Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Dream Story

Due online by 2/2: What is the relationship between story and being; in other words, between narrative disclosure and the experience of identity (and thus of ‘reality) in Dream Story? For example: how does the story that Albertine tells affect Fridolin? What is the relationship between narrative and reality in the film? How does the narration of the dream recast this relationship?

Due online by 2/4: Add an additional comment that weaves together your reactions to at least 3 of the comments made by your classmates so far.

31 comments:

Sky said...

Am I first again? Haha. The only reason is because I don't have internet access at home so I have to do this at work. I'm not kissin ass...lol.

It's obvious that the movie Eyes Wide Shut was derived from Dream Story, a novel based on Fridolin, a successful doctor who lives with his wife Albertina and their daughter. Again the story gets juicy as Albertina confesses her lust for some Danish officer the previous summer.

A difference when compared to the movie is Fridolin's confession of an attraction to a young lady on the beach (Bill never confessed attraction/fantasy in the movie during this scene). This of course sets up the rest of the night and the remainder of the story for Fridolin (a strange set of events that eventually lead him to an orgy in a mansion).

Both the movie and the book have psychological avenues that we can take in a break down. It seems as though the focus is on the fantasies and temptations that couples experience while married. Themes identified include fidelity, infidelity, jealousy, and guilt.

The story does take us on the journey of the hero, as seen in The Writer's Journey and in class. Although both Kubrick and Schnitzler take us on the journey, it's surely not your typical hero story that has us in awe. It's a different style that keeps you wondering and reacting to each story that is told.

Carmen said...

I believe that the story from Alice/Albertine sparks the beginning of the plot that is to be unraveled within both the book and the movie. Just as we have learned in the course the story given to an audience can either be full of detail that restricts construction of the story by the audience, or it can leave a lot of room for interpretation. Within the book we see much more interaction, such as hand holding, between the two characters. We also hear some feedback from Fridolin in the text. This interaction does begin a dialogue between them and doesn't abruptly interrupt the topic as it does in the film by Bill's house call. As the dialogue is real and concrete withint the text, in the film Bill is left to construct images in his mind that become a part of his reality in his life.

I believe that when we create things within our mind they become a part of our self reality. They exist in our world. We formulate the images or situations which evoke emotion within ourselves and thus, to me, are impactful and real. Whether we admit that and share these thoughts with others is our choice, and if we choose to do so, it then becomes a part of thier reality, evoking emotion and allowing them to construct their own version of the story.

Dr. G said...

Thanks Sky and Carmen for getting us started! I think that one area many of you might want to comment on could take up Carmen's comments on how the film actually shows us things that we have to imagine in the novel. How does this change the relationship between story given and story constructed? Are there ways that Kubrick takes advantage of this difference beween text and photography? Also, note that this is the same difference between our two types of final projects! (between listening to people's stories and actually observing their behavior!)

Unknown said...

How different a visual medium is from a written one. It is fascinating to read this novel after viewing and examining the film. In the novel, the text provides a lot of detail yet the reader has the freedom and the necessity actually to use the text as a springboard for imagining the world Schnitzler is detailing for us. As readers we are co-creators, with the author, in actively bringing the world of the novel to life.

As an example, we are not told much about how the main characters look. We will imagine them as we want. That is, unless we have seen the movie first! Because of this I wonder if some us are imagining Cruise and Kidman as the characters in our head, dressed, of course in period costumes. I find myself imagining other characters entirely. Maybe it is the modern setting of EWS with the pot smoking couple contrasting to Schnitzler’s story, set not only in the past but also in a European country. The characters and their world is removed from my familiar world. How does the distance in time and the unfamiliar culture or period factor into our interpretation of the story? Also, how will the fact that we saw the film first impact the way we “read” The Dream Story, both literally and figuratively. I wonder about these things but they are not exactly on topic.

Though Kubrick’s script follows the novella in so many ways—there are obviously similarities in the stories told—Schnitzler, I think, fills in some interesting story-given elements for Fridolin that are missing in EWS for Bill’s character (Not to mention that Kubrick’s intention to critically comment on society drives EWS while Schnitzler has a different intention). Fridolin’s character to me seems more fleshed out so we see some complex motivation behind his actions, in addition to what his wife tells him. For example, 35 years old is a fairly advanced age in the period of the novella when life expectancy was shorter. Fridolin’s ruminations about courage, youth (as in his own boyhood days), manhood, death, etc. are important in understanding his reality and his identity in the narrative.

A mature man, a busy working professional, no longer in the bloom of his youth either, whose wife has just made a hurtful confession, is telling himself (omniscient point of view—told in third person so that we know what the character is thinking): “He was glad that he was still alive, that for him such ugly matters were still probably a long way off [corruption and decay of death]; glad that he was in his prime, that a charming and lovable woman was there at his disposal, and that he could have another one, many others if he so desired” (p. 194).

Though he says he feels he is in his prime and Marianne’s confession fed his ego, truthfully he is no longer a young man with a young man’s freedom. He has been playing the part of the faithful husband for some time, sublimating sexual desires, and taking on the cares and burdens of a mature man. The fact that Fridolin may be suffering from a lack of excitement and that he is always around sickness and death are important elements to help us interpret his actions. That he then goes onto say that acting on these possibilities with all these other women might “admittedly require more courage than he could muster” is significant. But then we will find that he finds the courage to break out of his humdrum, everyday existence by his wife’s confessions and these other feelings.

His own admissions to Albertine, about the young girl, have also stirred up old feelings and sexual desires he’s been suppressing for years. Even so, he’s still aware of women. In the time period depicted in the novella, it’s unacceptable to be openly, crudely sexual. So references to sexual things are implicit not explicit. So, for example, Fridolin thinks “Marianne would certainly look better, he thought, if she were his [Dr. Roediger] mistress. Her hair would be less dry, her lips redder and fuller” (p. 187). In modern times, a man might be thinking “she needs to get laid" or Schnitzler could have added "I can restore the bloom to that drooping flower" :)

When Fridolin is trying to convince himself that he displays courage in his profession, so that it wasn’t necessary to challenge the obnoxious youth to a duel, he thinks of how he would want to fight the young Danish officer. But then, in his head he says “what was he thinking of? But then—it really was no different to her having been his mistress. Worse even” (p. 197). From this, I believe he has made a decision. With this thought, we might take it that, similarly to Bill's fantasy, Albertine's infidelity is perceived as more real than reality, Fridolin's reality.

TLL said...

It is revealing that in Dream Story we finally get a glimpse into our hero's intentions, thoughts, and feelings instead of being left to infer them through speculations.

