Just Looking ...

What follows refers to a topic discussed a while back, but sort of brings together everything (or bits of) covered since then.

In class, it was noted that exotic dancers' "personae" and their props served to put a symbolic distance between the viewer and the dancer. And if we were to look back to, say, a decade or so ago, I'm sure our impression of stripper bars would very well be one of sleazy, trashy joints, laced in gold (for some reason the Trump tower comes to mind...), dimly lit in pink neon, stagnant with smoky, sweaty air, on whose stages the viewer is graced with beauties "from" all races and cultures--indeed, a carnival of fleshy sorts.
But if we look at the strip clubs of today, I think there has been something of an evolution--to avoid using the term change--at least in terms of the personae of the dancers; the palm trees, the neon and cheezy gold trim, remain nonetheless . The Brass Rail on Yonge street, for example, (yes, yes, I have been there) features among other things, the "high school girl" who is outfitted in tartan miniskirt, long stockings, and a white blouse two sizes too small (cf. Britney Spears' "Oops, I did it again"). The resulting look is one that doesn’t strike us immediately as being “exotic,” but rather, as being close to home, quite literally. Then there is the "businesswoman", for lack of a better term, who starts off in a sleek black suit and skirt, and ends her show with nothing but her stilettos and, importantly, her glasses.
At first sight, there is nothing particularly exotic about the above two personae--I keep using this term because the stripshow really is a performance, on a stage. We have in our daily encounters met people dressed like the above on the subway, at work, at home, etc. However, closer analysis of the term "exotic" as used in this class reveals quite a disturbing fact about modern Western society.

I think that the envelope of the socially acceptable has been pushed so far into new territory (hence "evolution" and not change) that what we are left with in the domain of reprehensible actions are the oldest and most fundamental taboos known to society in their most painfully bare form: the taboo against incest. (Here, I would recommend to all a reading of Freud’s “Totem and Taboo”.)

Taking the schoolgirl stripper as an example, if we focus not so much on her attire per se but rather the persona she embodies on stage—which I would think is the most important element of the fantasy—then her resemblance as a generic schoolgirl figure to any potential female youth (i.e. of an age with whom sexual relations would be deemed not only illegal but also immoral) is uncanny. To those who take offense easily--and a discussion of Freud’s theories is bound to upset—I remind you that the daughter-father incest implied here is only fantasized. If it were real, it would probably not have the same appeal, in the same way a wrestling match that deteriorated into a real brawl, with lethal weapons, blood, and impending death, would cease to attract an audience—that is, excluding the truly psychopathic few. Here then, there is a fine line drawn between fantasy (the seductive nubile who resembles someone close to home) and reality (the consummation of that desire, and the ensuing debilitation of guilt and shame), but there is a line nonetheless, reinforced by the “no touch” rule in the world of striptease, and by the superego and its relentless weapon against the id—guilt—in the world of everyday life.

But how did I go from a seductive stripper to an incestuous desire on the part of the male viewer? Again, I turn to Freud: unconscious incestuous impulses which our egos find to be unbearably threatening to be let into conscious awareness are projected onto the other. Thus, the male viewer’s desire for the girl, which is threatening to the ego because of its incestuous implications—we have been socialized to understand that incest is the biggest faux-pas—is projected onto the object of desire; she becomes the desiring, seductive, and therefore guilty one. On the other hand, the viewer is left desire-free and with a clear conscience, and with an unconscious fantasy gratified on some level. But we (being the “savvy” observers that we are) know that she most probably doesn’t desire any of her audience out there. Hence, the need to sell the fantasy: She looks you in your eyes. Gaze, as we all have heard, is associated with the male, his sexuality, his power, his desire. The subtle reversal of roles here probably does wonders to the male viewer’s pulse rate (and the rate at which those bills are dug out of his wallet).

A similar, but reversed, analysis of the “businesswoman” persona is possible. But this post is getting mighty long… Suffice it to say: The suited, stockinged, and glassed female in an authoritative position is an image that bears uncanny resemblance to the mother figure (cf. Dr. Melfi in The Sopranos). Again, it is not her attire per se (as not all mothers dress like this), but rather the image of a generic powerful female realized through the attire, that sells the fantasy to the crowd.

