Announcement: Please go to the bookstore and purchase Maxine Hong Kingston's novel Woman Warrior if it's available. I'm told that it was sold out, but perhaps they ordered more? (I have contacted the book dealer to inquire.)
Announcement: The TA (Ms. Chen) will supervise the class on Tuesday 3/2. You will watch the two movies posted below and answer the questions below for homework by posting replies to this blog entry. (Post by Friday 3/5.)
Announcement: Aaron will return to teach the class on Tuesday 3/9. The reading assignment to prepare for that session is specified here in the syllabus (Bierce/Pound/Far/Song/Lee); I will post the homework questions on Friday 3/5. If you have any complaints/suggestions about the syllabus, please post them by Monday 3/8. (I am aware of the scheduling conflict with the graduation ceremony, and am considering alterations.)
I look forward to seeing you soon!
Note: The Jazz Singer was released in 1927. It was the first full-length "talkie," or movie with synchronized sound.
Note: "Cantor" is a Jewish holy singer
Note: "Shiksa" means a non-Jewish woman
Note: "Kibbitzer" means gossiper
Note: The Bronx is the area of New York city just north of Manhattan island... it was a bit more rural at this time (especially even further to the north)... you can imagine the setting of the Jewish neighborhood in the movie being downtown Manhattan. My Jewish relatives actually moved to the south Bronx around this same time. Today the Bronx is a working class area, and downtown Manhattan is incredibly expensive. American cities tend to follow two patterns: one is a "white flight" pattern in which wealthy residents abandon the central city and commute to their professional jobs from the suburbs, the other is a "gentrification" pattern in which the central city areas become more expensive and lower-wage workers must leave them because the rent is too high. I would be interested to know which pattern prevails more in Taipei.
126 (Alyssa). Can a movie be considered a work of "American Literature"? Give arguments for both yes and no.
127 (Caleigh). I find the story of Jakie Rabinowitz / Jack Robin personally relevant because it makes me think of my grandparents' generation of Jews in New York City. Many of my students in California find it relevant because they or their parents have immigrated to the U.S. and faced the dilemmas of Americanization. What I wonder is if you find this movie identifiable or relevant? Why or why not?
128 (Carol). The Jazz Singer belongs to a category of technically innovative American movies that includes Avatar and Song of the South (remember that one? with the singing slaves and the cartoon rabbit?). Can you think of any reason why these technical innovations are accompanied in each case by an attempt to somehow consume the experience of a racial minority?
129 (Clara). It is clear what Jack's father represents (religious law, tradition). But I find his relationship to his mother quite interesting. What does it mean? How can we analyze her character?
130 (Crystal). Does the narrative of the Jazz Singer suit Roosevelt's rules for 'Americanization,' or not? Explain.
Note: Modern Times was released in 1936; it is considered the last great silent movie, although it does have some synchronized sound.
Note: "Gamin" means a street urchin, a boy. I think it should be "Gamine," which would be female. Also, I'm going to take a wild guess that most waterfront urchin girls are not strikingly beautiful.
131 (Emma). Analyze the choice of words on the title screen: "A story of industry, of individual enterprise - humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness."
132 (Esther). What kinds of things does Charlie Chaplin do, as an actor and as a director, to make the "Little Tramp" character so identifiable or sympathetic to his audience? Compare the Tramp to a 20th/21st century Taiwanese character who has a similar level of identifiability, or similar characteristics.
133 (Iris). Why do you think the German Nazis were convinced that the Little Tramp was Jewish? How is ethnicity/race addressed in Modern Times?
134 (Jane). Explain Chaplin's use of sound and/or silence to convey meaning. (Exclude the musical score.) Why do you think he didn't like "talkies"?
135 (Jenny). Which of our authors from last semester would like Modern Times the most? Which would like it the least? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Professor,
ReplyDeleteI think the syllabus has a serious flaw. To we fourth-year undergraduate students, this semester is our last semester in NTHU. Since on the syllabus we are not supposed to take the final exam until 6/22, I doubt that what is the significance of our graduation ceremony on 6/12.
Question from Tracy.
Tracy, thanks for bringing this to my attention! I am considering how to adjust the syllabus.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jane, answering question #134.
ReplyDeleteEmphasizing the actor’s performance is what Chaplin insists on when he was making movies during the 1930s. Just as Aaron mentioned on the blog, “The Jazz Singer was released in 1927. It was the first full-length "talkie," or movie with synchronized sound.” Since “Modern Times” was released in 1936, the film makers definitely can use the new sound track technology to attract the audience. However, Chaplin didn’t use it that way; instead, he highlighted the performance of action and motion and makes the film profoundly unique.