After Albertine's strory (g) we get a sense of the couple trying to one-up each other through tales of fantasy and longing for others. Fridoline reminisces about a teenage girl on the beach in Denmark after Albertine's initial 'confession'. This seems to prompt her to express that it was simply unfortunate luck that she was a virgin when they married. The culmination of the two stories takes a toll on Fridoline in Dream Story.

Fridoline clearly states an intention for revenge through his actions. "And he vowed not to rest until he had again found the beautiful woman whose dazzling nakedness had so intoxicated him. Only now did he think of Albertine, --and even so he felt as though he was obliged to conquer her as well, as though she could not, should not be his again until he had betrayed her with all the others he had met that night, with the naked woman, with Pierrette, with Marianne, and with the little trollop from the narrow backstreet" (p. 235-237).

Through this analysis it is interesting to go back to EWS and view the Hero's Journey with the focus on the women Bill encounters. For example:
-Ordinary world: Before the party, at home.
-Call to adventure: To go 'where the rainbow ends' with Nuala & Gayle.
-Refusal of the call: Not continuing, being called upstairs.
-Meeting with the mentor: In Zeigler's bathroom.
-Crossing the first threshold: leaving after Alice's story
-Tests, allies, enemies: Marion, Domino, Nick, Milich, the daughter, Mandy.
-Appoach: Meeting with Nick, heading to the mansion.
-Ordeal: Inside the 'party'
-Reward: escaping alive
-The Road Back: Putting the story back together, hunting for Nick and Mandy.
-Resurrection: second meeting with Ziegler, the mask on the bed.
-Return with the elixer: Adventure, returning to Alice.
This analysis ends pretty much the same as the other opinions in the class but here his adventure starts with the girls at the party and continues under the assumption that the adventure was more about the women he encountered as Dream Story suggests.

Another point of interest in the novella is where Fridoline comes home and after Albertine tells her story go to bed together, "And then: we are lying here side by side like mortal enemies" (p. 248). This feeling is similar to the sentiment I expressed in the fidelity paper we submitted. I wrote in that paper, and the feeling is echoed after much thought about Dream Story, that it is interesting to consider how one lacks the ability to truly understand the workings, motivations, urges, and processes of others, despite how close our societal labels place them, hence the distinct element of surprise, in our case Alice’s story and her fantasy concerning the navel officer in Cape Cod. Despite the perceived closeness of the relationship between Bill and Alice, he is blind to her inner desires. In the 1944 play No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre famously wrote, “Hell is other people.” Certainly, in Eyes Wide Shut, Alice, because of her story, becomes Bill’s hell. Fridoline, in Dream Story, also feels that Albertine has become his hell (and perhaps he longs to be hers). Both story's play upon the notion of how people close to us can suddenly become our hell (or how we can become theirs) through words and actions.

Dr. G said...

Nice comments, Arlene and Trevor... I like the contrast in lifecycle between Fridolin and Bill.. and I think the heroes journey schema of Trevor's is apt and interesting to contemplate. Looking forward to see other's responses. I am staying home all day today, can't deal with the world after so much moving and shlepping. So I'll be checking in and commenting as your comments show up... enjoy... its a great discussion so far.

Does anyone want to comment on what Schnitzler was trying to say about the role of the unconscious, as something that Freud describes as recieving its 'content' from repressed aspects of someone's existence? And how does this shape our interpretations of EWS in this regard?

erin said...

In Dream Story, the story in which Albertine describes certainly angers Fridoline and seems to initiate a journey of attempted betrayal. Although this seems to be where the thought of revenge first occurs by Bill in the movie Eyes Wide Shut, I found that in the novel Fridoline and Albertine touch upon revenge first at the masked ball. This was interesting to me because in the movie it seems to be Alice(Albertine) who pushes Bill(Fridoline) to pursue the adventurous night.

Similar to the movie, Dream Story reveals themes, values, and beliefs consistent with what we tend to believe and with the way in which we go about our lives. In Fridoline and Albertines relationship, they experience issues of jealousy, distrust, temptation and revenge. All of which are consumed in reality. As for Schnitzler's role of the unconscious, I believe he was simply pointing out that our dreams are fashioned from our repressed aspects. Fridoline clearly states at the end of the novel that no dream is altogether just a dream.

Moonprincess said...

It is interesting how both the movie and the book delves into the subconscious. Both starts with a fantasy that triggers a subconscious desire in the listener, though it is only in the book that we see Fridolin talking of his own fantasies. The book allows us to see into the thoughts of our "hero" whereas we had to infer Bill's thoughts from his actions in the movie.

The journey that Fridolin/Bill embarks on remind us of adventures we may take in our own minds (though the adventures may not be as colorful). By providing more insight into the hero's motivations readers get a more substantial image of the Fridolin/Bill character.

As for the role of the unconscious, Schnitzler aptly shows the sexual repression that Freud feels is motivation for our consciousness. It takes Albertina's fantasy to get Fridolin to admit to his own, as for Bill, it is Alice's fantasy that leads him to explore the orgy. Was the world Bill entered already a part of his unconscious only to be brought out by an outside trigger, or was it all coincidence? Would Fridolin/Bill have had his journey if Albertina/Alice did not prod his own repressed sexual fantasies?

Let's go back to the effect Albertina's/Alice's fantasy had on Fridolin/Bill. Why did our hero have the reaction he had? Everyone has had a sexual fantasy at one point or another, and some of us may have even shared, but for Fridolin/Bill to react so strongly suggests there is more than what we see. The book allows us to see the more when Fridolin shares his own sexual fantasies whereas the movie only shows Bill being extremely upset. Could Bill's reaction be because Alice's story touched too close to home and could Bill's adventure just be part of his own repressed fantasy?

Ha'a said...

Sorry I haven't read the book yet so here is my atempt at contributing from reading the rest of the blogs...i think that the role of the unconscious is like the evil thoughts that people think about but never really act on. Like the deep down serects that we don't want to think about in reality or like an evil dream.

Anonymous said...

