October 2011 Archives

"The last shot of the film features a dilapidated house, with the fast-motion clouds rolling above it, then cuts to the message 'Have a nice day.'...an ironic comment on the failure of the 1970's 'liberation' counterculture, suggesting that homosexuals in America cannot 'have a nice day.'"
-Driving Visions (210), David Laderman

GROUP ONE:
In my opinion, Vagabond is not a feminist film. Although Mona has rejected the patriarchal society from which she came, ultimately she failed. I feel that although she definitely did her best, the ending scene of the movie left the audience with an image of a woman not being able to make it in a world in her own way. The scene that seems the most telling in this entire movie is when the sheep herder talks about how she cannot be so idealistic, she needs to submit to the fact that in society she needs to learn a trade, work and make money to survive. She was able to reject the patriarchal society, but she was unable to survive, ultimately leading me to view Vagabond as a film that is not feminist.

NOTE TO TA: I am sorry I did not complete this sooner, I kept looking back last week, but did not see it posted on the moodle site.

Group Three: In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The gaze is never completely focused straight onto Mona in "Vagabond". Due to the various points of view shared by the other characters in this movie the gaze is "unfixed" and made "inoperable"(pg290) according to Hayward. Through the camera's movement and Mona's physical place within the scene one can see the tracking methods used which in some scenes represent the flashbacks within the movie itself, which is for the most part created through flashbacks that eventually explain how Mona actually meets her death.

The conventional monopolizing male gaze is disrupted and unsettled in Vagabond because there are so many narrations and perspectives. Not only is the disjointed story pieced together in a non chronological manner the narration is often pushed forward by the documentary style interviews with many half witnesses. For a small time characters like the professor get to narrate, but they only get portions of the film, never full control of the story. Susan Hayward discusses Varda's intention with this film to "unfix the gaze, to render it inoperable. Because there are so many points of view, Mona cannot be caught in any of them." For me the success of this intentionality is apparent because not only is she never caught in one point of view, one timeline, one narration as you would see in most films, all of these people describing her or attempting to piece together what her journey was exactly fail to do so. That is to say no one really knew Mona, they couldn't pin her down with any certainty, though some were obsessed with trying to. She was free to move physically, but also philosophically. Her social role was never clearly identified, all people seemed to really recognize was that she was free and filthy. Though there were many judgements of this from these many points of view some admiring some admonishing, ultimately they didn't really matter her sideways journey to remain in motion remained.
I'm sort of struggling to make sense of her untimely death, which seems to be a road film trope, and perhaps there isn't much more to it than that. Hayward explains that the painterly quality of the shots, turning action into a still scene, in Vagabond show how "movement becomes stasis...signifying death." I think these metaphors are very powerful in the film, but I still don't know exactly what Agnes Varda is trying to tell us.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".
In considering the film "Vagabond" in the context of Susan Hayward's analysis I did not find much linkage for a scene in the film where Mona actually seemed to feel the male gaze upon her as opposed to seeing it. Mona seemed at peace with her prospect of being able to learn the trade of trimming grape vines. She had found a kind eyed man, Assoun, that was willing to show her how it was done and she'd be an equal with the men that boarded at the farms to do the trimming. The hitch was that the other men had to accept Mona. Assoun promised that he would get Mona's acceptance into the group when the men returned from a weekend break. We see Assoun talking with the men when they return. We see Mona waiting impatiently and seemingly with hope that she will be accepted. As the observer in the audience I felt hope for Mona even though I knew she would die at the end of the film. As expected, Assoun returns to Mona and discloses that the other men will not accept her. It feels as though the other men have watched her, judged her and rejected her. Mona retaliates again Assoun because he has failed to gain her acceptance. The truth may be that Mona is hurt because she was rejected by the male group of tree trimmers. She appears emotionally hurt for the first time in the film. Assoun drives Mona out of the town and leaves her, expectedly, on the side of the road. We see Assoun later in a silent portrait. The portraits are used to parallel the tracking shots. There is much discussion in the analysis about tracking shots and what they mean, but I found the silent portrait of Assoun says nothing and staring sadly at us, the audience, very moving. It summed up Mona's life and death well. Assouns' gaze at us invoked a feeling of sadness for Mona as a person and not specifically as a female.

'Vagabond" is not a feminist film. Nothing about this film gave Moan social equality and it certainly did not empower her. She was a woman that let the world break her and not because she was a woman, but more over because she was simply lazy. She figured out a way too do as little as possible and still survive and she choose to do that. She didn't seem to live by an ideology she just went wherever someone would take her and she used them as best she could for the time being which is not empowering to anyone. However, just because the story in the film isn't feminist in nature doesn't mean the film doesn't have feminist aspects to it. This film being made about a lone woman on the road is counter to most films. Also the way Vardas has chosen to make the entire film a flashback is backwards form most films. Hayward writes in "Beyond the Gaze", "These are aspects of her feminist cinecriture which are political because -- in there digressiveness they go counter to dominate male filmmaking practices and are, therefore, counter-cinematic." This suggests that being counter to male dominate things makes something feminist but that doesn't seem to be enough.

In what way(s) is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The conventional male gaze is unsettled in "Vagabond" through the use of an atypical protagonist, Mona, who lives as an outcast on the edge of society and through non-traditional filming technique that reflects her perspective. I would agree with Hayward's argument that this is a feminist film, as so much of feminism deals with power struggles and Mona clearly exemplifies an autonomous figure; in fact, the one major thing that Mona possesses is her autonomy, something that Mona herself cherishes and that forces others who encounter her to shift how they perceive her in relation to themselves. While men are shown looking at Mona, sometimes in a sexual manner, other times in a dismissive or judgmental manner, she does not play a typical passive role in these encounters. If she wants something, she often uses her gaze to communicate this (for example, when she wants sex or when she wanted a sandwich at the pub). If someone is looking at her in a manner she does not accept, she will stare them down until they are made to feel equally uncomfortable. In other scenes, looking is a mutually inquisitive affair, wherein Mona and her latest acquaintance assess one another both visually and verbally. Besides often playing a more active role in "looking," Mona also disrupts the traditional male gaze through her detachment. Her life as a homeless girl, challenging and isolated, has caused Mona to relate to people around her in an unusual manner; she does not respond to the social pressures the male gaze creates in a typical way. As Hayward suggests, this is emphasized by the fact that, "the tradition is for the point of view to be that of the roadster(s), but in this film it is everyone else's but Mona's that is given" (Hayward, 3). Mona's position is altered by her lifestyle and subsequent appearance; many of the same men who might have looked upon her in a sexual or desiring manner if she were better groomed look at her cautiously, alienated by her poor hygiene, her vagabond status, and her refusal to accept a traditional place in society. Varda's filming technique also disrupts the conventional male gaze by experimenting with focus and tracking shots. While a film such as "Easy Rider" employs wide-angle shots of scenic landscapes in the distance, suggesting possibility, and places its protagonists in a general position of dominion over the road, "Vagabond" focuses in on the deteriorating life on the side of the road. Avoiding romanticized depictions of the road, Varda takes us away from the male perspective we enjoyed in "Easy Rider" to show us the road from the perspective of a dejected young woman who sees it not as a directed path towards some enlightened state of being, but rather as an unforgiving space where the only goal is to keep moving. Tracking shots in "Easy Rider" hold Wyatt and Captain America in the center of the frame, always moving along with them as they actively take to the road. In contrast, tracking shots in "Vagabond" often travel across the subject to settle on a random object, displacing Mona as the central active figure, and creating a sense of discontinuity, as Hayward points out, "The visual representation of the flashback, then, points predominantly to the idea of discontinuity" (Hayward, 2). "Vagabond" also contrasts a film like "Girl on a Motorcycle" as it places the central female figure in a desexualized context, removing the male gaze that defined GoaM's perspective. When the camera focused in on Rebecca in GoaM, it was usually on her chest or ass, in a manner which served no purpose other than to objectify her. When we see a shot of part of Mona's body up close, it is of her hands folded together anxiously on a diner table, emphasizing the dirt encrusted in her fingers in comparison to the professor's more finely manicured hands; its purpose, far from sexualizing Mona, is to further establish her identity as an outsider, as someone who rejects the traditional traits of femininity.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not? Use some of the ideas from the readings to develop your own ideas.

Depending on your viewpoint to what classifies a film to be a feminist film, Vagabond could be interpreted many different ways. Personally, I do believe it is a feminist film but in a very different way than traditional feminist films. Due to Mona's powerful presence, she represents a strong woman despite the fact that she is homeless. I agree with Hottell when she states "Since power is conveyed through the subjective camera lens, one of the strongest metaphors for power in the film is the look and the characters' access to the look." The film shots were amazing in this film and although Mona was not always directly the focus of the shot, she always had some significance. Mona is not the typical feminist. The film gives an interesting perspective about living on the side of the road, rather than using the road as a source of freedom as we've seen in the previous road films. The road is really no use to Mona except in short term instances when she hitches a ride somewhere. She has complete freedom because she has no job or family to worry about but in contrast she has no freedom because she has no money, no resources, no job, and not very many options at this point in her life. Looking past the dirt and grime, Mona is an extremely strong woman that has clearly gone through so much that nearly nothing fazes her anymore. I think she represents the great qualities of perseverant woman and shows no matter how little importance you think you have in the world, you can make an impact on everyone you meet.

I think vagabond is a feminist film even though it is not a typical one. I also agree with hayward that the way vardas made the film was a bit inconvenient if compared to regular cinema. Mona is a protagonist that believes in living by her own rules. Mona did things her way and her way only. The do your own thing attitude makes me feel it is a feminist film. Mona doesn't seem to have anything that makes her feel happy and or grateful. She is pretty much the same emotionally through out the film. She proves that she will not succumb to the patriarchal societies way of life. She finds way to maintain her felinity by doing things on her own without anyones input.

It's tough to say if Vagabond is truly a feminist film. It seems to me like it is, mostly because Mona is a free woman who lives by her own means and rules. Although she does acquire shelter and food from men, and it could be argued she relied on them, we also saw her taken in by women who helped her survival just as much. Mona depended on people from time to time, it didn't seem to me like the focus was on help from men. It also seems like a feminist film to me because Mona was not viewed by the audience/from the camera's perspective as a sexual object. At one point she is raped, and we see several different people watch her with the intent to assault her, and also the suggestion that she pose as a model or do pornography all point to her being seen as a sexual object. But I think this just sheds light on how the people in her surroundings perceive her, and how the patriarchal society frames women, but it is not how we view Mona. I would even argue she took advantage of men more than they did her. Staying with the man in the abandoned mansion, smoking his weed and eating his food, and then she leaves when the place is being robbed. She didn't need his permission to leave, she didn't owe him anything and was completely her own person and acted on her own will, not caring about his needs or wants. She had encounters with people and that's why I think it's a feminist film, she was shown to us as just another person living their life for themselves, the focus wasn't on her being a woman; her place was not assigned to her "by the logic of masculine desire" (Hottel).

Group Two: Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

Purely from an aesthetic point of view, the road exists on the outskirts of Mona's journey. By having the road as just another means of transportation makes the narrative focus much less on the linear journey we've seen other characters travel on and much more on Mona herself. It brings us back to the questions we discussed in class, "Who is Mona? Where did she come from? Who knows her?". The road is definitely a means of getting around for her but it's absolutely on other drivers' terms. Hottel's analysis really explores the idea of Mona representing something to the counter-norm. In a nutshell, Hottel goes deep into how Mona represents something (through Varda's directing especially) that exists outside the knowledge we have from masculine/heteronormative road films and challenges our idea of what each component of a road film really is. What I drew together from that was an understanding, that, "duh, of course the road in 'Vagabond' is going to represent something other than a sprawling landscape on which the characters is to travel from point a to b". This narrative, then, is a new voice. The landscape, the female body, the road itself, are all new worlds in Varda's film and therefore the story told is one that is new as well.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

Mona exposes familiar female stereotypes in Vagabond, while at the same time creates a distraction from the usual portrayal of the male gaze. As is seen as typical in most films, Mona was seen as the lower hand in most situations. She did not have her own car to drive but had to hitch hike in order to travel anywhere. She also did not provide her own food but had to work in order to obtain it. Unlike other films though, Mona was not seen as a sex symbol by men. As I was watching the film, I felt as though it was not shot through a "male" lens. This meaning I did not see Mona as being "attractive" by male standards. She was incredibly dirty and had no sense of manners. She did not give in to male wants and desires, but held her own which made her different than other women could have been in her situation. I felt that even though she chose this life style, she stayed quite strong in her journey to find herself. In Hayward's analysis of Vagabond, she goes into detail about how the camera treats Mona on her journey. Although Mona is the point of interest throughout the movie, she is not always filmed as though she is the center of attention. In one instance, the camera detaches from Mona and focuses on a separate object, as Hayward describes this action as "abandonment". Another shot that took place was where Mona would split the horizontal line. A third option for a film angle was where both the camera and Mona would come to a halt. These various camera angles were used to mix up the portrayal of Mona. Where one camera angle would abandon Mona and make her look alone, another angle would stay with her and follow her through her journey. These various angles allowed the viewer to connect with the main character, but in a different way rather than in a "male gaze" sense.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not?

I would argue that Vagabond is a feminist film. As Hayward points out in her argument, Varda's subversive filmmaking techniques were far from conventional considering the climate of mainstream cinema. Here, we have a protagonist who lives by her own rules. She is uninterested in the people around her, doing what she pleases (Hayward, 290). Where the protagonist in "Girl on a Motorcycle" was drawn to some distant masculinity that ultimately cost her her very life, Mona is completely boundless. Nothing, not love, money, authority or shelter seems to appeal to her. She is her own free agent. Though her life is tragically cut short, her actions leading up to her demise dictate that she would rather die young doing what she wants than to grow old following the rules of patriarchal society.

