Hands Held High-Linkin Park
Turn my mike up louder I got to say something
Light weights step to the side when we come in
Feel it in your chest the syllables get pumping
People on the street they panic and start running
Words on loose leaf sheet complete coming
I jump in my mind and summon the rhyme, I'm dumping
Healing the blind I promise to let the sun in
Sick of the dark ways we march to the drum and
Jump when they tell us that they wanna see jumping
F*** that I wanna see some fists pumping
Risk something, take back what's yours
Say something that you know they might attack you for
Cause I'm sick of being treated like I have before
Like it's stupid standing for what I'm standing for
Like this war's really just a different brand of war
Like it doesn't cater the rich and abandon poor
Like they understand you in the back of the jet
When you can't put gas in your tank
These f***ers are laughing their way to the bank and cashing the check
Asking you to have compassion and have some respect
(Bridge)
For a leader so nervous in an obvious way
Stuttering and mumbling for nightly news to replay
And the rest of the world watching at the end of the day
In their living room laughing like "what did he say?"
(Chorus)Amen
Amen
Amen
Amen
Amen
In my living room watching but I am not laughing
Cause when it gets tense I know what might happen
World is cold the bold men take action
Have to react or get blown into fractions
Ten years old it's something to see
Another kid my age drug under a jeep
Taken and bound and found later under a tree
I wonder if he had thought the next one could be me
Do you see the soldiers they're out today
They brush the dust with bullet proof vests away
It's ironic at times like this you pray
But a bomb blew the mosque up yesterday
There's bombs in the buses, bikes, roads
Inside your market, your shops, your clothes
My dad he's got a lot of fear I know
But enough pride inside not to let that show
My brother had a book he would hold with pride
A little red cover with a broken spine
On the back, he hand-wrote a quote inside
When the rich wage war it's the poor who die
(Bridge)
Meanwhile, the leader just talks away
Stuttering and mumbling for nightly news to replay
And the rest of the world watching at the end of the day
both scared and angry like "what did he say?"
(Chorus)
Amen
Amen
Amen
Amen
Amen
With hands held high into a sky so blue
As the ocean opens up to swallow you
With hands held high into a sky so blue
As the ocean opens up to swallow you
With hands held high into a sky so blue
As the ocean opens up to swallow you
With hands held high into a sky so blue
As the ocean opens up to swallow you
With hands held high into a sky so blue
As the ocean opens up to swallow you
With hands held high into a sky so blue
As the ocean opens up to swallow you
No one wants that knock on the door. That knock where soliders are standing in your doorway. But you don't know them, all you see is a flag in their arms, and then the news of your lost loved one comes bearing down upon you, as they say their sorrys and leave the flag in your frozen arms. Sometimes, you get a letter first. Whether a letter or soldiers appear at your doorway, nobody is prepared for the news you're about to recieve. Everyone who was heard this song relates it to war. And i think the whole main idea is about war itself. But sometimes, if you just close your eyes and listen to the lyrics, you'll hear lyrics relating to control and money. That's what i think war comes down to. But it doesn't have to be a big war like Afghanistan to be a war. You can be at war with yourself battling addiction,trying to take control of your life or everyday trying to make ends meet financial for you family, or even battling cancer or illnesses that you need money for, but don't have and have no idea where to find some. When i listen, i hear advice to take control of my life, to take it back, but to realize the unequal balance and favoritism towards rich and poor.