Although Bill Harford is based on Dream Story’s Fridolin, they are essentially very different characters. After hearing Albertine’s story, Fridolin plunges head first into an experience that is similar to that of Bill but with slightly different actions and expressions. Examined individually, these subtle variances seem trivial but together they serve to construct unique perspectives of these two men. Of course a multitude of changes are necessary when adapting a book for the screen, but one of the most influential factors occurs in casting. Kubrick made a statement when casting Tom Cruise as Fridolin and Nicole Kidman as Albertine. Not quite whom you pictured as these characters? I didn’t think so. Albertine seemed to be a kinder, gentler version of Bill who was less self-absorbed and more gallant than his onscreen counterpart. I sensed Fridolin as an elegant man, tall in stature and very poised, but this was probably just the subconscious creation of what I pictured a 1920s Austrian doctor would look like. I also sensed Albertine to be a sweeter, more fragile version of (the crude pot-smoking) Alice. Of course these are all subjective responses that are open for debate, but in the end it may not really matter since Eyes Wide Shut is essentially a rebirthing of Dream Story that was intended for an entirely different audience.

Both Bill and Fridolin journey into deep psychological, emotional and social explorations after hearing a story that challenges their self-constructed realities. The audience of Eyes Wide Shut watches as Bill descends deeper and deeper into shadowy locales and bizarre situations. The images onscreen serve as markers of symbolism and personification while the reader of Dream Story is provided with concrete clarifications for contemplation and connotation. Of course it’s a tradeoff and people tend to prefer one medium over the other but a savvy director understands the strengths and restrictions of the camera. Kubrick skillfully manipulated lighting to highlight emotions, utilized long tracking shots to create a sense of surrealism and skillfully used repetition to punctuate Bill’s vulnerability over his thoughts.

The difference between listening to people’s stories and actually observing their behavior is enormous. This is why ethnography provides credibility for researchers but it is also the reason why observation is problematic. The power of all stories come from their interpretative nature and every story naturally transforms itself according to the listener’s characteristics. Was part of Dream Story lost in translation? Undoubtedly so, but largely out of the sheer necessity for American audiences to be able to identify with a more relatable story.

anuenue said...

Arlene put it very well in her first paragraph of her comment pertaining to the differences in reading the book and watching the movie! Many people recommend reading a book before watching the film that it was based on, however I enjoy doing it the other way-- especially with Dream Story. I found emphasis in certain parts of reading the story because Kubrick utilized the exact same lines that were in Schnitzler's story. For example, when they ask Fridolin (Bill) for the password for the house, the man replies "That's unfortunate, for it makes no difference here whether you have forgotten the password, or whether you never knew it." In the movie, these lines are weighted heavily because they are accompanied by the visuals of the many men in masks and the soundtrack. I enjoyed reading the book second because reading the same lines that i heard in the movie adds a sort of dramatic affect. (The line must have been significant in some way or another because Kubrick selectively chose not to alter or omit it)

Focusing now more on Kubrick's alterations of the classic novel, I feel he utilized a well thought out selective process for changing the story. Film is more powerful because viewers are actually processing images and words whereas Schnitzler's story is merely words. The story g and story c are very much different from the book and the film. Reading the story, the plot includes dialect (that is, elements of story g) that in the film are suggested using elements of story c.

I am curious if anyone else experience the same? Did anyone have any hunches they themselves constructed from the film and then discovered in the book it was actually a part of the plot-- that their "hunch" was actually given in the story by Schnitzler?

Unknown said...

I must admit I had not finished reading the novella again at the time I first posted. I had read it early in December and after focusing so much on the movie, it was weird when I read it again. It was as if I had never read it. There were so many details I didn’t remember. These are two completely different “stories,” even though the basic plot line is there and there is a little similarity of the stories within the stories. Except Albertine’s dream is much more telling. In fact, Fridolin has much more cause to be disturbed by this dream, and he is, because it involves not only Albertine having sex with possibly many men in addition to the Danish officer but also details of Fridolin being whipped until bloody and then crucified. Wow! No wonder he is upset. Her dream trumps his adventures: “The further she had progressed with her narrative the more ridiculous and insignificant his own adventures so far seemed to him, and he swore to pursue them to the end and report them faithfully to her, and so get even with this woman who had revealed herself through her dream for what she really was, faithless, cruel and treacherous, and whom at that moment he thought he hated more profoundly than he had ever loved her” (p. 247).

On page 266, the reality of her dream is apparent when he feels that he can no longer turn to her. He thinks “ For whichever way one wished to look at it, last night she had had him crucified.”

Another difference between the film and novella is the way in which the characters deal with the scene in which they are exposed. I think Fridolin exhibited quite a lot of courage and his words were honorable. This scene “reads” so differently: we saw Bill depicted as pretty powerless and ineffectual while I thought this was a moment when Fridolin actually rose to the occasion and said things that made him sound more honorable and even courageous. I touched on courage in my first posting, I think this is an important theme Schnitzler is examining in much of Fridolin’s thoughts: the relationship between courage and manhood or manliness. Fridolin is on an adventure to see if he has the courage to break out of his habitual life and to indulge his repressed sexual desires to get revenge. Nightingale even says the very phrase that, given Fridolin’s ruminations earlier, are exactly what would provoke him to action, the call to adventure: "Do you have the courage?" (p. 208).

Fridolin is at times a literally funny character who the author paints a very vivid portrait of within the novella. Anuenue’s observation that film is a powerful medium is so true. Kubrick is using it to tell a completely different story. I think Schnitzler’s work is a psychological novella with many, many symbols provided to examine Fridolin’s character and his world and his adventure. As Carmen said, with the novella there is little wiggle room for the story, particularly because we are given almost exactly everything we need to know about what motivates Fridolin. I think the substance of this novella is the incredible amount of detail available for psychological interpretations of unconscious wishes such as Freud made popular.

In contrast, Kubrick’s film has a very staged quality, like a drama or a play. We are not inside the characters heads so much (with the exception almost literally of Bill’s blue movie). We see Bill, the hero “acting” out his psychological reactions so to speak with his facial expressions, pounding his fists (with the blue movie scene cut into all the scenes that are setting up his motivation). We see the very staged orgy scenes which contrast dramatically with the kind of frenzied orgy that Schnitzler describes, with the men running to the women.

I do agree with Lisa that a lot of the novella was left out and that it had to be in order for a modern, American audience to find narrative fidelity. I also think Kubrick is more manipulating these characters with his portrayal of them. Interestingly, Kubrick adds Ziegler, an additional character who is absolutely critical in allowing Kubrick’s film to deal with the social themes of status, socioeconomic hierarchies and so on. Without Ziegler we could not contrast Bill as the everyman, working professional compared to the wealthy. And then Kubrick emphasizes the wealth and status of those in the secret society, examining larger themes that drive the film.

