Powerful Queen

Queen Elizabeth is certainly unapologetic in her writing. She asserts her power through her words and indirect. As I read her personal letters, we get a sense of who she is a person. The way her letters show her power is inspiring. It is clear who holds the upper-hand in her relationships. I feel like we get to see a different side of the fierce queen through her words.  

I really enjoyed getting to read her personal letters, especially the ones that took on a romantic tone. It opens the door into her life outside of being the Queen everyone expected of her. Although at times her words were hard to comprehend, I felt like I was able to get a sense of how much she enjoyed her powerful position. From her persuasive letters to her sister, who locked her away in a tower. The movie did a good job of giving us a visual. She was trying to appeal to her sister through their family relationship, rather than as one of her loyal subjects. She was careful not to offend her sister but make her point known.  

Elizabeth has been my favorite avatar to date. I've always found her to be one of the most interesting monarchs. 

Power Struggle..

Even though I knew what was going to happen in this play, I didn’t expect that I would learn so much about Brutus. I was also surprised how early Caesar is killed. That being said… Caesar is apparently headed for power, too much power if you ask Cassius. He is now a threat to the Roman Republic. Some feel that there shouldn’t be a king, they are not a monarchy. Rome is Rome, and Romans don’t have kings. They assassinate Caesar before he can become said, King. The power struggle is real.

Such a major death leads to the civil war, where, again, we see another fight for power. Even though Roman’s claim not to want a king, they always place someone in the hot seat. Two sides grab for power, which results in the Republic being changed forever. For me, this rasied a few questions… How would I want a government to run? And does this play have a good example of a leader?

I for one, like the idea of democracy. I think our voting system (although it may seem flawed at times) gives people a voice. We can vote for candidates we believe will save our country and hope that they don’t run it into the ground. But t

here isn’t a great screening process for these candidates. Often it seems like they are given too much power, which we know can lead to a split amongst a country. Would I want a tyrant ruler like Caesar? No, of course not. But isn’t there a time when some tough love is needed?

 I don’t feel as though this play depicts a real leader. Brutus is a coward, and everyone else has their personal agenda. I think diversity is important. Different perspectives bring new ideas, and often, better results. I’m not endorsing that everyone has to get along all the time, but can people who have nothing in common, actually find a way to lead a country in a productive manner?

Consumed by Media..

It’s no secret that all forms of media can consume our daily lives. We have unlimited access so massive amounts of information. I think our lives center around convenience, and our smart phones and tablets make it so we don’t have to do a lot to answer our questions. We are the media we use.

Personally, I find that I get the majority of my information from various outlets. I don’t particularly like watching the news on TV, so I have a few apps on my iPad that give my daily dose of world and local news. These apps also have stories that aren’t serious, but are just purely for entertainment. I’m surfing these apps before I fall asleep, waiting in line at Starbucks, or just have some free time. I don’t claim to be the most up-to-date on the issues going on the world, but I do try to keep myself somewhat less than ignorant.

I find myself checking my Facebook when I want a weather update locally, because even though I have a window and am perfectly capable of looking outside to see what’s happening... I know I can rely on those certain Facebook users to post a picture of snow or a sunset. I don’t use Twitter or Snapchat. I mainly keep to Facebook – to stay connected with family who don’t live near me. But, honestly? My favorite thing to do on Facebook is watch amusing animal videos (my life is clearly very exciting). But I tend to stay away from outlets like Twitter because I find the idea of following your favorite celebrates to be trivial… I do not care about Kanye West’s latest Twitter feud, or how much money Taylor Swift donated to some washed up pop-singer’s Ludacris court case. I claim not to care about these things, yet I’m still aware of them. I don’t think its because I care, but it is what is all over my social media and new outlets. How is this hard-hitting news?

There are those rare moments when I find myself being “too connected” and I need to just to step away from the smart phone. I like to dive into a good book, more than likely one I’ve read before. Or just getting outside or having a conversation with a real human being that isn’t over a text message 

conversation.

What really makes a villain, according to Alan Grant?

When we think of villains, we think of the classic ones from popular Disney movies. Their intent is usually pretty clear, gain power, destroy the good guy and turn the world into their evil little empire. I can’t help but think of the seven deadly sins when it comes to my idea of the bad guy. Greed, gluttony, and vanity, especially. They don’t shy away from what they want to accomplish, and often their reputation is not one of reputable quality. It’s open and shut – defeat the bad guy and live happily ever after. That’s one lesson Disney has done a good job of. Drilling this idea that good vs. evil is so black and white.

Grant is a detective, he believes in facts, figures. He doesn’t trust what he hears, he has to be able to prove it. I think that’s why it might be difficult for him to see Richard III as a villain.  He tries to understand this man, and what might have made him want to kill his nephews. It’s so interesting to me that he interviews each person that comes into his room about Richard. As if they’re suspects and he wants to dissect their opinions, which could very well be motive. It draws the comparison of hearsay, and what is actual fact. Most people just accept what they think they already know about history, but Grant is determined to find out what really happened to the boys. He wants to know why Richard actually has such a bad reputation.

Carradine and Grant conclude that Henry VII was a pretty ruthless guy. His rivals were put to death. While with Richard, his allies and foes, were allowed to have a different opinion, and could live amongst one another. After Grant and Carradine spend all of this time uncovering facts, just to realize that no one really knew the boys were even mission for a period of time, really forces him to take a step back and reflect. He was sure that Richard III wasn’t guilty, and being the brilliant detective that he is, he was able to uncover the truth. Grant isn’t quick to jump to conclusions, as he relies on his own intuition to determine the character of others. By studying the portrait of Richard, Grant wanted to know the real story behind the man with a bad reputation.

Grant ends up accomplishing quite a bit. He even begins to show favor towards his nurses, who he once enjoyed making fun of. I wonder if he considered them to be villains, forcing him to eat hospital food or read stale books. In a way, I’d say he solved his way to his own recovery.