Hughes and Sandburg

I am not someone who is familiar with many different authors but I have to say that I enjoyed reading Hughes and Sandburgs writing's. I felt that  they both used so much passion in their writing and they choices of words they used help me see what they were talking about. They both Incorporated Chicago  in poems and the pride and determination was evident in their poems as wells.
    Reading Hughes Visitors to the Black Belt described that view the outsiders had on the black society without really knowing them and how the visitors are the "outsiders" In Sandburgs poem Chicago he describes the good and bad and those descriptions would be those of an outsider who does not know anything about the city of Chicago.
     I cant truly say that I will look forward to reading more material from them two authors because there is something about their writing that pulls me in.

Redemption in American Literature

American literature is not my favorite thing on any day. I can think of only one American author who would fit into my personal top ten list, and it is quite possible that I am least familiar with American literature as compared to other categorizations. Despite my lack of interest and excitement about the reading materials of this course, I have learned from these American authors, even if I do not particularly enjoy all of their writings. Though I may not rush to the nearest bookstore for a complete set of their works, I thought Raymond Chandler’s story Red Wind was engaging and pretty fun to read; I enjoyed Frost’s imagery; and I appreciated T.S. Eliot’s profundity. I especially responded to the theme of redemption that can be found in Moore, Hurston, and Hughes.

Redemption is perhaps most clearly realized in Zora Neale Hurston’s story The Gilded Six-Bits, in which the protagonist Joe’s wife is unfaithful to him. For several months, Joe and Missy May struggle to reconcile with each other. Their marriage shrinks to less than a shadow of the loving relationship detailed in the first few pages. However, when Missy May gives birth to Joe’s son, Joe is able to forgive his wife. Both must sacrifice to overcome the deficiency in the marriage: Joe must relinquish his anger towards his wife, and Missy May has to acknowledge the grief that has come through her action. As a family, their lives are redeemed and knit back together.

Less overt are the themes of redemption in Langston Hughes’ and Marianne Moore’s poetry. In some ways, both hope for redemption in seemingly hopeless situations. Moore wrote In Distrust of Merits during World War II. Throughout the poem she questions the worth of the countless deaths of soldiers fighting in the war. She believes in the cause that they are fighting for,

“Fighting the blind

Man who thinks he sees…

That hearts may feel and not be numb.”

Moore acknowledges the promise inherent in supporting the soldiers, that “we’ll never hate black, white, red, yellow, Jew, Gentile, Untouchable.” Yet she still cannot quite believe that this makes the deaths worthwhile, since “we are not competent to make our vows.”

Moore has a moment of questing despair as she asks, “The world’s an orphans’ home. Shall we never have peace without sorrow? Without pleas of the dying for help that won’t come?” This is a clear example of the often overwhelming disconnect between the way things are and the way they ought to be, and Moore is understandably troubled by it. I am not trying to say that Moore is here expressing a distinctly Christian view or anything of that sort. Still, these few lines are a cry for the redemption of humanity.

In the end, Moore maintains her hope for all of the deaths to be redeemed, saying,

“If these great patient

dyings—all these agonies

and wound bearings and bloodshed—

can teach us how to live, these

dyings were not wasted.”

Hughes’ is similarly hopeful for future redemption in a different situation. Writing during a time of intense racial prejudice, Hughes’ poetry often expresses his dreams of a truly equal America.

“Tomorrow,

I’ll be at the table

When company comes…

They’ll see how beautiful I am

And be ashamed—

I, too, am America.

Hughes displays a sense of urgency, desiring the racial/social redemption of America to come quickly. “I do not need my freedom when I’m dead./I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread,” he reminds his audience, calling for attention and change in place of lassitude and complacency. Elsewhere, he openly states that part of being American is being interdependent whether we want to be or not, despite differences in skin color.

“You are white—

yet a part of me, as I am a part of you.

That’s American.”

Hughes hopes for redemption in the negative situation through social change and recognition of the parts that each of us play in each others’ lives.

American literature may not replace my other interests any time soon, and my top ten authors list has not been disturbed by this course. But I have learned through exploring authors I liked or did not like, understood or barely managed to stumble through. American authors of this time period had a great deal to say about justice, freedom, redemption, and morality. That we are listening 60 to 100 years later says a great deal about the importance of their words.

Chaplin's Modern Times Satirizes Factory/Machine Industrialization

"Modern Times," does a good job at poking satirical humor at the industry and factory life. The workers do all the work while one boss sits on his rich high horse watching all the workers through security cameras and directs people what to do through the intercom while the lowly, blue collar factory workers work rigorously to produce on the assembly line for the factory as fast and as efficient as possible.

The star of the film, Chaplain, does an amazing job at being funny. But the question that you need to ask yourself is this; why is this film funny?

