Friday, October 30, 2015

11-1 for 11-5

1.       
“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” (page 951)

There was a story I heard once about a speaker who gave everyone a task. Everyone wrote their names on a balloon and they placed all balloons into a big room. The task was for everyone to go inside and find the ones with their own names on it. Barely anyone got their balloon. After that, the speaker changed the task to “Pick any balloon and find the person and give the balloon to him/her.” After a few minutes, everyone has their balloon at the end. The purpose of this exercise was to teach people that everyone is way too busy finding happiness within themselves, when really a big part of happiness is giving it to someone else. So this quote above spoke to me well because I believe in it well. In Chinese philosophy, this is quite similar; your significance and influence is based on how well you affect other people’s lives. In fact, my favorite film of all time is It’s A Wonderful Life, and that film taught people that real happiness comes from making other people’s lives be better.



2.       
“6. Practice nonattachment to views. Remain open to receive others’ viewpoints. Do not force others to adopt your views.” (page 954)

This quote basically just means “be open-minded.” Sounds really simple, but history and society has proved that this is easier said than done. The second sentence about being open to others’ viewpoints has been proven nearly impossible for creationists and, no offense, most Republicans. As for the final sentence about forcing others to adopt views, I have seen this happen in almost any religion, but especially Christianity.



3.       
“How can we survive on a planet of ten billion points of infinite greed and pride?” (page 967)

This is a good and common point I run into, and it almost always concerns pollution and global warming at the end. It is amazing that a significant part of the US government still denies that global warming exists. However, it has also been scientifically shown via several sources that there’s nothing we can do to *prevent* global warming and pollution. Eventually the Earth would no longer support the human race, and we may have to resort to something similar to what we saw in Chris Nolan’s Interstellar. But even if that ends up a possibility, what gives us the right to just colonize another planet and use up its resources?




4.       
“[…] so that Christian love really comes with a proviso, namely that ‘you accept my religion.’ The Confucian view, however, is that all men can achieve sagehood. It has no organization, and does not require worship of Confucius since any man can potentially become like him.” (page 975)


YES YES YES! This is exactly why throughout my years, I never found Christianity fully acceptable. There are places that either don’t make sense or are just not appealing. I don’t like how Christianity feels like a club or a fraternity – “You must follow these rules, I mean guidelines, in order to qualify as a member. Now you may join us. Love us and we will love you blahblahblah.” Eastern philosophy is never like that. It reaches out to every single person with just universal ideas and thoughts that anybody can achieve and reach to. I used to describe Confucianism as an open door that remains open, warm and inviting for anybody to walk in.


11-1 for 11-3

1.       
“Animals… we should take care of them, not eat them.”

This quote came from the three year old kid, explaining why he doesn’t want to eat meat. In all honesty, I dislike this statement. Yes, we should take care of animals. However, you can’t blame us for having animals as part of our diet. Biologically, we’re animals too. Are you going to scold a bear for eating all the fish and tell it that it should only eat berries? I’m torn in this entire topic because it seems like most people are choosing not to eat meat because they feel sympathy for the animals. I’m sorry but that’s only because humans are sophisticated enough to understand what sympathy is. The kid has a clear emotion that he doesn’t want to eat animals because they die. I hope he doesn’t find out how many millions of animals die per minute because they’re naturally eaten by other animals that are above them in the food chain in the wild.

Mufasa explains the food chain to Simba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fYLEhqYGIU

2.       
“I just don’t want them to be chopped up.”

Again, I’m really torn on this because EVERYONE seems to root for this girl because of the emotional power behind it, when logically, it’s not enough. So the girl feels bad that the animals are chopped up so we can eat them. Do you know how lions rip their prey open in the stomach? How tigers drag their food for miles as they walk back home? How crocodiles spin their bodies so they can twist and tear the meat right off the buffalo… while they’re still alive? If humans didn’t have that sophisticated of a brain to understand systems and processes and consciousness, we wouldn’t question this process of nature, where whatever’s higher on the food chain gets to eat everything below. The girl says “[Animals] are nice.” Okay, but here’s where your statement might contradict yourself. If you think animals are so nice, girl, are you going to say carnivores are nice? I guess you have to be upset and mad at EVERY carnivore animal in the world now because they eat nothing but other animals.


