I think I should technically fail this entire practice IOC because I talked for 12.5 minutes, but I just took points off for the organization section. And I can't figure out how to upload it into the blog, so Mrs. Genesky, I am sending it to you via email.
Grade: 17/30
Criterion A: Knowledge and Understanding of the extract
6/10 I gave this grade because I believe that I showed some understanding of the text in terms of the purpose, and gave generally good textual support, but I could have been more effective and profound in the holistic part of the excerpt.
Criterion B: Understanding of the Use and Effects of Literary Features
6/10 I think that I showed the literary features and how they affected the audience superficially but could have elaborated more.
Criterion C:
2/5 I gave myself this score because I went over the time limit, but I did have basic structure in my introduction, body (three main literary features and their effect), and conclusion.
Criterion D: Language
3/5 I said a lot of "ums" and had a few short pauses, but I almost always got my idea across.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Why Technology isn't a Metaphor for Memories
Here's a link to the TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/raghava_kk_what_s_your_200_year_plan
Raghava KK is an artist who makes 200-year plans with his wife every few years to better understand himself and the importance of creativity. His grandfather indirectly influenced him to do it when he saw his first movie in the Indian theaters and fell in love with Mae West. Raghava's twin brother Keshava changed his name to Kaesava, and his son from Rehan to Raehan. So his brother started his legacy of name-changing to preserve memories, and Raghava began to create his own future. He and his wife Netra decided to make a plan that would affect people beyond their actual lives. They determined that 200 years was the time where their lives and legacies would extend to affect their descendants' lives.
Raghava and Netra have started their legacies by first expelling themselves of childhood fears--like Raghava's fear of his mother-in-law. They have also created digital legacies, where they put their memories and Raghava's art on social media sites. But, Raghava clarified that "technology is not a metaphor for memory," because everyone picks and chooses what snippets of memory to put into the technological world; the brain is unreliable because it influences creations of memories that show one's positive aspects in their own perspective. Technology is not a metaphor because it stems from the brain, an organ that filters out some truth.
Raghava started his painting career by visualizing his first art exhibition and making his vision come true by inviting a famous actress there. He sees time as moving forward towards him, with him in relative control of avoiding bad things and embracing good things. Netra made him sit on a history class she taught, because he thought history was a waste of time--only a way to look into the past and not make a future. His views changed when he went into the class and created art using history, created a future as he would like it using his heritage and personal stories. He says that the 200-year plans are not for someone to do in the future, but rather a way to manipulate his attitude in the present. In the end, he explains that education is a wonderful tool for all, but creativity surpasses it in usefulness because it leads people to define themselves outside of how education tells them to be, and in turn helps them mold what they become.
The purpose of this talk was to encourage people to take charge of their lives by becoming aware of their potential impact and utilizing their creative qualities. Raghava is himself an artist, which adds a certain credibility in his views of art affecting life. The ethos is subtle, but he frequently mentions his personal experience as a painter and how he expresses his views of time in them, influencing the audience' belief of his expertise. This overall makes his argument more convincing and worthy of thought because he is a successful professional. A bias is created, however, because of his position as an artist. He uses his career/passion as a lens for how he thinks of the world and consequently of the importance of creativity. He says, " It [education] really teaches us who we are, and helps us contextualize ourselves in the world, but it's really my creativity that's taught me that I can be much more than what my education told me I am." His entire argument is centered on his view as an artist. The quote contends to not only how his identity shapes his views, but how everyone's opinions are founded in their passions and experiences. Raghava has more quality nuggets of argument however--more concentrated at the end. He is persuasive in that he structures his argument by giving personal stories and applying them to his reasoning; pathos melds to aid in ethos. His anecdotal style of speech evokes an emotion of hope. For example, when he speaks of his wife's history class, he takes on a tone of fascination: "She started by giving students primary source documents from India, Pakistan, from Britain, and I said, 'Wow.' Then she asked them to separate fact from bias. I said, 'Wow,' again. Then she said, 'Choose your facts and biases and create an image of your own story of dignity.'" Raghava utilizes the story, and "wow" and "dignity" as positively connoted words, to give the audience a sense of hope. His explanation of how history can combine with creative thought to create something new expresses the amount of untapped capabilities people have to make their futures. This is the most important persuasive tool Rhagava uses--his credibility lends some assurance, but mainly his use of pathos and structure helps the audience regard him as a human being with positive values. Though he is biased in his reasoning because of his work, Raghava explains that all people can utilize creativity, making his artistic viewpoint much more inclusive. In this way, it is seen that Raghava uses mainly ethos and pathos to give his audience insight on how they can harness their lives.
