In class Screenings

1. I, for one, found these two films to be fascinating!

2. Alfred Leslie's "The Last Clean Shirt"

What I wrote as I watched:

1st round: "I want to put the tape over her mouth. No seat belts. The only time she stops talking is to take a drag. Invading his space. She has a wedding ring. Singing. Animated. He laughs briefly. She does not have an agenda: you could put her in any setting anywhere and she would keep doing and saying the same exact things, without cause. 10 min. journey. 

2nd round: "Capitalizes script to show emotion. 'I wish men would take better care of themselves' - then she lights up. Filmmaker must think she is the antithesis of bring 'nature of all of us, we want to want to be connected' - honks and responses from other drivers in reaction to their presence mirrors this thought. 

3rd round: Man's perspective. "nothing worse than someone else thinking'. I can think of something worse than that: thinking for someone else. 

3. "Chantal Ackerman "News from home" 

The shots are visual representations of her own reactions to reading the letters. The intermissions are her daily dealings in between letters - her emotional state in between letters. 

At least this is what I have conceived. 

I like her filming technique. It is memorable, intriguing, and sparks thought. 

In fact, these films both spark thought. Most movies I watch leave me antsy. It's almost like I am over-stimulated by the fast flickering objects and realistic techniques. But these, very simple and basic films left me wanting more. Bazaar. 

One random thought I wrote down while watching: "Coughing and babies crying are the two most annoying sounds" - I thought about why this would be - "because they are engrained in our survival mechanisms. Avoid coughing - leads to illness. Fix the crying - help the child to be content. If we, as humans, found these sounds to be pleasing we would not be survivors. " 

That's all I've got. 

I love how this class almost evoked randomness. I am quite enjoying not having to overanalyze - but at the same time, I am completely aware of what I am continually synthesizing - on a level I was not previously aware of. Once again, bazaar. 

Response to Nadja

 I found Andre' Breton's Nadja to be riddled with pearls of wisdom; but, illusive wisdom that was swirled around and not exactly forthcoming. Almost as if he, without having a plan, sat down and wrote whatever popped into his mind. And, it is this visual - of an artist hunkered over a table with pen to lip, spark of thought, and the continual scratch of pen - that made me want to wade through his ostensibly random and compiled pearls - keeping the very best for myself. 

And for some reason, I feel the need to randomly list those thoughts of Breton's I found most interesting: so, here they are without method on my part, and with no call to action on your, the reader's, part: 

It is our particular aptitudes which will define our own, unique experience of the day-to-day. Thus, no one individual's experience will mirror another's. 

How are mind arranges thoughts and actions is far more interesting, according to Breton, than how our mind regards the arrangement of certain objects or events. Thus, the dream state is particularly interesting because it is our brains synthesizing and arranging what it has experienced. 

authenticity is sublimely important. Breton advocates it for himself and for others. Be you! And, furthermore, write about yourself - not about characters who are like you. For that only muddles and polishes over the rough edges that define and make an individual who they uniquely are. Live in a glass house. Sheltering oneself from the world, and in turn sheltering the world from all that makes us who we uniquely are, is not honorable. 

He is a judger it would seem. But, in doing so, he is discovering what he is not - and who he does not want to be - his "ghost" form. He is also discerning his own individual life's purpose. 

He takes the time to focus on facts - facts which may appear to be pure observation to most individuals, but which to Breton are possible signals. And with this thought random, purposeful appearance of Nadja in the text is set up. 

I love how he just randomly writes, stating "I shall discuss these things without pre-established order, and according to the mood of the moment which lets whatever survives survive" (23). 

Breton's banal images evoke deep thought. Very surrealist. 

They, though, interrupt the reader's natural reading rhythm. 

Breton, throughout the text, seems to be working out his everyday emotional reactions to everyday circumstances - thus, he has used Nadja as a way to catalogue his thoughts (without actually organizing or cataloguing anything)

Self-evaluation should be feared. It is inadequate. 

It is as if Breton is making a point not to arrest meaning from what he has written. He would like the pages with his words on them to hit the floor - never to be diagnosed, only to read, categorized, and filed away in our dream state. To perhaps be revisited but only on a subconscious level. 

And this concludes my random thoughts regarding Breton's own random thoughts. Hopefully they too will be meaningless and murky. 

The Nature Of Everyday Man: As Seen Everyday

An Everyday Example of Everyday Life

I was watching Seinfeld last night, and it came to my attention that the very premise of the show was the everyday. It was literally a show about nothing. Just the day to day dealings of friends, and the everyday, universally-charged problems, interactions, associations, ups and downs every human experiences. 

Here's the Seinfeld blog:

which, to be honest, if more of nothing. But interesting nothing, at that. 

On this site "Stan the Caddy" writes, "Seinfeld was a show about nothing. But what does this mean? How can a show be about nothing? When pitching the 'Jerry' pilot to NBC, in The Pitch, George describes the concept: 'nothing happens on the show. You see, it's just like life. You know, you eat, you go shopping, you read...You eat, you read, You go shopping.' The show about nothing was a show that dealt with every day life. Take The Parking Garage, for example. Here is an entire episode that takes place entirely in a parking garage, as Jerry George, Kramer, and Elaine search for their car. Similarly, The Chinese Restaurant is an entire episode spend waiting for a table at a restaurant. It was a show about nothing!"