Do you feel bad for the prey? Are you mad at the crocodile?

3.       
“I saw people putting the bodies of dead animals in their mouths, as if nothing at all were wrong.”

The Earth has over 250 species of animals putting the bodies of other dead animals in their mouths too, and they don’t see anything wrong either. The early stages of homo sapiens did the same thing… because **humans are animals too**. Melanie Joy describes that there is an ideology that conditions us to eat certain animals. Um, yeah that ideology is probably something called nature? But one thing that I absolutely disliked about the TED talk, and this is the same problem I had with the event that screened Earthlings: Just because you show us footage of humans being cruel to animals doesn’t mean we should stop eating them. I can proudly say that yes, animals do feel pain and it is shocking that we feel no emotion when it comes to killing them. The methods are never efficient so that the animals die quickly. The *real problem* is the “industry practice,” not that we have a nature to eat meat. Next, Melanie combines the moral reason to not eat with the scientific reason that eating meat can negatively affect our health. I’m sorry but those two are DRASTICALLY different reasons to not eat meat. Are you showing us the industry practice to prove how unclean it is or are you showing us the practice to make us cry for the animals? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter, because Melanie is pretty clear that we should not eat any meat at all. If you want to make the point that we can get sick more easily via eating meat, then it is a sanitary problem at the industry. No longer eating meat DOES NOT solve the disease problem; it only AVOIDS it.



4.       
“By viewing animals as objects, we can treat their bodies accordingly, without the moral discomfort we might otherwise feel.” (page 633)

Now THIS is what I’m against. Any animal that eats meat must have killed something first. But because humans have the ability and technology to kill quickly and efficiently, why aren’t we doing it that way? According to Earthlings, it is because they are more expensive, a shameful excuse. I view animals as food that help give me proteins and strength. At the same time, I still view animals as living things and not objects. Therefore, if I had to kill one, I’d treat it with respect and give it a quick painless death. Watch how the Na’vi gave clean kills to animals in James Cameron’s Avatar. They talked about the singular flow of energy of Eywa and how they thank the animal, whose spirit will go with Eywa while the body stays behind for the people. This is where I partially support hunting, the type where you’re only allowed to hunt if you’re going to eat your kill or give it off. With a license and required target, hunters must kill deer at a spot where they die fast. Some respectable hunters even given prayers to honor the animal after killing it. Honestly, that sounds a lot better than the slaughterhouses shown in Earthlings.




5.       
“Well, for one thing, you can’t do anything about death, but we can stop killing animals.” (page 649)


This is said right after Melanie addresses a list of cliché responses, which included some I mentioned above. I don’t understand what she means by “I don’t believe any of them,” because there’s nothing untrue or illogical in those statements. CAN we stop killing animals? Yes we CAN. It WON’T happen, though. Suppose I’ve been doing Choice A all my life. If I’m told that I’ve had a Choice B all my life as well, that doesn’t mean I’m going to instantly stop doing Choice A forever. I’m pretty sure carnivores on this planet have choices as well. Lions choose to not eat their babies or rival lions. They’re just not sophisticated enough to think “Oh, I feel bad for this zebra I’m eating. Maybe I have a choice to eat something else instead.” Once again, it is my firm belief that the only reason why we humans question this entire thing of eating meat is because we’re sophisticated enough to question it. Otherwise, we’re earthlings, like all the other animals on this planet. Earthlings eat each other in the circle of life. We’re just more advanced with tools and technology.


Tuesday, October 27, 2015

How Alice Has Grown



The Novel Itself Is a Rabbit Hole… Worth Diving Into

            There are at least 45 film/TV adaptations of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. That means we get an Alice adaptation once every three years. Furthermore, Disney will release yet another film in 2016, titled Alice Through the Looking-Glass. Clearly, there is something about the original tale that has made readers and viewers hold onto it for so long. For a novel that is 150 years old, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland has sought countless transformations over time, as different cultures and visionaries all over the world pour their own madness into Carroll’s original work. Has anything changed from the 1900s to the present? Over time, the world of fairy tales has been mixed and stirred with the evolution of culture and human society, becoming its own rabbit hole for the most curious people to fall into. The thought of looking through and viewing all the adaptations can drive one mad, which is why I will offer a summarized in-depth look at the legacy of the novel, how it has changed over time, and why we hold onto Alice like a dear friend. This is a rabbit hole worth diving into. Alice’s growth through the years definitely makes one interesting tea conversation, because it is not just about Alice growing – it is about Wonderland’s ability to grow because of society’s eagerness to feed it.

