Will the real Dorian Gray please stand up?

In a presentation during class this week, the trailer for the 2009 movie Dorian Gray was shown. It looked interesting, so I decided to watch it to compare it to the book for the blog this week. And boy was I surprised.
First off, this movie is rated R for a reason. It is a little gory, but mainly super sexual. I should have expected that because of the nature of the book itself, but I was still taken aback. Second, I wasn't expecting the movie to be exactly like the boo, but it turned out to be very loosely based off of the novel. The characters were the same, and the plot had the same basic concept, but there were a few key parts that were oddly different.
The novel actually shows Basil painting Dorian Gray, whereas in the book it does not. Also, the painting was put on display to the public in Dorian's house for a period of time before he puts it away. The portrait seemed super grotesque too. In the novel, I did not imagine it actually lifelike and moving, whereas in the movie where were maggots seeping out of his eyes and one could see the changes as they occurred. In the movie, the man in the portrait did not only grow old, but seemed to sort of decay.
Dorian Gray's relationship with Sibyl in the movie also differs from that of the book. He still falls in love with her for her acting, and they get engaged very quickly after meeting each other. However, they break up for an extremely different reason. in the book, Dorian claims that he does not like her anymore because she was no longer a good actress. in the movie, he gets kind of freaked out because she wants children, and she accuses him of cheating on her (which he did with Lord Henry's help). She yelled at him for going to the club with the women, and he leaves frustrated and angry. The next morning Jim Vane comes to tell Dorian that Sibyl drowned herself in the river. Another discrepancy in the movie is Jim (or James) Vane; instead of being accidentally shot like in the novel, Dorian kills him on railroad tracks.
One final, major, differing point is the relationship between Basil and Dorian. In the book, Wilde alludes to homosexual relations with Lord Henry and Dorian, and Lord Henry and Basil fight over Dorian's affections. However, the movie is very different. It actually shows Dorian seducing Basil, and them kissing each other, and conveniently cutting to the next scene right before they have some sort of sexual relation. This was quite surprising, and Dorian uses his sexual power over Basil to manipulate him.
Overall, I the plot was the same: the idea of the portrait aging while Dorian stays young. He still kills Basil in the movie, Sibyl kills herself, Dorian turns to temptations, and Dorian ends up killing himself when he stabs the portrait, and the characters' personalities are accurate. But the details are not the same, including the actual name of the movie: Dorian Gray versus The Picture of Dorian Gray.

The Man Who Would Be King

The Man Who Would be King (1975)

Stepping into CUE 318 for our extra credit movie I know we all were thinking ‘ah crap another weird old movie we have to watch for English’. But then the names Sean Connery and Michael Caine come into play and we all know this is going to be one kick ass movie. At first I couldn’t stop thinking about how bloody young Michael Caine looked and how much he is one of my favorite actors, with Sean Connery coming in at a close second. When considering the cinematography, the movie includes quite a high amount of white and light coloring; from outfits to walls and scenery. The lightness of the colors could easily represent the light colors of India, which is where the movie is set. The matching white suits that Michael and Sean wear in the beginning of the film seem to make them even more of a duo, as well as their interactions with one another. The two seem to have a brotherly bond that keeps them going throughout their journey to India.

One scene I did not understand though was when the two characters were hidden on the side of a hill, shooting at a tribe of people, women and children included, who were enjoying their own festivities below. Leading up to the scene, there seemed to be no pre-cursor to this massacre and it came off completely unnecessary. After killing several people, the two walk up to the village and are strangely accepted. They are accepted into the community and there they teach them to fight and during this time, the people of the village come to the conclusion that the two men are ‘Gods’ and are worshiped as such. When they are summoned to the high priest, the white motif is used again with the light clothing of the priest and the other monks that are included in the scene.  These religious figures plan to kill Daniel until they see his Mason's pendant around his neck. After this he is crowned.

There are many elements that confuse me about this story and the movie. First of all is the idea that the village in which they attacked accepted the two killers as their own. Why would they accept two men into their territory who just slaughtered many of their own men? Not only did they accept them into the community, they gave them essentially a position of power and put them at the head of their army. Secondly, the high priest plans to kill Daniel until his pendant is shown; it is after this that he is crowned, but why?  After this instance, it becomes apparent that Daniel and Peachy's relationship begins to waiver, and it becomes obvious that Daniel begins to believe he is high and superior and that he is indeed a God. Daniel is giving orders and Peachy is simply sitting behind him listening. Daniel comes to the conclusion that he is King and Peachy is merely a subject. Overall, Daniel is completely overcome by his newfound authority and is consumed.

