Duckie vs. Invisible Man

Pretty in Pink is a classical 80's movie with the worst ending possible. Basically, it's about a girl who lives in a poor part of town, who mutually falls for a rich kid. There is an implied rivalry at the school that the rich can't mingle with the poor, or something along those lines. But, interesting enough, the producers emphasize her best friend -- Duckie -- more than they do the rich boy. Duckie is invisible to everybody, even himself at times, and if it was the realistic world (or at least a little bit more realistic) the girl would have ended up with Duckie because they were mutually invisible, but in the end she doesn't. This created an outrage in critics for decades because the writers made everybody fall in love with Duckie way more than they did with Blaine (supposed love interest), but the truth is the original end wasn't with Blaine.It was with Duckie.

There are so many reasons why this is so totally wrong that he ended with nobody, but at the same time a LOT like Invisible Man. Duckie was the center man for most of the movie. In a way, indirectly, he could have been perceived as the main character because it was his story that people fell in love with. But, it couldn't be his story because his life had no impact on anybody else. Like Invisible Man, his character was amazing because everybody else's choices was what caused his ending. Stef's arrogance, Blaine's rebellion, Andie's sudden strive to create a different life for herself. In a way, Stef could be seen as Ras. Blaine could be seen as Brother Jack. Andie could be seen as Clifton, because she is the person that pushes him into a lonesome, invisible hole. Duckie not only walks away from his rivalry from Blaine in the end, but in society in general. Andie was the only reason he was a part of it, but when she starts to drift away, he gets in a fight and leaves school. He runs into her during her "show of change", only to lose her. I always believed after that moment, nothing was really the same again. When she chose Blaine, she chose a different life. She decided to not be a part of history and follow her stereotype, but create her own future that has nothing to do with Duckie. Now, whether or not that should be interpreted as a death, that's an entirely different topic, but it does show the last scene where Invisible Man catches Clifton during his puppet show, finally seeing what he didn't see before.

In the end, I have to admit, there would be no way for the movie to end correctly, which is why they changed it. If they did keep the original end with Duckie...then what was the whole point of Blaine? The whole point of the plot?  The original idea was for it to be a weird twist of Cinderella, there was absolutely no way she could have ended with the guy she should be with. It would be feel incorrect, and just like the Invisible Man, the reason Duckie made an impression was because he saw, through those dark glasses, the reason that it's better to just be invisible.

Sundays too my father got up early

and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

then with cracked hands that ached

from labor in the weekday weather made

banked fires blaze.  No one ever thanked him.

 

I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.

When the rooms were warm, he'd call,

and slowly I would rise and dress,

fearing the chronic angers of that house,

 

Speaking indifferently to him,

who had driven out the cold

and polished my good shoes as well.

What did I know, what did I know

of love's austere and lonely offices?

 

    In "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden, Hayden creates a contrasting connection between family relationships and the bitter cold. First he begins by stating "Sundays too", implying that even on Sunday, the day that should be dedicated to family and God, his father tended to hard work rather than celebration. His father insists on waking up earlier than the rest, in order to make a fire. This fire could be symbolism for many different things: anger, love, enlightenment, life, damnation, destruction, and other motifs.  But in this poem, it can be seen as a symbol for life, saying that his father did everything hard, whether he appreciated it or not, for him. He would get up in the cold, or in hard times, in order to create this future for his son. His son, it can be assumed, took him for granted. The odd thing is that, according to the first line in the second stanza, the cold wakes the boy up as well, suggesting that possibly he noticed how his father would do this harsh things, possibly even implying that his father was harsh and unfavoriable, and he did not see the benefits from his father's sacrifices. When the warmth meets him, his father would force him to get up and leave the warmth in order to obey him. The son predicts that he will be scolded or be treated harshly from his father, maybe even "tough love". His son does not appreciate him, "speaking indifferently", forgets that his father had made sacrifices for him by making the "cold" or the things that could hurt their family, and "polished his shoes" or made sure his future is bright. The boy than reminsces about the fact that he always saw his father as strict and curle, when really his father was actually protecting him and cared about him greatly to make sure he had a good life. and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

