The Purple Rose of Cairo

A few days ago I was watching Woody Allen’s film, The Purple Rose of Cairo, and realized it fits in quite well with our ongoing class discussion of the ‘real’ and ‘reality.’ For those who have not seen it, The Purple Rose of Cairo is about a young woman, Cecilia, who is a waitress during the Great Depression. To escape the bleak life that surrounds her (poverty, an abusive husband, etc.) she goes to the movies as often as possible, particularly fond of the latest RKO blockbuster, “The Purple Rose of Cairo.” On one of Cecilia’s many viewings, the main character of the film, Tom Baxtor, begins to shift his eyes towards Cecilia, sitting in the audience, and eventually walks out of the screen to speak to her. Naturally chaos ensues for both the characters left stranded in the movie as well as in the real world, where a fictional character is running loose around town. You can find the trailer as well as the pivotal scene where Baxter leaves the screen on Youtube.

The film addresses the concept of the real and the reality on many levels. Take for instance the meanings held in the theatre arrangement alone. The dark theatre itself represents reality, much like the car in Jurassic park. However, within the theatre is the film screen, representing the real, which the theatre contains or confines. Eventually we see the real erupt out of its confines and into reality when Tom Baxter walks out of the screen and into the theatre.

Further, the film addresses Zizek’s notion of desire versus drive. He states that desire is shaped by reality and we see this clearly in Cecilia’s actions. Her reality is bleak and therefore her desire is to enter a world of luxury and happiness; she manifests this desire through the action of going to the movies, where she can escape in her fantasies for a few hours a day. Drive, on the other hand, Zizek states is connected to the ‘real,’ as it is independent of the symbolic and “makes no sense.” Tom Baxtor’s drive for leaving the film and being with Cecilia makes no sense as he is a fictional character and, for all intents and purposes, should not be able to have autonomous desires.

The only falling in this film’s pertinence to the real/reality theory is that the ‘real’ in this film would be representing the opposite of what we’ve seen it represent elsewhere in class. The way I understand it, the ‘real’ always seems to be an area that we cannot access, and fear accessing, because it reminds us of death and mortality. However, the reverse seems true in this film, because the ‘real’ is where we want to be, that is, a happiness that can only be found in fiction.

Even if this last point lessons the argument that the film is an example of the ‘real’ and ‘reality,’ I think it’s still well worth seeing (if you haven’t already) as it puts an interesting perspective on the concept, and how merely watching films is in a way connected to this real/reality idea. Also, it’s just a fantastic movie!

The Social Network

After yesterday's discussion of Facebook in class, I couldn't help but log on and do some exploring. What I discovered was so interesting ( at least to me)...All of the real people that were featured as character's in The Social Network who were snubbed by Zuckerberg's character ( the Winklevoss twins, Eduardo Saverin, Erica Albright) all had Facebook profiles. In fact, Eduardo Saverin's profile page was classified as "OFFICIAL". This to me spoke volumes towards the "pull" of Facebook. Despite offline relations ( lawsuits, stolen ideas,etc) Facebook has become this machine which has an ability to mediate communication and a desire to join because it is now considered necessary in today's society. That is, if your friends are on Facebook and you want to keep in contact with them, Facebook has become a necessity to do so. That being said, maybe those enemies of Zuckerberg are on Facebook because it allows a person on Facebook to choose who they want to be in contact with. That is, you have to accept a friend request. As such, friends in the Facebook world can be built around your reality in the offline world, or be different (dependent upon your current status in relationships- there's a button for that too!) I guess Facebook's ability to allow you to tailor your online world to your liking (like ordering a Starbucks latte) is what drives the desire to JOIN Facebook...or it could just be that communication is necessary....and well...Facebook is a communication MACHINE.

The Plight of the Coyote

While I was visiting Youtube the other day, I came across a clip from a Family Guy episode that relates to Lacan’s theory of drive and desire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzK1aq5P6yw

Lacan suggested that there is a distinction between the goal and the aim, the former referring to the final destination, and the latter being what we intend to do in order to reach that goal. The purpose of drive is not to arrive at its goal, but to endlessly reproduce its aim; and the real sense of enjoyment lies in this constant repetition. Therefore, when we come too close to our goal (to the object of desire), our sense of enjoyment is reduced and we fall into a state of anxiety and confusion.

In this clip from Family Guy, the coyote finally manages to catch the roadrunner after trying for twenty years; his goal is ultimately reached, and the continuous reproduction of his aim comes to an end. Because he structured his life around capturing the roadrunner, this basically became his reality. Thus, when he finally reaches his goal his sense of enjoyment is lost, and reality as he knows it comes to an end. To cope with this loss of reality, he searches for new means of fulfillment, ultimately resorting to religious preaching.

Perhaps Seth Macfarlane was not thinking of Lacan when he wrote this parody, but I believe it is an example of the way human beings structure their reality around a particular aim whose ultimate purpose is to arrive at a goal; but once that goal is attained, the aim loses its function and reality –being shaped by the aim –disintegrates. This creates a dilemma: how can we possibly avoid a loss of reality if our reality is founded upon an aim that will ultimate result in this loss?

Mark Zukerberg and Cyborgs.

