Playing with the Boys

By: Jonathan Seidel

Pick me girl: a friend’s plea concerning woman’s roles in cinema as girl boss or love interest. Where are the meaningful conversations of woman and woman.  

My friend El-ly, explained the idea of a pick me girl the other day. Such a girl is one who acts differently than the pack for attention. A girl who acts out for male approval. She explained that the girl boss and love interest types are classified into a traditional metric for cinematic film. Concluding that there is rarely dialogue between two female side characters beyond the protagonist’s goal. 

The theory is quite interesting. I have not watched sufficient cinema to conclude whether this is a genuine claim. Yet in all the movies that come to mind with male leads, the love interest tends to be just that. Her role is recognised by her affiliation to the main character. The women in any of the James Bond films are under-appreciated because their existence is contingent on Bond’s role. They are the women that need to be saved. They are princesses that Bond falls for and are his ticket to stardom. They rarely have their own being. Their being is linked to Bond’s. Independence is brutally deficient. The female is forced into a box. An existence by the patriarchal element. A life only worth living if Bond accepts her. At the onset, her role is non-being. It is only her attachment to Bond that her being has significance. She is brought to life and becomes significant. She may have a few choice words for Bond. They may play a game of cat and mouse but it solely inside his matrix. She can only act this way with him. She can only act this way while his being is connected to hers. 

One of the obvious problems is the love interest’s sole purpose as the protagonists fiddle. Their purpose hinges on the protagonist’s movement. Indiana Jones has a number of love interests. Their purpose is magnified in the context of their appearances. Yet they do not live outside his orbit. If he ceases breathing, their purpose does as well. They may have many lines but they are in his frame. Their role is simple. Bring some spice and romance to the movie. This prostitution model takes the love interest’s personality away from the character. The character is straight to the point. Their role is helping the character. They are his ammunition but can be voided. They are not the purpose nor do they receive recognition. Their ladylikeness is dispelled in the ignorance of womanly duties. They are a side arc for the protagonist’s complexity. A woman with no voice other than to the protagonist. She can speak to one person. A medieval purified doctrine. The female character is what she is aware with. She is a supporting actress. A support to the protagonist’s whims. Her role depends on his decisions. She is caged to a monistic role that fails to capture her complexity. Such variance is ignored. It does not exist nor is it relevant. 

Love interests have it rough but even those who are not such as Princess Leia are still brutally demoted. The issue is that although Leia has more colour to her character, such colour diminishes progressively. The trajectory dies down throughout the movies. She begins so strong and then is feminised into a love interest by the end of the sixth movie. She begins as a feminist icon. Leading the rebels, standing against Vader and then slowly loses her standing. In time, her role is decreased to Han’s love interest. To a point of a sex symbol in Jabba’s Hutt. Was this degrading process intentional or a consequence of consecutive writing? Padme has a similar but worse arc. Her independence is shaken by her affiliation with Anakin. A queen to a scarred wife. Her ferociousness filters into a love interest. A smaller power to her powerful role as the queen. Her place muddled by an emotional overhaul. Both female character’s lose themselves for love. A conservative pundit of women giving up work for family. Yet their feministic roles lose clarity and sensibility in their eloquence to their male counterparts. They lose their significance as the movies move on. The male protagonists take on the main roles while they remain in the background. They do plays roles. Padme is Anakin’s conscious. Her existence causes Anakin’s fall to the dark side and her death the end of him. Yet it is contingent on his role. Leia falls prey to Han’s outlaw tendencies. While Luke is the main character, her role revolves around saving him and aiding him throughout. A housewife on the battlefield. A strong and inspirational character who is better at providing soothing advice than fighting enemies. 

Yet, the main issue is the lack of female representation. Among the main characters, only one is female. Thus even her centricity is overshadowed by the boys club. A recent movie Jumunji, begins with two of each gender and then moves to three boys and one girl. Even the girl is a tom boy and is described as a pick me girl which will be reiterated. The lacking equality or even ratio equivalence marks the boys club. Pulp Fiction and Fight Club have strong female leads but they pale in comparison to the male strengths. The men overshadow and take centre stage. Who are the females supposed to talk to except the men. Action flicks target men and thus have such a ratio. Male leads are prominent with other men fighting alongside in the war. Strong characters are forced to be more masculine to fit in or feminise into a love interest. Leia begins as an empowered female. Standing up against the empire. Though simultaneously sending R2D2 to get Obi Wan to save here. The first movie spends much of the action saving her. While she demonstrates some independence and fierce character, she is still a damsel in distress. The interactions are serious but the plot portrays her failed independence. Her masculinity shows and then is feminised to Han as her role amongst the men became entangled for romance purposes. Her independence ceased.

Cases with multiple female characters may not stand on the same side. Guardians of the Galaxy begins with the classically imbalanced six to one ratio. The misfits work together to save the world. There is female chemistry between Gamora and her sister Nebula. On opposite sides of the war, they fight. A major component through the MCU is their relationship developing with the baggage of resentment and jealousy. Fighting with their father Thanos or against him. They do not really ever make up and the story fades into Nebula avenging Gemora. They do not stand on the same side. Their conversations are intertwined in the masculine energised conflict. There is no sister talk of beauty or gossip. Solely a tumultuous daddy’s problem scenario. Despising one another for the choices made. Ripley’s staunch victory in Alien has interactions with a young girl she saves. There is a female on female discussion. Yet Ridley’s actions are masculine in nature. Her place in the plot is a James Bond substitute. She is saving another damsel in distress. The mythos simply continues. While the movie is glorifying in the feministic enterprise, the goal masculinised Ripley fails to be achieved in her womanhood. She is a fighter. She can fight amongst the boys. She is placed in their camp. Seen alongside the men. Alien busting and outlaw character is a pandering to lustful men who crave the sexy activity of a strong-willed woman.

Uma Thurman’s character is a masculine version of a female lead. Whether in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. Thurman in the former is a strong woman amongst the men. Her role is minor compared to the other characters. She is a prized possession of the boss but that does not provide the adequate independence necessary for the character. Her role though strong willed is tied to Travolta’s interests. Winston’s submission to Marcellus leads to his affiliation with the Thurman’s character. Her character is hinged on Winston’s movements. Yet the more influential flick finds Thurman as the main character. In two movies where woman reign supreme in the martial arts, Thurman takes the classic male myth to the feminine side. Husband murdered and looking for revenge. An old classic with a female lead. The gore and thrill is high masculine energy. The same role could’ve been played by a man. The script fit Thurman. Tailored to the storyline. A samurai’s journey with a gender twist. Such character development is indicative of fearsome masculine pull. Captain Marvel plays with the same fire though Kill Bill is a tremendously greater movie. A recent twist on the girl boss motif furthers women to act like men. Men can fight so can women. These solo outings follow historically male plots with female divergence. 

Vampire Diaries nor the other female leading magic shows dispel the myth. Female leads are masculinised to be aggressive and save the world. They are chosen to be the hero. A timeless myth commonly found for men but the same facilitation is articulated for women. Though at the same time there is classic female behaviour. While they attempt to change the world they need male assistance at times. They cry and sulk for male advice. Romantic quarrels become heated. These female leads add some variables to Campbell’s explanation. Female leads still have their primitive cinematic insecurities. Their male counterparts are stoic and strong while these female saviours find comfort in their help. The same diagonal relation is articulated but in a smoother relation, the men live independently. Though this may simply be a Vampire Diaries thing where other characters gain more screen time. So much screen time that a couple spin offs were created. This may be a sole example or it may represent the feminist lead. There is a clear difference between Vampire Diaries and Captain Marvel. The collectivist versus individualist model stands more congruent with feminised elements. Even as a lead there is more to explore in the universe. The world is not solely the main character. Other characters may spawn from the lead but their stories are credible to research. 

