In Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, Gregor Samsa, a travelling salesman, awakes one morning and finds that his human form has been transformed into a gigantic insect-like creature. The line: “...his brown, arched abdomen divided up into rigid bow-like sections.” (page 1, para 1, line 4) gives us an idea of what kind of insect Gregor might resemble. From the said description and by our general understanding of insects, one of the presumptions we can make is that Gregor has turned into a giant brown coloured beetle.
It is not stated clearly the process of Gregor’s transformation; we are merely told that Gregor awoke one morning and found himself in his insect-like state. However, it is stated that in the previous night, he might have experienced something unnatural: “One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams...” (page 1, para 1, line 1). It may be that something in Gregor’s ‘anxious dreams’, his subconscious mind must have triggered something which made such an impact that it literally morphed his physical form from that of a human into that of an insect. This, of course, would be unexplainable by common sense and logic; this explanation is merely an interpretation of what Kafka might imagine or want to depict.
Another interesting thing to note is that Gregor transforms into a creature whose appearance is fairly common in our real life, i.e., a beetle. Why does he not transform into something else which no human has ever seen or even imagined before? It is sensible to say that it is impossible to imagine the unimaginable, and hence, Gregor must be only able to dream of something he has encountered before in real life (and thus be able to dream of it), and, presuming that his ‘dream’ on the previous night affects what kind of creature he transforms into (or else it would be redundant for Kafka to state that Gregor had anxious dreams on the night prior to his transformation) can only be able transform into something which is imaginable, for instance, a beetle.
In the whole course of the story, Gregor does not show much dismay or shock over his transformation. When Gregor first awakens, he first notices his physical body, but he does not get overly surprised about it. In fact, one can even notice that he is calm enough not to overreact by struggling or exclaiming; instead, his attention diverts to his surroundings in his room and is even observant enough to notice that it is raining outside: “The dreary weather (the rain drops were falling audibly down on the metal window ledge) made him quite melancholy” (page 1, para 3, line 1).
One way of explaining his calm nature of reaction is probably due to his expectations. It may be that in the night before, in his ‘anxious dreams’, he already had in his subconscious mind the expectation that he would find himself turned into an insect when he awoke in the morning, thus, lessening his shock when he consciously finds himself in the state of one in the morning. In other words, it may be said that Gregor might have already known in his subconscious mind that he would transform into a giant insect.
His other family members, however, were evidently not prepared for this. At first sight of Gregor, his mother collapsed “she then went two steps towards Gregor and collapsed...” (page 19, para 1, line 11) and his father was stunned so that he became uncertain of how to react.
Later in the story, his mother remained helpless about the situation while his father became hostile towards him. Even at the start, his father had already been rough towards Gregor by hastily forcing him back into his room, injuring Gregor in the process: “Then his father gave him one really strong liberating push from behind, and he scurried, bleeding severely...” (page 26, para 1, line 4). As time goes by, his father becomes more and more violent, to the point of injuring him badly by sinking an apple into Gregor’s back, which presumably becomes the (debatable) cause of his death. For the most part though, Gregor’s parents seemed to be avoiding him as much as possible, as though ignoring him would make the situation normal again.
As human beings, we have different reactions towards something we have never encountered before. Mixed feelings of surprise and fear may lead us to unleash our most basic instinct: to defend and if necessary, fight for our own safety. This would be the case of Gregor’s father, where he does not know what to do with the giant insect and hence, plays safe by reacting violently towards it.
Gregor’s mother, however, still loves her son and with the hopes that her son will return to normal again: “...so that, when Gregor returns to us, he finds everything unchanged...” (page 43 para 2 line 10). She finds it hard to accept the fact that Gregor has transformed into a giant insect, and so the best she can do is to pretend the problem is not there by avoiding it, i.e., Gregor himself.
