was still learning how to consume this cultural bombardment. They could not affect the culture on their own, even if they were studying in the universities and forming the future’s holders. They have just let the ‘culture’ come to them for it was impossible to maintain a standard and quality. The impossibility of affecting this cultural wasteland made it mandatory to make little dents of their own individualities throughout this big dystopian sculpture. That’s why the individual and anarchist depressive culture was born and grew this wide. Punk rock culture was the first thing that can come into mind alongside these characteristics. Therefore the origins of punk culture needs to be identified, the Sex Pistols, the band known as the first punk rock band, and their groundbreaking single, “Anarchy in the U.K.”
The Sex Pistols were the embodied anarchist – politically disengaged Generation X prototype and “Anarchy in the U.K.” was the peak point of political disengagement of Generation X. Actually they made fun of and despised anything that contributes to the boundaries of constitutions. They made non-academic criticism (it can be said that was why they were influential on general public) on monarchy, the queen of England (“God Save the Queen”), the government (“Anarchy in the U.K.”), the human body (“Bodies”), multinational corporations (“EMI”), and the Jewish Holocaust (“Belsen was a Gas”) (Brottman 15). The Generation X youth made out a hero of Sid Vicious, name of the Sex Pistols’ front man, who was the “Punk God”, the alias given to him by his admirers. He was a kind of “god”, who accused of killing his girlfriend in a hotel room, let out from prison with bribery, a heroin addict, and a man, who tried to commit suicide several times, but died of heroine overdose. That can depict the view of Generation X to the world. The anarchy they wish destroys the authority and implements chaos. To some people, punk rock was the direct musical expression of unemployed teenagers’ political protest against a society that had turned them into useless outsiders (Wicke 137). Generation X determined its life with the help of disbelief and its offspring, indifference, but also they were in need of any hope, even though it would come from a drug addict, ignorant, teenager, who says he was the anti-Christ as in the song “Anarchy in the U.K.”.
But what was the rock’s part in this depressive play? Was it only an artistic outcome of the time, or had it created its own generational characteristics from one point on? The answer can be given within the generational context. The predecessor generation of Generation Xers, the Baby boomers (1945-1960) have failed to bring about most of the benefits outlined in the rock & roll ‘to save the world’, whales, rainforests, ozone, or on political context, to bring down the bourgeoisie, or even legalizing the marihuana. The basis of rock entwined with these failures. From the time of Bill Haley, for 20 years, rock music said so much on behalf of the boomers and did nothing (Pollock 284). However, from late 70s and on, Generation X emerged as anti-utopian listeners and contributors of rock music culture. The public policy of those times in the U.S. was not different from the implemented social plan called the New Deal by Roosevelt in 30s after the Great Depression. Public policy was moved to right wing policies, and so the hope of a normal politics into which the pursuit of equality and social justice could be incorporated never came to life. However, the movements were institutional, the civil rights, women’s, peace and environmental movements peaked (Darnovsky, Epstein and Flacks 258). Nevertheless these activists were boomers, and as their age grew older they forgot their activist past, and only wanted a settling down. They raised their children to think as their old selves, and to be politically disengaged. Therefore, the late 80s were times that the movements lost will and capacity to mobilize direct action protest (Darnovsky, Epstein and Flacks 258). The general cynicism and pessimism affected Generation X activism, they were no longer the “Paint it Black” anti-authority anarchists of Rolling Stones, but they were the depressed kids that think no one loves them. They started to make songs saying that they were “negative creeps” and “they were stoned”, like in Nirvana’s “Negative Creep”. With the help or as the outcome of this cultural U-turn, the submissive behavior became widespread in Generation X. They submitted the facts that they will always have McJobs, the Cold War, gender and race discrimination and unsuccessful lives. The reason that generated economic, social ,sexual and psychological problems –even the deficit to the divorce rate to AIDS- inherited by Generation X, from the “hippies” and “yuppies”, both successful and self-indulged collective of figures. As Neil Howe and William Strauss says, Xers are, “the clean up crew” of hippies and yuppies (qtd. in Ortner 5).
A point should be made here regarding their cultural breakdown. The haven they have taken refuge in was MTV and the culture that MTV was imposing that ‘the Generation Xers were truly damaged by the world in which they find themselves’: they feel themselves to be worthless losers (one anthem of the generation was a rock song by Beck, of which the refrain is, “I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me”; the band in Richard Linklater’s Slacker was called “The Ultimate Losers”) and are deeply depressed. The suicide of rock star Kurt Cobain (of Nirvana), and the empathetic responses to it, typifies this cluster of images (Ortner 6). The media made it essential to be one of the so-called ‘losers’ for it was the only way of being. Apocalypse and depressive images are also significant in MTV’s generation creation. One ultimate creature of this perception was the band, Duran Duran; clearly making simple music, a synthesizer based rock, dance tunes and such, but MTV comes into action beyond the lyrics or music. Their single “Wild Boys”, had a video in 1984 that has an immense effect on viewers for it was an exemplary video. The simple, basic rhythm some whining high pitched voice of standard song, made a hit by video. Video of this song shows a surrealistic and apocalyptic world full of confusing symbolism. Nightmarish, dark, unconnected images rush by frantically in no particular order, bathed in a pale blue light or in the flickering of flames. There are really vivid scenes of torture and the scenery is dominated by battle, attack, aggression and stylized force (Wicke 164). However, the attackers (here they can be interpreted as activists) are wild, prehistoric, half-naked men with leathers. The political awareness, the activism is undermined to savages and they were getting tortured ‘because of their actions’. As a conclusion, while the video industry was making enormous profit and gaining success, implicit messages were given to the typical Generation X audience: “watch and do not act.”