From Silent Storytelling to Early Elaborate Visuals (1903 – 1949)
            The very first film adaptation of Carroll’s novel was made way back to the silent era. Alice in Wonderland was filmed in 1903 by director Cecil Hepworth, one of the original founders of the British film industry. With a runtime of only 8 minutes and 19 seconds, the short film begins with the text: “Alice dreams that she sees the White Rabbit and follows him down the Rabbit-hole, into the Hall of Many Doors.”
            As one can guess from the time period and the hectic filming process at the time, the White Rabbit was simply portrayed by an actor wearing a costume, and thus, the Rabbit and Alice were the same size (actually the Rabbit was taller). Furthermore, since the early stages of filmmaking had difficulty in portraying a girl falling “endlessly,” the Rabbit-hole was portrayed as something closer to a tunnel. Here, Alice does not fall, but instead continues running down the tunnel, following the Rabbit. After ending up in the Hall of Many Doors, Alice comes across the small door, along with the familiar “Drink Me” and “Eat Me” contents.
            The film demonstrated the early magic that cinema could do, involving simple cuts. By physically cutting up the film strip and taping it together with the opening of another frame, the director incorporated the magical element of the “Drink Me” bottle suddenly appearing out of nowhere. This cutting technique will be further demonstrated in the later years of silent film by renowned French filmmaker George Méliès. Other scenes ranged from the Cheshire cat (just a regular cat without the iconic smile) to the Mad Tea Party to Alice meeting the Queen of Hearts and finally waking up. Interestingly, Alice wakes up not by overcoming her dream – like in the novel – but by being chased by the Queen’s henchmen. In a way, she was chased out of her dream in fear, in a similar fashion as waking up from a nightmare. In fact, the grainy black and white, the lack of sound and the imagery do give off a creepy lurid impression to the viewer, almost hinting at early German Expressionism – this is a clear example of the current trend in cinema at the time contributing to Carroll’s original story[1].
            The next adaptation jumps us ahead to 1931, when film finally had sound incorporated in. With an expanded running time of 58 minutes, the film started immediately with Alice ending up in Wonderland, and it utilized great imagery (probably cliché today) to convey the idea that she’s dreaming; at the very beginning and the very end, the film duplicates Alice’s face, portraying two other Alice’s circling around the center one, as shown.

            Again, since it is the first film to have sound, the 1931 rendition of Alice in Wonderland finally had the chance to include iconic lines that made the novel so charming and nonsensical[2]. Though the overall quality of the film still looked poor and dated, and the actor performances were criticized either because they are expressionless or have a lack of a British accent, it was praised by The New York Times for its scenes that looked as though Sir John Tenniel’s illustrations had staggered to life[3].
            Then came the first big production of Alice in Wonderland, in 1933, by Paramount Pictures. This adaptation featured an all-star cast, from Edna May Oliver as the Red Queen to even Cary Grant as the Mock Turtle. At only 90 minutes long, Alice in Wonderland sought a strange combination of both of Carroll’s novels. Even though its title comes from the first novel, its opening of Alice entering the magical world follows Looking-Glass. The same goes with how Alice awakens, not by confronting the pack of playing cards but by the chaotic crowd that goes mad after she is crowned Queen. Therefore, it is my theory that this film wanted to be called Alice in Wonderland simply because the first novel is undoubtedly more popular than the second. Soon after Paramount took a step into Carroll’s world, next came the humongous dominating studio of the decade: Walt Disney Studios.

Disney Steps In and Despite Differences, Aggressively Mainstreams Wonderland (1949 – 1951)
            In the middle of Disney’s production, however, the French came about with their own adaptation, and the two films wound up being released at a time window so close that Disney actually sued and went through a legal dispute. The French version, titled Alice au pays des merveilles, showed a much older Alice (the actress was 20) but remained faithful to the first original novel. Surprisingly, the film incorporated a combination of live action and extremely creepy stop-motion animation. The Caterpillar scene exhibited this admirable contrast, where actress Carol Marsh played off of a hunk of wires and plastic.


