Monday, January 30, 2012

Changing your hair...

Why do people change their hair? How do I decide to trim or shave my beard? Is it random? or is it expressive? or is it practical?


I have had numerous haircuts, styles, beard lengths, types of beards etc. If anything the rate of significant change has increased. It has been rare for me to have particular look and maintain that image for longer than 6 months and certainly not longer than a year. My wife, similarly, has started to fluctuate hair colour with mood and season. While certainly for myself my lack of hair maintenance, is related to my distaste for maintenance of all kinds. Therefore, I usually have a beard due to disinterest in shaving rather than my love of beard. However, keeping that in mind it is also true that I rarely change "because it was time," although this will often be how I will express it if people ask why... "because it was time" is the equivalent of saying, "you are human you know that sometimes things need to happen and I may or may not be sure of why and even if I am, I am not willing to share specific reasons." I have noted in myself and others a tendency to cut, colour or in some fashion change their hair as a way to exert control over there own life. Often we are battered about by circumstance and situations, either in reality or perception, beyond our control... addressing our hair can serve a number of functions in these circumstances 1) It is a way to exert control and feel power 2) It is a way to externalize or incarnate inner feelings and life in a variety of ways...either parallel or contradictory.

I once shaved off my beard and shared a devotional Bible reading about hiding. While, I would argue primarily I am too disinterested to shave, there are other elements of both hiding and also the assertion of age and with it power that are also wrapped up in my beard. Sometimes one or both of these aspects becomes psycologically problematic and I have to shave off my beard. In another example, I cut off my spectacular shampoo commercial worthy long hair last semester (as can be seen on the About Us page). (The picture is from the summer, let me assure you that it only got better and I was literally a lion among men). Anyway, I cut it off, by myself, the day after Occupy Wall Street got raided and kicked out of Zucotti park; it was a form of lament.

I also use hair cut and beard adjustment as a way of marking time. I will often shave either at the beginning or end of semester, paper, project or some other sort of season.

I had dreadlocks for a year, which effectively expressed my desire to surf and generally be a hippie. That was a good year: I got out surfing a lot and also bought a 1971 VW bus. I do not believe I have been surfing since I cut off my dreadlocks... Which I did after one day of out door manual labour, pulling up sod... Clearly I sold out to the man.

So, how does your hair express who you are? what you want? what has happened or is happening? Do you make these changes with intention or reflexively?

I believe that this is very much a modern phenomena... I have nothing in particular to support that... Do you agree or disagree? What are the underlying social causes for this phenomena?

Is our hair most often an outward expression of inner reality or is it equally common that our hair creates and participates in our inner reality?

Saturday, January 28, 2012

How Do You Share Your Faith With Others?



Last Sunday I was paid to go to church. I was invited by a pastor to promote Abbotsford Community Services (ACS) and invite their congregation to volunteer with our agency.
Part of my job is chairing an Inter-Faith planning committee, which meets bi-weekly to learn from one another and plan interfaith events for the community. I was invited to present to the congregation that one of our members pastors. The pastor that invited me to speak made it clear that though he was committed to presenting on Christianity at our upcoming interfaith event he was not prepared to promote the event to his congregation. I agreed to go, partly because my time there would count as work hours, but mainly because I believe that the Christian community should be involved in community interfaith events.
Near the beginning of the church service I was invited to the front and was given two minutes to speak. I read the ACS vision and the diversity statement (see Occupy Vancouver has Found Love). I invited the congregation to our interfaith event, at which their pastor was presenting, as well as to volunteer in other capacities.
I stayed for the whole service so that I was available to talk to congregants afterwards. I listened to the sermon, which was delivered by a lay member of the congregation. The title was Kingdom Courage. It took all of my self-control to keep my disgruntled growls to a low decibel, to refrain from interrupting the preacher and to stay in my seat rather than storm out of the building. Using an abundance of Christian lingo, this preacher encouraged congregants to muster the courage to share their faith with those that do not know Christ in their neighbourhood, workplace, and family. He suggested they do this by calling people up and telling them that they are praying for them and that God has a plan for their life. He went on with an appeal to emotional guilt by inferring that if we did not share Christianity with others TODAY that we were not living to our potential or building the kingdom.
I was shocked by the way that this kind of relation-less evangelism was encouraged. If I were called by someone of another faith, by a pagan believer for example, and told that they were going to center them selves in front of the elements: earth, air, water, spirit and fire and send positive energies my way because mother nature is concerned, I would hang up and block the number.
In my opinion and experience, this type of evangelism does not invite conversation or any sort of meaningful relationship but builds barriers.
I found this message entirely one-sided. Not once did the speaker suggest that those who do not know Christ might have something to offer or to share or to teach the evangelist. This idea that Christians are right and others need what we have disgusts me because it puts downs all others.
I thought it was ironic that I invited the congregation to participate in a community event where they would have to opportunity to meet and engage in philosophical dialogue with Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Buddhists, Baha’i followers, Catholics, Greek Orthodox members, Aboriginal people, Jah Rastafari and people that belong to no specific faith group but love their community, yet received no interested participants. We all sat back and took in this idea that it is up to Christians to proselytize.
The goal of our interfaith meetings and events are to break down stereotypes and debunk myths to help create a more inclusive community. Though I was disappointed with the sermon, and knew that my invitation was not well received I am glad that I was able to represent this goal.
To build on this, two days before our big interfaith event, my colleagues and I met with our Bridges of Faith Planning committee, which is made up of people from many of the faith groups listed above, to train them as dialogue hosts in preparation to lead discussions at the event. We practiced active listening and conversation guiding principles in small groups. We discussed two topics in our groups: something that we find beautiful about our faith and what motivates us to learn about other religions and other people. I shared that the most beautiful part about following Christ is that there is room for lament and a place for the suffering. My friend, who is pagan, went on to share that her motivation for learning about others resulted from loosing her son to suicide. Together our group shared a powerful moment of united lament. I left this meeting encouraged and excited about what I have to learn from others, and especially from this new friend. I felt 10 times more alive, more understood, more welcomed and more full of love than I when I left church on Sunday.
The next day I was feeling a little emotional and I ran into a friend who noticed that I was not doing well. He offered to do anything he could to help. He sent me a message to follow up later, letting me know that he cared and that he was available to spend time with me. He followed up again and said for what it was worth he was praying, whatever that meant to me. I found this incredibly meaningful because it was done in the context of relationship. Not only did he pray, but also he offered to spend time with me to and offered to listen. He was doing this not because he believes my theology is off the rocker but because he cares about me.
I believe that we need to care about people more than their beliefs. I believe that we need the courage to put our beliefs and ourselves aside as we seek to understand and learn from our neighbours. This is why I love my job and am excited about every upcoming interfaith meeting and community event.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Turning 27...