In the end, Daniel is made a fool when he is discovered to be human rather than a god and is sent to his death. Peachy is crucified but escapes and returns the head of Daniel to the journalist. 

Overall I enjoyed the film very much. I mean come on, Michael Caine and Sean Connery? And how about Sean Connery’s mustache!

Burden is a burden

Throughout the poem "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling the speaker is calling the white man to arms. Not physical arms, but to take on his share of burden. He calls for future generations to be looked at with a sort of exile and referenced white folks as a breed. It seems as though there is a distaste left with the speaker, which is perfect because white mans burden is a left over response to the mistreatment of others by white people in this country in the past. The speaker is portraying one of these mistreated individuals and almost appears to be taunting the "burden" onto the white man. The speaker calls white children half devil and claims that white's will seek others profit and gain. All in all, this could be looked at as a toast or even a curse. Likewise, "Black Man's Burden" by Hubert Harrison has its  own mocking tune. Written as a response to Kipling's poem, It could be calling Kipling out for boasting too loudly and not being entirely politically correct. It seems to point out the equalities of misjudgment from each race at large and the generalizations that are made and skipped over depending on which defense or act of aggression is being made and by whom. My question to the class or another reader would be, do either of these poems tell the whole story? If so why, if not how come?

Pseudonyms

 

Pseudonyms are a very interesting concept to me. The art of changing your name, which ultimately changes who you are, has a certain appeal that one cannot fully describe. I mean who hasn’t changed their name when their out and creepy guys hit on you? I know that my name always changes when I go out, partly to assume a different persona for the night and partly because, well, its just fun. The excitement of becoming someone different and the thrill that no one knows your real name proves to make an interesting night. Authors however, most likely have a different thought process when it comes to choosing to use a pseudonym, or a pen name. As we presented today for the class, there are many contemporary and historically famous authors who took on a pen name when they published their own works. Voltaire is known to be one of the earliest authors who took on a pseudonym and heavily influenced the idea in future writers. As we have gone over in class, many many times, Mark Twain is also another very famous author who uses a pseudonym while publishing works. Even though the reasoning behind Samuel Langhorne Clemens using a Pseudonym is unclear, it is very obvious that he uses a nautical term that translates to “safe to navigate”. Many authors though used Pseudonyms in a way to have more of an effect on their readers, which can lead to the pseudonym-effect. The Pseudonym-effect is the combination of mystery, desire, and authorial representation formed in the public mind once the use of a pseudonym has been revealed. In all honesty, I would choose a pseudonym purely to mess with people’s heads. TO be able to remain unknown and hear how readers react to your works while still remaining anonymous. Stephen King once attempted this, but the news that he was using a pseudonym got out before he could gather any information from his readers. Overall, pseudonyms are a great way to keep authors identity anonymous while marketing their pieces of writings being published. Many women writers would use male names as a pen name and others would use pseudonyms when they decided to switch back and forth between genres. Pseudonyms cerate mystery and desire, as the pseudonym-effect states, and creates an illusion between the author and the readers.

Huck Finn, Perfectly Fine

As mentioned (or rather hotly debated) in class, the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn seems to be either loved or hated by students. Personally, I had never read it in high school, a fact that most of my friends seemed appalled about. So when given the opportunity to read it for 372, I was excited and had high expectations. Unfortunately, the novel did not live up to those expectations.

First off, I could not move past the dialect. I never like it when authors write the way the person speaks; it makes me focus too hard on trying to decipher what the character is saying rather than what it actually means. I end up having to reread it a few times and end up getting frustrated with it. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn starts out with that Huck's dialect, so I became apprehensive right away, and it did not improve.

Second, the racism aspect affected me. I understand that Twain was trying to convey the feeling of the time period which he did accurately, but it was a bit too much for me, and the nonchalant way many characters talked and acted was degrading and bugged me. The characters, especially Pap Finn were too over the top and almost not believable, and at times I just wanted to slap them, although that obviously not happen.

