Hollywood and Marx

“Swing Shift” was a movie made in 1984, starring Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, which presented America in a time of war, and women had to take on the factory responsibility for the men. Prior to the war women were not allowed to work in the factories, and when the war ended the capitalist industry businessmen wanted to kick them out of the workforce again. This is a clear example of Marx’s theory that “labor power, therefore, is a commodity, neither more nor less than sugar” (Marx 659). The capitalist factory owners used the “free labor” market to make their profits of the women, because they did not have enough men to keep up production. The women’s “wage labor” have no “exchange value” before the men went of to war, because it was not acceptable in societies underlying rules for gender categories. Marx had a theory that “we are all situated historically and socially, and our social and historical contexts “determine” or shape our lives” (Marx 644). That completely holds true for the women portrayed in this movie, because the war happened at the time they were alive and allowed for the gender roles to be lifted due to necessity. However, their historical time gave them an insight into freedoms that women before them had no opportunity to witness, so with their new found experience the women were able to fight for more rights. The era they lived in and the society they found themselves apart of, shaped their lives, outlooks on social norms, and determined their course of action.
The movie really showed how much power the capitalist has, but at the same time it revealed the interdependent relationship with the wage worker. As Marx put it, “capital presupposes labor; wage labor presupposes capital. They reciprocally condition the existence of each other; they reciprocally bring forth each other” (Marx 664). The capitalist has the authority to fire an employee at any given point in time, which is apparent when the women are let go after the end of the war. The labor however is extremely necessary for the capitalist and without other people working the factories the business would collapse. The worker have a lot more power than they realize, but the necessity to bring income into the household can hold them back from exercising their power. The worker are being manipulated and exploited by the capitalist, and this movie shows that in its bare truth with the women issue of labor. In the Manifesto of the Communist party, Marx wrote, “for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx Ch.5). In the movie the capitalist employed the women to work due to patriotism and that their work would not only keep their households alive with income, but that they would be helping the cause of the war. The capitalist, however, just needed people working in the factories in order to keep the products coming and the profits rolling. As long as the work was being done they were happy, but as soon as the men came home the capitalist was ready to drop the women workers, because men were stronger and had a larger “exchange value” for their labor.

Works Cited
Marx, Karl. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. p. 643-646, 650-672, Ch.6

Group Presentation

In my psychoanalysis group, we presented information on Freud's and Lucan's theories. I aided the group in developing the Dating game, including: the questions, the profiles for the women, and the reason why it connects to Freudian concepts. We worked together to pose questions to the class, and discuss which topics were important to touch on. Together we viewed the clips that were presented and split up the information to be covered in the presentation. I think we worked well together and made the activities interesting to our fellow classmates (and teacher), while at the same time making the information we read in the textbook come to life. Also as a group we discussed the possible answers our classmates would give for our questions, or questions they might themselves have. That enabled us to be prepared for anything that came our way, and also guided us in understanding the material on a higher level. This presentation was a group effort, and I was there from beginning to end working with my group mates.

"Last Resort" and Freud

Freud was an extremely important man in the psychoanalysis field and his theories could be applied to many various aspects of life. Even a rock song heard frequently on the radio could be analyzed in terms of Freudian concepts and ideas. The song “Last Resort” by Papa Roach is a perfect example of how a song can fit into the boundaries of the Freudian theory of the Oedipus Complex.
The singer of the song is a male and the song is sung in the first person, so it can be assumed that the persona being presented is of the masculine gender. The man is completely distraught about life and is “contemplating suicide” (Papa Roach). The life of the man is pure turmoil and he admits that “It all started when I lost my mother /No love for myself/ And no love for another” (Papa Roach). That statement clearly shows that he never passed the Oedipal stage of his life and was not able to form the healthy “identification with the father” (Freud 439). Freud believed that when a child was in the Oedipal stage, the boy would associate himself with the mother (mirroring), receive comfort from her, and desire her love and affection. The persona in the song could not handle the death of his mother, so all of his ability to cope with life and desires were buried with her. The man does say that “Im losing my sight/ Losing my mind /Wish somebody would tell me Im fine” (Papa Roach). He is inside searching for support, but because he was never able to pass the Oedipal stage, he does not know how to formulate healthy loving relationships outside of his connection with his dead mother. Freud gave an example of “someone who feels great animosity toward a cold and distant mother may convert that feeling into its opposite, a fantasy that all women are themselves hostile and therefore unworthy of love” (Freud 390). In this case the mother does not appear to have been cold, but her death made the man shut out the rest of the world. The persona lost all capability to function in society to the point where he wants to end his own life. This song shows how Freud’s idea of the importance of the mother and son relationship is relevant, and how truly vital it is to be able to move past the Oedipal stage.
The Oedipal stage might have been escaped, but the death of the mother made it stagnant in time. All the desire the man had for the mother, only escalates due to the fact that he could never have her. The mother gets even more idolized and no human being could compare to the emotional attachment the man had with his dead parent. “Nothing’s alright” (Papa Roach) for the man and that is because he does not have the skills to formulate relationships with people around him. This is a sad song and it shows how terrible life can turn out if a child does not develop good, healthy relations with both parents.