Late last year, I was at a Sarah Slean concert and she assured the audience that 27 is a great year, but that you pay for it in year 28 and 29. When one is 27, adulthood has definitively set in and there is no escaping it, although perhaps it is the last year in which denial is quite socially acceptable. I find it difficult, as I believe we all do, to not compare myself to those around me in a variety of spheres and contexts. Some of my more famous fellow 1985 babies include: Lily Allen, Fefe Dobson, Zac Hanson, Kiera Knightly, Lady Sovereign, Frankie Muniz, Ashley Tisdale, T-Pain, and Madeline Zima. Other superstars like Miss Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) are a year younger. While we could have a lively discussion regarding the degree of adulthood these celebrities have achieved, certainly their success and cultural influence is spectacular. Friends of mine own houses and are having babies... My parents had finished school, bought a house, and found the job my Dad continues to work at, given birth to me and were pregnant with my sister. These are examples of those who while less globally influential are discernably settled, rooted. I, however, seem to be stuck in the midst of the same existential crisis I have been in for the past at least 10 years, except 10 years ago I was more optimistic regarding the future. At 27, I am feeling both the desire and terror of settling... I am feeling distinctly exhausted with the uncertainty and transience of many peoples early and mid twenties.

Please let me be the first to be cynical regarding my own cynical out look. From any other perspective but my own, my own pathos is near inexplicable. I am married, I have travelled the world, I am currently enrolled in grad school and I have concession style popcorn machine, I live in Vancouver; life, by any reasonable external standard, is fantastic. Despite the often uncertain and unexpected series of events that have been the last decade of my life, they have been far from dull, uneventful or unproductive. However, from a young age I have had my eyes set on a world stage, and rather than making progress I find myself living everyday with angsty teenage uncertainty regarding what I want to be when I grow up. And here we are and I still don't really know or am too afraid to say or am afraid that the ongoing ambiguity determines me a failure regardless, doomed to be blown by the wind.

My eternally embarrassing confession of competing in figure skating up to the age of 16 never ceases to cause me discomfort. It is in this context of competition, my eyes always directed to national and international success, that I spent some of my most formative years. The height of my success was not a gold medal but qualifying for nationals (perhaps you can hear my disappointment). Anyway, I retired at 16 in order to more fully devote myself to school and art. My ambition for a world stage did not disappear, it merely shifted toward film and television. I have now spent 6+ years formally pursuing spirituality and theological education. But my vision/desire for global impact remains undeterred. On a side note, 4 years ago I recognized in myself a great longing to escape. This is mostly expressed in not wanting to live in North America. Despite and because of this I seem to have confined myself to the very context I both love and loathe, Vancouver.

Ambition is considered both a vice and virtue in modern society. I have mixed feelings about my own ambitions. Oh I could call them "hopes and dreams" and that would be far more acceptable but realistically it is the same. My desire to engage an audience is, perhaps, innate to my identity. There is not a time in my life that I can remember when some aspect of my time was not directed to this end in some fashion. And yet my young desire to perform and entertain has shifted to a desire to express and communicate. This blog succeeds in quenching some of that need. However, blogs and internet communication are often unsatisfying outlets, as they can feel like performing Shakespeare in the dark. Can anyone hear you? or see you? Does anyone care what about what you are doing or trying to do? These fears are somewhat alleviated here by group authorship...

