The Second Essay, Which You Will Most Likely Read First, Since it is On Top of The Other One. None The Less, it is Still The Second Essay

Ok, so here is this essay I wrote about "Amelie" and "Rushmore," as you can see by the title, I honestly jack off to how clever I think I am.

Rushmore and Amelie or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Quirky Coming of Age Saga

The coming of age story is nothing new in cinema history. In fact, it is one of the most overused and abused of all themes. However, these films offer proof as to why this cliché still may have some life or originality left in it. Both films tell the story of an outsider—an eccentric who must learn to somehow cooperate with the outside world, while maintaining their own individuality. They were also both created outside of the mainstream Hollywood system, and therefore are not as concerned with commercial success as with artistic statement and meaningful sentiment. However, the stories themselves are very, very different and are told in very different ways.
Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Amelie is the story of a woman caught up in her own dream world, scared to face reality, and scared to face the ultimate disappointment she assumes can only come from allowing people into her life. The story uses her overactive imagination to a large extent as a dramatic tool, in the sense that it allows whimsical (not to mention beautiful and heartwarming) speculation on the film’s main enigma codes. It also plays a part in the symbolic coding of the film. These enigmas are what drive the character development and plot, as well as force an intellectual and emotional investment in the viewer as to the discovery of answers to these delightfully obscure riddles. Aesthetically, this film is also very dreamlike; as if it took place in Amelie’s imagination. The addition of a completely omniscient narrator adds to the overall sense that this is a modern fairytale.
Wes Anderson’s Rushmore is the far more realistic of these two. Although that isn’t saying very much, as even this film is so offbeat that many viewers, expecting a mainstream story and easily recognizable characters, found the film off-putting and unbelievable. This film rarely uses enigma to drive the plot; in fact, any mystery is usually solved by the end of the scene in which it was introduced. Unlike Amelie, the viewer is not invited to be on equal footing with characters. We are meant to observe, from an almost omniscient standpoint, the misdeeds and mistakes of the characters. We always know better the motivations of the other characters. This is mostly used for comedic effect, as the conflicting motivations of each character are the driving force of this plot.
In Amelie, we see in the opening credits a young girl, playful, happy, but alone. Our first impression is corroborated when the heterodiegetic narrator begins the film by introducing us to Amelie’s childhood. Both her mother and father are explained to the viewer as being obsessive and unfeeling. She is, “slung between a neurotic and an iceberg,” as it’s put in the film. After a brief introduction of her childhood, which serves to develop the characters, we are told that, “in 48 hours, Amelie’s life will change forever, but she doesn’t know it yet.” Nor does the viewer; all that is shown is a brief flash of news-like shot of a car crash. The first enigma of the film is introduced. Later we find out that the car crash that was alluded to was the death of Princess Diana of Wales, which, when she sees on television, causes her to drop the top of a bottle, which rolls into the floor molding, and breaks it. This leads her to discover a time capsule another tenant hid a long time ago. This sort of serendipitous causation is commonplace throughout the film. Each enigma serves to introduce in some way the next, creating a balanced and somehow believable causal relationship to the chain of events. The death of Princess Diana leads to her finding the time capsule, which leads to her newfound joy in helping people. This, in turn, leads to her own realization that she must open herself up to the world, which in turn motivates her attempt to find love, which she does, through a dizzying succession of encounters much akin to those already stated. While many supporting characters further this goal, the overall impression is that the viewer walks hand in hand with Amelie through her trials and tribulations.
Rushmore is decidedly less inclined to inculcate upon the viewer a sense of somehow being part of the story. It begins with a scene in which Max Fischer, the film’s protagonist, dreams that he has solved the world’s most complicated math problem, and has won the admiration of his fellow students. The clapping and chanting of his name in this is found to be the clapping he is woken by in the chapel, where Herman Blume is about to speak. This is meant as a brief introduction into the mind of Max Fischer—his motivation is simply to be loved by all. His narcissistic and overly self-indulgent passions are a main focus in this film. We aren’t meant to see the story from Max’s point of view, instead, we are only to observe. The next scene, where Herman Blume gives a speech denouncing the “rich kids,” telling those “who weren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths” to attack the rich kids serves to portray him and Max as kindred souls. Max is observed at the end of this scene giving Herman a standing ovation, while the others don’t so much as even clap. Eventually the plot thickens when both Herman and Max fall in love with the same first grade teacher, and both of their lives fall into ruin because of the “war” this starts between them.
