as i was watching "far from heaven," i could help thinking of mulvey's writings because they had been so center to our discussion recently. i found it confusing to pin down 1 person we objectify and 1 person we identify with. how could i reconcile this while still sticking to mulvey's ideas? i decided that there were almost 2 separate movies taking place. it sounds kind of odd, but it helped me make sense of the movie. the first movie is the story through kathy's point of view. in this plot we are obviously invited to identify with kathy who takes on a male role in both her marriage (having her husband go to the doctor and finally ending it altogether) and her ensuing love interest. with kathy, we objectify raymond, gaze at him.

the other story is one where we are a member of the community. in this second movie we identify with the community and objectify kathy. different scenes from the film are pieces of 2 distinct stories. for example, the scene where kathy has a "breakdown" is part of the movie where we identify with her. nobody else is there, and there is a definite gaze on raymond. however, the scene in the art gallery forces the audience to identify with the community and objectify kathy. we even watch everybody watching her, like a piece of art in the gallery (how fitting).

i then wondered what effect the setting (mostly in reference to the date) had on these interpretations, or at least what significance it had. i think the objectification of raymond was certainly enhanced by the decade. the fact that he was the only black person who tried to fit into white society already directed everybody's gaze at him. the time setting also made the control that kathy had in her relationships and her forward manner stand out more, because this was a time when women rarely were so bold. the decade also helped set up the facade of the perfect family. to a modern audience, language like "aw shucks" seems fake. however, it fits in the context of the story, while also still calling the viewers' attention to it. this made the family seem falsely perfect right from the start. it's hard to stay perfect while the world is constantly gazing.

loss of self or loss of job

it's quite clear to see the effect of the working class environment on selma, but a character that i was particularly intrigued by was bill. at first i wondered would he be considered a "capitalist" in the terms of our good friend karl? after looking further into his character, i decided he should be lumped with the workers because of his obsession with money and his inability to have enough to sustain himself and his family. "so much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer he can possess and the more he falls under the dominion of his product..." says marx. although technically this quote relates to the decrease in laborers' worth as their labor increases, i thought it also could apply to the situation of bill. bill came into a lot of money from an inheritance and it was only then that his money was enough. once he had to work for it again he fell "under the dominion of his product" and alienated himself from his wife, his friends, and obviously from himself considering his desire to ultimately eliminate himself. the more money he had, the more money he needed , so even if somebody is able to make a lot of money, "the fewer he can possess."

so then what about selma? she manages to take on a job in the factory and add extra work onto that. when she alienates herself from herself and just focuses on her job, she is capable of doing the work. however, whenever she lets her own identity interfere, she can no longer be a part of the system. she gets in trouble for bringing her music to work and is ultimately fired because she is thinking of music while laboring. this really demonstrated the point marx makes about having to give up one's identity to the system. because selma is unable to do that, she can no longer labor.