Essay 2: Close Reading Assignment

Ana Dilan 

ECL 305

Professor Pressman

13 April 2024 

A Tale of Tails: A Close Reading of Melusine and “Monstrosity”

Andre Lebey’s The Romance of the Faery Melusine reveals the role of a monster within literature and within society, which align with the seven theses of Jeffery Jerome Cohen’s Monster Theory. These seven theses stem from observations of modern Western culture and literature, a long ways away from the medieval origins of Melusine’s story, but still ultimately reflect the etymological role of the ‘monster’ as a “reminder,” an “instruction,” or a “warning.” Melusine’s external monstrosity acts as a mirror to Raymondin’s internal monstrosity, as his discovery of his wife’s true form as a half-woman, half-serpent is also a discovery of his true form as an insecure and doubting man. In this way, both Melusine and Raymondin become monsters, fulfilling their roles as reminders of their deepest desires and their greatest fears. The Romance of the Faery Melusine, in turn, challenges the dynamic between the hero and the monster and how blurred the lines between these roles are. 

The first thesis of monster theory that Cohen presents is that the monster’s body is a cultural body. The monster “incorporates [the] fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy” of the culture that created it. (Cohen, 4) When we are introduced to Raymondin, the “hero” of the story, he is essentially a murderer awaiting trial, running through the woods riddled with guilt after inadvertently killing his uncle while out on a hunt. As he makes his way through the forest, he comes across an enchanting fountain and it is there where he first encounters Melusine. The form she takes on is that of a woman so beautiful, Raymondin questions if he’s in another world. (Lebey, 24) Not only is Melusine beautiful, but she also comes with the reassurance that she is as “faithful a Christian” as Raymondin is and that, as someone “next to God,” she can bring him great fortune. (Lebey, 25) This spells well for the young Raymondin, as her power to grant him greatness and the commonality of their Christian faith mean that she would make a wonderful wife to have at his side. Here, the monster not only shows friendship and camaraderie with the hero, but the hero expresses romantic desire for the monster. The hero has no need to antagonize the monster, nor does he wish to on the grounds that the monster shares the same Christian values as his. The monster, in turn, bears no ill will towards the hero because she finds him and his intentions pure, deciding to place her trust in him and his word in the same way that he trusts in her promise to clear his name and bring him greatness. For the medieval, predominantly-Christian audience hearing this story, they too would find no need to fear Melusine, despite her otherworldly nature and her uncanny abilities of reading mind and granting riches. Her magical abilities, though grounds to accuse her of sorcery and conspiracy with the Devil for the inquiry of those powers, are immediately nullified by her Christian faith. In fact, her faith and abilities combined would only make her more desirable and sympathetic, as her powers are aligned with God rather than the Devil. Melusine’s identity as a self-proclaimed Christian woman reflects the faith and its tenets that were valued at the time of the story’s telling; in identifying as such, Melusine garners the sympathy and trust of Raymondin and the medieval audience taking in this tale. 

The second thesis of Cohen’s Monster Theory is that “the monster always escapes.” (Cohen, 4) The monster’s “escape,” according to Cohen, is not an act of defeat, but rather an act of recuperation and restoration, as “each reappearance and its analysis [of the monster] is still bound in a double act of construction and restitution.” (Cohen, 5-6) The monster always escapes and leaves something of itself behind, but hidden in their act of absconding is the promise that they will return in another shape and form. The change in the monster’s form reflects the change in time within the culture of its creator, as Cohen posits that monster theory must follow the:

“…strings of cultural moments, connected by a logic that always threatens to shift; invigorated by […] the impossibility of achieving…the desired ‘fall or death, the stopping’ of its gigantic subject, monstrous interpretation is as much process as epiphany, a work that must content itself with fragments (footprints, bones, talismans, teeth, etc.)…” (Cohen, 6) 