My question, which perpetuates my own frustration and dissatisfaction is not: Do you care? or Can you see me? but, What am I doing? According to Dorothy Sayers I might be classified as an artist all energy and no idea... Although in reality I am exhausted and rarely energetic. I move amongst my own shadows of doubt looking for something... Perhaps we will have a child and I will find focus, perhaps I will be given an opportunity which will crystallize things, perhaps I will meet someone who will make things clear... But after 10 years of pursuing God for these things, learning to think, and discerning in community,  it is my conviction that we must learn to live in the shadowy reality of our own subjectivity. I must continue to step into the darkness by faith, because all is darkness. It is my hope to walk while holding hands with those I love. It is the deep torture of my soul to be weighed down with the call to speak and simultaneously deep uncertainty about what to say, or perhaps my uncertainty is a mask for inability to commit to a subject or perspective...

So I am most curious regarding your thoughts of ambition as a subject and its role in the Christian life...
How common is my sense of dissatisfaction? I perceive, perhaps wrongly, that many other people are much more content within life's mundane routines and much more capable of finding joy in the doldrums of the grind...
Is existential discomfort good or bad? Some might say that comfort and lack of personal tension should be considered a bad sign. 
Is the my decision thus far to confine myself to a context (e.g. Vancouver) that I do not particularly like, in order to attempt to work out my loathing of North America, reasonable or does it make more sense to run off somewhere and hopefully shatter my naive and romantic illusions regarding other parts of the world? This seems a common experience of many people.
Is my restlessness genetic, merely skipping a generation, and now simply expressed in the anxiety of my postmodern generation?
I apologize for what, perhaps, is far too personal a post for the public nature of this setting. 

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Politics and Brain Development

To what degree does our political system form the way we think?

I thought about this question during a political discussion regarding the awkward marriage of party politics and the Canadian riding system, which we happened to agree suggests direct personal representational rather than ideological politics (if I can dichotomize those...). For clarification, what I mean is that the Canadian system seems to suggest an ideal in which constituents vote based on which candidate they believe will best represent their local interests nationally, rather than which local candidate represents the political ideology they subscribe to, or the "party" whose national platform I like best, or whose leader I like best. Anyway I came to ponder to what degree our very political system form our binary and ideological thinking? Is perhaps our polarized society and often vicious debates, socially, politically, and theologically, at least in part a result of the very systems we have created and live in? The American two party system and Canadian party system seem unable to capture the political nuance, which I would suggest are needed in our multicultural society and global village in which it is situated.  Do representation by population democracies, such as are more common in Europe, contribute to what, from my perspective, tend to be individuals who both hold more nuanced and tolerant positions than seem common in North America?

It is my off the cuff impression, that those who have spent more than a year in a country with a "rep by pop" democracy, in which every vote counts (in a way that is not true of our systems), generally are significantly more capable of generating multiple solutions, thinking from other perspectives, and generally holding more nuance political, social and religious convictions than those who have live exclusively in North America. In this comment I am explicitly acknowledging my own tendency toward binary thinking having lived primarily in North America in contrast to some other people I know with more international experience, and am away that I am setting up a binary in this very post between North America and Europe.

Nevertheless, if any of this is even marginally true I think it then suggests that as we talk about learning to live in tension, which is a very common conversation in my life, we MUST create social and political and perhaps economic systems that also function in tension, ideally the multifaceted tensions which represent the realities of our world. However, our elected dictatorships generally do not function at all in tension and rather either are party regimes or entirely non - functioning. To be fair Beligium's non government for nearly 6 months does not necessarily support the functionality of the other system.

Thoughts?

Sunday, January 22, 2012

A List of My Life

Rather than writing on this blog, I have been reading and discovering the wonder that is Netflix. Consequently, here is a list of things that are awesome/terrible/a waste of time/thought provoking/a general list of my life recently.

Nomad By Ayaan Hirsi Ali – A MUST read. You may recognize the name because I wrote about her memoir “Infidel” at the end of last summer. As an ex-Muslim, now a professing atheist, she writes a timely critique of multiculturalism, blind tolerance, and the undercurrents of our culture. If I were to summarize this book, it is her reflections on “why”. Why did her life turn out as it did, why could her father never leave Islam, why was her mother so angry, why are immigrants stuck in cycles of poverty and isolation, etc. Probably most interesting for readers of this blog is her call to the church, the Christian church, the moderate, non-liberal, and certainly non-fundamental church, to act as a necessary agent in settling and socializing Muslim immigrants. In addition, her rebuke of feminism is astonishing, as she claims the path feminism is now taking is effectively neutering its own cause, rendering it useless to promote its cause in other countries.

The New Testament and the People of God – N.T. Wright. I am just beginning, and I love it. Academic, sharp, challenging in terms of allusions to Greek literature and mythology, and postmodern (did I say that?). He certainly shies away from it, but his critical realism only truly makes sense for those who have dabbled in postmodern thought, because it certainly lacks the hard and fast linear rationalism of the enlightenment thinkers. So far, so good.

Underworld – movie. Still awesome years after it was made.