His sister, on the other hand, tried her best to be positive about it by taking it upon herself to care for him. Shocked as she was, she maintained her calmness and did the best she could for Gregor, despite her obvious disgust and detest at the mere glimpse of him: “...but when she noticed him... she got such a shock that... she slammed the door shut...” (page 30, para 2 line 5). However, towards the end, Gregor’s sister was the one who raised the idea of getting rid of him (this, I had expected Gregor’s father to do), despite the fact that at the beginning she was the one who cared most for him.
When Gregor overhears this proposition by his sister “...this monster, and thus I say only that we must try to get rid of it.” (page 68, para 1, line 1 ), he feels a pang of disappointment and hopelessness that even his sister has given up on him. With no more will to live on, plus with his injury from the sunken rotting apple in his back, he becomes weak and dies.
“In this business, his own thought that he had to disappear was, if possible, even more decisive than his sister’s.” (page 71, para 2, line 12).
By,
Rachel Liew
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
What is Cinema?
"Cinema is truth, 24 frames per second."
The first time I read the quote, I thought of something along the lines of "Does this mean the truth is told 24 times per second, with a (slightly) different picture every time?"
A picture speaks a thousand words. With some math thrown in, that would make it 24,000 words per second. Make that 24,000 truthful words. With a little more calculation, one can easily deduce that an average movie would then tell about 130 million truthful words. That's a whole lot of
truth. Of course, assuming the fact that the idiom 'a picture speaks a thousand words' is taken literally, and that the title isn't as un-understandable as it is.
Unfortunately, the only truth I can see is that a picture does not speak a thousand words (in fact, pictures can't even talk; they're inanimate, if you haven't noticed) and the title is, without doubt, pretty vague, as far as I'm concerned.
Nonetheless.
This is where we are deceived. A movie is actually made up or 24 pictures per second, but as they flick though our eyes, our brain perceives them as one entire moving picture, much like an optical illusion.
What is truth, and can it be told through cinema?
So, what is truth and can it be told through cinema, which is, in fact, just a bunch of pictures replacing each other in rapid order for a full 90 minutes?
Any idiot knows that in cinema, everything is fictionally made up by creatively gifted people, more widely known as movie directors. That said, can truth be told through cinema?
Anything brought on screen would already be edited (even in some ways which we do not realize) so even if the movie were on a biography about a person and it is claimed that the movie is never edited, it's probably fake because at the slightest, it'd be edited. For instance, in the process of filming a movie, it would be inevitable that some parts of the movie would be omitted and edited before being produced as the final piece. Even the mere presence of the camera alters the truth, since people who are aware that they are being filmed tend to act differently.
Reality shows give a very good example on this. As much as they are allegedly the kind of shows which gives the most truths, ironically, they're just as truthful as an entire fictional movie.
Since movies are actually translations from something else (like how reality shows are meant to translate realities into shows on television), it can be said that nothing can ever be completely
translated.
Hence, it is pretty much unlikely that truth can ever be told through cinema.
So, if everyone knows that in cinema, nothing is truth, then why are we overwhelmed with emotions?
That then brings us to another question to ponder about.If everyone knows that in cinema, nothing is truth, then why are we overwhelmed with emotions(do I need more proof for the mere fact that it has obviously happened to everyone before?) - on most occasions, may I add - when we watch as movie? Allow me to use some famous examples:
1. Titanic.
Ah, the classic. Who cried when watching the movie? The last time I asked, I found more than a few dozen raised hands. Don't believe me? I once heard of this lady who watched the movie more than 80 times (my gosh, she must be an awfully sad, sappy freak with too much free time on her hands and nobody to have sex with; otherwise, she would be too busy having sex than to watch the movie eighty freaking times, wouldn't she?) and she - get this - cried every single time she watched it. I bet she suffered from a really, really bad case of puffy eyes after that.
I've noticed that I tend to digress.
Back to the point, Titanic is one of those classics that works up most peoples' emotions so much that they shed tears.
