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.

Control in "Being John Malkovich and Cloud Nine"

I'm not sure if you guys talked about this in class last Wednesday because I was at the doctor, but I was incredibly intrigued by the idea of control in "Being John Malkovich". Craig's job as a puppeteer seems to revolve around his need to be in control of others. He creepily acts out events that have happened in his life or events that he wishes would happen in his life with his puppets. This doesn't come to be an issue until he tries to control real life people, such as Lotte and Maxine. He tries to control his relationships with both of them and eventually physically controls Lotte by locking her in the monkey cage. His infatuation with being in John Malkovich's mind revolves around his ability to control a whole other person, who is real and not a puppet. This kind of control reminds me of "Cloud Nine", specifically Act 1 where Victoria is a doll. All the characters make it very obvious that she is a doll by throwing her around, placing her somewhere, or just having someone look after her at all times. This concept of controlling an inatimate person/object is very interesting to me in what it represents. In "Being John Malkovich" the puppets aren't real to anyone but Craig, and even he does recognize that they do not have a mind of their own and that they aren't real people. John Malkovich becomes his living puppet near the end of the movie. In "Cloud Nine" Victoria is a doll but is supposedly a real girl and is controlled by all members of the family. What do you guys think of this connection?

Thomas: Woman Understander?

     Thomas describes as Kushemski, the way to love and ultimately worship a woman: "..to be your property and vanish in your sublime essence. To dress and undress you, to hand you your stockings and put the shoes on your feet. (pg. 32)" This definition amazes me, because taken out of context the two statements can present two very different images. The first, sounds like a slave or worshiper that is fulfilled in his (or her) dedication and submission. While not necessarily a sexiest role, from societal definitions, this links perhaps links more strongly with a woman. Women are more often treated as objects that can be obtained, owned, and even bought for a significant amount of time. Not to say this doesn't happen with a man, as it does, but normally this is not what we see as much. The second sentence boggles me slightly as it very much reminds me of a parent-child relationship. As a young infant, primarily dependent upon our parents, we require much attention, even for basic things, such as getting dressed. The second statement could be taken as very normal and routine, with little emotion attached to it, but from the context, it obviously means more, Kushemski is subjecting his manhood to a new level. Wishing to be submissive and almost parental, his version of affection may vary strongly from the modeled form.
   As we continue reading, we see Vanda complimenting Thomas, saying, "...God the insight. Especially about women. Thomas, you really understand women. (32)" This is said after Thomas (as Kushemski) has describes that "I willing accept being the anvil" to the "In love as in politics, one partner must rule." Vanda's compliment reminds me of Song, in "M. Butterfly" who also professes he knows men better than women because he is a man acting as a woman. (And has learned from his prostitute mother.) The difference is this compliment is not self-given, and we are talking about factually heterosexual attraction, yet there seems to be an air of non-hetero attractive in this whole discussion of worship masochistic love. I'm surprised that Vanda agree's that a  woman would enjoy to be worshiped to the point of a goddess. While most woman most likely enjoy being called and treated as a "princess", we rarely see the next step in being worship like a greek entity that can't be interacted with like a human being. This is an interesting thought that I wish to discuss more, as I wonder where the drive to not have more equal relationship ends, and an anvil-hammer relationship begins, and what is in between?
  

Absurdity and Being in "Being John Malkovich"

I was mesmerized by the smaller absurd comments and jokes that are made throughout Being John Malkovich. I think it is interesting that the protagonist works on the 7 1/2 floor, although I am not sure that I completely understand what that is supposed to tell the audience or what kind of argument it is supposed to make, especially regarding performance and identity. But I just loved that at the end of each trip into John Malkovich's head one is thrown out onto the side of the New Jersey Turnpike. As I Jersey girl, I hear a lot of negative jokes about this state, but I cannot help but laugh. I was also amused by the roles that Dr. Lester and his secretary play. But, I guess one line that stood out to me was when Craig's wife says after being in Malkovich's head for the first time, "I knew who I was. I was John Malkovich." This is a perplexing thought. To think that one name identifies you collectively, and then say that a completely different one with a different body, thoughts, beliefs, and almost every other social construction conceivable could sum it up better.

