Rear Window

The set for Rear Window is amazing, as Hitchcock and his team basically built a model of an apartment building on the studio lot. In fact, Hitchcock even said that every apartment in the building, even the ones we don't see, was fully furnished. My question involves the apartments we do see. How do the stories that unfold in the apartments across from Jeffries' "rear window" relate to the relationship between Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart) and Lisa (Grace Kelly)? Think especially about Miss Torso, Miss Lonelyhearts, the Composer, the Newlyweds, and, of course, the Thorwalds. Consider, also, the different ways Jeffries and Lisa react to what goes on in those apartments. How does Hitchcock manage to define their relationship more clearly by playing it against the lives of Jeffries' fellow tenants?


Rear Window is a very interesting movie. It is also a very well put together movie with a great deal of subtle intricacies that could easily be overlooked. I know I overlooked them. It took a class discussion before I could fully appreciate the film. The neighbors that Jeffries spies on have a direct impact on the goings-on in his own apartment. It creates a specific parallel between the various neighbors and the relationship between Jeffries and Lisa. Jeffries is a borderline bitter self-proclaimed bachelor. He has no interest in settling down and getting married. In fact, he has very negative preconceived notions about the whole institution. Lisa is quite fond of Jeffries and does not hold onto the same negative associations about marriage. The rear window offers a glimpse into the neighbors lives, whether married or not, and they directly impact Lisa and Jeffries. Jeffries relates to the malicious, nagging relation of the Thorwalds. He assumes that all marriages come to the same end: misery, nagging, loss of freedom, and death (not necessarily physical, but emotional and spiritual.) The Newlyweds follow the same pattern. They are blissfully happy for about a night. However, we soon see the husband being nagged, gasping for air. By the end of the film, they are outright quarreling. Both the Newlyweds and the Thorwalds serve to support and strengthen Jeffries belief that marriage, even when to someone who loves him so much and seems so perfect as Lisa, is doomed from the start, destined for failure and misery. Miss Torso is someone who is obviously attractive and popular with the men. Jeffries makes a connection in his mind between Miss Torso and Lisa. He thinks there are very similar in regards to their lifestyle and control over men. He feels that he could never be good enough for Miss Torso and, in turn, he could never be good enough for Lisa. Lisa feels connected to Miss Torso as well. She realizes that they are similar – fighting off hordes of sexually charged men, charming and wooing in social situations, never intending on getting romantically involved with any of her suitors, holding out for the one person she loves, who just happens to be unlike what someone would typically picture a man who Miss Torso falls in love with would look like. She also feels connected to Miss Lonelyhearts. She sympathizes with her longing for someone to be with. Jeffries sympathizes with Miss Lonelyhearts as well. However, he can not extend the same sympathy to Lisa. The composer provides the theme song for the movie and the blossoming love story of Lisa and Jeffries. The music he plays across the courtyard flows into all of the apartments in the complex. It moves Lisa and Miss Lonelyhearts and even serves as the music for the movie. All of the characters lives are intertwined with Lisa and Jeffries’ lives even if they are not aware of it.

Glengarry Glen Ross

1) This question involves the women in the play--that is, the women mentioned in the play. Mamet has been accused of being anti-feminist at best and misogynist at worst. Yet certainly we can't say that he wants us to admire the "world of men" in this real estate office, or to agree with the characters' attitude toward women (or toward anyone outside their white male world). So what are we to make of the influence of women in the play? What of Mrs. Lingk, who ruins Roma's deal and indirectly brings about Levene's final fall? What of the "ex" Levene mentions early in the play, the one who "kicked out" of another deal? What of Levene's "daughter? And what of Harriet Nyborg, even, who serves Levene store-bought crumb cake and, along with her husband, agrees to sign a contract for land she has no intention or means of purchasing?

My question is, quite simply, how are we to deal with the presence/absence of women in Glengarry Glen Ross? How might you construct an interpretation of the play that takes these women into account?

David Mamet wrote a play, Glengarry Glen Ross, which is full of men. More specifically than just men, they are all white men in their forties and fifties. There are no real women characters in the play. However there are absent women – women that are merely mentioned in passing, women that have played roles in past story lines just out the time constraints of the writing. They are women that have bit parts, women that don’t speak and aren’t seen.

None of the women that are mentioned in the play are presented in a positive light with the possible exception of Levene’s daughter in the movie version. They seem to only service the misery of the men in the play. They cost them deals, they serve them crummy crumb cake, and cause them massive amounts of worry and pain. Harriet Nyborg strings Shelly Levene along for quite some time. Levene sits at the table with Harriet and Mr. Nyborg for “twenty-two minutes by the kitchen clock.” Not to mention the rest of the time spent on phone calls, high pressuring, and other general means to convert the “cocksucker.” Through all this Harriet Nyborg and her husband have no intention of buying any property. They just like talking to salesmen. Their money is no good.