Love and Other Drugs – movie. Worthwhile. Anne Hathaway has had a little piece of my heart ever since “Rachel’s Getting Married” and in this film, there are segments that show the same calibre of acting. Moreover, it is a sappy love story, with unadulterated sex, disease (not what you think), and really F***ed up people who somehow come together and are messed up together.

Dexter – TV Show. Not that I need another series to watch, but Netflix draws me in. So far, intrigued.

Criminal Minds – Season 1 & 2. When I started dreaming about serial killers, I knew I needed a break. I have watched a lot of this show in the past, but never in order. It is better following the character development, because lets be serious crime shows are all the same.

How I Met Your Mother – This season has been awesome.

The Apocrypha – Still a must read. Spending time on my lunch breaks at work reading this has been a lot of fun. Tobit is just a good story, and Judith dominates on behalf of women. Lots of weird stuff, it helps me return to other literature, the Bible included, with a more critical eye.

Spy Game – Movie. Fun flick while it lasted, but completely non-memorable.

Skiing – yes please. A fantastic weekend last week up at the Deep Winter Photo Challenge in Whistler, watching my brother take home 3rd prize, and winning most banger shot of the entire show. The snow was also great, wind loaded slopes with up to knee-deep powder. Extra fun was had showing my older brother around the mountain, he flew out from Edmonton. Tonight I am driving back up to Whistler to chase the snowstorm and take some pictures with my brother tomorrow.

Thus concludes the whirlwind trip through my life of late.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

True or False?

Here is something I am pondering but also that I think society is pondering at a number of levels...

I pose these as a number of questions.

Is it better to believe/know the truth or a non truth?
This one seems simple... the truth is a pretty high value fairly universally in our context.

Is it better to believe/know the truth because of a non truth or to believe a non truth because of truth?

To state it again: Which is preferable truth base on something false or something false based on truth?

Another question along these lines would be is it better to be right or to be rational?

Ok so now we add an interpersonal dimension.

Does non truth need to be corrected?
Probably a fairly simple agreement from most people...

Who is it more important to correct: Mr. Wrong Conclusion or Mr. Wrong Premise?

To place this in a faith context: would you destroy someone's faith over a false premise?

Would you tell a lie to convince someone of the truth?

I think these are harder and more complex questions than we think.

Obviously truth and non truth are often not easy to separate or discern... However this is in part why some of these questions arise...

Our society seems to be thematically repeating the idea that society needs to believe a lie to function... That order requires a certain amount of deceit. Batman: The Dark Night in particular highlights this. But I've noticed it come up in a few other things and contexts recently... (sorry I am failing to recall specifics).

Anyway, I would love to have some dialogue about this... It is particularly the value judgement that I find fascinating...

Friday, January 13, 2012

Relationship Advice from Alfred Hitchcock - The Birds

This is the conclusion to this series:
Part 1 - Rear Window
Part 2 - Vertigo
Part 3 - The Birds

The movie The Birds (1963) presents, what in many ways is typical of a great Hitchcock film, a brilliant relationship study set against a backdrop of extraordinary, horrific, and deadly events. The film begins with Melanie Daniels in a pet shop. This starts with a short game of foiled deception with Mitch, centering on the topic of lovebirds and thus immediately suggesting the the subtext of a possible love relationship. During this encounter, they are held in frame together through a series of over-the-shoulder reverses that immediately begin to create a sense of connection. Finally, with the escape of a canary, which Mitch catches and then refers to as Melanie Daniels as he returns it to its cage, the relational subtext is fully confirmed. In the final verbal confrontation in this sequence, Mitch's shot also contains Melanie, signaling his desire and intent to catch her. The reverse of Melanie frames her alone, suggesting her freedom and authentic outrage at Mitch.

This defeat leads to Melanie attempting to pull one over on him by bringing him the two love birds he claimed he wanted. Thus, in the world of the film, their relationship is sealed. Melanie drives up to find Mitch in Bodega and tracks down Annie Hayworth to confirm Mitch's sister's name for whom the birds are for. Annie appears in a red sweater, already marked for death, and is helpful if perhaps aloof and judicious. Melanie enters into the Brenner house successfully, delivering the surprise love birds. This intrusion foreshadows the birds' later invasions of the house. Melanie escapes back across the bay and as she approaches the dock, and is greeted by Mitch, who has raced around the bay to meet her, a sea gull swoops down hitting her head. This is the first of the mysterious and terrifying bird attacks. While no direct explanation is given, at this point it appears to be a manifestation of Annie Hayworth's conscious or subconscious jealousy. The gift of the love bird, which is tantamount to a relational proposal, is an explicit intrusion and cannot be tolerated. However, it may be in response to the both physical and relational invasion of the Brenner house. Mitch then questions her presence and accuses her of liking him. She feigns to have disinterest and the pretext of having been old college friends with Annie and coming up for a visit with her. It is at this moment that Mitch's mother enters. Perhaps to increase the Oedipal tension, she looks strikingly like an older version of Melanie. The rest of the conversation that occurs with Mitch is framed with his mother and Melanie framed alone with occasional reverses to Mrs. Brenner, spelling out visually for the audience exactly what the relational dynamics are. The blocking of the scene before dinner with Mrs. Brenner on the telephone is also masterful. While Mitch and Melanie are able to share the background space briefly, when they finally settle into the room, Melanie sits on one the couch framed to the left of Mrs. Brenner and Mitch stands by the fireplace to the right. Mrs. Brenner stand talking on the telephone in the foreground as a wall between them. However, before the phone call is over, Mitch moves across the room again and, sitting down, is now framed with Melanie.

