Scuse Me

When speaking of colonialism, irony comes naturally. The song “Great Nations of Europe” by Randy Newman mixes elements of irony with explicit facts to ridicule colonialism in the 16^th century. Newman refers to the colonialists as “the great nations of Europe”, which becomes an ironic designation when he says what they did. For example,

 “Hide your wives and daughter; hide the groceries too.

The great nations of Europe comin through.”

or

“Columbus sailed for India found Salvador instead.
He shook hands with some Indians and soon they all were dead.
They got tb and typhoid and athletes foot, diphtheria and the flu
'scuse me great nations comin through.”

Here we see a discrepancy between the expectation and the actual situation. We would expect a positive consequence from “the great nations comin through” and instead we get fear and death.

Another example of the use of irony in this song is,

“Balboa found the Pacific, and on the trail one day,
he met some friendly Indians whom the Church told him were gay,
soooooooooooooo
he had them torn apart by dogs on religious grounds they say
the great nations of Europe were quite holy in their way.”

The tension here lies on what is said and what is meant. Clearly the great nations of Europe weren’t “quite holy in their way” if they had the Indians torn apart by dogs for being gay. The sarcastic phrase adds spice to the wholeness of the song.
On the other hand, there are some lines completely lacking of irony, which doesn’t make them less ridiculous.  For example,

“The Grand Canary Islands first land to which they came
they conquered all the canaries there which gave the land its name
there were natives there called guanches, guanches by the score
bullet's, disease the Portuguese, they weren't there any more.”

These lines are explicit to the border of redundancy. The progression of events is completely true, which comes to show that often history needs not the aid of imagination to make it ridiculous.

Overall, the song is a simplification of the horrible results of colonialism; one might say the facts speak for themselves. Therefore, although it is not an accurate representation of the colonies, it serves to express criticism and make them relevant to modern times. 

Damn Women

Perhaps one of the more concise and accurate depictions of Nurse Ratchet in the novel comes in the words of Mr. Harding.

“She’s impregnable herself, and with the element of time working for her she eventually gets inside everyone. That’s why the hospital regards her as its top nurse and grants her so much authority; she’s a master at forcing the trembling libido out into the open—”

The use of the word ‘impregnable’ overall illustrates Nurse Ratchet’s ethos and is vital in the portrayal of women in the novel.

According to the online Oxford Dictionary ‘impregnable’ means strong enough to resist or withstand attack; not to be takenby force, unconquerable: an impregnable fort.

or

not to be overcome or overthrown: an impregnable argument.

The word is the direct antonym of ‘pregnable’ which -to state the obvious- means.

capable of being taken or won by force: a pregnable fortress.

open to attack; assailable: a pregnable argument.

Both words come from the old French word “prenable” equivalent to “pren” or “prendre”  which in turn means to seize or take over.

Nurse Ratchet’s impregnability is an effect of her passive-aggressive attitude which in turn “forc[es] the trembling libido out into the open”. She will always win because people lose their control faculties around her (while she, astutely, keeps them) and therefore end up being the irrational ones.

As Nurse Ratchet is the dominant feminine figure of the novel, the portrayal of women in the book almost falls entirely on her descriptions. In a medical (more likely vernacular medicine) context ‘impregnable’ means not being able to get pregnant. This connotation of the word adds an interesting characteristic to the depiction of women in the book, precisely because it removes them from their foremost quality as women, which is being able to give birth. Therefore, women in the novel are depicted as sterile, hollow hearted, cold, passive-aggressive, creatures, ironically bearing enormous breasts, upholding their rule by the means of careful psychological scrutiny and manipulation on its inferiors. A woman sans everything that makes up a woman, but not androgynous because gender is important in order to have a generalization, a figure to hate. Same case applies with the black boys.

One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest has been overly criticized for being sexist and racist, which is not far from the truth. But the novel’s  bigoted attitude is just a reflection of our own society which loves to have a specific target. It is not women or black people specifically the novel accuses, they could be perfectly replaced by Chinese and Martians. The point here is to criticize how entire categories are targeted, be them gender, nationality, race… The negative portrayal of women is not to be taken literally but rather as critique of the demonization and hasty generalizations society makes on people. 

Mommy, why is there fog on the TV?

Among the wide range of interpretations allowed by One Flew over Cuckoo’s Nest is to view the ward and its happenings as an extended metaphor for a political scenario, more specifically, United States politics. In the metaphorical context, the fog would represent media and mass manipulation phenomenon, meaning the attempt from authority to silence and distract the people from important matters by manipulating and censoring media. This is a phenomenon better explained by the work of the American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, historian, political critic, and activist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s study of mass and media manipulation directly relates with several passages of the book dealing with the topic of fog. In fact, it brings light upon them by further explaining the causes and effects of “fog” in our society.

