“People with Asperger’s want contact with other people very much; we’re just pathetically clueless at it, that’s all”. (Donald Morton)

Mozart and the Whale is a 2005 film directed by Petter Næss and starring Josh Hartnett and Radha Mitchel. It’s based on a true story of two people with Asperger’s syndrome and their relationship.

Asperger’s syndrome is a form of a high-functional autism. It’s been somewhat popularized in media and pop culture in the last decade or so. Media image of the Asperger’s syndrome might easily lead to to the romanticisation or “othering” of people with Asperger’s. That’s why any film about characters with Asperger’s is dealing with a sensitive subject to say the least.

As a peace of art, Mozart and the Whale fails miserably. It’s a cross between a drama and a romantic comedy… and it doesn’t work that way. As if they tried their best to make this into a romantic comedy with quirky characters, but something went bad along the way. This is not just me: it’s been reported that there was some serious Executive Meddling, which resulted the director and the cast being quite unhappy with the final version. We can only hope to see the director’s cut.

Still, there are some excellent, brilliant things in Mozart and the Whale, which make you want to see the director’s cut even more badly. The characters are romanticized to an extend, but in a way, they are quite real, especially Donald Morton, an educated man with talent for numbers who works as a cab driver (it’s difficult, if not impossible, to find – and keep – a better paying job, and in first minutes of the film we learn it’s difficult for him to keep any job, period). He shares his apartment with 6 Cockatiel parrot. The flat is unkempt to say the least, because he never throws anything away, and moving things or cleaning the house makes him anxious. The finds comfort in numbers (to the exaggerated “magic ability” to instantly multiply and divide huge numbers).

He runs a small help-group for people with various mental conditions, and Isabelle is the new member. She has Asperger’s, too, but she is quite different than the shy, introverted Donald. She is loud, has obnoxious laugh, says inappropriate things (often involving sex) and can’t stand the sound of clinking metal.

So, they meet and their “getting to know each other” scenes provide most of the emotion in the film. After that, the film feels quite rushed (the film is too short to adequately portray the whole story arc: them moving in together, finding a decent job for Donald, their difficulties and fights, accepting each other – and themselves – the way they are). But there are so many sweet scenes that can be watched over and over again, so Mozart and the Whale is not a waste of time.

The best aspect of the film is, believe it or not, Josh Hartnett as Donald Morton. What he did with the character is unbelievable. It would be seen as a great performance for anybody, but for a pretty boy that didn’t seem more talented than Keanu Reeves on a bad day, it’s quite unbelievable. Josh Hartnett’s performance is far away from being perfect in technical sense, and it seems to be played on instinct more than careful preparation.

But it’s obvious he put a significant effort and dedication into this role, like no other before. Maybe the role just suited him, but he was so good you forget it’s him and it makes it seem you’re watching someone else… Or, in my case, that you’re watching yourself. There are as many ways Asperger’s syndrome can manifest itself as there are people with Asperger’s, but I could sure relate to this one (even though I don’t have the syndrome in strict sense of the word).

Sadly, the aforementioned executive meddling made Josh Hartnett refuse to promote the movie, which is a shame, because it’s worth a watch, and it’s a film in which he finally proves he’s not just a talentless heart throb, and that he can actually act. And be convincing. And everything that acting truly is.

I definitely recommend Mozart and the Whale, but I am not sure who’d love this film. Many people with Asperger’s seem to like it. But other than that, this isn’t light enough to be a romantic comedy, and is not too well structured to be taken seriously as a drama. So it makes Mozart and the Whale somewhat unfitting for anybody. But there are still good elements, great elements, so I truly recommend this movie. I know it made me feel good and it made me re-watch it, and it made me appreciate Josh Hartnett as an actor. And that’s not an easy thing to do.

Links:

Mozart and the Whale on IMDb
Review at WrongPlanet (online resource and community for Autism and Asperger’s)

The first thing Sarah Miller did on her seventeenth birthday was to go to the bathroom and shove a toothbrush handle deep down her throat.

This is the first line in my novel, “A Postcard from Hades”, written for the last year’s NaNoWriMo. I’m at the final stages of the (somewhat) exhausting revision process.

There are 27 chapters, and the novel is about 90 000 words long. There were no chapter titles at first, but then I thought it would be a good idea to include them anyway.

So, here they are, the translated chapter titles! Most of them are related to certain sensory impressions, and not the plot relevant for the chapter. That’s why the image they paint together might not accurately describe the novel (same goes for the novel title, btw).