Mrs. Brenner is Mitch's domineering mother, a figure not uncommon to Hitchcock films. Most notably, Psycho (1960) alludes to this sort of figure, as well as Marnie and Notorious, both to a lesser degree. Slajov Zizek argues that the birds represent a foreign dimension that literally tears apart reality. In this sense, he suggests that they are manifestations of the the mother' raw, incestuous energy attempting to prevent the sexual relationship between her son and Melanie.1 It should be noted that throughout, Melanie is wearing a green skirt suit, highlighting her positively. In contrast, Mrs. Brenner's bedroom is that repeated yellow. This seems to signal the aggressive subtext of jealousy, mistrust, and aggression below the relatively benign conversation, which sends Melanie off to the school where she encounters a large group of crows, aptly named a murder of crows.

Within the film itself, it is suggested that the birds are a plague and a sign of the apocalypse. Furthermore, P. Adams Sitney has noted that the names Melanie (in Greek) and Daniels (in Hebrew) have the combined meaning “the blackness of God's judgment.” 2 The birds provide a terrifying sense of “The Other” ominously watching, often from above, referencing again the theme of voyeurism. Thus, the trademark high angle anxiety shot, which are used to spectacular effect in this film find their fulfillment in The Birds. Hitchcock's Catholicism obviously allows for the possibility for this to be interpreted as God. During the attack in the town, people identify the attacks as beginning with Melanie and thus accuse her effectively of being Jonah. However, Hitchcock has clearly taken pains to identify Melanie with the birds, beginning with the opening scene and including a reference to her breaking a window, which the birds then do in the movie. Thus we must understand the birds as generally manifesting in physical symbolism, the destruction of reality that Melanie represents for Mrs. Brenner as well as Mrs. Brenner's response. The echoes of Psycho support this dual representation, as the stuffed birds in Norman's office represent both his mother, whom he has killed and effectively stuffed, as well as the aptly named Miss Crane, whom he is about to kill and whom he compares to a bird. The final moments of horror in The Birds are those of Melanie again entering the mother's bedroom, only to find it filled with birds. What follows is best described as a crucifixion scene as Melanie receives innumerable wounds as well as the distinct emphasis on the piercing of her outstretched hand. She appears to die due to these attacks. However, Mitch and his mother rescue her and she is revived. Whether it is that God is satisfied with Melanie's sacrifice, or nearly the dead girl snaps the mother's super ego out of its jealous rage, Melanie is finally allowed to be integrated into the family as is noted by the shared hand squeeze with Mrs. Brenner, shown in a close cut in, before they all drive off to the hospital. Mrs. Brenner has come to accept that she is not going to be abandoned and embraces Melanie as a new daughter, being able also to be the mother that Melanie never had. As the new family escapes taking along the love birds that started it all, Mitch and Melanie's love and fidelity throughout the film is highlighted. Thus with relationships established and resolved, there is a happy ending that was not possible in Vertigo, or Psycho.

Hitchcock placed a great deal of priority on relational dynamics in his films. By examining his body of work, we see clearly that people cannot succeed or, at least not well, on their own. The trap of independence is one that men are particularly susceptible to as is clearly shown in Vertigo and also addressed in Rear Window. It is the strong, independent women such as Midge, Lisa, and Melanie that Hitchcock truly honours, perhaps because this is how he viewed his wife and the amazing partnership they shared in their work. Ultimately, it is the truth of these relationships that allow us to weather life's storms. Hitchcock reminds us that life is short and fleeting, with death lurking in every corner and on the end of every telephone call. However, it is precisely our insecurity which must energize us to commit deeply to that love relationship now, rather than waiting for the perfectly “compatible” person or for financial circumstances to create a false sense of security (a la Psycho). It is the outrageous grace of the love relationship in Spellbound (1945) that vindicates an innocent man and convicts the guilty. If only more characters were so faithful, perhaps less people would wind up in the awful predicaments they do. However, our voyeuristic appetites and creativity would be sadly disappointed by such a turn of events.

