Make Up Blog: Bridget Jones' Diary

First of all, thank you Dr. Renzi for letting us make up a blog.

So I have seen this movie a handful of times over the years but watching just the first portion of it in class made me look at it in a whole new light. I never before looked at the film in terms of a daily life performance. I always just related to the character of Bridget Jones and never really looked past that. However when I read the article and then after discussing it in class I was able to look at the movie in a whole new way.

The concept of daily performances interests me more than anything else we've studied, probably because I can witness it just walking around campus. It intrigues me to relate this movie with "Without you I'm Nothing", which is a much more outrageous way of making the same point; that everyday people and experiences are actually performances. Sandra expresses this point by becoming different versions of herself or portraying different identities entirely, it's hard to tell. This shows that every person is putting on a performance just by choosing who to be on a daily basis. This differs from the daily performances that are displayed by Bridget Jones. This film clip mainly shows the performances that are given regarding relationships with others, such as Bridget's interaction with her mom and then with Mr. Darcy. It's interesting to me to look at the two different ways of approaching daily performances; relationships and personal identity.

On forgetting to blog and Bridget Jones

Well, this is a make-up blog...and a comment to say how much I need to watch the rest of that movie.



Also - this is the worst keyboard I have ever used, so I apologize for typos that I don't catch.

I was thinking more and more about the blatant judgements made by the clothing.
Bridget thought Colin Firth's character was perfect until she saw the reindeer sweater.
Along the same lines, he pointed out her outfit as one of her major flaws.
So, essentially, both characters were bothered by the same flaw. This is a "flaw" that we encounter everyday when people break the norm of what is considered to be appropriate costume for each gender, social class and race. I remember back in High School when people used to point out that some boys in our class "Acted black" which is extremely inappropriate and stupid. They had the notion that clothing (costume) and music taste meant that the boys were performing a different race, which is stereotypical anyway. This reminds me of Paris is Burning, as we touched on in class. People are judged so quickly by their costume to either be good or bad. I think the clip we watched was really eye opening as to what kinds of things are performance. So much was performed in so little time...and it was performed also to a degree that allowed for analysis of behaviors, costumes and choices.
I also appreciated her little self-performance, because I am willing to admit that I do that...and I am sure my cats are thrilled about it.

Acting vs. Being

Today's class discussion about acting and performance got me thinking. As we stated, acting is a type of pretending, whereas acting is more honest, where the actors are deeply involved with their roles. In chapter 6, part 2 of our Schnecher reading states, "social scripts permeate daily life." So are we ever not acting? Can we ever truly just be? In my opinion, I don't believe we can. Breaking a role or going against what is socially accepted has clear consequences, like alienation physical risks/harm, etc. As members of our society, we keep up appearances in order to avoid social scrutiny. Even when we are sitting in our room, completely alone, our web browsing, television watching, or even magazine reading, can resonate the beliefs/ideas society, media, or our peers place in our thoughts. Even if they are an afterthought, our reactions to certain situations can be seen as a kind of performance. For example, if we deny ourselves a piece of cake because swimsuit season is right around the corner, that is a lingering statement made by society. We see images of our Facebook friends in their bathing suits during spring break, or we hear about the latest celebrity diet craze on television. Regardless of how hard we try to avoid society and "just be ourselves," I believe that it is impossible to completely disregard the effects society has on us.

Director/Actor

In the reading for today, I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit confused about never being truly ourselves. It has been an underlying...yet sometimes explicit...theme in class, but it's driving me slowly insane. I suppose I knew that we were always performing. There are constantly things that I want to do (like go back to sleep) that I can't because I am doing homework. Just then, I typed "that I forgot to do" and then deleted it. So the proof is right there; even behind closed doors, we are still performing.
I can see the performance of the athletes who live on my floor. They all try and act the same and be so 'cool' until I can talk to one of them without other athletes around - then they are incredibly nice. 
Then there was this quote: "Everyone masters to some degree or another the social codes of daily life. Rebels intentionally break the rules; revolutionaries want to change them permanently" - so now, not only have we been performing, we've been trying to direct other performances.
This leads me to believe that the interactions in Venus in Furs are not at all unusual. They may be more overstated, but they are simply pointing out how mostly everyone 'acts.' We have the man who is explicitly stated as the director, and the woman who is 'acting' and being directed. He is directing her throughout the play to change the way that she directs him - until she eventually becomes the director. Through this, the cycle may continue.
So those revolutionaries, who want to change the thoughts of others, are just like Thomas. They , myself occasionally being one of these people, are knowingly or unknowingly, working to change the performance of others through changing social norms.

