Monsters Inc.

Monsters Inc. is not your typical monster movie. The monsters in this movie look like monsters but only act scary because it is there job to be scary so that they have power for their to city. In the end they realize that they can use laugher to power their city instead. The monsters that they can thank for that are James "Sulley" Sullivan, Mike Wazowski, and Boo, the human child. Without everything they went through they never would have known that they don’t need screams. Sulley and Mike did everything that they could to project Boo and get her home before anyone found her and tried to hurt her because there were bad monsters in there city that were not so nice to other monsters and they were not nice to the humans that they scared when they went through their doors. So what is it that makes Sulley and Mike so different?

The idea of monsters in our culture has evolved and been changed for so long that we are now able to acknowledge them in ways beyond their classic, simple, scariness. A very recent film that both lampoons and honors monsters and monster culture is Pixar’s Monsters Inc. The opening scenes are designed to look dark and scary, with silhouettes and glowing eyes, the scene quickly breaks down into a comedy, setting the lighthearted tone for the whole movie. However, in every story, the interest comes from conflict. In Monsters Inc. the enemies come in the form of Randall, a competing monster, and Henry Waternoose, the head of the company. We have now entered a sort of meta-monster story, in which there are monsters among monsters. How does the setting in which ALL characters are [visual] monsters affect our perceptions of them? In this world where everyone is a monster, what makes the villains more monstrous than the heroes?

In the Monster Inc. the main characters James “Sulley” Sullivan and Mike Wazowski both have monster looking appearances but they do not have evil hearts. In this movie, we no longer see any mysterious murdering, blooding scenes or anything relating to violence. There are more funny stories and moving scenes being showed on two little ugly monsters Sulley and Mike. We see Sulley and Mike as monsters but they both see the little girl, Boo as a monster. Nevertheless, they try to protect her and send her back in her door before anybody sees them. From this act, we can see that not all of the monsters are really monsters in the city. Generally, people judge abnormal species as monsters because we know nothing about their species. If we learn to understand all those monsters and react to them properly, they would not seem like such monsters. Similarly, Sulley and Mike have shown us that not all monsters are always bad. “Seeing is believing,” if we see Sulley and Mike as good monsters then we can believe that there is hope for other monsters like them. We cannot judge anybody by our first impression; we need to learn more about them before passing final judgment on them. How would things be different if the kids were not scared of the monsters coming out of their doors if they knew that they only did it because they had to?

This makes one wonder when they watch this movie. Thinking why do they do what they do if they are not evil? Why didn’t they do just use laughter all the time instead of scaring all these kids? You can get a kid to laugh a lot easier than getting them scared all the time? I mean after a while the kids will learn something is going to come out of their closest and scare them and be ready for it and learn to not be scared and so the monsters can’t get their power. I don’t know a kid that does love to laugh and have someone make them laugh. So in the best interest of the monsters power supply they should just make them laugh and get the power that way.

Group 6: Carlos Hyde, Megan Iverson, Eric Ringman, and Zuoqi “George” Sun

Dr. Frankenstein's Creature

Dr. Frankenstein's Creature: Would have acceptance by his creator helped him be accepted by society?

So many characters in both literature and film have been characterized as monsters because of their appearances. The creature created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein appears to be a monster, but he truly is not one. His creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, is really the true monster for rejecting his creation and not taking responsibility for it. The creature is lonely and wants to be accepted and loved, but instead it only finds rejection and hatred. The creature is truly scary looking and very large, which is very intimidating and frightening, but he is truly misunderstood by humans and reacts violently. Do you believe if he had been accepted by Victor Frankenstein, he would have been accepted by others even though he was so large and scary looking? Have you ever not accepted someone based upon their acceptance only to find later that they truly are a good person?