Differences may dwindle down to type of movie. Dramas may be open to expansive iteration while action funnels into a single character’s experience. It depends how the story is written. Given there are female leads who are intensely focused and other characters matter little without their insistence. There is rarely a screen without them speaking or acting. While dramas probably provide the most extensive network for non-protagonists to discuss, the extent of such conversations is not always so great. In long-standing dramas it can be unclear who is the main and who is the side characters. There may be a few. So even in the Vampire Dairies, there is no scene where side character’s speak amongst themselves. There are multiple characters and their stories explored. Still an achievement. Those side characters evolve to main character status. Though their independence is derived from the main story branching out. Vikings begins with Ragnar’s stay and when it branches to his children’s stories the frame swaps between Bjorn, Ubbe, Ivar, and Lagartha. A story must evolve for those side characters to become main elements. Then again this is not always consistent. Lagartha was dependent on Ragnar. As his wife she was the link but once their marriage falls apart and her wisdom increases she attains her independence away from marriage in her own monumental story. Still her warrior skill and attitude reflects the classic masculine image. 

At the crux there is certain female behaviour to be the lead. Take the case of Mean Girls. Katy is trying to fit in despite her tom-boyish attitude. She fits in with the outcasts. Regina brings her in to the exclusive popular bitchy club. The feminine side dawns on Katy to act more girly. She decides to alter her looks and act dumb for a boy to like her. She wishes to be wanted. She turns herself into a desired girl. The boy she wishes to impress is utterly confused. He liked her for her uniqueness. She realises in the end it is better to be her true self than be a more feminine girl. Moral of the story be your tom-boyish self. Femininity is ridiculed in the absolute bitchiness of living. A more balanced individual is one who stays true to who they are. This is best articulated by Katy’s friends: one goth the other gay. She is from Africa, a third outsider to the mainstream. The irony finds her flirtation with the boy. She believes femininity is the way to his heart while to him it is her boyish attitude. He likes her for who she is. He likes her because she is content with who she is. She is irregular and that raises eyebrows and mystery., She is pretty and smart. A combination furthering her appeal. The movie DUFF (from the trailers) also conveys to be who you are and not fall into the feminine need to look good aspect. The redefinition need not be spending hours on makeup to look good and dress as such. Yet, is this really the case?

Pushing such agendas as dressing autonomously and degrading the classical feminine muses places a stronger masculine spin on it. It is only wrong if it seeks to degrade the feminine of old. This applies across the board to all parts of classic femininity. To looking good and to housewife duties. Trying to blend a lead female who is overpowered but also deeply emotional symbiotically upends the genuine masculine energy. Female heroines are more complex. Not the Ripleys or Danvers. Stoic identity is not as addressed in male leads. Personally less acquaintance with chick-flicks. Not aware of the extent of Pretty Little Liars or even Grey’s Anatomy. They may possess a bit of each but there is a consistent theme of love interest trying to gain more attention. The best way to do this is by reversing the roles. The female takes lead and then hovers over potential bachelors. Wondering will they or won’t they. It is also possible there are certain ingredients for female viewers than male viewers. Many male shows narrate a single character’s growth. Centred on an individual’s aspects from The Mentalist to Longmire. Side characters are indelible to the experience but are solely extensions with little testimony to main individual. The case of House revolves around the protagonist. Each character’s development is in response to House from Chase to Cuddy. There is no side quest for the individual to assert their moment. When House goes to psychiatric care and then to prison the storyline shifts to his new habitat.  

While female targeted series may expand the character centre to multiple perspectives, there will not be a scene that escapes one of them. Three or four characters may find their moments throughout the series yet there is a focal link between the characters. In a way these shows compensate for the pick me alternative by presenting an overload of female leads to congregate with one another. Even to mix with male leads but spend time developing the female protagonists. The male lead focused on his lonely hero’s journey interacts with others out of necessity to his path not as a kind act. The drama filled exploration denote artificial extras to spice up the plot line. Back to House, each character plays a part in House’s development. Wilson plays the most pivotal role, his role is central in its relation to House. Much of Cuddy and Wilson’s conversations concern House. Though the irony of a self-obsessed protagonist and the show discussing his self-interest is humorous. Cameron plays her role as the beauty that House calls out for hiring her. Her development is rejecting him and becoming her own person. Yet in the long run, there is a fractured element to her building. To some degree she rejects Chase because of his House-like mannerisms but there is also a seemingly underwhelming mechanism only seen through House’s eyes. 

A recent series, The Rookie stars various characters. A few males and a few females. Nolan, Chen and Angela receive the most screen time. Their lives intertwined gaining multiple perspectives. Conversations beyond the semantic are posed between Nyla, Angela and Chen. The relationship between Chen and Tamara provides a deeper consult to the non-masculine identity. A feminine powerhouse in a regularly male-dominated department. There are obvious cultural references that may rub conservatives the wrong way but the show definitely portrays a female correlation beyond the masculine priority. The show clearly prioritises Nolan. The show revolves around his rookie campaign in his mid-forties but does not undermine other entrances and their stories. Shows like Married with Children and Full House may have positioned male characters with more lines but the female leads did have girl on girl interactions. While the male leads were more central to the show the females played their roles to perfection and received internal development. It may not have been symmetrical to the men but it was significant. Golden Girls was more female centred given the main leads were women. Nevertheless even forty years ago, women did play independent pieces of a holistic series.   

Television series provide more time to develop characters. Movies are quick straight to the point. The big screen is a statement while a series is an elongated routine. The ability to get to know a character and their inner workings is possible when there is more screen time to meddle. Movies tend to to jump into the storyline. Despite the differences, the question remains if on both ends, the female lead is stereotypical. The pick me girl model runs against the stereotypical layout. The character is a stand-alone independent woman who tries to escape the matrix of the screen. Wonder Woman is an excellent example. An amazonian warrior hellbent on defeating evil. She not only diverts from her mother’s instructions but differentiates from the rest of the women. Her entire portfolio screams difference. It does not suggest that the character degrades other women but that her existence inherently does. Yet the grand irony still follows her “feminine instincts”. While she stands isolated from the womanly pack, she still possesses womanly characteristics. She will never be a man and disgraces womanhood with her embrace of manly endeavours. The modern twist on females excelling in masculine professions such as a cop in the The Rookie displays a range of uncanny feminine behaviour. In the female leads, they are still hunkered away from femininity. 

Sitcoms have largely compensated for this disaster. Both Married with Children and Full House recognise the roles of the female leads and align them in the story. The larger synopsis generates a humble attitude to female integration. The men have more lines but the women play their share as honesty reflections. Kelly acts very feminine and is beloved. She acts true to her female self at times using her beauty to her advantage. A stereotype but one that plays into her success and applauded by the audience. The same goes for Stephanie and Michelle whose sister relationship is on display. Acting true to sisterhood. It is an imperfect demonstration but one that does attempt to grasp female adolescence. Though Friends may take the cake. Unlike other series, The three girls are symmetrically popular to the boys. Joey and Chandler may receive more screen time but their humour was the crust of the audience’s enthusiasm. Monica and Rachel’s relationship ought not to be derided though. There is much backstory given to the girls and their relationship. The show capitalises on the female bond between the two. The pick me energy may be present in Monica and Rachel’s attempts to independently grow on their own. Monica a chef and Rachel a designer. Rachel even leaves her fiancé to be her own woman and start fresh. 

