After reading and discussing the first two passages assigned in Hollering Creek... by Cisneros, I found myself obsessing over the weakness of self-esteem and worth shown in both stories. While I cannot argue that the women represented in both stories were not strong in some ways, I also cannot deny their inability to demand more and expect more from their relationships and life.
In both readings, they women are illegitimate lovers who in some ways seem content with watching the ones they love, care deeply for others. Both have given up power over their own destinies and in some ways have settled for a fate of being from a certain social class or economic situation. These women are not confident in their abilities as women, instead they are prisoners to their situation and in some respects the men who only love them "in the dark". I see this as a reoccurring theme in Cisneros works. Women and restrictions based on social scaffolding.
One women, a poor farmers daughter is only "worth" being an illegitimate lover to a prestigious man, the other in the same predicament because of her race. While reading I found myself wondering why these women settle for being second, third, or even tenth? They become obsessed with their lack of title and respect, yet their obsession is what mentally empowers them. In my opinion, this obsession controls them and in some ways inhibits them from full living or experiences. I feel like the women in these stories are sort of ghost-like. Living a life that doest really exist, only in the dark in the privacy of their homes. Its a sad, horrible existence. I think another large theme in Cisneros writings concerns women as victims to men and predicament.
Finally, I have enjoyed reading Cisneros work up to this point. I remember reading The House on Mango Street some time ago, and seriously enjoyed it. I am seriously considering further research into these writings.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Beauty by Camera Angle
When thinking about Eisenstein's film, one scene in particular continues to play in my mind. The scene that I am referring to, takes place at the end of the film. There is a woman walking down a long set of stairs. The action in the scene is not what interest me. Its the way the scene was shot.
The camera view in the scene is one that was taken from above. Not a few feet, but like 20 feet above. The way it is shot makes the woman look very small, very fragile. To me the way that Eisenstein's films were shot is what made them a beautiful portrayal of Mexican actuality. I found myself watching an ordinary woman and sympathizing with how small she is in a "big world". I think that was the purpose of shooting this scene in this manner. As to show how small individuals really are in the general scheme of things. But in Mexican life these small almost unimportant people are seemingly in a world of fusion of past and present created by them.
Anyway, Eisenstein's way of causing the viewer too look at an ordinary situation in a different light makes the film beautiful, dare I even say I work of art.
The camera view in the scene is one that was taken from above. Not a few feet, but like 20 feet above. The way it is shot makes the woman look very small, very fragile. To me the way that Eisenstein's films were shot is what made them a beautiful portrayal of Mexican actuality. I found myself watching an ordinary woman and sympathizing with how small she is in a "big world". I think that was the purpose of shooting this scene in this manner. As to show how small individuals really are in the general scheme of things. But in Mexican life these small almost unimportant people are seemingly in a world of fusion of past and present created by them.
Anyway, Eisenstein's way of causing the viewer too look at an ordinary situation in a different light makes the film beautiful, dare I even say I work of art.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Lost in Good Writting
(Mexican Revolution Refugees Fort Bliss, Texas 1914) At first in my reading of “The Underdogs”, I found myself confused and easily distracted. Almost immediately, I have found this reading to be one of the hardest to follow. Not because it requires some sort of high intellectual engagement, rather because it fails to entertain. As sad as it is, I always feel the need to sympathize with a character or theme. I enjoy becoming engaged in a story. I think that the way this story is written, makes this almost impossible. When reading this, I have now had to approach it like a passage in a legal text. I consider the writing to be presumably unbiased, yet very cold in its approach. Azulas ability to almost “de-humanize” these experiences intrigues me. I find myself reading about war, rape, molestation, and discrimination as if they are normal parts of life. The way the author presents these horrific things is genius in my opinion.