While Amelie is dizzyingly fluid in it’s story telling, Rushmore is more formal. In Amelie, the story has direct causation from the events that take place, thus it seems that time elapses naturally throughout the story—except, of course, for the beginning, which explains her childhood, then let’s the viewer know through the indexical signography of seasons passing outside of her window, as well as a voiceover, that years have passed. The next time we see Amelie, she is fully-grown. Rushmore takes place over a period of roughly five months. We know this, because sporadically throughout the film there are iconic signs of play curtains with the names of the upcoming month on them, letting us know where we are in time, and connoting a sense that this story is set up like one of Max’s plays. Further, Rushmore makes use of montage in many instances to show Max’s planning, or his execution, of his schemes.
Amelie is very heavy on Symbolic signs. For instance, as Raphael Dufayel attempts to paint the girl with the glass of water in a Renoir reproduction, he and Amelie use her as a metaphor for Amelie’s place in life. As the film goes on, this recurring discussion becomes a way of expressing Amelie’s current state to the viewer. Another incredibly important symbol is the man in Nino’s picture book, who constantly has his photo taken, and then rips them up. Amelie goes through many whimsical and unrealistic theories, until she realizes that he is just the photo booth repairman, which symbolizes her journey towards accepting the real world. These are both important plot points, completely based on symbolic signs. Indexical signs are sometimes used, for instance, to show time lapse or a change in location. When Amelie is searching for the owner of the time capsule, shots of metro trains are used to infer that she is cris-crossing the city, trying to find him.
Many scenes in Rushmore begin with the use of an iconic or indexical to show place, or to set up a joke. For instance, after learning of Max’s plan to build a Marine Observatory for Miss Cross, we then see a baseball players, and then a marching band and stage, signifying that this is Max’s groundbreaking ceremony for the Aquarium, and that he is planning to build it on the site of the school’s baseball diamond without first having consulted anyone in the school’s administration. Another example is the scene of Herman’s sons’ birthday party. We immediately get the sense that he is an outcast, when we see everyone else gathered around the children, while Herman sits on the other side of the pool. We are also introduced to his failing marriage when we see a shot of his wife flirting with another man as Herman watches.
In both Amelie and Rushmore, the main characters basic conflict is one that is solved by self-realization and growth. Amelie’s basic conflict is that she is in need of love, and the ability to open up to people; this is basically expressly stated in a myriad of ways throughout the film. Max’s conflict is both with the outside world and with himself. While the outer conflict over Miss Cross, between him and Herman Blume, drives the film, the ultimate resolution is found when he learns to live with his place in life.
Both films provide adequate resolution, but Rushmore’s is far more ambiguous. We realize at the end of Amelie that happiness has been found for her and each of the supporting characters that mirror her need for growth and the courage to open up to the world. This is relatively easy and is shown in action, as she rides off with Nino, her new love, and when her father, who had been mourning the loss of his wife for far too long, finally takes a much-needed vacation. (This is, by the way, portrayed with the iconic sign of him hailing a cab and having suitcases.) In Rushmore, however, Max does not get the object of his desire, Miss Cross. What he ends up with is the realization that having his friend Herman back, having a relationship with a girl his own age, and getting his life back together, is worth the compromise of not getting the object of his desire.
As stated, while both of these fine films deal with the ability of an individual to grow into their place in the world, they go about their storytelling in very different ways. While Rushmore is far more formal in its motivationally based plot line, Amelie uses serendipitous action to move the plot, which retains the sense of fantasy prevalent throughout. Further, the position of the viewer is very different. While in Amelie we share an ignorance that keeps us involved with story in order to find resolution concurrently with her, Rushmore’s comedy of errors dictates that we must have knowledge beyond what the characters know at certain points.