In Melusine, after lamenting Raymondin’s broken promise and the cruelty of fate, Melusine transforms into a winged serpent, “about fifteen feet long,” and flies away from her family, her castle, and the riches she granted to her husband, leaving nothing of her but her footprint on the windowsill from where she took off. (Lebey, 144) Before she leaves, Melusine makes Raymondin promise that although she would never take the form of a woman again, she would still watch over their two younger children and make sure that they are raised well. (Lebey, 143) Like in Cohen’s thesis, Melusine leaves the life she built as a human woman and is now forced to live out her days as an immortal winged serpent, never to return to the form that Raymondin fell in love with and never to attain a human soul with which she can die and join God. This departure is not a result of Melusine’s fear at her true form being discovered, but rather Raymondin’s betrayal of her trust in him. Earlier in the story, Melusine asked Raymondin to “‘swear by all the sacraments [he] hold[s] holy as a Christian that on each Saturday, [he]…must never…try to see try to see [her] in any way whatever, nor seek to know where [she is].’” (Lebey, 27) By attaching the Christian virtue of honesty to this promise, as it is one of the Ten Commandments to never lie, Melusine not only shows her knowledge of the Christian church’s catechism but also understands just how serious violating this promise is for her. To break a promise made in the name of God, for a medieval audience, is a perverse sin–one that Raymondin has committed by doubting his wife and breaking the promise that marked their union in the first place. It is the sin of doubt and dishonesty that makes Raymondin the cause of Melusine’s departure. 

Monster Theory’s third thesis is that “the monster is the harbinger of category crisis.” (Cohen, 6) The reason for the monster always escaping, according to Cohen, is because “it refuses easy categorization.” (Cohen, 6) The existence of monsters as a sort of “third-kind,”  creature that is neither human nor animal, acts as a defiance of the perceived laws of nature or any preconceived notion of logic, blurring the lines between opposing binaries. Because they are not easily categorized, monsters inherently question how its cultural creator organizes knowledge and information of the world around them and opens up the discussion of what makes something good or bad, right or wrong, normal or abnormal. The opening of these discussions and the blurring of these lines erases the knowledge upon which the creator’s culture and society is built, inspiring fear of the crumbling norm for its participants and rage at the monster for even daring to exist as a question towards those norms. The reveal of Melusine’s true form as a woman with a serpent’s tail sends Raymondin into a category crisis: 

“He [sic] said nothing, but thought apart to himself: ‘And so she accepts, just like a woman, that which is but should never be! …Ah Siren!…or woman? What does it matter? Women do not know, know nothing of what we call Honour!’” (Lebey, 138) 

Here, Raymondin falls prey to the misogynistic thought of the Church, which posited women as liars, temptresses, and secondary beings in opposition to men. How could his wife not tell him the truth of her true form? Could it be that Melusine’s serpentine tail, an attribute of the creature that tempted Eve into bringing sin into the world, combined with the weak nature of women like her caused her to tell nothing but lies to her own husband? In retaliation, Raymondin becomes more monstrous than heroic, verbally abusing his wife by calling her a “false serpent” and cursing at even his own children, saying that “none of those who have come from [her] cursed womb know how to come to a good end, because of the sign of reprobation with which [she] [sic] marked them by her sins.” (Lebey, 139). He forgets that it was he who promised Melusine that he would never seek her out on Saturday nor to doubt her commitment to him. He allows the eyes of society to overtake his own and to see not his good and faithful wife who brought him and their family prosperity, but a monster who made its home in his and lied by omission of its monstrous nature. 