Raghava KK is an artist who makes 200-year plans with his wife every few years to better understand himself and the importance of creativity. His grandfather indirectly influenced him to do it when he saw his first movie in the Indian theaters and fell in love with Mae West. Raghava's twin brother Keshava changed his name to Kaesava, and his son from Rehan to Raehan. So his brother started his legacy of name-changing to preserve memories, and Raghava began to create his own future. He and his wife Netra decided to make a plan that would affect people beyond their actual lives. They determined that 200 years was the time where their lives and legacies would extend to affect their descendants' lives.
Raghava and Netra have started their legacies by first expelling themselves of childhood fears--like Raghava's fear of his mother-in-law. They have also created digital legacies, where they put their memories and Raghava's art on social media sites. But, Raghava clarified that "technology is not a metaphor for memory," because everyone picks and chooses what snippets of memory to put into the technological world; the brain is unreliable because it influences creations of memories that show one's positive aspects in their own perspective. Technology is not a metaphor because it stems from the brain, an organ that filters out some truth.
Raghava started his painting career by visualizing his first art exhibition and making his vision come true by inviting a famous actress there. He sees time as moving forward towards him, with him in relative control of avoiding bad things and embracing good things. Netra made him sit on a history class she taught, because he thought history was a waste of time--only a way to look into the past and not make a future. His views changed when he went into the class and created art using history, created a future as he would like it using his heritage and personal stories. He says that the 200-year plans are not for someone to do in the future, but rather a way to manipulate his attitude in the present. In the end, he explains that education is a wonderful tool for all, but creativity surpasses it in usefulness because it leads people to define themselves outside of how education tells them to be, and in turn helps them mold what they become.
The purpose of this talk was to encourage people to take charge of their lives by becoming aware of their potential impact and utilizing their creative qualities. Raghava is himself an artist, which adds a certain credibility in his views of art affecting life. The ethos is subtle, but he frequently mentions his personal experience as a painter and how he expresses his views of time in them, influencing the audience' belief of his expertise. This overall makes his argument more convincing and worthy of thought because he is a successful professional. A bias is created, however, because of his position as an artist. He uses his career/passion as a lens for how he thinks of the world and consequently of the importance of creativity. He says, " It [education] really teaches us who we are, and helps us contextualize ourselves in the world, but it's really my creativity that's taught me that I can be much more than what my education told me I am." His entire argument is centered on his view as an artist. The quote contends to not only how his identity shapes his views, but how everyone's opinions are founded in their passions and experiences. Raghava has more quality nuggets of argument however--more concentrated at the end. He is persuasive in that he structures his argument by giving personal stories and applying them to his reasoning; pathos melds to aid in ethos. His anecdotal style of speech evokes an emotion of hope. For example, when he speaks of his wife's history class, he takes on a tone of fascination: "She started by giving students primary source documents from India, Pakistan, from Britain, and I said, 'Wow.' Then she asked them to separate fact from bias. I said, 'Wow,' again. Then she said, 'Choose your facts and biases and create an image of your own story of dignity.'" Raghava utilizes the story, and "wow" and "dignity" as positively connoted words, to give the audience a sense of hope. His explanation of how history can combine with creative thought to create something new expresses the amount of untapped capabilities people have to make their futures. This is the most important persuasive tool Rhagava uses--his credibility lends some assurance, but mainly his use of pathos and structure helps the audience regard him as a human being with positive values. Though he is biased in his reasoning because of his work, Raghava explains that all people can utilize creativity, making his artistic viewpoint much more inclusive. In this way, it is seen that Raghava uses mainly ethos and pathos to give his audience insight on how they can harness their lives.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Double Murder...er, Indemnity
1. In film noir, many of the male leads are weak,
frustrated men. While you are watching Double
Indemnity, make a mental note of Walter Neff’s characteristics. What kind
of man is he? What is his relationship like with women?
