I really enjoyed the second half of Megillat Esther and was impressed by the layers upon layers of storyline and the author's creative way of illustrating/intertwining these layers.
First, of course, we see the actual story of Esther being played out. In addition there is an interlude, that the author tells us in the back of the book, is supposed to relay the message that the "unity through suffering dissolves some of the most bitter rivalries. And...the scales of justice are often off balance." The biblical reference is slightly over my head, but I still enjoyed this interlude due to the artistic choice of showing the scene through a comic strip read by a woman close to Haman.
Intertwined in the story of Esther is the rivalry between Leah and Rachel, illustrating how far back some of these "bitter rivalries" can be traced back. I found these appearances of Leah and Rachel to be completely confusing until Dr. J provided us with some background during class. I was really appreciative of this, because even though I found them confusing, I also enjoyed their sparring and the creative ways they were drawn into scenes; sprouting from flowers, etc.
Then the author also uses the top 1/3 of the pages from 117-127 to trace back rivalries and link lineages through Essau, Edom and Amalek. Again, the biblical references here were way over my head, but I appreciated the author reminded the reader that the destructiveness of rivalries is what led to this "strike-back" by the Judeans, and it was not the king's edict delivered by Haman that was the total cause of this "incident" and all of the death that resulted, but that this was a long time coming.
As if all of this was not enough, on pages 149-151, the author also layers in a later time period in which the story of Esther is being read and taught to children. I thought the change in drawing styles from solid lines to patterns of dots was a very interesting way to transport the reader to a separate time and place. The interlude in these pages, in which we see Ezekial, is a bit confusing, but in the back of the book, the author tells us that in the scenes, "the Prophet Ezekial reveals how the Book of Esther points to the end of all rivalries."
It would probably take me years of study to fully understand all of the layers in Part II of Esther alone, however, even though I don't understand all of it right now, I still completely love this graphic novel and I think it illustrates very well how the GRAPHIC aspect of the novel can used to tell more of a story than would be possible without the graphic aspect, and how this medium can be very successful at telling incredibly complex stories.
I think that if I had the time, I would really enjoy taking a class on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament from a purely "literature focused" perspective, but I think I would enjoy it even more if every book of the Hebrew Bible & New Testament were available in Graphic Novel form. I have Crumb's rendition of the Book of Genesis, and when the semester is over I look forward to diving into it, I just hope that other amazing authors/artists decide to take up other books of the bible as well.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Remember, Remember the Fifth of November
I recently watched the film "V for Vendetta" for the second time, partially because I loved it the first time and also because many of my movie choices this semester have been adaptations of comic books and/or graphic novels, for reasons that should be obvious. While the movie itself is not about Judaism, I remembered that during my first viewing I had often been reminded of the Holocaust, and I decided this time to watch it with the intent of picking out these themes.
The movie is set in England in the not too distant future and the totalitarian regime that is in place is very resonate of Nazi Germany for many reasons. Perhaps it is most similar in its effective and extensive use of propaganda to instill fear in the general population and that, as stated in the movie, "different is dangerous." Thereby giving credence to their actions against "undesirables" and minority groups through the perpetuation of this fear, they use coercion and force to subdue any counter-culture from arising in opposition. These minority groups were targeted for medical experimentation and kept it detention facilities that while more modern in appearance are not all that unlike Nazi concentration camps, mass grave sites and all. All of these things certainly invoke images of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Even something as small as the shaving of Evey's (Natalie Portman) head during her staged imprisonment by V, during which she is also tortured, invokes images of female prisoners at the concentration camps.
All of these little reminders to events in our history add depth to the movie and I think were a conscious choice. There are very serious themes in this film, themes that are not only relevant but important as well, at least for many people; powerful governments, terrorism, discrimination, etc. The use of fear as a tactic against its people by their government is a powerful weapon. Invoking such images as those of Nazi Germany, I feel, is an effective way to emphasize this power and its destructiveness.
On a side note, the second viewing was just as wonderful as the first and I am sure it will not be the last. This is definitely one of my favorite films and it has me wanting to pick up and re-read Orwell's, 1984 and Bradbury's, Fahrenheit 451 again. I think I might also look into acquiring the 10 volumes of the comic book series of V for Vendetta and giving them a shot as well. Perhaps they are available in a compilation? I'm going broke this semester, as my graphic novel collection has gone from well, 0 to about 20?, in the past few months. Thank goodness for Half Priced Books.
The movie is set in England in the not too distant future and the totalitarian regime that is in place is very resonate of Nazi Germany for many reasons. Perhaps it is most similar in its effective and extensive use of propaganda to instill fear in the general population and that, as stated in the movie, "different is dangerous." Thereby giving credence to their actions against "undesirables" and minority groups through the perpetuation of this fear, they use coercion and force to subdue any counter-culture from arising in opposition. These minority groups were targeted for medical experimentation and kept it detention facilities that while more modern in appearance are not all that unlike Nazi concentration camps, mass grave sites and all. All of these things certainly invoke images of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Even something as small as the shaving of Evey's (Natalie Portman) head during her staged imprisonment by V, during which she is also tortured, invokes images of female prisoners at the concentration camps.
All of these little reminders to events in our history add depth to the movie and I think were a conscious choice. There are very serious themes in this film, themes that are not only relevant but important as well, at least for many people; powerful governments, terrorism, discrimination, etc. The use of fear as a tactic against its people by their government is a powerful weapon. Invoking such images as those of Nazi Germany, I feel, is an effective way to emphasize this power and its destructiveness.
On a side note, the second viewing was just as wonderful as the first and I am sure it will not be the last. This is definitely one of my favorite films and it has me wanting to pick up and re-read Orwell's, 1984 and Bradbury's, Fahrenheit 451 again. I think I might also look into acquiring the 10 volumes of the comic book series of V for Vendetta and giving them a shot as well. Perhaps they are available in a compilation? I'm going broke this semester, as my graphic novel collection has gone from well, 0 to about 20?, in the past few months. Thank goodness for Half Priced Books.
Megillat Esther: Part I
In general, I enjoyed this weeks reading from Megillat Esther by JT Waldman, at least, I should say, far more than I anticipated given that it is essentially a biblical reading which never really incites any sort of eager anticipation on my part (at least not since childhood anyway). Again, generally speaking I enjoyed the artwork, I enjoyed the story and I came to care about the characters, all essential building blocks when it comes to enjoying a novel. I did not find the Hebrew writings to be overly distracting and throughout the course of the reading came to found them quite beautiful. (As a side note, however, I have found myself many times throughout the semester wishing I could learn Hebrew, it seems quite beautiful to me).
There were parts of the story however, that I did not care for. These were the interludes and are my only real complaint about the novel. While the drawings were great and the dialogue and writing fine, I was unable to make any sense of them. Thankfully we discussed them a little in class which helped. However, their inclusion in this novel, I feel, limits the audience of the novel as a whole. Understanding what the author is attempting to tell through the interludes requires far more understanding of the subject matter than, I think, the average reader would possess.
The first interlude, beginning on Page 30, makes use of a dated game show reference that many readers will not recognize as well as biblical references that again, require far more understanding to interpret them as relevant to the novel than the average reader would possess. While I thoroughly enjoyed the artwork, the story in the interlude itself, left me completely confused.
The second interlude, occurs on page 59 in its entirety. Again, I really enjoy the artwork here, and the actual passage from Deuteronomy is really quite beautiful. I believe the person being depicted is the king, although, I'm not sure that I believe, as he is depicted, that he would "hide his face...because of the evil people have done," as the passage states, because I did not see any real evidence thus far that the king puts much thought into his decision making. However, I love that the image of him is encompassed by the passage in English and then again in Hebrew in the form of a tear drop. So, while I didn't completely understand the reason for the interlude, I thoroughly enjoyed its beauty and I wasn't as distracted by the question of its purpose.
The third interlude, which appears on pages 71-73, was again, very confusing. At least with this one however, I was able to deduce that it was attempting to tell a story from the bible, and the names were at least somewhat recognizable to me. The artwork was fine, intricate and finely done, however, not as compelling as the first two.
Ultimately, beauty of the artwork aside, the interludes, the first and third in particular, left me completely and utterly confused. They succeeded only in distracted me from the story and I found myself continually going back trying to figure out if I was missing something important in them, but unable to reach any conclusion. If the author intended to reach a wide audience, these interludes detract from that goal. However, if the author intended to provide a piece of work for the entertainment of those who possess a fount of knowledge on the subject matter, then it was quite successful.
Lastly, (and unrelated to the Interludes) as far as the artwork goes, my favorite part was the ending of Part I of Megillat Esther, on pages 92-93, in which the author depicts the king's dreams, which was in my opinion incredible. The idea of illustrating a dream is quite a commendable undertaking itself, but that Waldman does it so well inspires awe. I particularly like it because it seems to have an almost "Alice in Wonderland meets the Bible" aspect to it.
I can't wait to finish the story.
There were parts of the story however, that I did not care for. These were the interludes and are my only real complaint about the novel. While the drawings were great and the dialogue and writing fine, I was unable to make any sense of them. Thankfully we discussed them a little in class which helped. However, their inclusion in this novel, I feel, limits the audience of the novel as a whole. Understanding what the author is attempting to tell through the interludes requires far more understanding of the subject matter than, I think, the average reader would possess.
The first interlude, beginning on Page 30, makes use of a dated game show reference that many readers will not recognize as well as biblical references that again, require far more understanding to interpret them as relevant to the novel than the average reader would possess. While I thoroughly enjoyed the artwork, the story in the interlude itself, left me completely confused.
