Act of Resistance

Patti, Kristin, and I all love animals, and we are very concerned about animal rights. Both Patti and Kristin have dogs, but I really want one, if that counts. We wanted to perform an act of awareness that would alert people to mistreatment of animals. Shelters often have to kill unwanted dogs that they can’t afford to keep alive, and puppy mills are partly to blame. They breed dogs for profit, so lots of puppies don’t get enough to eat and they can become physically disabled from being forced in small cages for so long. All three of us found this very sad, and we wanted to raise awareness to help save the unwanted puppies that often get stuck in shelters. 99% of the puppies sold in pet stores were born in puppy mills, so if you are considering getting a new pet, we want you to make sure you know where the dog came from. Buying a dog from the Humane Society or adopting one from a shelter may be more expensive, but you could be saving that dog’s life and telling the companies that breed dogs simply for profit that they are involved in a cruel, unwanted business and you as consumers are standing for animal rights. To spread this message, we decided to take my neighbors’ dog on a walk while informing people about buying puppies. They came over to my house, and we made a sign for Trent (my neighbor’s dog to wear). It said “Adopt a Puppy.” We figured we’d get some questions and maybe convince people to adopt more wisely. Trent was adopted from a shelter, and his first home was pretty abusive. We wanted to tell the people that we passed while on the walk that they could save another dog like Trent. There weren’t too many people walking around this morning (it hadn’t started snowing yet but it was pretty cold), but a few of them seemed interested. I know not too many people are trying to get a new puppy right now, and we weren’t lucky enough to run into someone actively looking for a dog to adopt, but we spread the word, and hopefully convinced someone to save a puppy that really needs it.

The Boycott

SO I went and saw the play tonight, and I liked it overall, but it didn't seem as funny to me as the actual play Lysistrata. It seemed a lot more concerned and depressing than the original, because the play we read didn't stress about the war so much. The women basically said, yep i'd like my husband home more, and then proceeded into their strike. In The Boycott, the actor describes in detail how global warming and the lack of a solution makes her feel. That was pretty depressing, even though most of the play was funny. It actually related back to the original pretty well, and overall I liked the frog and the weird characters and the song. I guess mostly the play was...interesting.

Lysistrato

The Pinky and the Brain video is pretty funny, but it's actually a lot more pessimistic than the actual Lysistrata play. Still, I laughed out loud at some points. Clearly, the video only relates to the taking of the Akropolis part of the actual plot since no one wants to have sex with mice, but the voiceovers are entertaining. They allude to the wine and water oath and many other parts of the play. So, it's flawed but definitely funny. The major theme in this video would have to be that mice can do everything but take over the world. In Lysistrata the major themes point to the idea that people can do anything if they all work towards the same goal. So I guess there's a bit of a difference there. Also, Brain's Lysistrato is funny but not because of the ridiculous amount of sexual puns that are present throughout the actual play- I think it's mostly the play references, if I hadn't already read Lysistrata this video might be just plain dumb.

Pinky and the Brain in Lysistrata

Cooperation Works!

One of the major themes that I discovered during my reading of Lysistrata was that cooperation has many values and definitely can achieve what individuals can't do alone. The women of the play work together to pledge abstinence; all of them make a sacrifice so that the entire country can benefit from the resulting Peace. The men and women then unite to fight against each other. The men's firepots and the women's water just cancel each other out. When everyone decides to finally work as one whole, that's when peace s finally achieved. The women started the strike, but the men all had to agree, and the Spartans and Athenians had to reach a compromise. When all of this was cooperatively done (with Lysistrata overseeing, as she had been doing all play), Peace was at last within reach. Basically, all people have to do is truly want the same thing, and Lysistrata realized the way to make every man and woman of Greece to desire nothing more than peace.

Fue al Restaurante

The language in Lysistrata was the most important and entertaining part of the play. The puns and underlying symbolism throughout the play made a relatively simple plot into a very funny play that we can all learn from. Whether it's Kinesias saying "I was up before I was up"(88) or Lysistrata reminding the Athenians that "On that great day, your only allies were Spartans; your liberty came at their hands, which stripped away your servile garb and clothed you again in Freedom!"(103), language is very present in Lysistrata. In the first example, Kinesias uses a sexual reference to describe his painful desire (I found it very funny). Lysistrata uses a more graceful metaphor to describe the beauty of freedom and friendship. Language is used to different ends throughout the play, but it is used consistently to add drama and comedy (at different parts) to the otherwise straightforward plot.