Two Essays on Film

For some reason, the last two essays I've written that I've actually been proud of in any sense were both on film. Both will be reproduced here, for your perusal and eventual ecstasy caused by my pseudo philosophic/intellectual musings. One is on "Dead Man Walking" and the other a comparative piece on "Amelie" and "Rushmore," respectively.

Left or Right—We’re all Human

The question of whether or not to allow the death penalty has been heatedly debated for as long as anyone alive today can remember. It’s a testament to the polarizing effect of this issue that no meaningful, decisive action has really been taken by the government on it. The federal government meekly makes it an issue of “federalism” whenever it can, while no federal death penalty exists, other than for treason. The states, taking the example of federal “buck-passing,” allow the issue to go directly to voters by way of putting it directly on ballots, instead of putting themselves at the mercy of angry supporters on either side of the issue. So, instead of a coherent death penalty policy throughout the country, the United States is torn on the issue; while many states have no death penalty, others have a death penalty not actively used. Still others use it often, and in some very dubious situations, like Texas. It could be this model that Tim Robbins followed when making “Dead Man Walking”—the arguments of either side of the issue are both well represented, but ultimately moot points in the story. Much like the issue itself, it is up to the individual to decide which political philosophy is more resonant throughout the story. However, the movie itself, by including both sides in such a manner, forces the thinking viewer to come to only one reasonable conclusion: that the death penalty itself is not a matter for partisan political bickering, but simply more senseless killing.
The government, ironically the true hand of death in the story, remains largely faceless throughout the story. Much like their position in real life, they simply carry out the will of the people. When sister Helen asks the “left foot” guard how he feels about seeing the deaths of these men, his immediate response is simply that it has no effect on him—he’s simply doing his job. No one responsible for carrying out the sentence ever seems to hold a position one way or the other. This sense of cold, unfeeling duty is utterly apparent in the emotionally tense final meeting of Mathew and his family. In the final moments of their time together, they are not allowed one final embrace, due, as the warden says, to “security concerns.” That the face of the government could be so cold towards the very essence of humanity, a mother’s love for her child is the manifestation of absolute apathy towards life that is the government’s modus operandi throughout.
The balance of political philosophy in this movie is quite subtle, but apparent when one attempts to discern which basic argument the movie is taking. While Mathew begins the movie portrayed as the very common victim of the system, by the end he has turned into what the courts and the victim’s of his crime had always claimed: a murderer and a rapist. This evolution from commonly used liberal anti-death penalty example to perfect conservative pro-death penalty canon fodder is actually what makes this film’s message so clear. Mathew begins the movie as a self-styled victim; a cynical defeatist who feels bad for himself, but most importantly, he claims he is innocent. While the viewer may not like him at this point, it’s still better that he goes free than be killed senselessly. Throughout the movie we slowly learn of his responsibility for the horrendous crimes he was rightly convicted of. More importantly, however, through this journey he is humanized. The viewer no longer sees the angry young man that is grudgingly viewed as innocent, but the soft-spoken, scared, endearing rapist and murderer who cares more for his mother and brothers than he does for himself. To go from an unlikable innocent to a highly human murderer and rapist is the shifting duality that makes the actual political stance of the film a moot point. Because he fits neither ideology, Mathew must be seen as a human, not as a propagandist’s tool. It is this humanism that ultimately shines through in the movie. This speaks louder than the conflicting ideologies that the movie preaches. If Mathew fit into both sides of the argument, and still evoke sympathy from the viewer, than the stock points of argumentation of either side can have no merit.
The parents of the victims also play an important role in muting these dueling ideologies. The first impression they make on the viewer is that of an enemy to Mathew’s cause. While the viewer can still sympathize with their loss, Mathew’s claims of innocence mean the viewer sees them as misguided, narrow, and ignorant. However, they too are humanized in a way that muddies political talking points. The death penalty is predicated upon the idea that justice is done once the murderer is murdered. “An eye for an eye,” as the Old Testament puts it. However, we realize that in the case of murder, there is no answer. As Mathew says himself in his final speech, he hopes that his helps the Delacroix’s and the Percy’s deal with their grief. But this is ironic, as we realize after that it has not helped anyone involved. Mr. Delacroix has still lost his wife and his son—Mathew’s death didn’t help any of his current problems.
Further, the way in which the Percy family treats Sister Prejean with complete disrespect when they come to the realization that she hasn’t “switched sides,” as they call it, is more evidence of the apolitical nature of the story. The wording of this cannot be an accident. The Percy family represents rightist side of the argument, and is thus portrayed as inconsolably, hurt and very narrow-minded. Sister Prejean represents the concern for human life that is the heart of this film. She actively seeks out both sides, trying to help everyone involved the best way she can. In this capacity, she also acts as the medium through which we view the story. Anyone, especially the government, who treats her badly is ultimately not meant to be seen as a “good,” or at least worthy of sympathy. She has no interest but the alleviation of pain for everyone, and thus we immediately like her character.
The scene in which Mathew’s death sentence is carried out is filled with imagery and symbolism that is only decipherable when taken as a whole. Mathew’s final speech, one of love, not hatred, comes only after every possible means of for him to escape death have been exhausted. However, he still asks for forgiveness, and his death is still the makings of a martyr. He consigns to die so that others may gain some comfort. Which of course, the viewer sees later is not the case, further adding to the senselessness of his death. He states in that speech that, “killing is wrong, no matter who does, whether its me or ya’ll or the government.” The vision of Hope and Walter as a reflection in the window, watching over Mathew’s demise is meant to show how death only begets more death; that both scenarios are still murder, regardless of circumstance. The fact that Mathew’s body is much in the same position as Hope and Walter’s, as well as a reference to his martyrdom, only serve to reinforce the senselessness of all three of them dying.
With all of this in mind, it becomes clear that this movie is really not political at all. It’s simply human. This movie can use both ideologies to serve its own purposes because, as is shown, this is not a propagandist’s tale, but a story of death and the senseless destruction of families because of it. It does not contend to say what is right or wrong about either side of the argument, but to show the effects of death in any form. In that sense, it accomplishes its goal: to show the futility of murder justifying murder, because either way death is the same.

