Ma NI pUL a t i On

The movie "O" brings to modern life Shakespeare's tale of Othello. In watching it, we can see the ease of manipulating other people. Hugo, played by the oh-so-good looking Josh Hartnett, plays the villain (Iago) who is the "brains" behind the series of events. In the movie, many of the same situations occur as in the play, and it is easy to see the correlation between the two. Because the story of Othello is brought to modern terms, the situations in it can be applied to our everyday lives, and not just things that would happen in the past, or during Shakespeare's time. I think the most important thing to take away from this movie is that people are easily manipulated, and those being manipulated do not even realize. Odin, for example, was made to believe Dezi was cheating on him, based on what Hugo was telling him.

The real question is: can we really trust what others are telling us? Like Odin and Hugo, Odin took drastic action on the basis of what Hugo told him, and never questioned what Hugo said. Like the characters in the movie, I feel we can all relate to this and question how much we can believe of what other people tell us. Do they have ulterior motives? Are we, like Odin, simply naive pawns of other people, just waiting to be toyed with? And if so, what can we do to protect ourselves, without becoming cynical and guarded people?

To be real, or not to be real?

In a slight twist on the famous words from Shakespeare's Hamlet, this question of how accurate performances are can be directed to Othello. As we have talked in class, the fact that Shakespeare did not leave stage direction or details on how to perform his plays, it is up to the director to interpret and make his or her own conclusion on how to stage the play. In both clips we watched of Othello, there were some similarities, but also many differences. This shows that the director does have creative license and things are portrayed with their interpretation. Because of this, it is difficult to distinguish what was actually Shakespeare's intention or vision for the play and the director's interpretation.

I feel that this difference between Shakespeare and a director's creative license causes the authenticity of a piece to decrease. However, with the lack of direction Shakespeare left, we will never know the original significance or way things should have been. With this in mind, the audience must take a performance with a grain of salt; because chances are the significance and staging of things by a director is not what Shakespeare intended.

Is what you see what you get?

On Tuesday, we talked a lot about reputation in Othello. The question was raised if what you see is what you get, or if what you see is not what you get. In regards to Iago and his theory on reputation, that people only see what you say you are, I agree. Pertaining to today's world, I think that people do sensor themselves and show the characteristics they want to show. In class we also talked about the messages we send may be misconstrued or taken a different way by others. However we truly have no control over people's reactions, we do have control over what we show them. An example of this is Iago, in that he shows his 'different colors' depending on what characters he is with in the play. When he is with Othello, he is the loyal and trustworthy friend (characteristics he wants Othello to see in him), and when Iago is in aside, he shows the audience different characteristics.

Based on Iago's theory of reputation, I believe that people do indeed have the ability to sensor certain characteristics, and that what you see is not always what you get.

Girl, Misunderstood

After seeing Girl, Interrupted I came to the conclusion that many, if not most, of the patients in the hospital were misunderstood. Misunderstood by the doctors, nurses, the people who sent them there, even by their fellow patients. In the scene where each of the girls were reading their charts, Susanna described her condition with 'symptoms' what I thought to be somewhat typical for any teenage woman. With this in mind, is it right to consider her to be insane? Because she has "an instability of self-image, relationships, and mood, uncertainty about goals, impulsive in activities that are self-damaging...such as casual sex", these make her suitable for a mental institution?

I feel that these 'symptoms' should not be the criteria for someone to be considered insane. For example, because Susanna was uncertain about her goals, this qualified her for a year stay in a mental hospital. I think the real qualifying factor is the underlying reason for the 'symptoms'. What I mean is this: people should not be judged as insane by the way they react to things, but by what it is they are reacting to and because of this they are misunderstood.

The Room

In "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the room the narrator is in has a severe influence on her. She describes the room as "airy" and "windows that look all ways, and air and sunshine galore", but despises the ghastly yellow wallpaper (369). To make a long story short, she eventually becomes obsessed with the yellow wallpaper, and it literally drives her mad.

The point I am trying to make is that, like our narrator, the room one is in has major influence on us. In other readings we found this to be true as well. As we talked about in it class, everyone has their different "spot" they write or do work in, thus, a room of one's own. I think that the certain characteristics in each of our rooms, like no noise, being alone, clean, no clutter, or yellow wallpaper, has significant influence on our lives and on our work. And the influence the room has can either make us, (getting an A on a paper) or break us, (go insane).

Struggle as the fruit of artistic genius?

While reading Virginia Wolf's, A Room of One's Own, what struck me most was when she wrote about the effect wealth or poverty had on the mind. What really intrigued me most was the effect poverty has. In class we talked about the issue of the "starving artist" and whether someone in poverty has the opportunity to express their genius. I feel as though it is more challenging for someone who lives in poverty to have time for their craft, because they must spend their time working, trying to make money. However, because of this, I think it drives them toward using their minds in creative ways, with the goal of getting out of poverty.

When Virginia Wolf said that you need money to be a good writer, I think because of the issue of the starving artist, this is not all true. I believe that struggling is the fruit of artistic genius, and that having to work your way up teaches you to not take things for granted and to fight for what you believe in. Although I am sure being financially stable is a giant plus for one's writing, I do not think that you necessarily have to be rich to have talent as a writer.

Writing is like making dinner...

At the grocery store I usually run up and down the aisles looking for inspiration or an idea of what to make for dinner. When i finally get a little spark or hint of what I am going to do, I race home with my individual purchases and throw them onto the counter. This is a very stressful time because nothing is prepared, nothing is boiling, and people are coming in two hours. However, as things get going my stress level decreases and I become a little more confident with getting dinner ready on time.
Once everything is finally ready to be served, I analyze my work and see all my inspirations and ingredients finally came together to make the perfect meal, all in the knick of time.
So you see, this is how writing is for me. I desperately seek for inspiration at first, with no idea of what I am going to write about. When I do get an idea, i run with it and while the idea "cooks" I am able to relax a little. Things get a little hectic through the process and knowing that I must serve my writing to others in a short time. But, once it is all said and done (or wrote and done), I relax and be proud and confident in my work.