Smells Like Teen Spirit

The creation, rise to prominence and eventual demise of the Latin Kings follow a trajectory very similar to that of other social groups who consider themselves vanguards of their culture and cause. Often these groups form to protect themselves or their community against inequality, oppression and gang based violence but eventually spiral down the same path of criminality and self imposed segregation that they once fought against.

Most groups such as the Latin Kings are created from a need by to solidify a certain racial or social group from the rest of the general population. This has two consequences: one is the formation of a strong community that creates a support and welfare system for the members involved and two is the self imposed segregation that often removes them from the general population. By empowering themselves, they also alienate themselves in the eyes of the society where the main goal is assimilation.

Once they self segregate and society starts to alienate, these groups become defensive and often recede deeper into their culture to the point where everything becomes a struggle of “us” versus “them.” Any authority that tries to impose power is perceived as a threat to their identity and it incites violent responses. Thus, what being as a means of political empowerment evolves into a mob mentality where the slightest provocation becomes justification for retaliation.

The Latin Kings resembles groups such as Young Lords and the Black Panthers in that they wanted political empowerment but instead was politically oppressed for their activities. Whether this oppression by the state is justified depends on the nature and severity of their intentions and actions. For example, the Latin Kings were known for drug trafficking and a federal operation “Operation Lord Gino” in Chicago revealed a $6 million drug operation orchestrated by the Latin Kings.

They were also known for committing felonies such as targeting federal employees like Correctional Officer Lawrence Kush who prevented the Latin Kings from carrying on their drug trafficking . Members of the Latin King beat Lawrence Kush to death because he did very thorough “shakedowns” of prison cells to find contraband. Further investigation revealed that Kush was one of 30 federal employees on the King’s hit list. In light of such incriminating evidence, police actions such as Federal Operation Crown led by US Marshalls become justified.

While parts of the Latin King community, most notably the Latin Queens, may still demand social reforms such as better schools and job opportunity in their neighborhood, the organization has strayed too far from its activists roots and into organized criminal activities to be considered an innocuous political entity. Richard Rowley’s documentary “Black and Gold” paints a one sided picture of the Latin Kings and portray them as victims of police brutality and severe state control. The reality is that the Latin Kings were just another group who wanted to be empowered with an identity but unfortunately fell prey to the perils of mob mentality.

Mozart’s musical interpretation of Beaumarchais’ play The Marriage of Figaro significantly alters the character of Figaro to create a less politicized piece of work capable of satisfying both the general audience and the aristocracy. By construing Figaro’s speeches, Mozart transforms him from a threatening symbol of bourgeois revolution to a witty, comic relief who succumbs to trickery to fend of his master’s predatory advances.

Beaumarchais’ Figaro threatened the aristocratic society of France because he possessed a quality that cannot be confined to social hierarchy that is intelligence. Figaro’s intelligence and bold confidence is acknowledged multiple time throughout the course of the play, most notably by Countess who asserts “He exudes such confidence that some of it is wearing off on me” (Act II, Scene II, p 113). It is this quality in contrast to the Count’s foolishness and tendency to fall into traps weaved by his servant that makes Figaro such a liability as a character to Beaumarchais. His superior intelligence threatens the Count more that his actual conspiracies to ruin the Count’s interest in Suzanne because it is a tangible quality that cannot be inherited through power, money or class.

Furthermore, Beaumarchais’ Figaro is revolutionary in that he uses his words as his sword to defend himself against the Count. When the Count accusingly inquires about Figaro’s reasons for jumping out of the window, Figaro responds to the Count in a scathing manner “You’re hunting for a man. You’ve got to get him or you’ll smash down doors an break through walls” (Act III, Scene 5, p 147). Figaro not only detracts the Count from questioning him, he focuses the topic back on the Count and accuses him of being rash and “incandescent”. This line of response clearly breaks with the tradition of a servant’s subservient comportment around his/her master. It also sets a precedent of mental rationality over social hierarchy, which is revolutionary for the time period where social hierarchy was the sole determinant of behavior and personal boundaries.

