This is an unfinished term paper about the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and its affect on the rest of the French Revolution. I say "unfinished". Although I describe the initial public reaction to the document, I fail to provide examples of how its reception turned sour and ultimately contributed to several of the bloodiest episodes of the Revolution: specifically, the Vendee Rebellion, the September Massacre, and the Reign of Terror. When I have time, I intend to amend this essay to include passages describing these events and how the Civil Constitution of the Clergy helped to exacerbate them.
HIS392
Balsamo
7 August 2009
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy and its Repercussions during the French Revolution
On July 12, 1790, The National Assembly passed a new decree: The Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Civil Constitution, in its zeal to denounce the Church and elevate the State, “combined a religious reform with a political” one (McManners 38), thereby angering people from all theaters of French society. Widely regarded as a momentous event that created an internal schism between the religious and secular groups within France, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was the first notable division among Revolutionaries and Counter-Revolutionaries and therefore a precursor of the bloody Radical Revolution that was to follow. This paper will address some of the reforms to the Catholic Church proposed by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and underscore the document’s importance as a turning point in the French Revolution.
According to the French dictionary Larousse, laicism or “laïcité” is the “conception and organization of a society founded upon the separation of Church and State, which removes the Church from all political or administrative power; and, in particular, from the educational system”(Larousse online - see footnote). Although the word itself wasn’t coined until the early 20th century, the concept of a separation between powers was very important to the fundamentals of the French Revolution, and was instrumental in creating a division between the secular and the spiritual.
One of the issues that spearheaded the push to revolutionize France was the enormous debt that the country found itself in, after years of war and luxurious living by the upper classes. Moreover, the system of taxation was so inefficient as to be consistently losing money. “French government was finally on the verge of complete insolvency” (Popkin 22) and national financial ministers realized that major reforms to the system were the only way to get the country out of debt. They realized an obvious way to make some money was to sell some of the vast landholdings which belonged to the Catholic Church. In 1789, the National Assembly voted to “expropriate the Church’s accumulated property” in an attempt to pay off the national debt; however, this decision proved to have an extensive effect on both the clerical and taxation systems in France. These problems escalated until there was a pressing obligation upon the National Assembly to “undertake a thorough restructuring of the Church” (Popkin 51), a restructuring which ultimately manifested itself as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
The main purpose of the document was to enact change, to simplify and reform the Church in a way that would benefit the nation and consequently the third estate. Due to the longstanding tradition of primogeniture, nobles in France who were not the firstborn were often left without land. Because they were members of the upper classes and used to luxuriant standards of living, these second and third-born nobles often became members of the clergy as an alternative. Thus the Church was rife with people who held very high offices, but who were not there necessarily for religious reasons; they had joined instead rather as a means of perpetuating their lavish lifestyles. In an effort to abolish the practice of overpaying the undeserving fatcats within the Church, the National Assembly proposed that the salaries of clergy members be standardized. In Title III, Article V of the Civil Constitution, we can read explicitly the rules to which this new system of standardization apply: “The salaries of the parish priests shall be as follows : in Paris, six thousand livres; in cities having a population of fifty thousand or over, four thousand livres; in those having a population of less than fifty thousand and more than ten thousand, three thousand livres; in cities and towns of which the population is below ten thousand and more than three thousand, twenty-four hundred livres”. In this way, the State could better monitor the goings-on of the clergy, and monitor the government’s respective expenditures for each individual.
One of the most important features of the legislature in the Civil Constitution (and arguably the most incendiary) was the new system of democratic elections of bishops and curés by departmental electoral assemblies. According to Title II, article III of the Civil Constitution: “The election of bishops shall take place according to the forms and by the electoral body designated in the decree of December 22, 1789, for the election of members of the departmental assembly”. Under this new legislation, instead of the King’s choosing the bishops (and favoring those members of the nobility who were perhaps in his pocket somehow), in true revolutionary spirit the power of election would now be in the hands of the people. Unfortunately, as with many ideological reforms in the early revolution, this also proved to be a problem. According to Title II, Article XXI of the Civil Constitution:
XXI. Before the ceremony of consecration begins, the bishop elect shall take a solemn oath, in the presence of the municipal officers, of the people, and of the clergy, to guard with care the faithful of his diocese who are confided to him, to be loyal to the nation, the law, and the king, and to support with all his power the constitution decreed by the National Assembly and accepted by the king.
This article is extremely important because it is very telling as to the ultimate motives of the National Assembly. This new reform caused debate because it “overturned the hierarchical structure of the Church, under which authority descended from God through the Pope to the bishops, who in turn consecrated priests” (Popkin 52). Where once the clergy swore allegiance only to the king (and, more importantly, the Pope), here they are required to take an oath that implies that the “nation” takes precedence over both of those authorities. In order to create a new order and a new France, revolutionary authorities were determined in all areas to put nation first. Any dissent was seen as disloyalty to the nation, counter-revolutionary, and potentially treasonous. We would see the gross escalation of this sentiment just a few years later, during the Reign of Terror, in which disloyalty to the state could and often did prove deadly. It is important to acknowledge that the concepts of “loyalty to the nation” and “putting the nation first” were integral to the formation of the French revolution and later became the driving force behind the Reign of Terror.
In a nutshell, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy decreed that “the people (including non-Catholics) would elect priests and bishops; [and] clerics would become, in effect, civil servants under the control of the state”. The demands of the Civil Constitution “stirred more resistance than any previously taken by…revolutionary authorities”, and the National Assembly responded to the unrest by demanding that clergy members take an oath of loyalty to the new regime or “face dismissal” (Bell 183). Just as they made the king sign the bill against his wishes, revolutionary authorities forced those religious figures who knew what was good for them to publicly state their support for the Civil Constitution.
Several goals of the Civil Constitution appeared to be beneficial; the Catholic Church under the old regime was in bad need of reform and many of the rules proposed by this new document would lead the Church in a new, more streamlined direction. However, perhaps the National Assembly were too ambitious in their enthusiasm to reform the Church, and attempting to change so drastically something that had been in place for hundreds of years was simply too much too soon. Another of the major sensitive issues raised by the Civil constitution was the granting of full civil and political rights to both Protestants and Jews. As French citizens, these religious minority groups would now be freely allowed to join departmental electoral assemblies; as a result of their being able to participate in assembly legislation, they would also have the power to vote on the elections of bishops. The idea of Catholic priests being selected by Protestants, Jews, or Atheists was particularly upsetting to groups of devout Catholics (Popkin 52). Although the Civil Constitution was disconcerting to those lay groups who were religious, many of those within the Clergy itself seemed to accept the document with open arms, at least at its introduction.
In The French Revolution and the Church, John McManners states that even though the new changes to the clerical system were harsh, the clergy as a whole did not dislike the proposals put forth by the Civil Constitution enough to reject it. “The poverty of the lower clergy, of the priests who had the care of souls, shocked the people through its flagrant injustice, by contrast with the luxury of the high dignitaries, of the bishops and archbishops—a luxury sometimes outrageous” (Aulard 29). These financial shortcomings, therefore, helped to inspire a more Revolutionary spirit within the lower clergy, and explain why so many church personnel embraced the Civil Constitution with the enthusiasm that they did. Notably, both McManners and Popkin seem to agree that the one glaring problem the clergy had with the Civil Constitution was the National Assembly’s failure to consult the Church before imposing changes. The Assembly had been reluctant to involve the Church with the proceedings out of fear that it would give the noble members of the clergy a “counter-revolutionary platform, and would be an admission that the clergy still remained an Order in the State” (McManners 42). In an enlightened society whose ultimate goals were always serve the Nation and to tear down an oppressive old regime, the prominence of the Catholic Church would have to be diminished. The Church appealed to the Pope to approve the Civil Constitution, while the National Assembly did not care about the Pope’s opinions as it was itself too concerned with the reform of the State. What ensued was a confusing clash of powers involving the Clergy, the King, and the Pope in a race against time to modify the Civil Constitution before it was officially passed into law. Eventually the Assembly lost their patience and demanded the clergy to swear an oath of allegiance to the Civil Constitution and to the State. This blatant subordination of the Church, which had once been the utmost authority, to the State, caused an irreparable rift within the history of the French Revolution, causing discord among people who had until that point unanimously supported much of the same reforms.
Various language within the Civil Constitution of the Clergy demonstrates that the tone of the document is one not only of religious reform, but of societal reform as a whole. Several points are made which underscore the Revolutionaries’ goals to reorganize Catholicism into a more modern institution, whose first and foremost loyalty was to the government of France, and not the Pope. The educated and “enlightened” classes of 18th century France found that “to be impious was to be in the fashion” and the questioning of the practices of the Catholic Church was common, even normal, among nobility (Aulard 32). These new loyalties introduced by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy underscored the growing power of the state and the lessening power of the religious establishment. Many religious-minded peasants in the countryside resented this. God (and by proxy, the Pope) were supposed to be unquestionably powerful and certainly demanded more respect than a bunch of city folk with newfangled ideas who had decided otherwise. The system had been this way for hundreds of years, and such a fundamental change to beliefs of the French populace proved hard to swallow.
In summary, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy came about as a result of the National Assembly’s effort to pay off the national debt created by years of over -expenditure. After having liquidated the lands owned by the Church in an attempt to sell them on the free market, the Assembly was forced to drastically reform the institution of the Catholic Church. The reforms presented by the Assembly were well-received by some but not by others. This created a split between counter-revolutionaries and those who supported it, not only among members of the Church but also among the laypeople, in particular the more religious peasantry of rural areas. The differences in religious and political opinion caused by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy changed the climate of the Revolution, and were an antecedent of the bloodier clashes these groups would face in the years to come.
Footnote: Laïcité (nom feminin): Conception et organisation de la société fondée sur la séparation de l'Église et de l'État et qui exclut les Églises de l'exercice de tout pouvoir politique ou administratif, et, en particulier, de l'organisation de l'enseignement. (Le principe de la laïcité de l'État est posé par l'article 2 de la Constitution française de 1958.)
Works Cited
Aulard, A. Christianity and the French Revolution. Trans. Lady Frazer. London:
Riverside Press, 1927.
Bell, David A. The Cult of the Nation in France: inventing nationalism 1680-1800.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy. March 2001. Hanover Historical Texts Project.
J.H. Robinson. 8 August 2009. http://history.hanover.edu/texts/civilcon.html
Larousse.com. 8 August 2009. http://www.larousse.com/dictionnaires/francais/laicite
McManners, John. The French Revolution and the Church.
New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Popkin, Jeremy. A Short History of the French Revolution.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Baron Victor Frankenstein: Mad Scientist extraordinaire
A running theme in the genre of European Horror is that of the Mad Scientist. In this essay I point out how the depiction of Baron Frankenstein (specifically in the film Curse of Frankenstein) does or does not adhere to specific Mad Scientist paradigms within that genre, according to various scholarly essays that have been written about the topic.
HIS357
Troy
7 August 2009
Baron Victor Frankenstein: Mad Scientist extraordinaire
One of the most enduring images we have seen in 20th century horror films is that of the “Mad Scientist”. As discussed in class lectures, the archetypical mad scientist adheres to various conventions which define him as such. In Terence Fisher’s The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), the character of Baron Victor Frankenstein exhibits many of these attributes, thereby illustrating the definition of this role quite well.
The Baron we see in Curse of Frankenstein is an interesting character because he is less personable, less forgivable, than his counterpart in the novel (and indeed in other film adaptations). The mad scientist often exhibits something lacking physically, thus he makes up for this with his over-achieving quest to play God. Yet for this Frankenstein, there is nothing outwardly indicative of his increasingly malevolent personality. His physique is unassuming; he’s distinguished but not overly attractive; slim but not particularly athletic. He dresses quite well, befitting his status; his speech reflects his privileged upbringing and considerable education. In fact, Frankenstein is a perfect gentleman and 19th century aristocrat; this is part of what makes his character so scary. Neither we nor any of the other characters in the story (even those close to him) can believe he is capable of performing any of the atrocities that he commits. Frankenstein’s behavior is dangerously arrogant from the very beginning of the movie, a characteristic which sets him up to become somewhat of a villain as the story progresses. He does exhibit several of the definitions of being a mad scientist as discussed in class: he does isolate himself from the community—almost as soon as the film starts and he enlists Paul to be his tutor, he shuts himself off almost completely from society. In order to get his grisly deeds done, he begins to operate only at night and only with other people who would also be involved in such sordid affairs; that is to say, the scum of society.
The most important characteristic of Frankenstein that is common to all mad scientists is that of developing a God complex. The further these experiments progress, the more consumed with playing God the character becomes; and no matter how gruesome the results, Frankenstein believes he is above them, believing he can somehow fix whatever went wrong.
In "Horror: A Thematic History in Fiction and Film', Darryl Jones emphasizes the fact that most of the experiments utilized by these mad scientists begin as “fundamentally benign scientific endeavour[s]” (Paul comments on the possible medical advancement that the re-animation of dead tissue could have within the medical world), but that—usually through the fault of the increasingly delusional mad scientist—“go awry” (Jones 52). “Science” itself does not actually play a large role in The Curse of Frankenstein. Though the creatures are shown being animated and re-animated through the use of impressive high-voltage circuitry and bubbling vats of chemicals, the actual scientific processes of the procedure are not explicitly shown. This is one of the only similarities the film adaptation has to the novel, and is apparently not a major concern for the audience; we seem to be able to momentarily suspend our cynicism for a story whose entire premise centers around a scientific accomplishment so impossible as to be considered supernatural.
We are an educated, technologically-savvy society; ordinarily we would praise and admire Frankenstein for being able to create life and make possible the impossible. Yet Frankenstein’s lust for power, his obsession with playing God, and his ultimate descent into madness render him distasteful in the eyes of the audience. We question his morality and find his ever-increasing selfishness objectionable. Therefore, he cannot be classified as a hero but rather an anti-hero, and in this case even a borderline villain. The Curse of Frankenstein is an unusual case because there is no clear-cut protagonist in the film. Though the storyline centers around Frankenstein, his irredeemable behavior causes the audience to turn against him and side with Paul, who seems to have stronger morals; yet Paul’s failure to intervene ultimately enables Frankenstein in his macabre escapades. His saving grace comes at the end of the film, in which he finally puts his silence to good use: Frankenstein is sent to his death and thus punished for his crimes. In this story, the most antagonistic thing is Frankenstein’s mad scientist persona, his all-consuming desire to perpetuate his practices no matter the terrible cost. We cannot fully root for any one character and definitively say that he or she is the protagonist of the film; so perhaps we will just leave it at this: the entire cast of characters and the story itself (Jones 61) may function as a combined protagonist because their actions collectively represent the empathy of the audience.
Baron Frankenstein is the archetypical “mad scientist” because he fits very nicely into certain definitions of this role: he descends into insanity, he isolates himself from the community, he has delusions of grandeur and a God complex; his experiments begin innocuously enough, yet go awry and eventually spiral out of his control. The Curse of Frankenstein provides an interesting example of the “mad scientist” persona because its is a little different from the norm; Curse’s Frankenstein is darker, less accessible man, more mad than scientist; therefore from the audience’s point of view he is a much scarier character.
HIS357
Troy
7 August 2009
Baron Victor Frankenstein: Mad Scientist extraordinaire
One of the most enduring images we have seen in 20th century horror films is that of the “Mad Scientist”. As discussed in class lectures, the archetypical mad scientist adheres to various conventions which define him as such. In Terence Fisher’s The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), the character of Baron Victor Frankenstein exhibits many of these attributes, thereby illustrating the definition of this role quite well.
The Baron we see in Curse of Frankenstein is an interesting character because he is less personable, less forgivable, than his counterpart in the novel (and indeed in other film adaptations). The mad scientist often exhibits something lacking physically, thus he makes up for this with his over-achieving quest to play God. Yet for this Frankenstein, there is nothing outwardly indicative of his increasingly malevolent personality. His physique is unassuming; he’s distinguished but not overly attractive; slim but not particularly athletic. He dresses quite well, befitting his status; his speech reflects his privileged upbringing and considerable education. In fact, Frankenstein is a perfect gentleman and 19th century aristocrat; this is part of what makes his character so scary. Neither we nor any of the other characters in the story (even those close to him) can believe he is capable of performing any of the atrocities that he commits. Frankenstein’s behavior is dangerously arrogant from the very beginning of the movie, a characteristic which sets him up to become somewhat of a villain as the story progresses. He does exhibit several of the definitions of being a mad scientist as discussed in class: he does isolate himself from the community—almost as soon as the film starts and he enlists Paul to be his tutor, he shuts himself off almost completely from society. In order to get his grisly deeds done, he begins to operate only at night and only with other people who would also be involved in such sordid affairs; that is to say, the scum of society.
The most important characteristic of Frankenstein that is common to all mad scientists is that of developing a God complex. The further these experiments progress, the more consumed with playing God the character becomes; and no matter how gruesome the results, Frankenstein believes he is above them, believing he can somehow fix whatever went wrong.
In "Horror: A Thematic History in Fiction and Film', Darryl Jones emphasizes the fact that most of the experiments utilized by these mad scientists begin as “fundamentally benign scientific endeavour[s]” (Paul comments on the possible medical advancement that the re-animation of dead tissue could have within the medical world), but that—usually through the fault of the increasingly delusional mad scientist—“go awry” (Jones 52). “Science” itself does not actually play a large role in The Curse of Frankenstein. Though the creatures are shown being animated and re-animated through the use of impressive high-voltage circuitry and bubbling vats of chemicals, the actual scientific processes of the procedure are not explicitly shown. This is one of the only similarities the film adaptation has to the novel, and is apparently not a major concern for the audience; we seem to be able to momentarily suspend our cynicism for a story whose entire premise centers around a scientific accomplishment so impossible as to be considered supernatural.
We are an educated, technologically-savvy society; ordinarily we would praise and admire Frankenstein for being able to create life and make possible the impossible. Yet Frankenstein’s lust for power, his obsession with playing God, and his ultimate descent into madness render him distasteful in the eyes of the audience. We question his morality and find his ever-increasing selfishness objectionable. Therefore, he cannot be classified as a hero but rather an anti-hero, and in this case even a borderline villain. The Curse of Frankenstein is an unusual case because there is no clear-cut protagonist in the film. Though the storyline centers around Frankenstein, his irredeemable behavior causes the audience to turn against him and side with Paul, who seems to have stronger morals; yet Paul’s failure to intervene ultimately enables Frankenstein in his macabre escapades. His saving grace comes at the end of the film, in which he finally puts his silence to good use: Frankenstein is sent to his death and thus punished for his crimes. In this story, the most antagonistic thing is Frankenstein’s mad scientist persona, his all-consuming desire to perpetuate his practices no matter the terrible cost. We cannot fully root for any one character and definitively say that he or she is the protagonist of the film; so perhaps we will just leave it at this: the entire cast of characters and the story itself (Jones 61) may function as a combined protagonist because their actions collectively represent the empathy of the audience.
Baron Frankenstein is the archetypical “mad scientist” because he fits very nicely into certain definitions of this role: he descends into insanity, he isolates himself from the community, he has delusions of grandeur and a God complex; his experiments begin innocuously enough, yet go awry and eventually spiral out of his control. The Curse of Frankenstein provides an interesting example of the “mad scientist” persona because its is a little different from the norm; Curse’s Frankenstein is darker, less accessible man, more mad than scientist; therefore from the audience’s point of view he is a much scarier character.