15 minutes

It's so interesting that Lotte and the first man (and the rest of the line of people) were so willing to crawl into a small, shady hole and become someone else for a brief period of time. They had very few reservations about living someone else's life. Some people say "I wish I was ________" implying that their own lives are unfulfilled and that a new, usually famous, life would be better. In actuality, it seems his life is much like that of others, and that he has his own struggles.
It is also notable that it's only for 15 minutes that people can take over John's body. It reminds me of the 15 minutes of fame. This is implying that after your 15 minutes, you return to your own life...back to being ordinary. It seems that everyone lusts after this fame, this 15 minutes of being extraordinary, so this is why people might be interested in entering down the hole that is the mind of John Malcovich.

Consciousness

"Conscious is a terrible curse. I think. I feel. I suffer. And all I ask in return, is the opportunity to do my work." I wonder if John Cusac's character actually thinks or considerers the negative side of this statement.  The idea that conscious can not always be chosen, but rather oppressed or suppressed, and if that is really better? He obviously chooses to impose his life on others. First, he (almost) harmlessly vicariously lives through his puppets. Although, he does manage to anger a daughter's father. However,  in this role, he is only slightly hurting his own life and perhaps worrying his caring wife. However, when his goals shift from his work, to wanting and getting Alexandra, John's at first endearing geeky character and puppeteer takes a demonic turn. Finding he can control a grown man who has his own life and is in no way wanting to be control, he take his role of pup-petering to the next over and takes over the mind of John Malkovich. When he and Alexandra talk to the press, they refer to an "act of god" and not anything less. John Cusac doesn't ever once seem to consider his creepy and perverted role of stealing another person's life wrong in anyway. He is stuck viewing it as a means to an end. To become famous doing his puppets and to try and have the women of his dreams. I wonder exactly where the real John was suppressed to during this time, and what experience he was having, and if he being in "un-consciousness" was even a little good, or all fearful as portrayed.

Being Craig and Gallimard

The film, Being John Malkovich, relates to the issues of identity in obvious ways.  The character use the portals to John's mind as way to escape their own lives.  However, Craig not only uses it for this, but also for a sense of control.  When we first meet Craig, he is an unhappy puppeteer, struggling to remain relevant.  His marriage with Lottie is as unfulfilled as his puppet shows on the street corner, which end in him being assaulted.  Suddenly, when Craig find this portal, he feels a new sense of empowerment.  This change in attitude reflects the same transition Gallimard undergoes when he is promoted at work, due to his new confidence, which was gained by his relationship with song. 

Each of these characters uphold a type of masculinity that mostly equates with power over others.  It is interesting to see two characters who begin as passive people, grow into deceitful and ultimately unhappy people.  Because both of these stories take place in more recent settings than Act one of Cloud 9 and The Importance of Being Earnest, where we see more aggressive male figures, such as Clive and Algernon, it is interesting to see how the characters all end in the same place: unfulfilled.  So, the question is, is the modern day man, even though more passive with his need for control, just as damaging as an aggressive type from earlier times?

The Intricacies of Being John Malkovich

If you haven't watched Being John Malkovich yet, don't read this post. I don't want to ruin the movie for you!!!

Where do I even begin to examine this movie. Well first, wow. That film was exciting, interesting, completely insane and yet perfectly made sense all at the same time. I thought that it was absolutely wonderful. There are so many things that I could talk about but I suppose I will connect it to class.

Obviously, the big connection is performing as something that you're not. For Craig Schwartz, the portal to John Malkovich's mind/being was his way to escape the reality of his sad and unfulfilling life. This portal was his connection to something better than himself. It brought him joy, excitement, adventure and along with that, it brought sexual feelings as well. For Lottie, this brought about an entirely different social aspect to her life. Not only was she able to be someone else but it also brought about gender performance concerns for her.

