Practice Abstract 2

Summary:
The Doane text, p 110-113, discussed Villers de I'Isle-Adam's text L'Eve future and Fritz Lang's film Metropolis. It brings up the importance of cinema as a means of exploration into the worlds we don't know or understand. Another point made is the idea that science fiction's portrayal of the female represents a sort of conventional understanding of the female. The Bridges text looks at some of different automaton models that have been brought about in the past and how they work to mystify and intrigue the public. It also analyzes the idea of the cyborg, or where human meets machine.

Terms:
automaton(automata)-mechanical figure constructed to at least appear to act of it's own volition
simulacrum- a representation
the "uncanny"- Freud's explanation for Nathanael's feelings once he found Olympia to be a "wooden doll"
posthuman- robot, cyborg, the like

Questions:
-Who actually created Olympia, and did Nathanael's father have something to do with her?
-The article says in one section that Olympia has no real eyes, just black holes and then later says that it was her human eyes that qualify her as a cyborg. Is the black hole comment a metaphor, and for what?
-When Coppelius tried to "unscrew" Nathanael's limbs(if that actually happened) may he have believed this to be possible because he thought the boy had been "created" by the father?
-What did it mean by cinema in the Doane article when it said "Edison's cinema reveals..." and talked about unmasking Evelyn Habal?
-The term "soulless" is used when talking about Alicia Clary, and what I think really confuses me is, who is Alicia Clary?
-How would Hadaly be able to be humanized by Mrs. Anderson?

I got much more interested in the Bridges reading towards the midpoint of the chapter. I have a feeling though that a lot of the confusion and questions that i had would be resolved if I read Der Sandman. It also talked about Marionettes and how they were really graceful but when I think of probots graceful isn't always the term that comes to mind. And the idea od being "more human than human" bugs me more than a little bit. The Doane article confused me a bit when it discussed the ideals of the cinema. It wasn't that i didn't understand, i just couldn't seem to make that connection. I would like to read L'Eve future as well now.