Pretends

Stories, stories and stories, from the perspective of a million eyes.

An article from filmreference.com is in the link below.
http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Criticism-Ideology/Holocaust-REPRESENTATION-AND-THE-HOLOCAUST.html
In this article, the anonymous author more or less lists a few pieces of media (mainly films and television shows) that have been created with plots and/or themes resting on the backstory of the Holocaust. It begins by contrasting Lanzmann's 1985 film Shoah with Spielberg's 1993 film Schindler's List. Each tells a story about the Holocaust in a different way. In Shoah, Lanzmann takes survivors of the Holocaust and has them rehash their experiences and connect their pasts to the contemporary world by placing them on the sites of where the Holocaust took place. No flashy special effects are used to recreate the experiences of the survivors, only their voices. In that way, Lanzmann tries to convey the survivors' stories as naturally as possible, from as many survivors as possible, to impose a factual rather than emotional tinge to the Holocaust itself. In Schindler's List, however, Spielberg tells the story from the opinion of predominantly one person and employs scenes that are meant to play more with the viewer's emotion than recount the past. The actors in his movie are just that: actors. His film plays mainly with the heart strings of viewers, to paint a picture of the Holocaust with melodramatic backgrounds, dialogues, and actors, rather than merely orally. The article does not take on stance as to which film is better in terms of retelling stories of the Holocaust, just describes the movies. But its list of films to follow is pretty thorough in its brevity. The author points out how other directors used the films not simply for factual sustenance, but for artistic or moralistic reasons. The author points out that in Nuit et brouillard (Night and Fog), a 1955 film by Alain Resnais, Resnais employs Jean Cayrol, a survivor of the Holocaust, to retell his story at the site of Auschwitz not simply to recreate the experience, but to give "haunting philosophical commentary on evil and responsibility."
Basically, although the films aren't literary sources, they present within themselves as narratives of the Holocaust and can therefore be set up alongside Maus 1 & 2 as controversial discourses created post-Holocaust.

Postmodernism in The Cradle

In Postmodernism for Beginners, Lyotard describes modern life as "all the world's cultures, rituals, races, databanks, myths and musical motifs are intermixing like a smorgasbord in an earthquake." Lyotard says that postmodernists' goal is to take the individual groups, cultures, or as Kurt Vonnegut would say "granfaloons" and "represent" them. Postmodernists seem to take stock in the belief that there is no central truth to life and that there is beauty within the chaos of a thousand different lifestyles. They argue that holding a central "truth" will not lead to ultimate happiness, but instead possibly the destruction of humanity, as the idea that with progress will come perfection has lead to such inventions as the atom bomb which murdered thousands of innocent people or the meaning of life, in Cat's Cradle, "protein." Vonnegut argues that finding ultimate truth either leads to useless information (as evident by "protein's" existence) or destruction (ice-9). Vonnegut's novel is a postmodern piece as evident by the fact that it contradicts its own validity; from the start of the novel, Vonnegut conveys the idea that the book is a batch of "foma" (lies) and that the philosophies presented in the novel are only one of millions present in the world. Philosophies, like "Bokononism," are simply meant to give man something to think about, another way to distract himself from the mundanity of reality. Throughout Cat's Cradle, the narrator describes the portions of Bokononism that he finds so wonderful, as if by the end of the novel he plans to lead his reader to the inevitable beautiful way of life he has adopted thanks to Bokonomism. Yet the narrator ends up in no better a position by the end of the novel than he started. Worse, actually. Two of the people he is left with on the planet are disgustingly racist, self-centered and simply dumb, the love of his life kills herself (blaming it playfully on the narrator's slow behavior) and he actually meets Bokonon. Yet he believes Bokononism to be wonderful because it allows him to escape the gross reality into which he has been thrust by the idiocy of his "karass." The religion allows him not to take himself, his religion, or life seriously and cope with the nastiness of life by simply glorifying the creative, unorthodox thoughts the human mind can produce.

One Massive Headache

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World exemplifies a social experiment put into action at full force, much like George Orwell's 1984. However, unlike the never-ending, constantly enforced regulation which the government in 1984 employs to keep its citizens in check, Brave New World's citizens are free to live as they wish, without as much government regulation upon individuals. Or so it seems. The Brave New World's citizens are raised, before birth and during the developmental stages of childhood, to enjoy life under such limited parameters that, even when they feel spontaneous and out of routine, they limit their rebelliousness by their own will. Were 1984's government to be described as totalitarian, Brave New World's could be described as contained anarchy. By separating the "savage" people such as John's kinsmen, "rebellious" anarchists such as Helmholtz and Bernard, and "happy citizens" like Linda or Lenina into different areas of the globe, untainted from one another, they are able to live out their lives as they want, while the highest tier of government control keep control with relative ease, watching for mistakes in the fabric of Earth's population and simply moving them out of harm's way.

