Bobby's A6 at Last

So, yesterday was my birthday so I didn't get around to posting this then. Sorry for the delay. Anyways, on to the analysis.

I wrote, co-directed, edited and performed in Patchwork, a short film adaptation of a scene from Frankenstein. Given the nature of these roles, I have a lot to talk about. The roles in which I expressed the most creative vision were as actor and writer, so I'll discuss those First, the writing.

The initial challenge of adapting this scene from the novel (the scene in which Frankenstein's monster gets angry at him for destroying the monster's female companion) was deciding how much the adaptation should follow the book. I obviously didn't want a verbatim translation of page to screen, but I also didn't want to make the adaptation so loose that the dialogue sounded unfamiliar. The first thing I did to achieve a compromise between these two ideas was write the dialogue in a slightly formal style, while still modernizing it a little bit. I wanted the characters to speak in a semi-poetic manner, as if they were straight out of the novel. Some lines I took straight out of the novel for their poetic beauty (and to establish that it was a faithful adaptation in spirit) but I used them in different ways than in the novel. For instance, I used "beasts will mate, and men will marry" and "I followed you along the shores of the Rhine and the deserts of Scotland..." but I ended the lines differently, choosing to end them with "and I alone will live in wretched solitude?" and "and you're telling me that I came here for nothing?" respectively. I also took a line from a different part of the book, a line spoken by the monster ("...limb from limb, like a lion rends a lamb"), and instead had Frankenstein speak it, in order to establish Frankenstein's villainy in this scene.

Establishing Frankenstein as a villain was my second goal after attaining a style of dialogue. I drastically altered the scene in order to make Frankenstein more villainous. I tried to make him a character that believed he was being courageous in denying and tearing down the monster as viciously as he does in the film. He doesn't believe the monster is human and treats him as such. He's a man with a lust for power and control, and he exercises both of these over the monster. Instead of ending the scene with "Remember, I will be with you on your wedding night" as I did in the first draft (prior to establishing the goal of Frankenstein as villain), I chose to have the monster bid farewell to Victor in a hurt, sympathetic fashion. I used the word "fatherless" in his monologue to emphasize the pain that the monster feels over his relationship (or lack thereof) with his creator.

In performing the role of the monster, I had to understand how he was feeling beneath the lines. That was easy for me, because I wrote them. I wanted the monster to be wounded, vulnerable and angry. I wanted to make it clear that the monster would never kill Frankenstein (his threats seem more pained than passionate; more of a desperate plea). The monster attempts to intimidate him into reversing the damage he caused, but he never tries to hurt his creator. At the end, for instance, Frankenstein attacks the monster but the monster deflects the blow and merely pulls past Frankenstein. I liked this action because, during this scene in the novel, Frankenstein attacks the monster, and the monster simply eludes him, inwardly refusing to damage him. While this is in part because the monster wants Frankenstein live to see himself become a villain, I think that the monster could never kill his father figure. Deep down, he has a compassionate, sympathetic connection with Frankenstein that is clearly depicted in the last scene of the book, in which the monster laments over his creator's corpse. The role of the monster as a deeply sympathetic antagonist fascinated me, and I'm very happy with the movie we made and how it explores him as a character.

PATCHWORK: A Short Film

Well, here it is. A short film based on a scene from Frankenstein. Watch it in HD guys.

Madeline's A6 (Bobby will post the video tonight when he's finished editing it.)

I was Director of Photography, Camera Operator, Gaffer (meaning that I controlled the lighting), and Co-Director for the Frankenstein adaptation short film. My goal for the project was to use the emotional effects of aesthetics to control and twist the audience’s attitudes towards the characters of Frankenstein and the Monster.

Before we start, here are my two beliefs about the effects of aesthetics:

1. We subconsciously connect beauty to goodness. This is because we experience an instinctual and physical rush of appreciation for the beautiful, and this rush is independent of the intellectual parts of our brain. So, unless we get ourselves to intellectually critique that rush by reminding ourselves of the intellectual factors that prevent a beautiful thing from being good, we are left with an overall appreciation for the beautiful.

