{Now that we have a new house, we decide its time to get some of Mum and Dad’s furniture back. But when Tracy calls Noelene, who’s been storing Mum’s prized dining room set, she actually refuses to part with it. I can’t believe it, so when Tracy, Chris and Trent are out, I call Noelene myself.
“Our mother loved that dining set and glass cabinet,” I tell my mother’s old friend. “We really can’t give them up now,” she says. I can’t believe her nerve.
A couple days later I work up the courage to drive to Noelene’s. I hate to do it, but it seems like my only option. I feel pretty certain that if Noelene sees me in person, she won’t be able to say no.
I’m standing in her dining room staring at our table and chairs.}*
“Look, Erin, I’m sorry, but we’ve designed our whole living room around these pieces,” “But you promised,” I blurt out. I am so angry. “I’m sorry. No.” “What do you mean no?” I say fuming. “Mum would be crushed, you used to laugh with her, and we used to come here for family barbecues. Mum’s friendship with you meant a lot. They hold so many memories for us.” “Again, I’m sorry, but no” Noelene explains with a shrug. “How can you do this, Noelene?” “How can you stand there denying Tracy, Trent and me some thing so precious, because you designed your living space around it?” Noelene shakes her head and walks toward the door. I can’t believe her.
{I’m seventeen and powerless to do anything else.
And that’s that.}*
{….}* Previous information for reader to understand passage
I chose to rewrite this page because I think that she should have been more appalled at Noelene and her actions. I completely find it despicable that a person would deny someone an object with so much sentimental value. I find that the people that were so close to Erin’s parents when they were alive now seem so materialistic. They seem to care less and less about Erin and her family, then before when her parents were alive.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
A Doll's House Act 1
My opinion of the clip of act 1 from “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is that the director has made their house seem rich; he/she has played it up to more than what it seems like in the play. “A room furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly.” In the play the house seems very plain. The way that the actors dressed was accurate to the time setting, which is in the 1800s. Helmer is wearing a three piece suit, and Nora has on a dress from that time. Even though the play was written in Norway, I almost expected the set would be like a house in Norway, but it looks more like a house in England.
I think that Nora didn’t seems so needy like in the play, yes, it shows her “affection” for money, but I don’t think that its up to par. “You might give me money, Torvald. Only as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it….Oh do! dear Torvald; please, please do! Then I will wrap it up in beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” in the clip Nora doesn’t seem so desperate and needy for the money. I think that the movie director/producer who ever did portray Nora’s childish aspect very well. She acts like she really is this little thing, “…my little lark…,…my little squirrel….,…my dear little Nora…”
In the clip, Helmer seems more teasing rather than putting her down. It didn’t seem like he worried at all. Helmer portrayed in the movie seemed like nothing compared to how he was portrayed in the play. In the play Helmer is very much in love with Nora and cares deeply about what would happen if he died. He worries much about what her situation would be. “…Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds to-day, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then new year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me, and--” With him being worried he wants no debts and then economic worries, so he tries to tell Nora that “But, seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.”
I think that Nora didn’t seems so needy like in the play, yes, it shows her “affection” for money, but I don’t think that its up to par. “You might give me money, Torvald. Only as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it….Oh do! dear Torvald; please, please do! Then I will wrap it up in beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” in the clip Nora doesn’t seem so desperate and needy for the money. I think that the movie director/producer who ever did portray Nora’s childish aspect very well. She acts like she really is this little thing, “…my little lark…,…my little squirrel….,…my dear little Nora…”
In the clip, Helmer seems more teasing rather than putting her down. It didn’t seem like he worried at all. Helmer portrayed in the movie seemed like nothing compared to how he was portrayed in the play. In the play Helmer is very much in love with Nora and cares deeply about what would happen if he died. He worries much about what her situation would be. “…Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds to-day, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then new year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me, and--” With him being worried he wants no debts and then economic worries, so he tries to tell Nora that “But, seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.”
