Seminar Review: Gwenda Young

As I am studying for a MA in American Literature and Film, I had a particular interest in this seminar presentation. Dr. Young also happened to have being a lecturer of mine for the past three years, including my MA, and I had always enjoyed those classes. Personally I have always had an interest in film and the idea of identity in film. Early on in our MA, Dr. Young had discussed Martin Scorsese’s The Departed with reference to Irish American identity and I had found that class to be thoroughly enjoyable. Although this seminar was on early Hollywood, an era of film where I would have limited knowledge, I felt that it could give me a greater insight into the construction of identity of the Irish in America.

Dr. Young began by establishing what exactly it meant to be Irish or Irish American in early Hollywood. Those at the presentation were treated to very interesting documents, including old fanzines and film magazines, which demonstrated how certain Hollywood stars with a perceived Irish heritage used this perceived heritage to gain stardom in Hollywood. The idea of Ireland as a romantic, mystic country was embraced and used by the stars to promote their image and was essentially a stereotype. The images in the particular film magazines depicted Ireland as the ‘auld sod’, a country stuck in the past with thatched houses and lush green scenery. Another aspect of this stereotype was introduced in the idea of the tough but lovable rogue that was the Irish American. This was emphasised in a clip of the silent Mary Pickford film Amarilly of Clothes Line Alley.

Dr. Young focused her presentation on the persona of the director of the film Marshall Nelihan. This was done to emphasis how the Irish American stereotype, so often seen as a positive identity, could be turned back into the negative stereotype that dominated the nineteenth century. Nelian was an Irish American and in his early Hollywood years came upon great success especially due to his collaborations with Mary Pickford. Nelian was considered to be a character, possessing a charm and a witty personality that meant that he was perceived as a likable character. His witty, charming personality was evident in such interviews as How to be a Motion Picture Director.   These characteristics were seen to a result of his Irish heritage. However Dr. Young illustrated that as Nelian’s career took a negative turn, it was his Irish heritage that was perceived to be fault of this. Characteristics such as a short temper, violent tendencies and a fondness for alcohol were deemed to be a result of Nelian’s Irish background and therefore Nelian’s ‘Irishness’ can be interpreted as his downfall. By comparing and contrasting the various highs and lows of Nelilan’s career, Dr. Young successfully portrayed the fickle stereotype of the Irish and Irish American in early Hollywood.

I found Dr. Young’s presentation style to be engaging as she spoke with an authority on the subject and genuinely had a deep interest in the subject. Her use of images and clips were also well done and complemented perfectly with the argument that she was making. The images emphasised her argument and did not distract the audience from what she was saying, which I felt was very important. To conclude I found Dr. Young’s seminar presentation engaging and I felt afterwards that I had gained information from it.

Seminar Review: Bill E. Lawson

In October the UCC English department hosted a seminar presented by guest speaker Bill E. Lawson. Professor Lawson is a professor of sociology visiting from the University of Memphis, and is considered to be a voice of authority on the subject of slavery and emancipation, particularly with regard to Frederick Douglass. He has written extensively on these subjects. Accordingly his seminar was entitled ‘Frederick Douglass: Alienated or Disappointed?’ Having studied the work of Frederick Douglass in my undergraduate I was very interested in what Prof. Lawson had to say.

In his presentation Prof. Lawson essentially gave a narrative of the African-American struggle for freedom and following the abolition of slavery, their subsequent difficultly in coming to terms with emancipation. Although this may seem like a basic narrative, I felt that Prof. Lawson’s addressing of the problems of emancipation provided a new perspective to the topic. Personally I would have taken the abolition of slavery as a positive moment for the African-Americans, and while it was it also posed problems. Prof. Lawson introduced the problems that African-Americans leaders would have to contend with, such as how to give the slaves training to ensure the progression from a piece of property to a free citizen and the white reaction to the abolition of slavery. Prof. Lawson also gave a background on the booming anti-black taught movement in the USA, with particular emphasis on the years 1862 to 1920. Literature and film played a part in this anti-abolition taught movement in particular pieces of working including The Klansman and D.W Griffth’s Birth of a Nation. Prof. Lawson argued that these works of propaganda meant that the abolitionists struggled to get respect and therefore struggled to counter racism.