Is Fridolin an everyman? Yes, he is but in a different way. I was struck by the way he entertains heroic little fantasies immediately after leaving the ball such as when he thinks his presence there had perhaps “brought about some miraculous reformation in her” [the elusive woman who sacrificed herself for him]. This is when he is deciding she is something more than “a cheap whore.” Otherwise she is not worthy of being the enigmatic, desirable woman he finds her. If she is just a cheap whore, then the value added of his adventure is drastically reduced. But then, he decides it is impossible to believe this miracle could occur. “But perhaps there are times, or nights, he thought, when some strange irresistible magic does emanate from men who under normal circumstances are not imbued with any particular power over the opposite sex?) (p. 233). He is flip-flopping back and forth. It sounds to me like he is definitely attempting to convince himself that he is a hero in his story that has been unfolding.

Another fantasy: he thinks that maybe he was being tested and will now be rewarded “for an initiation honourably endured and acceptance into the secret society.” This, while he is being carted away in the locked coach! Well, shortly thereafter, he looses it entirely and screams and bangs on the window. With these almost pathetic heroic fantasies, relating sexual prowess to manliness to courage and ultimately heroics, I think we are supposed to read Fridolin as being a kind of almost pathetic figure of a man. Throughout this novella, we see he has a need to think highly of himself, of his courage and his honor and his attractiveness to women. These are the elements of his fantasy.

In his journey Fridolin moves “away from the habitual sphere of his existence, into some other remote and unfamiliar world” (p. 201) and then he loops back and is looking at his habitual professional life with affection and a great deal of relief. Well, throughout, he is repeatedly assured by the fact that he will return to his routine. It is his profession which sustains him when he has decided that in the depths of his soul “he had after all already done with her (Albertine)” (p. 252). He “felt almost happy” as he went from bed to bed at work (p. 253). He even feels renewed ambition for continuing research to finish his dissertation. All this is psychological and it is mostly missing in Kubrick’s work with it’s frame of reference the society rather than the content of working of one individual’s mind. Kubrick does spend a lot of time on the what I think of as the psycho-sexual drama between Alice and Bill, disregarding some of the connections Schnitzler made in following Fridolin's heroic journey. Having said that, it could just be the two different mediums that bias my interpretations. Perhaps great films as well as great literature "shows" without "telling". So Kubrick has brilliantly translated a lot of the psychological drama using cinematic techniques.

Dr. G said...

The dialog is going great here, I just want more! Can't wait to read the second posts of those 'in the game' and I encourage late readers to jump in and give us ideas about how (as Heather says) story g is different from story c in the film and novel. Try to push your insights toward the larger question about what the whole story -- from the original forward -- from Schnitzler to Kubrick, is trying to say about what marriage means, what makes people get married, what the motive for monagamy is, how social status is connected to erotic status... anything... lets go!

TLL said...

In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud writes about the idea that civilization/culture places restrictions and inhibitions on what would be man’s instinctual drives. With such constraints in place humanity is left to deal with the residual guilt and non-fulfillment of their desires. This idea is very similar to what Fridolin/Bill and Albertine/Alice are dealing with in both EWS and Dream story. It seems to me that both Kubrick and Schnitzler are both attempting to use the theme of unfulfillment in their respective stories. Frued writes, “Against all the evidence of his senses, a man who is in love declares that ‘I’ and ‘you’ are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.” Both Fridolin and Albertine perform the kabuki maneuvers expected of a good marriage but clearly their minds and desires are elsewhere. Still both parties in EWS and Dream story express guilt when they act on some of their base instincts, Freud would call this the super-ego in action, which solidified by civilization, “obtains mastery over the individual’s dangerous desire…weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city.” Severe demands placed on the individual by the super-ego, which cannot be realistically met, cause great unhappiness.

Arlene touched upon these feelings of aggression, desire, and guilt in her blog, especially noting from the novella “The further she had progressed with her narrative the more ridiculous and insignificant his own adventures so far seemed to him, and he swore to pursue them to the end and report them faithfully to her, and so get even with this woman who had revealed herself through her dream for what she really was, faithless, cruel and treacherous, and whom at that moment he thought he hated more profoundly than he had ever loved her” (p. 247).

Schnitzler and Kubrick seem to be in line with Freud’s idea that ‘love’ and thus marriage/domesticity are instinctual desires to avoid displeasure. Still, Fridolin/Bill and Albertine/Alice are finding that despite their greatest intentions, happiness isn’t achieved. Moonprincess notes Freud’s theme of repression and its possible ramifications in Fridolin and Albertine’s marriage. “One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be ‘happy’ is not included in the plan of ‘Creation’.”

Finally, I enjoyed Lisa’s commentary on Kubrick’s style of adaptation and her analysis of listening to stories versus the observation of behavior. When comparing the film and the movie I enjoyed the ability to actually ‘get inside’ Fridolin’s head, something that was more difficult to achieve in EWS.

Unknown said...

TLL brought up an important point about the women Bill and Fridolin encountered. I agree that after reading Dream Story, it is even more clear that the encounters with each woman are significant for the story of the hero’s adventure. Fridolin was greatly interested in the Dominoes just as Bill was flirting with the models. Maybe Ziegler even “encouraged” the models to be "friendly" with Bill (another perk?).

In any case, in each of these encounters the hero is clearly responding to the women well before any confession on the part of his wife. In both stories it is significant how there is a variety of women depicted after both men have had their eyes opened by their wife’s confession. A variety of women,such as young girls, models, prostitutes, and even women the hero meets in some professional capacity. Each brings some different kind of temptation to the hero. For example Fridolin feels some amount of lust for Milich’s young daughter. Later, in his journey, he decides to go back to Marianne to get his revenge on Albertine with her. Yet, in the end, he is just not attracted to her, especially after he has met the woman at the party, but even more important, I think, is that any indiscretion with her would be complicated by the fact that the woman is in love with him.

In his professional capacity, Bill assists Gayle, the model with something in her eye, and he knows Marion from being her father’s physician. Kubrick depicts Bill responding to each of the hookers he encounters, although just like Fridolin, he doesn’t seem to know what to do with Marion’s confession.

The film and novella both emphasize that hookers and trollops are easily available to men, of course with no strings attached. Fridolin seems most enticed by the mysterious naked woman whom he seems to want all the more when she appears to play hard to get.

It is the “good” women, both of the wives, whose love and sex come with all kinds of strings attached. There are moral, societal, and emotional bonds connecting them. The love each man feels for his wife makes him vulnerable to the pain her betrayal can inflict. I couldn’t agree more with TLL and Sartre that “hell is other people.” To think that their good wife, the mother of their child, can actually be “bad” drives these men nuts. On a night such as each of these men embark upon after their wife’s “betrayal,” they are suddenly “free” to respond to all the encounters with women that the marital bonds usually prevent them from doing.