Azulas description of events tends to have a dulling affect on me. As I read, I find myself studying the characters and accepting the criminal acts occurring as secondary to the greater picture. To me this is genius, perhaps because it allows me to really grasp how life was in Mexico during the Revolution. From reading, I have come to the conclusion that the people living in Mexico at this time were used to these high levels of crime. I think that during the Revolution, Mexico was not a civilized country. In fact, the way the novel reads, Mexico was a place of utter chaos. I think Azulas approach at de-humanizing the experience makes it “real” for the reader. I for one find myself just looking past these things as normal while I am reading. To me this is what makes his writing exquisite and intriguing.
Until we had discussed many of these crimes in class, I had not paid much attention to them. I found it interesting that I never noticed the horrible treatment of Camila by Cervantes. I also never really paid notice to the looting that was taking place. I think I found myself excusing these actions as just part of the war, “The Revolution”. So far this book has caught my attention not because of its ability to entertain, but its ability to hypnotize its readers into the situation by rare mental omission. This leads me to question whether I am the only person who has experienced “The Underdogs” like this, or if it could be a brilliant effect of Azuela’s skillful writing technique?
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Breeding Ignorance "Harmony and Conflict..."
I found the “Harmony and Conflict…” reading to be the most interesting of the semester. I recently finished writing my personal statement for law school and being the daughter of Spanish immigrants, this is one of the main topics within my statement. Sadly, I believe that the text books read in schools and movies shown do have a huge affect on people’s perspectives of other nationalities and countries. I don’t think that this is unique to American student’s perceptions of South America and Mexico, rather to other countries in general.
In the United States, education through text books is the main source for learning and gaining cultural understanding of other places and people. In the U.S., not much time is spent exploring other nations unless something they did is directly related to American history. After meeting some professional Canadian rugby players in New York last semester, I found it astonishing how little I knew about Canada versus how much American and World History they knew. We would ask the Canadians questions about U.S. History and they knew so much. I sadly didn’t even know how many provinces or states there were in Canada. This is a tragedy being that I am a senior in college and there is so much about the world in which I have never studied. I think that text books in public schools are cheating the American youth by the omission of information. We as an American people should be more culturally well rounded from a young age.
(Canadian friends in New York)
Next, I believe that text books and movies by the way they depict what little information they do give us, paints a controlled picture. Often, Mexico and South America are shown to be places of poverty, crime, and ignorance. Most movies and books portray Mexico as being inferior to the U.S. We study about immigrants and their history of betrayal to the U.S., but never of their importance to this country. For instance, it is never highlighted in films that much of the U.S. was actually taken from Mexico with actual Mexican people living in it. It is also not highlighted that Mexico allowed Anglo settlers the opportunity into their country to be later betrayed. In my own personal experiences, I was shown the the Anglos were only taking what was theirs. I reality it was not.
Finally, mass media plays a huge role in creating unfair perceptions of Mexico and South America. The coverage of uproar and chaos in these countries is covered on the news frequently. Rarely is there coverage about positive things within other nations. Mass media in this country portrays the U.S. in a positive protective light. It highlights misfortunes of other countries and plays on the strengths of this nation. It is not often that mass media pays attention to the cultures of other countries and if it does, it is only after a tragedy or to show short comings. Watch the trend on CNN.
In the United States, education through text books is the main source for learning and gaining cultural understanding of other places and people. In the U.S., not much time is spent exploring other nations unless something they did is directly related to American history. After meeting some professional Canadian rugby players in New York last semester, I found it astonishing how little I knew about Canada versus how much American and World History they knew. We would ask the Canadians questions about U.S. History and they knew so much. I sadly didn’t even know how many provinces or states there were in Canada. This is a tragedy being that I am a senior in college and there is so much about the world in which I have never studied. I think that text books in public schools are cheating the American youth by the omission of information. We as an American people should be more culturally well rounded from a young age.
