Interpretor of Maladies

Jhumpa Lahiri's choice of title is very expressive of that which she is trying to portray through her short stories. In reference to "Maladies", she is most likely discussing the issues and circumstances surrounding the Indian-American experience, as she revealed. But what makes the choice of the word 'maladies' so interesting is the obscure way it can be interpreted in comparison to similar words such as 'problems', 'ailments' or 'issues'. It is possible that Lahiri is not only interpreting life situations within the Indian-American experience, but also interpreting the way in which an issue may be represented. What does it mean to be Indian? American? Indian-American? It is this question of interconnected identity that is discussed and brought forth in her stories.

Lahiri question of the human experience and identity is a broad and complex issue that is difficult to tackle. Yet through her creative prose she manages to deliver an answer, or at least an examination, to this issue. I believe her story, "This Blessed House" is certainly an depiction of the human experience. It happens around the world; man and woman marry, move, and live on their own. This is an often common human experience that is made even more difficult by having to blend two cultures simultaneously. In Sanjeevs eyes, twinkle blends too much. It is possible that in Twinkle's eyes, Sanjeev doesnt blend enough. For example when Twinkle finds a tiny porcelain effigy of Christ, Sanjeev instructs her to, "Check the expiration. And at the very least get rid of that idiotic statue." (136) It appears that Sanjeev fails to realize that he lives in a melting pot community; one in which in order to have peace, respect for other cultures and religions is a necesary part of daily life. It is in this issue that Twinkle pften contradicts him. For example, "She planted a kiss on top of Christs head, then placed the statue on top of the fireplace mantle..."(137)Twinkle, however, seems to lose her identity as a Hindu in being so adamant the effigy of Christ. To Sanjeev, it appears that she is losing her roots in a community where they are outnumbered. This question of blending makes their new marital and living situation change all the more difficult. Tis issue that Sanjeev and Twinkle are facing with one another is Lahiri's examination of a maladie (malady?) that is troubling an Indian-American couple.

This issue of blending and balancing, which in essence is what Twinkle and Sanjeev are tryign to do, is part of the story that Lahiri is trying to tell about the Indian-American experience. I believe that both characters, especially Sanjeev, are struggling with identity issues. Twinkle seems to be drawn to the Christian relics and statues, that obviously are not symbolic of Hinduism. Whereas Sanjeev is bothered and agitated by Twinkle's actions. He seems to be struggling with maintaining his Hindu identity where it is a minority. But he is also not open in a way that would help his transition as an Indian-American.

This is a Time Magazine cover page that was adressing an article about Indians coming to America. I thought this was an interesting picture, that sort of documented the Indian-American eperience.

O and Shakespeare

In the film O, there were many things that the filmmaker did that caught my eye. Similar to last viewing, the use of colors really stuck out to me. A very interesting and powerful shot, I thought, that executed this meticulous use of color was a scene right before Em took Des' scarf off the floor. The scarf falls to the floor and lands on a red carpet. The shot is held for several seconds to emphasize the importance of the scarf. I believe that the red carpet was no accident, and very particularly placed by the filmmaker. The color of the carpet combined with the scarf could possibly be foreshadowing events to come. When Oden realizes that Des does not have the scarf, this triggers many significant events. He becomes violently angry and his suspicsions that Des is cheating on him are confirmed in his mind. He then resorts to drugs and his demeanor rapidly changes. As we all know from reading Othello that this movie will most likely end in a violent tragic manner--much to do with the scarf. The red carpet foreshdows the bloodshed that is to follow in the path of the scarf, hence the several second shot in which is filmed the scarf on a red carpet.

The scarf and the foreshadowing red carpet triggered many events in the movie that I believe reflect the play itself. Thus, implying that Shakespeare is, in fact, universal. Viewing the many popular adaptions of Shakespeares play today such as, O and 10 Things I Hate About You, it cant be denied that Shakespeare universally speaks to audiences in a timeless manner. Although these movies are adaptions and therefore lack much of the speech and have a unique take on events, this does not degrade the value of Shakespeares stories, which after all is the essence of his works. It is his stories combined with his poetic language that aften captures his audiences. I say this because even in his time, everyone who viewed his plays was not completely literary, for example the 'groundlings' who would stand and watch at the bottom of the theatre would still enjoy his plays despite their illiteracy and possible lack of comprehension of many of his lines. Therefore it is his stories that speak universally to many of us hundreds of years later. In a personal note, I honestly still get worked up when viewing any version of Romeo and Juliet (especially when Leo's in it :) ) because it make's me think about my boyfriend (who's not Leo
:(...haha). This is because Shakespeares story about love will effect people forever, unless for some reason the world becomes a loveless society--but then we have a bigger problem.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/9226/elekiss.jpg