The woman that seems to have the most important role, if you can call it that, and at least the biggest, is Mrs. Lingk. She completely ruins the Cadillac winner close that Richard Roma skillfully bags. She appears to have such control over her husband, James Lingk, that he is powerless to go against her will. He does not have the strength to tell her no and follow through with the deal. He does not even seem to possess the power to think for himself. He appears frightened of crossing Mrs. Lingk and has no courage, self-respect, or identity outside of his wife’s. She has made him into a pitiful shell of a man and has cost Roma a large sum of money.

Seeing as there are no women in the play other than the subtle nuances of feminine characters portrayed in overwhelmingly negative lights, I must assume that Mamet does this as a means of escape for his male characters, which are no moral lighthouses themselves. There are no females in the office or restaurant because of the strong distaste towards women the male characters have, excepting Levene and his daughter. However, while he loves and cares for his daughter, she is still a constant source of pain and worry for him just as with the other characters. So the absence of women is due to Mamet and his characters not wanting them around. They seem to believe that women make things more difficult.

King Lear

Coppelia Kahn argues that King Lear is made to change throughout the play by his struggle to accept his feminine side. She implies that the main source of conflict and pain for King Lear is his internal struggle. He is more afflicted by his tears than anything else. King Lear cares more about the male stereotype that men cannot show any form of emotion than he does about losing his kingdom and his daughters.

I respectfully disagree with Coppelia Kahn’s argument. I think that the two main sources of conflict in the play for King Lear are losing his daughters in his mind and doing regrettable things. The two most important regrettable things King Lear does, in my opinion, are giving away his kingdom, his crown, and his power, and hastily banishing his favorite daughter, Cordelia, when she will not play his halfhearted flattery game for the prospect of inheriting one-third of the kingdom and an equal share of power.

King Lear does seem to struggle with his emotion, as is apparent in some of the language. Coppelia Kahn says, “He learns to weep and, though his tears scald and burn like molten lead, they are no longer 'women’s weapons' against which he must defend himself." If King Lear’s tears “scald and burn,” they are not doing so simply because they are running down his cheeks. Rather, it is because of the situation that the tears afflict his so, not just because he is crying. I do not believe that he is more concerned with his pride about shedding a tear than his pride concerning being scorned and betrayed by his two older daughters and his regret for banishing the one that was true.

King Lear feels betrayed by his two older daughters, Goneril and Regan. This is his first great cause of pain. He gave them his entire kingdom and all of his power with the stipulation of keeping 100 knights as followers. Goneril and Regan become worried about their father, the ex-king, having so many people loyal to him. They are also rightfully concerned about the follower’s slovenly, drunken behavior. They worry that if ever King Lear becomes upset about any certain thing he will be able to call his followers to arm and forcefully control the kingdom again. They are worried that he is becoming a senile, old man who can no longer control his temper. King Lear, however, does not see it this way. He merely feels that his daughters are being ungrateful, controlling, and power-hungry. He thinks that their love is equal to their willingness to allow his a larger train. When they turn him away, he is devastated because he has now lost all three daughters.

He is most concerned towards the end of the play about his wrong doings towards his faithful daughter, Cordelia. This is his second great cause of pain. He realizes that he has wronged the one person who truly cares about him. His tears are tears caused by great pains. However, the tears are not the pains themselves.

Persepolis

At one point in the book Persepolis, Marji's father tells her that "politics and sentiment don't mix," and yet much of the book's power comes from precisely that combination--on the one hand, there are the horrible realities of the revolution and the war; and on the other hand, there is the example of Satrapi's family, whose strength and love really do become a means of survival for Marji. How do you react to the father's statement? Do you think that Marji herself believes that "politics and sentiment don't mix"? Do you think the women in her family--her mother and grandmother--would agree with the statement?

In Persepolis, Marji's father tells her that "politics and sentiment don't mix.” This could be interpreted in two different ways. First, it could mean that we should not base our political agendas on emotions and feelings. Laws, rules, and regulations should be in place to protect the citizens of Iran. They should not pander to the fears and beliefs of a few. Instead, they should serve to benefit all and conceived on sound judgment, not fear-mongering propaganda. Secondly, it could mean that politics and sentiment don’t mix because of the potential for emotional damage. In the midst of chaos, if Marji is able to distance herself from the horrors inflicted by the Islamic regime, she would have any easier time going on with her day to day life and following the rules. However, politics and sentiment are forever going hand in hand in the book. Politics and sentiment should not be mixed, but they are. They are tangled, entwined together eternally. What Marji’s father ought to be saying is politics and religion doesn’t mix. But since it has been thrown into the tangled mess, it can’t be removed without tearing everything apart. For better or worse, sentiment and religion are a big part of politics for Marji and Iran.

