The Buzzing Mosquitoes

I am not friends with Kristen Stewart, but I am hearing alot about her latest scandal. Every single person is chiming in with their own opinions. The publicists doing damage control, anonymous "sources", body language experts, and Kristen Stewart herself. But ridiculous rumours are normal in Hollywood, especially cheating allegations. So what caused this frenzy? 

Answer: Paparazzi

Although cheating is pretty normal among us common people, but when it involves celebrities we're immediately captivated. And one of the people that fuels this fascination is obviously, the paparazzi. The word originated from a Frederico Fellini film called La Dolce Vita. It's an Italian term which describes an annoying noise, much similar to a buzzing mosquito. The culture came into prominence during the 70s. It was popularised by Ron Galella, dubbed as "the Godfather of the U.S paparazzi culture" by Time Magazine and Vanity Fair.

                                                                        Galella (right) with Marlon Brando

During his prime, he was often involved in several legal battles against his famous subjects. The most widely known was the Galella v. Onassis trial, where Galella argued that Onassis was infringing upon his rights to free speech. It ended in Onassis winning the injunction and Galella was issued a restraining order.

                                                           One of Galella's iconic photos of Jackie Kennedy Onassis

Back in the day, paparazzi were regarded as annoying and invasive. Nowadays, they are seen as annoying but useful. The modern day publicist will use them to his/her client's advantage. A staged photo-op of an actress out on a date with her co-star will elevate interest in the movie, and raise the actress's profile. This co-dependant relationship is simple. The paparazzi get their money, the celebrities get the recognition. Hollywood is an extremely competitive environment where everyone is disposable. Publicity stunts are just another way to ensure that the public won't forget you when you're gone.

My perverse curiousity and others like myself are continuing the cyle between the supplier (paparazzi), middlemen (entertainment mediums), and client (yours truly). Galella's impact on the media is astounding. TMZ started as a celebrity news site and now it's one of the most successful businesses on the Internet. Despite their method in obtaining the information, TMZ is regarded as a credible source within the industry.  Like it or not, they work in a market where their skills are high in demand. In spite of the controversies regarding their conduct, have you realized how different popular culture would be without the existence of the paparazzi?        

Eyes Wide Shut

As stated by the blogs of my other classmates, we watched a non-narrative film in our previous Media Appreciation class, called Baraka. At first, I thought of writing about what I perceive is the message behind the film, but in the end, I decided not to.

Mr Hardip encouraged us to write about something original, something he didn't know, something about ourselves. So even though I'm not much of an open book, let's give it a try, shall we?

*I apologize in advance for any factual mistakes regarding the film*

I believe the screencap above is a location somewhere in Japan. An elderly man (perhaps a monk?) is gazing outside of the temple. He sits there in silence while skyscrapers and new technology are being developed around him. However, we can't see it from his point of view. The doors are slightly ajar, leaving us with only a view of a traditional building and a few trees. He sits there as a simple reminder of the past for one of the most modern countries in the world.

I don't know what Ron Fricke's intentions were when he shot that scene, but I do understand how it made me feel. In all honesty, I am a creature of habit. I'd prefer not to step outside of my comfort zone. Whenever I'm faced with a problem, even if it's a minor one, I immediately start doubting myself. It's not that I hate challenges, I just don't love them.

I've always thought it was a dream of mine to travel the world before I die, but I realized something after watching Baraka. My reasoning was extremely artificial and superficial. I'd only wanted to see the beautiful. The waterfalls, the rainbows, and the man made wonders.

Shāh-é-Chérāgh Mosque

Not the ugly, I prefer not to see the ugly. The garbage dumps, the homeless, the prostitution, and the factory farms. I am embarrassed to admit this, but sometimes when I'm confronted by the harshness of life, I either avert my eyes or hand over some money.

Both of this choices won't solve anything. Ignorance won't make the problem disappear, and money is only a short-term solution. As much as I'd like to deny it, these options are meant to make ME feel better, not the people in need.

I am not like these people. I don't wake up everyday, worried about my own survival. I can sympathize on their living conditions, but I can't and shouldn't be saying, "I understand what you're going through." It would be EXTREMELY condescending and belittling if I (a person of privilege), said that to a kid who was born and raised in poverty. 

I am one of the lucky people to be born in a financially stable household. I am not bragging about this, I am acknowledging the obvious. Simply said, I cannot deny my undeserved blessings, and the opportunities it has brought me. Doing so would be an enormous case of ignorance on my part. It would be a slap in the face to the impoverished children, who were denied of the same luxuries I possessed simply because they were born in the wrong circumstances.  