The conventional monopolizing male gaze is disrupted in "Vegabond" by the flashbacks of Mona and her already established identity in the film. Throughout the film we never follow Mona from the beginning to the end of her journey. The timeline jumps around and incorporates the perspective of those around Mona. In Hayward's "Vegabond" article, it discusses how we don't need to discover who Mona's identity is, but need to reificate who she is to everyone else. She has been identified by everyone around her as the dirty one who wanders. She is not looking for herself, she is reificating herself to everyone. We all gaze because we are entranced by her established identity. It's not just men who gaze, but the women to. We know this by the interviews in between the story line and the people who help Mona along the way. The more we jump between the story and interviews the more we enforce the identity of Mona and the identity of those she comes into.contact with.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The first manner in which I noticed Mona breaking the male gaze was not through her grimy appearance, but rather through her personality. Her goals serve to unfix the male gaze, perhaps in disgust of her independence. Mona lives on the road, with no plan of settling down for herself, much less with a man or children. Although she relies on other people for transportation, she intrigues the driver and takes control of the vehicle in a sense by that captivation. And again, although the film begins with the audience gazing at Mona's corpse, her journey to that original scene unsettles the viewer, causing them to wonder about the questionable red marks on Mona that are only explained at the end of the film, rather than her sexuality or her appearance otherwise (Hayward). In short, the gaze is thrown upon an implicit quality --Mona's mysterious psyche -- rather than her female form.

In determining whether Vagabond is a feminist movie is hard to pinpoint. One can develop pros and cons, that is, qualities that constitute Vagabond as a feminist movie and qualities that do not. For example, the fact the story follows a woman leaving societal norms who embarks on an autonomous adventure, disregarding modern ideas of hygienic upkeep and grooming (not overly sexualized), would be considered important ideas for a feminist film; however, she leaves one societal norm for another. Although she leaves her day job for the road, she finds employment and works under male superior types, another form of a societal "boss". Also, although she embarks on this journey alone, she's reliant on other people to satisfy her most basic needs (food, money, clothing, shelter). This reliance is mostly found with men, suggesting that women need a male counterpart to function and survive. Also, upon initial reaction of this film, I was convinced it served as a feminist film simply because the main character was not overly-sexualized. She wasn't dressed in sexy attire with heavy eye makeup and large hair. Upon further thought and processing of the Hottell reading, "Flying...", I really feel Mona was subjected to the male gaze. Although she wasn't overtly sexual, she used her sexuality in exchange for food, pleasure, etc. And although the camera followed her journey, the gaze showed her helpless until recovery from male counterparts. Moreover, the story ends with Mona dying, signifying helplessness of women. As stated in the reading, "if the camera consistently looks at, objectifies, and/or disrobes, the character is implicated in this voyueristic practice." I feel Mona was subjected to the gaze through objectification, which criticizes the overall goal of a feminist film.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".
--The road in this film is wherever Mona wants it to be, and visually the road is Mona. Since she chose to live this life, and leave her job as a secretary "the road" is not the same in this film as it might have been in the previous films. Mona doesn't seem to have a reason to be traveling aside from that it is her prerogative. She doesn't have a set destination, and her "road" is her journey and challenge in choosing the life of a vagrant. She gets described by the other characters in the film as being disgusting, smelly and revolting--she began to take on masculine qualities. Hottell talks about the masculine/feminine debate as well as how the cinematic apparatus works in the film. Even though Mona is being described with a masculine aura, she still is hit on by men which shows that her femininity is still intact. Mona changed the direction of her life completely, from being an established citizen to being a bum that someone found dead in a field. As an audience, we accept that the life she is living was her choice, even though she is living in squalor. We accept this because the cinematic apparatus was successful, and as an audience we became complacent to what was happening in the film.

Group Three: In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film?

Hayward's article cites the male gaze in Vagabond as "inoperable" (288), which it surely is. Mona's own power renders the gaze of any other character in the film inoperable. She has mobility which allows here to enter and exit situations at her leisure, often at the expense of the other characters. Apart from the rape scene, she seems to have control over the situations she encounters. When she gets uncomfortable in the car when hitchhiking she leaves at will. The gaze that she imparts on the people she encounters on the road is further evidence of this power. One example is when she is gazing at the little kid. The gaze is not sexual, but she exerts her power over the boy by staring at him and poking him. She acts upon the little boy's vulnerability, which is what the male gaze generally does to women in cinema, and so the male gaze is disrupted.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not? Use some of the ideas from the readings to develop your own ideas.

My initial thoughts are to say that "Vagabond" is not a feminist film. However, after having some time to think about it I would say it does have elements of a feminist film. The reverse gaze and the camera shots are indicators, but on the issue that Mona is breaking free from a mediocre life and is representing an alternative route for women which speaks volumes. Hayword states, "Varda subverts the traditional codes of classical narrative cinema which depict man as the gender on the move and woman as static" (288). To show that Mona was breaking the code and constantly in movement represents freedom to me. Freedom is really all anyone wants and Mona took her freedom into her own hands. To be quite frank I did not enjoy this film. I should rephrase this, as I think the movie was well made. I just did not like Mona. She apologetically uses people to get what she wants and disposes of them by simply leaving when she's done. Throughout the whole film I was listening closely to hear her express any sort of appreciation or the simple word "merci" to her donors. Not once she she utter any kind of expression. She goes through each person acting as if she were entitled to their kindness. Mona at one point says she wants to be a caretaker, but the joke is that she can't even take care of herself. In fact, Mona was so much more frustrating to watch than "The Girl on the Motorcycle." Perhaps because Mona is pursuing an ideal that I could only ever dream of, but the reality of that dream is as sad as her fate. It was only at the end where she was lying on the ground crying and completely helpless in the cold, did I have any ounce of sympathy for her. She goes on about wanting to be free and never wanting to go back to her old job, but she's lazy and doesn't want to work for the life she wants. There was hardly any male influence, and the fact that she's a girl, dictates her journey. She's a girl stuck as a secretary, with no alternative options but the road, and the only way she's able to really survive is because she's a girl. These people she meets are so obliging and ready to help her, even though she has nothing to offer back. These people wouldn't be so ready to help her if she weren't a helpless girl or had that mysterious intrigue nonetheless. However, during this process she is seeking any other road than the one she was on in her previous life, the free road. She's her own boss and in her own words, "champagne on the road is better."

Unlike in most mainstream cinema, Mona, the main character and eponymous "vagabond" in this film, does not allow the conventional "male gaze" to make her an object and victim. She is not a thing to be looked at, but a person to be interacted with. This is best emphasized in the tracking shot, a subject which Hayward's analysis of this film devotes significant time to. Mona moves, or is moved over by the camera, and there is no emphasis on her form as something to be eroticized. In fact, even in her sexual activity, she is only mentioned as a sex object occasionally, and most notably by a character meant to embody a disrespectful, disreputable kind of person. First and foremost, Mona is shown not as a woman, but simply as a wanderer. She dresses modestly and in a manner suited to the cold weather, she is filthy and unconcerned by this, and she travels without fear.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The male gaze objectifies women and has 3 components: the camera, the audience and characters watching each other. In Vagabond the gaze of the camera is unsettled and causes the audience's gaze to be disrupted. Hayward points out the gaze is unfixed because of the multiple points that Mona can't be caught in. Hayward notes the camera splits the horizontal tracking shot by Mona crossing through the shot or remaining stationary while the camera continues over her. The camera follows Mona as she walks along a city block and enters a store but then continues beyond her to the corner of the street. Another instance is in a farm field where the camera continues beyond a stationary Mona and finally rests on a piece of farm equipment. Hayward also notes that Vagabond subverts the traditional code where man is on the move and the woman is static. Mona, by definition, is always wandering. She comes into contact with men who have been, or currently are on the move but rarely do their paths continue together for any length of time.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The conventional male gaze is disrupted in "Vagabond". Mona is a woman who celebrates filth and has a dominating power. She doesn't allow herself to be used and has an intimidating quality, making her somewhat of a mystery to the male characters and therefore, being in control. She is a woman with the confidence and self-assurance of a man and that itself throws the male gaze off. How are you supposed to view a woman who in most aspects acts as a man? She overall defies the stereotype of a woman and mixes things up. Hayward discusses that the film 'unfixes the gaze and renders it inoperable.' This refers to the use of the camera. From the camera shots of the landscape it is difficult to tell whether Mona has just arrived in the area or left. It makes it difficult to predict her movement and further makes her a mystery, deepening the disruption to the male gaze. In this film, the woman is no longer predictable and simple. She is complex and there is more to her than being a pretty thing to look at.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond."

The title of the film, "San toit ni Loi," when translated into English literally means "without roof or law". This in its own way foreshadows an act of rebellion and defiance against the rule of law and so when we are introduced to Mona the "vagabond," we are able to make the connection between her role and the meaning of the title.
Throughout the film, Mona physically wanders the road from one place to another with no specific destination set. However, mentally she chooses not to live in accordance to the typical stereotypes that label women and is on the road towards a life of freedom with no responsibility and rule of law. In many instances in the film, Mona makes it clear to the people she meets that she is satisfied living without a home or any restriction. While on the road, Mona feels comfortable with are other vagabonds she meets but with others who live a normal life such as Madame Landier she displays a tough exterior shutting them off. For instance, in one scene, Madame Landier gives Mona snacks and champagne then asks her why she left everything behind, Mona vaguely responds by telling her that the road and champagne are better. In "Flying through Southern France: San toit ni loi by Agnes Varda," Ruth A.Hottell, uses the analysis of Cixous to explain how Mona's disobedience to the 'normal' order of the system results in her death. Her independent and rebellious wanderings are compared to a bird flying outside the restrictions of the system, especially when she tried to 'steal' a place for herself in the severe winter scenery and her accumulated actions challenge the normal order of the system leading to her death, (690). Nevertheless, Mona's journey's left a mark on the road that others like the farmer's daughter and the maid in the film envied.

Well the most basic was that this film disrupts the male gaze is because a woman is the lead and is also moving as opposed to being a static character as mentions in Hayward's analysis. Women are supposed to fit the stereotype of being dainty and weak. This has obviously fallen a bit in recent time, but it still fits in some way. People do not see young women as living on the street roaming around alone. If this movie had been about a male it would not have been such a shock. The male gaze other than depicting women as static also depicts them as sexual objects. In "Girl on a Motorcycle" there was a female lead, but the entire time the camera shot her as a sexual play thing. In "Vagabond" there are no shots of her chest or her bare legs. She embodies the whole shot. Granted the male gaze of the other characters still sees her as a sexual object which is shown in the scene where she was raped in the woods. This film definitely disrupts the male gaze through her dirty appearance and the fact that there is not a lot of her skin and body shown, which is usually very common in any film with women. Her sexuality is not displayed across the screen disrupting the gaze.

The road in the movie is not central. It is off to the sides or low enough in the frame that it not really there. There is not straight long shot of the road like in Easy Rider. Because Mona is a wanderer, she goes place to place. There is not real destination for her. Instead of the road pointing the path, marking a here to their destination. Instead Mona takes the lead "...plans to take the spectator along with her as the camera travels through the winter landscape (684, Hotell) She's controlling the destination, not the road.

Susan Hayward states that one of the most important things about Vagabond as a feminist film is that it does more than just portray a female lead, it also unfixes the male gaze. She states that it does so by disengaging the character archetypes from the story, preventing the film from being merely an ideological film about vagrancy and femininity. This disengagement also disrupts the gaze, allowing for so many different points of view that it is impossible for the main character to be caught in any of them. If anything, I felt confusion settling over me as I watched this movie, and rather than being unsettling, as it might be in another context, it was very warming, and human here. We should be confused when viewing a wanderer utterly looking for herself amidst the strains and the challenges of the road. We should not feel attraction or disillusionment -- rather we should feel engaged by a deeper dialogue. This is what the multiple points of view do. They unfix the sexual gaze, and instead interact with the critical gaze. We are watching a reductionist's art form at play here. Few of us are ever so reduced to our basic dichotomy -- that between life and death -- and furthermore the fact that the thin line we weave between the two IS a journey. This film engages the psyche as it establishes this dichotomy, and allows us to watch it play out, dare I say, engage with it ourselves, worrying not about gender, personage, or hegemony, but instead survival. I needn't worry about sexuality when I am in dire need of water. Unfixed indeed.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

Mona disrupts the male gaze from herself because she is very independent. She seems to use people, not just but mostly men, for drugs and a free ride. People reflect their own views on when they knew her and how she affected their life. We only see their experience with her. One thing Hayward noticed about the movie was the tracking shots of Mona, where they would start moving once she entered the frame, which wasn't so much the male gaze, as she commanded the attention of the camera, as a man would (cinematically speaking). However, the storyline is fragmented and not chronological, more hysterical, and I'm not sure if Varda was impressing that that was the life of a vagrant or of a woman.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

the road in this movie is the journey that mona took throughout the movie. she moved from camping outside to living with a guy and finiding the farmer that had graduated in phylisophy. all these traveling made her feel free. she was free to do watever she wanted and go where ever she wanted. the camera followed her to different places but never to her real home and neither did she really say much about it. Hottell emphasized on a phrase that was said in the movie "(That girl [...] she was free. she goes where she wants to. sometimes, it might be better not to eat. i would like to be free)". what this quote says about mona is that she left everything behind when she left her house even though she knew she didnt have money and would be hungry, she still left for her freedom from what society wanted her to be.

The road in Vagabond carries a very heavy and almost dark meaning for the main character Mona. Visually all the roads directly shown in the movie are dreary looking. Mona travels from one place to another and after each encounter she is back on the road and is not looking back. Possible the road is not necessarily a happy place or path for Mona to be on but it's a comfortable one for her. She interacts with society but doesn't come into contact with anything that would tempt her more then her life of no responsibility. Visually, Mona traveling on these roads doesn't inspire a lot of happiness in the viewer but after each stop there is hope that something great will happen to her at the next one. The road could possibly represent this travel of Mona mentally to find that thing that makes her happy. Mona is seen laughing at times but one never gets that feeling that she really feels she is thriving. While interacting with people in the movie the road takes a back seat and is not the main focus of the story line.