"Risk something, take back what's yours/Say something that you know they might attack you for/Cause I'm sick of being treated like I have before" Verses 6-7. These few lines, say so little but have such a immense meaning to them. It's advice to all those who can't "take back what's" theirs, who are to afraid to make a stand against a greater force. Who are afraid that people will think wrong of them, and laugh at what they stand for. Because it's so easy to just stand there and watch. To stand back and obey. Because, who can get in trouble if they're doing nothing wrong, if they don't start a movement and are just a simple pawn. These lyrics scream out to do something. To not let another kid get bullied, another person killed, another life controlled. "Like this war's really just a different brand of war/Like it doesn't cater the rich and abandon poor" Verse 8. It doesn't have to be a actual WAR between the rich and poor. Everyday is a war between them. The constant struggle for poor families to make ends meet for their children. Some soon-to-be mothers deciding that she can't bring another child into the world right now and having an abortion. Not all rich people are mean and ignorant. Most give much of their money to good causes, and do right and just acts to help the poor however they can, but some...It's a horrible thing when they only thing it comes down to in the world is the amount of money you have. A few years ago, i heard someone say to one of their friends that a close friend of theirs had just died from pancreatic cancer. They then continued on to say that Patrick Swayze also had had pancreatic cancer. The difference was the person's friend was told 2 months left to live, he only survived 2 weeks. Patrick Swayze, survived 20 months, almost 2 years. Now maybe their cases were different. Maybe one person was healthier then the other, but what the person said next, does have some truth to it. They said "the more money you have, the longer you live. Because you can pay to have all these expensive sugeries done, but yet us middle class and poor can't afford those and our survival rate is shot outta the sky." I'll never ever forget what that person said. "On the back, he hand-wrote a quote inside/When the rich wage war it's the poor who die" Verse 20. My favorite verse in the whole song. Because, you don't really thimk about it until you hear it. I never thought about it that way. The constant struggles middle class/poor have to face everyday. Trying to scrape enough money together to feed their families. Agreeing to crazy jobs that at any moment, theire life could end. Because it's so true. If the rich and the poor were ever divided in the world and went to war, who would win, the rich.....or the poor?
Nobody wants to think about the struggles that everybody faces. Who wants to think about hunger and devastation and death? If we don't think about it, does that mean its nonexistent in the world? No. No matter how many times we avoid the hardships other people face, its still reality, its THEIR reality. And when you really think about WHY their reality is the way it is, I'm sureee you can figure out that money has played some part-small or enitrely- in their liestyle.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Demoralization (#4)
When someone demoralizes you, you are belittled, stripped of your morals, taken off your high perch. When someone demoralizes you, it's mostly for revenge. They feel you have hurt them or even indirectly demoralized them some point in the past. In my book, Hannibal by Thomas Harris, Clarice Starling is demoralized by a higher power of authority-Paul Krendler. Paul had once taken a liking to Claice Starling, and tried to pursue her as something more than a friend. Clarice, realizing the come on, and not feeling the same as Krendler, declined him as politely as she could. But Krendler holds Clarice to that day, he holds it over her career and tries to ruin her whenever he possible can. In the past experiences, Krendler has failed, but this time, rendler succeeded and ruined Starling's career, forever. I think Thomas Harris really wanted to accentuate that even in a work force that works to demonstrate justice in life, people can still demoralize you. Sometimes its better to leave it alone and sometimes its better to fight back against it.
Clarice was really demoralized in this book. She was acting out in true justice and tried to prevent inocent people from getting injured but yet somehow, Krendler turned the tables on her and made it seem like what Clarice did was wrong and injustified. After getting Clarice put on patrol watch, Clarice was still functioning better then Krendler wanted her to. He wanted her to regret every saying no to him. Right there, he seems like a sociopath. He wants to be the Alpha, he doesn't get turned down, he turns down others. Krendler went further on in her career to in the end, getting the higher power to suspend her on the team temporarly. As a FBI cop, the FBI works to keep order within the boundaries given. But if the team cannot see what goes on between co-workers, what happpens right under their noses, how can they see clearly. Krendler worked really hard to get Starling suspended for one reason only. She was smarted then he wanted her to be. She was figuring out that Krendler was going around the law to get more money off the book.