In my Brave New World essay, I intend to explain Huxley's ultimate purpose for the novel. Theme being, that what Mustapha Mond sees as the ideal "happy" paradise of human society does not quite fit the mold of utopia for humankind. I also intend to bring in examples, with the help of outside sources such as Sir Ken Robinson's speech, of how modern society bears close resemblance to many of the institutions of Huxley's anti-paradise. I will incorporate Naomi Klein's No Logo, which explains the rising tide of commercially-driven youth generations in America. My title refers to soma. Which induces one, enormous headache. Or, may as well. Since most citizens in Brave New World have never experienced a headache, they have no frame of reference. So regular life may as well be one, long headache.

Soma Holication!

Free, public education was introduced to human society on a wide-scale when the American government was formed. Without the monetary restrictions set on students previously, the masses were allowed into school instead of merely an elite group of rich students. Although this allowed for a more intelligent working class, it has become taxing on a government which has to control a continually growing student population. A combination of population growth, technology, and what seems to be cultural paranoia have lead to a replacement of personalized teaching with standardized, more "efficient," government-mandated teaching.

In Sir Ken Robinson's statement about education, he stresses the harm of drugs and the "efficiency" of modern education. He says that schools are still built on "factory lines," and children are put in "batches," where the "date of manufacture" is the most important trait in their groupings. Contrary to this system, Robinson believes that children learn best through "collaboration."

In the context of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley paints an extreme version of what Robinson sees as a system of education which degrades students' minds, as all persons' ways of life. People are baked in "batches" on the conveyer belts of hatcheries and placed into social groups, such as Beta or Gamma, based on their date of creation. Instead of collaboration, every person is expected to be able to live on their own, without reliance on any other human being. No ideas are meant, or needed, to be shared. "Everyone belongs to everyone else." Yet, in the same way, everyone has no need for everyone else. Jobs are specific to one purpose and need no extra training or learning outside the requirements of their basic work. John's mother, for example, knows science only as that which provides the chemicals for her job and she is satisfied with that. Linda also has a book entitled The Chemical and Bacteriological Conditioning of the Embryo. Practical Instructions for Beta Embryo-Store Workers. She knows only that it provides her work description. She can follow its instructions word for word, but not explain them to her son. She much more likes to use "the reading machines [they] used to have in London." Linda also wishes to, after she enters her original society and every person she meets is disgusted by her existence, go on a "Soma" holiday. Soma is much like the ADHD pills given to students, in the way that it aesthetically deadens its victim to the world. Linda is a prime example of what the education Robinson refutes can do to a person; destroy their desire to think critically and instead be ready for only one purpose in life, a predestined role which keeps them incapable of improving society.

Proud Gears

The boys touring the human-production factory see Mustapha Mond as somewhat of a legend. Where what the director of the factory says is "straight from the horse's mouth," anything Mond has to say is basically straight from "his fordship's" mouth. Even the D.H.C. stands in awe of Mond. Therefore, when Mond says "wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment," it becomes known to the boys immediately as universal fact. And in this society, it seems to be true.

All members of society described thus far, discounting perhaps Bernard Marx, have exhibited these traits. For instance, at one point, the Assistant Predestinator notes to Henry Foster how "marvelous" the "Feelies" were and recommended them to the boy. Foster, in turn, replied with an unquestioning "I shall make a point of going." Although the Assistant Predestinator's description was brief, noting only ambiguously some "tactual effects," Foster accepts his advice, as he has been taught to rely upon the belief of his uppers as ultimate truth, regardless of facts. The touring boys' behavior also illustrates Mond's statement. Instead of responses, Huxley repeatedly describes the boys as writing "straight fro the horse's mouth into the notebook," as "it was a privilege." Obediently listening to the D.H.C. and content to accept his word as truth. Even Mond, who has borne witness to what seems, so far, to be the most "corrupting" literature, follows his words. To have read the Bible, to know of Spain and Rome and Italy, and continue on, accepting that they are merely human corruption, takes a sturdiness of mind, obedience to accepted beliefs, and a contentedness to live against one's will, in ignorance. Evidence of sanity? "'Yes. But when they do one good...' Fanny was a particularly sensible girl." Obviously, even if intravenals are to be "loathed" and make Lenina "shudder," it's sensible and expected that they be taken, since knowledgeable people like "Dr. Wells" know best about such things.

These goals influence citizens' inherent beliefs.
Such as monogamy; children are taught from early childhood to play "erotic games" so as to find experimenting with many sexual partners at once a nostalgically comfortable subject, leaving monogamy later in life to be a laughable concept.
As well as family; as children are raised in groups, without direct connection to siblings or parents, in a factory-like setting similar to their fertilization and birth; the concept of family is therefore imaginable "without the smallest success."
Along with impulse; after being told "sixty-two thousand four hundred" times "every one belongs to every one else," once a person wants another as a sexual partner, they can have that partner immediately without socially damaging implications. Impulse, where it can't be indulged in a job which must be regulated to the letter, can be fully indulged when it comes to sexual desire. Feeling is indulged only when it comes to anger, in Bernard Marx's case ("Idiots!") or Lenina Crowne in description of Marx as being someone "one would like to pet."

