Psycho vs. Psychologist

Psycho was a revolutionary movie for its time. Under-appreciated when it was first released, Psycho received poor reviews. The movie was suspenseful and one of the first horror/slasher films of its kind. With the film concentrating heavily on the works of Sigmund Freud, most notably the Oedipus complex, its not too surprising that they might want to make the audience aware of it. At the end of the movie a psychologist explains to both the cast and the audience why Norman Bates acted the way he did. But was it necessary?

There are two main answers that can be given. Yes, it was necessary to explain in detail the underlying themes that were occurring as the movie played out. At the time it was not Sigmund Freud’s ideas where not commonly known, so it’s not unreasonable to want to clue the audience into the big idea.

While that all may be true it does detract from the movie’s tension and over-arching feelings. In that sense it was not necessary. Imagine, the ending without the soliloquy by the psychologist, cutting directly from the sheriff's office to someone passing by Bates’ cell. The effect of Bates talking to himself, as his mother, would have been riveting and creepy. While the Oedipus complex would not have been so apparent the effect of the movie would have been that much greater. Frankly, the Freudian ideas at the end come off as trying to put pearl on a pig. Meaning, the rest of the film has an action packed energy but the end appears more like what one might expect from a Sherlock homes film; with everyone gathered around the psychologist as if he has the answer to a great mystery, which in a way he does.

Perhaps there is a medium between the two ideas. If Alfred Hitchcock, the director of the film, felt it was necessary to explain the situation, which presumably he did, he could have done it in a way that didn’t feel out of character. The film abruptly ends with the capture of Norman Bates and begins again with the psychologist explaining everything. Going from high energy to a rather dull scene makes the film seem segmented. The music stops as well, killing the energy. One way Hitchcock could have gone from one scene to the next was to show the aftermath from the capture, leaving time for all the built up tension to be slowly released. If Hitchcock desired for whatever reason to go immediately to the psychologist’s explanation he could have changed the setting. If the cast was looking into Bates’ cell the tension would remain, even if Bates could not be heard. The very idea the he is still present would allow the tension to continue to exist.

While the psychological wrap up of Psycho was arguably necessary it wasn’t well done. The ending detracted from the films emotional effect and leaves the viewer a bit unsatisfied. The best way that Hitchcock could have rectified the issue would be to either give the audience a chance to acclimate to the new speed, or change the setting to retain the wealth of emotions drawn up by Norman Bates’ capture. As a suspense film it doesn’t seem necessary, but if it was well done a brief psychoanalysis before the closing could be interesting.

Hamlet in Pop Culture

credit:http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/

Romeo and Julius

The Shakespeare Theater at Sidney Harman Hall production of Romeo and Juliet was quite impressive. Its attention to historical detail was interesting. There were deviations in the production meant to captivate the modern audience’s attention but arguably they did not stray too far. I believe the ultimate goal of this production was to break down certain socio-gender based barriers.

The most impressive facet of the Romeo and Juliet play was the decision to employ an all-male cast. During Shakespeare’s lifetime it was unlawful to have females on stage, therefore young men were cast as women. At the time something like that would seem commonplace while nowadays we might find the cross-dressing a bit disconcerting. Interestingly, it seemed that the audience got over it fairly quickly. One was only reminded of the all male cast when the actors kissed, but I doubt anyone was bothered. It was mentioned that early in the production the actors had trouble emoting their love for each other, perhaps because they had trouble getting over the social implications, but this was not the case during the final performance.

While the all male cast was historically accurate, the clothing used was surely not. A lot of modern looking clothes were worn to make certain characters feel “cooler.” Most notably leather pants and jackets were worn, in exchange for tights and tunics by Romeo’s friends. Even so the costume designer made an effort to design the clothes to have an Elizabethan feel to them or at least what the audience might assume is Elizabethan. The royal men’s and women’s clothing on the other hand was more accurate, interestingly enough. Its hard to speculate why the director and costume designer made this choice but it did not harm the performance.