Everyone needs to be loved by someone, and certainly from the very beginning of Frankenstein's life he was rejected and that's all he knew. His creator even thought he was hideous and wanted nothing to do with him. Even though his creator only wanted to accomplish the feat of creating human life, he didn't even want to acknowledge that he had created such a hideous monster. Since Frankenstein's creature never had a mother and Victor abandoned him, he had no one to nurture him and teach him important life skills and how to act in a humane manner. All Frankenstein's creature wanted was to be accepted and one day find someone that would love him. His hope of having companionship is also lost when Victor destroys the female mate that he began creating only to devastate the creature once again and make him feel rejected and alone. Do you think if Victor would have stayed around to teach and love his creature, he would have had a better quality of life? Do you think a female mate would have helped the creature turn his life around?

One of the worst tragedies for Frankenstein's creature was social discrimination. People were afraid of the creature's appearance, and this fear prohibited people from knowing his inner beauty. Although Frankenstein's creature was given life, he never had an opportunity to really live and enjoy life. Frankenstein's creature was very lonely and just wanted to find companionship and acceptance. Do you believe his loneliness contributed to his violence?

The setting of this story was influenced by Shelly's surroundings and it seems fitting that the creature would escape into the woods because it was isolated and a place where he would not have much human interaction. The story of Frankenstein certainly is a sad one and definitely targets our theme of "monsters," but once again it is a monster that is misunderstood because of his appearance and the true monster is really someone that does not appear to be a monster at all and that is his creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein.

Group 5
Contributing Members: Bryan Kuhlman, Charlita Hagwood, Lu Su & Kessy Evans

Hell Houses: Angels or Demons? [Group 4]

Halloween means different things to different people. Some will enjoy free candy from neighbors, others will dress up just for a party, but thousands around the nation spend their Halloween screaming in a haunted house. However, the idea behind traditional haunted houses has been revamped by Churches across America. The first of these “Hell Houses” was founded in the late 1970’s by one Jerry Falwell, the house itself donning the name “Scaremare”. Now, thousands of Churches have made their own Hell Houses, all with one goal in mind. Some Pastors believed regular Church was not effective enough. Through scripts and some fake blood, they want to scare young adults into conversion. The personifications of sin in American Hell Houses are excessive and inappropriate.

Instilling fear is no way to get someone to see your point of view. It is the definition of scare tactics. Now, there is a documentary about Hell Houses simply titled “Hell House”, and it shows how one Church scared their patrons. Compared to other similar organizations, it is modest. Among the common sins addressed by Hell Houses, abortion and homosexuality are a favorite. In reality, an abortion is as simple as a needle and not walking for a few hours. These staged abortions have enough blood to make Dracula need a doggie bag. Liters of fake blood cover the set while a blond-haired innocent teen cries for the manic doctors to end the pain. They laugh in her face, while one screams they may need to amputate the poor girl’s leg. Somehow instead of teaching how abortions are immoral, or how all life is important, they make it about the girl. Depicting her physical pain comes before caring about life.

This evangelistic take on homosexual marriage is equally skewed. Suddenly the word gay becomes synonymous with “godless sodomite”, or even “Satanist”. As the curtain rises, you view a satanic figure asking two women if they swear to be freaks, and to live in a repulsive, disgusting lust for one another. They nod in agreement. Openly admitting how confused they are, and how a life without God lead them to such a terror. The act sits in the bottom of my stomach like a bitter dish that refuses to digest. Homosexuality does not equal Satanism. These Hell Houses are teaching young adults to fear gays because they have a powerful bond with the Mourning Star.

Their intentions might be as pure as the Virgin Mary, but both the ends and means are inappropriate. Targeting impressionable teens like this is not the right thing to do. Even if sitting down with them and using logical reasoning and evidence to prove an idea to them does not work, these Hell Houses are still unjustified. This is not teaching the Bible, but intolerance. You may think homosexuals, atheists and Muslims are the epitome of evil, but you have no right to attack them for just their harmless lifestyle, or beliefs.

Discussion Questions:

1. Some Hell Houses are visited by tens of thousands of people each year. They are becoming more popular, and common across the nation. Have you every visited one of these establishments? If so, what impression did it leave upon you? If not, do you possibly know someone that has attended a Hell House?

2. Can the ends really justify the means in this case? Will exaggerations brought on by bias properly educate young adults, or are those exaggerations a means of achieving another goal? Are these going to help or harm patrons?

