1/30 Romeo and Juliet 1&2

So I've read this play multiple times, and no matter how many times I read it, it astounds me just how fast Romeo and Juliet fall in love with each other. What never clicked however, is that Romeo is actually super depressed at the beginning of this play. I know it's there in the text, but for some reason, it just was never a thing in my head. I also find it interesting that all this time, I never realized that Juliet actually had a brain and realized they were moving too fast.

I think I literally dismissed any possibility of it because well, the ending where they both decide it's a great idea to kill themselves.

I do think, however that this play is faaaaar better as a performance than as reading material. I saw at least one performance of R&J and it left quite the impression on me. Not because of the plot (because all I retained was guy and girl fall in love on sight, then kill each other three days later. A testament to our species -_-), but because of the performance itself. I remember loving the way the actors moved (there were bars they could climb around on) and the way they held themselves. Mercutio and Tybalt, especially, were phenomenal. Absolutely my favorite actors, which carried over to being my favorite characters. I remember being incredibly depressed that they both died, but damn they did an amazing job. I think this performance is probably the reason why I love seeing plays (each performance is different and unique and I love to see how actors and directors put their own spin on plays that have been done for hundreds of years), and its probably the reason why I love Shakespeare (not because of R&J, mind you - didn't even like them in the play), but because of the actors and performance itself. I owe a lot of thanks to this play and performance. 

2/13 West Side Story

I don't know what to say except that I did not like this movie and it was waaaay too damn long. This is definitely an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet though. All the death. All the dramatics.

All the DANCING! Seriously, give these kids an award for the dancing.
I honestly can't though. just the sheer amount of drama makes my head hurt. The fact that Anita blames Maria for Bernardo's death (if I'm remembering this correctly) is just asinine. Maria is Bernardo's sister. Show some respect and compassion for the girl who just lost family. Yes, love was involved, but it's not like Maria woke up that day and was like, "Hey, you know what? Today seems like a great day to have my brother killed."

I can't.

2/27 The Speckled Band, Final Problem, CAM, and Dancing Men

So my favorite story of this collection is absolutely The Speckled Band. This isn't the first time I've read it, but it's been over a decade since I did that I could only remember that there was a monkey involved (my memory is fantastic sarcasm). There were various things that I liked. For one, raise of hands, who loved the fact that Sherlock straight up bent a piece of iron back into it's perfect position.

Borderline Super Soldier that man is.

But also, what the heck is up with the uncle keeping a monkey and cheetah on his lawn? Who does that?

I would have been seriously surprised if it turned out that it wasn't the uncle who killed the sister. Not only does he have insane anger issues

but practically all his actions are suspicious. He might as well have had a glowing neon sign above his head saying, "It's me! I'm the killer!!!!"

Something else that I just remembered is my heart beating really fast when Sherlock and Watson heard the growling. When I first read it, I thought is was a demon or something (me and my brain, round of applause), but it just turns out to be the monkey riding the cheetah. lolololol

Anyways, 10/10 would read again. Sucks about the wife and husband dying before Sherlock could get to them in Dancing Men. sad face

4/24 Concluding thoughts on Dracula and Vampy things

Well, this was all sorts of what I wasn't expecting. Besides not being set in the country (Transylvania in specific), for most of the novel, Lucy's three suitors aiding in killing Dracula was not lurking in my mind. Also, what the hell? Why did Quincey have to die??? Rude. More importantly, where the hell was Van Helsing getting all of the communion wafers from? The man must have bags up bags that he pulls out of nowhere. Is he like Legolas and constantly having arrows even though, visually, he clearly only has a handful?

Also, am I right in reading that Dracula could turn into a wolf? Is he a mixture of vampire and werewolf? If so, it would make sense as to why he has hairy palms. Otherwise, I can only guess that he's like a spider, and the hairy palms are how he sticks to walls. =_=

On another note, apparently vampires having arithmomania is a thing? You apparently always have a bag of rice on you and if you come across a vampire, you throw rice and they'll be compelled to count the grains, giving you enough time to run away.

Another fun fact, apparently in the Balkans, vampires didn't have any bones and that's how you would identify them, or so I've read. And apparently if a vampire and a human have a child, a dhampir, the child will also be boneless. It's a strange notion, but this got me thinking, it was never mentioned if Dracula and his brides had offspring. Were they unable to because they're undead? I know in Van Helsing, they did have offspring (and lots of them).

