Hollywood

Joy Marie Prior
Pan’s Labyrinth

Hollywood films has three types of deaths. Starting with civilians. Most civilians are crushed under falling buildings, exploded in crashing cars, or murdered ruthlessly by the villain. Next is the character I call the “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot”. If in the first ten minutes of a Hollywood movie you meet a character with a memorable face and not a memorable name, or if during the movie there is an unexpected selflessly character who befriends the hero they are a “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot.” The percent of “did-not-know-what-to-do-with-character-but-needed-for-the-plot” who die in a film depends on the genera of movie: in an action flick 83%, in a romance film 50%, and in an inspirational picture 98%. Hollywood’s most dramatic level of death is the hero’s death. This death is distinguishable from all the others. There is ridicules slow-motion, music that fogs out all the other sounds, and a sudden flashback of the character running towards a lover. Hollywood does do some variations between theses three; a little more slow-motion here, some louder music there, but there is one cardinal rule Hollywood does not break. Hollywood rarely kills the villain, and if the villain does die he falls off a cliff, loses a dramatic duel, or there is a freak of nature accident. In Pan’s Labyrinth when the revolutionaries shot Captain Vidal on the spot I was shocked, shocked is the wrong word, because I think that I was in awe.
In American Hollywood films when the revolutionaries capture the villain they take him to the people’s court and impression him, but this is not what happened in Pan’s Labyrinth. When Captain Vidal walks out of the labyrinth with his baby son at the end of the movie he is stopped by the revolutionaries. They have just burned his fort to the ground and have taken control. Captain Vidal knows that they are going to kill him. He even says, “after you kill me tell my son what time I died.” The people did not even bat an eyelash, and then they kill the Captain. Shock is not the right word, but I think that unexpected fits how I felt better. There seems to be this sugar coated concept of death in Hollywood films, but Pan’s Labyrinth did not try and cover up the captain’s death. I felt like they did not simply have justification to kill the captain, but that they killed him justly. Like I mentioned above the Captain expected them to kill him. I would even dare to claim that the Captain thought he deserved death. His death was quick and instant; there was no slow-motion or dramatic music, because remember that is saved for the hero.
The hero’s death in Pan’s Labyrinth is similar to a Hollywood death. When Ofelia died she was bathed in a stream of moonlight, and just like any good old Hollywood death there was music, and slow-motion. I wondered if the Mexican director was affected by Hollywood cinema, or if that is what people really feel like when someone dies. The feeling that time slows down, and the deceased deserve something as powerfully tender as music to take them into the next life. I have never had anyone exceptionally close to me die before, and so I don’t exactly know what that feeling is like. While watching the Pan’s Labyrinth and particularly Ofelia’s death I realized how much of the movie I understood; I did not understand a lot linguistically, but I understood the emotion behind Ofelia’s death. The fact that I could understand Ofelia’s death was not shocking to me, but comforting. It made me realize that all cultural (well sane cultural) value life, and respect the dead. More significant I recognized that no one needed to tell me when the hero died, because I knew from the emotions expressed that it was the hero’s death.
In Spanish, in English, from a stage in Hollywood, or a scene in Mexico cinema holds to the same standard a hero has a heroic death, and the villain has a pathetic death.

lecture class

After listening to the lecture “To be or not to be,” I realized that there was a time in the history of the world when people did not understand things I learned in a basic eighth grade health class. According to the brief history described in the lecture it has only been in the past two hundred or so years that scientist have been able to identify sperm and eggs. There was a time when people thought what? That conception was magical? Unexplainable? I just cannot imagine living in a world like that. Not because I think that people in the dark ages were idiots, or because I think that I am smarter than they are. Today I feel like a basic knowledge of human reproduction is not simply expected, but assumed.
Thinking about how years ago people did not know about what I would consider the basic human anatomy made me realize that in a few hundred years people could be reading our reports in awe on diabetes and wonder how a society could function without knowing the basics of how diabetes works. The idea that one day questions I have, or even more bizarre, things I just except as unexplainable can be answered through scientific discovery is remarkable to me.
I grew up on a dairy farm, and artificial insemination is the primary method used to help cows conceive. Artificial insemination is something that I understood from a very young age. Embarrassed, I admit before this lecture I had never thought to myself that some were in time someone had to discover how to develop a method of artificial insemination that was effective. It was actually really interesting to learn how something so common to me and something that I have worked with so many times came to be.