Most importantly though, I honestly just was not that intrigued by the story itself. Like someone mentioned in class, it was "perfectly fine," which may be a big reason why I was so disappointed by it. I had high expectations because it is such a well-known and widely taught book, that I was underwhelmed. I am glad that I have read it now though, so I can say that I have, but I would not choose to read it again. I agree that it has aspects which could be discussed at length, but I am just fine with only talking about the novel for a week. There are so many books I have read in high school as well as in classes at WSU that I would eagerly read again, yet Huckleberry Finn is not one of them. To me, it just seemed like a story of the wanderings of a runaway boy, and did not impress me.

Dickens Hard Times was written in for a publication called "serial publication" which delivered the story in weekly segments. He usually used this style for his writing because it could reach the masses who usually could not afford books. Hard Times was written in three segments, what they call a "triple decker" novel. Dickens wrote about the common man and the common man's issues, so he brought these text to them in whatever way was conducive. 

A motif within the novel that seemed to be consistent was the mechanization of humans. Dickens correlated the active acceptance of industrialism in England tot he working conditions of those who worked in the factories at the time. The people in the factories became almost as robotic as the machines they were running. Also, the industrial revolution threatened to revoke the imagination and emotions of said factory workers, anyone in the country as a matter of fact. This is seen in Gradgrind's character when he develops a school to teach nothing but hard facts and uses those same principles for raising his children. His friend Bounderby also has the same mindset in running his factory, treating workers like they are meaningless machines with no human emotions. The connection between Gradgrind's children and Bounderby's workers is drawn in Chapter 5 of book 1 saying that both led monotonous lives without enjoying the pleasures of the world. Dickens uses the novel to illustrate the danger in letting humans become like machines, and that imagination and emotions are needed to be human. Humanity isn't lost completely in the novel with characters like Louisa and Sissy; their thirst for imagination and wonder is the representation of the human element. Louisa realizes this when she tells her father that she is unhappy in her marriage and had a unfulfilled childhood because of the lack of pleasure growing up.

Using Gradgrind as a sort of extreme to highlight the industry take over in England, helps the reader to understand that, although radical, societies future could end up as Louisa's did--monotonous and unfullfilled.

London Burning

During the mid-1700s to the early 1800s London was an evolving society. The American Revolution and French Revolution provoked serious social and political changes. These changes seriously influenced William Blake’s literature. Most of this influence can be seen in “London”, which was written in 1792, and many parallels can be drawn between the poem and the revolutions occurring.

The first stanza creates a clear picture of a hopeless society. Blake writes that “marks of weakness, marks of woe” (4) can be seen in the faces of the people London. Even though the industrial revolution created new jobs and opportunities for growth, society was still against the changes that they saw. He verbalizes the inner feelings of the general population. Basically their daily lives are changing, yet they do not know how or want to deal with it, so they are dragging through life only to do what is necessary.

Continuing on, the second stanza deals with more than just the people drudging through life; they are now making their depression and despair against the situation known. These feelings encompass every person; “Every man… every Infant… every voice” (5-7). It is not based on class. Everybody is suffering as a result of the social and political changes taking place.

Blake also describes the physical, visual aspects of the more intangible feel of the revolutions. Describing “Every black’ning Church,” one can actually see in his mind’s eye the effect of the Industrial Revolution (10). The actual physical walls of the Church were being affected, not just the emotions of the people. The revolution also meant that more soldiers were needed, and London’s youth were being used to fight. The saddening image of their sighs being portrayed as “blood down Palace walls” shows how they were going to fight, to die (12).

The final stanza also talks about how affected children were as a result of the revolution. These children and infants were not growing up in a healthy atmosphere, and the “hearse” Blake speaks of signifies how the youth were surely headed to death or at least a despair-filled life in the gloomy London, an idea which he works up to all throughout the poem.

Overall, like all literary works, this poem can be interpreted in many ways. If you consider the time period in which William Blake’s “London” existed, it is quick to judge that this poem supports the idea that the Industrial Revolution signifies the destruction of youth and purity. Even though this revolution positively impacted advances in technology, the physical effects upon those who lived in the environments around the factories were catastrophically negative.