I couldn't agree more. In order to help the class grasp the very essence of the every day we should, perhaps, watch an episode or two? I'm only kidding. Sort of ;)

Monopoly, Baby!!

I love Monopoly. Maybe it's my love of money and winning that fuels my desire for competitive play. I've caught myself smelling the fake bills before (embarrassing!). There are so many wonderful things about this game: #1 I usually win. It is very much a game of strategy. Well, alright, so it's mostly luck. #2. You get to buy property: how fun is that? Especially in the new themed editions that they keep releasing. Seattleopoly is the best! #3. You get to handle fake money and pretend it's real #4. The little pieces are charming and they're actually made of metal-versus the plastic things they spring on us nowadays. #5. Alliances can be forged, cheating is encouraged, and if you get up to pee you're probably going to be missing a few bills when you return to gameplay. 

The only downside to this fabulous game is the time it takes to play. Now, for me, who can be categorized as an any-time, any-day avid player, this little set-back is a no-biggie. But, I have found, for others this is a huge deterrent. So, finding a group who's ready to get their game-on has, at times, been difficult. I have noticed with our increasing age, my  peer group is less-likely to be willing to play long, drawn out games. Most games don't take as long as Monopoly, so they're voted on over my beloved game when it comes time to decide which one to play. 

Time is definitely a factor, not only for those who have decided to begin playing, but for the actual gameplay itself, as well. In the beginning, gameplay is rapid. Roll, buy, go to jail, roll, buy, have a freak-out over how quickly your money depleted: then, once all the properties have been bought-up, the "waiting for doom" commences. Inevitably, overtime, someone's money supply will slowly dwindle as they repeatedly land on another's property. And, inversely, another's will grow with the added funds. Until, the dreaded words are uttered: "I'd like to buy hotels". And from there on out, it's dunzo for anyone not on Annie's team. So, like life itself, this game mirrors the everyday: it begins with rapid growth...holds stagnant... there's a slow decline..and then in one fell swoop, the game is over. 

This game is also reflective of the "real world" in that it is a game based on competition, money (or forms or trade), bribery, tears, elatedness, survival, partnerships, possessions, stagnation, decline, and eventually death. What a lovely thought. 

This game, surprisingly, gives great insight into my everyday life. Firstly, it shows that I revel in doing small things. I mean come on, it's just a game, but I love it! Secondly, my love for Monopoly is an insight into my temperament: I am able to slow down in a fast-paced world. Thirdly, alas, it's probably also a reflection of my productivity-level: three hours go by..what have I done? If it's a good day I beat someone at a game. :)

Blog Prompt: Interesting Quote

After reading the text, a couple of key lines stood out in my mind. I'm sure you're all very interested to know which passage I found most intriguing, so here goes: 

In her article "French Quotidian," Kristin Ross writes, "'Everyday life', properly speaking, came into being only with the rise of the masses, when European cities began to swell with the arrival of large numbers of newcomers, when the lived experience of those new urban dwellers became organized, markets became common between the provinces and the capital, when everything [...] became calculated and calculable, and when objects, people, and the relations between them changed under the onslaught of such quantification. Only then, midway through the last century, and only there, in the large Western metropolises, did the world in Lefebvre's words, 'turn to prose'" (Ross 44). 

I found this passage interesting because it dealt with the onset of "Everyday Life." It's interesting to note, according to Ross, Lefebvre, and even Marx - whom Lefebvre references in regards to this thought - all assert that Quotidian behaviors are not innate. They are then formed in reaction to societal happenstance. Thus, the idea of a private life, or a private sector versus a public identity is a socialized phenomenon. And it is what we humans do, privately, that these authors/artists/researchers are most interested in. If, in fact, this idea of an everyday life is a recent event in human history, it's interesting to note what specific factors appearing in modern society drove individuals to demarcate these uncontrolled and controlled sectors of life. 

Ross touches on some of these key aspects when she mentions that the emergence of a calculating society sparked this trend. But what specifically about calculating cities where people are grouped together makes individuals demarcate themselves? 

One idea that occurred to me while reading, was that people are bombarded by visual stimuli, interactions, and demands by others to perform. Perhaps, naturally, we are not wired to take in so much data at one time; and thus, the need and desire to separate and break off into our own worlds for a period of time alleviates this overloading. 

If this is the case, I find the everyday motions of individuals to be comforting. It is a person's reset mode. We all do natural movements throughout the day - performing without much thought. I think these ostensibly nonchalant actions save us from being burnt out. And there is something sacred in our small and simple actions. So, in a way, wouldn't judging, bringing them to life visually, studying, and writing about them lessen their ability to sooth; making individuals more self-conscious about the way they spend their "everyday" time? And thus, tarnish this fabulous, self-preservation period? It seems to me that there is a reason people don't discuss our everyday activities: and not just because they are mundane and non-exciting; but, because they are our own. Our own little nuances, our own little chunk of time to act or not to act. So to bring our everyday quotidian to life would inadvertently perverse it: making it less "everyday". 

I'm Broke!

 Today I paid three dollars for one apple. It was a Washington-grown medium-sized apple. Please explain to me how that is humanly possible...three dollars for a local piece of produce?!?!?! 

Makes me wonder what anyone else remembers paying for random items back in the day. EX: I'm 24, so back in the 90's I remember...

...when phone calls were 25 cents. Put a quarter in, and you were good to go. 

...And the 8oz cans of soda were 50 cents. 

Those were the good old days!