Maybe I’m creating my own perception about Mark Zuckerberg character, but I can’t be the only one who finds him in the Social Network to be a little bit creepy. Beyond the obvious lack of social skills and inability to hold a polite conversation, I find some characteristics about Mark Zuckerbergs personality to be unsettling. In the movie, he never seems to be satisfied over anything in his life, whether it is his relationship with Erica, the social recognition of from the elite, or the acknowledgment for his intelligence. This lack of satisfaction just reminds me in the oddest way of the cyborg shown in the Terminator clip. Think about it..… Throughout the entire movie, Mark Zuckerberg drive was to create this revolutionary social network in order to reach his desire of social acceptance. Ironically, as soon as he gets close to his desires, his focus changed and a new desire was created. For instance, in the first scene with Mark and Erica’s conversation, he makes it plainly obvious that he desires to get into the elite clubs, but the minute the Winklevoss twins give him some form of acceptance and recognition by involving him in creating their website, he avoids them, making excuse after excuse. His desires get larger and more unattainable and as he goes on, he continuously indulges in his drive, elaboration face book. Even when he become close to being worldly recognize, hitting over 1 000 000 hits, he still shows no true satisfaction, refraining from the celebration at the office.

Mark Zuckerberg character also lacks any form of normal social interaction. He’s so driven by his work, that he often disregards or cannot recognize the contributions of others when they don’t conform to his current desire and habitual drive. Mark continuously cuts off Eduardo whenever Eduardo wanted to talk about being punched or personal life, only giving him attention when it regarded Facebook or the expansion of Facebook. It’s not even the issue of jealously, his character is never truly happy or ecstatic. In fact, he’s never really even angry when he’s even supposed to be angry, such as when he’s blogging with Erica. He’s never fixated on an emotion, drunk blogging about her while continuously working on facesmash. He even seems to lack basics manners and ethics. What someone could argue as just immaturity can also be seen as Zukerbergs lack of social etiquette, belittling people whom in a normal situation would be respected. This is seen when he publicly stated that he the lawyer didn’t deserve his attention. When you think about these things as a whole, Mark Zukerman doesn’t truly seem human, but more like a cyborg,motivated by his drive towards this unattainable goal which he can never identity, doomed to continue on this path of habitual work with no true satisfaction.

Clones, ink, social networking

I actually found taking notes in the theaters a little difficult.

Anyway, The Social Network was definitely not something I had expected. In a good way. Watching it, the thing that hit me most was how the camera and the narrative was everywhere, it was literally a mash-up of time. Although the three timelines were in chronological progression (events of 2003-4, lawsuit with the Winklevoss twins, lawsuit with Eduardo), they were meshed together in a way that was reminiscent of what Mitchell had called a 'new sense of time' in the age of biocybernetic reproduction. The biocybernetic part comes to play with the nature of Facebook replacing face-to-face interaction (as discussed in class today) in a world of information technology.
The film is also related to biocybernetics to an extent, I thought, because the film is about a 'real person' and 'real events'. It is literally a recreation (and re-interpretation) of humans through digital means - somewhat like clones, but intentionally made to be a little different from the original (the film is 'fiction'). This would justify the 'new sense of time' in the movie, which jumps back and forth and all over the place.

On a side note, there was an interesting quote I managed to get down - "The internet is printed in ink" as said by Erica in accusing Mark about insulting her on his blog. The internet, the digital medium, *printed*, in ink? It could be referring to the increasingly internet-dependent nature of today's literacy, as it emphasizes how things published on the internet holds a lot more influence than it might have in the past. But considering the volatile nature of the material online (susceptible to updates and changes, and is more flexible), compared to the fixed nature of the printed ink on paper, it might also point out how the internet and its lack of stability (it has no physical form) is meshed with the material reality in an ironic way. This could be a comment on Facebook (digital) replacing, or interlocking with, the real-life relationships (material, physical).

Counting Replicas

As an experiment of my own, I decided to count how many replicas of the Mona Lisa (or Mona Lisa inspired images) I saw in one day. At first, I though perhaps this would be a futile exericise and that I wouldn't end up seeing any. However, by the end of the day, i had seen 4 replicas (one as a window decoration outside a Holt Renfrew, one in a poster store, a replica in a newspaper advertisement for marble countertops and one in my dentists office- although this one is altered so that the Mona Lisa is smiling broadly exposing a set of perfect teeth).
In retrospect, I realize that, in fact, I'm exposed to these replicas of the Mona Lisa's image daily but only realized this once I decided to pay attention.
I would suggest that all of you partake in this experiment and enlighten us with your own results.

Reproducing Art: Van Gogh 2.0

Earlier this month I found myself channel surfing and stumbled upon an infomercial. This isn’t an unusual occurrence, however, the content of the infomercial was laden with psychosocial undertones about art in a state of perpetual modernity and post modernity. The infomercial was selling an art kit; not just any art kit, but one that allowed the customer to reproduce the work of Picasso. “Painting by Numbers” is a simple concept – each painting was divided into colour slots, with each slot having a number that corresponded with a colour on the palette. The amateur artist then proceeds to paint by numbers, that is, fill in the colour that corresponds with the correct number on the palette. When all the numbers have been filled in, you have a perfect replica of one of Picasso’s famous works.

Upon seeing this, I was impressed, then immediately horrified. The act of admiring Picasso’s work is part technical, but part mystical as well; he was an innovator, an iconoclaste. To have his once seminal work reduced to a series of numbers akin to a logarithm, was (in my opinion) an insult to his contribution to the world of art, and devoid of any originality or creativity. This points to an interesting trend first identified by Walter Benjamin. Benjamin identified a trend in modern art with respect to reproduction – once a piece of art is reproduced it loses its essence, its originality and ultimately, it’s purpose. Now, as we enjoy the fruits of technology, art is being reproduced, reconfigured and ultimately degraded. Hindsight allows us to see how prophetic Walter Benjamin’s words were, and forces us to think critically about art an age of convenience.