The second interlude, occurs on page 59 in its entirety. Again, I really enjoy the artwork here, and the actual passage from Deuteronomy is really quite beautiful. I believe the person being depicted is the king, although, I'm not sure that I believe, as he is depicted, that he would "hide his face...because of the evil people have done," as the passage states, because I did not see any real evidence thus far that the king puts much thought into his decision making. However, I love that the image of him is encompassed by the passage in English and then again in Hebrew in the form of a tear drop. So, while I didn't completely understand the reason for the interlude, I thoroughly enjoyed its beauty and I wasn't as distracted by the question of its purpose.
The third interlude, which appears on pages 71-73, was again, very confusing. At least with this one however, I was able to deduce that it was attempting to tell a story from the bible, and the names were at least somewhat recognizable to me. The artwork was fine, intricate and finely done, however, not as compelling as the first two.
Ultimately, beauty of the artwork aside, the interludes, the first and third in particular, left me completely and utterly confused. They succeeded only in distracted me from the story and I found myself continually going back trying to figure out if I was missing something important in them, but unable to reach any conclusion. If the author intended to reach a wide audience, these interludes detract from that goal. However, if the author intended to provide a piece of work for the entertainment of those who possess a fount of knowledge on the subject matter, then it was quite successful.
Lastly, (and unrelated to the Interludes) as far as the artwork goes, my favorite part was the ending of Part I of Megillat Esther, on pages 92-93, in which the author depicts the king's dreams, which was in my opinion incredible. The idea of illustrating a dream is quite a commendable undertaking itself, but that Waldman does it so well inspires awe. I particularly like it because it seems to have an almost "Alice in Wonderland meets the Bible" aspect to it.
I can't wait to finish the story.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
A Personal Response to the BOS readings this week
I already have two posts in for the week, but I wanted to at least respond to the BOS reading this week, and since I DO have my required blogs done, I'm allowing myself a "personal" response post about the reading and the issue of Homosexuality that was covered. Rather than simply respond to others' posts on the topic, which I wouldn't want to be in any way perceived as a personal attack, I've opted for the 3rd post.
Most weeks, this week included, the BOS readings are a struggle to get into. I think this is because often we are not actually reading the subjects of the critical approach essays, but this week, even though still a struggle, I very much appreciated the subject of homosexuality being covered, even if only briefly. I won't attempt to hide what side of the issue I am on. If the recent elections and controversial articles and responses in the Advance Titan having to do with the LBTGQ community the past few weeks have taught me anything it is this: at least a portion of the class will find reason in this blog to snub their nose at me. But that is okay, because it is an important issue, especially to myself, having been raised by my mother who also happens to be a lesbian. (So, I'm sure you can guess which side of the issue I'm on.) I think it's easier to keep your opinions to yourself when you yourself, aren't a part of the gay community. For me I have no choice. When people want to deny my mother rights because she was BORN INTO a minority group, what are my choices? Sit back and watch or speak up. I find it interesting that people NOW realize how terrible it was that the Jews were denied rights and persecuted for being Jewish, and how NOW people realize that the treatment of Africans as less than human was horrific as well, but with other groups it is still okay. Hitler targeted Gays too after all. No group is safe when large communities of people are considered fair game for discrimination.
My mom is Christian, very much so in fact, and so I could go on and on about my feelings about whether you can be gay and be Christian (or Jewish or Muslim), but I'm tired of it. I'm tired of religion being brought into the issue. I'm tired of religious doctrine determining my mother's eligibility for the rights that the rest of us have. I'm tired of religious arguments for all legislative decisions. I know that complete separation of church and state is a pipe dream and I know that the founders real intention in inclusion of the separation of church and state clause was to ensure that we did not have a "state sponsored" religion that denied acceptance of other religions, and I know all of the arguments about God and money and the pledge of allegiance and on and on and on. But I'm tired. I'm so tired of this country and its pretense of freedom that has so many conditions. You are free and entitled to the rights and privileges afforded to American citizens IF you are a white male land owner, okay...maybe you just need to be a white man. Alright we'll give rights to black men okay maybe even women, but not those HOMOS! I'm not asking anyone to invite my mother into their church or synagogue or mosque with open arms. I'm not asking their church leaders to perform a marriage ceremony for my mother. I'm not asking anyone to renounce homosexuality as a sin, quite frankly I don't care. I am however, asking that my government not exclude her from the rights afforded to the rest of the citizens of this country. I am proud that she was in the army. I'm proud that many members of the gay community have been and continue to be serving in all factions of our military whether they can be honest about who they are or not. And I'm proud that she is my mother, that she once she decided to be herself and allow herself happiness rather than pretend to be someone and something she was not, that she never hid herself from her children. I'm proud that my having been raised by her allowed me the chance to grow up without learning this particular hate. I also love my country, but I cannot stand the fact that we CONTINUE in this day in age to allow an entire population to be discriminated against because some people are uncomfortable with them. It is no different than discrimination against Jews, or Blacks or any other minority group. But since Religion is a topic that cannot be avoided, especially since we are in a class devoted to the topic, I will say this as well. I am tired of religions preaching tolerance and love and then practicing intolerance and hate. I mean, a sin is a sin is it not?
I remember the first time I heard in church that being Gay was a sin...it was the end of my association with Christianity. Now for me, religion is a cultural reality and interesting thing to study and nothing more.
End Rant.
Most weeks, this week included, the BOS readings are a struggle to get into. I think this is because often we are not actually reading the subjects of the critical approach essays, but this week, even though still a struggle, I very much appreciated the subject of homosexuality being covered, even if only briefly. I won't attempt to hide what side of the issue I am on. If the recent elections and controversial articles and responses in the Advance Titan having to do with the LBTGQ community the past few weeks have taught me anything it is this: at least a portion of the class will find reason in this blog to snub their nose at me. But that is okay, because it is an important issue, especially to myself, having been raised by my mother who also happens to be a lesbian. (So, I'm sure you can guess which side of the issue I'm on.) I think it's easier to keep your opinions to yourself when you yourself, aren't a part of the gay community. For me I have no choice. When people want to deny my mother rights because she was BORN INTO a minority group, what are my choices? Sit back and watch or speak up. I find it interesting that people NOW realize how terrible it was that the Jews were denied rights and persecuted for being Jewish, and how NOW people realize that the treatment of Africans as less than human was horrific as well, but with other groups it is still okay. Hitler targeted Gays too after all. No group is safe when large communities of people are considered fair game for discrimination.
My mom is Christian, very much so in fact, and so I could go on and on about my feelings about whether you can be gay and be Christian (or Jewish or Muslim), but I'm tired of it. I'm tired of religion being brought into the issue. I'm tired of religious doctrine determining my mother's eligibility for the rights that the rest of us have. I'm tired of religious arguments for all legislative decisions. I know that complete separation of church and state is a pipe dream and I know that the founders real intention in inclusion of the separation of church and state clause was to ensure that we did not have a "state sponsored" religion that denied acceptance of other religions, and I know all of the arguments about God and money and the pledge of allegiance and on and on and on. But I'm tired. I'm so tired of this country and its pretense of freedom that has so many conditions. You are free and entitled to the rights and privileges afforded to American citizens IF you are a white male land owner, okay...maybe you just need to be a white man. Alright we'll give rights to black men okay maybe even women, but not those HOMOS! I'm not asking anyone to invite my mother into their church or synagogue or mosque with open arms. I'm not asking their church leaders to perform a marriage ceremony for my mother. I'm not asking anyone to renounce homosexuality as a sin, quite frankly I don't care. I am however, asking that my government not exclude her from the rights afforded to the rest of the citizens of this country. I am proud that she was in the army. I'm proud that many members of the gay community have been and continue to be serving in all factions of our military whether they can be honest about who they are or not. And I'm proud that she is my mother, that she once she decided to be herself and allow herself happiness rather than pretend to be someone and something she was not, that she never hid herself from her children. I'm proud that my having been raised by her allowed me the chance to grow up without learning this particular hate. I also love my country, but I cannot stand the fact that we CONTINUE in this day in age to allow an entire population to be discriminated against because some people are uncomfortable with them. It is no different than discrimination against Jews, or Blacks or any other minority group. But since Religion is a topic that cannot be avoided, especially since we are in a class devoted to the topic, I will say this as well. I am tired of religions preaching tolerance and love and then practicing intolerance and hate. I mean, a sin is a sin is it not?
I remember the first time I heard in church that being Gay was a sin...it was the end of my association with Christianity. Now for me, religion is a cultural reality and interesting thing to study and nothing more.
End Rant.
The Spirit
It's been awhile since we were discussing Eisner and his works in class, but the film adaptation of Eisner's The Spirit showed up in my mailbox today thanks to Netflix, and I just had to watch it during a break from working on a midterm. Said midterm is driving me a bit nuts, so I apologize if my thoughts seem scattered. Anyway, something in the movie really struck me and so I changed my topic for my second blog for the week.
We briefly discussed the Spirit comic in class, and I did read a pop-up book of The Spirit, as mentioned in a previous blog, but other than this I have no other point of reference for the comic series itself, as I have never read them. I appreciate that in some ways because usually the film is a disappointment if you love the comic or the book or whatever is being adapted into film. On the other hand though, I felt like the movie was created assuming the viewer was familiar with the comics and the characters, and lacked in good character development. For at least the first half of the movie (or more) I was more often than not confused about who was who and what was going on. With that said, I still enjoyed the movie.