2. An intangible wall arises that distances us from the ugliness that we see. Because the ugly does not visually appeal to us, we subconsciously separate ourselves from it: we push it away. Similarly to my first belief, this response is instinctual and thus independent of intellectual thought. Unless we intellectually acknowledge this response, it has the power to subconsciously lower our overall opinion of the ugly.

Because I think that light is the most important aspect of aesthetics (meaning that it has the most control over whether something is “beautiful” or “ugly”), I focused on light for this project.

I made Frankenstein (and the visual elements in his shots) attractive so that the audience would be subconsciously drawn to his character and thus make the assumption that he is “good.” I stylized Frankenstein’s establishing shot to instantly attract the audience to his character. Compositionally, I made use of lines that draw our eye in to his face. I did the same with light; I made the light on his face brighter than any other light in the shot, which again draws us in to his face. When we arrive at his face, we see that the light on his face is soft, white, and flattering. This makes us subconsciously feel positively about him. For his close-ups, I continued to use the white Chinese lantern because white, soft light flatters the subject. To make these shots beautiful, I lit the fence in such a way that copies the shape of his head, so that when he leans into the light, he fits snugly in the frame. This attracts us to the shot, and accordingly, to Frankenstein. I used shallow depth of field to make the street behind him turn into a soft, gentle mix of oranges and blacks that emulates a romantic painting. Our eye likes the combination of opposite colors, so the orange background, the teal fence, and the Monster’s orange neck create a color palette that satisfies the eye.

Conversely, I lit the monster as unattractively as possible. On the right side of his face, I used hard, yellow light to harshen the lines of his face and make his skin tone artificially yellow. On the left side of his face, I lit him from the bottom. This is unnatural to us because we are used to seeing light come from above (the sun). The combination of these two light sources makes him look ugly because it creates a shadow between his cheeks and eyes.

To summarize, I started off by making Frankenstein look attractive and the monster unattractive to attract us to the former and distance us from the latter. I wanted to make the audience experience the outlook that the society in Shelly’s Frankenstein had towards the attractive and the ugly: the assumption that the beautiful are good and the ugly are bad.

Next, I skewed these reactions to make the audience question their attitudes towards the characters.

When Frankenstein tells the monster that he is not of his (meaning human) blood, Frankenstein leans forward into the ugly hard, yellow light that lights the Monster. This makes the audience feel slightly disgusted by Frankenstein. Hopefully, feeling disgusted by Frankenstein will make the audience question the validity of this statement because its validity hinges on the Monster being lower than Frankenstein. After he says this, I gradually moved him farther back so that he stepped into unnatural and unattractive light from the bottom. I hoped that making the audience disgusted by Frankenstein would make them question the initial assumption that he is good: that he is of a different blood than the monster.

At the end, I switched the positions of the two characters: I put Frankenstein into the Monster’s light and the Monster into Frankenstein’s to reverse the audience’s reactions toward the two characters and ask them to redefine their assumptions about the goodness/badness of the characters.

When the monster merely pokes Frankenstein, I shot a wide shot that uses shadows to distort this benign poke into looking like a huge attack. No violence actually occurs but I made Frankenstein’s shadow look tiny and the Monster’s look huge to make it seem like the latter is vicious and inhumane and the former is innocent and defenseless. For the closing shot, I made them re-question this assumption by having Frankenstein cast a huge shadow as he exited the shot.

I would like to concede that because this is about the effect of art, I do not expect it to be a logically perfect argument. Talking about the effect of art can never be concrete or exact because it relies on the emotional responses of the audience. When I make art, I do so on the basis of what would best emotionally affect me. It is not correct to assume that my emotional responses equal those of the audience, but doing so is the only option that I have because my emotional responses are all that I know. I have to do what affects me and hope that it affects some other people similarly.

A6

The Heart or the Mind?

Oh fearsome beast of free emotion.

Oh soft human, of rationale thought,

The choice is yours but you may find

It not so clear: To the heart or to the mind?

Oh fearsome hunter, free and wild beast,

How easy to cast away your worries. Are your next feast

And instinct of survival, Natures calling,

The few specters that plague your dreaming?

Oh soft creature, societies slave.

Calculating and contemplating, rationale’s slave.

Do you run the course, a course of your own making,

Heedless of the toll that you may be taking?

