Transcendentalism

As far as I understand it, transcendentalism is focused on individualism and self-transcendence--going beyond this world and considering yourself an integral part of the universe. It is very focused on spirituality and the divine, and the idea that higher powers are at work in our lives. To transcendentalists, it seems like we have very little control over our lives, and that we should look to a higher power for everything we do. I think the focus on self-transcendence and individualism is the main strength of the transcendentalist movement. For myself and my values, individualism is definitely something to strive towards, and I think individualists tend to lead happier, more satisfying lives. Self-transcendence is at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and few people ever reach it. Since it is at the top, it is considered to be very desirable and the ultimate form of self-acceptance. I would, however, consider the spirituality aspect a weakness. If we always believe that some higher power has some control over our lives, we will become accustomed to the idea that our decisions don't matter. This idea that some external force controls our lives is called an external locus of control, and it has been proven to make people less satisfied with their lives than if they feel that they have control over their own lives. If we feel that we have control, we will be more compelled to do the right thing and make decisions based on our beliefs rather than what we think someone else would want.

I would have to say that, for the most part, I agree with Emerson's idea of an inherent goodness in people. I think that it is bad situations or upbringings that generally bring out maliciousness in people. Also, barring those with antisocial personality disorder, people who do bad things feel remorse for their actions. In general, they do not feel glad that they committed a heinous act, and they usually want to repent for their wrongdoings. This illustrates, to me, an inherent good quality in everyone. I also agree with the individualism aspect of transcendentalism. Individualism is very important in our culture, and very highly valued. I believe that individualism is more constructive than collectivism in that people are more motivated by their individualism to do things they really believe in.

The main thing I do not agree with when it comes to transcendentalism is the idea of the divine and that of a higher power. I am not a religious person by any means (I definitely don't have anything against religion either), but I simply have to oppose the idea that we have no control over our own lives. I think that living with this mindset will get you nowhere in life--why would you ever be motivated to achieve anything if you thought that you had no control over whether or not you achieved it? It almost irritates me when people have total belief in the idea of a higher power controlling our lives. It is fine to have a belief in God and believe that He can guide us, but to give one's fate totally to some divine being is, to me, akin to completely giving up in life.

Overall, I would say I lie somewhere in between the Transcendentalists and the Anti-Transcendentalists. As I explained above, there are definitely aspects of transcendentalism, such as the idea of individualism, that I fully believe in. However, I cannot bring myself to declare myself a Transcendentalist because of their views about the divine and higher beings controlling our lives. That simply opposes my inherent beliefs too much. I also disagree with their move away from rationalism. Since I am very much a rational-brained person (I really enjoy science, and working through problems using reason), I don't think a move into the irrational and supernatural would be a good thing. I could not bring myself to think in this way all the time, without any rational thought process, which further increases my separation from the Transcendentalist ideals. On the opposite end, however, I don't know that I could fully declare myself an Anti-Transcendentalist. Their focus on the unconscious and their idea that it was a dark force is definitely something I don't agree with. The unconscious certainly CAN cause problems, but it is not an inherently dark force. I think the Anti-Transcendentalists had too negative a lens on everything--this is the key reason I don't identify with them fully. They were too focused on the dark forces that they believed were lurking in everyone to appreciate the potential for greatness that everybody really has.

The Great Gatsby

For me, Baz Luhrmann's movie version of The Great Gatsby wasn't so great. I didn't like many of the stylistic choices he made--it felt like he took liberties with the text. After having enjoyed the Fitzgerald's book, I was quite disappointed to be so disenchanted with the movie. I could never take the movie seriously, and I couldn't really engage with it for that reason.

One thing that really bothered me stylistically was the cinematography. The entire movie seemed like a dream, and I think Luhrmann intended it that way, since it was Nick's recollection of the whole summer. However, I found this to be extremely distracting and annoying. I could never quite have all of my focus on what I was supposed to--I was always paying attention to the oddness of the lighting and overall feel. It almost made me uneasy to watch it, since I felt like there was something wrong with the movie. Whenever Nick was talking to the doctor, this dream-like feel disappeared. This made it clear to me that this was no accident, but a stylistic choice made by Luhrmann. While I understand where he was coming from, and that the whole summer probably did feel a bit like a dream for Nick, I didn't like the choice he made.