Profondo Rosso - European Horror and the Giallo
This is my reaction to "Profondo Rosso", a European Horror film that belongs more specifically to the sub-genre of the Giallo. In case you're unfamiliar with the Giallo style of movies, here's a little background on it:
http://www.kinoeye.org/02/11/needham11.php
The "Gialli" are an Italian style of horror movie, centering principally on a detective-solving-a-murder plot and often containing very gory scenes. The name comes from the Italian word for "yellow" and refers to the color of the covers of Italian horror serials published in the 1920s and '30s.
...............................................
Dario Argento’s Profondo Rosso or Deep Red is a classic example of European Horror, and in particular the sub-genre of the Giallo. According to Maitland McDonagh’s "Broken Mirrors/Broken Minds: The Dark Dreams of Dario Argento", Deep Red is definitely a Giallo in that it is a “psychological/detective thriller whose overt concerns are the mechanics of crime and punishment; however this film’s particular style leans closer to the “serie noir”, in which the two stories (the first being the initial murder which sets the events of the film in motion, and the second being the unraveling of the case itself) are fused together (McDonagh 5). The movie opens with a murder scene: we see someone get stabbed, and the feet of a nearby witness, who is obviously a child. The next big event is the fate of a German clairvoyant; after she psychically identifies the presence of a murderer in the audience of her press conference, she is followed back to her apartment and brutally murdered, presumably by the same person who committed the murder in the opening scene.
The rest of the story follows one Marc Daly, a pianist, who witnesses the crime while hanging out in a downstairs courtyard with his friend Carlo. After picking up on something that the police don’t notice, he teams up with Gianna, a female journalist he meets at the crime scene, and the unlikely pair spend the remainder of the movie trying to solve the mystery of the perpetrator’s identity. Marc cleverly notices that a certain song (a child singing, or a children’s record maybe) is always playing when these murders are committed. His friend the Professor (also a friend of the dead psychic Helga) makes the ingenious connection that the song must have played a crucial role in the murderer’s childhood, and has had a lasting psychological impact on him or her. We find out at the end of the film that the killer is Carlo’s mother. Notably, we discover that the song which heralded the murders was actually a children’s record; Carlo had put it on immediately beforehand, and it played throughout his experience of witnessing the death of his father at the hands of his mother. McDonagh makes note of the extensive use of music in Deep Red, yet he doesn’t really touch on this aspect of it (McDonagh 9-10). From this reading, we are meant to understand that music plays an integral part in the Giallo, which it definitely does in this case. He mentions the importance of diegetic music in the film, especially the jazz which both Marc and Carlo play, but doesn’t discuss this particular plot device (which is actually really important and kind of central to the story).
Ultimately, I did enjoy the film, although I thought it was a little slow-moving in parts. The scene in which Marc is chipping away the plaster which covers the drawing on the wall seemed to take FOREVER, and the fact that it dragged on didn’t really seem to increase the suspense. My favorite aspect was the mystery of the killer: several red herrings are thrown in, such as the fact that the killer wears thick black eyeliner (but so do almost all the main characters), and also that we are led to believe that Amanda Righetti (who has written a book about the event shown in the opening scene) is the child who witnessed (committed?) the murder years ago, now grown up. Of course, we find out she’s not the killer once she’s murdered, but the ruse is entertaining anyway. I also think (and we discussed this in class) that the goriness of the murders and the fakeness of the red blood detract from the scariness or the horror of the story. This gory, bloody mess is also a characteristic of the Giallo (as evidenced by the films of not only Argento but also of his mentor Mario Bava (McDonagh 6)), but because the horror in this film is so explicit I found much of it to be ineffective (or at least, it smacked strongly of B-movieness).
Overall I think this movie is a good choice to show as a model for the Giallo; it was interesting and seemed to conform to all the characteristics of the genre. From the reading we get the impression that it is probably one of the better films within this class of horror and I’m glad I got the chance to see this movie rather than one of Argento’s other works such as Tenebre or Suspiria .
http://www.kinoeye.org/02/11/needham11.php
The "Gialli" are an Italian style of horror movie, centering principally on a detective-solving-a-murder plot and often containing very gory scenes. The name comes from the Italian word for "yellow" and refers to the color of the covers of Italian horror serials published in the 1920s and '30s.
...............................................
Dario Argento’s Profondo Rosso or Deep Red is a classic example of European Horror, and in particular the sub-genre of the Giallo. According to Maitland McDonagh’s "Broken Mirrors/Broken Minds: The Dark Dreams of Dario Argento", Deep Red is definitely a Giallo in that it is a “psychological/detective thriller whose overt concerns are the mechanics of crime and punishment; however this film’s particular style leans closer to the “serie noir”, in which the two stories (the first being the initial murder which sets the events of the film in motion, and the second being the unraveling of the case itself) are fused together (McDonagh 5). The movie opens with a murder scene: we see someone get stabbed, and the feet of a nearby witness, who is obviously a child. The next big event is the fate of a German clairvoyant; after she psychically identifies the presence of a murderer in the audience of her press conference, she is followed back to her apartment and brutally murdered, presumably by the same person who committed the murder in the opening scene.
The rest of the story follows one Marc Daly, a pianist, who witnesses the crime while hanging out in a downstairs courtyard with his friend Carlo. After picking up on something that the police don’t notice, he teams up with Gianna, a female journalist he meets at the crime scene, and the unlikely pair spend the remainder of the movie trying to solve the mystery of the perpetrator’s identity. Marc cleverly notices that a certain song (a child singing, or a children’s record maybe) is always playing when these murders are committed. His friend the Professor (also a friend of the dead psychic Helga) makes the ingenious connection that the song must have played a crucial role in the murderer’s childhood, and has had a lasting psychological impact on him or her. We find out at the end of the film that the killer is Carlo’s mother. Notably, we discover that the song which heralded the murders was actually a children’s record; Carlo had put it on immediately beforehand, and it played throughout his experience of witnessing the death of his father at the hands of his mother. McDonagh makes note of the extensive use of music in Deep Red, yet he doesn’t really touch on this aspect of it (McDonagh 9-10). From this reading, we are meant to understand that music plays an integral part in the Giallo, which it definitely does in this case. He mentions the importance of diegetic music in the film, especially the jazz which both Marc and Carlo play, but doesn’t discuss this particular plot device (which is actually really important and kind of central to the story).
Ultimately, I did enjoy the film, although I thought it was a little slow-moving in parts. The scene in which Marc is chipping away the plaster which covers the drawing on the wall seemed to take FOREVER, and the fact that it dragged on didn’t really seem to increase the suspense. My favorite aspect was the mystery of the killer: several red herrings are thrown in, such as the fact that the killer wears thick black eyeliner (but so do almost all the main characters), and also that we are led to believe that Amanda Righetti (who has written a book about the event shown in the opening scene) is the child who witnessed (committed?) the murder years ago, now grown up. Of course, we find out she’s not the killer once she’s murdered, but the ruse is entertaining anyway. I also think (and we discussed this in class) that the goriness of the murders and the fakeness of the red blood detract from the scariness or the horror of the story. This gory, bloody mess is also a characteristic of the Giallo (as evidenced by the films of not only Argento but also of his mentor Mario Bava (McDonagh 6)), but because the horror in this film is so explicit I found much of it to be ineffective (or at least, it smacked strongly of B-movieness).
Overall I think this movie is a good choice to show as a model for the Giallo; it was interesting and seemed to conform to all the characteristics of the genre. From the reading we get the impression that it is probably one of the better films within this class of horror and I’m glad I got the chance to see this movie rather than one of Argento’s other works such as Tenebre or Suspiria .
American Horror: Wilderness in 19th Century America and Pet Sematary
This is a short essay I wrote utilizing various sources from my History of Horror Films class. In it I discuss the ideology of "American Horror", the concept of "the Wilderness" within American Horror, and how these concepts are demonstrated in Pet Sematary, a contemporary American Horror film.
HIS357
Troy
30 July 2009
American Horror Short Essay: Wilderness in 19th Century America and Pet Sematary
As covered in some of the readings for class, the “American Gothic” tradition in horror differs from that of European horror in several ways; one notable difference is the idea of “Frontier Gothic”, and in particular, the idea of the wilderness as dangerous. When America was first settled, the country was one great big wilderness, inhabited by tribes of Indians and species of animals, all unknown and many potentially dangerous. Even today, large areas of the country are still uninhabited, rugged terrain, the kind you wouldn’t want to be stranded in without food or water. Yet the temptation to explore such a vast wilderness fraught with danger often proves irresistible for the characters in horror stories.
In Alan Lloyd Smith’s essay on American Gothic Fiction, he underscores the importance of the concept of wilderness as treacherous especially when compared to what had, until then, been considered dangerous in European mentality (Castles and the like). Smith quotes Charles Brockden Brown’s consideration of the significance of the wilderness to Americans: “the incidents of Indian hostility, and the perils of the…wilderness, are far more [frightening to an American audience]” (Smith 79). Yet in spite of all this imminent danger there is an inherent yearning of the human spirit to not only explore and conquer the wilderness, but also to retreat to it as a means of getting in touch with one’s inner self.
In Pet Sematary, a 1989 film directed by Mary Lambert and based upon a novel by Stephen King, our hero (?) Dr. Louis Creed believes himself to be above falling prey to such superstitions. A man of science, he chooses to enter the wilderness (in this case, a burial ground long-ago abandoned by Indians, who recognized the power there as inherently evil). Because Louis Creed is a scientist, like so many European explorers that came before him he callously disregards any sort of religious or supernatural belief (as evidenced by his discussion of heaven and hell with his daughter). By the end of the film, he has committed a number of ethically questionable deeds — the murders of his wife and neighbor are a direct result of his actions — yet Louis still does not learn from his transgressions and continues to disrespect the very real beliefs of the Indians. Even though the resurrecting power of the graveyard is clearly unholy and must never be used, Louis still fancies himself somehow more powerful. Louis ultimately believes he can tinker with the Indians’ supernatural force of resurrection of the pet sematary, and bend it to suit his wishes. He believes he can go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants. In a sense, he believes he can play God. Of course, he is wrong, and the moral of the story is never to fancy oneself greater than the wilderness or to disregard someone else’s beliefs, as you will always lose out in the end.
According to David S. Lovejoy in his essay “Satanizing the American Indian”, the European colonists considered the Indians of America to have had two prevalent spirits, one good and one bad. Lovejoy informs us that “emphasis” was (and, to a certain extent still is, as we see in Pet Sematary) put on the latter, whom the Indians “feared and propitiated” (Lovejoy 611). Smith also talks about the importance of “the self” in the Frontier Gothic/American Gothic movement. With increased space such as the wilderness of America, people were no longer confined to small areas. People were finally able to “get away from it all” and presumably to use the meditative isolation of the wilderness to find themselves. The problem with this idea is, we may not like the person we find when get there. The potential awfulness of finding oneself in a tortured “inward state of mind” (Smith 79) therefore becomes a classic characteristic of American horror. In the writings of Henry David Thoreau (whose Walden was a virtual instruction manual on how to use the wilderness to gain inner peace and enlightenment), that this desire to explore nature is thus ingrained in each of us, and thus we are willing to risk the perils of the wilderness that we may be able to understand it better. From this concept is born the story of wilderness as horror in the American tradition, in which our protagonists struggle to find themselves in the wilderness, always finding themselves somewhere between enlightenment and jeopardy. The “wilderness” in Pet Sematary — and by extension the religion of the Indians— is clearly a force greater than the “self” of the human protagonist who has chosen to violate it; in this instance, having ventured into unknown territory ultimately causes Louis’ descent into madness. Pet Sematary is an interesting example in that it embodies not only the idea of horror as “the other” (the mystical Indian religion, the evil force of the cemetery, the threat of the wilderness itself) but also of “the self” (Louis’ internal ethical struggle and his ultimate descent into madness), both of which are characteristics of modern Gothic storytelling and which therefore make Pet Sematary truly a tale of American Horror.
HIS357
Troy
30 July 2009
American Horror Short Essay: Wilderness in 19th Century America and Pet Sematary
As covered in some of the readings for class, the “American Gothic” tradition in horror differs from that of European horror in several ways; one notable difference is the idea of “Frontier Gothic”, and in particular, the idea of the wilderness as dangerous. When America was first settled, the country was one great big wilderness, inhabited by tribes of Indians and species of animals, all unknown and many potentially dangerous. Even today, large areas of the country are still uninhabited, rugged terrain, the kind you wouldn’t want to be stranded in without food or water. Yet the temptation to explore such a vast wilderness fraught with danger often proves irresistible for the characters in horror stories.
In Alan Lloyd Smith’s essay on American Gothic Fiction, he underscores the importance of the concept of wilderness as treacherous especially when compared to what had, until then, been considered dangerous in European mentality (Castles and the like). Smith quotes Charles Brockden Brown’s consideration of the significance of the wilderness to Americans: “the incidents of Indian hostility, and the perils of the…wilderness, are far more [frightening to an American audience]” (Smith 79). Yet in spite of all this imminent danger there is an inherent yearning of the human spirit to not only explore and conquer the wilderness, but also to retreat to it as a means of getting in touch with one’s inner self.
In Pet Sematary, a 1989 film directed by Mary Lambert and based upon a novel by Stephen King, our hero (?) Dr. Louis Creed believes himself to be above falling prey to such superstitions. A man of science, he chooses to enter the wilderness (in this case, a burial ground long-ago abandoned by Indians, who recognized the power there as inherently evil). Because Louis Creed is a scientist, like so many European explorers that came before him he callously disregards any sort of religious or supernatural belief (as evidenced by his discussion of heaven and hell with his daughter). By the end of the film, he has committed a number of ethically questionable deeds — the murders of his wife and neighbor are a direct result of his actions — yet Louis still does not learn from his transgressions and continues to disrespect the very real beliefs of the Indians. Even though the resurrecting power of the graveyard is clearly unholy and must never be used, Louis still fancies himself somehow more powerful. Louis ultimately believes he can tinker with the Indians’ supernatural force of resurrection of the pet sematary, and bend it to suit his wishes. He believes he can go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants. In a sense, he believes he can play God. Of course, he is wrong, and the moral of the story is never to fancy oneself greater than the wilderness or to disregard someone else’s beliefs, as you will always lose out in the end.
According to David S. Lovejoy in his essay “Satanizing the American Indian”, the European colonists considered the Indians of America to have had two prevalent spirits, one good and one bad. Lovejoy informs us that “emphasis” was (and, to a certain extent still is, as we see in Pet Sematary) put on the latter, whom the Indians “feared and propitiated” (Lovejoy 611). Smith also talks about the importance of “the self” in the Frontier Gothic/American Gothic movement. With increased space such as the wilderness of America, people were no longer confined to small areas. People were finally able to “get away from it all” and presumably to use the meditative isolation of the wilderness to find themselves. The problem with this idea is, we may not like the person we find when get there. The potential awfulness of finding oneself in a tortured “inward state of mind” (Smith 79) therefore becomes a classic characteristic of American horror. In the writings of Henry David Thoreau (whose Walden was a virtual instruction manual on how to use the wilderness to gain inner peace and enlightenment), that this desire to explore nature is thus ingrained in each of us, and thus we are willing to risk the perils of the wilderness that we may be able to understand it better. From this concept is born the story of wilderness as horror in the American tradition, in which our protagonists struggle to find themselves in the wilderness, always finding themselves somewhere between enlightenment and jeopardy. The “wilderness” in Pet Sematary — and by extension the religion of the Indians— is clearly a force greater than the “self” of the human protagonist who has chosen to violate it; in this instance, having ventured into unknown territory ultimately causes Louis’ descent into madness. Pet Sematary is an interesting example in that it embodies not only the idea of horror as “the other” (the mystical Indian religion, the evil force of the cemetery, the threat of the wilderness itself) but also of “the self” (Louis’ internal ethical struggle and his ultimate descent into madness), both of which are characteristics of modern Gothic storytelling and which therefore make Pet Sematary truly a tale of American Horror.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Piola - A slice of Italy in NYC
Stars: $$$ 1/2
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 2
Piola
48 E 12th St, New York, New York, United States
Piola was recommended to me as a place to interact with Italians and enjoy an authentic Italian gastronomic experience stateside. It didn't disappoint.
The restaurant is easy to find, about 1 1/2 blocks from the Union Square station.
Piola is mainly a pizzeria, but also offers salads, some pasta dishes, and a selection of meat and fish appetizery-things. It's quite authentically Italian, as there are many pizza joints, especially in Rome, set up with menus just like this.
The pizza menu has about 40+ different kinds, such as the "Siracusa" with mozzarella and artichokes or the "Giallanera" with eggplant and bell peppers. And, just as you'll find in Italy, there is a selection of "pizze bianche", pizzas without tomato sauce. I'd rate Piola's pizza crust a 10/10 - delicious. You can even see the pizza chefs hand rolling out the dough in the centrally located, open kitchen.
Each pizza is a managable 4-piece custom creation, and prices range from $10 to $16 depending on which you choose. You can even make personalized additions and substitutions; I had them put bell peppers on my "quattro funghi".
One high point are the $9 daily deals; your choice among 4 or 5 pizzas/pasta dishes, a soda, and (I believe) salad for a fixed price.
Piola has an acceptable wine list; I recommend asking your (authentically Italian!) server for a suggestion, as the wine we picked (the Piola house blend) was absolutely atrocious, especially at an exorbitant 25 bucks a bottle. Next time I'll try the "kiwi caipiroska", which looks awesome from its advertised picture.
Piola hosts events throughout the week; while it was pretty dead during the day (when we went) it becomes a cool local hang out at night, particularly on a Monday (when there's live music from 5-7 with drink specials and free finger food at the bar).
I'd recommend Piola for its relaxing, loungy atmosphere and authentically Italian staff, not to mention the delicious pizza.
Pretty averagely priced eats in NYC, and a nice experience overall.
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 2
Piola
48 E 12th St, New York, New York, United States
Piola was recommended to me as a place to interact with Italians and enjoy an authentic Italian gastronomic experience stateside. It didn't disappoint.
The restaurant is easy to find, about 1 1/2 blocks from the Union Square station.
Piola is mainly a pizzeria, but also offers salads, some pasta dishes, and a selection of meat and fish appetizery-things. It's quite authentically Italian, as there are many pizza joints, especially in Rome, set up with menus just like this.
The pizza menu has about 40+ different kinds, such as the "Siracusa" with mozzarella and artichokes or the "Giallanera" with eggplant and bell peppers. And, just as you'll find in Italy, there is a selection of "pizze bianche", pizzas without tomato sauce. I'd rate Piola's pizza crust a 10/10 - delicious. You can even see the pizza chefs hand rolling out the dough in the centrally located, open kitchen.
Each pizza is a managable 4-piece custom creation, and prices range from $10 to $16 depending on which you choose. You can even make personalized additions and substitutions; I had them put bell peppers on my "quattro funghi".
One high point are the $9 daily deals; your choice among 4 or 5 pizzas/pasta dishes, a soda, and (I believe) salad for a fixed price.