Taking off teh Rose-colored-glasses: Selfish Motivation

Joy Prior
Honors Civilization 202- 005
Comparison Paper
Word Count 1,255 words
Taking off the Rose-colored-glasses: Selfish motivation
There comes a point in someone’s life when they have to take off their rose-colored-glasses and admit that no matter how much they “don’t like” something is it can still be true. I have always known that many rulers have selfish motivations, but there were certain things I thought were safe. After I read Machiavelli’s The Prince and More’s Utopia I realized that seemingly selfless actions such as the distribution of wealth, the establishment of laws for the upper class, and religion affiliation can be emplaced by the ruling class so that they can maintain power.
The ruling class controls the distribution of wealth in order to suppress a revolution. Chapter XVI in The Prince explains that a prince should “without injury to himself practice the virtue of liberality so that it may be known (Machiavelli 41).” Machiavelli identifies two sources of money a prince can use: his subjects and those he conquers. The former he should spend frugally but the second he should spend generously. When he distributes his wealth a prince should be most interested in doing so “without injury to himself.” A similar theme is described in Utopia. The ruling class (governor and senate) require criminals to wear gold and silver chains as a symbol of their crimes. This unique punishment does not only distinguishes criminals from law abiding citizens but it keeps the commoners from wondering what the ruling class is doing with its accumulated wealth. Raphael Hythloday recalled that, “if in Utopia gold and silver were kept locked up in some tower, smart fools among the common people might concoct a story that the governor and senate were out to cheat ordinary folk and get some advantage for themselves (More 60).” In this case the ruling class prevented rebellion by distributing the wealth. Both in Utopia and The Prince the ruling class parted with gold, silver, and diamonds in order to protect themselves from an angry populace.
Rulers establish laws for themselves to maintain power over their subjects and not to practice self control. Machiavelli states that being hated by ones subjects is the worst thing a prince can be, because if citizens hate their leader they are less likely to sacrifice their lives, family, or property to defend the kingdom. Fear and hatred are two different things. The first a prince should establish before developing love with his subjects, “because men are a sorry breed,” and love can be “broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp (Machiavelli 44).” Yet, a prince should avoid being perceived as cruel and hated by his subjects “where it enables him to keep his subjects united and obedient (Machiavelli 43).” Conclusively Machiavelli believes that a prince should show mercy to keep his subjects “obedient” to his commands. All a prince has to do to avoid hatred and keep submission is “not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens”, but other issues of mercy, including executions, depend upon the situation (Machiavelli 44). Laws restricting a prince from abusing his subjects property or women are not emplaced simply to establish moral values, but because he wants “obedient” subjects. Utopia describes a society adjacent to the Utopians, the Macarians. In that kingdom a king established a law that limited his own and future king’s wealth that can be kept in the royal treasury. Among other benefits this law creates a king “feared by evil-doers, and just as much beloved by the good” in his kingdom (More 34). The result was that the king was “feared by evil-doers,” but what is evil about expecting a king to distribute his wealth. Just as Machiavelli suggested, this king established a law for himself that restricted his control over the property of his subject, because he did not want “evil-doers” to have reason to question his authority. The fear that his citizens will hate him is enough for a prince to restrict himself from his subjects property and women.
Rulers must take into account that men will honor their God before their government. Machiavelli does not mention that a prince should be afraid of the power God, but of the power of the church. He believes that allowing church authorities to exercise power in a kingdom undermines the authority of the prince. The Prince states that an Ecclesiastical Princedom, kingdoms where the prince is the divine source, is the hardest to obtain but the easiest to maintain (Machiavelli 28). Many religions are based outside of the jurisdiction of one specific kingdom. This causes international disputes, eventually leading even the King of France to “tremble” at the power of the church (Machiavelli 29). A wise prince recognizes the influence of religion on his kingdom; not primarily because of his beliefs but because of his subjects’ beliefs. Utopia views religion in a similar manner to Machiavelli. God is ambiguously defined by the Utopians to such an extent that “in the churches no images of the gods are seen, so that each person may be free to form his own image of God according to his own religion, in any shape he pleases (More 101).” Yet, the religious priest is revered by the citizens to the point that “as the priest in his robes appears… the stillness is so complete that the scene strikes one with awe, as if a divinity were actually present (More 102).” The priest is the highest authoritative figure in Utopia, and he is physically recognized more easily by the people than the divine. More significant he is one of the advisors to the senate and ruling class, and there is nothing “seen or heard in the churches that does not square with all the creeds (More 100).” Just as Machiavelli illustrated, the Utopian ruling class includes religious figures to ensure there is no competition of authority in their society.
The Prince by Machiavelli and Utopia by More exposed to me how the distribution of wealth, moral conduct, and religion affiliation can become a strategy for the ruling class to keep power over their subjects. In the Utopian Kingdom and the ideal princedom described in The Prince the ruling classes feared their subjects enough to part with gold, silver, and diamonds in order to maintain control. A wise prince such as the king in Macarians (a kingdom near the Utopians) avoids being hated by his citizens by restricting himself in how much he uses his citizens’ wealth. The ruling classes included religious figures in their government to ensure there is not a competition for authority in their society. Here I go; I took off my rose colored glasses, and realized that many leaders today and anciently view their citizens’ happiness as a side-effect of protecting themselves. Kingdoms, and even the idealized Utopia have a ruling class afraid of their subjects to the point that they are willing to give up silver and gold, submit themselves to laws, and develop a mock religion. Although “I don’t like” this idea the nice thing about taking off rose-colored-glasses is not everything is one color anymore but unique colors and shades, creating a world that is more intricate and diverse than I could have ever imagined.


















