Five boys, nine kidneys, twelve nipples, one direction...

"Double double toil and trouble", memorable lines indeed, from Shakespeare's Macbeth. I was on a grad trip to Australia/New Zealand/Hawaii, and during that trip our group seen Macbeth at the Sydney Opera Theatre. Macbeth is a famous tragedy, in which Macbeth kills his king so that he can that the throne. (on advice of (a) witch(s)

I feel that people get too caght up by the negative aspects during Shakespeare's plays.(Shakespearian language, plot ines, etc) While Macbeth isn't exactly all smiles and laughter, it does warn against the dangers of ambition, the effects guilt has on people, and of the all importancy of balance.(or karma)

The cast of the play had a few modern inpretations (wearing skinny jeans, polos; there was one witch instead of three), everything else aside from that remain true to the play. (dialog and so on) I liked how they varied up the performance with comedic moments; Macbeth took an exaggeratedly slow step then walked normally off stage for example.


As much as I loved the play, I felt that it was a bit... drawn out. There was a huge wind up in killing the king, post death after a little guilt, Macbeth has no problems abusing his authority. Personally I felt that some scenes could've been worked on; such as Macbeth's final fight with Banquo. I felt that more emphasis should've been placed that Banquo was technically "not of woman borne".

Overall I felt that the play was exactly how I imagined it; with little twists from what I was expecting. The play was one of my main highlights of the gradtrip. (others including rolling in a hampster ball and seeing a sheep show.)

A subtle observation

Stareotypes?

Just earlier a few weeks ago, I opened a page in the iTunes store under 'Classical', and I've noticed a simularity in the albums. The majority of the album artworks are of young(ish) people either alone or with their instruments.
Ordinarily I would not have had a problem with that, but I remembered a podcast episode from 'The Age of Pursuation' (a CBC podcast on iTunes, that is about the media; in succinct. It covers some issues in marketing, such as women in the workforce in the 1900's, ageism, and so on).

Ageism is as defined by Wikipedia: "Ageism, or age discrimination is stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice, discrimination, and subordination."

Example: how are old people portrayed in television? We see them typically as derranged, senile, boring, loud, technologically illiterate and well... old. Some examples include: that old guy from Disney's Up (initially), "that crazy grandma in the attic", and so on.

It seems that the mass media prefers young people 18-35-ish to market their products or services. It seems that the only way for an older person to be placed in an advertisement is either in a retirement commercial, or in an ad advertising something relating to famillial matters.

Television commercials asside, how are older people portrayed in movies and in television? Take the classic example in a martial arts movie, where that random old guy knows anything and everything about combat. Or that old lady 'kicks everyones' asses', where as a moment earlier she seemed helpless.

Are these not stareotypical images of people?

I am not endorsing or promoting to cast older people; but wouldn't it be more of an advantage for an older person to play in a movie? They do have more experience with codes and conventions, how to portray one's self and the like. I'm not saying that there aren't talented, young people; it's just that I find it a bit unfair for young(er) people seem to hold the spotlight in the media.

Concerning bias

What is bias? According to "Lord Wikipedia"; it is defined as: "inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Bias can come in many forms."

I find that very fitting. Which leads me to a question: is it possible to be completely unbiased? Can one make judgements without any sort of predisposition?
I don't think that it is possible to be comepletely unbiased. Everyone has their own motives or desires, and it can usually be seen through their actions.

I meant to have some sort of point to this post, but I forgot.... I left this entry too long; I'll get back to you guys...

Concerning the mass media..

There are some Youtube accounts that are made specifically made to mock the mass media and/or pop culture.
I found this video funny:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonlajoie#p/search/0/ijr4rwb2WbE
I am sorry if this video offends anyone. All credit goes to the artist.

This video is a bit coarse.

Evolution of...

      I've noticed somewhat recently that things have a sort of 'Darwinian' approach. This has been brought up in class a few times. Things are going to have to evolve or die out. So, I was thinking... Is our society too  geared on moving on?
I'm sure we've seen this scenario "[insert name here]'s MIRACULOUS COMEBACK!'. This star's miraculous comeback brings me to mind of an analogy. One must ride the wave of fame, or end up being swallowed up along with all the could have beens, the forgotton and the unchanged. Like the never ending waves, one must adapt to each minute current and ripple; or risk toppling off.
I suppose it is understandable that nothing can remain static forever; look at humanity's erratic history. Plagues, wars, diasters, weather anomalies, etc. In order to survive we must adapt to these changes in order to master wherever or whenever we are.
Personally I think that North American culture is too geared on moving. We are carouselling in an endless loop of media, pop culture, cars, sex, drugs and money. I've heard that we reap what we sow, and I believe that we are facing the consequences of rushing forward with little concern of our consequences.
How many times do we ask for a ride in place of walking or an alternative mode of transport? How many times do we leave or throw our garbage? How many resources do we gobble up for modern convienience?
[these questions are obviously generallized, and there are many execptions; only to make a point].

Mix and mingle, or isolate?

Is it important for cultures to protect themselves from outside media infuence?

What a broad question... Personally I think that it is all very circunstantial. Say that a target culture or group was prosperous; ie) wealth, a sizeable population, so an and so forth. I'd say that it is okay for the group(s)/culture(s) to "mix and mingle"

However, say a group/culture is endangered; not many people, poverty, etc. In  that circumstance, I'd say efforts should be placed into perserving, protcting, and rekindling this said group.

My own philosphy is very "live and let live". Ultimately, it is that bunch of people's choice to mix and mingle, or to seclude themselves.

While I generally think that it is beneficial to meet new people, adopt more ideas and values, and the like. However, I think that there should be a sort of 'fail safe'. Something to record or keep track of one's culture or values.

-Simon

List of media(s) I've encountered..

Here's a list of some of the media related things I've encountered in the past two days:

-Diana Krall (jazz musician)
-My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (television show)
-Facebook (does it need explaining?) [if so, it's a website]
-Koji Kondo (composer; for 'The Legend of Zelda 25th Anniversary')
-Nintendo's 3DS (handheld consol)
-Doctor Who (British television show)

These are all I can think of at the moment.