Schechner on being "off duty" (177)

I was intrigued by the Schechner reading for today. In part two of chapter six he says "But what happens in less guarded moments, when people are "off duty" - when the judge is not judging, the teacher not teaching, the parent not parenting? During these times, the performance aspect of ordinary behavior is less obvious, but not absent. One sets aside formal enactments to play roles that allow more leeway in behavior, that are less like scripted dramas and more like loose improvisations. ..." (177). This immediately made me think of when I was in middle school and high school, teachers would wear jeans to school on some Fridays. I always thought it was weird. They're not normal people. Or at least, I don't want to think about them outside of school. These were thoughts I always had when I encountered them in these situations. This almost goes back to our discussion about the final scene in Without You I Am Nothing and how we do not want to know anything about strippers, this case just is not that extreme.

Character Shift Within Venus in Furs

I think it is very interesting that Vanda switches roles from Dunayev to Kushemski at an opportune time in order to maintain her power of Thomas.  First, it seems that Thomas has gained the power as he resumes the role at Dunayev and continues to treat Kushemski as a slave. But, as we read on, it is clear that Kushemski eventually gains control over Dunayev, therefore giving Vanda control throughout.  I think it is interesting that first a woman in the play written by Thomas has power until the end, but in the actual play, the woman seems to have power the entire time.  Even though Thomas is the director, he takes orders from the actress.  I can’t quite articulate what this implies.  What do you think I sthe bigger meaning between the shifts between man and woman roles as well as the subsequent power shifts?

Sexism in Venus in Fur

"But you know the problem here Tommy? Any way you cut this, any way you play this, it's degrading to women. It's an insult. It's pornography." I found this statement made by Vanda near the end of Venus In Fun incredibly interesting. At first glance, it seems that Vanda (in the play) holds all the power over Kushemski. When you make someone your slave, it's pretty easy to see who has the power in the relationship. However, when you look more closely at the exchanges between Vanda and Kushemski, we see that while Vanda is making the orders, but Kushemski is provoking her to do so; making him the powerful half of the relationship. Seeing this, Vanda (in 'reality'), Vanda switches the roles, and asks to read Kushemski's part to see if that would reverse the power onto herself. Surprisingly, it did not, and Vanda was still stuck in the underdog position no matter what gender role she read for, which leads her to state the previous comment involving sexism. This made me wonder, how is it possible that she did not hold the power even when she was reading the role of Kushemski, who held the power when Thomas read for him. I believe this is a critique on societies steryotypes regarding womanly behavior and personality. No matter how she read it, Vanda was not able to obtain that power within the play because she was either stuck in the roll of unwilling aggressor, or willing aggress-i.

authentic fur

One may if not love, then appreciate the ambiguous end of "Venus in Fur" as well as the performance and identity of the one and only(?), Vanda. At the end of the main script, her identity and exit resemble nothing of the Vanda who enters the play in the beginning. In the beginning she comes, late for an audition, unprofessional, practically begging to have a chance at reading, and clearly plays down her mental capabilities as well as her education, as well as her understanding the play and its historical content. She leaves the tortured director screaming profanities, "God damn it..." "fuck. FUCK!" and is practically worshiped- for her self, yet not being recognized as Vanda, but the goddess "Aphrodite." I enjoyed the stage note, "She takes a real fur stole from her big bag and put its on" as from the rest of the play Vanda kept grabbing shabby things she had "picked up" from a thrift-like store, and this is a moment of authenticity- as least when it comes in terms of fur. I also see this as a perhaps debatable take of power. It seems that this now worshiped goddess hold the floor, but in a very strong way, this is what Thomas has been wanting. In the beginning of the play we see him on his phone, talking to his fiance about what kind of actress he is looking for, and non of them seem polished and strong enough to assert that power- and as the end Vanda does. I wonder at the end who Thomas and Vanda view each other truly as, and who they are as well as who we are supposed to think they are...

