Black Swan

Ugly Duckling or Swan Queen?
12/13/10

Warning: Contains Spoilers!

“The Return of the Repressed” is a phrase first introduced by Sigmund Freud and is now often thrown around in the discourse surrounding Horror Films. Freud’s theory, earliest applied to Hitchcock’s’ films, is the notion that anything a society or an individual represses will return as the monster and torment the subject. In Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, The Black Swan, the monster appears in a number of manifestations as what the main character, Nina Sayers (played by an impeccable Natalie Portman), has repressed.

In this film, Nina is the Prima Ballerina at the New York City Ballet. She has been crowned Swan Queen in the company’s season opening production of Swan Lake. In this new risqué version of the show, she will not only be playing the virginal White Swan, but also the more tempestuous Black Swan. Throughout the film, her artistic director pushes her to let herself and her self imposed restraints go in order to embody the characteristics of the Black Swan, as she inherently excels in the role of White Swan. Throughout her life Nina was constantly tormented by an obsession for perfection. She therefore disallows herself any physical pleasure or emotional displays which might take away from her quest for perfection. Be it sexual pleasure, or even something as simple as enjoying a piece of cake, she lives a controlled life unable to enjoy anything around her, even her success. Her mother, with whom she lives, cares for her as she has since childhood, reinforcing the restraint Nina puts on herself. Each night she undresses Nina, takes out her hearings for her and tucks her into bed before leaving her music box ballerina playing her to sleep. Any sense of adulthood or independence has been completely repressed and her mother is the external force driving that repression, as if Nina needed any more encouragement to be controlled.

From the instance that she is awarded the lead role, Nina’s descent from simple OCD ballerina to complete madness is made clear. She feels as though she must prove herself worthy of this position, and not only that, but she must keep any would-be lead ballerinas at bay. Everyone is competition. The introduction of a new ballerina, Lily (Mila Kunis), catalyzes her madness as Nina does not know if she should trust her as a friend or suspect her as someone who is vying to replace her. Lily ultimately becomes the focal point of Nina’s paranoia as she considers her to be the one who will be the biggest threat of dethroning her from her position. Even as the film comes to a close, the audience is left wondering, how much should we believe about Lily’s behaviors? Nina has positioned Lily to be hypercompetitive and a real threat, but is that actually true?

Nina’s madness manifests itself in a number of ways, most obviously in her almost constant paranoia of those around her. Aronofsky skillfully plays with the audience’s sense of reality by a constant focalization on Nina (she is in every scene). As Nina is the clear center of the film, and is in every single scene, there’s an almost naïve sense of trust we place on her as our narrator. Harkening back to films such as Fight Club and Memento, Black Swan leaves the audience questioning what they can trust and what existed within the diagesis of the film. As the film comes to its end, there are events left ambiguous and we are left questioning which scenes we should trust and which were just Nina’s psychosis rearing its ugly head.

Further, through the use of camera tricks and other means of visual deception, he creates a world in which what the audience sees ultimately proves to be untrustworthy, something jarring for a movie viewer who has been trained by cinema to trust what he sees on screen. Nina often imagines people who end up not really being there and often thinks she sees herself on others’ bodies. The real question turns out to be though, when does she see other people acting out certain behaviors that turn out to be her? A crucial scene between Nina and Lily turns out to be the one which alerts Nina to this possibility as she both the audience and the character herself begin to distrust what is being seen.

Moreover, the prevalent use of mirrors throughout the film offers a visual display of how Nina wishes she could reflect her self image towards others. Moreover, overlapping and broken mirrors offer a visual sense of the fragmented personality Nina devolves into, constantly wishing to be able to keep her life together but being unable to do so.

As mentioned, Nina spends a great deal of time repressing some of her deepest desires. One repression which is made quite clear is her sexuality. Her artistic director, Tomas (Nicholas Cassel) continually pushes her to let herself go and embrace her sexuality, even suggesting at one point that she go home and touch herself. While he does push some boundaries between teacher and student, he also recognizes that the role of the Black Swan requires a sense of sexual freedom. Nina has a hard time allowing herself to give into any of the urges which she has fought so hard to repress to let herself reach her ultimate goal of perfection. In the world she has created for herself (and her mother has encouraged) giving into desires and growing into a free thinking adult is a sign of imperfection and weakness. Even in the rare instances which she does give in to her desires, they result in utter humiliation, further pushing her into a continuance of the repression.

