- The Importance of Wide Sargasso Sea
Posted by: Arcanix in Uncategorized on May 8th, 2010
By Arcanix
“It’s a man’s world”. James Brown’s “biblically chauvinistic” lyrics in his 1966 hit record have always seemed comically ironic. Consider, for example, that 1966 was also the year that Jean Rhys’s feminist masterpiece, “Wide Sargasso Sea” was first published. It is a piece of writing that emphatically subverts the concept of male superiority. Moreover, it achieves this ambition in a style that is distinctly feminine.
The novel is, ostensibly, a meditation on the post-colonial racial dilemma. The setting is 1834 British-owned Jamaica in the wake of the abolition of slavery. The protagonist is Antoinette Cosway, a white Creole woman. As an heiress to her family estate she is obliged to marry an Englishman, Mr Rochester, who legally assumes full ownership of her possessions and inheritance. In this farcically unfair relationship, Rochester slowly deprives Antoinette of her selfhood. Conflicted and stricken by rejection, Antoinette is driven to madness.
Rhys is skilled in the art of narrative mode. She cleverly projects the opposing points of view of Antoinette and Mr Rochester. Both characters feel trapped in different ways. Rochester is presented with the prospect of marriage to Antoinette as a consolation prize. (His elder brother is to inherit the entirety of his father’s estate.) On the other hand Antoinette has no sanctuary from her husband’s derision. Poignantly, she has no materialistic ambition. While she is content for Rochester to take ownership of her estate she instead becomes stricken by fear of rejection and the absence of love.
So, from Mr Rochester’s point of view, from the male point of view, we see Antoinette as unreasonable, hysterical and weak. Mr Rochester is warned (maliciously) that Antoinette’s family has a history of madness. Ironically, his resultant distrust causes her to descend into the very insanity he is so concerned about. Her ensuing wretchedness is viewed with contempt by Rochester and he curses having been “forced” to marry her. We, the readers, know who the true victim is.
Rhys wrote the book as a response to the influential 1847 novel, Jane Eyre. Contained in that book is an unflattering portrayal of a violent madwoman, Bertha Mason, the first wife of Mr Rochester. Rhys chooses to give that madwoman a voice of her own. She paints a heartbreaking portrait of a delicate young woman who is stripped of her identity. Antoinette’s fear and despair become apparent as her very name is slowly taken away from her. Her maiden name, Cosway, is changed to Mason when her mother remarries. Then she takes the name of her husband, Rochester. Finally Rochester symbolically deprives her of her first name (He renames her Bertha). Psychologically she is an empty husk. We begin to understand the sad circumstances that underlie the miserable figure in Jane Eyre.
Hamlet famously lamented: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” Rhys responds to this misogynistic view by subtly revealing the influence of patriarchal tyranny. She does this while endowing her heroine with a distinctly feminine tenderness; Antoinette balks at the thought of leaving her poisonous husband. This is important because it shows male and female readers alike that a shift in expectation is necessary when considering the opposing point of view. Rhys’s landmark novel is an invaluable asset to the feminist movement. Thanks to her we can better understand how and why the world belongs to men and women equally.
- King Lear is Shakespeare’s Magnum Opus
Posted by: Arcanix in Uncategorized on April 13th, 2010
by Arcanix
Image is everything. Our nature compels us to associate a meaningful image or perhaps some discreet symbol to a concept for the sake of summary or categorization. Human nature is also the central theme of William Shakespeare’s play, “King Lear”. Of his many great literary works, Lear is arguably most deserving of the label, magnum opus, and therefore should be the image or symbol that best encapsulates the work of the “Bard of Avon”.
The notion of choosing one Shakespearian play as a defining image of The Bard is technically absurd. However, in the case of the literary layman, the quintessential Shakespearian play is typically selected from one of two popular options, either ‘Hamlet’ or ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Indeed the humble layman may be hard pressed to name any works outside of this esteemed pair.
Far be it for me to denounce the qualities of these two unique and powerful tragedies. The conjecture remains that they have outstayed their welcome in the realm of public consciousness as the flag bearers of Shakespeare’s worth. King Lear tends to be nominated as the logical successor to Hamlet among Shakespearian enthusiasts and scholars. The reason lies in the concept of a transcendental work; the idea that a work of art can speak to us from across the ages.