            In fact, almost every character in Wonderland, including the Red Queen, was a stop-motion puppet. This provided an interesting contrast between what is real and what is not real. Furthermore, the film contained songs. Finally, the film was planned to have a US release just days before Disney releases their own version. It’s no wonder why Disney Studios took action. Time Magazine covered the entire case, in which Disney sued and successfully prevented the release, making the 1949 film one that most Americans failed to find. Ironically, both the 1949 French film and the 1951 Disney cartoon flopped in the box office[4]. The Disney cartoon opened at only $2.4 million in the box office, which, after being adjusted for inflation to today’s standards, is about $22 million, the same opening as this year’s Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. In fact, the famous Disney cartoon that we all praise today and grew up with was critically panned at the time of its release.

A promotional poster of Alice in Wonderland (1951) in a newspaper

            Like a few of the adaptations that came before it, Disney’s Alice in Wonderland not only combined certain elements from both novels together but also had some curious details missing. Though it is titled Alice in Wonderland, it includes the appearance of Looking-Glass’s Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and they also tell the story of the Walrus and the Carpenter. Yet, the film makes no mentions of the Mock Turtle, the Gryphon or the Lobster Quadrille; all are characters from the novel that the film is based on. However, despite changes, the film made some clever liberties: The filmmakers made an admirable choice of having the lyrics to the songs be taken straight out of Carroll’s poems in the novels, as shown in the Walrus and Carpenter scene[5]. That being said, the film missed a great opportunity to give characterization to Alice, due to the two endings being very thematically different. In the original novel, Alice woke up from her dream after she realized she has complete control of herself and her world. She woke up by standing up and overcoming such nonsense, given by her famous line of “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!” It was written to be a moment of triumph for Alice, especially since the novel had a consistent atmosphere of uncertainty in her character. In the Disney rendition, Alice does stand up for herself, only to shrink back down to her normal size. She then proceeded to be chased out of the castle and through a maze by not just the Queen’s henchmen but every citizen in Wonderland. Like the 1903 silent film, Alice here is once again chased out of her dream in a panic[6].
            Underneath all the criticism a fan of Carroll can make, though, Disney took Alice in Wonderland in a whole new direction apart from what Carroll probably intended. After airing the movie on network television but holding a consistent detachment from the product, Disney finally re-released the film in 1974, and the response from the new cultural society in that decade proved that the film was indeed ahead of its time in the 50s, as positive word of mouth started to grow. Imagery of Alice finally began to appear alongside other iconic faces like Mickey Mouse, like in the invitation art shown. It even included an appearance of the famous creature in the children’s book Where the Wild Things Are.


            Just like how David Rider wrote in his review of the re-release, the film “has not dated at all and remains remarkably contemporary[7].” In 1981, Alice in Wonderland was re-released yet again, and the character of Alice became an icon for imagination, creativity and wonder. At Disneyland, all the famous characters from both novels take photos with tourists. One of the most famous attractions for children at the theme park is the teacup ride based on the Mad Tea Party. Now that Disney has given one of the most iconic works in literature the mainstream treatment, there is no doubt that a fantasy tale like Alice in Wonderland has become a goliath staple in the genre; it is so goliath that there are countless references to the story everywhere we go.

Wonderland Continues To Grow – A New Darker Alice (1988 – 2010)
            After three decades of parodies and cultural references that I will eventually come back to, Alice in Wonderland finally returned to its original adaptation form, now with a refreshingly different atmosphere. In 1988, Czech filmmaker Jan Švankmajer provided a unique look at the story. In Alice, the titular character follows not a live but a stuffed rabbit, which magically comes to life. The first key difference in the film is that the world of Wonderland seems to co-exist with Alice’s bedroom. There is a strong lack of vibrant colors, since Wonderland this time around is mostly shaped by dilapidated household hallways and rooms. Most of the colors in the shots are brown. Last but not least, the film once again incorporated live action and stop-motion at the same time, only this time, it put the 1949 French version to shame in terms of creepiness[8]. Švankmajer remained faithful to the novel in terms of literal plot and narrative, yet took his own creative liberties to show us a film that is visually disturbing and haunting via twisted surreal images. The result is one of the scariest things I have ever seen. As the scene shows an Alice doll being ripped open from the inside, with the real Alice crawling out of it, there is no better way to react than having one’s jaw dropped.

