"That Obscure Object of Desire"

3. Why do you think Buñuel uses two actresses to play the part of Conchita? Refer to specific scenes in which one or the other appears to support your answer.


Bunuel uses two actresses to play the part of Conchita to represent the dichotomy which lies in the center of attraction and desire. That is, that desire is rooted in a yearning for a goal, but is dissipated immediately upon the satisfaction of that goal. The two actresses act alternatively fleeting and nurturing, as when Conchita (as Carole Bouquet) returns the 800F in the beginning of the movie, or when Conchita (as Angela Molina) puts on the impenetrable, what I would call 'chastity shorts' when Matthieu takes her to the campagne / countryside. It's my opinion that Bunuel's decision to cast two actresses as the same role in this film and his execution of role changes between the two actresses is the film's crowning achievement. It is Conchita as Angela Molina who taunts and belittles Matthieu as he watches from the gate when she makes love to the guitarist. The equivocation of whether Angela Molina or Carole Bouquet are acting as the "good" or "bad" mistress which further exemplifies the metaphor they are meant to represent. For instance, it is Carole Bouquet (formerly the nurturing Conchita) who returns to Matthieu to spite him further for "not having committed suicide", and it is Angela Molina (formerly the spurning Conchita) who first kisses him and sits on his lap. I guess, however, that Angela Molina consistently acts as a teasing female, showing false adoration towards Matthieu only to hurt him later by turning hateful towards him. 

4. What do you make of the animal imagery in the text (the mouse, the fly)?

The close up of the mouse caught in the trap immediately suggested to me that someone was getting destructively ensnared by one thing or another. I believe this occurs directly after Matthieu invites Conchita into his room for the first time, after asking his personal butler for the aphrodisiac drink. After having watched the entire film, the imagery of the mouse in the mouse trap represents, to me, Matthieu and Conchita's entire relationship. It is certainly confusing as to who is trapping whom, or if perhaps they are both trapped by a greater force, such as desire. It seems that at different times in the film, either Matthieu or Conchita are yearning for their other half, albeit that Conchita is maybe only after the money and Matthieu is merely in lust. For instance, Conchita spurns Matthieu by 'having sex' with the guitarist (Eduardo? Frederico?), and he leaves in a rage. Conchita now has a great level of economic freedom, with a house and the deed to the house entirely in her hands, but she still returns to Matthieu's house, and later meets him at the train after he thrashes her in the living room. It would make sense for her to return to continue to agitate him and cause pain if she is indeed an evil character, but the duality of her actions and her equivocation between the two roles (as exemplified by the two actresses playing her) muddle this point.

Celestina - Day Five

Act 19 - Is it better that Calisto dies in an accident as opposed to being murdered? Calisto is dead, so does it make a difference how he dies? What do you make of Melibea's reaction to Calisto's death?

It certainly makes a literary difference between whether Calisto is murdered at a certain character's hands or due to bad luck. In our case, both of the lovers are falling from heights to their death. Whether this represents an exalted state or that their fall represents the true nature of their position in relation to Celestina's magic is a discussion worth having. Melibea's reaction to Calisto's death is troubling for sure, but it's easy for me to understand. It's intriguing that she was limiting his advances before he died but was so distraught following his death that she killed herself. 

Act 20 - Did it surprise you when Melibea commits suicide or were you expecting it? Were you expecting her to go through with it or did you think Melibea's father would somehow stop her?

When Melibea mentioned going to the roof for some "fresh air" or something along those lines, I imagined she was going to kill herself. Before then, I did not really think one way or another about what she was going to do. I definitely thought once she was up there that she would commit suicide, it would make little sense for Rojas to have her go up there only to have her not die. It makes sense for the moral of the story as well. Everyone in contact with Celestina dies, everyone in contact with desire who acts self-indulgently dies. Desire is something, I suppose, that should be fought against and under no circumstance be something that absorbs one's life. If Melibea's father had saved her, this whole idea would not have been expressed and the major stance of the text would be very confusing. 

Act 21 - Why do you think the author has Melibea's father make a very long speech about her suicide but does not really show Melibea's mother's reaction? Why do we hear so little from her Why is it for the most part the first time Melibea's parents speak? Why does Melibea's father react to her suicide but not to the revelation that Melibea had been seeing Calisto in secret for months?

His emotional reaction to the death of his daughter overcame his need for her to remain virtuous in society's eyes. It's interesting that only Melibea's father is given a voice for his sorrow, it represents his dominance in all family matters. We hear so little from her because she is merely a placeholder in the novel, she takes up space but has no influence because she doesn't carry out actions. Perhaps there is something more important to be gleaned from the fact that this is the first time we hear Melibea's parents speak, but it makes sense as they were only peripheral to the plot of the story. Their influence on the characters' actions was through fear, not any direct speech. 

