Lisa Khadaran
Blossay Pt II
5.9.2011
W.C. 2209
Mentoring - Audience and Character Interactions
For my final project, part two of my blossay, I wanted to write on the role of mentorship in the texts we discussed in class. Even though these are Japanese texts, I still thought it'd be pretty awesome to study mentorships because it's a topic that bridges both American and Japanese cultures. Understanding what it means to learn from each other allows for us to be better able to communicate with our peers, and to reach out and feel comfortable about building a communicative relationship. I think an important part of the mentorship process is communication, and, after careful consideration, I decided to divide mentorship into three different categories. Now, it's important to understand first, before reading this, that mentorships don't always have to be a positive experience - rather, it is our cultural understanding of what we prefer them to be, but mentorships can just be relationships where at least one person in the party learns. It doesn't have to be a negative or a positive experience, but rather an experience where the characters can take away from the experience something, and in turn, so does the audience. The three categories I divided the mentorships we discussed in texts were a positive mentorship, a negative mentorship, and a mutual mentorship.
The texts that I thought had positive mentorships were in Astroboy, The Family Game, and Kneel Down and Lick My Fee. I define a positive mentorship as where the mentee positively grows from the relationship they enter in, with who is usually, an older, more worldly adult (or at least older, figure).
POSITIVE MENTORSHIPS:
In Astroboy, I think that there is a positive mentorship. The adults that Astroboy is the the ward of take care of him differently. The first adult, Dr. Tenma creates Astroboy as a replacement for his son who died in a car crash. Now, even though Dr. Tenma doesn't create Astroboy with really the right intentions, and instead sees him as someone to mold into his son, doesn't mean he hasn't contributed positively to Astro's developmental growth. Even though Astro is a machine, a robot with limited rights, Dr. Tenma still treats Astro with the respect of his own son. The two are in a content relationship, where Astro can rely on Dr. Tenma as his father and ask for things that a normal little boy could want. Dr. Tenma in return fosters affection with Astro, and by treating him as a boy, his programming begins to respond and better function so Dr. Tenma can have a child. However, the only thing that is preventing this mentorship of Dr. Tenma showing Astro how to be a real boy, is that Astro cannot physically age. Even though some people would view this as a mentorship with negative aspects, I think that this is still a positive mentorship. Dr. Tenma is still able to show Astro how to be a real boy, and even though Astro is not a real boy, the doctor is more dissatisfied that he will never be able to replace his son. Sadly, this gets taken out on Astroboy, and he is sent to the robot fighting place, but I think this is still a positive mentorship. Astro is better able to understand what it's like to be a "human" robot, in a world where there are robots aren't given any equality at all. Dr. Tenma may seem like a horrible person, but in reality, I think he was more disgusted by himself for trying to replace his son, than he was for Astro not able to fully transform into his son.
Paralleling Dr. Tenma, is Professor Ochanomizu. However, the latter mentor to Astro is still much the same as Dr. Tenma. The only difference is that the latter has not lost a son. There is no void to fill, so this mentorship is actually, I believe, a more positive mentorship than what Astroboy had before. However, these are still positive mentorships, because Astroboy has had a positive experience in both; two different men that wanted a son, but were in different positions to realize they wanted different things from Astro as they raised him. Dr. Tenma wanted his son back, while Professor O was able to treat Astro as an individual.