Marion/Marianne is kind of half way between the two kinds of women on the scale of good to bad. She is willing to be “near” the hero even while engaged to another, and later married, Yet it is out of love. But our hero rejects this woman’s love and any kind of affair with her. After all he already has a woman who loves him. He doesn’t need another woman for that. Like kids in the proverbial candy story, the men are evaluating every woman they meet, some they know, some strangers, as the one with whom they will use to get revenge. Each woman is rejected but as the evening wears on the hero is becoming really worked up by the time they meet the mysterious naked woman. We know this most clearly from Fridolin’s story: “he was at once thirsty and intoxicated by all the adventures of the night, none of which had led to anything…” (p. 225).

There is evidence that the naked woman at the ball is probably a “regular” woman, leading “a second, so-called bourgeois life alongside this one,” although as Fridolin thinks “it would still for all that be a whore’s life” (p. 232). The fact that the girl, who poisoned herself after a party-goer removed her mask, was from an aristocratic family engaged to an Italian prince (p. 226) supports this interpretation. I think the mysterious woman in Dream Story is destroyed by having her own mask removed and her identity revealed and of course being ravaged by all the men (p. 230).

The whole point of the masked ball is to be able to do whatever you want in disguise. The dishonour of having sex at all outside of marriage but especially in this kind of a setting, would be tremendous. Her reputation ruined, the woman who sacrificed herself for Fridolin could not pay this high of a price socially and so ended her life. For all that he says he wants to save her, Fridolin doesn’t. There is one point where he says he even forgot about her and he almost had “a sense of guilt” (p. 254) Shouldn’t he be feeling a lot more guilt? I think his justification is that she was there voluntarily, she was a “bad” woman.

Fridolin, for example, even begins to disparage all women because of Albertine’s unfaithfulness and cruelty. He says “They’re all the same, he thought bitterly, and Albertine no different from the rest—in fact she’s the worst of them all” (p. 254).

Of course Kubrick's women at the orgy, at least the ones in the circle, are paid hookers to fit with his theme of status and social value, etc.

Both stories,however, appear to be debunking the myth that women don’t have sexual urges and attractions for others once they are married. And of course, we all know men are sublimating their sexual urges, if they do remain faithful as required by the marital contract. Maybe marriage itself is the masked ball where each partner is supposed to wear a mask that disguises their true nature.

Even in Kubrick's orgy, the masks the men wear protects their identity and permits them to frolic without social penalties, and the implication is moral penalties don't apply to the rich as they do to the common man.

Sky said...

Usually, we tend to read the book, then watch the movie. And the usually reaction most have is "the book is way better." This is a typical response and I must admit, I kind of feel the same way. The book gives us much more insight in what the character(s) are thinking/feeling, whereas the movie often leaves us with a sense of wondering; wondering what each character is thinking during crucial scenes.

For instance, in the book, while he has just gone over and encounters Marianne and her situation, the book gives us interesting insights as to what Fridolin's emotions/feelings are during the surprising news of Marianne's love for him...

"She hardly heard what he said. Her eyes became moist, large tears streamed down her cheeks and again she buried her face in her hands. In spite of himself, he placed his hand on her head, caressing it. He could feel her body beginning to tremble, and her sobs which were at first very quiet, gradually became louder and finally quite unrestrained. All at once she slipped down from her chair and lay at Fridolin's feet, clasping his knees with her arms and pressing her face against them. Then she looked up to him with large eyes, wild with grief, and whispered ardently: "I don't want to leave here. Even if you never return, if I am never to see you again, I want, at least, to live near you."

He was touched rather than surprised, for he had always known that she either was, or imagined herself to be, in love with him.

"Please—get up, Marianne," he said softly and bending down he gently raised her. Of course, she is hysterical, he remarked to himself and he glanced at her dead father. I wonder if he hears everything, he thought. Perhaps he isn't really dead. Perhaps everyone in the first hours after passing away, is only in a coma. He put his arms about her in a very hesitating embrace, and almost against his will he kissed her on the forehead, an act that somehow seemed rather ridiculous. He had a fleeting recollection of reading a novel years ago in which a young man, still almost a boy, had been seduced, in fact, practically raped, by the friend of his mother at the latter's deathbed. At the same time he thought of his wife, without knowing why, and he was conscious of some bitterness and a vague animosity against the man with the yellow hand-bag on the hotel stairs in Denmark. He held Marianne closer, but without the slightest emotion."

Very interesting description during this scene. I remember during the movie thinking if he was going to take advantage of this situation, but after reading this section in the book, he felt nothing for Marianne. In fact, the book reveals that he's thinking about the story his wife tells him. Kind of the vision we get from the movie.

Sky said...

"But whatever his present state of mind— whatever decisions he might reach in the next few hours, the urgent demand of the moment was for sleep and forgetfulness."

I thought this was a classic line in the book; it gives us a view of the typical man and his thought process after hearing the dream Albertina had. He was obviously distraught in some way after hearing the story, but he wouldn't make a decision to act on it until he got his sleep. haha.

I think the title of both the book and the movie (Dream Story & Eyes Wide Shut) add significance to each. The dreams Alice/Albertina tell effect the entire book/movie/Bill/Fri. I also find it intriguing how well the dreams are told. Down to the very detail.

Moonprincess said...

Sky, I was just thinking about that line when I read your comment, lol. I think that it is reflective of not just a man but of people in general. Whenever there is something heavy on the mind most of us prefer to sleep on it before making a decision.

Though that line was interesting, it is when he lays down next to Albertina and thinks about them being mortal enemies that I find to be very significant.

"He stretched himself out beside his wife who seemed already asleep. A sword between us, he thought, we are lying here like mortal enemies. But it was only an illusion."

Fridolin's thought on his perception of he and ALbertina being enemies as being only an illusion seems to be the prevailing theme of both the book and the movie (illusions, that is). Even knowing that Fridolin's/Bill's adventure happened, it's still felt like a dream/fantasy. The book really starts with a fantasy and moves towards a world that couldn't really exist, could it? Even after seeing the movie, I found my imagination taking the scene further while reading the book. The whole time it was like reading about a dream.

Arlene's statement on the readers being co-creators in bringing the novel to life strikes me as being very accurate for this book. We as readers do use our own imaginations to develop the characters and the story line, but this only seems to add on to the dream/illusion feel of Fridolin's/Bill's adventure.

Unknown said...