Returning to my original point, then, I find it interesting that the geographically and culturally exotic no longer stir the loins of the average male audience in today’s world. Instead, our liberal Western democratic tradition has grossly broadened what is considered morally acceptable that only the penultimate simulacrum of the incestuous fantasy (e.g. the schoolgirl figure that could well be one’s (fantasized) daughter), just short of consummating the real image itself, can be sexually provocative.

But when we have consumed enough of the pornographic displays of “schoolgirls” such that even they can be considered the sexual “norm” and therefore lacking in their “exotic” appeal, what then will be next?

One thing that struck me about the wedding video we watched in class on the last day was how similar it was to the wedding videos that are popular now within the Somali community. I never understood these special effects, music and so forth to be indications of the Hollywoodization of ‘weddings’, but I suppose that it could be true in part. In the few South Asia weddings that I have been to in the past couple of years, I did notice that they do tend to get more ‘cinematic’ with time in terms of having dance groups, the music chosen and the final video product. I even had a friend whose entire ceremony was influence by a wedding scene from one of her favorite movies. So I would agree that Bollywood has a certain amount of influence in that realm. However, Bollywood itself has been largely influenced by Hollywood, which is evident just by looking into some of the more recent movies like Hum Tum, Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna and Krish. At the same time I would like to think that Indian culture has a certain amount of weight in Bollywood as well. I find it hard to believe that this exchange is just a linear one (Hollywood to Bollywood to South Asians). Or maybe it is?

I wish I didn't have so much over these past few weeks otherwise this class and the blog function are a wonderful way to engage with so much of what prof. Kalmar says in class. Its familiar but not so much at the same time. I'm a good rambler so I'll do that. I enjoyed the theory portion of the class than the 2nd half - though it was interesting overall to see how these theories worked.

One class that stood out for me was the one on the Afro-Diaspora and Africans - I have a background in post-colonial/colonial theory so I was looking forward to it. Likewise, I did my paper on the impact of hip hop on black femininity in the U.S. In lieu of 'black' as a constructed category something that I always come back to in my essays and the things I read is NO ONE CARES IF RACE IS CONSTRUCTED! At least in how we use these racial categories, as much as I am committed to theory (make Homi Bhabha your hommie!), if you talk to people about these ideas of permeable racial categories and even new ones - see New York Times article database and type (Generation Ethnically Ambiguous) these racial markers still stick. So while we know for sure that there's no such thing as 'white' or 'black' (wink wink nudge nudge) we still use them and talk as though we don't care their constructed (AHA! SAVVY REFLEXIVITY IN PLAY).

One of the most prolific and tormented souls to theorize these categories is Frantz Fanon. Now he grew up in France thinking he was 'white' (his father was a descendant of Slaves and his mother was mixed-race - French and Black) and he lived in Martinique, now a former French colony. Trained as a psychologist and familiar with Lacanian psychoanalysis, Fanon treated Algerian soldiers from the Algerian revolution. He learned a couple of lessons which includes (drum roll please) HE'S A BLACK MAN who go figure is on the inside a WHITE MAN! How this happened will be theorized until academics go blue in the face (there's actually some wonderful work by Bhabha in his Location of Culture on Fanon.) Nevertheless, as ordinary as these categories seem to us though we know they shouldn't be, Fanon had a different psychological experience. The Other in his head was black or white (well depends on what the self was at the time I suppose). So he agonizes over this issue, writes his memoirs (Black Skin, White Masks) and revolutionizes de-colonization and the post-colonial imaginary. Now, I'm quite certain that Fanon knew the fragility of these categories, though they are political powerful (how savvy can we really be????).

Tell you the truth, I wish people cared. But theorizing can only get you so far. Some food for thought, I by all outward appearances will be categorized as a 'black' woman (I'm from Djibouti - look it up). I am also by outward appearances a Muslim and a Woman. So let's ground all of this, if I take my hijab off I'm still a Woman and Black. Neither of these I can help, now I'd love to conceptualize myself along different lines but the power and potency of these categories isn't in my hands. I suppose why I find these categories (and stereotypes in general) so troubling is how they manifest themselves. Identifying someone as black means they can potentiallly be called a N*****; likewise many anti-semitic, and islamophobic terms stem from these categories (THIS IS HOW THEY FUNCTION). People don't care how stereotypes get constructed all they care is that they work. You can call 'real' and 'reality' different things but its all the same at the end of the day (side note: If we can only finally get to the 'real' through death - the ultimate real- then how does Zizek know there's a 'real'?).

