My Enemy The Queen Who Also Is An Enemy To Me

I feel as if I must be completely honest in this blog post... My Enemy The Queen is also an enemy to me. No matter how hard I tried to get into the reading, I simply could not force myself to do so. I promise you all, I did read but I can guarantee I did not pick up on any of the fine details that we are bound to discuss in class today.

What I did get out of the reading is this: There is some lady named Lettice who loves the Earl of Leicester, Robert, and Robert also loves Lettice.

Okay, so not this lettuce but I know you all thought it too.

While this would be fine and dandy under normal circumstances, its not in My Enemy The Queen, hence the title. Elizabeth also loves Robert and hence we have formed the infamous love triangle. The next 30 or so pages of the reading deal with Lettice and Robert trying to hide their feelings for one another from the Queen but eventually they end up telling one to many people and she finds out and is pissed.

To me, this seems like the stereotypical romance plot and that is perhaps why I had difficulties getting through the reading. There was one aspect, however, that kept my attention throughout and that was the portrayal of Elizabeth.

Up until this point, the historical documents and adaptations have displayed Elizabeth as being all-powerful and sassy yet in this romance, she is anything but that. She is so concerned about what this man thinks of her that it allows her emotions to get the best of her from time to time and act impulsively.

Take for instance when Elizabeth discovers that Lettice and Robert have married... She immediately banishes Robert to a tower due to her rage and fury. Granted, she could have killed him and that would have been pretty nuts but still, when I think of Elizabeth, I think of the stoic woman at the end of the film Elizabeth. I think of the woman who shows no emotion on her face and chose to only have love for her country, not because it was forced upon her.

I did not feel this when towards any other avatars we looked at this semester. Perhaps it is because I learned a great deal more about Elizabeth in high school than I did about Julius Caesar or Richard III. Whenever someone attempts to challenge a certain view you have on a person or figure, it has become second nature for us to immediately deny that challenge because we as a society do not like change or the idea of being wrong.

Who knows? Maybe its just me but that is honestly the only explanation I have as to why I did not like this reading.

Elizabeth the Young to Elizabeth the Queen

First, I'd like to say that after watching Elizabeth, I have a much greater appreciation for any person who assumes a position of power. I could never imagine having to make the daily decisions that a leader of a country has to make on a daily basis and that is the aspect that makes this movie so fantastic.

Over the course of the film, we see a young, carefree and romantic Elizabeth transform into the the more fierce, cold but ultimately powerful Queen Elizabeth. In the beginning of the film, she is not necessarily concerned with what is happening around the world even though she knows she is a princess. The first time Elizabeth is shown to the audience, she is frolicking in a meadow along with the other members of the cult who follows her. Okay... They are not actually a cult but I swear they followed her like one in every scene. They even watched her have sex. Kinda awkward.

Then Elizabeth becomes queen and, as the film progresses, the audience sees Elizabeth make multiple choices that do not necessarily go the way she'd prefer. She makes a decision to have an affair with none other than the dude from Shakespeare in Love. She ignores the advice of her council from occasion to occasion and her following and support begin to decline as the threats against her become stronger and stronger.

This all takes a drastic toll on her as a person and slowly she transforms into the Elizabeth they teach us about in school: The Queen Elizabeth who was responsible for England's Golden Age. She paints her face white and says she will never marry because she is "Married to England" and sits on the throne as the film ends, effectively giving me goosebumps.

Personally, I loved seeing her transform from a frolicking girl to a ruthless queen who asserts her power. The film made her seem like such an underdog in the beginning that it was so rewarding to see her not take any shit by the end of it. Too often, history classes and textbooks focus on only the events that the public would considered to be "memorable" but never really explain how the leaders got to that point in their lives.

In history classes, we learn about the terrible things that Hitler did but never really discuss how he became the dictator he was. Is it not ironic how history often grazes over the true history behind a story?

Speaking about the film as a whole though, the outfits and make up were spot on in this film and I kept thinking back to all the portraits we looked at together as a class. They put a substantial amount of detail into the costume design and the result was fantastic.

Finally, I loved Cate Blanchett's performance as Elizabeth in the film. The one scene that stood out to me was how she was rehearsing her speech before she spoke before those in the church in an effort to unite the church system. Her acting was simply phenomenal. It was only her in that scene and she was able to make herself weep and go through all the emotions that a normal person would in order to get the speech perfect. Bravo!

HBO's Rome

Before I even get started discussing my thoughts on the show and all of the in-depth analysis, I think its necessary to congratulate HBO on making phenomenal shows that have the ability to entrance an audience. You go Glen Coco.

Getting back to what is actually relevant though, which medium did I prefer? Me being me, I thought HBO's Rome was the more enjoyable experience overall. Seeing history come to life in a television show or feature film is a truly special experience because these companies have the funds to create accurate replications of what the locations actually looked like. When it comes to a book, one must rely on their imagination to fill create the scene and while that is a good ability to have, sometimes it does not do justice.