3. Upon our research, we stumbled across videos that showed some of the graphic misinterpretations Hell Houses flaunt. These acts may be appropriate for teenagers able to make such decisions for themselves, but the cut off age for these Halloween attractions was twelve years old. Many parents took even younger children to see the show. Do you think this is an appropriate cut off age? On a more significant note, how old need a person be to be religiously independent?

Shrek x2

  


    In the movie, Shrek is no doubt categorized as a monster. Everyone in town is terrified of him and thinks that he will eat them if they even get near. However, throughout the movie you see that that is not the case at all. Yes, he is angry and rude, but not once does he kill or eat anyone. He lives simply and peacefully and by himself. But then his swamp gets invaded and goes on a journey to find whoever is responsible. Following Shrek on his journey, you begin to see that the only reason he is even angry is because society makes him out to be a monster. They dehumanize him by making and putting up posters of him eating civilians so anytime he is seen, people just come after him with pitchforks and lit torches. It almost becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They keep making him out to be such a heartless monster that soon it is what he becomes. He isolates himself and is just bitter from what society has done to him. i think this is a crucial point because 'monsters' are made this way. If you keep calling someone something and treating them a certain way, soon that is how they perceive themselves and how they think they should or may as well act.

       Shrek is viewed by most people as a vile, bone-crunching, blood-thirsty monster. Most of the characters believe that ogres are wild beasts, reacting purely to raw instinct – killing the innocent.
People make the mistake of judging him before they really know anything. Shrek has layers, “like an onion”, this metaphor clearly illustrates that Shrek is a far more complicated character, with much
more depth than “Rawr!!! I’m going to eat you.”  Shrek’s appearance is not a pleasant one, but people assume that his vulgar exterior is analogous to him behaving as a monster, demonstrating the consequences
of stereotyping. The movie encourages the audience to look beyond appearance and first impressions, because there is generally always more depth to a person, than at first glance.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ogres+are+like+onions&aq=0


Why do you think Shrek is so adamant about being an onion, rather than something sweeter, like chocolate cake? Do you think instinct had anything to do when people react to seeing Shrek (FEAR)? Does this
justify their behavior?

Mara and Sam

Shrek/Group 3

Shrek and Fiona have the monster ugly looking but they have the kindest heart in this world. They would fight for each other. Their love story is great as us and even better. They would fight for their friends, Donkey and Puss in boots. They see friendship as one of the most important things in the world. On the other hand, the real monster may not have the devilish look. It is the evil heart they have shows the evilness. They will betray on anybody even their families and friends. There are no real love and trust for them. And it is so easy for them to trick people with their humanized trustable look. But they can never be the real king and princess.

Shrek he is a green ogre, which is large head, strong body and monstrous look. They often depicted in fairy-tales. Shrek he likes living alone in his own swap peacefully. But he is forced to go battle due to lots fairytale beings come to his swap. In order to get back his own privacy and quiet swap, he has been ordered to complete hard mission, which is to prevent the princess Fiona from marring the evil Lord Farquaad. Due to the monster appearance of Shrek, it’s hard to link him as a hero. As usual, Prince is always the character who is going to save Princess form danger. It turns out to be we cannot judge people just according to their outlook. Even Shrek looks like a monster with wired personalities, but he has a beautiful and pure heart. His courage and brave for fighting with evil and finally saves Princess Fiona should consider him as a truly hero indeed.

--by Tracy and Lisa

Voldemort / Group 2

Voldemort, the primary villain and face of evil in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, has been called many things. Born under the name Tom Marvolo Riddle, he became known as Voldemort, and was referred to as The Dark Lord. As if that wasn’t evil enough, wizards fear him to the point that they won’t even dare speak his name, referring to him only as You-Know-Who and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. It’s easy to see how many people (even muggles) could view Voldemort as a monster. From the way he acts to the way he looks, Voldemort’s characteristics leave few questioning the extent of his evil.