Mozart’s Figaro by contrast is a disappointing shadow of Beaumarchais’ Figaro. Instead of exuding the intelligence and confidence of the Beaumarchais’ Figaro, Mozart’s Figaro becomes a source of comic relief during the first three acts and the virtually disappears from the main plot. The characters of the Countess and Suzanne, both of whom drive the plot for the remaining of the opera, overshadow his character. Figaro’s monologue in Act V, Scene III that is so essential to his development of his character is omitted in Mozart’s opera. Thus is presence in front of the audience is further mitigated along with the mitigation of his revolutionary character.

In addition, Mozart’s Figaro lacks the weapon of words that Beaumarchais’ Figaro so tactfully employs. Mozart, in his attempt to create a less politicized and more audience and aristocracy friendly production, took away the very characteristic the character of Figaro. Mozart’s Figaro, in same scene mentioned above where the Count accuses him of having ulterior motives for jumping, merely asserts that the Count is jumping to conclusions instead of chastising the Count like Beaumarchais’ Figaro. By parsing Figaro’s sentences here and there, Mozart creates a very commercially successful opera but discards the underlining revolutionary sentiments that made The Marriage of Figaro so compelling.

With the exception of Figaro’s characterization, the two works resembles each almost word for word in terms of scene selection and plotline. Mozart’s shortened acts make marginal difference in the overall content of the work. It is important to note Mozart’s musical brilliance as the opera successfully transforms banal dialogue into sweeping verses of musical score. Like wise, Beaumarchais’ brilliantly hidden political satire should be noted not only for its revolutionary spirit but for the artfully crafted story line and comedic genius.

Beaumarchais’ The Marriage of Figaro has been reproduced by such figures as Paisiello, Salieri, Rossini etc, but it is Mozart’s interpretation that stands the test of time because it offers a direct contrast to Beaumarchais’ play and it’s main character. This dichotomy is what keeps audiences as compelled by the two works today as it did during the 18th century.

The ending of The Turn of the Screw leaves the reader with a cliffhanger but further analysis reveals the death of Miles as a necessary plot development to stop the appearances of the apparition. Miles is portrayed as the vital link between the apparitions and the governess and thus his death signifies the end of the paranormal activities that the governess witnesses.

From the beginning Miles’ character is shrouded in mystery. The reader learns about his mysterious expulsion from school before he is even introduced formally and thus the reader is able to speculate, along with the governess, the extent of Miles’ mischief. By purposefully concealing the reason of expulsion, James manipulates the human impulse to always assume the worst. Miles is thus ingrained in the readers mind as a ten – year – old boy who committed deeds so awful in nature that the headmaster couldn’t bring himself up to put it in writing.

Upon his introduction however he is characterized as “incredibly beautiful”, possessor of “greater sweetness of innocence” and “positive purity.” His seeming perfection seems to allude to an inhumane child who seemed to have cast a strange influence on his governess. Upon meeting him, the governess responds to his charm by stating that “ I was lifted aloft on a great wave of infatuation and pity” which suggests that her judgment was clouded. His perfect mannerisms and innocent façade almost takes on a sinister quality as the novel progresses.

It is also important to note that unlike his sister Flora who also sees the apparitions but remains largely a bystander, Miles insinuates himself in the affairs of the governess by manipulating her surroundings. For example, he steals the letter that the governess wrote for his uncle and suggests to his governess that if they continue staying on at Bly she will be more alone than he. These confrontational behaviors suggest that Miles is far from the image of the innocent young boy he convinces everyone he is.

The last scene of the novella is significant because it proves the sanity of the governess as Miles acknowledges the presence of Peter Quint. It also suggests that Miles knew all along about the presence of these apparitions and his outburst “You devil!” underlines the nature of the relationship he had with Quint. Of all the characters in the novella, with the exception of the governess, Miles is the only person who shows signs of physically seeing the apparitions. His death is the last event in the novel because with his death the apparitions dissipate and the link between the normal and the paranormal, the alive and the dead is broken.