For example, “Vibrations” describe a New Year’s party with the loud music and bass lines vibrating the house. But it’s also the chapter in which my main male character loses his virginity. In “Rain”, characters meet after an argument, and it’s raining, which is quite rare for the climate of their small town. But there are also chapter titles related to the plot, or those that describe my characters (namely, “Alarm clock, bird and fountain pen”).

Ignore sloppy translation, grammar mistakes, etc. One of the worst things is knowing my English is not good enough to actually, well, write in English. But I digress.

Chapter titles

The novel has four parts, with little vignettes between them.

I
1. Waking Up
2. Introducing Aristotle
3. Encounters
4. Behind a Rusty Gate
5. Ethos, Logos, Pathos
6. On the Swings

D.S. Miller: Novel as an Argument

II
7. To Know Each Other
8. Life in Short
9. Little Pink Cap
10. Rain
11. Town Lives
12. In a Narrow Corridor

D.S. Miller interview (excerpt), Northern Journal of Literature and Art

III
13. Vibrations
14. Together, Alone
15. Fists and Blood
16. Preparation
17. The Other Worlds
18. After the Change
19. Sewing Room
20. Two Stories

D.S. Miller’s Writing Advice

IV
21. Punishment
22. Stained Seats
23. Alarm Clock, Bird and Fountain Pen
24. Accepting Reality
25. Life in Short
26. On a Hidden Bench
27. Departure

Note: The image is clickable.

Tumblr is a relatively new phenomenon. It is a cross between a blogging platform and a social network. The purpose of it was, I guess, to have a light blogging platform with an easy way for your followers to reblog your posts if they like.

This is probably the best and the most popular aspect of Tumblr, but it’s also what discourages people from the actual blogging. I mean, if you post a real blog post, people might press “like” or even comment (though commenting is extremely tricky and undeveloped on Tumblr), but that’s all. But if you post an image of a shirtless hot man cute puppy, your post will be reblogged many times.

So, this aspect if what made Tumblr more of a crazy platform for sharing pictures, especially animated gifs, celebrity photos, memes and videos. Another popular aspect is asking anonymous questions via the ask form, which is the only way of communication on Tumblr. Nobody really blogs out there, and it’s all pretty wild and random.

Tumblr and I

I’ve joined in april 2010 and, due to the chaotic nature of Tumblr, I named my blog “Jefflion Randomness”. What I mostly do out there is, well, blog and reblog photos of cute animals, my favourite celebrities and crazy internet art such as memes. I also try my best to communicate with my friends (called “followers” out there).

Tumblr is relaxing to use because you don’t have to worry about having something interesting to say. You can post or reblog whatever you feel like at the moment, and there will usually be someone who likes it.

On the other hand, something about the chaotic nature of Tumblr bothers me. I am quite a messy person, externally, but I often like what I do to be organized in some way.

So, unlike most of Tumblr, I sometimes do write regular blog posts. Usually, those are observations about movies (I guess I am really into movie critic business ) or something else I like to share, but I don’t see it serious enough for my main website.

But I hate to see that content lost in the Tumblr hurricane, so I decided to share it here. I will probably link my whole Tumblr in the Trash section of the website, where it will be easily accessible to whoever is interested in those little ramblings.

Good stuff here

Here are some of the semi-valuable posts I’ve written on Tumblr:

Favourite actors, favourite roles

This is a collection of posts on my favourite actors and their best roles. The way I determine “top” roles is a bit complicated here. I take into account the actual performance, how much I liked the film, how much I liked the performance, and how good the film actually was.

Favourite bands, favourite songs

Similar to the above one, but with musicians and their songs. Somewhat more straightforward: I simply include the songs I like the most.

Josh Hartnett movie challenge

Reviews of Josh Hartnett movies. Challenge was proposed by Fiona, owner of the JoshSpam tumblr blog (which features, what else?- Josh Hartnett pic spam) My task was to watch Josh Hartnett’s movies and post short reviews, with a special note on acting performance (or lack thereof). The goal was to make me realize Josh Hartnett wasn’t as crappy actor as I thought he was (the success of the goal is debatable). I am quite happy about these reviews, and I might feature them elsewhere on the site. (Did I mention I love doing movie reviews?)

Insightful comments

These might not be particularly insightful, but offer a bit of information about me. Most are answers to questions other Tumblrers asked, and are usually about aspects of my personal life. I thought it would be interesting to include them here, because I don’t tent to blog about my personal life. So these might help you know me a little better. Warning: may contain TMI.

Greatest hits

The best, most hilarious stuff that ever appeared on my Tumblr page.

Note: Images are clickable

Men are usually seen as the worst offenders when it comes to objectifying, and it’s not like they don’t engage in objectifying women, sometimes to the scary degrees.