Nina's psychological repression physically manifested itself with Nina's scratching habit. Over the course of the film the audience comes to learn that she has had a chronic struggle with scratching at her back, often resulting in rashes and bleeds. Despite her mother best efforts at stopping this habit, buying expensive cover ups or tying socks on her hands while she slept, Nina persisted. Her scratching ultimately came to represent her desire to let her repressed traits come out. Ironically, it was those repressed traits which led to her success as the Black Swan. This literally becomes the case when she begins to imagine her skin crawling with barbs and other maladies that she must pull out. Nina succumbs to the scratching and allows herself to give in to that one desire. What results is an unexpected transformation. The Black Swan Queen is the embodiment of sexual freedom and it was only once she let herself go and gave into her desires for which so long she saw as imperfection was Nina able to literally embody her character and perform the Black Queen perfectly.

On a separate, but related note, the idea of beauty and what makes something beautiful was constantly in my mind as I watched this film. Ballet is supposed to be an embodiment of one of the most beautiful acts the human body can create. However, this film shows the dark underbelly of ballet and how so much of this goal of external beautiful perfection is born from such an ugly place of private and individual pain and suffering.

Like any student of Freud or film knows, however, that the harder one represses something, the more forcefully it will return. This is especially true with Nina. In her quest for ultimate perfection she mistrusts anyone around her and sees them as a monster who needs to be defeated. This idea culminates in the last few scenes of the film. In the climactic final scenes Nina sets out to destroy the one person who can and will take her place as lead ballerina. A dramatic and bloody fight ensues with Nina feeling satisfied that she has been left invulnerable from defeat and that she has achieved her goal of perfection, with little concern for the long term consequences.

The Social Network

Socially Inept?
10/08/10

Marketers and critics are lauding The Social Network as a movie which defines a generation. As a member of its purported generation, I have what to say about this assessment.

I think that this statement has good intentions, although a little overreaching. Namely, I do not think it’s accurate to declare that it’s the film which defines a generation. If anything it should refer to the website upon which the film is based. This film tells the story of how Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) founded Facebook back in his dorm room at Harvard University. It’s unclear how much of the film is true to reality as all parties involved signed non-disclosure agreements as part of their settlements with Zuckerberg, but the filmmakers insist they have stuck to the truth to tell an honest story (and to, of course, avoid libel lawsuits).

To say that the film defines a generation is a bit of an overstatement. It might be more accurate to say that the film is about a website that has had a lot of influence over a generation. I know, not nearly as catchy, but what would it mean that this film defines a generation? Is it the backstabbing or the selfishness of the main character which defines my generation? Or perhaps the people Zuckerberg left in the dust in the generation being defined. Are we a generation that has been betrayed by others? I’m not quite sure what it means to say that this film defines me and my peers.

The Social Network, or The Facebook Movie as it is colloquially being called, is based on Ben Mezrich’s book, The Accidental Billionaires. With the real Saverin acting as consultant, the story is clearly one sided and frames Zuckerberg in the most negative of lights. According to this film, Zuckerberg is an antisocial and amoral social climber who only cares about getting in with the cool crowd and has no regard for the hurt he causes along the way. He creates facebook as a way to get back at his ex-girlfriend, and alienates his best friend in the process.

Sorkin’s screenplay is nothing short of poetry and the acting is stellar. The cast recites Sorkin’s words with ease as they fully embody their characters. The narrative structure of the film is particularly interesting to note. Interwoven within the storyline are two separate lawsuits. One is between Zuckerberg and twins, Cameron and Tyler Winkelvos (both played by Armie Hammer) and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella), the group from who he supposedly stole Facebook from. The other is between Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), his only and best friend at the time who he pushed out of the company as it was about to hit its stride. What I can only imagine was one of the more daunting editing tasks, the film pieces together accounts of what happened between these three parties as the website started and began to grow. It also expands to include how Sean Parker, Napster founder (played by Justin Timberlake) encouraged Zuckerberg to implement some significant changes.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this film since seeing it. Mostly, about what the world thinks about my generation if it thinks that this film defines us. The title assumes people are networking socially. Zuckerberg has changed the word friend from a noun with a distinct definition and specific traits to a verb with a scattered definition and amorphous meaning. Friends are no longer those with whom you connect with on a personal level, share interests and traits with or even know directly. In our age of “social networking,” Facebook defines a friend as anyone who you want to have a digital dotted line to. It has gotten to the point where if someone isn’t, God forbid, on Facebook, they must be some sort of outsider or social deviant. I am an anomaly as someone who only accepts or sends out “friend requests” to people I actually know. Once “friends” with someone you are free to block people, limit their access to your profile or even unfriend them at your will. If this was actual reality there would be some consequence to that behavior. At the very least the other person would know! Today, rarely is that even the case. What kind of friendships are those? The film portrays Zuckerberg as borderline Aspergers with no sense of remorse or notion of consequences nor is he capable of making and retaining friendships. Has he created a culture where everyone is mimicking him? Is that what we should be socially aspiring to? Is that how our generation is seen by others? Are we a considered to be a demographic devoid of social responsibility and unable for connecting on personal levels? While these questions are probably impossible to definitively answer, the questions themselves are important even to be considering.

