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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)