However, women are quite able to do the same, and it often goes both ways. They often objectify themselves (and other women), as well as men. Those who think women rarely do it or that it’s a relatively new phenomena don’t really think about what objectification really means.

In short, to objectify a person means to see her, or him, as an object that can be in some way useful to you. What it means to be useful varies, and is not strictly related to sexual aspect, though it often is, when it comes to inter-gender objectifying.

It makes you fail to see another human being as a person in a full sense of the word. Even if you do understand they are fully human, you still don’t… really care. All you care is your benefit: this individual’s personality, hopes, dreams and needs become irrelevant.

Objectifying for security

Historically, the most common way women used to objectify men is to see them as providers and supporters. The more money and success the guy had, the better. Who he was as an individual was irrelevant. This sort of objectifying exists to this day. So even women who have careers and are capable of providing for themselves will often value rich men, or men with better careers and success higher than the nice guys with great personalities who don’t posses material wealth or success. Yes, this is objectifying.

Is raw objectification possible for women?

And there’s, of course, another form of objectification: the straightforward sexual objectification, in which an individual is seen as a mere object of your sexual desire. Women do this, too. In the same raw, straightforward manner men do to women.

Some people say it can NEVER be the same thing, because of the whole gender imbalance: not matter how unfair women are, they still don’t have the same power as men, and they can never do as much harm; and plus, they’ve suffered so much historically. Also, due to double sexual standards, it can never be the same thing. A man who is objectified is never so dehumanized as an objectified woman. Etc, etc.

It is true that women are still oppressed on so many levels, and that men still have more power. Still, on an individual level, doing a bad thing is, well, doing a bad thing. And women are sure not immune to objectification.

Is it harmful?

One thing that need to be discussed (but it’s not the subject if this post) is whether objectification is as harmful as people claim it to be. Of course, taken to extremes, it is one of the ways to dehumanize people. But it’s also somewhat unavoidable. After all, what is sexual attraction if not a basic objectification? Isn’t certain (unconscious) objectification instinctive?

So yes, on a certain level, it might not be harmful at all. But it often turns into a mechanism of oppression and dehumanization, and that is a bad thing. Women know very well how it works. They all know what is like not to be seen as a subject, a whole human, but an object seen through a male gaze. They all know what is like to have your own values measured by how men find you attractive.

Raw sexual objectification and women

The thing is, women are equally capable of doing the same thing. Due to historical gender imbalance- and double sexual standards- it sometimes seem that women are “above that”. Wrong. Women are capable of thinking pure sexual thoughts, and they can objectify men just as easily.

It often goes to the simple “seeing a man as a sexual object”. His thoughts, beliefs, character, integrity- anything that makes him a human being- are irrelevant. Even his sexual needs are irrelevant. All that matters is how a person doing the objectification sees him.

Plus, due to double standards, women have no guilt over doing this. In fact, some women find it quite empowering. Women go into great detail describing (or thinking) about a man’s physical features that they find arousing, and they’ll fantasize about all sorts of sexual stories involving the guy. They also transfer some of it to reality, so they pay more attention to attractive males, while ignoring or ridiculing the ones that they don’t find as attractive. And let’s not even mention the short guys. They don’t exist, for all we care, right?

However, this objectification is still shaped by double standards that make women embarrassed about openly expressing their sexuality. That’s why their way of objectification takes an unique form.

Usually, it presents itself in a form of focusing to more than the guy’s physical appearance. So the women will emphasize the man’s other qualities, for example, how nice he is as a person, or how great he is at what he does. You can see it with celebrities: many women lusting after a hot actor will point out how nice and great person he is. As if they know him. But don’t be fooled: it’s all down to simple objectifying, really.

Teenage sexual fantasies

Another very popular example offer teenage fangirls (a subject that deserves its own post). Teenage female fans are good for studying objectification, because they are quite honest (they are pretty straight about what they like), but are also already indoctrinated with double standards so they can’t express what they feel in straight terms.

While 14 or 15 year old boys know quite well why they like an actress with huge breasts, fantasies of their female counterparts appear to be more romantic and complex. They want to go on a romantic date with Robert Pattinson. They want to marry him. They want to go on a tropic adventure where they have to solve the mystery of ancient gold, escape world class criminals and fall in love.

