What does Mulvey think about Silence of the Lambs?

Mulvey harps upon the male fear of castration. The penis symbolizes male power over women. Yet the serial killer in this movie not only defies this fear, but seeks to align his body with that of the female. He mutilates women, cutting off their skin to wear as his own. He tucks his penis not in an effort to protect it, but to appear female. To me, Hannibal's mutilation of the prison guard is not only a gory symbol of his power, but a clue as well as the artistic expression of the serial killer's identity and motives. What would Mulvey say to a man who desperately craves female anatomy? The killer overpowers many women, not in protection of his penis, but in a quest to feminize himself. How does this killer fit into Mulvey's belief in phallocentrism?

(Sorry post is late. I checked this blog early yesterday and the picture wasn't up. I forgot to check it again until this morning. Apologies for the inconvenience.)

The Mulvey reading was both interesting and confusing. I can understand, however, how Bel-emperia's character could be interpreted as simple object on which the male actors project their fantasies. It also leads you to consider the role of women throughout the Renaissance. I am still confused about how she could possibly read all of that into the cinema. It just furthers the notion that things are never as they seem and you should take nothing at face value.

Violence Outside of the Renaissance Stage

I agree with what both Melony and Jennifer said about the display of mutilated bodies both in film and on the Renaissance stage. I think these kinds of themes are especially interesting to consider in light of Laura Mulvey's article. One of the main points that Mulvey brings up is the idea of the main male figure in films as a possessor of agency with whom the audience is meant to identify. Mulvey says that the audience is intended to project their own feelings, thoughts, and desires onto the male protagonist and to experience his world vicariously. I think that applying this idea to the scene presented from Silence of the Lambs raises very interesting questions as to what the director is trying to say about the hidden thoughts and desires of the audience. By presenting mutilated bodies and violence produced by the leading male actor in a stylized way, following Mulvey's theory, it would seem that the director believed that his audience would enjoy, or get some satisfaction out of identifying with Lector's actions. It seems that the director believed the audience would indeed revel in seeing his/their work presented in an almost beautiful way. Disturbingly, when one considers the success and respect that this movie has commanded, it would seem that the director was right.

Death as a Form of Art

People have always been intrigued by death, and so it seems only natural that they would express in art a concern with idea of non-existence. It is difficult to say whether or not violence and death depicted in paintings, plays, and films have helped people better comprehend the finality of death, but it certainly has been a timeless topic of interest. In the gruesome scene from Hannibal Lecter, the prisoner Hannibal murders and mutilates the officers with the grace and ease of an artist creating a new painting. The deaths in these scenes are so violent and disturbing, but they are brilliantly articulated. It seems that Hannibal has no reason for murdering these men, except for pleasure, and the audience is left to consider the ease at which a person can become non-existent. In The Spanish Tragedy, a play that was performed for the pleasure of an audience, the characters are inspired by Revenge, and they very easily murder one another. Some even face true death and not a staged death in their own play, which they perform for the pleasure for the king.  At the end of The Spanish Tragedy all the significant characters are dead, and once again the audience is left to wonder how an artistic performance can be created out of something so frighteningly violent and final. 

Mutilated Body as a Symbol of Versatility in Life

Under the rigid order and form enforcing itself upon man during the time of the Renaissance, name, reputation, status remains in strictly hierarchical. Individual bodies are often forsaken for the “greater whole,” that which maintains society built and evolved in the conscious effort of mankind. Mutilated bodies displayed on Renaissance stage, like that which is shown in the image above, serves as a symbol of versatility of meaning “a body” holds, its implications on life, death, and what is beyond them as well. In comparison to how a single event, such as that of Don Andrea’s death in The Spanish Tragedy, embarks various perspectives accordingly to the relationship to the individual can embark vengeful thoughts and actions or on the other hand go barely noticed in the form of a simple report to the King of Spain, stands parallel to feelings and consequences that can be ignited upon violations on a single body.

