elaine has raised an interesting point. i was a bit too hasty in my view
of the integration. given the ending we could say that neither masculine
nor feminine are integrated. i should have said there was the attempt on
the part of the feminine - something jung said was supposedly easier for
the feminine. there is arguable no attempt by the masculine - something
we see every day and something that many of us categorize by calling the
crisis in masculinity. so the crisis is that there is no real attempt at
integration - why should someone who believes they are invincible try to
adopt their opposite? but ultimately the feminine breaks down and the
masculine is destroyed. does this imply futility or that there is
something else that is happening and is not yet recognized? i suggest
the latter. keith
elaine pigeon wrote:
>In response to Keith Henning's post, I would like to say that I find Jungian
>reading worth considering, which leaves us with the Bride having integrated
>both her masculine and feminine sides. Philosophically, this puts us in the
>realm of Hegelian dialectics, as it is a form of synthesis. What is
>disturbing here, is that after killing Bill, the Bride is on her own -- a
>single mother who has achieved independence. Yet, we are even privy to her
>grief in the bathroom scene. So, while the Bride may have integrated her two
>sides, where does this leave the traditional male in the end? Dead? Is this
>not a crisis? Does it not suggest the need for a new male archetype?
>
>
>
>
>
--
G. Keith Henning LLB MBA
Tourism Management
Haskayne School of Business
University of Calgary
2500 University Dr. N.W.
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
403.220.3997
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|