Rapunzel

               Tonight I was watching a television show and the main plot was about fighting a face-less ("inivisble") figure in order to save the "princess" (the damsel in distress, the reward, etc). So, following the tale of Rapunzel, the knight goes up her tower in order to save the screaming princess, but when he gets up there he sets off an alarm that brings a cloaked figure. The knight tries to fight the face-less figure off, but he ultimately fails. When the knight starts to fall (physically and figuratively) to the ground, he catches the hem of the cloak and rips it off, only to reveal that under the cloak is the princess as well. The same princess, wearing the same thing, in the same place, at the same time, and then it hits him: the enemy is themselves. In the alternate universe, the prince who is going through a period of vulnerability, encounters the cloaked figure again (this time himself) and realizes to kill the monster he would have to come to terms with his weaknesses.

               It was supposed to symbolize the creation of fear and how, in the end, the only fear that exists is fear itself. In other words, the only thing that stops someone from completing a journey is themselves, making "the self" the antagonist along with the protagonist at the same time.  In IM, the main character has this moment as well when he realizes that his fears let other people manipulate his identity as a person. And though he would like to blame someone -- Bledsoe, Brother Jack, etc -- it was his willingness of giving away who he is to other people, in fear, that he got corrupted.

               Along with Invisible Man, I think that this occurs more in Hamlet. Hamlet's father is seen, in a lot of different perspectives, as himself. There are even interpretations that his father does not even exist at all; It is just his subconscious speaking to him. So when he creates a boiling need for revenge, created by the fear his father's words won't be fulfilled, he never conquers his fears. If the interpretation is correct, he never came to terms with his weaknesses and never conquered his vulnerabilities, and ended up destroying himself.

               This theme is still in modern culture. In Harry Potter, Harry Potter is LITERALLY connected to Voldemort, making their souls apart of each other. Harry Potter, in a more literal sense, had to go through this theme. He had to get rid of his weaknesses such as death, loss of loved ones, etc, in order to destroy the part of himself that was trying to ruin his life journey. The part that stitched him and Voldemort together wasn't a symbol of strength, it was Voldemort's weakness. So of course, he had to conquer a part of himself, which contained his fears, in order to finish his task a hero.

               I am SO close to being done with Invisible Man, but before I was anywhere close to finishing IM I was talking to Lisa Fu (who had finished it) and she told me she wasn't exactly sure if she liked it, but it did come around to a full circle, and now I'm starting to see what she means as I am reflecting on the past pages. But what I really found interesting was the fact the main character never creates his own identity, but only takes the ones people give him. For example, Brother Jack gave him his first identity, and when Jack took that one away then people on the street gave him Rineheart. It was as if he was never born with a name. This could be going on about the slave-mentality and how slaves many times wouldn't even be given names. If a slave was given a name, it would be given by their superiors, not by their mothers and it would be a sense of entitlement, not because it is a right. So basically, the main character is a slave to society and has no true self. There is only society.

               But there are also things I do not like about Invisible Man, such as the chain metaphor. Though I understand it probably means something deep and amazing and genius, the symbol has not yet kicked with me. Does it mean that something is still chaining the main character to the South? Is Ellison trying to say that the chain has a figurative curse on it and you must get rid of that chain in order to be something? It's hard to tell, which is why I am struggling with it. I also kind of wanted someone to rescue the main character. From the beginning, any reader could tell that the brotherhood was corrupted, which was terrible because the main character is abnormally innocent. In a way, Clifton could have been his hero because Clifton showed him the truth, but Clifton's death also brought upon corruption, so it's debatable. In the beginning I thought Mary could have been the hero, because Mary (I've been assuming at least) is based off of Mother Mary from the bible, but the main character leaves her. So what? What could be the main character's hero? And then when it dawned on me that maybe he didn't have one, it bothered me. The main character HAS to have some sort've hero, doesn't he? Of course, a protagonist must be his/her own hero, but doesn't even hero have a safety net? Like Severus Snape being Harry's (secret) hero, or Prim being Katniss' innocent hero? Is this the reason that the main character is evil by the end? because he doesn't have a hero? Jack is corrupted, Clifton is dead, Ras is a destroyer, Mary is gone, Bledsoe is a traitor. Theres nobody that is willing to save him.