Moreover, according to the film, Zuckerberg was intent on maintaining a certain level of exclusivity on the site to keep people thinking it was “cool.” As someone who himself was excluded from Harvard’s elite final clubs, college sports teams and often felt alienated from social gatherings, this was his way to get back at the world. He created a place where he got to choose who was able to join or not. At its inception this held true, limited to Harvard and a few elite colleges, Zuckerberg could hold control over his definition of what makes cool. However, as he saw the monetary potential the site could have and his greed for putting his digital fingerprint across the planet he seems to have lost sight of his original intentions (well, maybe his secondary intentions after he got back at his exgirlfriend). Initially, he didn’t even want ads on his website, lest people not consider it “cool.” However, almost making a 180 degree turn from what the movie claims he said about the site, today Facebook is overrun by corporations and other organizations trying to make their own mark on the Facebook network. These companies believe that tapping into a preexisting and preorganized community in “social media” it will help them build their own brands. To me at least, this is the antitheses of what socializing means. Since when is capitalizing on social connections for monetary gain socially acceptable? I guess the answer to that is since Zuckerberg did just that to his own real life social network he has set the standard.

Personally, I think to say that this movie, or even the website, defines a generation is minimizing all the other things that young people today are doing these days. Yes, we keep up with people we once knew in previous lives through the computer screen by never having to actually talk to them. Instead of connecting directly with a long lost high school friend you can now just click a link and be connected with them. You learn what town they now live in, where they work, who they married and see their kids. All from the privacy of your apartment (or, lets be real, cubicle). Facebook fulfills a voyeuristic need in all of us, but this is not new; it’s something Hitchcock knew half a century ago when he put voyeurism at the center of many of his narratives.

However, despite this growing trend I do not believe that our generation is defined by a change in the way we interact with people from our past. Maybe the word “friend” now has a broader interpretation, but real true friends are still the people we want to hang out with, share intimate details with in person, and keep them up to date with what’s going on in our worlds. Furthermore, there are far more important things than a social media website which has defined my generation. What about the job crisis and how many of us are professionally stunted because of the economic meltdown? What about the thousands of soldiers from my generation who have given their lives and limbs for this country? Those are just two major happenings in our adult lives which have greatly effected us and I believe will have a far more lasting effect than how we define the word, “friend.” We are a generation raised as multitaskers who, for all our lives, have been trained to take on as many projects and activities as we possible can, and to reduce us to a single idea is insulting. I do agree that Facebook has probably changed the way my generation interacts with the world, but to reduce is to being defined by it is a little overreaching.
The S

Can You Ever Come Home Again?

The Town
10/4/10

Every few years or so a seemingly seminal, and always grave, film about Boston comes out. Be it directed by Gus Van Sant, Clint Eastwood, Ben Affleck or even the traditional New York-ophile, Martin Scorsese, they always seem to be both a partial love story to the city and a warning of sorts. They have depicted some of the seediest, nastiest neighborhoods inhabited by some of the most sordid of folks. Further, whether an original screenplay or an adaptation, there’s almost always a murder, double crossing and deception. Boston as a city in Hollywood’s recent cinema seems to have become a stand in for the worst of what America has to offer.

Take Ben Affleck’s recent vehicle, The Town, for instance. This film is yet another example of how Boston is depicted as less than savory locale with opportunistic and dangerous inhabitants. The strange thing about this representation is that Affleck has declared his love for his home state numerous times and in numerous ways. As documented by the Papparazzi, he proudly dons his Red Sox baseball hat around LA, attends his team’s games with frequency and even owns a home back east for his family to inhabit for part of the year. He also frequently shows off his native accent upon request (for instance, on Jimmy Kimmel Live). Yet, his two directorial efforts about his hometown seem to be anything but an unconditional love story. In The Town, Affleck plays a leader of a Charlestown bank-robbing gang. They are mixed up with uzi-wielding mobsters who commission them for one dangerous heist after another.

Despite the bank-robbing and guns, the movie pretty much plays like a romantic comedy. Boy meets girl (ok, so it was while he was holding her hostage) and falls in love with her but has to keep his true identity a secret lest she find out what he did. Given that premise I’m sure you know what happens eventually, so I won’t spell it out for you and risk spoiling it for the one person who has never seen a movie with this formula before. Not knowing that Doug (Ben Affleck) was the one who put a gun to her back, Claire (played by Rebecca Hall) falls for the bait and is taken with her mysterious suitor. He would like to make a change and go straight, but things begin to get complicated as he is expected to conduct more escalated robberies and eventually things are no longer in his control. To make matters more complicated he has to hide his burgeoning relationship from his best friend and fellow bank robber, Jimmy (Jeremy Renner) who risks exposing Doug to Claire for who he really is.

