Category Archives: JM13D

Please use this category if you are in the 10:45AM Section.

Response paper 3

Wow I did not realize how insanely late I am.

The most important thing I came to realize from Best in Show is the relationship dogs have with their owners. I think the reason this came to mind more than anything else is that my ex was one of the best dog trainers in the country and I saw her relationship with her dog was absolutely incredible. When I saw the way she interacted with her dog, I tried to catch glimpses during the movie of how the owners on screen interacted with their dogs.

Imagine the neurotic couple trying to have awkward, and in some eyes, ridiculous sex. Picture their obsession with the one toy the dog preferred. They could not keep their cool and when the moment to shine came, neither they nor their dog acted properly. They yelled at each other and the dog misbehaved in front of the judge. How about the poodle and it’s lesbian owners? One of them is the “alpha” of their pair and the other is a silly nitwit. The alpha taught the dog to put on a perfect performance so that at the end it was entirely up to the judges whether or not they liked it. There were no slip ups or mistakes. I can already picture the grueling practice routines the dog had to run hundreds of times to make sure that the proper procedure was learned. How about the flamboyant gay couple? It was pretty clear that they loved and treasured each other and their dogs so they had a lot of love in their relationship. From what I saw, I can’t imagine their defeat to even really upset them because they are in such a good place that hiccups like that do not even affect them. You could see it during their photoshoot in the end that they have so much going for them and they are so happy that even when they fail, it does not stop them. I can picture the redneck and his dog as really easy going and really relaxed. While watching the movie, nothing suggests that they practiced for the show or even truly cared about winning. In my mind, they are just living a good life and are each others best friend. Same thing with the adorable terrier belonging to the loving couple. They are just full of love and acceptance so that even though their dog may not truly be anything special, he is a strong contender for the title of “Best in Show”.

I think the most important lesson in this movie comes from the neurotic couple. When they got the new dog and accepted who they truly are, they found a calm not witnessed in previous depictions of them. Instead of being awkward and weird, they looked really at peace with themselves and each other during the last interview and now, their outside world (mainly their dog) fits into their new self-image.

Posted in JM13D, ResponsePaper | Leave a comment

response #3

“Best in Show” was a very funny movie. it is one of those movies that people might not enjoy as much if the viewer was not in the mood for a laugh. but for those who are ready to laugh, this movie would hit the spot. I thought the funniest thing about the movie was how extreme these people love their dogs. i know if i had a dog i would love it but not to a point where one couple is yelling at another to please the dog like if it was going to save the world. The movie was unique because this is a movie that revolving around a dog show but in truth, is showing how the characters would act if they were in a situation as parents. starting with Meg and  Hamilton Swan; they are a very weird couple that seemed to cherish their dog like it is their baby. in a way, this couple is portraying themselves character if they were to replace a child with the dog. the couple are people that would pamper their child and give their child everything and anything to please and make the child happy. Cookie and Gerry Fleck are people that are together only because of the dog ( relating to real life, a child). it seems as if they are completely different people and that the only reason they are together is because one is taking advantage of the other. Cookie seems to be using Gerry to have a stable future because she understands that she can not be running around forever. and Gerry is the nerd all throughout his life and it is a dream for him to be with someone popular. Cookie cheats on Gerry and Gerry would get jealous each time but it seems as if without the dog, there would not be a relationship.Harlan Pepper is a person that is used to being alone. the only people he has are his friends and fishing buddies. his hobbies seem to be to love the dog, fish and play with his dummies. people say the dogs are men’s best friends because that is all he has. as for fishing and playing with his dummy, it is his way of passing by time. fishing is something people enjoy if they had a lot of patience and Harlan pepper seems to be someone that would not might being alone just sitting there waiting for a bite. and the dummy is also a tool to keep someone from feeling lonely and keep the user busy. Stefan vanderhoof and scott donlan are the gay couples that care so much about each other (and a child).The lesbian couples would be like an average family with the wife looking glamorous while the husband does the work and heavy lifting ( and their child would just be there doing his thing).

Posted in JM13D | Leave a comment

Response Paper 3

I chose to do option #2 for this response paper because the title of the reading for Hemingway, “Hills like White Elephants” attracted my attention.