Nevertheless, it would be an overstatement to say that every member of this generation shares the same characteristics in rock music culture. For example, in the late 1980s, one of the most popular forms of rock & roll was ‘heartland rock’. It was characterized by a straightforward musical style, a concern with the average, working class American life, and a conviction that rock music has a social or communal purpose beyond just entertainment. It was going on par with the blues and rap culture, for the heartland rock were criticizing the social, economic, and physical inequality and isolation with the help of real rock music. Bruce Springsteen, Bob Seger and Tom Petty were making decent comments about the society, about discrimination and freedom with rock music. Their voice, however, can never be louder than the MTV strengthened “grunge”. The rock in late 80s made a name with its unawareness and non-challenging lyrics and images of bands. R.E.M., which is still a band that is being known and loved by many people, had not started helping raise funds for environment, feminist or human rights since 2000s. Another popular culture icon, The Cure, first mainstream ‘gothic’ band, just tossed gloominess, horrific elements and again, deep depression to their cohort. The bands which were advanced Lyric-wise also were not contributing the political awareness. The Smiths, whose lyrics is said that full of implicit political references were just seen as superficially depressing and sometimes sarcastic (Pollock 297). It is not a surprise that Generation X became apathetic and depressive in their youth, while the cultural influence center of this generation was MTV which was pumping a constant gloominess through its viewers.
Generation X is the most typified and stereotyped generation of all. However some may say that they are only a collective of experiences and emotions to create a generational identity with big voids. This eclectic life and culture of Generation X made them vulnerable to any cultural change and it leads to submissive behavior for their identity was also open to change by mass cultural effects. The late 70s destructive anarchist punk rock, gave way to more and more disturbing grievances of grunge rock, and complete apathy. The cultural wasteland made them be individuals of their own selves and own problems only. Sense of collectiveness, feel of productivity was discarded for ‘self’s sake’. The nature of rock music was important for any political involvement with it, for it is mainly an underground cultural aspect. However, behind this music, very contradictory and socially conflicting cultural processes lie. If the music itself to be taken as a textual embodiment of ideology, it can be said that throughout the years rock music become more and more apathetic, indifferent, passive and depressive instead of aggressive and active; and also made the Generation X gain these epithets.
Works Cited
Brottman, Mikita. High Theory / Low Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks, eds. Cultural Politics and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995.
Ortner, Sherry B. "Generation X: Anthropology in a Media-Saturated World." Cultural Anthropology 13.3 (1998): 414-40. EBSCOhost. Bilkent Library. 15 Apr. 2009.
Pollock, Bruce. Hipper Than Our Kids: A Rock & Roll Journal of the Baby Boom Generation. New York: Schirmer Books, 1993.
Wicke, Peter. Rock Music Culture, aesthetics and sociology. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1991.
Reality, Media and the Role of Human Nature in The Truman Show and The Matrix
Humanity always had an urge to control what they see in the environment. They wanted to be in charge of the nature firstly and they managed that generally by creating tools, from a pointed stick to a death trap for animals. This urge to control needed to find new targets throughout its lifetime for the nature had already been conquered. Mankind’s motivation to own and manipulate its surroundings led to the inevitable: conquest of other societies. They used newly made machines in their wars; invention of steel, firearms, airplanes and missiles all occurred because of this expansionist urge of control. Wars were bloody but effective ways of control; however, anyone can claim that the physical wars are not the way to control and conquer the contemporary world, but a new and more vicious but less apparent way has been introduced to us in the last century: media. As mankind developed many ways to overcome the vicious webs of control throughout the history, the only thing that can stand up against media’s manipulative behaviors is the intriguing nature of men.
Media has severe control mechanisms on people, and it can be easily said that media is the biggest influence on our lives today. Imitated and therefore stereotyped lives have gained importance. The machines and media have done this hand in hand. By developing technological advancements, media started to become more and more widespread. Mass media’s creation can only be possible with technology and machinery. The movies The Truman Show and The Matrix brought a new critical and almost prophetical perspective to new technological mass media, and its manipulative behavior. Both movies deal with virtual reality and a world of dreams and lies, and both of them give their message quite similarly: with the help of a well-known allegory.
The allegory is nothing but Plato’s cave. In his book The Republic, he has a conversation with Socrates about an imaginary scene that a group of people who lived chained in a cave throughout their lives, facing a wall. The people watch shadows on the wall created by things passing from the entrance of the cave, and the forms are attributed to these shadows. According to Plato, the shadows are the only and utmost reality that prisoners can ever see. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and understands therefore that the shadows on the wall are not elemental reality at all, as he can now perceive the true form of reality rather than the shadows seen by the prisoners (Adam 56). Like Plato’s cave metaphor, the residents in The Matrix (which is purportedly our world) only watch the shadows of the authentic reality. It is not the cave anymore, but an artificial womb, and the shadows are just dreams created by a computer program by machines. Neo, (an anagram of “one”) hacks the system of slavery in this dream world, where people dream a permanent so-called reality. Neo here is a prophet, a messenger who will warn and save people from eternal trickery.
On the other hand, in The Truman Show, the lead character, Truman Burbank does not grow to be a prophet or a messenger but an ordinary human being who wants to live a real life with real emotions. He is a man who has been deceived by an artificial life in a TV studio. The movie portrays Truman's discovery that a world outside his “bubble” exists; a world that the movie suggests is more "real," free from the manipulations of Christof, the show's producer, whose name may also represent a biblical Antichrist if one thinks of the name as Christ-off. If Truman could only get outside the bubble, outside the manipulation of Christof, he could desire authenticity, find his true love, and live a real, unmediated life. The movie ends with Truman leaving the dome, refusing the safe yet empty fantasy world offered by the producer.