A friend of mine told me once, regarding all this post-anything stuff I do saying: 'If I shoot you, you bleed, REAL blood'. I'd like to believe I'm not as cynical but if we're going to ground these ideas lets do it in reality! I think alot of what we've been doing in class is especially useful considering its emphasis on ordinary life (well life seems a little less ordinary after this class). And that makes me happy :)

I've been thinking about the whole concept about Canada not having a "culture" and how people are more prone to saying where they are from internationally while there are those that will state that they are "Canadian" instead of rattling off their countries of origin. It seems like a double edge sword because when people say where they are from as opposed to just saying Canada it seems that they are denouncing the importance of being Canadian, yet when someone says that they are just "Canadian" it seems that they are being ignorant to what their backgrounds are. With Canada being relatively young, especially in terms of immigration, those that say where they are from originally can do so because they still have ties with the old countries. As time goes on and people become more and more mixed they cannot identify with one single place so they truly do become "Canadian". For example, my father was born in Holland and my mom is French and Hungarian. I have a very close connection with being Dutch because that is where my fathers entire side still lives. When people ask me what I am I say I'm mostly Dutch and then say French and Hungarian, but I do not feel any affinity to them. Then there is my sister who just got married and her husband has a background with 4-5 nationalities. With my sisters 3 and her husbands 4 their child may not feel a tie with one over another, and even more so with their own children. So after that ramble, I think that Canada is at a time of a divide and I agree with Najat's historical interpretation- Once a few hundred years go by and affinities with other places become so minimal (that is a big IF considering immigration is depended on so heavily for our population) there is the chance that Canada will become a point of reference like the other countries that have been established for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

ok, so i was watchin cnn the other day and this segment on paris hilton and her recent shennanegans was on, and since we had just talked about her in class, i decided ok, illl give in and watch it... (yeah, that was a pretty lame excuse for watching stuff about paris hilton..haha) aaaanyway, so it was actually pretty interesting because it was the kind of stuff that we were talking about in class previously (i.e. how people love to see the rich and famous/upper class do things that theyre 'not supposed to do'). so as i was watching it, they started talking about this music video parody on youtube that everyones been watching like crazy lately (hence my blog title), so i thought id post it on the blog so i could get my 'free' marks for class before the deadline... :P so without further ado, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k66epna2Sss <--- "Paris in Jail: The Music Video"

I do believe that there is an equivalent to Paris Hilton in the opposite sex, to me the qualities that he should have, is someone that is overly used in tabloids and advertisement. I believe that Justin Timberlake is one of the many Paris Hilton male wannabees.

I was on the WWE official website, and there are a few minorities in wrestling such as Bobby Lashley, Daivari and JTG. And all three of these men are anything but flabby! There huge

From what I understand, it seems that terrorists and new testament Pharisees could be looked at in the same light. “The Pharisees were a very ancient sect among the Jews… They were only distinguished from others by greater strictness of life. For they were zealous of the law in the minutest points; paying tithes of mint, anise, and cummin: And hence they were had in honour of all the people, and generally esteemed the holiest of men” (quote from John Wesley, sermon 25). Similarily, Islamic extremists can be seen as keeping the strict laws of the Qur’an. Yet, to other Islamic brethren, they may not be following the true meaning of Islam. In the New Testament, Jesus voices his problem with the Pharisees: “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone (Luke 11:42). So Jesus is saying that these Pharisees kept the legality of the Old Testament but forgot justice and love. A similar view can be seen of Islamic extremists, keeping one part of the law of the Qur’an and the Hadith, but forgetting about love and justice. In the popular view of terrorists, they are often demonized as beings without any emotions and can be seen as fanatical legalists. Where as the Pharisees themselves are also depicted in the same way since they were the ones that “killed Jesus.” What is interesting to me is that there is an association between terrorists and the Pharisees who so called had Jesus crucified. It could be suggested that having Jesus crucified was an act of terrorism for the sake of what they believed, like Islamic extremist who commit terrorist acts for the sake of what they believe. Any thoughts about this?