(Canadian friends in New York)Next, I believe that text books and movies by the way they depict what little information they do give us, paints a controlled picture. Often, Mexico and South America are shown to be places of poverty, crime, and ignorance. Most movies and books portray Mexico as being inferior to the U.S. We study about immigrants and their history of betrayal to the U.S., but never of their importance to this country. For instance, it is never highlighted in films that much of the U.S. was actually taken from Mexico with actual Mexican people living in it. It is also not highlighted that Mexico allowed Anglo settlers the opportunity into their country to be later betrayed. In my own personal experiences, I was shown the the Anglos were only taking what was theirs. I reality it was not.
Finally, mass media plays a huge role in creating unfair perceptions of Mexico and South America. The coverage of uproar and chaos in these countries is covered on the news frequently. Rarely is there coverage about positive things within other nations. Mass media in this country portrays the U.S. in a positive protective light. It highlights misfortunes of other countries and plays on the strengths of this nation. It is not often that mass media pays attention to the cultures of other countries and if it does, it is only after a tragedy or to show short comings. Watch the trend on CNN.
The Martyrs of the Alamo
After reading the assignment online, I found myself pondering whether or not I found the movie The Martyrs of the Alamo to be racist. I have been sitting here for a while thinking and searching reading others postings to see their opinions, in hopes that it might spark some of my own. I still have nothing. So in conclusion, from my lengthy pondering, I think that the fact that I have no opinion shows that this is not something that caught my attention.
I’m not sure whether I believe that this movie was racist toward one side or the other. I think that there were racist idealisms throughout, but not necessarily solely based on the Mexicans or the Anglo settlers. I think that the movie portrays Santa Anna as being a power hungry irrational man. It also depicts his army as, dare I say, ignorant in their approach. At the same time, the movie depicts the Anglo settlers to be rebellious and in some way cheaters. It placed them in a stubborn and almost forceful light. In my opinion the racism throughout the movie is used to depict a certain picture. Now whether that picture is overall racist, I am undecided.
Moving on to address the issue of women and love throughout the picture. I think that women were shown to be strong in their approach, but they were weakened by the attitudes that the men had towards them. The love of a women and the need to protect her is what motivates the Anglo settlers to revolt. A woman being pestered in the streets by the Mexican army prompts a shooting in the movie. I think in this way it seems as if the men treated the women as objects that needed to be protected, almost like they own them.
Later the movie causes me to contradict my own opinion because it shows women helping within the battle. Instead of showing the women just hiding and being scared, it shows them loading weapons and being nurses. The movie depicts the women here in a strong and valuable light. I found this to be the most interesting part of the movie because in newer films, I have never seen this. The newer movie “The Alamo” shows the women hiding and staying out of the way. This movie portrays them as playing a role in the battle. Considering the reading that we did for Thursday, I now wonder if this is just coincidence or maybe something that is done now to ultimately influence perceptions. I can’t think of any new war movie that shows women fighting in a battle. Are we back in the 1950’s? I really am bothered by these omissions in today’s films. I wonder how often things like this happen. At this point I am going to move on to my post about Thursday’s reading.
I’m not sure whether I believe that this movie was racist toward one side or the other. I think that there were racist idealisms throughout, but not necessarily solely based on the Mexicans or the Anglo settlers. I think that the movie portrays Santa Anna as being a power hungry irrational man. It also depicts his army as, dare I say, ignorant in their approach. At the same time, the movie depicts the Anglo settlers to be rebellious and in some way cheaters. It placed them in a stubborn and almost forceful light. In my opinion the racism throughout the movie is used to depict a certain picture. Now whether that picture is overall racist, I am undecided.
Moving on to address the issue of women and love throughout the picture. I think that women were shown to be strong in their approach, but they were weakened by the attitudes that the men had towards them. The love of a women and the need to protect her is what motivates the Anglo settlers to revolt. A woman being pestered in the streets by the Mexican army prompts a shooting in the movie. I think in this way it seems as if the men treated the women as objects that needed to be protected, almost like they own them.