            In the same year, pop culture in film took a quirky dark turn that nonetheless fascinated audiences – director Tim Burton just released Beetlejuice. After providing further dark yet compelling flicks like Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Corpse Bride and Sweeney Todd, Burton provided his quirky treatment on the Carroll tale. The result is one of the most famous adaptations, but it has the most departures.
            The 2010 Alice in Wonderland acted more like a sequel to the original novel, even though it still contained some classic scenes and iconic characters. Alice is once again in her 20s in this version, and after falling down the Rabbit-hole into Wonderland, she is constantly questioned by the inhabitants as to whether or not she’s the “right” Alice. Later on, the film confirms itself as a sequel by revealing that the current narrative is the second time Alice has fallen down the Rabbit-hole. Here, the story takes flight on its own while also referring to Looking-Glass by providing a prophecy story, telling that Alice is destined to defeat the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen’s reign of terror. Through the course of the film, we follow Alice as she teams up with the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat, and the White Queen as she fights a Narnia-like final battle, all while Burton provides gorgeously lurid imagery throughout. This time around, the Alice adaptation is more focused on drowning the audience in the world of Wonderland by filling the screen up with all different kinds of CGI visuals. Every shot in the film is densely packed with creatures and effects, with the latter focused heavily on 3D. In an interview, director Burton describes how the novel and the medium of 3D fit together because the story contains visual elements like size, shrinking and growing, all while highlighting how trippy the entire affair is[9].
            The film seemed to set out with a different agenda from other adaptations. Instead of just re-telling the classic story, it “up’d” the game in terms of size and scope. No other Alice adaptation has been made in the same scale as a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings film. Yet, next to the grand scale of the film, Burton kept his signature dark style throughout the narrative by his choice of lighting, color, and imagery; scenes involved heads floating in a swamp and several moments of eyes being stabbed or plucked out (and the film was still rated PG). In the end, the large scope of the film and the amount of lore it explored in the Carroll novels won over the crowd, and the film went on to become a hit worldwide.

How Alice Influenced Everything That Came After (2012 – ???)
            Despite the mixed reviews on the Tim Burton adaptation by critics, one statistic stood out amongst filmgoers and studios: The film grossed over $1 billion worldwide (Only 23 films in history have achieved this)[10]. The overwhelming financial success of Burton’s Wonderland proved that there was a roaring enthusiastic crowd for this story but more importantly, this genre. Ever since its success, moviegoers received several fantasy reboots, including Snow White and the Huntsman, Oz the Great and Powerful, Maleficent, Into the Woods, and this year’s Cinderella. The best (or worst) part about this movement is that it is not going anywhere for a while. One of the most popular TV shows today is a fantasy show –Once Upon A Time. In 2013, the ABC show aired a spinoff titled Once Upon A Time in Wonderland, where it received positive reviews. Disney already has a reboot of The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast planned for 2016. Finally, there is Alice Through the Looking Glass, with the cast of the previous film returning in their respective roles. All of these fantasy releases prove one single thing: Fairy tales still sell.

Why We Still Love Alice (1930s – 2000s)
            Now that I have filled your head with all different kinds of Alice in Wonderland adaptations, is it okay to have so many different versions of the same story? What good do they do? But the big question is: Why does Alice in Wonderland always come back to us after all these years? Tim Burton, in promotion of his 2010 film, made a comment regarding the countless adaptations of the novel. He claimed that the abundant number of versions actually helped because there was no definitive one[11]. He is absolutely right, and that is why I think Alice in Wonderland is a story that we hold onto so tightly –it’s broadly about everything and it sneakily finds its way to be relevant in everything. I mentioned in the very beginning that Wonderland grows because society wants to feed it. Why? Because Wonderland is not just about Alice’s imagination, but our imagination. Wonderland is merely an idea of what we can create and the nonsense that life is consisted of. Therefore, we associate ourselves with the story. Because life is ever-changing, so is Wonderland, and everyone’s perception of Wonderland is different and unique. My perception of fairy tales may be the polar opposite of my professor’s. Because of this attachment, it is no wonder why every type of culture or media found a way to bond with the novel. As early as 1934, we were beyond excited to see one of the most popular cartoon characters in the world, Betty Boop, walk through the glass into the animators’ own vision of Wonderland, titled Blunderland[12]. Even lovers of Playboy and adult content got a bit of what they wanted in Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Comedy. In its promotional ad on a magazine, the slogan for the film in the bottom left box read:

“The world’s favorite bed-time story is finally a bed-time story…”

            Even the popular Care Bears on TV had an adaptation where the Care Bears fall into Wonderland. By not having a single character from the novels, The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland proved that any character can enter such a nonsensical world, further highlighting my point that Wonderland is about us. We have associated ourselves with the story so much that almost everyone in the world can recognize elements of the story anywhere. Political cartoons in the 70s incorporated Carroll’s story throughout the country, with the Cheshire Cat and Humpty Dumpty alluding to US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon being just two examples.



            Carroll’s novel was not the only thing that evolved over time. It is not just about Alice’s growth, but also about Wonderland’s growth, fairy tales’ growth, and our growth. Society changes every day – one minute, something becomes a trend. On top of that, there are millions of societies and cultures across the globe, all changing spontaneously. In agreement with Peter Heath, one of the key reasons the novel remained as the greatest is that it has not dated. He then went on to describe that we live “in a world dominated by Boolean algebra on the one hand and political lunatics on the other,” and as a result, the novel “steadily gained in relevance[13].” There is an endless spectrum of unique voices out there who can easily provide their visions into a staple like Alice in Wonderland, and you know what the best part about it is? The audience still cares. No matter how many adaptations or pop culture references we get, we are always curious to see what new offerings can be made to Carroll’s original work. It is what makes Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass feel so timeless. By the time we crawled out of the Rabbit-hole, we will always have the urge to jump back in and explore another take on Alice’s story, because the best stories always evolve.

Word Count Total: 3489
Word Count w/o Quotes: 3206




[1] “Alice in Wonderland (1903).” YouTube video. Posted by “LuckyStrike502,” Posted on Aug 31, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke25rh_8veM
[2] “Alice in Wonderland (1931) Higher Resolution.” YouTube video. Posted by “Phantomwise,” Posted on May 21, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAYC3yzarTY
[3] Mordaunt Hall, THE SCREEN; Alice of Wonderland Fame, With Several of Her Friends, Comes to Shadow Life. A Race Track Thriller. Movietone News. December 28, 1931. http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B02E5DB1430E03ABC4051DFB467838A629EDE
[4] Cinema: Battle of Wonderland, July 16, 1951. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889135,00.html
[5] “Walrus and the Carpenter.” YouTube video. Posted by “Leandro Libarona,” Posted on Feb 1, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WCEbKM_SE
[6] “Alice in Wonderland.” YouTube video. Posted by “_...,” Posted on Jan 1, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIeW5LWGiAg
[7] David Rider, “Forum pieces,” Films and filming, March 1970.
[8] “Alice 1988 Neco Z Alenky trailer.” YouTube video. Posted by “Catala cine,” Posted on May 20, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBMLRb_mIl8
[9] “TIM BURTON on ALICE IN WONDERLAND VISUAL EFFECTS.” YouTube video. Posted by “ReelzChannel,” Posted on Mar 5, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4QSC36sin4
[10] “Worldwide Grosses,” Box Office Mojo. Accessed October 12, 2015. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
[11] “TIM BURTON on ALICE IN WONDERLAND VISUAL EFFECTS.” YouTube video. Posted by “ReelzChannel,” Posted on Mar 5, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4QSC36sin4
[12] “Betty Boop in Blunderland,” YouTube video. Posted by “Cartoons4All,” Posted on Oct 14, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAU2CMGz48
[13] Peter Heath, “The Carroll Connection.” Review Volume 3, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1981