1Sophie Fiennes, The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, Documentary, 2009.
2Kent Jones et al., The Hidden God, First Edition. (The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2003), 249.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Relationship Advice from Alfred Hitchcock - Vertigo

Again it is probably sensible to have watched at least Vertigo before reading this analysis...
Vertigo examines relationships in a much more complicated sense, both directly and indirectly, as seen in Rear Window. Also similarly to Rear Window, the protagonist, Scottie, is an injured man, whose cane suggests the subtext of impotence. He is introduced with the female counterpart, Midge, in the second scene. However, it becomes clear that despite the clear sexual potential and also history to the relationship, it is, at present, an arrangement of convenient companionship rather than faithful partnership. Hitchcock keeps the two framed separately for almost the entire scene, except for a brief moment when Scottie pokes a bra on Midge's desk with his cane – one that she is designing advertising for. Midge's desire for a relationship is made clear by her comment that there is only man for her, indicating Scottie. Midges distress regarding their relationship is highlighted in Hitchcock's typical high angle shot, indicating the anxiety of the person or situation, and cued by Scottie's comment, “We were engaged once. Weren't we?” This trademark high angle anxiety shot is found in Hitchcock's films as far back as The Lodger (1927). In fact, much of “Hitch”'s visual brilliance as well as his innovation was born out of the fact that his career was developed in the era of silent film making, forcing him to learn to tell the story primarily visually and value this ability of cinema. According to Hitchcock, this sense of visual cinema was mostly lost with advent of sound to, “photographs of people talking,” and effectively transformed cinema into theatre.1

Thus Vertigo begins with what ought to be a relationship but isn't spelling disastrous results from the very outset. Scottie becomes involved in an investigation regarding a college friend's wife, Madeleine, after rescuing her from San Francisco Bay in what appeared to be an attempted suicide. Hitchcock now show us in reverse the couple that ought not to be. Scottie sits on the couch in a green sweater framed by red curtains signaling a sense of stage. Green used here echoes the green used to highlight Madeleine in her debut at the restaurant. The fact that Scottie is now in green framed by the red curtains suggests both that this scene is the reverse of the other in that this is when Madeleine first sees Scottie. However, it also serves to indicate Madeleine's psychological possession of Scottie. Green is often used by Hitchcock as a colour to indicate something positive. It is with subtle reinforcement such as colour that the audience is aided in liking and identifying with Scottie and Madeleine as well as warned of their fate. The camera pans and dollies across the room revealing Madeliene's clothes hanging across Scottie's cane in the kitchen and Madeleine, now understood to be naked, through a doorway in a bed. Scottie gets up and walk toward the bedroom, stopping and staring at the woman across the threshold. A telephone call draws him into the room. Telephones are a common device used by Hitchcock across a number of his movies. The telephone represents, in a very real way, an intrusion into one's life or equally significant, a manner in which to intrude on others. In this way, the telephone is often used to underscore the insecurity of our lives, perhaps hinting at the fact that death could call at any time2.

Madeleine's bare shoulders further add eroticism into the situation as she hides herself under a yellow blanket. Yellow has only been seen significantly in Midge's apartment, thus there is the subtext of Madeleine being where Midge ought to be. Yellow is also usually an aggressive colour in Hitchcock films, as most clearly displayed in Marnie(1964). Mark Rutland, while on his and Marnie's honeymoon, clothed in a housecoat of an identical yellow, is frustrated by Marnie's pathological inability to consummate their marriage. He and Marnie, who is clothed in a green dressing gown, have a strained conversation in the front room after which he storms after her into the bedroom becoming verbally aggressive and tears her nightgown off, in the most sexually violent moment of the film, an act which he immediately regrets and apologizes for. Thus we should be alerted and concerned by the yellow colour of the blanket, which also confirms the violation already suggested by the drying clothes. Furthermore, when Madeleine enters the front room in a red dressing gown, it echos the red restaurant in which Scottie first saw her, highlighting the passion he feels for her but also marking her for death. Again, going back to Marnie  and her pathological fear of red because of its psychological connection to murder, is key here. Also the red carpet in Frenzy (1972), running down the stairwell of Rusk's apartment, is significant. It is seen just after he and Babs enter to, what the audience is certain via a dialogue cue, will be her doom. The slow camera moves away from the closed door and down the stairwell, highlighting the red carpet, suggesting a waterfall of blood, and serving to underline the audience's horrified awareness of the present rape and murder in a long string of rapes and murders that have taken place in the room above. Vertigo's use of colour remains consistent within this framework and thus Scottie's presentation of two yellow pillows for Madeleine should be understood to maintain the subtext regarding Midge as well as perhaps foreshadowing his responsibility for Madeleine's death. In the course of Vertigo we discover that Madeleine is not actually Madeleine but rather Judy, an aid in a deception so as to make the murder of the real Madeleine, by her husband, look like a suicide.

The death of Madeleine at the Mission, in spite of Scottie's futile attempt to cure her psychosis, plunges him into a catatonic state. It is in the hospital that we have one of the final moments for redemption slip away as Midge is unable to coax him out, acknowledges his ongoing love for Madeleine, and leaves the hospital. She is unable to save Scottie in the way that Lisa is able to save Jeffries in Rear Window. Her exit of the hospital marks her last appearance of the film. When he emerges from the hospital he is alone, a point consistently emphasized by the camera framing throughout the film. He blunders once again down the trail of his torrid affair with Madeleine only to discover Judy, in front of the flower shop, wearing a green outfit, matching that of the flower shop's cart and definitively drawing the connection between her and Madeleine.

