The Song of Achilles, created and written by Madeline Miller, tells the story of Achilles from the perspective of his lover and best friend, Patroclus. This story is a spin off Homer’s Iliad, and depicts a beautiful relationship amidst Achilles’ growth, training, and participation in the Trojan War. Patroclus is banished from his home country as a child and is sent to live in Phthia with Achilles, who is a god-born prince destined to be an unrivaled soldier but die in the Trojan War. Amidst this fate, he trains constantly to maintain his powerful image and attempt to overcome this destiny. Throughout this journey, he and Patroclus begin a beautiful friendship where Patroclus sees through his external cold and rugged exterior and begins to understand him deeply. Achilles is touched by Patroclus’s kindness and the two form an inseparable loving relationship up until his untimely and imminent death at war.

An overarching theme in this story is Achilles’ external strength, yet internal soft and loving characteristics from his childhood. His destiny to kill is instilled in him from birth, yet he took some time to fully grow into this position expected by him. A god claimed that “men will hear of (his) skill, and they will wish for (him) to fight their wars” (Miller, 85). At the time, Achilles’ answer rendered him incredibly unsure of his gift and where he felt his place was in history. Achilles embodies this image and gift when he agreed to fight Troy in the Trojan War, and brings Patroclus along with him. War culture ultimately engulfs Achilles, and Patroclus uses his deep understanding of the warrior to communicate how much Achilles is changed by the thrill of killing. Ultimately, his relationship with Patroclus is described as the only thing that ties him to his human kindness and his own childhood identity. Though I had read this story prior to this course, the recent reflection reminded me of Okonkwo in Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. Both Achilles and Okonkwo were driven to uphold an external identity supported by violence and it ended up ostracising both individuals.

I think Miller’s incorporation of Patroclus and Achilles’ relationship challenged both societal norms of heterosexual relationships in popular pieces of work, and Achilles’s identity with his power. Most know of Achilles as this harsh, brutal warrior with little compassion for others, yet he allowed his immense love for Patroclus to always break him out of his warrior exterior.

Sources:

Miller, M. (2011). The Song of Achilles. Bloomsbury Publishing

.

Green book (2018)

      Green Book (2018) is a movie edited based on real events, it is one of the most representative movies in recent years and had won a lot of prizes on an international scale. It talks about how the attitude of a white man Tony Lip to a black musician Don Shirley transit from hostile to friendly. It describes how Don hired Tony as his assistant and his driver before he was on his touring deep in the south and how they went through a series of difficulties together and ended up being good friends with each other.

The film I want to go over is Race which tells the story of Jesse Owens. Jesse Owens was a very poor African American that was able to attend the Ohio State University and eventually went on to become a track star. The movie highlighted the hardships and discrimination that he had to experience. One of the common experiences he faced was the white football team that demanded to have priority to showers based off skin color. On top of this, the Olympics he attended was the one in Germany when Hitler was in control. This raised lots of questions due to the racist and discriminatory environment Hitler had created. In one of his first competitions, he was booed and had slurs thrown his way, but he blocked it out and set world records left and right. In the Olympics, he ignores anything pressuring him circulating around Hitler and the situation at hand and scores four gold medals and sets out records.

While training for Olympics, Jesse Owens is treated as an “other” due to the racism and discrimination he would face especially since Caucasians typically dominated many fields including athletics. There were also many other issues he would have to deal with outside of discrimination that not many people knew. On top of trying to compete, he would have to work jobs to support his family. This highlights how people would glance at Owens and see him as a black athlete and instantly discredit without understanding his aspirations and hardships. The main takeaway the film tries to provide is the bravery that Owens was able to showcase even though he was constantly pressured and put in disadvantaged positions, he pushed through and became a historical legend. Because of his experiences, it was able to create a good template for “othering” and experiencing injustices of being an African American trying to change the world.

“Beautiful Stories From Anonymous People” is a podcast hosted by actor/comedian Chris Gethard. Where each week he gets a random caller, usually from the United States, and they discuss their life, or a certain aspect of their life, anonymously, with him for one hour. In a particular episode, released October 20, 2020, Chris received a caller that discussed his difficulties between his relationship with his partner and his parents. He focused on two issues: same-sex relationships and interracial relationships. He began by telling Chris that he came out to his parents over two decades prior. And because of religious backgrounds (specifically southern baptism), conservative beliefs, and the caller’s preference for interracial relationships, his family refused to accept his sexual identity. The most predominant reason aside from the entirety of being in a same-sex relationship was the fact that the caller’s African American and his partner’s white. Stating that, “There is no man I can bring home that my parents would be excited about but the interracial factor is one-hundred percent a secondary issue”…“they have trust issues having been born from all manners of mistreatments, all manners of racism”. He expresses his parent’s difficulty accepting other cultures, specifically white culture because they grew up in the “Jim Crow South”.