The Play Within The Play

As we all know so well the play "Venus in Fur" jumps back and forth between the interactions of Thomas(the director) and Vanda (the actress) and also the play that Thomas wrote. The dialogue often intermingles and displays different aspects of the characters. The roles of the play and the play often coincide. In the beginning Vanda does what Thomas wants because he is in the dominant position of power as the director. She wants the role so she changes clothes and does what he asks her to do. . Kushemski is playing the submissive however Vanda is bending to his will just by playing along. This shows he has the power. As the play progresses and the character of Vanda gains more power over Kushemski, Vanda also gains control over Thomas. She tells him to say sorry and he does. At one point he even gets on his knees to beg for her forgiveness. Thomas is losing power as Vanda gains it. In addition to this relation, the play within the play's dialogue often expresses the feelings of the characters. When Vanda is keeps repeating "I am I" she is establishing both her identity within the character of Vanda and also as a female in reality. This is just one example of how the dialogue relates to both the characters and the actors.

It was somewhat annoying for me to read this play because it switched back and forth between the two worlds. Thank goodness for italics. However now that I have thought about it more I realize that this different kind of perspective reveals a lot of things about the characters. It's an interesting way to pack more meaning and information into a very short span of about 75 pages or so.

POWERful Relationships

I find the relationship between Vanda and Thomas/Dunayev and Kushemski very interesting. Both of the pairings have relationships with multiple layers. Like Vanda and Thomas' relationship, where Thomas primarily plays the submissive role, Lottie and Craig's relationship exemplifies a stratification in power in Being John Malkovich. Lottie is completely submissive to Craig's dominant role, like Thomas is submissive to Vanda's dominant role. However, when Lottie is in a relationship with Maxine, they are more equal in power. This relationship demonstrates a power shift for Lottie, as she takes on a more dominant role. Similar to Lottie's power shift, Thomas takes on a more dominant role towards the end of Venus in Fur.

Hail, Aphrodite!

Well, Venus in Fur was quite an interesting play. As I read, the play escalated quite quickly and I was surprised at how seamlessly David Ives transformed the actual lives of Vanda and Thomas into the roles of their characters. It also amazed me at how each of their characters sort of emulated the opposite gender role. Vanda was extremely strong, outspoken and confident while Thomas, although smart and sophisticated, was still quiet and reserved. Normally, our society thinks of men and women in the opposite way.

Therefore, I was quite shocked at Thomas' willingness to allow Vanda to manipulate him in such ways. Obviously his life paralleled that of his characters'. He is subdued when it comes to women and allows his significant other Stacy to constantly call him. It is so interesting to me that he is extremely obedient to Stacy and yet completely follows everything Vanda says. It somewhat reminded me of Gallimard from M. Butterfly. The moment that a random woman desired him, he was subjected to her. And that is reflected in his relationship with Song as well. Both Thomas and Gallimard want to be controlled by another person in a relationship. And even if that isn't their number one priority within a relationship, it still seems to subconsciously come about.

Through it all, it seems that power is completely challenged within the concept of S&M. Vanda is certainly into and even lies about her knowledge upon the subject in order to use it against Thomas later. By acting innocent and "dumb" as a woman per se, she was able to shockingly overwhelm and control Thomas as the play progressed. Sex, class and gender is definitely challenged by the ideals of Vanda in this wild play.

Implicit meaning of "Venus in Fur"

Around page 52 of the play, Thomas and (W)Vanda have a verbal conflict about the implicit meaning of Venus in Fur. Thomas argues that the two characters in the play are "handcuffed by the heart." Vanda believes that women in the book/play are seen as "villains" and that the two characters are bound together by "his passion".

Does Thomas' diligent studying make his opinion of the story's intent more valid than Vanda's? And what do you all think the implicit meaning is solely based on this play?

Solely based on this play, I believe that both opinions about the implicit meaning of the play are valid. If I had to completely choose a side to agree with, it would be Vanda's. If the man in the play did not ask to be submissive (in order to be more powerful) then Vanda (the original character) would not have been in a position of being powerless at the end.