Walter Neff in Double Indemnity is portrayed as an astute, good-working man. His boss says that he has a big heart, and he is a war hero. He is tall, has strong facial features--everything implies his strength and manliness. However, the first view of him is in the dark, hurriedly looking around his office and then sitting down, beginning to confess his crime to his boss. This gives the audience the duality of his personality, like seen in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is both smart, honest, and and trustworthy, as well as unsure, nervous, and exposed.
Neff introduces Phyllis in a way that the audience immediately sees her as a manipulative person. He describes the sickly sweet smell of honeysuckle as one of murder, explicitly revealing Phyllis' murderous desires, but only fully exposing its entire meaning when the audience sees him kill her at that house. He is already caught in her black-widow's web when he meets her, her flirtatiously inviting him in in her bath towel, and him going in. They flirt at first, but when Phyllis mentions life insurance, he quickly discerns that she could kill her husband and get his money. He intelligently leaves, then negates his actions by meeting her again. He is superficially strong in his stances, but with a beautiful woman, his tenacity crumbles. Kissing her and calling her "baby" after two days of seeing her further implies that he is gullible, too entranced to realize the facade of a seemingly innocent woman. He then uses his intelligence and the trust he has at his work to kill Phyllis' husband in an elaborate plan with the intent of double indemnity. His positive traits are diverted to do negative actions; he transforms from Jekyll to Hyde.
Neff, however, feels extreme remorse after he kills the husband. When seeing someone walking on a street towards him, he realizes that he can't hear the man's footsteps. This could be an allusion to Macbeth, for Macbeth can't say "Amen" after killing King Duncan. In Double Indemnity, the effect is the same in that it shows Neff's guilt and heightened nerves, but does not have any religious implication.
In his post-murder state, he feels relaxed around genuinely innocent Lola. This offers the insight that Neff, in his Dr. Jekyll, or true, self, has a moral compass when it comes to women. However, this does not in the least deny the weakness that he has in the presence of a conniving woman and how his irrevocable actions are so easily spawned. Even in the end, Neff, after killing Phyllis, tries to make sure that Lola can be happy with her cheating boyfriend Nino Zachetti, but also tries to save himself. He is frank with his boss, Keyes, but asks him to give him time to escape. Had he reverted back to an honest, responsible man, and not a weak, hiding one, and he would completely give himself up. Is he still attempting to be a masculine figure? Yes--his ever-smoking state proves this at the end as he lays on the ground, defeated, and tries to take a smoke. However, instead of easily lighting his own match, his boss does it for him. The end result is clear: people who do not fall into the foolish trap of deceit and murder will prevail. Those who do end up on the train, "straight down the line."
Walter Neff in Double Indemnity is portrayed as an astute, good-working man. His boss says that he has a big heart, and he is a war hero. He is tall, has strong facial features--everything implies his strength and manliness. However, the first view of him is in the dark, hurriedly looking around his office and then sitting down, beginning to confess his crime to his boss. This gives the audience the duality of his personality, like seen in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is both smart, honest, and and trustworthy, as well as unsure, nervous, and exposed.