While most of the native Charlestown-ians are unabashedly evil people, there is a moral code to which they all abide. Throughout the film, a clear and present theme in the narrative is the sense that Charlestown is a place where people take care of their own. Loyalty to family and those like family is paramount as they trust each other with their lives on a seemingly hourly basis. Furthermore, being born and raised in Charlestown, for the locals, is a sort of badge of honor. Doug and his buddies display their heritage with pride. Be it with tattoos depicting the fighting Irish, four leaf clovers, or even the Charlestown Zip Code emblazoned in a tattoo across the outline of Massachusetts adorned with the Irish flag. They almost exclusively wear Red Sox and Bruins apparel and use their distinct accent as almost to mark their territory, getting stronger when holding their ground about something. To be a native Bostonian is something they are proud of and impostors beware. Not only do the locals claim to be proud of their upbringing, they put down the yuppie transplants who are gentrifying the neighborhood and refer to them as “Toonies.” These “Toonies” are outsiders who will never truly understand what it means to be a local.

If you were born and bred in Charlestown you hold some legitimacy with your peers and you can be trusted. However, deflectors will not be tolerated one iota. There’s one heated exchange with Doug and Dino Ciampa, an FBI agent (played by Titus Welliver) who crossed over from local to Fed and is now considered a traitor. Loyalty is the number one most important characteristic anyone can have in Charlestown, and if you betray that, you’ve betrayed your people.

Yet, despite all this, it seems that so often a strict adherence to this way of life is going to cause problems. (Sorry for the spoiler, but if you’ve ever seen a movie, ever, you know that a gang of bank robbers from a blue collar town is not going to have a happy ending for all parties.) While so many decry their loyalty to Charlestown and the way they grew up, there are still those who seek a better life. The only way to achieve this better life is to strive to get the hell out of there, not even to a suburb, but across the whole country.

I’m not quite sure why Boston has been deemed a city of despair, but it is interesting that while lamenting so many of its downfalls and having main characters want nothing more than to get out of the only city they’ve ever known, filmmakers keep coming back. They keep exploring how this city could be considered both “The Spirit of America” and yet have so many people fleeing.

Maybe that right there is the new “Spirit of America.” In our current society, so fractured by social and political issues, where the mention of The Tea Party no longer elicits unequivocal pride in our nation’s ability to stand up for itself against tyranny and injustice, but, rather conflicting messages of extremism and passivism for its opposers. Where national pride is debated across the cable news spectrum and where if you don’t agree, you can find your own outlet. Boston, therefore, in these films, stands as a microcosm of how we might see ourselves as Americans today. For the characters in The Town and in other Boston-based films (Good Will Hunting for example), one’s home town is a place that has nurtured and taken care of its inhabitants in the past, but it can not offer everything they need. These films seem to be saying that perhaps the way of life we once knew isn’t actually it’s all cracked up to be and we need to seriously rethink the direction we’re going.

So then, what are the options that these films offer? Do we deflect and become the traitorous Fed who is trying to solve things from the inside out? Are we willing to risk getting killed while clinging to some last hope for keeping to what we know? Or, do we just make it our goal to leave our shattered pasts behind us and start over somewhere new? Is one option nobler than the other? Is that the ultimate lesson though of these films -- to leave our pasts behind us and start over in hopes of finding something better?

In any event, The Town asks us to take a deep look into what we hold dear and implores the viewers to make a decision about which direction they want their lives to take. The Town is not simply saying that the goal for the characters is to escape a town which glorifies violence. Rather, this is a story about grappling with the desire to stay true and loyal to ones past and acknowledging that where someone comes from is important while also admitting that our futures are important as well. We can neither forget where we come from nor who took care and nurtured us when we needed it most. But it also asks us to also take a more objective stance and reassess our goals in life and make decision based on the now rather than the past. In other words, don’t let your past impede the greatness that can be your future.

Goodbye As the World Turns

This Friday something that has been integral in my life since literally the day I was born will come to an end. I have no control over it, it’s simply an inevitability that it will cease to exist. What am I talking about you’d like to know? Before I reveal it I would like you try to not roll your eyes or scoff and dismiss what I have to say without reading this all the way through.

So, you ask, to what am I referring? I am talking about the cancellation of the 54 year old soap opera, As The World Turns. I should consider myself lucky that I’ve had so much time with the characters and stories, and that while the actual cast members and production team had to say goodbye in June I’ve got to enjoy the show through to the middle of September. But I honestly don’t know how I’m going to say goodbye to the Hughes and Snyder families and the rest of the host of characters who inhabit Oakdale, IL.