Piola has an acceptable wine list; I recommend asking your (authentically Italian!) server for a suggestion, as the wine we picked (the Piola house blend) was absolutely atrocious, especially at an exorbitant 25 bucks a bottle. Next time I'll try the "kiwi caipiroska", which looks awesome from its advertised picture.
Piola hosts events throughout the week; while it was pretty dead during the day (when we went) it becomes a cool local hang out at night, particularly on a Monday (when there's live music from 5-7 with drink specials and free finger food at the bar).
I'd recommend Piola for its relaxing, loungy atmosphere and authentically Italian staff, not to mention the delicious pizza.
Pretty averagely priced eats in NYC, and a nice experience overall.
Popei's - Local flair and local fare in Central Long Island
Stars: ***
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 3.5
Popei's Clam Bar
451 Middle Country Rd, Coram, New York, United States
Located smack-dab in the middle of Long Island, Popei's is about the localest of seafood joints you'll find. This place is particularly good if you're in the mood for a low-key, family-style seafood atmosphere, but the reasonable prices are really the main draw.
Although we were there on "ribs night", Popei's has a different all-you-can-eat special every day of the week. They're particularly renowned around here for their $30 snow crab leg special, on Tuesday and/or Wednesday. It's probably a good idea to check their website ahead of time to find out what the special will be for the night you plan to visit.
All the dishes are served in large, family-style portions; they can definitely be taken home in a doggie bag for the next day's lunch.
We each had a (decently priced) local draft beer, and the fried oyster appetizer (which was my favorite of the items we ordered). The oysters were large and juicy, the fry coating was light and not greasy at all.
As for entrees, I was less impressed. I had the Stuffed Eggplant (eggplant stuffed with shrimp, scallops, sealegs, broccoli, & ricotta cheese then topped with marinara & mozzarella)and my friend had "Mike's Unforgettable" (tortellini in a cajun alfredo sauce with shrimp, scallops, sealegs & veggies).
In case you were wondering, "sealegs" is just a euphemistic term for "fake krab meat", and I'm sorry to say it comprised the majority of the "seafood" in my dish. Hers was a little better, as she had visible tortellini, but I was hard pressed to find a single piece of eggplant until after 5 minutes of digging way to the bottom of the hot mess that comprised my dinner plate. To be fair, I wasn't really that hungry; if I had been, perhaps I could've given a more positive review. But I barely touched my food (I was a little turned off by the "sealegs", honestly) and gave the leftovers to my family. I think next time, try to stick to the basics (fried shrimp, fra diavolo whatever) and stay away from anything smothered with melted mozzarella, as you can't see what you're eating (maybe they do that on purpose...?).
On the upside, they do have a huge menu: if it swims in the ocean, Popei's probably carries it. They also have a "landlubbers" menu for those who don't eat seafood. Another high point is their full bar and outdoor seating area. The drinks are priced pretty well, you can smoke out there (which, believe me, is very important to the regulars), and the service was excellent. Our waitress was friendly and seemed shockingly normal compared to the roughness of Popei's' patrons.
The clientele, as you may imagine, is comprised only of locals. Think: 45-year-old-townies looking for a good time. Whether you like this kind of atmosphere is moot- on a Friday or Saturday evening, be prepared to deal with loads of drunk, possibly rowdy, but ultimately fun-loving bargoers. If you're not really into that kind of scene, the indoor dining area is decidedly more low-key and family friendly than the outdoor tiki bar, so make sure you sit inside if that's the case.
All in all, Popei's is reasonably priced, for both food and drinks. Seafood restaurants are getting more and more expensive and Popei's manages to keep the costs down. There are so many chain-alternatives, such as Red Lobster, that it is tempting to ignore local places like this. But if you're in central Long Island, and you're in the mood for seafood in a relaxed atmosphere, Popei's Clam Bar is definitely worth a visit.
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 3.5
Popei's Clam Bar
451 Middle Country Rd, Coram, New York, United States
Located smack-dab in the middle of Long Island, Popei's is about the localest of seafood joints you'll find. This place is particularly good if you're in the mood for a low-key, family-style seafood atmosphere, but the reasonable prices are really the main draw.
Although we were there on "ribs night", Popei's has a different all-you-can-eat special every day of the week. They're particularly renowned around here for their $30 snow crab leg special, on Tuesday and/or Wednesday. It's probably a good idea to check their website ahead of time to find out what the special will be for the night you plan to visit.
All the dishes are served in large, family-style portions; they can definitely be taken home in a doggie bag for the next day's lunch.
We each had a (decently priced) local draft beer, and the fried oyster appetizer (which was my favorite of the items we ordered). The oysters were large and juicy, the fry coating was light and not greasy at all.
As for entrees, I was less impressed. I had the Stuffed Eggplant (eggplant stuffed with shrimp, scallops, sealegs, broccoli, & ricotta cheese then topped with marinara & mozzarella)and my friend had "Mike's Unforgettable" (tortellini in a cajun alfredo sauce with shrimp, scallops, sealegs & veggies).
In case you were wondering, "sealegs" is just a euphemistic term for "fake krab meat", and I'm sorry to say it comprised the majority of the "seafood" in my dish. Hers was a little better, as she had visible tortellini, but I was hard pressed to find a single piece of eggplant until after 5 minutes of digging way to the bottom of the hot mess that comprised my dinner plate. To be fair, I wasn't really that hungry; if I had been, perhaps I could've given a more positive review. But I barely touched my food (I was a little turned off by the "sealegs", honestly) and gave the leftovers to my family. I think next time, try to stick to the basics (fried shrimp, fra diavolo whatever) and stay away from anything smothered with melted mozzarella, as you can't see what you're eating (maybe they do that on purpose...?).
On the upside, they do have a huge menu: if it swims in the ocean, Popei's probably carries it. They also have a "landlubbers" menu for those who don't eat seafood. Another high point is their full bar and outdoor seating area. The drinks are priced pretty well, you can smoke out there (which, believe me, is very important to the regulars), and the service was excellent. Our waitress was friendly and seemed shockingly normal compared to the roughness of Popei's' patrons.
The clientele, as you may imagine, is comprised only of locals. Think: 45-year-old-townies looking for a good time. Whether you like this kind of atmosphere is moot- on a Friday or Saturday evening, be prepared to deal with loads of drunk, possibly rowdy, but ultimately fun-loving bargoers. If you're not really into that kind of scene, the indoor dining area is decidedly more low-key and family friendly than the outdoor tiki bar, so make sure you sit inside if that's the case.
All in all, Popei's is reasonably priced, for both food and drinks. Seafood restaurants are getting more and more expensive and Popei's manages to keep the costs down. There are so many chain-alternatives, such as Red Lobster, that it is tempting to ignore local places like this. But if you're in central Long Island, and you're in the mood for seafood in a relaxed atmosphere, Popei's Clam Bar is definitely worth a visit.
Sushi Damo - Pricey but Nicey sushi in shi-shi Columbus Circle
Stars: **** 1/2
Price: $$$$$
Weirdness factor: 0
Sushi Damo
330 West 58th Street New York, United States
Sometimes you just crave sushi, even if you're in one of the most notoriously expensive areas in Manhattan.
Such was the case for Sushi Damo. My father and I chose this place because we happened to be in the area, and I WANTED JAPANESE RIGHT THEN AND THERE!! Lol... not really, but kinda. We knew this restaurant would be expensive going in, based solely on its location (hey, it's Columbus Circle, what'd you expect?), but we also figured it would be better than trekking all over to god-knows-where, trying to find a cheaper place to eat in a different area.
Both the exterior and the interior of Sushi Damo are quite modern and sleek. Everything is very streamlined and minimalist-looking. Basically, it looks expensive. The service was friendly and we were sat right away.
We each had a Sapporo draught beer (at 7 bucks a pop-but hey, it's Columbus Circle). We had tea as well, but ordered beer for the main reason that Sapporo on draught is kind of hard to come by.
Although the appetizers were priced pretty well, (the miso soup was very tasty and for $3 was a veritable NYC bargain) I wasn't about to pay a whopping $6 for edamame, Columbus circle or no. That said, the shrimp shumai were probably the best I've ever had: delicate and light, with just the right shrimpy aroma. Those were quite delicious and garner my highest recommendation of the items we ordered.
For a main meal, we chose to get two rolls and split them. I don't know about you, but I tend to judge a sushi place on their "special creation rolls", because these often disappoint.
We got a Passion roll (spicy tuna, salmon, yellowtail and seaweed salad with fresh salmon outside, formed into the shape of a heart *see photo*), and a Tokyo Rose roll (blackened tuna, shiso -I'm a sucker for anything with shiso- daikon radish sprouts, and panko bread crumbs, topped with spicy tuna and 3 kinds of fish roe).
I gotta say, Sushi Damo really stepped up to the plate -- these rolls were delicious and beautifully crafted. I'd say Damo could give my old standby Ichiban a run for its money, if each roll weren't a good 6 or 7 dollars more expensive and soup were included (which it isn't).
All in all, I rather enjoyed Sushi Damo. The atmosphere was nice and the food was excellent. The only downside is that you'll definitely be paying at least $25 per person for a full meal (but hey, it's Columbus Circle... what did you expect?). For more economical (and more authentic) Japanese food, check out St. Marks Place. However, if you're in the Columbus Circle area and are looking for an elegant experience in Japanese cuisine, Sushi Damo is a nice choice.
Price: $$$$$
Weirdness factor: 0
Sushi Damo
330 West 58th Street New York, United States
Sometimes you just crave sushi, even if you're in one of the most notoriously expensive areas in Manhattan.
Such was the case for Sushi Damo. My father and I chose this place because we happened to be in the area, and I WANTED JAPANESE RIGHT THEN AND THERE!! Lol... not really, but kinda. We knew this restaurant would be expensive going in, based solely on its location (hey, it's Columbus Circle, what'd you expect?), but we also figured it would be better than trekking all over to god-knows-where, trying to find a cheaper place to eat in a different area.
Both the exterior and the interior of Sushi Damo are quite modern and sleek. Everything is very streamlined and minimalist-looking. Basically, it looks expensive. The service was friendly and we were sat right away.
We each had a Sapporo draught beer (at 7 bucks a pop-but hey, it's Columbus Circle). We had tea as well, but ordered beer for the main reason that Sapporo on draught is kind of hard to come by.
Although the appetizers were priced pretty well, (the miso soup was very tasty and for $3 was a veritable NYC bargain) I wasn't about to pay a whopping $6 for edamame, Columbus circle or no. That said, the shrimp shumai were probably the best I've ever had: delicate and light, with just the right shrimpy aroma. Those were quite delicious and garner my highest recommendation of the items we ordered.
For a main meal, we chose to get two rolls and split them. I don't know about you, but I tend to judge a sushi place on their "special creation rolls", because these often disappoint.
We got a Passion roll (spicy tuna, salmon, yellowtail and seaweed salad with fresh salmon outside, formed into the shape of a heart *see photo*), and a Tokyo Rose roll (blackened tuna, shiso -I'm a sucker for anything with shiso- daikon radish sprouts, and panko bread crumbs, topped with spicy tuna and 3 kinds of fish roe).
I gotta say, Sushi Damo really stepped up to the plate -- these rolls were delicious and beautifully crafted. I'd say Damo could give my old standby Ichiban a run for its money, if each roll weren't a good 6 or 7 dollars more expensive and soup were included (which it isn't).
All in all, I rather enjoyed Sushi Damo. The atmosphere was nice and the food was excellent. The only downside is that you'll definitely be paying at least $25 per person for a full meal (but hey, it's Columbus Circle... what did you expect?). For more economical (and more authentic) Japanese food, check out St. Marks Place. However, if you're in the Columbus Circle area and are looking for an elegant experience in Japanese cuisine, Sushi Damo is a nice choice.
Folks Southern Kitchen - Folk-ing delicious Fried Fare in the Atlanta Suburbs
Stars: ***
Price: $$
Weirdness factor: 3
Folks Southern Kitchen
2031 Windy Hill Rd & Cobb Pkwy Marietta Ga 30062, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I am a big proponent of patronizing local places to eat... so, rather than eating at the local Olive Garden or Chili's we opted for dinner at Folks Southern Kitchen, which has 11 locations and all are exclusive to Georgia.
Since, apparently, 1978, Folks has been aspiring to be the greatest thing in southern cuisine chains since Shoney's or Cracker Barrel - however, I can't say they were any better than Cracker Barrel, and certainly not as good as Shoney's.
The food here is typical "southern-fried" fare - literally, virtually everything is fried. Don't go here if you have a cholesterol problem, because even something seemingly light (mashed potatoes) comes loaded with enough saturated fat to knock you into next week.
Highlights were the Fried Green Tomatoes, Fried Okra, and Meatloaf. Low points were the aforementioned mashed potatoes, and the dry and tasteless cornbread. I am a big cornbread fan, and I have to say, I was very disappointed with Folks' version. My chicken livers were battered and fried, something I (naively, I suppose) didn't expect. It made them heavy and a little well-done for my taste, even if they tasted OK.
One warning to southern-fare novices: the sweet tea. As a southerner myself, I LOVE it. But Folks' bucket-sized peach tea was so sickeningly sugary, I had a tough time getting it down. I guess it's an acquired taste, though... kinda like when you drink a cocktail that is terrible the first time around, then order another and find that the second one (and yes, I did have a second one) goes down pretty easy.
Again, not for the even remotely health-conscious.
Next time, I think I'll try the catfish with hushpuppies and redbeans and rice.
All in all, Folks is comparable to Cracker Barrel or Shoney's, but probably a little cheaper. If you're a fan of this kind of food, then I suggest you give ol' Folks a try instead of the other two, as it's always a good thing to support local places. Just don't expect anything spectacular.
Price: $$
Weirdness factor: 3
Folks Southern Kitchen
2031 Windy Hill Rd & Cobb Pkwy Marietta Ga 30062, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I am a big proponent of patronizing local places to eat... so, rather than eating at the local Olive Garden or Chili's we opted for dinner at Folks Southern Kitchen, which has 11 locations and all are exclusive to Georgia.
Since, apparently, 1978, Folks has been aspiring to be the greatest thing in southern cuisine chains since Shoney's or Cracker Barrel - however, I can't say they were any better than Cracker Barrel, and certainly not as good as Shoney's.
The food here is typical "southern-fried" fare - literally, virtually everything is fried. Don't go here if you have a cholesterol problem, because even something seemingly light (mashed potatoes) comes loaded with enough saturated fat to knock you into next week.
Highlights were the Fried Green Tomatoes, Fried Okra, and Meatloaf. Low points were the aforementioned mashed potatoes, and the dry and tasteless cornbread. I am a big cornbread fan, and I have to say, I was very disappointed with Folks' version. My chicken livers were battered and fried, something I (naively, I suppose) didn't expect. It made them heavy and a little well-done for my taste, even if they tasted OK.
One warning to southern-fare novices: the sweet tea. As a southerner myself, I LOVE it. But Folks' bucket-sized peach tea was so sickeningly sugary, I had a tough time getting it down. I guess it's an acquired taste, though... kinda like when you drink a cocktail that is terrible the first time around, then order another and find that the second one (and yes, I did have a second one) goes down pretty easy.
Again, not for the even remotely health-conscious.
Next time, I think I'll try the catfish with hushpuppies and redbeans and rice.
All in all, Folks is comparable to Cracker Barrel or Shoney's, but probably a little cheaper. If you're a fan of this kind of food, then I suggest you give ol' Folks a try instead of the other two, as it's always a good thing to support local places. Just don't expect anything spectacular.
Raglan Road - An Irish Diamond in Touristy O-Town
Stars: *****
Price: $$$$
Weirdness Factor: 1.5
I LOVE Raglan Road!
It is one of my favorite places to go and grab a drink or snack and watch some live music, which they have 5 nights a week. The atmosphere is friendly, especially in the open "performance" area and at the bar.
Because it's on Disney property, the pub is very safe and there is virtually never a "rowdiness" problem. The bartenders can call for security at any time.
They have great whiskey, needless to say, and *almost* every Irish draught beer you can think of off the top of your head. I would have liked to see some Kinsale ale, but no such luck. I recommend you try their "flights" (of either whiskey or beer), in order to sample a lot of different things at a reasonable price.
The food is pretty tasty. We had a very interesting liver pate, with berry jam, on toast. If this sounds weird, it was. But still good! Don't let the strangeness of the menu offerings scare you... there is a real chef in the kitchen. This isn't your ordinary plebian pub!
On the downside, this place is not the cheapest. But you get what you pay for, what with the live entertainment and free parking. Plus, if it's not too late, you can go to Pleasure Island next door and finish the night out at the clubs over there.
I can't tell you how many times I had planned on going to PI, but stopped for a quick drink at Raglan Road first, never making it to my final destination! :)
I do not know if they serve half-pints here. This is important in a pub, but not all that common in the US. I would like to think they do, as Orlando sees many British tourists, but I'm not sure about the half-pint situation.
Anyway, I am a local and always enjoy bringing guests to Raglan Road. It's always a fun place with an eclectic mix of people. There is no such thing as a "local" crowd there, and everyone is welcome. Two thumbs up.
Price: $$$$
Weirdness Factor: 1.5
I LOVE Raglan Road!
It is one of my favorite places to go and grab a drink or snack and watch some live music, which they have 5 nights a week. The atmosphere is friendly, especially in the open "performance" area and at the bar.
Because it's on Disney property, the pub is very safe and there is virtually never a "rowdiness" problem. The bartenders can call for security at any time.
They have great whiskey, needless to say, and *almost* every Irish draught beer you can think of off the top of your head. I would have liked to see some Kinsale ale, but no such luck. I recommend you try their "flights" (of either whiskey or beer), in order to sample a lot of different things at a reasonable price.
The food is pretty tasty. We had a very interesting liver pate, with berry jam, on toast. If this sounds weird, it was. But still good! Don't let the strangeness of the menu offerings scare you... there is a real chef in the kitchen. This isn't your ordinary plebian pub!
On the downside, this place is not the cheapest. But you get what you pay for, what with the live entertainment and free parking. Plus, if it's not too late, you can go to Pleasure Island next door and finish the night out at the clubs over there.
I can't tell you how many times I had planned on going to PI, but stopped for a quick drink at Raglan Road first, never making it to my final destination! :)
I do not know if they serve half-pints here. This is important in a pub, but not all that common in the US. I would like to think they do, as Orlando sees many British tourists, but I'm not sure about the half-pint situation.
Anyway, I am a local and always enjoy bringing guests to Raglan Road. It's always a fun place with an eclectic mix of people. There is no such thing as a "local" crowd there, and everyone is welcome. Two thumbs up.
James Rooster Taverne and Grill - Cozy Cellar Dining
Stars: ****
Price: $$$$
Weirdness factor: 0
James Rooster Taverne and Grille
3 Rue de la Commune, Montreal, Canada
The James Rooster pub is located down by the water in Old Montreal, right across the way from the Science Museum and IMAX theater. As you walk north from there, towards the basilica, you'll spot a sign for the James Rooster right by a small stone archway built into the wall.
It's pretty inconspicuous, and that's part of its charm. Because we were trying to kill time until sunset, we decided to pop in for a quick beer. The stone archway leads you through a short tunnel and then into a charming little courtyard, which is much more reminiscent of Europe than North America.
Anyway, it was pretty early, around 5, so the place hadn't started picking up yet. There were 2 couples at the bar besides us, but the restaurant part seemed to be pretty empty.