For Friends, the desire to be an independent woman in a man’s professional world is offset by the feminine charm. They do present lady-like character. Yet it is also at the expense of the traditional housewife model. Monica wishes for her own legacy away from her parent’s expectations and Rachel to start anew from a failed engagement. Rachel’s independence berates her dependent girly sisters who have yet to mature. Female job security good but marrying rich unemployed bad. Under the lens, even the female leads are venturing out into masculine trends. Then again, this is a feministic tenant. The movement itself calls for women to be independent. The portrayal of female characters may discreetly shun femininity but it isn’t as if the movement isn’t aiding in this push. While male directors may be at fault for poorly writing female characters, it is also possible that the Hollywood feminism is triumphant in its influence. The score of female protagonists such as Captain Marvel and She-Hulk seek to effeminate the character by exposing her masculinity. It is not even hiding in a hybrid feminine naturalisation. It is full-blown girl-boss stoic loner hero. It is an eye for an eye identical to most male lead storylines. It baffles and even undermines the femininity of woman. The latter is a cultural problem sought to overcome the problem with pandering opportunities. 

Top ten most famous female characters include Laura Croft, Katniss Everdeen, Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner. Each of these characters while beloved possess masculine ideals. The aggressive stoic competitive nature is deeply reflective of many male led action flicks. Mulan ironically tries to bridge the gap. A woman struggling to endure the male dominated army. Her struggle is apparent in her physical immaturity and inferior skill. The pick me energy may result in her prowess in the long run but such action was executed out of respect for her father not some social reasoning. Mulan is untalented and imperfect but it is her perseverance that is rewarded. Other female icons reverse this trend. Scarlett O’Hara, Belle, Alice and Dorothy. Each of these characters even with their own amount of first wave feminism do demonstrate a strong femininity throughout the films. It is their womanhood that places them in their social nature and yet prevail in the long run. The latter group do not try to be men but live through their womanhood. There are imperfections in their character development. There may even be an archaic vibe to the stories but nonetheless possess incredible will power and dedication. 

Dorothy is seemingly a feminist icon who refuses the title. Either Oz is a dream undoing the entire fantasy or Oz is real and her desire to return home undermines the fantasy. Similarly, Alice is the heroine who saves Wonderland. Her curiosity and independence propel her feminist’s grind. Yet like Dorothy, she leaves Wonderland. An area where she is regarded as the saviour. She is unable and unwilling to accept the ways of Wonderland. Caught up in her Victorian identity, Wonderland is a foreign world, one that is feminist acquainted but abhorrent to the character. While Dorothy and Alice have separate ideologies, the common theme is the progressive doom. Belle is a bookworm and while wise and beautiful, she is a weak woman. A woman who courageously seeks to save her father but is powerless against the beast. She must kill him with kindness. She must sway his ways. Thwarting his aggressiveness for stoic humility. The sheer feminine touch defeats the loud mouth arrogance of Gaston. Yet between the two it is still a battle of fists. She is a female hero but not a feminist hero. Scarlett mimics the same case in her search for love and dignity. Winning is not a gladiator battle as with Ripley and Conner but with emotion and wits.

Fans adore Ripley and Conner. Iconic female characters with a bone to pick. It is hot! They demonstrate a keen ability to capture the viewer into their crusade. Their aggressive stoic characterisation fits with masculine energy. Alice and Belle are feminine character for girls to amuse and follow. Belle is a Disney princess. Alice a cute bedtime story. Yet these characters pale in comparison to the normative. Especially in male targeted audiences. The female sidekick rarely has a second persona other than her relation to the main character. While this happens with most sidekicks, this does not need to be. Cinema may have a problem but there is an ability to explore an independence that does not hinge on narcissistic pandering.

Commercialised Desire

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Advertisements images and elevated desires: cigarettes and anti-semitism  (Zizek, 106-107)

Advertisements remind of commercials in between television shows. Trying to sell a product with agonising responses waiting for the show to return. Advertisements convey compelling slogans and visual imagery to entice the viewer to purchase the commodity. It is beyond the verbal tricks to the visual apprehension. Yet combined they order a propaganda of desire for the object. The commodity can be be in things and persons. 

Mad Men is an acclaimed television series that follows the career of Don Draper, a respected salesman with an illustrious wile. His charm fits his build in seducing his clients and women into his clutches. The show paints him as a broken individual. The portrait of sales clarifies an irony of his pitches focusing on objects and not himself. He diverts attention by selling his abilities. His pseudonym is running away from his true nature. Assuming a new identity to be different. His image is advertised in the company’s headlines. His skill is on display, a spectacle over charisma to assume the room’s attachment. His respect falsified in a fake confidence for his own grace. The radiant immersion is a burdensome exploit. He has forgotten his old self. When his brother shocks sense back into him, he loses his mind. His escape brought him peace and a new beginning. He has become Don Draper but his actions demonstrate a subconscious crippling attitude. Unable to fully transition to Don Draper. He is Draper but he is not. The dialectic causes stress and depressive tendencies. His imbalance is an ontological crisis. He is a married man but a bachelor. A cheater due to his emotional distress and discomfort.

Draper uses pictorials for his clients. Matching catchy slogans with eye-popping illustrations. The goal is for the viewer to eat it up. Enamoured by the synthesis of a good line linked to a picture. What does the slogan evoke? A little ancient reworking here. The slogan is intentional. The illustration is an extension of the slogan to conjure the object to the slogan. The illustration is the prized object. The thing that makes the slogan operate. Without the object, the slogan is meaningless. The slogan does not work. Only this object can realise the slogan’s potential. The viewer links the two desiring the slogan. The catchiness is sly with remedial aspirations. A desire quenched by the object. Yet the desire does not enter the mind until the slogan is mentioned. The slogan is worded in a way the average Joe would not intend but its appeasement harasses the viewer. Illuminating that desire to the forefront of the mind. The slogan pampers to the viewer’s lust. The slogan hits point blank arousing feelings of expectations. Maybe that is something, the viewer would desire. A desire born of nothingness. The psyche pinpoints on the slogan’s remedy. The remedy traces back to a problem incurred in the viewer’s mind. His mind concentrated on a latent issue now a cure to the disease.

The power of the slogan seeks to capture a latent desire. A desire that seemingly only exists periodically if at all. Yet the slogan provides an axis whereby this is a thing. Either the viewer feels left out and creates the problem or the problem is minute. His frame of mind in both cases exacerbates the problem. His heart swayed by the catchy wording. A remedy to a damaged life. A way into the psyche of the viewer. A problem conjured but feeling real. A problem to be solved in one's very life. The object is the solution. It's painted on the page next to the slogan. So easy, the viewer is gifted the antidote. Don’t despair the hook has a hope. The viewer is not left pondering a problem. The slogan precedes to gather the attention and shape the situation. The object is the treasure thrown in the viewer’s face. Having seen the light, this can save the problem conjured minutes ago. Nothingness becomes a need. A very basic aspiration is promised. A way to up one’s game. A way to be better than before. For more status and game. Why turn away from it. The object is hanging right there. Quite inexpensive investment. The object is the answer. Follow through for a better life. The other responds in kind and the viewer is entrenched in this frame. He has been caught and plays into the hand. 

Cigarettes are a dangerous vermin and yet many begin nonetheless. There is a cultural pattern that supersedes the dire consequences. There is much to say about this but going back to the fifties the advertisements were strong. Mad Men feeds into these. Draper’s client Lucky Strikes is his illusive pact. He spends time drawing up a playbook for their success. Painting them a picture of these advertisements and their success. The slogan captures the viewer’s interest into a problem that raises his emotional level. Cigarettes enhance his family life wow. The slogan itself latches onto the viewer’s psyche. Elevating his dopamine. Enamoured with the hope for better change. Beneath is an illustrative manual. Lucky Strikes helps reach that point. The image does its work of epitomising the lured viewer. Captivated by the slogan and caged by the image. The image is the object in use. An instructive guide of how it should look or what can be hoped. A desired aspiration that cradles the viewer in a loop of endless fantasies. Fantasies that culminate in an impassioned face red and hot. A desire uplifted in a hopeful tomorrow. The details of cigarettes or their ingredients are ignored for the fantastical element. The desire is overpowered and concentrated. It’s infatuation insidious to the viewer’s frontal lobe.