This is extremely similar to M. Butterfly and the ideal of Song. With Song putting on his act a woman for twenty years, you can't help but think whether or not he wanted to be a woman deep down. That becomes a part of your body and along with that, it is extreme dedication. I cannot even fathom such an ideal. But in the end, I suppose that it brings a person closer to who they believe that they are. Ultimately, by being John Malkovich, Lottie Schwartz found that she was a lesbian. Yes, she went to multiple extremes in order to discover this but it was true. This compares to Song because as a reader, you can't help but wonder if deep down, he did have feelings for Gallimard. It's a never ending struggle to meet social norms (in Song's case) and maintain the life that has been established (in Lottie's case) with the comparison of what is truly desired deep down.

Ultimately desire is what drives the human mind. This is clearly shown through both M. Butterfly and Being John Malkovich.

Gallimard's Expiration

As the final scene of M Butterfly begins, Gallimard asserts that his sacrifice of self will prove his love for Song was not in vain. We are left to sort out how this whole strange affair could be productive and how exactly self sacrifice gives this love worth.

Gallimard describes his investment in the dominant/dominated narrative which underpins the prevailing versions of Eastern femininity and Western masculinity as a vision which "has become my life" (91). Upon first reading this passage, I interpreted Gallimard's suicide as an effort to validate the "truth" of this narrative by embracing the feminine role to which Song's deceit has reduced him.  He identifies his "simple and absolute" mistake making self- sacrifice necessary as his act of loving "a cad, a bounder"(92). Interestingly enough, his dishonor does not stem from his act of loving a man, but the act of selflessly loving one who did not return his affections. Because Song, a man, has tricked and shamed Gallimard despite Gallimard's devotion, the French diplomat has been reduced to a Butterfly sprawling on a pin. Gallimard has been deprived of pride and agency (literally). He has been feminized. Killing himself, the ultimate sacrifice of self, can be interpreted as a "proper" performance of woman within the conceptions of gender and power he is invested in. His romantization of the self-sacrificial Oriental woman makes it clear he sees beauty in the notion of selfless love and his suicide can be interpreted as a vindication of this beauty.


Nevertheless, Gallimard seems to understand the patriarchal world valuing women's selfless love is fantastical. He characterizes death "as returning to the world of fantasy," indicating his self identification as woman and subsequent self sacrifice does not make the the imagination of Oriental women he and society embrace true. His recognition of the emptiness of patriarchal narratives is made clear in the lines "The love of a Butterfly can withstand many things- unfaithfulness, loss, even abandonment. But how can it face the one sin that implies all others? The devastating knowledge that, underneath it all, the object of her love was nothing more, nothing less than... a man"(92). The figure of man is demystified by the description "nothing more, nothing less than... a man," which reads as a recognition of the humanity or imperfection of the patriarchal figure of power. Power structures with clear dominant and dominated groups can only be legitimized by assertions the powerful entity is better somehow. Similarly, selfless love can only be beautiful if the one evacuating the self is lower than the object of their affection. It seems Gallimard kills himself for a notion of beauty he recognizes as false. He dies for a fantasy and his choice to hang onto this fantasy begs the question of whether reality affords so little possibility for beauty.

What is masculinity?

After today's class discussion, I was intrigued by what the various nations consider to be "masculine." As we mentioned in class, the East is seen as a more feminine version of masculinity, whereas the West is seen as having an assertive masculinity. Song utilizes his performance of a woman to point out that people from the East are not seen as being ultra-masculine. This brought me to question what exactly masculinity is; what defines masculinity? What does it mean to be masculine? As we discussed in class, racial and sexual stereotypes are often used to identify one's level of masculinity. So is masculinity solely based on society's stereotypes? Or is masculinity, like identity, something that can be assumed through performance? I find it interesting at gender is so flexible in this play; that Song was able to hide her/his true identity from Gallimard for decades floors me. By donning a disguise and refusing to show her entire naked self to him (along with adapting a submissive attitude), Song prevents Gallimard from discovering that she is actually a man.