The Truman Show has been universally interpreted as an allegory of the false influence of the media upon our lives. According to a website devoted to the movie, "It is a story that reveals an essential truth about what is happening to society in the 20th century, . . . (i.e.) how the media and corporations have begun to surround us with a universe of illusions" (Sanes). From this perspective, Truman Burbank is a "true man," an everyman, who can represent each one of us; however, with effects of media, the consumerist habits, with advertisements in Truman’s world created authenticity-aware media pawns, such as Truman’s wife and friends. Similarly, the consumerist media created its own reality-aware betrayers in the world of Matrix like Cypher, who knows that the Matrix is not the real world, but still wants to be in it, as long as he forgets everything about reality. People all over the world are content with their lives just like Cypher; the intriguing nature of mankind is not really determining their future, for they are “happy” to live in chains.
That’s how both movies persuade their ideas on the audience. The intriguing and curious self of mankind embodied in Neo and Truman. That symbolic embodiment also leads them to an epiphany. Neo has long suspected that the world is deceitful, and he questions reality, reaching the authentic reality with the help of a man who calls himself Morpheus. Morpheus in Greek mythology is the master of dreams, which means a lot Neo refers to Morpheus as he has “woken” him up. The feeling that something is wrong with life itself also urges Truman Burbank to investigate, which eventually leads to his freedom. The only difference between these two movies in regard to the extent of reality is that the figure of omnipotent creator or guide differs. Morpheus guides Neo to his way of reaching reality whereas the figure of Christof tries to imprison Truman in an eternal lie. That can be understood that the benevolent and malevolent selves of “God” divided in two in The Matrix, while the machines try to imprison all humans for their own reign, Morpheus tries to save them.
All in all, both movies are about sinister media manipulation and the virtual reality in our own world. But both the protagonists succeed in their aims through the values of human nature, curiosity, love and freedom. However some of us and some of the characters would willingly choose an imprisoned life to make our own lives easier, As Ursula K. LeGuin said in her novel, The Earthsea, “Would you want to stop the tides or to ease the seas to save only one wave, to save yourself? Would you sacrifice your hand’s skill, your heart’s desire and your mind’s hunger to buy your own safety?” Absolutely not, if you are a “true-man” or “the one”.
Works Cited
Adam, James. The Republic of Plato. 1902. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Sanes, Ken. Truman as Archetype. Transparencynow.com. 1996-2001. 29 July 2004..
The Matrix. Dir. Brothers Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburn. 1999. DVD. Warner Bros., Village Roadshow.
The Truman Show. Dir. Peter Weir. Perf. Jim Carrey and Ed Harris. 1998. DVD. Paramount Pictures.
Media has severe control mechanisms on people, and it can be easily said that media is the biggest influence on our lives today. Imitated and therefore stereotyped lives have gained importance. The machines and media have done this hand in hand. By developing technological advancements, media started to become more and more widespread. Mass media’s creation can only be possible with technology and machinery. The movies The Truman Show and The Matrix brought a new critical and almost prophetical perspective to new technological mass media, and its manipulative behavior. Both movies deal with virtual reality and a world of dreams and lies, and both of them give their message quite similarly: with the help of a well-known allegory.
The allegory is nothing but Plato’s cave. In his book The Republic, he has a conversation with Socrates about an imaginary scene that a group of people who lived chained in a cave throughout their lives, facing a wall. The people watch shadows on the wall created by things passing from the entrance of the cave, and the forms are attributed to these shadows. According to Plato, the shadows are the only and utmost reality that prisoners can ever see. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and understands therefore that the shadows on the wall are not elemental reality at all, as he can now perceive the true form of reality rather than the shadows seen by the prisoners (Adam 56). Like Plato’s cave metaphor, the residents in The Matrix (which is purportedly our world) only watch the shadows of the authentic reality. It is not the cave anymore, but an artificial womb, and the shadows are just dreams created by a computer program by machines. Neo, (an anagram of “one”) hacks the system of slavery in this dream world, where people dream a permanent so-called reality. Neo here is a prophet, a messenger who will warn and save people from eternal trickery.
On the other hand, in The Truman Show, the lead character, Truman Burbank does not grow to be a prophet or a messenger but an ordinary human being who wants to live a real life with real emotions. He is a man who has been deceived by an artificial life in a TV studio. The movie portrays Truman's discovery that a world outside his “bubble” exists; a world that the movie suggests is more "real," free from the manipulations of Christof, the show's producer, whose name may also represent a biblical Antichrist if one thinks of the name as Christ-off. If Truman could only get outside the bubble, outside the manipulation of Christof, he could desire authenticity, find his true love, and live a real, unmediated life. The movie ends with Truman leaving the dome, refusing the safe yet empty fantasy world offered by the producer.
The Truman Show has been universally interpreted as an allegory of the false influence of the media upon our lives. According to a website devoted to the movie, "It is a story that reveals an essential truth about what is happening to society in the 20th century, . . . (i.e.) how the media and corporations have begun to surround us with a universe of illusions" (Sanes). From this perspective, Truman Burbank is a "true man," an everyman, who can represent each one of us; however, with effects of media, the consumerist habits, with advertisements in Truman’s world created authenticity-aware media pawns, such as Truman’s wife and friends. Similarly, the consumerist media created its own reality-aware betrayers in the world of Matrix like Cypher, who knows that the Matrix is not the real world, but still wants to be in it, as long as he forgets everything about reality. People all over the world are content with their lives just like Cypher; the intriguing nature of mankind is not really determining their future, for they are “happy” to live in chains.