I think this movie is funny because Chaplain is making fun of the everyday, mundane lifestyle of the common day factory worker. It seems as if in real life it's always the boss, the person in charge that gets the last laugh in the workplace but Chaplain tried to turn this way of thinking upside down by stopping the process at all costs, thus infuriating the boss and many others including the police in the process; pinching people's noses, spraying black oil in people's faces, literally putting his body through the production machines, running from cops, pressing and pushing all the buttons and levers he could find.

He kind of took the role of a rebel in the film who did not do what he was supposed to do, he didn't do his job and even purposely defied the system. He found himself trying to be arrested and put in jail by cops. Chaplain was seen as an outcast but I personally think he was more of a hero than anything. Chaplain reduced the glory of working on a assembly line to nothing more than a laughable joke. He made fun of the rise of new technology and the use of machines by being force fed by a machine that did not work right and honestly I think he proved that humans are made to be free not slaves.

There is a song called, "voices," by Chris Young that says, "I hear voices like my Dad saying work that job but dont work your life away." 'Don't work your life away' is a quote that I believe is a really strong message for this movie because it gave people freedom just from watching it, if not freedom gave people the simple pleasure of a good laugh.

I think at the time that this movie was made that was exactly what America needed; some good comedic relief from a Great Depression where the hearts of people were becoming cold hearted, worn out, and tired of living a mediocre life. Where works literally sucks the life out of people sometimes, Modern Times does a great job of satirizing the generation of its age by showing how ridiculously hilarious working in a factory can be. Chaplain wasn't even screwing the bolts of the assembly line but because his arms had no control because he was so used to screwing things in the factory that he saw a woman's buttons on her jacket in broad daylight and immediately wanted to screw them and ran after the freaked out lady in a fit of madness and hilarity. Chaplain was driven mad by working in the assembly line factory and I bet there were some real life factory workers thinking the same thing.

Although there was little to no talking in the movie, the actor did a great job of using his facial expression to illustrate words. Chaplain seemed to be a master of the physical comedy; making humor without using words but with physical movement. The way he skipped, the way he walked, the way he thought, the way he acted in the movie and played the role of this crazy factory worker was sheer comedic genius. His little mustache and character was a character that could easily be laughed at and be remembered for years to come. This movie really put him into the spotlight and is still seen to do this day as one of his greatest works.

The bible verse, "do not be conformed to the patterns of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind," Romans 12:2, does a great job at explaining the symbolism that Modern Times and Chaplain stands for. While all of society might stress that the key to a good life is working hard at your job for your own self ambition, for money, to get a big house, and live the good life. However, to receive true happiness in life you have to go against the patterns of this world. The world needs more joy, passion, and freedom in life. Modern Times does a great job at giving people something to be happy and joyful about. Comedy, in general, is best used when it can be funny and have a deeper message behind it. I feel Modern Times is not one of those movies that is funny just for laughs sake, but goes deeper by satirizing the life of a factory worker and the assembly line industrialization and gave everyone a much needed freedom from being seen as a machine. You clock in and clock out, the same routine every single day. Breaking free from the bondage of working a monotonous, boring life that ultimately enslaves someone to working a job against the will of the heart and soul, Modern Times and Chaplain do a great job satirizing industrialization and living a life that brings you eternal happiness, joy, and peace.

"I, (now) too, Sing America"

I have to admit that at the beginning of the semester, I was a little less than excited to open another American Lit anthology. In my past experiences with American Lit, I had never took much time to appreciate or even think deeply about the writers that came from my own country. I always desired something new and unfamiliar, something that would transport me into a new culture of new ideas and a new way of thinking. What I never truly realized until this semester was that American Literature is the perfect example of all those things.

Whitman describes America in an idealistic way which many of us concluded was too wishful and self-contradictory. Yet comparing this author with Twain, the values and inspiration behind Leaves of Grass and Huck Finn matched up on certain levels. Each author wrote about freedom, power, principles and the common people. Each author clearly casts a vision for humanity, saying this is how we should be or this is how we should act. It is evident that many American authors such as Twain and Whitman saw themselves as the poets who can see and give a voice to what Whitman described as each person’s “kosmos.”

Similarly, the poets of the Harlem Renaissance saw themselves in such a way that resembled the earlier authors we studied. Although these poets can be studied and looked at as a uniquely separate part of American literature, they fully encompass what sets American literature apart. Their works include themes of motivation, overcoming difficulty, freedom and the realistic hardship of urban life. These authors also depict the struggle to rise up as a minority and fight for justice and equality—principles that our nation was founded on.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.
I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you. (Hughes,”Freedom,” lines 15-20)

Hardship, struggle and motivation to rise above the circumstances proves to be a major theme throughout American Lit, no matter the time or author. In “Mowing,” Frost speaks of work as a good thing, something that makes living worthwhile. He declares that working and earning whatever it is that is desired is better than “the gift of idle hours” or “easy gold at the hand of fay or elf” (lines 7-8). The same pleasure in work is seen in Chaplin’s Modern Times and Sandburg’s “Chicago.”

