Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Set a Place for Elijah
Now that you've left John Malkovich's head and reentered your own, please share the three moments you've selected from the film, the knowledge questions you've extracted, and the other areas of knowledge (including specific examples) to which you've applied them. Please share your thoughts by 9:30 pm on Monday, then read your classmate's work before Tuesday's class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The movie starts with a puppet, but I didn’t know it was a puppet until I saw the puppeteer and the strings in his hands. It suddenly raised a question in my head: How do we distinguish between control and being controlled? I know the puppet is controlled by the puppeteer because I saw the strings, but what if I didn’t see them. Does it mean that they do not exist or I do not realize them? It reminds me of myself in the real world. Although I feel that I am an individual who has my own thoughts, I am inevitably influenced by this society. In fact, my thoughts are sometimes largely shaped by my environment. It is also true in natural science. For example, in Biology class I have learned that there is always a food chain in nature, and I think it as a way of control. Organisms at the bottom of the pyramid are eaten, and thus controlled by the upper organisms. However, upper organisms have no way to fight against natural factors (food shortage, disasters), so that all of them are controlled by the nature. Thus, to what extent do people have control on themselves?
ReplyDeleteThe film tells that people are able to see Malkovich’s mind by going through the tunnel inside the building. During the time in his head, the film uses a different point of view for shooting. My second knowledge question is: to what extent does technology change people’s way to approach knowledge? By using technology, I was able to see different perspectives in the movie, which certainly makes it more interesting. Nowadays, people heavily rely on the use of technology because it helps them to achieve the things they couldn’t before, but does it change how people get knowledge? It is certainly a new way for people to receive knowledge, but it may also influence how people used to approach knowledge. For instance, in the past, I used to hand write all my assignments. Later, I started to type my homework on my laptop, and printed it out. Although I still do that now, I can also simply share my work with my teachers on Google Doc. It shows the advancement of technology, and how it impacts my life. If I think it the other way around, I have also gained new knowledge from the development of technology in contemporary history.
Towards the end of the film, I also came up with another knowledge question: To what extent do people know themselves? The movie explores different areas of a person. For example, Malkovich nevers know that people can control his mind until the very end, and the woman of the couple does not know her sexual orientation until she falls in love with Maxine. It makes me think about the nature of arts. One of arts’ main purpose is to show people’s emotions. However, they are the emotions that the artists want to share, and they are how artists understand themselves or other things. In other words, the art is only one perspective of a person, and it never tells the whole story. It questions the degree of how well people actually know themselves.
When Craig is comparing his puppetry work to Derek Mantini’s
ReplyDeleteTo what extent is our perspective of our own talents manipulated by the greater success of others in the same field?
This can be connected to the arts. In visual art, dance, or music. When you are being compared to another who is at a different level than you are, your mind constantly feels the need to compete with that person and “beat” them. However when you are alone and not influenced by the talents of others in your field you are more likely to go farther, because you are focusing more on yourself and what you need to improve on instead of focusing on being an exact copy of that other person.
Craig’s power over John Malkovich’s body becomes too overwhelming that he can no longer think of accepting not being John Malkovich.
Analyze the effects of power and manipulation when put in the wrong hands.
This knowledge question can be connected to history, and leadership. When the wrong person is given power they do not thin of he people they think of themselves and their own goals. And example of this could be Hitler. He wanted to create a cretin type of German race and wanted to eliminate an entire religious population. He did not have the people of Germany’s will behind his actions. At first he manipulated them into believing that he would do the country right, and in his own mind he most likely thought that what he was doing was right, but I believe tha he never had the honest intentions of the people behind the majority of his reforms.
When Craig comments on how thinking, feeling and being can be considered a curse of being conscious.
To what extent is one in complete control over every action they make.
This knowledge question could be connected to ethics; the moral principles governing or influencing conduct. Everyday we are influenced by those around us, by what they are wearing, what they are eating and how they are behaving. It is by he very nature of humans that we almost never do anything without seeing somebody else doing it first, whether it be once or multiple times. This is related to ethics because since ethics are the moral principles that influence conduct, we are constantly being influenced by others on every action that we make and that is what makes up these moral principles.