That’s how both movies persuade their ideas on the audience. The intriguing and curious self of mankind embodied in Neo and Truman. That symbolic embodiment also leads them to an epiphany. Neo has long suspected that the world is deceitful, and he questions reality, reaching the authentic reality with the help of a man who calls himself Morpheus. Morpheus in Greek mythology is the master of dreams, which means a lot Neo refers to Morpheus as he has “woken” him up. The feeling that something is wrong with life itself also urges Truman Burbank to investigate, which eventually leads to his freedom. The only difference between these two movies in regard to the extent of reality is that the figure of omnipotent creator or guide differs. Morpheus guides Neo to his way of reaching reality whereas the figure of Christof tries to imprison Truman in an eternal lie. That can be understood that the benevolent and malevolent selves of “God” divided in two in The Matrix, while the machines try to imprison all humans for their own reign, Morpheus tries to save them.
All in all, both movies are about sinister media manipulation and the virtual reality in our own world. But both the protagonists succeed in their aims through the values of human nature, curiosity, love and freedom. However some of us and some of the characters would willingly choose an imprisoned life to make our own lives easier, As Ursula K. LeGuin said in her novel, The Earthsea, “Would you want to stop the tides or to ease the seas to save only one wave, to save yourself? Would you sacrifice your hand’s skill, your heart’s desire and your mind’s hunger to buy your own safety?” Absolutely not, if you are a “true-man” or “the one”.
Works Cited
Adam, James. The Republic of Plato. 1902. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Sanes, Ken. Truman as Archetype. Transparencynow.com. 1996-2001. 29 July 2004.
The Matrix. Dir. Brothers Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburn. 1999. DVD. Warner Bros., Village Roadshow.
The Truman Show. Dir. Peter Weir. Perf. Jim Carrey and Ed Harris. 1998. DVD. Paramount Pictures.
18.2.09
Diction and Meaning in William Butler Yeats’s “Leda and the Swan”
In “Leda and the Swan”, William Butler Yeats addresses a story from Greek Mythology. Leda is the wife of King Tyndareus of Sparta. Zeus comes to her in a shape of a swan. The swan and Leda has a sexual intercourse. Most probably Zeus rapes Leda, as we can also see in the general atmosphere of the poem. Leda lays two eggs with two children in both of them. One of these children is Helen, which will be the famous Helen of Troy. One other was Clytemnestra, who is the wife of the Mycenean Commander Agamemnon, and the murderer of him.
The poem starts with an end of an action, there is “a sudden blow”, where the swan comes on to Leda and his “great wings beating still”. We start to observe the rape scene from the middle, where the swan is holding her body with his wings and her neck with his beak. The effect of this, is that it draws the reader, into the action and into the poem easily.
Throughout the poem, Leda described in concrete words and the swan in abstract terms with synecdochies mainly. Leda is described as "the staggering girl" and the poem mentions "her helpless breast”, "her nape", and "her loosening thighs". The swan is never called as Zeus or even “Swan” (actually, Agamemnon is the only name mentioned). The swan is described as "great wings", "dark webs", "white rush", "indifferent beak" and "feathered glory".
Although the “Leda and the Swan” myth -therefore the poem,- has many connections with the Trojan War. Helen is the main reason of the war, name of Agamemnon can be seen in the fourth stanza, and Clytemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon killed him after the Trojan War, because of jelaousy. Helen and Clytemnestra are Leda’s daughters, and Agamemnon was the Mycenean Commander.
The last line of the Fourth stanza is “And Agamemnon dead.”. Trojan War is accepted as an end of the Mythological Era and a start of the modern times, so we can infer that the rape ends at that line, like the war ended with Agamemnon’s death. Therefore, it may be a reference of “the loss of purity”, or an idea that “growth can only be achieved under force and hardships”.
To conclude, we can say that, "Leda and the Swan" is a violent poem and can be seen as Yeats's own perception to a mythological event. However the poem can also be widened to the whole time and than it can represent “women’s loss of purity against male domination”.
The poem starts with an end of an action, there is “a sudden blow”, where the swan comes on to Leda and his “great wings beating still”. We start to observe the rape scene from the middle, where the swan is holding her body with his wings and her neck with his beak. The effect of this, is that it draws the reader, into the action and into the poem easily.
Throughout the poem, Leda described in concrete words and the swan in abstract terms with synecdochies mainly. Leda is described as "the staggering girl" and the poem mentions "her helpless breast”, "her nape", and "her loosening thighs". The swan is never called as Zeus or even “Swan” (actually, Agamemnon is the only name mentioned). The swan is described as "great wings", "dark webs", "white rush", "indifferent beak" and "feathered glory".
Although the “Leda and the Swan” myth -therefore the poem,- has many connections with the Trojan War. Helen is the main reason of the war, name of Agamemnon can be seen in the fourth stanza, and Clytemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon killed him after the Trojan War, because of jelaousy. Helen and Clytemnestra are Leda’s daughters, and Agamemnon was the Mycenean Commander.
The last line of the Fourth stanza is “And Agamemnon dead.”. Trojan War is accepted as an end of the Mythological Era and a start of the modern times, so we can infer that the rape ends at that line, like the war ended with Agamemnon’s death. Therefore, it may be a reference of “the loss of purity”, or an idea that “growth can only be achieved under force and hardships”.
To conclude, we can say that, "Leda and the Swan" is a violent poem and can be seen as Yeats's own perception to a mythological event. However the poem can also be widened to the whole time and than it can represent “women’s loss of purity against male domination”.
Imagery and Meaning in George Herbert’s “Virtue”
The poem, “Virtue” by George Herbert, mainly develops with the theme that the world and all living beings and unliving things are mortal, and everything in this world will eventually end or die. This theme is developed by three metaphors; first one is a “day”, second one is a “rose” and third one is the “spring”. All of these first three images are attractive things that people would want them to last forever and they are concrete images. Nevertheless in the last stanza, the reader can see an abstract image of “the soul” and by that image, the poem reaches a conclusion.