Celestina Day Four

Act 12: Given the respective character/traits of Sempronio,
Parmeno and Celestina, is Old Celly really a victim or does
she get her just desserts? Were the servants justified in
murdering her or were they acting of pure greed? Is it
possible to sympathize with either party? Etc.

While it's obviously arguable that Celestina did a lot of things wrong and cheated Sempronio and Parmeno out of their money and just her general character portray her as a "bad apple", it's only natural for the reader to feel sympathy for her in this act. She is an old woman being murdered brutally in front of someone whom she has bonded with and reared as an adult or young adult. The servants were perhaps justified in their emotion but not in acting in such a rash manner. Perhaps if they had the keen wit of Celestina they would have managed a way to get their "fair reward" without the simple brutality of violence. They were not so much acting out of greed as acting out of their own honor as it's pretty embarrassing to be cheated by an old whore. It's not as easy to sympathize with Sempronio and Parmeno until later when you learn they jump out of the window in fear of the law. That part was a bit touching.

Act 13/14: Why does Calisto grieve his servants' and
Celestina's deaths? What motivates him to 'grieve'? Or,
given what happens at the end of chapter 13 and all of
chapter 14, would you say he is really even 'grieving'?

It seems that Calisto's sadness is short lived, but his new happiness in finding and sleeping with Melibea is of the sort that breeds trouble. A deeply guilty pleasure without addressing the negative aspect of the pleasure is indeed a damaging thing for a psyche. That is to say that Calisto indeed feels greatly for his servants, at least perhaps Parmeno, but is not dealing with the internal conflict between their work granting him love with Melibea and their death. As for him caring for Celestina, I believe this, too, brought a certain level of grief for Calisto however not nearly as much as for his servants. Which goes to show another order of social stratification. Celestina, being a whore almost entirely ostracized from society, is in a lower state than servants even though she runs her own life and lives from her work. Merely being in the vicinity of nobility or wealth increases their value. There's of course something to be said of the fact that Calisto was closer to Parmeno and Sempronio because he knew them longer, but it's no less an interesting point in addressing who he grieves for. I wouldn't say that the grief is so much present, as I stated initially, as a sort of double edged pleasure, as if often the case.

Celestina - Day Three

Chapter 8

On page 98, Sempronio says: “not everything is white that isn’t black and not everything yellow and shiny is gold.” What do you think this means?

This reflects the central idea of the story, similar to Chrétien's more discrete ode that the meaning of the text lay deep beneath the words. Sempronio is at once lending a hand to the theme of artifice within the text as well as hinting to the reader that certain characters, their suffering, and perhaps their successes should each be examined with perhaps more than just a grain of salt. Furthermore, it speaks to the moral structure that supports patience. These are some of the roots of color valuation, as well, with black representing falseness and certainly holding a negative connotation. 

Chapter 9

The issue of trust comes up many times in Celestina. In Chapter 9, on page 102, Sempronio says “out of goodwill or under pressure from us, Celestina will at least give us a piece of whatever she gets.” How is trust related to trickery here? Why do you think Sempronio and Pármeno are so trusting of Celestina, even though she’s tricking Calisto?

It seems as if trust in Celestina is related to characters' identification as part of the same class. There are a number of dichotomies present in the text sort of pounded into memory through repetition that draw distinctions between what is understood as nobility or a lack thereof. Therefore, it follows that Sempronio and Pármeno would trust Celestina. Trust in Celestina is involved in most of the trickery going on in the text, Melibea and Calisto being those most harmed by the trickery. Perhaps Celestina will continue to trick even more as the story goes on.

Chapter 11

Calisto describes himself as a captive of love, as Melibea’s vassal. Is this true, given Celestina’s role in their affair?

It seems as if, at this point, Calisto has gained Melibea's good favor, whether through Celestina's magic or pure chance. Furthermore, it seems like Calisto is captive to Celestina, not love, but perhaps Celestina is meant to represent love in the story and it goes to reinforce that metaphor. 

Celestina Day 1 (ch. 1-2)

1. Analyze the opening scene in Melibea’s garden. Why a garden? What might a garden signify? How do you interpret the words of Calisto and Melibea? Why does Melibea react in this manner? Can we read these words as genuine?