I absolutely loved the sets in the show. They were articulate and detailed. The forum was outstanding and the rooms where the scenes took place were nothing short of elaborate. Today, green screens have become so overused that people forget what it is like to have actual sets. In episode 10, I was only able to spot out three or four instances where a green screen was used. Almost all of the episode was practical and that gets an A+ in my book.

The acting was great as well. Were all of the characters outstanding? No. But they each played their respective roles well. It would be interesting to see the show today if they had the budget that Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead has. Perhaps a reboot?

Well, seeing as how Game of Thrones actually has about three of the actors from Rome, maybe they already did?

Another aspect that I personally enjoyed about the show was the intro music by Jeff Beal and his score throughout the show. It fit so well and never did the music seem out of place. In fact, this is one of the only shows I can recall in recent memory where there were long periods of time were there was no music playing. The show runners relied on the acting abilities to drive the drama and move the plot forward.

Oh and the show is graphic which is always an added bonus of HBO shows. Since it is a premium channel, they can do whatever the hell they want and the scene where Caesar gets murdered was graphic as it should be.

Well, that about sums up my thinking on the show.

Media? You're Talking About Media??

As I am sure we are all aware by now, there are numerous types of media available to us in our everyday society. Types of media include paintings, drawings, architecture, carpentry, sound, and more. Do I sound like the Wikipedia article yet?

Back to being serious. Media affects each and every person differently. Some of us may love sound and the musical form of media but others may prefer the silent process of drawing a picture. Regardless of what form one may prefer, all forms of media help provide us with some level of fun and entertainment. The different forms allow us to take a momentary leave from the stressful thing we all call "life."

For me, I interact with the film, electronic, sound, literature, and food forms of media on a daily basis. I am a big lover of movies and television, as I'm sure you can all tell by my numerous references to House of Cards in class. 

Food makes me happy and keeps me alive so yeah... Music keeps me sane and reading allows me to use my imagination and enter worlds and lives I'd not ordinarily be able to experience.

I do not interact with the drawing or painting forms of media as much as I would like. I'm not as cultured as some individuals but it is something I am trying to work on.

I'm a pretty big supporter and fan of social media. I am on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. I feel as if all of these forms help me keep in contact with my friends who I no longer see on a daily basis. By seeing pictures of their lives or seeing posts regarding their accomplishments, it makes me feel as if I'm not so far away and that can be an extremely comforting feeling. Social media also helps everyone meet new people and network to an extent and, lets be honest, networking is huge these days.

All of these forms of media help me in some way become a better person. By eating, I'm keeping myself alive. By reading, I'm furthering my knowledge. By watching movies, I'm realizing mistakes that some characters make and how I can avoid them in real life. Music keeps my brain working and social media helps me keep all of my friendships current and up to date.

Without media, I'd be lost.

Tonypandy or Just a Game of Telephone?

Would you believe me if I said that this was the first book I’ve read from front to back in my five semesters of college? Or would most of you consider that to be “tonypandy”?

Personally, I really enjoyed reading Daughter of Time. It was a break from the usual dry, boring textbook assignments that never have any life. Josephine Tey was able to do accomplish a feat that I have never seen done before and that was making a historical text come to life with a compelling crime story. A rather tremendous feat when really thought about because Tey also managed to pose a few interesting questions.

She made, I’d say 90 percent of the world’s population question their definition of what history is. In Daughter of Time, Grant discovers that what is written in the textbooks regarding Richard III is not actually the truth and therefore is not valid history.

History is an accurate representation of occurrences from any point that has already happened. There, my typing of the previous sentence is a form of history. Is it important history? Not in the slightest but the event actually occurred. No one framed or covered it up.

What Grant realizes through his research is that a majority of what is written in the textbooks ought to be classified as “tonypandy,” or myths regarding events that actually happened in the past. In all honesty, the best way that I could possible describe “tonypandy” is that it seems to me to be a form of telephone.

One person has one recollection of what was said and tells someone, then that person modifies it slightly so it fits his or her liking, and so forth. “Tonypandy” becomes history when this game of telephone reaches the point where it has been passed around so much that no one bothers to check anymore because lazy.

Tey made us all challenge the beliefs we hold about history. I personally believe that history is accurate most of the time but not to its fullest extent. Everyone knows that those who were lucky enough to win are the ones who end up writing the history. Unfortunately, people do not want to make themselves look bad so they leave out a few minor (or let’s be honest, HUGE) details regarding the events, yet normally it is pretty accurate.

In today’s age, with the emergence of social media, it would appears to be much more difficult to fake what happened since there are multiple witnesses to almost every event.