Final Project Proposal

I am going to research gay and lesbian stereotypes in the media and how they are changing. I am going to try to conduct an interview with the head of an Oregon homosexuality awareness group this weekend. The television shows and movies I am planning on using to support my argument right now are “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” “Will and Grace,” and “Brokeback Mountain.” While I am writing my article, I am going to keep in mind the Index for an audience, so I can be clear about whom I am writing to. I want to write about this topic because I have been noticing over the last few years that gay people are being taken more seriously in the media, and I want to explore why that is. I plan on reviewing the movies and television shows I mentioned above to try to find ideas and quotes to bring up in my article and I will discuss them with people on campus.

Oscar's Critical Review

I thought that Eric Wilson’s article on fashion, “The Red (Can’t Go Wrong) and the Black (Sober is so 2008),” was generally clever and well-written. There were a few moments that seemed awkward or like they shouldn’t have been included, though. In an article about Oscar fashion, the entire paragraph devoted to a reporter mistaking the name of Heidi Klum’s designer did not belong at all. The detail about Klum making “a sour face” and saying that her dress had been made by Galliano might have belonged in an article about Heidi Klum, but it had no place in an Oscar fashion review. Wilson also compared Tilda Swinton to Dobby the House Elf, presumably because her dress was shapeless like Dobby’s costume in Harry Potter, but he never explains this reference. I did agree with Wilson in most of the other things that he said—the actors who showed up to the Oscars this year did seem to be lacking in most of their usual daring. Even Cate Blanchett, who can usually be counted on to wear something strange, if not pretty, turned up in a normal-looking blue dress. This year’s Oscars could have been much more exciting if some of the star’s had worn more interesting clothes.

A Thousand Splendid Suns Review

Allison Luthy

Arts Journalism

2/25/08

Women’s Rights in Afghanistan Neglected

In his latest novel, “A Thousand Splendid Suns,” Khaled Hosseini tackles the difficult issues of life in wartime Afghanistan, with clarity and poignancy. Where his previous book, “The Kite Runner,” focuses mainly on male relationships, a complex web of women’s relationships with each other drives the plot of “A Thousand Splendid Suns.”

Born in Kabul, Afghanistan in 1965, Hosseini moved to the United States in 1980 after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He attended medical school in the United States and began writing his first novel, “The Kite Runner,” in 2001 after he had started practicing medicine.

“A Thousand Splendid Suns” is set in Hosseini’s birthplace, Kabul, during wartime Afghanistan. The main characters of the book, Mariam and Laila, are both women who are victims of the terrible circumstances they live in.

Forced to wear burqas in Afghanistan’s sweltering heat and beaten by the Taliban if they are caught outside by themselves, they become fast friends in order to endure the intolerance. The novel follows the progression of their relationship, protecting each other from their husband’s irrational hatred of them, who at one time forces Mariam to chew on a handful of pebbles until her teeth break because she undercooked his rice.

While writing “A Thousand Splendid Suns,” Hosseini picked the title from a Farsi poem about Kabul by Saeb-e-Tabrizi, a Persian poet. “One could not count the moons that shimmer on her roofs,/Or the thousand splendid suns that hide behind her walls.”

Hosseini uses the same themes of guilt and betrayal in “A Thousand Splendid Suns” that he used in “The Kite Runner,” but creates a deeper connection with the characters by showing the psychological effects of what they have witnessed.

The characters are much more realistic because the reader understands their background, elucidating the audience as to why they might do seemingly hateful things. This solidarity with the characters that lacks strength in his previous works becomes overwhelmingly apparent through his vivid descriptions. Hosseini relates scenes, such as the one of Mariam being forced to chew pebbles with painful directness creating the sensations of her teeth cracking. “Then he was gone, leaving Mariam to spit out pebbles, blood, and the fragments of two broken molars.”

Since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, Afghanistan has ratified a new constitution, and allows women to vote or participate in elections as candidates. There are still millions of Afghan refugees trying to get resettled or leave Afghanistan. The United Nations Refugee Agency and Hosseini as one of the UNHCR’s US envoys are continuing to give aid to these victims of the war.

Like the political situation of Afghanistan, Hosseini’s writing is only improving with time. Released in May of 2007, “A Thousand Splendid Suns” is still currently in the top five of the New York Times’ hardcover fiction bestseller list.