Lear is both Shakespeare’s bleakest play and also, perhaps, his most insightful. The titular King Lear is driven to madness by the betrayal of his two, ambitious, elder daughters. Despite opportunities for redemption, his foolishness tragically renders him unable to tell friend from foe. The antagonists, meanwhile, achieve their goals through mental and physical brutality, devoid of remorse. Shakespeare explicitly questions the true meaning of human nature. The relative lack of hope in the play suggests he had a very dark interpretation of that question indeed. Shakespeare’s despairing thesis is alluded to in the line: “Humanity must perforce prey on itself / Like monsters of the deep.” (IV,ii,54-55)
For centuries Lear was either politically suppressed or performed in modified form. As with many great works, the value of Lear was not fully appreciated until many years after its composition. In particular, the 20th century provided bountiful evidence of the true alignment of man’s nature. King Lear stands as a testament to Shakespeare’s ability to uncomfortably expose man’s subtle but very real weaknesses.
The greatness of King Lear cannot be denied and yet Hamlet ostensibly remains the centrepiece of Shakespearian canon. It has been the case for centuries and perhaps deservedly so. Hamlet is grand in scope and complexity. It is a work of legendary intrigue and populated by many memorable and tragically realised characters. Its prestige will not wane but can it match the sobering, personal introspection that Lear does?
Hamlet is the incumbent symbol of Shakespeare’s genius. It is an image that does not do him justice. People remain largely unaware of the uncanny achievement that is King Lear. If we are to evolve as a thoughtful species we need to evolve our sensibilities. King Lear, in all its doom and gloom, deserves to be the defining image of English writing’s finest exponent.
- On Roger Ebert
Posted by: Arcanix in Uncategorized on March 23rd, 2010
By Arcanix
The concept of a blog as an inconsequential public diary is fast becoming obsolete. Rather it is the latest frontier for the swift conveyance of ideas to a receptive audience. It is frequently the preferred “second voice” for the discerning modern writer. In the fascinating case of Roger Ebert, the weblog format represents his primary voice.
Ebert is, unquestionably, the most famous film critic on the planet. He represents the surviving half of the successful film review TV show, Siskel & Ebert. In 2006 severe complications from routine surgery to his cancer stricken jaw left him disfigured, unable to eat and, most distressingly, unable to speak. Such an affliction is unthinkable for any scholar accustomed to the vocal transmission of his craft.
An ordinary 63 year old man suddenly beset by such an astonishing hindrance might be inclined to throw in the towel. Ebert, however, being in possession of a stout heart and, more importantly, an insatiable enthusiasm for film, feverishly reapplied himself to his primary profession: writing. A Pulitzer Prize winner, his film reviews are syndicated to over 200 newspapers worldwide. More profound, though, than his prolific output of traditional published work is his blog. Here is an example of someone who injects his very being into each entry.
Ebert’s loyal followers eagerly absorb his varied musings on film (obviously), politics, industry issues and personal developments. There is enthusiastic dialog between Ebert and his readers following each post. Though meaningful debate may be tempered by reverence, this aspect of blogging, “commenting”, is a microcosm of the immediacy provided by the internet. This is the drawcard for Ebert. His thoughts flow lucidly onto the computer screen, bypassing his decayed larynx, direct to a receptive and responsive audience.
Seeing him now, one can’t help but be reminded of Stephen Hawking. The computerized voice supplement is clumsy and rudimentary. His sentences are abbreviated and bare as his fingers frantically try to keep up with his thoughts on the keyboard in real time. The medium of weblog is his true voice now. Reading his elegant prose it becomes abundantly clear that his wit, insight and zeal for critical writing are undiminished.
He has been labelled an inspiring figure by cancer survivors. This praise is not undeserved. Consider this extract from a blog entry criticizing the right wing commentator, Glenn Beck, on his radical views on church doctrine: “I was on the brink of picking up the phone and asking Francis Cardinal George if he was down on this whole social justice thing, but then I recalled that I no longer use the telephone.”[1] Ebert’s sense of humour here is potent. He has accepted his affliction; moreover, he has embraced it. This new, online incarnation has taken the place of the old flesh and blood writer, and it is a fearsome, virile beast indeed.
As an aspiring blogger, I find plenty of inspiration to be had in considering Roger Ebert’s example. The weblog is a powerful tool in the hands of a professional writer. Though we may be struck down physically, as long as we have mental fortitude and the will to write, our contribution to the world will have lost none of its potential.