Unfortunately, the last time I watched it, I was in Primary One, and the only reflection I had about the movie was to wonder why a movie with two people having sex on a ship (don't ask me why the sex part was apparently the only scene I remember most vividly) of which one of them eventually died in the end would make such a great movie. This fact has also made me ponder about the like why Titanic makes perspectives of people with varying ages towards a certain movie (grownups cry but sex is the only part that sort of 'makes sense' to a seven-year-old) of which will be discussed in the later portion.
2. The Grudge
I believe everyone has, at some time or other, regardless of the reason, seen an Asian horror movie - or at least the trailer of it. The Grudge, more commonly known by its Japanese name Ju-On, is an interestingly scary (at least to me, others may beg to differ) horror movie which stars a
dead yet still animated female with long, disheveled hair.
The movie scared me so much that I jumped at almost anything weeks afterwards.
Of course, in the back of our minds, we all know that the ghostly female is in fact very much alive and kicking; but why do we fall into delusion, and hence, allowing her to scare us half to death?
The other thing I really don't get is why people still choose to watch horror movies, even though they know very well that they'd be having nightmares for weeks afterward. But again, who am I to judge?
From those two examples, it can be shown very clearly that as much as we jolly well know that movies are usually fiction, we still can't help but allow them influence our feelings. As such, it can be said that even though the movies are 'fake', they are somehow able to give us emotions and feelings, of which we inevitably cannot deny as real.
So far, this has not very much answered the topic of discussion: If everyone knows that in cinema, nothing is truth, then why are we overwhelmed with emotions?
In order to answer this question, we must first explore the human perspective towards a certain object and the distance between us and the object itself.
In cinema, we have to have a certain kind of understanding to be able to truly enjoy the movie, yet, we cannot be too clear about it, or else the purpose intended of the movie will not be effective.
In simpler terms, this simply means that in order for us to truly enjoy a particular movie or show, we have to allow the movie to deceive us into thinking that it's real, though in the back of our heads we know that it's not, hence persuading ourselves into not really understanding the real thing behind the movie (which is the fact that the whole thing is actually pure fiction), yet having to understand its purpose and storyline, accepting the fact that it is true as far as the movie is concerned.
Funny that we don't want to be deceived, yet we have deceived ourselves in some way or other, because that's the only way we are able to enjoy a movie.
Maybe deception isn't such a bad thing after all.
Perspectives of people with varying ages towards a certain movie.
Of course, it could be very well be the fact that people of different ages perceive things differently, which gives rise to the possibility that maybe the ultimate truth may never be realized, as people of different ages see different 'truths'.
This then brings about the discussion of the perspectives of people with varying ages towards a certain movie.
Since enjoying a movie is all about deceiving ourselves, it could also be that the different ways we perceive a movie is due to the way we deceive ourselves. That is to say, it could be that people of different ages deceive themselves in a different way.
Up till now, I have not figured out why the only thing that appealed to me in Titanic was the scene where Rose and Jack had sex in the steamy car, but I have come up with my own theories, which hopefully, can also come in handy on the discussion about the difference in perception and deception in varying ages.
From what has been discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the difference in perception and deception in varying ages, in simpler terms, basically refers to the types of elements which has the most effect on the viewer.
In reference to the Titanic sex scene, it was pretty much the only part that appealed to the seven-year-old-me the most, probably because of the very fact that I had no idea what it was.
Isn't it funny how we are usually more interested in the things we aren't clear about, compared to the things we already know very well?
Inexperienced as I was, I was probably watching the scene wondering what the hell was going on and why viewing it gave me a strange feeling in my nether regions yet still feeling uncomfortable knowing the fact that my parents were right there beside me, viewing it with me.
At that point in time, I was so innocent that I even believed my peers when they told me Titanic was a dirty sex movie. I thought it was porn.