Although Prof. Lawson’s presentation was interesting I felt that the talk would have perhaps benefited from the use of PowerPoint slides. Without the use of images, which I personally have become accustomed to, it was difficult to follow the professor’s narrative at times, as it was essentially a history lecture rather than an English seminar presentation. I felt images of those leaders that he was talking about would have made it easier, for me personally, to identify with the different parties involved.

However despite the lack of visual images, Prof. Lawson proved to be a charismatic presence while presenting his paper. He has a powerful voice and it is clear from how he speaks that he has a genuine interest and deep knowledge of his subject matter. I felt that Prof. Lawson was also an engaging presence when dealing with the audience. He was deeply interested in the questions that fellow academics proposed and came across as witty and down to earth. These characteristics made the professor a likable individual, which allowed the audience to relax and listen in comfort.

In conclusion I thoroughly enjoyed Prof. Lawson’s seminar presentation as I felt it was engaging and it gave a new perspective in which to analyse the abolition of slavery.

The Hero Complex

“Great heroes need great sorrows and burdens, or half their greatness goes unnoticed. It is all part of the fairy tale.”
― Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn

 What makes you want to read a particular novel? What dramatic elements make you want to watch a certain film? Naturally there are several different answers to these questions. Perhaps you wish to see a film because you like a particular genre such as a gangster or rom-com or because your favourite director is making the film. Some people will read a novel by their favourite author even if it is completely different in narrative form and genre from the writer’s previous work. Others still are influenced in their choice by the setting or plot of a piece of work.

What currently draws me to a film or novel is the protagonist of the piece. Perhaps it is the level of superhero films that currently bombard the movie screens, or maybe it is something else entirely, either way I find myself constantly considering the idea of the hero in works of fiction. I have a particular interest in American literature and film, however I now find myself increasingly drawn to British and Irish literature and their portrayals of the hero.  Increasingly I believe that it can be argued that the portrayal of a hero depends greatly on the country in which he exists. This may seem simplistic and trivial but I believe the representation of the hero accurately reflects the psyche of his country of origin. Let us take James Joyce’s great work of modernist literature Ulysses. The novel is set over the course of one and mainly consists of Leopold Bloom’s train of thought as he wanders through Dublin city. Although this may be considered to be a stereotype to some, I think the novel perfectly captures the essence of a hero in Ireland. It is a romantic notion, the idea of a man wandering around a city to no true particular end or purpose. He is heroic in his ordinariness, which perhaps can best describe Ireland.

Of course this contrasts brilliantly with the hero in British fiction. When you ask someone on the street to name the greatest hero in British fiction, the majority would probably answer with James Bond or Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps you may find those of a younger age who would say Harry Potter. These characters perfectly capture the British mindset. They share positive masculine qualities and for the most part are inspiring characters. Even their negative qualities are slightly positive! James Bond is too much of a womaniser and Sherlock Holmes is too clever! Harry Potter’s fatal flaw is that he loves too much! These are characters that any reader would aspire to be like. This confidence in their heroes reveals much about Britain. There is a sense that Britain is comfortable with her status and sees herself in a heroic light on the international stage.

This brings us to America; a country that I believe has a very complex idea of the hero. Personally I believe that The Great Gatsby is the greatest American novel of the twentieth century. Although the novel is a fantastic commentary on the Jazz Age, for me personally it is the character of Jay Gatsby that makes the novel a fantastic piece of literature. Gatsby is a fascinating character and a man who has completely re invented himself. In the early stages of the novel he is a mysterious shadowy figure, which adds to his character. When he is revealed in the novel, he is seen to be a man of good nature in a world gone wrong. The Jazz Age is portrayed as a vacuous and hollow world, where only Gatsby (and Nick) display any positive characteristics such as Gatsby’s loyalty and love for Daisy. By possessing these qualities, Gatsby ultimately dies. Gatsby is seen as a tragic figure in the novel. Some interpretations of the novel even analyse Gatsby as a Christ-like figure who sacrifices himself for Daisy. Although I think that this particular reading may be extreme I do see Gatsby as a tragic hero. America I believe needs her heroes to be flawed as this is how the country sees itself, flawed but ultimately heroic. Like all endearing heroes, Gatsby is not perfect and this is what makes him a perfect example of an American hero.