The "bar" part is situated in kind of a a stone cellar converted into a lounge, with cozy lighting, arched ceilings, and the hockey game playing on one of the large plasma tvs. I don't know if the site of the James Rooster used to actually be a cellar, or if it was just designed that way as an afterthought, but it sure did look like an old dungeon or something!
The waitress/bartender was really friendly and helpful.
I had a pint of the St. Ambroise Vintage Ale from the tap, which is locally made by the McAuslan Brewery, right in the city of Montreal itself. It was very nice and good complex flavors, just enough hoppiness. Mmm.
My friend had a bottle of the Apricot Wheat Ale, also made by St. Ambroise. This one had the most delicious apricoty aroma and lovely finish. It's a shame the Apricot Wheat Ale only came in bottle form because I could have easily had a pint or two, it really was delicious!
The food specials for the evening were posted on a chalkboard in the bar. There was some kind of roast beef special, and gravlax (aka smoked salmon). When you order a drink at the bar, you get a complimentary little platter of hors d'oeuvres, I guess they change from night to night. When we went we got little crostini topped with both slices of roast beef and a dijon-mayonnaise sauce, and (particularly tasty) gravlax with a dill and creme fraiche sauce. Mmm.
If we'd stayed for dinner I think I would've ordered that, even though all the entrees were a little pricey.
One of my favorite things about the James Rooster was the intimate feel of the place; one of the cooks came out from the kitchen wanting some kind of liquor from the bartender to add to his bowl. It just seemed really organically put together and not too stuffy.
I'd say the James Rooster is a perfect location to go for drinks before dinner, expecially if you're on a date and especially if it's early enough to have the place mostly to yourselves. Plus it's in a lovely, scenic area right by the water and you can take a nice stroll along the river afterwards.
Price: $$$$
Weirdness factor: 0
James Rooster Taverne and Grille
3 Rue de la Commune, Montreal, Canada
The James Rooster pub is located down by the water in Old Montreal, right across the way from the Science Museum and IMAX theater. As you walk north from there, towards the basilica, you'll spot a sign for the James Rooster right by a small stone archway built into the wall.
It's pretty inconspicuous, and that's part of its charm. Because we were trying to kill time until sunset, we decided to pop in for a quick beer. The stone archway leads you through a short tunnel and then into a charming little courtyard, which is much more reminiscent of Europe than North America.
Anyway, it was pretty early, around 5, so the place hadn't started picking up yet. There were 2 couples at the bar besides us, but the restaurant part seemed to be pretty empty.
The "bar" part is situated in kind of a a stone cellar converted into a lounge, with cozy lighting, arched ceilings, and the hockey game playing on one of the large plasma tvs. I don't know if the site of the James Rooster used to actually be a cellar, or if it was just designed that way as an afterthought, but it sure did look like an old dungeon or something!
The waitress/bartender was really friendly and helpful.
I had a pint of the St. Ambroise Vintage Ale from the tap, which is locally made by the McAuslan Brewery, right in the city of Montreal itself. It was very nice and good complex flavors, just enough hoppiness. Mmm.
My friend had a bottle of the Apricot Wheat Ale, also made by St. Ambroise. This one had the most delicious apricoty aroma and lovely finish. It's a shame the Apricot Wheat Ale only came in bottle form because I could have easily had a pint or two, it really was delicious!
The food specials for the evening were posted on a chalkboard in the bar. There was some kind of roast beef special, and gravlax (aka smoked salmon). When you order a drink at the bar, you get a complimentary little platter of hors d'oeuvres, I guess they change from night to night. When we went we got little crostini topped with both slices of roast beef and a dijon-mayonnaise sauce, and (particularly tasty) gravlax with a dill and creme fraiche sauce. Mmm.
If we'd stayed for dinner I think I would've ordered that, even though all the entrees were a little pricey.
One of my favorite things about the James Rooster was the intimate feel of the place; one of the cooks came out from the kitchen wanting some kind of liquor from the bartender to add to his bowl. It just seemed really organically put together and not too stuffy.
I'd say the James Rooster is a perfect location to go for drinks before dinner, expecially if you're on a date and especially if it's early enough to have the place mostly to yourselves. Plus it's in a lovely, scenic area right by the water and you can take a nice stroll along the river afterwards.
La Paryse - Best poutine? Yes. Best burgers, non!
Stars: ** 1/2, *** on a good day
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 3
La Paryse
302 Rue Ontario Est Montreal QC, Canada
La Paryse is probably mentioned in every guidebook to Montreal, touting it as THE place to have THE greatest burger to be found in the city.
Maybe we went on an off night, but these guidebooks couldn't have been more wrong! Totally unimpressed by the burgers.
The atmosphere, while a little harried, was cute and informal, with a majority of French-speakers. This is also a VERY homosexual-friendly restaurant! I didn't care for the music, however; I enjoy Bjork and Sinead O'Connor as much as the next person, but in their place, and not while I'm eating a burger and fries, ya dig?
I'll start with the good news. La Paryse has the best poutine (that I've experienced, anyway) in Montreal. The fries are crispy and golden brown, the cheese is grated (not in huge, cold lumps, but in thin strips that melt away) and their gravy is excellent. The poutine gravy at La Paryse has a great complex, authentic taste - not prepackaged. This was my first time trying classic poutine, and nowhere else in the city quite lived up to it. I highly recommend La Paryse for its poutine above anywhere else in Montreal.
Now for the negative.
My friend got the regular Beef Burger, which (while it seemed to be 100% beef) was rather sawdusty. It was seasoned properly but just wasn't juicy enough. (Stay tuned for my review of 5 Guys Burgers in Orlando, the best burgers ever!)The fixins for the burger seemed to be fine. I chose the Pinto Bean Burger (they had 3 different veggie burger selections), and this was equally disappointing. It was heavy and sticky, with way too much mayo. Honestly, I would rather have had a black bean patty from Chili's. The only thing that saved this burger was the 'herb cheese' they put on it, which was pretty tasty.
The prices were normal, about 8 dollars for the burger, but $1 extra to share a plate.
We got a bottle of wine which completely sucked, and it was around 28 CAD! Take my advice and don't get wine there, just have a coke or something, don't get ripped off by their alcohol!
I would say, since this place is in a pretty busy and trendy area, to go there just to check out their poutine, as it is really great. But afterward, go elsewhere, maybe St. Denis, for dinner and drinks.
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 3
La Paryse
302 Rue Ontario Est Montreal QC, Canada
La Paryse is probably mentioned in every guidebook to Montreal, touting it as THE place to have THE greatest burger to be found in the city.
Maybe we went on an off night, but these guidebooks couldn't have been more wrong! Totally unimpressed by the burgers.
The atmosphere, while a little harried, was cute and informal, with a majority of French-speakers. This is also a VERY homosexual-friendly restaurant! I didn't care for the music, however; I enjoy Bjork and Sinead O'Connor as much as the next person, but in their place, and not while I'm eating a burger and fries, ya dig?
I'll start with the good news. La Paryse has the best poutine (that I've experienced, anyway) in Montreal. The fries are crispy and golden brown, the cheese is grated (not in huge, cold lumps, but in thin strips that melt away) and their gravy is excellent. The poutine gravy at La Paryse has a great complex, authentic taste - not prepackaged. This was my first time trying classic poutine, and nowhere else in the city quite lived up to it. I highly recommend La Paryse for its poutine above anywhere else in Montreal.
Now for the negative.
My friend got the regular Beef Burger, which (while it seemed to be 100% beef) was rather sawdusty. It was seasoned properly but just wasn't juicy enough. (Stay tuned for my review of 5 Guys Burgers in Orlando, the best burgers ever!)The fixins for the burger seemed to be fine. I chose the Pinto Bean Burger (they had 3 different veggie burger selections), and this was equally disappointing. It was heavy and sticky, with way too much mayo. Honestly, I would rather have had a black bean patty from Chili's. The only thing that saved this burger was the 'herb cheese' they put on it, which was pretty tasty.
The prices were normal, about 8 dollars for the burger, but $1 extra to share a plate.
We got a bottle of wine which completely sucked, and it was around 28 CAD! Take my advice and don't get wine there, just have a coke or something, don't get ripped off by their alcohol!
I would say, since this place is in a pretty busy and trendy area, to go there just to check out their poutine, as it is really great. But afterward, go elsewhere, maybe St. Denis, for dinner and drinks.
Heartland Brewery - Go on a true Beer Voyage!
Stars: ***
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: .75 (due to the passersby)
Heartland Brewery
127 W 43rd St, New York, New York, United States
Knowing that we weren't going to have much choice once we got back to our neighborhood, we grabbed a quick bite (and drink) nearby to Penn Station. Even though the food in that area is also pretty hit-or-miss, the Heartland Brewery was a very nice place to stop and chill out for an hour or so.
This place is rather like a Houlihan's, or a John Harvards... it's an independent brewery that also serves food, namely comfort food and pub fare.
Our server was excellent, really friendly but also really attentive and quick.
To drink, we both had the "Seasonal Voyage", which consisted of 8 little taster glasses of 6 different house beers, and 2 of their seasonal brews. Many passers-by stopped to look through the window at our "voyages", making us feel like raging alcoholics, but COME ON! It's a microbrewery! That's what you're supposed to get!
To eat, I got the pulled pork sandwich. It was pretty tasty, and so were the fries, but there was just a tiny ramekin of cole slaw... not enough! Where I'm from, you simply can't have a pulled pork sandwich without lots of cole slaw!
My friend had the beef burger cooked medium rare, and (surprisingly) that's how it came out.
The prices are a little high for what you get; but, hey, it's New York.
I guess this review is really about the beer. I prefer hoppy, bitter beers, so my favorite would have to be their house IPA (Indiana Pale Ale). It was aggressively bitter and hoppy, and definitely would have been my drink of choice had I ordered a pint of just one kind. Coming in second was the Red Rooster Ale, reminiscent of Killians, but hoppier and with a sweeter finish.
Ultimately the Heartland Brewery is the kind of place you'd typically avoid in NYC because there are so many other options; however it's still good ol' comfort food with decent beers, and would probably be slammed every night if it were located in, say, Long Island.
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: .75 (due to the passersby)
Heartland Brewery
127 W 43rd St, New York, New York, United States
Knowing that we weren't going to have much choice once we got back to our neighborhood, we grabbed a quick bite (and drink) nearby to Penn Station. Even though the food in that area is also pretty hit-or-miss, the Heartland Brewery was a very nice place to stop and chill out for an hour or so.
This place is rather like a Houlihan's, or a John Harvards... it's an independent brewery that also serves food, namely comfort food and pub fare.
Our server was excellent, really friendly but also really attentive and quick.
To drink, we both had the "Seasonal Voyage", which consisted of 8 little taster glasses of 6 different house beers, and 2 of their seasonal brews. Many passers-by stopped to look through the window at our "voyages", making us feel like raging alcoholics, but COME ON! It's a microbrewery! That's what you're supposed to get!
To eat, I got the pulled pork sandwich. It was pretty tasty, and so were the fries, but there was just a tiny ramekin of cole slaw... not enough! Where I'm from, you simply can't have a pulled pork sandwich without lots of cole slaw!
My friend had the beef burger cooked medium rare, and (surprisingly) that's how it came out.
The prices are a little high for what you get; but, hey, it's New York.
I guess this review is really about the beer. I prefer hoppy, bitter beers, so my favorite would have to be their house IPA (Indiana Pale Ale). It was aggressively bitter and hoppy, and definitely would have been my drink of choice had I ordered a pint of just one kind. Coming in second was the Red Rooster Ale, reminiscent of Killians, but hoppier and with a sweeter finish.
Ultimately the Heartland Brewery is the kind of place you'd typically avoid in NYC because there are so many other options; however it's still good ol' comfort food with decent beers, and would probably be slammed every night if it were located in, say, Long Island.
Il Porticciolo - Great, affordable fare for locals and tourists alike
Stars: **** 1/2
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 1
Il Porticciolo
92 Via R. Birolli, Manarola, Italy
We decided to try the Trattoria Il Porticciolo from a referral out of one of our guidebooks, mainly because it advertised 6-euro pasta dishes, and we were pretty strapped for cash.
While their dishes averaged more towards 8 or 9 euro than 6, this little trattoria stole my heart. It is hands-down my favorite eatery in the Cinque Terre.
Il Porticciolo is pretty much in direct competition with the larger, more expensive, ocean-front restaurant Marina Piccola, so they're cheaper. The first night we went there, the service was ok, we had a bottle of local white wine. My friend had a frutti di mare, seafood pasta. The shrimp still had their shells and heads, and the little squid still had their beaks. If you're not used to seeing seafood prepared like this, it could be a little disconcerting... but I loved it. The more the fish looks how it did when it was caught, the less it's been handled, so theoretically it's fresher. It certainly looked and tasted fresh and delicious, beaks and all.
I had the pappardelle pescespada (wide, flat pasta with swordfish) in a mildly spicy, lightly creamy tomato sauce. I'm not kidding when I say this was probably the best (or at least top 3) pasta dishes I've had in Italy. It was absolutely delicious.
We were staying in Manarola, so the following night we decided, rather than search for a new restaurant in another of the 5 towns, to return to Il Porticciolo because we had enjoyed it so much.
They remembered us. This time we got slightly better service, and bread with oil and spices as a complimentary appetizer, something we didn't get the first time around. A few nights later, one of our last in the area, we decided to eat there one last time... why not?
This time, they DEFINITELY remembered us. Not only did we get bread and oil, we also got sardines, and a complimentary limoncello (or some kind of digestivo) after dinner. I guess most tourists don't come in 3 times within the space of a week, but you just don't see hospitality like that very often, and it didn't go unnoticed.
If you're in Manarola, go to Il Porticciolo. Forget that, actually. If you're in the Cinque Terre at all, go to Il Porticciolo. It's just a hole in the wall, but it delivers more than its loftier, pricier, picturesque-ier competitors ever could. Two thumbs up.
PS. By the way, did I tell you I had the same dish all 3 times? And I'm a crazy foodie, the kind of person who's morally against that! The pappardelle was that good. I'd have it again right now.
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 1
Il Porticciolo
92 Via R. Birolli, Manarola, Italy
We decided to try the Trattoria Il Porticciolo from a referral out of one of our guidebooks, mainly because it advertised 6-euro pasta dishes, and we were pretty strapped for cash.
While their dishes averaged more towards 8 or 9 euro than 6, this little trattoria stole my heart. It is hands-down my favorite eatery in the Cinque Terre.
Il Porticciolo is pretty much in direct competition with the larger, more expensive, ocean-front restaurant Marina Piccola, so they're cheaper. The first night we went there, the service was ok, we had a bottle of local white wine. My friend had a frutti di mare, seafood pasta. The shrimp still had their shells and heads, and the little squid still had their beaks. If you're not used to seeing seafood prepared like this, it could be a little disconcerting... but I loved it. The more the fish looks how it did when it was caught, the less it's been handled, so theoretically it's fresher. It certainly looked and tasted fresh and delicious, beaks and all.
I had the pappardelle pescespada (wide, flat pasta with swordfish) in a mildly spicy, lightly creamy tomato sauce. I'm not kidding when I say this was probably the best (or at least top 3) pasta dishes I've had in Italy. It was absolutely delicious.
We were staying in Manarola, so the following night we decided, rather than search for a new restaurant in another of the 5 towns, to return to Il Porticciolo because we had enjoyed it so much.
They remembered us. This time we got slightly better service, and bread with oil and spices as a complimentary appetizer, something we didn't get the first time around. A few nights later, one of our last in the area, we decided to eat there one last time... why not?
This time, they DEFINITELY remembered us. Not only did we get bread and oil, we also got sardines, and a complimentary limoncello (or some kind of digestivo) after dinner. I guess most tourists don't come in 3 times within the space of a week, but you just don't see hospitality like that very often, and it didn't go unnoticed.
If you're in Manarola, go to Il Porticciolo. Forget that, actually. If you're in the Cinque Terre at all, go to Il Porticciolo. It's just a hole in the wall, but it delivers more than its loftier, pricier, picturesque-ier competitors ever could. Two thumbs up.
PS. By the way, did I tell you I had the same dish all 3 times? And I'm a crazy foodie, the kind of person who's morally against that! The pappardelle was that good. I'd have it again right now.
Les Halles - High end Bistro fare in Midtown
Stars: *****
Price: $$$$$
Weirdness factor: 0
Les Halles
411 Park Ave South, New York, New York, United States
French bistro-brasserie Les Halles, once a New York landmark, had somewhat fallen out of favor, due in large part to the recent surge in popularity of Italian cuisine. However, probably because of head chef Anthony Bourdain's hit show on the the Travel Channel, the restaurant has enjoyed renewed renown.
We went early on a Sunday evening. At first it was relatively empty, and I thought our reservations had been unnecessary; however, as the night wore on the place filled up considerably, proving that the bistro hasn't quite lost its prestige just yet.
The cozy brown and gold colors and dimmed lighting made for a really enjoyable and intimate setting, quite evocative of dining establishments in France (despite the fact that the tables are so close to one another I could've joined in on my neighbors' conversations). Also, you can see into the kitchen, something I love in a restaurant. The service was impeccable (perhaps because I was scribbling in my notebook the entire time?). The waiter seemed to appear out of nowhere to refill our wine glasses and fold our napkins into scallops, and all three (4? 5?) of our attendants stopped by regularly to check on us.
Skip the French Onion soup. It's one of my favorite dishes and I always order it, but this was probably the worst I've ever eaten. Equally unimpressive was the pork confit with cornichon... it was fatty, salty, and overpriced.
However, the disappointing appetizers were no indication of the rest of the dishes.
The main courses are hearty and decently sized, with distinct flavors, simple ingredients, and a surprisingly authentic Frenchness. My duck, truffle, and potato hachi was delicious; the hangar steak was perfectly cooked and the accompanying shallot reduction was one of the best sauces I've ever had.
The choco-banana tart was quite tasty, and if you're a chocoholic, you can't do much better than the decadently rich house souffle -- oh, and by the way, both of these desserts were great, but their greatness was heightened by a snifter of vsop cognac...very highly recommended... :)
The wine menu is extensive and exceptional(notably offering a $400 bottle of Bordeaux), and so is the selection of aperitifs, cognacs, and especially eaux-de-vie (rarely seen in American restaurants, but run-of-the-mill in France).
Unfortunately, Les Halles is pretty pricey, starting at about $10 for apps and entrees in excess of $40, and remember, that's not including wine, coffee, dessert, or tip. But the good news here is that at least you get what you pay for, something quite refreshing in a town where a bottle of beer can cost upwards of $10.
High prices and crappy onion soup aside, if you're in the mood for a delicious dinner in an intimate and charming atmosphere, you can't do much better than Les Halles.
Price: $$$$$
Weirdness factor: 0
Les Halles
411 Park Ave South, New York, New York, United States
French bistro-brasserie Les Halles, once a New York landmark, had somewhat fallen out of favor, due in large part to the recent surge in popularity of Italian cuisine. However, probably because of head chef Anthony Bourdain's hit show on the the Travel Channel, the restaurant has enjoyed renewed renown.
We went early on a Sunday evening. At first it was relatively empty, and I thought our reservations had been unnecessary; however, as the night wore on the place filled up considerably, proving that the bistro hasn't quite lost its prestige just yet.