Nazi propaganda of the devilish Jew built on history of anti-semitic jargon and images. Propaganda embellishes the issue of the economy. Someone to blame. The Jew is the target and the miserable audience accepts this truth. Using deceptive tactics the public grows enraged at the minority who has surprisingly survived and lives isolated. Easily offended and attacked. A revenge polemic for their guised assistance. It was all corrupted efforts. Turning the sole possibility into a devilish trait. Moneylending, a single profession for Jews isolated by society was turned on its head. They chose this to harm society. They endeavoured to overthrow the masses. Using such slogans and then drawing pictures to depict this onslaught. Illustrating the deplorable acts of Jews in distasteful art. No evidence was necessary, a blame was. Depicting the Jew in his evil characterisation embellishing them for a sinister plot. Extending the nose with coins surrounding his devilish laugh. Despite the German liberalism, the preventative clause of the Weimar Republic lead to the deadly force. The slogans were modernised but with the same tropes. Infested in the pure German society needed to be isolated and eventually exterminated. The object of scorn is the Jew who is the easiest target. The slogan of his devilish actions are poignant in the illustration of his desires. 

Advertisements are no longer pictures but videos. Videos of cigarettes display a mother dying of cancer. The impact is the illustrative story.  A motion picture narrates the object. Something like flex seal. The commercial shows the object’s affect. A story is more than a catchy line. A video highlighting the essentials broadens the alert basis. Conveying a compelling plot line. A picture lacks context and fluidity. The commercial lines up the events that lead to death. The story is narrated imparting the the viewer the real danger of smoking. This is not just a cause and effect on a box. This is a driven home point. More emotional stressors is consequential to others. It is not a slogan but an elongated narrative. Smoking will lead to hospitalising and death. The visual graphic is troublesome. More than the pictorial on the box, the imagery is condensed consecutively. An image can be faked and flaunted. A motion picture is realistic. It is presenting the steps in the mirrored image. This is no longer a possibility, it is an inevitability. Commercials reflect the smoker’s eventual decline. The object of concern is the self preoccupied with the smoking habits. The dying patient is linked to the viewer. The viewer gasps at the future self dying. A horrific death portrayed in motion. The picture is foreign but the film is present. A real dilemma and a scary enterprise. Graphics sowed together deplore the smoker to quit. 

Even more chilling than the simple reflection is the extra-consequential nature of death. The smoker is not solely enticed to quit by the inevitable death but the affect on others. A dying patient with family around. A picture representing a thousand words. More than just the reflection of the self is the surrounding variables. Family sorrow over decline. The motion picture enjoins the emotional response of the family. Smoking kills family. The person’s death can be written out by egocentric desires at worst and an uncontrollable addiction at best. The introduction of family. Of young children bereft of their mother. How miserable, how devilish. Live for the children. The selfish end to the smoker’s life includes the toll on the family. An onslaught of mental discomfort. Watching a mother smoke herself to death. Mirroring the plot line instils the offspring suffering. It is not a matter of principled integrity. Avoiding the packaging label or overlooking the harms stalls at the children’s emergence. Their cries and moans are a reality check to the smoker. The viewer sunk into smoking is torn over this and emotions overpower the addiction. Refraction is successful and the mirrored image erases the potential future. Shaken by the demise of the family unit and grief employed. A new path is taken away from the eventual disaster. 

Commercials seek to override the addictive danger. Yet the exposure to the threatened does not excel in all realms. For smokers, their demise is overpowered by their desire for life. Yet this is not the case of anti-semitic issues. Videos to combat said problems are not universal nor are they accepted outright. There is no personal stake in the issue, simply a belief that employed in the realm. Participating in a historical polemic. Just as many didn’t aid the Jews against Hitler because they were not Jews, the same can be said of the anti-semitic tropes. The devil incarnated in the soul of the scapegoat. More firepower is provided to the Palestinian cause. Aspects genuinely attack the holistic framework of the Jew. Justification of skirmishes on the basis of a nation’s policy. The motion picture makes a dent in the frame game if the viewer is affected by the message. If the message is external with little personal gain there may be no change. Yet the Palestinian cause may gain an uproar of support given the empathetic stimulation to a juggernaut imbalance. The Jew has achieved Israel thus the empathic clause is muddled. If anything, it is the opposite. The anti-semitic comments hinge on the motion picture depicting an oppressed intensity. Arguments shallow with little movement to consider otherwise. A lack of identity finds the status quo relevant. The status quo persists in the historical animosity now empowered with the Palestinian plight. 

Content creators on Youtube act quite similarly to commercials. While they do not possess the motion picture, they do travel beyond the pictorial on a billboard. Articulating the commodity on their program does magnify a face to face sales pitch. The video does expend a direct link to the viewer. The viewer feels the connection in the creator’s selling mechanism. Their monologues spent describing the sponsored commodity. At the close they provide a personal commitment to it. Mentioning their own use and enjoyment. Finalising with a link to the website with their new name for a discount. The sales pitch is personalised by the creator as an enjoyable commodity. Persuasion with their engagement reflects a trust between viewer and creator. The viewer enjoys the creator subscribing for more content. The creator’s ploy is a business tactic but the messaging is mirrored in earnest. The creator uses it, it must be good. The pitch is sharing advice. The sponsoring and persuasion techniques are overlooked for the creator’s gift to the viewer. Both parties take their commitments seriously. The viewer has faith that this aside is an honest gesture. The desire is pounced by the creator’s monologue. A fantasy emerging from nothingness. The viewer wished for the creator’s content. Diverting for a quick word throws the viewer off. Yet the explanation of the commodity in positive thoughts denotes the cause for the viewer. One he can buy and feel closer to the creator. The object of concern is the commodity’s linkage to the creator’s sponsorship.   

Advertised content is to objectify the narrative. To find an affinity to the cause. Old ads still ring true. A billboard for a law firm with the number beneath inquires of a passerby to call if need be. Placed for exposure and for those in need to be stricken by the ethos of the title. Looking confident and accountable to assist. With people watching television, ads take the motion picture stage. Ads pop up all over websites. Finding ways to grab the viewer’s attention. The ability to stay away from ads: good and bad is highly difficult if not impossible. Even ad free websites find loopholes for small additions. Scrolling a page will spot random ads to catch amazement and desire. There is no prior thought. The ad cultivates a non-desire into a desired commodity. Look away quickly to not be charmed by its gaze. It is the catchy slogan with image personality that reels the viewer in. Look away quickly. The object of desire is that which is scanned upon lengthly. Eyes cannot avoid the ads but they can be trained to forget. The desire only maintains if the eyes focus on the ad. Focusing away from the ad can be of assistance. Focus on the article or skip the ad on the screen. Ads are energies thrown in the face for something to stick. Relaxing and concentrating elsewhere will surpass the visual encounter to a condensed acceptance of ad-less reading. The pandering ceased and stoic build firm.

Human Nature

By: Jonathan Seidel

Orality and laconian real and hyperreality 

Lacanian real embodies a spiritual unknown in the depths of human reality. Reality is run by symbolic representation to signify objects. Language is a construct of interpretation. Signs are models of socially constructed communication. Yet the real manifests behind the veil of social experimentation. The real is stable and neutral in its professed perpetuity. Yet the real is universal. It transcends the modalities dividing human collaboration. It unifies humanity in connective maturity. 