marcel duchamp
marcel duchamp
I have chosen marcel duchamp. I like the humor that he brought to "The Mona Lisa", he change the title to "She Has A Hot Ass". He also added a mustache and goatee
I have chosen marcel duchamp. I like the humor that he brought to "The Mona Lisa", he change the title to "She Has A Hot Ass". He also added a mustache and goatee
Act 1.2 Hamlet
Act 1:2 Hamlet is alone in the throne room and is upset at his mother for marrying his Uncle Claudius and also being told by both his mother and uncle that he should not grieve after his father anymore. In Hamlet’s soliloquy, we discovered that it has only been two months since his father King Hamlet has died. “But two months dead--nay, not so much, not two” (line 142). “…ere those shoes were old with which she followed my poor father‘s body, like Niobe, all tears…But break. My heart, for I must hold my tongue” (lines 151-164). In these lines, Hamlet is in complete distress over his mother marrying her uncle only a month after his father died. In lines 151-152, Hamlet describes his mother like Niobe; daughter of Tantalus, whose children were killed and was turned to stone where she wept for their loss; as she walked behind her late husband’s body. Hamlet also compares his mother to a beast, saying that a beast would have mourned longer than she has, in lines 154 and 155. He is bewildered by how she could marry her late husband’s brother, who is nothing like King Hamlet. “…My father‘s brother, but no more like my father than I to Hercules” (lines 157-158). “So excellent a king, that was to this Hyperion to a satyr…” (lines 143-144). Here Hamlet juxtaposes King Hamlet and Claudius, King Hamlet as a sun god and Claudius as a creature who is part human, part horse and part goat. Since Claudius is now king, what is a another crack to Hamlet’s already shattered heart, is that Hamlet cannot say anything against King Claudius and his mother, Queen Gertrude.
Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet
Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of Hamlet, captures Hamlet’s anger and distress that is brought on by King Claudius and Queen Gertrude. The anger is shown when he screams “and yet, within a month (let me not think on ‘t; frailty, thy name is woman!)” (lines 154-155). In my opinion, Branagh’s portrayal was too sane. Hamlet is initially alone and he’s talking to himself, he’s expressing how he feels and he is searching through his mind; trying to figure out how his mother could marry his uncle. There was definitely emotion in the portrayal, but the essence of someone who bewildered out of his mind was not there. I liked how Branagh was wearing black, it showed that he was still in mourning of his father King Hamlet. Hamlet wearing black not only showed mourning but it made Hamlet stand out in the set, which was mostly white.
Laurence Olivier as Hamlet
I liked how the soliloquy was voiced over to show that Hamlet was thinking, instead of saying it out loud like Branagh. I think doing that showed how delusional hamlet was. The voice over exaggerated Hamlet’s distress and bewilderedness. Oliver’s use of facial expressions and body languge also showed the amount of emotion in the scene. I did not like how it was in black and white. I think that it had no great effect on the scene, and just showed that when this was made it was in the period when there was no color and that technology was not established yet.
In my opinion, the best interpretation of Hamlet’s soliloquy was by Laurence Olivier. The direction in which the scene was led, emphasized the duress and mental suffering that Hamlet was going through. The voice over by Olivier made it so that, Hamlet was saying everything in his mind, he was talking to himself. Also that, he only said about five words out loud really emphasized that duress that Hamlet was going through.
Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet
Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of Hamlet, captures Hamlet’s anger and distress that is brought on by King Claudius and Queen Gertrude. The anger is shown when he screams “and yet, within a month (let me not think on ‘t; frailty, thy name is woman!)” (lines 154-155). In my opinion, Branagh’s portrayal was too sane. Hamlet is initially alone and he’s talking to himself, he’s expressing how he feels and he is searching through his mind; trying to figure out how his mother could marry his uncle. There was definitely emotion in the portrayal, but the essence of someone who bewildered out of his mind was not there. I liked how Branagh was wearing black, it showed that he was still in mourning of his father King Hamlet. Hamlet wearing black not only showed mourning but it made Hamlet stand out in the set, which was mostly white.
Laurence Olivier as Hamlet
I liked how the soliloquy was voiced over to show that Hamlet was thinking, instead of saying it out loud like Branagh. I think doing that showed how delusional hamlet was. The voice over exaggerated Hamlet’s distress and bewilderedness. Oliver’s use of facial expressions and body languge also showed the amount of emotion in the scene. I did not like how it was in black and white. I think that it had no great effect on the scene, and just showed that when this was made it was in the period when there was no color and that technology was not established yet.
In my opinion, the best interpretation of Hamlet’s soliloquy was by Laurence Olivier. The direction in which the scene was led, emphasized the duress and mental suffering that Hamlet was going through. The voice over by Olivier made it so that, Hamlet was saying everything in his mind, he was talking to himself. Also that, he only said about five words out loud really emphasized that duress that Hamlet was going through.
Friday, September 19, 2008
"A Doll's House" Clip Critique
My opinion of the clip of act 1 from “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is that the director has made their house seem rich; he/she has played it up to more than what it seems like in the play. “A room furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly.” In the play the house seems very plain. The way that the actors dressed was accurate to the time setting, which is in the 1800s. Helmer is wearing a three piece suit, and Nora has on a dress from that time. Even though the play was written in Norway, I almost expected the set would be like a house in Norway, but it looks more like a house in England.