We see that the concept of the American Dream is sought after continuously, no matter what race, time period or class. Chaplin’s factory worker raising his eyebrows and declaring that he will find a home even if he must work for it put a comical spin on the hard realities of the time. Sandburg speaks about the variety of craftsmanship in the city as he mentions the “hog butcher for the world, tool maker, stacker of wheat,” and so on (lines 1-2). But what makes this mindset different from that of industrial cities in other parts of the world is the peoples’ individuality and responsibility they must put on themselves in order to overcome their struggles.

The head note to Sandburg mentions that he “believed that the people themselves, rather than a cadre of intellectuals acting on behalf of the people, would ultimately shape their own destiny” (p. 1436). This is true for many of the authors that make up American Lit, even today. In recognizing this, I have come to appreciate American Literature as whole on a much deeper level, while also becoming more aware of what makes up the voice of America. Though skeptical and critical of American Lit to begin with, I came out at the end of this semester saying, “I, too, sing America.”

Modern Times and Modern Work

Prior to watching Modern Times, I was not sure what to expect. I had only heard vaguely of Chaplin before watching this movie, and I expected a slapstick comedy with lots of goofy antics and no plot. While the comic aspect was still apparent, the film was much more symbolic and held deeper meaning than most comic movies.

The way Chaplin does this is by connecting with the 'everyman,' and placing himself into a situation that is familiar to his audience. Crane says that Chaplin's film The Kid, "made me feel myself, as a poet, as being 'in the same boat' with him." The same and be said of Modern Times. We either connect with Chaplin because we have experienced the same thing, or we sympathize with him because of his situation.

In Modern Times, Chaplin plays a factory worker who is virtually chained to the assembly line. He deals with the average work stresses, such as angry foremen, difficult co-workers, and the charge to 'stay ahead,' lest he be fired. Throughout the film, we begin to realize that Chaplin's character is incredibly attached to his job in the sense that it has permeated his entire life. He has become incapable of controlling his body due to the repetitive job that he develops a spasm that interferes with not only his well-being, but also the safety of his coworkers. Eventually, he is declared insane and is presumably taken to a mental hospital.

While this film initially provides laughs, it does not take one long to draw parallels between Chaplin's work situation and modern employment circumstances. While Chaplin is forced to keep working faster, harder and more efficiently so that his company can stay ahead, modern employers feel the same stress of needing to work as efficiently as possible, lest they be reprimanded. 

While Chaplin's employers seek a way to completely eliminate lunch breaks so that they can be in production 24/7, nowadays corporations are constantly looking for ways to stay ahead, often at the expense of the employees. These decisions do not effect the higher-ups negatively (in the end, they have more capital), they often effect the lower-level employees adversely by eliminating breaks, extending work hours, and eventually harming the workers either physically, mentally, or emotionally. 

As a former employee for a major fast food chain, I have seen these occurrences firsthand, and Chaplin's depiction of the stress of the modern worker is not far from the truth. I have seen and experienced mental and physical fatigue caused by extended hours or unrealistic expectations of an employee's performance, all because the company's managers wanted the most profits. These higher-level employees did not care what the cost to the lower-lever workers was, as long as the company was succeeding.

It is sad to see that society has not progressed past this mentality. Ninety years following Modern Times, we see the same situations that were satirized by Chaplin continuing to occur just so companies can make money as quickly and efficiently as possible. While I understand that it is necessary for companies to make profits to stay afloat and compete with other businesses, it is often done at a much greater cost, one that is not monetary. Thinking back on my experiences at my first 'real' job at that restaurant, it is not difficult to place myself in Chaplin's shoes and recall the hardships I endured at the hands of a corporate giant. My personal experience was not nearly as traumatic as Chaplin's portrayal, but I know of many people who would say that the character's experience was not a far cry from what they dealt with as they worked long hours under hazardous conditions.

Modern Times, Then and Now

(Caveat: This blog post is full of cynicism. Read at your own peril.)

It seems to me that our 21^st Century has strikingly little difference with the early 20^th Century as portrayed in “Modern Times.” In fact, it's similar in at least three ways and there are tie-ins to poetry we've read all semester.

As the factory workers, we rely on technology, but instead of cogs and wrenches, we run on circuit boards and lasers. He who invents the next big “toy” that will revolutionize the American daily life will make millions at the expense of the materialist and the technology-proficient. The salesman cared little for the Little Tramp but only for the malfunctioning machine, and I wonder if it's all that different from how we treat people. We may not see the hard-working conditions in China or Thailand, but is buying low-priced products really all that different from the way the movie portrays the production line?

