LOVED this movie! I enjoy musicals! Arthur's table was a good representation of Christianity since the knights of the different countries came together, in mutual respect. They agreed that fighting for revenge and pointless causes was absurd. Arthur formed the court system, which was based off of what was right, by the absolute moral code of the Bible. Before this, the king's subjective opinion was all that ruled, and many unjustices were performed. Arthur treated his wife with respect and admired her in a loving way. He was a Christ symbol because he did not take outrageous measures against either her or McDreamy. He approached the situation with concern, but still loved his wife. He left the situation in the hands of God.
In the ending of the movie, he knights a young lad who was passing through. The young boy told Arthur how much he cared for the round table, the order, and the knightly way. Arthur knights the boy, without any conditions or rules. He just offers hope for the boy and tells him to "RUUUNN, BOY, RUUUUNNNN". Christ died for us and He doesnt make us work our way to heaven. If we accept his truth and are willing to follow him, He offers us salvation will be with us and love us.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Planet of the Apes
This movie was great because it kept my interest the entire time! I'm not sure if it was the funky monkey outfits or my desire for human intelligence to live on.
It was definately secular humanist because the apes's God was proven wrong by Taylor. He proved that humans came before men even though their Bible talks of apes first. The movie was an inverted world. Today, Christians have solid historical evidence for beliefs. Evolutionists have gaps in their theory. In the movie, the "Christians/ Apes" did not have evidence for what they thought to be true. The evolutionary aspect had more support.
Today, evolutionists say we evolved from the ape. But in the twisted world in the movie, the apes think that they are the highest evolved species and the humans are mere beasts.
Survival value was seen in both the herd of wild humans and the ape society. The humans all fended together for corn and migrated together. For the apes, the doctor destroyed the cave of evolutionary evidence for the good of his own species. The ape wanted the apes to remain number 1.
Lastly, truth is scientific--seen in the ape judge's request of "evidence" or "heresy otherwise".
But the ending!! Cmon. That makes me mad that it just ENDS abruptly. I was left feeling like humanity is doomed forever. I wanted those darn apes defeated and humanity's intelligence to be revealed to all. Then I wanted Nova to learn English so that she can actually understand Taylor's love for her. Uggh.
It was definately secular humanist because the apes's God was proven wrong by Taylor. He proved that humans came before men even though their Bible talks of apes first. The movie was an inverted world. Today, Christians have solid historical evidence for beliefs. Evolutionists have gaps in their theory. In the movie, the "Christians/ Apes" did not have evidence for what they thought to be true. The evolutionary aspect had more support.
Today, evolutionists say we evolved from the ape. But in the twisted world in the movie, the apes think that they are the highest evolved species and the humans are mere beasts.
Survival value was seen in both the herd of wild humans and the ape society. The humans all fended together for corn and migrated together. For the apes, the doctor destroyed the cave of evolutionary evidence for the good of his own species. The ape wanted the apes to remain number 1.
Lastly, truth is scientific--seen in the ape judge's request of "evidence" or "heresy otherwise".
But the ending!! Cmon. That makes me mad that it just ENDS abruptly. I was left feeling like humanity is doomed forever. I wanted those darn apes defeated and humanity's intelligence to be revealed to all. Then I wanted Nova to learn English so that she can actually understand Taylor's love for her. Uggh.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Stranger Than Fiction
POMO!! I'm loving this movie festival that we're having. What a great educational time :)
I like the visual representation of metafiction where Harold Crick's life is being written/narrated by Karen who is living at the same time as Harold. The most intense part of the movie is when Karen writes "and the phone rings" and Harold calls her phone. On the third predicted ring, Karen picks up the phone and is connected with her character Harold. This was shocking and very exciting for both Karen and me.
There is also an existential element to the movie since Harold is trying to figure out if the voice in his head is real or not. In order to maintain sanity, he must call Karen up and hear her himself. His life is also existential because Karen has control over it and her actual typing is what makes his life the way it is. It would be so creepy to have someone planning out my life without me even knowing. But isn't that what God does? He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He knew me before I was born and knows my life already. So does he have the power over me like Karen does or do I have free will? This is that whole "all powerful God debate" that gets people discussing for days.