When I started reading this story, I automatically began to generate pictures in my head. Hemingway used such vivid words to describe the setting of the story. I pictured a beautiful, sunny paradise. I thought it was interesting how Hemingway did not bother to introduce the characters of the story at all. He simply labeled the characters as the “American” and the “girl,” which doesn’t tell us much about them at all. Since I wanted to understand more about the characters, I tried my best to read the rest of the story carefully. I, then, came to realize that not only was the description of the characters vague, but  the entire story didn’t seem to have a concrete meaning or point behind it!

Once the dialogue between the characters began, I got lost. I couldn’t understand what they were talking about and what the meaning behind any of it was. They were talking about different types of drinks, then hills, white elephants, happiness, love, and a whole mess of, what seemed to me to be, random topics. Honestly, none of it really made any sense to me at all! I did realize that a lot of the words and phrases were constantly repeated. I decided to try rereading the dialogue and still could not understand what the point of it what. I think Hemingway might have left out all the details of what the two characters were talking about on purpose, in order to let the readers, us, create our own meaning behind this story. Other than assuming that this might be a love story that somehow related to happiness, I couldn’t find words and meanings to fill in the missing details of the story.

Posted in JM13D | Leave a comment

Responce Paper #3 -Imaginery- First thought of Sex (White Elephant)

After reading “Hills Like White Elephants”, I immediately thought “Sex”! The way the two characters went at each other reminded me of a show from the 1980’s called “The Wonder Years” in which two teenagers  who knew each other, while growing up, experienced many of the “teen-like” issues, some of which include; first kiss, and first time having sex. The way the man and the girl sort-of argued made it seem like a teenage drama on whether to have sex or not. For example, on page 168, the girl says “And if I do it you’ll be happy and things will be like they were and you’ll love me?”, then the guy replies “I love you now. You know I love you”. To me, this seems like a typical dispute that teenagers will go through about having sex because the female might think that the only reason the guy is with her is to have sex, and then wont “love” her anymore –like we know what the hell that means-. Or the teenage couple might be afraid of their relationship losing its passion after the introduction of sex.

Personally, I didn’t understand what role or motif the alcohol, and beer played in the story. I did not see the point of mentioning it other than it being used as the conversation topic for the couple, and an attention grabber for the audience. Maybe I’m missing something… In addition, I was particularly interested in the way that the story started. Seeing that we are all pretty much young adults, drinking alcohol and partying (I speak in general terms) is a HUGE part of our life, for the most part. So including that in the introduction really grabbed my attention.

Something that particularly kept me at a conundrum was the fact that the story turned out to be about abortion. I am satisfied that I came somewhere close to the topic, but I believe that the author can be quite misleading at times. For example, on page 167 “It’s really an awfully simple operation, Jig”, then “I know you wouldn’t mind it, Jig, it’s really not anything, it’s just to let the air in”. Particularly, the confusing part was determining what “Jig” really is! At first I thought it was a sexual position of some sort, because initially, I thought that the story was about something dealing with sex. The only logical thing to do is follow that thought process. Overall, it was an interesting and captivating story to read that took a strange twist, although its slight ambiguity (In my opinion) was annoying, it gave the story its fascinating characteristic.

Posted in JM13D, ResponsePaper | Leave a comment

Response Paper 3

OPTION 1

“Best in Show” was definitely an unusual movie. It seemed almost like a documentary. I believe the main purpose behind this movie was a life lesson about happiness. Although this movie was all about the dogs, it really portrayed how the dogs behave in response to their trainer.

For example, the man with the bloodhound would constantly say how much he loves the dog and adores it yet he doesn’t strangle it. He would constantly give the dog space go hunting with it and perform normal activities with it that dogs should be doing. It can be concluded that because he lives his life so free or loosely his dog is free and relaxed too thats why he had one of the best dogs in show.

Other good trainers were the gay couple. Because they lived a free and loving lifestyle themselves the dog felt a good relationship with the trainers. They almost treated the dog like a human. For example when they were in the hotel room and they were looking at their competitor he would start talking to the dog. Only talking not giving him commands or yelling or stressing the dog out.

On the other hand, one couple that were training their dog (i believe it was a greyhound) had a terrible relationship with each other. All they would do is get into arguments and scream and yell around the dog. Therefore, the dog would always be quiet, sad, and disobedient. At the dog show the dog could not control himself because he was acting just like their trainers, mean and aggressive.