Even though Chaplin rarely uses lines to express the conversation scene between characters, he puts lots of musical sound track synchronically with the film. In other words, Silent movie created by Chaplin is not a movie without any sound but a film focuses on the actions, facial expressions and the fluency of the performance of actors/actresses. Just as the deaf use sign language to communicate, actors reveal their ideas through hands, bodies, and facial expression. Everyone can understand the message from the actors regardless what language he actually speaks of. In other words, the way we speak or talk is limited by which language we conveyed, no matter it is English, Mandarin or Spanish. For example, only who understand English can comprehend the compacted conversation spoke by English speaker. However, using bodily performance can cross such barrier. I think Chaplin tries to leap over the language barrier and makes movies understandable to universal audience. Even children (who possess limited words), illiteracy, and audience from other countries can perceive the message straightforwardly.
However, in the film “Modern Times,” there are times when people actually talked. Mostly the speaker is the boss, the owner of the factory.(He speaks 2 or 3 times) The person who introducing the feeding machine opens his mouth once and the radio announces the gastrointestinal suggestion in English once. In my opinion, the above speaker has certain similarity. They usually give orders and commands with assuredly tone. They also talk very fast and emotionless as if it is a machine that talks. I think the silent protagonist and ‘the gamin’ represent the voiceless ones. In this film, they talk but cannot be heard; they shout and cry but remain mute. Considering the situation they are in, it is very alike that the protagonist’s right to live is grabbed in the commander’s hands and the couple’s happiness is overwhelmed by the industrializing society.
The last impromptu Chaplin performed in the restaurant is noticeable for he sings with lots of words. Chaplin sings and performs with a European language (I am not sure whether it is Italian or Spanish) under the pressure of maintaining a job and earning himself a living. It is easy to perceive the contrast between the previous silent actor and an eloquent singer. Interestingly, he utters a not-so-friendly language with an amusing and laughable action to present the flirtation between a man and a woman. In my observation, in this scene, he distinguishes the bodily language and the oral language once again.
Whenever my university colleagues in the U.S. ask me, "how are your students in Taiwan?," I just show them blog posts like this one, and they are very, very impressed!
ReplyDeleteThis is Carol answering question #128:
ReplyDeleteAs you said, this is indeed a very difficult question. The only possible reason I can provide to explain the phenomenon of “repeating the pattern of consuming the experience of racial minority accompanied by technical innovation” is that it is a way of strengthening/proving the empire themselves. That is to say, those who are able to produce movies of high-technological innovation are almost equivalent to the highly developed countries; they want not only to display the technical innovation to the world, but also to place themselves in the movies as the main characters to experience the racial minority cultures (In “The Jazz Singer,” it is the Jewish experiencing the Black; In “Avatar,” human experiencing Pandora’s Na’vi; In “Song of the South,” the White consume the Black). It is a process of proving, or even strengthening their role as an empire.
As for the more complicated “Jazz Singer” film, the case is a little different from the other two for the “white” in the film is actually Jewish minority. The “real” white views (the consumers) did not actually see through the main character to experience the minority culture. Regarding the “blackface” scene comparing to the “I see you” scene, I think they correspond to each other by respectively “adapting” their minority culture experience. More specific, Jack Robin drew himself into a black face and song African-American music in order to be like them; Corporal Jake Sully said the “I see you” line to eliminate his barrier with the Na’vi Neytiri. However, no matter how hard they try to adapt or to be like them, they could never become the same.
Last, this is about how different ethnic groups respond to Jack Robin’s performance. To the Jewish, they must have felt ashamed by him. Remember the scene when his father, the cantor, kicked him out because he sings the Jazz music? And the part when his mother saw him drew in black, she said, “this is not my son!” As for black audience, I was thinking they might get irritated for it seems that they are the “subject” only used for entertaining the white.
This is Jenny answering Q135.
ReplyDeleteI believe Mark Twain would like this movie. How Mark Twain makes fun of his time is similar to the way Charlie Chaplin arranges this movie. They’re both representing social problems in a funny way and in a different setting. Twain send a Connecticut Yankee back to centuries ago. Charlie Chaplin made a fictional movie. Planning some reasonable but impossible plots draw the eyes of audiences and readers. The images of knights are broken in Twain’s story. Worker Chaplin is still ALIVE after he fell into the machine. When the movie is too dramatic, the real face of the joke would jump out in the mind of the audience. The feeding machine should have killed worker Chaplin. (and the movie would be THE END there.) Recreation works takes people away from reality, but also make the audience see the reality in another angle again, but not so depressed.
