I think what made me hesitate most before finally sitting down and just writing is the ambiguous nature of what is acceptable to write here and how it should be written. The syllabus says the blog can be a “place of formal, print-on-paper reading responses” or just exploring ideas in “whatever way most appeals to you”. Does that mean that anything is acceptable? My blog definitely leans more towards this side of things than the “formal, print-on-paper” side of things, but is this ok? Also, what is it about printing something on paper that connotes formal, proof-read perfection? When I read that the first time it made complete sense to me.

In the case of 1920’s director Tod Browning, the auteur theory of the director’s importance to the work is very much in play. He has a strong background in the dark underworld of circus life, which many cite as the main influence for his movies. His “biographical legend” has been embellished so much that it is hard to determine where his life experience ends and his creative work begins. This “blurring of filmography and biography” (239) is really interesting to me, because it represents the unclear boundaries between life and art. I have always found that ambiguity unsettling, and it is why I would not want to go into a career that strongly depends on one’s personal inner world. Actors dabble so much in the minds of their characters that they may practically feel possessed. Even if that is not the case, actors can have trouble when they try to stop acting and face “real life.” (See movies like Becoming Julia with Annette Benning.)