For my 18th birthday before I went off to college my parents got me a VCR. It was exactly what I wanted and they knew the number one reason why I wanted it. They knew I wouldn’t be able to give up my favorite show nor would I always be able to schedule my classes around the 2-3 pm time slot so I could rush back to my room. When I studied abroad in Australia for a semester my mom would give me weekly recaps. When my mom’s work schedule got to hectic for her to watch every day she would call me after Friday’s episode so I could give her the full recap of the week and tell her who the new characters were. In turn, when an old character returned after years of absence I would call my mom and ask for his or her back-story.

Mostly, it has been the relationships between characters and the fantasy that kept me tuning in every day. First of all, no matter what drama was going on in my own life, those characters had it worse. No one in my life was sleeping with her sister’s ex husband (who also happens to be their step cousin). I didn’t know anyone who came back to life 12 times to torment him son and ex wife to ultimately reveal that his ex wife’s new husband is his son from a first marriage. Yes, I’ll admit often stories were crazy and at times I rolled my eyes at some of the drama that people created for themselves. But ultimately sticking with something and going through their ups and downs is what connects you with them and even if its through a television screen a bond begins to grow as they become a part of your daily routine.

The other unique thing about soap operas, especially one like As The World Turns with such a rich history as the first daytime drama, is that viewer are really given the time to get to know characters. Every day there is an opportunity to flesh out some personality traits, understand some more back ground, and learn a little bit about their psyche. Unlike a primetime drama or sitcom where you get 30 minutes or an hour once a week for 23 episodes a year, a soap opera gives you day by day updates all year round. I often spent more time with those characters more often than most family and friends because every single day I got to learn something new about them and watch their stories unfold.

At the 50th anniversary event at The Paley Center I got to meet many of the actors in person and ask them about their characters and roles on the show. Upon speaking to Jon Hensley, who has portrayed Holden Snyder since he was a teenager, I told him how I’ve been watching the show since I was a little kid and responded by saying, “Wow, you’ve watched me grow up.” I know it’s just a show and I know that often times the story lines are ridiculous and outlandish. But there is something to be said about having followed the same characters (and often the same actors) for years. Over that amount of time you see them develop and regress, you watch them fall in and out of love and maybe even die and come back to life. I also had the chance, everyday to escape into a fantasy land where the laws of nature don’t exist. Time can stand still or zoom ahead at the writers’ whim. Characters who had long been dead can return to life with a simple explanation and new characters can pop up suddenly as though they’ve got a rich history.

Personally, not to sound trite or overly melodramatic, but this show was something that was something that bound 3 generations of women in my family. My mother grew up watching it from when she was a little girl. She watched every day with her mother. As I grew up I watched it with her. I remember sitting down with my mom after dinner to catch up on the show she had taped during the day. It was our time to sit together and share something. I am lucky to have a strong relationship with my mom outside of As the World Turns, and this by no means was the only commonality we share, but it was always something we could catch up on and chat about.

The cancellation of ATWT just proves once again, that unfortunately soap operas continue to be considered the bastard child of the television industry. Network executives want high ratings for low cost. The Soap Opera started as a way to sell soap to housewives. It was daily programming for women who were home all day who would be hooked on the drama. Lately, as more women are working during the day they have been slipping in the ratings. Show-runners have been doing everything in their power to cut costs and attract new viewers, but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be working. The sad state of affairs is that this television staple and piece of history will be replaced by a banal game show which appeals to the lowest common denominator of viewer, one which can come in and out as he or she pleases. The Soap Opera, while maybe not the highest art form does deserve a certain amount of regard and respect that I think is being forgotten in the quest for high ratings.

It’s fitting that I will be home the day the show goes off the air. My mother and I will take a break from cooking for the Jewish holidays and we will sit down together to watch the final episode. The personalities of As the World Turns are not merely one dimensional and fleeting TV characters, they have been a real part of my life for 28 years and I’m not yet sure how I’ll say goodbye. What I do know is that my mom and I will have to have a box of tissues handy.

Whats "good" and what's "bad:" A Jacob/MIB Theory

A major mythology of the show is in regards to the Manichean allegory – black vs. white, good vs. bad. Is someone destined to be good? Is it a feature you have or you don’t and is it something that can coexist inside of you? Is goodness and badness something with which the individual is constantly struggling with or is it decided upon at an early age? Finally, what does it mean to be good or bad? The characters are all constantly struggling with that. Something that’s come up on the recent episode, Ab Aeterno, is more of the relationship between the Man in Black and Jacob. A few more details have been given, yet it’s still difficult to determine which is the bad guy, and which is the good guy. But I think that’s the entire point.

Jacob declares to Richard in this episode that he brings people to the island to give them the opportunity to be good. But they seem to be failing as he also said that all the people he’s brought up until that point were dead. The nature of good versus evil is yet again brought to the forefront. What is also interesting about these two characters is that no one seems to be able to see them unless specifically invited to do so. Jacob declares that no one is allowed into his cave unless invited, and other than Richard, no one knows what the “original” form of MIB looks like (“original” is in quotes because we cannot even be sure that this form we see isn’t the inhabited body of another, similar to the way he took over Locke’s body). This observation has lead me to, what I think, is an interesting theory.