Group Two: Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

The road in this film is always off to the side. In the case of Easy Rider, the road symbolized freedom, taking the men wherever they wanted to go. In Mona's case, although she is free from society and the law, she is not utilizing the road in the same way as Captain America and Billy. She rebels against this type of freedom by wondering off road, and often times walking from left to right instead of the typical right to left movement of progress.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative? Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond."

In this film "Sans toit ni loi," Mona has been and is on the road. I don't know since when she's been on the road, but she lives on the road and she dies on the road, too. From my perspective, her road is at the corner of the society. Places she stays are always those that people normally don't stay at--in a town cemetery, a corner of the car center she stays overnight, a farm house that she sneaks in. And on any firm ground, she puts her tent up and sleeps in it--majority of society isn't like that. 'A road' in general implies mobility, but hers seems rather stagnant that it almost feels like she's trying to have this road onward, although she can't afford to continue her journey. Although she carries her own tent and she's able to build it up for herself, its meaningless because she still feels cold, hunger, and thirst. In that way she's struggling with continuing her journey, since she's blocked by limitations and boundaries that she faces as a vagrant woman--starvation, thirst, coldness, and homelessness. Hotell's analysis on the tracking shots also show that while the camera keeps moves on, and as life of us the audiences move on, Mona is stopped--the camera doesn't follow all the way to her, or often, crosses over her path. This characteristics of her journey represents a road of a vagrant woman, expanded to, a minority. This road that's carried hardly onward is a purpose Mona on the road, and also a driving force that keeps Mona on the road. This point is also in agreement of Hotell's analysis on this movie, a movie about how a particular vagrant woman lives her solitude (Hotell, 288).

Group Three: In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The conventional monopolizing male gaze is disrupted in this film by the fact that Mona is always predatory of men's gaze and she holds her own gaze back at them. It is evident that several times throughout the film Mona looks at men as an object for sex, view men usually have of women. In more popular films, women do not hold a gaze towards men; instead they are subjective to men's gaze. Varda also disrupts the conventional gaze by supplying the movie with a female character (Mona) that is not the stereotypical woman. Mona is not afraid to say things how she sees them, she celebrates filth and is in control for the whole movie; three unfeminine characteristics. From what is known of men's gaze, the presence of an unfeminine character changes and disrupts man's view. Lastly, the gaze is disrupted by not Mona herself but by the movie itself and the story. As Hayward says: "There are so many points of view, Mona cannot be caught in any of them. In this criss-crossing of gazes, Mona has already moved on or has not yet arrived." It is difficult to "gaze" at Mona because there are multiple people providing their insight and opinion into the kind of person and woman she was. What we see of Mona perhaps is not what others in the movie are describing of her; therefore the gaze of not only men but also women is disrupted as well.

Group Two: Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

Visually, the road is barely ever seen. The physical asphalt is rarely traveled by the main character, Mona. The road, then it seems, is wherever Mona walks. She creates her own road with every step she takes. She treads down her own path. Maybe the concept of going "off-road" is a symbol of Mona staying out of reach of societal norms. Her road is rough and ragged. The instances when Mona is on the actual driven road, she is usually looking for a ride, money, or nourishment. When she is riding with someone, the camera does not even pan to the road often. Unlike other rad films, the focus of this film is not the road, but the individual traveling. The road does not drive Mona, she creates her own road.
The road, I think, is reflected by the wear and tear of Mona's shoes. At the beginning she is in an OK place, moving about, but as she keeps moving her boots continue to break apart, and her situation get worse. I feel like she was too far going to be saved by herself. Working against the norm, being part of a counter culture wore her out.
Ruth Hottell rejoices on the fact that Mona "drives the road". She appreciates the struggles that Mona lives through. Hottell finds it interesting that Mona only stays with people that do not try to control her. Hottell also says that Mona is in search of a family, a mother figure, that she needed human connection. Maybe that is why Mona's road is as mysterious as she is. Mona's search for something outside of herself created the road that she chose to walk on. Her inner struggle against wanting human connection and trying to stay independent caused wear on her character, wearing her road down, until there was nothing left.

The road in Vagabond for Mona is her way of breaking from traditional society. Whether or not she was rejected or chose this way is unclear to me, but it is clear that to her the road is seen as freedom. "Mona's chosen liberty makes traditionalists uncomfortable-they feel it necessary to deny her situation was the chosen one...she has rejected and chosen the road instead." (Hottell, page 686) However this road takes her on very many different journeys with many different people, and I believe this is a significant part of the "road". Not just the pavement or gravel or dirt makes a road, but Mona makes the road hers with her journey of rejecting traditional society.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

The Male gaze is disrupted in the film "Vagabond" with the character Mona. Throughout the film she was not the object that was gazed upon rather the one casting the gaze onto others. The film displays this at first through her appearance as filthy, unkept, dirty, no makeup wearing drifter. The film also shows this through positioning of the characters and by displaying which characters have mobility. Throughout the film Mona meets many people, but though Mona seems to have nothing, she is able to go where she pleases, when she pleases and the people she encounters along the way are stuck where they are in the present. Hayward describes this mobility as "aimless." Though Mona had mobility, she really seemed to wander without purpose, drifting from place to place not behaving as one would expect a woman to behave in conventional hollywood cinema.

Group Two: Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

"In order to break out from these constraints, we must learn to first isolate and articulate the mechanisms that contribute to further denial and marginalization of the Other's desire and power" (682). In this statement Hottel is acknowledging the secondary role that women in films play, and in this particular film the role that Mona played as a main character and object. The road in this film is often on the side of the screen, not a main focus. It's there when Mona needs to escape, but unlike other road films we've viewed in class the road is never a screen shot on its own, unless its serving the purpose of carrying characters from one destination to another. This gaze shows us that the road is not the main focus, but that the primary emphasis in the film is the journey that takes place off road. Mona's role in the film, through the directors gaze is similar to that of the road. The way the camera often pans and lands on an object instead of her shows that shes not always the primary focus although she's a main character. This speaks to Hottle's analysis of women in road films being objects and secondary, often only on screen unless their serving a specific feminine purpose. This use of a woman on screen only when she is needed is indicative of the gaze or perspective of the film. If this film were to be remade using Hottles quote above Mona would need more time being the only person/ object on the screen, and time would be spent viewing the subtleties of her being. The film would need more close ups of Mona, even when shes not the only character in the scene, small changes in gaze that indicate shes a primary character and primary element in a greater portion of the film. To give more emphasis of the roads significance the gaze of the road would have to change from off center to straight on shots, even looking through the lens as if the viewing audience were on the road. I find it quite odd for a "feminist road film" that both primary elements: the woman and the road are looked on through a lens of secondary and marginalized value. Perhaps there were other elements the director wanted the viewing audience to focus on, I just feel as if those other elements over powered what should've been a primary focus.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

To Mona, the road is everywhere except for her original home that she escaped from. She travels endlessly through the country and towns. Although Mona does not directly follow the roads path, she follows the land to travel from place to place. Mona is always on the edge of the road traveling, relating to how she is always on the edge of society and not quite belonging. Hottell would agree that Mona chooses to live on the outskirts of society as she rejects. "When others tried to control her, or bring her back to some sort of tradition system, Mona revolted..." In other words, when someone tried to help Mona make her way back into society and stay in one place for more than a few days, Mona would take to the road to avoid being stuck in a normalized societal role.

Group Three: In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

On most parts of the movie, I think people are mostly gazing at Mona for her freedom and her adventure that they couldn't have. It's not the sexualized and objectified male gaze anymore, and Mona would gaze back at them, almost in contempt for what they own. The conventional male gaze towards Mona is disrupted by the use of tracking shots as a primary technique and the mise-en-scene of the film. In the scene where Mona is getting dressed on the beach in the background and two men are watching her in the foreground, the composition of the shot clearly neutralized Mona's position - not as an object. The camera framed three of them altogether, giving a deep depth of field where everything is in focus rather than a fixed focus on one object. Even though the two male characters are watching Mona and their dialogue about her is vulgar, but Mona comes closer to the camera as a whole person, not just a sexualized body. Therefore, the male gaze between the characters are neutralized and balanced through the composition. Moreover, the camera movements also disrupts the audience's gaze. The camera doesn't lead our eyes to where Mona exactly is, sometimes she walks off screen and we are watching someone else in the shot. The long tracking shots include the character but won't follow her, and they disrupt the narrative with what we don't get to see.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not? Use some of the ideas from the readings to develop your own ideas.
I personally do not think the "feminist" film exists as a sole genre of film, but rather as a sub-category of queer films simply because it is Other. That being said, I do believe "Vagabond" is a feminist film because it operates within the queer imaginary, is counter-cinematic, and challenges the mainstream narrative. The constant use of flashbacks contributes to the many structural attributes that makes the film feminist/queer. Also, the male gaze is reversed in the scene where the men are fighting by the mansion: the camera follows the every movement by the men's legs and buttocks (much like the woman is voyeuristically looked at in a mainstream film). Mona as a character is also paramount to the "feministing/queering" of this film, for like Hottel states in the reading, Varda offers alternative solutions--and Mona is the alternative solution to the mundane and normalized woman. "Vagabond" transcends feminist and travels into the queer genre by challenging any and all norms in technique, narrative, and mise-en-scene.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

In films, the male gaze objectifies and sexualizes women in a way that is appealing to the heterosexual man. The physical appearance of the woman and the way she is portrayed places her in a position to be looked at. The gaze in Vagabond differs from the traditional male gaze because it does not objectify and marginalize Mona. Although she is homeless and thus marginalized by society, this is not reinforced by the way it is filmed. Hayward analyzes how the filming techniques affect the gaze, "the effect is to unfix the gaze, to render it inoperable." There are many flashbacks in the film and interviews from people she had known. This disrupts the traditional male gaze because we are seeing Mona through the eyes of many different people and none of them seem to objectify and exploit her sexuality but rather they seem fascinated by Mona. It is obvious that Mona is not the typical depiction of a woman in film by the way she looks and acts. She doesn't care about her looks and her mannerisms are masculine. For example she sits down with poor posture and her legs spread open. The way Mona acts and looks and the fact that she is filmed in a way that doesn't exploit her sexuality contradict the way women are typically portrayed in movies that are dominated by the male gaze.

Group Two: Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

Hotell writes that the "manipulation of the camera along with the ensuing look created" is an aspect frequently addressed within feminist film criticism (679). I would argue that the way the camera is manipulated in Vagabond, specifically in the backwards-tracking shot ending on an object that Varda uses continually, shows us where the road is. The camera does not objectify Mona, as Mulvey would argue women are objectified in non-feminist films. Hotell uses the example of the beach scene to prove this point. She is naked, but viewed from far away so the fact that she is nude is not there for male pleasure, but for the narrative. Mona is not objectified as a sexual object, but I do believe she comes to represent the road itself. It is in Varga's tracking shot that we see this happen. The shot captures Mona, but then continues to move, fixing itself eventually on a solid object. This represents Mona as the object in flight, always moving, always going somewhere. This same characterization can be attributed to the road. The goat herder even says, "This is your road." She internalizes the road and the camera work, that Hotell calls, "Filming like a women," No longer objectifies Mona as something to be "gazed at" but an ephemeral object, never in stasis, that swiftly moves along from spot to spot, much like a road. When Mona comes to represent this object, it contributes to the narrative. As long as we are with her, we follow the road on our journey. It does not matter whether she is driving, walking, or hanging around the train station, we are on the road. Therefore, point A to point B is not a beginning or end of a specific place, but instead becomes her own internal journey, and struggle, ending with her death. However, the road is still present in the end with the effect she had on the other lives she touched.

I would consider Vagabond to be feminist film for many reasons. For one, in Hayward's essay, we learn that the director, Verda, meant it to be a feminist film, thus in my opinion, since that was the director's intent, it should be considered feminist. Even without that bit of knowledge, I still think the film should be considered feminist because it is not your typical film where men are the subject and controlling everything about the film, from the camera angle to whats actually happening in the film. Right off the bat, as pointed out in Hotell's essay, there are clues pointing to the films feminist point of view. The voice over is a woman, not a man as is common in many films. Also, one of the first scenes where Mona is nude on the beach, as is being gawked at my the two men, the camera does something very unexpected. In a traditional film, I would assume that the camera wouldn't stay in the wide frame, rather it would zoom in on Mona, making her an object not only to the men's gaze, but also to the gaze of the audience. This is not the case, emphasizing right away that Mona is not to be objectified. She is an independent woman, whose thoughts and actions are not driven by the men in her life. She is not trying to please the world and play the part of a stereotypical woman.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not? Use some of the ideas from the readings to develop your own ideas.
I think Vagabond is a feminist film. There are various branches of feminism, and it seems to me that part of what makes a film feminist is the intent behind it. As Varda is a feminist, her creations, especially a film focusing on the life of a particular woman, are likely to reflect those stances. What I think solidifies this as a feminist film is the way it subverts the masculine gaze. As Hayward discusses, because she is a wanderer, Mona undermines the cinematic notion of woman as static. In doing so she portrays women as the subject making things happen rather than as an object which things happen to. In addition, though men stare at her, she stares right back. Hayward also points out that due to so many different points of view and Mona's movement, she is never caught in a gaze. I would further this point by noticing that while Mona is portrayed as a sexual being, she is rarely portrayed as a sex object. When she does have sexual relations with men, she eventually leaves them and continues on the road, proving herself both independent in control of most of her sexual relations. (When she is attacked in the woods, her rapist is clearly portrayed as a villain).

Is Vagabond a feminist film? Why or why not?