The roles of the characters in the book’s political metaphor are clear: Nurse Ratchet exemplifies the various figures of oppressive authority, while the patients are its subjects, the people, or as Chomsky ironically refers to them, “the bewildered herd”. In page 112, Chief Bromden talks about the presence of fog in a situation different than the ward.

“Whenever intelligence figured there might be a bombing attack, or if the generals had something secret they wanted to pull-out if sight, hid so good that even the spies on the base couldn’t see what went on- they fogged the field.”

 It’s clear that fog’s first and foremost purpose is to hide whatever facts the authority feels shouldn’t be known by the common. In the next quote, Chomsky explains how media (or fog) is used by the controlling powers to fulfill the previously mentioned purposes:

"Remember that the media have two basic functions. One is to indoctrinate the elites, to make sure they have the right ideas and know how to serve power. In fact, typically the elites are the most indoctrinated segment of a society, because they are the ones who are exposed to the most propaganda and actually take part in the decision-making process. For them you have the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, and so on. But there’s also a mass media, whose main function is just to get rid of the rest of the population—to marginalize and eliminate them, so they don’t interfere with decision-making. And the press that’s designed for that purpose isn’t the New York Times and the Washington Post, it’s sitcoms on television, and the National Enquirer, and sex and violence, and babies with three heads, and football, all that kind of stuff."

When surrounded by fog, the Chief feels lost, yet “safe from the enemy, but … awfully alone.”(pg.113)  which is exactly the effect fog aims for. As Chomsky puts it “The purpose of those media is just to dull people's brains.”

In his study “10 Strategies of Manipulation Bythe Media” Chomsky further explains the methods of media manipulation that in his own words

“turn them [the public] into passive obedient consumers who don’t try to get out of their way, [and] pay attention basically to what [are] called the superficial things of life like fashionable consumption; trap [the public] into consumerism, isolate them from one another, atomized, control their beliefs.”

One of the methods for numbing patients in the ward is Electro Shock Therapy. For Chief Bromden it gets increasingly difficult to remove himself from “the bewildered herd” as the fog permanently surrounds him and he receives more EST treatment.

“…they kept making the fog thicker and thicker, and it seemed to me that, no matter how hard I tried, two or three times a month I found myself with that door opening in front of me to the acid smell of sparks and ozone. In spite of all I could do, it was getting tough to keep from getting lost.” (pg.114)  

The fog, ultimately, and sadly, works -“Being lost isn’t so bad.”- (pg.114) Chomsky says,

“I think there's a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore, it's important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them.”

After all, and like we saw in the ward, authority can and will convince people of their own stupidity, of their incapability of understanding important subjects. Just as many of the patients are “volunteers” and therefore convinced of their own insanity, we see a great majority of the public, unaware of their position in society, ignoring and delegating to others what directly concerns them.

History has showed us that there will always come a McMurphy, and in account, the fog will get thicker, but choosing to get lost in it is a matter of personal determinacy. In the words of Noam Chomsky:   

            

“The issue is ... whether we want to live in a free society or whether we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism, with the bewildered herd marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming patriotic slogans, fearing for their lives and admiring with awe the leader who saved them from destruction, while the educated masses goose-step on command and repeat the slogans they're supposed to repeat and the society deteriorates at home. We end up serving as a mercenary enforcer state, hoping that others are going to pay us to smash up the world. Those are the choices That's the choice that you have to face. The answer to those questions is very much in the hands of people like you and me.”

Picturesque Speech

Overall, “Waiting for Godot” could be considered an easy read because of its short and rhythmic dialogues. If one doesn’t stop to consider much what the characters are actually saying, then the play could be well read in one seating. However, there is one part of the play that disturbs that sort of easiness. Lucky’s dense and incoherent speech completely breaks the mood of the reader, and it is possible that all the mumbling and non-sense distract the reader. I personally skimmed through the long speech finding it unbearable to read. It’s another story when it is performed.

In the 2001 movie of “Waiting for Godot” the prolific interpretation of Lucky’s speech helps the viewer understand further the meaning of the words. In addition to that, shot sizes and camera angles aid the viewer and deepen the meaning of the dialogue.

The scene starts with an extreme wide shot, showing us all the character aligned and a good view of the background. At this moment, it is important to focus on the initial reaction of all the characters to Lucky’s action, hence the use of extreme wide shot and frontal, eye-level camera angles.

As Lucky starts his speech, the shot shrinks to wide-shot focusing more on the character. The somewhat low camera angle denotes superiority to the now thoughtful Lucky. His pose is very virtuous making him look magnanimous. The curious Vladimir and Estragon approach cautiously. The tree is visible in the shot. 

As Lucky’s speech progresses, the camera shot subtly zooms on Lucky. He is the center of attention; the medium-shot size forces the viewer to focus solely on Lucky, his facial expressions, and dialogue. At this, all distractions have been removed and we are to fully submit to Lucky’s incoherent rhetoric.  