Just Deserts

Just to jump off of Jocelyn’s post and to tie in a little of the introduction, the “unnaturalness” and “wickedness” of the murders were corrected in the end. It can be argued that it was the unkindness in the murders (the dishonorable killing of Andreas and the mean-spirited murder of Horatio) caused a sort of cosmic unbalance that needed the guiding hand of Revenge and the final word of Andreas (who seemed to have been wronged worst). The murder of Serberine sealed Pedrigano’s death, which, because it was due to deceit, served to further stain Lorenzo’s hands and ensure his karmic death as well. The ending murder-suicides settled the scores and added to the body count. However, further, and final, justice was meted out in the form of Andreas’ appointments of eternal torture or eternal pleasure. At this point the audience should, yes, feel a little disturbed, but also be able to feel, or at least empathize with Andreas’ satisfaction.

The Abberation of Unkind

With the use of “unkind” in 4.1.7, Bel-Imperia is not accusing Hieronimo for a general meanness about his personality, rather that he is acting, for that matter, not acting as one normally should. This is to say that unkind is being used to describe a certain aberration in the actions taken. The three uses of “unkind” in Act III also lend to this conclusion. Unkindness is used as noted in the book as unnatural. To address Marion’s post, her emphasis on the strange and unusual quality of unkind is spot on. Kyd and his translations which later followed would, I suspect, take unkind to an even deeper level. It is as though each time the word unkind is used, it is some egregious harm to common intuition. Why would a father not avenge the murder of his son, for instance? Strange doesn’t quite take it far enough as it seems we can conclude that unkind is being used to symbolize hypocrisy in action as well as logic. Hieronimo is slow to seek revenge for his son, and as such Bel-Imperia chastises him by calling him “unkind”. To conclude, this typifying use accuses Hieronimo of acting as a flawed, unnatural being in his inaction to seek revenge.

An Unecessary Definition

I have to admit I read the previous posts before reading the Act, and so when I came across the line "O unkind father! O deceitful world! With what excuses canst thou show thyself?" (4.1.7-8), I immediately read the word "unkind" as synonymous with "unnatural". While it makes sense that Bel-Imperia may be calling Hieronimo an unnatural (out of the ordinary) father because of his lack of action, I think the word "unkind" can be read in the traditional sense as well. Because he had not yet taken revenge, Hieronimo can be viewed as unkind (uncaring). I guess what I'm trying to say is, while the Oxford Dictionary may define "unkind" as unnatural, in the case of this line, the specific meaning, whether it is "unkind" or "unnatural", is something that can't be determined and this distinction is therefore irrelevant.

Some things can be so strange

In the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition for the word unkind is "strange, foreign". This definition is not what most modern day persons would think of when hearing the word unkind. However, we can see how this definition is pertinent to what Bel-imperia is talking about in Act V Scene 1. "O unkind father! O deceitful world! With what excuses canst thou show thyself? (4.1.7-8) In this speech, Bel-imperia is wondering why Hieronimo is not doing anything to avenge the murder of his son, Horatio. She does not understand how he can not be trying to find revenge for Horatio. In this context, we can see why Kyd used the word unkind to describe Hieronimo from Bel-imperia's point of view. In those times they thought in terms of "eye for an eye", so Hieronimo's actions to Bel-imperia were thought to be strange and foreign to those times.

Kyd also uses the word unkind in Act 1. "Thou false, unkind, unthankful traitorous beast" (1.3.77) This is when the Viceory is addressing Alexandro for being a so called traitor and killing Balthazar. In this case, unkind is also used to suggest something out of the ordinary or strange. Turning on your country and killing a noble was not something that was often done; it was strange, so Kyd was able to use unkind as an adjective to describe Alexandro and what he did.

Order and Justice

During the time the play was written, which is listed as being 1585-1587(?), the word "unkind" was not used to describe unfriendliness but unnaturalness. During the period of the play the word could also mean bad, hurtful, or wicked. The OED illustrates the word’s various meanings in their historical contexts and the examples seem to play on some variation of the word’s unnatural connotation. In each of the cases where this word is used in the play the characters, in this case the viceroy, Bel-Imperia, and the third watchmen, are referring to the brutal, or uncalled-for murder of a person. The use of this word suggests that the murder of a person is not just unnatural because it wrong, but unnatural because it interferes with the inherit sense of order that the characters feel is present in their lives. Each murder upsets the balance of power within the court of Spain. Throughout the play there is a call for justice, a need to check and control the balance of power within the court and, ultimately, between good an evil. With each murder that is committed in the play, the balance of power is thrown off between the various groups of power. Bel-Imperia uses this word twice, the second time she uses it in her conversation with Hieronimo when she calls him a "unkind father" (4.1.7) for his failure to avenge the death of Horatio. Bel-Imperia feels that she has the right to call into question Hieronimo's relationship with his son because his lack of action. His vengeance would prove that he is a father and restore the order in his relationship with his dead son. In this case it is his unwillingness to commit murder, and return balance to the powers of the court of Spain, which makes him unnatural. In this speech she also calls his inaction monstrous which, unknowingly, helps to spur him into action. The word “monstrous” affects Hieronimo here because of his own usage of the word. Here he is made monstrous by his inaction, and hesitation in restoring justice, which is as much a slight to justice as throwing off the inherit order of their lives in the first place.