In the movie Being John Malkovich, John Malkovich feels although he has been wronged when his brain is exploited for monetary and personal gain. He is upset with the people who organized the trips into his head, and the audience is expected to sympathize with him, to feel sorry for him and to agree with him that Maxine et al should were not right in selling his visions. This brought up an interesting question for me: was John Malkovich justified in saying that this entry into his head was wrong, or were Maxine and the others within their right because they held the power? Essentially, the knowledge question here is does might make right? This can be related to history, where it is widely accepted that the victors write the history. In many situations in history, it seems that might does make right, as those with the power impose their will on the conquered without consideration for the wellbeing of the lesser.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the movie which captured my attention was the relationship between Lottie and Maxine. Maxine claims that she loves Lottie and wants to be with her, but only when she is in John Malkovich’s body. I can only wonder whether this was because she felt uncomfortable with the idea of being with a woman, something like a fear or breaking social norms, or because she was attracted to a personality but judged by appearance and relied on appearance to carry out with her feelings. Either way, a question here is raised: do humans make judgments and gain knowledge more often based on appearance and visuals or on content and reason? This can be related to a natural science such as biology, where observing something can seem like a good way to gain knowledge, or a scientist can decide to make conclusions based on evidence not related to what is visually going on.
Finally, the whole movie with the people entering John Malkovich’s brain and subsequently taking control of his body seemed to me to be a metaphor for the influence people can have on our lifestyles and ways of thinking. This made me think about how much influence outside people can have on our thoughts and actions, and how much of a free agent we really are when it comes to making decisions. To what extent can we be held responsible for our own actions? This can be related to ethics and the law, when a parent can be held responsible for the actions of his or her child, because the court sees that the child was influenced by his or her parents and did not simply develop hurtful thoughts by themselves.
The first moment I have chosen is when Craig, inside of John Malkovich, was giving a tutorial on puppeteering and scolded one of his students for not “living inside” or “being” the puppet. Because the student was not emotionally connected to the puppet, the movements he created with the puppet were not life like. However, wouldn’t it be possible for someone to memorize the sequence of actions for a puppet performance and reenact it at a later date? By memorizing the way Craig moves puppets, which is emotional and life like, wouldn’t it still be possible to give a performance identical to Craig’s while lacking the emotional element? One could learn the exact way to flick the wrist, the exact timing, the right pressure, etc. and simply recreate it. How does emotion manifest itself in our work and our art?
ReplyDeleteThe knowledge question I have extracted from this moment is: To what extent does emotion override physical action?
I can relate this back to my piano lessons when my teacher would scold me for playing like a robot. She would claim that my performance was lacking because I wasn’t thinking about the music or trying to relate to it. After she sent me home with a complaint, my father and I sat down with a recording of the piece. We listened to it over and over again, with him pointing out interesting segments in the piece and especially lyrical melodies. During my next class, without making any conscious effort to move my fingers a certain way, my teacher remarked that I was playing differently than I had in my previous class. Yet how is it that I was able to play differently without trying to? Was my emotional connection to the music affecting the way I moved physically?
The second moment I have selected deals with abstraction. Craig uses puppets to mimic humans. However, puppets are limited in movement because they do not have the same number of joints as human do. Therefore, Craig can only use puppets to represent humans to a certain extent. The greater the number of parts composing the puppet, the better its ability to represent a human. However, when do we know when we have broken it down enough, if ever?
The knowledge question I have extracted from this second moment is: How do we reduce complex structures to patterns? Can we really call it a “reduction”?
I can relate this back to the practice TOK prescribed title I wrote about finding patterns in math and in music. I concluded my essay by stating that everything could be broken down into a pattern, yet it is still important to consider what it means to break down “art.” Let’s take literature for an example. There have been many times when I’ve enjoyed a good book that we were assigned for reading over the summer. When we returned to class, we talked about the characters at length’ about their motivations, their likes, dislikes, feelings, etc. However, reducing the characters to a series of behaviors and emotions seemed dehumanizing. I found that I no longer gained the same amount of pleasure from the book after rereading it. Does something lose its value when broken down? Can we go back to seeing the entire forest after carefully analyzing one tree?
The third moment I have chosen from the movie is in the beginning when Craig is trying to find a job as a puppeteer, yet cannot. No one really appreciates what Craig does; no one really acknowledges it as a proper art form. However, to Craig, it is a form of self-expression just as any other art or activity. Why is it that puppeteering isn’t received in the same manner as music or art? He is forced to give up searching for a job where he can do what he loves because
The knowledge question I have extracted from this third moment is: How is one form of expression different from another?
I can relate this back to the religion of Islam in Syria. In 2005, there was widespread outrage over the fact that a Danish newspaper had published caricatures featuring the prophet Mohammad. Many of them depicted Mohammad in a negative light, yet a few were merely visual representations of him. However, it is forbidden in Islam to create a visual representation of Mohammad. Why is it that we can express Mohammed using words, yet cannot express him using images? What is it about these forms of expression which make them different from another? In the end, aren’t they both used to represent an idea?
DeleteIn what ways are we controlled by society?
