Love games

     A nice tonypandy love story for the soul. This one is an especially dramatic story of forbidden love considering it's from the point of view of the secret lover herself rather than the queen. In My Enemy the Queen, the full story behind the confusing relations between Queen Elizabeth and her lovers is revealed. We find out that the queen held on to her beloved Robert for so long with no intentions of actually marrying him because she liked the idea of having a powerful man as her servant. She was too arrogant to devote herself and her love to even a guy she actually cared about, or may she realized that he didn't exactly care for her as much and also used her for her power.
     We also find out that she toyed with the little Duc de'Anjou even though it was as obvious as can be that she had no intentions of marrying him because she girlishly craved the attention of

hopeless suitors, and she had this deep seeded obsession with the idea of weddings and marriage itself without the commitment thus reminding me of a somewhat bridezilla type. One would think at first that she played around with the Duc to maintain peace between England and France which was also very important to her, but she risked destroying this delicate relationship during her games with the boy.

     In this novel, the queen herself is betrayed mainly as a somewhat childish, giddy little girl who is boy obsessed. The twist is that she is queen and she uses these powers to have her fun little way with these boys even more all the while with the intention of up keeping her independent, powerful queen status by not actually marrying and committing to any of them. When she finds out of Lettice's marriage to Robert, she feels her powerful grip slip. She acts out with immature rage. This makes me wonder if the seemingly eloquent, composed and dutiful queen really did act this way when it came to matters with the boys.

Transformings

 

     A reoccurring theme in this movie was surprisingly love. Yes, surprising because this is a movie about a ruler, and these ruler types seem to only be concerned with power. When it comes to marriage, the tendency seems to be to completely bypass love, and marry whoever will be of their benefit when it comes to gaining more power. Elizabeth is in love with Lord Robert from the very beginning of this film. She is twirling and dancing with the same actor who's in "Shakespeare in Love". Go figure. The first dance scene is bright and pure. Their affection for each other is seeping through every seem, and her hair is flowing and twirling along everywhere.

     They dance in other scenes throughout the movie. However, by the end of the movie, Elizabeth is stone cold and literally white. Her lover is looking up to her in wondrous awe as the transformed Elizabeth stoically walks down from her thrown and past him sitting in the entranced crowd.
     Elizabeth was offered a hand in marriage from those of high ranks in Spain and France throughout the film. However, she has no interest in getting married, and even mocks the notion during her speech to the bishops. At this point, it is unclear whether she is denying these suitors because she is in love or she is occupied with the idea of being a powerful woman who is independent of a man. by the end of the film, however, it seems that the later is her only focus. She is literally trying to portray the imagine of a stone sculpture of the Virgin Mary by means of her make-up, and she even says to the crowd that she is married to England.

 

     Is Elizabeth's transformation due to her finally realizing that there is an inability to marry to love? Does she take-up this inhuman, virgin image because she became sucked up into the power game and knew a marriage to a man of power would take some of the power away from her? Is it a little of both? When did Elizabeth stop concerning herself with love and start concerning only about working on an image that would finally help her to gain the power over England she deserved being in her position? In the movie when Lord Robert is somewhat seriously bantering around with Elizabeth on the boat and ends up proposing to Elizabeth, Elizabeth says, "Does not a queen sit under the same stars as any other woman?'". When a normal person is put into an inhuman position, it is always interesting to see how much of there own self they give up and for what reasons.

Roman Visuals

     HBO's Rome is of course a video medium which means it feeds to the visual senses like no other media. The visuals of this show (the set, costumes, etc.) all seem very authentic and succeed like crazy in taking me back to Ancient Rome. I think this is because the designers weren't trying to make it look glamorous or over gaudy, yet they put so much attention into every detail, huge and small. Even though the Romans themselves tend to be overly lavish, they still kept it authentic and didn't over Hollywood it. The scene of Caesar's ceremony when he road in on a chariot with his face painted and the white doves reminded me of a dulled down version of the opening ceremonies in the Hunger Games by the way.

     With this medium being a passive activity of just watching what others have lain before me, some things were incongruous with what I imagined in my head. The main thing involves the head honcho himself,  Caesar. In this show, Caesar seems almost psycho. You can see it in those bug eyes.

He seems to be out of touch with reality in the way that he talks about Rome. This is especially highlighted in the scene when his right-hand men are all in a circle without Caesar discussing their disgust for the decision to make Vorenus a part of the republic.  To me, they were meant to be made out to be the level headed, noblemen in this scene.
     Another theme that stuck with me after being able to watch this story is how the men let their brutality carry over into their personal lives. Love and murder don't mix as Pullo and Vorenus found out. Being able to see the killings in full detail for nauseating amounts of time, also plays into the authenticity of the show and made me fully aware of how brutal the Romans could truly be. It makes one wonder what the true nature of these men is. Were they born power hungry murderers, or do the past battles have such an effect on them that they can't escape? As Cicero said in response to Pullo saying, "I'm a soldier, not a murderer", is there really any difference?