I wanted to write a short comment on today's lecture. I had several flashbacks while watching that Bollywood-inspired wedding video. Since last summer 5 of my friends from University got married. I was present on the first wedding before leaving Ukraine and got videos and pictures from the rest. They all are solid proof of what prof. Kalmar said in class about transferability of cinematic representation into the real life with the only difference that in my videos influence was coming from the Western cinema. Same cheap techniques to turn wedding video into full-fledged movie (disgusting background colours, computer visual effects), close-ups of the happy couple (especially of the bride) and parents, sentimental music acommpaniment, views of drinking and dancing guests, title, credits, etc. In addition to that I've seen attempts to show sort of short story of the couple before the wedding (usually in the form of slideshow of pictures of the couple taken as their relationship developed). Unfortunately, I did not keep that trash on my HD, but similarity of those videos with traditional Hollywood romantic movies was undeniable. Q.E.D.

I guess I will have to comment on this one in a separate post! Alex- thank you for the post. It only goes to manifest the lack of democracy in the US- as radical as this sounds. In my essay for this class, I've looked at Hollywood and its role in militarizing the American popular culture. While doing my research, I came across numerous sources that confirmed much of my prejudice against the political culture in the US- sadly. Americans call for freedom of speech, open dialogue, and diversity of opinion. Yet, it's only when some of them do it that they are shocked. I don't want to get into a political debate over the influence of the Israel lobby in the US (I recommend Mearsheimer and Walt's art ice "the Israel Lobby", posted on the library scholars' portal database website), but suffice to say, US follow double standards in dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why can't an academic (like Prof. Finkelstein) express their political opinions? Even if they are wrong, there is no need to "get radical" about it! it is astonishing how the American media completely buys into the government's visions and worldview. The way I see it, something like that thing Alex mentioned demonstrates that there is some "dangerous" merit to Finkelstein's argument- something that must remain hidden.

Ignorance is bliss, but not when it comes to politics. Even the second article (posted by Alex) that criticizes DePaul's move mentions that "On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah militants raided northern Israel and, without provocation, killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two. This attack was unjustified and a clear violation of Israel’s territorial sovereignty; however, Israel’s survival was obviously not endangered by the Hezbollah raid. Yet it responded with extensive air strikes and shelling inside Lebanon that indiscriminately targeted civilians and civilian objects (homes, bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, gas stations) and far exceeded any legitimate requirement of self-defense.". There is lack of contextualization there. Hezbollah did not do that just because "they felt like it". Israel still occupies a considerable piece of land in Southern Lebanon (called Shebaa Farms) and there are tens of Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons. It is an on-going conflict between equally victimized sides, unlike the Western depiction of Israel as the innocent benevolent country in the region, constantly threatened by "terrorists".
Any thoughts?!

* I missed the class on Tuesday, so apologies if this discusses something already covered in class (or if it offends your politics - though this is a 'blog' after all)
This is a day late, and the news is already a week old, but I think it's really important for us - both as members of academia and as students of popular culture - to consider.
http://www.finkelgate.com/ provides the best overview of the situation. Also, this very long article situates the Finkelstein/Dershowitz debacle within the politics of Israel/Palestine: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=13052
I agree with many of the critics of the De Paul decision that this sets a dangerous precedent for academic freedom. More important however, is the silencing of one the most powerful voices of dissent in America at a time when the plight of the Palestinians is only getting worse.
That De Paul would deny Finkelstein tenure in the same week as the collapse of the Palestinian government (pushed to the brink by American funding and pressure) is an ironic and incredibly tragic comment on the oppression of the Palestinians and the role America plays in the area.

