Home Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Not pedant; just trying to be precise, and trying (as it seems, in vain) to explain myself

Thank you for your intention to clarify what you took for a wrong assumption on my side about the origin, and meaning, of that word.

But it happens that I was not being pedantic, nor wrong. Please look at the document in the link, and there you´ll find (second page, second paragraph, and third page) some details about the probable origin of the word "persona", which, not denying what you say, agree with what I had exposed in my futile attempt to explain why I liked that film, and maybe, just maybe will make clear what I was trying to say:

"...However, the concept person has a meaning complex whose core has at last two aspects. One of them is designated by the Latin persona (person), which is a composite of per/sonare meaning to sound through, as in the case of a mask through (per) which resounds (sonare) the voice of the actor. There is some doubt as to whether the origin of the world is Latin, since one view is that it is of Etruscan origin phersu (mask), and another is that phersu is borrowed from the Greek prosopon which means primarily mask, and secondarily the role played in the drama. Either way the institution of mask is a characteristic of each of these civilizations and suggests the notion of role (personage), type, or character when persona is used. That is, persona is understood as the image or mask superimposed on the individual...

The other aspect of the meaning complex is designated also by persona, and signifies the human and even divine personality (personnalité). The idea characterizing this aspect is that of tearing away superimposed layers. The objective is to lay bare the nature of the role-player, or to reach through to that which is one in itself (per se una) which is a whole..."

Now, that concept of "persona" happens to be crucial to the development of human beings when in a society, as it refers to the face we show to others, and which is slowly forged through our interaction with others, to make clear to them what are we claiming to be (what role we are playing) at each time; and thus, we show different personas in different situations, as a man can be a businessman (or an engineer, a physician, a soldier, a politician...), and a lover (or an enemy), and a father (or a son, a friend,...), and..., and depending on each situation, we play different roles, and show to others the persona corresponding to the role we are playing at that time.

We frequently see children as "more authentic", as they have not still developed different personas, and so they show themselves in a more spontaneous way. And we frequently complain about "the loss of innocence", what usually means that that child is no longer behaving in such a spontaneous way, but hiding himself behind some persona, and we no longer are seeing his true nature.

Developing personas, and using them in front of others, is not wrong in itself: actually, it is necessary when interacting with others, as it can smooth those interactions by giving others some cues about the role we are playing along these interactions. The problem develops when we become identified with roles, and we even think and feel ourselves not as individuals, but as role-players, thus depriving our actions, and ourselves, of authenticity: when that happens, we lose contact with our inner self, and then we are in risk of becoming just hollow masks, devoid of true contents, as our lives lose true meaning in the process, and we become fragmented, lacking unity and authenticity. And that is a bad thing.

And that is exactly what had happened to that man Schmidt, who had become so identified with his different roles, that he had built his whole life around them and, once the curtain fell for his persona as an insurance man (that´s how it all starts in the film, with Jack Nicholson sitting in front of a clock, waiting for the last minute in his working life, while not knowing that that same minute will be the first one in his forced search for himself), he finds out that his life, which he had structured around his job, is empty of true meaning, and he starts feeling that painful emptiness, and he then tries to come back to his working place, expecting to be accepted by some kind of counselor... to no effect, as this stage of his life has come to its natural end. He becomes first puzzled, then angry,..., but that door is firmly closed.

Then, a second persona falls down, when his wife suddenly dies, and he is left alone, once more pushed to confront his life, whose external structures are shattering, and falling into pieces..., and after a short time, he starts his journey, which becomes kind of an odissey, the details of which I´ll spare you now, and along this journey, his meeting with her own daughter, and that prodigious feminine, vital force Cathy Bates, and all his peripeteia, he slowly goes on, leaving aside persona after persona, which no longer will be of use to him, and is forced by life to meet himself, and become the man he really is: not an insurance man, not a husband, not just a father,..., but himself.

And then, and only then, his journey ends, and he can come back home, and face life. And prepare to accept death, as a necessary part of life itself.

Sorry for the long, boring explanation. But English is not my mother tongue, and I find it somewhat difficult to explain myself at times.

Regards

BF





This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.