What a stark contrast the representation of Lord Northcliffe is in 'Citizen Kane' compared to 'The Real Lord Northcliffe'. Northcliffe in 'Citizen Kane' is violent, cold (at times) and obsessed with his work, which presents a more realistic character that has good and bad aspects within his personality; which is a huge contrast to Owen's glowing account that shows a two dimensional character that only works and travels.
The main allure of the film for me however was the mystery surrounding the name "Rosebud" which is shown at the beginning of the film as Lord Northcliffe's dying words, the meaning of these last words is searched and debated throughout the film. I think that the significance of this word is that it demonstrates his mourning for his childhood bliss, and the sled"Rosebud" represents the last regret that passes his lips; that he could not remain stranded in those days. Another indication is the snow dome he drops, which resembles his snow covered childhood home. Another interpretation could be that his method of producing the news which can be best shown in this quote ""You provide the pictures, we'll provide the war". This could indicate that the interweaving layers of a rose represent the intricate lies or believed truths that were created to match a picture in order to create a story. Martin Baggs agrees that "rosebud" does represent everything that Kane lost, which was replaced with money.
If anyone else has anymore information on the mystery of the "rosebud" please let me know.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
'The Real Lord Northcliffe'
I found this book to be a very interesting insight into Lord Northcliffe's life, it was useful because in the lecture we looked at Northcliffe's achievements and the account looked closely at his characteristics, demeanour and habits.
However these recollections I personally found to be overly biased and complementary , it tended to leave out key facts that would have tainted his memory , for example it mentions his death but fails to mention how he died of syphilis. Which could be considered a less than dignified way to die.
Another disappointing aspect of the book is although it goes into great detail about his personality it only touches slightly on his business ventures, for instance it describes his management of 'The Times' and his conversion of 'The Daily Mail' into a women's paper, but it fails to indulge the reader with details on how the deal was secured, how he heard about the deal and his adjustments to the position. I feel this was a general failure of the whole book , however the lecture cured me of the ignorance the book failed to satisfy.
I am now eagerly awaiting the screening of the film Citizen Kane to do an overall comparison as it will be intriguing to see where these two forms agree and differ. If anyone has any contrasting views or even anything to add I would love to hear what you have to say.
However these recollections I personally found to be overly biased and complementary , it tended to leave out key facts that would have tainted his memory , for example it mentions his death but fails to mention how he died of syphilis. Which could be considered a less than dignified way to die.
Another disappointing aspect of the book is although it goes into great detail about his personality it only touches slightly on his business ventures, for instance it describes his management of 'The Times' and his conversion of 'The Daily Mail' into a women's paper, but it fails to indulge the reader with details on how the deal was secured, how he heard about the deal and his adjustments to the position. I feel this was a general failure of the whole book , however the lecture cured me of the ignorance the book failed to satisfy.
I am now eagerly awaiting the screening of the film Citizen Kane to do an overall comparison as it will be intriguing to see where these two forms agree and differ. If anyone has any contrasting views or even anything to add I would love to hear what you have to say.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Follow up to modernism lecture
Although I was disappointed that we didn't have a screening of James Joyce's Ulysses, I thought the documentary that we watched on Utube about the parts of the brain and its functions was a perfect follow up to the lecture before on Freud. As we looked at the type of physcological problems that the brain itself developed, and then the week after we explored the brain and its functions. It would have been interesting though if the material could have gone a little further, for example we could have looked at examples or cases where these pyscological conditions have caused people to act in extreme ways damaging to themselves or others.
The videos of the self afflicted wounds and people voluntarily being crucified was surprisingly unnerving, however this is not the first time I have seen or heard stuff of this calibre being enacted. At the worst end of the spectrum is the actual practice of sacrifice in India to Kali the Goddess of destruction, which at its worst two hundred years ago a boy would be sacrificed everyday at the temple in Calcutta, and I know this is going off topic slightly but I truly believe that religion is the root of all evil. If u look at the crusades, the genocide in Yugoslavia etc, all of these events are the product of religion.
However I do understand the theory of self mutilation in religion, it helps the sufferer to understand Christ's pain, and grow disciplined from their suffering, however doesn't this clash with the whole idea of self mutilation or acts of impurity against the body being a sin. It seems to me that their are a lot of contradictions within religion.
The videos of the self afflicted wounds and people voluntarily being crucified was surprisingly unnerving, however this is not the first time I have seen or heard stuff of this calibre being enacted. At the worst end of the spectrum is the actual practice of sacrifice in India to Kali the Goddess of destruction, which at its worst two hundred years ago a boy would be sacrificed everyday at the temple in Calcutta, and I know this is going off topic slightly but I truly believe that religion is the root of all evil. If u look at the crusades, the genocide in Yugoslavia etc, all of these events are the product of religion.
However I do understand the theory of self mutilation in religion, it helps the sufferer to understand Christ's pain, and grow disciplined from their suffering, however doesn't this clash with the whole idea of self mutilation or acts of impurity against the body being a sin. It seems to me that their are a lot of contradictions within religion.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
James Joyce's ulysses
Upon reading this text I wondered how it would be linked to a certain theme on our course, but the concept of putting a Ulysses and modernism together is a perfect combination as they complement each other so well. This text's content also displays some of the many modernist themes discussed in the lecture such as physcology.