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is one of the most well-known fictional villains of the 21^st century. Everyone who has ever read the Harry Potter series has a deep impression of Voldemort, who is extremely tall with a skeletal structure. His presence alone can send chills through humans and wizards alike. The dark lord always wears a black cloak and slithers around like a snake. His head has no hair and he has pale white skin and slits for nostrils. When you look at his face, it shows how truly wicked and cruel he is. Voldemort’s face is like that of a snake. His eyes are a window to his soul, scarlet in color and merciless in nature. When he speaks, the voice sounds hoarse and commands attention without even being loud. His looks, as well as his heart, make him a monster. When he was Tom Marvolo Riddle he was a smart and good-looking young man. However, as he grows up, his desire do too. Tom was in hot pursuit of his own ideal pure-blood Wizarding World. As a result, he was addicted to using dark arts in order to conquer the Wizarding World. During this process, with an inflated ambition, Voldemort turned himself into a monster.

With names such as The Dark Lord, You -Know-Who, and He Who Must Not Be Named, it’s obvious that Tom Riddle has changed a great deal since leaving Hogwarts. During the years after his goodbye, Lord Voldemort became known as such a gruesome figure to people that many were too frightened to even speak his name. It was treated almost as if the name “Voldemort” had evolved into a striking new curse word. Many people believed it was actually dangerous to say his name aloud. While violently attempting to conquer both Wizards and Muggles, Harry Potter’s arch nemesis, had blatantly become feared by all. (Harry's battle with Voldemort can be seen here) So what exactly makes Lord Voldemort so monstrous to everyone?

Not only the outlook of Voldemort makes him a monster, but also the fact that he tries to kill Harry Potter, who is the most good-natured character in the Harry Potter series, makes him more like a monster and/or an evil. In my understanding, anything that is related to snakes is not a good meaning in lots of cultures including American culture. Voldemort's ability to talk to the snakes makes readers or audiences of the Harry Potter series view Voldemort bad at first hand. Moreover, the fact that Voldemort turned the displeasing ability over to Harry Potter by accident, making Harry Potter partially similar with him, makes the Harry Potter enthusiasts mad.

Everything about Voldemort is evil; everything he does, how he looks, what he represents is against everything that Harry, Dumbledore, and good stand for. But not everything about him is so cut and clear. Which makes Voldemort more of a monster, his appearance or his actions? Could Harry have grown up to become a truly 100% good-natured wizard without his struggle with Voldemort? Would Voldemort have seemed any less evil without being deformed from his original appearance as Tom Riddle? Many questions surround this monster and the effects he had on his environment. What do you think?

Lady Gaga and monsters / Group #1

Picture is from musicboxmix.net and comes from the result of google images search.

"He ate my heart

He ate my heart

That boy is a monster, m-m-monster"

"Monster"by Lady Gaga

In our contemporary culture, romantic partners have been metaphorically described as monsters, like in Lady Gaga’s song “monster”. In the song of “monster”, a boy engaging in a romantic relationship with the narrator is portrayed as a monster who “ate my heart”, which is a metaphorical way to describe the romantic relationship between the narrator and the boy. According to the lyrics, the boy first amazed the narrator—who apparently identifies herself as Lady Gaga as the lyrics describes—then reveals his true characters of monsters, whom the narrator describes as “a wolf in disguise”. Although the narrator clearly demonstrates her animosity towards the boy by saying that “boy now get your paws right of me”, she becomes vulnerable to the boy’s aggravation—“I wanna just dance but he took me home instead”—and could not get rid of the boy because “he ate my brain”. This whole scenario is a typical example of relationship abuse, in which monsters are labeled as ugly, brutal, and cruel. At the same time, in other literature works, such as the fair tale of “Beauty and Beast, monsters are portrayed as being friendly, loyal, and cordial despite their loathsome looks. How could these two kinds of totally different characters be associated with monsters in romantic relationships? Are there two kinds of monsters or do those characters co-exist?

Outrageous hair, outer space like makeup, and indescribable clothing, sums up how Lady Gaga looks like. Along with this she wears scandalous clothing that always shocks her audience. Her entire style is almost taboo; she wears what no one else would ever dare to wear which makes her even more monstrous. In a world where being different is hard to be accepted, and where looks mean a lot, how can Lady Gaga pull off looking like a monster but be idolized by so many? Is it because of her revealing clothing, or just the clothing styles that keep everyone entertained and wanting more?

