Malachai

“There always was a need for a boy to be with a girl. You knew that, as soon as a white man who might have his eyes on a young black girl came along in an automobile, you were to detain him in some kind of questioning way, while the girls hurried along.”- Clifford Boxley

Such living conditions sound absolutely horrible. These are children walking home from school. It is not right that they should need to fear being alone. This is just not right that girls should have to fear such a thing. Also the other conditions under Jim Crowe were equally daunting. For example, the most fearful people around were the police. If they were not shown courtesy from the Jim Crowe guidelines, then blacks would be subject to beatings, time in jail, or even killed for their “outburst”. I find that such things are atrocious and shameful, that people would actually put themselves over another people as superiors. What makes one type of human any better than another? The truth of the matter is that the Jim Crowe laws were a horrible establishment and the things done in that time can sadly never be taken back.

I watched the Shakespeare production of the Merchant of Venice.

Summary:

 In this story, a man named Antonio seeks financial aid from a Jewish moneylender. He needs the money for a friend named Bassanio, who wishes to woo a beautiful and rich woman named Portia. However, Antonio has previously been hostile to this same moneylender. In anger, the moneylender, Shylock, strikes a bargain that allows Antonio the money, but if Antonio does not pay the debt on time, then Shylock is to be payed one pound of flesh from Antonio. Antonio didn’t pay on time. What an idiot.

This plot drew in all of the characters into a single courtroom in the climax act of the play. Antonio ends up not paying the debt on time, and in hope of recompence, his young friend Bassanio and his new wife offer Shylock twice what had been owed. Shylock refused. This movie was incredibly interesting in that it showed much of the hostilities between Christians and Jews. In fact, during Antonio’s trial, Shylock, rather than being refered to by his name is simply called Jew. Additionally, it shows how uneaqual things really were in Venice. Shylock, although having been made out to be the bad guy was simply trying to treat Christians the same way he had been treated as a Jew. There is an excellent scene in this play where Shylock finds out that his daughter has run away with all of his gold, and that she was on the ship that Antonio had borrowed. Essentially, Shylock was stripped of everything. In that same scene he rants about how Jews breathe the same air as Christians just as they are nourished by the same food. They have the same wants, the same feelings. And according to Shylock, they are both wronged. The Christian way to cope with this is to seek revenge, but Jews are expected to let it go. But Shylock does not. Almost the entire story is taken from the point of veiw from Antonio and his friends, but when one puts themselves in Shylock’s shoes, it shows an entirely different perspective. The Jews get spit on, beaten and thrown off bridges. And then the people who do these things to them come and ask them to lend them money. Shylock tries to use the Cristians’ own laws against them and demands to be payed his due. Personally, I would have asked for two pounds of flesh. I won’t ruin the ending to this movie, but it has an extremely good twist. (And Shakespeare still manages to make his characters cross-dress. Nifty fellow…)

 I am STRONGLY opposed to the war for these reasons: 

http://www.afsc.org/iraq/activism/10-reasons.htm

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”-George W. Bush

According to the present day government, we are presently in Iraq to spread democracy. However, this was not always our reason. Initially, we were there in order to find the WMD’s that Iraq was hiding from us. Even this reasoning is questionable. What right have we to invade a country when they aim to gain WMD’s? America has the most nuclear missles of any country in the world. And yet, when a small country such as Iraq MIGHT have some, we invade.

When it became appearent that there truly were no WMDs, our reason to be in Iraq became to unseat Saddam Huisane from power. Once that had been achieved, we were “bringing democracy” to the Iraqi nation.

The truth is, we do not have a good reason to be in Iraq; at least, not one that we can admit to. The war has been extremely beneficial to America, bringing it its most desired recource: oil. This war has provided oil for the United States and interestingly enough, this benefactor is nothing more than a fortunate offshoot of our true goals. Right now in Iraq, the United States forces are acting as Police. The presence of the United States in Iraq is not helping the situation, and thus I believe that we should try to leave the situation in the best possible condition, and while we need not severe all ties with Iraq, I do not belive that our continued control over Iraq is benefits anyone but ourselves. Because of this we ought to leave.

Of the three adaptations of Macbeth that we’ve read or watched (Travesties, uMbatha, and Throne of Blood) my favorite example was the Travesties. This was mainly due to the fact that this adaptation was hilarious. This variation was an excellent parody of the original, and considering it was 1600’s humor, it is still surprisingly very funny. Additionally, the writing was much easier to understand than the other adaptations, because it used much plainer speech, allowing anyone to understand it. In the other examples, the writing is complex and the words are hard to understand. In Macbeth, for example, the porter has a seemingly random set of lines that are really just dirty jokes. This scene actually was meant for the audience of the present day, as the dirty jokes of the porter in reality were all references to the gunpowder plot. When I read it myself however, this scene meant almost nothing to me, as I did not grasp the suggestions that someone living in the 1600’s would have. Thus, I found Macbeth confusing. This was also the case in uMbatha. I did not enjoy this adaptation much as it was almost the same as its former. This piece was almost exactly like Macbeth, only it used different names that were much harder to pronounce such as Kamakhawulana. Otherwise, it was almost the same story as Macbeth, with some small changes to incorporate African culture into the story. In the story of uMbatha, there was no originality, an as a result I found it lacking.