Unshakable Optimist of the House of Bhutto

Michiko Kakutani’s review, “Unshakable Optimist of the House of Bhutto,” in the Tuesday Times spent much more time discussing Benazir Bhutto’s life than her recent book, Reconciliation. Although this tactic did allow for a very solid background in the history of Pakistan, which would be discussed in the book itself, I still did not really understand what the book was about by the time I had finished the review. Aside from brief quotes, which implied that the book was written about Pakistani and world politics, the review did a very poor job of informing the readers what the premise of the book was or even whether it was good.

Kakutani’s writing was engaging, beginning with a description of the violent deaths of Bhutto’s family members. His powerful word choice and selection of quotes made Bhutto’s death seem much more poignant. I liked Kakutani’s writing style, even though I never really understood what he was trying to get across through his piece. The article was very interesting, but it read much more as a review of Bhutto than of her book.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Review

Allison Luthy-Kaplan

Arts Journalism

2/17/08

Who’s Afraid of a Facial Expression?

The Whole Art Theatre’s latest production, “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,” fails miserably in its attempt to bring emotional range to the stage, with a four-person cast containing three deplorable actors.

The play’s writing is by far its best element. Edward Albee wrote his play in the same style as a Virginia Woolf novel, if the characters were older and raging alcoholics. The dialogue is delivered in the matter-of-fact, realistic way that characterizes Woolf’s writing, “You’re going to regret this.”

“Probably, I regret everything.”

The two main characters in “Virginia Woolf” are an unhappily married couple, with an embittered history professor as the husband, George, and a sadistic wife, Martha, who mocks him for his lack of ambition. “I hope that was an empty bottle, George. You wouldn’t want to waste good liquor on your salary.”

Most of the play’s humor and plot bases itself in the premise of putting two dysfunctional couples in a room together and seeing who survives the night. The only thing missing from this vicious, incisive setting of verbal attacks is a referee to tell when one of the characters will not be able to stand up again.

The only decent actor in the cast, Richard Philpot, embodies George with a bland cynicism that could start its own British sitcom. The character of George is reminiscent of any undervalued husband who wanders about the house like an abused dog, unable to stand up for himself. Mr. Philpot is hilarious and poignant in the role, muttering such sarcastic phrases as “blood under the bridge” to himself, passive aggressively asserting his authority in the house against his wife.

Martie Philpot tries to play Martha with such excessive drama that she only succeeds in shouting at George with a face void of any expression. Mrs. Philpot often seems more pitiable than her character, for she seems to have been let down by the director, who should have informed her that yelling all her lines does not make her a better actor.

Randy Wolfe, the director, made the additional critical mistake of allowing the play to be performed in a theatre-in-the-round, a convention, which only Mr. Philpot can negotiate. The stage blocking is done so clumsily that the other three actors spend most of their time with their backs to a quarter of the audience. Mr. Philpot constantly moves about the stage, pouring drinks and putting on music, enabling all of the audience to see his face the majority of the time, but he was alone in doing this.

Richard Philpot should go and start his own one-man show where his extraordinary acting talents cannot be let down by another dismal ensemble such as that in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”. The only thing people should be afraid of is not Virginia Woolf, but three hours in a claustrophobic space with some of the worst acting in Kalamazoo.

Writers' Strike Ends

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/business/media/13vote.html?_r=1&ref=movies&oref=slogin

I think it is very good that the writers’ strike is finally over. At the end of 100 days of being on strike, I thought that it was a very good decision on the writers’ parts to vote to end the strike. I am very curious to see what the concessions were that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers made to the writers. All that it stated in the article was that they had proposed a three-year contract and the writers’ guilds had approved it. The author of the article could have made it much more effective by actually informing the reader of whether the writers’ original terms had been met. I was surprised to read that the walkout of only 100 days had cost the writers a collective $285 million in lost wages. It is because of this and the halt on production of television shows that I am so happy to see that the two sides have finally come to an agreement. The writing in this article was decent overall, but the end quote could have been much more interesting and effective.

In Treatment Review

IN TREATMENT REVIEW/ Allison Luthy

HBO SERIES TAKES A NEW LOOK AT THERAPY

By Allison Luthy

“In Treatment,” HBO’s new series about therapy, reuses the old, tired format many other shows follow, but in a way that makes the material seem fresh and interesting. It is essentially the new “Grey’s Anatomy” focused on psychology, with a smaller cast.

Each episode has the same premise—a character goes to Paul, the psychoanalyst, for therapy, or he goes to a friend and gets therapy. In this setup, it is very much like every other medical television show. Someone shows up at the office with a problem and the main character has to figure out what the problem is and fix it before the end credits start to roll.

