I don't quite remember who said it, but at some point during our 3 day long discussion of King Lear, somebody pointed out that as Edgar recovers from the lowest lows to redemption in the second half of the play, his clothes progressively get nicer. This is a tool Shakespeare uses to not only physically show us Edgar's recovery, but also allow Edgar a way to recover his full dignity in all senses.
That makes me think about a couple of things. First is how the clothes I wear reflect on me, my personality, and status. Obviously, I'm a king compared to a man in rags, but more intricately, does my clothing choice actually reveal something about who I am? If it does, let's hope it's positive. In any case, I know that when I choose clothes it's because I want to give off a certain image, if not fit in with a certain social group. More interesting is that in spite of this different circumstances, vacation or home, football or debate, call for different clothes, meaning we all do shape our appearance around our objectives.
This is interesting to me, and something I'll keep in mind when I observe people, and when I get dressed.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Connection: King Lear and Saturday Night Live
In King Lear there's a Fool. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's King Lear. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's Kent. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's Gloucester. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools.
I wonder which is in need of a straight man?
It seems that Shakespeare can so easily master the combination of comedy and drama, straight men and jokesters. He does this to such an effect that each joke gets that much funnier, even though the deliverer becomes predictable, the style and method are so well-suited and intrinsic to the plot and drama the punch lines are that much sweeter.
Saturday Night Live's take is obviously different. It's a comedy show. Then again, it's not always funny with every attempt. Types of humor can get old, skits can fall flat, and, by the end of the night, it seems like they really have nothing left to say.
Maybe SNL can learn from Shakespeare. The one who is funny every time can help at the one who tries to be funny every time. SNL could benefit from if not having moments of high drama and tragedy then better mixing the flavors, pace, and punch lines to make you feel like your not watching the same bad joke over and over.
SNL might try to do this, and probably does to some extent on a skit to skit basis. But week to week is another story. 5 flavors repeated is just as bad 1 all the time. You know they're trying, but realize how sad the attempts are. Instead, maybe SNL should focus on really developing a few sketches, or angles. Better yet, they just be funny.
I wonder which is in need of a straight man?
It seems that Shakespeare can so easily master the combination of comedy and drama, straight men and jokesters. He does this to such an effect that each joke gets that much funnier, even though the deliverer becomes predictable, the style and method are so well-suited and intrinsic to the plot and drama the punch lines are that much sweeter.
Saturday Night Live's take is obviously different. It's a comedy show. Then again, it's not always funny with every attempt. Types of humor can get old, skits can fall flat, and, by the end of the night, it seems like they really have nothing left to say.
Maybe SNL can learn from Shakespeare. The one who is funny every time can help at the one who tries to be funny every time. SNL could benefit from if not having moments of high drama and tragedy then better mixing the flavors, pace, and punch lines to make you feel like your not watching the same bad joke over and over.
SNL might try to do this, and probably does to some extent on a skit to skit basis. But week to week is another story. 5 flavors repeated is just as bad 1 all the time. You know they're trying, but realize how sad the attempts are. Instead, maybe SNL should focus on really developing a few sketches, or angles. Better yet, they just be funny.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
TED Presentations
It's over. The multi-month first-quarter-closing grand collaboration of all wishing to collaborate has skidded, ground, screeched, and glided to a resounding, sometimes painful, halt.
It was a decent ride, sometimes exciting, other times frustrating, but mostly, for me at least, dull and not engaging. A computer with people I get to see once, for planning and not working, doesn't suffice to entice me into actively and passionately participating in a project so simultaneously distant and almost completely unrelated to areas anything I've ever studied in school gives me background in. A one slide show stand.
Not that parts weren't fun or rewarding. Getting to work with peers both older and younger offered unique challenges, and, more importantly, an opportunity to meet some cool people, as well as understand how the dynamic of my Academy classes and classmates might change over the years. I also really enjoy public speaking. Public speaking under a pressure, a result of some time allocation issues that left me with roughly 70-90 seconds to cover three minutes of material gave me a challenge almost equivalent to the situations I deal with in my debating life, and a chance to meet that challenge at a pace the average person can understand. It was fun.
The system is far from perfect, and a running in-depth study of the issues the presenters cover with members exclusively in our class, or with continued organized collaboration with other classes could still be rewarding, but I feel that as long as the TED projects are oriented towards an end goal of the TED presentations, we won't get the full value of learning about these incredible people and the issues they discuss, or working with our gifted acadamates.
It was a decent ride, sometimes exciting, other times frustrating, but mostly, for me at least, dull and not engaging. A computer with people I get to see once, for planning and not working, doesn't suffice to entice me into actively and passionately participating in a project so simultaneously distant and almost completely unrelated to areas anything I've ever studied in school gives me background in. A one slide show stand.
Not that parts weren't fun or rewarding. Getting to work with peers both older and younger offered unique challenges, and, more importantly, an opportunity to meet some cool people, as well as understand how the dynamic of my Academy classes and classmates might change over the years. I also really enjoy public speaking. Public speaking under a pressure, a result of some time allocation issues that left me with roughly 70-90 seconds to cover three minutes of material gave me a challenge almost equivalent to the situations I deal with in my debating life, and a chance to meet that challenge at a pace the average person can understand. It was fun.
The system is far from perfect, and a running in-depth study of the issues the presenters cover with members exclusively in our class, or with continued organized collaboration with other classes could still be rewarding, but I feel that as long as the TED projects are oriented towards an end goal of the TED presentations, we won't get the full value of learning about these incredible people and the issues they discuss, or working with our gifted acadamates.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)