If the women are no longer able to have children due to being dead, then logically the male vamps wouldn't be able to as well, so how would vampires have children (for the Balkan mythology)? Would it then be like with Blade and his mother being bitten by a vampire while she was pregnant with him?

It's amazing just how much vampire lore has expanded and been built upon since Dracula, but also very confusing as there are conflicting viewpoints and "facts," although conflicting myths have always been a thing (looking at you Greek mythology).

4/10 Lizzie Bennet Diaries and Fanfics, Oh my~

So, wow...that was a super intense last few episodes of The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. Holy hell, the whole sex tape and a Lydia we've never seen. Just...wow. Petition to keel haul Wickham, because that man is repulsive beast (and not beast in the good way either).

I have to say that I actually love this representation of Lydia, though. In Austen's novel, I hated her. There wasn't a single redeeming quality about her. In the LBD, we can actually see her as the child that Wickham took advantage of and it's not okay in any sense. While I hated what happened to Lydia, I loved that she showed another side of herself and was no longer a flat character. I also loved that she didn't end up with Wickham and that she might actually be able to have a bright future, instead of a miserable one that she no doubt had in the novel.

Also, what the heck was with the super cheesy last couple of episodes? Both Lizzie and Darcy were waaaaaay too lovey dovey and it was unsettling. On the plus side, I agree everyone in the comments section that Darcy is Lizzie's biggest fan.

crying It's freaking perfect lol. And Gigi ships Lizzie and Darcy so hard.

Speaking of Gigi, it seriously hurt the parallel between Gigi and Lydia with that fucking shitfuck Wickham. Just seriously?

 Why must you hurt me this way????

With the fanfiction, the one that stuck out the most was A Most Convenient Mishap. I've read that sort of fanfic before (there are numerous fanfics using that sort of situation), and every time, it's amusing. I honestly thought that it was going to end up as smut or at least a lime, but I guess that's a bit too much if they're trying to keep with the period and that Lizzy hated Darcy. Now she really has a reason to hate him, what with him presuming that she was trying to seduce him. Whop whop, mate. Better luck next time, and good luck getting on her good side now.

3/27 Pride and Prejudice Nasty, Filthy Wickham

So this is the first time I'm reading Pride and Prejudice and strangely enough, I'm rather enjoying it. I had trouble getting into it at the beginning, but after watching the BBC series, things are making more sense. I think the biggest problem I had was that I couldn't tell their tone of voice, and Austen rarely helped with that, so it clicked with the actors performance. I love Elizabeth, and Charlotte is super down to earth, which I appreciate (but hate the fact that she ended up with Mr. Collins because that man is a tool). At first, I severely disliked Darcy, but he grew on me after his personality switch in Pemberly.

It doesn't hurt that in the BBC series, he's played by Colin Firth, who I absolutely adore (and especially loved in Kingsman.

Such deliciousness~!)

Speaking of which, what the hell? That was quite the 180 in what seems like a rather short time. Did what Lizzy say really shock him that much?

But wow, the whole Lydia/ Wickham situation slapped me upside the head. I was not expecting that. I knew Wickahm was sleazy and suspicious, but really bro? And Lydia, what the hell? Does she not have a brain? Or eyes? Or maybe she has eyes and that's the problem because Wickham is some sort of gorgeousness, I guess? Seems nasty. Either way, sucks to suck for both of them because they'll both be miserable. Lydia will because Wickham is a two-face sack of shit with a debt problem and Wickham will be miserable because Lydia is a lot to handle (and I have the distinct feeling she'll have an affair, but then again I can see them both having affairs. Maybe it'll work if they agree to have an open relationship?) Either way, I'm not sorry for either of these characters.

Finally some action!

Not that I'm not liking the plot of Pride and Prejudice, but it is nice to finally see some conflict that is  not created by Mrs. Bennet's neurosis. While I'm disappointed in Lydia, I can't say I'm surprised in the least. All the signs were there in the way she was constantly doting on the military men. Given this new type of conflict I'm much more interested in finishing the novel now, but the more I think about this, the more I have to ask why this makes my interest any different than Mrs. Bennet's. Lydia isn't in any real danger. Sure, Wickaham is an ass and he's probably going to leave this poor girl broken and shamed, but the only thing in danger here is the Bennet's reputation, which has been the case the entire novel. Why do I suddenly feel different? Is it because there is now someone in the novel more dislikable than Darcy? Because Wickham is so nasty, he needs to be punished. Darcy was just dislikable, so there was never going to be a solid solution to that. Wickham's indiscretions require action and timely action at that.