Monsters are rude and ruthless. Monsters are incomprehensible and monsters are abnormal looking. This is probably the stereotype that most of us have. Still, we normally name fictional creatures monsters and it can be hard to find a real human being matching all those criteria. But there is one: Lady Gaga-the “fame monster”. There is no doubt that her costumes and make up make her look abnormal and there is also no doubt that some of her performances and statements can absolutely not be understood by most of us. And at least to what I think, she has a strong will to be famous and would probably do everything for the sake of it. So calling Lady Gaga a “fame monster” is not baseless but what remains is the question: Did Lady Gaga make herself a monster for the sake of being famous or does the fact that she became so incredibly famous gave her the title of a “fame monster”?

From a complete visual standpoint of the video, it opens with a statue of an angel; this could be relating God and religion into Lady Gaga’s “monster” theme. This scene follows with her wearing a mask, depicting that monsters should be hidden from plain view, that monsters are viewed as unpleasant. The video then changes scenery to a subway. Subways are located underground and I believe Lady Gaga is relating the subway to being closer to Hell, often where monsters are believed to come from. Gambling and money are also thrown into the mix, from some Christian views gambling is a sin and money is the source of greed. The dance choreography incorporated in the video resembles undead, or zombie comparable motions as well. The addition of dogs in the film could also communicate the relationship that monsters are viewed as part animal, part man. In a video that is so abstract, what detail is Lady Gaga using to attempt to best relate herself to being a monster?

Where I have the video underlined you should be able to link the video to it with the blogger. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uy_6du1lTY thanks dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uy_6du1lTY

Costumes are no longer needed

After reading this blog, I have to admit there were terms that I have never heard of before and had to research to understand. I never heard of LGBT in literature, but now understand it means lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders. I agree that Halloween is a good evening for people to feel free about their sexual choices because a costume lets someone have the freedom to be someone without being judged in the same manner as they would on a regular day. Their identity is hidden behind a costume.
Today, I think less people feel like they would need Halloween to come out of the closet. Lesbians and gays or "queers" as they were called in this blog are more accepted in today's society, so their relationships are found more often in both children and adult literature. I cannot think of a specific story that I read as a kid that actually was about a lesbian or gay relationship, but I would think science fiction, fantasy and maybe even comic books would be genres with more LGBT (see I am using the new term) because there is more freedom and creativity in the plots.
I have seen some articles that questioned whether or not Batman and Robin were gay. There were some comments made that I think were stereotyping them because they had tights on, but I just thought of the fact that they were in costumes, which is just like what was mentioned in this blog about Halloween. So, they were in costumes too!
I am also a "Harry Potter" fan and had not given much thought to Dumbledore being gay and a teacher. Unfortunately, there have been many gay teachers in the media that have had inappropriate relationships with their students, so it makes gay teachers look bad. I know of a gay foreign language teacher at my high school, and we all thought he was a great guy, and there were no issues. So, I think it is the media that makes homosexual teachers look bad.
Lastly, I think that today's television shows have really been open to gay relationships. I love the show "Two and A Half Men" and Alan's wife divorced him because she thought she was a lesbian. Judith then decides she isn't, and gets married again, but it was talked about on the show. Also, on "Grey's Anatomy" Callie has had relationships with women and talks about being a lesbian. She is now in a relationship with Arizona. Talk hosts like Ellen Degeneres and Rosie O'Donnell not only make a ton of money, but they are honest and open about being lesbians.
In today's world, Halloween is not necessary for people to be open about their sexuality. In fact, it would not be unusual to see a lesbian or gay couple trick-or-treating together or maybe even taking their child out to trick-or-treat.

Queering Halloween

"Halloween just happens to be the only day that makes the other 364 bearable. This and the Tony Awards."

