What Dreams May Come

This is a very odd movie, enough said. Its worldview is Cosmic Humanist. This is seen in the idea of truth/reality, Heaven/Hell, reincarnation, sin, and God. Truth/reality: the movie expresses that what you think in your head is what is real. Chris tells his wife that if you believe something, than it is truth. Also they create their own realitys and identity with their imagination. Heaven/Hell: there is a so-called happy place... lets call it "heaven". There is also a place where you feel bad beacause you don't know your dead, but there is no punishment or judgment inflicted on you... lets call this place "hell". That is what I think this movie potrays. There is no judgment. Your mind takes you where you want to go. Reincarnation: People in the movie can choose to be reborn and Chris and Annie choose to go back to earth to retry their lives. Sin: Their is no definite sin in the movie. Although, suicide is looked down upon because it disrupts the natural order. It is not punished, however. It only keeps your mind from accepting death. God: Albert/Chris's son phrases the movie's potrayal of God best. There's a God up there. He's wondering why we don't get it and he's trying to tell us he loves us. This maks God seem like a force that is all loving rather than a person who is loving but also judges.

Camelot Worldview

I did not see most of this movie. I only saw the end. So this could very well be a bad review. Camelot potrays a Christian worldview in that it affirms a supernatural, absolute morals, and forgiveness. The supernatural is seen in Merlin. The absolute morals is the situation of Lancelot and Gwenivere. Everyone involved recognized that they were wrong even the couple themselves. Also forgiess is shown in Arthur as he forgives Jenny and Lance even though they betrayed him. Arthur is also a Christ figure through his forgiveness, him choosing love over law when Jenny is being punished, and the sort of Great Commision when he knights the young boy and tells him to spread the story about the round table.

Planet of the Apes Worldview

I want to start off by saying that "Planet of the Apes" is a SUPER RAD movie! I loved it. I love how it flipped everything, even the tiniest details like sayings. It potrays a secular humanist worldview because it relies heavily on the theory of evolution. It also seems to mack the idea of a higher power with laws in the form of "The Great Ape" and "Lawgiver". In the movei, the religous laws were really given to cover up the scientific truth. The movie also raises up the human fighting spirit and intelligence. Taylor is smart and can beat his surrounding. He can rise above. In the movie, human ruining the planet and society is the "sin" and the redemption is the adapting to the environment to avoid going exstinct.

Stanger Than Fiction Review

I really liked this movie. I think my favorite thing about it was the fact that the watch was a character. The worldview of this movie is Postmodern. At first I was confused because Harold Crick's life was being mapped out with a very definite end and I did not think this was very postmodern. However, I think the ending was. No matter how much the ending was fated, it could be (and in this case, was) rewritten. Not only was the ending changed, but Kay decided to rewrite the whole story in the end. The story and Harold's life are easily changed and manipulated. The movie also poses the question, are we in control of our lives or are we merely scripted? It is similar to the conflict Rosencrantz and Guildenstern faced when stuck in Hamlet.

Rosentcrantz and Guildenstern's Final Act

What stood out to me the most about Act three is how Stoppard ended Ros. and Guil.'s "lives". In the play they do not die. They just fall out of the story and another character merely reports that they were killed. This goes along with the idea that they are completely bound by the story. They were not born- they appeared when they were summoned and they did not die- they merely cease to be once their part has been fulfilled. Aaah, I feel somewhat deep now. I feel as if I should come up with some clever comment about how we are all actors, but alas... I can't think of one. So, I end my blog thusly: I liked the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". It was very interesting from its monkey theorems to gay jokes, but now it is over and the curtain has closed... wait does that mean they are dead again?

Win?