Thanks for reading!

Collective Memory in the Vietnam War films

The idea of America’s collective imagination has recently become a topic of interest to me due to my upcoming thesis. Over the last few weeks I have been reading several articles on America’s collective memory with regard to the Vietnam War and what I have found has really been of use to my thesis. It seems to me that America is a country that is unable to cope with the wrongs of her past and who must then use film as a healing mechanism to rewrite the past.

Maurice Halbwachs defined collective memory as “a current of continuous thought whose continuity is not at all artificial, for it retains from the past only what still lives or is capable of living in the consciousness of groups keeping the memory alive”. Essentially memory shapes a nation’s identity. Traumatic events such as wars have a massive influence on shaping national memory. The collective memory of a country can be examined through representational forms in the media such as television, film and literature. Collective memory can also be represented through school texts and memorials. Collective memory generally tends towards healing and the reconciliation of the country to a trauma of the country’s past.

The Vietnam War was one of the most traumatic events in the history of the United States. In comparison to the World Wars, the Vietnam War left a bitter scar on the United States collective memory. It was seen as the most difficult war that America had ever fought and the United States’ only loss in combat. Perhaps even more importantly, Vietnam was seen as the period in the American narrative where things had gone wrong and that America had lost her way as a country. The deafening silence on the war throughout the 1970’s seemed to reiterate this sentiment. It was the medium of film that ended this silence in the late 1970’s with the release of films such as The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now. It was film, more so than any other media outlet, which was best equipped to tackle the issue of the Vietnam War and therefore film would have a heavy influence on US collective memory. Cinematic devices such as having a coherent narrative and an orthodox framework helped inflict an impact on the US collective memory. Film also offered closure to its audience. The popularity of cinema as a media output helped the Vietnam War films reach a wider and new cinema going audience.

How then has the Vietnam War been redefined due the impact of film on US collective memory? It has been redefined presenting America as a victim. By focusing on themes such as victimisation, loss of innocence, dehumanisation and betrayal by the bureaucracy, the films attempt to absolve America from blame concerning the war. America as a victim mourns the loss “ of the war, of their national innocence and the lives of their sons and daughters.”(Rowe and Berg, 2) America is depicted to be the sole victim, neglecting the other countries that were also victimised. As a country the U.S is “obsessed with the trauma and injury it has suffered, as if the United States, not Vietnam Kampuchea were the country to suffer the bombings, the napalm air strikes, the search and destroy missions.” (Rowe and Berg, 2) The Vietnam films tended to ignore the suffering that the Vietnamese underwent. Yes the audience sees long distance shots of a Vietnamese village burning down. Yet these shots do not intend to help the audience empathise with Vietnamese rather they are used “for production value in the war scenes to make them more authentic.”(Kinder, 14) It is clear that “the main characters and the director aren’t interested in their misery.” (Kinder, 14) It can be argued that America’s loss of innocence is seen as the biggest casualty of the Vietnam War in the Vietnam films. However America is now seen not to be guilty of losing its innocence, rather America was robbed of it. America lost its innocence not due to her own failings but rather she was forced to forced to due to the bitter environment of the Vietnam jungle. The films suggest that America went to Vietnam not to commit atrocities, however the environment there caused them to commit terrible acts against their will, “the ‘stock shot’ of this period is a family of Vietnamese villagers ‘mistakenly’ killed by U.S troops or ‘murdered’ by the Vietcong”. (Rowe, 6) The films suggest, ”if we did some bad things over there we did them ruthlessly but impersonally.” (Chong, 92) In comparison the Vietnamese are represented as “ruthlessly vicious in their treatment of the American and South Vietnamese soldiers.” The Vietnam War has also come to be defined as a betrayal by the bureaucracy on the American people. Films such as the Rambo series have influenced this. The war becomes defined as a “merely a ‘mistake’ of a government that had exceeded the controls of its people.”  (Chong, 91) The films show “a post-Watergate distrust of government.” (Doherty, 53) It becomes clear that “’government’ is an entity never to be confused with ‘country.” (Doherty, 53) The films redefine the Vietnam War as a war caused by the government and lost by the government. This idea is neatly presented to us in Rambo First Blood: Part Two when soldier Rambo asks his superior Trautman “Sir, do we get to win this time.” The politicians become the enemy, it is suggested that there is nothing wrong with America essentially, but that its government betrayed its people. Therefore we can establish that the Vietnam films have redefined the war by placing America as the victim, robbed of its innocence by a scheming and corrupt government and the brutal soldiers of the North Vietnamese. This is of course America simply rewriting the past to cope with her past mistakes and I hope to determine whether this characteristic of denial will continue?