I think this is a big important part in life. Especially when people are in work forces. Some people have to be in control and if they're not, they becom nasty and rude and revengeful. They want you to pay double for what you did to them-w.e. you did or "did". They want to demoralize you in front of your other co-workers. Strip you from your morals, make you seem to be heartless and cold. Thomas Harris wanted to show readers how demoralization affects the human mind, it manipulates the mind to think less of yourself, to second guess yourself, to make you weak. And when you're weak, people can break you down easier. They can create a monster out of nothing, just by demoralizing you and taking advantage of your emotions.
Clarice was really demoralized in this book. She was acting out in true justice and tried to prevent inocent people from getting injured but yet somehow, Krendler turned the tables on her and made it seem like what Clarice did was wrong and injustified. After getting Clarice put on patrol watch, Clarice was still functioning better then Krendler wanted her to. He wanted her to regret every saying no to him. Right there, he seems like a sociopath. He wants to be the Alpha, he doesn't get turned down, he turns down others. Krendler went further on in her career to in the end, getting the higher power to suspend her on the team temporarly. As a FBI cop, the FBI works to keep order within the boundaries given. But if the team cannot see what goes on between co-workers, what happpens right under their noses, how can they see clearly. Krendler worked really hard to get Starling suspended for one reason only. She was smarted then he wanted her to be. She was figuring out that Krendler was going around the law to get more money off the book.
I think this is a big important part in life. Especially when people are in work forces. Some people have to be in control and if they're not, they becom nasty and rude and revengeful. They want you to pay double for what you did to them-w.e. you did or "did". They want to demoralize you in front of your other co-workers. Strip you from your morals, make you seem to be heartless and cold. Thomas Harris wanted to show readers how demoralization affects the human mind, it manipulates the mind to think less of yourself, to second guess yourself, to make you weak. And when you're weak, people can break you down easier. They can create a monster out of nothing, just by demoralizing you and taking advantage of your emotions.
"Suicide" or Hard-Core Murder (#3)
http://www.good.is/post/hug-a-hoodie-what-the-u-k-teaches-us-about-making-a-sweatshirt-a-symbol/
In the article, Hug a Hoodie:What the U.K. Teaches Us About Making A Sweatshit A Symbol by Tim Fernholz, the article mentions the heated debate between citizens/strangers about Trayvon Martin's death. Tim mentions in the article how a tv broadcaster and the U.K. blamed the outfit that Trayvon chose that day as the cause of Trayvon's Death. Many other people were outraged by this accusation, calling it racism and injustice to blame articles of clothing as the cause for someone's death. Tim Fernholz brings up these heated topics in the article about hoodies. Not only to people blame the hooodie, they still do blame Zimmerman, but unlike others, people count the hoodie as well. The article tackles mentions different quotes taken from important people in the world. The quotes voice the opinion of the speaker and how diferent people may have different approach to this topic. While some may want Zimmerman locked up in jail, others also want to make a point to the public speaking out against sweatshirts. How in society today, a common article of clothing can now be blamed for the death of a teen.
Tim Fernholz voices his opinion in the article. At the end of the article, the very last line is; "While it’s easier to demonize a few square feet of cotton than face up to endemic racism and poverty, it doesn’t get us any closer to tackling the real problems." Fernholz mentions this meaning how people in the world can blame a sweatshirt and make the sweatshirt seem like the bad one. But while everyone is pointing fingers at the sweatshirt, we as a society will make no progress on trying to find out the real problems and taking care of them. Fernholz makes a big point in his opinion in the very first paragraph of the article. It states; "Profiling is a dangerous game. Trayvon Martin lost his life in February after George Zimmerman decided the unarmed black 17-year-old in a hooded sweatshirt on a rainy night was a threat." Tim states this as the beginning of the article for a reason. He starts out with his opinion. He is speaking out against stereotypes and how people profile others based simply on appearance.