In the first stanza we see the image of the “day”; like all the metaphors used in the poem, first, it is shown some attractive traits of the image. Like it is sweet, cool, calm and bright, and in the second line it is said that the daylight is like the marriage of the earth and sky. Whenever the day turns into darkness, the morning dew mourns and cries with grief because the day must die. The dew here may also symbolize the youth, which is lost with the end of the life. There is a joy dominating the first two lines of the first stanza, whereas in the gloomy third line, the death theme can be seen. Also, while the periodic commas in the first line makes the line slower and longer to read, the constant “s” sound and repeated “so” words make an impression of perpetuation of the “day”, which will be wiped with the third and fourth lines.
The metaphorical image in the second stanza is the “rose”. The color of the rose is the color of anger, which is supposed to be red. It is also a brave and daring color, so it makes all people who are looking incautiously, wipe their eyes because it is bright and splendid. The rose is beaming with life, however as in the third line of the second stanza indicates, its roots are already in its own grave. That represents a natural bond between humankind and death, the eternal resting place for all men.
Third image is the spring which is the sum of the first two images. The spring has both sweet days and roses, it is the time of year which is compared with a box of compressed sweet. Its density of life and sweetness makes an impression of eternity again, as the first two metaphors, but spring has an end too. This “end” feeling is given with the word “close” which is the musical ending, or a final chord. Thus the spring and therefore life, compared with a musical piece or a song, that also will end eventually.
The last stanza is a bit different from others for it is not depicting an image or thing that will die or end. It shows the only thing that will survive; it is a virtuous and kind soul, only it would endure the eternal flames of the doomsday when the “world turn to coal”, the kind and virtuous soul would not turn into coal or dust, like an ember. It will glow with its faith and virtue. Thus only the soul can live rightfully and eternally which is the only thing that would not die.
To conclude, the poem “Virtue” emphasises on the loveliness of the world but also on the inevitability of death. Without making an argument, but using various kinds of imagery, the poem contrasts the mortal glories of the mortal world with the eternal glory of the immortal soul. Thereby it also contrasts the brief pleasures as day, rose or spring with the eternal pleasures of commitment to virtues.
In the first stanza we see the image of the “day”; like all the metaphors used in the poem, first, it is shown some attractive traits of the image. Like it is sweet, cool, calm and bright, and in the second line it is said that the daylight is like the marriage of the earth and sky. Whenever the day turns into darkness, the morning dew mourns and cries with grief because the day must die. The dew here may also symbolize the youth, which is lost with the end of the life. There is a joy dominating the first two lines of the first stanza, whereas in the gloomy third line, the death theme can be seen. Also, while the periodic commas in the first line makes the line slower and longer to read, the constant “s” sound and repeated “so” words make an impression of perpetuation of the “day”, which will be wiped with the third and fourth lines.
The metaphorical image in the second stanza is the “rose”. The color of the rose is the color of anger, which is supposed to be red. It is also a brave and daring color, so it makes all people who are looking incautiously, wipe their eyes because it is bright and splendid. The rose is beaming with life, however as in the third line of the second stanza indicates, its roots are already in its own grave. That represents a natural bond between humankind and death, the eternal resting place for all men.
Third image is the spring which is the sum of the first two images. The spring has both sweet days and roses, it is the time of year which is compared with a box of compressed sweet. Its density of life and sweetness makes an impression of eternity again, as the first two metaphors, but spring has an end too. This “end” feeling is given with the word “close” which is the musical ending, or a final chord. Thus the spring and therefore life, compared with a musical piece or a song, that also will end eventually.
The last stanza is a bit different from others for it is not depicting an image or thing that will die or end. It shows the only thing that will survive; it is a virtuous and kind soul, only it would endure the eternal flames of the doomsday when the “world turn to coal”, the kind and virtuous soul would not turn into coal or dust, like an ember. It will glow with its faith and virtue. Thus only the soul can live rightfully and eternally which is the only thing that would not die.
To conclude, the poem “Virtue” emphasises on the loveliness of the world but also on the inevitability of death. Without making an argument, but using various kinds of imagery, the poem contrasts the mortal glories of the mortal world with the eternal glory of the immortal soul. Thereby it also contrasts the brief pleasures as day, rose or spring with the eternal pleasures of commitment to virtues.
Imagery and Diction in Walt Whitman’s “A Noiseless Patient Spider”
Imagery is the most common literary technique in the poem, while most of the lines have a concrete image in it that helps the reader in seeing exactly what the poet intends them to see. The first example occurs on the first line; “A noiseless patient spider.” This visual image brings pictures of small, perfectly still, spiders sitting on their perfect webs for days at a time, completely unmoving, no sign of life at all. It is amazing all the thoughts those words can bring to mind. The image of the motionless spider, completely alone and isolated, as depicted in the first three lines of the poem introduces the idea that the speaker feels alone in the world. The image of the “vacant vast surrounding” also hints at the speaker’s doubt in the meaning of life. If the spider is the speaker’s soul, then the surroundings should be the rest of the universe, and if the rest of the universe is empty and there are no other souls or things for the filaments to connect to, then what is the purpose of “tirelessly speeding them” on?
Another image can be seen in second stanza, “surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,” is a clear reference between the spider's duty and the speaker's. Both the speaker and the spider seem incapable of finding anything else in the universe, or at least anything meaningful. However they both keep trying, either with optimistic hope or blindness. Also the speaker can be incapable of admit the idea that there could be nothing else in the universe besides himself, “the vacant vast surrounding” and is so optimistic or too incapable of that terrible realization to stop launching “forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself.”