I found Professor Hilbert to be amusing because he reminded me of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Those two would go on and on with their word games. Hilbert's words are all absurd. He doesn't answer Harold's questions the right way, but comes up with new ideas instead. He distorts the words of Harold and doesn't make sense. I honestly don't know what he was ever talking about, which was so funny. He was a nice comedic contradiction to Harold who hardly talks at all in the movie.
I think that Harold's life was repetetive, bland, and monotonous in order to make him a usable character. He offered no surprises. Karen was able to control his life. His unexpected love for Miss Pascal was emphasized since it contradicted his normal way of going about. I really liked how they incorporated that in the movie. Miss Pascal makes Harold look at the world in a whole new way. Like why he pays taxes to certain things or why he shouldn't.
I found out that the movie Harold was watching in the end was The Meaning of Life. This is important to postmodernism. Harold questions why he lives and what should become of his life. Should he allow Karen to end his life for a great cause or should he continue his life and take away from the value of Karen's ending?
I think the watch symbolized the power of time. Time rules our lives. We cannot escape it, but must embrace that fact that we are going to die sooner or later and should enjoy the time we have. The watch guided Harold's life in the start of the movie, and because his watch broke and he ended up setting it 3 minutes fast, Harold was able to save a boy from being hit by a bus. We cannot manipulate time since it is out of our power to do so. The watch had a power over Harold's life, however, since it chose to save him.
The apple is a tangible, real element that appears throughout the movie. It keeps us centered in the movie since it is the only predictable and reoccuring element. The perfect apple is Harold's before he experienced love. He "takes the bite out of the apple" and a bite out of life. He finally experiences the joy and love of life when he falls in love with Miss Pascal.
I really enjoyed the movie because of the depth of the love portrayed in the movie and the new approach to fictional characters.
I like the visual representation of metafiction where Harold Crick's life is being written/narrated by Karen who is living at the same time as Harold. The most intense part of the movie is when Karen writes "and the phone rings" and Harold calls her phone. On the third predicted ring, Karen picks up the phone and is connected with her character Harold. This was shocking and very exciting for both Karen and me.
There is also an existential element to the movie since Harold is trying to figure out if the voice in his head is real or not. In order to maintain sanity, he must call Karen up and hear her himself. His life is also existential because Karen has control over it and her actual typing is what makes his life the way it is. It would be so creepy to have someone planning out my life without me even knowing. But isn't that what God does? He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He knew me before I was born and knows my life already. So does he have the power over me like Karen does or do I have free will? This is that whole "all powerful God debate" that gets people discussing for days.
I found Professor Hilbert to be amusing because he reminded me of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Those two would go on and on with their word games. Hilbert's words are all absurd. He doesn't answer Harold's questions the right way, but comes up with new ideas instead. He distorts the words of Harold and doesn't make sense. I honestly don't know what he was ever talking about, which was so funny. He was a nice comedic contradiction to Harold who hardly talks at all in the movie.
I think that Harold's life was repetetive, bland, and monotonous in order to make him a usable character. He offered no surprises. Karen was able to control his life. His unexpected love for Miss Pascal was emphasized since it contradicted his normal way of going about. I really liked how they incorporated that in the movie. Miss Pascal makes Harold look at the world in a whole new way. Like why he pays taxes to certain things or why he shouldn't.
I found out that the movie Harold was watching in the end was The Meaning of Life. This is important to postmodernism. Harold questions why he lives and what should become of his life. Should he allow Karen to end his life for a great cause or should he continue his life and take away from the value of Karen's ending?
I think the watch symbolized the power of time. Time rules our lives. We cannot escape it, but must embrace that fact that we are going to die sooner or later and should enjoy the time we have. The watch guided Harold's life in the start of the movie, and because his watch broke and he ended up setting it 3 minutes fast, Harold was able to save a boy from being hit by a bus. We cannot manipulate time since it is out of our power to do so. The watch had a power over Harold's life, however, since it chose to save him.
The apple is a tangible, real element that appears throughout the movie. It keeps us centered in the movie since it is the only predictable and reoccuring element. The perfect apple is Harold's before he experienced love. He "takes the bite out of the apple" and a bite out of life. He finally experiences the joy and love of life when he falls in love with Miss Pascal.
