Nostalgia Effect

Nostalgia is a topic that is particularly interesting to me. From discussions with friends, I have noticed that my ability to remember my past/childhood is especially good. I remember a lot of events and details.  I love remembering the past, even the more difficult parts.  To me, nostalgia seems to have two elements to it: a fondness at the memory and an implied loss at the past that no longer exists. Depending on the individual and the situation either one of these two elements can be emphasized more than the other. I believe that my nostalgia leans to the side of fond remembrance; I love where I am now in life, but I like to remember what got me here.

“The Sweater” by Sheldon Cohen seems to be emphasizing the other element more.  The boy in the film misses his sweater and romanticizes the time he had with it.  He compares his life to what it use to be, and how present life appears to be lacking so greatly in comparison. A term that I believe applies to both elements that make up nostalgia is rosy retrospection.  This refers to when people rate past events more positively than they would have when the event occurred.  They wear rose-tinted glasses. I think this is a very common thing for people to do.  Memories are so fluid and changeable, and people would rather be happier than they actually were at the time.

This is what makes Peter’s reaction to returning to Never-land so interesting. He reacts oppositely of rosy retrospection; he resists feelings of nostalgia to a fault.  He’s faced so much reality, so much sarcasm, contrivances, and pretentious people, that it takes him a long time to recognize sincerity, innocence, and openness.  He has to relearn how to be a child before he can become Peter Pan and feel true nostalgia.  It is easy to feel like nostalgia is worthless, it can never be made the same as it was, but it can change something: it can change the perspective of the person feeling it. Once Peter has changed, has felt that nostalgia, he may not be able to stay in Never-land as Peter Pan, but he can go back home and be better connected and a better father to his children.  I believe that the nostalgia he felt is what changed him, and it made him a better person as well.

Children's Unique Voice

Children are impossible to define. Some believe that this is because of post-modernism ideals of meaning and semiotics. Children are only defined by everything else and what they are not. Socially, there are ways to define the child: gender, race, class, religion, culture, sexuality, ableness, and many others.  Media should not classify all children in one group because their age is only one factor of many characteristics that are important to their individuality to who they truly are. Not all children are little white boys with little white boy problems.  Now those problems are important and relevant, I want to make that clear, but a rounder picture of children and the issues they face should be portrayed in media. Media needs to be de-centered.

“Bicycle Thieves”, an Italian film, delves into the culture and struggles of a family of poor Italians. This is very different from the Hollywood stories about white people that most audiences were use to.  Audience members get attached to the family and want them to be successful.  That is an admirable thing to want, right? Well, if it was a Hollywood film nine times out of ten they would end up succeeding and the audience would feel justified. They would also feel less charity towards the poor, because if they would just work harder then they would be successful like the family in the movie. “Bicycle Thieves” de-centers this idea. They don’t succeed in the end, and they end up lower than when they started.  The low man doesn’t always succeed; in this case the low man sinks lower.  That is part of the diversity of life, for bad things happen to already struggling people.

That film was about a family. Persepolis, on the other hand, is about a little girl, and not just any little girl. Persepolis is an Iranian, Muslim, from an intellectual family, and a middle class family.  Persepolis isn’t a passive victim but an active participant in that society. She has opinions, believes, ideas, and values that are important and worth being heard. “Bicycle Thieves” seemed to just emphasize the challenges/inequalities.  While Persepolis definitely described some very unfortunate circumstances, but I believe that it empowers her to speak and be heard. I know that I don’t know the most about that culture, and she was able to teach me so much by her experiences with the socio-political culture that she was raised in.

New People not Plots

Is nothing new? Many believe that is true.  All stories and ideas are just restatements and reiterations of stories and ideas of the past. If that were the case than what would be the point in creating anything?  That is where play comes in.  Just because a story has been told before doesn’t mean that it has been told the best way, or your way.  People know things and understand things differently than they did in the past, and therefore the way we tell stories now will be different and historically important.  Play makes stories and ideas new because of the people and perspective that create that play. 