Ultimately Miles’ death brings the reader to a full understanding of his and Flora’s relationship to their former governess and caretaker. Although much of their relationship is concealed by Henry James, it is understood that the influence of Miss Jessel and Peter Quint left an undoubtedly strong impression on the two siblings. Even in death they were able to reach over to Miles and form a bond with the living world and that bond is finally broken with the death of Miles.

Ben Bolt offers a straight forward rendition of Henry James’ novel and masterfully recreates the psychological drama that unfolds beneath the visage of a ghost story. The movie does not veer much from the plot line however Bolt does take artistic liberty over the development of some characters such as Miles and Flora, adds some subtle insights into the mind of the governess by creating a sense of sexual tension and repression throughout the length of the film and makes its certain that Miles was smothered to death by the governess.

In the movie, Miles and Flora are portrayed as being much closer emotionally than in the book. When Miles is first introduced in the movie, Flora senses his arrival and goes out and pulls him in an embrace. She then whispers in his ears, presumably about their new governess. This is not part of the book, however Bolt adds it to the movie to amplify the governess’ eventual suspicion that they are conspiring against her. Bolt further develops her suspicion by adding the cricket game scene where Miles and Flora whisper to each other, much to the discomfort and suspicion of their governess, but claim that they were only talking about “tactics.” These scenes clearly illustrate not only the connection between the two siblings but also the reasons for the paranoia of the governess.

Bolt also develops the themes of sexual repression and tension of the governess by adding scenes that illustrates her attraction to her employer. In the movie, Flora shows the governess her uncle’s room which is decorated in an airy, virginal white theme. The governess is instantly infatuated by the room and returns to the room at a later scene to caress the uncle’s clothes. These two instances hint at her burgeoning sexuality which directly contradicts her disapproval of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel’s relationship. While Henry James makes only a passing reference to the governess’ interview with the uncle, Bolt reiterates it many times by adding the aforementioned scenes to develop the character of the governess as a young woman suffering from sexual oppression or hysteria. This characterization is then construed as one of the reasons for her ghost sightings in the movie.

The movie also makes the cause of Miles’ death definitive by portraying it as smothering by the governess. While James only writes that the governess embraced him and his heart stopped, the movie adds much for vigor in the last scene and makes it seems as though the governess held him so tightly that he suffered from asphyxiation. In the movie, Miles’ face is forcibly held against the governess’ chest and his hands are seen to struggle and eventually become limp. This implies a slow death as his hands struggle for air as opposed to the sudden death by hart failure that’s written in the book. It is also worth mentioning that the movie also makes the death of Miss Jessel definitive by showing her committing suicide in the opening scene where as her suicide is only vaguely speculated in the novel.

Ben Bolt creates an exact replica of Henry James’ famous novella by staying true to the plotline but veers ever so slightly from the text to further develop the nature of the relationship between the siblings and gives more definitive answers to some of the more ambiguous questions in the story such as the death of Miles and Miss Jessel. Lastly, Bolt masterfully conveys the disturbed psyche of the governess without having the luxury of her first person point of view. The movie is not so much an imaginative reinterpretation as it is a to the point rendition of one of the Henry James’ most famous storyline.

Considering that she is the daughter of a well-known feminist, Mary Shelley uses surprisingly stereotypical roles for the female characters in her novel. Her female characters all embody the perfect ideals of mothers, sisters and daughters and securely manifest the realm of domesticity without ever venturing into more diverse roles.  However they are portrayed in the most positive light, almost devoid of character flaws, which no doubt a byproduct of Shelley’s own sympathy for her gender.

The first female character that is introduced is Walton’s sister Margaret Saville. Mrs. Saville becomes Walton’s closest confidant as he prepares for his journey. Walton’s decision to divulge his fears and aspirations to Mrs. Saville illustrates her role as an important figure and influence in his life. He says “my best years spent under your gentle and feminine fosterage, has so refined the groundwork of my character (p.6)” which elucidates the influential role of women in shaping men’s character.