References
- The Hurt Locker (2009) **** (out of 4)
Posted by: Arcanix in Film Reviews on March 15th, 2010
A review by Arcanix
First up, a whinge. The local film distributers here in Australia, in their great wisdom, saw fit to release The Hurt Locker to coincide with the 2010 Academy Awards. While this makes sense from a financial point of view, to be frank, it downright sucks for industry aficionados (like me) who have been aware of the film and its stellar reputation since its American release well over 8 months ago! I wish I could have seen it before the praise, before the hype. The thrill of watching something and knowing it’s new and special and perhaps undiscovered is a rarity down under. (Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough) Anyway the elegiac fact is that watching The Hurt Locker after it has saturated all media with news of its success results in a somewhat less intimate viewing experience.
That gripe aside this is undoubtedly a powerful film. Most great war films are just that, but The Hurt Locker has an arsenal of innovation at its disposal and is able to provide welcome new perspectives on the genre. The conflict of choice is Iraq. That is, The Occupation of Iraq or, more prosaically, the second one involving America. (A multi-national force to be more accurate) This choice of setting provides ripe opportunity for delving into the white-knuckle tension of Explosive Ordnance Disposal. (EOD) ‘War is a drug’, we are told; and the seemingly never-ending cycle of violence that plagues Baghdad provides a fitting scene for the elaboration of that thesis. The film is episodic in structure and each episode is a minor masterpiece in the fine art of suspense. The stakes are cranked up to 11 in the very first scene. You never know if or when each situation will detonate into sudden fiery doom. I loved how each scenario was allowed to play out to its natural conclusion without editing to speed things up. The tension is downright unbearable at times!
We are presented with 3 soldiers with contrasting personalities so that we may observe and reflect upon their varying reactions and coping mechanisms in the face of relentless and harrowing danger at every turn. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant First Class William James, the leader of the outfit. He represents the traditional gung-ho American hero. He is not afraid to put the lives of himself and his team at risk to satisfy his seemingly insatiable lust for danger and personal glory. Both sides of this persona are examined in full. As a man of action his decisions are swift and often telling. However his pursuit for justice (where none can be had) occasionally threatens to lead him and his team recklessly astray. Anthony Mackie plays Sergeant JT Sanborn. He represents the staid, ‘by the book’ approach. This leads to an inevitable collision course with James. Finally there is Brian Geraghty as Specialist Owen Eldridge who represents the ordinary man. Suffering anguish and guilt he struggles to come to terms with his place and role in the army and the war. All 3 actors acquit themselves admirably but special mention should go to Renner who injects an understated surety and bravado to his character. He is a character worth rooting for despite his recklessness.
It seems remarkable that a woman (Kathryn Bigelow) could direct such a gritty and masterful war film with absolutely no female characters to speak of. Those who are aware of her previous films will know that she is no peddler of mundane chick flicks. Still, special congratulations are in order for breaking free of the metaphorical shackles of gender roles in an industry that has changed little in this regard for over a century. This is a fantastic film in more ways than one and is absolutely required viewing.
- The Blind Side(2009) *** (out of 4)
Posted by: Arcanix in Film Reviews on February 27th, 2010
A review by Arcanix
This film is about an affluent well-to-do white family adopting a destitute, stoic black teenager. I feel that the prominence of skin colour, in this particular narrative, is an unfortunate coincidence. I enjoyed the film more as a parable about the virtues of the Haves embracing the Have-Nots (notwithstanding my wariness of socialistic tendencies) than as a meditation on race relations. The black/white tale of redemption often comes saddled with the baggage of cheap saccharine sentimentality. Truth being stranger than fiction, the film is based on a true story.
Racial technicalities aside, I think the film is successful in that it is genuinely tender and moving while providing some well timed laughs along the way. A lot of the narrative is telegraphed so we’re left to absorb the performances on display. Sandra Bullock is the obvious candidate for scrutiny following her many award wins for the role. She is certainly excellent as the strong willed and compassionate Leigh Anne. Capable of divulging acute emotions with a quick glance Bullock dominates the film. Less successful but brilliantly cast is Quinton Aaron as the outcast, Big Mike. His default facial expression, ‘sad and defeated’, immediately garners sympathy, crucial to drawing the viewer into the story. However in scenes where he is required to do anything other than silently mope about, he struggles, temporarily breaking the illusion. The husband is woefully one dimensional and bafflingly accommodates every fancy of Bullock’s character with little to no objection. The precocious son, ‘SJ’, steals several scenes and provides most of the film’s laughs to good effect.