The next text I wanted to look at was Family Game, and the mentorship, because the mentorship between Yoshimoto and Shigeyuki is one of almost paternal/brotherly affection. Yoshimoto, the tutor, is hired by Shigeyuki's family to straighten him up to get into a good high school. His methods are a bit sketchy, but they work, and Shigeyuki is grudgingly moving on up there, or at least trying to, in the class rankings. Now, I think this is a positive mentorship and not a mutual one, because I don't see what Yoshimoto would get out of the relationship besides some comedy gold caused by Shigeyuki being ridiculous. True, Yoshimoto is being bribed by his mentee's father, but in the end, there is no sign that he is actually happy with what he collects. Yoshimoto is like a strange being, that comes and goes, and we really don't know his true purpose in the story but to push Shigeyuki to excel. I think this is primarily a positive mentorship, because Shigeyuki does get some academic betterment out of it. He doesn't have to compete for Yoshimoto's attention, so he benefits from having someone besides his coddling mother to smack some sense into him. His brother's attitude towards school is also going downhill, so it's not like he can turn and use his brother as an example on what to do correctly in life, and his father is absent and unable to truly be a pillar that Shigeyuki can lean against. That leaves Yoshimoto, because even though he is attending a poor rate college and is getting paid to spend time with Shigeyuki, there is still no hesitation of his efforts to do his best to help Shigeyuki succeed. There is no other real emotional fulfillment/betterment that I can find him benefiting from, which is why I think it's a positive, and not a mutual mentorship the two are engaged in.
I then looked at Kneel Down and Lick My Feet. I'm sure we can all remember that story. I wanted to use this story as a more extreme example of what a positive mentorship is, because, in the story the older adult narrator is helping out her friend by finding her work. Besides getting a pat on the back for bringing in new blood, the more worldly narrator is getting nothing from having her friend there, but her friend is benefiting. The time Shinobu spends showing her what she does to make money, Chika, the mentee, has a choice on whether or not to stay and continue. She is bettered in a way that she is brought above men in general through the highly, sadistic consensual sexual acts she is/will be expected to engage in. Shinobu showing her this job, and guiding her through it, acting as a big sister without any rewards, is, I think, able to turn Chika back into the woman she once knew that was able to live off herself. It's paradoxical, because the reason Chika wanted extra work was so she could have money to spend on a man. Shinobu was really rather selfless, which is why this is pretty much a one-sided, positive mentorship; Chika is able to better herself through Shinobu's tutelage.
The opposite of the positive mentorship is the, well, a negative mentorship. I think I can only really honestly say that we discussed one of these types of mentorship texts in class, and that was Cruel Story of Youth.
NEGATIVE MENTORSHIPS
For the text that I feel really had negative mentorships, I had to really think whether I was thinking they were negative because the relationships the characters engage in are negative to me, or were they negative to the characters. A lot of what we tend to interpret in text is based on our own knowledge, so I tried to step away and view these two texts to see if I could find any positive mentorships, and not just negative mentoring. First, in Cruel Story of Youth, I really couldn't find any positive mentorships. Instead, the adults that Makoto and Kiyoshi should be looking for direction are irresponsible in that they don't any interest besides what they can take from these two young people. I guess that is another reason for the title of the film, but these adults who are able to engage and guide these two adolescents have not, and for their almost irresponsibility, these two young characters die. I think that having the text end in death defines what a negative mentorship's relationship is. At least, in a positive mentorship, that will never end in death until a character has been able to utilize/acknowledge/reflect on the advice and tutelage their mentor has given them. Death, without doing any of these things, means they will never occur, so this will always be a negative mentorship. These two youthful people were steered away from a path they could have taken to a more exuberant future, which adults were too negligent to guide them along too.
Their needs to be some experienced partner in order, I feel, for the characters in our texts to really be able to engage in a mentorship. However, I think it's interesting that we can look at one text we studied and see a mutual mentorship.
MUTUAL MENTORSHIPS
Kamikaze Girls was the only text I could really link as a mutual mentorship. I feel like it's because we have two characters around the same age, who are in the same socio-economic life, but both have different aspirations. These two girls are able to learn from each other, and are able to bond over things they really don't have in common. Momoko's style is gentle and delicate, while Ichiko is rough and very impatient. I think that these two, as very different extremes in style, are able to come together and understand each other, because the other makes up for what they lack. These two girls are able to fill these lacking parts of their personalities with that of the other, but know still who they are and what defines them. Momoko will always be a sweet lolita, and Ichiko will always be a girl that is seeking freedom on her bike. But, Momoko realizes she can act tough, but still prefers to be a princess, and Ichiko realizes she can have a femininity, but still prefers to ride her bike. These two have a mutual mentorship because the both help each other grow and become better people. This is a positive mutual mentorship. I think we can actually imply that there are mutual mentorships that can be negative too, but I don't recall reading anything that I feel truly defines one. I feel like you'd have to have characters or completely hated each other in order to do so, and that refused to get along at all, and they would have to all die for it to come to an end and be finalized as a negative mutual mentorship.