Just as the Little Tramp is chased for being too machine-like and not being able to stop himself from twisting washers – and anything that looks like them. Our equivalent is not the over-active or the hard worker but the couch potato, the 30-year-old video gamer in his parents basement, the teenage girl who can't be separated from her Blackberry without panicking. At least the Little Tramp was addicted to his work. Today, we are addicted to entertainment, fueled by technology, and we wonder why we're an obese culture. Seems like Chaplin was spot-on when he made a character that couldn't shut off. With cyborg implants on the horizon, it won't take long for some to actually become part machine in the name of progress and individual choice – or so they say now.

But back to the film. When the Little Tramp is released from prison, he asks to stay. With little to no work expect, a homey cell, and food provided at every meal, his unjust life as a prisoner turns out to be the best thing that happens to him. Until he meets the gamine, he's still striving to return to prison because it feels like a better life. He is jealous of the commodities provided, and that still happens today. Michael Moore's documentary “Sicko” revolves around the injustices of the healthcare system in America. In one part of the film, Moore takes a boat load of chronic patients with no insurance to the waters outside of Guantanamo Bay and uses a loudspeaker to demand universal healthcare for the American citizens with him, since the prisoners receive the healthcare they need regardless of the crimes they are imprisoned for. The criminal are still better off than the poor nearly a hundred years after Chaplin's film.

The theme of this movie also reminds me of Ezra Pound's “With Usura.” While Chaplin doesn't directly address the problem of debt and usury, the idea of the class gap is prevalent in both works. Chaplin blames the gap on modernization and exploitation of the little man while Pound focuses on the financial enslavement of the down-and-out man to those that already have money. Both men are commenting on the same problems we have present in our current society. The education gap is something that none of the authors have truly addressed but is becoming an increasing factor in the widening gap between poverty and wealth.

I will clarify: I don't hate technology. In fact, I believe it is useful and even necessary for our current culture. However, I found the themes in Chaplin's “Modern Times” to be striking with the same issues we have present today. Though we label our culture, literature, and philosophy as postmodern, I see very little difference between the modernity portrayed by Chaplin and the issues still in society.

RATS: Rebel Against The System

I had always heard that Charlie Chaplin was one of the Greats of early film, and I had seen a few clips of his work here and there. But it’s only been after seeing this long portion of “Modern Times” that I’ve actually been able to appreciate just what a master Chaplin really was. He knew film, knew comedy, and all the nuts and bolts of both. In “Modern Times,” I think he’s using this expertise to comment on the nature of American capitalism and bureaucracy.

First, of course, we have the scenes within the factory, and the dominating theme is the dehumanization of the industry. Each and every one of the workers has become “programmed” to fulfill his role in keeping the machines running. This programming prompts Chaplin to begin humorously harassing two women (and their buttons), and keeps the other workers from chasing him around due their fear of falling behind. Further denigrating Chaplin is the incident with the feeding machine, which demonstrates the administration’s patent disregard for his feelings, desires, pain, or emotion in general. He is not a person to them: he is an asset, a cog in the workings that is expected to stay in its place and do what it is supposed to. Not unexpectedly, Chaplin’s refusal to cooperate and decision to flaunt the rules results in his incarceration. He has become a broken cog, and of no more use to the company.

The second instance of commentary arrives during Chaplin’s arrest for being a communist leader, when he is taken away based solely on the evidence of him carrying a (presumably red) flag. The portrayal of the police in “Modern Times,” in fact, is very similar to that of the factory workers. Policemen are pieces of the government’s bureaucratic machine, rather than industry’s capitalistic machine. They carry out their duties with ineptitude and minimal attention, only figuring out who really stole the loaf of bread after several conversations.

Theft brings up the third major instance of social commentary. When unable to find steady work, Chaplin begins seeking for ways to get arrested, eventually succeeding by eating a massive meal at a café and having no way to pay for it. That his character would rather go to prison than live in free Chicago says a great deal. In one sense, it is an accusation that this rising capitalistic profit-driven economy is responsible for making workers suffer. This is also seen in the trio that breaks into the department store, and after recognizing Chaplin, tell him, “We’re not burglars. We’re hungry!” For all its progress, industry has primarily brought hardship.

Chaplin’s character, then, is essentially caught within a Catch-22: he cannot achieve the American Dream without working for the big companies, but it is simultaneously these industries that are killing the American Dream and making its attainment impossible to the common man. The System has them beaten, and it is leaching the life out of the underlings that keeps it going. Capitalism and bureaucracy, according to Chaplin, want automatons without emotions or free will to complicate things; they wants gears in the machine that can be dealt with easily and clinically.

As we’ve seen, Chaplin’s character refuses to take this lying down, and he seems to suggest that optimism and determination are the antidotes to the domineering power of the System. They may not be enough to achieve the American Dream, but they’re enough to survive and claim a little bit of happiness—and maybe that’s sufficient.

"Ye blind idiot, ye noxious Azathoth...