The reading written by Hayward'a," Beyond the Gaze," states that in this movie woman is the gender on the road. The whole movie is counter cinematic to the typical male cinema, which makes it a feminist film. The strong character is a woman amongst typical male structure and props. Mona is the subject and the main character. She is independent in her life, who demands what she wants from others, lives free to do as she pleases, and shows all qualities of a real woman and not the typical cinema woman. I love the fact thst she is strong and outspoken to who she meets. Mona is a beautiful woman who has put herself through filth and doesn't care. The human body is very gross and she displays it's natural self very well. One of my favorite parts is when she is walking on the road and does this epic farmers blow, then wipes what is left of the snot on her face and hands on her pants. I thought it was awesome! The farmers blow is your typical male nasty, however, women have to blow there nose too, so why not farmers blow. She holds nothing back, in my mind this makes it a feminist film.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

Varda succeeds in creating a feminist film by doing what Hayward describes as "unfixing the gaze" and making it "inoperable" (288). Although we see Mona's journey through the point of view of spectators, the male gaze is disrupted through camera movement. For example in the restaurant Mona enters she sits down next to a man and stares longingly at his sandwich. The camera is positioned behind the two, and while the man notices Mona's gaze any look he gives back to her is equally matched by her own. They are also taking up the same amount of space and seated at similar heights. The camera, here, followed her into the store and over to her brief interaction with the man. Instead of zooming in on her body, or cutting to a close-up of the man's reaction to buying a woman her sandwich, the camera stays away which keeps the gazing power equal. Varda also notably uses the camera to debunk the gaze when Mona is at the gas station. For every scene the camera cuts to a young man longingly looking at her, there is a responsive look from Mona. She never looks smitten and although the man is sometimes looking down on her from a window, her deliberate unmoving gaze matches or overpowers his own. Varda's camera movement and character positioning unravel the usual dominant male gaze.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

In "Vagabond", the standardized male gaze is disrupted in many ways. Instead of seeing the movie from a male perspective, we are instead drawn more to the female perspective of things. Hayward mentions that by using distinctive camera angles and movements, Varda puts characters that most likely would've been minimized in movies into the centerfold. Mona is not seen as beautiful by the standards of the male gaze, yet she is the person who the camera follows. There are very few times in the film that the camera focuses directly upon males. Her lifestyle of living on the road (which has been portrayed as glamorous, but inevitably disastrous in previous road films) is not glamorous at all; it is rather depressing, more so because of the fact that Mona is a woman having to live in these conditions, and not a "rough handed" man. In a similar point, Hayward says Mona is not a character that can be tamed by a man, nor can she really be reached by any of the people surrounding her. This disrupts the male gaze as well, because she is a woman that cannot be modified into a lifestyle that is "suitable" for a young woman.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

This is the first movie screened in class where the protagonist aimlessly wanders and has no destination per say. Her journey is not on the road it is by the road, she moves wherever fate takes her and she is always overlooking the road. In that way this is an unconventional road movie. Mona lives by the road and stays by the road, but her bag which has an 'M'( M= Mona) on it indicates she had been cared for earlier in her life. Hotell's analysis on the unconventional tracking shots also show that Mona's life is completely different from the conventional road journey. The camera is used to show Mona's travels, the spaces she passes through, and the people she meets. Only at the beginning, when Mona arrives from the sea, does the camera focuses on her. As Hotell notices many tracking shots limit the about of frames solely on Mona. This limits the amount of time spent of framing the female body, thus allowing for more emphasis on the narrative and ideals of the character herself. Again, Mona lives by the road, parallel to the road, off the road!

Visually, the road is usually beside Mona. Although she is traveling from place to place in the "road of life", she is rarely seen walking on the road. She is picked up from place to place, hanging out in abandoned homes and bus stations. That tells us that she is truly out of the modern day life. She absolutely refuses to stay in one place and take root. She is constantly coming and going, which relates back to why the road is skewed asymetrically on the film.

Group Three: In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".
In the film "Vagabond" the conventional male gaze is disrupted by the fact that for the majority of the movie Mona is living in solitude. She can make it on her own and does not need the companionship of a man to keep her company or alive. She is also not viewed as the stereotypical sex symbol, for she is filthy and embraces her filth. While there are moments when the male gaze does come into play such as when she is raped, typically Mona is the one doing the gazing. For instance when she is at the auto shop and she gives the young boy their seducing gazes. Hayward's anaylasis focuses a lot on the tracking shots in the film as well as the flashbacks. Hayward believes this film is a representation of counter-cinema because the scenes are disrupted and there is not the typical sense of continuity or flow in the film.

In the film "Vagabond" the road is symbolic of the protagonist, Mona. The road is always seen in the side of the frame, never in the center like in other road films. This is parallel to how society or people view Mona. She is a homeless young woman living forest or on farms and never staying in one place too long. She lives in the outskirts or on the edge of society. Not seeing the road also means that the protagonist does not have a destination. In past road films, the road was a focus point in the film and it was the medium to the characters' journey to their desired destination. However, Mona does not have a destination. She simply uses the road to keep moving. Since she doesn't have a destination, the road isn't as vital as it was in other films. In a way, Mona's desired destination is isolation; isolation from people, objects, and even places. When she is staying with the shepherd and his family, she moves from the house to a trailer, away from people. She finds solitude in her tent. It is her territory and she controls who comes in and out of it. The road is where Mona can find a form of isolation, a kind of isolation that can be found by not belonging to anyone or anywhere.

In what ways is the conventional monopolizing male gaze disrupted or unsettled in this film? Connect your perspective with Hayward's analysis of "Vagabond".

In traditional mainstream cinema, the "programming of identity" that Hayward discusses has been involved in the display and production of a few types of white women (the loving mother, the dream-girl-next-door, the femme fatale). This production takes place via identification with, or interpellation by, a dominant male gaze that objectifies women as sex objects and/or obstacles. Varda's film disrupts that process by presenting many fundamentally different women, sympathizing with a counter-cultural female protagonist, and presenting the questionable, invalid, or dishonest opinions of other characters (maybe two-thirds male). A supporting female character who is not defined by an objectifying male gaze is the old lady in the mansion. She actively challenges the selfish aspirations of her nephew, and he punishes her for it by putting her in a retirement home. He is punished for this act by Yolande, who says she wouldn't have believed he could do such a thing. The old lady has a sense of humor, and is revealed by the skeptical yet sympathetic gaze of Mona to be a fun and realistic person. The extra-diagetic gaze allows sympathy with Mona, while preserving a detachment from the situations. For example, when Mona is attacked by the Dionysians, we don't get information more quickly than she does; we're spooked, startled and disgusted along with her. On the other hand, we can see the drainage pipe over which Mona trips (to her death) during the whole shot as she approaches it. She is oblivious, apparently distressed by her above attack and suffering from cold and thirst. So the viewer sees that Mona doesn't have a perfect handle on reality, and is not interpellated with as much force as in mainstream cinema. Finally, such interview scenes as that with the auto body shop owner show the limited and often false subjective ideas of the people who encounter Mona. The shop owner uses the vulnerable and needy Mona sexually, then turns around and calls her a man-chaser, like "all vagabond women". This bald double-crossing forces us to question the gaze of all people, but particularly men, who encounter Mona. That means we ought to question their gaze toward others, as well (like the selfish nephew toward old aunty). A film that questions actual personal gazes, including Mona's, breaks down the traditional cinematic devise.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative. Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond"

There are two very important roads in Vagabond, them being Mona's journey and the physical road that's occupied by moving vehicles. I found the road of Mona's journey to be more visible than the road for cars, since Mona's road was almost always in front of us. The other road, however, was either not on the screen or in the background throughout the majority of the film. Mona used that road for convenience and her sub-conscious need for human interaction. Mona didn't have a certain destination to go to, plus she's rebelling against the norms of society and tries hard to isolate herself from other people, yet she still finds herself to be drawn to that road from time to time. I believe the road could occasionally be seen in the background because the thought of the road to society remains in the back of her mind. Mona thinks of it from time to time, but she tries to discard that thought because she's stubborn, free, and feels like she doesn't belong. Hottell brings up some of these ideas in the reading. When describing the scene with the "tree people," Hottell claims Mona was not accustomed to the event taking place and isolated herself, yet Hottell also describes Mona's need for human connection, despite how Mona portrays herself in front of others. For Mona, the physical road was there for human connection. For spectators like us, the physical road was used as a storytelling device, connecting the interviewees' stories of Mona and reminding us that Mona is, first and foremost, a human being.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not? Use some of the ideas from the readings to develop your own ideas.

I do believe that "Vagabond" is a feminist film because of the way Mona lives her life. She completely owns herself and does not let anyone else dictate her existence. She takes and accepts money from others and food when she can get it but it is how she chooses to live her life. She had a job as a secretary (a stereotypically female job) but leaves it. This is just one clue that she rejects the normal roles women are put in. Men do gaze at her, but she chooses how to handle it. It is as though she is the one taking advantage of the men. At the gas station, she sleeps with the father and makes a comment about his dirty hands. She is in control. As the reading suggests, Mona cannot be caught in any points of view because there are so many conflicting gazes. While there are multiple that look her way, she is giving off the same.

She walks, hitchhikes a car if she's lucky enough, or sleeps on the road. The road is always with her. She is not passive in a way of living on a road. If she wants to get off a hitchhiked car, she does not hesitate and leave. I think the road is chasing her rather than she reluctantly takes a road. Wandering around is what she chose; nobody forced her to live out on a road. Probably, we can say a society made her do that, but there is no conspicuous force which made her live on roads. The way of her meeting with people on the road is not spontaneous, I think. She meets with people in need and leaves the people without hesitant when it is time. The series of happenings seem out of her control or intention, but in some ways they are what she chose. Therefore, the narrative does not portray her wandering around or experiencing difficult times as tragic or sad. Rather, her "journey" is described as independence and freedom. Hottell states that "Mona undergoes punitive measure, but continues to refuse recuperation into the system. She escapes the men's grasp and gaze, and sets off into the direction of the shed. Mona has reacted against the system's control, choosing the unknown dangers of the barren land to the certain dangers of the phallocratic order." She is not ashamed of her way of living because that is what she chose to do. Her solitary death in the end signifies her "journey" itself is lonely from beginning to start. Lack of information about her life before the "journey" started even emphasizes that her entire life might be lonely and solitary.

Is "Vagabond" a feminist film? Why or why not? Use some of the ideas from the readings to develop your own ideas.

In "Vagabond" Mona is considered completely "free" in that alone this is a feminist film,
there are other parts of this movie that point to it being a feminist film. As discussed in Susan Hayward's "Beyond the gaze and into femme-filmecriture: Agnes Varda's "Sans toit ni loi" there is this inversion of the normal idea of men or a man traveling and the women being static. In this film Mona is traveling by herself and it is one hundred percent her choice and it has no influence from a man like in "Girl on a motorcycle." Mona is taking care of herself also, even though she depends on others to eat and find shelter, I personally feel that she is using them and can easily move on to the next rides/house/meal. There is also an inversion of the gaze, though she is being looked at by people, it seemed as though Mona was the one doing most of the gazing. Like when she is at the gas station and she is entirely consuming the young boy. The readings also discussed this idea that the dirt and lack of bathing created a veil or mask for Mona to hide behind. This I believe made the film a feminist film, because as the nephew said she is revolting. No one wants to consume her, no one is thinking of her as an object.

Where is the road in this film (think visually) and what meanings does it carry in the narrative? Connect your perspective on the road in this film with Hottell's analysis of "Vagabond".

In Vagabond, the road is rarely visible in the frame and when it is visible, it fails to be the central focus. Consequently, in the narrative of Vagabond, "the road" simply becomes the tool by which Mona's story can be traced and it is not what defines Mona's journey. It carries less meaning in the narrative because the lack of focus on the road allows Mona to carry the meaning. In films like Easy Rider, Girl on a Motorcycle, Powwow Highway, and My Own Private Idaho, the road is the central focus and seems to happen to the women in those films, it seems to carry the meaning of their journeys and their beings: in Vagabond, Mona is "happening" to the road, which seems to follow beside or behind her, allowing Mona to represent who and what she is on her own while simultaneously molding the road. In other words, she is leaving her mark on the road in lieu of the road leaving its mark on (or defining) her. Hottell's analysis of Vagabond supports that thought. She claims that "the trajectory from spectator to spectacle which is found in masculinist film is reversed or rejected in Varda's cinema," and thereby implies that Agnes Varda's cinema (Vagabond) is the reverse of masculinist cinema, therefore implying Varda's work to be feminist. With that in mind, support from Hottell truly comes when she says that "to accomplish her task," her task being to create a feminist film, "Varda follows Mona's steps, interviewing numerous people who had contact with her," making it appear that creating a road film which rejects the masculinist paradigm can be done when the film does not center on how the road defines the woman, but how the woman defines herself and how her strong, definite sense of identity affects the road and those along it.

Vagabond is an entire new road film in itself. It is one that is not directed in a typical matter. Most road films, the road is the center of the movie. In Vagabond, the road is marginalized. Mona is beside the road in the entire movie, never actually using the road as a tool for movement. With the road representing freedom, choice, and struggle it is significant that it appears along side Mona. In Hottel's theory, Mona had the opportunity to be free. As much as viewers would like to believe Mona was forced upon the road, she was not. Mona does use the road to get from place to place, but she only uses it on her own terms. I think in viewing this with hottel's theory it is solidified. With Hottel pointing out that Mona has the opportunity to go back to a "regular" life, the road placed on the margins of the movie makes sense. It is almost as if Mona's choices are placed on the sides of the movie. They only enter the main scene when she decides to become mobile.

