Blogpost 7

Lord Macduff, the Thane of Fife, is a character in William Shakespeare's Macbeth. Macduff plays a pivotal role in the play: he suspects Macbeth of regicide and eventually kills Macbeth in the final act. Macduff is a quiet man who is respected when he speaks and has loyalty to his country. He flees Scotland in order to assist Malcolm, King Duncan's son and heir, in developing an army to overtake Macbeth. He can be seen as the avenging hero who helps save Scotland from Macbeth's tyranny in the play.


Macduff Characteristics:

• Heroic 
• Noble 
• Avengeful 
• Holy 
• Family-oriented 
• Emotional 

Netflix Shows for Macduff:

Daredevil (Heroic)
A Marvel hero, Matt Murdock / Daredevil, is a blind lawyer-by-day who fights crime at night. Macduff is a hero of Macbeth for the removal of tyrannic Macbeth. Both Daredevil and Macduff in a sense could be seen as crime fighters, which is why Macduff would like this show, because it captures the heroic side of him.


Once Upon a Time (family oriented)
A big part of this show is Snow White and Prince Charming constantly making sacrifices for their family to keep everyone safe. The characters are loving and extremely family oriented, similar to how Macduff was with his wife and son. When Macbeth had them murdered, he wanted time to feel the emotions, emotions of grief and sorrow for the loss of his loved ones.


Revenge (vengeful)
A young woman named Emily Thorne (Emily VanCamp) comes to the Hamptons and rents a beach house (previously her childhood home) next door to the mansion of a wealthy family, the Graysons. Emily is actually Amanda Clarke, whose father was framed by the Graysons for treason when she was a little girl. This idea of revenge applies to Macduff because after Macbeth murdered his wife and son, he sought out revenge on Macbeth.


Reign
This captures a lot of their time frame and talks about King Henry, season two involves catholics vs protestants, which captures the holy side of Macduff, and third season is about finding new footing for the main characters as well as many secret affairs going on, which relates to Macduff when he goes to Scotland to retrieve Malcolm to raise an army, or when Macbeth goes behind everyone including his wife’s back to murder Banquo.

Blogpost 6

1) People who are not “evil” take the first step to being evil when it is out of personal interest. However, it is important to recognize that personal interest is not always a negative thing, personal interest simply just pushes people to take particular action for a specific result. For example (I’m creating an extremely random and broad example), if a man put a gun to your head and said, “Shoot this man or I will kill your family,” most people would shoot the man, out of self interest of still being able to be with their family. Shooting the man could still be considered an act of evil, but so would have been being the cause of your family’s death. Macbeth killed King Duncan out of personal interest, he wanted to be king and this pushed him to commit an evil act. Even Lady Macbeth acted out of personal interest, she wanted Macbeth to be king so she pushed him to devise a plan to kill King Duncan. However consequences are prevalent when people commit evil deeds. In my opinion, it makes people more willing to do it again, people who steal once are more likely to do it again, according to shopliftingprevention.org. Just like how Macbeth jumped on the opportunity to kill Banquo to protect his crown, another evil deed pushed by personal interest. Not only does turning evil make it more common for the individual to commit crimes, but it also can take a toll on a person mentally. Macbeth is a perfect example of this, when Macbeth freaks by saying, “ List'ning their fear I could not say ‘Amen,’ When they did say ‘God bless us!’” Macbeth killed a man who trusted him, which is not an easy thing to do. The consequence is that he is now impure and cannot say Godly terms, which can be argued as an internal thing created by Macbeth’s paranoia or the presence of a devil, which can still change a person for the worse.

2) Shakespeare would agree with the statement, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”The more power one desires the more corrupt actions one must do to attain it. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Macbeth’s craving for power leads him to do terrible deeds that leads to his fall. Shakespeare shows that power corrupts by using Macbeth who corrupts under the thought of have power over others. He becomes corrupt under the thought of becoming king and gaining almost complete control over the people that he rules. Macbeth wants the power badly enough to do horrible deeds, the main being the murder of King Duncan. Lady Macbeth becomes very ambitious and allows herself to become seduced to the idea of becoming Queen. Her ruthlessness urges Macbeth to murder king Duncan by questioning his love for her and his own manhood. In most cases, power tends to corrupt. I think a prime example of this happening in real life could be the rise and fall of Hitler, he had Germany but yet he wanted world domination. If it wasn’t for Hitler’s desire to be the supreme ruler, he would not have attempted to continue expansion of German territory and lost the war.

