Mr. Chow Wants His Purse Back

Although Mr. Chow may be one of the most comical characters in 2009's “The Hangover”, he is the epitome of the Oriental stereotype, according to Said's definition. In his book Orientalism, he describes the “Oriental” as “feminine, weak yet strangely dangerous because [he] poses a threat to white Western women[....]The Oriental is a single image, a sweeping generalization, a stereotype that crosses countless cultural and national boundaries”(Sered 1). From his stereotypical name to his flamboyant clothing and tiny shoes, he embodies this idea of the Oriental.

Mr. Chow's character in “The Hangover” believes that his purse that held thousands of dollars was taken by Alan and the rest of the guys Phil, Doug, and Stu. His character in this plot of “bachelor debauchery” immediately possesses all of the Oriental characteristics Said defines. He is short in stature, wearing a white suit and desperate to get his purse back. His appearance is all too feminine yet he also inhibits this “strangely dangerous” persona. He has means of force-a group of Asian gangsters harassing the guys, and holds Doug, the soon-to-be groom, for ransom.

Although Mr. Chow is used purposely to attribute to the comedy of the film, many can argue that his “femininity” only emphasizes the masculinity of the American men visiting Las Vegas. Said claims that this supposed weakness was to be overcome by Western influence. He states, “The feminine and weak Orient awaits the dominance of the West; it is a defenseless and unintelligent whole that exists for, and in terms of, its Western counterpart” (Sered 1). Ironically enough, the “Western influence” seen in the film as Doug, Phil, Stu, and Alan, eventually defeat Mr. Chow by winning back all of the money he had lost. They give Mr. Chow his $80,000 in return for their friend Doug. (Unfortunately, the Doug they believed they were fighting for was actually not the friend). Regardless, symbolically the West was able to defeat the East, dismissing Mr. Chow's character throughout the rest of the film.

Granted, this analysis may be pretty far-fetched. The main purpose of this film is not to portray ideas of the Orient. However, Said's theory is present in a nation-wide acceptance of this ridiculous character. Mr. Chow plays the ultimate Asian stereotype, spouting off quirky one-liners that thousands of movie-goers can quote off-hand. Americans are simply immune to this persona in films. The producers of this film capitalized upon their viewers' Orientalist perspectives.

Either way, this film is a relatively light-hearted comedy with the main goal of making its viewers laugh. “The Hangover” would not be the same if Mr. Chow was not in it. His presence definitely contributed to the hilarity of the movie.

Works Cited
Sered, Danielle. "Orientalism." Emory University---English Department "Where Courageous Inquiry Leads" Fall 1996. Web. 06 May 2010. .

Forever Stuck in the Attic?

In Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar's “The Madwoman in the Attic” there is a constant dichotomy of women found in Victorian literature. Gilbert and Gubar explain that in the past, women have been classified as either the “monster” or the “angel” of a text. Women characters are never to be placed somewhere in the middle of this “Monster/Angel” conflict. Gilbert and Gubar claim that the way to “transcend the images of 'angel' and 'monster'” is to recognize and destroy previous labels male authors have given to their female characters. They advise, “Women must kill the aesthetic idea through which they themselves have been 'killed' into art,”(Gubar 812).

Although many women authors took this advice, there is still this “Angel-Monster” dichotomy throughout various artistic forms today. In numerous male-directed films, the female characters are often labeled as either “good” or “evil”; not usually seen as character deserving of multiple motives. Take for example the movie “The Good Girl”. The director tried to depict Jennifer Aniston's character as entirely confused and lost, perhaps providing some explanations for her ways of betrayal. However, males that watch this film often seen Aniston's character as “selfish and evil”, the ultimate antithesis of ideal female behavior.


Gilbert and Gubar explain that women are supposed to angelic and pleasing to men (Gubar 816). In 1865 John Ruskin commented about the role of women in a patriarchal society. He stated, “Power is not for rule, not for battle, and her intellect is not for invention or creation, but for sweet orderings,” (Gubar 816). Here a male demonstrates that a woman should be nothing more than a “domestic goddess”, ruling over only the kitchen and the children, yielding to the command and power of a man.

An angelic life of submissive behavior symbolizes “both heaven and the grave,” (Gubar 817). According to Gilbert and Gubar, this “selfless” lifestyle of ideal Victorian women leads to a life of death. However, there is not really much a woman can do if she wishes to carry on in this type of society. Women have been rebelling against this tradition since Biblical times. Lilith, Adam's first wife, refuses to live this life of submission and is ultimately sentenced to live with the demons. Although this example is harsh, it is not unlike consequences of today. Women still have to accept the fact our patriarchal society believes that men and women are not equal; there are roles that each gender must fulfill in order to maintain the status quo. Lilith's story emphasizes that “a life of feminine submission [….] is a life of silence[...] while a life of female rebellion, of 'significant action' is a life that must be silenced,”(Gubar 824).

