Acte de Résistance

My personal act of resistance was not the most clever, but my personal version took some cajones. On black friday, when i was at my grandmothers house, which is in conservative territory, i spent about 2-3 hours at the local shopping mall, and by local i mean the largest one that was available, and protested people going shopping on black friday, in order to let people know that they don't have to be pulled into the shopping ploys and marketing scheme like cattle to a slaughterhouse, and that by supporting businesses that use near slave labor, and in some cases real slave labor, to get cheap products, they are only furthering our social debt to humanity. I of course thought about printing off pamphlets, but before printing off huge amounts, i sent out a control group, and the response was resounding, they were all thrown into the garbage and into the street. It was then that i decided that not to hand out any more pamphlets, as they would just add to our environmental crisis, as well as they were difficult to make and cut. I personally felt that i tried hard, and froze my ass off, but it wasn't all that successful. I think i may have jumped in too deep too quickly as i was resisting outside of a very conservative areas shopping center, and i wasn't prepared for what it would take. One thing that i would like to comment on was that i loved the rush i got from informing people of their choices and what is wrong with the status quo, and i would definitely protest again, and hopefully very soon, if anyone knows of any protests, let me know, for what cause, and when i will try to be there.

Plot

I realize how boring my titles are for my blogs, but that is very simple to explain, i am not very original, and i dont want to have to put in that much effort for a title that most people wont get any way, me included. Anyways, the plot development in this play is very smooth, we see the introduction, the rising action of the play, The climax, what a double ontondra for this play( i realize how poorly i spelled that, but i dont care, its the meaning behind the words, not their appearance), the falling action of the play, and the conclusion. It flows very similarly to a play spanning many acts, and the theatrical experience of the play is not deterred by the plot, but enhanced. My only criticism of this is that, like all greek plays, it is meant to span only 24 hours. This pisses me off the most, as it is unreal that lysistrata would have sent out a call to all the women in greece to convene, tell them, they agree, they take the akropolis, and the men hear of this, discuss, agree, and all is well in the end. Personally i beleive that this is total bull shit. its impossible for that to happen so quickly, and all to end well. This impossibility is only enhanced by the times that this play was written. I realize that this was proabably used to highlight the abusrdity of the notion of abstinence bringing peace, but then again, wasnt aristrophanes trying to prove a point. All of this play was very improbable, and while it didt bother me when i was reading it, discussing it made me realize how foolish this play was, and that it was ridiculous to think that all this could be done in one day.

Spectacle(pronounced Speck-tac-le)

In lysistrata, for my creative and required 12-18 minute presentation, i, partnered with joelle wood, was assigned spectacle. I at first thought that this would be the most interesting, and was anticipating working on this, but those feeling eventually subsided, as i learned that it was not going to be nearly as interesting as language. The most notable thing in spectacle is that constant use of the props to h show penises. this really disappointed me, as i was tired of talking about penises in realation to the play, as they lost their humor factor, they had been literally exhausted beyond belief. Of course, in spectacle penises play a very improtant role, a role of differenciation. The props of the penis is used to highlight the differences between the men and the women, of which there are many in this play, in fact this whole play and all of it's themes seem to be centered around the differences of women and men, and how there are manifested in brains vs. brawn, the underestimation of women, the war between the sexes, and make love not war, but i digress. this prop, as well as costume use, to show the differences between men and women are very easily distinguished as the play goes on, if only for the densisty of those fallice props and costumes. I will not go into how they distinguish them and to what extent, that you will have to wait until our presentation.

What does that mean?(it means a penis)

As lysistrata is a sexual play, there are many play on words that are apparent here. These come from the characters lines, actions, reactions, and finally from props, although this will be discussed later. First of all, most of the times that there is a play on words, and you cant really determine what it means, your probably safe in assuming that it means a penis, erect penis, vagina, innocence, or womanhood. These are your go to symbols and hidden meanings. Second, these symbols and meaning are so densly scattered throughout the play, that after some time, i personnally felt at least, that i needed a break from the almost childish nature of the writing. I felt that some of the humor was that of a 6 year old who wrote the plays along these lines... haha poo poo kaka pee pee, penis and vagina, hahahahahahahahaha. I also thought that most of these were funny in the beginning, atleast for about the first 30 of 40 pages, and what was especially funny was trying to discuss these in class without saying anything too vulgar, and thus by trying to expalin it more in depth to avoid embaressment, i ended up bluching beyond recognition. I felt as if this type of humor was forced, and thus lost some of its appeal, atleast to me. Thirdly these references are used to make some of the audience uncomfortable, atleast in our, by comparision, sheltered society. This play was a sexual one, and the fact that there are all these references is used to remind tha audience of this. Overall i though that the plays constant references to erect and flaccide fallices was eventually a little boring and irritatiing, but i appreciate the reasons for this.