Now that I have got the freedom to have sex whenever and wherever I want, I don't think I'm pretty much interested in watching 'that part' of Titanic anymore. Not forgetting to add, I understand the movie way much better now.
In short, lack of life experiences in a certain element of a movie somehow rouses one's interest in it, probably because of curiosity, which may in turn change one's perspective towards the movie and hence, the interpretation of it.
Okay, okay. I get it. So what is truth, and can it be told through cinema?
Hence, it is pretty much unlikely that truth can ever be told through cinema.
But then again, who am I to judge?
- Jean-Luc Godard-
The first time I read the quote, I thought of something along the lines of "Does this mean the truth is told 24 times per second, with a (slightly) different picture every time?"
A picture speaks a thousand words. With some math thrown in, that would make it 24,000 words per second. Make that 24,000 truthful words. With a little more calculation, one can easily deduce that an average movie would then tell about 130 million truthful words. That's a whole lot of
truth. Of course, assuming the fact that the idiom 'a picture speaks a thousand words' is taken literally, and that the title isn't as un-understandable as it is.
Unfortunately, the only truth I can see is that a picture does not speak a thousand words (in fact, pictures can't even talk; they're inanimate, if you haven't noticed) and the title is, without doubt, pretty vague, as far as I'm concerned.
Nonetheless.
This is where we are deceived. A movie is actually made up or 24 pictures per second, but as they flick though our eyes, our brain perceives them as one entire moving picture, much like an optical illusion.
What is truth, and can it be told through cinema?
So, what is truth and can it be told through cinema, which is, in fact, just a bunch of pictures replacing each other in rapid order for a full 90 minutes?
Any idiot knows that in cinema, everything is fictionally made up by creatively gifted people, more widely known as movie directors. That said, can truth be told through cinema?
Anything brought on screen would already be edited (even in some ways which we do not realize) so even if the movie were on a biography about a person and it is claimed that the movie is never edited, it's probably fake because at the slightest, it'd be edited. For instance, in the process of filming a movie, it would be inevitable that some parts of the movie would be omitted and edited before being produced as the final piece. Even the mere presence of the camera alters the truth, since people who are aware that they are being filmed tend to act differently.
Reality shows give a very good example on this. As much as they are allegedly the kind of shows which gives the most truths, ironically, they're just as truthful as an entire fictional movie.
Since movies are actually translations from something else (like how reality shows are meant to translate realities into shows on television), it can be said that nothing can ever be completely
translated.
Hence, it is pretty much unlikely that truth can ever be told through cinema.
So, if everyone knows that in cinema, nothing is truth, then why are we overwhelmed with emotions?
That then brings us to another question to ponder about.If everyone knows that in cinema, nothing is truth, then why are we overwhelmed with emotions(do I need more proof for the mere fact that it has obviously happened to everyone before?) - on most occasions, may I add - when we watch as movie? Allow me to use some famous examples:
1. Titanic.
Ah, the classic. Who cried when watching the movie? The last time I asked, I found more than a few dozen raised hands. Don't believe me? I once heard of this lady who watched the movie more than 80 times (my gosh, she must be an awfully sad, sappy freak with too much free time on her hands and nobody to have sex with; otherwise, she would be too busy having sex than to watch the movie eighty freaking times, wouldn't she?) and she - get this - cried every single time she watched it. I bet she suffered from a really, really bad case of puffy eyes after that.
I've noticed that I tend to digress.
Back to the point, Titanic is one of those classics that works up most peoples' emotions so much that they shed tears.
Unfortunately, the last time I watched it, I was in Primary One, and the only reflection I had about the movie was to wonder why a movie with two people having sex on a ship (don't ask me why the sex part was apparently the only scene I remember most vividly) of which one of them eventually died in the end would make such a great movie. This fact has also made me ponder about the like why Titanic makes perspectives of people with varying ages towards a certain movie (grownups cry but sex is the only part that sort of 'makes sense' to a seven-year-old) of which will be discussed in the later portion.
