While I was perusing some of our classmates' blogs, I noticed that Casey inlcuded a clip from 10 Things I Hate About You, an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew starring Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles. You can check out both the clip and Casey's thoughts about it on her blog at http://caseyslivesandtimes.blogspot.com/.
Of course, I'm not simply blogging to rave about Casey's blog (which I quite enjoyed by the way). Watching the clip from 10 Things I Hate About You called to my attention that Julia Stiles has been in several movie adaptations of Shakespeare's plays. This got me thinking about the casting choices for O. Was Julia Stiles chosen simply because she has a history of acting in Shakespeare adaptations? What makes her so suited for those roles? Obviously, she plays the leading lady in O as Desi, an adaptation of Desdemona; Casey points out that she also plays the leading lady in 10 Things I Hate About You as Katrina; and check out this clip of her as Ophelia (with Ethan Hawke as Hamlet) in the 2000 movie adaptation of Hamlet:
I wonder if Julia Stiles was chosen for her roles in O and Hamlet because directors believed she performed well in her first role in a Shakespeare adaptation as Kat in 10 Things I Hate About You, or if directors simply see something "Shakespearean" in her as an actress. All three of these movies came out in a relatively short time frame: 10 Things I Hate About You in 1999, Hamlet in 2000, and O in 2001; however, they all had different directors: Gil Junger (10 Things I Hate About You), Michael Almereyda (Hamlet), and Martin Scorsese (O). Why do you think Julia Stiles was cast as the leading lady for all three?
Of course I want to hear what all of you think, but this wouldn't be a true "Sam-style" blog post if I didn't elaborate on my own opinion a bit. First of all, I should probably admit off the bat that anything I say is bound to be a tad bit biased because I love Julia Stiles as an actress, and thus believe she is pretty magnificent in ANY role she plays. However, I think she is particularly suited for Shakespeare adaptations due to both her physical appearance and her acting abilities. First of all, I think (and this is personal opinion) that Julia Stiles has kind of an innocent and unique look. The innocence suits Shakespeare roles very well, as he tends to often paint the women in his plays as victims. The unique quality (which I can't quite put my finger on, but I think it is something about her eyes, perhaps) also suits Shakespeare roles, as his plays usually involve manipulation, and the uniqueness of Stiles's look adds a sense of mystery to her character. As far as her acting ability goes, she is amazing in dramatic situations. Scenes that involve her crying or in a frantic state do not come off as forced, fake or overly dramatic (see the above clip as well as the clip on Casey's blog for two examples). I think these qualitites made her the perfect casting choice for Desde in O. What does everyone else think?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
2 Two-Faced Iagos
Okay, so call me immature, but the first thing I thought of when I started reading Othello and saw that the name of the villain was Iago was my all-time favorite Disney character--the parrot in the movie Aladdin (yes, the one with the annoying voice). By the way, Aladdin is undoubtedly THE greatest Disney movie of all time, and if any of you dare to challenge me on that, I am more than open to the idea of starting a blog war regarding Disney movies.
ANYWAY, back to the point of my blog (yes, it does have a point!!). I find a lot of similarities between the Iago in Othello and the one in Aladdin (okay, yes, one is kind of a bird, but trust me, there ARE similarities). I think the easiest way to point these out to everyone is to show you a clip of what is probably my favorite scene from the movie and then to list the similarities I see between our Iagos. So here it is, enjoy!!
Similarities I see:
(1) We will begin with the obvious. They are both named Iago. Quite insightful, I know.
(2) They are both villains (another brilliant deduction).
(3) Note Iago's (cartoon version) ability to imitate Princess Jasmine in the clip. It's uncanny. This reminds me of how Iago in Othello is able to trick everyone around him into believing that he is someone that he's not (i.e. Othello says "Iago is most honest" [2.3.7]).
(4) Iago (cartoon version again) says "And to think we gotta keep kissing up to that chump and his chump daughter." This is similar to how the Iago in Othello seems to always be kissing up to pretty much everybody in the play, including Brabantio.
(5) Cartoon Iago devises an evil plot to take over a position of power when he suggests to Jafar that he marry Princess Jasmine and become Sultan. This is kind of similar to Othello's Iago devising a plan to overthrow Othello because he is upset that he did not get the promotion to lieutenant (even though we are never technically very clear on Iago's true motivations).
(6) Cartoon Iago has persuasive powers that are demonstrated when he talks Jafar into his plan. These powers are mirrored in Othello's Iago's ability to convince multiple characters to take part in his plan (for example, when he convinces Roderigo that he is the perfect candidate for “knocking out [Cassio’s] brains” [4.2.229]).
(7) Cartoon Iago's plan involves murder. 'Nuff said.