The cozy brown and gold colors and dimmed lighting made for a really enjoyable and intimate setting, quite evocative of dining establishments in France (despite the fact that the tables are so close to one another I could've joined in on my neighbors' conversations). Also, you can see into the kitchen, something I love in a restaurant. The service was impeccable (perhaps because I was scribbling in my notebook the entire time?). The waiter seemed to appear out of nowhere to refill our wine glasses and fold our napkins into scallops, and all three (4? 5?) of our attendants stopped by regularly to check on us.
Skip the French Onion soup. It's one of my favorite dishes and I always order it, but this was probably the worst I've ever eaten. Equally unimpressive was the pork confit with cornichon... it was fatty, salty, and overpriced.
However, the disappointing appetizers were no indication of the rest of the dishes.
The main courses are hearty and decently sized, with distinct flavors, simple ingredients, and a surprisingly authentic Frenchness. My duck, truffle, and potato hachi was delicious; the hangar steak was perfectly cooked and the accompanying shallot reduction was one of the best sauces I've ever had.
The choco-banana tart was quite tasty, and if you're a chocoholic, you can't do much better than the decadently rich house souffle -- oh, and by the way, both of these desserts were great, but their greatness was heightened by a snifter of vsop cognac...very highly recommended... :)
The wine menu is extensive and exceptional(notably offering a $400 bottle of Bordeaux), and so is the selection of aperitifs, cognacs, and especially eaux-de-vie (rarely seen in American restaurants, but run-of-the-mill in France).
Unfortunately, Les Halles is pretty pricey, starting at about $10 for apps and entrees in excess of $40, and remember, that's not including wine, coffee, dessert, or tip. But the good news here is that at least you get what you pay for, something quite refreshing in a town where a bottle of beer can cost upwards of $10.
High prices and crappy onion soup aside, if you're in the mood for a delicious dinner in an intimate and charming atmosphere, you can't do much better than Les Halles.
Beast - Beastly good deals in Park Slope
Stars: *****
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: .5
Beast
638 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, New York, United States
We were craving a drink and a nosh on St. Patrick's Day. So, from an offhand referral through a friend (and Park Slope local), we decided to try Beast. We headed there originally because of the catchy name, but the outside decor lured us in, the staff was super-friendly, and we never looked back.
A cozy, eccentric little watering hole-slash-eatery-slash-tapas bar, Beast is kitchy yet tasteful; deliciously nouveau-Brooklyn. I loved it.
The entire "kitchen" (tiny and probably smaller than the one you have at home) is set smack in the middle of the dining room; you can see exactly what's going on and exactly who's cooking, at all times. It was quite unlike anything I'd ever seen before, and it really added to the communal, homey, anti-yuppie feel of the place. I imagine on extremely slow nights it's kind of like being at your friend's house during a laid-back dinner party. And I don't know about you, but that's an experience I'd like to have again and again.
The brews on tap are another of Beast's points of interest: Grimbergen, Weihenstephan, Krusovice, and "Peak Organic" Pale ale aren't beers you see at your everyday bar.
Refreshingly moderate in price, the limited menu consists of smaller, cheaper appetizers and considerably larger appetizers (big enough to be entrees anywhere else). Furthermore, we didn't see a single item over $20, which is "kind of a big deal" for NYC, even in Brooklyn.
The "Big B's" burger was thick, moist and delicious. The exorbitant $2 fee for an addition of cheese is only there so that the management can discourage you from "detracting from the way the burger was meant to be"... oh and FYI, they're right, it's wonderful just the way it is, so don't ask for cheese!
The garlicky bleu cheese potato salad was equally tasty.
My warm grilled flatbread (thick, charred, and soft) with black bean hummus and chipotle aioli was delicious; at $5 I can't think of a better New York deal.
The whole environment at Beast is charming; there's an archaic video game in one corner while silent movies play on tv in the other; the management even throws a basketball game in for good measure (or political correctness, take your pick). Gargoyles, fairies, even a jackalope head adorn the walls and the music is "ambient"... a good mix of loungy background(and some classic) tracks which can only be described as I describe the entirety of Beast itself; that is to say, well... pretty cool.
It's a shame we didn't try their holiday-inspired corned beef and cabbage, as I'm sure it would've been great. Oh well, next time... and there WILL be a next time! Time Out NY voted Beast "Best New Restaurant" in Brooklyn, and for good reason... check it out if you happen to swing that way!
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: .5
Beast
638 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, New York, United States
We were craving a drink and a nosh on St. Patrick's Day. So, from an offhand referral through a friend (and Park Slope local), we decided to try Beast. We headed there originally because of the catchy name, but the outside decor lured us in, the staff was super-friendly, and we never looked back.
A cozy, eccentric little watering hole-slash-eatery-slash-tapas bar, Beast is kitchy yet tasteful; deliciously nouveau-Brooklyn. I loved it.
The entire "kitchen" (tiny and probably smaller than the one you have at home) is set smack in the middle of the dining room; you can see exactly what's going on and exactly who's cooking, at all times. It was quite unlike anything I'd ever seen before, and it really added to the communal, homey, anti-yuppie feel of the place. I imagine on extremely slow nights it's kind of like being at your friend's house during a laid-back dinner party. And I don't know about you, but that's an experience I'd like to have again and again.
The brews on tap are another of Beast's points of interest: Grimbergen, Weihenstephan, Krusovice, and "Peak Organic" Pale ale aren't beers you see at your everyday bar.
Refreshingly moderate in price, the limited menu consists of smaller, cheaper appetizers and considerably larger appetizers (big enough to be entrees anywhere else). Furthermore, we didn't see a single item over $20, which is "kind of a big deal" for NYC, even in Brooklyn.
The "Big B's" burger was thick, moist and delicious. The exorbitant $2 fee for an addition of cheese is only there so that the management can discourage you from "detracting from the way the burger was meant to be"... oh and FYI, they're right, it's wonderful just the way it is, so don't ask for cheese!
The garlicky bleu cheese potato salad was equally tasty.
My warm grilled flatbread (thick, charred, and soft) with black bean hummus and chipotle aioli was delicious; at $5 I can't think of a better New York deal.
The whole environment at Beast is charming; there's an archaic video game in one corner while silent movies play on tv in the other; the management even throws a basketball game in for good measure (or political correctness, take your pick). Gargoyles, fairies, even a jackalope head adorn the walls and the music is "ambient"... a good mix of loungy background(and some classic) tracks which can only be described as I describe the entirety of Beast itself; that is to say, well... pretty cool.
It's a shame we didn't try their holiday-inspired corned beef and cabbage, as I'm sure it would've been great. Oh well, next time... and there WILL be a next time! Time Out NY voted Beast "Best New Restaurant" in Brooklyn, and for good reason... check it out if you happen to swing that way!
Pizza Design - Unbelievable Kebab in Residential Rome
Stars: *****
Price: $$
Weirdness factor: 4 - it's a little weird
Pizza Design
Circonvallazione Cornelia 17-17a - , Rome, Italy
If you've been to Rome lately, you'll know that the Romans like their Kebab (it's actually Schwarma, but the Italians call it Kebab, so it's Kebab from here on out). And if you've been to Pizza Design, it's likely you'll never look at Kebab in the same way again.
I cannot begin to describe my love for Pizza Design. It is the most amazing food ever and it's not even expensive. Ok, ok. Calm down, stop salivating, and give the people a review.
First off, it's a small-ish, modern looking, clean little restaurant (I believe it's run by Syrians) right outside of the Cornelia metro stop. Like all Roman pizzerias, they sell their pizzas by weight, so you can go in and get 100 grams of this, 100 grams of that, etc, and pay a flat price.
Their pizza is always amazing, different flavors every day, depending on what is freshest. They have tricolore, seafood, tomato/basil/fresh mozzarella...all different kinds, always looking fresh, green, and delicious.
However, we're really here to talk about the kebabs. Although the name says Pizza, the kebabs are where it's at! The meat they use is not the usual overseasoned gyro ground-up lamb paste that is formed into a log shape, no way. The lamb at Pizza Design is actual visible layers of real solid lamb meat, interspersed with thin layers of red bell pepper, so that it keeps the meat moist while imparting a delicious flavor. At the top of the roasting spit are different kinds of fruit- the heat releases the essences of the fruit and it therefore drips down and flavors the meat. SO delicious.
The wraps are more like soft flatbread (think Gordita) than pita or tortilla, and they warm them up for you on a giant metal drum thing.
But here's the best part - there is a smorgasbord of things you can choose to make-your-own-kebab, which, like the pizza, is a different selection everyday! In every other kebab joint I've been to, even the good ones, they have a selection of lettuce, tomato, onion. MAYBE they have some kind of slaw or relish. That's it. But! At Pizza Design, there are all different kinds of lettuces, tomato, and onion. They have tomato and cucumber salad, roasted eggplant or zucchini, falafel, babaghanoush, spicy pickled peppers, hummus, loads of different things.
Part of the selection is "food", presented in pans and set up like a cafeteria; mediterranean specialties, curried chicken and rice, etc...but they're right alongside the fixin's for the wraps- so basically whatever they have displayed, you can put in your sandwich.
They top it off with a creamy white sauce and a spicy red harissa sauce (I always got extra of that). Then, get a beer or a fanta from behind the cassa, and you're good to go.
I went in there so many times they knew me by name, I'd say at least once... maybe twice... a week! They are all super friendly and go out of their way to make you a great sandwich!
The whole thing will cost you about 10 euro, drink included.
I absolutely cannot praise Pizza Design enough. It's one of the top 5 places I've ever eaten in my life. You have never had a kebab until you've had Pizza Design. This is probably my highest recommended restaurant in Rome (!), and for my money, truly worth travelling for.
Price: $$
Weirdness factor: 4 - it's a little weird
Pizza Design
Circonvallazione Cornelia 17-17a - , Rome, Italy
If you've been to Rome lately, you'll know that the Romans like their Kebab (it's actually Schwarma, but the Italians call it Kebab, so it's Kebab from here on out). And if you've been to Pizza Design, it's likely you'll never look at Kebab in the same way again.
I cannot begin to describe my love for Pizza Design. It is the most amazing food ever and it's not even expensive. Ok, ok. Calm down, stop salivating, and give the people a review.
First off, it's a small-ish, modern looking, clean little restaurant (I believe it's run by Syrians) right outside of the Cornelia metro stop. Like all Roman pizzerias, they sell their pizzas by weight, so you can go in and get 100 grams of this, 100 grams of that, etc, and pay a flat price.
Their pizza is always amazing, different flavors every day, depending on what is freshest. They have tricolore, seafood, tomato/basil/fresh mozzarella...all different kinds, always looking fresh, green, and delicious.
However, we're really here to talk about the kebabs. Although the name says Pizza, the kebabs are where it's at! The meat they use is not the usual overseasoned gyro ground-up lamb paste that is formed into a log shape, no way. The lamb at Pizza Design is actual visible layers of real solid lamb meat, interspersed with thin layers of red bell pepper, so that it keeps the meat moist while imparting a delicious flavor. At the top of the roasting spit are different kinds of fruit- the heat releases the essences of the fruit and it therefore drips down and flavors the meat. SO delicious.
The wraps are more like soft flatbread (think Gordita) than pita or tortilla, and they warm them up for you on a giant metal drum thing.
But here's the best part - there is a smorgasbord of things you can choose to make-your-own-kebab, which, like the pizza, is a different selection everyday! In every other kebab joint I've been to, even the good ones, they have a selection of lettuce, tomato, onion. MAYBE they have some kind of slaw or relish. That's it. But! At Pizza Design, there are all different kinds of lettuces, tomato, and onion. They have tomato and cucumber salad, roasted eggplant or zucchini, falafel, babaghanoush, spicy pickled peppers, hummus, loads of different things.
Part of the selection is "food", presented in pans and set up like a cafeteria; mediterranean specialties, curried chicken and rice, etc...but they're right alongside the fixin's for the wraps- so basically whatever they have displayed, you can put in your sandwich.
They top it off with a creamy white sauce and a spicy red harissa sauce (I always got extra of that). Then, get a beer or a fanta from behind the cassa, and you're good to go.
I went in there so many times they knew me by name, I'd say at least once... maybe twice... a week! They are all super friendly and go out of their way to make you a great sandwich!
The whole thing will cost you about 10 euro, drink included.
I absolutely cannot praise Pizza Design enough. It's one of the top 5 places I've ever eaten in my life. You have never had a kebab until you've had Pizza Design. This is probably my highest recommended restaurant in Rome (!), and for my money, truly worth travelling for.
Banana Leaf - Decent cuisine in Curry Hill
Stars: ***
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 3.5
Banana Leaf
103 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, United States
A friend of mine who had never been to New York City recently came to visit. We decided on Indian food, because it is a rarity where he comes from. We took the 6 train to 28th street, an area I affectionately refer to as "Little India" because there are literally about 100 Indian and Pakistani restaurants in a 5 block radius.
We chose the Banana Leaf, which advertised itself as "brand new". I had never seen it before, I just "got a good feeling about the place".
We quickly scanned the menu for beer, hoping to get a couple of Kingfishers in us before the meal was out, but they did not offer it! At first I thought perhaps the owners were religious and therefore didn't provide beer. HOWEVER, during the course of the evening we saw a server come out (twice!) with beers for a group at another table. They must have asked for it specifically. Maybe the place doesn't have a liquor license and all the alcohol is served secretly?! Strange. Instead we had cups of chai, which was tasty, but overpriced. I think next time I'll stick to water.
The food, on the other hand, was pretty good. Averagely priced for Indian, about 12-18 bucks for an entree.
They have a lot of southern Indian ("regional", I guess) things, most notably an extensive selection of dosa. I will be trying some of them the next time I drop by.
I didn't care for any of the table sauces, even the green coriander one that I usually devour! The naan was cold, stale and not puffy at all. Next time get the roti or skip the bread altogether!
I tend to order veggie samosas everytime I do Indian, and these were pretty tasty, but again, a little pricey. They didn't seem to offer meat samosas on the menu (or maybe they DO have them, it's just a secret! and you have to ask for them specifically!).
The Tandoori Chicken was moist, spicy and served fajita style on a sizzling plate, it comes as a half chicken but the portion could have been bigger.
Chicken Tikka Masala was not spectacular, I didn't care for the texture of the sauce, and it was way too spicy for any human to eat. And I love spicy. I'm just amazed I didn't get heartburn.
Atmosphere was not wonderful, but they dimmed the lights and lit some candles so that was a bit of an improvement... there was music but they only played the same song over and over!
ON THE PLUS SIDE, however, my Chana Saag was delicious, probably the best I've ever had...and Chana Saag is *my dish*, I always get it! The service was absolutely impeccable; our waiters were wonderful, answered our questions, refilled our glasses, checked up on us, were polite and courteous.
It had some hits and misses, but all in all, Banana Leaf was a good experience. I will go there again next time I'm in "Curry Hill" and I'd recommend it to people looking to have a nice evening with excellent service and decent food.
Price: $$$
Weirdness factor: 3.5
Banana Leaf
103 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, United States
A friend of mine who had never been to New York City recently came to visit. We decided on Indian food, because it is a rarity where he comes from. We took the 6 train to 28th street, an area I affectionately refer to as "Little India" because there are literally about 100 Indian and Pakistani restaurants in a 5 block radius.
We chose the Banana Leaf, which advertised itself as "brand new". I had never seen it before, I just "got a good feeling about the place".
We quickly scanned the menu for beer, hoping to get a couple of Kingfishers in us before the meal was out, but they did not offer it! At first I thought perhaps the owners were religious and therefore didn't provide beer. HOWEVER, during the course of the evening we saw a server come out (twice!) with beers for a group at another table. They must have asked for it specifically. Maybe the place doesn't have a liquor license and all the alcohol is served secretly?! Strange. Instead we had cups of chai, which was tasty, but overpriced. I think next time I'll stick to water.
The food, on the other hand, was pretty good. Averagely priced for Indian, about 12-18 bucks for an entree.
They have a lot of southern Indian ("regional", I guess) things, most notably an extensive selection of dosa. I will be trying some of them the next time I drop by.
I didn't care for any of the table sauces, even the green coriander one that I usually devour! The naan was cold, stale and not puffy at all. Next time get the roti or skip the bread altogether!
I tend to order veggie samosas everytime I do Indian, and these were pretty tasty, but again, a little pricey. They didn't seem to offer meat samosas on the menu (or maybe they DO have them, it's just a secret! and you have to ask for them specifically!).
The Tandoori Chicken was moist, spicy and served fajita style on a sizzling plate, it comes as a half chicken but the portion could have been bigger.
Chicken Tikka Masala was not spectacular, I didn't care for the texture of the sauce, and it was way too spicy for any human to eat. And I love spicy. I'm just amazed I didn't get heartburn.
Atmosphere was not wonderful, but they dimmed the lights and lit some candles so that was a bit of an improvement... there was music but they only played the same song over and over!
ON THE PLUS SIDE, however, my Chana Saag was delicious, probably the best I've ever had...and Chana Saag is *my dish*, I always get it! The service was absolutely impeccable; our waiters were wonderful, answered our questions, refilled our glasses, checked up on us, were polite and courteous.
It had some hits and misses, but all in all, Banana Leaf was a good experience. I will go there again next time I'm in "Curry Hill" and I'd recommend it to people looking to have a nice evening with excellent service and decent food.
Monica Bellucci: the Madonna and the Whore in Contemporary Italian and American Cinema
This paper discusses Monica Bellucci and the cinematic roles that have made her famous. In true "monstrous feminine" style, her characters often portray a dichotomous madonna/whore. This madonna/whore trope is common to Italian and Italian American culture and society, and is reflected as such in both literature and film. I chose to write about this particular topic because I believe Monica Bellucci's filmographic career has really embodied the persona of the madonna/whore in a way that no other actress's (Italian or otherwise)has done.
ITL436
17/12/07
Reich
Monica Bellucci: The Madonna and the Whore
in Contemporary Italian and American Cinema
Monica Bellucci è una delle “stelle” italiane più conosciuta nel mondo, specificamente nel mondo di cinema americano e francese. Sebbene che la maggior parte degli attori italiani non siano ben conosciuti negli stati uniti, Monica Bellucci è veramente una eccezione. Nel mio saggio finale, sperò di spiegare come lei è rappresentata nel cinema italiano e americano, ed anche specificamente dagli americani. Stephen Gundle e Maddalena Spazzini, nel loro articolo “Stars and Stardom in Contemporary Italian Cinema” dicono che ci sono due elementi della persona pubblica di Bellucci: prima, la reputazione come una delle più belle donne del mondo; secondo, la percezione di lei come “femme fatale” o donna scura. Quelle ideè sembrano strettamente collegate con il concetto della “madonna e la puttana”, e attraverso questo saggio sperò di dimostrare i caratteristici dei ruoli di Bellucci ed illuminarli.