The fourth and fifth theses of Monster Theory respectively state that the monster “dwells at the gates of difference” (Cohen, 7) and “polices the borders of the possible.” (Cohen, 12) These two theses do not just dwell on the physical attributes of the monster that make it a monster, but also its position in a culture as a foreigner, the Other. More often than not, monsters in literature tend to have otherworldly origins. Whether their origins are from across the sea to the sea itself, from Mars to the next galaxy over, from the other side of the universe to a completely different, alternate universe, the literature that tells their tales make it abundantly clear that we must be wary of what did not come from our backyard. That these foreigners seek nothing but to disrupt the peace and order of our home for their own gain. That it is the foreigners’ presence that upsets the power structures and hierarchies erected for the care and safety of all that is good and familiar. That it is their foreignness that makes them monsters. There is, however, one caveat that makes the monster less monstrous: the fetishization and the exploitation of the Other. Melusine’s pretty and powerful presence in Raymondin’s life brings about nothing but prosperity, as they are able to “[form] relations and friendships all over the East,” (Cohen, 119) form an alliance with “the descendants of [sic] Obeid Allah, the Mahdi, who founded the Fatimid Dynasty,” (Cohen, 120) as well as establish enough trade with other countries to be able to decorate their castle with gold, mosaics, and Islamic writings. (Cohen, 120) It is because of Melusine’s otherworldly (and admittedly, foreign) influence that Raymondin is able to make these connections with foreign lands and help his town and family flourish into prosperity. The descriptions of their displays of wealth act as an advertisement, an invitation to its medieval audience to broaden business and cultural horizons outside of Europe. The foreigner and the unknown are terrifying, yes, until money is involved. The Other is only accepted as far as what it can offer, what it brings to the table. Though capitalism had yet to exist at the time of Melusine’s telling, the grounds for a person’s use, or their capital, was already taking root through what they traded along trade routes. The exchange of vows between Melusine and Raymondin can be seen as a marriage proposal, which in turn can also be seen as a business contract, as many marriages essentially were during that time period: Melusine’s privacy for Raymondin’s prosperous future. As long as each side keeps their promise, Melusine fulfills her role as his beautiful and powerful Christian wife and Raymondin fulfills his role as a knight presiding over a prosperous city. If that is the case, then Raymondin’s betrayal can then be seen as a breach of contract, ultimately severing the ties between the foreign and the familiar, the monster and the man. 

Monster Theory’s sixth thesis states: “Fear of the monster is really a kind of desire.” (Cohen, 16) Although the monster can be seen as revolting, there is an undeniable aspect to them that is also revolutionary. The monster’s fluid state of being between the familiar and unfamiliar attracts just as much as it reviles. Its fluidity and inability to be boxed into one category can be seen as a freedom from societal constraint, allowing the consumer the feeling of liberation through fascination of the monster: 

“This simultaneous repulsion and attraction at the core of the monster’s composition accounts greatly for its continued cultural popularity, for the fact that the monster seldom can be contained in a simple, binary dialectic (thesis, antithesis, …no synthesis). We distrust and loathe the monster at the same time we envy its freedom, perhaps its sublime despair.” (Cohen, 17)  

We see this paradox of attraction and repulsion best through the discovery scene, where Raymondin breaches the tower and room where Melusine spends her Saturdays. Raymondin seeks to know why Melusine asks to spend her Saturdays alone because of the seed of her infidelity planted in his head by his brother. When Raymondin catches a glimpse of Melusine’s true form, he goes through a dizzying train of thought, oscillating between the fear of discovery and death and the desire to take another look:

“The memory of his oath and of all his preceding life forgotten, he slid, fascinated, toward the unknown source of his misfortune and loss…But hardly had he seen than he closed his eyes again, retreating so as not to be seen himself, and in an impossible light, to dream of what he had never seen before, ever. A vision that he carried within him eternally until the end of his days…But before he died, he wanted to see it again.” (Lebey, 124)

Raymondin forgets that the reason he and Melusine are married is because of his promise to never seek her out and try to see her on Saturdays. (Lebey, 27) Melusine’s request for a single day of freedom is immediately held into suspicion by Raymondin because of her nonhuman nature. Monsters do not adhere to human norms, after all. According to him, what would a monster wife know about fidelity and faithfulness to her husband? What kind of spirits is she conspiring with alone without any supervision? It is strange to Raymondin that his wife would desire any amount of time to herself, rather than attending to her children or even to her husband. Even if Raymondin is warned twice about what he must do to keep Melusine as his wife till the end of his days, he ignores these warnings by looking twice at Melusine’s true form: just once to see the monster, then twice to confirm that the monster he is beholding is truly his wife. 