...shal arise from ye middle of ye World where all is Chaos & Destruction where He hath bubbl'd and blasphem'd at Ye centre which is of All Things, which is to say Infinity...." (August Derleth and H.P. Lovecraft, The Lurker at the Threshold)

The texts we’ve focused on in class have been predominantly in the Modernist tradition, but it strikes me that there’s been very little said as to what exactly that means. In doing my own research, I’ve found that no one really knows what it means either, but it’s a convenient divider, and while there may not be a specific definition there are certainly common threads:

“In instances like this there is a tone of lament, pessimism, and despair about the world which finds its appropriate representation in these ‘fractured’ art forms… In a word, the modernist laments fragmentation.” (Peter Barry in Beginning Theory, 84)

Considering the period, fragmentation has been a very real thing in the lives of many of these authors – two World Wars within twenty years, political and economic upheavals and arguments, a world that’s becoming smaller and smaller and smaller…

There’s a sense, I think, in which many of these authors can be identified by an identity crisis of sorts that is more societal and existential than it is strictly personal. In studying H.P. Lovecraft independently, I’ve read much about his consideration of himself as a “nonentity” and a “machine” – Lovecraft is relevant because he is a postmodern among modernists, but the modernists are still reacting to the same situations and trials as Lovecraft. In a move that is strikingly similar to this dissociative master of weird fiction, Ernest Hemingway creates in The Snows of Kilimanjaro a character who’s identity is defined by his own achievements – like Lovecraft, Harry’s identity, or lack thereof, is formed within his writing and his validation as an author. He is acting in a world where things are becoming more and more subjective and the concept of truth is becoming harder and harder to verify because the whole world is becoming defined by its own fragmentations – if he cannot be validated through his own experiences, how can his identity be considered concrete?

Similar sentiments crop up in T.S. Eliot’s poetry:

“Would it all have been worth while,

To have bitten off the matter with a smile,

To have squeezed the universe into a ball

To roll it towards some overwhelming question,

To say ‘I am Lazarus, come from the dead,

Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all’ –

If one, settling a pillow by her head,

Should say: ‘That is not what I meant at all.

That is not it, at all.’” (The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, 1579)

The “overwhelming question” is a reoccurring motif in Love Song… and that question is never ultimately answered, yet it is clear that the narrator’s identity is wrapped up in either the answer or the act of answering that question. As long as that question remains unanswered, what is he, really? An old man or a young man? Living or dying or dead? A social entertainer or a drowning autistic? His place is undefined, and so is his person.

And even as his identity is being threatened, language and therefore self-expression itself takes a blow as his companion admits, “That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.” The ability to have interpersonal communication is also in jeopardy, the door for deconstruction is open and so long as that “overwhelming question” remains unanswered there will never be any complete understanding, no complete discourse, and therefore no agreement which can verify truth.

So we return to the lament which Barry describes – Hemingway’s Harry dies with no identity, and Eliot begs for an answer to the “overwhelming question” that can perhaps reunify the fragmenting world as it loses definition.

Meanwhile, Lovecraft the non-entity drifts ever forward, perhaps resigned and perhaps even a little excited, over the Mountains of Madness into unknown Kadath and the realm of Yog-Sothoth as the world is given over to the crawling chaos…

It leaves me wondering how, exactly, Eliot would have reacted had he ever read Lovecraft’s work.

Welcome to the Machine

There are a whole slew of comics that come to mind by simply bringing up the words "black and white" - Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Three Stooges, Abbot and Costello among others. Admittedly, Chaplin stands unique from and perhaps head-and-shoulders above all the rest, so much so that we continue to reference him in our own artistic culture:

"The difference between Keaton and Chaplin is the difference between prose and poetry, between the aristocrat and the tramp, between eccentricity and mysticism, between man as machine and man as an animal." - The Dreamers, 2003

In Modern Times Chaplin especially plays up this idea between man as a machine and man as an animal: by the end of the film, he has been both. But there is a degree to which it's shown that he has to be a little of each - the Tramp dreams of a simpler time when he will have everything he needs at his disposal and he will be permitted to simply live but he recognizes that must work, at least for a time, in order to achieve this - life requires an amount of unlife, or "Need to work until I don't have to."

Chaplin's comedy addresses this situation we've created for ourselves, the idea that in order to enjoy our humanity we must first sacrifice a measure of it - in our society, a person still needs to afford to be a person.

The bitter-sweet thing about Chaplin's act, however – the really potentially distressing thing – is that he does not offer a way in which a man can provide for himself and still retain his humanity. It can be argued that the gamine girl represents this cross-over, but her struggle cannot be called work in the occupational sense; society has taken from her, and so she is taking back. The tramp, meanwhile, attempts to provide for himself and later for the gamine by belonging to society but even those jobs he takes end in him flying in the face of society and abusing his position as a means of providing for the two of them - any actual, societal work would inevitably rob him of his humanity and leave him unable to live.