Wow! TLL’s last entry describes exactly what I think is going on in this story. TLL brings in all the Freudian terms and concepts which I really believe Schnitzler was getting at. TLL tells us “Freud writes about the idea that civilization/culture places restrictions and inhibitions on what would be man’s instinctual drives. With such constraints in place humanity is left to deal with the residual guilt and non-fulfillment of their desires.” Exactly!

My only disagreement lies in expressing the point that in contrasting the two stories, Fridolin and Albertine have a much happier marriage than Alice and Bill, as Carmen points out. I don’t think this detracts from Schnitzler’s theme but in fact actually adds to it. Even with a thick layer of love for each other, there is no encapsulating their base human natures. In Dream Story, it is because they are close and talk with each other and share themselves fairly openly (well, Albertine more so; Fridolin more reluctantly) that they think they can discuss these things. When they do, their revelations create a deep fissure in their marriage and their subconscious desires and deep seated Id-inspired wishes (for example to kill the object of their affection who has so much power over them) come boiling to the surface. Think of Albertine’s laughter when her beloved husband is nailed to the cross (p. 247). Moonprincess also recognized the significance of these intense feelings that the loved one can easily become one’s mortal enemy. Almost as if love and hate are two sides to the same coin.

If Albertine and Fridolin can get in trouble, any couple can, especially if they reveal these secret urges because they think their marriage is strong enough. In Alice and Bill’s case it took Alice getting high for her to finally reveal to Bill what had been eating at her, what had created distance from him without him even knowing.

No marriage, these stories tell us, is strong enough to withstand the powerful Id unless the “mask” of socialization is firmly in place. The id wants what it wants.

Again, as TLL and Sky have pointed out, the story-constructed in The Dream Story gives us a lot more of the inner workings of the thoughts, feelings, and intentions of Fridolin and thus sets up the possibility for a lot of Freudian detail in written symbols. EWS is also rich with visual symbols but these are not always as psychologically explicit as Schnitzler’s text.

But of course the stories people tell, in both the novella and in Kubrick’s film, reveal everything. That is supposed to be one of the main things we get from these two works, and from our course in narrative: the power of the stories people tell to one another which can alter the other’s reality (i.e. Ziegler, Albertine’s, Alice’s stories).

Unknown said...

I meant to say story-given here:


Again, as TLL and Sky have pointed out, the story-constructed in The Dream Story gives us a lot more of the inner workings of the thoughts, feelings, and intentions...

cristie said...

The line at the end of the novel when she says, "Never enquire into the future."(p.281) To me, this is a very crucial line. Isn't that one reason why people get married-looking towards the future and making plans? In Dream Story as well, the focus is the ..underneath the surface of the domestic union and looking into the human psyche with the complex issues surrounding love/passion in a married couple;the intense emotions of the fear of being left which creates jealously. Another important difference in the two stories would be along with Sky's comment about "Fridolin's confession of an attraction to a young lady on the beach." I wonder how different that would make EWS, seeing that Bill never admitted feelings for another . Arlene-I like what you wrote ..."No marriage, these stories tell us, is strong enough to withstand the powerful Id unless the “mask” of socialization is firmly in place. The id wants what it wants."-- (GOOD point)

Moonprincess said...

Cristie makes a good point about the future being one of the reason people marry. Dream Story really delves into the structure of a relationship, especially marriage. When people marry, they are thinking of the future and of "forever" as Fridolin was thinking. The story explores the limits of marriage and relationship. Both the fantasies shared by Fridolin and Albetina and Fridolin's adventure forces us to examine the inner psyche of a marriage. Can two people who have made promises of fidelity and commitment fantasize about someone else? Is this a violation of the sanction of marriage or is it healthy for the relationship? When in a relationship we all question whether the person we are with is the one. Even after marriage that question can still come up. We would all love to think of marriage as a forever commitment but does it guarantee it?

Ha'a said...

After reading the book/novel I have to agree with Anuenue that I enjoyed watching the movie first then reading. I also agree with the rest of the class that the book and the movie are extremely different. I understand a lot more about the story than by just watching the movie.

In Schnitzler's version it seemed to be much more about revenge and having the last say then it was in the movie. This can be seen early in the story with the lines "neither failed to notice that the other was not absolutely honest, and so the became slightly vindictive." Schnitzler then goes on to set up the un-conscious with "they were hardly conscious but toward which the incomprehensible wind of fate might some day drive them, EVEN IF ONLY IN THIER DREAMS." So this brings to me comment on what Arlene and others have said about Albertina's dreams being much wrost than Fridolin's real adventors. I find that funny in a way that someones dreams affect a person much more than reality. I think that depends on if you believe dreams have truth to them.

I agree with another of Arlene's comments about both Bill and Fridolin going nuts because they don't like that their wives are the ones "being bad". I think if the story was the other way around and it started with the men confessing first and having such vivid dreams the women would not have gone out and done what the men did. It's as if the men got some kind of free pass to go out just because their wives have these thoughts in their minds.

However, I don't agree with Arlene's comment that the "good women" come with strings attached and the "bad women" don't. I actually think that when both Bill and Fridolin go back and look for both prostitues they are saying their is something more to these women than just sex. I think what they are saying is that typically you would think there are no strings attached but in actuality if he had sex with both of them or even on of them he may have contacted some kind of disease. But even though he's not sexual with them they mean more and he cares about them enough to go back and check on them which to me means they are not only in the story for sex but that they deserve attention and "goodness" from a man.

As far as the ending of the stories and what they mean. I agree with moonprinces that does a marriage guarantee happiness and forever? Maybe what the original meaning of the story is to say that societies idea of marriage is fake. Throughout both stories they put up a front but their marriage has serious problems. After reading Schnitzler's version and applying it to EWS I concluded the stories as saying that even if you don't actually cheat on your husband/wife having such thoughts is just as bad and that people can be fake and have this front and not even be honest with their partner but deep down in side EVERYONE has doubts and insecurities. And it's ok to talk about it because perhaps it may allow both of you to move on get over it.

Anonymous said...

Schnitzler and Kubrick say a lot about what marriage means to them, to us and to society as a whole. Dream Story and Eyes Wide Shut are obvious social commentaries that criticize and praise marriage and monogamy depending on who you are within the equation. An older married woman would view the story very differently from a younger single man and these different perspectives are what give this ‘age old tale’ a fresh perspective.