Ideas and their physical counterparts are signs used to communicate between people, but their meanings are not fixed. They are actually fluid, which allows people to play with them and their meaning to create something new. This room for movement, for give and take, and for loose correlation allows us to create new juxtaposition and new meaning.  I saw a depiction of Mitt Romney where an artist had made him into a Dungeons and Dragons character (he even had an amulet with the essence of Reagan).  These two ideas put together to make a comment about how ridiculous and fantastical the artist thinks Romney is.  By intertextualizing the piece of art, it created a new juxtaposition and interpretation.

 

It is really interesting when you take the people out of play, and I don’t like it.  I watched a video called Toccata for Toy Trains.  First of all, I don’t particularly love trains, so that wasn’t a selling factor for me.  While watching, it felt eerie to see all of the toys moving without a person or child moving them. I believe that the human element has to be a part of play to make it truly playful.  Otherwise it is just objects moving of their own accord.  Without any real anthropomorphic features that can draw me into empathizing with them, I just loose interest. 

Going back to the first question, I think it is the human element that makes things new.  We played a video game in class called “Curse of the White Witch”.  Was the plot of the game new? Absolutely not. What was new and unique about the situation were the people playing it. No one experienced or will experience that game like we did last Wednesday night.  We passed around the controller, we were playing it in a college class, but more importantly, Spencer, Keala, Kelyn, and I read the text in funny voices, we laughed at “tidy”, we made fun of it.  We brought ourselves to the game and we are unique, which made our experience unique. So while stories may never be new, play is always new and fresh as more kids are born who will experience it differently.

Experimentation without Rules

What I got out of this week’s discussions: experimentation is both good and extremely important. Of course there are ton of different movements with in this idea of experimentation: Dada, Futurism, Bahaus, Impressionism, Cubism, Constructionism, Expressionism, etc.  What is beautiful about the experimentation of children is that it is a step further than all of these movements.  Those movements were made by adults who wanted to fight against the known classical styles of art. Children know nothing of classical art, what is acceptable, and what isn’t.  This gives them the freedom to truly express in a way that the avant-garde artists can only attempt to obtain.  The innocence and ignorance of children is their strength.

I believe that experimentation in the media-sphere has a few different purposes. I believe that it tells adults that it is okay to let go of all of the rules and lines they have created; they can return to a child-like state and experience the same feelings of freedom and pleasure that they experienced as a child.  This happened to me when I watched Duck Amuck. I remembered watching it as a child and the pleasure I gained from that cartoon.  I believe that another purpose of experimentation is to let children know that it is okay; they may be different than adults but in a good way.  The moral behind Gerald McBoing-Boing is that it is good that he is different than all the other children. Differences make us who we are and we should never try to change ourselves.

Last, I think experimentation mixed with a little imagination can allow children to live the lives they want to live.  By experimenting with toys, art supplies, and their imaginations, children can become anything they could possibly desire to be.  Even imaginary friends are just a way to experiment with social interactions.  In Sherlock Jr. a huge portion of the film is dedicated to a dream sequence.  The filmmakers experimented with their story telling and by doing so were able to describe Keaton’s character and his desires much better and visually.  This experimentation also showed how child-like Sherlock Jr.’s  is.  He may be a man trying to get a girl, but he also experiments with his reality through dreams.  

Imaginary Consciousness

            The imaginary is often very difficult to discuss; it’s the melding of the conscious and the sub-conscious.  It has the scientific viewpoint of the industrial revolution, but this scientific approach is to understand the primal instincts and emotions that are inherent in humans: it’s all about Freud.  The imaginary is about desire, fulfilling and channeling desire, and not so much about reason and logic.  It is interesting to think about this while watching “Destino” by Salvador Dali.  It has a bit of a plot, but that isn’t what it is about. It is about the emotions and changes that the characters go through, and often these are shown through colors, shapes, and morphing.  It can be confusing at times to various audiences; you have to be on the same wavelength when it comes to the imagination, or else it is just gibberish.

            The media plays a huge role in this area for children.  It creates a place for them to explore that is socially acceptable; it adds fuel to the fire as a supplemental activity.  When watching “The Secret of the Beehive”, the audience lives vicariously through these two girls as they play, explore, and experiment with the world.  What is fascinating is that because these girls don’t have media all the time to release their imaginations, the traveling movie mans only come a few times, they have to use the real world as their imaginary playground. The problem with this is that the real world isn’t as safe as fiction, so the girls get into some sticky situations that have real danger associated with them.

