Dancer in the Dark in relation to Marx's theory of Alienation

There is so much to speak out on in the film. I have been talking about ideas that this film has branched off in my brain to my friends and family at an annoying rate I'm afraid. In watching Dancer in the Dark I came to find numerous connections instantly with Marx and his theory of Alienation. There is the alienation of Selma in the factory and significance of blindness.

I would hate to leave out the brutal segment of Bill and Selma and the bag of money. Do you believe that Bill's fear of his wife leaving him when she finds out he has not nearly as much money as he used to rational?

To answer this question I want to first let you recall the scene in which we first view Kathy (Bill's wife) and all of the candies that she gives out, and how she gives Selma the tin with all the candies in it (that are apparently foreign and super fancy-like?) when she leaves. We immediately saw that the power of money had indeed taken it's toll on Kathy. Like Bill said earlier in the movie, she spends money like it's nothing..SHE LOVES MONEY! Yet, Kathy's character herself is caring, understanding, and protective of those she loves. I do not believe that Bill's fear was rational at all and in fact I see his fear covering up his fixation with needing money himself. Not to spend, but to show off; to prove that he has it and he's more powerful because of it.

Now let me talk on further about Selma's alienation in the factory. Not only is she alienated in the way in which Marx speaks of she is alienated through her slow/mediocre work which is caused by her lack of eye sight and later on blindness. She works in the sense that all people do, which is a "means to life" as Marx put. We have to work, we have no choice in the matter (unless of course you wish to be homeless and/or completely dependent). Yet the alienation that her blindness brings her gives me such a feeling of sadness and pity, even though we all realize that is the last thing she wishes from anybody. She works because she has to, in able to feed her son and herself and pay the rent (along with saving up for her son's secret operation). Yet, even though she is side by side with people in similar situations she cannot act as though it's routine for everyday it is an obstacle for her as her eyesight worsens. She simply cannot keep up with the other workers therefore alienating her.

Not only does Selma deal with many instances of rejection and betrayal but she finds herself having to fend for her life. This brings me to the connection that Marx's statement that "conscious life-activity directly distinguishes man from animal life-activity" and the deadly argument over Selma's stolen money. Bill reverted back into animal-like activity, which I feel is illustrated through his irrational statement of her having to kill him in order for him to give her the money back. Yet, we notice that Selma refuses to believe that he has done this because she simply cannot see the gun that is pointed at her until he jabs her with it. Money made Bill revert back into that animal like activity, yet Selma remained completely nuetral to that until Bill forced into it.

Thanks for reading :)

Rear Window + Mulvey

Let me begin by saying I have been wanting to watch this film for quite some time now and it has been recommended to me on several different occasions and it was nothing at all like I expected. After reading Mulvey and viewing Rear Window I came to several conclusions regarding their immediate connection and why her article was chosen for this film.

Before I draw too deep into that let me inquire if, in Rear Window, it was insinuated that the "peeping tom", also known as Jeffries, was viewing the ballerina as to sexually satisy himself? In other words as Mulvey stated "sexual stimulation through sight".

I ask that because in the first paragraph on the first page of Mulvey she states, and let me quote, "At the extreme, it can be fixated into perversion, producing obsessive voyeurs and Peeping Toms whose only sexual satisfication can come from watching, in an active controlling sense , an objectified other". I realize that Jeffries was forced into the situation of being stuck in his apartment via broken leg, and that viewing other people's life in their apartments through the rear window of his apartment was entertaining in his situation. Yet, I feel we did not get to view much after he was done peeping. Either the screen would black out, or he'd fall asleep and then we'd see him in the morning. Is that insinuating anything after the screen blacks out after watching Ms. Ballerina? I wonder.

Now let me pick up where I started regarding the connections I found in Mulvey with Rear Window. Her fascination with people's curiousity in looking and our need to dissect other people's life and surroundings is directly connected with this film. In observing other people's life what exactly are we looking for? In the film Jeffries was attempting to solve a murder mystery, yet in smaller panels and side stories we see him delving into people's relationships or lack there of. I believe he is trying to accomplish what Mulvey regarded as finding one's purpose in this world, where do they fit in? In watching them he was putting those peices together and attempting to figure that out for himself.

In the movie we were asked to focus on "the gaze" and as I observed that was what made the plot. The unshakable gaze, the tell all signs of something that's going to make me jump is about to happen. It reveals a strong sense of uneasiness and interconnecting relationships. Through the gaze I felt that people were connected to one and other in the sense that it is nearly impossible for us to be drawn apart. The effects of others relationships may in fact immediately effect you directly or indirectly and through the lense of that camera in Rear Window we saw many instances of just that.