Works cited

Chong, Sylvia Shin Huey. “Restaging the War: “The Deer Hunter” and the Primal Scene of Violence.” University of Texas Presson behalf of the society for cinema and media 44.2 (2005): 89-106. JSTOR.

Doherty, Thomas. “Rambo First Blood:Part Two.” Film Quaterly by University of California Press 39. 3 (1986): 50-54. JSTOR

Kinder, Marsha. “Political Game.” Film Quarterly by University of California Press 32. 4, (1979): 13-17. JSTOR.

Rowe, John Carlos and Berg, Rick. “The Vietnam War and American Culture”. Columbia: U of Columbia. 1986. Print.

The Great Gatsby and Fight Club Compared.

One of the benefits of doing an MA in American Literature and Film is getting the chance to read some of the literary classics that you may have overlooked in your undergraduate degree. Although a classic I had never before read F. Scott. Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby prior to this semester and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The book deals with the important themes of American Literature, such as the myth of the American Dream, the idea of identity and the clash between modernity and the past.

While the novel is predominantly a critique of 1920’s America, I feel it transcends its era and is still relevant to America today. Fitzgerald described his own generation as one that had “grown up to find all gods dead, all wars fought, all faiths in men shaken”. If one was to take this quote out of context it could be argued that it describes an entirely different generation to Fitzgerald’s ‘lost generation’. Perhaps you could attribute this quote to describe the young men of ‘Project Mayhem’, the disaffected generation of the 1990’s. Yes I am comparing The Great Gatsby to Fight Club. While watching the film over Christmas I could not help but to see the similarities between the two texts. Let me explain.

Both texts offer commentary on their respective generations and both reveal the hollow and superficial nature that existed in both the 1920’s and the 1990’s. Gatsby’s lavish parties, flamboyant suits and mansion are a template for the narrator’s own existence in Fight Club. His life is dominated by his IKEA condo and his job, he finds that he has nothing to live for, he is empty inside. He is someone who has ‘grown up to find all gods dead, all wars fought, all faiths in men shaken’.

Both texts also present a protagonist who has created a new identity. By creating a new identity both wish to integrate themselves into society and by doing so find some happiness and meaning. James Gatz becomes Jay Gatsby and The Narrator becomes Tyler Durden. Gatsby and Tyler Durden may be two very different characters yet it is possible to compare them on a very basic level. Both have seen society for what it is, so both reinvent themselves albeit for very different reasons; Gatsby to become integrated into society, Durden to destroy it.

Perhaps it is easier to make a comparison between Nick Carraway, the narrator of The Great Gatsby, and Tyler Durden/The Narrator. Both view the world cynically and see it for what it truly is. Nick describes his generation as lonely, “I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others–young clerks in the dusk, wasting the most poignant moments of night and life”. This is echoed in Fight Club when The Narrator quietly surmises the loneliness of life and the inevitability of death, ‘this is your life and it’s ending one minute at a time’. Pretty bleak.