Spontaneous, vivid, guided by emotion

Bounding, joyful for naught but of your creation,

Rationale was cast to the side whenever you could,

Pure emotion ruled as with you it should.

Planned, thought out, in control,

Cold and perhaps heedless of a possible toll,

To that which all posses but all most lose,

Is this the way to spend yours, the correct choice to choose?

Reason and logic, the foundations of your world,

To them you are taught, until unfurled

Are their leaves, and their deep roots have hold.

Pure rationale rules, as with you it should?

Oh fearsome beast of free emotion.

Oh soft human, of rationale thought,

The choice is yours but you may find

It not so clear: To the heart or to the mind?

People use both emotion and logic to shape out lives and so they are similar while at the same time being opposites. We have encountered Romanticism and Enlightenment ideas and paradoxes in our readings so I thought I would expand upon those. The main techniques I use are rhetorical questions and the setting up parallels, then breaking them in key places to show significance. This is also emphasized by the constant rhyme scheme that is present in all the stanzas. In my poem I use a repetition of syntax to illustrate a parallel between the symbols of a human and a beast in order to get at the question of how people do/should make decisions...through logic or emotion? I also get at what has separated our race from all of the other species on the plant. The human represents logic and reason and the beast free flowing emotion. The stanzas alternate between the human and the beast (excluding the first and last) until the last stanza, which breaks the pattern, adding significance to that stanza. That stanza is the second in a row about the human. The last line of the stanza is the only place where the rhyme scheme is broken adding a great deal of importance to the rhetorical question at the end of the line. That rhetorical question is parallel, through similar diction, to the last line of the fourth stanza, which is the last stanza about the beast. That line also is a break in a pattern, the pattern of rhetorical questions ending each stanza. That break is of great importance because for the first time I am not asking a question, it is a statement. The first and last stanzas are the same. They are microcosms for the poem. They set up the greater parallel and dichotomy of the poem, logic and emotion, by the parallel syntax of the first two lines of the stanza while the two lines are about completely opposing things.

Meggie's A6

For my creative project, I organized quotes about creation from Pygmalion, Paradise Lost, and Frankenstein in the form of God’s hand touching Adam’s in “The Creation of Adam” from the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michelangelo. I decided to transpose the words in the form of a famous piece of art because, just like the literature itself had to be created by the authors, the original image was created by an artist. Thus, there are multiple layers of creation occurring: First, the creation of the literature by Shaw, Milton, and Shelley. Second, bits of those creations are placed in the likeness of a painting, a creation by Michelangelo. The final product is a creation by me, combining two distinct mediums which each tell stories of creation. In this reflection, I will discuss not only the the context of the books themselves, but also the quotes relating to our journey as writers.
Each hand represents a different aspect of creation. The left hand deals mostly with the initial act of creation, and what comes with it. The first quote is from Higgins in Pygmalion, in which he asks “Would the world ever have been made if its maker had been afraid?” Creations cannot exist in the first place unless the creator has a reason and the drive to create them. Though this is relevant to the book itself, it also relates to our own CORE 111 course. Ed mentioned that many of us wrote on our self-reflections that we were intimidated by how smart the class was, and that perhaps we were afraid to share our thoughts in writing. However, we all eventually overcame “the fear” and learned to be very comfortable with ourselves as writers and our classmates. The next is from Frankenstein, when he finally understands “what the duties of a creator toward his creature” are. He realizes that he should have cared for his creation and raised him instead of just letting him live on his own. Just like Frankenstein, we need to stick with our essays after they’ve been “created” or written, and edit them and help them grow. And obviously as awesome Thematic Option students, we are all “bounteous and benign” creators. Thanks for that description, Paradise Lost!
The right hand covers what happens once the creation begins to “think for itself,” and to what degree the creator is still responsible. The first quote on the right hand is from Frankenstein, and is quite fragmented. However, the point still remains: The “creator... would tear [the thing] to pieces” after it’s been created. In Frankenstein, this quote represents the theme of disappointment in one’s creations, which cropped up quite often in CORE 102 (God disappointed in Adam, Gods disappointed in Odysseus, etc). In terms of our essays, we had to learn to “tear to pieces” even work that we genuinely loved. Ed pushed all our limits by making us question the quality of our creations. In fact, the quality of the essays’ “existence depended on [the] creator,” so the more work we put into our papers, the more we got out. Finally, just like God in Paradise Lost, as creators we all are filled with “invisible glory.” Although the majority of the essays we wrote in the class will probably never be looked at by anyone ever again, we all have improved as writers throughout the course. Even if it was only one great line, paragraph, or essay, or every single one, every person has something to be proud of that they created in this course.
The topic of creation is very important within many of the works themselves, but it must be noted that without the concept of creation, the works that discuss creation would not exist at all. This blog, itself is a creation. During CORE 111, we were all creators. Even though these blog posts seemed silly and occasionally pointless, the fact that created something every week means we left a little bit of ourselves out in the world.