Monica Bellucci ha recitata nei tanti film; però è interessante che la maggioranza dei suoi film sono francesi (probabilmente a causa del suo marito francese) o americani, e non italiani. Il ruolo italiano di cui lei ha ricevuto più riconoscimento è quella di “Malèna”, un ruolo di una donna veramente oggettivata. Infatti, ha ricevuto un premio per suo ruolo nel film francese “L’appartement”, però generalmente non è conosciuta per esso negli stati uniti. Recentemente, Bellucci ha recitato nei alcuni film americani, specificamente i film “Matrix”, e “the Brothers Grimm”. L’idea della “Madonna and the whore”, o “la Madonna e la puttana” è un concetto difuso attraverso la cultura italiana però anche la cultura americana. Nei quasi tutti i suoi film, Bellucci è dipinta come una donna voluttuosa e sensuale, cioè in un certo senso, una rappresentazione di una puttana. Però, in un modo interessante, uno dei suoi personaggi cinematografici di recente è Mary Magdalene (quindi Maria Maddalena), l’amante di Christo, nel “Passion of the Christ”. Non so se sia un ruolo che define di più la personificazione della Madonna. Questo crea una situazione interessante: come è rappresentata la donna (specificamente, la donna italiana) nel cinema di oggi? Qualcosa è cambiata, o le donne nei film stanno nella stessa posizione che si sono occupate attraverso tutta la storia?
THE “AND” FACTOR
Qualcosa di interesse che ho osservato è un fenomeno che mi piace chiamare “il fattore di ‘and’”; quindi, “the ‘and’ factor”. Cioè, l’introduzione del nome Bellucci nei titoli (particolarmente i titoli di testa) di un film con l’articolo “and” o “e”. Secondo me, questo è veramente interessante. Cos’è l’implicazione di essere sempre introdotta con “and” (specialmente paragonata con gli altri attori nel film che non sono introdotti così)? Bellucci è veramente una “commodity”, quindi qualcosa da “vendere”. Con l’inclusione di “and” davanti dal nome, è sottinteso che lei non è allo stesso “livello” di recitare come gli altri attori ritenuti “autentici” dal pubblico. Diventa un oggetto che deve essere introdotto, in qualche modo, diverso dagli altri attori nel film. Di solito, vediamo quel tipo di introduzione con “and” soltanto con i divi grandi e benconosciuti, che recitano ruoli di “cameo”, persone con celebrità che non sono propriamente “attori” nel stesso senso come gli altri, conosciuti per participando nei film con ruoli di se stessi; per esempio musicisti come Willie Nelson in Half Baked, o atlete come Charles Barkley in Forget Paris. Anche vediamo mio “fattore di ‘and’” sulla televisione. Dopo il suo lasso di tempo nelle serie The Sopranos di HBO, Drea DiMatteo aveva ricevuto un similare titolo di testa con “and” come “Gina” nel sitcom di breve durata “Joey” di NBC. Sebbene che era una dei personaggi maggiori, è sopratutto la natura del suo personaggio (promiscua, non di essere preso con serietà) che merita quel tipo di riconoscimento. Nel quasi tutti dei film menzionati qui, Monica Bellucci è introdotta con “and” come una commodita, anche se è una delle carattere maggiori.
PERSEPHONE, LA DOMINATRIX DEL MATRIX
Negli secondo e terzo film della trilogia Matrix (Reloaded e Revolutions, rispettivamente), il ruolo di Persephone, la moglie del cattivo programma “the Merovingian”, è emblematico della consapevolezza dal pubblico rispetto a Bellucci. Anche come quasi tutti suoi altri carattere, Persephone rimane silenziosa durante la riunione fra suo marito e i tre membri di Zion (Morpheus, Trinity, e Neo). Inoltre, come tutti gli altre carattere di Bellucci, Persephone è una rappresentazione di passione, in questo caso una passione perduta, e di un desiderio irrealizzato. Il Merovingian è furbo, affascinante e attraente, e (sebbene che all’inizio non lo sappiamo) cosi è la moglie. Persephone si dimostra di essere una buon uguale alla forte personalità del Merovingian — ci porta Morpheus, Trinity e Neo a qualcuno che desiderano incontrare, però il Merovingian non li ha donato permissione di farlo. Lei tradisce suo marito soltanto per cercare vendetta, a causa del suo infedeltà. “È un gioco, soltanto un gioco”, dice Il Merovingian alla moglie quando si è affrontato con l’accusione della sua infedeltà. Con una freddezza impressionante, Persephone lo risponde (con significato del suo tradimento), “Anch’è questo un gioco”. Sia un film americano, un film italiano, o anche nel Matrix, vediamo che tutti ritorna al sesso. In un segno collegato, parliamo della “regina dello specchio”, imortalizzata nel film Brothers Grimm, e una delle carattere più sessuale (almeno sensuale) di tutti recitati da Monica Bellucci.
THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL – MIRROR QUEEN IN BROTHERS GRIMM
Secondo me, Bellucci come “regina dello specchio” nel film the Brothers Grimm di Terry Gilliam è una delle sue carattere più interessante della sua carriera, ed anche una delle più “tipica” che defina la sua percezione nel mondo internazionale di cinema. Di nuovo, è introdotta con “and Monica Bellucci”. La storia di questa regina è una di fantasia. La favola dice che lei era “apprezzata del tutto di europa, celebrata per la sua bellezza incredibile”, e aveva solicitato l’uso di spiriti malefici per preservarsi con un incantesimo di vita eterna. Portando immagine di Rapunzel, anche se una versione cattiva, Bellucci rappresenta la epitomia di bellezza, isolata nel torre d’avorio, con cappelli neri invece di quelli d’oro di Rapunzel. Come dice Gilliam durante il “commentario dal regista”, Bellucci ha rappresentato il “casting perfetto”, però non sembra né un po’ la bellezza tipica che si puó trovare nel bosco di Germania, dove questa storia è tenuta a svolgere. “Il suo dialogo è spesso molto limitato, e lei invariabilmente usa la sua bellezza fisica per ottenere i suoi desideri” (Spazzini/Grundle 6), una tema ovvia nel Brothers Grimm. Anche nel commentario, Gilliam dice sardonicamente che aveva “truffato” un po’ con il costume di Bellucci: “un buon costume dal medioevo sarebbe abbottonato fino al collo—quindi ho detto, ‘ma non lo so, penso che abbiamo altre cose qua che potremmo vendere’... abbiamo approffitato di tutti Monica può portare allo schermo”. Questo citazione dimostra il concetto di Bellucci come oggetto di fantasia erotica e non come attrice. Lei è veramente la persona più pericolosa nel film, bella però spietata; il fatto che la “regina dello specchio” non ha un proprio nome, rimane una misteria sconosciuta, con capacità di essere traditrice.
Dominique Mainon e James Ursini affermano cose similare sopra questa carattere nel loro libro di recente The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on Screen. “La fonte principale di cattiveria nel [the Brothers Grimm] è la regina dello specchio, recitata da Monica Bellucci, più interessante che gli altri personaggi nel film. Come nelle serie di film Matrix, quando ha recitato il ruolo di Persephone, Bellucci personifica il ruolo di una dominatrice...suo comportamento come un cadavere è macabro, però quando i suoi corteggiatori la vedono attraverso lo specchio (lo sguardo), sembra squisita... mostrando il simbolo della donna come “paura anciana” e l’affascinanza erotica”(Mainon/Ursino 49). Lo specchio rappresenta la dualità della donna, specialmente la donna bella. La voce della regina è anche di alta tonalità come una babydoll innocua, dice agli uomini che lei può “realizzare tutti i loro suoni”. La regina sta veramente personificando la natura incostante della donna; esercita la sua potenza sopra gli uomini. Una cosa interessante che diceva Bellucci con riguaro alle “fiabe” è che “dietro della storia c’è la verità”, visibile qui con questa figura della regina, sottolineando l’idea che la seduzione può
essere anche una certa forma di stregoneria, rinforzando il concetto che la Madonna può essere anche una puttana.
In un modo interessante, l’unico personaggio “italiano” dipinto nel film e il “nobiluomo” Cavaldi, recitato da Peter Stormare. Lui ha un “accento” completamente assurdo e ha tanti malapropismi ed errori nel suo parlato “italiano”. Suo comportamento di bravado e buffoneria è una forma di momento divertente. Apparentemente, Monica non è offesa dal descrizione di un paesano... finché riceva il salario! Infatti Bellucci è affrontata con, come dicono Gundle e Spazzini, “una varietà di tipi paradigmatici, ed una seria di scheme di comportamento che [gli attori italiani] sono obbligati di accetare, sposarli in parte, o rifiutare”(Gundle/Spazzini 12), cioè chiaro in questo caso.
Come abbiamo visto, dopo l’introduzione della televisione, il concetto di “divo” o “star” si è iniziato di cambiare; poco a poco la televisione ha spostata o dislocato il cinema, diventando “la più universale e immediata di mass media”. Paragonati con i personaggi televisivi, i divi del cinema erano figuri esagerati, quindi “larger-than-life”; avevano personalità individuali, avevano una mistica derivata da una mescolanza di accessibilità e distanza. Monica è una bella rappresentazione di questa idea, perché la sua bellezza esotica tenta lo spettatore, però alla stessa volta mantiene una distanza attraverso l’atto di non parlare quasi mai. Vediamo quel rappresentazione subito, però primo voglio discutere una eccezione di questa regola e suo ruolo nel film Ricordati di me, dal regista Gabriele Muccino — quella carratere è la di una donna intelligente, accessibile, anche con problemi personale come tutti.
LA DONNA COME VIA DI FUGA — RICORDATI DI ME
Nel questo film di Muccino, il personaggio di Alessia è una “amante perso” di Carlo, uno dei protagonisti, però non nel stesso modo come gli altri film che aveva fatti. Sebbene che Bellucci è di nuovo veramente un oggetto di desiderio sessuale, anche deve avere qualcosa più seducente che la moglie di Carlo (e non soltanto la bellezza). Vediamo che lei è uno certo tipo donna di negozio, molto arrivata. Lei ha molto da dire, può prendersi in giro se stessa, suscita affetto dall’audienza quando parla della sua “faccia di mela”. È bella, però non in un modo esagerato come la regina dello specchio. Non e affascinante con “glamour”; infatti e una donna intelligente, personabile, che tutti di noi saremmo triste di non aver mantenuto. Tutti gli personaggi nel film vogliano scappare qualcosa nella loro vita, e la carattere di Alessia fornisce una via di fuga per Carlo. Una scena pivotale è il pranzo fra Carlo ed Alessia, dove lei lamenta il marito che la considera “prevedibile e fidabile.... troppo affidabile per essere ancora stimulante”... una presenza mai associata con Monica Bellucci. Sebbene che Alessia si e trasformata in quello che il marito voleva, (che richiama alla mente la trasformazione di Malèna in quello che la città voleva) il marito adesso non la vuole più e cerca cose stimulante fra le altre donne.
Quel film è anche interessante perché mostra le donne come manipolate e potenti, però con debolezze e fortezze tutti a due. La figlia Valentina usa la sua bellezza (e infatti la sessualita) per promuovere la sua carriera televisiva. Una cosa importante ed anche che Alessia ed anche la moglie di Carlo (Giulia) assieme imbrogliano, invece del scenario più tradizionale in cui i mariti sono gli imbroglioni — allora noi come l’audienza giudichiamo i mariti più fortemente per quel peccato che le moglie. In un certo senso, Ricordati di me rompe alcuni stereotipi dai ruoli di genere. La dominazione del cinema a causa della televisione durante gli anni 80 e 90 è anche collegata con la storia di una dominazione completa sulla società e clima politica italiane durante quel periodo. L’attrazione di essere famoso nel cinema durante gli anni della dopoguerra si è sostituita con una ambizione di essere uno star televisivo. Come dicono Spazzini e Grundle, “i tipi di ragazze che avevano inondato i concorsi di bellezza degli anni della dopoguerra (con speranza di incontrare prodottori, che offrirebbero loro una passaporte a celebrità e ricchezza avevano participato ancora nei concorsi di bellezza …però con gli occhi fissati sulla televisione”(Grundle/Spazzini 5). Ricordati di me è una rappresentazione molto interessante di queste ideè, molto visibili nel carattere di Valentina, che trascorre la maggior parte del film inseguendo uno certo tipo di celebrità televisiva. Anche nel suo carettere vediamo la presenza conservativa di Berlusconi e la della t.v.; quando suo fratello chiede che lei pensa di lui, Valentina risponde che lui si comporta come “uno sfigato della sinistra, mentre il resto del mondo si dirige altrove”, cioè un sentimento veramente conservativo che rifletta i pensieri della società italiana contemporanea.
MALÈNA — THE ONE YOU WILL NEVER FORGET
Nel film Malèna di Giuseppe Tornatore, Bellucci è assegnata il ruolo di Malèna, una bellissima vedova in un piccolo vilaggio Siciliano. Attraverso la passione segreta per Malèna, il ragazzino Renato diventa uomo. Malèna, come dice Bellucci in una intervista nel commentario, “rappresenta il suono, l’amore, l’imaginazione, e la realtà”. Secondo me, anche rappresenta i desideri ed i suoni di un popolo. Malèna è l’epitomia di una fantasia per il villaggio; a causa della sua bellezza incredibile, gli uomini vogliano essere con lei, le donne vogliono essere lei in se stessa. Malèna sopporta perdita dopo perdita, però non riceva nessun appoggio dalla communita. Quindi poco a poco lei diventa la puttana di cui i cittàdini insistono che è. Quando emerge come una “nuova Malèna”, ha colorato rosso i cappelli, un segno traditionalmene associat con la Maria Maddalena (di non dimenticare è una prostituta). Nel caso di Malèna, la bellezza è un imprigionamento. Lei soffre il tipico “double standard”, italiano (però anche americano) quando è incolpata con i problemi matrimoniale dal dentista. Grazie alla moglie e il resto delle donne invidiose della città, Malèna è accusata di aver sedotto il dentista (mentre è sicuramente vittima innocente).
A causa della riconfigurazione nei mondi dal cinema e della televisione, il ruolo di “stardom” nel mondo di cinema non potuto essere distinto dagli altri tipi di celebrità. “Attraversamenti” fra i diversi mezzi di media erano d’abitudine, e “personalità televisivi a volte usavano la loro celebrità acquisita per guadagnare ruoli nel film” (Spazzini/Grundle 5). In una intervista nel “special features” del DVD, Bellucci lo affirma, diciendo che era prima modella e attrice nei alcuni commerciali televisivi. Ha accettato quel ruolo nel Malèna con entusiasmo, perché (come dice lei) “Non succede spesso la possibilità per una attrice italiana, di lavorare in un film che può essere internazionale”. Bellucci si è “attraversata” dei mezzi di media, però ancora non è considerata “attrice” nel stesso senso che altre senza questa storia o (più probabilmente) la sua bellezza famosa.
Spazzini e Grundle confermano che “non ci sono molti film in cui le sue curve abbondante sono coperte”, una dichiarazione che non è più vera che nel caso di Malèna. Una differenza chiara fra la versione del film originale (quindi italiano) e la distruibuita negli stati uniti è la mancanza delle scene che mostrano la nuda Bellucci in totalità. Qui vediamo una cosa importante fra il mondo cinematografico italiano e l’americano. La mentalità conservativa degli americani era preso nella mente dei produttori, ovviamente; se esamina le due versioni assieme, si può vede un primo esempio del cambiamento di una scena tipicamente italiana per conformare all’ideologia più conservativa, soltanto per vendere più copie ed ottenere più conoscimento internazionale.
Non è capito per caso che Malèna condivida suo nome con la famosa prostituta Maddalena della Bibbia. Malèna mai vendica, (senza la scena nel tribunale), e non parla quasi mai, però invece mantiene una “idea di femmininità più vecchia/tradizionale, non come fortezza però modestia” (Gundle, ICS 347). Purtroppo gli altri personaggi nel film non possono vedere quel virtù, soltanto sentono l’invidia a causa della bellezza di Malèna o (nel caso di uomo) il desiderio di possederla. Alla fine del film, lei è battuta, veramente bandita come una prostituta. Però sopravvive, e torna a dispetto dei cittàdini. Quando torna con il marito, ancora forte nel suo silenzio, è finalmente accettata nella società. Malèna diventa la personificazione di Maria Maddalena, alla fine diventa una rappresentazione di una prostituta redenta.
PUTTANA REDENTA — MARIA MADDALENA NEL PASSION OF THE CHRIST
Nel film recente the Passion of the Christ di Mel Gibson, Bellucci recita il ruolo di Malèna, però in un modo diverso. È possibile che in questo caso, Bellucci è “cast against type”? Il nome “Mary Magdalene” è una contraddizione nei termi in se stesso; “Mary” riporta alla mente la madre di Christo, la più pura femmina che ha mai esistata, mentre “Magdalene” è sinonimo con l’immagine di prostituta. In quel film, Bellucci rappresenta le due. Invece di essere titolata con una introduzione di “and”, in Passion riceva il credito secondo, e una fotografia abbastanza grande sulla custodia del DVD. Ora è veramente una icona della storia occidentale, da essere considerata con serietà. In contrasto con gli altri ruoli che aveva, la Maddalena qui è modesta, coperta, senza trucco. Non è per nulla affascinante; infatti l’unica volta che sembra “atraente” è durante la scena retrospettiva quando è ancora prostituta (lapidata in pubblico come Malèna). Dopo quest’episodio, non porta di più il trucco né gli orrechini.
Bellucci è una attrice famosa — la più famosa tra un cast di sconosciuti— però ancora non ha più di dieci “lines” nel film! Come dicono Spazzini e Grundle, Monica Bellucci usualmente recita una italiana, a causa probabilmente del suo accento italiano (Spazzini/Grundle 6), però in questo ruolo parla in Aramaico. Allora con una esecuzione in una lingua essenzialmente sconosciuta di tutti, suo accento diventa inosservato, e Bellucci può essere vista come attrice con oggettività.
CONCLUSIONE
Anche se i film che ho discusso sono contemporanei, quella idea sopra “la Madonna e la puttana” non è soltanto una creata dal mondo di oggi. Questo concetto di “oggettivare” o “categorizare” la figura della donna si è rimasto attraverso nel corso dei secoli. Oggi, molti persone sono opposto a “l’oggettivicazione” della donna, specialmente i gruppi feministi ed i registi nel inseguimento di giustizia umana, di una rappresentazione uguale fra le donne e gli uomini. Nonostante quel fatto, c’è una mentalità tenace è anti-feminile, poi misogina, che Bellucci (anche tra alcune altre) oggi continua di rappresentare se stessa. Però, con l’inclusione del suo ruolo nel Passion of the Christ, magari siamo arrivati ad un momento critico nella carriera di Bellucci. Magari, con quello, c’è speranza per Bellucci da consolidare la sua positione nel mondo di cinema, di guadagnare ruoli più “autentici”, e non soltanto quelli transitori.
FILMOGRAPHY
Brothers Grimm, the (dir. Terry Gilliam, 2005)
Maléna (dir. Giuseppe Tornatore, 2000)
Matrix Reloaded (dir. Andy/Larry Wachowski, 2003)
Matrix Revolutions (dir. Andy/Larry Wachowski, 2003)
Passion of the Christ, the (dir. Mel Gibson, 2004)
Ricordati di me (dir. Gabriele Muccino, 2003)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Forgacs, David and Lumley, Robert eds. Italian Cultural Studies: an introduction.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Gundle, Stephen and Spazzini, Maddalena. Stars and Stardom in Cotemporary Italian
Cinema.