I am personally outraged by the accusations against the hoodie. I will admit, while it HAS been observed that low-income teenagers do where hoodies, I DO NOT believe that certain races only wear hoodies, or many in one race wear hoodies. I believe that any race has the option to wear hoodies, just as much as the others. But although there migh be more races who wear hoodies than others, people shouldn't stereotype them for that reason. I am nor latino nor black and yet i do wear hoodies. My friends, who are culturally diverse, wear hoodies. Does that make us bad? Does that mean that (god forbid) we can be killed because we are wearing hoodies? Will someone be sent to jail because they wore slip on shoes? If we start basing our justice system upon stereotypical remarks about clothing and crime, our justice will be forever inblanced. I think that Trayvon wearing a hoodie had nothing to do with his death. Maybe Trayvon always wore hoodies, maybe he felt most comfortable in the them. But one night, wearing his favorite hoodie, he was shot dead. It was an unlucky night for him, but he did not lose his life based upon articles of clothing. When people base unlawful actions on articles of clothing (like hoodies), you are stereotyping eveyrone who has ever worn that article of clothing. Everyone has to go through a sweatershirt phase in their life. But if they wear hoodies, does that give people the right to go around and shoot them, and then get off free because of what the victim was wearing? "Oh, he was wearing a hoodie. Okay, that makes your point blank range shot perfectly acceptable." I don't believe that's right, do you?
In the article, Hug a Hoodie:What the U.K. Teaches Us About Making A Sweatshit A Symbol by Tim Fernholz, the article mentions the heated debate between citizens/strangers about Trayvon Martin's death. Tim mentions in the article how a tv broadcaster and the U.K. blamed the outfit that Trayvon chose that day as the cause of Trayvon's Death. Many other people were outraged by this accusation, calling it racism and injustice to blame articles of clothing as the cause for someone's death. Tim Fernholz brings up these heated topics in the article about hoodies. Not only to people blame the hooodie, they still do blame Zimmerman, but unlike others, people count the hoodie as well. The article tackles mentions different quotes taken from important people in the world. The quotes voice the opinion of the speaker and how diferent people may have different approach to this topic. While some may want Zimmerman locked up in jail, others also want to make a point to the public speaking out against sweatshirts. How in society today, a common article of clothing can now be blamed for the death of a teen.
Tim Fernholz voices his opinion in the article. At the end of the article, the very last line is; "While it’s easier to demonize a few square feet of cotton than face up to endemic racism and poverty, it doesn’t get us any closer to tackling the real problems." Fernholz mentions this meaning how people in the world can blame a sweatshirt and make the sweatshirt seem like the bad one. But while everyone is pointing fingers at the sweatshirt, we as a society will make no progress on trying to find out the real problems and taking care of them. Fernholz makes a big point in his opinion in the very first paragraph of the article. It states; "Profiling is a dangerous game. Trayvon Martin lost his life in February after George Zimmerman decided the unarmed black 17-year-old in a hooded sweatshirt on a rainy night was a threat." Tim states this as the beginning of the article for a reason. He starts out with his opinion. He is speaking out against stereotypes and how people profile others based simply on appearance.
I am personally outraged by the accusations against the hoodie. I will admit, while it HAS been observed that low-income teenagers do where hoodies, I DO NOT believe that certain races only wear hoodies, or many in one race wear hoodies. I believe that any race has the option to wear hoodies, just as much as the others. But although there migh be more races who wear hoodies than others, people shouldn't stereotype them for that reason. I am nor latino nor black and yet i do wear hoodies. My friends, who are culturally diverse, wear hoodies. Does that make us bad? Does that mean that (god forbid) we can be killed because we are wearing hoodies? Will someone be sent to jail because they wore slip on shoes? If we start basing our justice system upon stereotypical remarks about clothing and crime, our justice will be forever inblanced. I think that Trayvon wearing a hoodie had nothing to do with his death. Maybe Trayvon always wore hoodies, maybe he felt most comfortable in the them. But one night, wearing his favorite hoodie, he was shot dead. It was an unlucky night for him, but he did not lose his life based upon articles of clothing. When people base unlawful actions on articles of clothing (like hoodies), you are stereotyping eveyrone who has ever worn that article of clothing. Everyone has to go through a sweatershirt phase in their life. But if they wear hoodies, does that give people the right to go around and shoot them, and then get off free because of what the victim was wearing? "Oh, he was wearing a hoodie. Okay, that makes your point blank range shot perfectly acceptable." I don't believe that's right, do you?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
From Humans to Life Size Toys (#2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-where-pimps-peddle-their-goods.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof#
I just finished reding an article about prositution, specificall online prositution. The article was written by Nicholas Kristof. The article is about how girls are who are usually picked off by guys on the street, are now being sold practically online as well. It's like an auction and whichever pimp can pay more for the girl, she gets sold to them. Nicholas had spoken privately with a former prostitute who escaped after years of torturous rape and abuse. The article was based upon a website that helped sell these poor oung ladies. It's as if they are just toys a collector doesn't want anymore and sells them.