Work Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ed. Stanley Appelbaum and Philip Smith. Trans. N. H. Thomson. Dover:
Dover Publications, 1992.

More, Thomas. Utopia. Ed. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.

Buried

What struck me was the great concern over Moliere’s burial. True his death makes him seems to make Moliere appear to be more like a phoenix than an author or actor, but his burial seems to need to establish his glory. As an active member of the Latter Day Saints church I firmly believe in a life after death. I don’t know if it is because of this belief that I have never studied out burial patterns, but while I listened to how much concern went into Moliere’s burial I realized that there is something more to a burial than simply laying the body to rest. It seemed that if Moliere was not buried in a the church graveyard he was condemned, and if he was buried in the church graveyard there was a chance that he could be saved even to the same level as to the respected Greek and Roman authors. His burial seemed so vital that eventually he was removed from the simple church graveyard and placed in an elaborate tomb. The thing about this is that no one even knows if it is actually Moliere’s body in the tomb. He was buried late at night in a common unmarked grave, and no one could recall his exact burial. Even though it might not be his body in the tomb simply having a monument to Moliere did not satisfy the people. It needed to be a tomb with a body in it, and hopefully Moliere’s body. The hope that his body is at rest in a respected place parallels the hope that his soul is at rest in a respected place. How fitting that the same man who had hundreds hope that he received damnation and others hope that he received exaltation in the next life have many believe that he was buried in a common unmarked grave and others hope he was buried in a elaborate monument.