Neff introduces Phyllis in a way that the audience immediately sees her as a manipulative person. He describes the sickly sweet smell of honeysuckle as one of murder, explicitly revealing Phyllis' murderous desires, but only fully exposing its entire meaning when the audience sees him kill her at that house. He is already caught in her black-widow's web when he meets her, her flirtatiously inviting him in in her bath towel, and him going in. They flirt at first, but when Phyllis mentions life insurance, he quickly discerns that she could kill her husband and get his money. He intelligently leaves, then negates his actions by meeting her again. He is superficially strong in his stances, but with a beautiful woman, his tenacity crumbles. Kissing her and calling her "baby" after two days of seeing her further implies that he is gullible, too entranced to realize the facade of a seemingly innocent woman. He then uses his intelligence and the trust he has at his work to kill Phyllis' husband in an elaborate plan with the intent of double indemnity. His positive traits are diverted to do negative actions; he transforms from Jekyll to Hyde.
Neff, however, feels extreme remorse after he kills the husband. When seeing someone walking on a street towards him, he realizes that he can't hear the man's footsteps. This could be an allusion to Macbeth, for Macbeth can't say "Amen" after killing King Duncan. In Double Indemnity, the effect is the same in that it shows Neff's guilt and heightened nerves, but does not have any religious implication.
In his post-murder state, he feels relaxed around genuinely innocent Lola. This offers the insight that Neff, in his Dr. Jekyll, or true, self, has a moral compass when it comes to women. However, this does not in the least deny the weakness that he has in the presence of a conniving woman and how his irrevocable actions are so easily spawned. Even in the end, Neff, after killing Phyllis, tries to make sure that Lola can be happy with her cheating boyfriend Nino Zachetti, but also tries to save himself. He is frank with his boss, Keyes, but asks him to give him time to escape. Had he reverted back to an honest, responsible man, and not a weak, hiding one, and he would completely give himself up. Is he still attempting to be a masculine figure? Yes--his ever-smoking state proves this at the end as he lays on the ground, defeated, and tries to take a smoke. However, instead of easily lighting his own match, his boss does it for him. The end result is clear: people who do not fall into the foolish trap of deceit and murder will prevail. Those who do end up on the train, "straight down the line."
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Lady M's Netflix List
The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
This is the first of the Pirates of the Caribbean series, and it is focused on the Captain Jack Sparrow, a mutinied pirate captain who wants to get his ship, the Black Pearl, back. He and Will Turner, an intelligent blacksmith, team up to save Wlizabeth Swann, the Governor's daughter and Will's love when she is kidnapped by Captain Barbossa, the pirate who has control of Jack Sparrow's beloved ship. Barbossa and his crew are cursed to be undead when they mutinied and marooned Sparrow on an island and used all of the cursed money that he had revealed the location of. The crew goes to Isla de Muerta to take back the last of the cursed coins and break the curse with a blood sacrifice. Only a relative of Bootstrap Bill, a dead pirate who sabotaged Barbossa, can make the blood sacrifice. Elizabeth is rescued by Will, who is revealed to be the son of William "Bootstrap Bill" Turner. He is taken by Barbossa to do the sacrifice and maroons Elizabeth and Jack on an island. Elizabeth creates a bonfire out of the cache of rum on the island and is saved by the British navy who is looking for her. Together they go to capture Barbossa's pirates. This all ends with Jack Sparrow and Barbossa battling it out, Sparrow becoming immortal by using a cursed coin,the undead pirates ambushing the Navy ship, and Will breaking the curse. The now mortal pirates surrender, Barbossa is shot by Sparrow, and Sparrow is taken back to the UK to be hanged. Elizabeth ends up saving herself by implementing a parley at the beginning to make sure Barbossa cannot kill her, saves Jack and herself by creating a smoke signal on the island, saves Jack's crew who helped him find the Pearl and who were captured when they met Barbossa, by sneaking into The Black Pearl, and saves Will and Jack when Will tries to rescue Jack from being hanged. She also kills two cursed pirates and ends up with the guy she wants: Will Turner. Lady Macbeth would appreciate the cleverness of Elizabeth, her killing of guards just like Lady Macbeth, and her achieving her goal of getting together with Will. Manipulation, murder, and power over who she has a relationship with all sound like Lady Macbeth's cup of tea.Brave