So much of the show deals with not only human nature but how people deal with their own nature. The survivors of oceanic flight 815 were all struggling with something that was essentially self-inflicted. “They're all carrying around a shitload of guilt—for various reasons—and no matter how much they repent to others, they'll never truly be free until they forgive themselves. They're the causes of their own suffering, and their guilt is their cross to bear (http://jezebel.com/5501254/lost-recap-la-vida-loca-de-guyliner).” They’ve all struggled with their desires to be good or bad -- Sawyer had his demons over tracking down and killing the man who he thought was the cause of his parents’ deaths (even though he turned out to be wrong). Kate was running from the law after killing her stepfather, an issue itself that was not clearly good or bad. Jack was dealing with the death of his own father and feeling that it was his fault and blaming his own inadequacy for his father’s death. The list goes on and on, but ultimately all the survivors are dealing with something very personal and they are all fighting their own demons both internal and external.

That being said, since no one seems to be able to see MIB and/or Jacob, AND since we never get a name for MIB, my theory is that they are one in the same. They represent the two sides of the same person. MIB IS Jacob. One is Id and one is Superego: the id (possibly MIB) tries to lead people down the paths of their own desires and follow their impulses while the superego (presumably Jacob) tries to guide people to do good and believes that goodness is attainable. The island acts as the ego, the mediating force between these two impulses that brings them together and allows people’s two opposing sides to be mediated. Everyone has “good” and “bad” impulses in them, and life is all about how one control’s those desires. Similarly, these two forces on the island are trying to sway people one way or another and it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they want to behave and who they want to become.

The island is the perfect place for all these people to put their struggles to the test. They can face their insecurities and their shortcomings and put them to the test. Jack, the ultimate control freak and perfectionist has to learn that he cannot infact control everything. Sawyer, the consummate conman and loner must learn to live with people, and not only does he do that but he also becomes the head of Dharma security at one point. Even Sayid comes to terms with his violent and abusive past and sees proverbial light and regrets his former ways. Claire, a confused teenager who wanted nothing to do with the life growing inside her had a chance to become the mother she thought she didn’t want to be. The island acts as the mediating ego and creates a space where people can have a second chance to make good on what was a once failing and flailing life. Furthermore, all these people who were once pretty much loners (not just Sawyer) have come together and have found a place where they all belong and have a role of sorts to learn to live as a community, whatever that might mean.

Getting Lost

So I recently took on the task of catching up on all 5+ seasons of ABC’s mega-hit Lost. Why you ask? Well, to begin I should preface this by saying over the past 5 years I have been adamantly against watching this show. I had seen an episode back in its inaugural season and hated it. I was bored, confused and unimpressed. But over the years with all its great press, buzz and my friends going on and on about it, I’ll admit to a little bit of Lost FOMO. So when I stumbled upon the entire series on Hulu.com, I figured I’d give it a shot. My friend Elana and I decided to take on this task together so we’d be able to bounce conspiracy theories off each other and try to navigate our way through the series. It was going to be great, we’d watch a few episodes on our own or get together a few times a week and watch a couple of episodes here or there with the hope that we’d be done in time for the series finale.

I watched the first episode on February 3rd and was intrigued. The narrative structure of the show is arranged in such a way that the viewer is actively engaged in the story line. The characters were interesting, covering a litany of personalities and character types. The show is a pure televisual experience, utilizing all facets of the medium, stimulating in sight, sound and story. I instantly recognized that this was not a show during which I could multitask; it would require my full attention. When I get home at night and begin to go through my DVR, rarely do the shows get my full attention. They have to share the time with cooking dinner, blowdrying my hair, talking on the phone, doing homework and cleaning my room. However, when I tried to do this with Lost, I was utterly confused and had to rewind. I also realized that I would not be able to only watch one or two episodes at a time.

After 2 days I found myself on episode 7 of season one and I was entirely hooked. When I checked in with Elana to see how she was doing, she had barely finished the first episode, and I realized that I was on my own. Survival of the fittest, if she can’t handle the intense Lost-watching schedule I had already decided I was about to undertake then she was left behind. Sorry honey, live together, die alone! Another friend, Dov, had been a fan since the beginning so he became my sounding board for all my ideas and questions.