While we're on the topic of Darcy, I'm still not quite understanding why he is the way he is--that is, two-faced. Why is he so rude when he's at Netherfield, but so kind at Pemberly? I would almost understand his rudeness and distrust of the lower class after the incident with Wickham and Georgina, but it does not explain his two completely different personalities. Suddenly after this reading, Darcy is a knight in shining armor?! What happened?! I'm not buying it.

I have no real opinions

This is a fine adaptation. I won’t bore you telling you how much I hate musicals or how the dancing drove me crazy. This was the first time I watched this movie, and I watched it with an open mind. Before I saw this movie, we had a discussion in class about what parts of Romeo and Juliet were essential to keep in an adaptation. I thought all adaptations had to include all characters, and the large majority of the plot line AND I definitely thought both the Romeo and Juliet had to die at the end.

 Their death seemed to be the only resolution possible for the feuding families, or in this case feuding gangs. When eliminating Maria’s death, the ending was much more open ended. Whether you like this or not, it deviated a good bit from the overall take away. This was one of my two issues with West Side Story.

My second issue was there was a clear “side” to be on. As we discussed in class, the feud between the families was essentially over nothing (or Shakespeare decided to leave the reason out on purpose), and because of this, the focus was on the love story. When you make the adaptation a conflict of race, there has to be a right side… aka the ones who are not racist, but I hope I did not have to spell that out. Shakespeare did not include this for a reason, not that I know this reason, but it seems pretty significant. If anyone would like to comment and maybe give me a suggestion as to why he did 

not and why West Side Story did, I would be very interested in reading someone else’s point of view.

As I just typed my two “issues” with West Side Story I realized I don’t have a real issue with these. Romeo and Juliet can be changed in so many ways that’s the whole point of adapting it; I am not nearly well read and pretentious enough to suggest West Side Story is anything but a great rendition. 

By not killing the Juliet the audience has more room for discussion, and by including the racial component the original love story turns into something far more relevant and profound. So, what I am trying to say, is take my opinions with the smallest grain of salt you can find.

Thanks for reading guys!

I Feel Like I Should Have Been On Drugs

From beginning to end, watching West Side Story was a psychedelic roller coaster. For the first five minutes, I actually though the DVD I borrowed may have been so old that it didn't work anymore because it was just lines and changing colors for so long. Obviously, the director's choice of lighting and trippy scene transitions isn't as important to our discussion as the choices he made when it came to adapting Romeo and Juliet. Since we will be discussing a minimum of three things we liked about this adaptation in class(though three was the maximum for me), I will use this post to talk about the things that I did not like.

• I actually felt the need to take a side from the beginning. I think one of the things in Romeo and Juliet that is so important is we don't know why they were fighting, and we don't feel the need to take a side. From the opening scene I very strongly hated the Jets. It wasn't until half way through the movie that I actively hated both gangs. Perhaps taking a side is supposed to be part of the adaption, since Dr. MB mentioned that this movie/musical was pretty revolutionary at the time. Perhaps by taking a side, it drew in the viewer and made them a part of the turf war, but viewing it strictly from a adaptation stand point, I feel like they dropped the ball on this one.
• The authority figure/ Prince Escalus figure was extremely unlikable and also seemed to take a side, rather than being neutral in the conflict. Though Detective Schrank didn't appreciate the gang violence, he definitely seemed to have his prejudices against the Puerto Ricans. It was fairly clear from his first scene, but became even clearer in Doc's shop when he was antagonizing the Sharks. I feel like this was another failed attempt to adapt something key about the play. For there to be any real threat from the authority, I feel like he shouldn't be taking sides.
• Though Maria was engaged to marry Chino, there wasn't the same sense of urgency that there was in the play because of Juliet's engagement to Paris. Maria and Chino's engagement was barely referenced, and he is simply not in the forefront of the action enough to remember he is there (until Bernardo is killed, of course).  Unlike Paris, there is actually something likable about Chino. I cannot place what it is, but he is not the total ass that Paris is.
• I know we were told to look past the dancing and that the older the musical, the more ballet-like the dancing, but it really made it hard for me to be scared or concerned about anybody's actions. For the longest time, I wasn't concerned about anyone getting hurt because they we just pirouetting around each other. I feel that if the choreography was updated, I might actually feel a bit of a sense of concern for these people. The hatred was downplayed because they were doing plies and such.