Thanks to this class, even though I was only watching the movie for entertainment purposes, I found myself trying to find Jewish themes in the story and the imagery. Unfortunately my nearly constant state of confusion was making it difficult to focus on the subtle aspects of the movie, but then a symbol showed up that made the subtle irrelevant anyway. The Swastika. I'm not entirely sure if this happened in the original comics or if this scene was an addition for the film, but it was a striking scene none the less.
In the scene The Spirit arrives at the location of The Octopus' hideout after having been lured there by Silken Floss. She injects him and knocks him out. Eventually, The Spirit awakens and we see, as he looks up, a statue with a swastika. Then The Octopus appears, dressed up in Nazi garb and, I believe, invoking the image of Dr. Mengele. Which, for the scene, is a perfect comparison between the two. The Octopus and his medical experiments, carried out on innocents (dogs and cats), is revealed to The Spirit, to be the reason for both of their states of being, that is, The Spirit's re-awakening from death and both of their ability to heal themselves so quickly that they can't easily be killed. Dr. Mengele is of course famous for conducting medical experiments on innocents (Jews) during Nazi Germany. And while The Octopus' achievement with The Spirit and subsequently himself, is impressive, we are also shown other, not so appealing results of his experiments and so we know that while genius for sure, The Octopus is most certainly an evil genius. Like Dr. Mengele, he learned things through his experiments...but at too high a price.
The Octopus has many different themed costumes throughout the movie, but I didn't really think anything of it until this scene. A quick google search on the subject provides enough evidence to suggest that perhaps these costumes were not actually a part of the original comic, but none the less, it seems to me to be a very interesting and thought provoking choice. I'll have to watch it again to think deeper about the other costume choices and their respective scenes, but if it wasn't for this particular choice and reference to the Shoah and Nazi Germany, I probably would have brushed the costumes off altogether.
We briefly discussed the Spirit comic in class, and I did read a pop-up book of The Spirit, as mentioned in a previous blog, but other than this I have no other point of reference for the comic series itself, as I have never read them. I appreciate that in some ways because usually the film is a disappointment if you love the comic or the book or whatever is being adapted into film. On the other hand though, I felt like the movie was created assuming the viewer was familiar with the comics and the characters, and lacked in good character development. For at least the first half of the movie (or more) I was more often than not confused about who was who and what was going on. With that said, I still enjoyed the movie.
Thanks to this class, even though I was only watching the movie for entertainment purposes, I found myself trying to find Jewish themes in the story and the imagery. Unfortunately my nearly constant state of confusion was making it difficult to focus on the subtle aspects of the movie, but then a symbol showed up that made the subtle irrelevant anyway. The Swastika. I'm not entirely sure if this happened in the original comics or if this scene was an addition for the film, but it was a striking scene none the less.
In the scene The Spirit arrives at the location of The Octopus' hideout after having been lured there by Silken Floss. She injects him and knocks him out. Eventually, The Spirit awakens and we see, as he looks up, a statue with a swastika. Then The Octopus appears, dressed up in Nazi garb and, I believe, invoking the image of Dr. Mengele. Which, for the scene, is a perfect comparison between the two. The Octopus and his medical experiments, carried out on innocents (dogs and cats), is revealed to The Spirit, to be the reason for both of their states of being, that is, The Spirit's re-awakening from death and both of their ability to heal themselves so quickly that they can't easily be killed. Dr. Mengele is of course famous for conducting medical experiments on innocents (Jews) during Nazi Germany. And while The Octopus' achievement with The Spirit and subsequently himself, is impressive, we are also shown other, not so appealing results of his experiments and so we know that while genius for sure, The Octopus is most certainly an evil genius. Like Dr. Mengele, he learned things through his experiments...but at too high a price.
The Octopus has many different themed costumes throughout the movie, but I didn't really think anything of it until this scene. A quick google search on the subject provides enough evidence to suggest that perhaps these costumes were not actually a part of the original comic, but none the less, it seems to me to be a very interesting and thought provoking choice. I'll have to watch it again to think deeper about the other costume choices and their respective scenes, but if it wasn't for this particular choice and reference to the Shoah and Nazi Germany, I probably would have brushed the costumes off altogether.
Waltz with Bashir
After having a few days to recover from the subsequent shock and depression I was left with after watching this film, I find myself unable to stop talking and or thinking about it. I just sent for it on Netflix so my husband can watch it.
The film itself, in animated form, is written and directed by Ari Folman and is an incredibly moving tale of his real life experience of dealing with his memories (or lack thereof) of the Lebanon War of 1982 and particularly the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. The massacre was carried out by the Christian Phalangists, in retaliation for the assassination of their beloved leader, Bashir, which they blamed the PLO for. While the Israeli Defense Force did not actually participate in the killings of the Palestinians and Lebanese in the camp, they did nothing to stop it either. In the film Folman addresses this issue and the guilt and trauma associated with it and it is compared to the rest of the world allowing the Nazis to perpetrate the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Shoah. While I do not think it is as simple as that, it is a sad realty none the less.
I think the film itself, artistically speaking, was incredibly beautiful and captivating albeit in a very dark way. There are many remarkable scenes and themes in the film to explore, but two things stood out to me the most. The first, was the "waltz scene" in which Shmuel Frenkel, the commander of Folman's unit runs into open fire by the enemy and starts waltzing about with his machine gun, shooting in every direction. I love this scene because it highlights the absolute sense of chaos and disorganization that seems to be plaguing the soldiers and their fight. I mean, it seems from beginning to end that when it comes to the actual fighting part, no one seems to know what they are supposed to do, their is no direction or "plan" so to speak. We see this in the scene when the men shoot their guns endlessly at this car that comes near to them (likely caused by the fear of the increase of car bombs), and in the end they find that the car was occupied by an entire family. Is this how war is fought? Do we just send our men out with no directives? Even the scene with the men in the tank, they are happily driving along in their convoy, seeming not to have any real idea of what their mission is once they get to their destination, and once under attack no one knows what to do or where to go. So, this waltz, for me at least, just emphasized this theme of chaos.
The second thing that I can't seem to get out of my mind from this film, is of course, the ending. When Folman is standing their, and the Palestinians and Lebanese are walking back into the camp towards him, witnessing for the first time the destruction and the death inflicted upon the camp by the Christian Phalangists, time seems to stand still. Even in animated form it is extremely painful to watch. However, just as you think the credits are about to roll, the film switches over into real live video of the actual event of the Palestinians and Lebanese crying out in despair over what they are witnessing. I think I stopped breathing in order to keep myself from bawling in class. As painful as it was to watch, and as nauseated as it may have made me, I am incredibly thankful to Folman for this artistic decision. That moment when the animation disappears and the faces of the REAL people are their and the REAL anguish is pouring out from them, the viewer is awoken from the "dream-like" state of the film and the realization that this is real, that this actually happened, that PEOPLE are capable of such horrific things is immediately thrown in your face. Because of the fact that it IS real and that these things DID happen, I find this absolutely necessary 1) to respect the event and the people who perished and 2) to drive home the reality of the event. However, as I think about this more, it has made me curious about something.
Folman's film is essentially about the psychological trauma of having witnessed these events and about how his mind, knowing that the event was too traumatic for him to handle, placed these memories behind a curtain where Folman could not access them. Through the course of the film and his interviews, etc., the curtain begins to slip away and things come back to him. I wonder if the moment when Folman, regaining the memories of this particular moment when the Palestinians and Lebanese were re-entering the camp and they as well as the IDF were seeing the reality of what occurred there, wasn't very much the same for him the way it is for the viewer of the film. In that moment, the curtain is completely gone, and the real faces and the real horror of what happened is there. For Folman, it cannot be hidden from him again, and for the viewer, they cannot walk away and let their mind help them deal with the story by telling themselves "it was just a movie."
The film itself, in animated form, is written and directed by Ari Folman and is an incredibly moving tale of his real life experience of dealing with his memories (or lack thereof) of the Lebanon War of 1982 and particularly the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. The massacre was carried out by the Christian Phalangists, in retaliation for the assassination of their beloved leader, Bashir, which they blamed the PLO for. While the Israeli Defense Force did not actually participate in the killings of the Palestinians and Lebanese in the camp, they did nothing to stop it either. In the film Folman addresses this issue and the guilt and trauma associated with it and it is compared to the rest of the world allowing the Nazis to perpetrate the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Shoah. While I do not think it is as simple as that, it is a sad realty none the less.
I think the film itself, artistically speaking, was incredibly beautiful and captivating albeit in a very dark way. There are many remarkable scenes and themes in the film to explore, but two things stood out to me the most. The first, was the "waltz scene" in which Shmuel Frenkel, the commander of Folman's unit runs into open fire by the enemy and starts waltzing about with his machine gun, shooting in every direction. I love this scene because it highlights the absolute sense of chaos and disorganization that seems to be plaguing the soldiers and their fight. I mean, it seems from beginning to end that when it comes to the actual fighting part, no one seems to know what they are supposed to do, their is no direction or "plan" so to speak. We see this in the scene when the men shoot their guns endlessly at this car that comes near to them (likely caused by the fear of the increase of car bombs), and in the end they find that the car was occupied by an entire family. Is this how war is fought? Do we just send our men out with no directives? Even the scene with the men in the tank, they are happily driving along in their convoy, seeming not to have any real idea of what their mission is once they get to their destination, and once under attack no one knows what to do or where to go. So, this waltz, for me at least, just emphasized this theme of chaos.