One of the reasons for Fight Club’s cult success is how quotable a film it is. And it is this one quote that keeps on bringing me back to Fitzgerald and The Great Gatsby. It is almost like Tyler Durden is paraphrasing Fitzgerald when he says “We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives”. A More anarchic way of saying your generation is one that ‘grew up to find all the gods dead, all wars fought and all faiths in men shaken’ perhaps?

Thanks for reading!

Works Cited.

Fight Club. Dir. David Fincher. Fox 2000. 1999.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott, The Great Gatsby, New York, Scribner, 2004.

A Study of Masculinity in Scorsese’s Taxi Driver.

As part of my MA in American Literature I recently had to revisit Martin Scorsese’s The Departed. The film remains one of my favourite gangster flicks, and was a the time of release, a timely reminder of Scorsese’s brilliance as a director. The film caused to me revisit some other Scorsese classics, namely Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

Having watched alot of Westerns lately I could not help to notice how Taxi Driver is a worthy addition to that particular genre. The film offers a brilliant study of masculinity and Western mythology, themes that are of particular interest to me.

Released in 1976, the film is set in a post-Vietnam War America and acknowledge the change in the American psyche. Perhaps more importantly both feature elements of western mythology ideas of masculinity and violence. Travis Bickle undertakes in a performance, he becomes a cowboy, both deranged and disturbed, who embodies the masculine and violent traits of pre counterculture America. Travis is (or claims to be) an ex marine and Vietnam War veteran. Upon his return he is unable to adapt in a changing environment, he is confused and disillusioned with what his country has become and he casts himself as society’s saviour. The only way Travis can survive in this world is by constructing a masculine cowboy persona, “he scripts himself as the hero of the narrative-specifically the story of his own life”(Mortimer 29). Similar to a lone gunman riding into a corrupt town to exact justice, Travis sees himself ‘cleaning up’ the degenerate city of New York, “here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up”. However both represent masculinity as a device used by characters to survive in their worlds. This idea of masculinity is dated and out of touch, and in Travis’s case can be deemed psychotic. Travis wholly buys into the western mythology masculinity. He wears cowboy boots, “mimics cowboy figures such as Doc Holliday…in the mirror rehearsal scenes he literally quotes the protagonist of Shane,”(Pauw 85) one of the most famous western genre films of all time. His treatment of women also bears similarities to the western cowboy, he wants to “protect” Betsy as she walks down the street and he wants to save Iris from her life of prostitution. While Travis is conscious of these characteristics he also possesses another characteristic of the western cowboy, one that he has no real control over, that is his severe loneliness. It can be argued that Travis’ adoption of the cowboy masculine persona is necessary to combat his loneliness.

When examining the representation of the theme of masculinity in Taxi Driver it is a worthwhile exercise to compare Travis’ masculinity with other male characters in the film. By contrasting the different styles of masculinity we are better able to examine the representation of the theme of masculinity in the film. As dark and disturbed as Travis’ interpretation of masculinity is, it is not the only warped interpretation of masculinity in the film. When examining Harvey Keital’s pimp and Albert Brook’s campaign aide, we are given two different yet negative forms of masculinity. Sport, the pimp, possesses no heroic masculine values. He is presented as manipulative in his treatment of Iris, “Ah, baby, I don’t want you to like what you’re doing. If you like what you’re doing, then you won’t be my woman”, and in comparison to Travis, who wants to protect women, he abuses them for his own gain. Tom, Senator Palantine’s campaign aide, also possesses no heroic masculine qualities. The character represents the archetypical 1970’s American workingman, bland, harmless and weak. Masculinity in the film seems to be undergoing a crisis. However the film seems to suggest that society is crying out for a hero and the return of the violent masculine hero. This can be interpreted from Travis’ receiving of heroic status after his violent rescue of Iris from the pimp’s den. The headline on one paper reads “Taxi Driver Battles Gangsters”, he receives a letter of glowing praise from Iris’ parents and the once repulsed Betsy seems to warm to Travis after his ‘heroic’ exploits. The film represents masculinity as in crisis and how perhaps it can be redeemed by the western mythology masculinity.

