You know you're unhappily married when...

Marriage, something of which many of us yearn for.  To find that soul-mate of ours and to live happily ever after.  We see the ideologies and joys of marriage in movies we watch, or in books we read.  But there is one particular story that takes the concept of marriage and sticks it in the grinder.  That story: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof revolves around the lives of several married couples: Brick and Maggie Pollit, Big Daddy and Big Mama.  From the male character's perspective, they are far from happily married.  On the contrary, Brick and Big Daddy cannot stand their wives.  Brick, who's clearly an excessive drinker, does not hold back his true feelings for Maggie, often stating that he can't stand her even when she is in the same room.  The weirdest part about their marriage is that their wives, despite the dreadful treatment and verbal abuse they receive by their significant others, will still hold on to whatever they have left in their relationship.  When Brick tells Maggie, "I hate you," she puts a smile on and says "You don't mean that." as if his statement was all in good humor.  This act of denial, I believe can be comparable to real life marriages.  As human beings, it is natural to want to hold on to a member of the family, despite how awful the relationship is.  Many people also get married just to get married, being that it is a huge expectation in American culture.  This, I believe, is the result of many failed marriages.  Most people get married on the motive so they won't die alone, even though they may not care too much about that particular person.  So maybe that's why Brick married Maggie, because it was expected of him, not because he yearned for her.  Or perhaps, as the book so discretely points out, that he did in fact have homosexual feelings for Skipper, his good friend who recently passed away.  The reason Brick and Maggie's marriage had failed remains a mystery, and sometimes, the motive for people in real life getting married is a mystery.

American Psycho Analysis

"Self identity may be conceived of as our project.  Nevertheless it is a sociological truism that we are born into a world that pre-exists us." (Barker, p. 218). 

After watching a segment from American Psycho, I could not help but feel a strong relation between Christian Bale's character, Patrick Bateman, and the phrase I wrote above.  Near the beginning of this film, Bateman reveals to us that his public figure, personality, and even his name are all "ideas," and that he is "simply not there."  In relation to the sentence mentioned in the above paragraph, Patrick Bateman is a project, performing all the routines he feels is necessary to maintain his social identity...the charming, handsome yuppie.  Having seen this movie before, I know perfectly well that Bateman is neither of those.  There is something dark within that makes who he is on the inside a complete opposite of how he displays himself on the outside.  He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, born into a world where he was most likely expected to live up to a set of standards which, in my opinion, is what might have caused the darkness inside him to grow.   This  leaves me with a question: Does that make him human? The secrets he wants to hide from the rest of the world, his "golden boy" persona, his sinister nature.  I believe that these are all traits we can somehow relate to as humans.  We keep secrets, we have a dark side to us, and most of us would like to create an identity for the rest of the world to know.  I myself, can admit that there are things I did in my life I wouldn't wanna share with others.  Of course, any sane individual would never do the things Patrick has done (or supposedly has done), but I hope you can catch my drift.

Another thing I found so interesting were the similarities between this film and Dexter, the television series on Showtime.  Dexter is my favorite show, so I could not help but think about it while watching this film.  Like Patrick, Dexter hides a dark secret, and creates a persona that is of  the complete opposite.


Here is a link scene from the first episode to prove my point.  What is interesting is the sudden transition the scene makes from his dark side, to his seemingly "good" side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI9PRA9zBx0

Music Man Analysis

As we watched a few scenes from the classic film "The Music Man," we discussed how the protagonists' methods of monetary gain can relate to the culture we live in today.  To summarize the scene we watched, Harold Hill (the film's protagonist) gets the adult residents of the city in an uproar, convincing them that the children in their city are rebellious and sinful.  Hill first comes off as compassionate for the future of the residents, but his motive is different in that he is doing this for profit.  In today's corporate world, thousands of business men and entrepreneurs are using various methods, such as compassion and empathy, for profit.  While watching and analyzing this scene, I could not help but draw some sort of comparison toward religion, especially the religion known as Scientology.  Scientology was founded by the late science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, who created this religion (or cult, as critics state it as such), soon gaining a strong following.  Followers of this religion believed that Hubbard was able to help them gain access to their past lives, recognizing the mistakes they've made to help them with their future successes.  Members were expected to pay fines, making the church very lucrative.  L. Ron even said himself  "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." As you can see, Hill and Hubbard  are very much alike; they were both rallying groups of people, using the power of persuasion and convincing them that they need guidance, but for their own purposes...money, money, money! The way I see it, the only difference between these two gentlemen is that one is a fictional character, while the other isn't.       

High and Low Culture

The first week of our English class revolved mainly around culture, and the various factors within that particular group that makes it become a culture.  People would argue that there is a higher level of culture that one can achieve through either their taste in music (Mozart, for example), appreciation for the fine arts, or if you have the right funds to buy a nice house right smack in the middle of the suburbs, living happily with your spouse and children-the All American Family.  Sometimes I wonder, what entails people the right to be considered members of that "higher" culture?  Anyone can appreciate the fine arts, from the multi-millionaire businessman to the poor immigrant living in the ghetto.  Do you have to have a little bit of both taste in music and money?  Or maybe there is no such thing as a "higher" level of culture, and that the status of certain cultures exists only because our society says so.