I like to have "Banality"

I've been up all night.
I have nothing to do. So I decided to make fun of MTV.
Why is it that people on Room Raiders and the appropriately titled "Wanna Come Inside" always describe themselves the same way?

Seriously, every speech is something akin to this:

"My name's Jamie, I'm a white suburbanite college student at a large state-funded university. I'm a marketing/finance/accounting major. I really like listening to music. (ed. note- Instead of what? Whale sounds?) I love to hang out with my friends, play sports, and have fun!"
Well, Jamie, not many people like to have "boredom," now do they?
Seriously, have these people never seen an episode of either show? Do they not see that each and every person describes themselves in this manner? OR is that why they do it? (Cue "duh-duh duuuuh"-type music for effect)
On second thought, it can probably be at least partially attributed to what I can only assume are the large amounts of Rufinol these women ingest each weekend.
Seriously, MTV should just come out and issue a mandate that from this point forward, everyone they put on television is an athlete, a business major, likes "music" and "fun." Then maybe we could actually glean something about each individual, instead of learning that each and every one share nearly identical hobbies,backgrounds, and interests.

Wait, did I just assume that these people actually have a "personality" to speak of? How silly of me. They most certainly do not. I'm sure they would resent the intimation that they were in any way original or exceptional. I will never--ever--question their mediocrity again. I apologize.