Works Cited
Freud, Sigmund. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. 2nd ed.
Malden: Blackwell, 2004. p.389-396, 431-446

"Papa Roach/ Last Resort." Lyrics Freak. 28 Feb. 2009
.

A Little Boy and His Mother

A little three year old boy, who was already distant from the father, was incredibly distressed by the birth of his new baby brother. As soon as the baby brother was brought home from the hospital, the three year old boy reached his boiling point. In all seriousness he took his baby brother and placed him on a serving tray and put the tray on the table. He got a fork and ran to get his mother a different part of the house. Bringing the mother to the table, he offered to eat the baby brother to make himself the only child of the family again..

This is a perfect case for Freud’s theory of “tie of affection, which binds the child as a rule to the parent of the opposite sex, succumbs to disappointment… or jealousy over the birth of a new baby” ( Freud 435). The three year old boy had the father figure to deal with, in terms of competing for the full affection of the mother, so a new baby brother would be too overwhelming. Another male in the family to vile for the love of the mother is something a little boy, who has not completed the separation process yet, can’t handle. The boy was not ready to identity with the father yet, because he was still in the phase of wanting to take the fathers place, the “Oedipus Complex”. I do not think that the desire to be with the mother was sexual though at three years old, it just had the aspects of the emotional attachment to the nurturer. A new child in the family means less time with the mother, which means less pleasure for the older sibling. Also the situation of becoming an older sibling, forces one to grow up faster and to reach the stage of more socially acceptable identification with the mother quicker.



Works Cited
Freud, Sigmund. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan.
2nd ed.Malden: Blackwell, 2004. p.389-396, 431-440

"Rachel Green" versus "Lara Croft"

Movie stars are a hot item for entertainment purposes in our society. The public loves when two celebrities’ are placed in “battle mode,” because that sells more tabloids and movie tickets. The stars become itemized for the entertainment industry and for the viewing or reading pleasure of the masses. Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie are a perfect example of this methodology by media to pin two Hollywood starts against each other, and the only thing that was needed to spark the battle was the drama situation with Brad Pitt. The two women had their own image and name established in the industry, but their little love triangle sparked interest for them in measures never before seen. Aniston and Jolie are signifiers (“sound image”), but they are completely different in the signified (“mental concept”) department. The media which often time plays the role of authority from above, made these two women opposite signs from each other, for their own benefit. Structuralism states that “linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image” (de Saussure 61). The mental concepts for these women can change with time and with the help of the media, because “the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary” (de Saussure 62). In the entertainment industry every scandal, publicity, interview, movie, or even photograph has the possibility of altering peoples’ opinions about them. Language is not stable; it is affected by the region, culture, and people, which means that it is always on an evolutionary path. The ability to evolve is what allows words to not have “pre-existing concepts” (de Saussure 67) attached to the signifier.
Jolie is binary to Aniston, which mean their mental concepts are in opposition to each other. The mental concepts for Jennifer Aniston would be: glamorous, beautiful, elegant, “girl next door,” innocent, feminine, hopeless romantic, comedy/romantic star, loyal, and the biggest one with the Jolie situation would be the mental concept of victim. The media focused on the aspect of Aniston being dumped by Pitt for Jolie, and how Jolie got pregnant immediately following the break up drama. Aniston was turned into an object, because the media was not focused on her as an individual, but only the action that was done unto her in order to create this opposition with Jolie. These two women were made pawns by many magazines and tabloids for entertainment and monetary beneficial purposes. Even years after the drama and a couple of kids into Jolie and Pitt relationship, magazines are still using these women in “battle mode.” The mental concepts for Angelina Jolie would be: sex appeal (sexy), adventurous, edgy, gothic (at times), strong, athletic, provocative, action star, unstable (especially in relationships), and concerning the Aniston situation the mental concept would be home wrecker or the other woman. This example also shows that a signifier does not necessarily have one signified attached to it, because the signified is a mental concept the possibilities are endless. The media is a powerful tool is shaping the mindsets of individuals who are incredibly into the pop culture and entertainment industry, because it gives them an escape from their own realistic problematic lives. Movie stars are presented to people in certain images and when the media can get an opposition going they really milk it for as long as the readers or audiences allow them. Aniston and Jolie are still compared today in magazine titles like: Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: the Vogue Battle, Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: a box-office smackdown, Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: Whose LBD do you like better?, and Jennifer Aniston Legs Versus Angelina Jolie Legs (all articles titles found in google search). These tabloids show that these women are just objects to be used for sexuality, publicity, movie ratings, and entertainment purposes. Media allows this to happen, but it forms in the minds of the audience different mental concepts (signified) for these two individual signifiers.