-Jack, Will and Grace

Artifact for Discussion (YouTube link): "Anything Can Happen on Halloween"

The above link connects to a brief clip from The Worst Witch, a 1986 made-for-tv movie based on a children's book series of the same name. Though the movie is aimed at the 3-9 year old demographic, as an adult it is impossible to ignore the overtly queer implications of nearly every element of this scene. The term "queer" seems appropriate here (rather than "gay," for example) because this performance alludes to a variety of forms of non-heterosexual culture, including (but not limited to) drag performances, gender transgression, and homoeroticism. In this post, I want to draw out three of the elements of this scene that create its meaning as a queer text, and use these features as a starting place to think more broadly about how queerness emerges in children's media in general and in the genre of Halloween films specifically.

1.) Subtext: First of all, this clip is full of subtext that, to a viewer "in the know" with regard to LGBTQ subculture, signals its queerness. Not only is Tim Curry's performance evocative of a drag number (for example Harvey Fierstein's Torch Trilogy or Hedwig and the Angry Inch) but also--it's Tim Curry. When The Worst Witch premiered, Curry had recently become famous from his performance as Dr. Frank-n-Furter, the "sweet transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania," in Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975). So, basically, this is a scene in which a well known gay icon swirls his oversized pink cape around like a ballgown as he announces "It's great to be here with you young witches on this fabulous night." Fabulous, indeed. Fabulous and queer.

2.) The theme of transformation: Secondly, the lyrics and video of "Anything Can Happen on Halloween" are all about transformation. Halloween is a day for transformation--dressing up in costumes and pretending to be someone else--but this takes on a special resonance for certain viewers: for example, the transgender boy or the closeted lesbian who feel they must put on a costume and pretend to be someone else every day to fit in. The line "I wouldn't change places with anyone tonight" portrays Halloween as liberating night, in which every person is free to be who they secretly want to be all year round--or free to experiment with a new identity. This message is most explicit in the line "your dentist could turn into a queen," again a reference subtle enough to avoid censorship but still an undeniably present subtext for the viewer in the know.

3.) The All-Girls' School: Finally, this film takes place at an all-girls' school for witches. Both witchcraft (e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and all-girls' schools (e.g. Madchen in Uniform) have a history of being associated with lesbianism. By making the one major male character a queer figure, the film preserves the all girls' school as a space which privileges women's relationships, one of the few places in society in which romance between women is overlooked or even allowed to flourish. Furthermore, if Tim Curry's character were masculine and heterosexual, his song to the girls could come across as "creepy"--he might seem kind of like a pedophile. By making him queer, the film avoids raising this anxiety.

At first I thought it was unusual that a children's film would contain so many queer elements--but, then again, children's media certainly doesn't shy away from heterosexuality. In fact, most children's media, from fairy tales to commercials, contains an explicitly heterosexual, gender-normative message. So it's no weirder for queer messages to emerge as well. The following questions attempt to use this analysis of The Worst Witch to look for the ways queerness tends to appear in these texts.

Discussion Questions:

1.) In the 1993 film Hocus Pocus, Bette Midler does a performance of "I Put a Spell on You" which, like Tim Curry's performance of "Anything Can Happen on Halloween," is both campy and seductive, and essentially amounts to a coded drag performance. Can you think of any other instances in which such performances occur in Halloween movies--both in those intended for children and in Halloween movies in general? Can we trace a genealogy of such performances? Do you think it is more common for queer characters to play villains (as in HP) or heros (as in TWW) in children's movies? Is it significant that HP is an American movie produced by Disney while TWW is a British movie produced by the BBC? Is the gender of the protagonist (a boy in HP and a girl in TWW) significant?

2.) Why do you think Halloween is frequently taken up as a site through which queerness can be explored and/or expressed? Can we trace a history or genealogy of the relationship between Halloween and queerness? What is the significance of the fact that The Worst Witch came out during the post-Stonewall era in which queer subculture became significantly more public? Does queer representation on Halloween emerge differently today now that LGBTQ rights are becoming so much more accepted?

3.) Where else have you encountered queer characters and/or a queer sensibility in children's media? In what genres besides Halloween stories does queerness tend to occur? How would you compare this clip to stories intended to teach children acceptance, such as Heather Has Two Mommies. What about stories that are not "about" sexuality but contain explicitly gay characters, such as Dumbledore in Harry Potter?