Gallimard vs. Butterfly

After reading the last couple scenes in Act III, I really began thinking about the question we posed in class. Does gender really matter when it comes to love? Is it possible to love someone without knowing, or caring what their sexual identity is? Iv'e found it difficult to answer after reading the last conversation between Song and Gallimard about their faux relationship. It seemed that Gallimard realized that he didn't love song, but rather his interpretation of an oriental woman. This would mean that it is impossible to love someone despite what gender they were due to the fact that one's gender is such a large part of their identity. However, near the very end of the play, Gallimard admits to 'loving a man', rather than a woman. I wonder if it is possible that Gallimard knew all along that Song was a man, but was so infatuated with the mixture of his true self and his oriental self that he denied the truth; knowing that if he did, society would condemn him. His admittance of loving a man was delivered right before his death, and could easily be seen as a confession of sorts, knowing that he would die in a few moments and it wouldn't matter what society thought of him anymore. I think after further examination, it is safe to say that Gallimard would have loved song no matter what his gender appeared to be, as long as he played the part of the submissive and weak role in the relationship. In the end, it all came down to a power struggle between Pinkerton and Butterfly, and Butterfly won.

West vs. East

During the final act of M. Butterfly, Song says that, "The West thinks of itself as masculine--big guns, big industry, big money--so the East is feminine--weak, delicate, poor . . . but good at art, and full of inscrutable wisdom..."

This quote stuck out to me because I believe that people feel this way to this day. It may not be direct, but one could tell by the tendencies of the people from either side of the world.

For example, I am going to use video games to describe this idea of The West being masculine and The East being feminine. In The West, games like Call of Duty are HUGE. Shooters in general are huge in the west. These games consist of mostly shooting, which is seen as "tough" and "manly" according to American norms. If one would see statistics of what games sell the most in Japan, the games are more likely to be less gritty/violent, and more innovative with unique art styles. I've seen people from The West blindly hate Eastern games because they were too "soft".

How do you all feel about the idea of The West being masculine while The East is more feminine?

Gallimard: Fulfilling the Imprisoned Frenchman Archetype?

What I was most struck by in this play so far is its similarity to The Stranger. The scenes that begin with stage directions stating things like, "M. Gallimard's cell. Paris. Present. / Lights up on Gallimard. He sits in his cell, reading from a leaflet" (Hwang 42). This description reminds me of Meursault sitting in his prison cell after he is sentenced to death for having killed a man. But Gallimard takes on an even more sarcastic and hilarious role than Meursault, who snarkily ponders his existence from his cell. Also, Gallimard narrating from the cell and taking the audience to the scene on which he reminisces makes us forget that our narrator is being imprisoned for his actions.  

This idea that Gallimard is trapped in a cell brings up many ideas about the fatality of his character's actions and human life in general. It brings up questions about the role of gender in this play and what it has to do with were he is as he tells us this story.

Strange Desires

      It is interesting to me how during a time of strong hatred towards foreigners, (the Cold War in China), Gallimard, a white, self-described not attractive male from the West finds a sort of refugee and fulfillment in his dwelling and partial acceptance in his spy-like residence in China. One of his most interesting lines in Act Two for me was, "My life in the West has been such a disappointment." Gallimard professes that his place of last residence with a person of questionable identity is of more satisfaction than an idea of "home" in the west, which is often glorified as the place of being most satisfying.
   He confesses a sort of hate/love relationship with the idea of Pinkerton, saying "...we men may all want to kick Pinkerton, very few of us would pass up the opportunity to be Pinkerton." However, he expresses desires to be a sort of ruthless white conquer, he also shows more sensitive and strangely understanding actions to Song. They are very non-western-like or man-ly glorified traits by not pressuring Song to be naked and also wishing to marry her. He also doesn't feel content with his affair with Rene, a young and attractive young lady that enjoys his very body extremity that defines him as a male. This is definitely uncommon. Parts of Gallimard are very man-like; he wishes to feel in control and have women suffer slightly, as he continues affairs and very off-putting ignores Song for weeks on end; yet at the same time, when he gets what it seems he should want, like a young attractive student enjoying his manly weapon- he isn't content. His relationship with Song, and China are more than purely physical. There is something perhaps about being different than western expectations that connects Gallimard here.
  

