Bananza!

            I found Lalita’s articles on GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to be pretty fascinating. But one in particular struck me more than the others- it is an issue that could end up affecting me in the future. When I think about food sustainability problems in other countries, like golden rice grown in Africa to feed millions of people, I don’t quite feel a personal connection to it since that is a food I rarely encounter. But when I hear that my favorite fruit could soon disappear from grocery stores, it hits home. “We Have No Bananas” is a piece that begins with the history of this delicious fruit.
            I never realized that only one type of banana is sold at most stores. Think about apples: there’s Honey Crisp, Fuji, Red Delicious, Granny Smith, etc. And pears: Green, Red, Asian, White. It never even occurred to me that different types of bananas existed, let alone thousands of them! According to this article, a variety of bananas called Cavendish, which was discovered in southern China in the nineteenth-century, represent ninety-nine percent of all banana exports because of their high yield, thick skin, and large bunches.
          In America, we get almost all of our bananas imported from Latin America. But why not China? Isn’t that where the bananas originally came from? As it turns out, Cavendish bananas are too good to be true. They have been completely wiped out across Asia due to a pestilence called Tropical Race Four (a soil-borne fungus). What scares me the most about this article is that scientists believe this destructive fungus will soon find its way to Central America. What would this mean? Potentially, no more bananas.
           Most babies are fed off of bananas as one of the first foods they are introduced to because they are soft and comforting. Bananas have been a part of my life ever since I can remember. They are nutritious, delicious, and can be baked into dozens of recipes (chocolate chip banana bread anyone??). And this piece reminded me of that. It has a way of drawing the reader in with a compelling story that most Americans would be affected by. It gets people thinking: what can be done to protect these fruits?
          This is where the article relates back to GMOs. Scientists are in the process of developing genetically modified Cavendish bananas that are resistant to Tropical Race Four. If they are successful, then the banana crisis would be over! Or would it…What if these new bananas don’t taste the same as the natural Cavendish. Or what if they cause health risks to humans (digestive problems, cancer). These are the kinds of problems that have arisen over GMOs in the past, and are likely to arise again. So in my mind, the real problem goes way beyond bananas. It goes beyond fruits and vegetables, even beyond food itself. The real questions: What happens when we mess with nature? Is it really possible to eradicate all the obstacles that surround the global resources (like food) needed for human existence? If so, then how?

I'll Never Forget That One!

What kinds of “real world” stories stand out most to us? This is ironically one of those questions that’s been pestering me for a long time. Seriously, why do we care? Whenever I hear a story like “the child with two heads” or “the man who climbed Mount Everest,” I get really intrigued. But then I wonder why. My theory (and I can probably speak for many people) is that the stories or events that people just can’t get out of their minds are the ones that are simply rare. How often do we hear about a fifteen year old graduating college? Almost never! Most college students are somewhere around twenty years old- nowhere near as young as fifteen. And that’s why it’s so fascinating.

            The average, mundane stories are easily forgotten. “Do you remember that one time when you saw a red car on the way to school?” Uh…not likely. Why? Because on any given day, I probably see ten to fifteen red cars. They’re everywhere. Now, if the scenario were to be changed to, “remember that one time when you saw a giant red piano in the street on the way to school?” then the chances of it standing out to people are much more probable because that just doesn’t usually happen.

            The stories that stand out also depend on the person they’re being told to. It’s people’s different experiences with life that also determine a story’s “wow factor.” The story about seeing the red car, for instance, would probably seem unbelievable to someone living in a developing country where they rarely see cars. But in a city like Chicago, you can’t walk two blocks without dodging fast-moving vehicles.

            A story is what people make of it. If it seems too good to be true, or just plain rare, chances are that it will draw a lot of attention.

Moral Infringement?

After spending the past several weeks exploring insight and morality, I found two shots- one from Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window, another from Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors- that represent just those issues. They are similar, yet extremely different.

This shot from Rear Window is a close-up of Mr. Jeffries face. The extremely large camera he is holding acts as an extension of his vision, which is portrayed in the top half where only his eyes are visible. The background of the frame is pretty much empty, with Jeffries and his camera being the bold detail that stands out to the viewer. He is looking at something in the distance, which I can tell because of the way his camera and eyes are placed off-center. This creates the illusion of spatial relationships for the audience. To me, the camera adds a great deal to this shot because if all we saw was Jeffries looking at something intensely, we would not be as likely to have a reaction to what he is looking at. Because of the fact that he has such a bulky piece of equipment in his hand, his topic of curiosity must be important.

I picked this still in particular because I love the way it draws attention to his eyes: the first thing we notice when seeing this shot is how intently he is gazing at whatever it is he sees, which in this case is a potential murderer. Although Mr. Jeffries is technically the subject of the shot, it is what he sees at that really grabs our attention!