A world fragmented by otherness is burdened to dispel us-them paradigms. Slogans and billboards highlight the difference evident in human objectification. Even if we were all blind, we would find variance. Our tribalistic tendencies would not vanish without sight. Our ears would pick up on the vocal divergences and place the lisps in a camp. Those who pronounce words differently or with a horrid accent would be divided. Even to remove all sensory qualities. To be a lame deaf mute would be “less than human” but primitive as may be avails any sense of otherness. Yet such a figure is a vegetable unable to calculate for himself the presence of otherness. By virtue of recognizing something beyond himself with faculties beyond himself would trigger otherness tribalism if possible. 

Humanity is destined to designate detriment. To find fault in others. A scapegoat for his own inadequacy. Absent accountability, he lives blissfully. Radically abrasive in his own insecurities musters opposition to disagreements. Hiding in his own shadow. Commonalities to shield his own uniqueness as a target of denigration. Finding comfort in conformity. Constructing false personas to fit an agenda. To fit a paradigm foreign to the self. Boxing in personal credentials to make others comfortable. At the expense of the self. Not doing any favors. The result is a discombobulated unrecognizable self. Coercing self appraisal in hope of external acceptance. 

Signification is culturally relative. Language is a privatized personalization. A communitarian hub of social cohesion. Man eclipses the difference verbally. He transforms from primitive to cognitive. The elemental connection mutually advances with sonic synchronization. The ability to communicate aligns thoughts and intent. It professes a singularity capturing the binary linkage. To connect us through qualified symbolism. Though language can be weaponized to divide it is the sole mode of enunciation. We relate to the world via this common verbalization. It enables briefs to be pronounced and properly understood. Silence hinders such a capability.

Language is a social construct embedded in human ontology. Man’s inclinations are surreal in the presence of absolute liberty. Yet he is a slave to his desire. Stooped in an egotistical battle, he fancies societal implications. He is told by the uneducated what is important and works to achieve these means. A checklist to complete in a lifetime. Aspiring to be the film fiction character charming the audience. The protagonist manipulates the masses to seek mundane matters to complete the self. A way of life for all man. Such influence is endemic and toxic. As if Hollywood is tactically puppeteering society. An elitist cabal of sorts with unimaginable power and influence.

Film has played a big part on people’s conception of life. Trying to turn their lives into video games. Wishing to be those characters in real life. Fiction is translated into reality in its merited appropriation. Yet film is not the first menace but the most prudent. While novella discusses hypotonic plot lines, the imaginative clause keeps a fictional basis to it. There is an element of uncertainty. Film tricks the mind. It presents fiction as fact, the illusionary are real. People who lie for a living are the pinnacles of excellence. Their constant media and central focus captures their deep importance to the people. Their voice carries unsolicited weight in the minds of their listeners. The public’s admiration for such shadiness is despicable.

Role models and fame have been confused. The wise are no longer the older generation but the liars. Those who change their minds each and everyday. Those who cannot properly provide a legit political point. Just pundits with excuses. An irritating selfishness consuming society. The greedy elites pass on their corrupted living tips down to the masses. Mind boggling does not begin to explain the dire situation. Taking advice from repeated talking points. Inverse psychology provide relief to the public’s self image. The pubic believes in their own free will but such ideological motivation was predetermined via hypnosis. It was planted in the mind by a clever magician. A spectacular ruse that has ensnared almost everyone. The few proud escapees fled waking up from the matrix.

Wealth is power. It has always been and may always be. Wealth provides access. Especially in our technologically advanced world a handful of people can attain the results unbeknownst to the masses. To afford special privileges places one in a category of their own. Work costs money and for the right price anyone can be sold. Money is necessary so are aesthetics. If money is important it ought to be used wisely. To spend on materialistic nonsense is illusionary. When the masses are hypnotized to believe that price means speciality. It also means scarcity. The way something looks and successfully advertised redirects the public’s attention toward stuff as the object of importance.

The ego needs to be acknowledged. Some clever capitalists brainwashed the public to believe that certain stuff is more important. Not just important but to save face in society. Encumbered by peer pressure, we need to satisfy the status quo. Obsessed with respect. Such respect apparently is joined with conformity. The outcast is the outlier. Fall in line or be scorned. Do what is expected of you. How dare you be unique and isolate from the preferred standards. Trends are set by trendsetters. There is no positivistic apparel (except wool and leather). Kennedy was a trendsetter. As a national icon even a global one he took a step back and decided not to wear a hat in office. Though unofficially ended in the 20s, the most powerful man not wearing one meant something. 

Many trendsetters are unaware of their influence. Their goal is not to coerce the masses. People have their fashion agendas but their power is in their publicity. As icons they carry major weight. Their profound wisdom is a subjective opinion. A declarative statement. When the unintentional becomes a living reality. The trendsetter is long gone. The link is marred by social approval. The trendsetter lights the match and it spreads like wildfire. The forest is frozen in place watching in horror as the fire consumes it whole. Some trunks survive the blaze but clinging to little life remains. Alone trying to stand tall amidst the terminal depressive loneliness. Mass hypnosis cannot easily be overpowered. Immunity to the toxin is with the antidote. Internal dialogue and introspection can formally bewilder the self past the illusionary trend. 

Foucauldian power argues for immanence of power. It is force relations or connections not hierarchical power. The continued democratic liberalism persists in this binary feature. The Marxist oppressor is presented in the intersectionality of excessive victimization. Placed in categories by privilege: race, nationality, and gender. People do weaponize their afforded liberties but presenting this dynamic further divides the people. The stigmatization of groups by virtue of biology is an unfair characterization. Stereotypical normatively furthers false meta-narratives. Agenda driven oppressed people reinforces systemic discrimination. There are bad eggs but the illusion of tyrannical targeted tragedies is gravely mistaken. There is no nationwide pogrom destined to wreak havoc. 

Strawmanning people by their genetic makeup attacks their ontology. Privileges provided are less the reality and more the fiction. Yet this fiction becomes reality the more it’s preached. The more discrimination is pronounced the more ire is returned. Race becomes the central focus of relationship. It becomes the centre of one’s being. It deconstructs the entire premise of MLK’s thinking. There are obvious issues but introducing a racial ideology is less a protest and more a revolution. It’s not imperfection but eternal damnation. One side is fated to mistreat and misjudge the other. There is no reconciliation and so the sole solution is to mark that inferiority and divisive failure.

Apologists stand tall fortifying their decaying wall. Jericho will fall. The system must be preserved. The core to protected. The market is pure and the misfortunes are incidental and consequential. It happens, such is life. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Everyman for himself in the world of economic elevation. It is only money, there are more important values to be honed. Not everyone is born on equal footing. Not every plate is provided the same quantity of produce. A rat race to the bottom is a disfigured monstrosity on display. A competition that cares little for the humanity itself. The ontological notions of enlightenment are thrown down the drain in the pursuit of the defensible core. 

The mantras of old need to be revamped. Their impact ought to be actively endorsed. A monolithic echo chamber of archaic dogma to surplus the very freedom supported. The ideas embedded in the national consciousness to be partially implemented. Only permit that which follows the partisan thinking. Freedom is limited in its care for the concerned. It's restriction not against tyranny but against social independence. Hypocrisy stirs in the light of an agenda he has sought. A seeming selectivity for his goals. Preach the old ideas while muttering the enlightenment ideals. Prioritising when it pleases the desire. 