Later the movie causes me to contradict my own opinion because it shows women helping within the battle. Instead of showing the women just hiding and being scared, it shows them loading weapons and being nurses. The movie depicts the women here in a strong and valuable light. I found this to be the most interesting part of the movie because in newer films, I have never seen this. The newer movie “The Alamo” shows the women hiding and staying out of the way. This movie portrays them as playing a role in the battle. Considering the reading that we did for Thursday, I now wonder if this is just coincidence or maybe something that is done now to ultimately influence perceptions. I can’t think of any new war movie that shows women fighting in a battle. Are we back in the 1950’s? I really am bothered by these omissions in today’s films. I wonder how often things like this happen. At this point I am going to move on to my post about Thursday’s reading.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Mangy Parrot and Mexican and Social Classes During 1700's
When I think of someone who is poor in today’s society the last thing that I associate with this state of being is staff and workers. While I was reading the Mangy Parrot, I found it interesting how Periquillo describes his family’s welfare. He often says that his family is poor. Yet, he also often speaks of slaves and schooling. This made me question whether or not his family really was poor or whether they were just of a middle class.
I wonder if what he accomplishes later in the book could have affected his perception of his own family. I find this interesting because I believe that ones surroundings can change their perception of themselves. For instance, being someone who grew up in an area where many families were well off, I often take advantage of things that others consider to be luxuries. I think that maybe Periquillo is somehow similarly jaded. As he tells stories of some of his school mates and their being born to families who fund Catholic Churches, I can’t help but wonder if his perception of being well off or poor is somewhat distorted. His mother and father pay for him to be schooled. This causes me to ponder whether if families that were truly poor could afford the luxury of education in Mexico during this time.
Another thing that piqued my curiosity about his family’s financial being was the fact that he seems to be friends with members of a higher society. This confuses me and causes me to question how Mexican society in these times was arranged? Where classes distinct? I am currently researching this and will be posting again soon regarding social classes in Mexico within the 1700’s.
I wonder if what he accomplishes later in the book could have affected his perception of his own family. I find this interesting because I believe that ones surroundings can change their perception of themselves. For instance, being someone who grew up in an area where many families were well off, I often take advantage of things that others consider to be luxuries. I think that maybe Periquillo is somehow similarly jaded. As he tells stories of some of his school mates and their being born to families who fund Catholic Churches, I can’t help but wonder if his perception of being well off or poor is somewhat distorted. His mother and father pay for him to be schooled. This causes me to ponder whether if families that were truly poor could afford the luxury of education in Mexico during this time.
Another thing that piqued my curiosity about his family’s financial being was the fact that he seems to be friends with members of a higher society. This confuses me and causes me to question how Mexican society in these times was arranged? Where classes distinct? I am currently researching this and will be posting again soon regarding social classes in Mexico within the 1700’s.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Religion and Movies..
Being that the United States was founded on freedom of religion, I think that the religious manifestations placed throughout the CDV text are worthy of note. I would first like to focus on the use of the word “Christians”. At the beginning of the text, the word is used in its applied sense. It is used to demonstrate a set of beliefs and a people of these beliefs. However, as the journey progresses, the word almost redefines itself.
In the account of CDV’s journey, he talks about working in the saviors name and for the crown, but when he reaches another group of explorers, he refers to them as “Christians” even though they are not working in Christ like ways. It is almost like the definition of the word has changed from an account of religious affiliation to defining a race of people. It is weird because I automatically associated this with Nazi terms. They started as a religious group, but later transformed into a race. A Nazi was no longer a word to describe a religious affiliation, but a cult. This could be reaching, but rather an association that I made while reading the text. I find it interesting that CDV talks about all of these things that the “Christians” do, and in his own explanation he contradicts the very meaning of the word.