A garden can signify many things we have explored the symbolism of garden imagery a number of times in class. Just to name a few there could be a possible allusion to the Garden of Eden, a garden can be representative of growth and nourishment or even the beauty of nature domesticated in certain senses. I believe in this case the meanings best represented in the text are the former two, the allusion of the Garden of Eden or a place of growth and nourishment. Of course, this imagery is not literally represented by Calisto's interaction with Melibea and the ensuing despair he deals with, but it may instead serve as an ironic juxtaposition to heighten the drama. Alternatively, perhaps, the seed of Calisto's ignorance may just now be in the process of planting, as his struggle with his obsessive desire may bring his character to new heights.
The words of Calisto and Melibea seem to signify the central conflict in the plot as well as Calisto's main character flaw. That is, he is so absorbed by his passion for Melibea that he forsakes sainthood (perhaps the highest pursuit, figuratively) for the prospect of his feelings being returned. Her completely unreceptive response sets the stage for Calisto's journey and, I assume, broadly foreshadow the plot of the novel.


3. What are our initial impressions of Celestina? What type of character is this? What does she say which influences your analysis? What about her later exchanges with Parmeno? (And this back history with Parmeno’s mother – what do you think happens here?)


Celestina is a very interesting character in that she seems to be the unification of two ostensibly repellent character traits. On one hand, she is a woman of great guile with prowess over a certain criminal aspect of trickery, but on the other she acts like a long lost mother towards Parmeno. This duality is reflected as well in the starkly opposing words used to describe Celestina. The narrator, Parmeno, and seemingly society all deem Celestina to be filthy, sub-social, a prostitute, and generally someone not to be trusted. Calisto, on the other hand, goes out of his way to honor this woman (although it is only for his personal gain with Melibea). I think the backstory with Parmeno has foreshadowed an intriguing plot development that will bring Parmeno over to Sempronio's side. I foresee some kind of exchange between Calisto and Parmeno that will change his mind. 

Almodovar's "All About My Mother"

In its most rudimentary understanding, Almodovar's "All About My Mother" is a discussion of the power structures in society that surround and constrain women. The viewer is shown the shame of an illegitimate child, the burden of single motherhood, the perils of prostitution, and the pressures of past conservative generations among a host of other women's issues, however these alone are not the director's focus. Analyzing the film based solely on identity politics would add up to a very shallow understanding of the artist's intention. While naturally these issues speak to the wholeness of the film as an artistic undertaking, Almodovar uses them to speak to an arguably deeper question of what is contained beneath the surface of things, the dichotomy of facade and being. We have examples in the film of a child-carrying nun, a staunchly conservative art forger, a woman outwardly calm and strong but emotionally broken on the inside, women are are men who like women and men who are women who like men, and finally, of course, the actresses Humo and Nina. Almodovar does this very artfully as the struggle of women's identity in being both a nurturer and an independent identity reflect the duality of many of the main characters. Ultimately, Almodovar equivocates the theme, not taking a strong stance either towards the futility of appearance nor character, and the film ends happily with Manuela getting a second son.

The Decameron (Day Four / 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 6.7, 6.10)

2) 5:9- What is your interpretation of the quote, “…I would much rather have a man who lacks money than money that lacks a man”? (pg. 431)


Monna Giovanna represents in a certain sense the classic 'tragic hero(ine)'. Following the tragedy of losing her child, she undergoes a catharsis in a way, and she realizes the truth of what it means to be an honorable man. This quote encapsulates this sentiment. Instead of the capitalist/mercantilist/materialistic view of men being the bread earner and supporter of a woman solely for superficial physical needs, Monna Giovanna holds the perspective that a man's true honor lies in his nobility of character. Federigo's outstanding devotion to his lady, even though she had until marriage continually spited him, earned him her hand in marriage and her wealth. Thus does Bocaccio lay before us the moral that a man is more than his wealth and influence, that even a humble hermit with nothing more than a falcon can easily weigh up against the likes of counts and kings.


5) 6:10- Explain how Brother Cipolla uses wit to his advantage to escape a tough situation? Use contextual evidence.


This is the story of modern evangelism! Watch, brothers and sisters, watch "my children" (?!) as I heal this wretch before me! Brother Cipolla puts the peasantry in a daze with his slough of tales from his travels. By doing this he enables himself to describe something as simple as a piece of charcoal as something to be incredibly revered. His wit lies both in the quick thinking of turning the situation into a God driven event and, as mentioned, in using his worldly travels as a precursor. Speaking more on this point, as the narrator describes in a side note "most of the people there had never heard of [a parrot]" (474). Brother Cipolla understands this well, of course, and is filled with glee to pull this religious shroud over the commoners' heads. I suppose I see this less as Brother Cipolla using his wit only to get himself out of a tough situation and more using his wit to increase his spectacle of grandeur. Another strong example of Bocaccio's strong disrespect for the Church and its "teachings".