I believe the moral of this movie is that no matter the dog, if the trainer is not happy and relaxed when training his dog the dog will never be disobedient. Obviously animals prefer to listen to happy people and are influenced by that. I think from this we can also conclude that happiness in ourselves in general influences the people around us and can affect the way that someone carries on with their day. Therefore, it is important to try to stay happy because whether it’s animal or human, we impact the ones around us.

-Marek Klepadlo

Posted in JM13D | Leave a comment

Response Paper [Option #2]

I’ve read Hemingway before, so I was fairly confident that I wouldn’t have too much trouble trying to interpret this three-page short story. Yes, his work was confusing, but how much could he do in three pages?

A lot, apparently.

And at the same time, it feels as if Hemingway’s written about nothing at all. The dialogue repeats itself tirelessly over and over again like a broken record until it feels like I’m even starting to think in cheerless, oversimplified sentences. After reading through the story the first time around, I attempted to grasp at the plot. But all I found were words—scattered bits and pieces of the dialogue that had become so ingrained in my memory through the process of repetition that they refused to let go. Among them were:

–          “we can”

–          “we can’t”

–          “perfectly simple”

–          “beer”

–          “I feel fine”

–          “happy”

The American man and the girl are always hinting at something larger through their seemingly mundane conversation, and it gives the reader the sense that there’s a lot more going on behind the talk of white elephants, alcohol and happiness than the simplicity of his work initially leads us to believe. It becomes quite evident that the girl is not fine, and that the two of them are not nearly as happy as they pretend to be. The repetitive wording cloaks the true subject matter of the story, which is only ever implied at best. The two characters skirt around the topic, occasionally touching upon it, but not nearly long enough for us to really comprehend it without an extensive close reading of the material.

And that’s where the title comes into play. Upon finishing the story and looking it over once again, it occurred to me that the story itself was very much like the saying “an elephant in the room.” The idiom is used to describe something very apparent or obvious, but at the same time, goes unaddressed, which is exactly what the American and the girl are doing here. The characters are unwilling to get to the heart of the issue, and thus they continue to keep their conversations pleasantly shallow for fear of disrupting their “happiness.”

Posted in JM13D, ResponsePaper | Leave a comment

Response Paper 3, Sontag/Hemmingway

In “Against Interpretation,” Susan Sontag famously writes, “the modern style of interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs “behind” the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one.” What is Sontag saying about how we read?
Immediately after hearing the Susan Sontag quote from “Against Interpretation” I thought of “deconstruction” as defined by Derrida and practiced for literary analysis purposes throughout the intellectual community.  I think that Sontag is talking about this kind of approach to understanding and absorbing a text by taking it apart and examining the pieces.
When you read a text very closely, you begin to interpret meaning in every word choice.  Because the author of the piece is unlikely to be at hand or potentially even in a better place, the reader is left to scrutinize their words at their leisure.  It is impossible to know what the author intended the symbolic meaning to be, and virtually anything can be inferred.  Once a piece has been reduced to its lowest common denominator, the audience is free to claim that the writer means whatever they themselves are imposing upon it.  I think that the danger of this is that a text can be mutilated and dissected to the point that it is rendered completely meaningless and hollow.
I have read several of Hemmingway’s short stories.  I wrote a paper about “Hills Like White Elephants” and what I thought all the “sub-text” was behind the dialogue and imagery.  We discussed the meaning of the “white elephants” in terms of the girl’s eminent abortion, as the proverbial “elephant in the room”.   I wrote about the barren, dry landscape in juxtaposition with the banks on the other side of the Ebro that were lush and fertile, and how this represented her two options, the two paths her life could take from here.  Should she choose to continue living this shallow life of travel, drinks, and voyeurism, or should she start a family and settle down, look for something real?
The story is ripe with symbolism and is a great text to break down.  You can easily defend many different interpretations of the “true” story between the lines.

Posted in JM13D, ResponsePaper | Leave a comment

Best In Show

I enjoyed the movie “Best In Show” not just because it was funny, but because it had a lot to do with the arguments i made in my paper. Many people today have the thinking that perhaps fame and money is what will truly bring them everlasting happiness. I have always disagreed with that. I know that no amount of money and/or fame can bring happiness because happiness is something different for different people.This point was well brought out in the movie “Best In Show.”

