Becoming Without Being

Note: This was my paper for Prose Styles (COMA 109)

Do I really know who I am and what is my life’s purpose? Oftentimes this question pops up in my head. I mean, I can only wonder what the point is for all of this. I go to school and travel an hour and a half to get home and back, eat and sleep, make friends and enemies, fail and succeed, for what? Does it really matter to anyone if I get hit by a car one day on my way to school? Surely, it would not make any difference to the world. Perhaps my family and friends will be concerned about me, but just like me, their existence is also a mystery.

Who am I? The first idea that comes to mind when somebody asks us this is our name. But the name is just like a label. It is not who I really am. A name is given for the sake of identification. It does not include the details of my life and furthermore, there are a lot of other people who have the same name.

So, who am I? Besides the name, I will probably list my hobbies, dislikes and interests. But do they make up everything that I am? My hobbies can change and I can easily include other things in my list if I wanted to. My personality is merely a tiny part of who I think I am.

Possibly my body is what makes up my self. What I was is who I am right now. But it cannot be probable. The minute I was born, changes have been occurring in my body. For nineteen years, billions of my cells have been created and destroyed. If who I am are the cells in my body, I can claim that I am not the same person as last year’s or the years before that.

There is something definitely wrong with the question. Changes in our body and personality are happening constantly. There is no stable self. The statement is structured based on the assumption that what makes up both your past and present is who you are at this minute. It cannot be possible that what I was when I was 5 years old is who I really am now but who I was. Instead of who are you or who am I, it should be more explicit. If one wants to ask about a person’s name, it should be what is your name? When one wants to inquire about the other’s interests, hobbies and the like, it should be what do you do for fun? or what are your hobbies?

Such query may also have surfaced because we want things to be permanent. We want to leave something of ourselves that will endure through time. We’d like to think that we all have a stake in the world affairs. We’d like to think that we are important components in the society. We study and work to become successful. In the end, one will realize that after years of hard work, there are still a lot of things one wants to achieve. Once we get to where we want we realize we need something else better. And so man continues his quest. Whatever it is, he knows it all leads to something. We create and we destroy so we can create. Yet at the back of our minds we know that man’s legacy will last no longer than a bubble. So what is the purpose of it all?

            I could point out specific reasons why I do what I do. I go to school so I can look for a decent job and earn my own money. I eat and sleep because my body needs them. I make friends to make connections. And yet, do any of these things answer the question? I do not exist just so I could work to survive. Nor do I live just to eat and sleep so I can live. And my life certainly does not revolve around relationships. So, again, what is the point?

            There are different viewpoints through which we could look at and meet the subject. On a religious stance, one might argue that man exists to serve and glorify God. The meaning of our existence can only be answered by God. All our actions will determine whether we will live in eternal bliss or burn and be damned forever. But why does God exist? What is the point of His existence, if at all He does exist? Such an argument is just another excuse to avoid the inevitable question. People have a tendency to look at what is in the end of the tunnel and not at the consuming darkness in front of them. We are too impatient to traverse the long road and therefore jump at conclusions when a seemingly sensible explanation presents itself to us. By denying the possibility of a justification, society has put up walls and placed a sign saying that God is the answer to everything.

            Science on the other hand, amidst all its wonders does not necessarily answer the problem at hand. By tinkering on the life processes and the phenomena in nature, it only strengthened the need for an account on why these things are created and its purpose. Decoding all the secrets of our DNA will not reveal why it exists in the first place. Laws and theories, figures and statistics, logic and reason can only answer the question how and reveal the processes.

Man-made structures cannot withstand time, artworks will eventually crumble, and even literature will lose its magic one day. So why do we continue to create? Why do we need to uncover the secrets of our body, our society, our planet? And do the stars reveal the answer?

            Perhaps there is no answer. Man tries to race against time fueled by his search for immortality. This is why history books are written. But the battle against time is hopeless. There is no such thing as a legacy. What one has done is past. The intensity of the action that has been done cannot be felt at the present. Revolutions and wars are nothing more than just letters on the pages of a book. Experiences leave only scars and impressions in the mind which need to be summoned and be recalled. Most would hope to be remembered and remain alive in the hearts and minds of the people they care about, but even the memory fades away along with the person. What once was can never be again. Everything that man does seem pointless.