The second thing that I can't seem to get out of my mind from this film, is of course, the ending. When Folman is standing their, and the Palestinians and Lebanese are walking back into the camp towards him, witnessing for the first time the destruction and the death inflicted upon the camp by the Christian Phalangists, time seems to stand still. Even in animated form it is extremely painful to watch. However, just as you think the credits are about to roll, the film switches over into real live video of the actual event of the Palestinians and Lebanese crying out in despair over what they are witnessing. I think I stopped breathing in order to keep myself from bawling in class. As painful as it was to watch, and as nauseated as it may have made me, I am incredibly thankful to Folman for this artistic decision. That moment when the animation disappears and the faces of the REAL people are their and the REAL anguish is pouring out from them, the viewer is awoken from the "dream-like" state of the film and the realization that this is real, that this actually happened, that PEOPLE are capable of such horrific things is immediately thrown in your face. Because of the fact that it IS real and that these things DID happen, I find this absolutely necessary 1) to respect the event and the people who perished and 2) to drive home the reality of the event. However, as I think about this more, it has made me curious about something.
Folman's film is essentially about the psychological trauma of having witnessed these events and about how his mind, knowing that the event was too traumatic for him to handle, placed these memories behind a curtain where Folman could not access them. Through the course of the film and his interviews, etc., the curtain begins to slip away and things come back to him. I wonder if the moment when Folman, regaining the memories of this particular moment when the Palestinians and Lebanese were re-entering the camp and they as well as the IDF were seeing the reality of what occurred there, wasn't very much the same for him the way it is for the viewer of the film. In that moment, the curtain is completely gone, and the real faces and the real horror of what happened is there. For Folman, it cannot be hidden from him again, and for the viewer, they cannot walk away and let their mind help them deal with the story by telling themselves "it was just a movie."
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Reactions to Jobnik (and particularly the abundance of sex)
I well tell you the first thing that I really appreciated in Miriam Libiki’s graphic novel Jobnik. On page 4, at the very beginning of the story, the author tells (or rather shows) us immediately that this will not be some sort of sugar-coated ego boosting attempt to make her life something more than it was. While it may have its faults, Jobnik is an honest account of Libiki’s experience serving in the Israeli Defense Force, as a woman and as a person who didn’t necessarily fit in with her fellow soldiers. The effort on her part to portray the reality of her experience with such candor is certainly something to be applauded. For, when telling a story such as this, what can be more crucial to understanding that experience, but the truth. This book examines many themes, self-identity and self-image issues, military service, religion, and more, but for the purpose of this blog I will mostly be reflecting on the “sex theme” that dominates the story.
The opening confession, through the use of drawn Polaroid snapshots of her own sexual encounters, which was certainly a dominant theme of her service in the Israeli Defense Force, is a topic I would guess that most auto-biographers would shy away from, especially in such a graphic nature. Yet, she doesn’t glamorize her sexual experiences by pretending that she isn’t at times a bit ashamed of it, nor does she pretend that these casual experiences had no affect on her. She reflects on her feelings of “being used’ by the men she had these sexual experiences with in several ways. In fact, the ways in which the author draws herself and her expressions to portray how she is feeling about herself at certain points during her time of service will be probably be the topic of my next blog post. Anyway, while it would be incredibly easy to paint these experiences in a light that would push all of the blame for these, at times negative, experiences to the man rather than herself, the author continually recognizes that she is partly to blame for her own heartbreak that occurs as a result of these encounters. Her first “boyfriend,” Shahar, as Miriam admits through inclusion its inclusion in the story, immediately discloses he doesn’t want a relationship, yet Miriam continues to pursue him, not realizing that their sexual experience together didn’t necessarily mean that Shahar wanted to be her boyfriend. Her second sexual partner, during her service, is Asher, with whom she seems to end up making out with simply because they are often hanging out in the same room (his room) and otherwise unattached. Their “friends with benefits’ relationship continues until Asher attempts to cross a line and “sodomize” her. Shortly after she becomes aware that Asher is pursuing another woman, Hila, but he is clearly looking for a girlfriend in Hila, and Miriam realizes that he never pursued her in this way, that he never pretended to actually be interested in her for anything other than fooling around. Again, illustrating that she allowed herself to be treated in a way that led to her own heartache. There are also a few separate incidents in which the author depicts her rendezvous with another man, Roi, where any sort of relationship is never implied, and yet they continue to fool around from time to time.
While the author claims to have maintained her virginity throughout these sexual experimentation, the reader is, at least at first, inclined to think that that her actions were, well, slutty. Not that this is wrong, a woman is free to do what she wants and I am not attempting to judge her actions. On the contrary, I am merely questioning the reason for such widespread promiscuity, both evidenced by the author’s behavior as well as the implied behaviors’ of others around her. This is a military base after all. I don’t have any personal first hand experience of life on a military base or in a combat zone for that matter, but I find it pretty astounding that these types of activities would be so commonplace. My only guess, is that in such a group as this, where everyone is separated from friends and loved ones and for many, home in general, combined with the stress of being in the center of a volatile conflict, essentially a constant war zone, that many people cope with this reality by finding comfort through human contact, and in this case, sexual contact. I guess you can’t really blame someone for trying to distract themselves with sex in this situation. I mean, with bombs going off, and friends getting shot/killed, and constant bombardment of news reports of brutal fighting and death and destruction, sex seems like a pretty reasonable method of distraction. I would also argue that the LACK of sexual encounters during her break from service, during which she attends a concert event with a group of friends, is evidence that under less stressful/distressing circumstances she doesn't feel compelled to seek comfort through sex. Therefore, her sexual experimentation during her military service was in fact a defense mechanism, a method of comforting herself during a tumultuous experience, and NOT simply just a "promiscuous" phase.
The opening confession, through the use of drawn Polaroid snapshots of her own sexual encounters, which was certainly a dominant theme of her service in the Israeli Defense Force, is a topic I would guess that most auto-biographers would shy away from, especially in such a graphic nature. Yet, she doesn’t glamorize her sexual experiences by pretending that she isn’t at times a bit ashamed of it, nor does she pretend that these casual experiences had no affect on her. She reflects on her feelings of “being used’ by the men she had these sexual experiences with in several ways. In fact, the ways in which the author draws herself and her expressions to portray how she is feeling about herself at certain points during her time of service will be probably be the topic of my next blog post. Anyway, while it would be incredibly easy to paint these experiences in a light that would push all of the blame for these, at times negative, experiences to the man rather than herself, the author continually recognizes that she is partly to blame for her own heartbreak that occurs as a result of these encounters. Her first “boyfriend,” Shahar, as Miriam admits through inclusion its inclusion in the story, immediately discloses he doesn’t want a relationship, yet Miriam continues to pursue him, not realizing that their sexual experience together didn’t necessarily mean that Shahar wanted to be her boyfriend. Her second sexual partner, during her service, is Asher, with whom she seems to end up making out with simply because they are often hanging out in the same room (his room) and otherwise unattached. Their “friends with benefits’ relationship continues until Asher attempts to cross a line and “sodomize” her. Shortly after she becomes aware that Asher is pursuing another woman, Hila, but he is clearly looking for a girlfriend in Hila, and Miriam realizes that he never pursued her in this way, that he never pretended to actually be interested in her for anything other than fooling around. Again, illustrating that she allowed herself to be treated in a way that led to her own heartache. There are also a few separate incidents in which the author depicts her rendezvous with another man, Roi, where any sort of relationship is never implied, and yet they continue to fool around from time to time.
While the author claims to have maintained her virginity throughout these sexual experimentation, the reader is, at least at first, inclined to think that that her actions were, well, slutty. Not that this is wrong, a woman is free to do what she wants and I am not attempting to judge her actions. On the contrary, I am merely questioning the reason for such widespread promiscuity, both evidenced by the author’s behavior as well as the implied behaviors’ of others around her. This is a military base after all. I don’t have any personal first hand experience of life on a military base or in a combat zone for that matter, but I find it pretty astounding that these types of activities would be so commonplace. My only guess, is that in such a group as this, where everyone is separated from friends and loved ones and for many, home in general, combined with the stress of being in the center of a volatile conflict, essentially a constant war zone, that many people cope with this reality by finding comfort through human contact, and in this case, sexual contact. I guess you can’t really blame someone for trying to distract themselves with sex in this situation. I mean, with bombs going off, and friends getting shot/killed, and constant bombardment of news reports of brutal fighting and death and destruction, sex seems like a pretty reasonable method of distraction. I would also argue that the LACK of sexual encounters during her break from service, during which she attends a concert event with a group of friends, is evidence that under less stressful/distressing circumstances she doesn't feel compelled to seek comfort through sex. Therefore, her sexual experimentation during her military service was in fact a defense mechanism, a method of comforting herself during a tumultuous experience, and NOT simply just a "promiscuous" phase.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Rabbi's Cat Part II
As I stated in my previous post, I really enjoyed Joann Sfar's The Rabbi's Cat. There is one aspect of the story that is really bugging me though. What is the deal with Malka? His appearance is glorified over all of the others, he is portrayed so brilliantly and with such a towering presence. He comes across as a blue-eyed giant, who although very friendly, always seems to have a sinister look in his eyes. Or is it the fact that he is walking around with the "king of the jungle" that is distorting my impression? I realize that he is supposed to be some kind of famous musician and as an entertainer it is reasonable that he would have a more outrageous appearance, but it isn't just his looks that makes me so curious.