Saturday, October 24, 2015

10-27 for 10-29

1.       
“Thirteen states have effectively prohibited even discussion of the issue by passing food disparagement laws enabling agribusinesses to sue anyone who criticizes them in public, granting punitive damages and attorney’s fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case’s outcome.” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 3)

Yeah, this is one of those I can’t believe it’s true but I also do believe it’s true because of my barely-present faith in humanity. This passage immediately reminded me of a John Oliver episode, where he talks about the controversial business practices in food companies relating to chicken farms and the farmers who raise them. In the video, which I will share, it is revealed that chicken companies would give worse chickens if the farmers speak up about anything. In an interview, a farmer claims that in a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the best chicken and 10 being the worst, he would receive 8, 9, and 10s just for having a voice. If you would go further and talk about bad practices that the entire food industry has done, then the documentary Food, Inc. becomes relevant as well.

John Oliver on chicken farms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9wHzt6gBgI


2.       
“The first step to breaking through our denial of food animal suffering is recovering and expressing blocked trauma, restoring the repressed feelings that may have triggered apathy and depression. Then, allowing the compassionate grief to surface, we can direct it outward rather than inward and make the boundary more permeable.” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 5)

As a first step, that’s fine, but it’s not the complete solution. When it comes to finding out a solution for something like the Man-Animal Boundary, I think emotion is a very good driving force, but it cannot be the *only* driving force, or else the actions taken could end up being misguided. A real solution to bringing an end to animal cruelty requires thinking and logic – the only way to break down a system managed by so many companies is to see how the system works and figuring out what can be changed.




3.       
“‘As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis.’” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 5-6)

As I was watching Earthlings, the 2005 documentary, on Wednesday night, I found myself a bit conflicted in the few early minutes. I wasn’t sure what to think when the film related something like killing animals to something like the Holocaust. All I thought in my head were, “Okay this is a little far-fetched.” But quickly, I realized that all the documentary is trying to do is to inform us about how humans show no sympathy towards the killing of animals. This ties in to another quote that appears before this one, talking about how the less powerful is treated like “mere objects.” I do believe that this Man-Animal relationship is hard to discuss, and I mean hard as in we humans almost automatically personify these animals because we are at a much higher level of intelligence and sophistication. We sometimes forget that some animals’ thought patterns are really black and white, nowhere near as complicated as we make them out to be. It’s not surprising, though, given that so many stories that involve animals would have them talk and resemble characters. But Earthlings focuses on the *fact* that animals feel pain, and when it comes to slaughtering animals inefficiently and making them suffer tremendously, yes “all men were Nazis.”




4.       
“Literary theory and criticism has prepared us to study individual reader response to such works, to pay attention to our memories of childhood emotional experiences, to our current personal feelings […]” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 8)

I noticed that right at the end of this quote, the writer refers to Professor Jerome Bump! Reading this passage, I related to both the writer and to Bump, especially since Bump himself talked about the importance and purity of childhood and how we must hold on to our memories. But this passage connects it to literary theory and criticism in general, which is very interesting and true when you think about it. One of the main reasons why we love reading and analyzing literary works is not only because we wish to understand the messages that the author is conveying, but we also wish to take our own experiences and find ways to connect them with what we have read. We reflect on these works, and that’s why there are some literary pieces that we hold onto tighter over time. Then, we get to learn more about ourselves in this process.




5.       
“While most readers of this chapter focus on Caterpillar’s key question, ‘Who are YOU?’ Pigeon asks the ultimate question of posthumanism, ‘WHAT are you?’” (Biophilia and Emotive Ethics, pg 64)

It’s very interesting to see the common theme of identity be played with biophilia in this example. Looks like I fit in the “most readers” category, since my blog post back then focused on just the Caterpillar. But I moved a bit further by talking about both characters’ thoughts on transformation – Alice is afraid of it while the Caterpillar comments that it’s no big deal. But really, the Pigeon’s usage of the word “What” is compelling: It brings up the inevitable truth that humans are still animals. We’re just sophisticated and intelligent enough to think otherwise.