Nicholas makes his opinion known through out the article. He voices his opinion about sex trafficking by saying, "...but it would help to have public pressure on Village Voice Media to stop carrying prostitution advertising." Also when he says "Isn’t it infinitely more insulting to provide a forum for the sale of women and girls?" He definetly shows that he is against sex trafficking. He thinks that people do not help the situation by accepting ads and posting them or practically giving people the option to sell these young girls/women as objects and sex toys. He figures that if a major webpage stops using ads and promoting online prostitution, maybe the pimps will realize that no one cares about prostitution anymore and stop doing that. " Backpage’s exit from prostitution advertising wouldn’t solve the problem, for smaller Web sites would take on some of the ads. But it would be a setback for pimps to lose a major online marketplace."
I think this is a horrible digusting promblem that teenage girls and even young adults have to face in life. Guys don't always understand what girls really go though. Why they take martial arts or carry mace in the handbags. Because some guys are disgusting pigs. As girls approach their teenage years, they want more freedom. They wanna hang with friends, stay out later, start to dress differently. But, as girls, we always have to be on our toes. A guy can come out of no where and seem friendly and nice but he just in the end, wants to use you as a toy. Girls really have to be careful when it comes to dating or walking the neighborhood. Some men have a mindset that girls are not humans and equal to men but are used to sex and can be sold. As girls become young adults, even though we may have more freedom and a social life, to what risk are we willing to go? Nobody should have to be sold for sex and passed around amongst others as a toy. I am outraged by this, but i do realize that this is what happens when you're pretty, teenage girl. Not everyone can see past your appearance and realize that you're actually not a pretty toy but a human being.
I just finished reding an article about prositution, specificall online prositution. The article was written by Nicholas Kristof. The article is about how girls are who are usually picked off by guys on the street, are now being sold practically online as well. It's like an auction and whichever pimp can pay more for the girl, she gets sold to them. Nicholas had spoken privately with a former prostitute who escaped after years of torturous rape and abuse. The article was based upon a website that helped sell these poor oung ladies. It's as if they are just toys a collector doesn't want anymore and sells them.
Nicholas makes his opinion known through out the article. He voices his opinion about sex trafficking by saying, "...but it would help to have public pressure on Village Voice Media to stop carrying prostitution advertising." Also when he says "Isn’t it infinitely more insulting to provide a forum for the sale of women and girls?" He definetly shows that he is against sex trafficking. He thinks that people do not help the situation by accepting ads and posting them or practically giving people the option to sell these young girls/women as objects and sex toys. He figures that if a major webpage stops using ads and promoting online prostitution, maybe the pimps will realize that no one cares about prostitution anymore and stop doing that. " Backpage’s exit from prostitution advertising wouldn’t solve the problem, for smaller Web sites would take on some of the ads. But it would be a setback for pimps to lose a major online marketplace."