Creative Project Explanation

For our creative project, Ian and I chose to demonstrate the concept of blindness, a reoccurring disability and method towards realization that was prevalent in the material we covered this semester. Oedipus, Tiresias, Gloucester, and Delacey were all victims, yet also beneficiaries of their blindness. I took on the burden of visual darkness to attempt to understand the visually impaired struggles of these literary heroes.

Blindness was a critical theme to this semester as an indication of true realization and personal insight. In Oedipus the King, the most knowledgeable character was represented by the prophet Tiresias. A lack of sight gave him supernatural foresight, gifted by the gods to bring news to able bodied characters that nevertheless failed to see the truth. Ironically, they reject this knowledge in favor of their own rationality and personal observations, trusting in what they have seen and understand rather than a different type of insight. In his moment of catharsis, Oedipus blinds himself in a painful statement of realization. His own sight had deceived him; indeed, his observations had led him through a complacent life riddled with hidden terrors. Blindness served to humble Oedipus and replace his corrupted sight with the purity of blindness. In a similar manner, Gloucester can only see the true nature of his sons after he has been blinded. His opinion had been corrupted with perfect vision, yet blinding had revealed to him the truth once forced to withdraw from sight and gain knowledge from more truthful intuition and evidence. Finally, Delacey (who is already blind when introduced) is to be praised as the only character that can see another side of Frankenstein’s monster. This semester’s reading has taught us that true realization is not necessarily a product of sight and observation; in fact, those factors can lead to misinterpretations and a delaying of the truth for many characters.

In light of this observation, we sought to explore the cognitive benefits of blindness through comical shenanigans encountered with my own visual disabilities. I did in fact gouge my own eyes out for the sake of this project- the blindfold was included merely to spare the viewer from slightly graphic wounds, and as a result I am forced to dictate this write-up as we speak. Anyways, although partially motivated by humor, certain scenes gave an experience similar to the previously mentioned characters and their struggles without sight. My piano proficiency demonstrates the ability of blindness to enhance other senses of touch and sound, and not entirely destroying the skillset of a previously able person. Frisbee, bathroom breaks, walking, and Trimble didn’t work out so well. While the disabilities of these characters weren’t particularly discussed, the humility, patience, and forced creativity brought by lack of sight allowed a shared understanding with the characters we had studied. My analysis of Star Wars was also incorrect, yet we intended to show the possibility of alternative opinions forced by a lack of reliance on sight. Most of all, blindness was difficult- yet that challenge forces the victim to view traditional vision as an unnecessary sense.

While devoid of opportunity for grand realization, such as the nature of Gloucester’s sons or Oedipus’ cursed past, I did notice the need and clear availability of alternative forms of realization. Blindness takes away a sense that is very difficult to replace, severely limiting day to day activities as well as the basic acquisition of knowledge. But, its exclusion forces that person to take more time and think before coming to a conclusion, as information is not as readily available. The rash decisions made by Oedipus or the characters in Frankenstein show the downside to readily available information and the resulting hasty conclusions. My experience demonstrated the potency of blindness as a catalyst to an ultimately more complete form of realization, and essential to the acquisition of truth found throughout the content of this semester.