I also want to point out that the end of this scene is utterly hilarious, as it ends with Jafar and Iago cackling evilly back and forth. This has absolutely no relevance, but I can't help laughing hysterically every time I watch it.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Displacement: Applying a Physics Perspective to a Literary Concept
You guys are going to have to forgive me: I may be an English Writing Major, but I am also a Chem/Math double minor, so I do have a tendency to sometimes think about abstract or literary concepts in a "scientific" manner. When we started our brainstorming of the term "displacement" in class on Thursday, the scientist in me immediately jumped to the physics definition, which refers to "how far out of place an object is." I know, I know, you are probably all uttering something along the lines of "ummm...duh?!" I realize this definition of the word is pretty much explicitly implied in the word itself: DIS-PLACE-ment; but I think there is more to the definition than what appears on the surface. I started explaining my interpretation in class as taking this to mean a kind of journey, as in how one might actually get from her starting point to her destination. After class, I realized that I had the concepts of "displacement" and "distance" flip-flopped (thank God I decided to go with the English thing, right?), and the difference between the two in physics is actually what allows the scientific definition to be applied for our purposes. So, for a clarification, check out
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1c.html.
This is a groovy little tutorial that does a really good job explaining the difference between "distance" and "displacement." And NOW, for my probably over-reaching and annoyingly lengthy interpretation:
I think it's important to note that distance refers to "how much ground an object has covered," whereas displacement refers to where the object actually is in relation to where it began. So, technically, an object (or a person, for our purposes) may travel a great distance, undergo a long, hard, and complex journey, and still find itself right back where it started. I like this idea of displacement being independent of a person's ventures in life. It suggests that we can make mistakes and have regrets but still ultimately have a sense of and be able to return to where we started and where we belong. The only way we can truly be "displaced" is if we venture out, lose our way, and don't find a path that takes us back to where we started; in essence, if we "lose ourselves completely." Also, the website says that displacement is "the object's overall change in position," which we can apply in both a literal and figurative sense. A person may find herself diplaced if her physical location changes, but also if her political, religous, or any other personal belief ("position") changes. For example, I believe that Othello finds himself "diplaced" when his position regarding human nature changes. Iago originally portrays Othello to be of a generally optimistic and trusting nature, saying that "[t]he Moor is of a free and open, nature,/That thinks men honest that but seem to be so" (lines 382-83). Iago then notes a change (a "displacement") in Othello after he as planted the seed of jealousy in his mind: "The Moor already changes with my posion" (line 342). Invoking the physics definition, we interpret Othello's "position" regarding human nature to have undergone an "overall change," i.e., jealously has caused him to lose his generally trusting nature, and we thus consider him "displaced."
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1c.html.
This is a groovy little tutorial that does a really good job explaining the difference between "distance" and "displacement." And NOW, for my probably over-reaching and annoyingly lengthy interpretation:
I think it's important to note that distance refers to "how much ground an object has covered," whereas displacement refers to where the object actually is in relation to where it began. So, technically, an object (or a person, for our purposes) may travel a great distance, undergo a long, hard, and complex journey, and still find itself right back where it started. I like this idea of displacement being independent of a person's ventures in life. It suggests that we can make mistakes and have regrets but still ultimately have a sense of and be able to return to where we started and where we belong. The only way we can truly be "displaced" is if we venture out, lose our way, and don't find a path that takes us back to where we started; in essence, if we "lose ourselves completely." Also, the website says that displacement is "the object's overall change in position," which we can apply in both a literal and figurative sense. A person may find herself diplaced if her physical location changes, but also if her political, religous, or any other personal belief ("position") changes. For example, I believe that Othello finds himself "diplaced" when his position regarding human nature changes. Iago originally portrays Othello to be of a generally optimistic and trusting nature, saying that "[t]he Moor is of a free and open, nature,/That thinks men honest that but seem to be so" (lines 382-83). Iago then notes a change (a "displacement") in Othello after he as planted the seed of jealousy in his mind: "The Moor already changes with my posion" (line 342). Invoking the physics definition, we interpret Othello's "position" regarding human nature to have undergone an "overall change," i.e., jealously has caused him to lose his generally trusting nature, and we thus consider him "displaced."
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Girl, Interrupted: A "Christian" Perspective
I have my own opinions and reactions to the film Girl, Interrupted, which I could easily share here, but I feel as if I have done a sufficient job in shoving my opinion down everyone’s throats in my last few blog entries. Thus, I set out on a quest to find another individual’s response to the film, preferably one which looked at it from an angle or perspective which I had not considered. Low and behold, thanks to my amazing Googling abilities, it took little effort on my part to find what I was looking for…
Now, I realize that just because we happen to attend a Catholic University, not everyone here is Catholic or Christian. However, I think that a review of the film from a Christian perspective may serve as interesting for members of any religion. So here it is: http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2000/girlinterrupted.html.