As a young women, I do not want to live a life of silence. I would rather fight for this idea of independence and risk being silenced, rather than sentence myself to a life of submission. However, despite my desire to be revolutionary, I will eventually have to fulfill my female role in society. Does this mean we all have to compromise if we all want to have a family and relationships?

Males throughout literature and the arts are always given various options. They can be good, evil, or even both. They can be independent while simultaneously involved in a relationship.

When, if ever on my time on this planet, will women be given those options with multi-dimensional characteristics? Or will a woman's desire for her independence sentence her to forever be the “madwoman in the attic”?





Works Cited

Gilbert, Sandra, and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic. Literary Theory an
Anthology. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004. 813-25. Print.

A Thin Line Betwen Discipline and Invasion

After reading Foucalt's explanation of panopticism as a means for discipline, I could not help but thinking of the film "The Truman Show". Even though the main character was adopted by a network when he was a new-born, he is monitored every minute of every day. He lives in a controlled environment, where every occurrence is contrived by one of the producers of the show. Through these events, Truman has created a typical behavior and routine that is the subject of entertainment for thousands of viewers.

Similar to "The Truman Show", Foucalt's discussion of panopticism is based upon the idea that a controlled observation of human beings, specifically prisoners, will encourage good behavior. Foucalt states, "A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictious relation. So it is not necessary to use force to contrain the convict to good behavior,"(Foucalt 555). This theory was derived from Bentham's architectural design of Panopticon, a type of prison building that allows authority figures to observe prisoners without their knowledge He rationalizes that this design of simplicity would be considered a "house of certainty" rather than a "house of security", where prisoners are tempted to rebel against blatant rule (Foucalt 555). This design gives each individual their own space, yet it traps them if they disobey authority.

Truman, of "The Truman Show", does not possess the same attributes of the prisoners of the Panoptic yet he is still imprisoned by this "invisible observation." The producers of his television show mirror the same power of the magistrates Foucalt refers to with his example of a plauge-stricken town, where everyone must reveal themselves. These figures of authority are sent to observe an individual from a distance, conditioning him towards good behavior. Although these intentions may sound productive and fitting for criminals who give up all rights once they have been convicted of a crime, the line between productive and invasive are soon to be blurred.

Foucalt continues to refer to the idea that panopticism would be a more economic form of discipline than standard regulations of "bars and "chains". We are beginning to see more and more glimpses of this disciplinary theory on our streets today. Traffic lights are only one example of a panoptic movement in our world; we get a ticket for going through a yellow light even if a cop is not there to witness it. Now, authority figures get to observe our traffic violations at any time, reminding us of that omnipresent authority that conditions us to "follow the rules"-as Foucalt suggests, this mere reminder is enough to force us to good behavior (Foucalt 554).


Eventually, this idea of conditioning through unknown observation is going to be present everywhere, giving just about anyone access to any individual's behavior. Although this observation is justified to enforce the law, it is now also a means of entertainment--Think reality TV, a camera crew following human beings 24/7 for profit in their pocket. This type of filming is more economic as well-no scripts, screenwriters, or acting coaches required for success.

Who is to say that we are not all going to be "conditioned to good behavior" through this mechanism? Foucalt himself explains that this presence of an overshadowing authority will force us all act correctly. We may all want to observe each other, completely dismissing ideas of privacy and individualism.


Aren't we allowed to act in whatever manner we choose? Yes, there are certain rules and behaviors we must follow to avoid severe consequences but think back to how you learned to behave in your life. No one watched you every minute-you learned from your mistakes and experiences.

Jim Carrey (aka Truman) never gets the opportunity to live a real life. Although he may believe he is a good-natured human being, he is merely a result of a contrived and pretend reality. He was imprisoned from the very beginning....are we going to let ourselves follow down that path?




Works Cited

Foucault, Michel. "Discipline and Punish." Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michaell Ryan. Literary Theory: an Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 549-66. Print.

Reflections on Marx Presentation

Last week, my group shared a presentation about Marxism with the class. Although many of us were not too familiar with Marx's theories, we decided to come up with a lesson that would help not only the class but also help us understand his ideas better. Even though we all pitched in and helped each other, my specific assignment was the end of Marx's work entitled "Capital". I found the ending to be rather open-ended. Instead of projecting my opinions to the class, I wanted to see what their thoughts were about the situations of both Robinson Crusoe and the Middle Ages. The discussion didn't quite go as I planned, and I rarely referred to my sections of the powerpoint because I let my nerves get the best of me. However, I do believe our unique presentation got everything reflecting on Marx's ideas. I think as a group we worked great together and hopefully we all took something away from the project!