I think this is a horrible digusting promblem that teenage girls and even young adults have to face in life. Guys don't always understand what girls really go though. Why they take martial arts or carry mace in the handbags. Because some guys are disgusting pigs. As girls approach their teenage years, they want more freedom. They wanna hang with friends, stay out later, start to dress differently. But, as girls, we always have to be on our toes. A guy can come out of no where and seem friendly and nice but he just in the end, wants to use you as a toy. Girls really have to be careful when it comes to dating or walking the neighborhood. Some men have a mindset that girls are not humans and equal to men but are used to sex and can be sold. As girls become young adults, even though we may have more freedom and a social life, to what risk are we willing to go? Nobody should have to be sold for sex and passed around amongst others as a toy. I am outraged by this, but i do realize that this is what happens when you're pretty, teenage girl. Not everyone can see past your appearance and realize that you're actually not a pretty toy but a human being.
How Thick are You? (#1)
Some people are actors. They don't get payed for being an actor and aren't hired for gigs, but are still acctors. Except we don't call them actors, we call them fakers; fake people; materialistic. They only see things from the outside. Do you have any friends like that? Any people you see that act different in front of people then when they're with you? SPOILER ALERT! In the book The Splendor Falls, by Rosemary Clement-Moore, Shawn Maddox is the apple of the town's eyes. He is the perfect eenager. He has good looks, charm, leadership, friendlyness; he's just all around the perfect guy. But to Rhys and Sylvie, they see right past his charming wall. As it turns out, in the end, Shawn really wanted to control people and things with magic and he wormed his way into everybody's hearts-especially the adults-by being the golden boy, the angel, the good samaritan for anyone/everyone in town. But how long could Shawn keep up the golden boy attitude before someone caught on? Especially who knows stage presence/real personalities.
Rhys knew all along what Shawn was doing. Shawn had tried to rope him into it to but Rhys refused. And Sylvie almost was roped in, but she realized what she was about to do and stopped herself. Shawn was just trying to more trustworthy and loyal in front of the adults in town. Like in a real highschool, sometimes the best behaved, golden boy of everyone's eyes is really just a guy who wants to get in girls pants but charms their way in. I think the author purposely made Sylvie feel attracted to both male characters not because teh plot thickens-which it did- but because it creates two different examples of people in one character. Rhys was portrayed as the down to earth, quiet/outcaste, good looking modest guy and Shawn was portrayed as the golden boy, the trustkeeper, the leader of the graduating class, good looking and semi or entirely rich kind of guy. Two entirely different opposites which made Sylvie have to choose the kind of life she wanted in the future. She had to choose "one path".
Not always can people see through each others fake personality and see the real them. Some people just want to see the good in everyone, and they get used and hurt. I think the author was trying to say that people aren't always who they say they are. Some people are only skin thick/deep. They don't realize that there are actual feelings and emotions to a person besides just looks. Shawn was Edward in The Splendor Falls. Rhys was the Jacob. Some people do see past all the layers of appearance and look with in. Do you?
Rhys knew all along what Shawn was doing. Shawn had tried to rope him into it to but Rhys refused. And Sylvie almost was roped in, but she realized what she was about to do and stopped herself. Shawn was just trying to more trustworthy and loyal in front of the adults in town. Like in a real highschool, sometimes the best behaved, golden boy of everyone's eyes is really just a guy who wants to get in girls pants but charms their way in. I think the author purposely made Sylvie feel attracted to both male characters not because teh plot thickens-which it did- but because it creates two different examples of people in one character. Rhys was portrayed as the down to earth, quiet/outcaste, good looking modest guy and Shawn was portrayed as the golden boy, the trustkeeper, the leader of the graduating class, good looking and semi or entirely rich kind of guy. Two entirely different opposites which made Sylvie have to choose the kind of life she wanted in the future. She had to choose "one path".
Not always can people see through each others fake personality and see the real them. Some people just want to see the good in everyone, and they get used and hurt. I think the author was trying to say that people aren't always who they say they are. Some people are only skin thick/deep. They don't realize that there are actual feelings and emotions to a person besides just looks. Shawn was Edward in The Splendor Falls. Rhys was the Jacob. Some people do see past all the layers of appearance and look with in. Do you?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Redemption for Yourself
"Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?"