The last two lines of the poem can be interpreted as supporting the idea that the speaker is habitually optimistic. One other interpretation can be disproving the idea that the speaker is alone in the universe; “till the bridge you will need be formed, till the ductile anchor hold, till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, o my soul.” What ever interpretation the reader chooses to take from these lines, the images in “A Noiseless Patient Spider” holds great importance inside the poem.
The words that Whitman chooses to use in his poem often have secondary meanings. For example, at line four, “it launched forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself,” could be stated that the spider was making a web, but the words Whitman chooses to use carry more meaning. The idea of the spider “launching” filament supports the idea that there is a correlation between the spider and the speaker and symbolizes the speaker’s attempts to make connections in the universe. The words “out of itself” also support this idea, it leads the reader to think of the filaments as attempts by the speaker’s soul to find meaning, and since they are coming from deep inside the reader, they are coming “out of itself.”
To conclude, we can say the poem can be interpreted in two ways, one is the pessimistic, vast vacancy of life, and one is hopeful search of a place in a society. With its word choice and image usage it is an exceptional poem, and they help to build up the main message of the poem.
Another image can be seen in second stanza, “surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,” is a clear reference between the spider's duty and the speaker's. Both the speaker and the spider seem incapable of finding anything else in the universe, or at least anything meaningful. However they both keep trying, either with optimistic hope or blindness. Also the speaker can be incapable of admit the idea that there could be nothing else in the universe besides himself, “the vacant vast surrounding” and is so optimistic or too incapable of that terrible realization to stop launching “forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself.”
The last two lines of the poem can be interpreted as supporting the idea that the speaker is habitually optimistic. One other interpretation can be disproving the idea that the speaker is alone in the universe; “till the bridge you will need be formed, till the ductile anchor hold, till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, o my soul.” What ever interpretation the reader chooses to take from these lines, the images in “A Noiseless Patient Spider” holds great importance inside the poem.
The words that Whitman chooses to use in his poem often have secondary meanings. For example, at line four, “it launched forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself,” could be stated that the spider was making a web, but the words Whitman chooses to use carry more meaning. The idea of the spider “launching” filament supports the idea that there is a correlation between the spider and the speaker and symbolizes the speaker’s attempts to make connections in the universe. The words “out of itself” also support this idea, it leads the reader to think of the filaments as attempts by the speaker’s soul to find meaning, and since they are coming from deep inside the reader, they are coming “out of itself.”
To conclude, we can say the poem can be interpreted in two ways, one is the pessimistic, vast vacancy of life, and one is hopeful search of a place in a society. With its word choice and image usage it is an exceptional poem, and they help to build up the main message of the poem.
“The Soul Selecets Her Own Society”: Walls
People built walls without knowing what are left behind. Sticking with only one life perspective is the reason to all these. You can select whoever you want to be with you, that is true but that surely means that you left somebody you would want in your life, outside.
Though, the walls are useful to protecting yourself. You would nor worry about getting harmed or disturbed. With your best friends and beloved ones near you. You would only listen to them as they are “your society”. You will take their advices, their beliefs are yours now also. But, what if you made a wrong choice to take them inside your walls? How would you cast them out now from these gateless ramparts?
Thus, I think walls should be built only for protecting self, not keeping all people outside or inside. Make a door to welcome some people in, if they are needed, and just get out of the door sometimes and look at your wall, at you from a distance.
Put some windows to your wall and see the sparkle of the differences of the world. That's how a home is built, that's how a castle is risen, that's how an empire expands.
Though, the walls are useful to protecting yourself. You would nor worry about getting harmed or disturbed. With your best friends and beloved ones near you. You would only listen to them as they are “your society”. You will take their advices, their beliefs are yours now also. But, what if you made a wrong choice to take them inside your walls? How would you cast them out now from these gateless ramparts?
Thus, I think walls should be built only for protecting self, not keeping all people outside or inside. Make a door to welcome some people in, if they are needed, and just get out of the door sometimes and look at your wall, at you from a distance.
Put some windows to your wall and see the sparkle of the differences of the world. That's how a home is built, that's how a castle is risen, that's how an empire expands.
“The Story of an Hour”: Roles
Throughout the ages women are being repressed by male dominated society. It is not just based on mere discriminative point of view in my opinion, it is also a gender role. Men would not (and do not) know what to do if the women would do the same things with themselves. Men should be the hero, the martyr, the suffered and the survived. These are the so called manly powers. In our day, most women have these powers and they are seen as the superior women in our society. The successful, knowledgable and dominant woman figure can be seen now.
However, while women figure changes, the feminine qualities are staying the same. Attending the household, taking care of kids, cooking, cleaning, keeping the family together, still burdens to the modern women. These are the basic woman qualities, but if a man has them, unlike the vice-versa, is not appreciated enough. The gentleness make the man “unmanly”. I think there is still a discrimination, whether it is positive or negative, manly qualities are being praised, while womanly qualities are staying the same level.
In my opinion, Turkey has the most concrete family life within keeping these traits to the respective gender. That is not a good thing obviously, but we are not that different from the Mallard’s.
However, while women figure changes, the feminine qualities are staying the same. Attending the household, taking care of kids, cooking, cleaning, keeping the family together, still burdens to the modern women. These are the basic woman qualities, but if a man has them, unlike the vice-versa, is not appreciated enough. The gentleness make the man “unmanly”. I think there is still a discrimination, whether it is positive or negative, manly qualities are being praised, while womanly qualities are staying the same level.
In my opinion, Turkey has the most concrete family life within keeping these traits to the respective gender. That is not a good thing obviously, but we are not that different from the Mallard’s.
