In Hitchcock today we saw Marnie. I think the professor is right that it's a bridge to a different kind of Hitchcock film - the classic markers of Hitchcock are significantly different in this film, and the manipulation of the audience doesn't seem to be (apart from one or two possible moments) typical of his style. It is a good film in other aspects - while it's a departure from my understanding of "Pure Cinema", it was very successful at being, at least for me, a tearjerker, as I came to feel strongly for the main character and her struggles. Discussion in class included a discussion on whether it's antifeminist or not -- while there's a "male rescuer" motif (and a rape scene by that same rescuer), the professor said that a number of feminists have praised the film (making me rather curious - I'd like to read their analyses). I ordered a large collection of Hitchcock's works - after I write the term paper for the class, I'll probably want to rewatch this a few times. One of the things that's easy to overlook, while watching a new Hitchcock film every week, is that he had a year or two between each of his films, having that long to put so much into them. I've always been a bit skeptical of film analysis (and, just like art analysis, I can usually get some laughs from my making fun of the analytical pattern), but with the right artist/director, those same words I use in mocking (almost the same words, anyhow) make a lot of sense. Maybe I shouldn't've mocked quite so freely. It's also strange exactly how much depiction of human suffering can shake me - while some kinds of suffering are intrinsic to the nature of things, and some are needed for society to work, unnecessary suffering (and even those necessary ones) tend to stick in my head.

There were some Falun Gong people handing out fliers for an upcoming meeting where they're to discuss China's supression of the practice, including accusations of organ harvesting. While I have no sympathy for Falun Gong's supression (like Scientology, I consider it a dangerous cult with nonsensical truth claims), I am very bothered by organ harvesting - while I understand that pragmatically, harvesting organs from prisoners who are to be executed anyhow makes sense, it reminds me of one of the thought experiments brought to live in Terry Gilliam's Brazil - making those found guilty of crimes pay for their incarceration. Laws must be administered by people, and thoughts easily become institutional when sufficiently seperated from the rest of society - pressure for a justice system to find people guilty for monetary reasons greatly dilutes the justice it would uphold. I would present the (obviously not very convincing, argumentwise) position as well that it's "monsterous" (it's hard to analyse why), but that balances fairly well with the position that it brings great benefit to those who need the organs. There's also the "organ tourism" phonomenon which is very disturbing, although that kind of ties into the concept (which I have major issues with) that those whose labour is worth more on the market should have better access to necessary medical care (going into optional medical care complicates the issue further). To sum it up neatly, even though there may be a lot more worth saying here, while Falun Gong is dangerous and worth supressing, I don't think organ harvesting of prisoners is ever acceptable, even for the most dangerous foes of humanity, and if China is doing it, it deserves condemnation for that.

From an interesting article from the Times, an amusing quote:

• "He is the personification of the thesis that a liberal is a man so broadminded that he would not take his own side in an argument."

• "The problem with baptism is, they don't hold them under long enough"