3) I am more of a believer in chance instead of fate. I am a person who believes that humans have free-will, and although some things do happen at the right time at the right place, or the wrong things, I would not categorize that as fate, I would categorize that as chance, or maybe even luck. I don’t think our lives are predetermined, I think we have as much control over them as we want to. For example, let’s say you are an alcoholic, you can’t blame your alcoholism on your mother if she is an alcoholic, you were the one who took the steps to drink even after knowing of the condition in your family. Fate did not make you an alcoholic, you took the chance by drinking, if you had avoided it completely you would not have put yourself in this situation, but yet you chose not to (keyword CHOSE). Macbeth most definitely had a say in his future after the witches told him he would be king, he did not have to kill King Duncan, that was a choice. Shakespeare never made it evident that some supernatural force overtook his body and made him kill King Duncan. When Macbeth says, “If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly: if the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here,” this shows the free-will of Macbeth. He is fully aware of the wrong-doing of the murder of King Duncan, yet he chooses to do it anyways. He brings to attention the consequences, if the supernatural had overtaken him, he would not have doubted himself.

4) In the year 2016, it is difficult to define manhood without making someone upset about something like gender roles and expectations, but I personally would define manhood by making it someone who provides for his family and sacrifices his own self interests for the sake of the people he loves (this is making it as broad and applicable to all men as possible). In order to distinguish a regular man from a good man, I would relate it to the difference between someone being a friend versus a good friend. A friend would just be someone I associate as someone I could stop and talk to passing in the hallway or seeing them in public, a good friend would be someone who you can go to when needing advisement on a situation or just someone to be there for you, and a good friend wants what is best for you. A man is just someone who exists in passing, like a friend you see in the hallway. A good man is someone the community can look to when in need, and takes it upon himself to see the betterment of everyone around him. Macbeth could only be seen as a good man if you choose to look at him through the perspective of a man trying to make his family (meaning Lady Macbeth) better off by making her Queen. Macbeth screws it up for everyone else though, he did not take action for the betterment of the community, he took action for personal interest.

Blogpost 5

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/63.160/

1: Identify artist, title, date, medium, and size
Reliquary Pendant with Queen Margaret of Sicily Blessed by Bishop Reginald of Bath
Date:1174–77
Culture:British
Medium:Gold
Dimensions:Overall: 1 15/16 x 1 1/4 x 1/4 in. (5 x 3.1 x 0.7 cm)
Classification:Metalwork-Gold
Credit Line:Purchase, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, 1961

2: Stylistic period/culture/context (When – and Where – geographic location of production)
Geography:Made in Canterbury, England
Date:1174–77
With the arrival of the Normans, art and architecture produced in England reflects French influence. The Norman and Plantagenet kings hold French territory during the period, and artists and objects travel between the two countries. Majestic cathedrals are erected from the end of the eleventh century; those at Durham, Canterbury, Ely, Wells, and Lincoln are among the most famous. By the end of the period, English embroideries are so renowned for their refinement that they are known throughout Europe as opus anglicanun.
→ God very prevalent in the lives of the people in England during this time, as evident by the cathedrals

3: Subject/Iconography (What is represented? What is the idea/concept?)
What is the subject? Could it be considered a new treatment of a traditional art theme such as portraiture, landscape, etc.? *This is part of a "little picture" understanding*
The engraved Latin inscription on the back identifies the subject: “Bishop Reginald of Bath hands this over to Queen Margaret of Sicily.”
The inscription on the front lists the relics once contained under a crystal: “Of the blood of Saint Thomas martyr. Of his vestments stained with his blood: of the cloak, the belt, the hood, the shoe, the shirt.”
Picture on pendant: Queen Margaret of Sicily Blessed by Bishop Reginald of Bath
The inscription and image of Reginald and Margaret on the back convey the pendant's original use.

4: Style/technique (How does the artist handle light, form, color, texture, and shape as well as composition? or How the art is arranged or organized?)
How did the formal elements communicate or reinforce the meaning of the work? How does the media and/or technique influence and/or enhance the meaning?
Light: does not really play a role
Color: gold, represents wealth
Texture: smooth except where there is engravings
Shape: square
Composition: gold


how do the elements reinforce the work: gives a simple representation of multiple events and feelings


How does media/technique influence the meaning: Uses a picture surrounded by indirect statements that are meant to be applied to one person



5: Significance/function/purpose (How does the work convey social, political, popular, or religious values? What is the purpose of the work?) *Remember- we need to always think about context!*
The bishop probably presented this pendant to the queen on the occasion of her son’s marriage in 1177 to the daughter of Henry II. The king had instigated the murder of his former friend and chancellor, Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, on December 29, 1170.
What do you think is the meaning of the piece?
I think that this piece intends to call out the king for his murder of Thomas Becket, since the pendant was made in Canterbury, England, and Thomas Becket was the archbishop of Canterbury. What lead me to this was the engraving on the front said, “Of the blood of Saint Thomas martyr. Of his vestments stained with his blood: of the cloak, the belt, the hood, the shoe, the shirt.” The pendant attests to the importance of relics and reliquaries in the political and social commerce of the Middle Ages.