I agree with Sky about Schnitzler and Kubrick not presenting a ‘typical hero story that has us in awe’ since this journey participates interactively with the film’s audiences and the book’s readers. This was evident during our class discussions when there were no clear-cut answers to many of the questions that were posed. Was Bill was a good person? Did the story have a happy ending? What was the moral of the story? Each person’s answer depended on if and how he or she filled in the visual, mental, emotional and psychological gaps of the story. From there, each person’s answer eventually went on to reach different branches of the storyline and open up the analysis even further. The best stories are simple but layered so that they may endure and evolve.

I like the direction that Arlene took when she considered the time period of the novella. Yes, the modern 35 year old Bill is in a very different position from the 35 year old Fridolin of yore. The concept of being in one’s ‘prime’ is a very subjective matter and one that audiences and readers surely will absorb within the context of each story. Fridolin at times seems to have a better grasp of reality than Bill and as a result, is more guarded and contemplative. Then again, this could just be a sign of the times for Fridolin’s character and of Schnitzler’s writing.

Trevor referred to the theme of unfulfillment and the fascinating interconnection between instinct, constraint and desire. This phenomenon is a strong underlying current in both stories and we see the power of repression and obsession. Schnitzler leaves a firm imprint that centers on the role of the unconscious and his references to Freud are clear. While Freud believed that the motive behind forgetting is similar to that of repression, he also perceived forgetting as ‘the removal of objectionable material from consciousness’ and therefore understood why people forgot what they tried to remember and kept remembering what they wanted to forget. Freud used the term ‘paramnesia’ when referring to false recollection that occurred when a suppressed thought tried to make its way into consciousness. He believed that paramnesia is motivated by repression. This concept is the pulse behind the story-g and story-c development in EWS. Kubrick is a fan of using repetition in film and we see Bill’s paramnesia occur over and over even though he tries so hard to push it out of his mind.

Carmen said...

Where does the story begin? We answered this question in class when we established that it was in a marriage that had been ongoing for some odd years now. Not an old retired married couple, not a newly wed couple but a couple in a couple of years or so. Why is this important? I think it is because we get to see the everyday, ordinary world of a married couple, the kind we imagine couples like these to be. But what does this image painted before us of this marriage mean. Society raises us on the fairy tale of marriage. Our social destiny, if you will. To find a person of whome to commit to and announce faithfulness through ceremony under the eye of witnesses supporting the ritual. It signifies monogomy, faithfullness, and exclusive intimacy. In the movie and the novel we see stories revealed differently. In the novel as I pointed out in my first comment, we are told by the author every touch and embrace that the couple make as they reveal their stories. This helps us construct an image of a close couple with a tender connection. In the movie, we hardly see any physical connection between the couple except for before the mirror, with an unconvincing glare from Alice. The film director can easily portray jealousy and pain, guilt and sorrow, through nonverbal communication, a tool that a book lacks.

I agree with lisa as she describes for us paramnesia, forgeting anything that may evoke such emotion can be a difficult thing to do. I also want to point out that perhaps attempting to forget is an attempt to clean up a mess that is deamed a mess by society. Truly happy couples shouldn't want to be with anyone else. They shouldn't want to stray. Couldn't these feelings or dreams be just normal human behavior. Who doesn't want to be wanted, who wouldn't want to imagine "What if". It is these ourlets that we allow our inner hunger for attention and attraction to be set free only to return to our bounded lives and continue on our rule infested marriage.

As a person who is not allowed to marry whom I choose based on the fact that I love someone who is the same gender as myself. I see clearly that any step toward a marriage is surly not to bow down to the rituals of my surrounding society. They will not permit it. It is not to flag around a document proclaiming my commitment. It means nothing to my government. If I get married it is for the shear inner feeling of commitment to my wife. Realizing that the ritual that heterosexuals go through, is no different inside than if I were to place a ring pop on my girlfriends finger and claim Mrs. & Mrs. status, I find that we tend to forget that nothing magical changes our instinctual thoughts of want and desire.

When we are single we may find ourselves wanted by many. It is US who accept and reciprocate the love of the one we choose to be best suited for us. This does not make us any less undesireable or erase our need for outside attention to feel attractive.

The movie and book draw for me, a clear picture of how we are still human. Where we are in the social structure of life lets us know how many people look down upon us from the top. The lower you are on the totem pole the more eyes to look down upon unacceptable behavior. The hire, the less the burden.

As Trevor puts it, we may assume our closeness with our partners, but we leave ourselves suseptible to surprise once we forget that we are two separate people with separate minds who choose to be together in a colaboration of daily activities as friends, lovers, support, and such.

anuenue said...

To strengthen my last comment from the previous blog about how Bill embarks on his journey in persuit of revenge (that some found my posting illogical) i thought it was ironic that my "hunch" that was a part of story c in EWS factually became story g in the book. (and even those who said my comment made no sense actually restated my opinion in this blog!) Guess the hunch had more truth after reading the novel ;0) This idea/hunch of "dancing with desire" i took from bill's encounters in the night is reaffirmed in the book when Albertine confesses her dream. Fridolin thinks to himself:

"The further she had progressed with her narrative, the more ridiculous and insignificant his own adventures so far seemed to him, and he swore to her, and SO GET EVEN WITH THIS WOMAN who had revealed herself through her dream for what she really was, faithless, cruel and treacherous, and whom at that moment he thought he hated more profoundly than he had ever loved her." (p. 247)

This is why Bill never sleeps with any of the women! He has no concept of waking life versus dreams. To him, his wife's dreams of infidelity are just as equally demising at him playing with infidelity... see just how close he can get without crossing the line. It makes perfect sense... he cant control what his wife fantasizes about so he makes up for this by having control (the upperhand) in the sticky situations HE PUTS HIMSELF IN to where (in both the film and the novel) infidelity is so palpable there is no mistake of that.

As for comparing the marriage of Fridolin and Albertine to Bill and Alice, I think this is misleading to make any conclusions. Why? Because it is a completely different time period. Think about the days of "burning the midnight oil" when the statement was factual and not literal. Bill and Alice exist in a time period of electricity, cable, and satellites whereas Fridolin and Albertine exist in a time prior. Of course their marriage is going to be different and their perceptions extremely different. From this idea i purpose, wouldn't Fridolin's concept of his wife seem a little more normal considering how women were viewed during this time period? Women were expected to stay at home and do as they are told, of course there is not going to be as much communication as during the time Bill and Alice exist in EWS. This is reaffirmed by Alice looking for a job in EWS (portraying women in the workplace) whereas in Dreamstory Albertine stays at home where she belongs (not saying that I agree, just stating the perspective of society during the time)

Carmen does a great job mentioning the image of a fairy tale marriage in today's society. This image is reaffirmed through the movies and television we watch, the commercials we see, the advertisements we are bombarded with, the books we read, and the radio we listen to (either songs or talk radio about what is wrong with people's marriages and how they need to fix them). Our society is constantly bombarded with what a marriage should be rarely portraying what it is.