Spatial changes in My Own Private Idaho involves lose of something; for Scott sense of resistance toward father which I'm guessing the lose of clear purpose and for Mike the absence of normal family (he made fantasies of his mother with an absolute absence of father.) The movies switches scenes through their journey in order to find Mike's mother. It started from the main place, Portland, to Italy which made the plot of the movie pretty vague or unpredictable due to Mike's obsession about his mother that focused on mythology of mother's love in memory. This unpredictable plots give meaning to trials for finding something that was once gone which ultimately and got rid of familiar places during their journey. Spatial changes clearly shows that Mike and Scott did not belong to any of the contexts at the moment. Mobility exhibited inconsistent aspects, for instance, Mike and Scott began with motorcycle that transformed to airplane and taxi that connected each open spaces by showing recklessness and unstable feature of the journey of Mike and Scott. Open spaces were anonymous in terms of failure in finding the mother.

As mentioned above, easy rider and My Own Private Idaho share similar aspects in concerning with what they were not be able to be affiliated in any of the spaces that made the characters go further for searching. They were somewhat making an effort to regain their lost and abandoned the familiar life toward the road that also features as open space of finding something.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

In road movies, the protagonists often choose to leave their homes in search of something more--be it open space, a deeper meaning of themselves, or something else. Even if they commit a crime or go through personal changes during their physical journey which prevent them from returning home, the initial choice to leave is usually within their control. Occasionally they even return home after their journey. Sometimes, such as in The Wizard of Oz, the return home is the ultimate goal of the journey. Queer road protagonists, especially young queer road protagonists who might otherwise be reliant on parents or guardians, are more likely to take to the road without choice. They may feel the need to escape the hetero-normative family scenario they have grown up in, because they simply do not feel they belong. Home might even be a danger they must flee if the people there are hostile towards their sexual identity. Because of this, I would argue that queer road protagonists are more often to be forced onto the road and lack a home to return to than their straight counterparts. Similarly, people do not usually choose to sell their bodies. While it is true a few people prostitute due to a love of sex, most are forced into the job due to circumstance. As Lang observes in "Private Idaho," "the reasons a young man becomes a prostitute are sometimes...confused and obscure to him." In this sense, the hustler is emblematic of the queer road movie protagonist because they are both in their life positions by circumstance and not necessarily by choice. If we see the hustler as someone in pursuit of desire, it still parallels the queer road movie protagonist who is physically pursuing a place where they might be more socially free to express their sexuality. We may also observe, as Lang does, that hustlers, in making themselves commodities, and queer men, in their attraction to other men, undermine the patriarchal structure of society.

(late because of UThink problems, but e-mailed to Amanda on time)

The Hustler is a fine emblem for the queer road protagonist because a hustler is always on the road. To be a hustler a person must recognize that the street is there office. It is the place where they have to be to make money. They also must recognize that they will not have a permanent home and that they will go where ever they have to go to make money. It seems liberating, but it requires a person to give up close family relationships and many personal belongings. Specifically the lack of a "normal" family construct seems to make the hustler a emblem for queer road protagonists. Society has built a system for families and gay people don't really fall into the system yet. Mike doesn't seem to have ever fit into the system either though. He is is on a quest to find his mother and its important that he doesn't find her for the movie to work. Laderman points out how we only see Mike's mother in his memories or pictures. He points out that "Hans takes out a photo of his mother, which of course disturbs Mike. Mike's own photo of his mother represents a profound loss, whereas Han's photo signifies a fully realized relationship." (page 212). Mike's relationship with his mother and therefore every aspect of family life is at a loss and this is why him being a hustler is perfect.

The road became queer in My Own Private Idaho. Queer is an inclusive term which describes the sexual minorities and the film brought these minorities to the screen in the form of a road movie. The film was portrayed in a realist way because the sexuality of the film is raw. Like queerness in society queerness in the movie encompasses different concepts like gay sex, narcolepsy and the road. Instead of a Bro bonding relationship between main characters, the movie becomes more about there growing relationship and the tension between them. The queer of the movie is portrayed matter of factly and seems natural. With the added intrigue that these gay hustlers are outlaws "they dramatically combine both the quest and outlaw road narratives, refueling the genre by exploring rebellion and cultural critique from a gay perspective" (Laderman, 204).

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility. How does it compare with "Easy Rider"? Give one good example comparing both films.

To me, the cities in this film were less significant than in Easy Rider. The significance was placed largely on the specific places where Mike and Scott spent their time, rather than the general cities they were in. Their lives were spent on the streets and living from day to day and not knowing where they would end up, and in that way their story was quite randomized. While they spent their time hustling the streets, both Mike and Scott had a journey they wanted to complete. But unlike other road films, the film did not show the two actually completing their journey, but instead just showing them leaving one city and entering another. In My Own Private Idaho, there was a lot more emphasis put on the situations Mike and Scott were in, rather than the actual road aspect. For example, Mike had a disease where he would faint if he got put in a stressful situation. Whenever he would move locations, it was always because someone else would transport him while he was unconscious. You could not see the actual transporting in the film, you would just notice that he fainted in one area and woke up in another. In a typical road film like Easy Rider, there was more emphasis on the road aspect of the film where there would be several shots during the film of just Wyatt and Billy on the open road traveling across the United States. Easy Rider was based on their journey across the country from the West to the East, which symbolized them going against the grain. In this way, Easy rider used mobility and a lot of open space to get personal freedom.

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

"My Own Private Idaho" queers the road movie in many ways. One way in particular is how it is all about men; unique, loud, boisterous, and atypical men. The movie's three main characters are named Mike, Scott, and Bob. They are three masculine looking guys with typical white male names. Their personalities though are quite flamboyant. Much of the movie is the three of them being very theatrical, talking in Shakespearean ways at times and Mike especially showing a lot of dependence on the other males around him. "My Own Private Idaho" takes the bare bones of the road movie set up and then fills it with atypical male behavior. For instance, Mike and Scott go to see Mike's brother. They are riding a stolen motorcycle which is masculine and yet they can't get it started and have to have a cop do it for them. As stated by Luce Irigaray, "The patriarchal order - as an economy of desire - is a man's game, in which women are circulated among men." Take the three male hustlers and switch all their clientele to women and they wouldn't come off nearly as queer. This movie is men circulating men which is the biggest factor in queering the movie. It is never explicitly stated what has and hasn't happened sexually between Mike, Scott, and Bob. It doesn't need to be, but it adds to the movie that the three men have passed each other around and it is no issue to them.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

The hustler seems to be emblematic because the role gives the protagonist freedom from all constraints on the road and also because sexual desire plays a central theme in queer road movies. Waugh on page 332-333 says that "gay closures are seldom happy endings. We don't establish families- we just wander off looking horny, solitary, sad or dead." Hustlers, whether on the road or on the streets, can be seen as living their own daily road movies where they seem to be waiting for the next encounter, that will either bring the protagonist home or move them on to the next place. The hustler role shows the culture of some on the queer edge of life, how some are living towards nothing in particular or living towards the next encounter. The hustler also shows the devastation and celebration on that edge of life and how the lifestyle of the characters is a neverending journey.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

"My Own Private Idaho" tells the story of two young queer men both searching for themselves through different means, yet their routes are similar through the world of prostitution. Mike is pretty much floating through this movie at the mercy of his friend Scott who is both an insider and outsider to this lifestyle. Scott seems to have a choice of whether he engages in it where Mike lives it in as a source of survival. Mike can admit to being queer and being attracted to Scott, where Scott will "only have sex with men for money" which becomes apparent when Scott makes his decision to leave the lifestyle by getting married & inheriting his family fortune when his father passes away.

Each character is able to freely move from place to place just as in "Easy Rider" but there is a price paid by all these characters by having this privileged mobility.

These two men who were best friends shared the same space in the very lifestyle Mike ends up being consumed by & Scott turns away from being he had another option to fall back on. Scott had options & resources where Mike did not. This is the transparent wall between these two characters.

this movie "queer" the road movie because in this society, being gay is a minority and even as minorities in this film they still went on a quest like every other road movie. Homosexuality in this society is an unspoken language to many.Scott and Mike did not travel as much as the previous road movies but Mike's illness of just falling asleep anywhere and waking up in different places also added a different kind of road movie to it. Scotts's lifestyle was not ideal for his father but he knew that at the end he would go back to where he came from and leave the homosexuality lifestyle. The book said "its not where you go, its how you get there" Laderman. This quote reflects Scott's life, he knew where he wanted to go and he didnt mind what he was doing at that point in time. This film queer the road movie because its about two guys with no money at the moment and their sexual orientation at that particular moment was homosexuality, both of these plus them being on the road on a search for Mikes mother factors make the movie queer.

My Own Private Idaho gives a look at queer life in road films from a unique perspective. I'm not sure how realistic this perspective of queer life is, especially because there were few queers in the film who weren't hustlers. If this film were to be indicative of the queer lifestyle it would be a reflection of the queers stagnant position on the road. Having narcolepsi, a condition that wasn't choosen, Mike is the queer character who travels but is usually never in control of his travel, just like his condition which he cant control. The film almost asserts that those who are fully immersed into the queer lifestyle never gain control of a vehicle of freedom, because of situations beyond their control. In Mikes case this was narcolepsi, which may be symbolic for his vehichle of freedom or for the view of society itself. Having no control of either he travels, but he himself never changes or makes any real progress within the film. The fim begins with him staring at the road analyzing it from where he stands, commenting on how it looks like a face. The film ends (a few scenes before he's passed out on the road) with him looking at the road again and realizing it still looks like a face, which is probably because he's looking at it from the same spot, not changing his vantage point. " The reason gay closures are seldom happy endings...We don't establish families, we just wander off looking off looking horny, solitary, sad, or dead." (145). This is true of My Own Private Idaho, and its almost safe to say that as a queer character on the road Mike doesn't change or go through a transformation, but this may be the evident queer travel in a road film; to choose not to change and travel without significant movement or intended destination.

Group Three: Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

In a sense it seemed like neither character really moves in this film. Mike has a quest to meet up with his mother and travels to his brother for information and to Rome to find out more information about where she is. Mike is moving/traveling but, doesn't get any further in his quest to see his mother. Scott is on a quest to do the opposite of what is expected of him. Scott goes with Mike on his travels, but is only going along for the ride. I wonder if Mike would have even been able to travel (be mobile) without Scott's caretaking. Scott is also at the same place at the end of the movie. He is doing the opposite of what is expected of him. In comparing the protagonists of Easy Rider to My Own Private Idaho both sets of characters physically travel, but the characters in Easy Rider have a journey/change of space (realization they weren't really free on the road) and place (at the end of the film in a different physical location). In My Own Private Idaho both characters remained in the same place (doing the same things) and place (physical location) at the end of the film.

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

The movie My Private Idaho differentiates from the norm of road movies in a way that while a lot of characters from road movie begin their road in yearn for a self-identity and end their roads with their identities discovered, Mike from My Private Idaho is not given an identity until the end. Throughout the movie, he goes on to a journey to find his mother, to Europe, other parts of Washington state, but he fails to meet his mom, and so does to meet his identity. While Scott, the other character in the movie, ends his rebellious road life by admitting his identity as a son of his rich father, Mike is the only one that failed to live with an identity and the only one remains on the road at the end. "The film implies that the ego is the enemy of desire: though Scott settles on an identity-he internalizes the image of his father-Mike is still "on the road" at the end of the film"(Lang,341).

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.
--According to the Lang reading, "the symbolism of 'the road' as the freedom from constraints, has a correspondence, first of all, in the gay affirmation of sexuality: of sexuality as a celebration of the body and the senses." This is to say that the typical road movie and the queer imaginary have similarities in the sense that the road represents freedom. The hustler in this film embodies the queer road movie protagonist in the sense of freedom portrayed. Mike doesn't have a home, he works on the street and partakes in acts that are seen as "out of bounds"--which address the gay imaginary's way of celebrating the body or the ways in which sensual pleasure can be achieved. The multiple sex acts and orgies seen in the film can be put into this "out of bounds" category, and should be seen as an outlet of freedom and release in the road movie paradigm, with a queer spin on it. The film used these sex acts to "queer" the road movie.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protaganist? Using one quote from the reading I will support my analysis.

In the reading the author Lang states," the hustler can be seen as living his own daily road movie." The hustler is a different role for both men. Scott is only doing it as rebellion against his father, an exploration of a different lifestyle, and he doesn't necessarily have to be deemed queer because he only sleeps with men for money. Mike really is queer, if he had a choice he probably would choose a defferent lifestyle but with his disease and confusion he seems almost lost. Mike wants to be loved, he is always searching for his mother, he had a bad childhood, and he loves his friend Scott who doesn't love him in the same way. Mike only hustles when he needs money and feels comfortable to not be in trouble. He falls asleep in bad situations and wakes up in some unkown place under times of stress. He never knows what each day is going to bring, he never knows where his hustling will bring him, or where he will wake up. Mike in his life is always on the road searching for the love he desires. Scott is only on the road for that adventure of rebellion. In the article there is a quote by Caryn James whoe states," the fight for a persisiten hope that the road leads to a place where dreams can still come true." I beleive that ,especiallyfor Mike, this is his everyday and as a hustler he is just trying to get there in his own way.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

In the film My Own Private Idaho our two main characters, Mike and Scott are on separate journeys. The character Mike is on a physical journey to find his mother as well as a journey to find his place in life, if there's one different from where he started. Scott is on his journey of becoming who he was destined to be, an affluent white male in the image of his father. The film shows that it is acceptable for Scott, the straight white male who is only in the position he's in to rebel against his father, to be a part of the bourgeois and to have upward mobility. Meanwhile Mike repeats throughout the film that this is the same road and we always find him by himself on the side of the road. In addition, the film ended nearly the way it started, with Mike on the side of the road. Here they are saying that as a gay male in society who sells himself, there is no where for him to go, or no upward mobility. This film is similar to the film Easy Rider because of the mobility of the characters. We see in Easy Rider that the characters die at the end because they cannot be accepted by society as they are. This is very similar to Mike's journey for he cannot be accepted by bourgeois society so he remains in his own world, or his "own private Idaho."

Have a nice day.