In conclusion, I think the reason why we see a lot more positive mentorships in the texts that we discussed in class is because, from my understanding, Japan is a society that works on helping other people before helping themselves. Perhaps idealizing positive mentorships in texts can mean that people idealize being in a positive mentorship in their real lives. I feel like being in a positive mentorship is like looking up to someone as a role-model who truly doesn't let you down, even though they are getting little out of it. Now, when I say their getting little out of it, I mean in betterment of them. Sure, people probably go the extra step for monetary reasons, but I think self-fulfillment over monetary reasons as why people want to help others is a much better reason. I hope that makes sense. What I really took from this course is how these character's betterments of themselves could help me be a better person, and I think, that just might have been the message of the majority of the texts all along, no matter what extreme measures had to be taken to show it. Even watching a Cruel Story of Youth, I feel like the film was giving me the message to reach out and not flounder about with life. Perhaps these texts, even though the content can have many types of mentorships in it, are really all just positive messages on how we can better ourselves. In a way, it is like an audience too is involved in a positive mentorship with the medium. I mean, the dvd is most certainly not getting anything out of me watching it, but I can go out with a knowledge of how to change something, or a life lesson.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Blossay Pt. 1 - Redemption
Lisa Khadaran
EAS 314 Final Pt I
5.9.2011
W.C. 1700
Redemption in the Narratives
For my topic, I decided to look at redemption in the narratives that we discussed in class. First, before I began analyzing the texts, I think it would be appropriate to discuss what redemption means versus how the characters achieve it in the texts. These are two very different concepts. The first, what redemption means, is what it means to the characters and what it means to the audience. What, as the audience, do we take from a redemption narrative? Some characters in our texts don't actively pursue their redemption, rather they achieve it through permission of a third party. And, for those that do pursue it, then what actions do they go through in order to be redeemed. Finally, are they truly redeemed? What I mean by this is, does the character accept the redemption, or does the audience need to feel like the character has been redeemed in order for them to be ultimately redeemed? I think that, as an audience, we are part of a character's redemption.
The first text that I looked at was A Cruel Story of Youth. This film was directed by Oshima Nagisa, and centers around two students in the pro-modern movement. I'd like to look at whether or not we can redeem these two main characters, Kiyoshi and Makoto. There is redemption through living and there is redemption through dying. This story, unfortunately, is of the former. In the end, can we say that these two characters are redeemed through their horrific deaths? I think I can say they can, based on my viewing experiences.
In this film, Kiyoshi and Makoto are tragic characters. The audience is almost grows to despise them because they are extreme expressions of tragic youth angst. However, I feel like they are redeemed at the end of the film because of two specific scenes in the film. The first scene(s) is where Makoto's father admits there was a lack of parenting on his end and the interference of Kiyoshi's older lover. Second, the scene where the two characters are discussing what will happen to them in the future. These two characters are the result of the generation before them, as evidenced by the poor direction they are given by the adult figures in their lives. I think that this suits them for redemption in the narrative, even though they don't actively seek out redemption, and it is forced upon them. Ironic, because almost all the other poor choices they have made in life are because they didn't want to deal with things being forced on them. I also think that the scenes where Makoto and Kiyoshi are forced to deal with the older generation are cause for redemption, because I can see them as the new Japan, fighting against the old Japan, and trying to break free from social constraints. This, I think makes them worthy of redemption too, because they are not just rebels then trying to disobey the world without reason, but they are fighters for a new age.
