I brought a couple of my friends to the see the screening of The Hunting Ground and we were all greatly troubled by it. We're all hardcore feminists, and understood the rape culture problems before the movie, but had no idea of the problems with universities before we watched the film.
I walked away furious and terrified. I'd thought that America was on the rapid moral slope upwards, but seeing how many girls and women were raped and disregarded all across the country was shocking. All that a rape needs is a rapist -- so for that many girls to be raped, there needs to be quite a few rapists. And if there are that many rapists, it means that there is a severe discrepancy between proper sexual education and common, adult behavioral characteristics. The one quote of the young guy who said "Just because she said no, and you have sex, doesn't make you a rapist" says it all. Why is there such a lack of understanding of consent?
My first answer is, of course: the patriarchy. Men take what they want, as they've always done...the cause of the sex trade industry, international conflict, robberies, cartels, capitalism, buffets, free samples at Costco, everything. They want it, so why wouldn't they just take it? Right? And the woman obviously wants it, because she obviously wants me, because I'm perfect. *eye roll*.
It's the whole "Men are aggressive and women are passive" thing, but on a criminal level. And yes, rape is a crime, thank heavens. But it's such a sensitive subject, no one wants to talk about it. Or if they do, the man usually finds a way out of it.
My second answer -- though, in a way, still relates to misogyny -- is that there is too much of a focus on women/victims being to blame, and not enough of a focus on the perpetrator. Even in church, during Sunday School; I've had the modesty lesson maybe three hundred and seventy times -- including being told that I "need to help the boys out", or "the boys can't help it", or "being immodest is like throwing your body away and allowing any random boy to take it" -- but I've never met a guy who's been talked to in church (or in school) about respecting other people's privacy. Or, other people. Their biggest lessons are "pornography is bad...I know you probably like it, but try not to do it", not "women are people too. would you like it if there were Photoshop'd pictures of you splattered all over the internet for teenage women to drool over, download, and sin with?"
At college, this is dramatized, because all of a sudden, these kids are on their own. They're making their own decisions, and are drunk off of their independence. They made it to a university, so obviously they're always right and deserve everything! Hormones are peaking, fraternities are "cool", yada yada yada. Brigham Young University has it, too. Even within couples and marriages, I've learnt.
The moral of the story (?) is, don't be a jerk. Also, spread this movie, The Hunting Ground, along.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Medium Specificity: Acting
It may seem suspicious that I chose acting as the medium I wanted to explore, seeing as our 185 class had readings, guest speakers, and assignments all discussing it, but I swear that I thought of it before all that happened.
I'm actually in an Acting Fundamentals class right now, and I'm fascinated by the psychology of acting. It's really interesting to me that people will assume another person's being. Actors and actresses imitate and re-create whole other egos in order to both support the narrative in which that character lives, and to satisfy a primal urge to perform and imitate.
Acting is hard; studying and expressing ourselves takes a heck of a lot of self-awareness and maturity, but to simultaneously be aware of the fact that they exist as a person and play a completely different person is an extremely vulnerable emotional position. It's trauma when you get it wrong, and ecstasy when you get it right. To make things even more confusing, you'll never get it right with more than one person -- one director may absolutely adore your little lip-biting quirk, and his best friend may not be able to stand it. Similarly, some actors are method to the point of obsessive-compulsive, while others are "from-the-inside-out" to the point of marijuana-reeking hippie.
After all is said and done, however, there are a few fundamental aspects of acting that make "acting" a medium and expression of art. Acting requires:
1. An actor/A human being
2. A character for that human to represent
3. A stage/setting to act on/in
4. An objective the character is trying to achieve
5. Tactics the character uses to achieve that objective
6. An audience
There are also a few other things that people tend to think are necessary in acting, but really aren't:
1. A director
2. Lines or a script
3. A camera
4. A costume
5. Fame
6. Drama
In my project, I tried to both celebrate the necessary aspects of acting and scrutinize the things that aren't. I poke fun at the idea of meticulously following the script, I subtly mock the over-zealous director, I roll my eyes at the standardized interaction between directors and actors, and - most importantly - I tried to break the imaginary fourth wall between what the actor is acting and who they are as a person. The script has the narrative; it's the meat and potatoes of any film or production. But the actors are who we see on screen or on stage -- it is their faces, their body language, their quirks that we critique and become familiar with. It is they who live within the narrative's world, and who bring life or death to the piece, no matter how fantastic the script is.
Ultimately, I wanted the audience to read the script or watch the film of the project and wonder what was scripted and what wasn't...because in either case, the person on being filmed is acting. The narrative, in these, aren't as important as the characters within the narrative, or how the characters and their lines make the audience step back and think.