Who won the game this afternoon... What does "win" mean anyway? Lose? Who decided that "win" was good and "lose" was bad? Why do I want to prove that we won? The Heads team could just have easily "Thwipped" or "Habbersnackled" than won or loss. If "win" is "good" and "lose" is "bad", than both Heads and Tails won and lost, because both had positive and negative results from the game. In our scrambling for rules and meaning, both teams won and lost and neither won or lost. The only one that stands neutral is the judge- draw from that whatever you wish.

R&G are Dead: act 2

I really do not know what to write about Act Two... Right now I am drawing a blank. I sort of feel bad for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They don't have any idea what is going on yet they die anyway. I also think it is interesting how Stoppard wrote the play to where R & G do not move and everyone else comes to them. This gives the impression that they are really not in control of what happens to them.
Another thing is the metaphor of being dead in a box. Even if we are actually just marching towards death, I do not understand the point of being "angsistential" and sulking. If we only have so much time- live it up! I guess I'm more of the Seinfeld school of Postmodernism.

Inaug. Blog (sorry it's late)

I found the article interesting. In my opinion, Barack Obama's speech was very inspirational even without his common rhetorical flair.
One part of the article that stood out to me was the reference to Rick Warren. There was a lot of Christians upset with Warren for praying for such a liberal president. The article brought up a good point though. The Bible tells us to pray for those in authority and I think Rick Warren did the right thing. We all need to back up and pray for our president. He may disagree with us and he may cause some changes that make us angry, but that is why we need to pray and be involved rather than back off with our bitter commentary.
On a lighter note, I agreed with the article when referencing the other minister that prayed. Some said the ending of his speech was corny, but I thought it sounded something picketers would cry out in a rally. ( :

Heather's Epic Coin Theory ("R&G are Dead")

Prior to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meeting the players, they had been flipping coins, all of which landed heads. This is impossible and far outside the realm of reality. Also at this time, neither Rosencrantz or Guildenstern can remember past being summoned and neither knows what the heck is going on. Now, right before R & G plunge into the story of Hamlet, Rosencrantz flips the coin for the last time which ends up tails. AHA! I propose that the coin lands heads because they are finally within the realm of their intended story which provides them with meaning and a set of rules. They are no longer wandering around as potential characters, but rather they are real charcters.

Thoughts on "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"

I am reading Waiting for Godot for my January MOR assignment. I the "R&G are Dead" is very similar to it. They both have a pair that have conversations that seem like babble, but at the same time, sound incredibly smart. I don't really get what they are saying, and I wonder if that is the point. Man, Po.Mo. writing is wierd. I am enjoying "R&G are Dead" and I hope that eventually, I will get what the heack they are saying.
As far as the flipping of the coin goes, I think it is amazing how the writer used something so trivial to reveal the characteristics of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (or Guildenstern and Rosencrantz). All of the conversation that flows from the coin flipping is interesting to, especially the infinite monkey theorem.
This is a random thought, but I am going to tack it on anyway. I think the probability of the flipping of the coin goes along with the story of Hamlet because a whole mess of things goes wrong so as to make you think it has to turn around. But it does not, and nothing good happens. Should this surprise us?
Well... that's it...

Hamlet's Philisophical Journey (New and Improved)

In act one, Hamlet finds assurance in faith and God, and this keeps him from killing himself and seeking revenge. "Or that the Everlasting had not fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter" (1.2.131-132). As he goes on, Hamlet's faith is tested and at one point he says he would kill himself but he does not know "what dreams may come". This makes me think he is questioning God/eternity. Towards the end of the play, Hamlet has regained his assurance in Providence, but now instead of holding him back it is assisting him with his actions. This is shown when Hamlet says to Horatio, "When our deep plots do pall, and that should learn us there's a divinity that shapes our ends" (5.2.9-10). This new attitude also makes him okay with death, becuase he is sure. "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now... let be" (5.2.185-following).

Senior Quote

"I let my imagination run wild and I don't think it's coming back."