Scottie discovers Judy by accident and is unaware of the truth and sets about recreating her into Madeleine. The final moment where their doom is sealed is Judy's renewed resolve to restart their relationship in reversed deception in order to make their love true, in contrast to her initial intention to reveal the truth. There is significant echoes between this process of transformation and that which occurs in Rebecca (1940) and Scottie's makeover of Judy – both explore the desire for transformative deception in a lover. In Rebecca, it is the perception that transformation is desired that is, in reality, false. Whereas, in Vertigo, the desire is real and instead it is the unanticipated truth of the deception which reveals its own horror. Furthermore, what in Rebecca is more or less dressing up, Vertigo reverses into a slow erotic undressing.3 The scene after Scottie and Judy first have dinner, when Scottie proposes another meeting as he drops her off in her apartment, demonstrates further Hitchcock's genius at being able to tell the story through image. The scene is lit in low key and Judy disappears into the shadows early in the scene. Scottie stands lit, proposing a 'non sexual' relationship to her dark, haunting silhouette, as he lusts with necrophilia for the ghost she reminds him of. She remains hidden in the shadows of her own secrecy and love for Scottie. She, Judy, loves Scottie, but Scottie loves the non-existent shadow called Madeleine, whom Judy pretended to be. This division of person is perfectly captured in the shot of Judy sitting looking out the window away from Scottie, her face cut perfectly in half by shadow. Scottie sees her only in shadow but longs for greenish lit side of her which evokes Madeleine. When, later, Judy exits from the green light fully reversed back into Madeleine she stands finally naked before Scottie for his necrophilliac fantasy.

The film concludes with the horrifying repetition of the earlier death scene. Scottie has once again transformed Judy into Madeleine and Madeleine will once again fall to her death, only this time Scottie, in the midst of the madness of his psychotic obsession, has become Gavin Elstor. Scottie, while not wanting to be alone and lamenting his availability in the opening scene, is also unable to admit dependance or need for a woman. Because of this, he is blind to Midge's consistent assistance, clarity and love, unable to stand her independence, he instead drowns in his own obsessive desire for the illusion of love, power, and control presented to him in Madeleine. An illusion, which when revealed, results in a fit of erotic rivalry4, ultimately causing Judy's death, albeit indirectly. Interestingly, this theme of illusion, deception and artifice, while worked out most often in relationships, has also a definitive reflexive nature that casts judgment on both the desire to and watching of films as well as the creation of them.

It is this exploration of the desire to be deceived that I continue to find most haunting. In what ways do I reject reality around me and pursue illusion and delusion toward my own and others destruction? In what ways do I construct those around me into false personae, related to my own neurosis? In what ways do I allow myself to be constructed by the neurotic fantasies of others?

1François Truffaut, Hitchcock, Rev. ed., 1st Touchstone ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), 61.
2Dial M for Murder
3Truffaut, Hitchcock, 244.
4Jones et al., The Hidden God, 256.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Relationship Advice from Alfred Hitchcock - Rear Window

The following posts were taken from a film paper I wrote this past semester. Fortunately or unfortunately, you may find yourself needing to watch a bunch of Alfred Hitchcock movies... which I am suggesting will be not only enjoyable but good for you.


Part 1 - Rear Window
Part 2 - Vertigo
Part 3 - The Birds

Hitchcock specialized in high-anxiety thrillers and suspense-laden plots that strung the audience along on a tight rope. In the course of his oeuvre as a director, he developed a number of distinctive techniques, and explored a small number of particular themes repeatedly in his work. Crime, espionage and theatre are the common backdrops for Hitchcock to work out his thoughts on deception and artifice, both our propensity for it and its destructive power. Death lurks in every corner of the world according to Hitchcock and is unlikely to be avoided alone. It is this treatment of relationships, particularly sexual relationships, juxtaposed and intertwined into the plots, crimes and crisis of the various films, that universalize Hitchcock's films and provide perhaps his most poignant commentary on the human condition. 

Right from the beginning of his career, marital relationships were prominent in his work beginning with his first break finishing the two reeler Always Tell Your Wife (1923) and his full directorial debut The Pleasure Garden (1925). The themes of marriage, sex, infidelity and a murder, in particular of a spouse, are already present and will recur in numerous of his subsequent films. In fact, the murder of a spouse occurs, is attempted, or is otherwise referenced in a shocking number of Hitchcock's films. While perhaps contributing to the accusations of misogyny, this ultimate violent betrayals fits into Hitchcock's oeuvre on a number of fronts. Marriage, like all relationships, is open to deception and artifice. Furthermore, marriage is intended to be a life long loving and committed relationship, the epitome of safety and support. Thus it is not surprising at all that Hitchcock exposes us to the devastating violence and horror that is possible in our closest relationships - reminding us, as always, that we are never safe and secure. Three films which capture some of the breadth of Hitchcock's address of relationships are Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958) and The Birds (1963).