Confrontational Nature of M Butterfly

As we discussed in class, the punny, cutting dialogue targeting Gallimard we hear in a "chic -looking parlor" during Act 1 Scene 2 is a moment forcing readers to reflect on their own prejudices. Relating to a man who mistakes his lover for a woman for 20 years is a tall order, but in this moment we are forced to reflect on why this is so and interrogate our own assumptions about sexuality and intimacy. Is it possible Gallimard is someone we should envy rather than scoff at?

A similar question of identification is raised as Song questions Gallimard's characterization of Butterfly as beautiful in the passage beginning "Consider it this way: what would you say if a blonde homecoming queen fell in love with a shot Japanese business man?"(I.VI.pg 17). In this moment, we are forced to interrogate how our ability to identify with the plight of Butterfly and view her as a sympathetic character is reliant on narratives of colonialism and Western romance. Is the trope of the ever faithful  woman  willing to die for love still a "favorite fantasy" embedded in our cultural consciousness? (I.VI. pg17). As Helga characterizes the opera as a "classic piece of music," we are forced to reflect on the many ways gender roles are further reiterated and transformed across cultures.  Personally, as much as I would like to think I reject these sort of narratives, I found Song's turning of the tables through the "short business man scenario" jarring.

Act 2 begins with another pronounced confrontational moment as Gallimard suggests "while we men may all want to kick Pinkerton, very few of us would pass the opportunity to be Pinkerton"(II.I.pg 42). This moment brings to light the reality that patriarchy is not dead. Our society's masculine ideal is still a very aggressive and arguably exploitative type. Moreover, Gallimard's experience as a professional, in which he gains a promotion after overpowering Song with his stoicism (or atleast believing he has done so), suggests that the fulfillment of this role is still key to success in our society. In an apparently strange play, these moments of confrontation make us reflect on our own strange  enduring consciousness.

The Perfect Woman in M. Butterfly and Cloud 9

When I was reading M. Butterfly I was struck by the term "the Perfect Woman". It reminded me of Cloud 9, specifically the character of Betty. In M. Butterfly the perfect woman of Song is literally a man. He is pretending to be a woman in order to gain information on American activities in Vietnam. This "perfect woman" is literally a man creating a female alter ego which is tailored to the wants of Gallimard. Even when Gallimard is reflecting on his relationship with Song after he knows that she is actually a man he still insists he was loved by the perfect woman. This can be compared to Betty from Cloud 9 who, in Act 1, is a man playing a woman. This similarity is interesting because they are both supposedly the ideal or perfect woman. This begs the question of what makes the perfect woman. According to these two plays it is not the physiology of the person, it is the gender identity they choose to perform. This challenges the generally accepted idea of gender being determined by a person's physical body and is very intriguing to think about in my opinion.

Who is Gallimard?

In M Butterfly, Gallimard draws forth similarities between himself and Pinkerton from Madam Butterfly. He claims they are alike in that they both embody western male characteristics such as dominating traits, an authoritative attitude, and sexual control. However, as you read further, it is revealed that Gallimard does not fill the roll of the western male figure at all. He is displayed as a weak, shy, and unattractive man; nothing at all like the character of Pinkerton in Madam Butterfly. Because of this, I think the author is comparing the society created vision of the western male to a more realistic, and slightly feminine version of the male. I see Pinkerton as the person who Gallimard aspires to be, or even pretends to be, while he is around the submissive geisha community.

Why?

On page 63 of M. Butterfly, Song asks Miss Chin, "Miss Chin? Why, in the Peking Opera, are women's roles played by men?" Song then goes on to answer her own question by saying, "No. Because only a man knows how a woman is supposed to act."

