Run Boy Run! (Camelot!)

So, Camelot is definitely a Christian worldview. The whole last scene, like we talked about in class, put Arthur as a God figure. When he knights the boy and tells him to go tell everyone about Camelot, it is just like the Great Commission. There is also a sacrifice involved. Arthur chooses love above the law to save Gwenevere even though no one will respect him and his round table is destroyed because of the damage their affair caused. On a happier note, I thought this movie was really entertaining. It is probably partly because I like musicals, but it was just a good story. I think it is super funny that everyone was singing a happy song when Gwenevere is about to be executed though. Lancelot's accent was also very funny. The actors are really good and fun to watch, especially Arthur.

Planet of the Apes

Planet of the Apes was definitely Secular Humanist. The entire movie was addressing evolution. It was kind of scary to think about though. If you believed in evolution, then you could totally be worrying about your "species" being destroyed and apes taking over. Plus, the whole heresy thing was Secular Humanist too because they didn't want truth or evidence, they were believing what society had decided was truth: Man is not able to think or speak. Man is lower than monkeys. Even when they had an example of an evolved man, Taylor's partner, the head scientist "cut up his brain" so he could not be used to prove man's intelligence. Secular Humanists do not want truth. I think the most entertaining part was the cheesiness of the whole thing. Some of the graphics and a few of the lines were just ridiculous. The whole thing was kind of ruined for me though because we watched the end in CWS. I knew the entire time that they were on earth and humanity had collapsed to the point where apes took over. It's a crazy thought that one day our society could collapse, but that is what we are learning about in CWS, so I guess I've thought about it a lot lately. I am really glad that I am a Christian because life would be so scary if you believed it is possible for apes to take over, and man would become like animals with no value.

STRANGER than Fiction

Stranger than Fiction is definitely a Postmodern movie. The entire story is metafiction. Harold Crick is living out a story within a story being written. Then, when Harold figures out what is going on, finds the author, and reads the story, he tells he author that it's okay to kill him because it is a beautiful story. They are praising chaos, saying it is okay to knowingly commit murder if it makes the story brilliant. Reality is determined by the author, not the ones actually living out the story. Also, throughout the entire movie, Harold is asking WHY? Why is all this stuff happening to him? Why is there a voice narrating his life? However, even with the postmodern aspects, I think that this movie is incredibly clever when you hear the random things the writer did like naming all the characters after mathematicians when Harold is constantly thinking about numbers or how the store near the bakery was called Drury Lane. Also, the watch being a character is a cool concept because I never really thought about that the first time I watched the movie. The whole story kind of revolves around the watch and what it wants to do to control Harold's life. The only thing I do not like is how they just accept death or at least the professor encourages Harold to let the author kill him off because it would make the story a masterpiece. They don't seem to value human life until the very end when the author saves him. The movie does do a really good job of adding in comedy, though, because without the little jokes like the "flours," this movie would be incredibly depressing and hopeless.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are FINALLY dead!!!

      It only took the entire play for the story to fit the title. As entertaining as it was, I have to admit I am a bit relieved that it is over.  However, there were a lot of interesting parts in this section.  While on the boat, Ros says, " We don't question, we don't doubt.  We perform" (108).  The "are we actors" concept is brought up again.  The truth is that Rosie and Guil just have no control over what happens to them.  They are subject to what has already happened in Hamlet.  Another section where this is addressed is on page 101, where Guil says that they are "free to move, speak,extemporise,and yet. We have not been cut loose... We may seize the moment ... but we are brought around full circle..."  It sounds like he is calling himself a puppet.  I think it would be pretty awful to feel like someone was controlling your every move.  It only proves that Rosie and Guil have no power to create their own story.  They are just acting out what has already been planned for them.  Then, an example of technoculture is shown when they are talking about the letter from the king.  Ros then says, "So we've got a letter which explains everything."  Other characters' testimonies are not reliable.  The only proof of their existence and previous lives would be a letter or a written down piece of evidence.  