Billy la Bufanda

So class today was pretty interesting. I thought the discussion taught me a lot about the expectations in college; all i have found from other colleges about English has been the names of required courses. Still, it wasn't very intimidating. I really feel prepared, and I think I'd do well if I ever had to go to a UWM class. I think IB English maybe doesn't have us practice writing about a lot of our individual ideas, but we do get a lot of other practice putting what we want to say in an organized format. So anyway, interesting, but not scary at all. Even though I'm pretty sure all of us could easily pass the placement test...

Predictable much?

Lysistrata started with a very interesting idea, but I found that the plot didn't provide many surprises. There was definitely a lack of twists and turns; obviously the women would agree to the abstinence and eventually win. What made me like the play was not the story or even the original idea (though I found it very interesting) but the way the story was treated. The language, especially the puns, is what made the story fun to read, and I think the editor did a great job making this ancient story entertaining to present audiences. I guess this goes to show that the storyline is not nearly as important as the treatment of the original idea, or interpretation by the editor/director/reader.

Wow, No One Died!

This play was much more positive than all of the others we have read. No characters die, and everyone actually seems to get what they want in the end. The women get peace, the men get sex, and the enemy prisoners get freedom. This definitely leads to themes that see the human race in a more positive light. Lysistrata shows us the strength of women, and also the ability of the human race to adapt to change and find compromises. I personally enjoyed this change. I like to think that people can fight for peace and win.

Props in Lysistrata

There were actually quite a few props used in Lysistrata, and they all contributed to some sort of symoblic meaning or they were central to the plot. Basically every prop was essential to the story; there wasn't a lot of excess in details in the script, unless you count the very large amounts of characters. Props were used when the men first climbed to the Akropolis with their pots of fire (symbols of sexual desire?) and again when Myrrhine kept leaving to fetch the cot, mattress, etc. These props are easy to remember because they contribute to the play very noticably. The only other really present prop are the clothes that the characters constantly strip out of.

Akropolis

It feels like there wasn't a very prominent setting in the play. I know it took place at the Akropolis, and that has symbolic significance within the play, but the characters don't really interact with their surroundings, just each other (and their clothes). So it seems like any director making this play could just have a nice building in the background and the set would be taken care of.
Yep, so the setting was very simple, but it helps explain how the women first took a stand by trying to control the money. I guess that says that men mostly care about money and sex, and that's what the women took away with their abstinence. So the Akropolis made sense with the play, but besides as an explanation and further evidence of the women's increasing power, it was not a very important aspect of the play in my opinion.

Mirror Opposites

All of the characters in Lysistrata seem to fit into very simple categories. There are men and women and Athenians and Spartans, and everyone is pretty much similar within the categories. What's more, there are drastic differences between the groups, to help distinguish them. The Spartans all talk like "country bumpkins" and the Athenians talk with more intelligent diction. The men are obviously physically similar, but they also value strength and power. Even the words that men and women say to each other demonstrate the opposing characteristics of the two groups. For example, Lysistrata explains the women's willingness to help the men get out of the war and says "We deem it a duty. For friendship's sake." The Commissioner replies, "Well, forsake this, friend: I DO NOT WANT TO BE SAVED, DAMMIT!" The two sexes seem unable to agree on anything because they are so completely opposite.

depressing

Besides being boring, Hedda Gabler is also very depressing. Hedda, Lovborg, and the old invalid lady all die within a week of each other. George is stuck in a loveless marriage until his wife's suicide. Thea is so controlled and oppressed by her husband and former employer that she has to leave him. And, the one ray of light and positive thing that happens in the play (hedda possibly having a baby) is destroyed. Wow i mean i guess ibsen demonstrates the need for social change, but did he have to do it by creating such a miserable play? even hamlet had some comic relief...

It's over!