Finally, the seventh thesis of Monster Theory is that “the monster stands at the threshold…of becoming.” (Cohen, 20) The role of a monster is to “ask [sic] how we perceive the world, and how we have misrepresented what we have attempted to place. They ask us to reevaluate our cultural assumptions…our perceptions of difference, our tolerance toward its expression.” (Cohen, 20) Raymondin learns about the dangers of intolerance and mistrust towards the monster the hard way. When Melusine sees that Raymondin sees her in her true form, she does not even see the pure-hearted man she fell in love with at the fountain, “that he who had been Raymondin had ceased to exist,” “glaring at her with a look of hatred.” (Lebey, 138) The discovery scene also becomes a transformation scene not just for Melusine, but for Raymondin as well; he just “becomes” a “monster” of a different kind. His jealousy, mistrust, and insecurity cause him to intrude on his wife in a vulnerable state of nakedness and transition, perverting the image of him as a steadfast knight by turning him into something much more perverse. By becoming a monster, Raymondin becomes a cautionary tale himself. Whether it be for insecure men who would rather break promises at the suspicion of their significant others’ broken promises or as warning for those who fetishize and idealize their partners rather than appreciate them as a whole, the audience will undoubtedly find that the line between hero and villain is just as arbitrary as the line between monster and man. 

Works Cited 

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, and Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” University of Minnesota Press, 1996, pp. 3–25. Reading Culture, http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/stable/10.5749/j.ctttsq4d.4. Accessed 13 Apr. 2024. 

Lebey, André. The Romance of the Faery Melusine. Translated by Gareth Knight, Skylight, 2011. 

Essay 2: Hybrid Stories of the Sea (Close Reading)

Sophia Fugazzotto 

ECL 305 

Dr. Pressman 

April 13th, 2024 

Hybrid Stories of the Sea

The 2018 film The Water Will Carry Us Home by Gabrielle Tesfaye tells a story of the Middle Passage and the horrors that Africans faced on this journey. During this film, pregnant African women are thrown off of the ship, but instead of falling to a tragic fate, they are saved by the presence of Yoruba Orishas, and turn into mermaids. Using art as a medium to recount an appalling part of history allows us to see the past through a new lens, instead of just the one we have been taught. To tell this story, Tesfaye uses two different formats of film–modern film making and stop motion animation. This is one of many hybrid elements used in this film. The use of hybridity in The Water Will Carry Us Home connects past and present, by revealing the harrowing journey of the Middle Passage and the people who are connected to it. It is this type of creative storytelling that allows audiences to see that history is not just stories; it is lives that were lived by people, just like us. 

One important element of hybridity in The Water Will Carry Us Home is the use of both modern film making and stop motion animation. The film begins with modern film making, with many shots focused on small details of Tesfaye and what she is doing–such as the henna on her hands, the stretched ear lobes, the tattoos, the smoke from the candles. These small details slow down the film and force the viewer to pay attention to these details, rather than a complex scene. For instance, consider the close shot of the eye henna on her hands, which is later also seen on the boat in the stop animation portion of the film. Had the shots had been wider and not focused on these details, the viewer may have missed the eye on the woman’s hand. This symbol being in both parts connects these two mediums, and connects past and present. In addition, by having modern film making sandwiching the stop animation, it first allows the viewer to relate to something in the beginning (this looks familiar) and then brings the viewer back to reality at the end (this is part of someone’s culture, this is a story told by these people). With this personal touch, the viewer is able to see that this story is not just a tale for the history books, but it is deeply connected to a culture and a people. 

Another element of hybridity is the stop motion aspect. There are two important parts of this format that contribute to the structure and story of this film. The first is, quite simply, the choice to use stop motion animation. Stop motion is the process of taking multiple pictures of the same items, and moving them slightly between each shot, and then combining the photographs to create a moving picture. It is the basis of film, but is not commonly used now due to how time consuming it is. The stop motion portion of this film takes only four minutes; yet Tesfaye most likely spent weeks, if not months, creating these scenes. The quick consumption of this media can be compared to our similarly quick consumption of the Middle Passage in history. The Middle Passage was a harrowing journey that lasted around eighty days on crowded slave ships (“The Middle Passage”). Yet, we do not even spend half of that time discussing the Middle Passage and the horrors that were imposed on the enslaved people on these ships. This creative choice by Tesfaye is important commentary on our consumption of history. 