No one else in the Tramp's proximity, none of his fellow factory workers, can really be said to be living, none of them are animals any longer, they are driven by the machinery. As the Tramp develops his twitches and is unleashed on society, his actions are a hyperbole of the interaction but we have to admit to ourselves that his antics aren't, really, anything unusual. Mechanized husbands will eventually go home to mechanized wives in constant routines, even the woman with the buttons marches down the street towards the Tramp like she's a steam engine - the fact that he chases her with the wrenches can very much be seen as one machine about to give another a tune-up.

Of course it should never be this way - humans were never mean to behave this way with one another. But even from the beginning of scripture, we've been commanded to work, and in our brokenness our work takes us over. Chaplin sees this disparity, sees that the society has created a situation in which a man must choose between the necessity of his work and the existential need of his own humanity. The end result, for all its humor, seems to be that the two remain mutually exclusive.

...What do you think?

Pride in America

A recurring theme that I found throughout the American literature we have read this semester is pride/confidence. I think the theme or feeling of pride is often seen amongst American literature and Americans in general. I saw a video in one of my education classes that stated that American teens fall short behind the major world countries in every academic subject but lead in the area of confidence. I don’t think this just goes for Americans today but for Americans in the past too. Walt Whitman, Zora Neale Hurston, and Langston Hughes all show a lot of pride and confidence.

Walt Whitman expresses pride and confidence in himself –

Divine am I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am

touch'd from,

The scent of these arm-pits aroma finer than prayer,

This head more than churches, bibles, and all the creeds.” –

and also pride and confidence in America through all of his descriptions of the American people and landscape that he observes around him. America has a lot to be proud of – our forefathers worked incredibly hard and our troops still fight valiantly in order to keep our freedoms that we so enjoy and take for granted in America today. Americans may not be considered hard workers anymore (in fact, we’re almost always referred to as ‘lazy Americans’ but in our past we have had people that built this country up on good morals and hard work. Walt Whitman’s pride and confidence may be somewhat overbearing at times and we might think of him as ‘cocky’ or ‘conceited’, but he also shows healthy pride and expresses that a person should do whatever makes them happy.

Zora Neale Hurston expresses healthy pride in herself, in her race, and in her hometown. At a time when there was major oppression and racism, her pride and confidence is surprising but also refreshing. Hurston expresses pride in herself and her race in Colored Me when she says, “Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It’s beyond me.” In Hurston’s short stories about her hometown, Eatonville, Florida, she jokes about their small town ways, but does it with pride. I understand this because as someone from a small town, I make fun of it all the time to others but still love to go back there and think it’s a great place to live.

Langston Hughes expresses his confidence in himself and his race through his poetry. In I, Too, Hughes writes,

“Tomorrow,

I’ll be at the table

When company comes.

Nobody’ll dare

Say to me,

“Eat in the kitchen,”

Then.

Besides,

They’ll see how beautiful I am

And be ashamed –

I, too, am America.”

This poem could be expressing a dream of equality some day –he has confidence that the world will one day be just and right and his race will be recognized as beautiful and everyone that thought it wasn’t will be ashamed. I believe this view expresses what many people of color were feeling at this time and through the next few decades. This poem could also be expressing Langston Hughes’ confidence in his ability to become famous. One day he’ll be famous and put all of those people to shame that made him feel like dirt before he became famous. Hughes also expresses confidence through The Weary Blues, which says,

“Ain’t got nobody in all this world,

Ain’t got nobody but ma self.

I’s gwine to quit ma frownin’

And put ma troubles on de shelf.”

In this poem Hughes expresses that even though a person may have lost everything in their life or may feel like they have nothing, they can “quit their frowning and put their troubles on the shelf” and have confidence in who they are and their own abilities. With a downturned economy in America today people may feel like this old blues singer did about his life, but they can do the same thing and have confidence that everything will get better because if you hit rock bottom, the only way to go is up.

American pride may be a little misplaced nowadays – in our possessions, our careers, and our money instead of things that should really matter – but it is definitely still present. Americans now have become even more confident and prideful in themselves than Walt Whitman is in his poetry. Readers at the time probably thought it undoable, but once again, America has outdone itself.

Modern Times

The film Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin is in one sense a silly, entertaining slapstick that is quite welcome to watch in the midst of the stress of studying for finals. In another sense, it has some pretty serious themes that were relatable to the 1930s, and also in the present time.

One noticeable theme is the theme of work. As the opening credits roll, a clock can be seen in the background, its second hand always moving. This somehow feels like it ties into work already. Perhaps it is a symbol of someone “working against the clock”. Or it could be a symbol of your life ticking away as you go on with your working life. It could be, of course, that Chaplin did not intend anything special with the clock, but as I was trying to find connections, I thought the clock was interesting.

The very next in the film scene shows a herd of sheep just wandering around, and then it fades to the next scene, which shows a group of men leaving the subway station, heading off to work. This is where the critique on work truly begins. The sheep scene fading into the scene with the commuters symbolizes how people working are often like a bunch of sheep, just going along mindlessly with the norm of society, without ever bothering to change their ways. Because work is necessary, people just move along like sheep every single day. This is a pretty harsh statement, yet there seems to be some truth in it.