I don't think that I dreamt this... but I do remember, earlier this year, some kind of political debate where either an individual, group or member of Parliament was lobbying for the outlawing of the word "nigger". I recall listening to a talk radio station as people called in to give their two cents on the topic. Some agreed that yes, it should be banned as it was a derogatory racial slur while others felt that the banning of a word would infringe on their freedom of speech. My sentiments on this? As a "black" individual myself, sadly I don't think that it would make a huge difference. This just ties in with the point raised by Prof K in class with his son having to write "n-word" when referring to course material. This begs the question: if they're so concerned with the vocabulary used in the novel, then why, pray tell, is it a part of their curriculum?

Then there's the other spin: I've also heard that there's a huge difference between "nigger" and "nigga". Nigger would be the derogatory form whereas nigga can be used to imply some kind of camaraderie without intentional prejudice. Then the other fun rule that only "blacks" can use either without consequence. Many argue that this is a means of reclaiming the word and dispelling its previously negative connotations. Again, my thoughts? To tell the honest truth they both make me cringe a little every time I hear them. Any thoughts?

1- As an immigrant who came to Canada only recently, I think I can confirm Prof. Kalmar's theory on the construction of "Blackness". Before I came to North America, I never thought of race as an essential characteristic of people I meet on daily basis. But ever since I arrived here, I was astonished by the taboo-ism surrounding race. Sadly, labeling certain terms as absolutely unusable or racist only sustains the old racist system (I think) and constructs a mythical space in which a certain ethnic group is alienated. I expect that there would be some disagreeing opinions but this is merely the experience of an outsider to the culture.

2- Today's lecture was very enlightening. A lot (and i mean, a lot!) of things make perfect sense now. The majority of people in the Middle East are confused by the ever-changing relationship with the Jews. The Arabs' modern hostilities against the Jews always made me wonder about the clear (with a little bit of research) cultural and linguistic similarities. Possibly, people are confused because these similarities are constantly undermined due to political factors. Also, although Edward Said is my all-time hero, I never really understood his work (plausibly because of that confusion I mentioned or the misquotation the professor addressed) until today. A recommended book to read for you all: Out of Place (1999) (a memoir of Said)- it sheds light on his life and how his palestinian-American upraising influenced his later work.

Everyone must check this out, it is soooo funny. It is basically people that are huge wrestling fans. It definitly is a must see. Oh ya it is on You Tube, just cut and paste the title of this blog

So, I thought that I would test out one of our assumptions from class about Canadian identity, mainly the fact that it is believed that Canada has no culture (as we view ourselves based on our American counterparts). I asked one of my friends where she was from and she said Trinidad but when I asked her where she was born and raised she told me at Toronto General and in Mississauga...
The way I see it, when people say that Canada has no culture I think what they mean is that this country is so accepting of the cultures of others, it almost seems as if Canadian culture is composed of the various "foreign" cultures of its inhabitants. However, I believe that this mainly comes from the fact that our definitions of culture may differ. To many, culture is simply a mode of traditional dress or cooking food whereas it actually encompasses all aspects of human behaviour. So I don't think that the "lack of Canadian culture" has to do with the States per say but rather a mere misunderstanding... eh?

It might be that carnivalesque practices have long been a prominent feature in many societies across the globe. After all, carnivals and "carnivalesque" behaviors offer an opportunity to freely express the "true" self. And this opportunity is highly valued -rather, much needed- by many people who find it difficult to express a certain identity (e.g. homosexuality) or beliefs (e.g. political views) within the ordinary mainstream social system. Still, on my way home on the subway, while thinking about the video we watched today, a thought occured to me- in our modern world, the American society offers a specific model of carnivalesque political behavior. It is no big truh that the US citizens embrace a unique sense of ultrapatriotism and a set of metaconcious beliefs of their benevolence, noble causes and national "defense" against the rest of the world's demons. This is tightly linked to our course on popular culture- the political culture of the masses offers them a relatively narrow apparatus through which they view and judge everything. Americans do believe in free speech. It is only when some of them do it, they are shocked. Take the staged rediculous specatcle we watched in class today. I do think that the audience we saw represents the vat majority of the population, it is only -possibly- less educated and more elaborate in their form of expression. Most of the scholars, top politicians and "doctors and lawyers" share that political culture that incorporates elements of intolerence and nationalistic myths. You don't believe me? just dig up some jurnals from our very own library websie. Even those who criticize the war on Iraq, for example, extensively analyze planning mistakes but there is a common underlined belief that cheers for Iraq's democratization. Another example is terrorism. Everyone who is fighting American allies is a terrorist, despite the fact that these "terrorists" fight for very different reasons.
Back to our topic- That powerful political ideology offers them the opportunity to passionately and blindly express their nationalism- in various settings. Just watch Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech. I find that no less carnivalesque than what we watched today.
I have tried to present what i see as a valid argument. Any thoughts?