“Young Goodman Brown”: Purity and Zealotry
The Puritan America was beyond odds as a nation at the point it was established. It was an impressive thing that every other exile melted to a new nationality. However the puritan protestanism as a religious group had tremendous effects on the American people. These people were known with their zealotry actually, ther were devoutly bounded to their prayers and they wanted to purify the animal side inside every person.
A question that comes into my mind is, do people deserve a purifying, only for they are not from someone’s belief. It is just an extremist thought and that is what should be purified. People need to live their own beliefs freely and without boundaries.
As we can see in the story, the extreme good turns into the most evil. The prayes and the zealous sermons became dark rituals and demonic speech. This can represent the thin line between devoutness and wickedness in my opinion
The religion is open to many comments, but one thing is, as we see from the contemporary situation, if the religion is misused by some power focuses, it can create masses that are ready to fight, kill and die, in the name of God, Allah and Jehovah.
A question that comes into my mind is, do people deserve a purifying, only for they are not from someone’s belief. It is just an extremist thought and that is what should be purified. People need to live their own beliefs freely and without boundaries.
As we can see in the story, the extreme good turns into the most evil. The prayes and the zealous sermons became dark rituals and demonic speech. This can represent the thin line between devoutness and wickedness in my opinion
The religion is open to many comments, but one thing is, as we see from the contemporary situation, if the religion is misused by some power focuses, it can create masses that are ready to fight, kill and die, in the name of God, Allah and Jehovah.
“The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”: Despisal
Walter Mitty escapes from his tedious life by entering a world where he is almighty enough to do anything. His wife, a policeman, parking lot attendant and a woman on street treated him badly in a really short day. So what happens if despisal becomes the main element of someones life?
First, a person who is successful in anything at all, would not take depreciation easily. Only a man who has given up all hope from his future would tolerate such a thing. So we can say denial of despisal begins inside the individual's mind. Success is important for self confidence, but being loved is essential too. Also we can see from the story, Mitty have not got any decent loving relationship with anyone. Love of mother is not a thing that helps us to grow to a individual person. That love is protecting you form harm, does not trust you in tough decisions and also when the lover is not your mother, it is clearly despising.
Escaping from despisal is not easy. It is a thing that the people around you learn quickly and hardly forget. But it can be a process, and you can wait for it to happen. While doing this, I do not think it is a good thing to close yourself to reality and build a new one, but to put effort in every step to gain acceptance. Because human is not created to be isolated, it should live with others to fulfill its needs.
I would like to quote form Cervantes at this point; “One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world will be better for this.”
First, a person who is successful in anything at all, would not take depreciation easily. Only a man who has given up all hope from his future would tolerate such a thing. So we can say denial of despisal begins inside the individual's mind. Success is important for self confidence, but being loved is essential too. Also we can see from the story, Mitty have not got any decent loving relationship with anyone. Love of mother is not a thing that helps us to grow to a individual person. That love is protecting you form harm, does not trust you in tough decisions and also when the lover is not your mother, it is clearly despising.
Escaping from despisal is not easy. It is a thing that the people around you learn quickly and hardly forget. But it can be a process, and you can wait for it to happen. While doing this, I do not think it is a good thing to close yourself to reality and build a new one, but to put effort in every step to gain acceptance. Because human is not created to be isolated, it should live with others to fulfill its needs.
I would like to quote form Cervantes at this point; “One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world will be better for this.”
"The Man He Killed": War
Wars are the past, future and contemporary reality of the world history. Every country today, every society’s ancestors were in war to gain some rights, land, or just glory. The warriors and soldiers are praised in all cultures throughout the world. That’s why the wars seem as a rightful cause to all. It is a heroic deed, it is manly and justified.
Nevertheless everybody misses one point in wars. People die in the battlefield. People suffer and somebody loses a husband, father, son. The other side of the war has also rightful causes to fight, and they just clash in the flames of battle, they hate each other beforehand. Maybe they do not know anything about each other, but the “others” becomes the “enemy”.
Countries make wars and regular people die, nameless martyrs created, legends created and with every death, the hatred between two sides grows. The density of this hatred is determined by the blood they shed. What I wonder is, if there would be somebody who come and tell that they are both rightful and they should make an agreement and not fight, would they believe?
No. Whether it is for resources, or for land, or glory, or freedom, all these benefits and sublime things will be built on the corpses of “the unlucky”. And luck is the only force to save “the lucky”, but only for a while.
Nevertheless everybody misses one point in wars. People die in the battlefield. People suffer and somebody loses a husband, father, son. The other side of the war has also rightful causes to fight, and they just clash in the flames of battle, they hate each other beforehand. Maybe they do not know anything about each other, but the “others” becomes the “enemy”.
Countries make wars and regular people die, nameless martyrs created, legends created and with every death, the hatred between two sides grows. The density of this hatred is determined by the blood they shed. What I wonder is, if there would be somebody who come and tell that they are both rightful and they should make an agreement and not fight, would they believe?
No. Whether it is for resources, or for land, or glory, or freedom, all these benefits and sublime things will be built on the corpses of “the unlucky”. And luck is the only force to save “the lucky”, but only for a while.
“The Chaser”: Innocence and Experiments of Love
Innocence was an essential emotion in the story. Alan’s pure belief in true love made me think about the naiveness of love. I asked myself such questions as, “does love blind people?”, “does belief in love go to vain with age?”
Firstly, love challenges people with the loss of innocence. Whenever a love get response, it begins to fade in time. Love alters into addiction, obsession and maybe fear; fear to lose the beloved one (the one obsessed with in this case). These unhealthy feelings may recover in sometime, but it requires self-respect and self-realization. If those qualities wouldn’t ocur, people who “was” in love become the most cruel person ever lived. The love you’re enduring is a burden now, you hate the person, who you wanted the most only sometime ago.