Impossible harmony encircles the unyielding power dynamic. The frame game constructs this stumbling reality. Stooped in propagandizing the perceived reality is tainted with tribalistic division. Relations falter as appearances take the primary seat over attributes. Our instinctive reactions rationalize immediately and classify by surface information. The deeper experience is voided by semantics. No longer is the unique internalized as an individual amongst himself but as a group with baggage. Identification is a yellow star on the chest announcing one’s affiliation. The land of opportunity is regulated to some fortunate. The goal isn’t to forget the disparity but not base it in dogmatic quotations. It’s a mechanical issue not an ontological one.  

Liberation from the tragic horrors of the past radicalizes into a beast bound for nowhere. A false eden on the horizon deluded by euphoric toxins. The flood gates are opened and all is wiped away. The walls crumble en route to the palace of secrecy. Rules are outdated and are to be voided. Anarchic tendencies fuel the rage of the liberators. Mechanical alterations are not sufficient and the broken piece needs to be replaced. A new world order is necessary to refashion the corrupted society. The socialized rules are no longer relevant nor capable. The revolution must prevail over the archaic limits. 

Symbolic representation is clouded social construction. Relativism at its very best. Buying into the ideas that fit the selfish stream. It is all encased in a matrix of desire. A will of encoded DNA bound to entertain the agenda paved for him. His fate was set. Without any block nor obstacle his mind will never change. His perception if fixed, fixated on the diabolical other. The social order is imprinted into a circus of ideas. Each side defending their post never wishing to put down their arms. The real stands beyond angelic and untainted. Yet the symbolic seducer shuts the greyish eyes for robotic continuation. 

Inflected Love

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wife resembling mother: Oedipus complex as a desire of comfort and values transferred 

Oedipus complex is an inappropriate lust for one’s mother. The myth tells of a prophecy that a son would marry his mother. He was shunned and almost killed. Exiled he became a warrior. He killed a man in battle and eventually married his widow. The man was his father and the widow his mother. The prophecy came true and his fate sealed. One message is the power of fate. Fate cannot be overhauled no matter how much one tries. Any divergence will be realigned in the long run. It is inevitable do not try to outrun such destiny.

Freud explained this on a psychological level. For him, the myth had a deeper sexual meaning. He believed that it was man’s desire to kill his father and sleep with his mother. A jealously for his mother’s love and a desire for her. A rationally disgusting feeling but one meted in the unconscious. While man may not act on this, there is a fantasy laced in the unconscious that secretly wishes this. Sexuality is keen to a menacing fault. It is a destined reaction in the masculine hierarchy.

Negative associations are predicated on the unwarranted fantasy. A repressed desire. Freud fails to explain why this occurs or when this occurs, only what it means. To answer the first question in beginning to reimagine this myth. Freud may be onto something. Accordingly, this is a part of human prerogative. Yet for what reason does this emerge? Does a son have something against his father? Is this a new form of rebellion? Is there just an innate infatuation with one’s mother? Freud may be correct that this is intrinsic but it may not be for the reasons he assumes.

If anything, it is only inevitable as a reciprocal response. There may be a competitive male spirit. Gotta outshine dad. Though it also may dwell in the innermost sanctum of human relation. A mother is the closest female link a son has. While his father has been slaving away at his job, his mother has cared for him tirelessly through his young life. The closest companion he has is his mother. The whole idea of a momma’s boy is indicative of a deep honed respect for a son’s mother. A principled reciprocation for the care she has bestowed him. This isn’t star-crossed lovers but a one-sided desire. Unrequited love undesired from one side of the aisle. A taboo resting on the unsolicited, unintentional and yet deeply desired. 

An ethical foundation caught in a spiraling dilemma. I love my mother but it is just wrong. Beyond the legal and divine issues, the intuitive and rational deductions spell disaster. My mother is my father’s wife, she is the woman who birthed me. Such illicit compromises utter gross contempt. The moment feels peaceful but afterward crawls in disgust. The infatuation fantasizes but for a brief moment. Ecstasy in the dubious absurd. Reflecting on the desired insanity. A stimulated assault on the social fabric and familial hierarchy. The moral standard is squashed by a love deeper than a creeper on the street. Justified in the emotional longing for a woman who has showed him such grace. Fantasizing a woman who has loved him his whole life. He is not neurotic but happily inebriated by the woman who raised him. 

A son’s love is monstrous in the ethical continuum. Boundaries are necessary. Yet his love is not exploitative nor deranged. He is simply returning the favor. He has received her love for so long. Caring for him through his childhood. His feelings heightened by the enduring emotional linkage. The love is mutual even if imbalanced. Intimacy is the subjective genre insidiously overjoyed by the son while purely manifested by the mother. Intentions are asymmetric. The mother is doing her due diligence to raise her son but the affection is like no other for the son. Such care is unique embroiling a deep emotional longing for his mother.

Despite the moral qualms, the inevitability on the Freudian side carves an “animalistic” lust to be overcome with rationality. He does not desist from divulging the ripe age this feeling emerges. A feeling double knotted to his ontology. There are a few possibilities: toddler, grade schooler or teenager. A toddler may endorse these feelings but on a more superficial level. For the toddler, he is slowly weaning off of mommy’s breast milk. Spending all his time with his mother. His closeness turns patriotic. His father is his competition, fighting for his mother’s affection. The biological format recognizes the presence of another man who wishes for his mother’s attention. Acting instinctively, he looks to his mother for superior recognition. A brief skirmish that vanishes as independence and cognitive capability develop. 

The toddler’s usurping attempt is cute with little consequences. Yet the grade schooler’s resurgence is his puberty stage. His rational intellect meets the irrational emotions. He begins feeling for others. Strong emotions for others. Hypersensitive to their actions. Uncontrollable yet directive. It is upon this maturity that his taboo re-enters the frame. The first love is his mother. He has matured and returned home. Seeing his mother in a whole new light. His emotions clouding the moral apathy. Desiring an intimate connection with the woman who provided him everything. Crushes are one-sided. Yet this crush is unique. There is a mutual connection but the magnitude is asymmetric. A crush harmonizes the fantasy of another. The greatest other is his mother. Never going to happen and yet creeping through his mind.

Maturing grade schoolers are no experts in consolidating their feelings. They are fleeting expressions of nurturing development. Sexuality and hormones are regular assets. Women become prospected mates. The closer in vicinity becomes the foremost target. Unrealized feelings with an uncertain exposure. The mother becomes the first victim of this unknown. Yet the childish notion holds the simple emotion closely. Teenagers grasp the intimate act. Feelings are processed through expression. Sex is the ultimate expression of love and desire. The son who wishes to fuck his mother is clinically insane. Yet given the gradual affection received, it is no wonder the sexual affinity is produced. Whether it is acted upon or not, is of little relevance. The mere thought is cascaded with years of attention and consideration. Teenagers up the ante. Thoroughly enacting the sexual product into the feeling.

What does this all mean? If Freud is correct, this is genetic. It is a human response to the biological drive for reproduction and communion. Instinctively, toddlers challenge the paternal ownership, grade schoolers feel immature singularly emotions and teenagers desire the fulfillment of the act. The mother is an increasingly central influence on the son. His reciprocity is a direct reaction to her care. Asymmetric but understandable given the immaturity. In the Freudian view, this isn’t wrong nor weak. Though in this further analysis, it is a natural response to enteral love imbalanced. A misunderstanding of intent or a misconstruing of intent. The biological markers may rearrange the intent to fit with a desired outcome. To be loved accordingly.

It thus no shock that sons marry girls that remind them of their mother. Whether the son is aware of his wife’s similarities or not. Some may be superficial others much deeper. The son redirects his affection for his mother to a girl. A girl that reflects his mother. Whether in values or interest. He can’t be with his mother so he must cultivate a clone. A companion that comforts him and cares for him in the same way of his youth. She need not be identical but provides the same mechanisms. It is beautiful even if somewhat gross. It is a familiarity motto. His mother was the closest woman now his wife is. His wife is his projection of his mother. 