An Epic of Haikus- Rebecca Southern A6

For our creative project, David and I decided to write an epic poem made up of haikus. Inspired by our blog assignment, which was to write a haiku on Frankenstein, each haiku makes up one stanza of the entire epic. Using the form of a haiku of 5-7-5 syllables inside the form of an epic poet intertwining the works we have read this semester. We used the ideas talked about in our 102 discussion of the literature and nuanced this a bit with Shakespeare’s sonnet and references to Trimble. This epic is a tribute to the many things we have learned in Thematic Option and especially with Ed’s writing class! The greatest challenge was being able to fit what I wanted to say into a certain amount of syllables. This constraint resulted in a lot more trial and error than normal written essay. I can’t imagine what writing in iambic pentameter was like for Shakespeare.

The poem begins by invoking a muse, which parallels the beginning of Homer’s The Odyssey. Just as The Odyssey begins with “O sing to me muse,” we began with “Oh sing to me Ed” (1). We are telling this story through “Ed” just like the Odyssey. The line “many twists and turns” (4) is also an allusion to a quote from The Odyssey. Ed is like a muse he is godlike and the “inspiration for a creative artist,” with David and I as the creative artists of this poem. Next we reference Trimble and Ed and all that we have learned about writing from them, proving that we did learn an immense amount over the course of the semester. We learned not to end a sentence with a preposition, which Trimble said was okay to do, but Ed did not. If there is one thing that was emphasized the most by about writing style, it was to never end a sentence with a preposition. The fifth stanza talks about the one-sentence paragraph that Ed encouraged us to try in our A5 essays.

The next section of haikus is about Margaret Shelley’s Frankenstein. We discuss his obsession with progress and his drive to learn more about science. Frankenstein was so obsessed with his project that “He did not notice” (21) the ugliness of his monster. It was when the monster physically moved that Frankenstein realized what he had done and now unnaturalness of creating life from nothing. Stanza 11 shows the monster’s shift from goodness and a desire to live in harmony with humans to his evilness. He was able to learn about humans and their customs by spying on the De Lacey family. He proved to be a very smart being and was able to teach himself many things such as speech. This gain of knowledge led us to the next section of the epic, which is about Milton’s Paradise Lost. This epic talked a lot about knowledge and the realizations of Adam and Eve. God says that he made Adam and Eve “free to fall,” which we used in our epic as well. One quotation that we emphasized in 102 was to “justify the ways of God to men,” which we also included in our epic, highlighting the main points of the epic.

The next theme of our epic is blindness. Blindness pretty much showed up in everything we did this semester. Eve’s desire and curiosity blinded her from God’s words, Oedipus blinded himself in Oedipus Rex, and Edmund blinded Gloucester in King Lear. The next stanza (16) references the Sphinx. Even though Oedipus solved the Sphinx’s riddle and saved his city, it really led to his final demise. Stanza 17 and 18 references Shakespeare’s Sonnet 24. Stanza 17 is as follows:

Blindness is not bad

Just a matter of perspective

See what I did there?

In Shakespeare’s sonnet 24, he breaks iambic pentameter on the word “perspective.” In this haiku, we broke the 5-7-5 pattern on the word “perspective” also because that line is eight syllables instead of seven. The next stanza alludes to the “cunning” eyes of Shakespeare’s sonnet and how he concludes that the truth can never be found in line “fails to find the truth.”

Next we went into Pygmalion. We quoted Higgins with “simple phonetics” and “the science of speech.” He saw making Eliza as a game but he forgot that she was a real person. Luckily, “Romance in Five Acts” is five syllables. Our epic also discusses the role of creator versus creation. Shaw created his play Pygmalion with many specific stage directions and was very intense about making sure that these were followed exactly in performances. Higgins also created Liza.

Lastly, our epic comes to a close with the last work that we read in Core 102, Arcadia. This play discusses the Law of Thermodynamics and Fermat’s Last Theorem, both worked on my Thomasina. Thomasina worked on this problem, but Hannah, Valentine, and Bernard are able to work on this “detective story” (90) and figure out that Septimus was the hermit in Sidley Park (stanza 29). The epic concludes with “in Arcadia Ego/Written on the tombs” (92). “Et in Arcadia Ego” is a saying that means, “Even in Arcadia, I am here” or “I, too, am in Arcadia.” This is written on tombs and is one of the first symbols in art history.