At the beginning of lecture today, we talked about when an ad has gone too far, and I believe it has gone over the edge when people make complaints or have comments about it. For example the Christina Aguilera music video for 'dirty' is pretty risky if you ask me. When and ad or a music video is banned from airing or being posted in a country or a town then that to me is too much and has gone too far. Does anyone one have any comments????

I just wanted to make a comment about today's lecture. When the wrestler that was canned from the WWE they made it appear that people were complaining about his character or his personal opinion or something like that. We came to the conclusion that it was also probably staged, but I think that there are a few people out there in the 'wrestling world' that take this 'sport' personal and seriously, so it would not surprise me if people really did actually commented on this. Wrestling, for me personal, is like a male (possibly female) version of a soap-opera. Those that follow it religiously actually gets pretty caught in it. They believe that these 'actors' are really, and I bet that if they saw in a wrestler in public not in charater that they didn't really like or one that was considered 'the bad guy' they probably would make a smart ass comment to them. Not realizing that the charater and the actual human are two different idenities. Does any one agree????

Over the weekend I watched the film "Jesus Camp." I'm not sure if anyone else has seen this film yet, but I was completely dumb-founded by some of the images which were projected let alone the message that was being engrained into these kids' minds that they had to rise up and take their role in the "army of God." Based around three children attending a Pentecostal summer camp for children, the thing that struck me the most was just how adament they [between 7-12 years old] were being about spreading the "word of God." The whole film I could do nothing but sort of shake my head in astonishment. One of the final scenes shown during the end credits is when a young girl goes up to three African American men who are sitting in a park and asks them whether they've heard the word of god. They replied, to her wonderment, that yes they had and that they were Christian. Shocked, she turned with her friends to cross the street and says "I thought they were Muslim." It made me sick.

After seeing the movie and discussing it with a friend of mine he introduced me to one of the series by BBC reporter Louis Theroux. In this particular series he follows the Phelps family in the US who have been deemed the "Most Hated Family in America" [Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QRyr3_nCF4]. Tied to Jesus Camp is this sense of extreme religiosity. The Phelps preach 'God hates fags' throughout the film and that the country has succumbed to a condemned future due to the fact that it doesn't outwardly express its hate for homosexuality, the Swedish [ridiculous sounding I know but true], and any other church that is not their own to name a few. Picketing the funerals for soldiers who died in Iraq is a happy and joyous event for this group of people - one which they spend upwards of $200 000 a year to be able to do. One of the moments that shocked me the most is when Theroux asks a seven year old boy who is carrying a sign saying "God hates fags" what it means and his response is "no." Then asked later on "What if you support fags, what are you?" And he replies, "A dyke."
It is a laughing matter for each member of the congregation that we are all going to hell, especially for the 21 year old daughter of the 'chuch's' founder who can't help but giggle at the idea that Theroux and all people of the world are going to hell... including you and me.

Both the Theroux series and Jesus Camp just frightened me really to see how at such a young age these extreme views were being pressed upon these children and that they'll never have the opportunity or even the inclination to learn anything else as displayed by the Phelps family. Thoughts?

I just came back from watching Hostel II. Never in all of my life have I left a movie until it was over, but for some reason, Quentin Tarantino did a good job of disgusting me. If you plan on watching the movie, you might not want to read this. There was one scene where a girl was hung upside down, naked in a candle-lit room with a bath underneath her. An older, obviously rich woman, walks in, removes her cloak to reveal her naked body dressed with a necklace and expensive shoes. She proceeds to the bath and lays down and begins to scratch the body of the naked girl hanging above her with a weapon (name I cannot recall at the moment). She gets more and more violent to the point where blood begins to squirt at her and eventually, there is enough blood for her to bathe her body in. Another part of the scene that disturbs me is when the murderer removes the mouth guard away from the girls mouth so that she could hear her scream.