This examination of masculinity is typical of Scorsese and dominates his filmography. In future blogs I hope to further examine the idea of masculinity, heroism and Western film mythology in other films.

Sources Cited

Mortimer, Barbara. Portraits of the Postmodern Person in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and The King of Comedy. Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 49, No. 1/2 (Spring-Summer 1997), pp. 28-38

Pauw, Waldemar. The Narcisstic Masculinity of Travis Bickle: American ‘Reality’ in Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver. Thesis. University of Stellenbosch. 2006. Web. 10 Apr.2012.

make stereotypes cool again

As a Kerry man who has been studying in Cork for the past three years, I am well aware of the stereotypes that people from Cork have attached to my Kerry brethren and me. It never ceases to amaze me when people are shocked to learn that I am a Kerry man who does not work on a farm, play football and that my accent is for the most part understandable. Of course for the most part these stereotypes are fun, and should not be taken seriously by anyone. But recently I discovered that stereotypes are not merely a modern phenomenon used by the uneducated masses but play a vital part in serious works of literature. I am currently studying a masters in American Literature and Film and I find myself amazed at the cartoonish portrayals of individuals in important and well-regarded works of literature and film.

We are currently studying Jewish-American literature, namely Anzia Yezierska’s Bread Givers and Henry Roth’s call it Sleep. Both are set in Lower East Side Manhattan in the early 20^th century and both deal with the hardships of growing up in this environment. The setting seemed to suggest that the novels would be gritty and realistic depictions of the life of the immigrant, prior to my reading of the novels. To me this was not the case and at times I felt like I was reading a particularly bitter satire about Jewish immigrants in New York. Oddly however both novels are semi-autobiographical and both Yezierska and Roth seem to be drawing on personal experience. This makes the use of the stereotypes all the more shocking. The characters in the novels are simply either good or bad people; there is no grey area on the morality scale. In both novels we are presented with the contrast of the loving, doting mother and the selfish and in some cases violent father. The characters of Reb Smolinsky in Bread Givers and Albert in Call It Sleep are perhaps the greatest victims of the stereotype of the angry patriarch. Throughout the novels neither character is given much of a redeeming quality. While reading Bread Givers I could not help but to be reminded of the Jewish stereotypes in the classic television series The Simpsons. The character of Krusty the clown’s father bore a striking resemblance to Reb Smolinsky, and as a result I could not take the novel seriously. Yezierska simply embraced the stereotype of the typical Jewish rabbi, harsh, selfish and tiresomely pious.

But why should the use of these stereotypes in literature and art bother me, as I am neither Jewish nor American. The answer is simple, if the Jews are portrayed so negatively then how can we (the Irish) fare any better. The stereotype of the ‘Irish Mick’ is well known in American culture, with again The Simpsons offering us a neat portrayal of the drunken and violent Irishman. How does one fight the stereotype and turn it positive. Simple, embrace it.

James Cagney, one of the greatest actors of any generation, totally embraced his ‘Irish Mick’ persona. He became the quintessential Irish man on screen and subsequently in the consciousness of moviegoers everywhere. Cagney took the idea of the violent, fast-talking and ultimately dangerous Irishman and made it something to be revered in films such as The Public Enemy. Cagney’s was at his most popular in the 1930’s and it shows his success at adopting the Irish stereotype that to this day we for the most part are happy with he portrayal of the fighting Irish.

So what have we learned from this short piece. Embrace your stereotypes! Challenge yourself to make being from Kerry cool again. No one said it was going to be easy. Maybe it is too late for me but I know that there are people out there ready to take up the challenge! Until next time good luck!

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!