Giving Up Labor Power Leads to More Real Housewives

A rich, extravagant, jewel-adorned housewife. Groups of constructor workers slaving away at this beautiful 6 bedroom 7 bath home in Coto De Caza, a suburb of Orange County, CA. What exactly brings these too contrasts together? Karl Marx would suggest that it is the finished product that brings these two opposites together; the constructors workers who built this house have created a nice paycheck for Jeana Keogh, a character on the popular reality show "Real Housewives of Orange County". This "partnership" (for lack of a better word) consists of the laborers (i.e the constructor workers) producing a home for Jeana Keogh to sell. In exchange for the workers' labor they are able to take home a reasonable salary enough for the necessities of life. Meanwhile, Jeana will attempt to sell this home to some upper crust family of the O.C., most likely taking home a commission of around five or six figures. How ironic, right? These workers put their time, energy, and sweat into creating a home that is sold for millions of dollars, only receiving the bare minimum of wages while the lucky real estate agent can spend her funds on not only her beautiful home in Coto De Caza but also her jewelery collection (see video above).
According to Marx, this situation is common in our economic world. When explaining the relationship between a worker and his employer, Marx claims, "The worker receives means of subsistence in exchange for his labor power, but the capitalist receives in exchange for his means of subsistence labor, the productive activity of the worker, the creative power whereby the worker not only replaces what he consumes but gives to the accumulated labor a greater value than it previously possessed," (Marx, 663). Marx suggests that the worker has more power than he realizes. In a capitalist society, the worker gives up this labor power to the employer. In Marx's "Wage, Labor, and Capital", he explains this relationship through a situation of workers on a farm. The farm workers receive a mere five silver groschen for their worker, just enough to buy the basic necessities of life. However, these workers fail to recognize (or chose to overlook)that their labor produces double the amount of their wages. Marx claims that these groschen are consumed "reproductively for capital" and "unproductively for the workers". What the worker needs to realize is that it is their labor that produces value and capital. They are the key behind the tenant farmer's success, and in the success of "Real Housewife" Jeana Keogh. One concept Marx acknowledges is inspired by the story of Robinson Crusoe. Marx emphasizes, "Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labor, and therefore simply an object of use for himself,"(Marx 670). Marx is suggesting that we each are responsible for producing our own materials. We all require the same basic necessities to survive; therefore we are all responsible for creating those items. There would be no social stigma regarding your line of work; rather we all produce the same materials. What do you think? Who really holds the power in the construction worker-Jeana Keogh Real Housewife relationship? Marx is If the workers decide to quit.....well, let's just say there would be no more "Real Housewives of Orange County".


Works Cited
Marx, Karl. "Capital". Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michaell Ryan. Literary Theory: an Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 665-672. Print.

"A-B-C Always Be Closing"

Last night was my first formal introduction to the world of Marxism. In order to better understand necessary key terms we were told to appy them to a movie clip. In the clip, Alec Baldwin is sent to a group of real estate salesmen to increase their productivity. For the length of the clip, Baldwin not only completely degrades these salesman but also emphasizes his place in what Marx would call the bourgeois with his $80K BMW and his $40K watch. Our group was instructed to find terms such as "capital" and "division of labor" in the clip.

Although we were able to apply all of Marx's terms in this clip, a couple concepts struck out at me. Marx's critique of "labor power" is a realization all workers should eventually have. The idea that this power is basically signed away when hired is completely demeaning. It's as though these employers assume that these workers have no idea as to the extent of their labor power. The worker boosts the productivity of the employer yet still only gets the minimum to survive while the employers gets in increase in supply value. In the clip, the labor power of those construction workers who actually built the house is given up immediately. Here they create a beautiful home, making manipulating salesmen thousands of dollars, while they go home to a small home or apartment.

Where is the justice in this idea? Why are these construction workers doing manual labor while these manipulative salesmen in the office get to sit back and enjoy coffee as they try to get potential buyers to "sign on the dotted line". Shouldn't a worker's effort be the determining factor into his wage? What would Marx have to say?

Mel Gibson and the Oedipus Complex?

Last night we watched a clip from Shakespeare's Hamlet, where Mel Gibson basically displaces all of his frustration and anger about his father's death upon his mother. Although this scene depicts Hamlet's disapproval of his mother's marriage to his uncle, there is also an underlying level of sexuality interwined with his madness. Many would agree that Hamlet's suffers some level of Freud's "Oedipus Complex", which is the idea that a son desires his own mother from birth. The father, according to Freud, is seen as a supposed threat to this dyadic relationship. However, in this case, Hamlet's father is dead, perhaps allowing these repressed desires to become reality. Hamlet never gets a chance to explore this realization; instead his mother quickly marries his Uncle Claudius. Even though his father is no longer alive, Hamlet views the union between his mother and Claudius as a threat, simiar to the one previously posed by his father. However, Hamlet must now follow the path of his father, destroying his uncle as well as become desirous for his mother. According to Freud, Hamlet is emulating his father because he has developed some sort of identification with him. In Freud's "Group Pyschology and Analysis of the Ego", he explains that emulation is the result of an individual's search to find their adult identity. By seeing the appartion of his father, Hamlet is allowing his "id" to reveal his repressed desires. Instead of recognizing this, he chooses to avenge his father's name and "protect" his mother, even though this scene clearly allows his desires to be revealed.