I was somewhat disappointed that certain pressing issues were avoided or under-developed. I feel the level of trust placed in Big Mike is often not justified enough and this problem is brought into focus when Big Mike screws up with little disapproval shown by his new parents. The other reservation I have is summed up by the football coach who says: (paraphrased) “Other inner city kids have a lot of rage which immediately comes out on the pitch”. The film would have the viewer believe that more kids should be ‘adopted’ in the fashion. I highly doubt that there are many stray urchins with the placid, morally virtuous tendencies of Big Mike. In a sense the story is a little too perfect and devoid of any sort of real redemption. Despite its real life roots I enjoyed the film as a Hollywood fairytale with a big heart and a few brains on the side.
- Alan Wake available May 18th this year!
Posted by: Arcanix in Video Games on February 12th, 2010
Forget Starcraft 2. Forget Rage. Heck, forget Duke Nukem Forever! The most exciting long-in-development game over the last few years has been Alan Wake. At times dubiously listed as vaporware, Finnish developer, Remedy, has finally ended speculation on the game’s fate by slapping on a release date, the image below as well as a celebratory trailer at Microsoft’s X10 event. In a gaming landscape dominated by bland, cookie-cutter military shooters, Alan Wake purports to offer something new, inventive and precocious, a ‘psychological’ game with emphasis on mood, pacing and story. This is the way games should be headed. The last decade has seen a ‘Halo’ induced, testosterone fueled arm wrestle for impressionable male teenage dollars. (A trend Remedy had a hand in with Max Payne) Now, as a discerning 20-something gamer with a taste for something more sagacious, I like forward to May 18th as a potential herald for greater things to come from game developers!
- Invictus (2009) ***1/2 (out of 4)
Posted by: Arcanix in Film Reviews on February 2nd, 2010
A review by Arcanix
I was 13 when the Springboks defied form and reason to sensationally win the Rugby World Cup in 1995. As a South African with affection and reverence for his homeland, as well as an unashamed partisan supporter of the hallowed Green and Gold, it is treacherous and somewhat awkward to assess the merits of Clint Eastwood’s attempt at adapting this modern day fairytale to the screen. It is impossible to share my thoughts without the spectre of subjectivity, for better or worse. Foremost I am gladdened. This film has been developed with the substantial talents of such celebrated film-makers as Eastwood, Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. It is a sign that Hollywood is beginning to take seriously the wealth of affecting stories and characters that embody the rich and often tragic history of the venerable Republic, and, indeed, Africa entire.
There are problems with the film. It has the scaffolding of an off-the-shelf underdog feel-good sports flick though little time is spent developing the individual members of the protagonist Springboks. Sole black player, Chester Williams, is the only character afforded rudimentary fleshing out. This detracts from the tension of the titanic and viscerally filmed rugby matches. The footage and editing is impressive enough but ultimately we are subjected to faceless, mountainous men smashing, pushing and pummelling each other. Still, we root for the Springboks because it is every much Nelson Mandela’s victory as Francois Pienaar’s or South African rugby. This is, firstly, a movie about Mandela.
Surely there is no-one on this earth better suited to play the great man than Freeman. His screen presence is one that immediately demands veneration. He injects a subtle wisdom and unmistakable charm befitting a seasoned statesman and stalwart patriot. Opposite the excellent Freeman is Damon who successfully portrays the indomitable Pienaar, an Afrikaner on an unwitting collision course with more than just sporting destiny. I also appreciated the story arc of Mandela’s security team. (I did not enjoy the contrived tension involving a certain aircraft at the beginning of the climatic final) As a South African I could gripe about the shaky accents but I choose not to. The Afrikaner and Xhosa phonetic enunciation is quite difficult for most westerners to come to terms with and the effort should be acknowledged in my opinion.
The people of South Africa, both black and white, may owe their very lives to the foresight of President Nelson Mandela. This film succeeds as a microcosm of an amazing act of diplomacy and humanity. Thanks to Mandela, South Africa has the best chance yet of realizing the dream of a ‘successful’ democratic African state. I hope this is the first of several high quality films investigating the fascinating life and times of Madiba.
- CAPITAL LETTERS
Posted by: Arcanix in Uncategorized on January 25th, 2009
I hate case differentiation