If the video won't play, try it in another browser. I got it to work fine in Chrome and Safari, but Firefox refused to play nice.... darn permissions and uploads and all that jazz.
I found it watching your commentary both extremely amusing and disorienting, and am thinking about what you've done in performing your blog post to this famous scene, which I imagine none of us has ever before thought about in relation to these exact topics. I'm especially intrigued by the moment when you put in the image of the cover of "Bartleby"; it shows up not when Tom begins to discuss the story, but instead during your discussion of jungle/savannah/place, and it suddenly made me think, What is the connection between Wall Street and the savannah? I don't know that that's necessarily a fruitful question to explore, but it's a question that the performance of your video inadvertently raised.
So, does this new performance of "The Circle of Life" now become part of the archive?
Tom and I both realized as we were brainstorming this idea that the song is all about production. Perhaps there's a tie to Wall Street there? Also the idea that the savannah is ruthless, though supposedly follows rules... kinda like stockbrokers?
I had no idea that when I watched "The Lion King" over Thanksgiving break with my niece and nephews, I was actually doing research for ENL 200! I think there is a definite connection between Wall Street and the savannah, especially if you view Mufasa and the other lions as the upper class in a plutocracy. "The Circle of Life" is about production, and when Mufasa tries to explain why it's okay for lions to eat the other animals because then lions die and help the grass grow for herbivores to eat, it sounds eerily familiar to trickle-down economics (here's a hint, Mufasa: being chased, killed and eaten by your ruler isn't really equal from dying a natural death, even if your decaying body does eventually fertilize plants). From "The Circle of Life" scene, it appears that there are only a couple dozen lions who rule over hundreds upon hundreds of "lesser" animals. These animals are often interchangeable for one another because they are not part of the ruling class. They are producers, not consumers. It is interesting to note that the direct cause of Mufasa's death is being trampled by such consumers. Is this a Marxist victory in disguise?
I think the jungle is a kind of anti-economic utopia in opposition to the savannah. In the jungle, Timon and Pumbaa re-educate Simba and forbid him from eating other animals (of course, you can count insects as animals, but in the film's narrative insects are not allowed the kind of sentience and personality that other animals are). Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa live a carefree life because they do not have to participate in the circle of life. They live outside of a structured economy. Simba's return to the savannah is crucial because such a utopia cannot survive. When he returns, he finds an economy that has been over-exploited. His defeat of Scar signals a new age, in which the savannah will no longer be over-exploited, but rather exploited just enough for it to serve the upper class and allow the lower classes to survive so they can support the upper class.
Interesting… the savanna as Wall Street. With potential allegories (and especially with children's films), I always go straight to the question of who gets depicted as the villain and why--or, more importantly, what it considered bad behavior and why. Averyl's analysis of the 'anti-economic utopia' nails this question. On the other hand, the insect thing is bugging me (ouch). What about these nameless non-subjects whose bodies invisibly prop up that utopia? I mean, they could have eaten leaves (sure, cats are obligate carnivores… but they also can't talk.) Why did they have to consume other animals even in the Garden?
I also found this awesomely disorienting, not least because it forced me to think of the performance of your post against the culturally *felt* performance of both The Lion King film and the act of watching it. I think film nicely complicates Schneider's piece because it resists a lot of the arguments she's working against around the uniqueness of vanishing performance. There is an entire generation of adults who could tell you exactly what harrowing sounds introduce the stampede scene in TLK, or who have the image of Mufasa falling to his death burned into their minds--what happens when performance becomes a cultural object that doesn't need the physical object to be remembered? For example, I found myself projecting the sights and sounds of the film onto what I could not see or hear during parts of the commentary. All it took was a single second for that performance to be automatically played out.
Not sure any of this is particularly relevant, but it was definitely a fascinating post.
OK. I just composed a very thoughtful commentary about Tom's and Bethany's post, learning differences, and teaching methods. And the powers-that-be in Blogland lost it. Here's what it boiled down to: I have difficulty processing audio that doesn't match the video and I blame being born too late to learn this skill from MTV, who taught you all how to process video that typically has nothing to do with the audio accompaniment. But I sounded much more articulate in the lost post - trust me. Thanks for an original and fun post.
1) I want to say something helpful and join this great conversation happening, but all I'm coming up with is "welcome to the jungle."
2) just thought of a weird "the (predatory) gaze" type of moment where Pumbaa looks at an insect and Nala looks at Pumbaa, with the simultaneous recognition that we're part of that gazing.
I like that for many of you, The Lion King (1994) and Harry Potter (referenced in Jessica/Briana/Sally's piece) are formative cultural texts of childhood or maybe early adolescence. How do such formative cultural texts influence our sense of temporality in relation to what might constitute performance vs. archive for us? My own formative cultural text is Star Wars [The original trilogy, PLEASE...]. But since Star Wars is the gift that keeps on giving, those who "came of age" (or simply learned to love certain kinds of fantasy narratives) after the prequel trilogy came out have a very different reading of Anakin and Luke's relation to the hero narrative of the series. How might my own sense of cultural temporality relate to Star Wars as performance or archive? And what do we think of the trailer for Episode VII?
If the video won't play, try it in another browser. I got it to work fine in Chrome and Safari, but Firefox refused to play nice.... darn permissions and uploads and all that jazz.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of pomegranates, and crushing them...you two totally crushed this.