Group Three: Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

In My Own Private Idaho, the road has a much more subtle and ambiguous relationship to the characters Easy Rider. For Mike as well as Wyatt and Billy, the road functions as a familiar place. The beginning monologue makes that apparent as Mike says the road always feels familiar in direct opposition to home which is somewhat unknown to him because of his turbulent early life. For Wyatt and Billy, the road is a place where they can express themselves fully unlike in the small towns that punctuate their journey. As a space, the road is more constrictive in My Own Private Idaho because it restricts Mike to some level of poverty and risks unsafe encounters with potential clients. Mobility in My Own Private Idaho is less emphasized as all the towns and cities they go to seem to be endless repetitions of the first. Some of the most observed difference in their travels comes from suburban Seattle and urban Seattle which are much closer together than the other places they go. Scott comments on this when he leaves Mike there, mentioning that it's safer than anywhere else. This much differnet than Easy Rider because Billy spends the entire film emphasizing the end point and suggesting a much more meaningful role of mobility.

While the road plays a similar role as a metaphor for one's inner journey in both movies, the films "My Own Private Idaho" and "Easy Rider" approach issues of space, place, and mobility differently. Although the main characters in "Easy Rider" represented a counter-culture, and found their access to certain spaces, particularly the South, limited, they ultimately had the option to return home and live their lives with a certain amount of privilege that most white, heterosexual men have access to in America. In this sense, they are similar to Scott, who always has a trust fund waiting for him when he wants to rejoin "civilized" society. However, the queer nature of Scott's journey sets it apart from "Easy Rider." While Scott performed within the space of the hustlers, it was a liberated performance, one he sought in an act of rebellion and upheld as he felt it gave him power (in the form of control over his own life and body). When another opportunity presented itself in the form of his inheritance, he stepped up to wield that power as well. However, this performance required a bigger sacrifice: in order for him to occupy his new role, he had to place restraints on his autonomy (particularly sexual) and turn his back on his former friends. In other words, he could either choose to embrace his queer identity and live on the edge of society, with no restrictions over his behavior but a much more difficult lifestyle, or choose the new form of power status and wealth could afford him in exchange for his more repressed, heteronormative performance. In either case, he at least had a choice, which is privilege Mikey, as a psychologically upset child of incest with no real support system, did not share. As with any space, much of one's place and power within it is born out of the means by which one comes to occupy the space in the first place. Mikey's experience on the road is inherently different from Scott's or Captain America's because unlike them, he did not have a support system to turn to outside of the street; he did not begin his life on the road as a display of autonomy, and thus he does not share in the same level of autonomy as the others once he's engaged. While Scott and Captain America are the captains of their own fate, always playing an active role in their road experience, Mikey's narcolepsy forces him to experience the road even more passively, as he often awakes to find himself in new and unexpected places. Mobility takes the form of economic/social mobility more than physical, though in either sense Scott wields much more control over his than Mike does. Finally, the way space is represented in conjunction with the road is very different between the two films. In "Easy Rider," the road is portrayed through a series of montages, of wide open landscapes disappearing behind them, and a clear destination ahead; it is a rather linear journey. In "My Own Private Idaho," the road is introduced as a much more narrow, personal, and cyclical space; the characters do not have a clear destination, and Mikey laments the fact that he will never escape it, saying "This road will never end." This is also reflected in the structure of the film, as we are left with the same stretch of road it began on. The infinitive nature of the road as it is displayed stretching out into the imperceptible distance does not represent boundless opportunity or freedom as it usually does: rather, it represents the static nature of Mikey's journey, endless and inescapable, as he lays like a casualty on the side of the road until someone else stops to carry him on.

"The symbolism of "the road" as the freedom from constraints (the freedom to travel, discover, forget, experiment, escape, move...) has a correspondence, first of all, in the gay affirmation of sexuality as a celebration of the body and the senses." (page 3, Lang) This film "queer" the road movie by adding the "freedom of constraints" to explore and experiment your sexuality by being a gay hustler if you want. But further more getting to use the road to have these explorations.

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

This movie was about the quest to find something 'your own' in life. There was an element of homosexuality in the movie but I believe that was blended into the movie and it was not the main purpose of the movie. It was about Mikes journey to find his own blood, his mother, not about his sexual orientation. It was also about the one goal, we see they keyhole view of the road a number of times, depicting the specific goal they had, the one destination they had to reach. A quote from the reading -- "the symbolism of 'the road' as the freedom from constraints has a correspondence, first of all, in the gay affirmation of sexuality: of sexuality as a celebration of the body and the senses"; this combination of road and gay how this film "queers" the road movie. The queerness of this film relies simply on the idea of the characters choosing to lead a homosexual life. The other queer element was the shift in focus away from the road, most of the movie was shot off the road, unlike conventional road movies!

Group One, Sarah Engelmann

In terms of thinking about the role of protagonists in the road movie genre, the hustler definitely is an apt choice. The job of being a hustler, especially a gay one, is in direct defiance to what society would really view as acceptable. In most road movies, protagonists tend to exude a sense of independence that is strengthened by the road as a symbol of freedom. This idea is shared by Robert Lang in his article, "My Own Private Idaho and the New Queer Road Movies" when he states "The symbolism of "the road" as the freedom from constraints (the freedom to travel, discover, forget, experiment, escape, move..) has a correspondence, first of all, in the gay affirmation of sexuality: of sexuality as a celebration of the body and the sense." Not only is the hustler an affirmation of the importance of gay sexuality, it is also an affirmation of the sense of freedom and escape that is present when traveling the road.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

"My Own Perfect Idaho" works with place because we constantly see Mike in different places after he falls asleep from his narcolepsy. The places are random and the viewer, along with Mike, does not always know where he will end up next. Place also goes along with mobility. How does Mike get to these different places? How is he traveling? We never actually see Mike as the driver of his journey, he is either picked up off the side of the road or he is tagging along with somebody. Throughout the film, we see Mike go from Idaho to Seattle to Portland to Idaho again to Rome to Portland again and then back to Idaho. Clearly on his journey to find his mother Mike is moving but one wonders how? Unlike in "Easy Rider" where Wyatt and Billy had the freedom to ride/drive themselves throughout the country whereas Mike is always the passenger. In a sense, Wyatt and Billy could be one of the many who end up transporting Mike from destination to destination; his mobility relies on others. Perhaps this is a symbol for his life. He feels like a passenger riding down a road that will never end wanting someone to "hold" him. His lifestyle will always be the same and never end and he needs someone to go along with him and provide him a means of mobility. Finally, the film works with space in the idea that this is Mike's life and he does not need to be aware of what goes on around him. He hustle's to make money and wants to find his mother, to Mike, which is all that matters. He will always occupy the same space in life, unlike Scott who has the choice to change spaces. Scott can either stay as a hustler or return to his space back home, a safe, quiet and familiar space.

Looking at how "My Own Private Idaho" queers the road movie, we have
to look at what a road movie is and then define queer.The classic road movie is about the
main character taking to the road to fulfill a purpose. To complete a journey and
grow within ones own character. As it states in "My Own Private Idaho and the New Queer Road Movies", "...characters traveled through danger and disillusionment to healthy self-knowledge and back to the safety of home.", as a sense of what a classic road film is. The definition of queer is "differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal", according to merriam-webster. We take these definitions and use it to define "My Own Private Idaho" as a road film deviating from the norm, giving it character and making the film seem eccentric.
"My Own Private Idaho" produces its own sense of queer through the picture of a road
movie. The classic road movie shows men at the top of their game. They are the alpha,
the macho man with just his thoughts and his machine. This particular film diverts itself
from this role by having a lack of vehicle. Nothing in this movie is clear cut. It
is even difficult to follow the main character's, Mike, thought process. Most of the film
it not even centered on the road, but in cities among other places. We also have multiple
forms of transportation throughout the movie. We have a motorcycle, car, taxi, and airplane. The constant changing of vehicles adds to the confusion as too whats going on with the main character.
Mike has narcolepsy, a condition that makes the subject fall into a deep sleep at any
time, usually a precursor to extreme stress. This condition effects the travel time
in between places. There is little to no actual time spent driving on the road. The most
time the road gets is when Mike is walking along or laying on it. Robert Lang states, "...but by the end of the film the main character is on the same road where he began, appearing to have gained no liberating insight into his desire and who he is." This helps support the fact that this film has deviated from the classic road film script. The most travel on a road we see is when Mike and Scott are together traveling to Idaho. Not to mention the profession of Mike and Scott and the characters, such as Hanz, that they meet on their journey.
It is not the gay sex that makes this film queer, but the abundance of sex itself, with
males or females. The fact that the film is graphic with a lot of sex, which we discussed
in lecture are separated into good, controversial, and bad sex. This film filters under
the "bad" sex column, making it queer. It is outside the socialistic norm, which is
unacceptable to some individuals.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? The hustler is emblematic in that he is the embodiment of all the perilous qualities possessed by queer men (the problems and injustices they may face socially) and also of the protagonist on the road (the danger and challenges one may face whilst exploring new personal territory). Not only is his behavior stigmatized, he stands to face all of the obstacles waiting for any other type of road film protagonist. The young men in this movie, though mostly white, were marginalized in society; exiled with no place to call home. As many protagonists in other road films, they are struggling for a sense of identity, as well as a sense of direction. "Cinematic hustlers are overdetermined figures, with a complicated relation to "reality," because, among other reasons, film-makes often seek to make even more ambiguous the already ambiguous question of the extent to which the hustler is hustling for money, or hustling for sex (under the guise of hustling for money)" (Lang, 335). With the accumulation of burdens the protagonist must carry, the viewer has little choice but to identify with the protagonist's problems with identity, or to be thankful for the fact that he/she does not share the same hardships.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

Long story short I think that hustlers are breaking free from traditional ways of life and the usual ways of sexual intercourse. While a queer road protagonist is breaking free from oppression, opposition and our patriarchal culture. The hustler is the embodiment of the queer road protagonist because the path that he is on defies traditional ways of life and traditional thinking.

"Only in the fantasies made possible by hustling - as one of the gaps, or contradictions, in society's sexual system - can Mike have an identity at all."

In "My Own Private Idaho," travel is almost never shown, and when it is, it is only for brief moments. Mike falls asleep and wakes up in strange places, and he is often implied to be literally carried there. He has no vehicle of his own, not even his own body, and he is moved at the whim of whoever happens to be nearby when he passes out due to his narcolepsy. By contrast, the main characters of "Easy Rider" are completely autonomous, moving themselves on their motorcycles across vast, open landscapes. This emphasizes their independence and control over their own lives, something Mike doesn't seem to have.

Group Two: How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

Lang discusses the idea that there "are a number of affinities between the road movie genre and the contemporary homosexual imaginary" (3). These affinities are related to the freedom from constraints that come with the road movie. The freedom to travel directly relates to the freedom to experiment, escape, to basically let loose. Contemporary views of gay male sex are very similar to these ideas. Wild sexuality and an "acceptance of promiscuity" are a few ideas that appear in queer road movies. My Own Private Idaho has this level of freedom. There are no constraints on their road, no borders at all. It continues forever, without stopping. The men do not need to fit within any parameters. In one moment they can have wild gay sex, in the next Scott can return to his "proper" place. They experience a certain freedom that we haven't seen in other films due to the fact that there is no beginning or end to their adventure. We jump into their lives, and leave without any real resolution. They operate outside the boundaries of heteronormative road movies. The lack of boundaries and the expression of true freedom from the road movie constraints (while actually being trapped on a never ending road) is what "queers" this movie.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

"My Own Private Idaho" seems to be a more mobile film than "Easy Rider". Mike is not confined to any kind of mode of transportation. He's taken around by motorcycle as well as automobile, and even by means of airplane. He goes where people take him, but where he ends up almost seems like a more homely place because he is taken there with care and respect. He always seems to find someone he knows or someone he can trust in the places he ends up. In "Easy Rider", Wyatt is confined to his motorcycle, never using any other kind of transportation. He always seems off-put by where he ends up, and can never really find a place to call home. He is distrusting of the people around him, making it hard for him to settle down and simply enjoy his journey. Wyatt and Billy are also confined by staying in the continental United States, whereas Mike and Scott travel to Italy. In this respect, the characters in "Easy Rider" seem a lot less free than those in "My Own Private Idaho". This speaks to the notion of free love throughout "My Own Private Idaho".

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

In My Own Private Idaho Mike has a continual sense of space. No matter where he travels, or how far, he is single minded in his actions and attitude. Mike is on a quest to find his mother but there is no real development in his character. Despite being the protagonist he is practically a static character. Mike's narcolepsy causes his place to change without him knowing. When he falls asleep in the woman's house, he will later awaken in a rich neighborhood's park. He is not in charge of his own mobility changing the sense of place. Mike is rarely traveling point A to point B, he is more likely to just travel away from point A. Mike's sense of place changes without his own accord. In Easy Rider Wyatt and Billy were in charge of their mobility and change in place, but the audience wasn't. The sweeping daytime scenes cruising down the open road would cut to a nighttime camp scene. We didn't travel with Wyatt and Billy but our sense of place changed by way of editing. Similar to My Own Private Idaho, Easy Rider's characters have a continual sense of space. Wyatt and Billy are hippies in their own right and do not change their attitudes or views based on the changing places they go.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility. How does it compare with "Easy Rider"? Give one good example comparing both films.

In the ending sequences for Easy Rider (ER) and My Own Private Idaho (MOPI), we can see the different ways that the main characters relate to the USA landscape. In ER, Wyatt and Billy die violently at the hands of rednecks, which is an aggressive political statement about conservatism, as Laderman says. They have crossed the spacial boundaries that contain hippies, showing their ideological/stylistic transgression to people who will punish them for it. After he is shot off his bike, we see the spirit of Wyatt (the smoke of his motorcycle) drifting up into the sky. His soul is embraced by the bigness of the landscape- the land can be a "helluva good place" if people just live freely there. He could not really live freely there, because his style marked him as an outsider. Now that Wyatt's soul is free from style and social oppression, it belongs to the land, the sky. On the other hand, Mike belongs to a stranger at the end of MOPI. He's kidnapped in a shot filmed remarkably similarly to that in ER, though the connection between him and the land is not so direct because we don't pan out quite so much, and he is driven away. Mike is brought down at the end by his nature and experiences- his narcoleptic fit, combined with stressful memories. Perhaps his physical disability mirrors his sexuality, in that both keep him from rising in normative, competitive society. The narcolepsy is an obvious problem for him, that intensifies his experience as marginalized, as ineffective, and as a commodity. The end of the movie embodies all three of these states. The road movie is essential to show Mike's helplessness in the direction of his travelling/his life. The end scene shows a strong link between the displaced figures of ER and MOPI, while highlighting the privileges of autonomy that Mike never has.