As it's own entity, I don't hate the movie, but as an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, I definitely see some problems.

What's in a name? Meaningless Labels

The first time that I read Romeo and Juliet, I was a freshman in high school. I hated it, and my teacher hated it just as much. Unfortunately, it was a part of the curriculum, so it had to be taught. I remember my teacher stressing over and over again, the small details about the play that proved that it wasn't a love story, as well as the great comical moments. The most memorable comical scene is actually the opening altercation of the play between Abram, Sampson, and Gregory. I know that this is such a small section of the play (it doesn't even take up an entire scene), but it's importance is obvious simply because of its position at the opening of the play. So, for this post, I'm going to break down the first eight pages of the play and show why everything we possibly need to know about this play is right there.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I came into this assignment greatly distracted by the current political climate. I have said multiple times in the last two weeks that I was going to step away from social media, especially Facebook, because, too often, I was finding myself in frustrating comment exchanges where I was trying my best to remain calm and logical while the people on the other end had decided that they didn't like me from the moment they deemed me a "liberal." As a result, I began reading Romeo and Juliet through a lens of uneducated hatred.

I believe it was Sean that asked in his post, "why are the Montagues and Capulets even fighting?" I think this is an important question, but I think another question that rises from that is, "why do individuals from each of the families decide that they hate other individuals based solely on their name?" We are told in the prologue that the quarrel between the families is an "ancient grudge," so it's a fair assumption that nothing done by anyone living, from either of the families, could have been the cause of the feud (I.Prologue.3). That being said, the hatred portrayed over and over is simply the hatred of a name--a combination of meaningless letters that these characters deem positive or negative.

The opening of act 1 scene 1 introduces us, first, to two fairly unimportant characters, Sampson and Gregory of house Capulet. For no given reason, they begin gossiping about their hatred for the Montagues, and some of the things that they say are quite concerning. The most alarming thing is said by Sampson in regards to the women of the Montague house:

Sampson: 'Tis all one. I will show myself a tyrant.
When I have fought with the men, I will be civil
with the maids; I will cut off their heads.
Gregory: The heads of the maids?
Sampson: Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maiden-
heads. Take it in what sense thou wilt. (I.i.22-27).

While Sampson threatens physical violence to the Montague men, he is threatening rape against the Montague women--all of these threats are based solely on a family name. These threats and words of hatred seem to be very reminiscent of the feelings of animosity that are filling the air between political parties right now. While many have been peaceful, there have been outbursts of violence or threats of violence simply based on ideas or the labels of liberal or conservative. In direct relation to to the above quotation in the play, I have seen rape threats from both sides. Feminists have received rape threats for words that have been perceived to be against men, while conservative women have received rape threats by people who think it will make them more inclined to support some of the "liberal" causes.

Back to Romeo and Juliet, we soon see these simple words evolve into an actual fight in the streets of Verona between multiple members of both families, even the heads of each household. Even the civilians choose sides in the quarrel, for reasons unknown. The entrance of Prince Escalus is a breathe of fresh air in the midst of the hatred. The Prince is level headed, and, to relate him to my political commentary, he might be considered a centrist since he chooses neither side in the feud. While the entire exchange passes quickly, it gives us everything we need to know about the characters in the play. Their feud exists only in theory. They have been taught to hate each other for no reason other than a name, very much like those who hate others based solely on the assignment of a political label. The only admirable characters are those that acknowledge the futility of hatred (I know this is a stretch considering Romeo and Juliet's annoying naiveté, but that is beside the point).

To conclude, I think that the monologue of Prince Escalus is a perfect call to action for everyone in these divided times:

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,
Profaners of this neighbor-stainèd steel--
Will they not here?--What ho! You men, you beasts,
That quench the fire of your pernicious rage
With purple fountains issuing from your veins:
On pain of torture, from those bloody hands
Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground (I.i.83-89).

If I'm going to get political, I think we should take the prince's message to heart: perhaps it is time to drop these meaningless political titles that divide us and actually try to do some good for our country, in the same way Prince Escalus wants the people of Verona to drop the empty feud between the Montagues and the Capulets and actually think of the city as a whole.