I am just like that elderly man. I wish to watch the world with the doors slightly open. I'd cover the parts I deem ugly, and gaze only at the pretty.

 I'd stay in the definite past because I fear the uncertain future.

Do You See What I See?

From my understanding, the term "semiotics" was developed by two prominent intellectuals. The origin was defined by the linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure as the "science of signs". Based on his theory, a sign is composed of TWO parts:

• a signifier - the image/text
• the signified - the concept

The philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce's definition was a little bit different. Based on his model, a sign consisted of THREE parts:

• a sign - signifier (e.g: raindrops)
• object - signified (e.g: rain signified by the raindrops)
• interpretant - our understanding of the sign/object relation

Even so, both models are similar enough to be universally understood.

When I first learned of semiotics, the only examples I could think of were limited to visuals. Photographs, commercials, and print advertisement clouded my imagination. I didn't consider that words can also be categorized as semiotics. In fact, literally everything around us is apart of the semiotics study.

In Malcolm Gladwell's best-selling book, Outliers, there is a chapter devoted to geniuses. Overall, Gladwell was aiming to refute a popular notion: the higher the IQ, the more successful the person.

He writes about an exercise conducted on middle school students in the States. They were given 10 minutes to write their opinions on a certain word. The word was "blanket". Before I explain any further, let's try it together, shall we? Leave your answers in the comments below.

~*~*~*~

Here are some of my answers:

• for warmth when sleeping
• to put out fires
• to smother people
• as a makeshift swing
• as a partition in a recording studio
• as a picnic mat
• as a substitute towel
• can be tore up into pieces and sewn up again into handmade bags

Now, my answers may not make sense to you, and perhaps your answers may not make sense to me either. But that's perfectly fine. The purpose of the exercise was to gauge the imagination of the children. Based on the findings, the answers of the child with the highest IQ was less imaginative than another child whose IQ was slightly lower. The research results were basically saying:

In order to win a Nobel Prize, you don't have to be the smartest kid in class. You just need to be smart ENOUGH.

Semiotics can be used to sharpen our cognitive skills. Sometimes, even our imagination can be bogged down  by reality. When I was doing the exercise,  I was hesitant to list out some of my answers. Personally, they made complete sense to me, but I knew others wouldn't exactly associate my answers to the word given.

But that's the beauty of individuality. We are able to paint our own colours onto the canvas. Through an ordinary word like 'blanket', we inject our life into it. Our memories, personalities, and opinions will never be 100% similar with the people around us, and that's a good thing for the advancement of humanity. 

Friction produced fire.  

"Mukashi, Mukashi"

Could I interest you in an anime called Princess Tutu? 

Hey, don't you laugh at me!

What if I told you that it's about a duck who turns into a girl with the help of a magical pendant?

What if the pendant is given to her by a dead story teller?

What if the pendant can also transform her into a magical ballerina called Princess Tutu?

What if Princess Tutu's mission is to collect the missing pieces of a prince's heart?

What if  I tell you there's more to the show than its awful title?

What if I throw in a knight, a raven and his daughter, a cat who teaches ballet, and Tchaikovsky references?

What if this is the text I've chosen for my media literacy post?

Alright! Before you think I've gone crazy, let me explain the plot in the simplest way I can think of.

Once upon a time, there was a dude called Drosselmeyer, 

Before he "died", he wrote a tragedy about a prince,

and an evil monster raven.

To seal the Raven away, the Prince sacrificed his heart. It broke into many little pieces and was scattered into the real world, specifically a place called Kinkan Town, where Drosselmeyer lived.

Because he died before writing the ending, the other characters were also dragged into the town.

 Like Princess Tutu,

the Raven's daughter, Kraehe,

and the fallen knight.

They're forced to resolve the story through their Kinkan Town counterparts, while a sadistic Drosselmeyer watches in glee. 

Basically, it's stories within stories.

I don't watch alot of animes or read that many mangas, but I really, really enjoyed Princess Tutu. 

The first thing that attracted me to the anime were the illustrations. Soft shades and contrasting colours (primarily black and white) are often used to emphasize the lights and shadows, resulting in dreamy, fairy tale-like sceneries. It reminded me of the storybooks I read as a child.