Why do the Spartans Talk like that?

Lysistrata i have always wondered why the Spartans talk with such a southern drawl. I personally think that it is quite foolish, but there has to be some major cause or reason that the translator put that drawl in for the modern translation, i doubt that aristrophanes wrote that spartans line with an asterisk and then put, all of these lines will be spoken in a southern drawl, think georgia or alabama in the United States around the time of1990. The main reason that i think the translator who changed the Spartans lines from Greek to english made such a drastic change was to highlight the main differences between the Spartans and the rest of the characters. Their language change was probably used to highlight the spartans in a light that would characterize them the best. Typically people from the south are less educated, but are harder manual laborers. They are stubborn when it comes to challaneges, and have a work ethic and determination that no one can rival. They also, while being stupid, realize the extent of their abilities, and know when they are out of their leage, but as they are stubborn, they still try their best. Most of these things could be applied to the spartans, as they were historically speaking, very stubborn and had a glorious work ethic and a determination that wouldnt exist amongst normal human beings, them being not normal is a compliment here. However they werent stupid, but were infact smart, logical, and very very ahead of their times, but i digress. Finally the language was proably inserted in the Spartans lines to show the geographical barrier between the groups that convened at lysistratas conference. It showed the extent to which people came, and to show that people came from all around. Also it is jsut entertaining to read their lines, but eventually it gets exhausting trying to decipher what the hell they actually mean.

Make love not war

A very important theme in Lysistrata is that of make love not war. We see this played out in the very soul of the entire play, which is that of a abstinence from all sexual encounters put on by the women until the men suceed and decide to end the war. So the more common theme is that of dont make love while a war is on, and make love only once a peace is struck. This theme drives the very heart of the play, and is the reason that Lysistrata has such an interesting, albiet slightly out landish, plot. This theme is also the reason for much of the characters conflict, especially across the sexes. The women and men both want to make love, but the women refuse to do so until the men strick a peace in the athenian war, come home, and then and only then will they be able to ravish thier wives.
The theme of make love not war, i believe, is a novel theme, that if more coherently followed, we wouldnt be in some of the situations that we are currently in. I mean that the idea of a loving world, which would in turn make the world less violent is such a strong notion to adhere to. The idea that something as peaceful and beautiful as love can stop a bullet or make a soldier put down his weapon is a sign that we are not yet dead from the hate that we have learned and spread from living in an intolerent society.

Brains vs. Brawn

A very common theme in this play is that of Brains vs. Brawn. It is very commonyl played out in almost every scene, although this play doesnt have any disticnt scenes. The first one we see is in that of the plan of Lysistrata. She comes up with a plan to solve her war problems that involved her thought and her very critical brain. This is in direct contrast to what she is trying to solve, which is the brute force of the war, which had no thought, but is introduced in the play as a disply of ridiculous brute force, almost like men running at each other with stick and bashing themselves to see who can take the most beating. Also, brains verse brawns is played out in the sexes. The women seem to be smarter and more witty in their responses in contrast to the men, who seem especially simple minded. This is very easily seen in the exchange between the commissioner of saftey and the women, who are caught in an exhcange of verbal blows. The women have a more eloquent way of "ribbing" the comissoner, where as he only seems to be responding very simply to their blows. Finally the trade of between the men and the women are seen in the fight between the two choruses. The men run towards the women with torches and the women charge with water. this is a perfect demonstration of brains vs. Brawn. The men are foolish to think that they can win with fire against water, or they werent thinking at all. The women on the other hand think about what to fight with, and being logical and smart, choose fire to put out the mens weapons. In a contest between brains and brawn, brains will always win, although the best is a combination of the two.

Kloenike

Kloenike is the first character we see besides Lysistrata in the beginning of the book. She is introduced in way that she seems like Lysistrata' assistant or protege. She has a weak character that wants to do the right thing, but afraid of the sacrifices that she will ahve to make along the way. this is seen in that when she is first told/ when she first hears about what the plan is, a total abstinence from sex. When she hears this she immediately wants out of the plot, and is very afraid to join in, but she is eventually swayed into it when everyone agrees. This shows that she is very weak in her character, and follows the majority in order to feels security and safety, and to "fit"in. When she is put on the spot and is forced to take to oath for every one she is stubling over her words, and feels weak in the knees when she is halfway through. This once again shows how she is weak and she cannot handle the stresses that are put on her. She is overall has a character that means to do well, but she is afraid of the work that she will have to put into it. This shown in that while whe wants to help in anyway that she can, she cannot forsee giving up her carnal love. Also the fact that she would rather have a war continue on than give up her nookie shows her weak physical being. However she eventually turns herslef around and does what she needs to to get peace.