Rear Window is one film in which the setting is confined exclusively or primarily to a single location. James Stewart stars as L.B Jeffries along side Grace Kelly (his girfriend Lisa), as an impotant photographer confined to a wheelchair in his apartment due to a broken leg and reticence to get married. His impotence is most notably signified by the enormous and phallic lens on the camera he uses to spy on his neighbours. An impassioned speech made by Jeff's nurse, Stella, early in the movie presents the 'Hitchcockian' expectations regarding appropriate relational behaviour: When a man and a woman see each other and like each other, they ought to come together, wham!- like a couple of taxis on Broadway - and not sit around analyzing each other like two specimens in a bottle. Hitchcock's positive view of this statement can be seen in the positive outcomes of the relationships in his film that manage to follow this advice. The 39 Steps (1935) is a similar an example to Rear Window in a number of respects. Both films center around a relationship that has been added to the original story by Hitchcock. Furthermore, both films require the resolution of some initial relational conflict in order for the other external plotlines to resolve well. The lead male character would have been quite incapable of success without the assistance of his female partner. Grace Kelly makes this point explicit in the final scene of To Catch a Thief (1955) saying, “ Were you afraid to admit you just can't do everything by yourself? You needed the help of a good woman. You aren't the lone wolf you think you are.” To which Cary Grant responds affirmatively. In The 39 Steps, Hitchcock literally insists on the relationship, having the two handcuffed together and holding them in frame as a couple for three full scenes forcing them to learn to live together. Rebecca is a lovely example of this plot idea of a couple liking each other and then coming together and getting married rather quickly ultimately being a positive way to enter relationships. In contrast, the relational premise of Psycho is exactly the opposite.

Rear Window makes a full treatment on the topic of voyeurism, along with its relationship to film. Rather than handcuffs, it is Jeffries' broken leg which confines him to his apartment. He, however, transfers this sense of confinement onto his relationship with Lisa, which he suggests is incompatible with his adventuresome photography. Grace Kelly is treated with some of the most beautiful film ever created, brilliantly undermined by the foreboding shadow she casts over James Stewart as she leans in for a kiss. An axis jump to a slow motion shot of the kiss disorient and overwhelm the audience in such a way as to draw them into the kiss. The axis jump provides that element of surprise and spontaneity that is important in great kisses and romance. Holding the couple closely in frame, we are informed of the goodness of their intimacy regardless of Jeffries' earlier evaluation regarding their compatibility. The treatment of this kiss further underlines the importance of this relationship to a happy ending. Jeffries' final question, “Who are you?” breaks their intimacy and frames the relational question of the film. To the audience's relief, Lisa is not to be deterred by Jeffries' analysis regarding their compatibility. She returns as seductress and accomplice, entering into his current adventure even more deeply than he is able, becoming the subject of his voyeurism and successfully regaining his affection.

Even the neighbourhood, which becomes Jeffries' soap opera, is a study of relationships. There are the newlyweds who are continuously having sex, the ballet dancer being hounded by men, the suicidal Miss. Lonleyhearts, the childless couple with the dog, the man who murders his wife, and the musician. How does one move from the lustful, infatuated fidelity of the newlyweds to the unfaithful, murderous action of a criminal? Hitchcock's placement of these couples close together and in the apartment block around Jeffries highlight his own relational dilemma regarding marriage and both its potential joys and horror. I think it is important that he and Lisa address this horror together and conquer it, in a sense, despite it coming very close to killing both of them. They are however, ultimately, successful in their adventure and reinvested into their relationship.

The film successfully raises a number of unnerving questions below concrete realities of the plot such as, “Are you being watched?” but even more disconcerting for an audience is the implication also of being discovered as a voyeur and the potential consequences of what one sees. The film very distinctly reminds the audience that death and violence can invade your own backyard and even your home. We are safe only insofar as our relationships of love and trust are real. If, however, our marriage is filled with deception, as is the case in Notorious (1946), one is not unlikely to wind up murdered or dead, as in the film Rebecca (1940).

I found myself recently reflecting that Jeffries strong sense of calling and identity as a photographer, which prompts his hesitancy in relationship is distinctly reminiscent of Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard breaks off his engagement to a woman he loves, Regine Olsen, near the beginning of his career to pursue his sense of call. This decision, which may be celebrated as a tremendous self sacrifice for the sake of calling, he later reflects on in Fear and Trembling, where he celebrates most highly "the knight of faith," who is able to suspend the ethical by virtue of the absurd and thus both marry the princess and pursue his holy calling or at least somehow believe both to be possible despite full acknowledgement and resignation to their impossibility. Kierkegaard clearly presents this awesome picture of faith in contrast to his vision of himself as the "Knight of self resignation" who sacrifices himself for the greater good. Thus I suggest that Kierkegaard effectively presents great relationships must be characterized by faith, in that they must contain both resignation to the impossibility of their success and simultaneously belief in their possibility. This is the contradiction and paradox of faith. In Rear Window Jeffries is the "knight of infinite resignation" however Lisa is able to, after resignation, make the move of faith and thus the relationship, by virtue of faith succeeds. The dangerous possibility of entering or being in a relationship with neither self sacrificing resignation or faith yields results, both exceedingly common such as divorce or as depicted by Hitchcock in the film Dial M for Murder (1954), which centres around the murder of spouse. Thus by Hitchcock we are constantly reminded both of the danger of life and in particular relationships, while simultaneously being encouraged to be in them and having them presented to us as our only hope and the necessary path of salvation.