Nonetheless love gives people courage too. An hopeless love can open the doors to you just like the doors Alan opened. But those doors lead dark ways and I think no good can come with haste. But I learnt these by experience. So what can an inexperienced lover do? Nothing but making mistakes! Love blinds the lovers and the “responded love” enlightens their sight again.
The old man in The Chaser also can act as an antagonist where the main character is “innocence”. His disbelief to all human qualities and emotions made me ask that, “can only aging make a person like this?” Well I don’t think so. I think his cynic view of life based on harsh and maybe dark things he lived through in his youth. Thus only a human being could be that emotionless. So, in my opinion, belief in love vains not with age but with false experience. A loving family, healthy social enviroment and a faithful relationship can provide a lifetime of optimisim about love and other feelings.
To conclude, I imagine two person standing at the farthest edges from themselves one has corrupted with false experience and one has cursed with false innocence.
Firstly, love challenges people with the loss of innocence. Whenever a love get response, it begins to fade in time. Love alters into addiction, obsession and maybe fear; fear to lose the beloved one (the one obsessed with in this case). These unhealthy feelings may recover in sometime, but it requires self-respect and self-realization. If those qualities wouldn’t ocur, people who “was” in love become the most cruel person ever lived. The love you’re enduring is a burden now, you hate the person, who you wanted the most only sometime ago.
Nonetheless love gives people courage too. An hopeless love can open the doors to you just like the doors Alan opened. But those doors lead dark ways and I think no good can come with haste. But I learnt these by experience. So what can an inexperienced lover do? Nothing but making mistakes! Love blinds the lovers and the “responded love” enlightens their sight again.
The old man in The Chaser also can act as an antagonist where the main character is “innocence”. His disbelief to all human qualities and emotions made me ask that, “can only aging make a person like this?” Well I don’t think so. I think his cynic view of life based on harsh and maybe dark things he lived through in his youth. Thus only a human being could be that emotionless. So, in my opinion, belief in love vains not with age but with false experience. A loving family, healthy social enviroment and a faithful relationship can provide a lifetime of optimisim about love and other feelings.
To conclude, I imagine two person standing at the farthest edges from themselves one has corrupted with false experience and one has cursed with false innocence.
“Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”: Death as an Escape
Death is the inevitable. People like me afraid of being dead actually, but when we face it we just welcome them. I had a traffic accident three years ago, and all my thoughts were about “finally I'm out of this life” while the car is sliding to another one. All people would grow weary with the life, all of us wants a salvation, whether it is a solution of all our matters, or it is death.
However choosing death willingly is a crime against humanity. Everybody hurts sometimes and everybody may want to take their own lives to escape. But this is a matter of this earth. What place you can live when you leave this world? If you are a religious person, you would probably endure eternal agony, if you are not, well, congratulations, you just missed the rest of your life!
When we read the poem though, we can get another idea of escape. Just by taking it literally, we can leave our all belongings and beloved and go away. This will delete all our worries and weariness, but bring new ones.
The gods placed this pile of soil inside a sphere of problems, every time it turns, you just face a new problem. You can choose to die of course, but only ship you will take is going to be black one, and that one goes nowhere.
However choosing death willingly is a crime against humanity. Everybody hurts sometimes and everybody may want to take their own lives to escape. But this is a matter of this earth. What place you can live when you leave this world? If you are a religious person, you would probably endure eternal agony, if you are not, well, congratulations, you just missed the rest of your life!
When we read the poem though, we can get another idea of escape. Just by taking it literally, we can leave our all belongings and beloved and go away. This will delete all our worries and weariness, but bring new ones.
The gods placed this pile of soil inside a sphere of problems, every time it turns, you just face a new problem. You can choose to die of course, but only ship you will take is going to be black one, and that one goes nowhere.
“Richard Cory”: Mediocracy
Richard Cory is a representative of extraordinariness in a society. All of his traits are honorable and noble, he is a good man, kind and caring. Also he is down to earth, not a snob with his wealth. He is morally, economically and physically ideal man.
We have this kind of people in our society too. We also admire them, appreciate them and talk about them like idols. However, maybe the evilness in all of us, wants these good and successful people to fail, maybe just to see them as human, like us. It may be simply jealousy, for we know we cannot achieve some of these people's qualities. But I think the main reason is mediocracy.
Every person wants to be the lead figure in the society, whatever his traits and qualities are, he just wants to be on top. Almost everytime, the leader of a society tends to be just a regular but influential man. While this man does not want others to overthrow him, he simply thinks, “if all the people will be like me, I may be the one to lead them” and that makes the society mediocre in generations.
The real unique and valuable people are labeled as narcissist or arrogant. Every quality seems like a tool of their boasting speeches.
Thus these people left alone, abandoned in a mediocre society, with their goodness and their royal hearts broken.
We have this kind of people in our society too. We also admire them, appreciate them and talk about them like idols. However, maybe the evilness in all of us, wants these good and successful people to fail, maybe just to see them as human, like us. It may be simply jealousy, for we know we cannot achieve some of these people's qualities. But I think the main reason is mediocracy.
Every person wants to be the lead figure in the society, whatever his traits and qualities are, he just wants to be on top. Almost everytime, the leader of a society tends to be just a regular but influential man. While this man does not want others to overthrow him, he simply thinks, “if all the people will be like me, I may be the one to lead them” and that makes the society mediocre in generations.
The real unique and valuable people are labeled as narcissist or arrogant. Every quality seems like a tool of their boasting speeches.
Thus these people left alone, abandoned in a mediocre society, with their goodness and their royal hearts broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)