6.       
“The scale of slaughterhouse murder now is, of course, much, much greater than in Carroll’s day.” (Biophilia and Emotive Ethics, pg 69)

Curiouser and curiouser! Now I’m thinking about what Carroll would have written about if he were alive today. Something like Animal Farm but without the politics? Or is he still going to keep that nonsensical atmosphere? I can imagine something alongside The NeverEnding Story but the magical creatures are just replaced with animals. That would be interesting as a connection to Carroll, since both Carroll and NeverEnding Story convey the moral of holding on to our childhood memories and dreams.

South Park's parody of PETA: http://www.hulu.com/watch/250055


7.       
“She not only thinks of the emotions of others, she shares them, feeling them herself […]” (pg 303)


I’m happy to say that I’m like Alice in some respect. I’m a guy and I can cry in movies. There I said it! Why? Because I don’t just think about the heartbreak that the characters are feeling. I feel the heavy weight and that unspeakable pain in their chests. It is this thoughtfulness and ability to sense other’s feelings that I show great care to my family, especially my younger sister, and finally my girlfriend. The ability to feel for others helps you put others in front of yourself. My main motto, out of many, is definitely: Give happiness to other people and you will find happiness yourself.


Sunday, October 18, 2015

10-18 for 10-22

1.       
“‘Do you think that your wings were given to you to be always folded by your sides, and that all you have to do in the world is to dress your feathers and make yourself look pretty?’” (page 802)

I think the first half of this quote is relatable; my parents always tell me, “You have [something], so USE IT! It’s not there for decoration!” So I can definitely imagine a father bird telling his son that he has wings to fly so he should use them because that’s what they are for. The second half of the quote is a fun play on personification, in my opinion. Imagine in the human world, jeans help us maneuver ourselves. The father bird is basically saying, “Your jeans don’t just make you look good. They help you get places.”



2.       
“‘They will do nothing but quarrel and fight,’ she said, ‘unless they part.’” (page 806)


This is a very sweet quote but it is also a bit sad when one thinks about it long enough. It speaks to me like all the Richard Linklater movies about life and how things just change over time. When a bird flies back home to feed the babies, they all chirp angrily and sometimes peck at each other so they can get the worm. Honestly, this is the same thing in the human world. I fought with my sister on wanting a piece of chicken skin or the last piece of candy. But once we all become individuals, taking care of no one but ourselves, it’s no surprise that the quarrelling stops. That is, unless, there are people who are still young at heart haha. 


10-18 for 10-20

1.       
“Trimmer’s works are dedicated to maintaining many aspects of the social and political status quo.” (page 737)

I have another English class this semester concerning British culture and the revolutionary movement of the Angry Young Men, which started in the 1950s. A lot of responding critics or authors had this agenda of maintaining the social and political status quo. The most interesting thing that history has shown us is that progress moves by the people who occasionally question or challenge the status quo. This ties in to one of the reasons why I found Carroll’s novels so compelling; they are filled with such nonsense, with thought-provoking elements that make us rethink some of our beliefs.



2.       
“For Trimmer, practicing kindness to animals as a child would hopefully lead one to ‘universal benevolence’ as an adult.” (page 740)

It makes perfect sense for this belief: As a child, it’s hard for you to practice sophisticated behavior with your friends, since most of them are probably not sophisticated enough to appreciate. It’s understandable that a good way to practice kindness is through other living things. It’s no wonder why kids in households are often taught to take good care of their pets first.



3.       
“The consequence of this was, that they contracted a great fondness for animals; and used often to express a wish that their Birds, Cats, Dogs, &c. could talk, that they might hold conversations with them.” (page 744)

This applies to me, but more than just animals. If you care enough about something, you can communicate with it even if it’s an inanimate object. I’ve yelled at my computer before like it was a person. But I believe most people think about just animals, maybe because they’re living things as opposed to just objects. In other words, animals are easier to personify.

A scene from In Bruges involving "inanimate objects": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PN6xemdjik



4.       
“‘The song of a bird sounds harsh and ugly to my ears when the singer is caged. If the little creatures cannot be free, I would rather go without their music.’” (page 780)


I found this quote moving because it’s metaphoric. Yes, in literal sense, a caged bird gives you an awful feeling while you’re looking at it, even if it’s singing. But to me, the caged bird can easily be a person. Artists flourish the best when they are at their most comfortable and most free state. Respect individuals for who they are and what they want to be.