Vanda as Kushemski

As Venus in Fur begins, it is tempting to look for parallels between Vanda the actress and Vanda the character. Vanda the actress gains power as the character she is playing gains power and, after all, their names are both Vanda.

After reading through the play, the surface parallels I initially tried to generate  broke down. Vanda Dunayev was given power (temporarily) and Vanda the actress took power. Vanda the actress is a puppeteer, while Vanda Dunayev is more of a puppet.  As she gradually forces Thomas into a performance of subservience, ultimately leading him to inhabit the role of Vanda Dunayev, Vanda's power play of an audition more closely parallels the performance of Kushemski.

Kushemski's status as a powerful character is suggested by Vanda the actress several times, most notably in the lines, "He keeps saying she's got all this power over him. But he's the one with the power, not her. The more he submits, the more control he has over her. It's weird"(57). This reflection leads one to contemplate the true power dynamics in the play. Though Kushemski is asking Dunayev to take him on as a slave, he is coercing her into fufilling the role of master, an immersion which appears to be against her will.  He is not taking on a domineering role physically, but he is still calling the shots and ensuring his desires are fufilled.  Though it is paradoxical to consider enslavement as a posistion of power, the play certianly forces the question of whether the prevailing understanding of power dynamics making this conception paradoxical is overly simplistic.  

The impulse to regard Kushemski as a very powerful character is furthered during the improvised Venus scene. During this exchange, Venus degrades him, telling him his desire is disgusting, and invites him to bend to her. As Kushemski rejects her, stating, "You want to have me, and then put your foot on my neck like every petty tyrant who's ever lived. Well, I have a civilized duty to resist you" it is clear his masochistic desire cannot be collapsed with powerlessness. His lack of attraction for this "natural despot," which contrasts his complete attraction to a woman who is assertive but not apparently seeking to possess someone, shows he wants to be possessed on his own terms, a reality reiterated as he grabs hold of the knife. Vanda's role reversal as the play ends marks her extended coercing of Thomas into a posistion of subservience, a saga mirroring the power dynamics which unfold as the script is read. The fact that both Vanda and Kushemski exert power by insidiously  forcing thier counterparts into certain performances only strengthens the parallel between these characters.

Opposite Gender Roles

Venus in Fur is quite an interesting play. The fact that it is so modern was a little off putting to me, but it adds to the strength that women have accumulated over the years and into modern times. The main idea that I suppose I am writing about is the fact that Thomas is somewhat of a parallel from his character Kushemski. Kushemski is a tad bit of a weak man. The audience is shown that he has endured some trauma over the years. By getting a beating from his aunt when he was younger, Kushemski has looked at women in a completely different way. That beating was what had changed him and made him the man that he was.

I suppose the fur is important. The fur is somewhat of a symbol for a strong goddess. Both of which are represented by Kushemski's aunt within the play and along with that on Vanda in real life. Both Kushemski and Thomas are overthrown by the power of the women in their lives. Kushemski is extremely eager to worship Venus. He has the complete desire to become her slave. That is such a change in gender role due to the fact that we are mostly accustomed to women being slaves for men. He seems to see power and manipulation within the women who consume his life. Thomas seems to be shoved around by Vanda and the mysterious woman on the phone. He cannot be his own person and allows Vanda to change his plans for the night. I find it interesting that he is living vicariously through a character who isn't strong, powerful or wildly influential. 

I'm extremely interested to see how each of these characters develop. Will Thomas fully follow in the footsteps of Kushemski and allow Vanda to manipulate his play? What will happen with Kushemski and Venus in fur? It will be intriguing to see it all pan out. 

Shifting Power in Venus in Fur

As the play begins, modern- day Vanda does not seem to have much in common with her Pagan, Greek Goddess - like literary predecessor. She is frazzled, fires of "likes" ineloquently, and begs Thomas to let her audition. The lead-up to her reading is riddled with Vanda's displays of ignorance about the play and context informing the story. As the conversation proceeds, Thomas falls into the role of educator, Vanda playing the  ill-informed student. She proceeds to audition, acknowledging she is at Thomas' mercy and may very well be cut off and sent home at any moment.  The completeness of her submission to her prospective director is highlighted within the line  "Well can't I just show it to you, how I look? Please, God, please, pretty please?"(9).

