How do we know what we really see?

Having viewed Psycho for the second time this evening, I took a very long, nervous bath in lieu of a shower. Aside from the obvious reasons, it just seemed to me that this time the infamous shower scene was much more terrifying than I had ever remembered it to be. Being the good little procrastinator that I am, I forwent doing any actual work and consulted my resources to find all that I could regarding this scene. Gathering what I could from various sources (mostly Wikipedia) I discovered that the scene is comprised of around 71 angles and 50 cuts, (which is a hell of a lot for a three minute scene) and the "Soviet Montage" style in which it was shot contributes to the hasty, psychotically horrifying tone. I also discovered that there are only three frames of actual penetration (knife to skin, that is), which adds up to about an eighth of a second in that stretch of time. So little, in fact, that it would only register subliminally.  

That made me think (of course) about how much we really see. The three frames of stabbing must have been noticed by my brain, and added to my irrational paranoia this evening, but I had no awareness to them. Much research has been done concerning how effective subliminal messages are, ranging the gamut from a lot to nothing, but in any event it does make you wonder how much of our emotions and actions are dictated by things we never consciously see or hear. It must happen, to some degree, because a lot of the things we are told or shown influence us to do certain things, even if we don't connect the two right away. I believe I am going to be a little less impulsive as the days go by, especially in these important times. Before I do something, I'll pose the questions "Why am I doing this?" or "How will this affect me in the long run?" or "Are these actions really my own?". 

It's a frightening prospect to believe that what we do does not come from ourselves. 

The Bewitching Hour...

Happy (Early) Halloween.

Prop 8

Despite my feelings on marriage in general, we're not second class citizens. End of story.

Enjoying the View

After two years of waiting, I finally got tickets to see one of my television obsessions: The View. No bloodshed, sadly, but just seeing the girls squawk amicably at each other was quite an experience. I got Tony Curtis' autobiography, an iPod boombox and juice and cookies.  

And I skipped class. Fabulous.

Ms. Thing

Au Naturale

Recently, I had an enlightening chat with some girlfriends. Apparently, they have no inhibitions when it comes to seeing each other in the nude; it's completely platonic, naturally, and stems solely from the fact that they're comfortable and trusting of one another. I, apparently, do not have that luxury, because of one small (well, not that small) appendage. When asked with a more substantial explanation, however, I was met with scoffs and rolled eyes. Perhaps I'm naive, but I still do not understand why nudity is such a big deal. 

Waxing nostalgically on my sheltered high school days, I remember dreading gym class as the absolute worst torture man had ever invented; until, of course, I would see all of the guys naked. Call me a pervert, but it was the ultimate gratification to see the boy I had a crush on strip down to the buff. But, reminiscing without the glaze of hormones and unrequited love, I can see now how comfortable most of the guys were stripping down to nothing among their peers. I ask, why so comfortable? Why are we inclined to get naked only among members of the same chromosome legs, and not the other? Especially when we now know that it needn't be sexualized in any way? 

Perhaps coming from someone whose sole career ambitions include dressing people this may sound ironic, but why aren't we all naturists? In certain climates it understandable to pile on the gortex, but if you're comfortable, why not walk down 7th ave in nothing but a smile? Why must there be laws prohibiting something as natural as the exposure of the human body? The uptight puritans that run the world are sad, sad people. 

I say, if you feel like it, be naked. It's only natural. 

In the Name of the Father, Son, and...Holy Shit!

Not much to say about this documentary, mainly because everything Bill said should already be abundantly clear to everyone already, but I have to say it was very enjoyable overall. He did a good job of asking questions about every one of the major religions and of really pushing the boundaries about one of the dreaded "two subjects you can never talk about".  Very thought-provoking and entertaining. 

But will it make the more ignorant part of the population open there eyes a little wider? Let us pray...

I Have No Doubts

The incredibly stirring and Pulitzer Prize-winning play Doubt will come to the big 

screen this December. Directed by the playwright (John Patrick Shanely) who also 

penned the screenplay, the material is obviously in very good hands. Leading an 

incredible cast is Ms. Meryl Streep, who already drips with the cynicism and 

skepticism Sister Aloysius needs in the few scenes she has in the trailer. I'll save 

the rest of my gushing until I actually see the movie, but it is exciting nonetheless.

The Perks of Being a Wildflower

The current crisis of economy, politics, and women sporting Tina Fey glasses has sparked me to write a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) essay on a Utopian Society. 

             The Perks of Being a Wildflower

Misanthropy is an emotion that has always been quite accessible to me. I frequently felt that I never had much of a need for people, and, in fact, “cynical” is usually the first word people use when describing me. I do not (necessarily) have any disrespect for my fellow man, just merely indifference. I feel as though, if anyone were crazy enough to elect me into a position of leadership, or if I were to ever get the opportunity to address my plans for world domination, it would be in my current modus operandi to establish a government centered on the basis of idealized anarchy.

The idea that everyone lives his or her own personal life without any interference seems delectable to me. Of course, many others, particularly those social butterflies, would find this akin to solitary confinement, and, obviously, that would be the only way to truly implement this idea. However, there is certain logic to be found. Crime of all kind would virtually disappear, and the mere fact would be that the only crime one can possibly commit is against themselves, and that begs the question: would that even be a crime? There would be no racial tension, no inequities, no need for education and the sharing of different ideals. The only person available to infringe on one’s rights is that one, and that is such a paradox none would never be able to find the correct answer, especially since he or she would be the only one available to answer it. But, a leader must consider everyone, and that means compromise. To separate people into complete isolation could lead to madness, and that is not something I would want to do. In fact, I would be, in reality, infringing on someone else’s rights, and that is neither responsible nor fair.

To accentuate autonomy and place it at the utmost importance in a person’s life, while still keeping order and some vestige of a basic society would be the best solution. An ideal government inspired by anarchy: another paradox, but a suitable one that can be wrapped around one’s head. Hopefully. Autonomous states, such as Somalia, have proven, to varying degrees, not to collapse in on themselves. They are not the paradigm of society, and in fact are in no way idealized anarchy (quite the opposite, it would so seem) but, nevertheless, they do exist, and this precedent is enough for me to enact a government-less government. The only thing that would really make this form of rule optimum would be to have every individual on board. But that is too idealistic, no? I suppose a utopia cannot exist if everyone is different.

Anarchy is something that has been deemed chaotic and destructive in the past, but I believe it is our responsibility as people to consider every aspect of an idea before it is written off entirely. After all, humans created Anarchy. In a way, I feel that means it is not something that is completely arbitrary; it was not just brought on by a whim. Or perhaps, it was just an easy solution developed by misanthropes who had every intention to make no effort when dealing with other people. Either way, would it not be perfect to live for only yourself?

Paris Collections: Viktor & Rolf

Ah-mazing.

Style.com's report!

It's so sad they only had 21 pieces (!), but, alas, it's understandable. Living in the electronic age isn't as easy as it seems to be, but V&R have a fabulous take on our cyber-society. Inspired by pixels, this futuristic collection tests the waters of fashion and structure, as is always with the dynamic duo.