            Looking back at my life, I have had frustrations and triumphs. I have had both good and bad moments. There are things that I wanted to do but never did and there are still more that I want to do. I have had regrets but all I can do is suffer the consequences of the choices I made. Why should I look at my life as a means to an end? What does it matter if I am just a mutation that leads to a new species in the evolutionary tree? Why look to the future when the present has the answers. I exist for the present moment. And who I am is how I live my life right this minute. It cannot be an I was or I used to be because it is part of the past. Neither can it be I will be. Who I was a minute or a second ago is not me at the present. I do things that I do today because the existing circumstances have compelled me to choose and to act.

Looking towards the future may give one a glimmer of hope, but one must not invest all efforts in something that is not sure to happen. Life will still be as it is even without its meaning. People will still suffer and triumph; wars and conflicts will go on; there will be more and more people trying to answer this mystery, but even without all the answers it is still worth a try. As Arthur Schopenhauer puts it, “You could, to be sure, base on considerations of this kind a theory that the greatest wisdom consists in enjoying the present and making this enjoyment the goal of life, because the present is all that is real and everything else merely imaginary. But you could just as well call this mode of life the greatest folly: for that which in a moment ceases to exist, which vanishes as completely as a dream, cannot be worth any serious effort.”[1]

---

[1] Arthur Schopenhauer. “On the Vanity of Existence”. The Meaning of Life. Edited by E.D. Klemke. NY, USA: Oxford, 2000. p.68.

A Chaos of Appearances

AN ANALYSIS ON ORSON WELLES' "CITIZEN KANE"

PHOTOGRAPHY, MISE EN SCENE and MOVEMENT

Orson Welles' use of theatrical techniques in lightning has an unusual effect in the movie. Some shots exaggerate the symbolic features of the story such as separation and loneliness. The contrasts are very obvious and early in the film, the audience is provided with a foreshadowing of the protagonist's fate. The play of light and darkness overstates the contrasts in foreground and background, the textures and the characters' demeanor.

The positions of the characters also perform the same functions. What I like most about the film is that the director can place all the elements in the film without overshadowing the rest (the deep-focus shots for example). He can maximize the space making it possible for the audience to different characters at the same time.

The camera movements are very dynamic and give the audience another side of the story aside from the dialogues of the characters.

EDITING

The shifting of scenes are sometimes confusing since the story is not told in a chronological order and the points of view are constantly shifting. We see different sides of Charles Foster Kane depending on whose telling the story. But this technique (flashback) is very effective in establishing Kane's image as an enigmatic figure. Uncovering the story of his life will only lead to more questions than answers.

ACTING and DRAMA

I think Welles' portrayal of Kane was really good. His voice modulation is also appropriate in some shots like the series of breakfast scenes with his first wife Emily.
As for the rest of the cast, even if they were not well-known actors, their performance contributed a lot to the overall success of the film.

Welles regarded film as essentially a dramatic rather than a literary medium and is obvious in the lighting techniques he used throughout the film. By showing only the important elements needed in the scenes, the audience cannot miss a single action of the story.

STORY and LITERATURE

The word "Rosebud", although it seemed to be irrelevant to Kane's life, is a great way of to hook the audience for the unveiling of the story. They expect that the reporter's investigation will eventually reveal what it means. This nagging question from the very start provides the audience with something to look forward to as the story unfolds.

Like most classic tragedies, the downfall of Kane shows that power and influence has a price. His death poses a challenge to viewers to try and weigh the statements of the the other characters. We cannot be certain who is telling the truth. Each one has a different version of Kane and it is up to us to judge whether Kane made good or bad decisions or if he was just a victim of the circumstances.

IDEOLOGY and THEORY

Environment is a stronger force than heredity.
Perhaps it was the power. Or it was his failures that made him the person he was when he first appeared in the film on his deathbed holding the small crystal ball. As a young man he was very active and full of ambition, but reality shattered his illusions. By surrounding himself with important people he tried to fill this void. But in the end he became a lonely man, estranged from the rest of the world and bounded by the walls in Xanadu.

He remains a mysterious man until now.

The Order

The scenes were quite appealing to me although I could not understand what they actually stood for. What was clear to me however was that the Apprentice was trying to overcome some tests (for what purpose, I found out later when i read the synopsis).

It was really unusual to see a performance like that. It's like looking at an abstract expressionist work for the first time. You just see splattered paint all over, not knowing how to make sense of it.

Getting used to conventional or traditional interpretations and recreations of the world has its downsides. When confronted with something rare or new, we either reject it or refuse to see it. Matthew Barney is just one of those artists who continually revitalizes the world of art. It is through these changes (or revolutions) that a new breed of artists are born. Through their skills and new insights we are able to see the world from another perspective.