Mainon, Dominique and Ursini, James. The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on
Screen. Minnesota: Hal Leonard, 2006.
Marcus, Millicent. After Fellini: National cinema in the postmodern age. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
ITL436
17/12/07
Reich
Monica Bellucci: The Madonna and the Whore
in Contemporary Italian and American Cinema
Monica Bellucci è una delle “stelle” italiane più conosciuta nel mondo, specificamente nel mondo di cinema americano e francese. Sebbene che la maggior parte degli attori italiani non siano ben conosciuti negli stati uniti, Monica Bellucci è veramente una eccezione. Nel mio saggio finale, sperò di spiegare come lei è rappresentata nel cinema italiano e americano, ed anche specificamente dagli americani. Stephen Gundle e Maddalena Spazzini, nel loro articolo “Stars and Stardom in Contemporary Italian Cinema” dicono che ci sono due elementi della persona pubblica di Bellucci: prima, la reputazione come una delle più belle donne del mondo; secondo, la percezione di lei come “femme fatale” o donna scura. Quelle ideè sembrano strettamente collegate con il concetto della “madonna e la puttana”, e attraverso questo saggio sperò di dimostrare i caratteristici dei ruoli di Bellucci ed illuminarli.
Monica Bellucci ha recitata nei tanti film; però è interessante che la maggioranza dei suoi film sono francesi (probabilmente a causa del suo marito francese) o americani, e non italiani. Il ruolo italiano di cui lei ha ricevuto più riconoscimento è quella di “Malèna”, un ruolo di una donna veramente oggettivata. Infatti, ha ricevuto un premio per suo ruolo nel film francese “L’appartement”, però generalmente non è conosciuta per esso negli stati uniti. Recentemente, Bellucci ha recitato nei alcuni film americani, specificamente i film “Matrix”, e “the Brothers Grimm”. L’idea della “Madonna and the whore”, o “la Madonna e la puttana” è un concetto difuso attraverso la cultura italiana però anche la cultura americana. Nei quasi tutti i suoi film, Bellucci è dipinta come una donna voluttuosa e sensuale, cioè in un certo senso, una rappresentazione di una puttana. Però, in un modo interessante, uno dei suoi personaggi cinematografici di recente è Mary Magdalene (quindi Maria Maddalena), l’amante di Christo, nel “Passion of the Christ”. Non so se sia un ruolo che define di più la personificazione della Madonna. Questo crea una situazione interessante: come è rappresentata la donna (specificamente, la donna italiana) nel cinema di oggi? Qualcosa è cambiata, o le donne nei film stanno nella stessa posizione che si sono occupate attraverso tutta la storia?
THE “AND” FACTOR
Qualcosa di interesse che ho osservato è un fenomeno che mi piace chiamare “il fattore di ‘and’”; quindi, “the ‘and’ factor”. Cioè, l’introduzione del nome Bellucci nei titoli (particolarmente i titoli di testa) di un film con l’articolo “and” o “e”. Secondo me, questo è veramente interessante. Cos’è l’implicazione di essere sempre introdotta con “and” (specialmente paragonata con gli altri attori nel film che non sono introdotti così)? Bellucci è veramente una “commodity”, quindi qualcosa da “vendere”. Con l’inclusione di “and” davanti dal nome, è sottinteso che lei non è allo stesso “livello” di recitare come gli altri attori ritenuti “autentici” dal pubblico. Diventa un oggetto che deve essere introdotto, in qualche modo, diverso dagli altri attori nel film. Di solito, vediamo quel tipo di introduzione con “and” soltanto con i divi grandi e benconosciuti, che recitano ruoli di “cameo”, persone con celebrità che non sono propriamente “attori” nel stesso senso come gli altri, conosciuti per participando nei film con ruoli di se stessi; per esempio musicisti come Willie Nelson in Half Baked, o atlete come Charles Barkley in Forget Paris. Anche vediamo mio “fattore di ‘and’” sulla televisione. Dopo il suo lasso di tempo nelle serie The Sopranos di HBO, Drea DiMatteo aveva ricevuto un similare titolo di testa con “and” come “Gina” nel sitcom di breve durata “Joey” di NBC. Sebbene che era una dei personaggi maggiori, è sopratutto la natura del suo personaggio (promiscua, non di essere preso con serietà) che merita quel tipo di riconoscimento. Nel quasi tutti dei film menzionati qui, Monica Bellucci è introdotta con “and” come una commodita, anche se è una delle carattere maggiori.
PERSEPHONE, LA DOMINATRIX DEL MATRIX
Negli secondo e terzo film della trilogia Matrix (Reloaded e Revolutions, rispettivamente), il ruolo di Persephone, la moglie del cattivo programma “the Merovingian”, è emblematico della consapevolezza dal pubblico rispetto a Bellucci. Anche come quasi tutti suoi altri carattere, Persephone rimane silenziosa durante la riunione fra suo marito e i tre membri di Zion (Morpheus, Trinity, e Neo). Inoltre, come tutti gli altre carattere di Bellucci, Persephone è una rappresentazione di passione, in questo caso una passione perduta, e di un desiderio irrealizzato. Il Merovingian è furbo, affascinante e attraente, e (sebbene che all’inizio non lo sappiamo) cosi è la moglie. Persephone si dimostra di essere una buon uguale alla forte personalità del Merovingian — ci porta Morpheus, Trinity e Neo a qualcuno che desiderano incontrare, però il Merovingian non li ha donato permissione di farlo. Lei tradisce suo marito soltanto per cercare vendetta, a causa del suo infedeltà. “È un gioco, soltanto un gioco”, dice Il Merovingian alla moglie quando si è affrontato con l’accusione della sua infedeltà. Con una freddezza impressionante, Persephone lo risponde (con significato del suo tradimento), “Anch’è questo un gioco”. Sia un film americano, un film italiano, o anche nel Matrix, vediamo che tutti ritorna al sesso. In un segno collegato, parliamo della “regina dello specchio”, imortalizzata nel film Brothers Grimm, e una delle carattere più sessuale (almeno sensuale) di tutti recitati da Monica Bellucci.
THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL – MIRROR QUEEN IN BROTHERS GRIMM
Secondo me, Bellucci come “regina dello specchio” nel film the Brothers Grimm di Terry Gilliam è una delle sue carattere più interessante della sua carriera, ed anche una delle più “tipica” che defina la sua percezione nel mondo internazionale di cinema. Di nuovo, è introdotta con “and Monica Bellucci”. La storia di questa regina è una di fantasia. La favola dice che lei era “apprezzata del tutto di europa, celebrata per la sua bellezza incredibile”, e aveva solicitato l’uso di spiriti malefici per preservarsi con un incantesimo di vita eterna. Portando immagine di Rapunzel, anche se una versione cattiva, Bellucci rappresenta la epitomia di bellezza, isolata nel torre d’avorio, con cappelli neri invece di quelli d’oro di Rapunzel. Come dice Gilliam durante il “commentario dal regista”, Bellucci ha rappresentato il “casting perfetto”, però non sembra né un po’ la bellezza tipica che si puó trovare nel bosco di Germania, dove questa storia è tenuta a svolgere. “Il suo dialogo è spesso molto limitato, e lei invariabilmente usa la sua bellezza fisica per ottenere i suoi desideri” (Spazzini/Grundle 6), una tema ovvia nel Brothers Grimm. Anche nel commentario, Gilliam dice sardonicamente che aveva “truffato” un po’ con il costume di Bellucci: “un buon costume dal medioevo sarebbe abbottonato fino al collo—quindi ho detto, ‘ma non lo so, penso che abbiamo altre cose qua che potremmo vendere’... abbiamo approffitato di tutti Monica può portare allo schermo”. Questo citazione dimostra il concetto di Bellucci come oggetto di fantasia erotica e non come attrice. Lei è veramente la persona più pericolosa nel film, bella però spietata; il fatto che la “regina dello specchio” non ha un proprio nome, rimane una misteria sconosciuta, con capacità di essere traditrice.
Dominique Mainon e James Ursini affermano cose similare sopra questa carattere nel loro libro di recente The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on Screen. “La fonte principale di cattiveria nel [the Brothers Grimm] è la regina dello specchio, recitata da Monica Bellucci, più interessante che gli altri personaggi nel film. Come nelle serie di film Matrix, quando ha recitato il ruolo di Persephone, Bellucci personifica il ruolo di una dominatrice...suo comportamento come un cadavere è macabro, però quando i suoi corteggiatori la vedono attraverso lo specchio (lo sguardo), sembra squisita... mostrando il simbolo della donna come “paura anciana” e l’affascinanza erotica”(Mainon/Ursino 49). Lo specchio rappresenta la dualità della donna, specialmente la donna bella. La voce della regina è anche di alta tonalità come una babydoll innocua, dice agli uomini che lei può “realizzare tutti i loro suoni”. La regina sta veramente personificando la natura incostante della donna; esercita la sua potenza sopra gli uomini. Una cosa interessante che diceva Bellucci con riguaro alle “fiabe” è che “dietro della storia c’è la verità”, visibile qui con questa figura della regina, sottolineando l’idea che la seduzione può
essere anche una certa forma di stregoneria, rinforzando il concetto che la Madonna può essere anche una puttana.
In un modo interessante, l’unico personaggio “italiano” dipinto nel film e il “nobiluomo” Cavaldi, recitato da Peter Stormare. Lui ha un “accento” completamente assurdo e ha tanti malapropismi ed errori nel suo parlato “italiano”. Suo comportamento di bravado e buffoneria è una forma di momento divertente. Apparentemente, Monica non è offesa dal descrizione di un paesano... finché riceva il salario! Infatti Bellucci è affrontata con, come dicono Gundle e Spazzini, “una varietà di tipi paradigmatici, ed una seria di scheme di comportamento che [gli attori italiani] sono obbligati di accetare, sposarli in parte, o rifiutare”(Gundle/Spazzini 12), cioè chiaro in questo caso.
Come abbiamo visto, dopo l’introduzione della televisione, il concetto di “divo” o “star” si è iniziato di cambiare; poco a poco la televisione ha spostata o dislocato il cinema, diventando “la più universale e immediata di mass media”. Paragonati con i personaggi televisivi, i divi del cinema erano figuri esagerati, quindi “larger-than-life”; avevano personalità individuali, avevano una mistica derivata da una mescolanza di accessibilità e distanza. Monica è una bella rappresentazione di questa idea, perché la sua bellezza esotica tenta lo spettatore, però alla stessa volta mantiene una distanza attraverso l’atto di non parlare quasi mai. Vediamo quel rappresentazione subito, però primo voglio discutere una eccezione di questa regola e suo ruolo nel film Ricordati di me, dal regista Gabriele Muccino — quella carratere è la di una donna intelligente, accessibile, anche con problemi personale come tutti.
LA DONNA COME VIA DI FUGA — RICORDATI DI ME
Nel questo film di Muccino, il personaggio di Alessia è una “amante perso” di Carlo, uno dei protagonisti, però non nel stesso modo come gli altri film che aveva fatti. Sebbene che Bellucci è di nuovo veramente un oggetto di desiderio sessuale, anche deve avere qualcosa più seducente che la moglie di Carlo (e non soltanto la bellezza). Vediamo che lei è uno certo tipo donna di negozio, molto arrivata. Lei ha molto da dire, può prendersi in giro se stessa, suscita affetto dall’audienza quando parla della sua “faccia di mela”. È bella, però non in un modo esagerato come la regina dello specchio. Non e affascinante con “glamour”; infatti e una donna intelligente, personabile, che tutti di noi saremmo triste di non aver mantenuto. Tutti gli personaggi nel film vogliano scappare qualcosa nella loro vita, e la carattere di Alessia fornisce una via di fuga per Carlo. Una scena pivotale è il pranzo fra Carlo ed Alessia, dove lei lamenta il marito che la considera “prevedibile e fidabile.... troppo affidabile per essere ancora stimulante”... una presenza mai associata con Monica Bellucci. Sebbene che Alessia si e trasformata in quello che il marito voleva, (che richiama alla mente la trasformazione di Malèna in quello che la città voleva) il marito adesso non la vuole più e cerca cose stimulante fra le altre donne.
Quel film è anche interessante perché mostra le donne come manipolate e potenti, però con debolezze e fortezze tutti a due. La figlia Valentina usa la sua bellezza (e infatti la sessualita) per promuovere la sua carriera televisiva. Una cosa importante ed anche che Alessia ed anche la moglie di Carlo (Giulia) assieme imbrogliano, invece del scenario più tradizionale in cui i mariti sono gli imbroglioni — allora noi come l’audienza giudichiamo i mariti più fortemente per quel peccato che le moglie. In un certo senso, Ricordati di me rompe alcuni stereotipi dai ruoli di genere. La dominazione del cinema a causa della televisione durante gli anni 80 e 90 è anche collegata con la storia di una dominazione completa sulla società e clima politica italiane durante quel periodo. L’attrazione di essere famoso nel cinema durante gli anni della dopoguerra si è sostituita con una ambizione di essere uno star televisivo. Come dicono Spazzini e Grundle, “i tipi di ragazze che avevano inondato i concorsi di bellezza degli anni della dopoguerra (con speranza di incontrare prodottori, che offrirebbero loro una passaporte a celebrità e ricchezza avevano participato ancora nei concorsi di bellezza …però con gli occhi fissati sulla televisione”(Grundle/Spazzini 5). Ricordati di me è una rappresentazione molto interessante di queste ideè, molto visibili nel carattere di Valentina, che trascorre la maggior parte del film inseguendo uno certo tipo di celebrità televisiva. Anche nel suo carettere vediamo la presenza conservativa di Berlusconi e la della t.v.; quando suo fratello chiede che lei pensa di lui, Valentina risponde che lui si comporta come “uno sfigato della sinistra, mentre il resto del mondo si dirige altrove”, cioè un sentimento veramente conservativo che rifletta i pensieri della società italiana contemporanea.
MALÈNA — THE ONE YOU WILL NEVER FORGET
Nel film Malèna di Giuseppe Tornatore, Bellucci è assegnata il ruolo di Malèna, una bellissima vedova in un piccolo vilaggio Siciliano. Attraverso la passione segreta per Malèna, il ragazzino Renato diventa uomo. Malèna, come dice Bellucci in una intervista nel commentario, “rappresenta il suono, l’amore, l’imaginazione, e la realtà”. Secondo me, anche rappresenta i desideri ed i suoni di un popolo. Malèna è l’epitomia di una fantasia per il villaggio; a causa della sua bellezza incredibile, gli uomini vogliano essere con lei, le donne vogliono essere lei in se stessa. Malèna sopporta perdita dopo perdita, però non riceva nessun appoggio dalla communita. Quindi poco a poco lei diventa la puttana di cui i cittàdini insistono che è. Quando emerge come una “nuova Malèna”, ha colorato rosso i cappelli, un segno traditionalmene associat con la Maria Maddalena (di non dimenticare è una prostituta). Nel caso di Malèna, la bellezza è un imprigionamento. Lei soffre il tipico “double standard”, italiano (però anche americano) quando è incolpata con i problemi matrimoniale dal dentista. Grazie alla moglie e il resto delle donne invidiose della città, Malèna è accusata di aver sedotto il dentista (mentre è sicuramente vittima innocente).
A causa della riconfigurazione nei mondi dal cinema e della televisione, il ruolo di “stardom” nel mondo di cinema non potuto essere distinto dagli altri tipi di celebrità. “Attraversamenti” fra i diversi mezzi di media erano d’abitudine, e “personalità televisivi a volte usavano la loro celebrità acquisita per guadagnare ruoli nel film” (Spazzini/Grundle 5). In una intervista nel “special features” del DVD, Bellucci lo affirma, diciendo che era prima modella e attrice nei alcuni commerciali televisivi. Ha accettato quel ruolo nel Malèna con entusiasmo, perché (come dice lei) “Non succede spesso la possibilità per una attrice italiana, di lavorare in un film che può essere internazionale”. Bellucci si è “attraversata” dei mezzi di media, però ancora non è considerata “attrice” nel stesso senso che altre senza questa storia o (più probabilmente) la sua bellezza famosa.
Spazzini e Grundle confermano che “non ci sono molti film in cui le sue curve abbondante sono coperte”, una dichiarazione che non è più vera che nel caso di Malèna. Una differenza chiara fra la versione del film originale (quindi italiano) e la distruibuita negli stati uniti è la mancanza delle scene che mostrano la nuda Bellucci in totalità. Qui vediamo una cosa importante fra il mondo cinematografico italiano e l’americano. La mentalità conservativa degli americani era preso nella mente dei produttori, ovviamente; se esamina le due versioni assieme, si può vede un primo esempio del cambiamento di una scena tipicamente italiana per conformare all’ideologia più conservativa, soltanto per vendere più copie ed ottenere più conoscimento internazionale.
Non è capito per caso che Malèna condivida suo nome con la famosa prostituta Maddalena della Bibbia. Malèna mai vendica, (senza la scena nel tribunale), e non parla quasi mai, però invece mantiene una “idea di femmininità più vecchia/tradizionale, non come fortezza però modestia” (Gundle, ICS 347). Purtroppo gli altri personaggi nel film non possono vedere quel virtù, soltanto sentono l’invidia a causa della bellezza di Malèna o (nel caso di uomo) il desiderio di possederla. Alla fine del film, lei è battuta, veramente bandita come una prostituta. Però sopravvive, e torna a dispetto dei cittàdini. Quando torna con il marito, ancora forte nel suo silenzio, è finalmente accettata nella società. Malèna diventa la personificazione di Maria Maddalena, alla fine diventa una rappresentazione di una prostituta redenta.
PUTTANA REDENTA — MARIA MADDALENA NEL PASSION OF THE CHRIST
Nel film recente the Passion of the Christ di Mel Gibson, Bellucci recita il ruolo di Malèna, però in un modo diverso. È possibile che in questo caso, Bellucci è “cast against type”? Il nome “Mary Magdalene” è una contraddizione nei termi in se stesso; “Mary” riporta alla mente la madre di Christo, la più pura femmina che ha mai esistata, mentre “Magdalene” è sinonimo con l’immagine di prostituta. In quel film, Bellucci rappresenta le due. Invece di essere titolata con una introduzione di “and”, in Passion riceva il credito secondo, e una fotografia abbastanza grande sulla custodia del DVD. Ora è veramente una icona della storia occidentale, da essere considerata con serietà. In contrasto con gli altri ruoli che aveva, la Maddalena qui è modesta, coperta, senza trucco. Non è per nulla affascinante; infatti l’unica volta che sembra “atraente” è durante la scena retrospettiva quando è ancora prostituta (lapidata in pubblico come Malèna). Dopo quest’episodio, non porta di più il trucco né gli orrechini.
Bellucci è una attrice famosa — la più famosa tra un cast di sconosciuti— però ancora non ha più di dieci “lines” nel film! Come dicono Spazzini e Grundle, Monica Bellucci usualmente recita una italiana, a causa probabilmente del suo accento italiano (Spazzini/Grundle 6), però in questo ruolo parla in Aramaico. Allora con una esecuzione in una lingua essenzialmente sconosciuta di tutti, suo accento diventa inosservato, e Bellucci può essere vista come attrice con oggettività.