I must say, I don’t know if I could have done it without his help. Every episode introduced a slew of new questions and he helped me sort through those which were going to be important trends (like what’s the deal with those numbers?! What is that smoke monster thing? Why can’t anyone find them? Who keeps stealing people? And on and on…) and then there were the not so important ones which he helped me get out of my head (Why does it rain all the time?) Most of our communications took place over gchat, and sometimes when I needed him the most (I can’t believe he just killed them! is she really dead, like forever? Who are those people in the village?! Or I KNEW we’ve seen Desmond before) and he wasn’t there I would just send him the messages anyway so when he signed online he’d be barraged with a million “while you were offline” messages. Thankfully he was happy to oblige in my craziness and he answered all my questions, always making sure never to give away crucial plot points. He also filled me in along the way with what I missed from the Lost blogosphere and the fanboy culture that grew around it. He also filled me in on Lost trivia. Thanks Dov, now I can’t get my receipt from the cab without PTSD of Smokey attacks.

All was going well with my schedule and I was averaging a season per week. At this point I had hopes of catching up well before season 6 was in full swing and maybe I’d even start reading all those blogs, in REAL TIME! When, suddenly, in the middle of season 2 when suddenly what all internet viewers dread the most occurred…Buffering. Hulu stalled buffered for seconds, even minutes on end! What was a girl to do! Thankfully, Dovie was there once again with his DVD collection. Seasons 1-4…what more could I ask for? I went over on Saturday night and got seasons 2 and 3 from him. That weekend happened to be President’s Day weekend and I had a full schedule of things that needed to get done, schoolwork, apartment stuff, etc all had to get done. Too bad I spent the majority of the time watching Lost. Lying in bed with remote in hand I kept saying to myself after episode after episode ended that its ok, just one more and then I’ll go to bed. Suddenly it was 4 am and the birds were chirping and I just couldn’t keep my eyes open any longer to find out what would happen with Ben’s surgery or with Sawyer’s pacemaker, so I went to sleep. The next morning I couldn’t stand the suspense any longer, so another 3 or 4 episodes ensued before I got that “too much TV” crankiness and headache and realized I should probably get some fresh air before nightfall. And plus, I knew I had a whole other day to watch, and that my schoolwork and trip to the library would just have to wait.

I finished season 3 by the time Tuesday rolled around. My friends who were all keeping up with my progress were impressed and little shocked by the speed in which I was getting through the episodes. At one point after hearing “last week on Lost” blast from the DVD, my roommate, Mira, said from behind her closed door, Judith, you’re a machine. I couldn’t get enough. By this time I had my own theory on the metaphors for the show. Probably based on my upbringing, I began to see the show as an allegory for the Arab/Israeli conflict. The show is about the survivors of a crash who are now on this land without any way to get back and they are being tormented and tortured by those who claim they were there before them. These so called “others” had made the island their home and saw it as theirs. However, they neglect to acknowledge that neither were they the native inhabitants of the land and that Ben actually had killed off those who came before him in favor for the other “others,” a group still not understood. However, as the seasons progressed we learn that the crash survivors were actually brought to the island for a reason; they were meant to be there to protect and serve the land, much like the way the Zionists felt in regard to when they came to Israel. They were there to cultivate the land that now belongs to them after years of being in exile. While not a perfect analogy and I won’t be able to fully work it out until the series has ended, it does fit quite nicely. There’s even a temple which seems to have healing powers surrounded by a protective wall, a clear allegory to the Jewish temple. Hopefully I will have more worked out as the season comes to a close. We shall see.

About a week later, I was all caught up. Done by March 3 and ready to join the rest of the Lost world in progress. I had begun DVRing in preparation for this momentous day. My first episode in real time was Lighthouse, where Hurley and Jack learn more about the island and possibly why they are there. It was definitely a strange feeling watching it along with the rest of the world. Among the oddities was not being able to IM Dov and ask him what the heck was going on! He didn’t know either and this was really strange, no one knew anything and people were asking all the same questions I was with no possible answer. I was used to having the answers at my fingertips if I wanted them. Lostpedia.com had become an off-limits zone so I wouldn’t come across any unwanted spoilers. Now I found myself researching all I could to have as much of a grasp on everything so I wouldn’t be overly confused.

FAIL! I was overly confused. This was partly due to plot becoming so muddled and complicated. Another factor was due to my Lost binge and I was having a hard time retaining some of the details. Someone compared it to cramming before a test: you spend a short amount of time getting all the details into your brain during this massive binge right before you purge that information out onto a test. However, there was no single test to purge the information, so it just sorta seeped out. I now find myself more confused than I would had I had a real opportunity to watch each episode, let a week or even a season go by so it could sink in. So now I find myself going back and watching clips of old episodes and barely remembering those episodes even happened. But, it’s all ok because I still have Dov and now Doc Jensen to lead me through to salvation, if those Lost producers ever give it to me.

Oh, and I think Elana is still on season one. Only the strong survive!

Hurray for Hollywood!