What really stumps me, is why Malka has such power over his cousin, the rabbi. In fact, when the rabbi returns from his journey to visit the grave of an ancestor and discovers that a new young rabbi from Paris is going to be taking the rabbi's daughter as a wife, the reader is led to believe that the rabbi might not allow the marriage to take place. He certainly doesn't appear to be thrilled with the idea. That is, until Malka threatens to "tear the place apart" if he does not immediately give his daughter his blessing. The rabbi walks to let his daughter know she has his blessing and he is slumped over and looking defeated. How does this cousin Malka have any right to tell the rabbi what to do? In fact, why does Malka even care so much. Why is this marriage so important to him that he would threaten to tear apart the home of his own cousin, a rabbi!?!? And more importantly why does the rabbi listen? Don't get me wrong, I loved the story, but I just don't understand who this Malka is and what his character and the character's actions are supposed to mean.
What really stumps me, is why Malka has such power over his cousin, the rabbi. In fact, when the rabbi returns from his journey to visit the grave of an ancestor and discovers that a new young rabbi from Paris is going to be taking the rabbi's daughter as a wife, the reader is led to believe that the rabbi might not allow the marriage to take place. He certainly doesn't appear to be thrilled with the idea. That is, until Malka threatens to "tear the place apart" if he does not immediately give his daughter his blessing. The rabbi walks to let his daughter know she has his blessing and he is slumped over and looking defeated. How does this cousin Malka have any right to tell the rabbi what to do? In fact, why does Malka even care so much. Why is this marriage so important to him that he would threaten to tear apart the home of his own cousin, a rabbi!?!? And more importantly why does the rabbi listen? Don't get me wrong, I loved the story, but I just don't understand who this Malka is and what his character and the character's actions are supposed to mean.
Jewish Identity & The Rabbi's Cat
I really enjoyed Joann Sfar's graphic novel The Rabbi's Cat. Why? Well, partly because of the fact that it wasn't about the Shoah, like the readings of the past few weeks, but also it was simply an interesting story. The idea of a cat eating a parrot and gaining the ability to speak is fantastic! That alone got me hooked. I mean, what WOULD cats say if they could talk to us? It's funny to think about, however, the novel does bring up some more serious issues.
The first part to really strike me occurs on pages 16-17, where the cat is talking to his master's rabbi about converting to Judaism. The rabbi's opinion is that the cat could not convert to Judaism because his motives were not sincere and the cat did not love and/or fear God, in fact his desire for conversion is coming only from a desire to make his mistress happy. Must one be religious in order to be Jewish? If one never steps foot in a synagogue nor ever sets their eyes on any part of the bible, but their parents are Jewish, is it wrong for the offspring to consider themselves Jewish? Is being Jewish only a question of religious belief? Aren't there those who consider themselves to be Jewish through ancestry alone? So many possible definitions...
The question of whether a cat can be Jewish seems silly. But it is in an interesting question. The rabbi did not believe that a "beast" could be religious. However, the cat is not an ordinary beast, he can talk. Doesn't this make a difference? In the end the rabbi stops resorting to the man vs beast argument and sticks with the argument that his reasons for desiring conversion are false and therefore the cat cannot become Jewish. Does the cat need permission though? Is he already Jewish, as his master stated earlier, that he must be Jewish since he has Jewish masters? Does the author want us to decide? Or does he tell us? Doesn't the fact that the cat loses his ability to speak after uttering over and over the forbidden "Adonai" mean something? Does this indicate that the cat was already in fact Jewish, and was therefore being punished for speaking the forbidden name?
Not only does this short part of the story remind us of the complexity of the question of what defines "the Jewish identity," but it also gives us a glimpse into, and a little background understanding for, the coming scenarios in which the cat's master, also a rabbi, is encountering different Jewish practices and differing opinions on what it means to be a good Jew. This glimpse into the opinions of the rabbi's rabbi, his teacher, helps us to understand why it was so difficult for him to come to terms with the varying behaviors of the different Jewish people he encounters throughout the story, behaviors that seem to contradict what he believes to be the "right" way to live and be a good Jew. Things that contradict what his rabbi taught him. Most people can relate to this I would think. It isn't always easy for any of us to understand (or accept) that sometimes there is more than one "right" way to do things.
This scene also reminded me of Art Spiegelman's struggle, as told in Volume II of Maus, of how (what animal) to depict his wife, Francois, since she is French but had converted to Judaism. By her own admission her conversion took place only to please her father-in-law, Vladek. So in a away, Francois is very much like the Rabbi's cat. It made me wonder, if knowing this is what made it more difficult for Art to decide how to draw her?
Being Jewish is clearly something that means many different things to many different people. The Rabbi's Cat, among other things, takes an interesting look at how Jewish Identity is not easily defined, at least in any simple terms.
The first part to really strike me occurs on pages 16-17, where the cat is talking to his master's rabbi about converting to Judaism. The rabbi's opinion is that the cat could not convert to Judaism because his motives were not sincere and the cat did not love and/or fear God, in fact his desire for conversion is coming only from a desire to make his mistress happy. Must one be religious in order to be Jewish? If one never steps foot in a synagogue nor ever sets their eyes on any part of the bible, but their parents are Jewish, is it wrong for the offspring to consider themselves Jewish? Is being Jewish only a question of religious belief? Aren't there those who consider themselves to be Jewish through ancestry alone? So many possible definitions...
The question of whether a cat can be Jewish seems silly. But it is in an interesting question. The rabbi did not believe that a "beast" could be religious. However, the cat is not an ordinary beast, he can talk. Doesn't this make a difference? In the end the rabbi stops resorting to the man vs beast argument and sticks with the argument that his reasons for desiring conversion are false and therefore the cat cannot become Jewish. Does the cat need permission though? Is he already Jewish, as his master stated earlier, that he must be Jewish since he has Jewish masters? Does the author want us to decide? Or does he tell us? Doesn't the fact that the cat loses his ability to speak after uttering over and over the forbidden "Adonai" mean something? Does this indicate that the cat was already in fact Jewish, and was therefore being punished for speaking the forbidden name?
Not only does this short part of the story remind us of the complexity of the question of what defines "the Jewish identity," but it also gives us a glimpse into, and a little background understanding for, the coming scenarios in which the cat's master, also a rabbi, is encountering different Jewish practices and differing opinions on what it means to be a good Jew. This glimpse into the opinions of the rabbi's rabbi, his teacher, helps us to understand why it was so difficult for him to come to terms with the varying behaviors of the different Jewish people he encounters throughout the story, behaviors that seem to contradict what he believes to be the "right" way to live and be a good Jew. Things that contradict what his rabbi taught him. Most people can relate to this I would think. It isn't always easy for any of us to understand (or accept) that sometimes there is more than one "right" way to do things.
This scene also reminded me of Art Spiegelman's struggle, as told in Volume II of Maus, of how (what animal) to depict his wife, Francois, since she is French but had converted to Judaism. By her own admission her conversion took place only to please her father-in-law, Vladek. So in a away, Francois is very much like the Rabbi's cat. It made me wonder, if knowing this is what made it more difficult for Art to decide how to draw her?
Being Jewish is clearly something that means many different things to many different people. The Rabbi's Cat, among other things, takes an interesting look at how Jewish Identity is not easily defined, at least in any simple terms.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
In the Shadow of No Towers
A few weeks ago I picked up Spiegelman's In the Shadow of No Towers at Half Priced Books (man I love that place!). When I saw that we would be discussing it in class and that we had an article about it assigned for a weekly reading, I decided to put off reading the book until this week. After reading Maus I & II once again, I was of course very excited to dive into this telling, by Spiegelman, of a tragedy that actually occurred during my lifetime. I must say though, now that I have finished, that I am utterly confused.
The first half of the book was amazing, just like I expected. Also, the article assigned for the week from Baskind and Omer-Sherman's The Jewish Graphic Novel: Critical Approaches, "When Time Stands Still" was very informative and certainly got me excited about finally picking up the book and reading it. As I read (the first half) of Spiegelman's work, I agreed with the author of the article, that the "all over the place" approach to the images of the story lets the reader understand the chaotic state of mind the author is in while writing them. I appreciated the varying ways in which Art depicts himself, struggling after living through and experiencing first hand his own tragedy, to define both to himself and to the reader who he is and what the tragedy has done to his sense of being. Also, it was simply interesting to hear the story of the experience of someone who did witness the tragedy of 9/11 first hand and in person rather than through the "tube" as most of us did. We all have our "where were you that day..." stories, but obviously it isn't quite the same as actually being there. However, even in the first half, I was surprised that the book wasn't evoking an emotional response in me in any way close to the way that Maus did. I mean, generally I tear up at the mere mention of 9/11. I found myself wondering if perhaps this story couldn't have used a bit more time to marinade before being told. (Marinade? Man I'm hungrier than I thought). Clearly I'll have to read it a few more times before I make up my mind, except...I'm not sure that I can, particularly when it comes to the second half. Perhaps it is just a little too smart for me? But I am left simply confused. I think it is supposed to be some kind of political commentary, and perhaps that's where the problem lies for me, as I'm sure that I'm not as up on political news as I should be and I certainly wasn't that attune to the happenings of the world following 9/11. At that time in my life I was finding out how to survive in this new and scary world the same way I was before 9/11, getting plastered at the bar with my friends. Anyway, back to the book, the entire second half just didn't seem to fit in the book. It seemed like two entirely separate books in fact. I keep feeling like I missed something, that perhaps my copy is a publishing "oops" and the second half was accidentally replaced with something else entirely and I'll never get to hear the rest of the story. I really hope we get the time to discuss this in class. Perhaps some of my classmates, who always seem to make sense of something I can't, leading to that wonderful "oh...okay...I get it" moment, will have some insight. Please please please, someone help me have that moment. I need this confusion to end so I can perhaps go back for a second reading and a third, which I'm sure this book deserves (I hope).