And the gears turn, breathing and content, conscious and well, by Mond's wise words.

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been subtly slipped onto the table. On the one hand, Aime Cesaire argues through his rewrite of The Tempest, A Tempest, that Shakespeare's intended message was a political criticism of colonialism, religion, and race. Stephen Greenblatt argued that The Tempest "teach[es] us about forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement." Others even maintain that Shakespeare's writing is made up of such useless blather that it is not worth mentioning in the modern pool of discussion. Yet the latter will not be used in Calvin's today blog.

However, my own view will be written as Shakespeare's own seems to have been through his text; with a much less direct attack. Shakespeare made money. Shakespeare made LOTS of money. This was partly due to the fact that he was a brilliant writer who could pour out countless amounts of plays and sonnets which not only entertained the listener, but also often held deeper, more socially-applicable meanings, as well as actor and director who could put these things onto the stage. Yet the deeper meanings, in his time, often had to be kept on, as I would say, the "down-low." Religious heretics were destroyed in his time. Colonialism ran rampant because many colonizers considered their victims to be nothing more than beasts of an untamed land. Women of intellect were still scorned; Queen Elizabeth's reign to power was an enormous and shocking leap for feminism, made successful mainly because she was such a strong ruler, and it was largely due to her support that Shakespeare's plays weren't as scorned as they could have been. Yet changes in universal thought, in a common sense, have over history come slowly, subtly. It took decades for feminists to gain the right to vote in America, and they still haven't been able to achieve the full stature of having the same rights as men. Slaves were freed, but it took decades before the overwhelming discrimination of blacks which fell like a blanket across America came to a head thanks to Martin Luther King Jr. Just as these folks had to tread carefully to induce change, so did Shakespeare not state his criticisms too blatantly in his writing. Prospero forgives his "wrongdoers" for exiling him from his country and Caliban forgives Prospero for treating him like a beast. Though Shakespeare shows within The Tempest that treating colonized peoples like animals is a disgusting and fruitless practice, he ends up revealing that the ruling power (Prospero) was ultimately right in his treatment of the people and was not all bad, for he is now allowed out of exile, just like Shakespeare wished to show the rulers of his time who advocated colonialism and sometimes disliked rulings would always come out to be the good guys. This way, Shakespeare's art could continue and the shady meanings within his plays could be subtly past out into the increasingly free generations of humans to follow.

I agree partially with Cesaire. I do agree that the overall feel of the political comments Cesaire made in his rewrite were latent in Shakespeare's original piece. Yet Cesaire's piece is exactly what it is said to be; a rewrite. It pulled from the original text ideas and then specified them to current issues, issues which Shakespeare did not himself attack. Cesaire seems to have done exactly what Shakespeare hoped later generations, or someone braver than himself, would someday do; take the wretched image that Shakespeare painted of the way Prospero treats his daughter (like an innocent, unintelligent doll), and Caliban (like a beast), and show how this treatment is wrong. Instead of showing Miranda as an innocent princess, curious about the world and in reverence of Prospero as Shakespeare showed her, Cesaire reveals the girl to be critical of her father, pointing out that he made mistakes and acting as if she were entitled to an explanation, instead of merely in want of one. Shakespeare made Caliban a dolt, who admitted to sexually desiring Miranda and seeing anyone with alcohol a God, but Cesaire made him an intelligent character capable of refuting Prospero's claims to ownership of a slave and actually angry about his position in life not simply because Prospero stole his land, but because Prospero stole his identity. Caliban of Cesaire's story considered not only the land his own property, but also his existence his property. Cesaire did not write a modern version of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not modern or of the past, it is written in his own language and of so ambiguous of a nature that any human could sympathize with it with connection to any number of ailments. But Cesaire did write what Shakespeare seemed to have precluded and desired to inspire in his writing; an application of his writing to a personal, present problem.

Greenblatt is pointless. It seemed like he simply wanted to argue with George Will for the sake of argument. He was right when saying that The Tempest was about colonialism. But forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement? The only person forgiven, unless another person forgiven by this man, was Prospero, who committed the heinous crime deserving of exile and sinking his fellow countrymen's ship. It was not of forgiveness, but of forgetting past misdeeds. Wisdom? All the men and girl learned was to accept Prospero as being as good as he said he was and living in blissful ignorance of his past misdeeds. Social atonement? Does this mean to say Caliban accepting his social position in the world? That's gross.