Vanda's initial performance fits the mold Dunayev constructs for woman's place in society in her reflection  "In our society, a woman's only power is through men. Her character is her lack of character. She's a blank, to be filled in by creatures who at heart despise her"(27).  She performs a version of intellectual blankness to earn her audition. Though Thomas seems to regard her with disdain, he does allow her to audition, begging the question of whether he is attracted to this personae.

As the acting begins,  it becomes clear Vanda is by no means  "man's slave"(27). Her interrogation of his usage of the phrasing professed principles rather than principles shows she is observant and fully able to understand the themes of the play, despite their "ambiguous" or even "ambivalent" nature. Similarly, her reference to comments Thomas made in an interview show she has done her homework, her initial display of ignorance about his work having been an act.  Thomas is not in full control of her perception of the play or even her perception of himself - she is not a blank "to be filled in." Vanda's choice to only reveal certain aspects of self is reminiscent of the self-representations of Shen Teh and Song, and I imagine her selective exposure will also function as a means to access power as the play progresses.

Indentity in "Venus in Furs"

I was very interested in the huge role that identity plays in "Venus in Furs." I really liked the line delivered by Thomas regarding his job as adapter/director of the play. He says to Vanda, "[...] Sometimes today I felt as if I didn't know the first thing about them -- or this play. There's that moment when the actor turns to you and says, 'What should I do, who am I right here,' and you have no idea. You can't remember who you are, much less what they're supposed to be" (Ives 21). He makes a very interesting commentary on identity and how others shape yours, just as much as you do and that that can make everything unclear to you. But, what is even more interesting here is the line that Vanda follows his line with. She says, "Just play a director" (Ives 21). And she goes on to act out for him the kinds of thing he should say when asked a question like the one that baffles him so. " 'Sweetheart, I want this part moving and tragic and blah blah -- but funny. And while you're crossing down, could you look out both sides of your head at the same time?'" (Ives 21). Vanda takes her prior experience as an actress and makes it help her help Thomas. But more importantly, she acknowledges here that everything is a performance and that even if the things that he says in situations like this come off as verbal stroking or insincere, they are helpful to both the other as well as himself.

What's So Great About Being John Malkovich?

After watching Being John Malkovich, my initial question was, “what’s so great about being John Malkovich?” They made it pretty evident in the film that yes, he was an actor, but not a very popular one, and his personality seemed bland and unappealing. I didn’t see anything incredible about his identity that would make these characters so obsessed with becoming him. Then I realized that that was just it. The fact that his identity is uninteresting and lacks any incredibility was why it was so easily manipulated by so many people. The characters of Craig and Lotte did not feel free in their bodies before experiencing the John Malkovich portal. Craig could only reveal his identity through puppeteering, also a form of manipulation, and Lotte was shoved into the position of domesticated wife, suppressing her true masculine personality. With this blank slate of John Malkovich, both were able to reveal their true identity through his body. However, one also questions why society accepts their identities only in John Malkovich’s body and not their own. Why did Craig become the successful puppeteer he had always dreamed to be in Malkovich’s body, but not his own? And why was Lotte sexually accepted by Maxine in Malkovich’s body. but not his own? I think these questions can be answered through an analysis of what is viewed as acceptable in society, and what isn’t. 

Ambivalence/Ambigous

I find this play of words (referring to the title of this post) to be very interesting. Throughout the first half of this play, Wanda would suggest that Thomas was being "ambivalent". The pedantic Thomas often corrected her (which was annoying, but very important to the play) by saying it was "Ambigous"

According to the Oxford Dictionary, Ambivalence is  "the simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action" and Ambiguous means "
doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity"

To me, these two words play a very important role in the play (most notably in the the script within the play where we learn that two of the characters have unclear and conflicting views about relationships)

I feel that these two words are very similar despite what Thomas prefers. How do you all feel about the relationship of these two words and the play itself.