The first half of the book was amazing, just like I expected. Also, the article assigned for the week from Baskind and Omer-Sherman's The Jewish Graphic Novel: Critical Approaches, "When Time Stands Still" was very informative and certainly got me excited about finally picking up the book and reading it. As I read (the first half) of Spiegelman's work, I agreed with the author of the article, that the "all over the place" approach to the images of the story lets the reader understand the chaotic state of mind the author is in while writing them. I appreciated the varying ways in which Art depicts himself, struggling after living through and experiencing first hand his own tragedy, to define both to himself and to the reader who he is and what the tragedy has done to his sense of being. Also, it was simply interesting to hear the story of the experience of someone who did witness the tragedy of 9/11 first hand and in person rather than through the "tube" as most of us did. We all have our "where were you that day..." stories, but obviously it isn't quite the same as actually being there. However, even in the first half, I was surprised that the book wasn't evoking an emotional response in me in any way close to the way that Maus did. I mean, generally I tear up at the mere mention of 9/11. I found myself wondering if perhaps this story couldn't have used a bit more time to marinade before being told. (Marinade? Man I'm hungrier than I thought). Clearly I'll have to read it a few more times before I make up my mind, except...I'm not sure that I can, particularly when it comes to the second half. Perhaps it is just a little too smart for me? But I am left simply confused. I think it is supposed to be some kind of political commentary, and perhaps that's where the problem lies for me, as I'm sure that I'm not as up on political news as I should be and I certainly wasn't that attune to the happenings of the world following 9/11. At that time in my life I was finding out how to survive in this new and scary world the same way I was before 9/11, getting plastered at the bar with my friends. Anyway, back to the book, the entire second half just didn't seem to fit in the book. It seemed like two entirely separate books in fact. I keep feeling like I missed something, that perhaps my copy is a publishing "oops" and the second half was accidentally replaced with something else entirely and I'll never get to hear the rest of the story. I really hope we get the time to discuss this in class. Perhaps some of my classmates, who always seem to make sense of something I can't, leading to that wonderful "oh...okay...I get it" moment, will have some insight. Please please please, someone help me have that moment. I need this confusion to end so I can perhaps go back for a second reading and a third, which I'm sure this book deserves (I hope).
Maus II: Thoughts
Re-reading Maus II has gotten me a bit farklempt. I can't even discuss the trauma of seeing page 72 again. The binding on my book is basically non-existent, and I'm considering removing it just in case I should read the book again, so I don't have to see it. Not that the entire narrative regarding the actual process involved in the "Final Solution" isn't awful, it is...but for some reason, this page always sends me into the fetal position taking deep breaths.
What I love about Maus II is the chance to see more of what the family's life is like in the present. Particularly the part beginning with Page 14, where Art & Francois are driving to see Vladek and they have a long discussion about Richieu and how growing up with "the ghost" of a brother who died during the Shoah affected Art growing up. It is interesting how Art is almost jealous about Richieu. He says that he wished he could have been in Auschwitz so he knew what it was like, and so he could really understand what his family had been through. As we see later in the story, Art is even seeing a professional to talk about his issues of being a child of Holocaust survivors. But growing up with the lingering memory of the little boy, who died so young that he never had a chance to be a disappointment to his parents, was clearly difficult for Art. Richieu is sort of put upon a pedestal in the house (at least in Art's eyes) and Art felt that he could never live up to the ghost brother. Sibling rivalries are difficult enough but how can you compete with one who, if they hadn't died, could have grown to be the "perfect son." I wonder if Art felt a sense of pressure growing up, to do all the things that Richieu never had a chance to do, to be and become all the things that Richieu could not. We see throughout both volumes that Art feels that he hasn't lived up to his parents expectations and dreams for him. I wonder how it felt for him when his father, as he depicts in the last page as Vladek is ending his story with his "happily ever after," calls Art by his dead brother's name, Richieu. Did it hurt? Or was it perhaps a compliment, a Freudian slip by Vladek, letting him know that he is proud of his son? Art doesn't tell us, but its inclusion in the story tells us that it did have meaning for him, whether positive or negative.
What I love about Maus II is the chance to see more of what the family's life is like in the present. Particularly the part beginning with Page 14, where Art & Francois are driving to see Vladek and they have a long discussion about Richieu and how growing up with "the ghost" of a brother who died during the Shoah affected Art growing up. It is interesting how Art is almost jealous about Richieu. He says that he wished he could have been in Auschwitz so he knew what it was like, and so he could really understand what his family had been through. As we see later in the story, Art is even seeing a professional to talk about his issues of being a child of Holocaust survivors. But growing up with the lingering memory of the little boy, who died so young that he never had a chance to be a disappointment to his parents, was clearly difficult for Art. Richieu is sort of put upon a pedestal in the house (at least in Art's eyes) and Art felt that he could never live up to the ghost brother. Sibling rivalries are difficult enough but how can you compete with one who, if they hadn't died, could have grown to be the "perfect son." I wonder if Art felt a sense of pressure growing up, to do all the things that Richieu never had a chance to do, to be and become all the things that Richieu could not. We see throughout both volumes that Art feels that he hasn't lived up to his parents expectations and dreams for him. I wonder how it felt for him when his father, as he depicts in the last page as Vladek is ending his story with his "happily ever after," calls Art by his dead brother's name, Richieu. Did it hurt? Or was it perhaps a compliment, a Freudian slip by Vladek, letting him know that he is proud of his son? Art doesn't tell us, but its inclusion in the story tells us that it did have meaning for him, whether positive or negative.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
More Superheroes
So over the past few weeks I've watched four X-Men movies, three Spiderman movies and Daredevil. I've also played a Fantastic Four video game for Wii (which I found to be pretty boring). I found X-Men III quite strange, and I'm told from many of my X-men loving friends that it apparently strayed quite a bit from the original stories. I can't really attest to that though as I've yet to actually hold a real X-men comic in my hands. The Spiderman movies, again with the exception of the 3rd, were all enjoyable. Not that I didn't like the third movie, it just seemed a little all over the place. (Not unlike this blog post by the way. Explanation: my internet wasn't working for most of the day, and since I waited until today to post, I am now forced to scramble). Anyway, I could see what Kaplan was saying about Spiderman being a character that teenagers could really identify with. He is the classic geeky guy who seems to all of a sudden change into someone else, welcome puberty! Plus his awkwardness with girls and struggling to earn a buck is typical of the average teenage boy's every day life. Spiderman was certainly a stark contrast to the typical rich, handsome, muscle-bulging superhero that attempts to portray "the perfect man." Daredevil was also a fun movie to watch, I wouldn't call it the best movie ever made, but I did love the story and the idea of the blind lawyer as superhero. I'm glad I picked all these used movies a few weeks ago, they've really come in handy. When you are reading about the Holocaust, you need something else to take your mind off of it before you go to bed, and superhero stories have proven to be quite effective. Thank God for all those Jewish writers and artists without whom we wouldn't have all of these wonderful characters and stories.
Maus
This is the second time I've had the opportunity to read and analyze Art Spiegelman's Maus in class. I don't mind though. If it wasn't for the fact that the process is incredibly depressing, for obvious reasons, I'd read it over and over. I have actually read it multiple times, and each time I find something in the images that I had noticed before that adds to the impact of the story. The first time I learned of this graphic novel and picked it up, I was startled by the concept of a telling of a Holocaust story in a "comic," ( a medium that I was, as I've said, quite unfamiliar with). However, I was immediately drawn in to the story and stopped questioning the format. Spiegelman's use of animals to differentiate between the nationalities of the characters was interesting. We know when we are reading the story, that the pigs (Poles), mice (Jews), cats (Germans), etc. are really actually people, all members of the human race, during a time when some people (somehow) believed that the Jews were not human. Depicting them as animals reminds us how each group saw each other as different. The choices for the animals to represent the groups is interesting as well, particularly the choice of mice for Jews and an intimidating looking cat image for Germans. In public statements Hitler described Jews as vermin and being carriers of disease, and also, as mentioned, as being a different species than other people. The choice of using this image of the mice to depict the Jews, reinforces the fact that others saw them as vermin, as lowly mice, and because of this, a horrible tragedy was allowed to take place. The choice of the cat, since the Jews are mice, is appropriate for the Germans. The image is not that of the cuddly lap cat of course, a more sinister version is found here, but the cat still pursues the mouse relentlessly. The story itself is one that never stops shocking us, mostly because it is so hard to believe it could happen, that it is true. Every time I have to study the Holocaust it is depressing enough to make me want to avoid the subject ever again, but in spite of that, I may consider writing my research paper on Maus after all. Reading it again reminded me how much more there is to see.
Friday, October 1, 2010
X-Men
My history with the X-men is pretty, well, non-existent. I’ve seen the first movie before, but that is it. I’ve never read the comics and prior to this week, I never managed to watch any of the sequels. However, I’ve found the readings regarding the X-men in class thus far to be incredibly interesting, and I believe I may now be in love with the X-men. (Side note - with all the “political correctness going on in the world, I really hope that feminists keep their hands off the X-men or we’ll have X-Persons on our hands, which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, right?)