I say potential because the term “murderer” was coined by Jeffries in regards to the man across the way. For a long time, he is the only one who suspects a crime of any sort. But why shouldn’t he? For the past seven weeks he has discreetly gotten to know his neighbors better than they know themselves. And lately, he’s seen this man get involved with some pretty suspicious activities (sneaking out at night, shipping a huge box, stealing from his missing wife’s purse). This shot poses a good question: if someone suspects that a violent crime has been committed, is it morally wrong for them to investigate? To take the law into their own hands, and get to the bottom of the situation? Does Mr. Jeffries have the right to “spy” on his neighbors? It presents this issue of moral uncertainty in a way that is left up for interpretation by the audience.

This shot from Crimes and Misdemeanors is a medium long-shot of Judah Rosenberg on the phone. There are two lamps in the background, which create the only light in the dim frame. Judah is placed near the center of the frame, where he and the lamp steal most of the focus in the scene. Just as the camera that Jeffries is holding represents him interfering with someone else’s life (his “sight”), so does the telephone in Judah’s hand. It is the link between him and the murder that has just taken place upon his request.

In this moment, Judah is receiving the call that his mistress, Delores, has been “taken care of”- assassinated. After struggling for a long time with what to do about her threats to inform his wife of their affair, Judah decides to let his brother put an end to her. But, he is clearly distressed and uncomfortable with what he is hearing. Notice the way he holds his hand on his stomach, as if he can’t breathe. This raises the clear feeling of immorality on Judah’s part. He knows, right then and there, that what he did was wrong, and that triggers his realization of other immoralities he has committed. He had an affair. He lied to his wife.  He was involved with a major money scandal through his ophthalmology profession. And now, he had a woman killed because these crimes were about to be revealed.

So, this image explores the idea of moral clarity (or, in this case, immoral clarity). There is no doubt in Judah’s mind, and in our minds, that his entire situation is sinful and dishonest. In the shot of Mr. Jeffries, it is questionable and uncertain whether or not his situation is moral, and that is the difference between these two images. It’s amazing how these wildly similar circumstances can create in us such conflicting reactions.

Me...Biased?

            Whether or not people are aware of it, we are all biased. I am just as biased as anyone else in the world, even though I may not want to be. I happen to have a bias towards younger children, as opposed to teenagers and adults. Sometimes if I’m at a dinner party with little kids and adults, I unconsciously find myself gravitating towards the games and conversations of the kids.  Not only are kids usually more energetic and optimistic, but they have such a sincere curiosity about life. My theory is that my mind works the same way as the minds of kids: I would rather talk about simple, fun things like food or games rather than worry about college, politics, and “teen drama.” Life was so simple back when we were little, and I guess I subconsciously miss that part of life.

            Kids are also relatively non-judgmental. I think I possess a bias towards them because I can full on engage with them without having the slightest care what they think of me. While adults might comment, “Look at that girl’s shirt. I bet she gets her clothes from the trash,” a kid might only think to themselves, “Hm...cool shirt,” and leave it at that. This bias impacts the way I interact with people because it makes me want to have lighter, simpler conversations. I could talk for hours with someone about rollercoasters or the beach (random, I know), but would probably walk away when the conversation becomes really deep and complicated.

            What I do understand about my bias is that it does not stem from hatred towards any one group, but rather from a particular liking of a group’s behaviors and beliefs. I know that although I possess this bias, I do spend the majority of my time engaged in conversations with people of my own age or older, and that I don’t dislike any of these people. In fact, they are my closest friends.

Best Monster: Clown in the Dark

Aside from the fact that I have no backbone when it comes to monster movies, I have to say the ones that stand out are the monsters with personality. The best movie monster of all time (in my mind) is The Joker in Christopher Nolan's Batman: The Dark Knight.

The Joker is very relatable, especially to children. All kids love clowns: their huge smiles, the crazy shoes, and that big red nose. But one look at The Joker and they won't be laughing anymore. Why is he so horrifying? For starters, his "huge smile" is actually the skin on his cheeks sliced up the side. When asked, he explains that when people ask him about the scars, he shows them by slicing up their cheeks. If that doesn't scream CRAZY then nothing does. His "games" are not cute little teasers with water sprayers and candy, but rather mass explosions, murders, and burning money.