Does the artwork cause you to re- consider these ideas or think about them in new ways?
Yes, I find it interesting that the inscription is not as related to the picture of Queen Margaret of Sicily Blessed by Bishop Reginald of Bath, even though the title of the work describes what is going on in the artist's picture.


Does this work have special relevance or significance to viewers today?
It displays the backstabbing tendencies of kings, the mourning of someone over a friend, and the important role religion played during this time. When it was originally created, it intended to apply to the audience at the time, the audience being King Henry II, as well as him family. Now, it shows historical significance since it shows the bishop calling out the king.


What is the value of this art in today’s society?
Art in today’s society plays a role because it is a form of expression. This is similar to the pendant because it is the way this bishop expressed his emotions about the death of Thomas Beckett. Art can be used to convey an emotion, one that is more challenging to express directly.

Blogpost 4

Writers often highlight the values of a culture or a society by using characters who are alienated from that culture or society because of gender, race, class, or creed. Explain how the character’s alienation reveals the surrounding society’s assumptions and moral values.
In this excerpt of Jane Eyre, Jane is the character Charlotte Bronte uses to display the characteristics of England’s culture around the time period of the book, which is 1847. Jane is seen as an outcast, and because of this, she is forced to be shamed when the judge deems her punishment to be to stand on a stool for half an hour, and for not a single person to speak to her for the remainder of the day. According to the selection, Mr. Brocklehurst accuses Jane of being punishable by saying, “this girl, this child, the native of a Christian land, worse than many a little heathen who says its prayers to Brahma and kneels before Juggernaut--this girl is--a liar!” Jane’s lie however is not clarified. In the excerpt, Jane describes her own alienation when she says, “he promise pledged by Mr. Brocklehurst to apprise Miss Temple and the teachers of my vicious nature. All along I had been dreading the fulfilment of this promise,--I had been looking out daily for the ‘Coming Man,’ whose information respecting my past life and conversation was to brand me as a bad child for ever: now there he was.”
To reveal the moral values of the culture during this time period, the reader has to look at what Mr. Brocklehurst rants about during his visit to the orphanage. When he says, “it ought to be improved to the spiritual edification of the pupils, by encouraging them to evince fortitude under temporary privation. A brief address on those occasions would not be mistimed, wherein a judicious instructor would take the opportunity of referring to the sufferings of the primitive Christians; to the torments of martyrs; to the exhortations of our blessed Lord Himself, calling upon His disciples to take up their cross and follow Him; to His warnings that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God; to His divine consolations, ‘If ye suffer hunger or thirst for My sake, happy are ye.’ Oh, madam, when you put bread and cheese, instead of burnt porridge, into these children's mouths, you may indeed feed their vile bodies, but you little think how you starve their immortal souls!" Although lengthy, this quote reveals a lot. It discusses the devotion the people have to following the path of God during this time, and how serious it was to their everyday lives. This signifies how the people believed that suffering for God was the pathway to eternal life. Anyone who deviates from these paths should be shunned and be made accountable for their actions. That is precisely what Mr. Brocklehurst intended with Jane when she lied. He wanted to punish her for deviating from the Lord and shun her in front of other people. Jane’s alienation highlights the values of the people of her time because of the fact that she is punished for not conforming to them.