My Own Private Idaho compares to Easy Rider in the way that the main characters are not allowed to stop for a significant amount of time in one place. The men in both films are white males who already have a sense of privilege in society as having rights over minorities during this time. We come to realize however, that these men do not have the traditional privileges as other white men. They are considered outcasts, and threaten the rhetoric of that society by stopping in that place. At any time, if the men stop somewhere to sleep, eat or to find money, the rest of society instantly attacks them. The traveling men are stopped and questioned by the police; they are called names about their appearance and actions. The Men in Easy Rider and My Own Private Idaho realize that they cannot be stationary for too long and must continue on their journey before the rest of society attacks them. These men are constantly traveling from place to place and represent a revolution, a change in how the society operates. Of course the society then feels threatened and tries to get rid of the thing that might cause the change in rhythm for the societies way of life. These traveling men can never stop on the road they travel and must always push forward to the next place in order to survive and to continue the search for what they consistently search for when in a new place.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist?

The hustler is emblematic of the queer road protagonist for multiple reasons. One being because homosexuality is usually connected to desire not love, which can be compared to what happened to women in the late nineteenth century art. Women in paintings were usually prostitutes who, as Robert Lang quotes Doane, represent "the collapse of sublimation as a concept and hence the downfall of the 'sublime'- the 'end of the aura and the decline of love." Prostitutes and hustlers equal desire not love. There is also the idea, which I see prominently in the character Scott, that there is a performance that comes with the hustler, this idea is discussed both in Laderman's text and Lang's text. As Lang puts it, "a man on the road is a man looking for something, and who sooner or later finds himself pretending to be something he isn't, or thinks he isn't, or wishes he were, or doesn't realize he wishes he were." This brings to mind Scott's story he is a straight man who under the cover of his hustler character is able to rebel and take part in sexual acts with men. This is discussed during one of Mike's dreams where they are on the cover of the magazines and he makes a comment on how he is open for business if he gets paid, but then he shows his true feelings after Mike confronts him and he replies with if you do it for free you grow wings and become a fairy. This shows that he is living under the cover of the job. This performance is also seen with Mike though, he attempts to find his mother and dreams of a happy family, but what he finds is a never ending journey of hustling. Where Scott's performance gets to end with Love, a family, and a heteronormative life, Mike's story is not over and the hustling/ job and the desire driven life brings him on a never ending road.

My Own Private Idaho works with mobility and place in an intentionally limited, and interrupted way; and engages in queer space and time really well, though a bit pessimistically. In his excitement about the arrival of Bob, Scott espouses some vague but excited sentiments about the queering of time, by choice, questioning what time is and why it should matter. He is privileged to engage in queer time, which is a rejection of the heteronormative teleology, freedom from the idea that you have to just grow up, get married, reproduce and then die and there is nothing you can really so about it. A choice he never intended to commit to, as a queer tourist. Mike on the other hand is engaged in the queer temporality indefinitely, his positionality in this time and space intersects with his queer and poor identity. Just as queer time seems forced upon him, place seems to happen to Mike; unlike the progressive and intentional engagement of time and space that we saw in Easy Rider.
Both films conclude with external social forces "punishing" the outsiders, putting them in their place so to speak for daring to defy normative conventions. In Easy Rider they move intentionally toward specific goals, at the end talking about "retiring in Florida," but they never reached their promised place as the were shot and killed by random motorists. Though the Florida in their minds was an over idealized, hyped place, it is real. Mike never had a real destination, his idealized place was a complete fantasy. The picturesque country home the haunted his hallucinated state, looked nothing like the house he grew up in with his mother. never really existed in the past and therefore is not in his future either. But Mike's punishment is not death, it is no ending at all, total entrapment. He is picked up off the side of the road in a narcoleptic slumber, by a stranger in a red car unwittingly continuing his journey to nowhere forever. Have a nice day.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.
The both are unconventional. They use transportation methods that are almost taboo. In "Easy Rider" they travel by motorcycle, a nontraditional way to travel, especially across country. In "My Own Private Idaho" they travelled by motorcycle, plane and anyway possible, but never in a socially acceptable manner. MOPI manipulates common space and show the hidden reality unseen by "normal" people. They use unconventional methods to live and protect themselves. In both movies they make any space around them their temporary home, living off of that space until the next space calls. Both of the lives led in these movies is down cast by society and yet are so different, they might even look down on each other. These movies share similar feelings, ER on a more shallow level than MOPI. They are both searching and not finding what they seek. It appears that in both movies these men want to be accepted, but without actually having to ask for acceptance. Their lives are so different from what society wants that they are forced to weave through the world hoping to find who they are. These movies appear so different in story but when broken down they share very similar concepts. Maybe one day society will not force those who are unconventional to go searching for love and acceptance, whether they are aware of it or not.

View imageDescribe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

The film My Own Private Idaho has an interesting juxtaposition going on when it comes to the idea of "place." While looking through a broader view, we can see Mike and Scott fill places from Portland all the way to Rome. But the question I have is, "During all of this travel, is Mike really even there?" The entire time we see (through Mike's flashbacks) that he is, on some level, not present in his travels. He continually recalls his old house. I find this very interesting because this is something we did not see in Easy RIder. The two men in that film are there simply to be there. They are completely living in the now, and we never see into their thoughts. Another thing to note is that Mike's home or "space" is the road. The road is not merely a means of getting around for him. As he states, "I have been tasting all my life." Ironically enough, he has absolutely no control over it. He never travels on his own and must wholly depend on others to get around. This is HUGELY different from the characters of Easy Rider. The road is their freedom and their allowance to do whatever the hell they want (pardonnez mon français); it is not their home. They use it only to travel from place to place like nomads, while Mike is tied to it for life.

Group One: Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

Something worth noting is maybe the hustler isn't emblematic of the queer road film, rather the companies that produce such movies with main themes of homosexuality are emblematic of creating a gay stereotype. But where does this idea of a gay hustler come from? Is it merely a suburban idea of homosexuality and the gay communities in which they live? One could postulate that because of the oppressive "force field of homophobia" (as discussed in class and in the Lang article) that exists in our society, some queer peoples rebel by all means in order to fight against this force field. By rebelling, one could say engaging in lots of anonymous sex, drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, using recreational drugs, etc. The Lang reading states, "the figure of the contemporary hustler, thus, not only comprehends this scandal, he also threatens the very underpinnings of patriarchy...". In American context, patriarchy is regarded as a system in which straight, white men are leaders with power. Therefore, it can be postulated that the hustler figure that resides in the "homophobic force field" has become synonymous with queer film to undermine, reject, and rebel against the patriarchal powers that be, OR it serves as a perpetuated stereotype by the writers, producers, and film makers of gay cinema.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

A hustler is a go-getter, someone who uses unconventional and unscrupulous methods to earn money. Usually in our society a pimp or a prostitute In this case, the hustler happens to be a queer prostitute on the road to find his mother (how cliché). However, the hustler is emblematic of the queer road protagonist because for this archetype, the road never ends. The character never finds solace; the queer road protagonist is always alone and never end up with his or her other half. My Own Private Idaho is like the tragic version of The Wizard of Oz in the sense that Mike never makes it back to Kansas, or in this case with his mother in Idaho. Lang reiterates this by stating, "If Mike has recognized anything new by the end of the film, it is that he is doomed--always there to comfort Dorothy. He will, in a sense, never find his mother...Mike's homosexuality is figured as an impossible identity" (343). As Lang points out, the narcolepsy provides a grand purpose which is to transport Mike from place to place in hopes for making it home. However, life on the road is never ending as I feel that death would be the last stop for the hustler. In regards to the comment that Mike's homosexuality is an impossible identity, I take this to mean that it connects to him being a nobody. He is a vagabond wandering from place to place without any kind of acceptance in his life. The queer road protagonist is also someone who will not find a place in society and is seen as somewhat of a lost and misguided soul. He is rejected by Scott, his brother/father, and his mother. With no place left to go, he's left completely vulnerable in his narcoleptic state while being continuously picked up by strangers on the road while he continues on a journey with no end in sight. This is the ruthless cycle of the hustler on the road.

The queer road protagonist is simply queer because of the normativity it does not prescribe to or inhibit. In the Lang reading, the author states that "the new queer movie refuses to endorse 'family values'" (Lang, 342) and therefore implies that it refuses to participate in the norms of the average road film. The Hustler is always looking for the next encounter, using his/her/their body as a vehicle for money, and inhibits a sense of freedom from constraint. They do not necessarily reject the norms, but accept that they are there and continue on their on their own perpetual journey onward and upward. The Hustler transcends the average road protagonist because it looks beyond it's own body for the fulfillment of it's desires and embodies the queer protagonist because it does not look for it's satisfaction in it's body or any other thing found in the real imaginary. The Hustler looks to the queer imaginary for fulfillment because it's independence allows it to use the road as a vehicle to fulfill its desires of the next encounter or experience to be had.

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote from the readings to support your answer.

This film has many themes among them being alienation, virile sexuality and friendship. It diverts from the typical heterosexual male dominated road movie. Mike and Scott are very close friends. Also, Mike is sexually attracted to Scott so it becomes obvious that he is openly gay by choice, unlike Scott who insists the hustling lifestyle is temporary. The road in "My Own Private Idaho," represents sexual freedom; for example, Mike and Scott willingly hustling. Moreover, it is a way to escape the norms set by the society and this is evident in Scott's rebellious behavior by choosing the hustler lifestyle and switching to a 'normal' life as he pleases. Mike is an important character in the film along with his problems of having a dysfunctional family and lacking the mother figure he so longs for. According to Robert Lang, Waugh writes of the cinema in the 1970s, "We don't establish families - we just wander off looking horny, solitary, sad, or dead". The general stereotype is that Mike is inflicted with calamities and is not expected to have a happy ending because he is gay. Scott on the other hand, identifies as a straight man despite his hustling activities so the general stereotype does not apply to him.

Group Two: How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

What makes My Own Private Idaho queer apart from other road movies is that it addresses complicated and yet realistic queer life.Mike and Scott live in small town Portland and especially Mike is engrossed with his vague childhood memories with his mother. On the other hand, Scott wants to go away from his father and change his life in successful way. Mike seeks his mother and wants to figure out truth of his complicated family relationship. In this sense, My Own Private Idaho is not just homosexual road movie. Lang states that "the film implies that Mike's desire, which comes into focus as an unrequited love for Scott, has something to do with his tragic yearning for his lost mother, and is a function of his incestuous family history." This movie is not just about two homosexual men love each other, but it really is about why they are on the road as hustlers for different reasons and backgrounds. Society is implicitly constructed by sex hierarchy and this movie intends to show the realistic and personal life story of lowest class when it comes to sex hierarchy. Apart from the fact that Mike is homosexual and a hustler, he is indeed a man who suffers from complicated family history and lost mother. Some direct sexual scenes between men does not necessarily make this movie queer. Instead, revealing realistic life story as a "normal" human being makes this movie "real queer"

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

Lang states that, "the symbolism of 'the road' as the freedom from constraints (the freedom to travel, discover, forget, experiment, escape, move...) has a correspondence, first of all, in the gay affirmation of sexuality: of sexuality as a celebration of the body and the senses." Mike and Scott took to the road in order to find something missing in Mike's life. Scott had the freedom to choose his path along the road, as well as his participation in hustling. On the road, Scott was allowed to determine the course of his sexual encounters and who they were with. He was allowed to experiment with people and money, to escape his father, and to move around the world. On the other hand, Mike was openly gay and was on the road to discover more about his family. He had the freedom to discuss and perform his homosexuality.

Why is the hustler emblematic of the queer road protagonist? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

The hustler earns his living on the road. By providing sexual services, they are able to have an existence. They have found no other way to earn a living for themselves other than taking sex jobs. It is the way they have means to travel at all. In that sense, My Own Private Idaho follows the general pattern of road movies symbolizing freedom. Robert Lang discusses the road movie genre in relation to queer movies. He states, "The symbolism of 'the road' as the freedom from constraints has a correspondence, first of all, in the gay affirmation of sexuality: of sexuality as a celebration of the body and the senses". This film has very sexual characters who use what they have to their advantage. Most of them do not have privilege to have a comfortable life so they do what they can by selling themselves. This gives them a sense of freedom like the other road movies we have seen.

This movie "queer' road movie because as Robert Lang writes, "...the new queer road movie eschews the 'happy ending' of Hollywood cinema...(242)." It doesn't give a direct answer to anything. There is no emerald city for Mike; his house falls in the prairie splinters. Scott and Mike they don't have perfect happy lifestyles. Mike has narcolepsy; he seems to only be happy when he has passed out and has memories of his mother. Viewers are not quiet sure if Scott is happy with his choice, going back to his comfortable heterosexual life style. The last shots viewers see of Mike passed out and being taken into an unknown person car. It's a very ambiguous ending.