I'm not sure why this scene bothered me as much as it did. I'm used to horror films but this scene did something that nothing else has ever done. At first, I thought that it bothered me so much because there are individuals that have gone through such mutilation, but in horror films, they usually comprise of mutilation in some form, but never to the point to cause me to walk out. Then I thought that maybe it had to do with the fact that I was disgusted by how individuals could come up with such a scene, expecting people to enjoy it to some degree. But again, that is the case with any horror film...or maybe it was the fact that in most horror films, there is usually a purpose for the murderer to be doing what they are doing, but in this film, this girl was merely used as a guinea pig to satisfy the desire of a rich woman. What is ironic is that it is rich people out to kill rich kids...I'm not sure...any ideas?

Before your ideas, I also thought about the possibility that the fact that the girl was hung naked was what caused me to reach threshold and walk out, but I cannot say that would be true because in Saw III, there was a scene that consisted of a naked woman that was hung and being frozen to death...so what was it that caused me to leave?

Prior to her jail bird days, Paris was more of a kitty kat. First with the Hello Kitty diary, whoops sorry I meant the Hello Kitty Hello Love! Locked Diary to be precise. Then there were the Hello Kitty tees and stuffed toys. Carmen Electra has also been seen with Hello Kitty merchandise.
There is a lot of Hello Kitty merchandise out there, like the Hello Kitty USB port for example, and then there is the Hello Kitty guitar and amp (of course!). I also came across the Hello Kitty tombstone, Hello Kitty skype phone, Hello Kitty digital camera and mp3 player, Hello Kitty ipod docking station and even a Hello Kitty exhaust for your car.
I guess the thing that really freaked me out the most when I looked closely was that Hello Kitty has no mouth, which makes it look kind of sad, don't you think?

Hey who wants to split up the lecture question, please e-mail nad.mitchell@utoronto.ca or post a blog asap, if you want to be apart of this!
Good Luck

Today in class we were speaking about fantasy and intelligence and which is more important or superior. The first example that immediately came to mind was that of inventions. It takes a great fantasy of a particular individual to conjure up such an idea, but it also takes the intellect of that individual, or maybe an associated individual to make that fantasy become a reality. If you notice, when new inventions are introduced into the market, you will always hear someone say, "I thought of that same idea and could have been a millionaire right now". That's what distinguishes someone with just fantasy from a person with fantasy and intellect combined.

I'm hardly an avid Simpson's viewer anymore but I recall one episode where they incorporated this idea into the show. Homer's brother gave him the task of inventing a car. His only task was to "fantasize" a car and he was provided with an entire team ("intellects") to bring his fantasy to reality. In the end, it was a complete disaster because Homer's fantasy was ridiculous and the "intellects" were just as ridiculous for allowing it...but now that I think about it, it is possible that that episode displayed that it's those that have the capability of fantasizing that bring intellectual ideas to the table and it is the "intellectuals" that make those ideas tangible to us. So who are the true intellectuals? The ones that follow protocol that they have acquired through higher education or the individuals that can imagine an idea so great that the average individual would never have the capability of doing?

Today when we were speaking about Kings and Celebrities during class, I couldn't help but think of King Louis XVI who was the King of France before being tried for treason and beheaded around the same time that France became a Republic (if I have my facts straight). If a King is seen as the body sanctioned by the people and his body representing the state, then his beheading could almost be seen as the severing of the "head" (literally) of state hence the end of a monarchy. So beheading a King or Queen is more than just putting them to death but highly symbolic and totally compatible with Kantorowicz/Foucault's theory. Does anyone agree? Does this even make sense or am I just speculating?

Also with regards to the movie The Queen, maybe I did not watch it closely enough (or maybe it's just been a while) but as I remember it, Tony Blair was originally not too impressed with the image of the Queen where before their formal introduction he envisioned her as just that: The Queen of England. It was only after meeting her and seeing her strength and determination to maintain the traditions of the monarchy was he then enthralled with her aura. So it was not her image he was attracted to and defended from the press but rather her aura. Again, any opinions?