I think that Makoto and Kiyoshi being fighters for a new age, regardless of how unintentionally it is, helps force that these two characters not knowing what to do in their future makes them worthy of redemption. Redemption isn't something that needs to occur simply because the character is bad to begin with, but is rather a change in attitude. I think these characters not knowing what they're doing qualifies them for redemption because death technically is a new attitude, the final form of redemption. Unfortunately, while I felt that these characters are redeemable, and were redeemed through death, not everyone will feel this way. And that is fine. Redemption is defined by different ideas of what is redeemable. Because I think these two are tragic characters to begin with, based on their upbringing and what they stand for in the future, I think they are wholly redeemable characters. But, I think, what is even sadder in the film, is that besides whatever viewer acknowledgement Makoto and Kiyoshi have in a scene I consider their redemption scene, there is no visible character to acknowledge their redemption. Even though I, an audience member, finds them redeemable, there is no reason to believe that other characters in the film will find that in these two deaths there is redemption.
For another example where I think we will never know if the characters were ever redeemed, but are searching for redemption is "White Light; Black Rain." I think this film was one of the saddest texts that we went over; the dismalness of it in the visuals the audience are given makes an already horrifying event, truly even more horrifying. I think though, that there is still redemption in this text, because the characters, who are real-life people, are actively searching for it. The men that aided in dropping the bombs, in this text, contribute their sorrow at the loss of human life, and what they participated in without really comprehending the consequences. I am sad that, while I can assume that maybe Kiyoshi and Makoto are redeemed in the end, but because these are real people, I will never know if they were ever given, granted some sort of reprieve from the guilt that they felt. Real-life tragedy is different from fictional tragedy, which is why I feel we are more readily accepting to redeem those in a fictional setting, than in the former.
Trying to figure out who deserves redemption is very difficult. I mean, an audience can interpret scenes in a film as a character being redeemed, or they don't have to, and just view the text as the author's futile struggle to try and redeem what an audience member sees as an irredeemable character. I think, that if the audience cannot find reason to redeem the characters in a text, then they must look at why other characters would be willing to redeem another character. Another example of this is Fumiko's husband in Ants Swarm. He is, what I consider to be, cruel to Fumiko, and endangers her safety just by coercing her into having unsafe sex constantly, just because he has the will to not have her become pregnant. He is a cold character, in my opinion, but while I find him an irredeemable beast, I'm sure that there are others who would disagree with me. Same with Fumiko; I'm sure there are others who find her unable to find redemption, simply because she is allowing this thin-line of almost abuse to occur. However, I don't think this is a text that relies on the audience for approval for redemption, but rather on the characters redeeming themselves. In fact, their psychotic relationship is almost built on the need for redemption.
Fumiko needs to be told what a horrible wife she is, and needs to be encouraged and beaten so that she can accept her womanhood. But, Matsuda needs a willing partner to beat up, almost as if he needs it to accept his manhood. These two need each other, and while the audience reading the text may not see the redemption that these two give each other and actively seek from each other, it's there in the small detail; the ants in this story represent the bigger part of Matsuda and Fumiko's relationship. Together, they are a strong unit searching for food and cooperatively working together, and they swarm around the meat, which Matsuda used to take care of Fumiko after a hard bout of sex, and Fumiko remarks that those ants haven't tasted sugar sweetness in a long time. I feel that this is a euphemism for Fumiko and Matsuda's relationship - they are purely relying on each other to forgive each other, and not to provide the sweetness that comes from a long-term relationship.
I feel like, for the redemption in these texts, we could either choose to find some way to let a character be redeemed, but there were just some instances where we would never know, like in Cruel Story of Youth and Black Light; White Rain, or we could choose to read into possible redemption when we look at stories like Ants Swarm. I think that must be how Japanese society views redemption as well. We can't just say in certainty that a character has been redeemed, because who are we to really pass whether or not they were redeemed in the end. Sure, some of the possible acts of redemption might need an outside eye to really give a movement to a character's redeeming scene, but I think we also have to look at how other characters feel about redeeming another character. But, if an audience member doesn't believe that a character should be redeemed, then there is no forcing them to acknowledge a redemption, even if characters in the text believe another character or themselves to be redeemed. Truth is, I think that redemption is different for each person, and that is what makes us all unique individuals. I think, too, that redeeming a character is far easier to do than to not redeem one. I think that in Japanese culture, the idea of redemption is a concept that everyone can agree on or disagree on, but regardless of what side is chosen, no one is correct but is correct at the same time. I don't know how much sense this will make for everyone, but as I was examining redemption in these three texts, I could really feel the idea of Mujou. I feel like if redemption happens in the texts it happens, but if it doesn't happen, then it doesn't. Accepting that there is redemption in a story doesn't necessarily make all the characters redeemed, but not accepting redemption in a story also doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.