Lysistrata

So far into Lysistrata i have gotten a very good characterization of lys. She seems to be a very strong and bold woman who inst afraid of breaking tradition and convention through her actions. She is a very sly person, who is very calculating and very smart, as when she first tells kleonike about her plan, she says that she widdled and shaved her plan down into what is it now. She thought very criticall about her plan for a very long time. She also is a strong woman as she comes up with the plan for an abastinence from sex, and while all the other woman shrink back at the idea and say that the war should go on, she calls them all weak and is able to control her urges for sex in contrast to the other women. she plans and lead all the women into the akropolis and takes the palicade from the men, and doenst allow them in until the end when she has a celbration. Basically she has a very sharp mind in that she can think very critically about what will happens, and plans 3 moves or play in the future. Also she is never seen with her husband, and her husband is never introduced, implying that she doesnt need a woman, and in that day and age where women relied on men, it shows that she is very independant and strong as she can forage and survive by herslef. Finally the fact that her plan works shows her great dedication to her plan, as welll as her brilliance as a leader and planner. She is a strong independant woman who is willing to do what it takes to get what she want done, no matter the odds.

In review

In review, i though that lysistrata was a good play, and although i didnt particularly like it, it was for personal reasons. The play seemed to have some very devoted fans in my class, and i thought that overall the theme and the plot of the play were well executed. The reasons that i didnt like the play was for the forced humor of the penis and genitalia, as well as the sexual innuendos and puns. It all seemed too forced to really get its point across, and i thought that the play could have been much better had they translated it better. I hear that the play is much funnier in its own greek language, and i can only wich that i could read ancient greek.All in all it was a worth while play to read, and i thought that some would like it quite a bit, thus giving me reason to endorse and recommend this play to others.

The Boycott

I went and saw the boycott, a modern adaption of lysistrata stripped down to its idea and bult back up around lisa strata, the first lady who tries to end and reverse the effects of global warming by devising the gaia project, and inspiring everyone to stop having sex, especially her with mr. President, until he signs and endorses the gaia project and thus turns global warming around. i though that the play was pretty good, and it was very funny in parts, but i again got tired of the forced humor, or atleast what seemed forced to me, and the constant references to Lord of the Rings. I thought that the brilliance of the play was in the concept of doing something so radical as to stop having sex in protest of the energy crisis, as well as the more improtant global crisis. I enjoyed that characters in the play, and the code names, such as president blue balls, and thought that it was an overall good play. The use of props and scenery was a nice touch, and the transitions between characters was also well executed. overall the play was an enjoyable one to watch, and i would recomment it to others to watch, for the more important issue that it raises, the fact that we might be, and most certainly are screwed in this global energy crisis, and we have to act now. UN FUCK THE WORLD

Review

After reading the play, talking about it in class, and thinking about it critically by myself i think that this was a good play and i liked it more that Lorca's house of Bernarda Alba, but it still wasnt my favorite thing to read. I think that it was because i sometimes found it hard to get into the book, especially during the first act, and also because the book seemed to lack some originality. This might be because i have seen soap operas, and i read House of Bernarda Alba, in which there were similar like characters. Over all i think that this play did a good job of characterization, and there were alot of symbols and double meanings, which made the book fun to read from a literary standpoint, but i wasnt my favorite read. I would give this book a six or seven out of ten.

Mrs. E and Mr. T got sumin goin on

At the end of Act 4 before Hedda kills herself, Mr. Tesman and Mrs. Elvsted are trying to piece together Lovborgs trascript. They are sucked into the work and are almost in their own little world and they are wrapped up together in it. I believe that this shows that they are soon to be romantically involved. This i think is backed up by the fact that they are piecing the book back together, and they are doing it together. The book was the baby of Elvsted and Lovborg, and since teman and Elvsted are now piecing it back together, they are remaking that baby, and its thier baby. George is now linked to Elvsted, and no matter what happens, they will always have that new baby. So basically, Mr. T and Mrs. E made a baby, and they got something going on

Hedda and Bernarda

After reading this play and House of Bernarda Lorca, i think that Hedda and Bernarda have many things in common. first of all they are both woman who break the rules of what it means to be a woman, and by that i mean they are demanding and controlling, not the delicate flowers they were expected to be. also they both demand power and control from those around them and if they didnt get it they made sure that they got it somehwere else. Also they both have some sort of phallic symbol they are asssociated with, Hedda the pistols, and Bernarda the cane/rod. Finally they both are under the illusion that they have total power, when infact they are both under the influence or a higher power, and not gods, but men. In heddas case there was Brack, and in Bernardas there was the outside influence of men in society. These two characters, while related in their final acts as well. Bernarda still tries to maintain power in her enviroment by silencing her daughters from weeping, and Hedda, while she gives into the subordination, she kills herself in a last attempt at power