Why not--and I'm going out on a limb here--stop me, please, if this is completely stupid--explain what your idea of "fun" is?
Would that be so hard, or are you afraid that MTV viewers will look down you when you explain you enjoy getting drunk at a bar that plays Top 40 radio all night long while you idiotically dance with your metallic tube top-clad sorority sisters until you scuttle home, desperately, with the last person who bought you a drink?
I am quite confident that they will not. Because they all do the same thing.

Also,

Dear People-In-The-Van-Having-Their-Rooms-Raided,
Please stop with your overblown bullshit self-flagellation whenever the "raider" (not of the Lost Ark variety, unfortunately) says or does something slightly controversial. Like finding your porn. Seriously, everyone has porn. Shut.The.Fuck.Up. Oh, and, if you could, please tell the raider when you meet for that final reckoning at the end of the show that they should really learn not to assume that someone is a slut because you find condoms in their room.
Seriously, do those people not use condoms? Is it so hard to believe that one would keep condoms around, even if they weren't fucking everyone in sight?
Also, stop with all the dumb sexual innuendo. Everyone knows you like to have sex. It's basically the premise of this show that you will have sex with one of these three people based on how many Blink 182 CDs they own. And stop getting so excited about the spy kit. And stop using any excuse to use the tongs. Use the rubber gloves instead.

It's this sort of pathetic, middle American drivel, freshly regurgitated each time I turn on the television, that makes me hate everyone .
This is all for now.

I believe this satisfies Kaczander's request for "pop-culture"...um, "whatever the fuck he said."
Next up will be an essay entitled "Fuck Our Troops," that is, if I ever get around to writing it.

Response Time #2

Hello all and welcome.

In response number #1, I dealt with the question of Marie, and in response number 2, I will deal with the inquiries put forth to me about that photo blog thing, and the eating thing.

Ok, so the photo blog thing:
What the fuck is this? I don't know where Jacob found this, but it is the most confusing and, thus, seductive thing I have ever seen in my entire life. I went through every archive, every comment, looking for some sort of fucking explanation. All I found were a bunch of comments by guys thanking her for renewing their nurse fantasies, which I thought was pretty trite and stupid.
At first I thought it must be a way for some girl to keep in touch with her long distance boyfriend. Like," Hey baby, I'm putting up a new picture right now, I miss you so much, here it is." That sort of thing, then I realized that this girl is just a moron who for some reason believes this will enhance her life some how. My final judgement is that this blog would be better if she got naked more.
Look for yourself, just go to the comments section of the "Listen, I'm out of ideas" post.

So, time for mystery commentor:
The reason all you do in Michigan is eat, shunning eating in other places for more active pursuits is two-fold. First, you live in Michigan, therefore you don't exactly go around, seeing the sites (oh, how numerous they are!) everyday, because, again, you live there, you've seen them. And second, on vacation, you only have a limited amount of time, so you try to do everything you can, and eating falls by the wayside.
I can personally attest that this is not just a Michigan thing. I live in Chicago, the third largest city in the country, and I find that eating is definitely one of the few social habits here as well. That, and drinking. It was the same when I lived in New York over the summer-- while the first two weeks were full of activity, and weight loss, in the end most social activity was predicated upon meeting to eat somewhere. That, and drinking.
So, problem solved.
Now who are you? Seriously? I NEED TO KNOW. I just broke a grammar rule, so you know I must be serious. Unlike Kaczander, I don't see the need to actively contribute to the slaughter of the English language.

That's all for today, it's been a long one. More tomorrow, I promise.

Response Time #1

So, having gathered all the responses I think I'm going to get, it's probably time to answer them. It's 6:30 AM, so please forgive any incoherency on my part.