But essentially, it’s all down to one simple thing: they want to bang him, hard. But they are not allowed to say it that way, because 14 year old girls are not supposed to be sexual beings. That’s why they develop their (sometimes rather unhealthy) obsession with actors and musicians (instead of simply taking them as sex fantasies, like boys of their age do with their celebrity crushes). That’s why the only way they can write about sex and men they’re obsessed with is through slash fan fiction. It’s not the coincidence, I think, that most writers of slash fanfiction are heterosexual teenage girls. Because you seem less sexual if you write about members of your favourite band having sex with each other than with you.

Empowering… Or shallow?

Simply put, women are quite capable of objectifying men. And many, who get quite mad about men objectifying women, do that without any guilt. I suspect many don’t even realize what they’re doing when they want to watch a movie in which their favourite actor spends suspicious amount of screen time shirtless.

Because female sexuality can never be so raw and strong and simple like male sexuality, right?

Disney animated movies are my guilty pleasure. I bet you didn’t see this coming, considering how sarcastic and analytical and… great I am. But Disney movies, particularly the ones in the so-called Disney Renaissance (1989-1998) were one of the main sources of escapism during my tween and teen years.

There, I said it! Yes, I know. They are sexist. And racist. And formulaic. And everything. I know. I am not trying to deny it, nor am I trying to ignore these aspects because “it’s just a movie for kids, no big deal, hahaha”.

But they are an integral part of my childhood- and adolescence, so pretending it isn’t so would be hypocritical. Luckily, my interpretation of said movies was such that I was immune to most of the bad messages. I think. I hope.

For example, I never interpreted Disney heroines to be passive. Oh, sure, the old ones, Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, they were passive (and annoying). But “my” heroines (Ariel, Belle, etc.) weren’t, or at least I never interpreted them to be so. Same goes for other bad messages I can clearly see today.

And while I’m unable to enjoy Disney today, be it because of said messages or extreme romanticism/sugarcoating, and while I might be a embarrassed for liking these films so much (now that I understand what they are: Pocahontas, for example), I can’t forget what they meant to me.

I still remember the first time I watched The Little Mermaid, on an illegal copy on my cousin’s VHS. In my mind, I was 7, but it couldn’t be, because it was released when I was 8. The copy was horrible, with grayish, washed out colours, but I still remember I was completely smitten by that film. You see, I love the sea; I always loved it. My first memory is from the family holiday in Dalmatia when I was 15 months old. And this film, this beautiful film, was about a girl who lived in the ocean! And who saves the guy! And they sing! And she’s a mermaid!!!! I got so obsessed I watched that film whenever I could. I even begged my mother to buy a VCR so I could watch The Little Mermaid. First English words I’ve learned were from the Little Mermaid. And when we went on a holiday that summer, I swear I heard Ariel’s song one evening. This film will always have a special place in my heart.

Forward a few years. Difficult time, both personal and general. My father dies. My country dies. Beauty and the Beast was one of the rare beautiful things in my life back then. I loved Belle, and I still do; I consider her the most intelligent Disney heroine (you see, the message I got is that she’s pretty because she’s smart), and the film is also the best in their canon, imo. I begun to draw people Disney-style, and I still can’t draw people, especially females, any differently.

I don’t remember being that obsessed with Aladdin, but I loved Jasmine. What I didn’t like is that there’s so little of her in the story. I was never that obsessed with the Lion King either, no matter how good it was, because there were no humans in it, but when Pocahontas was released… I can’t describe how much I liked that film.

It makes me feel even more ashamed, because it’s a racist film with harmful messages. I didn’t understand any of it back then. I liked the film. I loved Pocahontas and her bravery and her hair. I hated the fact she chose Josh Smith over Kocoum (no sane woman would do that), but other than that, I liked the film. And I liked the forests, very much.

Then, when I was 15, Disney released the last animated movie I was obsessed with, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. This underrated film is arguably one of their best, and it certainly has the best soundtrack of all Disney movies. I really loved this film, but whenever I think of it, I remember how sad I was back then. It was the first year of middle school (“high school” as called in the US), and, well, the mere fact I was still interested in Disney movies speaks volumes. I really don’t want to remember how my best friend and I felt back then. It wasn’t fun, that’s for sure.

It got better after that. But after the Hunchback, I stopped liking Disney movies that much. Some would say I simply grew up, but no: the movies were the ones that got worse. I didn’t like Hercules at all, and Mulan had its moments, but something was lacking. It was the time when 2D animation died. It can never be like it was before, as proved with (relative) failure of the Princess and the Frog.

Now that I look back at Disney movies I love, I realize that the films grew up with me: starting from colourful Little Mermaid, to more and more mature subjects, culminating with dark and quite serious Hunchback. So whenever I watch one of these films, I always think about my life back then. So I guess I just have to accept they are an integral part of my childhood and adolescence.