The second significant feature of the stop motion animation is the hybridity within this format. Tesfaye creates most of the stop motion artwork from paper and watercolor, but she also adds historically famous images of the slave ships. Specifically, the ‘Brooks’ diagram, which was a document created in 1788 to visualize the most effective way to pack slaves onto a ship (“The Slave Ship”). The use of these images within the stop motion changes the visualization of this slave ship–it goes from just drawings to showing the viewer that this was a significant, and painful part of history. Tesfaye could have drawn these cramped conditions herself, but her choice not to brings the viewer back to the reality of what happened to these slaves, and how their placement on the ship was carefully planned, as if they were simply inanimate objects being stacked on a cargo ship. This adds to her creation of a story that is not just part of history, but the lives of real people. 

A final element of hybridity in The Water Will Carry Us Home is the headphones used at the end, which can be interpreted as a way of listening to the ocean and the stories it holds under its surface–stories we may never learn or know of. When one listens to the inside of certain shells, one can hear a sound similar to waves, but it is actually the vibrations of air due to the shape of the shell. What if this is the ocean’s way of recording what it sees? By shaping the shells in a special structure, the sea is able to save its memories, a history that may be locked away forever. These headphones also represent the intertwined lives of humans and nature; they are constructed of sea shells from nature and metal from humans. This use of materials reveals both the ability of human and nature to coexist, but also the power that humans retain over nature through their ability to manipulate it to their benefit, same as slave traders used the ocean for their own benefit. 

These hybrid elements of Tesfaye’s work create a film that does not follow traditional routes, but instead combines powerful features to forge an emotional experience for the viewer. It reminds us of the stories behind the brief chapters in our history textbooks, and the cultural stories from the side of the oppressed. Creative forms of art allow us to see history from a new perspective–instead of pages of words, we are allowed a more emotional and interpretive representation of history that is not controlled by those who ‘won’. The Water Will Carry Us Home bridges the gap between historical events and modern film by use of hybrid storytelling from a fresh perspective. 

Works Cited

Tesfaye, Gabrielle. “The Water Will Carry Us Home.” Vimeo, 10 May 2018, vimeo.com/269045173. 

“The Middle Passage (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/articles/the-middle-passage.htm#:~:text=The%20Middle%20Passage%20itself%20lasted,15%25%20grew%20sick%20and%20died. Accessed 13 Apr. 2024. 

“The Slave Ship ‘Brooks’: Royal Museums Greenwich.” The Slave Ship “Brooks” | Royal Museums Greenwich, www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-254938#:~:text=In%201788%2C%20abolitionists%20in%20Britain,around%20the%20country%20and%20abroad. Accessed 13 Apr. 2024. 

Week 12.5 – The Ocean Contains True History

I was working on my discovery assignment and thinking about yesterday’s in-class discussion when a realization dawned on me.

When talking about The Sea Is History we talked a lot about how the ocean preserves what’s lost in it. We talked about Moby Dick and its last line and how it gives the impression that the ocean is (literally) filled with stories and artifacts of events that we can’t memorialize by building a statue in its place.

To try to illustrate why I think this reality is so significant, consider a battle at sea versus a battle on land for a moment. Both fights share a few characteristics: each will result in a massive expenditure of money, resources, and troops, and each will have a winner and a loser. Beyond that, the two are completely independent. The winner of a land battle is entitled to the territory on which they fought. They get to change the way the area is governed and build monuments and museums filled with art and propaganda sympathetic to their cause. They are free to discard any proof that their acquisition of the land was any more violent or hateful than was necessary in order to remain benevolent to its governed peoples.

At sea, we are more than likely left to take the winner’s word on how their victory is achieved. You can’t claim the water, really – you definitely can’t build memorials to commemorate it. And while, yes, there is no presentable evidence to show malice or the true moral ambiguity of the conflict – the evidence DOES exist. Its under the water, untouched by men – resulting in what I would safely refer to as TRUE history.