I don’t know if my direction is right… but I think that Theodore Roosevelt would hate this movie. I search very hard but fail to find any writer who is a fan of industrialization on last semester’s list. Therefore, I start to search who need industrialization to support his belief. Industrialization is a power for America to stand up among the world. I think Roosevelt would say this to worker Chaplin, “You are not deserved to be an American. Can you ever make something for this great nation?” Roosevelt’s American Ideals gives me the impression that individual happiness and desperation is secondary to the benefit of the America as a whole. Ask what you can do for this nation, not what you can gain form the house of nation. So, I think he won’t like this movie. There’s a sometimes hard-working, but sometimes seems deliberately idle the work in the factory.
This is Clara, answering question 129.
ReplyDeleteWhen Jack was punished by his father as singing Jazz in public, his mother stood on his side and intended to protect him. Even though Jack left home, she still noticed his news and pleased to hear his success. Compared with Jack’s father, she represents a traditional image as a fond mother who always supports her son no matter what he did. However, I argue that she really understood Jack, though Jack said to his father when he left home again: “Some day you will understand, the same as mama does.” She is only a mother who spoiled the child, and tried her best to keep the harmony in home. I observe that she never showed the ideas of her own. She is obedient to Jack’s father, and follow to others’ suggestion to the theater looking for Jack. She didn’t realize which world Jack belonged to until she saw his rehearsal at the theater. At that time, I think she eventually showed her firm stand.
This is Emma’s answer to Q131.
ReplyDelete'Modern Times' is set in the 1930s, an era of industrialization and the time period of the Great Depression. During that time, lots of workers lost their jobs and have difficulty in making a living. The protagonist Charlie is one of the unemployed people. In the industrial system, the role of machine is magnified while individual is insignificant. As the audience can see in the beginning of the film, the director draws an ironic analogy between workers and a flock of pigs. To be obvious, conditions were unfavorable for the working class to develop individual enterprise then.
Regardless of Charlie’s bad luck in his career, he never gives up his dream of reaching wealth and happiness. As a drifting nobody, he can be an epitome of the society at his time--willing to work hard while having difficulty in getting a steady job and making a living.
The choice of words on the title screen is quite interesting: 'humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness.' To crusade means to make an effort to achieve something which one believes in strongly. Therefore, this word is often associated with a holy faith. In this film, the faith is to pursue happiness, yet their so-called ‘happiness’ is merely defined as having a dwelling and adequate food. The pursuit of happiness is seemly a high ideal; however, looking into its content, we find it sorrowful. In order to earn a living, the character Charlie will do anything even if managing to be sent to the prison, for he think he can eat and live for free in the jail. With the word ‘crusade’ describing the pursuit of adequacy in basic life need, Chaplin emphasizes the plight and helplessness of the poor masses at that time.
This is Crystal, answering question no.130:
ReplyDeleteI think that the story of Jack Robin does not entirely suit Roosevelt’s rule for “Americanization.” It seems that both Jack’s narrative and Roosevelt’s conception are similar in pursuing and anticipating a better and more promising future development. As a cantor’s son living in a conservative family, Jack is forced to take over his family’s sacred mission in singing for God. Yet growing up in a different generation, Jack turns out to be a figure who was passionately yearning to chase after his own dream despite of the fierce opposition from his father. He appears to be willing to sacrifice everything to reach the peak in his beloved career, becoming the most hit jazz singer in the Broadway show. As for Roosevelt, he believes that only when everyone of different ethnics gives up his/her original cultures and mother tongue can he/she succeed in the end.
Even though their ideas tend to move toward the positive side, compared to Jack Robin’s case, Roosevelt’s rule is much more benefit-oriented, a compelling command and devoid of the consideration concerning humanity. There seems to be no way out for people but to exactly obey the tyrannical order and to “nourish” the great Americans. On the other hand, despite of his desperate desire of becoming the top jazz singer, Jack is still bound to his original root, the tradition of his previous generations. Unlike Roosevelt’s inflexible and profit-oriented rule, Jack’s response to the dilemma in the film is more reasonable and humane. Beside, in the final scene, Jack’s willingness to sing as a cantor is the demonstration of unselfishness. While Roosevelt’s claim in encouraging people to completely discard and forget their past is selfish and overbearing.
This is Caleigh answering question 127.