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

For me, this film revolved more around the concept of self-identity than the life of gays on the road. Of course I acknowledge that Mike is a gay man, but I don't think his journey was about the fact that he was gay. In discussion, we seemed to come to a conclusion that Mike's journey was due to his desire for a family, for a place to call home. But, Lang states, "It is easy to see the attraction of gay film-makers to the road movie genre, with all the possibilities it provides characters who choose to live and love outside the instituion of the monogamous heterosexual partnership and the conventional nuclear family."> - these attractions are how this film "queers" the road movie. I don't believe it is because the characters had gay sex or gay attractions, I believe the queerness of this film relies simply on the idea of the characters choosing to lead a non-hetero-normative lives.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

One scene that stood out to me was when the older woman took the three hustlers to her home, and Mike held the conch shell up to his ear to maybe escape the situation he was in. The audience then heard the sounds of the ocean, but when the older woman did so, we heard nothing. Not only does that make us identify with Mike as the protagonist when most of us haven't lived like him, but it also leads us into his narcoleptic attack where Scott takes care of him, the first of many times we see that happening. This relates to Easy Rider, because we never were forced to identify with the characters in this manner. Mike's mobility was almost entirely dependent on others, while the men in Easy Rider refused to depend on anything but themselves. They were free to take a week long trip to Mardi Gras, we assume, knowing very little about their lives in CA. The hustlers were free in a different way, Scott choosing when his oppression was over and Mike's was only brought about by closure from his family.

Group Two: How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote for the readings to support your analysis.

It's a bit of a long quote, but the part of the reading that stood out the most to me was Laderman's "Driving Visions" on page 208-209 where he writes (in reference to the part where Hans is pulled over), "The scene's comic framework is not irrelevant in this respect: the genre's postmodern theme of absurd, ironic coincidence (same cop, same bike, same landscape-different rider) combines with caricatured, cartoonish acting to have a laugh. Yet such a laugh transparently veils archly conformist and homophobic perceptions".

This was definitely a confrontation of what being gay in, or queering up, the movie might do to the audience. The film uses very distinct similar shots on the road that expand our idea to who can be on the road and what the consequence of being on the road in that way does. For instance, Mike and Scott (as two gay men) could travel one way on the road (although it's interesting to note that their motorcycle stops working) whereas Hans, who is an almost exaggerated two-dimensional idea of what a flaming gay guy is, has a much different experience on the road and consequently is ticketed for it. Laderman draws our own laugh to our attention- is it just the "cartoonish" scene that invites us to enjoy the moment in the movie or is it perhaps a much more veiled perception we have of gay men that makes us uncomfortable? Perhaps it isn't his eccentric qualities but his gayness itself that allows a laugh? I guess I still have questions about that for Laderman but it stood out to me enough to write about it and continue to ask the questions. Either way, Hans is a unique character in "queering up" this road film because of his free relationship with the road (it appears he's on a joy ride) and the way in which he drives on it (too fast and too sexually apparently for the laws that the road abides by).

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

Place, space, and mobility are aspects of every film. In My Own Private Idaho, we don't see mobility in the tradition sense, such as walking or driving. Instead, mobility is incorporated into the film through the use of Mike's narcolepsy. When he passes out from his condition, he always wakes up in a different location. Because of this, we rarely, if ever, see him actually traveling on a road. This also related to the place of the characters. Unless they are at someone's place of residence, they are always by the road. They hustle beside the road, sleep beside the road, and even when they are inside a restaurant eating, the road is clearly visible through the windows of the establishment. Additionally, I noticed that interacts between nearly all the characters occurred in very close proximity. When two characters talked, they stood a lot closer to one another than is socially acceptable. In contrast, Wyatt and Billy in Easy Rider always kept their distance from one another. Even when they were whispering to one another occasionally, they made sure to keep that distance as a way to leave no doubt about they sexuality. Also in contrast to Easy Rider, the entire movie is off of the road. While My Own Private Idaho focuses on actions and characters at different locations, Easy Rider exclusively focuses on the traveling aspect with long clips of them on the highway. The most important different between these two films is their connection to the road, however. Mike is searching for a home and has a desire to finally get off the road while Billy and Wyatt have a need for the road and are running away from what is familiar to them.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

In My Own Private Idaho, the main character Mike, seems to exist in space rather than in the individual places he travels to with Scott. He is always on the road, yet never on the road because by the end of the movie we see that he has made no progress. In Easy Rider, however, the protagonists live in the moment of each place and take advantage of their intentional mobility to move from place to place in the meandering search for their goal, pleasure and novelty. Mike does not travel intentionally many times because he is moved while in a narcoleptic state, yet he is always in the same space of mind, always separate from love and the specific goal of finding his mother. Scott is similar to Wyatt and Billy because all three of them are just an inch away from being back in the norm, and they therefore have the luxury of deciding to be outcasts that are nomadic and fluid in space. Mike on the other hand is an outcast by nature, he doesn't have the money, family, or heteronormativity to fall back upon if he "gets bored" with hustling/traveling.

Hustlers are emblematic of the queer road protagonist in multiple ways. In a sense, the streets, or roads, provide the hustlers livelihood. The way they make their living is on the road. It is a constant in their lives; they wait on the streets in order to be picked up by whoever is going to buy their services, and sometimes those 'jobs' are the way in which they travel from location to location. The road is their life. In Robert Lang's essay, "My Own Private Idaho and the New Queer Road Movie" he says that "like the nineteenth-century flaneur, every hustler can be seenas living his own daily road movie, whether on the open road or on the streets of the city." For example, Scott in "My Own Private Idaho" is a gay hustler whose time spent on the road hustling we are able to see, but we rarely see the actual journey on the road from one place to another that he takes. He never is in control of where is he going, either because of his 'job' or his narcolepsy he is unable to journey on the road of his own accord. Many hustlers are in that same situation, unable to control where the road takes them. Queer road protagonists also seem to not be in complete control of where the road takes them. Their journeys on the road are controlled by others.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

My own private Idaho explores further the queer relationship between Mike and Scott through their road trip where as the two men in Easy Rider only shares a partnership throughout their journey. The characters in Easy Rider don't necessarily care or develop emotional bonding; whereever they visit, they always remain a clear distance between each other. When they gather around the camp fire, we see Captain America in the foreground more often, and Billy in the back. This composition suggests that their roles are clear regarding who's more in power, and Captain America has stronger voice in their business. And this relationship doesn't change even if the space has changed.The audience would learn who's in control of the trip and decisions they make as the story unfolds. In My Own Private Idaho, we can't really get a sense of their relationship because it remains ambiguous throughout, and both characters keep exploring their identity, desires and options. When they gathered around the camp fire, both men care to listen to each other, and become each other's emotional support by the end of the conversation. However, as the places change in the movie, their relationship is also threatened by new encounters. It goes back and forth between friendship, queer relationship and mere partnership.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

The journey in My Own Private Idaho is much lonelier than the one in Easy Rider. This sense of loneliness is produced by the characters' isolation during travel, their separate quests, and their differential feelings toward each other. Although the characters travel together, Mike is always unconscious. Their traveling on different planes of consciousness gives the impression that they are primarily alone. The road brings Mike no freedom, as his mobility is limited to the places that other people drag him while he's sleeping. Mike and Scott may be traveling together, but they do not have the same quest. Mike is looking for his mom, who is his only connection to a life outside of hustling on the streets, while Scott is just waiting to turn 21 and receive his inheritance, which is his way off the streets. They are also isolated by what they want out of their relationship. Mike is in love with Scott, but Scott can't love anyone unless they pay him. In contrast, in Easy Rider all transport is done together and they don't rely on anyone else. Neither of the characters in Easy Rider has a clear journey except to go to Mardi Gras to party, and their relationship is strictly heterosexual. However, the two movies are similar in that neither party (Mike and Scott or Captain American and Billy) accomplishes nay quest during their journey. In My Own Private Idaho Mike does not find his mother during the movie and, to me, the "have a nice day" at the end of the film implies a termination of the quest, and his continuance on the same hopeless road. In Easy Rider they may have made it to Mardi Gras (two out of the three of them, anyway), but their quest for freedom is abolished when they are killed on their motorcycles.

Some of the "queer" in the film is established in the title of the film. The protagonist is living in his own little world, which we can assume is different than the norms of society. The representation of the road in "My Own Private Idaho" is parallel to its representation in the other road films we watched. The road represents freedom. In this film's case that freedom is specifically sexual freedom. The road augments the "queer"-ness in the road movie by giving the protagonist and the other characters a vehicle (figuratively) to use to explore beyond the boundaries set by society. The never ending road also relates to desire, which is another component of the "queer" road movie. That desire is the desire to be with someone sexually. This desire is thought to exist only in homosexual couples, because heterosexual couples can get married and after marriage the desire is no longer there. Thus, sexual freedom symbolized by the road, the fact that it is never ending, and the desire that is sought after "queer" the road movie.

Easy Rider goes where it wants to go. Two, straight, white men, held captive only by the tropes they choose to follow. They are no farther away from the normative lifestyle than a razor and a neck tie. Their mobility is "panoramic". My Private Idaho, as even the title suggests, goes where it is "allowed" to go, and more importantly where it must go. Two white men, one homosexual, the other bi-sexual by "choice", both queering the spaces they fill, have far less agency (due to the permanence of their particular forms of social queerness) in what course their journey takes. Their mobility is "on rails". The scene that most shows the difference between these two films is the campfire. As if almost on purpose, both movies have a nearly identical scene at a camp fire with men bonding. Interestingly enough, Easy Rider places a third male character there as if to negate any notion that homo eroticism is going on. With three people, a traditional homosexual pairing of sorts becomes much harder to fathom, and is instead replaced by hypermasculinity This is assisted by the fact that these three talk about cryptic issues such as UFO's, providing little emotional insight. These men control the space and this space is clearly a traditional masculine one. In My Private Idaho, there are two men, and the conversation involves much more passion and emotion, even a direct confession of sexuality, that clearly establishes the hetero-homo dynamic here. Also, the tone of the converstaion suggests that these men are stuck in their space, this notion of immovable stagnancy being anti-masculine in nature . This is how "Idaho" queers the space of the campfire: by introducing non-masculine situations into the space.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

In "My Own Private Idaho" the idea of place, space, and mobility are much less confined. The men skip from one place to another, and the actual journey of how they traveled and what happened is not included. Because Mike has narcolepsy he is many times picked up and dropped off simply waking up at new places, bouncing from Portland to Idaho and Rome and back. In addition, there does not appear to be any place in particular that the men are trying to get. Mike is simply trying to stay alive hustling, and Scott is hustling to rebel against his father and society. When comparing to the film "Easy Rider" the actual journey is the most important aspect and there is a goal. Much of the movie is just the men driving on the open road unlike "My Own Private Idaho." While both sets of men in both movies are somewhat outcasts, long hair, riding on bikes in "Easy Rider" and gay hustlers in "My Own Private Idaho" they do have the freedom of mobility and seem to be able to do whatever or go where ever they want, they are not confined.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

My Own Private Idaho deals with a much more fluid mobility between spaces and places. Mike gains stability from physically standing at the road, but the actual traveling occurs when he is under narcolepsy prohibiting him from experiencing the independence of the open road. Easy Rider is the exact opposite--there, both protagonists control their own motorcycle and travel together with the same agenda, combating different situations along the road as they arise. My Own Private Idaho functions under the assumption the viewer accepts the discontinuity between place changes, but at the same time it allows spaces for its characters to confront their sexualities in a way Easy Rider does not offer. Around the fire Mike professes his love for Scott, and that night Scott allows him to sleep next to him. I do not think this literal closeness would occur in Easy Rider--the friendship there stays strictly to the "buddy-buddy" rules. In this way Easy Rider has more constricted spaces, even though the mobility between places is more expansive (in terms of what the viewer sees) than Private Idaho.

How does this film "queer" the road movie? Use one quote from the readings to support your analysis.

Lang says "the figure of the hustler...has been prominent in cinematic and literary gay imaginary...and can be seen as the emblematic of the queer road protagonist." My Own Private Idaho "queers" the road movie by focusing on the lives of two hustlers, Scott and Mike. The film develops them as characters whose choice to follow their erotic desires leads them to experience a never ending road, different than the road straight protagonists explore. This never ending journey is symbolized in the film by the episodes where Mike repeatedly ends up on a road that always looks the same and appears to never end, whereas in road films like Easy Rider, the road does end. My Own Private Idaho also "queers" the road film by making the main goal of Mike's journey to be finding affection and attention, two very feminine feelings that the typical straight, and very masculine, road film protagonists do not look for on their road journey.

Describe how this film works with place, space and mobility? How does it compare with "Easy Rider". Give one good example comparing both films.

Easy Rider and My Own Private Idaho are both classified as road films, but they use the road in different ways. There is no clear destination for the men in Easy Rider which differs from My Own Private Idaho where mike is trying to find his mother. Mike and Scott are not always on the road, but when they are it seems to lead them to new and often troublesome encounters. On several occasions, Mike is picked up and carried along the road without knowing who was taking him or where he was going. There is a sense of danger in this whereas in Easy Rider there was freedom in not knowing where they were going or who they would meet. The road in Easy Rider symbolized freedom and the ability to escape, as Laderman describes, the "shackles of society." The road Scott and Mike travel on seems to always lead them back to the life they tried to leave behind. The film starts and ends in Idaho with Mike alone on the road. Although he has been on the road and traveled to different places, in the end he has gone nowhere.

What kind of racialized masculinities are represented in "Powwow Highway"? How are these masculinities transformed by the road trip?

Buddy received an Americanized symbol of masculinity and heroism-a purple heart-and combines it with his Native American heritage by wearing it as a neckpiece during the powwow. However, that is the only situation he will wear it in, until the end of the movie, where he experiences the various types of racism and ignorance other Native Americans face. The necklace is given back to Buddy after Philbert's near death experience, which gives it deeper meaning. Philbert was heroic in saving Buddy's sister and bringing their family back together on Christmas, which would be considered as such in any culture. Though they find themselves transformed at the end of their trip, it took illegal behavior to make that happen, and the viewer is left to decide whether it was moral or not, but with a feeling of relief that they didn't get "what was coming to them" as shown in Easy Rider and Girl on a Motorcycle.