For the adaptations uMbatha and Throne of Blood, the authors found it necessary to change the cultures of the characters in order to cater to their wants. For example, in Throne of Blood, the characters were all followed the customs of the historical samurai warrior, and rather than a King, this story was ruled by a lord of a castle. In uMbatha as well, there was change in order to address culture. Lady Macbeth became Kamakhawulana, and the king became the Chief. I believe that these changes of culture both helped to make the story better in a few cases as well as detracted. One case that was beneficial was in Throne of Blood during the banquet. When lord Washizu (Macbeth) sees the ghost of Miki (Banquo) in the banquet, Washizu’s madness is made much more apparent by the fact that the culture has his guests sitting on the floor and eating quietly. Thus, when Washizu gets up screaming, his detachment from the others is strongly accentuated. I believe that scenes like this deeply improved the resulting adaptations.

The book was incredible. As not to ruin it for anyone interested, I will not disclose what happened in the end but it was amazing. In fact, the book turned out to be far better than the movie. Additionally the fact that it was a graphic novel added incrdibly to the story. What I will say is that V’s identity is never revealed. In fact, it is insignificant. The face that lies under the mask diminishes everthing that it truly stands for. In the book, we never know who V truly is. It is what V creates in the end that is the focus. Through his destruction, V birthed anarchy. In its ruins he set up foundations that helped to lead the people of London to freedom. This book left me with a better understanding of facism. While it is not something I long to know to a familiar degree, I still found the future government to be fascinating. V managed to take the rights of the government and give them to the people to do with as they pleased. This book managed to adress the problems of certain governments as well as outline an idea that should be true everywhere. That governments should be ruled by the people.

In the aftermath of this book, I find myself wishing to read more on the gunpowder plot. This book did not deal directly with the famous terrorist act itself, but rather it dealt with the ideas that drove the act. V stood for the same thing as did Guy Fawkes- that people should be governed by themselves, not by others. One of the minor characters was in fact the catalyst of the book. While he was seemingly irrelevant, Edward Finch is one of the more important characters. He is the one explaining how the public feels. And as one could imagine, they want their freedom. Every one.

Lately in V for Vendetta, V has been doing some peculiar things. For example, he impersonated the government and reinacted the conditions at his old concentration camp. This charade he used when he abducted Evey and tortured her. He tested her in brutal ways and tried to make her sign a false confession. The consequences if she didn’t were death. She refused to sign it. Upon this, V revealed his charade. He justified it as right because he had shown Evey what freedom truly was. 

Another interesting part was the song written right before the second half of the book. V is the singer, and the song itself outlines the rest of the book.

(This is kinda long, but good nonetheless)

THIS VICIOUS CABARET:

They say that there’s a broken light for every heart on broadway.

They say that life’s a game and then they take the board away.

They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story,

Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret.

In no longer pretty cities there are fingers in the kitties, there are warrants forms and chitties and a jackboot on the stair,

There’s sex and death and human grime in monochrome for one thin dime, and at least the trains all run on time but they don’t go anywhere.

Facing their responsibilities either on their backs or on their knees, there are ladies who just simply freeze and dare not turn away,

And the widows who refuse to cry will be dressing in garter and bow-tie and be taught to kick their legs up high in this vicious cabaret.

At last the 1998 show! The ballet on the burning stage! The documentary seen upon the fractured screen,

The dreadful poem scrawled upon the crumpled page!

There’s a policeman with an honest soul that has seen whose head is on the pole and he grunts and fills his briar bowl with a feeling of unease.

Then he briskly frisks the torn remains for a fingerprint or crimson stains and endeavors to ignore the chains that he walks in to his knees,

While his master in the dark nearby inspects the hands with brutal eye that have never brushed a lover’s thigh but have squeezed a nation’s throat,

And he hungers in his secret dreams for the harsh embrace of cruel machines. But his lover is not what she seems and she will not leave a note.

At last the 1998 show! The situation tragedy! Grand opera slick with soap! Cliff-hangers with no hope!

The water-color in the flooded gallery.

There’s a girl who’ll push but will not shove and she’s desperate for her father’s love. She believes the hand beneath the glove may be one she needs to hold.

Though she doubts her host’s moralities she decides that she is more at ease in the land of doing as-you-please than outside in the cold.

But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play. There’s a murderer at the matinee there are dead men in the aisles.

 And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through, and with sidelong looks await their cue,

But the frozen mask just smiles.

At last the 1998 show! The torch song no-one ever sings! The curfew chorus line! The comedy divine!

The bulging eyes of puppets strangled by their strings!

There’s thrills and chills and girls galore. There’s sing-songs and surprises! There’s something here for everyone, reserve your seat today!

There’s mischiefs and malarkeys,

but no queers,

or yids,

or darkies,

within this bastard’s carnival

THIS VICIOUS CABARET!!

This song seems to adress everything that is happening in the book. In the beggining of the song, V sings about how horrible life has become for the people of London. The song adresses how the people of this nation have lost their freedom. The song compares life under a facist goverment as a vicious cabaret, or a grim play. V tells of all the people who ignore their oppression. These people are the one’s in the play. In the song, the actors are eaten by the play. In other words, the charade is exposed by a murderer. I think V is referring to himself in this instance. I think the object of this song is to tell how V wishes to be the one that will free the people from the government, by showing the people what freedom truly is. Also, it shows how he vents his anger on the government. “There’s mischiefs and malarkey’s, but no queers, or yids, or darkies, within this bastard’s carnival, this vicious cabaret.”- This tells how the government rid the nation of all minorities. A horrible thing to do, and now, codename V is venting his anger on the government. And it is incredible to see.