I really enjoyed the movie because of the depth of the love portrayed in the movie and the new approach to fictional characters.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
R&G Blog Act 3
I sure wouldn't want to be stranded on a boat, and have no idea what was going on. I would probably start hyperventilating. R and G are so used to crazy things happening, that instead of freaking out, they just start to question if they are really there or not.I especially liked Rosencrantz's quote, "Yes, it's lighter than it was. It'll be night soon...I suppose we'll have to go to sleep" (99). What chaos! Night being light! The only type of book in which this line would have any significance is in a postmodern book since it obviously displays disorder and chaos. Then I saw Guildenstern talking to the audience (which is metafiction), "One is free on a boat. For a time. Relatively" (101). I think that G is addressing his belief of life through the metaphor of the boat. There is a short life for us to fool around and do as we please, but it all comes to an end. That is for sure. Also, do we have free will? Is there a God who ultimately has a plan for us? Is there an end?
I liked Guildensterns humorous little lines throughout the book since they are constant and reliable, amidst all these confusing concepts. G says, "Give us this day our daily cue" (102).
I thought that Guildenstern's existentialist quote was significant. He states, "But you dont believe anything till it happens. And it has all happened. Hasnt it? " (108). This is SO existentialist that it blows your socks off. I'm glad to have finally found a clear quote that shows their existentialist point of view of only knowing by experience/happenings.Here we go with the wheel idea again. It rolled on back. Rosencrantz questions the outer force by saying, "I wish I was dead. I could jump over the side. That would put a spoke in their wheel" (108). So is THEIR, the outer force then? He wants to put a damper on his determined/ scripted life which would be out of character. Does life even mean anything to R? I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure if he cares or not. Then we have the omniscient player who thinks "life is a gamble"(115) showing that our life is just a game of chance. Just like the game we played in class. We are all little pawns in the determined world. (my team won btw ) 8D
Rosencrantz figures that the only way to enjoy life is "be happy" (121). He recognizes that he needs to embrace the chaos and live his life how he likes.
To finish, R and G present some life questions:
G: "Who are we?" (122)R: "When did it begin?" (125)
I liked Guildensterns humorous little lines throughout the book since they are constant and reliable, amidst all these confusing concepts. G says, "Give us this day our daily cue" (102).
I thought that Guildenstern's existentialist quote was significant. He states, "But you dont believe anything till it happens. And it has all happened. Hasnt it? " (108). This is SO existentialist that it blows your socks off. I'm glad to have finally found a clear quote that shows their existentialist point of view of only knowing by experience/happenings.Here we go with the wheel idea again. It rolled on back. Rosencrantz questions the outer force by saying, "I wish I was dead. I could jump over the side. That would put a spoke in their wheel" (108). So is THEIR, the outer force then? He wants to put a damper on his determined/ scripted life which would be out of character. Does life even mean anything to R? I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure if he cares or not. Then we have the omniscient player who thinks "life is a gamble"(115) showing that our life is just a game of chance. Just like the game we played in class. We are all little pawns in the determined world. (my team won btw ) 8D
Rosencrantz figures that the only way to enjoy life is "be happy" (121). He recognizes that he needs to embrace the chaos and live his life how he likes.
To finish, R and G present some life questions:
G: "Who are we?" (122)R: "When did it begin?" (125)
Monday, February 9, 2009
Why My Team Won
Well, for starters, there is no code of morality in postmodernism. The world is chaotic and there are no set standards to live by. That is why Mrs. Kirk gave us the option to create rules.
I believe my team won, not because of the general perception of what makes a winner, but according to my own set of rules. My rules are all that matter . I think that we presented quality information answering Mrs. Kirk's questions: such as our example of the actor actually killing a person displaying hyper reality. I also think that we did a better job accepting the world around us- 'the governing outer force of Mrs. Kirk's guidelines'- instead of constantly questioning it. We dealt with the chaos when the other team churned up the 50 dollar cash idea, and I think that in all fairness, the game wanted us to win. EVEN THOUGH the other team wouldn't let us buy any rules, we were able to roll doubles, twice! How lucky is that! Another factor to point out is this- we are playing a game of chance and money. 1) We had the best luck with the dice 2)We ended up with 670 dollars instead of the mere 550 of the other team.