This immediately reminded me of Cloud 9 and the notion of the ideal woman being what only men want. Where does this leave women? What is the ideal woman for women (and I say that platonically)? It seems like according to this, women only have their ideas of the ideal woman because of what men have instilled in them throughout the years.

Gallimard's Transformation

The first couple of pages in this book completely shocked me. How could a man have a relationship with another man who is pretending to be a woman, for twenty years? This is completely strange to me.   I find it interesting to view Gallimard's transformation and interactions with women. As he tells us from his jail cell that at first, he was loyal and quiet with his life, especially with his relationships. But then we are slowly led in to the world of his career and his women.

His interesting career as a spy launches him into the strange world of women. He meets Song, who is a beautiful opera singer and who is also undercover as well. He utilizes this relationship as an escape from his marriage with Helga. As I read on into Act 2, I realized that his marriage with Helga was somewhat of a testament to his insecurities of whether or not he is a man. *SPOILER* it is revealed that he and Helga are having trouble conceiving a child. This is detrimental to his manhood and he questions his masculinity. When Helga prompts him to go and see a doctor just to confirm that there is nothing wrong, he refuses. He would rather escape the truth by just replacing it with hollow information. In a way, this is his relationship with Song. It is simply an escape from the real world and the truth. And yet, she manages to make him feel manly. They ultimately move in together after his divorce with Helga. It is very interesting to me that Song makes him feel more masculine than when Song is really a man as well.

Along with that, Gallimard seems to become more confident as his career launches him forward. After he gets a promotion, he goes to some sort of dinner party and meets Renne, an English foreign exchange student. She is blunt and straight forward and by asking him if wants to fool around, she makes Gallimard feel needed and in control. He is ultimately on the hunt for control and masculinity and by playing multiple women and sneaking around in his career as well, he seems to think that he can achieve that. It will be interesting to see how his quest for ultimate masculinity catches up with him.

M. Butterfly Poses a Question

An interesting aspect of M.Butterfly comes up in the first four pages: How could a man have a relationship for twenty years and not realize it was with another man?  As discussed in class, this brings up issues of the importance of gender in relationships and society.  The scene in which two men and a woman sort of joke about Gallimard's circumstance, in a way, reflects Cohen's piece about Oscar Wilde's trial posing as a sodomite.  Cohen's article focuses on how easily the public can be troubled by simply posing as something that one is not, and in this cause, with sexuality, it was particularly disturbing.  This mainly is due to the realization that gender and sexuality is a performance that can be easily used to reinforce or deny typical masculinity or femininity.  The plot of M. Butterfly relies on a man posing as a woman and perusing a relationship with another man.  The scene mentioned above, where random members of society are discussing the outrageous aspects of the situation, reflects the realizations met in Cohen's piece.  This is another example in which gender can be a performance and society finds this troubling due to how easily it can be changed with simple changes in dress or acts.  It will be interesting to see how the topic of gender and what constitutes male and female characteristics are discussed further in the play.

Identity Changes in "M. Butterfly"

I am really enjoying David Henry Hwang's M. Butterfly. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this play is the various identities the characters perform throughout its duration. Gallimard, for instance, is a French diplomat living in China for a number of years. Although he is French, his alliance lies with China in a sense, because that is where his mistress lives. Gallimard declares that he hates the French and wishes to divorce his wife, whom has had been cheating on for years while they lived in China.

However, the most perplexing character in this play is Song, Gallimard's Chinese mistress. In many ways, Song's identity is compromised of opposing traits. Though she constantly states how the Western world is corrupt, she wishes to marry Gallimard and produce a child for him, in hopes that he will stay with her forever. And although she tells Chin that she has shamed China by allowing herself to be corrupted by a foreigner, she still wishes to be with Gallimard.

Perhaps the peculiar aspect of Song's identity is her ambiguous gender/sexuality. Although she dresses as and acts like a woman, Chin declares that Song is a "homo" because she has sexual relations with Gallimard. This scene accuses Song of being a man, who is engaging in a relationship with another man. But Song acts the part of a woman, telling Gallimard that she is pregnant with his child and dressing in delicate costuming.