Sentimentality, when faced with an extreme, oppressive government, a rebellion, and a war, is practically a requirement. If you do not have strong emotional pull under the strain of constant loss and fear, you are either a strong-willed individual, capable of barring emotion from strangling the life out of you, or else a heartless one. Marji and her family keep their emotions and their outrage. To keep strong, they lean on one another.

I think that Marji believes that politics and sentiment should not mix. She knows that they do mix, though. She holds out for an ideal government and an ideal society. I do not think she has ever found that idealized thing. In the movie, she gets so distraught and disillusioned by society and the government of Vienna, Austria that she goes back to oppressive Iran. In Vienna, she is constantly betrayed by people she cares about and by people who are out to “help” her. She is passed from house to house, and after her boyfriend cheats on her, she lives on the street. She almost dies. Hating her new country, she goes back to Iran. Iran is a godsend after her trials abroad. However, she is quickly disillusioned again by the backwardness of the politics and social aspects of Iran. She marries, divorces, and again moves away.

Marji’s mother and grandmother seem to have a similar viewpoint on politics and sentiment as Marji and her father. They know that the two absolutely do mix but probably should not. They do, however, have differences. Marji’s mother seems to be more outspoken on the political side, while her grandmother is more inclined to push for sentimentality and integrity. Her mother was a fervent protester of the Shah’s regime and used her sentimentality and outrage to battle to get him ousted. Marji’s grandmother scolds her for not upholding her integrity when she accuses a man of harassing her with lewd remarks to get out of trouble for wearing lipstick. Grandmother wishes Marji would have channeled her sentiment. She thinks she should have been apprehended herself, rather than letting an “innocent” man get in trouble.

The characters in Persepolis and I agree that “politics and sentiment don’t mix,” but also that they do mix. That is, they shouldn’t be involved together, but regardless, they are involved forever.

The Great Gatsby

I believe that Nick’s story in The Great Gatsby is resolved in a positive manner, even with so many sad and negative events looming over the end of the novel. Nick never seemed quite like he thought he was a part of the events involving him and his acquaintances. While he was fond of his friends, he was not as devastated by the separation as Tom, Gatsby, Daisy, or even Jordan. He was conveniently an outsider and was able to cope with all of the loss. Instead of the grief Gatsby was stricken with at the end, Nick was enamored with a longing remembrance of the good fun he had at Gatsby’s parties. Those “gleaming, dazzling parties...were with me so vividly that I could still hear the music.”

After Daisy ran over Myrtle, Nick, speaking of Daisy and Tom, said to Gatsby, “They’re a rotten crowd. You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.” Nick narrated, “It was the only compliment I ever gave him.” He saw that Gatsby, though he had great wealth, had character of more worth than all of his other close acquaintances combined. Daisy, Jordan, and Tom were all caught up in the “careless” lifestyle that comes with money, the manner of thought that allows you to believe that you are the most important person; and any mess you might make will be cleaned up by another. Gatsby certainly had flaws. Nick said, “I disapproved of him from beginning to end.” But, he was still able to give him a solitary compliment, whether he meant it or not. It shows that Nick was able to honestly survey his friends’ moral fibers and personalities and determine whose was best. He seemed to be taking Gatsby’s side, rather than Daisy’s or Tom’s. This was partially due to the fact that Daisy and Tom fled town after Gatsby was killed. I believe Nick was disgusted by that fact. He described them as being excessively careless, ruining the lives of others. Gatsby, in turn, stayed behind and was punished; Wilson shot and killed him. I think that was part of the reason Nick stayed with Gatsby so loyally in the end. He was aware that his carelessness was markedly less than the others. All of this interpretation of Gatsby’s character by Nick was still coming from an honest and sensible man. He had held on to his foundation and had grown into a wiser individual. For example, Jordan said, “I thought you were rather an honest, straightforward person. I thought it was your secret source of pride.” Nick responded, “I’m thirty. I’m five years too old to lie to myself and call it honor.

Nick Carraway definitely turned out all right in the end. He did so because he was able to associate with upper class individuals with loose morals and loose wallets, like Daisy and Tom, and come out with a better understanding of life, rather than being caught up in the mess. While his dreams may elude him now, “tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…And one fine morning,” everything will be alright.