___________________________
Sorry about the belated post. I really came to try to understand that there were probably many different types of redemption stories in every text we discussed, but that I also think redemption means different things for people. I hope I haven't confused anyone further :/
EAS 314 Final Pt I
5.9.2011
W.C. 1700
Redemption in the Narratives
For my topic, I decided to look at redemption in the narratives that we discussed in class. First, before I began analyzing the texts, I think it would be appropriate to discuss what redemption means versus how the characters achieve it in the texts. These are two very different concepts. The first, what redemption means, is what it means to the characters and what it means to the audience. What, as the audience, do we take from a redemption narrative? Some characters in our texts don't actively pursue their redemption, rather they achieve it through permission of a third party. And, for those that do pursue it, then what actions do they go through in order to be redeemed. Finally, are they truly redeemed? What I mean by this is, does the character accept the redemption, or does the audience need to feel like the character has been redeemed in order for them to be ultimately redeemed? I think that, as an audience, we are part of a character's redemption.
The first text that I looked at was A Cruel Story of Youth. This film was directed by Oshima Nagisa, and centers around two students in the pro-modern movement. I'd like to look at whether or not we can redeem these two main characters, Kiyoshi and Makoto. There is redemption through living and there is redemption through dying. This story, unfortunately, is of the former. In the end, can we say that these two characters are redeemed through their horrific deaths? I think I can say they can, based on my viewing experiences.
In this film, Kiyoshi and Makoto are tragic characters. The audience is almost grows to despise them because they are extreme expressions of tragic youth angst. However, I feel like they are redeemed at the end of the film because of two specific scenes in the film. The first scene(s) is where Makoto's father admits there was a lack of parenting on his end and the interference of Kiyoshi's older lover. Second, the scene where the two characters are discussing what will happen to them in the future. These two characters are the result of the generation before them, as evidenced by the poor direction they are given by the adult figures in their lives. I think that this suits them for redemption in the narrative, even though they don't actively seek out redemption, and it is forced upon them. Ironic, because almost all the other poor choices they have made in life are because they didn't want to deal with things being forced on them. I also think that the scenes where Makoto and Kiyoshi are forced to deal with the older generation are cause for redemption, because I can see them as the new Japan, fighting against the old Japan, and trying to break free from social constraints. This, I think makes them worthy of redemption too, because they are not just rebels then trying to disobey the world without reason, but they are fighters for a new age.
I think that Makoto and Kiyoshi being fighters for a new age, regardless of how unintentionally it is, helps force that these two characters not knowing what to do in their future makes them worthy of redemption. Redemption isn't something that needs to occur simply because the character is bad to begin with, but is rather a change in attitude. I think these characters not knowing what they're doing qualifies them for redemption because death technically is a new attitude, the final form of redemption. Unfortunately, while I felt that these characters are redeemable, and were redeemed through death, not everyone will feel this way. And that is fine. Redemption is defined by different ideas of what is redeemable. Because I think these two are tragic characters to begin with, based on their upbringing and what they stand for in the future, I think they are wholly redeemable characters. But, I think, what is even sadder in the film, is that besides whatever viewer acknowledgement Makoto and Kiyoshi have in a scene I consider their redemption scene, there is no visible character to acknowledge their redemption. Even though I, an audience member, finds them redeemable, there is no reason to believe that other characters in the film will find that in these two deaths there is redemption.