CONCLUSIONE
Anche se i film che ho discusso sono contemporanei, quella idea sopra “la Madonna e la puttana” non è soltanto una creata dal mondo di oggi. Questo concetto di “oggettivare” o “categorizare” la figura della donna si è rimasto attraverso nel corso dei secoli. Oggi, molti persone sono opposto a “l’oggettivicazione” della donna, specialmente i gruppi feministi ed i registi nel inseguimento di giustizia umana, di una rappresentazione uguale fra le donne e gli uomini. Nonostante quel fatto, c’è una mentalità tenace è anti-feminile, poi misogina, che Bellucci (anche tra alcune altre) oggi continua di rappresentare se stessa. Però, con l’inclusione del suo ruolo nel Passion of the Christ, magari siamo arrivati ad un momento critico nella carriera di Bellucci. Magari, con quello, c’è speranza per Bellucci da consolidare la sua positione nel mondo di cinema, di guadagnare ruoli più “autentici”, e non soltanto quelli transitori.
FILMOGRAPHY
Brothers Grimm, the (dir. Terry Gilliam, 2005)
Maléna (dir. Giuseppe Tornatore, 2000)
Matrix Reloaded (dir. Andy/Larry Wachowski, 2003)
Matrix Revolutions (dir. Andy/Larry Wachowski, 2003)
Passion of the Christ, the (dir. Mel Gibson, 2004)
Ricordati di me (dir. Gabriele Muccino, 2003)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Forgacs, David and Lumley, Robert eds. Italian Cultural Studies: an introduction.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Gundle, Stephen and Spazzini, Maddalena. Stars and Stardom in Cotemporary Italian
Cinema.
Mainon, Dominique and Ursini, James. The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on
Screen. Minnesota: Hal Leonard, 2006.
Marcus, Millicent. After Fellini: National cinema in the postmodern age. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Before Caesar Cardini, there was no Caesar Salad.
So, for this assignment, we were supposed to find some Italian American "object", or at least something that was perceived as being Italian, and then write about it. Write about whether or not it was an accurate representation of Italy or Italian culture, whether it was perpetuating stereotypes and making a mockery of Italian Americans (this prof always seemed to suspect the latter). I wrote this piece about a package of Caesar Salad Croutons that had "Italian Herb" seasoning. Please to enjoy.
HUI336
30 September 2006
Cafarelli
Before Caesar Cardini, there was no Caesar Salad.
One of the strongest perceptions people have about Italian and Italian Americans is that they are culinary masters, great creators of food and great eaters of that food. Pasta, Pizza, and Caesar salad are among the many stereotypically “Italian” foods the general public tends to associate with the culture; however, unlike the ambiguous origins of pizza and pasta, the Caesar Salad (according to a packet of Cardini’s Italian Herb Croutons that I recently purchased) has traceable origins. Apparently created by a restaurateur in not Italy nor even the United States, but in Tijuana Mexico, the Caesar Salad, one of the things most think of as being definitively Italian, is actually Italian-Mexican. However unlikely this story may seem, my family and I had heard it before, even seen it depicted on T.V., so it is not just a fabrication by the makers of the product, but is rather a widely accepted tale in society. So why then do we think of the Caesar salad as being stereotypically “Italian”? And what if anything does this package of croutons depict or say, that confirms or denies its “Italian-ness” as such?
For starters, the packaging is red white and green (bringing to mind the colors of the Italian flag). The subtitle “creator of the Caesar Salad in 1924” is obviously meant to convey a sense of authenticity about the origin of the product; however, nowhere on the package does it say Caesar Cardini created, or even used, a crouton in his salad. The croutons looked like ordinary squares to me, but apparently they are “gourmet cut”; again, the packaging fails to tell us what exactly is so gourmet about them. What is more, the croutons are “Italian herb” flavor; however upon further inspection of the ingredient list there is not a single herb to be mentioned, Italian or otherwise.
When we turn it over and examine the back, we can read the blurb about Cardini’s development of the salad, and the company’s line of dressings and other products, available in grocery and “specialty stores” (I bought this product at Stop and Shop). Although these croutons are supposed to represent the “true flavor of Italy”, the recipe the Marzetti Company gives us on the back is for a Greek salad, not an Italian one; and the product is manufactured in Columbus, Ohio, by the Marzetti Company (not, interestingly, the Cardini company), and so obviously the ingredients don’t come from anywhere in Italy. Julia Child, widely regarded as one of the best cooks in the world, made mention of the Caesar Salad in her book From Julia Child’s Kitchen. I do have this book and she recounts her experience of having tasted it at Cardini’s restaurant as a girl, then soliciting his daughter for the recipe years later. Because France and Italy share many of the same culinary ingredients, it is interesting that a Francophile such as Child would not have encountered such a recipe in her travels, and in actuality this anecdote adds credibility to the Cardini story. Cardini, because was so well established in not just America but Mexico as well, does seem to represent that idealism that so many immigrants strived to achieve; incorporated with the new world and its “giant, bubbling cauldron…in which Italian immigrants dived and swam until they spoke English with almost no accent and developed a marked preference for potatoes to spaghetti” (Mangione 239).
On the other hand, even though the invention of the Caesar Salad is commonly attributed to Caesar Cardini, I find it hard to believe that he is the very first person to have created it. Popularized it, perhaps, but not created it. For example, 1924 seems quite late to me for someone to “randomly” throw together eggs, garlic, pepper, lemon juice, olive oil, (Parmesan) cheese, and lettuce, calling it a new concoction: all of those ingredients are suspiciously common to most of Italy, not to mention France, Spain and Greece (among others). One of the most interesting things about this crouton package is its focus almost exclusively on the history and legacy of Cardini himself, and not really on the product. In this respect, if the story is true, then the Caesar Salad is more “Italian” than one might think at first glance: it is made up of inexpensive yet tasty, whole ingredients that all would have been common to an Italian household at that time. Immigrants were obliged to be resourceful with ingredients, so that too is a characteristic if not uniquely Italian, then at least common to immigrant culture. He was more than likely, as Puzo affirms, “a fine cook in the peasant style” (Hoobler 70) and essentially could make something out of nothing. Another question that needs to be addressed: if the croutons (and ostensibly the entire Caesar salad as well) are supposed to have the “true flavor of Italy”, then how can the invention of an immigrant to Mexico via the United States be called Italian, unless the recipe originated, at least loosely, in Italy to begin with? The uncertainty here is whether Cardini’s combination was common enough already to have been an established recipe. Even though croutons are by nature a complimentary food, that is to say an ingredient which is added to something else and never the main feature, this package over-endorses its product with an unnecessary historical song-and-dance. Most people probably aren’t looking for an elaborate history behind their croutons, unless (and this is probably the case) the attachment of such a story carries with it some sort of “Italian” affiliation, and the consumer feels somehow more “gourmet” for having bought it. So though it is possible that this recipe may date back to the famous emperor who bares its name, apparently it was not named for him, as many may believe. It was created by an immigrant to Mexico who (like many others) used his Italian ingenuity to create something delicious.
All in all, however, I don’t feel that these croutons truly represent that notion at all—I found them to be tasteless and commercial; after having tried the product, I will probably never buy it again. Nothing about the croutons was special or “gourmet”, or particularly Italian, for that matter. In fact, I almost felt that in my purchasing of this particular brand of crouton, I was taking away from the business of other crouton merchants (who don’t resort to that level of unnecessary histrionic advertisement, and yet provide a product that is essentially identical). Ultimately, I am happy for the Cardini family’s success; however I also believe that through this said success the production company has exploited the “Italian American-ness” of the salad’s creator, pushing a specific image rather than endorsing the inherent quality of the product.
HUI336
30 September 2006
Cafarelli
Before Caesar Cardini, there was no Caesar Salad.
One of the strongest perceptions people have about Italian and Italian Americans is that they are culinary masters, great creators of food and great eaters of that food. Pasta, Pizza, and Caesar salad are among the many stereotypically “Italian” foods the general public tends to associate with the culture; however, unlike the ambiguous origins of pizza and pasta, the Caesar Salad (according to a packet of Cardini’s Italian Herb Croutons that I recently purchased) has traceable origins. Apparently created by a restaurateur in not Italy nor even the United States, but in Tijuana Mexico, the Caesar Salad, one of the things most think of as being definitively Italian, is actually Italian-Mexican. However unlikely this story may seem, my family and I had heard it before, even seen it depicted on T.V., so it is not just a fabrication by the makers of the product, but is rather a widely accepted tale in society. So why then do we think of the Caesar salad as being stereotypically “Italian”? And what if anything does this package of croutons depict or say, that confirms or denies its “Italian-ness” as such?
For starters, the packaging is red white and green (bringing to mind the colors of the Italian flag). The subtitle “creator of the Caesar Salad in 1924” is obviously meant to convey a sense of authenticity about the origin of the product; however, nowhere on the package does it say Caesar Cardini created, or even used, a crouton in his salad. The croutons looked like ordinary squares to me, but apparently they are “gourmet cut”; again, the packaging fails to tell us what exactly is so gourmet about them. What is more, the croutons are “Italian herb” flavor; however upon further inspection of the ingredient list there is not a single herb to be mentioned, Italian or otherwise.
When we turn it over and examine the back, we can read the blurb about Cardini’s development of the salad, and the company’s line of dressings and other products, available in grocery and “specialty stores” (I bought this product at Stop and Shop). Although these croutons are supposed to represent the “true flavor of Italy”, the recipe the Marzetti Company gives us on the back is for a Greek salad, not an Italian one; and the product is manufactured in Columbus, Ohio, by the Marzetti Company (not, interestingly, the Cardini company), and so obviously the ingredients don’t come from anywhere in Italy. Julia Child, widely regarded as one of the best cooks in the world, made mention of the Caesar Salad in her book From Julia Child’s Kitchen. I do have this book and she recounts her experience of having tasted it at Cardini’s restaurant as a girl, then soliciting his daughter for the recipe years later. Because France and Italy share many of the same culinary ingredients, it is interesting that a Francophile such as Child would not have encountered such a recipe in her travels, and in actuality this anecdote adds credibility to the Cardini story. Cardini, because was so well established in not just America but Mexico as well, does seem to represent that idealism that so many immigrants strived to achieve; incorporated with the new world and its “giant, bubbling cauldron…in which Italian immigrants dived and swam until they spoke English with almost no accent and developed a marked preference for potatoes to spaghetti” (Mangione 239).
On the other hand, even though the invention of the Caesar Salad is commonly attributed to Caesar Cardini, I find it hard to believe that he is the very first person to have created it. Popularized it, perhaps, but not created it. For example, 1924 seems quite late to me for someone to “randomly” throw together eggs, garlic, pepper, lemon juice, olive oil, (Parmesan) cheese, and lettuce, calling it a new concoction: all of those ingredients are suspiciously common to most of Italy, not to mention France, Spain and Greece (among others). One of the most interesting things about this crouton package is its focus almost exclusively on the history and legacy of Cardini himself, and not really on the product. In this respect, if the story is true, then the Caesar Salad is more “Italian” than one might think at first glance: it is made up of inexpensive yet tasty, whole ingredients that all would have been common to an Italian household at that time. Immigrants were obliged to be resourceful with ingredients, so that too is a characteristic if not uniquely Italian, then at least common to immigrant culture. He was more than likely, as Puzo affirms, “a fine cook in the peasant style” (Hoobler 70) and essentially could make something out of nothing. Another question that needs to be addressed: if the croutons (and ostensibly the entire Caesar salad as well) are supposed to have the “true flavor of Italy”, then how can the invention of an immigrant to Mexico via the United States be called Italian, unless the recipe originated, at least loosely, in Italy to begin with? The uncertainty here is whether Cardini’s combination was common enough already to have been an established recipe. Even though croutons are by nature a complimentary food, that is to say an ingredient which is added to something else and never the main feature, this package over-endorses its product with an unnecessary historical song-and-dance. Most people probably aren’t looking for an elaborate history behind their croutons, unless (and this is probably the case) the attachment of such a story carries with it some sort of “Italian” affiliation, and the consumer feels somehow more “gourmet” for having bought it. So though it is possible that this recipe may date back to the famous emperor who bares its name, apparently it was not named for him, as many may believe. It was created by an immigrant to Mexico who (like many others) used his Italian ingenuity to create something delicious.
All in all, however, I don’t feel that these croutons truly represent that notion at all—I found them to be tasteless and commercial; after having tried the product, I will probably never buy it again. Nothing about the croutons was special or “gourmet”, or particularly Italian, for that matter. In fact, I almost felt that in my purchasing of this particular brand of crouton, I was taking away from the business of other crouton merchants (who don’t resort to that level of unnecessary histrionic advertisement, and yet provide a product that is essentially identical). Ultimately, I am happy for the Cardini family’s success; however I also believe that through this said success the production company has exploited the “Italian American-ness” of the salad’s creator, pushing a specific image rather than endorsing the inherent quality of the product.
a small assignment on Christ in Concrete
If you haven't read Christ in Concrete by Pietro diDonato, get thee to a Barnes and Noble and pick up a copy asap. It's a heart-wrenching little-known gem about the proletariat immigrant experience. Think "The Jungle" from a kid's point of view. It was written in the 1930's just like The Grapes of Wrath; however unlike Grapes of Wrath, which is a staple on every high school reading list, Christ in Concrete inexplicably faded into obscurity. Let's bring it back to public consciousness.
HUI333
Kightlinger
3 January 2005
Writing Assignment #2
In order to fully understand the character of Annunziata that the reader sees in the final scene of the novel, it is necessary to look at several of the aspects of her upbringing, cultural inheritance and religious beliefs. All Annunziata has ever cared about is her family, friends, and above all Jesus and religion. She has been raised in a kind of Catholic bubble of extreme faith and trust in Jesus: according to her and the paisanos who share her beliefs, every single action or experience in their daily lives is either in reference to or guided by Jesus. After having lost Geremio, she has transferred her hope and faith to Paul, making him “head-chair of the table”(227), constantly saying prayers for him, and blessing him with the sign of the cross. Annunziata turns to Christ constantly; in her mind, though it seems He cannot help them right at this moment and the family may suffer tremendously on this earth, her constant devotion and prayers will at least bring them eternal salvation in Heaven.
Paul’s bitterness and subsequent denial of his faith comes full-circle in the final scene of the novel. He has been bombarded with inconsistencies, having witnessed tragedy after tragedy in spite of everyone’s constant prayers for salvation and protection. He is sick of what he considers to be excuses, ultimately using religion to justify these tragedies or smooth them over. We can also make note of the “message” from the dead Geremio which the Cripple imparts to them – that of Geremio’s wanting Annunziata to join him in Paradise, when “all the children grow up”(115). Paul himself is growing up — not just emotionally and mentally in terms of dealing with the harsh realities of life, but he is also going through puberty and his pent-up sexual frustrations become yet another catalyst for the argument with Annunziata. Interestingly also in the final scene there are pointed suggestions of Paul’s sister Annina becoming a woman and taking the place of Annunziata by ‘speaking as a woman’ and sitting in Annunziata’s rocking chair (233). This calls attention to the fact that the children are, at least to some extent, old enough to take care of themselves.
In the final scene, during the heat of their argument, Paul verbally reduces Annunziata’s adored and revered crucifix to nothing but plaster and wood (231). This of course does nothing to change Annunziata’s mind about her beliefs; rather, she becomes even more horrified as Paul’s frustration leads him to actually break the crucifix into pieces. This is the most crucial part of the scene, because this physical destruction of the cross is a symbolic loss of faith for both characters: for Paul, it is the culmination of his utter renouncement of Catholicism — for Annunziata, the crushing of the crucifix is somewhat metaphorical for the “breaking” of Annunziata’s spirit. Though she has gone through so much (Geremio’s death, extreme poverty, eight children, the loss of Luigi’s leg), she has always been strong enough to pull through and hold everything together because of the power of her faith. Once her son’s faith is broken, she feels as though he is lost to her, and has grown beyond her control. Annunziata feels that she must punish herself for not having done enough to keep Paul on the straight and narrow path; perhaps she also subconsciously recognizes the fact that he has grown beyond her control. In her mind, she has done all she can do for Paul in terms of instilling a strong foundation of and dependency on Christianity. Because this has backfired on her and her faith is compromised, she therefore also loses her strength to go on living, perhaps thinking it is time to fulfill the cripple’s prophecy and join Geremio in Paradise.
HUI333
Kightlinger
3 January 2005
Writing Assignment #2
In order to fully understand the character of Annunziata that the reader sees in the final scene of the novel, it is necessary to look at several of the aspects of her upbringing, cultural inheritance and religious beliefs. All Annunziata has ever cared about is her family, friends, and above all Jesus and religion. She has been raised in a kind of Catholic bubble of extreme faith and trust in Jesus: according to her and the paisanos who share her beliefs, every single action or experience in their daily lives is either in reference to or guided by Jesus. After having lost Geremio, she has transferred her hope and faith to Paul, making him “head-chair of the table”(227), constantly saying prayers for him, and blessing him with the sign of the cross. Annunziata turns to Christ constantly; in her mind, though it seems He cannot help them right at this moment and the family may suffer tremendously on this earth, her constant devotion and prayers will at least bring them eternal salvation in Heaven.
Paul’s bitterness and subsequent denial of his faith comes full-circle in the final scene of the novel. He has been bombarded with inconsistencies, having witnessed tragedy after tragedy in spite of everyone’s constant prayers for salvation and protection. He is sick of what he considers to be excuses, ultimately using religion to justify these tragedies or smooth them over. We can also make note of the “message” from the dead Geremio which the Cripple imparts to them – that of Geremio’s wanting Annunziata to join him in Paradise, when “all the children grow up”(115). Paul himself is growing up — not just emotionally and mentally in terms of dealing with the harsh realities of life, but he is also going through puberty and his pent-up sexual frustrations become yet another catalyst for the argument with Annunziata. Interestingly also in the final scene there are pointed suggestions of Paul’s sister Annina becoming a woman and taking the place of Annunziata by ‘speaking as a woman’ and sitting in Annunziata’s rocking chair (233). This calls attention to the fact that the children are, at least to some extent, old enough to take care of themselves.
In the final scene, during the heat of their argument, Paul verbally reduces Annunziata’s adored and revered crucifix to nothing but plaster and wood (231). This of course does nothing to change Annunziata’s mind about her beliefs; rather, she becomes even more horrified as Paul’s frustration leads him to actually break the crucifix into pieces. This is the most crucial part of the scene, because this physical destruction of the cross is a symbolic loss of faith for both characters: for Paul, it is the culmination of his utter renouncement of Catholicism — for Annunziata, the crushing of the crucifix is somewhat metaphorical for the “breaking” of Annunziata’s spirit. Though she has gone through so much (Geremio’s death, extreme poverty, eight children, the loss of Luigi’s leg), she has always been strong enough to pull through and hold everything together because of the power of her faith. Once her son’s faith is broken, she feels as though he is lost to her, and has grown beyond her control. Annunziata feels that she must punish herself for not having done enough to keep Paul on the straight and narrow path; perhaps she also subconsciously recognizes the fact that he has grown beyond her control. In her mind, she has done all she can do for Paul in terms of instilling a strong foundation of and dependency on Christianity. Because this has backfired on her and her faith is compromised, she therefore also loses her strength to go on living, perhaps thinking it is time to fulfill the cripple’s prophecy and join Geremio in Paradise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