ReplyDeleteFor the immigration or moving part, I don't really feel the movie relevant to myself, however, I do see something identifiable, that is the characters' struggle from tradition to modernization. In the movie, Jack was torning between the old and the new, the old being his father wish that he could become a cantor too, and the new being his passion for the rising jazz music. I believe in Taiwan, there are lots of parents who would "plan" their children's future instead of giving them open choices, and consider certain occupations inappropriate or unsuitable. For example, like Jack's father, the cantor in the movie, parents that are more traditional tend to view artists (singers, actors) as jobs that have lower reputation. I see the cantor as someone who was having difficulty accepting new ideas and trends, and I can observe some similarities in Taiwanese parents. And Jack, being a young man who was experiencing cultural shock, both between the old and the new, and between different ethnicities, was eager to present his passion and talent to the new world. I can, to some extent, relate my own situation to his, with the feeling of wanting open choices for career and future.
This is the answer for Q132, answered by Esther.
ReplyDeleteIn the film, Chaplin forms the character “a man lives on the blink of the society:” he was oppressed by the working system under the control of Industrialism－ the production line and the feeding machine－ these reveal not only the exploit from employer but the objectification toward workers. Besides, Chaplin also points out the potential possibility of estrangement through the scene which the character goes crazy when he is working on the production line (He has no time to take a rest, even a sneeze will postpone the schedule). Just as Michel Foucault once says that there’s no psychotic patient in the past; however, in the society of capitalism, people begin to distinguish the difference between normal people and mantel disordered people. Since the psychotic patient cannot work on the production line, that is to say, they don’t have productivity like normal people. Thus, so called normal people start to isolate this group of people by gather them into the madhouse; and through this way, people who obey the creed of capitalism also begin to establish they own sense of superiority. Furthermore, in the movie, the character goes into the jail for three times with ridiculous reasons (being misunderstood as the leader of communists, being misjudged as attack police); these present the audience the social situation at the time: disordered, unreasonable, and absurd. Finally, this also what I think what makes the film a classic, is that although Chaplin presents the evil side of capitalism society and the panic which people toward this defective social system, he packages them with a comic way and gives people a little hope in the end. It seems that people will feel less painful and tearful which tough environment brings to us when we watch a comedy- packaged tragedy; therefore, even if the heavy issue like this, the audience can still laugh.
As for the identifiability or similar characteristics in Taiwanese character, I think 楊儒門 could be the one. Yang is a son of a farmer, he is known as the “rice bomber.” Between 2003 and 2004, out of the reason of against importing foreign rice, he put 17 bombs with paper slips writing “opposing rice import” and “government should take care of people” on the surface of the bombs in Taipei city. He was put into the jail on Nov. 26 2004, but was special pardoned in 2007.
Hi Aaren,
ReplyDeleteThis is Iris, answering question 133
I actually agree with your points. Based on Racism, Nazis believed German men inherent superior human traits and capacities. On the other hand, they consider Jewish possessed the most undesirable characteristics.
In the movie, the Tramp’s physical strength isn’t strong. And his metal condition might also very vulnerable and weak because he easily goes out of his mind because repeated movement of work. Also he always makes his job become a mess and tries to avoid work by going back to jail. It seems his successes in the jail and restaurant just depends on luck but not his real capacity. Obviously, the Tramp is not a person who Nazis would admire; and his poor characteristic made Nazis thought he might be a Jewish.
In my opinion, however, it’s more reasonable to believe that the features of the tramp and the arrangement of plot try to satirize industrialization and representing ordinary people or worker’s feeling of powerlessness in America, but not the matter of race.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this question, we can start from the definition of the word “literature.” Some argue that literature is the distorted ordinary language. That is, the ordinary language is transformed, or estranged from the ordinary usage in order to achieve some aesthetic effects. But some also argue that all written text can be called literature. Still another insists that all forms of art, as long as they convey the information or carry some significance, can be called one. This group of critics believe that texts(languages) are about signs－the signifiers and the signified. And since a movie contains signs, (the scripts of a movie, the dialogues and the way of narration) it can be called “literature.”
ReplyDeleteTo follow the track of the “broad” sense of definition, it’s apparent that a movie can be called the “American Literature.” Like real written texts, a movie has its structure, its point of view, and its rhetoric skill. A movie is about language, and even a silent movie can be said to have signs－we cannot forget that language system is itself a system of signs. Thus, it’s fair to argue that a movie is a form of literature. As to whether a movie can be said to be “American,” if we stick to the definition of “pure American” and incorporate the idea of the European influences, then there will be scarcely any movie which can be called “American.” We may have to re-define the term “American” and write another paper to discuss it. Yet I believe we do not have to probe that deep; I put the emphasis on the term “literature” instead of “American.”