The speech continues and it progressively becomes more passionate and incoherent. The camera now zooms out to show the reaction of Pozzo, who clearly finds his servant’s speech unbearable. The camera slowly moves circularly to show the panoramic, perhaps in tune with Lucky’s now circular speech.

The shot shrinks again now showing a desperate Vladimir attempting to stop Lucky. Lucky is higher in altitude, and Vladimir lower, showing he is helpless and frustrated while the solemn Lucky continues. The tree is always visible.

Lucky’s speech finally ends when Vladimir removes his hat, and he collapses and falls face down to the ground. The extreme wide shot works to show how everyone reacts to the event. Lucky is diminished, while Vladimir is higher than all and holding the hat. The road’s curve is imminent and gives off an impression of eternity, because we don’t see the road going anywhere.

Waiting for....Muppet?

The wits of children’s shows never cease to amaze me. Who ever thought that Sesame Street would make its own parody version of “Waiting for Godot”? In the “Monsterpiece Theater” segment of Sesame Street, there is an episode called “Waiting for Elmo” where “Groover and Telly Monster lament near a tree waiting for Elmo. In disgust, the tree both monster monsters are waiting by leaves.” The play is introduced as “A modern masterpiece, a play so modern, so brilliant it makes absolutely no sense.” Alistair Cookie monster then says it doesn’t make sense to him, but maybe you (the viewer) can find out what it means. The clip is only a couple of minutes long. The setting consists of a leafless tree and windy noises. The two monsters are standing side by side gesturing frantically as they usually do. The dialogue is stripped down basic (intended for children) and they say they are waiting for Elmo to come and play with them. The blue monster says that when Elmo finally comes to play with them, they will be so happy. The blue monster is more optimistic, while the red one is more skeptic about the situation. Maybe the red one is Estragon. It doesn’t take long for them to get mad at Elmo for making them wait “How dare he keeps us by this tree waiting, waiting, waiting!” Like children, their mood swings are quick and violent. There is a special emphasis on emotion, something we don’t see much in the play, yet logica,l for children understand emotions easily. What is particular about the play is the tree’s intervention. It’s as if it was a spectator of the play. It says, “I’ve been waiting for this play to make some sense. I don’t get it!” The tree ends up by taking off and the Muppets follow him. The tree’s intervention only helps to ridicule the notion of the play even more. However, it can be looked upon as the ignorant response this play had when first published. It still may provoke this reaction, and most likely children don’t have the background knowledge to understand the situation, but its presence is what is important.  This stripped down version of “Waiting for Godot” highlights the absurdity of the play. It is perhaps the most existentialist version of the play, which makes sense with the nature of the show, as children can be the biggest existentialists. 

The Big Picture Axiom

Other than Meursault’s acts, which by themselves are completely existentialist, there’s another way the book presents a broader view on existentialism. Instead of searching for ideas in the details, the big picture represents too, the ideals of existentialism. For example, the idea that we as people desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe is represented in the trial. An irrational Meursault sits quiet through his prosecution while strangers discuss about his soul, intentions, morale, and his fate. Essentially, the prosecution tries to reason the nature of Meursault’s actions

“…the prosecutor rose to his feet again, adjusted his robe, and declared that only someone with the naiveté of his esteemed colleague could fail to appreciate that between these two sets of facts there existed a profound fundamental, and tragic relationship.” (pg.96)

Somehow, reason is being imposed to what were otherwise irrational, or poorly justified acts.

“Fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous o sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun.” (pg.103)

However, the prosecutor and the jury refuse to believe in the absurdity of it all. That is humanity trying to make rational decisions, when in fact its existence surges from the opposite. There is a big discrepancy with what existentialists believe is the nature of life and the imposition of reason from the others who believe in motives. Ultimately, the truth is what we want to believe is true. The best example for this is the prosecution that said:

“I will prove it to you, gentlemen, and I will prove it in two ways. First, in the blinding clarity of the facts, and second, in the dim light cast by the mind of this criminal soul.” (pg.99)

And whose definitive belief was:

“I have retraced for you the course of events which led this man to kill with full knowledge of his actions.” (pg.99)

Despite everything, we are aware of the absurdity of the situation, because we saw through Meursault’s eye. This brings me to the next belief that existence is essentially absurd, and how the lack of motives from Meursault other than the sun, the indifference of the universe he embraced in the end, and his vision on the ephemeral universe goes represent the previous idea.