I think that Nora didn’t seems so needy like in the play, yes, it shows her “affection” for money, but I don’t think that its up to par. “You might give me money, Torvald. Only as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it….Oh do! dear Torvald; please, please do! Then I will wrap it up in beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” in the clip Nora doesn’t seem so desperate and needy for the money. I think that the movie director/producer who ever did portray Nora’s childish aspect very well. She acts like she really is this little thing, “…my little lark…,…my little squirrel….,…my dear little Nora…”
In the clip, Helmer seems more teasing rather than putting her down. It didn’t seem like he worried at all. Helmer portrayed in the movie seemed like nothing compared to how he was portrayed in the play. In the play Helmer is very much in love with Nora and cares deeply about what would happen if he died. He worries much about what her situation would be. “…Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds to-day, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then new year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me, and--” With him being worried he wants no debts and then economic worries, so he tries to tell Nora that “But, seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.”
I think that Nora didn’t seems so needy like in the play, yes, it shows her “affection” for money, but I don’t think that its up to par. “You might give me money, Torvald. Only as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it….Oh do! dear Torvald; please, please do! Then I will wrap it up in beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” in the clip Nora doesn’t seem so desperate and needy for the money. I think that the movie director/producer who ever did portray Nora’s childish aspect very well. She acts like she really is this little thing, “…my little lark…,…my little squirrel….,…my dear little Nora…”
In the clip, Helmer seems more teasing rather than putting her down. It didn’t seem like he worried at all. Helmer portrayed in the movie seemed like nothing compared to how he was portrayed in the play. In the play Helmer is very much in love with Nora and cares deeply about what would happen if he died. He worries much about what her situation would be. “…Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds to-day, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then new year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me, and--” With him being worried he wants no debts and then economic worries, so he tries to tell Nora that “But, seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.”
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Accident
In the poem “The Accident”, Erica Funkhouser suggests that life isn’t what it really seems. She suggests this in the way she wrote her poem.
Some may say that the accident was the neighbor’s son getting hit by a van and going to the hospital. What it seems to me is that the neighbor’s son is just an excuse; I think the real accident is the husband’s wife being there that morning. “It was when the neighbor answered ‘yes’ to a question the woman's husband had not yet asked that the woman finally understood. Her husband had not even mentioned eggs, but the neighbor knew he was going to cook for her.” (Ll.20-25) In these lines, there is some evidence that the neighbor and the woman’s husband are having an affair. How did the neighbor even know that the woman’s husband was going to cook for her, unless they have been together and she just accustomed to his cooking. Another piece of evidence that suggests this is that the woman didn’t even know that her husband was going to cook until the neighbor said “yes”.
“At long last he broke the eggs. She had never seen him do it like this before, two-handed. He always liked to show off by breaking the eggs with one hand. This evening his hands were trembling as he cracked the eggs on the skillet's rim, hurrying to slide the whole brimming mess into the pan to quiet the sizzling fat.” (Ll. 39-49) In these lines, it shows how the husband seems nervous, he is not showing off like he usually does to the neighbor; he seems very scared that his wife is there, nervous that she may pick up on something.
Some may say that the accident was the neighbor’s son getting hit by a van and going to the hospital. What it seems to me is that the neighbor’s son is just an excuse; I think the real accident is the husband’s wife being there that morning. “It was when the neighbor answered ‘yes’ to a question the woman's husband had not yet asked that the woman finally understood. Her husband had not even mentioned eggs, but the neighbor knew he was going to cook for her.” (Ll.20-25) In these lines, there is some evidence that the neighbor and the woman’s husband are having an affair. How did the neighbor even know that the woman’s husband was going to cook for her, unless they have been together and she just accustomed to his cooking. Another piece of evidence that suggests this is that the woman didn’t even know that her husband was going to cook until the neighbor said “yes”.
“At long last he broke the eggs. She had never seen him do it like this before, two-handed. He always liked to show off by breaking the eggs with one hand. This evening his hands were trembling as he cracked the eggs on the skillet's rim, hurrying to slide the whole brimming mess into the pan to quiet the sizzling fat.” (Ll. 39-49) In these lines, it shows how the husband seems nervous, he is not showing off like he usually does to the neighbor; he seems very scared that his wife is there, nervous that she may pick up on something.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Response the to "The Accident"
Dear Emilio B
To be honestly I would have never thought of the poem that way. It never occured to me that the neighbor was a mistress or something. It does makes sense though, the title could mean the husband's wife being there, instead of what seems like the obvious the boy being hit by a truck.
To be honestly I would have never thought of the poem that way. It never occured to me that the neighbor was a mistress or something. It does makes sense though, the title could mean the husband's wife being there, instead of what seems like the obvious the boy being hit by a truck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)