      Also, I have to say that the barrel scene was hilarious.  I actually laughed out loud when I pictured them popping out at the same time just staring at each other.  And, I finally caught a gay joke.  On page 100, they talk about stretching each other's legs, but Guil says no because "somebody might come in." I think that the comedy in this play is necessary so that it keeps the reader from being mad at all the confusion going on.  So my last bit of confusion was the actual deaths of Rosie and Guil.  They disappeared.  It was just a very strange, unsettling way to end the lives of these characters.  To be honest, as many headaches as they caused me, I think I will miss Rosie and Guil.

THENDYWAMPS?

        So I am supposed to decide who the winner is.  Well, I think that is a bit of a ridiculous question when you consider the fact that nothing means anything and nothing can help you win.  You would think that the winner would be the one with the most monopoly money (Heads) or the one with the best rules (Tales), but what are rules? Rules have no meaning. Points have no meaning.  Even the judge who acts like God has no real power.  Who is the judge to decide what rules are good or which answer is better than another?  If this game is truly postmodern, there is no one in control.  Plus, if the questions and answers mean nothing, what is the point of having them? So who did win? How would someone go about deciding that?  Maybe we should just flip a coin.  Well,  I suppose the answer is nobody won.  It is impossible to win at a game where nothing counts for anything or everything counts for nothing.  The problem is though, that I won or shall I say the Tales team won.  Truth is up to the individual, and since I am not a huge fan of losing, my truth is that my team won. 

Ros and Guil are definitely not dead!

Like I have said before, this story is extremely odd. However, I keep laughing at the characters because they are just so clueless. I think that the strangest aspect of Act 2 has been all of the references to existentialism. It just seems so depressing and pathetic to think of ours lives meaning nothing when there is no one to tell us we exist. On page 63, when the player says that the "single assumption which makes our existence viable" is "that somebody is watching." It just seems so sad to think that people do not really exist without someone verifying that existence. Then, when Rosencrantz talks about the box idea, he is pretty much saying that without actions or relationships, it is like we are laying in a box waiting to die. That just seems so strange that we mean nothing without other people. We are nobody until we know someone else.
Also, I think it is really interesting that some Christian ideas are brought up in this act. Rosencrantz's idea of wanting a "beginning, middle, and end" to a story is the same as Christianity. We all want a beginning, middle, and end. Also, Rosencrantz says that "we have no control. None at all..." (71). This is another Christian idea. We as God's created people have no control. He is the only one with control over our lives. However, in the case of Ros and Guil, they have no control over what goes on in the play. They just follow what was already written for them. The strangest part about this is that they seem to know what to do without being told. This is shown when they just know that they are going to take Hamlet to England, but the king has not given them orders. They just know because it is part of the play. So although this story seems like the most confusing, strange thing I have ever read, it is really interesting to see all the different ideas and concepts shown by Ros and Guil.

Obama's Inaugural Address

I unfortunately missed most of the inaugural address, so I cannot really say whether I agree that Obama's rhetoric was lacking or not. However, I completely agree that this particular inauguration was an extremely important moment in history, and the speech should reflect that importance. Gerson seems to think that Obama did not live up to this. I never really thought about specific phrases or words in a speech making it seem more important or meaningful, but it is so true. Everyone remembers specific lines like Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you" speech or Martin Luther King's "I have a dream." This was a major moment, and the words spoken should have an effect on the people listening. Gerson does not seem to think that it will be memorable in this aspect.
However, it will be memorable in his ideology. Gerson says that Obama mentioned going back to old values which is something that the country needs. He agreed with his emphasis on loyalty, duty, and responsibility, and I do too. Also, Gerson goes on to say that he hopes that Obama will stick to what he says about religion and faith-based institutions. I hope that decisions made will reflect some sort of belief or faith or this country will only have more problems. I completely agree with Gerson that Obama's religious comments during the address only added to it, and it is important that he acts out what he says.