La Planeta De Los Apes

Out of all of the movies I have seen during the school year (woefully few) this would have to be my favorite. Astonishingly I had not seen Planet before and although I had seen Spaceballs I had never fully understood the ending scene until recently. This has been the first movie I've watched in scool that I have considered renting before it was finished in class. But I digress. The Secular Humanism worldview can be seen mostly in the thoughts that Taylor and the scientists express, that there is no god and that ultimatly man (ape) determine their own future. I find that this will probably be my favorite movie during our festival.

Stranger Then Fiction

Well I don't think that this movie fulfilled my expectations, I thought it would be funnier than it turned out to be. Be that as it may I found the movie to be sufficiently Postmodern. Although I do not remember any specific quotes I do find it interesting that the key message behind the film is that you do not control your own destiny, a key Postmodern concept. Other than that I found the watch to be a very interesting part of the plot especially the ending which, although I should have seen it coming I was not expecting.

R&G Are Finally Dead

“All plots move deathward” –Don DeLillo

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have finally been sent to their deaths. As the play closed I found myself occupied by one question, is this it? I found the ending of the play to be rather anti-climatic and not at all what I had expected. I had thouight that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would be hung, especiall after the player’s lamentations over his last botched execution. Instead the two merely disappear, and it is later discovered that they are dead. Throught the play, the only thing that they really knew was that they would eventually die.

Who Won?

In order to determine who won it is necessary to define the term “winner.” Is it the team that won the most points? Or is it the team that tried the hardest and gave the best answers? A traditional definition of the term would involve both or either of these two requirements. However, in light of the game’s postmodernism I believe that there were no winners. No matter how one tries to define the term “winner” it will still be a “thing” and that “thing” can very well be applied to every person that participated in the game. (Thank you Toast) This demonstrates that words have no meaning save that which we give them, and as "winner" remains undefined in game terms there can not be one.

My own personal belief outside of the assignment is that the Tails team won because we had more points.

R & G Are Living...for the moment

As we finish Act II of R&G Are Dead I find myself less confused then I was at the beginning of the Act. Luckily, I've managed to finally accept the seemingly random scene changes. Although as I have been reading the play I find myself wondering whether the average reader understands what is truly occurring within. I wonder if anyone that does not analyze the play can truly appreciate it for anything more then a well written parody of Hamlet. Obviously if they have read Hamlet then the meta fiction would stand out, but would any of the postmodern ideas and concepts? This question will probably continue to bug me until I can convince someone not in our class to read both Hamlet and R&G and then give me their opinion on it...an unlikely prospect if there every was one.

Rhetoric

I found Obama's inaugural address to be OK, but certainly not on the level of others such as John F. Kennedy's of 1960. I felt that as for the speaking of the address is was good. however the composition of it was not. I do like how he referenced the need for continuing responsibility, but he made no mention of personal responsibility. A major loss in my opinion. My other concern with the inauguration is the benediction given by the Reverend Lowery. Although the article glosses over his benediction his closing prayer included "when white will embrace what is right." If we had not already accepted this then how would Barack be the President? I find the current trend of double standards in this country to be worrying. I thought that in 'post-racial' America we would be beyond taking cheap shots at each other while giving speeches. I am disappointed that Obama allowed this to happen.

Sources:
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h4SrWpZNd-yocKSO7_9FO51iLJowD95R4RTG0

R & G Are Still Dead

After having read Act I I am now completely confused by the idea of a play within a play within a play. This is going to be a concept that will require further thought, but I don't think logic is going to be much of a help. Rosencrantz continues to be my favorite character, even if he can be a bit slow at times. This tends to be what makes him funny. As it stands now, I'm enjoying the play and am excited to see what happens now that Hamlet has been introduced.

To Be Revised

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Well I don't really know what exactly to blog about, but here goes.

My initial thoughts on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is that it is interesting. Out of the two main charecters my favorite so far is Ros. He's defintly starting out as the funnier of the two and the one more inclined to accept reality. As for what we discussed in class I agree that Guildenstern is definatly trying to come to terms with reality. My favorite piece of banter between the two would be about fingernails and beards.

Hamlet’s spiritual and philosophical changes

Hamlet undergoes a major shift spiritually as well as philosophically throughout the play. During Act I, Hamlet is approached by the Ghost of his father, King Hamlet. This ghost informs Hamlet that he was murdered by King Claudius, and that his murder must be avenged. Hamlet is shocked by this and, although he believes the ghost, he initially thinks not of killing Claudius but of what he has done. Later, in Act II while Hamlet is watching the players, he sets a trap for Claudius. Hamlet is still bound to be completely sure that it is Claudius that killed his father, despite being told so by the ghost he cannot kill without reason. “I’ll have grounds more relative then this. The play’s the thing wherin I’ll catch the conscience of the king.” (II 532-533). Hamlet still maintains his beliefs that killing should not be done without a just cause. However in Act III he begins to change. During Act III the ghost is proven correct as Claudius flees the play, and Hamlet gains new vigor in his quest. He spies Claudius praying, draws his sword and stops, “’Am I then revenged to take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and seasoned for his passage? No! Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent’” (III 84-89). Hamlet won’t kill the king now because that would mean he would go to heaven, instead it would be better that he be sent to hell when he is not expecting it. Hamlet has come a long way from refusing to kill without good reason, to now planning the perfect moment. As Act III ends, Hamlet has now decided to kill the king, he only needs an opportunity. This is given when he hears “Claudius” eaves dropping on Hamlet and the Queen, “’How now? A rat? Dead for a ducat, dead! [thrust his rapier through the arras]” Polonius is now dead, and Hamlet stands holding the bloody sword, rather then being disgusted with himself for committing murder, hamlet does not care. He is simply disjointed that he has killed the wrong man. It is this act that marks Hamlet’s final plunge away from his previous morals, ethics, and respect for life. Shortly following this Hamlet has Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed by the King of England for helping his uncle/father. (V 47-60). Not only does Hamlet murder his two childhood friends, but he also had to “lie” by using the King’s signet ring.