Plays!

Presenting and performing the plays last night was really a blast. Even though I thought I was spending a lot of time outside of class working on this, once we actually got to perform and see the others performances, it was was really fun! Now we juts have to write the paper. I know I had asked you previously about how I should go about it, since there wasn't much to direct with this play, so maybe I shouldn't really compare myself to Zeffirelli for the paper. I know you said to just compare myself to King Claudius in the scene where he delivers the same speech I gave in the play. I was wondering if perhaps I should talk about why the other monologues were chosen as well, and how they were important to our performance, as well as to the play itself. I thought maybe then my paper could have more substance, since it was a kind of directors decision, and something I could write about then. Or if then was unnecessary? I could always focus on just my role if that were preferred. Otherwise I would discuss how Hamlets first speech was important to explain the relationship between him, his mother and his father. Then how Claudius's speech was important to show that he actually had a conscience about what he was doing. Of course Hamlet's "To be or not to be..." speech is important because of what it reveals about Hamlets character. Then finally why the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia was chosen, and what it reveals about their relationship and character. Again, I didn't know if this would be needed or not, but I thought I would ask, as it could make for a better paper.

Macbeth

Class discussion today brought up a few interesting thoughts for me, regarding evil and motivation in Macbeth. Before when we were just considering the actions of Macbeth and Banquo after talking to the witches, it had seemed to me that Macbeth was the "evil" one while the witches were not. As discussed in class, the witches simply make statements (like the acknowledgement of Macbeth's promotion) and then state that he will also someday be king, and that Banquo's son will be as well one day. While they do question the witches motives, and Banquo (I think) does say something about how sometimes people tell half truths (the promotion) to deceive others (the part about being king, I still don't think that necessarily makes them evil, and surely at least not as much as Macbeth. If they are evil their evil comes from toying with Macbeth, giving him (possibly) false hope, and the like. I don't believe that they knew the outcomes of their actions per se. I don't believe they had a plan, like "if we speak with these such words, and phrase it this way, then he'll kill these people." I believe they were just mischievous. But the evil comes from Macbeth's actions upon hearing this news. However, I thought this all got MUCH more complicated once I considered lady Macbeth's role in the play. As Macbeth himself is resolved not to kill the king, and doesn't agree to it until after his wife calls him a coward and not a man. Then she presents him with her plan on how to kill the king, and it is THEN that he agrees to do it, and from this point on is where his character kind of snowballs into doing evil things. I'm not sure what that means for Macbeth being evil now, perhaps he is actually just weak, and lady Macbeth is the one who is actually evil? After all, I did claim previously that Macbeth was evil because of his actions upon hearing the prophecy, and once lady Macbeth hears the prophecy she acts quite evil. Certain this is how she is portrayed in Throne of Blood as well. But I think that discussion is for another blog, where I've really had time to think all these things through, and make up my mind!

Buddhism in Ran

When we were talking about trying to find Buddhism in Kurosawa's Ran on Monday, something was a little confusing to me. In class you had used "detachment" as the main point of Buddhism to take home for our chart. You had us looking for detachment in the movie as well. I was a little confused by this, because I would have thought a better word to try and describe Buddhism would have been "attachment". We had stated in class that the cessation of Dukkha (suffering) is achieved by following the Noble Eight Fold Path, but to embark on the Noble Eight Fold Path one must accept the Three Convictions of the Four Noble Truths. While the last of the three convictions is Bodhi (or Nirvana) the first two are annica and annatta.So annica and anatta are both essential pillars of Buddhism, without the understanding and accepting of which you cannot live the path to enlightenment. Annica then, states that selfishness is the cause of suffering because all things are interrelated and ever changing. This means that nothing exists of itself, but is only an extension of the rest of the universe. Therefore, when we are greedy we are trying to put our self ahead of other parts of the universe, parts of the universe we are a mere extension of. This would mean we are actually trying to put ourselves ahead of other parts of ourselves, essentially. Which is precisely why doing so causes suffering in ourselves rather than in others. Because there is no "other" we are hurting, that "other" is actually an extension of ourselves, and in hurting that we are hurting ourselves, causing us more suffering. This is why greed and selfishness are thought by Buddhists to be contrary to the way in which the universe works, and why one must understand this relationship to begin their path toward enlightenment. Then understanding this concept of annica can lead to the concept of anatta. Anatta states that if everything that exists is annica, changing and interrelated, then we humans are anatta. Anatta then translates literally to "no selves". Anatta then is to understand annica and to grasp that we are not truly individuals, as we are all part of one ever-changing process. Anatta then also states that we can only realize our true potential when we are sharing with, giving to, and receiving from others. To me I understood these essential truths of Buddhism to mean that there can be nothing more important in Buddhism than to understand that we are all related, and to never "detach" ourselves or others from the rest of existence. This is why "detachment" seemed a little confusing to me in class. For example, in the small intro to the bit of the movie we did watch in class on Monday, the introduction spoke differently to me. I didn't see the clouds as detached gods watching over the events below, or the people as detached from the grand scenery behind them. When I saw the enormity of the mountains and scenery, it made me think of how the people in the scene were merely a very small part of this "larger than life" scene behind them, almost as if to allude to the universe and existence itself. It was like the movie was saying, what problems may be big and important to these people are nothing as the people themselves are such a small insignificant part of existence itself (mountains), a thing much larger than them. I also saw the selfishness present in the scene thusly affect existence. Changing from the white and serene view of the clouds prior to the scene, to the suffering unleashed on the universe by the peoples karma (actions). This transition was then represented by another unpleasant view of the clouds following that scene of the movie.