Yet to follow another track of the definition, the “narrow” one, a movie cannot be called literature because the term “literature” designates only written texts. Though a movie has a script, it is represented only with visual information. It is better understood to be a “visual art” rather than literature.
And to those who believe that literature is the distorted ordinary language, since a movie not only mimics the external world, but, through different ways of camera uses, the shifts of scenes and ways of narration, transforms the original direct perception of the world, it can be called a “literature.”
I will respond to a couple of stray points here. Your answers are becoming so good that I sometimes have little to add.
ReplyDelete1) How was "Jazz Singer" received in the Jewish-American community? Answer: very positively. For one thing, the movie seems to offer an appealing compromise between "American" identity and "ethnic" identity. Jack(ie) is, in the end, a good Jewish boy but he also achieves the financial and social success promised by assimilation. Consider that the producers of the movie are the Warner Brothers, a Jewish-American success story if there ever was one. Their story is somewhat similar to Jack's. For another thing, this is one of the more positive portrayals of Jewish life that you will find in American film at this time. It displays some stereotypes but overturns many others.
2) "Jazz Singer's" reception by African-Americans? Actually it was somewhat popular. I think the logic here was that it was more respectful than many other minstrel performances. (The more interesting case is the musical "Porgy and Bess," because the Jewish-American composer George Gershwin tried much more carefully to give an authentic representation of African-American culture and employed an all-black cast.) You have to understand that at this time in American history the Jews were still understood as a minority group, so there is some level of logical affiliation possible between them and the blacks. This then increases because of the Holocaust, and indeed the Jewish-Black alliance in American politics is an important engine of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s. By the 1960s blacks began to suspect that Jewish-Americans had become so assimilated as "white" that their interests were no longer in common. Many blacks began to look to the Islamic world (and to myths about Egypt and ancient Africa) as a source for identity, which brought them more toward a mild anti-Jewish stance by the current era. (On the other side, most Protestants were anti-Jewish in the past but now support Israel for various reasons.)
3) After making fun of "Avatar" so much, I will give you two contradictory perspectives on the movie. A reviewer for a Christian newspaper, who actually disliked the politics of the movie, said the following: "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects." So this may tell us that Cameron has achieved something quite interesting rhetorically or politically, even if it's not that intellectual. Then consider this review by Bolivian president Evo Morales, who is one of the first American political leaders with relatively "pure" indigenous heritage. Of course this is propaganda, but I found it interesting. Morales calls the movie "una profunda muestra de la resistencia al capitalismo y la lucha por la defensa de la naturaleza."... a profound demonstration of resistance to capitalism and of the struggle for the defense of nature."
Regarding Jack's mother. This relates to our discussions of names and lineage in "Woman Warrior." So the religious law in traditional Judaism is associated with the father's rule of the household. Especially among Eastern European jews, which is the main group who immigrated to the U.S. However, the cultural or ethnic identity per se is passed through the mother's line. Isn't that interesting? Someone whose mother is not Jewish is not technically considered Jewish unless they undergo a conversion ritual.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see from my name, my mother is "McLean" which is a Scottish name, although most of my relatives on her side are German Protestants. I also never underwent the traditional coming of age ceremony or "bar mitzvah." And I do not observe most religious practices. So when I call myself Jewish, I refer more to a belonging in a cultural tradition, in particular the secular Jewish tradition of intellectuals like Spinoza and Einstein. And being part of a family who has a claim to this heritage. (Quantitatively, there are probably more "secular half-jews" in the U.S. than "religious full jews.") My case is different from Hong Kinston, because she has less "choice" in the matter, but you can see that all Americans must carve out some kind of story about their family. Maybe I am more like Jake Sully or Ezra Pound?
This can teach us something about American identity in general. There is an interplay between what you choose and what "is chosen" for you, and different groups negotiate this power in different ways. In the Jazz Singer, this difference is clearly expressed by the father (the law that is chosen for you, which you must accept or rebel against) and the mother (the identity that you choose freely because of love, the creative reinterpretation... in this case the equation of the real Jewish mother with the mythical African-American mother).
So the comparison between the "Jazz Singer" and "Woman Warrior" might be an excellent essay topic!
Let me add special applause for Esther and Alyssa in addition to my earlier applause for Jane.
ReplyDeleteAll of these answers are very good, but those three in particular may be worth returning to for further consideration because they contain ideas that open the discussion to new directions. (Esther's use of Foucault and her modern example, Alyssa's theoretical breakdown, Jane's concept of voicelessness.)