This is a Disney movie that doesn't actually portray the usual prince-saves-princess cliché. It is about Scottish Princess Merida, a kick-butt, feisty girl who doesn't want to do anything but shoot arrows at targets and ride her horse. She actually defies her own suitor competition when she wins the archery contest. She makes a deal with a witch to change her fate (just like Lady Macbeth did when deciding to get Duncan killed) and make her mother change so that she does not have to become a proper, married woman. Well, that spell turns her mother into a bear, so then it is up to Merida to break the spell, battling a demon bear and keeping her mother safe in the process. The curse is undone when Merida realizes that she needs to fix the tapestry she ripped when she and her mother were fighting. Everything ends happily, with Merida and her mother having a strong bond and Merida continuing with her unladylike ways. Though Lady Macbeth might appreciate a more proper main character, she would certainly love the way Merida took everything in her own hands throughout the entire movie, defying gender roles and being strong and smart. Merida echoes with Lady M's desire to be a man, trying to change her fate, and fixing the consequence (the one thing that Lady Macbeth did not do).Scandal
This is a very popular show about a woman named Olivia Pope who works at her own crisis management firm, Olivia Pope and Associates. She is having an affair with the President Fitzgerald Grant while fixing disasters before they take place. The series flow from focusing on one case to the President's conspiratorial election and Pope and her father fixing the accusation that she is having an affair with the President to Olivia's evolving love life and political murders and cover-ups. Lady Macbeth would be impressed by the poised main character who fixes everyone else' problems and struggles to fix hers, and this shows what Lady Macbeth eventually becomes. She tries to fix her and Macbeth's problems by telling him to kill Duncan, then attempts to stop Macbeth from killing others and create more problems. While losing power in her relationship, Lady M can't fix her own issue of guilt for starting Macbeth's murderous desire.Alien
This 1979 movie depicts Warren Officer Ripley, a female astronaut who, along with six others, is in space and discovers sinister alien eggs. An egg attaches itself to one of the astronaut's faces, and, with Ripley the only one unwilling to let him in, an alien comes out of the man's stomach inside the spaceship, killing him and releasing the creature into the Nostromo. The crew attempts to flush the alien out of the spaceship, but a traitor (an android, nonetheless) is ordered to keep the alien in the ship to kill off the other crew members. Ripley is saved from being strangled by another crew member, then interrogates the traitor and incinerates him. The remaining two crew members (not including Ripley) are killed while trying to get supplies to abort the ship and go on the shuttle. Ripley is on her own, and, when discovering that the alien came with her on the shuttle, she opens the capsule and forces it out into space. Talk about a resilient, intelligent female character! Lady Macbeth would love this movie because everyone dies except for the female, showing that females are more important than men and can withstand more than men can, in her opinion. Her "Unsex me here" speech is not even needed because this movie shows that females are higher in capability than their male counterparts.Sunday, November 22, 2015
Macbeth, Macbeth...Oh How Far You've Come
Macbeth is regarded as a hero when he is introduced in the play. He defeated a "merciless Macdonwald" (Macbeth, 1.2), and is described as a "brave...valiant...worthy gentleman" (Macbeth, 1.2). How did Macbeth devolve into a crazy guy who gets the king and his best friend murdered? The deadly sin of greed can answer that. Greed for power, money (a form of power), love, religious or political importance, etc. are the primary means that people go from honorable, morally correct citizens to jealous, morally wrong people who endanger others. Macbeth has no reason to become "evil" in the beginning of the play, but when the supernatural witches tell him and Banquo of a mysterious prophecy where Macbeth and Banquo's sons will be kings, Macbeth is enticed into a dangerous game of moral conflict. Macbeth and Banquo at first say that they will not do anything to influence fate, thus the prophecy. However, they react differently to the prophecy--Macbeth asks,"Do you not hope your children shall be kings" (Macbeth, 1.3), before saying "If chance have me King, why, chance may crown me / Without my stir" (Macbeth, 1.3). Banquo, on the other hand, responds to Macbeth's question by saying that "oftentimes, to win us to our harm, / The instruments of darkness tell us truths, / Win us with awful trifles" (Macbeth, 1.3). Macbeth is already tempted by the prophecy and is trying to see if Banquo is in agreement with him. Banquo uses many words with negative connotations--"darkness", "trifles"--to demonstrate his caution to Macbeth, and Shakespeare uses the appearance vs reality concept to further convey that, though the prophecy may appear to be positive, bad things lurk there and draw people in by giving them possible truths. Macbeth is, then, when looking deep into language usage, already at a lower moral standing than Banquo in the beginning of the play. Though Macbeth is seen to come to a revelation like Banquo's, his initial reaction to the prophecy is hope (spurring action).