Script:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0GOdVYghxWkSExhMzRpLUl3VkE
Film:
https://youtu.be/RiYDRBG6KMY
I'm actually in an Acting Fundamentals class right now, and I'm fascinated by the psychology of acting. It's really interesting to me that people will assume another person's being. Actors and actresses imitate and re-create whole other egos in order to both support the narrative in which that character lives, and to satisfy a primal urge to perform and imitate.
Acting is hard; studying and expressing ourselves takes a heck of a lot of self-awareness and maturity, but to simultaneously be aware of the fact that they exist as a person and play a completely different person is an extremely vulnerable emotional position. It's trauma when you get it wrong, and ecstasy when you get it right. To make things even more confusing, you'll never get it right with more than one person -- one director may absolutely adore your little lip-biting quirk, and his best friend may not be able to stand it. Similarly, some actors are method to the point of obsessive-compulsive, while others are "from-the-inside-out" to the point of marijuana-reeking hippie.
After all is said and done, however, there are a few fundamental aspects of acting that make "acting" a medium and expression of art. Acting requires:
1. An actor/A human being
2. A character for that human to represent
3. A stage/setting to act on/in
4. An objective the character is trying to achieve
5. Tactics the character uses to achieve that objective
6. An audience
There are also a few other things that people tend to think are necessary in acting, but really aren't:
1. A director
2. Lines or a script
3. A camera
4. A costume
5. Fame
6. Drama
In my project, I tried to both celebrate the necessary aspects of acting and scrutinize the things that aren't. I poke fun at the idea of meticulously following the script, I subtly mock the over-zealous director, I roll my eyes at the standardized interaction between directors and actors, and - most importantly - I tried to break the imaginary fourth wall between what the actor is acting and who they are as a person. The script has the narrative; it's the meat and potatoes of any film or production. But the actors are who we see on screen or on stage -- it is their faces, their body language, their quirks that we critique and become familiar with. It is they who live within the narrative's world, and who bring life or death to the piece, no matter how fantastic the script is.
Ultimately, I wanted the audience to read the script or watch the film of the project and wonder what was scripted and what wasn't...because in either case, the person on being filmed is acting. The narrative, in these, aren't as important as the characters within the narrative, or how the characters and their lines make the audience step back and think.
Script:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0GOdVYghxWkSExhMzRpLUl3VkE
Film:
https://youtu.be/RiYDRBG6KMY
Monday, February 8, 2016
Historical Story
The Manson Family murders are some of those
creepy-and-intriguing stories that are hard to believe and yet, are completely
believable. Ex-con Charles Manson was the leader of the hippie cult of the
Manson Family, who were involved in a series of murders and crimes1.
Mysteriously, he was also seriously involved with the Beach Boys2;
he was a fan, a friend, a colleague, and a solicitor. In one confusing
instance, the Beach Boys found themselves in the middle of an almost-lawsuit
dealing with charges of abuse and forms of kidnapping, though it was hard for either
of us to find conclusive coverage of the real story of Lotus-Flower.
It was hard for either of us to imagine ourselves in the
shoes of any of the characters, so we decided to allow our imagination to
exaggerate. We thought it would be interesting to write a short story based on
the perspective of the two hitchhiking Manson girls. Our characters are all
based on real people, but we tried to focus on what our first-impressions were
of those real people and incorporate them into dramatic straw-people. Their
dialogue is stiff and blunt, yet descriptive. The scenes show a glimpse of what
life in the Manson home was like, using whatever little information we could
gather and assume.
file:///C:/Users/Maddy/Downloads/Cease%20to%20Exist.pdf
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Laborious Roller Coaster
As the audience, we, ourselves, are drawn into the process of living through the sounds of the roller coaster by proxy; we recognize the invitation to climb aboard, we are anxious to hear the satisfying strains and clicks of the safety restraints, and our hearts pound as the voices on the ride get increasingly more restless. We follow the natural lifetime of the ride, as it climbs tick-tick-tick up the first and most aggravating incline. Our cheeks tighten as we anticipate the peak, the tension breaks as we are swept in the course of the ride, and we are lost in the throws of the machine. People scream and laugh, and we are tempted to join them...though we don’t, because we don’t want to look foolish in front of our classmates. Some of us get dizzy; some of us wish we were dizzier. Finally, the coaster screeeeeaches to a stop. We pry our fingers off of the greasy handlebars or the rickety library mouse.
In a way, we are somewhat disappointed upon reaching the end of the ride (either because it is over, or because we are forced to remember that we never actually rode the roller coaster), but -- as maybe should happen after any intensive, interactive human process -- we ask ourselves: “Was that fun or what?!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)