            For me this raises the question: how much danger is okay?  When I was a kid, I ran all over my neighbor with my friends and our imaginations in tow.  At times we were definitely in danger, and probably more danger than we were willing to admit because we were dumb kids.  But is keeping kids inside sitting in front of a television all day any better.  I think using your imagination is more useful and growth promoting than having it stimulated by the media.  Then there is also the fact that sitting in front of the television all the time and not getting outside is really bad for kids health and fitness.  I think that there is definitely a way to balance these two things, and that both are important. One should not be over emphasized while ignoring the other. They are both necessary.

Hitting a Baseball

            Documentary is a beautiful bridge. To me it is like a mix of romanticism and inquiry.  People realize that they can’t “follow natural instincts”, escape societal institutions, and go live in the woods. But they don’t have to see their lives as a trap or cage.  I find a lot of hope in this idea. This idea that the everyday should be exalted, and that tribulation can lead to transcendence is wonderful. We don’t seek to escape life, but to see it properly and revel in its quirks and circumstances.  Watching other people live and work can bring new perspective and insight to our own lives and work.

            For instance, Lumiere did a short actuality that showed two little babies in high chairs fighting.  I found it especially amusing because of how they were dressed: in lacy frilly frocks.  Children will fight no matter how old they are, where they are, what they are wearing, or whether or not a camera is rolling.  This documentation is one of the most pure and real because their actions are not affected by the camera’s presence. Many, if not most, people act differently in front of a camera than if they were alone.  People are narcissistic and care about how they are seen and documented.

            To demonstrate this type of filming we watched “Little Fugitive.”  It is a narrative story shot like it was pure reality.  We see the characters confront problems, complain, and get lost.  It even shows a bit of the social realism side of documentaries; it’s a coming of age tale and so there is some alienation to his brother, to the police, and to the horseman.  Eventually Joey is returned to his place in society and a little wiser for the experience.  Honestly, my favorite part in the entire film is when Joey is in the batting cage. He hits one of the baseballs at the cameraman. The camera jolts a bit from the experience, and Richie, who plays Joey, looks into the camera with a bit of shock in his eyes. It is the only time that the audience is made aware of the camera, the documentary, and the acting the boy is doing.  To me it shows a deeper reality than the filmmakers are trying to show by keeping the camera invisible.  I’ve seen many fiction films, but nothing like that has ever happened. I think it is a wonderful, and very real, moment which is what makes it so special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bc7sLx1Bdw&t=29m58s

Romantically Enhanced Adventure

            In many respects, adventure is a romantic rebuttal to the more industrialized objective form, which is inquiry.  It retains the imagination, magic, and nature that are often stripped from films based in pure inquiry.  Emotion is lost when only reason is allowed to remain, just as nature is lost in lieu of mechanical and industrial growth. Romanticism is the revival of the emotional through nature. Interestingly, inquiry often leads to adventure.  In the comic, “Tintin in Tibet,” Tintin has a dream that raises an important question: do I need to save my friend.  This inquiry becomes so forefront and strong in his mind that he cannot ignore it, which starts the adventure of trying to find his friend Change.  Change was saved by Bigfoot, he said “I tell you, Tintin, from the way he took care of me, I couldn't help wondering if, deep down, he hadn't a human soul.”  This story brings up the topic of what is the line between humanity and nature, or if there is a line at all. 

            The premise to the film, “Time Bandits,” is based in Inquiry: what if you could use a map to travel through space and time.  Right off the bat, nature is brought back into the equation by the fact that they are using a map. Maps are made so that we can navigate nature and her mysteries.  Also, the villain of this film is in love with the idea of advance technology and computers. He even has a metal tube attached to his head. He relies on technology and wishes it to take over everything.  Another connection with nature is where the group of bandits came from. They were a crew that created bushes and trees for the creation of Earth.  They tried to escape that job, but in the end they had to return because being burglars was just not in their nature.  Last, I’m not so sure about their depiction of “God” in this film. Normally God is bright, pure, and noble; he is the creator of all things.  In this film “God” is dressed and presented as the boss: a pompous capitalist that only cares about what he wants to do and not how it affects the world.  To be honest, I thought it was unusual for them to portray him this way. It felt out of place.  I think they were trying to take the audience by surprise instead of giving him deeper symbolic meaning.