I really enjoyed Arlene's comment about being co-creators with the author. The mind is much more stimulated by creating its own images in response to words because I feel the mind stimulates less of its own thoughts (story c) when responding to images and words on screen (story g). I wonder if this idea also works in establishing how close the reader/viewer feels to the characters. Does a reader feel and associate closer to characters because he/she creates their own images for the words on the page. (That is, that because its the readers OWN perceptions they feel closer to the characters than in a movie to which to images are provided?)

I enjoyed Trevor's acknowledgement of both Fridolin and Albertine and Bill and Alice on a level with more commonalities. Exactly when he applies the idea that society must always face "residual guilt and non-fufillment of their desires". I personally believe these feelings (guilt and non-fufillment) are ever present in any society regardless of the time period. For example: your friend's brownie in the cafeteria during lunch in third grade, your friends new stagecoach (with four horse power when yours only has two), a co-worker that has an 8 track in his car, Bobby taking Suzy Q to a movie when he just shared a milk shake with Judy Kay, or telling your significant other you have to stay late at work when secretly you're meeting someone new. It's almost a prerequisite to be human-- wanting what you don't have or desiring what you want at any cost. It's a great idea, and as pretty much everyone has commented on, proves to ring true in both stories!!

Jackbenimble said...

In comparison to the movie, 'Dream Story' certainly fills the mind with a lot more detail in terms of the descriptions both Fridolin and Albertina's explain of their desires and dreams.

I thought it a bit creepy Fridolin was having such a silent conversation with the young girl of only fifteen as he describes. In the book there is a line by Albertina that says 'let's always tell each other such things at once.' I do not think that matches up in the movie. I know Alice was the first to express desire for an affair, but I'm not sure if she truly wanted to express it to Bill, I think she felt she had to. Albertina seems to anticipate telling Fridolin any dreams or desires she may have.

In the book the reader gets a better understanding of Fridolin's personality, from the monologue that we read of what is going on in his head. The characters Bill and Fridolin certainly have similar personalities but we get a better understanding of who the characters are from reading the book.

As vivid and descriptive as the movie was the book gives the reader at least for me much more insight into the persona of each character, it helps me tie their actions to the personalities they seem to express to us in the book.

D.L. said...

Albertine and Alice have virtually identical narratives. The major difference that I observed between the film and the story is that Bill appears to be a more moral man then Fridolin. I think part of this impression can be attributed to the fact that we are privy to all of Fridolin's thoughts; with Bill we can only observe his actions and his visions of his wife cheating on him.

Another thing that jumped out is that Fridolin had his own dirty experience on the seashore. He also admits that if he had the time and a little more motivation to cheat on Albertine's he could do it. There is no mention of a moral obligation to his wife.

Fridolin also seems much less affected by his wives narrative. His actions seem to be spurred by a much more subconscious disturbance with his wife's story then Bill. With the way the narrative is laid out in the film we see exactly what Bill is thinking about, his wife cheating on him. With Fridolin we see a few small comments during his journey that make note of his inability to return home, because of the narrative. He makes comment that he'd like to fight his wife's imaginary lover. Because of the narrative structure chosen by Kubrick our two protagonists could almost be two different characters.

Carmine is spot on with her treatise on our own created realities. I also believe that if we believe in something, whether we voice this belief or not, it becomes reality for us. I saw a cheesy expose on the moon landing that claims that we never landed on the moon. That at that point in time it was technologically impossible to do so. This is real to me. Perhaps by sharing these thoughts with someone else it will become their reality. This belief may be unfounded but to me it drives me to discredit our space program. The power of the cornball documentary and it's narrative affected me.

Arlene makes the point that Fridolin is at an advanced age in life for his time and thus his story provides a more authoritative outlook and complex motivation for Fridolin's character. I think that moral relativism is a factor in my observation of Fridolin. I'm not positive what time period the story takes place in, but it is apparent that he regards his wife as more of a piece of property then Bill does. He is less affected and appears more willing to breach the marriage contract. Bill is bound by the traditional bounds of love.

Dr. G said...

Thanks everybody, you made my night! Honestly. In my introductions to my classes this semester, I emphasized that I aspire to be a teacher of the carrot and not of the stick... I dream of being able to teach in a way that is truly self, rather than other motivated... and even that is a bad way to put it. What I remember most about graduate school were the endless discussions, and the lack of cafe culture in this era, and the 'distributed' nature of our campus, I am proud to have hosted these conversations.

It is a psychoanalytic technique to prompt discussion and only punctuate it, to stimulate an direct the discourse of the 'patient' or analysand. I found it really interesting to not intervene other than occassionally and without direct evaluation or judgment of what was said. The dialog in the Dream Story blog really blossomed. So MANY great things said, so fantastic the angles explored... thank you all.

I hope that in class, I can share with you my own take on the 2 stories, and I'll bring along insights that you have shared to integrate, contemplate and utilize in the ongoing discussion this semester. Well done everybody, this was really worthwhile.

Dr. G said...

PS: if anyone wants to clarify or add a new insight, do it! I'll definitely check this before class and I don't mean to 'sign off' the blog. Its here for all of us to consult all semester.

Ha'a said...

I agree with Anuenue that perhaps Bill has problems determining the difference between dreams and reality but I’m not sure if that is why he didn’t sleep with anyone. The fact that he keeps playing in his mind Alice sleeping with the Naval capt. Throughout most of the movie clearly says he feels betrayed by his wife’s thoughts but I think deep down inside he is letting that allow him to give into finding something just as worst. I think he can’t determine the difference in his wives actions and what he dreams of it but he knows his actions are real not a dream.

I like Carmen’s thoughts on everyone being human. Yes we all have the ability to think or feel such things even if we try not to. It is basic human nature to be attractive to others but it’s how you react to those feeling that matters the most. I think that determining your actions can be a lose lose situation. Let’s say Alice or Albertine end up sleeping with the officer will the story then be what would their lives be like if they never acted on it. I think it both stories also say “the grass is always greener on the other side”.

As d.l. pointed out that where the story was different was that Fridolin had his own encounter at the bath or swim suite hut. If that happened to Bill I don’t think he would have been as distresses as he was and would have handled things much differently. I think Bill wouldn’t have minded as much because they each experienced something rather than it being a revenge thing.