Foreshadowing

Act III is largely focused on Hieronimo's struggle and his transformation, but I also noticed that other significant characters will take on some form of a "monster," if they haven't already. Hieronimo knows that Lorenzo murdered his son, and Lorenzo senses Hieronimo's suspicion; Bel-imperia is furious with her brother for murdering Horatio; and Isabella is being driven insane by the loss of her son. All of these factors foreshadow an inevitable tragedy. Death and deception have triggered a thirst for revenge and jumpstarted a vicious circle controlled by greed, hate, and jealousy.

Swift Justice??

I agree somewhat with both Kelsey and Lauren, in how Hieronimo is quickly becoming the monster he is trying to slay, given he is trying to find atonement for the wrongful killing of his son. I also feel though that he is remaining a little bit of the just man he is in the beginning.

At the end of the act, he is keeping quiet and listening to all the happenings. He does discuss the possibility with himself of killing Lorenzo and Balthazar, but I can not find any forward motion of Hieronimo taking these actions. As of right now, he seems to be finding out who he can trust and collecting information. It seems to me that if had any inkling of pursuing their deaths, he could walk straight up to the king and hand him the physical evidence he has in his hands (Pedringano and Bel-Imperia's notes). I feel Hieronimo may be struggling with either killing the murderers himself and becoming a monster or waiting for the law to act and maybe not getting justice.

Is Hieronimo the new monster?

I found it really interesting that Kelsey had pointed out the transition of Hieronimo's character into the very "monster" that he loathes. People respect Hieronimo for being fair and just.
First Citizen: (3.13 53) "There's not any advocate in Spain
That can prevail, or will take half the pain,
That he will in pursuit of equity."
Hieronimo is the character that grants justice to others. However, his pursuit for revenge for his son has changed him. Hieronimo used to represent justice which has gradually turned into a craving for revenge. On the path he is currently on, he is doomed to become a monster.
Hieronimo battles with justice/revenge (sanity/insanity) throughout the third act. He seeks justice for his son's death when he wants to go to the king to receive justice through the court. However, it's no longer "justice" when Hieronimo decides to deceive Lorenzo and Baltazar by acting as friends and planning on killing them when they least expect it. Perhaps the turning point is after meeting with the two Portingales, where Hieronimo's sanity is being called into question. At this point, Hieronimo's references to Heaven turn into references to Hell.

Monstrous Murders

Each of the instances of the words monstrous or monster listed for the Conversation Piece bear a direct relation to some instance of murder. Villuppo is describing homicide as a monstrous action, while Hieronimo uses the word to refer to times in which murders occur and to describe both a murderer and the actual act of murder. According to the online Oxford English Dictionary, “monster,” at the time The Spanish Tragedy was written, could refer to “a person of repulsively unnatural character, or exhibiting such extreme cruelty or wickedness as to appear inhuman.” The combination of these occurrences and the definition from the late sixteenth century add to reveal Kyd’s opinions on murder and murderers. I find it interesting that except for one use by Villuppo, each other utterance of the word comes from Hieronimo. Hieronimo had struck me as the most genuine character, the one most ready to reveal his true feelings. However, since he is planning to commit murder himself, he’s invalidated his own opinion. The act should be no less contemptible depending on who’s committing it and why. If all of the characters had this view, many of them wouldn’t be dead. The deaths looming on the horizon of the end of the third act simply prove what the consequences are for becoming a monster.

Welcome!

Welcome to the class blog for ENG 310WR: 000 at Emory University. This is intended to be an informal, low-pressure environment for you and your writing, a place where you can write on a regular basis, explore new ideas, and engage in discussion with your classmates without having to worry about obtaining a specific grade or having your words drown in a sea of red ink.