For another example where I think we will never know if the characters were ever redeemed, but are searching for redemption is "White Light; Black Rain." I think this film was one of the saddest texts that we went over; the dismalness of it in the visuals the audience are given makes an already horrifying event, truly even more horrifying. I think though, that there is still redemption in this text, because the characters, who are real-life people, are actively searching for it. The men that aided in dropping the bombs, in this text, contribute their sorrow at the loss of human life, and what they participated in without really comprehending the consequences. I am sad that, while I can assume that maybe Kiyoshi and Makoto are redeemed in the end, but because these are real people, I will never know if they were ever given, granted some sort of reprieve from the guilt that they felt. Real-life tragedy is different from fictional tragedy, which is why I feel we are more readily accepting to redeem those in a fictional setting, than in the former.
Trying to figure out who deserves redemption is very difficult. I mean, an audience can interpret scenes in a film as a character being redeemed, or they don't have to, and just view the text as the author's futile struggle to try and redeem what an audience member sees as an irredeemable character. I think, that if the audience cannot find reason to redeem the characters in a text, then they must look at why other characters would be willing to redeem another character. Another example of this is Fumiko's husband in Ants Swarm. He is, what I consider to be, cruel to Fumiko, and endangers her safety just by coercing her into having unsafe sex constantly, just because he has the will to not have her become pregnant. He is a cold character, in my opinion, but while I find him an irredeemable beast, I'm sure that there are others who would disagree with me. Same with Fumiko; I'm sure there are others who find her unable to find redemption, simply because she is allowing this thin-line of almost abuse to occur. However, I don't think this is a text that relies on the audience for approval for redemption, but rather on the characters redeeming themselves. In fact, their psychotic relationship is almost built on the need for redemption.
Fumiko needs to be told what a horrible wife she is, and needs to be encouraged and beaten so that she can accept her womanhood. But, Matsuda needs a willing partner to beat up, almost as if he needs it to accept his manhood. These two need each other, and while the audience reading the text may not see the redemption that these two give each other and actively seek from each other, it's there in the small detail; the ants in this story represent the bigger part of Matsuda and Fumiko's relationship. Together, they are a strong unit searching for food and cooperatively working together, and they swarm around the meat, which Matsuda used to take care of Fumiko after a hard bout of sex, and Fumiko remarks that those ants haven't tasted sugar sweetness in a long time. I feel that this is a euphemism for Fumiko and Matsuda's relationship - they are purely relying on each other to forgive each other, and not to provide the sweetness that comes from a long-term relationship.
I feel like, for the redemption in these texts, we could either choose to find some way to let a character be redeemed, but there were just some instances where we would never know, like in Cruel Story of Youth and Black Light; White Rain, or we could choose to read into possible redemption when we look at stories like Ants Swarm. I think that must be how Japanese society views redemption as well. We can't just say in certainty that a character has been redeemed, because who are we to really pass whether or not they were redeemed in the end. Sure, some of the possible acts of redemption might need an outside eye to really give a movement to a character's redeeming scene, but I think we also have to look at how other characters feel about redeeming another character. But, if an audience member doesn't believe that a character should be redeemed, then there is no forcing them to acknowledge a redemption, even if characters in the text believe another character or themselves to be redeemed. Truth is, I think that redemption is different for each person, and that is what makes us all unique individuals. I think, too, that redeeming a character is far easier to do than to not redeem one. I think that in Japanese culture, the idea of redemption is a concept that everyone can agree on or disagree on, but regardless of what side is chosen, no one is correct but is correct at the same time. I don't know how much sense this will make for everyone, but as I was examining redemption in these three texts, I could really feel the idea of Mujou. I feel like if redemption happens in the texts it happens, but if it doesn't happen, then it doesn't. Accepting that there is redemption in a story doesn't necessarily make all the characters redeemed, but not accepting redemption in a story also doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.
___________________________
Sorry about the belated post. I really came to try to understand that there were probably many different types of redemption stories in every text we discussed, but that I also think redemption means different things for people. I hope I haven't confused anyone further :/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)