According to Wikipedia and the Bible, Christians are to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is what makes a Christian a believer of Jesus and worthy of savior. The so called “Christians” that CDV encounters do not love thy neighbors as they love themselves. They are feared by Indian tribes throughout the land. They torture, kill, and steel from their fellow man. This brings me to the Requiremento, this writing brought by explorers to share the message of god allows Indians to be seen as humans yet when they explore they take away this humanity by killing and taking advantage of the things which make them giving and peaceful people. I think that something that is ignored is that the Indians were taken advantage of because of their giving traditions; it is almost like they didn’t fight for what was theirs, and they just fled. I think it is important to mention that even though not necessarily Christian people, they were people of a giving nature.
Finally I want to address something that bothered me about the film that we watched in class. In CDV’s writings, he talks about his whole journey as a religious one. Spreading practices of the Christian religion and helping to build what we now know as American culture. I think that the movie fails to capture this. It makes CDV look like he has only taken part in Indian traditions. It makes everything look like it came from the indigenous culture and people. In the book it specifically describes him using Christian techniques to heal the sick Indians. However, in the movie it portrays him as only practicing the Indian ceremonial ways of healing. I think that it was important to the story of CDV to include some of the Christian tactics that he claims he used in healing. I think to mention the use of the sign of the cross over the sick is important to mention because this practice combined the Indian and Christian traditions. This brings me to the reliability of a movie vs. a text. Movies are made to entertain and not to offend. I believe this is why some things that are fictional could have been added to the movie, and some could have been removed to keep from causing controversy. Either way it is always just speculation because in reality, there is no way to know if CDV’s narrative is even 50 percent truth. I guess you have to take it for what it is, and examine it with an open mind. I thought this site on factual errors within movies was interesting: http://screenwriting.lifetips.com/cat/56990/movie-mistakes/index.html
In the account of CDV’s journey, he talks about working in the saviors name and for the crown, but when he reaches another group of explorers, he refers to them as “Christians” even though they are not working in Christ like ways. It is almost like the definition of the word has changed from an account of religious affiliation to defining a race of people. It is weird because I automatically associated this with Nazi terms. They started as a religious group, but later transformed into a race. A Nazi was no longer a word to describe a religious affiliation, but a cult. This could be reaching, but rather an association that I made while reading the text. I find it interesting that CDV talks about all of these things that the “Christians” do, and in his own explanation he contradicts the very meaning of the word.
According to Wikipedia and the Bible, Christians are to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is what makes a Christian a believer of Jesus and worthy of savior. The so called “Christians” that CDV encounters do not love thy neighbors as they love themselves. They are feared by Indian tribes throughout the land. They torture, kill, and steel from their fellow man. This brings me to the Requiremento, this writing brought by explorers to share the message of god allows Indians to be seen as humans yet when they explore they take away this humanity by killing and taking advantage of the things which make them giving and peaceful people. I think that something that is ignored is that the Indians were taken advantage of because of their giving traditions; it is almost like they didn’t fight for what was theirs, and they just fled. I think it is important to mention that even though not necessarily Christian people, they were people of a giving nature.
Finally I want to address something that bothered me about the film that we watched in class. In CDV’s writings, he talks about his whole journey as a religious one. Spreading practices of the Christian religion and helping to build what we now know as American culture. I think that the movie fails to capture this. It makes CDV look like he has only taken part in Indian traditions. It makes everything look like it came from the indigenous culture and people. In the book it specifically describes him using Christian techniques to heal the sick Indians. However, in the movie it portrays him as only practicing the Indian ceremonial ways of healing. I think that it was important to the story of CDV to include some of the Christian tactics that he claims he used in healing. I think to mention the use of the sign of the cross over the sick is important to mention because this practice combined the Indian and Christian traditions. This brings me to the reliability of a movie vs. a text. Movies are made to entertain and not to offend. I believe this is why some things that are fictional could have been added to the movie, and some could have been removed to keep from causing controversy. Either way it is always just speculation because in reality, there is no way to know if CDV’s narrative is even 50 percent truth. I guess you have to take it for what it is, and examine it with an open mind. I thought this site on factual errors within movies was interesting: http://screenwriting.lifetips.com/cat/56990/movie-mistakes/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)