Unit 2 Post

Like a few others, I was also slightly uncomfortable while watching Orlando. I really wanted to put him into a category of either male or female, but found this difficult to do because of his androgynous nature and the fact that he changed sexes. Because I was not able to “categorize” him, I felt uncomfortable and confused. I think it is typical of society to want to categorize everyone as either male or female, and when someone does not embody the typical stereotypes of either a man or woman, we struggle and become frustrated that they do not fit into one of these categories. As a society, I think we understand that there is a difference between sex and gender, but why are we not recognizing this difference? A person does not have to follow the stereotypes of their sex or embody the typical characteristics associated with their sex, yet we often feel extremely uncomfortable when they don’t. Why do we so strongly want to categorize everyone into one of two categories? And when there are so many different aspects of gender, why do we attempt to restrict a person to one of only two categories?

Also, the fact that the role of the queen was played by a man also intrigued me. Is this the director’s way of suggesting that power is typically associated with men? This led me to then think about the king in The Left Hand of Darkness. The King is always referred to as “he” but really he is androgynous. In addition to this, it is quite possible that he has taken on the role of a woman during previous kemmers, yet he is still always portrayed as a man. Is this again because power is seen as something only given to men? Would we think differently about the king if he were in fact a queen?

Unit 2 Post

I am pretty sure throughout the entire time I watch Orlando I just thought it was quite odd to say the least. I mean when you really think about someone just waking up and having a completely different biology. But what I really found interesting was when Orlando did wake up to discover "he" had become a woman and he states "Different body, same person". Really I think what seems to change here rather than the person, would be the way society looks at Orlando differently when he takes on one roll over another. The scene that really stands out to me would be when Orlando is dressed up in a huge dress that is clearly not comfortable, especially when they show her being put into the corset. Since Orlando is now a women she is expected to dress like this, and is also expected to simply take in what is said about women when she is in the presents of men. While  at some sort of "tea party" Orlando does not respond to anything that they say even though some of the remarks that are made seemt to be directed towards her directly.

I the quote that was brought up in class that was said by Ursula LeGuin about everyone being androgynous seems to also come into play with the comment that is made by Orlando. While Orlando was in the form of a man I thought that he really took on some female characteristics, however while also carried male characteristics while living life as a woman. The only thing that has changed here was the fact that he has biologically changed and societies view of the roles that need to be taken due to this change. ex. when orlando is no longer able to own his own house after the change.

Post 2

I have also decided to explore Orlando for Unit 2 because I found the movie very unique and almost disturbing.

Because I felt uncomfortable throughout the entire movie I wanted to focus on a technique the movie used that I feel added to the uncomfortableness; the actors' makeup and hair.

First off, the main character Orlando seems to have a completely flawless complexion (a lot of foundation possibly?), but absolutely no other makeup. The eye lashes are not done up, there is no lipstick, no eye shadow. The hair is always long but sometimes down, sometimes pulled back, and often in some crazy over-done wig. How do these traits make Orlando seem sexless (which makes me feel uncomfortable)?

Next, the queen at the beginning of the film is a man. But the make-up is extremely overdone with, and yet again another wig. The fact that the queen can be made to look like a women even though he is a man makes me feel uncomfortable.

Do you think it is weirder for a women (actor of Orlando) to be made into a man or a man to a women (the queen actor)? How does this define the limits of our society in how make up and hair displays a person's gender?

And last, if you felt uncomfortable from these scenes like I did, why do you think we felt that way? And if you didn't, how did you feel differently and why?

Unit 2 Blog

Orlando was challenging for me to watch at times. I mentioned in class how uncomfortable it felt to spend the entire film trying to place Orlando in a sex or gender. It was difficult knowing the actress was female, and watch her play a male role. It really made me wonder about sex and gender, and nurture versus nature. We often hear the argument that gender is a combination of both nature and nurture, but more nurture. I think this is evident in Orlando, when in the beginning he is a very "feminine" man, but those were signs of the time period. As the movie progresses, what is masculine and expected of him changes. I find the war scene when he went overseas very interesting. He was asked to help defend the country (I can't remember which one it was now), as an ambassador. He was completely disinterested in war and fighting, when it was perceived as masculine to fight for one's country, or allies. This brings me to the point in the movie where Orlando changes, and looks right in to the camera saying "Same person, no difference." We may be, at times, "gendered" into specific roles, but the core of us is not rooted in these roles or in our sex. I think it tells a beautiful story about humanity in general, which I also found evident in The Left Hand Side of Darkness. We are androgynous, to an extent, when we are stripped from our "gendered roles" and the expectations of other people.

Do any of you agree? Does Orlando represent the idea that we are androgynous? If so, how do we bring that into the context of our own lives?

Blog post 2

Unit 2 Blog

For Unit two I have decided to explore Orlando. For some reason Orlando was really hard for me to follow but once we broke it down and discussed it in class, it was easier to get grasp on. A part of the film I would like to bring back up was when Orlando was sitting in that beautiful dress and then the conversation that was with all the men discussing women’s roles. I could be wrong, but from what I remember Orlando didn’t rebuttal anything the men were saying about women (while she sat in that beautiful dress). I was curious if this was representative of how women experience “discrimination” or demeaning comments by men. The way in which Orlando just sits there and looks “pretty” makes me wonder if the writer is sending a message to the viewers. ( It was mentioned in class that she almost represented a show dog, this image has stuck with me. Is it possible that the writer of Orlando used reverse psychology to show how women can be perceived. What I mean by this is was the writer intending to show us this image to represent what we don't want to be perceived as?)  Does society tell us that women “just” need to sit there and look pretty?  All of this leads me to wonder if the “old fashioned” stereotypes that use to exist are still carried out by much of the male population. Do men still struggle with accepting women with power? ( Ex: This also makes me think about having a female President: was it the fact that Hillary was a women or that she would not be a strong leader?) This one scene from Orlando has made me wonder about all these things. If this was the “intent” how do we change it? The fact that Orlando sits back and listens could represent the fact that if we just listen to this “things” will never change.

On another note: This may be slightly off topic but throughout our class discussions I can’t help but wonder if the writers of the film and books we read intended to have their works studied in an analytical sense. When an author goes to write, do they mean for the reader to analyze their literature from all these different (analytical) perspectives?