Shortly after the caller talked about his parent’s troubles with trust, Chris stated that “as soon as you said they had a problem with an interracial relationship, in my mind I go, “oh these are closed-minded white people”. But then you go “oh wait, that can go in all directions, any direction”. Effectively making the connection that the caller’s family isn’t white, they’re African American. This thought went very well with Toni Morrison’s “Recitatif” where there were so many aspects to the two women’s lives from relationships, class, being an outcast, and so much more; yet the factors don’t necessarily help in determining the race of those two individuals. Almost as if it didn’t matter because both cultures can intertwine. Thus making it important to acknowledge that these kinds of stereotypes and othering can go, as Chris said “in any direction”. 

Looking further, the title of the podcast’s episode, “Get Out (Of The Closet)”, is a direct innuendo to the movie “Get Out”. The caller used this movie to discuss not only the problems in his life but also how many of the themes within the movie were oddly realistic, almost in a reverse way. He speaks about the differences between his family and his partner’s family’s reaction to their relationship through this movie; where he says that by being in an “all white space your guard is up [because] anything can happen, but nothing has happened”. Once again talking about how he could let his guard down, his partner’s parents could let their guards down, but his own family refused presumably due to a sort of othering.

Source:

Gethard, Chris. “Get Out (Of The Closet).” Beautiful Stories From Anonymous People from Earwolf Productions, 20 October 2020, https://www.earwolf.com/episode/get-out-of-the-closet/.

Text Review: A Time to Kill (1996)

Once a book and now a movie, A Time to Kill is one of the most iconic movies of all time. The 1996, film began with an emotional scene involving Carl Lee Hailey’s (Samuel L. Jackson), a black man’s daughter being raped and almost killed by two white men. The film then becomes complicated when Carl Lee makes the ultimate decision to shoot and kill the two men in front of the entire Canton, Mississippi community. From there, the rest of the film is based on Carl Lee confiding in a young white lawyer, Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) to help set him free from the biggest capital murder trial anyone has ever witnessed.

This film explores the idea of racism and reveals how power and wealth play a huge role in cheating the court system. Throughout the movie, we can see that the prosecutor (Kevin Spacey) cheats the system by persuading the judge to keep the trial in Canton, Mississippi, forcing the idea of keeping an all-white jury, and sneaking around to find confidential evidence. Additionally, the film visits the rebirth of the KKK whose primary goal is to destroy the lives of those helping Carl Lee and initiate riots to prove a point that “no black man should be set free of murder.”

There was one major scene and two eye-opening quotes that really helped me understand racism and the term “Othering.” This happened when Jake went to visit Carl Lee in prison, and the famous line was “When you look at me, you don’t see a man, you see a black man,” and “… no matter how you see me, you see me as different, you see me like the jury sees me, you are them.” These quotes show that Carl Lee chose Mr. Brigance because he knew that having a white lawyer could potentially persuade and influence the jury to see the situation as if the little girl was white. In the end, Carl Lee knew the jury would never see him as the same or look past the color of his skin to give him a fair trial, so he thought of Mr. Brigance as his “secret weapon.”

While this movie is considered fictional the ideas are real and paints a picture for what those times were like for Blacks. Overall, I find this movie to be inspirational, emotional, and educational and if anyone gets the opportunity to watch it, they should.

Bring it On is the story of two opposing cheer teams from different schools competing in a cheer competition for the championship. The Tauros are a predominantly white school while the other team, the Clovers are a predominantly black school. We begin the movie with our main character Torrence becoming the captain of the Tauros after their former captain Big Red retired. While at a game Torrence discovers that her team had stolen the routine of the Clovers and that they had not come up with a routine on their own. She is onted by the captain of the Clovers and they both come to realize that it was Big Red who had stolen the routine from the Clovers. At their next competition Torrence has a team meeting to try and change their routine so they wouldn’t be stealing from the other team, the rest of the team wants to keep the old routine because they feel the fact that it is stolen is not their fault. They end up using a routine that, yet another team preforms however they do manage to make it to the finals. Torrence and the Tauros make their own routine and end up coming second to the Clovers who use their original routine to win the Championship. The movie provides a clear message, when the Tauros steal from the clovers it is meant to represent how white people have stolen things of cultural significance from African Americans and claimed them as their own. The team’s initial willingness to keep using the routine demonstrates to the reader the idea that white people are able to justify this theft and oftentimes do not have an understanding of what they have done. In the end the Tauros make the right decision at the cost of the championship as they learn to respect the sovereignty of one another. The book is a good allegory for Race relations in America and I feel it is important to look through at this film not just as something about cheerleading but also as a commentary on how white people can justify the theft of culture and how it should be dealt with.

“Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen”

In 2020 a film by the name of Disclosure: Trans Live On Screen, debuted to the world, first being shown at the Sundance Film Festival, then later the same year was put on Netflix for more to see. This film was produced as an attempt to help others understand how transgenders have viewed their representation in Hollywood by examining various clips that show how they have been Othered by the industry. “Othering” can be defined as when certain individuals or groups are made to seem like they do not belong within the majority. They are considered different and inferior to those within the social “social norm”. Disclosure exposes how the entertainment industry has labeled transgender actors/actresses Others by showing the stereotypical roles that they have been placed in and the negative impacts it has on how society views transgenders. The film includes interviews from various popular trans persons in the industry such as Laverne Cox, and Rain Valdez. These interviews gave insight on how struggles in media history have shaped the way they even view themselves. One specific story that stood out in particular was one told by Laverne Cox. Laverne Cox, the first Emmy nominated transgender actress,  is widely known for her performance in Orange is the New Black. She mentioned how during her early stages of transitioning, people often laughed at her and viewed her existence as a joke. Laverne Cox deciphers that this is a trained traction that stems from poor trans representation in television and movies. It is no secret that majority of the time transgenders/gender non-conforming roles in television and movies are used for the butt of the joke. This type of portrayal on the screen translates into real life, teaching audiences how to react to transgenders. This is just one example that Disclosure gives that exemplifies how transgender actors/actresses have been Othered by Hollywood. There is plenty of tom for growth and advancement in the form of positive representation. Disclosure did a great job bringing the emotion and the perspective of the transgender community in regards to how the media help others and even the actors/actresses perceive them.

The film 42 is a movie that tells the story of how Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball (MLB). In the year 1946 Jackie Robinson became the first African American to become a part of the MLB. Throughout this film, the audience sees how challenging it is to be the only African American in an all white baseball league. Jackie Robinson faces severe racism throughout his life but never backs down or gives up on his goal. This directly relates to the main topics that we have covered throughout this semester as Jackie Robinson was treated poorly due to his skin color. One piece of theoretical work from this course that can be directly related to this film is de Beauvoir’s “othering” theory. This theory addresses the issue of how individuals in society are often treated as an “other” due to them being a part of a misrepresented group, such as African Americans.

Throughout the film 42, Jackie Robinson is clearly treated as an “other” because of his skin color. Jackie Robinson is forced to endure many hardships just because he is trying to accomplish his goal of playing in the MLB. Before Jackie Robinson was signed to play in the MLB there were no African Americans in the league, and they were forced to participate in a different league solely because of their skin color. Many individuals hated the idea of an African American being in the MLB and racially targeted Jackie Robinson with both violence and racist slurs. Jackie Robinson was de Beauvoir’s definition of an “other” in the MLB, making things very hard for Robinson and even at times made his life miserable. For example, Jackie Robinson would often have pitches thrown at his head by opposing teams because they wanted to let him know that African Americans were not welcomed in the MLB. In conclusion, the film 42 incorporates many of the topics that I have seen in this course and is overall a great story where de Beauvoir’s “othering” theory can be highlighted.

The film Schindler’s List is adapted by Steven Spielberg, a famous film director, screenwriter, and filmmaker, from Schindler’s List written by Australian novelist Thomas Keneally. The film truly reproduces a German speculator named Oscar Schindler during the Second World War, hoping to use cheap Jewish labor to help him make a fortune during the war. However, after witnessing the brutal killing of a large number of Jews by German Nazi officers, he realized that his factory could protect those innocent Jews. Schindler’s inner goodness was awakened by the ruthlessness of the war. He used his assets and strength to protect more than 1100 Jews from Fascism in the Holocaust. The Jews he saved had a common name – “Schindler Jews”. The film reproduces the horror scene of that year in a documentary style. The ugly face and great human nature of human beings in the works are fully reflected.

This film embodies de Beauvoir’s thoughts of “the other”. Jews are regarded as “the other” and can be killed wantonly by German fascists. In the film, Schindler saw Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews madly on the hillside. The appearance of the girl in red shocked Schindler. However, the girl in red appeared again, but she lay quietly in the cart carrying the body. Jews like girls in red are subaltern described by Spivak. They have no chance to speak for themselves and be slaughtered.

When he learned that Germany was defeated, everyone thanked him for making a gold ring. Schindler, who received the ring, began to repent that he had not exhausted all his resources to save more people. He has always been a “man”. When he tried to save the refugees, he still maintained his life. He did not sell his car or clothes. He still lives in a luxurious house. This is people, people should have their own desires and norms. Such “good people” are convinced and recognized by the audience. He went beyond the ordinary, but he was still close to reality. He is a great man, but not a saint. This is the greatest part of the whole film, successfully shaping a great “man” rather than a “Saint”.

Reference：

Spielberg, S. (2004). Schindler’s list (No. Nd441). Universal,.