ReplyDeleteI found it watching your commentary both extremely amusing and disorienting, and am thinking about what you've done in performing your blog post to this famous scene, which I imagine none of us has ever before thought about in relation to these exact topics. I'm especially intrigued by the moment when you put in the image of the cover of "Bartleby"; it shows up not when Tom begins to discuss the story, but instead during your discussion of jungle/savannah/place, and it suddenly made me think, What is the connection between Wall Street and the savannah? I don't know that that's necessarily a fruitful question to explore, but it's a question that the performance of your video inadvertently raised.
ReplyDeleteSo, does this new performance of "The Circle of Life" now become part of the archive?
Tom and I both realized as we were brainstorming this idea that the song is all about production. Perhaps there's a tie to Wall Street there? Also the idea that the savannah is ruthless, though supposedly follows rules... kinda like stockbrokers?
DeleteI had no idea that when I watched "The Lion King" over Thanksgiving break with my niece and nephews, I was actually doing research for ENL 200! I think there is a definite connection between Wall Street and the savannah, especially if you view Mufasa and the other lions as the upper class in a plutocracy. "The Circle of Life" is about production, and when Mufasa tries to explain why it's okay for lions to eat the other animals because then lions die and help the grass grow for herbivores to eat, it sounds eerily familiar to trickle-down economics (here's a hint, Mufasa: being chased, killed and eaten by your ruler isn't really equal from dying a natural death, even if your decaying body does eventually fertilize plants). From "The Circle of Life" scene, it appears that there are only a couple dozen lions who rule over hundreds upon hundreds of "lesser" animals. These animals are often interchangeable for one another because they are not part of the ruling class. They are producers, not consumers. It is interesting to note that the direct cause of Mufasa's death is being trampled by such consumers. Is this a Marxist victory in disguise?
DeleteI think the jungle is a kind of anti-economic utopia in opposition to the savannah. In the jungle, Timon and Pumbaa re-educate Simba and forbid him from eating other animals (of course, you can count insects as animals, but in the film's narrative insects are not allowed the kind of sentience and personality that other animals are). Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa live a carefree life because they do not have to participate in the circle of life. They live outside of a structured economy. Simba's return to the savannah is crucial because such a utopia cannot survive. When he returns, he finds an economy that has been over-exploited. His defeat of Scar signals a new age, in which the savannah will no longer be over-exploited, but rather exploited just enough for it to serve the upper class and allow the lower classes to survive so they can support the upper class.
Interesting… the savanna as Wall Street. With potential allegories (and especially with children's films), I always go straight to the question of who gets depicted as the villain and why--or, more importantly, what it considered bad behavior and why. Averyl's analysis of the 'anti-economic utopia' nails this question. On the other hand, the insect thing is bugging me (ouch). What about these nameless non-subjects whose bodies invisibly prop up that utopia? I mean, they could have eaten leaves (sure, cats are obligate carnivores… but they also can't talk.) Why did they have to consume other animals even in the Garden?
DeleteI also found this awesomely disorienting, not least because it forced me to think of the performance of your post against the culturally *felt* performance of both The Lion King film and the act of watching it. I think film nicely complicates Schneider's piece because it resists a lot of the arguments she's working against around the uniqueness of vanishing performance. There is an entire generation of adults who could tell you exactly what harrowing sounds introduce the stampede scene in TLK, or who have the image of Mufasa falling to his death burned into their minds--what happens when performance becomes a cultural object that doesn't need the physical object to be remembered? For example, I found myself projecting the sights and sounds of the film onto what I could not see or hear during parts of the commentary. All it took was a single second for that performance to be automatically played out.
ReplyDeleteNot sure any of this is particularly relevant, but it was definitely a fascinating post.
Nice reading.
DeleteOK. I just composed a very thoughtful commentary about Tom's and Bethany's post, learning differences, and teaching methods. And the powers-that-be in Blogland lost it. Here's what it boiled down to: I have difficulty processing audio that doesn't match the video and I blame being born too late to learn this skill from MTV, who taught you all how to process video that typically has nothing to do with the audio accompaniment. But I sounded much more articulate in the lost post - trust me. Thanks for an original and fun post.
ReplyDeleteTwo irrelevant things:
ReplyDelete1) I want to say something helpful and join this great conversation happening, but all I'm coming up with is "welcome to the jungle."
2) just thought of a weird "the (predatory) gaze" type of moment where Pumbaa looks at an insect and Nala looks at Pumbaa, with the simultaneous recognition that we're part of that gazing.
I like that for many of you, The Lion King (1994) and Harry Potter (referenced in Jessica/Briana/Sally's piece) are formative cultural texts of childhood or maybe early adolescence. How do such formative cultural texts influence our sense of temporality in relation to what might constitute performance vs. archive for us? My own formative cultural text is Star Wars [The original trilogy, PLEASE...]. But since Star Wars is the gift that keeps on giving, those who "came of age" (or simply learned to love certain kinds of fantasy narratives) after the prequel trilogy came out have a very different reading of Anakin and Luke's relation to the hero narrative of the series. How might my own sense of cultural temporality relate to Star Wars as performance or archive? And what do we think of the trailer for Episode VII?
ReplyDelete