To me, a great monster is no more than a human being that acts with motives only truly known to them. We never find out truly why The Joker commits the crimes that he does. He claims that it's for the "fun of all the commotion" he creates, but there must be a deeper reason that explains why his sick games are "fun." That's another reason The Joker is so terrifying. What we clearly know as violence and murder genuinely amuse him. How can crimes so hanus be considered funny by anyone?? He doesn't even flinch when he blows up a hospital. The only explanation or justification I can give myself is that this man is truly crazy- mentally ill to say the least. And if that is the case, then he is somewhat more believable. The fact that there could be someone out there that is mentally insane enough to terrorize millions of people "just for fun" gives The Joker the grand prize for being Best Movie Monster of all time.

"Double Indemnity:" Power Can Lead a Man to Kill

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews24/a%20double%20indemnity%20billy%20wilder/image%20%20barbara%20stanwyck%20double%20indemnity%20Bitmap-2.jpg

            The one question that has been repeating in my mind throughout this film has to do with the motives of Walter Neff. Why does he decide to help Phyllis Deitrichson kill her husband? What motivates him to commit such a crime, when he seems like a decent, honest man? He does not have a dire need for money, and he is no criminal. He is nothing but a simple insurance agent, so why does he get involved with such a scandal? I think the main reason has to do with power. At times, it seems as if Walter has more authority in the relationship between him and Phyllis, with his smooth remarks and insurance agent status. But at the same time, Phyllis has some sort of “power” over Walter as well. She knows that once she has him in her clutches, he will do anything for her, even commit murder.

This image shows the exact relationship I just mentioned. Walter is in Phyllis’s house, and has made himself at home on her couch with a drink. He acts like he owns the place, and has everything under control. He also decides to start calling her “Baby,” which exemplifies the power he has over her (and almost a disrespectfulness too). But, Phyllis is positioned above Walter in the shot, staring down at him with a sly look on her face. It is almost like she can see right through him. She knows that Walter is attracted to her, and along with the sob story of her horrible marriage, she persuades him into helping her murder her husband and collect extra money on his life insurance. Phyllis is the definition of a “femme fatale:” an attractive woman who leads a man into danger or disaster.

          When Walter first meets Phyllis he is immediately taken by her, and returns to her house the following day. He cannot take his eyes away from the anklet she wears on her foot, or the way she walks up the stairs. But he knows he must be respectful because she is married. This is where we see a different side of his personality come out. It is the side that has one goal and one goal only: to win the affections of Phyllis Deitrichson. So maybe Walter isn’t a criminal. Maybe he isn’t a crazy murderer, but just a simple insurance agent who fell for a dangerous woman. And that is his motive for killing some innocent man.

A Tough Life for Harvey (Journal: Main Ideas)

             From what I have read so far, The Quitter is definitely exploring the topics of free will vs. fate. Just as Oedipus seemed fated to kill his father and marry his mother, Harvey seems fated to live a life of oppression and peer-pressure. Harvey was born into a Jewish family in a rough neighborhood, which almost makes certain that he will have a rough childhood. Because of his parents’ lack of understanding for American culture, he is on his own in the world of making friends. At the same time, he exercises free will by deciding to constantly fight the tough kids in his neighborhood, and similar to Oedipus’s rage, Harvey holds the capacity for great anger. Unfortunately, this does not help him in his quest for companionship, and the combination of fate and free will again drag the main character to his demise.

            When it comes to having a girlfriend, Harvey gloomily states that he “was afraid to ask them out” and “really felt like a creep.” As much as he wanted a nice girlfriend who would be a sympathetic listener, he makes it clear that it was just not an option for him. He did not know how to talk to girls, he did not have a car, and he was not rich, and these factors greatly lowered his self confidence. To him, loneliness was inevitable, and he had no choice but to deal with it and move on. Harvey has obviously been a “quitter” for his entire life, but I would argue that it was not always fate that got the best of him. It was the “easy” choices Harvey made, of his own free will, that lead him into such a state of depression. Although he cannot control where he came from, he can control where he goes in life, and should stop blaming his failures on his family situation.

            I really admire the incorporation of the “modern-day Harvey” into the story. These additions remind the reader that they are being told a story from the point of view of a man who experienced it firsthand. This Harvey has different opinions and outlooks of his life than he had when he was an adolescent. He now says, “You can’t impress everybody…,” which is something he did not realize in high school when he wanted to be the “star” of everything he attempted. This Harvey does seem wiser, because he can look back on his life, but I can still sense the frustration he has about all the misfortunes he encountered when he was younger. Understandably, it is hard to dismiss how we perceived the world while growing up.

            The theme of identity molded into Harvey’s story suggests that Harvey wants to be the best. But, he bases this standard off of his peers. When he tries to be a football star, he determines the best to mean being on the frontline. The coach does not allow this to happen. When he tries to be more outgoing at school, being the best to him means beating up other boys. Therefore, he does not have many friends. While Harvey wants to choose his identity in these situations, in the end, his environment and peers choose for him.