Have you ever done something wrong? Or haven't DONE anything at all when you could have? And when another opportunity comes along similar to the last or something huge comes into your life, did you take it? Did you believe that if you righted this wrong, you make up for the last one you didn't do? Did you think you could ty to redeem youself? SPOILER ALERT! In my book, Silence of the Lambs, by Thomas Harris, Dr. Lecter presumes that Clarice is trying so hard to find "Buffalo Bill" so "the lambs" will finally stop crying. The lambs that Dr. Lecter is implying are the lambs from Clarices' childhood. The relatives she lived with for a short period, slaughtered lambs and horses. She ran away with a horse that was on "death row". She awoke that early morning because the lambs were screaming. They knew that they were being killed. She had heard the lambs through out the rest of her life. She wasn't able to save those lambs.
Clarice did stop Buffalo Bill from killing a seventh girl. Clarice was never able to save those lambs and i think that that has haunted her a little through out her life. Dr. Lecter brought up the lambs i think because he realized that these girls Bill was killing were practically getting slaughtered. She pushed or all the details and answers from him because deep down, those girls were teh sceaming lambs. They were the helpless animals who had their life cut to short. I think that Clarice carried this around and wanted to save these girls not just for justice, but because they were like the lambs. She wanted to redeem herself. To prove she couldn't just walk away from these girls as she had done with the lambs. She wanted to prove to whoever that she did care, she felt their pain as their cries rang out. She understood. And after leaving the innocent lambs alone and dead, she couldn't do that agian. She couldn't just walk away from the case and let someone else handle it. Her pride and dignity was connected to this case on a personal and professional level.
When i think of this sentence, i think about how ignorant people are blind to the need of others. But suddenly, when they need help, they can see perfectly. And they see that they ignored all the need from others, ignoring others entirely. But i don't think this sentence is menat that way here. Thomas Harris wrote that line for Dr. Lecter, who cared dearly about Clarice. To Clarice, the lambs were silenced. She felt as though she had redeemed herself. I think that if your always tying to make up what you missed, you'll miss out on opportunities that are waiting for you to turn around and stop looking back. But i still think that redeeming yourself-to your own standards-is good. A weight will lit off your shoulders. Don't let an opportunity go by for you to "save the lambs."
Have you ever done something wrong? Or haven't DONE anything at all when you could have? And when another opportunity comes along similar to the last or something huge comes into your life, did you take it? Did you believe that if you righted this wrong, you make up for the last one you didn't do? Did you think you could ty to redeem youself? SPOILER ALERT! In my book, Silence of the Lambs, by Thomas Harris, Dr. Lecter presumes that Clarice is trying so hard to find "Buffalo Bill" so "the lambs" will finally stop crying. The lambs that Dr. Lecter is implying are the lambs from Clarices' childhood. The relatives she lived with for a short period, slaughtered lambs and horses. She ran away with a horse that was on "death row". She awoke that early morning because the lambs were screaming. They knew that they were being killed. She had heard the lambs through out the rest of her life. She wasn't able to save those lambs.
Clarice did stop Buffalo Bill from killing a seventh girl. Clarice was never able to save those lambs and i think that that has haunted her a little through out her life. Dr. Lecter brought up the lambs i think because he realized that these girls Bill was killing were practically getting slaughtered. She pushed or all the details and answers from him because deep down, those girls were teh sceaming lambs. They were the helpless animals who had their life cut to short. I think that Clarice carried this around and wanted to save these girls not just for justice, but because they were like the lambs. She wanted to redeem herself. To prove she couldn't just walk away from these girls as she had done with the lambs. She wanted to prove to whoever that she did care, she felt their pain as their cries rang out. She understood. And after leaving the innocent lambs alone and dead, she couldn't do that agian. She couldn't just walk away from the case and let someone else handle it. Her pride and dignity was connected to this case on a personal and professional level.
