Queen Elizabeth

So in all honesty, I did not leave the film feeling like I had a good sense of who Elizabeth really was. I understand that the film was only focused on the early years of her reign, but I felt like there could have been a little less dance scenes and a little more badass Elizabeth scenes. The film intended to depict Elizabeth’s evolution from a timid, nervous, young queen to a more assertive, powerful queen. But even until the end when she orders the murder of all those bishops, it was Sir Francis that orchestrated it. The end was definitely her taking control of her identity by cutting her hair and all that business, and we are left to assume that following what was depicted on film, she finally took control.

The film was entirely focused on Elizabeth’s gender and the constant pressure on her to find a man. The “you are only a woman” lines were really, really annoying.

 By the end, I felt just as exhausted from hearing Sir William reminding her she needs to lock it down with someone. Not only was there pressure to run a country that as it war, but to then find a proper suitor on top of it! That is still extremely difficult in 2016! (Enter exhausted face emoticon).  So in that way, the film felt a little bit like a romance story with a monarchy in the background. But I must say the scene where she catches Duke Anjou in drag was pretty hilarious! He added some much needed comedic appeal.

One aspect I thought was interesting about the film was how they depicted Elizabeth as no virgin at all! I went in with an expectation that there probably were going to be sex scenes, but none that involved Elizabeth, so that was a little shocking. But it made the character seem more likable; she wasn’t as frigid as I thought she was. The first scene where she is dancing around outside with her ladies in waiting helped with that too. She actually seemed playful and free-spirited. I wonder if she kept those qualities after she was ‘re-born’ into the Elizabeth we now know; the pale-faced, wig adorned “virgin” queen we know now.

Rome

Well for starters, it was much more entertaining to watch what we read about in Plutarch, especially on such a grand scale. Watching the same moments on a low budget production would not have the same effect. When we think of this era of Rome, we think about lavishness and extravagance and the show did not disappoint when it came to this. For example, the celebration of Caesar being appointed dictator was very grand in scale and fun to watch. However, the scene where that poor guy was hung in front of everyone was a little difficult to watch.

Another scene that was difficult to watch was Caesar’s assassination. Though it was quite brutal, it is what actually happened and as a viewer, we were able to capture the emotion experienced by the murders, particularly Brutus, that was not captured in our reading. The emotion of the character’s made them seem like real people as opposed to just someone we are reading about in a historical text.

This just brings it back to our discussion of how we interact with different types of media. Reading Plutarch was challenging, but watching the same stories unfold in Rome was entertaining and engaged my interest. Additionally, I saw these “lives” we read about actually become lives! Watching the characters we get a much better sense of their attitudes and their emotions, which make them much more real than reading about them.

Another aspect of the show that I found really interesting was the focus on the women, Servilia and Atia. There is not an in depth mention of them in Plutarch, but they did, at least according to the show, played a large in role in how a lot of the events played out, like Servilia’s subtle urging for Brutus to kill Caesar. I think this added an interesting dynamic to the show, as well as to the history of the events. Too bad Plutarch did not write a Lives about the women of ancient Rome. Those would have been great stories to tell!

"It's Complicated": Meditations on Media

Can you imagine how people wrote research papers pre-Internet? They actually had to look in books! Can you imagine how time consuming that would be?! When I need the definition of word? Do I pick up a DICTIONARY? No. I Google it. BTW, there is something to be said that the name of a company is now a verb! But why do I Google a definition instead of picking up a dictionary? One word: Accessibility.  I don’t own a dictionary and I probably never will (lets be serious, that $10 or so could go towards a nice cold brew). I can hop on my laptop, IPad, Iphone, what have you and look up the definition in 10 seconds flat. BOOM.

However, I do and will always have an adoration for print. I love books and absolutely cannot read a novel electronically. And think this stems from my passion for literature. Great works of literature where not accessible on an IPAD when they were written. Books, words on a piece of paper, should be cherished like they were back in the day. And I am someone who enjoys sharing a book with someone else, and well, I am NOT going to let someone borrow my Ipad. I also love a handwritten letter. When someone writes you a letter, you know they took the time and the effort it takes to actually write with a pen or pencil. There is something visceral about it, like there is a part of that person on the paper.  An email with the very same words seems stale and too formal. I also take notes the old-fashioned way with paper and pen. To me, writing is more fluid. I can listen and write easier than I can type and listen, even though I type faster. I feel like when I am handwriting notes, I am digesting the information better than if just I typed it.

I see the various benefits and pitfalls of media, particularly social media platforms.  I’m pretty sure I recently saw an article title (I didn’t actually read the article) comparing Facebook to a drug. I hate to say it, but it’s true. Social media is addictive. When I wake up in the morning, the very first thing I do is grab my phone and check my email, Facebook,  Instagram, and Snapchat. Do I feel particularly excited when I wake up and check these sites? No. It just seems like another part of my daily routine like brushing my teeth. I use these sites to keep in touch with family and friends and as a way to share aspects of my life with them. Social media provides us with this sort of detached way to share our lives; it is not the same when you tell someone the same exact thing over the phone or in person. That is too intimate. Face to face interactions are reserved for those closest to me. And I think that it is extremely important to recognize that there are connections that must be valued outside of social media.

 

Wow, I haven’t really reflected this much on media; I feel like I could write a 20-page paper on it!

History: Is there some fact in the fiction?

On the first day of class, we discussed what we believed to be the meaning of history and fiction. Many of us saw a clear distinction between the two. For the most part, the consensus was history is a series of events that are factual and fiction is a concoction of the imagination- made up events, if you will. After reading Tey’s, The Daughter of Time, it is clear that both history and fiction can be one of the same and that it is very difficult to sway from popular beliefs that have been credited as history. But what is history? Is it just a series of beliefs that have been adapted over time and commonly viewed as factual? These are questions that arise from the novel. Even until this very day Richard III is viewed as the epitome of villainy. Our protagonist, Alan Grant, begins to question that view because to him, how could the face in the portrait be a murderer when there is so much sadness and pain behind his eyes? Grant adopts this notion of topandy; an idea that much of what is viewed as history is just a myth.

Now I am no history buff and I really do not know much about English history, but I question why Richard III became the quintessential villain of English history. Then I turned to something that interests me a little more- American history. I googled “American historical myths” and came across this list of top 10 “myths” that Americans believe to be fact (here is the link if anyone is interested:  http://all-that-is-interesting.com/american-history-myths ). The first myth took me by surprise. It was the story of Paul Revere and how he had warned American troops that “the British are coming!” According to the article (and I am sure if I researched it more in depth I would find similar evidence), the story has been twisted in a way to make Revere appear to be this grand hero, when in fact he did not utter those words and was accompanied by a group of people. Despite what actually happened, Americans still views Revere as the quintessential American patriot.  But this was the point. The story was adapted as a sort of American propaganda to instill pride and patriotism in the American public. This idea is very similar to Grant’s notion that Richard III was portrayed as this evil creature to arouse support for the Tudor monarchy.

I concluded my reading and research of historical myths questioning history as a whole. Obviously, many events occurred and are told as they had happened, but it is difficult to know the truth behind everything that we believe to be fact. Were heroes really heroes? Were villains really villains? I guess we really will never know. But in the mean time, history really does make one hell of a story.