It’s history without a consciousness; ultimately, it’s a dead history – having avoided the post-mortem manipulation that events on land face to keep the propaganda alive. But personally, I don’t want history to have a narrative. I do not want there to be good guys and bad guys, and I don’t believe in generational hate. I value the ocean for its ability to be honest with us and hold a mirror to our shitty behavior because the first step to improving at anything is to take accountability for the fact that you need to improve to begin with.

Sorry if I essentially reworded the conclusion we came to in class, I just felt like this was a revelation for me. I definitely dabble in true crime and conspiracy thought a bit too much and I totally could be predisposed to this line of thinking – but I do think that the history books we are all made to read growing up were largely dishonest promotions of “*Insert Country Name* Values and Reasons For Being Superior”, so I enjoy getting the chance to take a more critical look at human history.

The Water Will Carry Us Home

Getting to this analysis fairly late, but wanted to make sure I had watched the film before class discussion. What I wanted to touch on mostly was the ability to tell a story with no words, but still have a clear picture of what is meant to be understood. Although this is the sad reality of the first examples of exploration, including slavery and segregation the ability for us to gain this understanding without speaking through the film is powerful. The way that it switches between real people to art to demonstrate a story makes for an interesting interpretation. There is layers to this film, and how it starts by showing important parts of African American culture, but then the history of the passage, and then how this connects to water spirits. I think this is one of the more fascinating visuals we have seen just because of the connections it makes throughout various parts of our studies. We can gather snippiest of true history, spiritual history, and the connection to water while having cool aspects of art throughout.

Blogpost Week 12 – The Water Will Carry Us Home

To be quite frank I totally blanked on work coming out of break but more importantly I wanted to still be able to understand what was happening in class tomorrow and I am glad I still decided to watch the video. Although I lack complete understanding of the short story, I thought that it was brilliantly put together and tells one incredibly powerful and dark story of our history. The eye displayed on the hand of the man with the key is a typical sign of wisdom, and the fact that he has a key attached to it (which unlocks the door) resembles the concept of unlocking hidden wisdom. In my personal opinion, I believe that knowledge is power, and the man with the hat possesses much of it. Furthermore, merpeople (and more specifically sirens) have been known to hold the secrets of the world, which tend to lead sailors off course. The idea that Omambala, the water spirit, will still serve as a guide and source of hope along this horrific journey is something to take note of. I am not sure if Omambala represents an afterlife, and an afterlife of wisdom, power, and understanding due to being killed along the journey or if instead, she resembles a choice to subject oneself to that alternative lifestyle, and as other merpeople convince others of the same fate that might have been better than what was waiting on the other side. In a nutshell I really have no idea but I am very fascinated by the entire video all around and am excited to hear other people’s opinions. Something else I found that spoke to me was the quote at 1 minute and 21 seconds, “[t]he water spirit Omambala brought us here. The water spirit Omambala will bring us home” (Tesfaye). I find this to be beautiful because it resembles something huge of hope. It seems to me like a resounding, unquestionable sense of faith and hope, something that I think I personally lack and envy; and the pure fact that it is a water goddess with wisdom and power makes it that much more attractive to me. I think I am probably at a similar level of confusion as the Sirenomelia video, but after having learned so much I have high hopes for the discussions we have about this one. Lastly, I think it was super cool that when the music stopped, the lady (maybe Omambala?), started building an earthy headset, and the second she put it on the music continued. 

The Water Will Carry Us ( to Movement)

This week I wanted to focus on the Stop Motion Animation, ¨The Water Will Carry Us Home¨ by Gabrielle Tesfaye. I wanted to focus on this blog post specifically for the way that it was filmed and for the way that the story was told, focusing on the developmental elements of the film. The film opens with a woman where the audience is walking through what appears to be a ritual that she is performing. The camera follows her through prayer, the burning of candles, her stretched ears, the henna on her hands, the burning of incents, etc. Where the audience is carefully exposed to the woman and her culture, as her presence fills the entire screen and all of the camera angles are very close up, forcing you to look at the woman and her actions. This showcases culture and how one may utilize art and body to represent themselves.