The second character introduced in the novel is Caroline Beaufort who embodies the very ideal of the female gender and instead of being portrayed as a subjugated being, her character is praised lavishly for her competence in the roles that she fills. Caroline spends the first half of her life nursing her father  “with the greatest tenderness” and even in his death “her courage rose to support her in adversity.” She then marries Frankenstein’s father out of need and benevolence and shifts from being the perfect daughter to the perfect wife. It becomes self evident throughout the book that the women in Shelley’s novel are all universally loved and represents only the goodness of society. Even at the end of her life Caroline “resigns cheerfully to death” as though she holds no regrets about the unfortunate circumstances of her.

The next character is Elizabeth Lavenza who again beholds stereotypical gender assertions but nevertheless is portrayed in an almost religious light. She is described as being “heaven sent and bears a celestial stamp” and her beauty is said to transcend that of any ordinary woman. These descriptions paint a perfect, divine picture that connotes positive characteristics to her persona. She is however nothing more that an object of desire for Frankenstein who says “I looked upon Elizabeth as mine.” This suggests a need Elizabeth’s possession because she is unable to take care of herself and objectifies her in a weak and vulnerable manner. Furthermore, Frankenstein’s proclamation that “till death she will be mine” also implies that she becomes the sacrificial lamb of Frankenstein’s mistakes because everything that is dear to him is eventually taken away.

Lastly, the character of Justine is described by Elizabeth to have “soft and winning mildness” which is further reiterated by Frankenstein when he describes her as “frank –hearted and happy.” Justine, like her female counterparts in the novel, never veers from her role in society and illustrates the female passivity when she accepts her faith at the trial without much contention. She says “I must be condemned, although I would pledge my salvation on my innocence” to claim her innocence but she does it in such a passive manner that it makes her claim futile. Throughout the novel, the women encountered are all represented in the perfect, ideal stereotypes of women. They are beautiful, benevolence, sacrificing and in Elizabeth’s case almost divine. Yet despite such positive attributes they rarely venture away from their role as submissive, nurturing and often invisible forces in their society.

Shelley doesn’t portray the women in her novel as liberated and autonomous human beings but she does make them the nearly ideal gender compared to their male counterparts. Shelley herself didn’t feel secure enough to first publish her novel as a female writer and her decision to keep her female characters within the bound of the domestic realm might have been a byproduct of that insecurity. Nevertheless, the imagination illustrated by Shelley through her novel is a greater testament to her gender than any of her characters.

The characterization of Henry V by Shakespeare is commemorative in the play, especially if one considers Henry’s portrayal as the wayward and rebellious Prince Hal in Henry IV. Henry V is regarded throughout the play as a capable king who wins the allegiance of his subjects through his eloquent rhetoric, sound judgments on crime and punishment, his ability to unify his countrymen during times of war and most impressively his ability to forgo and sacrifice personal relationships for the ultimate benefit for the country he rules.

Henry’s transformation from Prince Hal is established in the very first act of the play where the Archbishop compares his change in character to how “The strawberry grows underneath the nettle…Neighbored by fruit of baser quality” (Act I. Scene 1. Page 104). The fruits of baser quality are a reference to Henry’s previous choice of company including Falstaff, Bardolph, Nym etc. His decision to execute Bardolph and Nym at the end of the play for their defiance of his orders shows a king who is able to rise beyond personal attachments to maintain discipline and order among his subject. Henry’s willingness to cut his ties to the commoners and thieves is testament to his sincerity to shoulder the responsibilities of a King.

Henry also renders fair and decisive judgments in regards to crime and punishment. He is quick to perpetuate death on crimes that threaten the stability of his monarchy (i.e. the assassination attempt by traitors such Richard Earl, Henry Lord and Thomas Grey), but not before giving the traitors a chance to clear or implicate themselves by their own conscience. This reveals a more humane and unconventional method of punishment than the traditions of Henry’s predecessors who would have no doubt condemned the traitors to death  without ever conceiving the idea of giving them a chance to confess or explain their motives. Henry is also quick to forgive “the poor wrench” who insults him publicly in a drunken stupor which only strengthens his characterization as a monarch devoid of narcissism and ego.