The plotline is very simplistic and lackluster, but like a simple black dress, it allows its jewelry—the writing and the performances—to seem brighter in comparison. Although the audience knows what to expect in every episode—there will be a person with an obvious problem, which turns out not to be the real root of the problem—the ending always comes as a surprise.

Gabriel Byrne stars in this show as Paul, the psychoanalyst giving therapy sessions. He brings depth and emotion to this seemingly bland therapist. The role, which could have been boring with the wrong actor, is given energy through Byrne’s quietly intent way of talking to his patients. He seems at times like a teacher who already knows the answer to a problem and is trying to help his patients reach it on their own. Byrne’s previous work includes “Vanity Fair” and “The Usual Suspects.”

“In Treatment” offers viewers the unique opportunity to get inside a therapist’s mind. In one episode, Paul comments, “If patients could see what I really think about them, if they could see inside my head—they’d run for the hills." By viewing this show, people can finally breach the gap between themselves and the person calmly taking notes across the room.

The character of Laura helps achieve this effect by confessing her love for her therapist, Paul, putting him under considerable emotional duress. Melissa George who plays Laura with a subtlety befitting someone who is unsure if her love will be requited. Her prior roles include “30 Days of Night” and a recurring role on the television hit, “Alias.”

The premise of “In Treatment” is based off of the Israeli television show, “Be Tipul,” which garnered much approval when it was released in 2005. The plotline of “In Treatment” does seem to drag at times, but the rest of the show more than makes up for it. Hopefully, “In Treatment’s” cast and writers will get the recognition they deserve come next Emmy season.

Oscar Wilde Response

Oscar Wilde’s article, “The Critic as Artist,” makes some very good points showing that the critique of something can be just as much a work of art as the object itself. He points out that a review can still be very creative and well-written even if it is about a lack-luster piece of art. Through most of his article, he seems to be much harder on the regular artists than on the critics. At times, he even seems to dislike the artists. “Anybody can write a three-volumed novel. It merely requires a complete ignorance of both life and literature.” I agree with Wilde in his arguments that critiques can be a form of art in themselves, but I think that he gets carried away in regarding them as better than other art forms. Reviews do sometimes surpass their subjects, but without art there is nothing for a review to be written about. I usually think that actually experiencing something would be more powerful than reading someone else’s opinion of that experience. Overall, Oscar Wilde made sense in why he believed critiques to be art, but I thought that his ideas seemed extreme in many places.

Pauline Kael Critical Review

Allison Luthy

Arts Journalism

2/3/08

Pauline Kael Critical Review

As one of the first film reviewers, Pauline Kael influenced the world of film critiquing legendarily, although her impact on film itself was limited. Kael writes in a manner that at some times seems self-congratulatory and at others seems purely brilliant. Her writing style was unconventional and she even said in Francis Davis’ book, Afterglow, “I was often accused of writing about everything but the movie.” In a review of the movie “Hiroshima Mon Amour,” Kael wrote two paragraphs that actually mentioned the movie, and in the rest of the article merely critiqued the people that went to see it. In this way, she makes wonderful points about the people that go to movies not to enjoy them, but to prove to the world how cultured they are. Her reviews are entertaining (if you are not the one at their mercy), but in many ways she proves herself to be one of the people that she mocks. Kael makes a point of going to “lowbrow” movies and claims to love them more than arts films, but this is really just another way of being snobbish herself. She seems to consider herself above the average moviegoer because she is so adept at seeing through the artistic film fad that they cannot. At the end of the film when everyone else in the art house applauds the movie, Kael is only applauding herself for her miraculous ability not to be taken in by the movie and its audience.

Despite her narcissism, Kael does hold a very important place in film criticism history. She made very atypical choices in the movies that she thought were good or bad. Arguably one of the toughest critics around, Kael even returned to work at The New Yorker after her coworkers published a piece criticizing all of her previous articles. Through all this opposition, Kael continued urging her editor to allow her to review such unconventional material as the pornographic film, “Deep Throat.” She believed that it is important to stay true to what the public is watching, and porn has always been a popular medium. This practice of using film reviews to inform the public of the movies available that they would actually want to see has revolutionized the concept of what criticism should be. Even the New York Times runs reviews of such movies as “Rambo” alongside criticism of the New York City Ballet. Without Pauline Kael’s influence, this might never have happened. This kind of power to change the course of literary history is very mind-altering and much of Kael’s work began to sound conceited. In spite of this, her writing style has always been creative and refreshing and future generations of film critics will continue to look up to her. While it is doubtful that Pauline Kael had as great an influence on film criticism as she would like to believe, she has undoubtedly altered the public perception of what it should be.