ReplyDeleteWhen the movie was just beginning I thought we were watching a short animation film. I didn’t not know that it would be relevant to an entire movie. When the puppet was moving, I could only think about how the puppeteer was making it move every which way. This relates to the the world because it asks us a humans to decide if we make choices for ourselves, or do we allow society to form our opinions. Can we truly be our natural selves? This also related to if one believes in god or is there such thing as free will. People make choices every day, but are those choices based on only self made decisions or are they based on the shaping of societal influences? We as people need to make decisions for ourselves and not let society shape who we are.
To what extent can we know who we really are?
From watching different people enter John Malkovichs’s head, I have extracted this knoledge question. This question relates to the real world because often we question if we are staying true to ourselves. However, how do we know what our true self is. This relates to ethical situations where one is decides whether they know something is right for them or not. Staying true to who we are is a common human trait we all struggle with. This question relates to my prescribed title where is question how do we know when to trust our emotions. Trusting ourselves is a difficult concept to grasp. Many times, people loose who they are because society is shaping them into “societal norms.” How do we know what we know?
To what extent can we emote through things other than physically? To what extent can we really know how someone else is feeling?
This question came to me because when different people were entering John Malkovich’s person, they were feeling everything he was feeling. When we emote, often there are physical emotions like crying, laughing and yelling. In the movie people were able to feel how John was feeling but in reality this is impossible. When were are in society how can we really understand what someone’s true emotions are? We are not capable to feeling exactly how they are feeling. This relates to the area of emotion as a way of knowing. We are able to see how people are feeling because we can see what they are doing, but we do not really know what they are truly feeling. People can mask how they are feeling by emotions, so the question is in what ways can we mask our emotion? Many people do not show their true emotions for fear for some specific reason. Emotions is a very difficult concept to understand because we can not always even understand ourselves let along someone else.
To what extent can we control how others influence us?
ReplyDeleteAs others were going through the portal into John Malkovich’s mind, I wondered if this was one of the meanings of this movie. Aside from the theme of rebirth/souls changing bodies, what if another theme was, less spiritually, allowing others to get inside our heads and control us? Is this healthy?
We can see through history that leaders have fallen from grace because they didn’t answer this question. Mao Zedong ruled a country that feared to oppose him. Millions died because of his miscalculations and at the end of campaigns such as the Hundred Flowers Campaign. From this, citizens criticized him internally for his decisions. Had he taken the opinions of professionals and confidants, lives would have been spared and China would have thrived. However, despite all of this, the citizens did not react. Many who had fought with him during the Cultural Revolution and that were born during his office were devoted and adored him. Jung Chang, author of Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China, wrote about how she had let herself cut her hair and be a red guard. She had been raised to love Mao, and when she was conditioned to be someone and praise a supreme leader, she became a child of the Communist Party of China. One could argue free will, but when inured to a lifestyle, breaking it becomes almost impossible. When someone influences us so strongly as such, godly figures, really, we see the world through the individual’s eyes. She grew up thinking the Communist way is right. When one doesn’t take the time to question his or her beliefs or allow them to be questioned, he or she becomes susceptible to idiocy.
How can people determine if someone has lived too long or lived too short?
In the end when the elderly people were entering John’s body, I wondered why they want to live so much, for so long. In the natural sciences, one can tell through an average if an individual lived longer than the normal life span. For example, the oldest person in the world is from Ethiopia and is 160 years old and the life expectancy is 54 in Ethiopia.
In what ways are humans doomed to be puppets when they’ve chosen to live in society?
In the beginning, Craig performs a show with his puppet. In it, it seemed as though the puppet had discovered its strings and that it was being controlled. Through the human sciences we can see that humans have adopted societal roles. I am a daughter, sister, peer, etc. I realize that rather than having made the choice to be these things, I was born into a society that gave me these roles. This is well expressed in existentialist works such as “No Exit” by Sartre.
How much of our actions/knowledge can we claim as our own?
ReplyDeleteCraig controlled Malkovich’s actions for a long time. During this time it was not John making decisions for himself, so in reality how much of the decisions we make are actually our own? At some point we make the decision ourselves, but along the way we consult our friends and family or our past interactions that tell us what the right decision is.
Does the possession of knowledge include ethical responsibility?
Craig and Maxine abused their knowledge of the portal to Malkovich’s conscious by renting out the experience. For me this was an unethical decision because it was not their right to do that without Malkovich's consent. This is similar to doctor-patient confidentiality, information about the patient cannot be released without their knowledge.
Who holds a higher level of responsibility to truthful knowledge, the person portraying the knowledge or the seeker of the knowledge?
Craig and Maxine’s boss lied to them about the reason for the creation of the 71/2 floor, is it their job to question this knowledge they were given or their boss’s responsibility to tell them the truth? Similar to George Orwell’s 1984 the person/people portraying the knowledge changed it to portray what they wanted.