Now I will confess that I had some difficulty trying to connect Modern Times with some of the literature that we read. However, out of all the poems that we discussed over the past week, I found that “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg seems to fit the best with the film. First, Modern Times takes place in a city and “Chicago” is describing this great city. Second, “Chicago” gives more images of working than in some of the other poems. When a picture of the city is being painted in “Chicago”, these words show up around lines 13 or 14:

“Bareheaded,

Shoveling,

Wrecking,

Planning,

Building, breaking, rebuilding….” (1437)

These lines are just verbs that are simple yet create a strong image. One can picture a man being outside doing hard labor, trying to get through the day’s work. This is similar to the Tramp (Chaplin’s character) trying to constantly keep up with the machine in the factory, no matter how fast it ends up going. It gets to the point where the Tramp almost becomes a machine himself. He becomes unable to stop twisting the tools that are in his hands (which leads to some amusing and awkward situations). And do his supervisors or coworkers care that his arms are on this strange autopilot? Instead, they just tell him to keep working faster and not to stop. In every job the Tramp does, people constantly yell at him.

The odd thing is that even though work is criticized and poked fun at, it is still something to be desired. Yes, the Tramp and the Gamin have their fantasies about not having to work and just have grapes growing by their house. But ultimately, work is what is going to give them this desired American dream. The Tramp says that he and the gamin will have this dream “even if I have to work for it!” He shoves his way through a crowd to get a job, and he is excited when a department store employee breaks his leg (meaning there will be a job opening).

Modern Times may be a comedy, but its commentary on work can be quite serious and it hits home for us even today.

Money and Machinery or People?

As previously stated by many fellow classmates, I too had never seen anything by Charlie Chaplin until watching Modern Times in this class. I found Chaplin hilarious but also very intriguing. “Stupid humor” isn’t really my cup of tea, so Chaplin’s well thought out and politically expressive humor suited my taste. I found the first segment of Modern Times to be the funnier of the two that we’ve seen in class so far. The fact that money and the machine are cared for more than the person is so true that it’s funny. But it also raises the more serious question, “How did America become like that?” I guess America was kind of built on the values of getting ahead instead of caring about people though. When Christopher Columbus first discovered America he lied to people in order to get them to come over and tried to get rid the Native Americans so that he could have the land for himself. We did it once again with the slavery period and now we do it with our factory workers. I’m not saying that Americans don’t care about people but I think as Chaplin’s work shows, we certainly don’t care enough for people. Chaplinesque hints at this mentality with the stanza saying,

For we can still love the world, who find
A famished kitten on the step, and know
Recesses for it from the fury of the street,
Or warm torn elbow coverts.

I feel that the word ‘can’ reflects that America does not typically still “love the world” but states we do have the ability. Crane speaks in metaphors about the same thing that Chaplin pokes fun of in his silent film – America can create the opportunity to care about people but so often we choose to care about making money through our machines and work than we do about people. The famished kitten on the step seems to represent poor or poverty stricken people that people can take in to their homes to help or factories can take in to give jobs to in a rescue from “the fury of the street” –the actual streets to homeless people or the horrible job market for the unemployed. "The game”, referred to in line one of the last stanza in Chaplinesque refers to Charlie Chaplin’s humor of the world around us – it “enforces smirks.” Carter also refers back to the kitten that he spoke of earlier in the poem saying,

And through all sound of gaiety and quest
Have heard a kitten in the wilderness.

Crane seems to be saying that Chaplin’s work (the ‘sound of gaiety and quest’) has forced people to hear ‘the kitten in the wilderness’ – or to recognize the people around them instead of keeping their focus only on money and machinery. The kitten in the wilderness could also be more specifically referring to the girl in the second section of Modern Times that we saw. She becomes an orphan in “the wilderness” of the city. Chaplin’s character represents the part of America that sees past the love of money and machinery and cares for this girl who is “famished… on the step.” Crane and Chaplin read together give a full view of the social issues – the humor that can be found within them and also the severity of them. Chaplin does a great job with getting people’s attention through his jokes and then giving his viewers something to talk about after they have finished watching the movie. So think about it, are you going to be the lover of money and machinery, or the lover of people?

Mocking vs. Pity

Viewing the Charlie Chaplin film has by far been my favorite part of this course. It has been a way to view the reality of the time period, laced with over-the-top comedy. I found it interesting that I was familiar with Charlie Chaplin's character "the tramp" before I had ever seen any of his films, especially his comedic hat. I don't know WHERE I had seen this character, but he has forever been present in the back drawers of my mind. As I thought about this phenomenon, I wondered why. What could have made his character stand out to significantly in media history?