Macbeth is drawn by the prophecy, by the promise of power, by the deadly sin of greed. Lady Macbeth convinces his him to actually act. Her strong, confident character and mocking tendencies are no match for Macbeth's feeble attempts to fend her orders off: "Wouldst thou have that / Which esteem'st the ornament of life, / And live a coward in thine own esteem, / Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,' / Like the poor car i' th' adage" (Macbeth, 1.7). She uses her excuses against him, until he finally relents, and, that night, kills King Duncan. But, oh how he feels terrible. He is practically hyperventilating as he exclaims, "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood / Clean from my hand? No" (Macbeth, 2.2). He refuses to go on and frame the guards or do any other action to ensure the prophecy. However, he did the deed. Persuasion by Lady M, and desire for power led him to take the first steps into evil-dom.
When Macbeth sends two (or three; the third murderer could represent the supernatural influence on everything regarding Macbeth's actions) murderers to kill Banquo, he is truly succumbing to greed and jealousy. Instead of being happy that his friend's sons will have the chance to have power, he is angry that Banquo's sons will easily rise to power and not have to murder someone to do it: "For Banquo's issue I have filed in my mind; / For them the gracious Duncan I have murdered; / Put rancors in the vessel of my peace / Only for them, and mine eternal jewel / Given to the common enemy of man, / To make them kings, the seeds of Banquo's kings!" (Macbeth 3.1). That long-winded exclamation, using metaphors ("vessel of peace," "eternal jewel") to represent his damaged moral code, his thirst for power, conveys Macbeth's true descent into evil. Anyone who is in his way is an enemy, and isn't that evil--not caring who the person is, but smashing them down if they are an obstacle?
"Mr." Macbeth :) is not impervious to remorse once he kills people he respects and admires. Multiply his little freak out session after killing Duncan by 100 and you'll get his reaction to Banquo's ghost in Act 3, scene 4. He at first doesn't notice the ghost (could this represent another facet of evil, the fact that the murder is out of his conscious mind already??), but when he does, he is horrified. Shakespeare uses a lot of exclamatory punctuation to contrast when the ghost is in the room or not, and this helps characterize Macbeth's reaction as severe and a little crazy. Macbeth is going through an internal conflict: should he really have killed his friend to satisfy his own desire, or should he have not ever done anything at all? This internal conflict is outwardly shown when he yells at the ghost: "Take any shape but that, and my firm nerves / Shall never tremble. Or be alive again, / And dare me to the desert with thy sword." (Macbeth, 3.4). Macbeth is telling the ghost to be any organism but his Banquo human form, and he won't feel terrible and anxious. He then expresses his wish that Banquo were alive, and that Macbeth would be in turn be punished for the sins he has committed.
Macbeth was introduced as perfect, then quickly descended into a greedy man desperate to make his part of the prophecy come true, simultaneously feeling intense guilt and having the side effect of slight insanity. Macbeth could have remained with Banquo, content with letting fate happen on its own, but instead chose the morally wrong, paranoid path. Macbeth made crucial mistakes in the first part of the play, and it will be interesting to see what he becomes as the play comes to an end.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)