The style of writing is a perfect example of modernism because at the time it broke the old conventions and transversed into a new style, as it was a new form of writing it didn't conform to usual textual formats such as chapters, and didn't necessarily have a fast pace plot. The content itself can also be considered very modernist as its concern was reflecting everyday life rather than concocting a grand series of events, and some of these events that are described would be considered highly inappropriate to be placed in a work of fiction, therefore its content is modern because it fearlessly and openly discusses taboo issues and breaks the boundaries whilst creating something new at the same time.
Furthermore the lewd references also connect perfectly to Freud, who was mentioned in the lecture as a modernist pioneer, as a lot of his theories connect to sex e.g. the Oedipus complex, penis envy and would have been seen as taboo, it can be inferred that this book connects so well because its lewd content is a perfect example of what Freud was preaching for instance I agree with the point made by Jean Kimball in the article 'James Joyce and the Otto Rank: The Incest Motif in Ulysses' which states that there are incest motifs throughout the book, this clearly connects to the Oedipus complex.
If you would like to read other Ulysses's to compare with James Joyce's Ulysses I recommend reading Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway'.
The style of writing is a perfect example of modernism because at the time it broke the old conventions and transversed into a new style, as it was a new form of writing it didn't conform to usual textual formats such as chapters, and didn't necessarily have a fast pace plot. The content itself can also be considered very modernist as its concern was reflecting everyday life rather than concocting a grand series of events, and some of these events that are described would be considered highly inappropriate to be placed in a work of fiction, therefore its content is modern because it fearlessly and openly discusses taboo issues and breaks the boundaries whilst creating something new at the same time.
Furthermore the lewd references also connect perfectly to Freud, who was mentioned in the lecture as a modernist pioneer, as a lot of his theories connect to sex e.g. the Oedipus complex, penis envy and would have been seen as taboo, it can be inferred that this book connects so well because its lewd content is a perfect example of what Freud was preaching for instance I agree with the point made by Jean Kimball in the article 'James Joyce and the Otto Rank: The Incest Motif in Ulysses' which states that there are incest motifs throughout the book, this clearly connects to the Oedipus complex.
If you would like to read other Ulysses's to compare with James Joyce's Ulysses I recommend reading Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway'.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
David Icke. Prophet or mentally disturbed?
Whilst watching the documentary on David Icke today his persona or people's perception of him seemed to be slightly fractured, it was suggested that he may be an con man/ opportunist, a prophet or insane. However I would also like to suggest that he is someone that is unintentionally breeding anti- Semitic hatred. But before I answer this question I will just recap the theory that we listened to him preaching in the lecture, which is basically that the Illuminati and certain people who are in positions of power and members such as George. W. Bush are reptilian humanoids that control us.
Firstly I would like to look at the ideas that he is a prophet or a con man/opportunist, I would like to explore these two things together because I feel they have the same answer, which is, hope. If David Icke is a con man he preys on the hope of people down on their luck who need someone to blame for the state of the country, or the financial state of their own lives, and he does this by providing an imaginary figure and a powerful elite of people who are wealthy, and who naturally, people will find it easy to resent. It is the same for the prophet figure, he provides and leads people with hope by pointing out a problem and a solution, he also possess the qualities of a prophet for example he is an outcast, mostly disbelieved and unappreciated. However I will discuss this point more later.
As for the claim that he is insane the fact that he preaches some of the ideas he does is evidence enough, as I feel even if you did actually believe some of these things, you would keep quiet to maintain people's image of you.
Finally, is he doing this to breed anti Semitic hate? Well...I personally would not like to believe it, but over the years anti Semitic propaganda has displayed Jews as almost reptilian like as a metaphor I assume to insinuate that they are sly and devious.Even if he is not intentionally indicating at this he has an Neo Nazi anti Semitic following. This I feel particularly worried about as they have obviously heard his theory and interpreted it as an attack against Jews in positions of power, this worries me because it could lead to extremists or militant followers who intend to act out the will of their follower David Icke, which could lead to violent attacks against the Jewish community.
Another question that kept plaguing was why so many people attended his lectures despite the absurdity of his claims. Then it occurred to me that it could be something as simple as the fact that he is giving people someone to blame for all that he sees as injustices in society that offer them contentment, this occurred to me when we were discussing Russia, as I remembered that religion was used to keep the peasants happy "religion is the opium of the masses". Well, his conspiracy theory is working to the same effect, he is keeping people content, by offering answers. However I can't stop asking myself this question: are people really that desperate for answers and someone to lead them?
Firstly I would like to look at the ideas that he is a prophet or a con man/opportunist, I would like to explore these two things together because I feel they have the same answer, which is, hope. If David Icke is a con man he preys on the hope of people down on their luck who need someone to blame for the state of the country, or the financial state of their own lives, and he does this by providing an imaginary figure and a powerful elite of people who are wealthy, and who naturally, people will find it easy to resent. It is the same for the prophet figure, he provides and leads people with hope by pointing out a problem and a solution, he also possess the qualities of a prophet for example he is an outcast, mostly disbelieved and unappreciated. However I will discuss this point more later.