So there you have it. We stuck to the rules, embraced the chaos, analyzed the text thoughtfully, and mangaged to have luck on our side. I say we WON.
I believe my team won, not because of the general perception of what makes a winner, but according to my own set of rules. My rules are all that matter . I think that we presented quality information answering Mrs. Kirk's questions: such as our example of the actor actually killing a person displaying hyper reality. I also think that we did a better job accepting the world around us- 'the governing outer force of Mrs. Kirk's guidelines'- instead of constantly questioning it. We dealt with the chaos when the other team churned up the 50 dollar cash idea, and I think that in all fairness, the game wanted us to win. EVEN THOUGH the other team wouldn't let us buy any rules, we were able to roll doubles, twice! How lucky is that! Another factor to point out is this- we are playing a game of chance and money. 1) We had the best luck with the dice 2)We ended up with 670 dollars instead of the mere 550 of the other team.
So there you have it. We stuck to the rules, embraced the chaos, analyzed the text thoughtfully, and mangaged to have luck on our side. I say we WON.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
R+G Act 2!!
I don't know about you, but I am sure glad that the world is not as confusing as this book makes it seem. What chaos we'd be in! You know?
When i opened the book to page 57, I liked the way that the act opened with Hamlet chatting it up with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It involved me right away. Something significant that stood out to me is that R and G include Hamlet in their word game without him knowing. They count his rhetorical questions and what not. I find it funny that there are two sides to this. The first is that Hamlet is playing with their minds by using wordplay in order to keep his feelings to himself. The second is that R and G are including Hamlet in their word game questionaire.
This all broadly ties into the theme that they are all merely pawns acting out a BIG game of life.
I also enjoyed the world play and witty banter. The word "rough" is interpreted in many ways on page 58. This adds to the post modern theme because words lose their meanings and are distorted. I liked the following phrases because they show wordplay and attention to concrete senses:
R: "Lick your lips"
G: "Taste your tears"
R: "Your breakfast"
G: "You won't know the difference"
It is important to note page 64, where the players' lives started. When their audience faded away, that is when their mission to go to the king began. Their lives became controlled when the king made a guilty soliloquy, because it gave them purpose. The player also demonstrates the postmodern theme when he says, "Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special"(66) to G.
Remember how in postmodernism, only birth and death are knowable? Well let me give you some great examples of that. On page 70, R goes on about how death makes him depressed since death is certain. On page 72, eternity scares Guildenstern since it is unknowable and confusing. Birth and death are the only concrete things that these two individuals understand.
Humor strikes once again as G says, "Give us this day our daily round" (90) lightening the mood of the play.
Who do you relate to more? Rosencrantz or Guildenstern? When i read this story, i usually agree with Guildenstern and feel more connected to him. I think that's because he likes to see the logical side of things and tries to analyze the world that he lives in. I'm not sure if it was Mrs. Harris or not, but one of the English teachers made the class take a "self test" to see what kind of a person they are. Mine told me that I'm a "concrete sequential" person, meaing that I like logical order and patterns. I guess that explains why I must writes sticky notes to myself, reminding myself to remind myself. :) That's why I have to make a list for the items I am packing for a trip or the food I have to buy at a grocery store. Being sequential also explains why I enjoy very structured essays, because when given a broad category to write about- I freak out! I have no idea where to start. My mind works in an orderly fashion. So there you have it.
I'll leave you with the existentialist( experience is all we know) quote by Guildenstern, "No, no, no! If we can't learn by experience, what else have we got?"(90).
When i opened the book to page 57, I liked the way that the act opened with Hamlet chatting it up with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It involved me right away. Something significant that stood out to me is that R and G include Hamlet in their word game without him knowing. They count his rhetorical questions and what not. I find it funny that there are two sides to this. The first is that Hamlet is playing with their minds by using wordplay in order to keep his feelings to himself. The second is that R and G are including Hamlet in their word game questionaire.
This all broadly ties into the theme that they are all merely pawns acting out a BIG game of life.
I also enjoyed the world play and witty banter. The word "rough" is interpreted in many ways on page 58. This adds to the post modern theme because words lose their meanings and are distorted. I liked the following phrases because they show wordplay and attention to concrete senses:
R: "Lick your lips"
G: "Taste your tears"
R: "Your breakfast"
G: "You won't know the difference"
It is important to note page 64, where the players' lives started. When their audience faded away, that is when their mission to go to the king began. Their lives became controlled when the king made a guilty soliloquy, because it gave them purpose. The player also demonstrates the postmodern theme when he says, "Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special"(66) to G.