While its doubtful that the audience was actively aware of the all male cast during the production it feels as if there were arterial motivations. The play was cast with an all male cast to have a historical element to it. The question then looms; why didn’t they make the whole play historically accurate? One could answer that maybe they felt it would not reach audiences in the same way, but if so then why bother to have an all male cast to begin with? The answer seems to point to a gender issue.

The socio-gender implications could be two-fold. One could be a critique of the historical perspective of women in theater by presenting a play with their absence. The other could be a critique of the squeamishness of Americans towards homosexuality.

As previously mentioned women were forbidden from stage during the Elizabethan era. Today the idea of women being forbidden from stage, or anything, seems old-fashioned and chauvinistic. This idea seems a bit far fetched since there was no real instances during the play that harped on this issue.

The idea that perhaps the production was a commentary on homosexuality in America seems to hold more water. The players, while impersonating females, were still recognizably male. What is more poignant is the play itself. Why choose to cast Romeo and Juliet all men, why not King Lear or Hamlet? The play of Romeo and Juliet is about forbidden love. In the United State gay marriage is unlawful in most states including California, one of the most liberal states. What better way to subversively bring up the issue then to cast an all male play of Romeo and Juliet. Initially, the viewer is very aware of the gender of the cast. As the play progresses we begin to forget, only reminded subconsciously during more intimate scenes, even so it ceases to bother the observer who is intent on enjoying the play. Once the traditional barriers are broken down it no longer seems like an issue. What the play was suggesting is that if we put our traditional beliefs aside, homosexuality no longer seems threatening or unsettling. Homosexual love, just like in Romeo and Juliet, is taboo. While many debate their reasoning, the laws are clear and nothing should prevent gay marriage, just like from the audiences view point nothing should prevent Romeo and Juliet from openly loving each other.

While on the surface the play just seems like a traditional version. The choice to use an all male cast but not to use traditional costume or even a traditional stage leads one to believe that it has another motive to make people talk about certain issues. The motive seems like a call to equal rights.

Poor Hamlet.

For a work to be a tragedy it need to conform to a certain set of rules. While the rules are not set in stone it is generally accepted that the play should have a hero that goes up against some sort of problem but fails due to human frailty or outside influence. The hero doesn't have to die but they have to have some sort of epiphany that transforms them.

Hamlet seems to have neither of these qualities. Hamlet doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes although he dies. Some might say his famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy is his insight that changes him but he still seems to be the same brooding, fatalistic, malcontent.

Perhaps one could argue that after Hamlet kills Laertes he realizes his failings, and in his final moments attempts to rectify the situation. While it's not to much of a stretch it leaves me unsatisfied. Hamlet is not so much a tragic hero as much as a pathetic individual. His character is faced with an ultimatum, kill his father's murder or dismiss the ghost and continue with his life. Hamlet doesn't make a decision; it happens to him. As his world collapses he destroys everything and then kills himself abandoning the mess he created by not being proactive.

Hamlet's lack of heroism is tragic.

[/rant]

Tragedy

Etymology

The word's origin is Greek tragōidiā (Classical Greek τραγῳδία) contracted from trag(o)-aoidiā = "goat song" from tragos = "goat" and aeidein = "to sing". This dates back to a time when religion and theatre were more or less intertwined in early ritual events. Goats would be traditionally sacrificed, as an early precursor to the Greek Chorus would sing a song of sacrifice-- a "Goat Song". This may also refer to the horse or goat costumes worn by actors who played the satyrs in early dramatizations of mythological stories, or a goat being presented as a prize at a song contest and in both cases the reference would have been the respect for Dionysus.
source: Wikipedia

UHHH LOL WHAT?

Stoic Philosophy & Hamlet

Marcus Aurelius writes in Meditations, "...Life is what you deem it."

Shakespeare's Hamlet says, "There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." (act 2, scene 2).

Marcus Aurelius' literally writes in Greek, "Life is opinion".

This is just one minor example of the dichotomies between Hamlets struggle and the Stoics manual.

others to follow...