“The utter pointlessness of whatever I was doing there seized me by the throat…” (pg.104)

Silence

“…the presiding judge told me in bizarre language that I was to have my head cut off in a public square in the name of the French people. Then it seemed to me that I suddenly knew what was on everybody’s face. It was a look of consideration, I’m sure. The policemen were very gentle with me. The lawyer put his hand on my wrist. I wasn’t thinking anymore. That’s when they took me away.”(pg.106)

If it wasn’t for the use of first person, the narrator could perfectly be mistaken with a non-omniscient third person narrator, perhaps  a member of the audience observing the happenings. Other than “I wasn’t thinking anymore” there are no indications of what is going on inside Meursault’s mind. The absence of metacognition in the passage is especially significant because it indicates the lack of reasoning in the whole process and therefore recalls the absurdness of it all. Meursault does not express his opinion or reaction to the sentence of his fate, and what we get instead is a description of the situation. Who cares if the policemen were gentle to him! The lack of an expression of feelings in this passage lets us know how detached Meursault is from himself. In fact, the only thing he bothers to tell is he wasn’t thinking anymore, meaning his rational faculties had deceased, and his presence was reduced to that of mere bone and flesh.

The juxtaposition of the sentences “I wasn’t thinking anymore.” And “That’s when they took me away.” Reflect Meursault’s stance in the trial (ironically absent) and the trial’s position toward it. Meursault is absent minded, in fact he seems to be during the entire book, he gives no reasons for anything. The trial on the contrary attempts to impose logic to the otherwise illogical acts Meursault committed. Meursault acknowledges his irrational being, and just then, they take him away.

Altogether, the book lacks expression of feelings from Meursault and reasoning for his actions which together help transmit the absurdity of existence. It is often what is not said that enhances the meaning of the spoken. 

Man first of all exists

While Meursault’s insensitivity and utter indifference to his supposedly aggravating situation cover all the characteristics of psychopathic behavior, they are in fact the purest extract of existentialist existence. There are certain emotions a person is expected to have after its mother dies. Be it sadness, relief, anger, confusion, but emotions after all. In fact, humanity is supposed to be driven, in compound, by a series of these emotions throughout life, and we are raised to believe that these are the sole things that give meaning to existence.

“Then I felt like having a smoke. But I hesitated, because I didn’t know if I could do it with Maman right there. I thought about it; it didn’t matter. I offered the caretaker a cigarette and we smoked.” (pg.8)

Meursault, as previously said doesn’t react emotionally to his mother’s death. In fact in the whole book few times (two or three) does he express any emotional sensitivity. He felt like having a cigarette, hesitated because he didn’t know if it was appropriate, but eventually gave in to his crave because in his rationale, that is what he wants to do, and therefore does it. But there is no emotion backing up his impulse. No, “My heart was filled with such despair, my hands were shaking, I was so overwhelmed by the violent wave of heavy emotions that I needed a cigarette to calm down.” No.

But there is authenticity in Meursault’s existence. He finds no need to seek meaning in his life, be it by emotions, religion, love. He is, and that is enough reason to exist. That is why he smokes the cigarette, because why not?

Existence, despite all, is still absurd. “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed.” (pg.24) I will only mention briefly The Myth of Sisyphus, as the readers of this entry will already be familiar with its relation to the text. “one more Sunday was over…really, nothing had changed.” So existence is essentially redundant. Meursault recognizes redundancy as a major component of his existence, but that allows him to live of momentary experience, nothing else. There is no connotation of sadness, or disappointment in his statement. Although things have happened, life is still the same, and things will continue to happen, but in the end life conserves its spot in the universe. No extraordinary thing can or will happen, because it all ends the same, with death.  

White Wine

“A breeze blew through the room, blew curtains in at one end and out the other like pale flags twisting them up toward the frosted wedding-cake of the ceiling, and then rippled over the wine colored rug, making a shadow on it as wind does to the sea.

The only completely stationary object in the room was an enormous couch on which two young women were buoyed up as though upon an anchored balloon. They were both in white, and their dresses were rippling and fluttering as if they had just been blown back in after a short flight around the house.” (Pg.8)

This passage employs imagery to describe the scene. White and wine are the colors present in the room's decor.  White represents lightness, purity, beauty, innocence, proximity to heaven, and the women are portrayed like naive angels, while wine, strategically found on the floor is quite the contrary. It gives of a burning sensation and connotes hell and sin.  Together they make an important contrast, both in an aesthetic and symbolic way. The walls, ceiling, curtains, and women are all white and frothy, while the floor is smashing wine colored. The juxtaposition of colors works as to represent the strong contrasts found in the society of The Great Gatsby. In a domestic household, for example, we see Daisy’s angelical, feather-light presence, contrasting with Tom’s aggressive, heavy being. There is also Nick and Gatsby's friendship, whose components: Nick's straightforward unambitious ways, and Gatsby's mysterious, shabby existence couldn’t be more different.  White and wine in the same room symbolize the co-existence of extremes in this society, which is one of the important components that make up its memorable personality.