Shakespeare’s most direct adulation of Henry V comes in the form of eloquent speeches that Henry gives during times of war to motive his subjects. He incites his men to war by heralding them with superfluous status and heroic patriotism. He says “And you, good yeomen / Whose limbs were made in England, show us here/The mettle of you pasture” (III.i.24-27) and compares their fathers to “like so many Alexanders” so as to imply that they are descendants of successful conquerors. Henry gives his speeches multiple times throughout the play (i.e. in front of the breaches, to the governor of Harfleur and of course before the battle of Agincourt) and what is more remarkable than the speeches themselves is that fact that he is able to deliver them with authority and decisiveness even at times when he is unsure of the cause himself. His speech to the Governor of Harfleur is riddled with self doubt and he even considers about retreating back to Calais. Yet he pulls through before the battle of Agincourt to inspire his men and thus instilling himself as an effective leader.

Furthermore, Henry also shows an acute ability to unite his army despite internal deterioration. The four captains in Henry’s army (Macmorris, Ken Scott, Trevor Peacock and Fluellen) represent four different part of the kingdom Henry presides over. Their inability to find common ground in opinion and in language portrays the difficulty Henry faces as a king who has to unite his own men before he can win the war. Henry accomplishes this task by reaching back to his past and impersonating a commoner to truly understand the sentiments of his subjects. Henry’s greatest asset as a king becomes his ability and willingness to understand and take counsel from his subjects even if he accomplishes that through impersonation. This behavior of his is no doubt bred from the days when he associated with the lowly and commoners of his father’s kingdom. If all these actions are taken into account, then it is not too far stretched to say that Henry V is a people’s king which is just as high a praise today as it was during Shakespearean times.

The West Side Story is neither a critical commentary on Puerto Rican American race relations as Frances Negron-Muntaner suggests nor just a modernized version of Romeo and Juliet. The racial and political under currents in the West Side Story is a reflection of the American media’s incompetence in handling sensitive race relations. While it can be argued that the plot envisioned by Bernstein was been stereotypical and derogatory in its portrayals of Puerto Ricans, it is the actualization of the story onto stage and movies that has had the bigger impact in categorizing Puerto Ricans.

The use of Euro-American actors in the lead Puerto Rican roles in the film diminishes the authenticity of the characters and implies that the American audience for whom the production is intended is not ready for a tolerant multi cultural society. This is more of an under handed criticism of the Euro-American culture rather than the Puerto Rican American culture. Nevertheless the decision to replace the Latino actors reflects the insensitivity of the producers to the nuances of race relations. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the casting decision makes a broader statement about the image of Latinos in American culture during the 50’s than the play itself.

The musical production of the West Side Story during 1957 differs from the production today in that they cater to different audiences. The Broadway patron of the 50’s would have been living through the civil rights movement and experiencing the cataclysmic shifts in race relations. This would have made them more subjective audiences and therefore more critical of ideas about racial harmony. The decisions of the producers of the play would have therefore been dictated by the whims and ideals of his audiences rather than by the pillars of the play itself. Where as today, the modern American Broadway patron would view the musical from a historical context and be more objective about racial conflicts and therefore allow the producers to present the play as it was intended to be.

The media is often called the fourth branch of government because of its role in influencing public opinion and exacerbating certain stereotypes and nowhere is it more apparent than in the arts. In the West Side Story, the media catered to the sentiments of the time and in the process subjugated a race (Puerto Ricans) in light of a more preferred race (Euro- Americans), instead of portraying the West Side Story for what it is: a warring clash between two groups from the same socio-economic background with the only divisive factor being their race.

Lastly, touting the West Side Story as a quintessential American play and its insemination into modern American culture is misleading when one considers the ultimate ending of the play. Toni’s death signifies the last failed attempt at unifying the two races; hardly an American ideal. Whether the West Side Story makes significant assertions about Puerto Rican culture or it represents a more accessible version of Romeo and Juliet, its ultimate image was shaped the media and the prevailing sentiments of the day.

Rotten Eggs !