He has left the home, left his mother. Accepted his father has won. Respectfully thanking his father for teaching him how to find a wife. His father is no longer a rival but a sage. Finally seeing his old man’s genius. He searches for a woman like his father before him. Crediting his father with the correct attributes that landed his mother. Meeting a girl that represents his old life that can build a stronger network. The famous lines in Genesis reflect this: “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his life and they shall become one flesh”. Leaving his home to begin a new one is transitional. He takes from his old place to his new place. His wife is a stranger but the matured seeker finds camaraderie in her values. Isaac brings Rebecca into his mother's tent loving her finds comfort after his mother's death. A stranger as of minutes ago is altered in his eyes. Lonely, grieving and struggling in her absence is comforted by a new woman resembling his mother. 

How much of this is genuine? Not entirely certain. Do all sons wish to fondle their mother? Does this depend on the level of relationship? Does this work inversely with daughters to their fathers? Just because there is probably an extensive porn channel does not mean this is common. It may be a weird fetish. Maybe this applies to incels or extreme momma’s boys. There was a scene in Modern Family where Lilly wishes to marry her father Mitchell. An obvious cute ploy for a daughter princess to ask of one her fathers. Yet Manny’s relationship with Gloria is respect and love. It may depend on the relationship. If it is a natural condition it may explain girls with daddy problems. Searching for that missing comfort elsewhere. It is possible this condition is subconscious just acting impulsively.

Nonetheless, beyond the gross collaboration and messy desires there is some psychological explanation. The myth may stem from more allegorical Piaget development than an actual fated message. This also goes beyond Freud’s sexual primacy. It is not sex but relation. Comfort and concern. Even if Freud is correct about the ontological notion he is wrong about the rationale.

Despised Heroes

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Anti-semitism and Batman: use and scapegoat 

After the second Batman movie, The Dark Knight, batman is disgraced. Seen as a dangerous vigilante who couldn’t save Gotham. Batman takes the fall for Dent’s change of character to the twisted two-face villain. Honour salvaged by Batman’s self sacrifice. His tainted image follows the inverse experience of the medieval Jew. Brought in to save and then scapegoated when things grow problematic.

Batman is a revered hero. A vigilante who saves the city. Yet he is beloved insofar as he is necessary. He is called upon when people are in dire need. A requested assault to protect the innocent. Standing up for the downtrodden. Yet he is a menace. A scary and scarring figure. A bat shaped costume with extensive military training. A man on a mission but a mission not always requested. He claims to fight for those who can’t fight themselves but he does so out of personal ambition. He is not always requested and yet he comes.

Vigilantism is ill regarded. Law and order are necessary. Acting outside even for better results is only a temporary victory. The commonality can lead to a disastrous outcome. His rage and outlandish activity is the breaking of Dent’s sanity. Joker is the cause of Dent’s disfigure but is also Batman’s insistence. Dent is a ploy in Joker’s game. A vigilante who fails to toe the line will get others killed. One caught up in a grudge match will end up with bodies surrounding him. As long as he is successful he is praised. He keeps people safe they love him. He rides or dies on this motto. If he fails his stock falls. 

He has placed himself in a category of impossible perfection. The expectation is enormous. Taking on the criminal enterprise alone. While he does not openly claim to stop crime, his actions speak for themselves. People gravitate towards a saviour. This gravitation is coupled with an expectation. Trust conjoins the victim and the up stander. Failing to succeed is a major blow to confidence and faith. His ability to save Gotham at the end of the first and third movies make him into a hero. Yet the two endings have vastly different criteria. In the third movie, he is the ultimate paragon. He is immortalised and is free from criticism. His death marks a symbol and a fond memory never to be tarnished. The first movie is a part of the journey. The victory is temporary to his ensuing challenges. The victory spawns resistance for the one lunatic willing to stand against him. His presence permits criticism and symbolism. 

It is this open possibility that lends itself to the shifting like to dislike; from hero to enemy in the third movie. Defeating the Joker pales in comparison to Dent’s death. Murdering a beloved hero. A relatable figure fighting for justice is beyond reproach. He went too far and his symbolism shattered. No longer was he a hero but a villain. He was grouped with criminals. Bringing kingpins to justice was insufficient. Batman himself is tortured by his declining image. His body and soul broken. He allows his mind to distort his bodily autonomy. A tattered soul accepting the malice to his esteem. A distraught saviour enduring the destined ineptitude. 

It was all based on a lie. Batman took the hit for Dent’s corruption. To salvage his image and the people’s faith in the system, Batman became the villain. Gordon haunted by this truth wrote it down but failed to ever publicise it. Bane eventually does and trust is overwhelmed and betrayed. Dent’s legacy is tarnished within minutes of the secret’s exposure. Batman is exonerated but vanquished. His soul still wounded. Losing to Bane with an unresolved will. The symbolic hero is undermined needing a replacement. Batman’s death is the clear transition to a worthy hero. No secrets. A saviour open to the public for all to witness his incredible heroism. 

Batman is a prophet. His vigilantism mocks the corrupted social order. Hellbent on bringing justice. His words cut through the corrupted axis. People respond in dismay. His actions bring about change to the system. Fighting with the criminal giants. Displaying their sacred weapons to overpower the enemy. Their divine words to push the corrupt back. Elijah’s words are rejected. He defeats the false prophets at Mount Carmel. The people recognise there and plead for mercy. The following day, Jezebel the arch criminal, orders his death and the people betray him. His words fall on deaf ears without considerable change. Which is where Josiah’s revolution stands. The criminal underworld is overturned with prophetic and regal collaboration just like Gordon and Batman.  

In many ways this resembles the medieval Jew. Brought by the monarch to save the country. Economic expertise to raise the livelihood. Thriving to raise the country’s standards. A good life short lived. Protection from the monarch short lived. Agitation grew from the public and the monarch chose to exile the Jews he had invited. Agitation developed as the public grew richer. The king’s selfish priority rested on wealth benefits insofar as the public remained calm. Once the uproar enraged and the Jew’s had completed their job, they were left powerless and isolated. An obvious ploy for self aid with temporary benefits.

The Jew was the monarch’s saviour not necessarily the people’s. Unaroused by his workings and successes. Yet his benefits were worthwhile for the short term. Even befriending and socializing. Yet soon the scorn resurfaced. His difference exploited. He returns to his outcast nature. He is no longer the protector Batman but the villainous scum. Beloved for a singular moment caught up in the illusion of routine. A statesman with personified praise. Quickly dismantled at the realization of betrayal.

His introduction is murky. His presence unknown. He lives in the shadows. His aid is tremendous. Who is the saviour. Who is strengthening the city. The Jew claims this title. He promises to aid the city. To lift the impoverished up. He excels and the people love him. He is accepted by the bunch. Then disaster strikes. His true face revealed. He is a monster preying on Christian children. Exploiting them to the extreme. A villain with a cunning strategy. All faith in him is lost. An ally lost to an enemy. He didn’t become two face, he always was. Dent was a cover up. Slowly his closeness of ally to enemy descends to the borders. His resolve tainted to remote foreignness. The monarch blames him and he is “Gordoned”. Scapegoated for the monarch’s selfish image. 

The Jew progresses through the stages. He begins as a skeptical outlier. Becoming part of the peoplehood. Only to decline in the favor of saving face. The monarch takes credit for the Jew’s success. His fall from grace is intuited to his conniving demeanor. There is no appeasement. The former friend Dent is truly a monster. He ousts the Jew as the devil. Two face emerges from the corrupted nexus the Jew has built. The monarch paranoid and burdensome turns on the Jew. Vigilantism is rejected by the public. The Jew suffers from his royal insurance. The king knows but shuts his mouth turning a blind eye to the riots. Dent is the Christian economy bound by law and religiosity. One fatal mistake or realization of the Jewish agenda flaunts rebellion. Gordon does not stand for his ally. Instead he remains silent passively blaming the Jew for his aid. 