Works Citied
Saussure, Ferdinand De. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan.
Malden: Blackwell Ltd, 2004. p 59-71

Word Picture of Harsh Reality

http://barangayrp.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/new-sakal-for-blog1.jpg
(site to the image)

There is a man who is suffering extreme pain, devastation, and is being choked. His eyes are bulging out and with all the veins popping. There are tears coming out from both of his eyes, and one of tear streams is so big it looks like a small river. His mouth is wide open and his tongue is positioned in a way where one can see that he is gasping for air. There is saliva coming out from the bottom of his lip and his arms are positioned vertically to his shoulders. There is a huge hand, with big fingers, choking the slender neck of the dying man. The man’s head is also wrung back helplessly past his shoulders.
This picture defamiliarizes murder, the fact that a person does not have to personally kill a man with his hands, to be responsible for his death. Even though in the picture there is a literal hand doing the choking, it represents the people or government that chose to implement the food blockade. Murder does not have to come from personal actions only, it can be related to decisions outside of the environment where the death occurred. Consequences for decisions, like implementing a food blockade, devastates a large scale of people and the death toll could be countless. In reality this type of murder is harsher, crueler, and more dangerous than what we generally think of as physical actual killing.

Rhetoric and its powers!

Plato was against rhetoric, because he was afraid of its power, which is honestly a substantial fear. Rhetoric could be used to convince people of lies, by people who know how to use it well. Aristotle knew the power of rhetoric but went a step further than Plato and described how its power worked by dividing argumentative speech appeals into three categories: logos (logic), ethos (credibility), and pathos (emotion). Using these rhetorical appeals properly a speaker can convince his audience of anything he wants. In the movie Wall Street, Michael Douglas exemplifies exactly what Plato was afraid of using the Aristotelian Devices of Speech.
The speech that Michael Douglas gave to the share holders of the particular company portrayed in the movie was in its entirety an appeal to logos. The whole speech underlined the fact that the company was in trouble and without his efforts it would be sure to fail. He even managed to make greed (an immoral emotion) appear logical and normal to the situation. Douglas used greed as one of the ways to connect himself to the share holders he was trying to convince, because nobody would invest in a company without expecting some kind of benefits or profits in return. He connected himself to his audience by standing amongst them, while the Board of Directors he was ridiculing were situated separately and above the audience they were appealing to. Douglas appealed to ethos, when he was giving his audience facts about the other companies that he has saved and the profits that were produced from his efforts. Douglas showed his knowledge in the previous business giants and the Board of Directors that were in control of the company. By raising his credibility he broke down his opponents by pointing on their mistakes, their non-investment into the company, and their excessive spending for no rational reasons. Douglas used appeal to pathos by connecting himself to the
audience, in ways I mentioned before, but also by connecting them all as Americans. He made his argument appear as patriotism and an appeal to nationalism is always a hard one to reason against. Douglas constructed his speech in such a manner where it had a beginning, middle, and a clear dramatic finish, like Aristotle truly appreciates. Douglas lead the audience through pointing out the problems of the company first, giving his knowledge of business and success facts in the middle, and ended the speech with the necessity of his taking over the failing company. Douglas gave the share holder audience no reasonable choice but to accept his proposal and the rejection of the Board of Directors.
This speech showed the power of rhetoric, but considering we did not watch what happened previously in the movie or afterwards, we do not know if Douglas’s intentions were noble or not. Aristotle mentions that in order to perceive the appeals as truth everything must be taken in consideration, including the particular situation and the background of the speaker. Nothing should be taken as face value, because rhetoric is powerful and there is a fine line between lies and truth. A person should always consider all the facts and form their own opinions based upon the knowledge they have, and not something they were convinced of on the surface.