So im really glad that we're moving on from hedda gabler. i started reading lysistrata already and its way more interesting in only the first few pages. and it feels like somethings actually happening in the play. Hedda just seemed so flat and boring, though i know ive said that before. also, i found hedda to be the most interesting character in the story, and if you think about it shes just a bossy woman living in a house in an oppressive society: thats not interesting!

also im ready for people to stop killing themselves in the plays we read unless they do it in a funny way (but they dont, these plays are all too serious).

Shoot 'em up!

Yea so after today's creative responses, especially dorian's group where every single character except Thea gets shot and dies, I realized that almost everyone in this play just over reacts. Hedda and Lovborg had really bad reasons for killing themselves, and George definitely overreactedfor those slippers. Also, Thea overreacted when she found out Lovborg died (except im pretty sure she knew what she was doing and was already planning out her next move). So there was almost too much drama in the play, which is saying something cuz there was basically no drama at all, just people talking about stuff. I guess that's why I found the play extra boring, cuz there wasnt much action, and when there was action it was annoyingly exaggerated.

Hedda's a wuss

OK, so Hedda's supposed to be all powerful or whatever right? and she wants control, but then realizes thats not possible in her society, where the men have all the power. so she shoots herself? thats just the cowards way out. instead of trying to change the circumstances for women she just gives up. just pointing out, the duchess (in the movie subject of the last two blogs) had a wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy worse life, way more controlling husband, and way more oppressive society, and she managed to live through it, with even a little bit of love in her heart. pssh hedda!

Duchess Trailer

The Duchess

Has anyone seen the new movie the Duchess? Well, it has a lot of themes in common with Hedda Gabler and Bernarda Alba. Keira Knightley plays a famous duchess, but the movie portrays her lack of power in a society run by men. Seriously though, it's a really good movie, definitely watch it!

windows

ok so i was doing my motif paper and i came across a really interesting quote. well, interesting to me anyway. im doing my paper on books, and if i hadnt already been halfway done, i would have changed the motif to windows. people are constantly looking out windows, which i didnt really notice the first time through, but in the act 4 setting description hedda gazes longing out the glass window. earlier, when lovborg first enters, she is "at the glass door, drumming on the pane"(260). Lovborg also does something impatient at the window i think, but looking back i cant find the quote. anyway i was thinking this shows desperation, feeling trapped, need for escape.

revelation

Okay i had a revelation, or really just paused to think about my last post from like 3 minutes ago. the book motif is used to comment on the changing roles of society, or how they should change or something. books always stay the same, because you cant unwrite what was written, or rewrite the past. But new ideas can be formed, like Lovborgs manuscript. Now society doesnt really like being changed (Lovborg dies, his book/futuristic ideas destroyed), but the new ideas will always have a way of coming out, it just takes a while, which relates to when Tesman and Mrs Elvsted start to work putting the manuscript back together again.

books

so im doing my motif paper on the book motif in hedda gabler, and i thought id do some brainstorming on here. everybody in the whole story seems obsessed w/ books- George's life goal is to build up his library, Mrs Elvsted wants to write a book even though shes a woman, and lovborg wants to redeem himself to society through his new, revolutionary manuscript.

also, the books that people are associated with tend to describe their characters. George writes about the past (and reads about it), because he's stuck in the past, and the way society used to be. he was always cared for, always had social power, and always had this same goal for a future (house, wife, job). Lovborg writes about the future and represents the future; he seems to cooperate with women instead of just using them and manipulating them.

so why does ibsen develop this motif this way?
i guess thatll be another blog entry

suicide or whatever

so wait did lovborg kill himself, or did the other lady do it, or do they not know and are just making stuff up? i personally think lovborg shot himself, not sure why but thats what im leaning towards. also i know its bogus but i kinda liked that hedda killed herself, it was the only thing i likrd about the play. i guess it was sad or whatever, like she had no options, nothing to live for, but i felt better at the end of the play. i think we learned that in ms thomas' class, that in a tragedy you feel restored order at the end, and think that it was hedda causing all that disorder in the play, or was it lovborg?

Dang, Hedda!

Wow Hedda just doesn't care about anything, huh? I don't feel bad for her at all. She just manipulates others, and all because she's bored!! What the mess is up w/ that?!? No one could possibly be that bored. So anyway, I still don't get what Hedda wants. She seems able to get whatever she wants, but at the same time she doesn't seem to have an agenda...

posteroo

heres my first posteroo....