Blogpost 3

The print ad features Dennis Quaid (Lamb) on the left and Michael Chiklis (Savino) on the right, with the supporting characters and a glittering retro Vegas sign below. The copy reads: Let the Sin Begin.
Creators: Nicholas Pileggi, Greg Walker
When: Sept 25 2012
Where: CBS
Little Picture: The creators made a visually appealing advertising that grabs the attention of the viewer. This is done by the use of the sparkling Vegas letters, along with the contrasting characters on either side of the advertisement. The man on the left appears to be old fashioned, holding a rifle, accompanied by a cowboy hat and leather jacket, common traits of a typical “wild west” person from history. On the right, features a man wearing all black, with a suit on, holding money. Putting the two side by side displays a separation of cultures and makes it easier for the viewer to see the difference.
Big Picture: The deadly sin showed here is greed. The wad of hundreds in the “gangster’s” hand on the right displays his desire for extreme wealth. In the TV show, his goal is to “take over Vegas.” There is even text on the advertisement that says “let the sin begin.” The creators of the advertisement were attempting to make it obvious that this show would be appealing in an impure way, people could now watch sinful and illegal things they are not allowed to do. The cowboy on the left displays anger (wrath). He is so angry at the gangster on the right that he feels the need to take him down, and with the use of the gun in his picture he is willing to do so quite violently.
Audience: In my opinion, the intended audience is thrill seeking adults, typically ones that belong to the upper middle class. These people have the experience of knowing what it is like to have some spending money, so they can relate even more so to the wealthy aspect of the show unlike someone from the middle or lower classes could. The audience enjoys watching the TV show because it displays a desire of most of them: extreme wealth. The advertisement also depicts that something illegal is probably going on, with the use of the dark colors on and behind the man holding the cash, and the cowboy holding the gun. This appeals to the thrill seekers who would not perform something illegal like this man is about to do, but they can watch it in a make-believe TV show.

Blogpost 2

1. My name is a part of my identity in my opinion.  However, I think more of my identity goes to my last name.  Part of this is because it is what distinguishes me from the countless other Sydneys around the world, and even the large amount of Sydneys found at Millbrook.  My last name has provided me with special opportunities in my life.  Having a father who is high ranking in the military, there has been several occasions where upon another soldier hearing of my last name, I was treated with the utmost kindness and respect.  Although I am not my dad, him being my father and me carrying his last name automatically gave me status, it defined who I am to other soldiers.  A last name defines anyone because for most people it is something that has been passed down countless generations, so it reveals aspects of a historical past, and can be traced back for countless years.  I have never experienced any negativity for my last name, only reputable comments.  When I am married, I intend to give up my last name and replace it with my husband’s.  A lot of women nowadays decide to retain their childhood family name, I do not see a problem with that whatsoever.  I think it is cool they are deciding to continue to associate themselves with the name they were born with.  Besides, the last name of someone does not really affect me, so I support whatever choice someone decides to make.  
2. Being a part of a family to me is important, I love my family the most out of everything, and I am very fortunate to be apart of the Sterling family.  However, each Sterling family member is extremely different.  Although we associate as a family, each family member has different aspects that make them their own individual. I am a different person around my friends than I am around my family.  That gives me two different identities.  The biggest difference for me between the way I treat my parents versus my friends is the level of respect I treat my parents with.  In my household, I am expected to live up to certain expectations and treat my parents with the utmost respect at all times.  As far as being around my friends, I am much more laid back and casual, and much more outgoing.  Both sides of me have helped develop who I am today, and I am thankful that I have the ability to be both people, whether by learning respect and responsibility, or having fun with my friends.

Blogpost 1

Most of My Friends Hate America, Fargo, North Dakota (2012)

http://www.wingyounghuie.com/p970478690/h669adbf9#h669adbf9

2) When first looking at this picture, a lot of different things are automatically noticed, the “Most of my friends hate America,” sign, and the overweight man in the captain America suit, with the hood that covers his nose.  The location of the photo being North Dakota is interesting.  The Dakotas are not something Americans living outside of them hear about, when I think of North or South Dakota, I think of just emptiness.  After this denotative examination, I began to make more connotative observations.  The text on the sign “Most of My Friends Hate America,” once pondered, brings out a lot of observations about the population of the United States.  My generation is known as the “America Hating” generation.  Constantly all over social media, in classroom settings, or day to day conversations people are criticizing the United States, and our overall sense of nationalism is decreasing.  It is almost starting to become “cool” to think America sucks.  Then you have the other perspective, the people who love America, like the man depicted in this picture.  His Captain America suit displays he faces the minority against his friends, and that he loves where he lives, despite living in a place like North Dakota.  His wearing of the Captain America suit almost makes him seem harmless and innocent.  It makes one wonder his personal life, and the people in it.  It makes me wonder why most of his friends hate America, and why he doesn’t.  

3) Huie uses the process of othering by portraying this person as unusual, because he supports America, unlike all his friends.  In the place he lives, it is foreign to have a sense of nationalism, and he clearly is out of place in his Captain America suit.  In HT, almost any social group could be portrayed as “othering.”  The Gilead Reformation could be seen as “othering,” made evident by the Japanese folk that came and toured the area, asking Offred about her life while they were there.  Atwood furthers this idea of a strange society that Offred lives in by Offred’s constant flashbacks to a life we are more familiar with, and one that is more similar to ours.