Tragic Thoughts

The interesting thing I learned about tragedies was the difficulty of using the structure. I thought that the strict structure would make it simpler, when actually it turned out to be a different challenge then what I was expecting. I really liked how the first group was able to make the chorus not be an obvious, formal chorus. It made it seem more natural. I also like how the second group showed the downside to holding too strong to the sovreignty of God- that was a unique way to view that issue. I also learned that the yellow filter of a cigarette is the side you put in your mouth. ( : So overall, I think I learned the essentials.

Evangelezing Oedipus Rex

The two important character flaws of Oedipus are his pride and ignorance of himself. Towards the end of his tragic story, Oedipus realizes his true self and blinds himself because of it, realizing at last what a vile person he is. This is somewhat similar to a Christian "reality check"(this is obviously not a theological term but one I made up myself). Sometimes the only remedy for pious pride is the realization of just how much one needs Christ's salvation. Our dear friend, C.S. Lewis, said that this was necessary becuase otherwise we would feel like we could earn our own salvation. This reality check could come in the form of a big mistake you make, a brother in Christ pointing out a flaw, or the Holy Spirit convicting you. Unlike Oedipus, however, we don't have to lose hope in this situation. On the contrary God brings us to this point in our lives so that we may completely fall back on him rather than toil needlessly on our own. Realizing you are lost in sin is not a curse, but a blessing becuase it leads you to God's slavation and no one saves better than God, not even you.

Thoughts from "Crime and Punishment" Discussion

The thing that stood out to me the most in today's class disscussion was the idea that existentialist writers' goal is for you to experience the character's angst. I felt when reading Crime and Punishment like I, in fact, was the guilty party when I was merely the reader. While I just thought I was slightly delusional, it never occured to me that Dostoevsky's plan was to have me comiserate with Raskolnikov. But now that this fact has been brought to my attention, I am in even more awe if Dostoevsky's talent in the written word.

I was also very curious about what the speaker said about C & P being a version of the raising of Lazarus. Though it would be quite a feat, it makes me want to read the book again just so I can see if that is true. Granted, I'm 99.99% sure I won't do that now, but maybe sometime in the future.

Raskolinkov's Redemption

In Crime and Punishment, Dotoevsky mentions in the last sentence that Raskolinkov is on the road to being redeemed, but never once does Raskolinkov repent. Even while in Siberia, after confessing his crime, Raskolinkov admits to pondering over his theory trying to find a fault yet not seeing where he was wrong. Then he has his illness where he dreams about an odd disease that sweeps over Europe. This disease infects men and causes them to believe that they, and only they, are in possession of the truth. The men in turn fight each other for power, killing those who get in their way as well as the comrades who are helping them. When Raskolinkov is relieved from his sickness he does not appear to draw any special meaning from his dream, but when his companion, Sonia, does not come to visit him in the following days, there is a marked change in his actions. Upon seeing Sonia again, he is overcome with emotion which he has not felt since the perpetration of his crime and he finally confesses his love for her. It is at this point where Dotoevsky asserts that in a following tale, perhaps, Raskolinkov will be redeemed.
Sonia, throughout the novel, acts as Raskolinkov's redemptive figure. In my opinion, Raskolinkov's change of heart towards Sonia signifies his inward state as an acceptence of his crime and the turning point of his repentence. The relationship between Raskolinkov and Sonia also expresses the need for love in partnership with regeneration.
In conclusion, although Dotoevsky does not bluntly state that Raskolinkov has repented, his changed affections toward Sonia and his sudden discovery of emotion show that he has, in fact repented of his crime.

Inspirational "Mere Christianity" Passage

"On the one hand, God's demand for perfection need not discourage you in the least in your present attempts to be good, or even in your present failures. Each time you fall He will pick you up again. And he knows perfectly well that your own efforts are never going to bring you anywhere near perfection. On the other hand, you must realise from the outset that the goal towards which He is beginning to guide you is absolute perfection; and no power in the whole universe, except you yourself, can prevent Him from taking you to that goal." page 203