Moody Media Moods

     Personally, I have been aware and even focused on how different media for music compliment completely different moods. If I'm conflicted about something or just bored and looking for an escape and a little adventure, I'm going to get into my car with my phone plugged into my aux cord and the volume and bass turned up. If it's late, I'm going to be listening to something calmer with my headphones on. If it's a sunny afternoon on the weekend, and I'm about to clean the apartment, I'm going to be listening to Carly Simon on the record player.

 

     Even if I was to listen to the same song through these three different media, a different effect would be instilled within me each time because of the different sound qualities and how the sound is localized and dispersed differently through each media. It is great to have all three forms, and one doesn't seem to lack anything that the other has. It's just about using the right medium during the right time.

     The second types of media I'm most focused on would be the different forms for watching movies. Deciding where to watch a movie isn't as much about deciding which mood you are in as when listening to music, mainly because you can only access certain movies at certain places. Nonetheless, the different locations do have different feels to them. If I want to be laid back and not fully invested in the story, I'm going to watch a movie I find while flipping through the channels on my TV. If I'm really interested in the storyline, I'm going to watch it on my laptop on Netflix with my headphones on. This makes me feel more personally involved with the storyline and characters. However, if I'm looking for a full on experience, I'm going to go to the theater that has the big screen and surround sound. Here the storyline does not matter as much than if I was to watch a movie up close on my laptop due to the added effects the theater provides, but it does matter a little more than if you were to watch a random movie on the TV because you are trapped in the auditorium and completely enclosed  by the sounds and visuals. 

     As noted so far, I'm interested in the effects of sounds and visuals when I seek out entertainment, so as far as social media goes, I mainly stick to Instagram where the focus is on the pictures, and you can even add short little clips with sound. When trying to get a message across especially on social media, I believe visuals are the best forms because they have the potential to convey so much more in a stronger way and in much less time. Instagram even allows you to add a caption, if it's needed, to further direct the thoughts of your followers when they look at your post. Instagram is even good for saying nothing at all and posting a picture of your cat or the shoes you wore for the day.

     If I do want to actually sit down and read something, I want all the details. I want to feel the full capacity that the ordering of words can bring, so I also want full control of my experience. I want to be able to hold a hardcopy and flip back and forth throughout the story as freely as possible. With reading on a screen, there is something that makes the reading experience a little more impersonal. Screens are for visuals, and while reading, you are more in control of your entertainment experience since all you have to work with is words. It's better to have the right tools to be more in control. Something hands-on like the pages of a book give off that hands-on effect.

The Landy of Tonypandy

     I have never considered myself a history buff in the least, but I have even considered a few times how absurd the behaviors of royalty that we learn about in history class were and how incongruous some actions sometimes seem to be with the character of the person no matter the "norms" of that time in history. It says towards the very end of the novel "history was something he would never understand. The values of historians differed so radically from any values with which he was acquainted" (205). I can really relate to this line of thought. I guess you could say I've always been more in tune to the psychology side of things.  That's where my appreciation for this book comes in.

     It caught me off guard that this book was more than a novel about a guy stuck under unfavorable conditions trying to solve a whodunit. It turned out to be so much more. It almost in a way is a revolution changing all of time. Who would have imagined?!  It gets one questioning everything they know about the past! I've never been one to delve into the many and sometimes monotonous layers of history, but this book got me quickly thinking significantly more dynamic about historical events and how their stories come about.
     This novel seems to define "history" as events that have happened in the past and are recorded in textbooks and history books alike. "Tonypandy" is the word the characters seem to exclaim whenever one of these events of the past that is a fixed part of "history" is proven to be fictional or made-up somewhere down the line.
     If one actually thinks about it for a bit, it is actually very easy for the facts of events that happened so long ago to become misconstrued and contorted especially considering who is recording them to begin with. People in social scenes today can't even get the facts of events that happened yesterday straightened out which is how rumors spread about. "Tonypandy" is most likely first established when someone who is biased to one side of the story tells the story through their eyes or in a censored way as to put themselves into a better light. The book mentions how in hindsight the lies were obvious to pick out because Henry VII was so mysterious about his actions as opposed to Richard III who had nothing to hide. "Tonypandy" then after that will start to evolve into a more rounded "story" rather than narratives of real life just by human nature alone, and these sometimes ridiculous fairy tale-like tales continue to get passed down from there just by tradition.

     I got the notion especially towards the end that the book's stance on history is that one must question everything and not be quick to believe anything you hear about in history. It's something that has always been in the back of the mind especially whenever I consider the classic story of Thanksgiving. This novel, however, has brought it to the very front of my mind, and now that I consider it, I think there are a lot of facts maybe that are left out in history, and therefore, manipulating how one thinks of events in history. However, it is extreme to think that all events are fabrications of the mind and didn't actually happen. This novel does have an extraordinary point, and it's stance is definitely probably true some of the time.