As for the claim that he is insane the fact that he preaches some of the ideas he does is evidence enough, as I feel even if you did actually believe some of these things, you would keep quiet to maintain people's image of you.
Finally, is he doing this to breed anti Semitic hate? Well...I personally would not like to believe it, but over the years anti Semitic propaganda has displayed Jews as almost reptilian like as a metaphor I assume to insinuate that they are sly and devious.Even if he is not intentionally indicating at this he has an Neo Nazi anti Semitic following. This I feel particularly worried about as they have obviously heard his theory and interpreted it as an attack against Jews in positions of power, this worries me because it could lead to extremists or militant followers who intend to act out the will of their follower David Icke, which could lead to violent attacks against the Jewish community.
Another question that kept plaguing was why so many people attended his lectures despite the absurdity of his claims. Then it occurred to me that it could be something as simple as the fact that he is giving people someone to blame for all that he sees as injustices in society that offer them contentment, this occurred to me when we were discussing Russia, as I remembered that religion was used to keep the peasants happy "religion is the opium of the masses". Well, his conspiracy theory is working to the same effect, he is keeping people content, by offering answers. However I can't stop asking myself this question: are people really that desperate for answers and someone to lead them?
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Germinal
New year, same problems. Although a very interesting lecture I found the material very difficult to comprehend in such a fast pace session, which was a problem I had encountered last year.
However I did see a connection between the philosophy and Germinal, which I think isn't particularly subtle. The idea of revolutionary change in Germinal, is represented through a miner's strike which Zola naturally took an interest in because it showed the world had not reached perfection as people were revolting through strikes, its foundation (the workers) were unhappy and were causing society to crumble. Which is what D. Sandy Petrey argues in his article 'The Revolutionary Setting of Germinal' by saying
"Strikes became the primary symbol of socialist revolt. Zola consequently left his study of the commune to La Debacle to incarnate the movement of the proletariat in a strike, a subject whose vast dramatic potential had never before been exploited in a novel".
This I feel connected really well to the Young Hegelians because they preached against Hegel who claimed the world had reached its ultimate perfection, well, surely if people are rebelling against the system that is already in place it cannot be perfect, as a perfect society would please everybody. However this connection may not have been as obvious to others, if not I would be very interested in hearing other impressions. Tell me what you think?
However I did see a connection between the philosophy and Germinal, which I think isn't particularly subtle. The idea of revolutionary change in Germinal, is represented through a miner's strike which Zola naturally took an interest in because it showed the world had not reached perfection as people were revolting through strikes, its foundation (the workers) were unhappy and were causing society to crumble. Which is what D. Sandy Petrey argues in his article 'The Revolutionary Setting of Germinal' by saying
"Strikes became the primary symbol of socialist revolt. Zola consequently left his study of the commune to La Debacle to incarnate the movement of the proletariat in a strike, a subject whose vast dramatic potential had never before been exploited in a novel".
This I feel connected really well to the Young Hegelians because they preached against Hegel who claimed the world had reached its ultimate perfection, well, surely if people are rebelling against the system that is already in place it cannot be perfect, as a perfect society would please everybody. However this connection may not have been as obvious to others, if not I would be very interested in hearing other impressions. Tell me what you think?
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Is it all about money, money, money?
For many years now, I have being saying that when I can vote I do not intend to as politics is completely corrupt; and that the politicians are not really interested in the country's welfare, but merely the welfare of their wallets. Due to the Telegraph's coverage of Mp's spending of the tax payers money I have been proved correct. Now before I begin my criticism I would like to offer praise for the Telegraph, as it was them that started and lead the way for these series of exposes on government spending. It is disgraceful the amount of money spent on idiotic and non essential things, the worst without a doubt being Douglas Hogg's use of government money for work to be conducted on his moat. Is this useful spending of tax payers money? I think not! I also find it ridiculous that these crooked politicians have not been severely disciplined. The question I am asking and one which I believe everyone is questioning is why have they not lost their jobs? I think it is clear that the government need to do something along these lines to regain the public's confidence.
One more question that has also bothered me is, if it hadn't been for Jackie Smith being exposed for wrongly spending tax payers money on adult films, would there have been an investigation into other spending? Is the Jackie Smith scandal to blame?
I was just debating this very subject in an essay a couple of weeks ago, when contemplating, why should we obey the state? I came to the conclusion that we should, however one of the many arguments that divided me slightly was the fact that because the government abuses its power; does it deserve the power and cooperation it has? How can you trust and obey an institution when it does not lead the example?
One more question that has also bothered me is, if it hadn't been for Jackie Smith being exposed for wrongly spending tax payers money on adult films, would there have been an investigation into other spending? Is the Jackie Smith scandal to blame?
I was just debating this very subject in an essay a couple of weeks ago, when contemplating, why should we obey the state? I came to the conclusion that we should, however one of the many arguments that divided me slightly was the fact that because the government abuses its power; does it deserve the power and cooperation it has? How can you trust and obey an institution when it does not lead the example?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)