I hit up the Netflix library for some supplemental studying this week, and found an interview with Stan Lee by Kevin Smith titled “Stan Lee’s Mutants, Monsters and Marvels.” Basically Stan Lee summarized the entire Silver Age unit from Kaplan’s “From Krakow to Krypton” except it was more entertaining hearing it straight from the man himself. He did provide a few bits of information that the book did not, including the fact that he originally pitched the idea of “X-men” to the bosses with the title of “Mutants.” The title was turned down due to, what Stan Lee said he was told, “that people won’t know what a Mutant is.” I think it was meant to be, as X-Men certainly has a better ring to it, but I thought it hilarious when he said, that after he re-pitched it as X-Men, and it was approved, he said he walked away thinking, “so people WILL know what an X-Men is?” If you are interested, the interview is available to play instantly on Netflix if you are subscriber, but beware, Kevin Smith was not the most brilliant interviewer. If I could have jumped up and into my television I would have slapped him. I like Kevin Smith, so I’m going to guess that he was just nervous interviewing a hero of his. Stan Lee also provides just a tad more insight into the whole issue of Jack Kirby defecting to DC. He claims that he knows very little firsthand, just that he was told Jack wanted to keep rights to all of his images and the right to re-issue them without any connection to Marvel, and was very angry when he was turned down.
Anyway, the readings inspired me to re-watch X-Men (the first) which I thoroughly enjoyed and was completely amazed at all the references to the Jewish experience that could be found, particularly the experience during the Holocaust. Obviously the first scenes which show Magneto at a concentration camp being separated from his parents, are clearly depicting this time, and explaining to us why he is who he is. But the entire theme of the witch hunting and the propaganda against the mutants, an entire population being convinced that another group is different and therefore dangerous, fostering a sense of fear that is sure to make people lose their sense of right and wrong if not their minds entirely. These themes are all reminiscent of the events that lead to the Holocaust.
Netflix didn’t have the second X-Men movie on demand, but luckily The Exclusive Company carries tons of used dvd’s at a reasonable price, so I now own a few more. The second movie, which I watched for the first time last night, while not as outwardly as the first, is still continuing this theme of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. This is depicted through the obvious, like the idea of forced registration of all mutants, as well as the eventual attempt and move towards the “rounding up” of all mutants after being framed for a terrorist attack. However, there were more subtle references too, like the image of the children hiding in the walls when the military arrived to detain them.
X-Men and the deeper stories that are evident in the comic books we’ve explored thus far, is definitely fostering a new interest in comic books for me. By the end of class, or perhaps even by mid-way through, I may be a card carrying comic book nerd. I was (in a very complimentary way) called just such a thing by the store clerk when I got up to the counter at Exclusive with a stack of comic book based movies and after I corrected him that my stack of treasure did not contain ONLY Marvel but also one lonely DC title. A few weeks ago I wouldn’t have known the difference.
I hit up the Netflix library for some supplemental studying this week, and found an interview with Stan Lee by Kevin Smith titled “Stan Lee’s Mutants, Monsters and Marvels.” Basically Stan Lee summarized the entire Silver Age unit from Kaplan’s “From Krakow to Krypton” except it was more entertaining hearing it straight from the man himself. He did provide a few bits of information that the book did not, including the fact that he originally pitched the idea of “X-men” to the bosses with the title of “Mutants.” The title was turned down due to, what Stan Lee said he was told, “that people won’t know what a Mutant is.” I think it was meant to be, as X-Men certainly has a better ring to it, but I thought it hilarious when he said, that after he re-pitched it as X-Men, and it was approved, he said he walked away thinking, “so people WILL know what an X-Men is?” If you are interested, the interview is available to play instantly on Netflix if you are subscriber, but beware, Kevin Smith was not the most brilliant interviewer. If I could have jumped up and into my television I would have slapped him. I like Kevin Smith, so I’m going to guess that he was just nervous interviewing a hero of his. Stan Lee also provides just a tad more insight into the whole issue of Jack Kirby defecting to DC. He claims that he knows very little firsthand, just that he was told Jack wanted to keep rights to all of his images and the right to re-issue them without any connection to Marvel, and was very angry when he was turned down.
Anyway, the readings inspired me to re-watch X-Men (the first) which I thoroughly enjoyed and was completely amazed at all the references to the Jewish experience that could be found, particularly the experience during the Holocaust. Obviously the first scenes which show Magneto at a concentration camp being separated from his parents, are clearly depicting this time, and explaining to us why he is who he is. But the entire theme of the witch hunting and the propaganda against the mutants, an entire population being convinced that another group is different and therefore dangerous, fostering a sense of fear that is sure to make people lose their sense of right and wrong if not their minds entirely. These themes are all reminiscent of the events that lead to the Holocaust.
Netflix didn’t have the second X-Men movie on demand, but luckily The Exclusive Company carries tons of used dvd’s at a reasonable price, so I now own a few more. The second movie, which I watched for the first time last night, while not as outwardly as the first, is still continuing this theme of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. This is depicted through the obvious, like the idea of forced registration of all mutants, as well as the eventual attempt and move towards the “rounding up” of all mutants after being framed for a terrorist attack. However, there were more subtle references too, like the image of the children hiding in the walls when the military arrived to detain them.
X-Men and the deeper stories that are evident in the comic books we’ve explored thus far, is definitely fostering a new interest in comic books for me. By the end of class, or perhaps even by mid-way through, I may be a card carrying comic book nerd. I was (in a very complimentary way) called just such a thing by the store clerk when I got up to the counter at Exclusive with a stack of comic book based movies and after I corrected him that my stack of treasure did not contain ONLY Marvel but also one lonely DC title. A few weeks ago I wouldn’t have known the difference.
The Silver Age!
What I found most interesting of the Silver Age of Comics unit, is that there seemed to be a trend towards deeper character development, including a shift towards characters that the readers could more easily identify with. Certainly this is evidenced by the newer X-men, as realized by Chris Claremont, as the series came to include characters of many different ethnic backgrounds, including the development of Mageneto’s Jewish background. Spiderman as well, shows evidence of a character more easily identified with by the readers. Certainly teenagers at the time, welcomed this average guy character, who when bit by a radioactive spider becomes super-human, but yet remains so human in the respect that he still has girlfriend issues, etc.
Perhaps most shocking to me in this week’s readings, were the pictures in Kaplan’s From Krakow to Krypton, and story regarding Doctor Doom in the Fantastic Four comic series. When I look at this image on page 35, all I see is Darth Vader. The author tells us that George Lucas has never admitted to using Doctor Doom as “inspiration” for Darth Vader. I find this a bit ridiculous. It is fairly obvious to anyone in a side by side comparison, that these two characters are long lost identical twins. Does anyone else feel that it is probably about time that Lucas come clean and thank Lee & Kirby for providing him inspiration?
In addition, the Silver Age saw the emergence of underground comics (or comix), who found their outlet in head shops across America. I’d be very interested to have the opportunity to peruse such items in person some day. I am sure that some interesting cultural dynamics can be found and analyzed within their pages. Does anyone know if there are any shops in the area that carry old comic books (or comix)?
Perhaps most shocking to me in this week’s readings, were the pictures in Kaplan’s From Krakow to Krypton, and story regarding Doctor Doom in the Fantastic Four comic series. When I look at this image on page 35, all I see is Darth Vader. The author tells us that George Lucas has never admitted to using Doctor Doom as “inspiration” for Darth Vader. I find this a bit ridiculous. It is fairly obvious to anyone in a side by side comparison, that these two characters are long lost identical twins. Does anyone else feel that it is probably about time that Lucas come clean and thank Lee & Kirby for providing him inspiration?
In addition, the Silver Age saw the emergence of underground comics (or comix), who found their outlet in head shops across America. I’d be very interested to have the opportunity to peruse such items in person some day. I am sure that some interesting cultural dynamics can be found and analyzed within their pages. Does anyone know if there are any shops in the area that carry old comic books (or comix)?
Saturday, September 25, 2010
It's a MAD world
The History of MAD "magazine" as it came to be, was a very surprising part of the readings this week for me. I grew up reading MAD thanks to the influence of my older brother who eagerly awaited each release when we were children (and thanks to our mother who gave in to our every whim during our visits every two weeks). I had no idea that 1) it had been around so long and 2) it was such an influential and controversial publication. It must have taken some real "gusto" to take on McCarthy in such a satirical manner, given the craze that the Wisconsin Senator gave rise to, in the form of a communist witch hunt. Arie Kaplan credits MAD for such future works as The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live and The Onion, all definite favorites of mine. I find it even more surprising that as they faced these "morality committees" that these men chose to SAVE the publication by changing it from a comic book to a magazine so that it didn't have to follow the new rules being laid out. This was a truly creative solution. THANK GOODNESS for us that these men were smart enough to see what a good thing they had. Considering that the group was more focused on the thriller/fright comic genre, it seems a bit miraculous in fact. This same group of men were responsible for creating another favorite of mine, Tales from the Crypt, which, in its TV format has kept my attention for years, and yet, I never knew of its comic book origins. I am ever amazed to learn each semester, how very little I know about the world I live in, even when it comes to things that I am genuinely interested in. (Side thought- can a person simply stay in college forever?)
I haven't picked up an issue of MAD magazine in years, in fact, the last issue I read was gifted to me in order to "lift my spirits" during a hospital stay over 6 years ago. However, in light of the things that I've read this week I feel compelled to seek out old copies of this magazine, and to re-visit my love of the funny stories and ads with a new adult perspective on the world, not to mention trying to pick out the writers' subtle (or not) tributes to their Jewish culture. As a child, I certainly could not have understood what the writers were attempting to portray about the world we lived in, it was simply a humor packed magazine with funny drawings that caught my attention. I find it even more surprising that I never really thought of MAD magazine as a comic book publication. I guess this goes back to the whole debate about what is a comic book, and what is a graphic novel? Apparently it is still unclear to me. With its lack of Super Heroes and dramatic themes, I simply didn't categorize this publication with the rest, and yet, as I look at the images in "Krakow to Krypton" it is clear to me that this is a comic book. I wonder what I would get out of reading these magazines today? I can't wait to find out, and I can't wait to plead my case to my husband that a subscription to MAD magazine will be beneficial to my learning experience in college this fall.