This scene switches into the stop motion scenes that felt unsettling to me due to the movement of the objects and the music that came along with the transition. I think it is interesting how the figures move in a stop-motion way because it is so much different than the ocean it is trying to represent, as the ocean does not stop and is only ever in constant movement. The film switches to the movement of real water and the actual ocean after the story is commenced. I believe that this describes how there is movement in resolution, meaning that in order to resolve something you must be uncomfortable, you will face rockiness that may feel like a stop motion, but at the end of the rockiness and uncomfortableness you have the potential to flow. While it seems cliche I feel like its important to point out, because water is movement and leads us to movement through movement. The theme of moving or not moving ( through stop-motion) is important and means something for the essence of the film and the essence of our lives.

There is almost this magical touch to the film as the music in the ending and beginning plays like a Siren song. As I watched it drew me in and gave me a comfort that I did not feel when the music was stopped. While confused by this film, I enjoyed it, and enjoyed how the artist told their story.

The Water Will Carry Us Home

In the video “The Water Will Carry Us Home” by Gabrielle Tesfaye, we are presented to a story of “stolen Africans being thrown off the slave ship whilst sailing through the Middle Passage” (Tesfaye). This story was heart breaking because it was a lived reality by Africans, and the video beautifully captured the saving of their spirits. A lot of emotions went through me when watching this video, especially because of the music that was being played through such tragic scenes. The music was peaceful and giving a sense of hope, a feeling of “everything will be ok, I’ll take care of you.” And this feeling goes alongside the transformation of those who were thrown overboard into Merpeople. This transformation happens as fish swim around them, nurturing them as they become spirits. Which further allows for the exploration of water and the significance it has. In this video, water served as an avenue for rebirth, where what is assumed to be lost at sea is instead tranformed into an immortal spirit. I saw the ending as a form of reclaiming not only the spirits but the souls of the individuals who suffered because of this. It demonstrates resilience and empowerment.

The Water Will Carry Us Home

This film looks like it has a lot to unwrap, and I think I missed a lot. What I did pick up on and really liked on my first watch is the personification of elements. The sense that the elements are divine, as well as Omambala. What I couldn’t quite understand was whether each of the elements and the mermaid were separate entities, or if they were all Omambala. I also noticed that the ship itself is personified, looking tired and ill. I like that all the sea creatures and the water seemed to be comforting those who were thrown overboard.

I wonder if it was on purpose when Tesfaye used water-based paint for her story.

This could be a misinterpretation on my part, but one thing that I noticed is that the ship moved from left to right (East to West), opposite from the direction that these ships historically traveled across the Atlantic. I wonder if this was done with intention.

The ending scene had me fascinated, as the bird sounds and the shells reminded me of the East Coast, where my parents are from. I wonder if the character is listening for the souls of those thrown off the ships, or could it be that she is listening for Omambala? As she puts the shells over her ears, the woman (possibly Tesfaye) hears the sounds of singing, but it isn’t obvious to me who it is. It seems like she may be using this film as a way to represent her ancestors, and show that it is important to communicate and understand your history, no matter how dark.

Week 12: Water Will Carry Us Home

The video “The Water Will Carry Us Home” by Gabriella Tesfaye invoked several emotions throughout the film. At first, I felt a sense of calmness and purification with the ladies singing in harmony and the sight of incense and candles burning. It reminded me of some sort of holistic chakra/reiki ceremony. Then, when the film cut to a drawing of a man (1:40) with no mouth and with two eyes tattooed on his hands I felt a little eerie because it seemed like the man was staring through my soul. One thing I did notice in this video was the Egyptian symbolism, the eyes tattooed on his hands is similar to the Egyptian god “Ra” and as well in the beginning (00:08 and 00:17) there are depictions of what might be Egyptian Pharaohs or figures. I assume this symbolism has something to do with the water spirit Omambala who is an ancient goddess whose power resides on both Earth and the “underworld” which is a popular setting in Egyptian culture. The scenes where the African slaves are thrown overboard and turn in to mermaids (4:15 and 4:50) is possibly a reference of Omambala taking them to the underworld where they can have eternal life. The ending where the lady wears seashells like headphones and plugs it into the sand could mean she is trying to reconnect with the African slaves Omambala took to the underworld (5:45).