From as long as I can remember I have been affected by the visual image projected on screen. When I was seven I wanted to be Ariel and one day find a Prince Eric of my own. Later that year I learned the lines between good and bad aren’t always so clear when my parents showed me West Side Story. To this day when I enter a theater, and sit there as the lights dim and the screen fills with images which come together to form a cohesive story I get the same excitement I did all those years ago. What am I going to come away with this time? Will I learn that there’s truly no place like home and does a spoonful of sugar really make the medicine go down? Will I fall in love with a performance that touches me and so deeply affects me like the first time I saw James Dean in Rebel without a Cause, or just the performer (ahem, yes I’m talking about Leo DiCaprio from his Titanic days)? To this day when I see a movie and I get lost in the narrative and I feel like a child again. For me, when I watch a movie I believe that anything is possible and dreams can and do come true. Maybe it’s a bit naïve, but over the years it’s become who I am.

Although many are credited for saying it, it’s unclear who actually came up with the phrase, “trust the art, not the artist.” Despite its murky origins I think this phrase is what has guided my love of the movies even before I had heard it actually articulated just a few years ago. That phrase is all about the essence of the movies. While volumes have been written about theory, aesthetic, thematics and history of film, dissecting scenes frame by frame, applying to the era from which it came, I think the spirit of film and what makes them so popular is ultimately its ability to relate to their viewers, and it might not have even been the intention of the filmmaker. When someone walks out of a movie-going experience and is able to take something, anything, away and relate it to their own personal experiences and is what makes a film a success. I recently walked out of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland inspired to follow my heart and dreams rather than what might be someone else’s. I felt encouraged to be courageous and do what’s right to me in my heart even if it’s not the safest or even popular decision. Had I not been entrenched in a life guiding career decision, I might have walked away with a completely different lesson from the film.

Oscar night, for this reason, is one of my favorite nights of the year. I sit down with my ballot all set out in front of me. One highlighter reserved for who I want to win, another who my prediction is for who will actually win and then finally, the actual winner. I laugh, I cry and I cheer as names are rattled off. Tears stream down my face during the “In Memoriam” portion of the evening as the industry, so often concerned in the here and now honors those who’ve paved their ways and innovated films and built the empire on which they stand and rely. This year two memorable names stood out to me. I got particularly choked up as Carl Malden and Bud Schulberg’s names and faces graced the screen. Respectively they were an honest and graceful actor and trailblazing screenwriter who helped shaped the place of films in the cultural zeitgeist. Furthermore, every year in addition to the excited anticipation, I hear the same complaints from friends and critics alike that the speeches are boring, the show drones on forever, and who cares about the random technical awards. For me it is just the opposite. Of course the “big” awards are important to me, but the so-called smaller awards are just as central to the Oscar night experience.

It’s generally the sound mixer or editor who goes unnoticed during all the glitz and glam of Hollywood. They aren’t known for their good looks, who they are dating or who they are wearing. Rather, it is these unsung heroes who are making the images we see pop on screen both visually and audibly and come together seamlessly. They are also those who often have some of the most inspiring stories of them all. Personally, as someone trying to navigate her way through a career in entertainment, desperately trying to find my way in such a volatile industry, I love hearing those speeches. Tonight, one of my favorites came from Michael Giacchino who won the Oscar for Best Score for Disney/Pixar’s Up. In his speech he told children, but also people in general, to never let others tell them that what they’re doing is a waste of time and not useful. He spent his childhood experimenting with cameras and being creative and he was lucky to always have people around him encouraging that creative spirit. What a wonderful message to send people today – that what you do matters. In an era of twitter and constant facebook status updates and people looking for that instant gratification that what they are thinking at any given moment is important, what really matters is the positive enhancements you bring to this world, the creative energy you bring to the table and to believe in yourself.

Another theme of the night, which is piggybacked on this one, is one that was reinforced time and again. It’s that you should always follow your dreams. Trust your gut and don’t be afraid to make mistakes. Take Katherine Bigelow, tonight’s winner for Best Director and the first female to take home the prize. She’s been working in an industry which tends to be male-focused and male-centric and she even made a “male” movie but she did it her way and she had been honored with the industry’s top awards for doing so. All the other winners from The Hurt Locker praised Bigelow and spoke to her unwavering integrity to her work and her vision. And this is something important to take away from how to live life and guide one’s career. Now, again, these are all themes which I took away from the show and the power of cinema because those are themes I am dealing with directly in my life and career right now and it’s something perhaps I needed to hear.

As anyone who knows me knows, I am pretty much unreachable during the Oscars. Phone is on silent, computer shut down and door locked, just like the movies which I have come to love and admire, so too the show which honors their achievement is a site for my inspiration. I get lost in the show just like I get lost in the movies and the power of film reaches me today the same as when I was just an impressionable child. I guess not all that much has changed.