2. The Grudge
I believe everyone has, at some time or other, regardless of the reason, seen an Asian horror movie - or at least the trailer of it. The Grudge, more commonly known by its Japanese name Ju-On, is an interestingly scary (at least to me, others may beg to differ) horror movie which stars a
dead yet still animated female with long, disheveled hair.
The movie scared me so much that I jumped at almost anything weeks afterwards.
Of course, in the back of our minds, we all know that the ghostly female is in fact very much alive and kicking; but why do we fall into delusion, and hence, allowing her to scare us half to death?
The other thing I really don't get is why people still choose to watch horror movies, even though they know very well that they'd be having nightmares for weeks afterward. But again, who am I to judge?
From those two examples, it can be shown very clearly that as much as we jolly well know that movies are usually fiction, we still can't help but allow them influence our feelings. As such, it can be said that even though the movies are 'fake', they are somehow able to give us emotions and feelings, of which we inevitably cannot deny as real.
So far, this has not very much answered the topic of discussion: If everyone knows that in cinema, nothing is truth, then why are we overwhelmed with emotions?
In order to answer this question, we must first explore the human perspective towards a certain object and the distance between us and the object itself.
In cinema, we have to have a certain kind of understanding to be able to truly enjoy the movie, yet, we cannot be too clear about it, or else the purpose intended of the movie will not be effective.
In simpler terms, this simply means that in order for us to truly enjoy a particular movie or show, we have to allow the movie to deceive us into thinking that it's real, though in the back of our heads we know that it's not, hence persuading ourselves into not really understanding the real thing behind the movie (which is the fact that the whole thing is actually pure fiction), yet having to understand its purpose and storyline, accepting the fact that it is true as far as the movie is concerned.
Funny that we don't want to be deceived, yet we have deceived ourselves in some way or other, because that's the only way we are able to enjoy a movie.
Maybe deception isn't such a bad thing after all.
Perspectives of people with varying ages towards a certain movie.
Of course, it could be very well be the fact that people of different ages perceive things differently, which gives rise to the possibility that maybe the ultimate truth may never be realized, as people of different ages see different 'truths'.
This then brings about the discussion of the perspectives of people with varying ages towards a certain movie.
Since enjoying a movie is all about deceiving ourselves, it could also be that the different ways we perceive a movie is due to the way we deceive ourselves. That is to say, it could be that people of different ages deceive themselves in a different way.
Up till now, I have not figured out why the only thing that appealed to me in Titanic was the scene where Rose and Jack had sex in the steamy car, but I have come up with my own theories, which hopefully, can also come in handy on the discussion about the difference in perception and deception in varying ages.
From what has been discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the difference in perception and deception in varying ages, in simpler terms, basically refers to the types of elements which has the most effect on the viewer.
In reference to the Titanic sex scene, it was pretty much the only part that appealed to the seven-year-old-me the most, probably because of the very fact that I had no idea what it was.
Isn't it funny how we are usually more interested in the things we aren't clear about, compared to the things we already know very well?
Inexperienced as I was, I was probably watching the scene wondering what the hell was going on and why viewing it gave me a strange feeling in my nether regions yet still feeling uncomfortable knowing the fact that my parents were right there beside me, viewing it with me.
At that point in time, I was so innocent that I even believed my peers when they told me Titanic was a dirty sex movie. I thought it was porn.
Now that I have got the freedom to have sex whenever and wherever I want, I don't think I'm pretty much interested in watching 'that part' of Titanic anymore. Not forgetting to add, I understand the movie way much better now.
In short, lack of life experiences in a certain element of a movie somehow rouses one's interest in it, probably because of curiosity, which may in turn change one's perspective towards the movie and hence, the interpretation of it.
Okay, okay. I get it. So what is truth, and can it be told through cinema?
Hence, it is pretty much unlikely that truth can ever be told through cinema.
But then again, who am I to judge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)