Another irksome stylistic choice was the over-the-top costumes at Gatsby's parties. I realize that people at this time were flamboyant, but the costumes took it too far. There were small hints of the traditional "flapper girl" dresses, but most of the dresses looked like Halloween costumes. To me, it seemed like a costume party from the present day that was 1920's-themed; everyone was trying too hard to seem genuine. Not only that, some of the women there looked like current-day models: skeleton-thin and with severe faces and haircuts. I just can't believe that people looked or dressed like that in the 1920's. Every party that we saw just brought the movie too much into the present day for me, and each one made it less and less believable as The Great Gatsby.

There is a ridiculously large number of symbols in the novel version of The Great Gatsby. Symbols and motifs are much easier to incorporate and pull off inconspicuously in a book than in a movie. That becomes painfully obvious in Luhrmann's movie. He tries to incorporate the big symbols: the color green, the green light, etc, but, in my mind, fails miserably. It is almost as if he tries too hard to incorporate the symbols in--they are drawn to the viewer's attention far too much, and that makes them less effective as symbols. I know Luhrmann had to incorporate them somehow, but I think he could've done so in a slightly more subtle manner.

Overall, Baz Luhrmann's version of The Great Gatsby didn't do much for me. His stylistic choices, though well-intentioned, were unsuccessful in my eyes. I couldn't quite make myself enjoy the movie in the way that Luhrmann envisioned it.

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore is trying to say a lot of things about American identity and values in "Bowling for Columbine." While most Americans would take umbrage to most of the things he is insinuating, I believe that he makes some very accurate points. While people may not like what he has to say, I think we as a nation seriously need to think about our values as a country and as a culture, and Moore is trying to make us do that.

His biggest message is that we are a gun-crazy nation, which nobody can deny. Guns are a huge part of our culture, and Moore believes that that needs to change. He points out that the United States has more gun deaths (by about a magnitude of 100:1 in most cases, sometimes more) than any other developed country with an established government. As a country, we value guns and our right to own them. One man Moore interviewed said it is an "American responsibility to be armed." Unfortunately, this man is not alone in this mindset. For this reason, it is no wonder we have so  much gun violence.  However, this doesn't mean that we should have as much as we do. Moore tries to establish reasons for this tragedy.

He points out that it is far too easy to obtain guns and ammunition. He was able to walk into a bank and get a free gun for opening an account there. If it weren't so easy to get guns, we would probably have less gun violence, but people would be outraged. As a culture, we value our freedom and civil liberties set out in the Constitution, specifically the second Amendment. The American people are scared of government oppression, so they resist any sanctions the government tries to put on them. This is why we have such lenient gun control laws. People would live in fear if they were stricter, and people don't like fear. Moore shows time and time again how gun culture is such an integral part of our culture; so many people are a part of it and feel so strongly about it that it is impossible to avoid.

Another part of American society Moore explores is the fear culture we live in: "if it bleeds, it leads." In our news, anger, violence, and hate are the stories that do the best, and stories about tolerance and love are pushed to the background. Moore points out that all the news covers is tragedies--but only the wrong kind. We are shown violent crimes, racism, hate, and death, but never the tragedies of poverty,  hunger, and homelessness. As a society, we feed off of this fear of violence without doing anything to change it. By being constantly exposed to these things, we have come to view them as commonplace, which is a real problem. Moore also shows that people don’t like to talk about these things. As a society, we want all of our problems fixed, but we don’t want to do the work to fix them.

Michael Moore revealed a lot of ugly aspects of American identity and values in “Bowling for Columbine,” but the real problem is that nothing is being done to change these things. He shows a pretty accurate portrayal, in my opinion, of gun culture, violence, and fear that exist in our society. After watching this documentary, I really thought about how real these problems are in our society, and about how they really need to be addressed.