Fin

After re reding the final Act, and refreshing my thoughts after i read it for the first time i remebered that i thought the ending was decently executed. I thought that it was a little cliche and unpracticle that that Hedda killed herself, but i think that the story was wrapped up fairly well.
Speaking to the deaths, specifically Heddas, i thought that it was un necessary in terms of reality, but it was very characteristic of Heddas over dramactic and attention getting self. Had the play ended and she wasnt dead i would feel that the play was incomplete, as in the true nature of the her character she would ahve to commit suicide to get the last word, and really take control of something in her life

Suicide by Burlesque dancer

When Lovborg asks Hedda for the gun, it is obvious forshadowing that he is going to kill himself, and when we learn that he was actually killed by Madame diana, i think that he wasnt jsut killed. in fact i think that when he took the pistol to get back his tracript, he knew no matter what he was going to kill himslef, or die in the process. either way he was going to die, and i think that he tried to get killed by some one elses finger pulling the trigger because that way he would be dishonored by the suicide, but would be seen as the victim and thus save his image.

Lovborg and Hedda sittin in a tree, pullin out pistols and shooting each other

My question is based on Eilert Lovborgs appearance in the play. what is the relationship with Lovborg, and Hedda, were they highscholl sweethearts, what happened in the relationship that they pulled guns on each other, or hedda pulled one on him, and why has he come back. was it really to have dinner, or did he know hedda was gonna be there and he just wanted to see her. i think that he secretly knew that hedda was going to be there, and thus he went there just to see her. this also makes sense as he tells her how he still feels, and the times they used to have together, which he must have thought about before as how would he still ahve feelings and say them if he wasnt prepared. i think i just argued that really poorly, but what i am trying to say is that his little speech to Hedda seemed to be prepared and fake, thus enforcing that he knew she was going to be there, and went because of that

Oh Shi*

The middle of the play, and by middle i mean between 2, 3, and 4, is where the meat of the play it. this is where all of the crazy conflicts stat happening , and where the metaphorical shizz hits the fan. I mean, Hedda has something going on with 3 men, and Lovborg's book is actually his baby with Mrs. Elvsted, who ran away from her husband, and Hedda used to threaten to burn her Elvsted's hair, it was all too crazy. this is like some soap opera on crack, i cant handle it. It almost seems like every sopa opera plot has been torn directly out of this play.

I have to say though, i have started to enjoy reading this book. I guess that the first little bit was the bad part, because i ahve been pulled into thie book and i am starting to really look forward to reading this

Brack or Bond

Brack reminds me somewhat of James Bond. i know it sounds ridiculous, but he is wears tailored suits, he is handsome, and he doesnt want relationships, but a close circle of "intimate" friends, and he is trying to set up a friends with benefits type situation with Hedda. Also, just like bond, he ends up seducing or taking control of a woman with power, and she ends up dead in the end. Just think about it, he walks into a woman life, who is in power in that life, and then seduces her, overpowers her, and then she ends up dead. I realize that this is probably influenced by my viewing of Casino Royale earlier today, but i cant help but think about how much sense this makes. A mysterious loner who seduces women tath eventually end up dead.

The greatest video on the planet

Gun Control

I realized with sherlock holmes like instincts that by the end of the book Hedda would shoot herself. I realized this once i had read , at the end of Act one, that hedda plays with guns. this could only mean that she was going to shoot hersled, what else could it mean. What i am trying to say is that Hedda needs a new safer hobby, like crocheting. Also the pistols are a very blatant symbol for her desire for power/power. i mean she play with people, like she plays with guns, and geaorge doesnt want her to play with the pistols, as he doesnt like being pushed around under her influence. Basically, Hedda is out of control, who plays with guns?

Bro...

After re reading the beginning of Hedda Gabler i can honestly say that this was and still is on eof the hardest blogs for me to get into. its was so boring in the beginning and only started picking up when it became like a soap opera in its love triangles. and while im being honest i would like to say that Hedda is a little punk and if my hat was talked about like that i would have said "bro... what the deal bro... what good?" and then asked to play some ultimate in teh quad and throw back some naty ice, maybe buy some birkenstocks

seriously though, i had to imagine george as a meat head bro with all of his "uh" s. I believe after reading this for the first time i remarked as to how horrible this book would have been, as the first act was quite boring.