So, to Marie's humble request that I write about her:
I met Marie during orientation. She was wearing a cute dress that had cherries on it. She was reading. She was the only person I had seen all day that had been wearing a cute dress with cherries on it, or reading. I think she was also smoking at the time but I can't be sure. Either way, she looked cute, and I approached her and introduced myself, something I hadn't really done all day, since everyone else was way too eager to approach me and introduce themselves. To be honest, I really liked her and it made me happy that she seemed to like me as well. (Later I found out that she had hated me when we met, that she thought I was the most pretentious asshole she had ever known. Believe it or not, this is usually a good sign, as most of my best friends usually hate me when we first meet.)
We made fun of our fellow future Loyolans together. I liked that she was North Irish, and that she had black hair and pretty blue eyes. She seemed sweet and intelligent and at least as bitter as I was about coming to this school.
The rest is sort of history in the making. We came to school, and saw each other again. I pretended not to remember her name. Well, actually, I don't remember whether or not I actually forgot her name or just pretended to. I think either way I would have made her reintroduce herself. We became friends. Everyone wanted to date her. She had a boyfriend from home. We spent more and more time with each other as school began. I don't remember exactly how it happened, or I do and just don't think a blog is the best place to write about it, but she broke up with her boyfriend and then started dating me.
She is the most serious girlfriend I have ever had. I don't like the idea of committing to anything, but with her it wasn't really like that. We've been officially dating since Halloween, so it's been around three-and-a-half months now.
She's really pretty. She has big, soft lips. She's very smart. She's a gentle person, a martyr, really. She reads a lot. She knows more about literature than me, although she refutes the subtle genius of Bret Easton Ellis, which I think is a major oversight on her part. She tells me when my jokes aren't funny, which is, apparently, often.
If she's looking for some sort of confirmation of my devotion I can offer this: I have stayed up all night because of you.

The rest of you will have to wait until I get some sleep.

Is blogger working?

This is a test of the blogging machinery thing, because each time I check my blog, the last post I made keeps not showing up. It's really upsetting.

Listen, I'm out of ideas

Hey,
I haven't posted in a while. This isn't because I don't love you, it's because I can't fucking think of anything to write, or, rather, I can't think of anything to write about right now. So I'm giving you, the readers of my blog, the chance of a lifetime, or...umm...something.

Anyway, just leave a comment (in the comments section!) with the topic you, the readers, would like me to write on, and I will do my usual snarky, pseudo-intellectual elitism thing. The topics can be as broad (The meaning of life), or as specific (why I am a dipshit) as you like. Seriously, this is your chance to find something incredibly stupid and make me write about it.
I will be honest, I will forthcoming, and I will put actual thought into this.
Because I have nothing better to do.

I hope it's not just Jacob coming up with 100 things for me to write on.
Also, leave your name with your topic.

We are all Zach Braff

I wrote a review of Jesus, and it's on the black list this week. Here it is , you will love it. Reviews thus far have been wonderful. Jacob liked it (thanks for doing the post yesterday), Marie liked it. Some guy named Mike McLaughlin wrote me an email that just said, "wow." I'm not sure what that means, but I'm pretty enthusiastic about it any way.

Also, to tie up a few "loose ends" as I like to call them. Someone asked me what the top DVDs I bought on my month long spending spree were. Well, first and foremost were the three volumes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force that filled my days with laughter throughout break. Also, "Kill Bill Vol.2"-- one of my favorite movies of the year, Fellini's "La Dolce Vita", Luis Bunuel's "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", "Gimme Shelter," and Godard's "Une Femme C'est Une Femme" or as it's known to the un-cultured mouth breathers of the United States (me), "A Woman Is a Woman." So these are those, and by those I mean my favorite DVDs I bought.

Also, who are you Mystery Commenter? I've asked everyone who reads this, or so I thought.

Tomorrow I have a meeting with the Residence Hall directors, who I hear are scared of me now, possibly because they think jews have tails and horns. To answer the question I know you're all thinking, yes, I plan on using this to my advantage. So watch out for part II of my uplifting story of overcoming intolerance and anti-semitism tomorrow.

Gabe, thanks for the comment, and of course I know who you are-- we met over break at the little brown house.