I haven't picked up an issue of MAD magazine in years, in fact, the last issue I read was gifted to me in order to "lift my spirits" during a hospital stay over 6 years ago. However, in light of the things that I've read this week I feel compelled to seek out old copies of this magazine, and to re-visit my love of the funny stories and ads with a new adult perspective on the world, not to mention trying to pick out the writers' subtle (or not) tributes to their Jewish culture. As a child, I certainly could not have understood what the writers were attempting to portray about the world we lived in, it was simply a humor packed magazine with funny drawings that caught my attention. I find it even more surprising that I never really thought of MAD magazine as a comic book publication. I guess this goes back to the whole debate about what is a comic book, and what is a graphic novel? Apparently it is still unclear to me. With its lack of Super Heroes and dramatic themes, I simply didn't categorize this publication with the rest, and yet, as I look at the images in "Krakow to Krypton" it is clear to me that this is a comic book. I wonder what I would get out of reading these magazines today? I can't wait to find out, and I can't wait to plead my case to my husband that a subscription to MAD magazine will be beneficial to my learning experience in college this fall.
The Golden Age?
The Golden Age? While amazing characters were drawn and incredible stories written, it is disheartening to learn of so many people robbed of their artistic rights over the characters and stories they had written. The comic book industry was very young, so I hope that I learn going forward, that these were just blips, mistakes made in childhood and learned from with age. It is this issue of "credit for works" that struck me the most throughout this week's assigned readings from Arie Kaplan's "From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and Comic Books."
I wonder...
Did these companies simply not take the new world of comics seriously, did they not think it would have staying power and therefore not consider what they were doing at least in a serious way? Or did they knowingly take advantage of a young group of artists and writers? It seems to me that these companies struck gold and the people responsible for the works were afterthoughts. Did the fact that many of these young writers and creators were Jewish make it easier for them to get away with such a thing, or am I simply misunderstanding the time in which these things took place and was this kind of thing rather common place? I guess these are the questions I am left with after this weeks readings.
On a side note...I've been very sick this week. While resting up and in between school reading, I took the time to sit down with another of Eisner's comics. I found a gem of a book at Appleton's "Half Price Books." It is a POP-UP version of a "The Sprit" comic, in which The Spirit knowingly lets a villain get away because she was his childhood sweetheart. I'm not a huge fan of comics, I'd say I started to have a bit of a "crush" on the genre after reading Spiegelman's Maus I & II, followed by Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, but I am not by any means an avid comic book reader. But after reading these past few weeks a bit about the idea of Super heroes in comics, during our course readings, I am eager to learn more about Eisner's "super-hero" The Spirit, because he is so different. Not the super power wielding super hero, but the average Joe Super Hero. Is this why The Spirit lets the villain get away in this book? Because he's human? Would Superman let her go or would he demand that justice be served? If anyone is interested, Half Price Book's in Appleton had quite a few copies of this Pop-up version of The Spirit, and they seem to have a relatively good selection of comic book works and graphic novels. I picked up quite a few. I used to skip this section of the store during my regular visits, however, I'll be sorting through this area as well now.
I wonder...
Did these companies simply not take the new world of comics seriously, did they not think it would have staying power and therefore not consider what they were doing at least in a serious way? Or did they knowingly take advantage of a young group of artists and writers? It seems to me that these companies struck gold and the people responsible for the works were afterthoughts. Did the fact that many of these young writers and creators were Jewish make it easier for them to get away with such a thing, or am I simply misunderstanding the time in which these things took place and was this kind of thing rather common place? I guess these are the questions I am left with after this weeks readings.
On a side note...I've been very sick this week. While resting up and in between school reading, I took the time to sit down with another of Eisner's comics. I found a gem of a book at Appleton's "Half Price Books." It is a POP-UP version of a "The Sprit" comic, in which The Spirit knowingly lets a villain get away because she was his childhood sweetheart. I'm not a huge fan of comics, I'd say I started to have a bit of a "crush" on the genre after reading Spiegelman's Maus I & II, followed by Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, but I am not by any means an avid comic book reader. But after reading these past few weeks a bit about the idea of Super heroes in comics, during our course readings, I am eager to learn more about Eisner's "super-hero" The Spirit, because he is so different. Not the super power wielding super hero, but the average Joe Super Hero. Is this why The Spirit lets the villain get away in this book? Because he's human? Would Superman let her go or would he demand that justice be served? If anyone is interested, Half Price Book's in Appleton had quite a few copies of this Pop-up version of The Spirit, and they seem to have a relatively good selection of comic book works and graphic novels. I picked up quite a few. I used to skip this section of the store during my regular visits, however, I'll be sorting through this area as well now.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Will Eisner: A Contract With God " A look at Story 3, THE SUPER
While all four of the stories that encompass Will Eisner’s A Contract With God, are unsettling in some way, it is perhaps the third story, “The Super” that was most disturbing to me. At different points of the story one finds themselves sympathizing and/or being disgusted with each of the main characters. The story is an amazing depiction of what life in the tenement style housing of the 1930’s in the Bronx was like; crowded, everyone struggling and everyone knowing each and every neighbor’s business. The story shows the struggle between the rich and the poor, those with power and those without and how these groups can be pitted against each other. At the most basic level, this is a story of a German Super, who is lonely and poor and tired of the complaints of the tenants that reside in the building for which he is in charge, and a Jewish household who simply wants some hot water. It is difficult to discern exactly what Eisner was hoping his readers would get out of this story, is there a message or is he simply telling a tale of something he witnessed?
The reader is clearly not meant to care too deeply for the Super, he is depicted as somewhat of an Ogre, an angry man who curses his tenants and clings to pornography to cure his loneliness. However, it is important to note that the Super really does nothing wrong until he is propositioned by a tenant, a 10 year old Jewish girl, to “take a peak” for a nickel. The gut reaction of the reader is to hate the Super, how could he do this with a 10 year old girl? However, this is not your average 10 year old girl. Eisner depicts her from the very beginning as seemingly old for her age and very sly. In fact, it is the young girl who tempts the Super, then kills his dog (his only companion), steals his money box and runs, accusing him of wrong doing, knowing very well that no one will believe him over her. In the end, the Super kills himself and the young girl sits greedily counting the money she stole from him. So, if this story is telling us something, what is it exactly? Are we to infer that the young girl is evil, or the Super? We discussed this in class and I got the impression that most found the Super to be a bad man for sure, but the young girl was the one most declared “evil.” Personally, I think the moral of the story is that the times these people lived in were hard, that lonely people will do unthinkable things given the right circumstances, and that even the young can be capable of terrible acts of cruelty in the face of poverty. I don’t believe that the author wants us to take either of the characters’ sides. I believe Eisner was just providing an example of life in this setting which he describes more than once as a “ship anchored in concrete” as well as its residents whom he describes in the introduction as being “imprisoned.” The image of the “crowded and tight ship” along with the idea of being “imprisoned” even if only economic bonds are the ones doing the shackling, gives me a sense that Eisner is simply trying to convey that seemingly inhumane acts can become the every day norm, when living in such conditions.
Will Eisner: A Contract With God " A look at the title story"
This week I had the pleasure of reading Will Eisner’s A Contract With God. The novel contains four separate stories. The title story, A Contract With God, is truly a heartbreaking tale. The idea of a contract or a covenant between God and the Jewish people, is not a new idea by any means, in fact it is a theme that is seen over and over throughout the Hebrew Bible. What makes the contract of this story different is that it is a contract that is initiated by Frimme Hersh, the main character of the story, and not by God. In fact, it is important to note that from the point that Frimme makes this contract with God, the reader is never led to any conclusion one way or the other as to whether or not God agrees to Frimme’s terms. Never the less, after the death of Frimme’s adopted daughter Rachele, Frimme declares to God that He broke their contract, and because of this Frimme changes the way he proceeds to live his life, becoming hard and cold and greedy and less concerned with doing good works. It is this theme of "the contract" that caught my curiosity the most.
When thinking about covenants made by God in the Hebrew Bible, immediately the story of the Flood comes to mind, and the promise that God made to never flood the world again. After I had read the story of Frimme Hersh, and as I was revisiting Eisner’s amazing illustrations, this is the covenant that came to my mind. I wonder if Eisner may have been alluding to this promise, through his images, in the very beginning of the story. Eisner tells us that on the day of Rachele’s burial, it rained quite heavily, in fact, he uses the phrase “without mercy” to explain the sheer amount of rain that fell, and we see that the streets are in fact flooding. The image of the rain falling so mercilessly, is particularly striking on Page 7, as we see the weary Frimme Hersh climbing the front stairs to the tenement. At first when I read the story, I was more intrigued by the increase in the fury of the storm when Frimme curses God for breaking their contract. It wasn’t until my second look that I was reminded that the rain had started long before Frimme argued with God. Perhaps this downpour was a reminder that God kept this promise, this agreement, to never flood the Earth and the contrast is that God made this promise, it was not a promise that man made and then God agreed to. Perhaps the story is telling us that this is not how it works. This point is perhaps made clearer towards the end of the story when Frimme attempts to create a new contract with God and dies of an assumed heart attack, at the exact moment a bolt of lightning strikes and an “angry wind swirled about the tenements.” One might conclude that the author is relaying that God could simply take no more of Frimme's demands and curses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)