It is easy to scorn the other. The remoteness of the Jew. He is an outcast in a religious society. For all his good, the imperfections slowly catch up with him. He is hung out to dry. The blame officially placed on him. Rewarded for his efforts but uproar is inevitable. He will slip up with subsequent attacks demurring any fortification from his friend. No support or protection from his fateful friend. Promises broken and deals undermined. The mask of the Jew is dark and gloomy. He does not wear the bright stripes of Superman. The sunny day positivity. The Jew has no power but skillful art. His ingenious methods enable his success. Yet it is his abilities that are his biggest threat. His success lay at the cusp of annihilation. A foreign figure outcasted and abandoned.

Batman refuses to remove his mask. The Jew cannot. The public must remove their blinders. It is their glasses that are tainted. The Jew is a human before he is a Jew. He is Bruce Wayne. A Gothamite like so many others. Being before belonging. The Jew is an indelible investor to society. The Jew refuses to denounce his selfhood. He will not convert from pressure. His mask is his essence even if it utterly unacceptable. He is made a caricature of his true identity. His mask alienates him but provides the capacity to assist. Struggling but searching. 

Local Lenses

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

The spectacle of travelling: sights and everyday routine

Travelling abroad is a hobby. Seeking the famous sights to picture and capture. Seeing another place is intriguing and fun. With limited time, certain areas are designated. Historical relics take precedence. Prime time areas are crowded with tourism. Trying to learn the history and culture from engagement. Walking around with a guide to show the way. Yet frequently left out are the alleyways. The random outlets not found on classic websites.   

Travelling is a spectacle. The desire to see another culture is generally derided for a beautiful hotel on the outskirts of the city. Ordering in food and spending time by the beaches. The intent is bound by the location. Cyprus is a destination for relaxation and enjoyment. The back city historical landmarks are secondary to its sandy beaches. Seasonal visitations find accommodations while the winter months are deserted. An area with a coastline finds more tourism in kicking back than actually getting a feel for the land itself. Beach culture is its formal mission. Visiting areas solely for the oceanic experiences. Avoiding the native aspects for the luxury.

Another inadvertent reason is the party scene. Nightlife is a good excuse to visit a specific area. The landmarks are corollary to the eventful bars and clubs. Bypassing the museums exhibiting the long history for a good time. Dressing up for a scene so prevalent in most countries. While the visiting county has a nuanced culture the party culture does match most western countries. It may be more loose and persistent but the expressive agenda is mimicked throughout. The irony does shine in its reflective axis. There is an exposure to more extensive nightlife with the unique native spin but the specific haul is not exclusive nor redundant.

Leading to the genuine tourists. Those who travel to learn. Those who wish to frame the historical landmarks. Wandering through museums. Folks who truly wish to study the visiting country. Spending their days hopping from place to place. Ensuring they see tripadvisors top places to see. Fondling through the list to cover the entire basis. Committed to the craft. Endearing to supplement journey with the classic must sees. Finding a local tour to educate or buying tickets to the museum to get a deeper appreciation. The city is seen and reflected. Camera rolls fill the instagram page. The city is covered in a few days. Each area traversed and conquered.

The final group are those who ascend to pay for more luxurious outings. Renting a guide to see beyond the classic sights. Places only possible with an organizational backdrop. Events include breweries and monasteries. In many bigger countries these are the trips outside the main city. In Barcelona it would be Costa Brava and Paris it would be Champagne. Yet in Cyprus it was the old city of Pathos. For the latter it falls into the first group accompanied by limited transportation and such travel is mitigated. Concerning the former areas, the main hub branches out to other historically popular areas. They could be visited independently but the main city receives the tourists and then groups are dispatched to visit the out of town.

Each of these categories misses the most simple of experiences: the simple walk. Caught up in the fancy and flourishing, the cobblestone alleyways and hole in the wall cafes are simply ignored. The local experience is negated. The tourist is a tourist and will visit tourist sights. The goal is to see the big and old not the routine boring. Even the nightlife has its own uniqueness that marvels against the daily work affairs of locals. Observing their routines and monitoring their priorities. The spectacle of the classy areas encourages centricity for tourism. Souvenir shops set up along the main walkway just waiting for pesky tourists. Planning to ambush them with chotskies. A store selling I love x country is pandering. The whole mindset is whitewashed with requirements.

Normal is tedious. Grand trips and fun adventures capture the passion and direct it. Prevalent in the classical models compelling the historical advertisement. Diverting from such ecstatic benefit muddles the possible experience. Camera angles of random streets does not hold the same weight as the off shaded road. The lack of historicity and emblem deregulates its prowess. A routine for the average native is a waste to a visitor. What is relevant is the core of the natives history not the native’s presence. What his ancestor’s achieved not his current dilemma. 

Strolling to the streets is a naive attempt. It fails to capture the city. The history is what makes the city. The incredible landmarks and vast culture. Yet what is culture workout walking in a native’s shoes. What is really taking in the city if the alleyways are not followed. Observing the city holistically is stepping beyond the named sights and their lavish endurance. There is a strong pull to experience but it is parcel of elaborate exploration. To truly experience is to act natively. Though the language may be quite foreign. Enjoying a coffee at a local cafe in the strongest obscure tongue is a starting point.

Tourists gravitate toward the memorial aspects. The structures that consume the curious adventurer. The spectacle is encased in periodic proportional elements. New York is more than just Manhattan and more than just the city. Philadelphia is more than the Liberty Bell and Rocky’s statute. Every location has a tenuous relationship with certain areas. Time Square is jam packed as is the Statue of Liberty. The tourist grows lost in the larger iconic aspects losing the local experience. As simple as walking around the city grabbing a hotdog from a street vendor and resting in central park. The spectacle ought to be mirroring the local hero.

Historicity does have its merits but when it becomes the sole rationale for travel, the icon and not the location are focused. The spectacle of Six Flags bypasses much of middle Jersey. Icons are more enigmatic and popular. Everyday life is boring and yet identifying with it manifests an enamored  spirit. What differentiates locations is not the icons but locals. The icons are stale relics. Models of a bygone past. Relishing in what was. Yet the hyper focus on the relics closes the eyes to distinguished people and the ears to a foreign terminology. The spectacle undermines outsourcing to the vibrant present.

Tasting difference is the foundation of human experience. There are numerous arc de triumphs. Each city has their docile structure and their fabulous museum. Each is a little different but all serve the same purpose. A unique landmark from the native city. Yet, routine while the most categorically symmetrical is the most concretely asymmetric. The way language and culture manifest is a musical arrangement so foreign to the natives next door. Even in a globalized world with Coca-Cola and McDonalds covering every city, the cities still possess their own cultural expression unifying their evolution. Something only to be truly captured on spontaneous strolls down the mediocre streets, the unbeaten tourist path. The park following the locals to their hub.

So long as a tourist draws directly to icons he is forever a visitor. He is a scientist only wishing to observe from afar. He does not wish to engage solely to study. He plays it safe in his hotel. The inflector recognizes the foreign nature. A backpacker in the center of town just trying to get a feel for the city. A tourist wishing to rid himself of such stigmas. Mirroring the locals he “blends in”. He is a foreigner but he is justly attempting to glide into the natural habitat. Reflecting the present locality determines the breeched matrix. Choosing to identify with this population instead of using their icons for social media or knowledge posts.