Created by Junichi Sato and Shogo Koumoto, Princess Tutu is a whimsical version of the traditional fairytale. The anime is largely influenced by Italian, French, Russian, and German cultures. For example, Kinkan Town is based on the historical town Nordlingen in Bavaria, Germany. The music draws heavily from many classical composers (Tchaikovsky, Satie), famous ballets (Swan Lake, Giselle), and Shakespeare (A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet). The opening song itself samples the Nutcracker's Waltz of the Flowers.

What I appreciated most was the storytelling. The beginning of each episode starts with a prologue, which is related to the plot of that episode. Usually, it is a summary of a fairytale (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty). But at the end of each narration, there is always a darker feeling that the happy ending isn't  as simple as it seems. Here is an excerpt from the 11th episode, La Sylphide:

Once upon a time, there was a handsome slave. What bound him were not heavy chains, but the love of a princess. Every day, every night, the princess whispered her love to the slave, and the slave responded in kind. Bound body. Bound emotions. The slave or the princess? Which of them is really the one who is unable to move?

*Before I blab any further, let me just warn you that the rest of this post contains spoilers*

There has been many different interpretations of the anime, especially about its ambiguous ending. If you don't mind reading a little bit more, this is what I thought of the themes presented.

1) Fairy tales and their flaws.

Let's take a popular example like "Cinderella", where Prince Charming falls in love with a beautiful girl at a ball. He is so captivated  that he searches the entire town for her. And well, you know how it ends.

But when you think about it, the Prince fell for a girl in a pretty dress. That's it. He didn't know about the abuse by her stepmother, the talking animals, her family history, nothing! For all he knew, Cinderella could secretly be an opportunistic gold digger.

The same can be said for Mytho. In the earlier episodes, he is literally a walking puppet, and very easy to manipulate. Throughout the story, he has never known of Tutu's real identity. While she helps him recover his missing heart in exchange for his smile (aww..), Mytho becomes increasingly fascinated by the mysterious princess.

 In reality, both of them are confusing gratitude with love. That's why in this story, the prince doesn't end up with the princess.

2) Predetermined destiny or defiance of fate?

"May those who accept their fate find happiness, those who defy it, glory."

 That line was spoken by Edel, a wooden puppet created by Drosselmeyer. She was designed to set the gears in motion when things were starting to get a little too boring for his taste. Through her interactions with Ahiru, she starts developing emotions. Dissatisfied by her purpose, she burns herself into flames to literally guide Tutu out of the darkness.

The first season ended on a happy and predictable note. The Prince ended up with Tutu, the Raven's daughter was defeated, and everyone lived happily ever after. But remember, happiness doesn't last forever, not in Drosselmeyer's stories anyway.

The second season saw the characters trying to break away from the endings that Drosselmeyer determined for them. Ahiru, who would vanish after confessing her love for the Prince. Fakir, trying to avoid the same death that had befallen the knight. And Rue, who would forever be cursed by the story as the Raven's daughter.

By the end of the show, Ahiru is faced with a difficult decision. Her pendant was the last piece of the Prince's heart. If she returned it to the Prince, she would turn back into a duck. If she didn't return it, the story couldn't be completed, and Kinkan Town would be forever stuck in the story.

 In the end, she chose to be a duck again, realizing that the role of Tutu was a dead end disguised as a dream. The longer she stayed in her fantasy, the longer the others would languish. Through the goodness of her heart *yes, that sounds cheesy*,  the Raven is vanquished. The Prince takes Rue as his princess, and together they returned to the story.

So, what happened to Ahiru?

Remember Fakir? He discovered he was a descendent of Drosselmeyer, therefore possessing the ability to make stories come to life. The majority of the fandom interpreted the scene above as Fakir writing a story to turn Duck into Ahiru again. Open endings like this are my favourite because it allows the viewers to create an ending based on their own perspectives.

*END OF SPOILERS*

The first time I watched this anime was when I was eight years old on TV2. The station aired reruns of the series in 2006, I was twelve at the time. When I turned fourteen, I was bored of the usual YouTube videos I often viewed. Suddenly, I remembered the eccentric anime and decided to search for the episodes online. Next thing you know it, I ended up spending most of my free time captivated by the series again.

Something about Princess Tutu resonated deeply within me. Maybe the fantasy aspect provided an escape from my ordinary life. Or maybe, even after all these years, I'm still reluctant to detach myself from the innocence of my childhood. Who knows?  

Princess Tutu is a world without limitations. Imaginations run wild without the fear of an imposing reality. Don't believe me? Then ask Neko-sensei, the ballet teacher who threatens his students with marriage if they fail to properly follow his teachings. Oh, and he's also a cat.