Homework #1

Joy Marie Prior
14 January 2009
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #1
Question #3
While reading chapter 1 in Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy by Scott Sernau I puzzled over the idea that a society should desire social inequality or equality. It was simple to settle on a society being defined as the way in which a community lives to maintain personal and mutual benefits, but social equality was difficult to define. In this situation I took the perspective that social equality is achieved when all members have valued position and not equal wealth or identical contributions. After considering how parents teach their children and after I thought about organic solidarity I concluded that a society can not function properly if it does not desire equality.
The family structure supports a society that desires equality. Parents want to teach their children skills that will make them equal to themselves. They have a desire for social equality. In Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy Sernau notes that Marx called private property a “great evil” and era prior to private property the primitive communism era. A tribal society in which he idealized the family as the structure of relatively equal parties. I thought that considering how a family functions and progresses would be a good place to consider how a society progresses. The family has existed for thousands of years with a father and mother raising their children to become parents like themselves. Parents want their children to eventually become equal to themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally. In a tribal society survival skills such as hunting, fishing, cooking, and constructing shelter are passed down from one generation to another. Thousands of years later children are still learning from their parents. My parents did not simply send me to college one day for no reason. They want me to become something, and I know that when I have my own children I want them to become something as well. Within relatively twenty years children are physically, mentally, and emotionally adapt to the world that they live in- just as adapted as their parents are. The method of parents teaching their children to become equal to themselves is appears to be the driving base of the family structure. Although, even in later years, children maintain a respect towards their parents and the social distinction between parents and children remains points out that children might not obtain social equality, but the desire to obtain social equality is what helps the family structure continue.
According to the Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy Emile Durkheim page 22 purposed and compared the “division of labor, the way tasks are ever more likely to be divided into the domains of specialists” to the “organic solidarity’. Like the organs of the body, all persons in a society have their own specialized tasks, and each individual needs all the others for survival.” I am still unclear as to what the distinction is between a division of labor society and a organic solidarity. If you could please clarify this for me in class I would be grateful. It sounds like both societies are based on the ideal that each member of society has something to contribute, but the real question is if in either of these society structures each members contribution is viewed equally. I understand the basics that an organic solidarity is structured similar to the human body. For example I would like all ten of my fingers, but if one of them is deformed I will live. In contrast if my heart fails I die. In short all organs have an important contribution, but some organs have a greater significance than others. The thing that bothers me about this ideal is that cancer is a deadly disease that starts from one mutated cell, not even a whole organ, but a single cell. It spreads and kills the entire body. On the other hand if the cancer cell is removed or killed then the person will live, but does simply being able to remove the cell and still living make the cell less valuable than all the other cells. I keep on getting bugged by the notion that one cell, a single cell can not function properly and jeopardize the entire body. Does the person with cancer think that one cell had a less valuable function than all of their other cells? I am not sure, but just thinking about how I would feel. I desire for each of my cells function how they should. The reality that each individual cell needs to function properly so I can live makes me value each individual cell equally.
How the family structure teaches children to become like their parents, and how every individual cell needs to function properly points to the idea that societies should desire for equality. A functioning society does not need to have social equality, but a functioning society desires social equal.

learning

I won’t remember what I learned in college? I am not trying to define anything, but I am pretty sure that I am going to remember what I learned in college. I am not going to remember EVERYTHING. I repeat I am not going to remember everything that I learned in college. Many of the facts that I learned last semester have already left my mind, but there are lots of things that I learned last semester I will never forget. I am sure that most of the things I learned in college will one day become such apart of my life that I would never think to trace them back to learning them from college. For example I can not remember learning how to write the alphabet. Logically I know that I learned how to write my ABCs in elementary school, but that is just me using reason. More importantly being able to write is something that I do so often that I feel as if it is apart of me, something so apart of me that I struggle grasping what my life would be like with out it. This example is transcendental when compared to the other lessons I have learned in life such as how to treat people, how to listen better, and recently in college I have begun to learn about the importance of life long learning. One day I hope to work the lesson of life long learning so much into my life that I struggle imagining my life without it.

the end

I finished. That is right. I am done. I lived through my first semester of College. My mom says that I should start referring to it as a University, but my best friend Kiersta thinks that I should call it an insane asylum. Either way I lived. I have learned a lot: love for reading, Declaration of Independence, Spanish, and how to write a paper with a topic sentence in it. Those are the surface things that I learned. The real things I learned seem much deeper and complicated, but above all I learned how little I know. I have heard people say that the more you know the more you realize how little you know. Well I have got a lot to learn, because my first semester of College/University/Insane asylum taught me that there is a lot for me to learn. Oddly the more I come to accept that I know relatively nothing the more content I am with myself. What is the point in knowing everything? I feel more driven to learn about everything? I don’t want to learn about things like they are items. For example the Declaration of Independence (a hot topic in my history class) is not something that I want to pick up and examine as I would an apple off a tree. Instead the more I realize how little I know and understand the more I want to experience the few things that I do know. As I explored the Declaration of Independence more I realized how complicated it is, and how much I want to be apart of it. Yes, I don’t know much (who really does) but I want to know more, I want to experience more, and that curiosity is something that I never want to lose.