This article reviews Girl, Interrupted from a Christian perspective. In it, the reviewer, Bob MacLean, comments on how the movie does (and does not) uphold Christian beliefs and values. He makes a lot of bold arguments and often calls the film “offensive,” referencing the profanity, sexual content, frequent drug usage, and the suicide scene. True, from a Christian viewpoint (and probably from a lot of non-Christian viewpoints as well), these things are surely considered “offensive,” but wasn’t that the point? By being “offensive,” didn’t these scenes effectively convey the intensity and difficulty involved in trying to recover from a mental illness?
One of MacLean’s major criticisms of the film, which I believe makes some unfair assumptions, is this:
“Since Susanna is not a Christian, she cannot, and the film does not, offer any real answers to some very important questions. Rather [it] raises the human spirit up as the answer to our problems. I find this solution curious. If we had such great spirit, why do we repeatedly put ourselves into these terrible situations?”
MacLean implies that the only way to recover from a mental illness is through religion, and that “the human spirit” alone is not strong enough to overcome the struggles associated with such disorders. So, according to MacLean, are we to assume that there is no hope for non-Christians who suffer from mental illnesses? If this is the case, then why have so many antidepressant medications been developed by researchers, approved by the FDA, prescribed by doctors, and taken by patients suffering from depression? Would people really be taking them if they were ineffective? Also, in his final question, MacLean basically assumes that those suffering from mental illnesses inflicted the condition upon themselves. To ask “why we repeatedly put ourselves into these terrible situations?” is basically an attack on the identity of mental illnesses as medical conditions. Would you ask a diabetic why he gave himself diabetes? Would you ask a brain cancer patient what she was thinking when she put a tumor in her head? MacLean does admit that “the movie forces one to understand the horror of having to deal with mental illness and does not glamorize being insane,” but then goes on to say that “God knows and deals with the deepest horrors we visit upon one another and forgives us,” which again implies that mental illness is caused by human behavior and something that needs to be “forgiven.” True, perhaps by “the deepest horrors we visit upon one another,” MacLean may be referring to the cruel ways some of the women in the film treated one another, but couldn’t that behavior also be considered a symptom of the mental illnesses they were suffering from?
Do you think that mental illness is an issue that needs to be treated from a religious standpoint, a medical standpoint, or a combination of the two?
Now, I realize that just because we happen to attend a Catholic University, not everyone here is Catholic or Christian. However, I think that a review of the film from a Christian perspective may serve as interesting for members of any religion. So here it is: http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2000/girlinterrupted.html.
This article reviews Girl, Interrupted from a Christian perspective. In it, the reviewer, Bob MacLean, comments on how the movie does (and does not) uphold Christian beliefs and values. He makes a lot of bold arguments and often calls the film “offensive,” referencing the profanity, sexual content, frequent drug usage, and the suicide scene. True, from a Christian viewpoint (and probably from a lot of non-Christian viewpoints as well), these things are surely considered “offensive,” but wasn’t that the point? By being “offensive,” didn’t these scenes effectively convey the intensity and difficulty involved in trying to recover from a mental illness?
One of MacLean’s major criticisms of the film, which I believe makes some unfair assumptions, is this:
“Since Susanna is not a Christian, she cannot, and the film does not, offer any real answers to some very important questions. Rather [it] raises the human spirit up as the answer to our problems. I find this solution curious. If we had such great spirit, why do we repeatedly put ourselves into these terrible situations?”
MacLean implies that the only way to recover from a mental illness is through religion, and that “the human spirit” alone is not strong enough to overcome the struggles associated with such disorders. So, according to MacLean, are we to assume that there is no hope for non-Christians who suffer from mental illnesses? If this is the case, then why have so many antidepressant medications been developed by researchers, approved by the FDA, prescribed by doctors, and taken by patients suffering from depression? Would people really be taking them if they were ineffective? Also, in his final question, MacLean basically assumes that those suffering from mental illnesses inflicted the condition upon themselves. To ask “why we repeatedly put ourselves into these terrible situations?” is basically an attack on the identity of mental illnesses as medical conditions. Would you ask a diabetic why he gave himself diabetes? Would you ask a brain cancer patient what she was thinking when she put a tumor in her head? MacLean does admit that “the movie forces one to understand the horror of having to deal with mental illness and does not glamorize being insane,” but then goes on to say that “God knows and deals with the deepest horrors we visit upon one another and forgives us,” which again implies that mental illness is caused by human behavior and something that needs to be “forgiven.” True, perhaps by “the deepest horrors we visit upon one another,” MacLean may be referring to the cruel ways some of the women in the film treated one another, but couldn’t that behavior also be considered a symptom of the mental illnesses they were suffering from?
Do you think that mental illness is an issue that needs to be treated from a religious standpoint, a medical standpoint, or a combination of the two?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