Remember how in postmodernism, only birth and death are knowable? Well let me give you some great examples of that. On page 70, R goes on about how death makes him depressed since death is certain. On page 72, eternity scares Guildenstern since it is unknowable and confusing. Birth and death are the only concrete things that these two individuals understand.
Humor strikes once again as G says, "Give us this day our daily round" (90) lightening the mood of the play.
Who do you relate to more? Rosencrantz or Guildenstern? When i read this story, i usually agree with Guildenstern and feel more connected to him. I think that's because he likes to see the logical side of things and tries to analyze the world that he lives in. I'm not sure if it was Mrs. Harris or not, but one of the English teachers made the class take a "self test" to see what kind of a person they are. Mine told me that I'm a "concrete sequential" person, meaing that I like logical order and patterns. I guess that explains why I must writes sticky notes to myself, reminding myself to remind myself. :) That's why I have to make a list for the items I am packing for a trip or the food I have to buy at a grocery store. Being sequential also explains why I enjoy very structured essays, because when given a broad category to write about- I freak out! I have no idea where to start. My mind works in an orderly fashion. So there you have it.
I'll leave you with the existentialist( experience is all we know) quote by Guildenstern, "No, no, no! If we can't learn by experience, what else have we got?"(90).
Inaugural Blog
Isn't it fascinating that a man like Michael Gerson has read every single inaugural speech in American History?! I appreciate people, like him, that dedicate themselves to something like that in order to give us a deeper understanding of the speeches.
I remember sitting in Mr. Coffey's class watching the inaugural speech by Obama. I was surprised-as was Gerson- that Obama did not emphasize the progress of the African Americans in America as much as I thought he would. I figured that his entire speech would be a climatical narration of how African Americans used to not have any rights, and how he now stands as the nation's president with the most respected position. Gerson admired Lowery's prayer and that prayer was something that stuck out in my mind as well. Lowery used traditional phrases to point out civil rights. Lauren and i were chuckling at the fact that Lowery had said things like, "When the black comes back, when the yellow is mellow, when the white isnt right" and such.. His expressions were kind of distracting, so I didn't absorb the meaning of the prayer as a whole, but focused on certain elements of it. Our whole class seemed to do the same thing, since we found it quite entertaining. The camera even focused in on Obama himself, who could help but laugh during the prayer.
I thought it was important that Obama stated in his speech that he wanted America to turn back to its original virtues. Michael Gerson points out that most presidents use that theme in their speeches, which i found intersting. I also find it very entertaining that when Obama mentions religion, the nation just "oohs" and "ahhs" in appraisal, yet when Bush states his religious opinions, people think he is trying to go against the constitution. So WHAT IS IT that makes Obama so different? Has anyone got the answer for that yet?
I remember sitting in Mr. Coffey's class watching the inaugural speech by Obama. I was surprised-as was Gerson- that Obama did not emphasize the progress of the African Americans in America as much as I thought he would. I figured that his entire speech would be a climatical narration of how African Americans used to not have any rights, and how he now stands as the nation's president with the most respected position. Gerson admired Lowery's prayer and that prayer was something that stuck out in my mind as well. Lowery used traditional phrases to point out civil rights. Lauren and i were chuckling at the fact that Lowery had said things like, "When the black comes back, when the yellow is mellow, when the white isnt right" and such.. His expressions were kind of distracting, so I didn't absorb the meaning of the prayer as a whole, but focused on certain elements of it. Our whole class seemed to do the same thing, since we found it quite entertaining. The camera even focused in on Obama himself, who could help but laugh during the prayer.
I thought it was important that Obama stated in his speech that he wanted America to turn back to its original virtues. Michael Gerson points out that most presidents use that theme in their speeches, which i found intersting. I also find it very entertaining that when Obama mentions religion, the nation just "oohs" and "ahhs" in appraisal, yet when Bush states his religious opinions, people think he is trying to go against the constitution. So WHAT IS IT that makes Obama so different? Has anyone got the answer for that yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