So as I watched the film, I was struck by the contrast between the comedic mocking of everyone and everything while at the same time feeling pity for 'the tramp'. He is a foreign body thrown into this modernized world where is so blatantly doesn't belong. He is swept up in the world of the "machine" without the ability to adjust, and then swept from one situation to another without finding a true resting place (aside from the jail, which was only temporary). When he gets a job at the department store and even thought the dream that he has, he is surrounded by moment after moment of grandeur that the viewer (and the character himself) could only dream of him ever achieving. It made me wonder what exactly he was trying to convey (and every good film makes one think, yes?).

But personally, the most significant part of this film for me was how "the tramp" and "the gamine" are the only two characters in the entire film who show an ounce of individuality and non-conformity. Everything else is mechanized, routine, and patterned. Ladies stand and shop, men continually work machines with mindless repetition, the masses move uniformly in the streets, etc. But the two main characters go against the tides. Against the masses. They stick out in the most ridiculously amusing yet sad ways. Chaplin's brilliance in maneuvering these situations (especially having his actual wife play "the gamine") can be plainly seen.

Watching Chaplin caused me to dig deeper into what the meanings were behind all of the things being conveyed. It caused me to really think about the situations that "the tramp" and "the gamine" were in instead of just absorbing the comedy and moving on. I wish that there was more examples of this type of film that came out today. Our media tends to be of consistently poor quality, but Charlie Chaplin really did set a pretty high bar.

Importance of Laughter.

I had never seen a Charlie Chaplin film before this class, but now I can’t believe that I had somehow missed his work. It took less than five minutes before I knew that I was absolutely going to love Modern Times. In fact, I am actually really anxious to finish the rest of the film so I can start watching his other works.

I’m not sure exactly what I find appealing about Chaplin or his Little Tramp character. For one thing, I think there are some interesting complexities to the type of humor used in this movie. Sometimes a joke comes after a long and rather intelligent or edgy setup sequence (I’m thinking the red flag waving or the “nose-powder”). Other times the punch line is as simple as a punch in the face. Much like the sketches Monty Python or Fry and Laurie, this mix of high and low forms of humor is something that, when done well, is more than memorable: it is universally appealing.

I am struck by what Dr. Fruhauff explained about Chaplin’s decision to keep the Tramp a silent character in order to maintain his cultural universality. In some ways I think there is a timeless quality about him. Sure, silent films are virtually a thing of the past. Sure, the story is distinctly about the Great Depression. Sure, the movie is in black and white. Etc. There are plenty of things about Modern Times that indicate the fact that it was created 75 years ago, but I do not think that Chaplin’s character is among them.

For one thing, a lot of the slapstick comedy we experience today has its roots back in this era with the development of vaudeville (vaudeville, by the way, is a wonderful word to say aloud, try it). I know that I recognize many of sorts of gags found in Modern Times because of a childhood full of Saturday morning cartoons.

There is something so essentially appealing about the Tramp’s innocent escapades. I think Hart Crane described this appeal particularly well in his poem “Chaplinesque.”

We make our meek adjustments,

Contended with such random consolations

As the wind deposits

In slithered and too ample pockets.

Yet, it is not just amusement that I find attractive in the Tramp. There is an element of steadfastness that is also appealing. Everyone loves rooting for the underdog character, right? And who better to root for than the innocent victim of circumstances. In the Tramp we find a character admirable for his persistent optimism and for his ability to maintain a sense of (to borrow from Ernest Hemingway) “grace under pressure.”

The game enforces smirk; but we have seen

The moon in lonely alleys make

A grail of laughter of an empty ash can,

And through all sound of gaiety and quest

Have heard a kitten in the wilderness.

I like that image of laughter in light of great adversity. It also has an important role in Sandburg’s great poem “Chicago.” There we find that the worker’s laugh comes to signify the endurance of the life of an individual despite the trials they face in their daily lives.

Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young man

laughs,

Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs who has never lost

a battle

Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse, and

            Under his ribs the heart of the people,

             Laughing!

This is a powerful image, and I think especially in American culture. Not to go on a tangent, but one of my favorite songs, “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel (1968), seems to be tapping into the same sorts of themes as Sandburg, Crane, and especially Chaplin.

When I left my home and my family

I was no more than a boy

In the company of strangers

In the quiet of the railway station running scared

Laying low, seeking out the poorer quarters

Where the ragged people go

Looking for the places only they would know…

In the clearing stands a boxer

And a fighter by his trade

And he carries the reminders

Of every glove that layed him down

Or cut him till he cried out

In his anger and his shame

"I am leaving, I am leaving"

But the fighter still remains!

Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see, but those images are similar enough that I don’t think they are coincidental. If anything they exemplify this ideal of American persistence; that insistence on “pulling yourself up your bootstraps.” I find that the Tramp speaks to this fight for hope and he does so in a way that sticks with you. 

In my experience thus far with Chaplin’s work, that is the thing I appreciate the most. He shows us the difficulties of the world, but he does so while laughing.