   The contestants for te dog show came from all walks of life; rich and poor, straight and gay, Rural and urban. However in the end, only one couple won.This brought them a lot of happiness. The others realized   that they already had happiness or pursuing other goals and activities was what truly brought them happiness. Their quest to win only brought them uneeded stress and a lot of unhappiness.

 So if you want to be happy, it might not come from being famous or even being rich. Just reach within yourself and find what makes you happy. Because happiness is just around you.

Posted in JM13D, ResponsePaper | Leave a comment

“Best in Show” Review

Best in Show, a satirical mockumentary, delves into the lives of the owners of five show dogs and their devotion to making sure their dog is the best in everything–from appearance to temperament. The film gets an A- in humor, as it plays off of many stereotypes we have on certain types of people:

    • The gays: flamboyant, cocky, cultured and with a diva flair
    • The odd, middle class couple: The awkward husband and the “looking good for her age” wife with a past
    • The chic, upper class couple: Neurotic underneath it all, therapist sessions for some of the most (as we might deem them) bizarre reasons, such as the dog watching them one night. The obsession with fashion trends, “high-end” coffee (Starbucks)
    • The redneck: The accent, the slow and monotonic speech, the questionable intelligence, hunting as a hobby
    • The gold-digging wife and the pretty much “ready to die” millionaire: Her intelligence is questionable, his ability to even breathe without help is questionable

Although the mockumentary focuses on the Mayflower Dog Show, there is a hidden message behind it as we observe what makes the characters happy and how the dog show affects them overall. This message is that what we may expect to make us happy may actually make us unhappy, and it may be surprising to find happiness in the most, unexpected ways. I didn’t really notice this message until it was brought up in class, because the film is just too “comedic”, so one has to dig deep to try and find the serious undertones behind the motives of the characters and the ending of the film. I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to enjoy a great comedy, but I wouldn’t consider it a way to try and find out some sort of truth behind “happiness.”

I was very impressed with the dialogue of the film, because it seemed very natural, which of course added to the humor. I would not be surprised if it is all pure improvisation, because none of the scenes felt forced and the actors did a great job channelling their characters.

All in all, this is a great film to see one day with a couple of friends if you’re looking for a good laugh to end the night right.

Posted in JM13D, ResponsePaper, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Showing Happiness

The question of happiness in “Best in Show” is ever present in the underlying theme. Are the characters happy as they are? Are they happier at the end? What does the transition do for them?

This film is all about the individuality of happiness. I think that the purpose is to underscore how some believe themselves to be happy but require a process of improvement, and how others are happy as they are and that the process simply makes them more so.  The film is not trying to tell us that we are all unhappy or that we need a revelation to make us more happy. Rather, it is our perception of our own happiness and of objective happiness which it is trying to hone.

An interesting example of this was the couple form Illinois who were having therapy with their dog. They thought themselves to be perfectly happy. They did reasonably well for themselves and lived a nice lifestyle. They considered themselves happy because they fit the societal standard of happiness: their gourmet coffee, apple computers, designer clothing etc. We discover that they are really not happy at all. They project their personal issues onto their dog as a way of denying that they are in need of change. But even through the process of the show and realizing their mistakes, they never fully appreciate their wrong approach and subsequently end up artificially happy again. Their situation is no more improved because they see their dog as a vessel for their state.

The character from North Carolina, the winner of the contest, is another fascinating case of happiness. He seems to be relatively content with his life to start with. He may not lead the quintessential lifestyle of a happy American, but he most certainly is a happy fellow. He holds an inherently positive relationship with his dog, not one which is based on wining. And when he does not win the championship, he finds another way to improve his life.

I think that the most interesting example of happiness in the film was with the couple from Florida. Their dynamic is certainly one of a happy couple, but with many issues and concerns. The husband is jealous of his wife and they have problems with money, but they essentially love each other and are happy together. However, they certainly needed an intervention in order to make their happiness more productive and conducive to their environment. This is where winning the championship came in to play: it served as a basis for propelling them past their issues and forward into a better life where they were able to fulfill their potential.

The different stories in the film illustrate that happiness is different for different people and that the same events may not change everyone in their happiness. It illustrates the importance of recognizing inherent problems and focusing on essential issues of happiness, not just the apparent because the apparent is different for all of us. What is not different for all of us however, is the need to recognize our own situation for what it is and figuring out a way of working with it.

-Sol

Posted in JM13D, Uncategorized | Leave a comment