When i think of this sentence, i think about how ignorant people are blind to the need of others. But suddenly, when they need help, they can see perfectly. And they see that they ignored all the need from others, ignoring others entirely. But i don't think this sentence is menat that way here. Thomas Harris wrote that line for Dr. Lecter, who cared dearly about Clarice. To Clarice, the lambs were silenced. She felt as though she had redeemed herself. I think that if your always tying to make up what you missed, you'll miss out on opportunities that are waiting for you to turn around and stop looking back. But i still think that redeeming yourself-to your own standards-is good. A weight will lit off your shoulders. Don't let an opportunity go by for you to "save the lambs."
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet
After watching the movie, I had a lot to think about. What I found very interesting about the movie was the way Baz Luherman deicded when to play the music. Almost every scene has music. And I think every scene has different music to go along with the cahracters in that scene or the action/suspense during the scene. I think by having Baz Luherman specifically choose where the music plays in (a) or (the) scene(s) was a symbol for the audience to think deeper in that scene.
When I first noticed this, it was in the very beginning. The prologue actually. After the "newscaster" comes and says the prologue, when all the cahracters are being introdueced. The music is very loud and kind of up beaet. Like, the drums and the singing gets louder as the intro goes on. But when it gets to the end, like right before the "title page" William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the music speeds up and it comes to like one note and then it abruptly stops. I think Baz Luherman did that for the prolouge/intro to show that all these characters have power and importance but when it stops at the end saying ...Romeo and Juliet, it's like saying but all these characters and the storyline are in the balance of these two characters, i.e. Romeo and Juliet.
Then i noticed when Tybalt and Mercutio has started to verbally fight on the beach, in the background, quietly you could hear the rhythm of upbeat music. Like, the music was started like the fight but when Romeo pulled up in teh car, the music that had now subdued from a soft rhythm to a just a louding beat stopped and when Tybalt called Romeo, it was just silence. Again I think Baz Luherman purposely stopped the music in that moment and purposely lead the music up higher and then silence to show that if the audience wasn't paying attention before, they should now because this part is important. Romeo didn't see Tybalt until his name was called. They are from two different sides of power who both cannot stand each other. (Romeo tried reaching out to Tybalt but Tybalt refused.)
And then at the very end of the movie, there was no music. In the death scene specifically. When Romeo first arrived at the church, there was. But all while he was talking, there wasn't. All you heard was his voice. And when he took some of the poison, a slow and low song played until he died. Then there was complete silence while Juliet sobbed and looked around for a way to kill herself. And there especially was no music when she picked up the gun and shot herself. The (2nd) climax of the scene held no music. I think Baz Luherman wanted the audience to really pay attention to what was happening in the scene and to clearly hear everything and not everything with music.
When i think about all the things Baz Luherman purposely did in this movie for a ceratin reason i think about the music. I think that whenever Baz Luherman thought a scene or part was very important for the audience NOT to miss, he played music and then stopped it. He wanted to grab the audiences attention and then deliver the climax in silence for meaning of importance to that specific part.
When I first noticed this, it was in the very beginning. The prologue actually. After the "newscaster" comes and says the prologue, when all the cahracters are being introdueced. The music is very loud and kind of up beaet. Like, the drums and the singing gets louder as the intro goes on. But when it gets to the end, like right before the "title page" William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the music speeds up and it comes to like one note and then it abruptly stops. I think Baz Luherman did that for the prolouge/intro to show that all these characters have power and importance but when it stops at the end saying ...Romeo and Juliet, it's like saying but all these characters and the storyline are in the balance of these two characters, i.e. Romeo and Juliet.
Then i noticed when Tybalt and Mercutio has started to verbally fight on the beach, in the background, quietly you could hear the rhythm of upbeat music. Like, the music was started like the fight but when Romeo pulled up in teh car, the music that had now subdued from a soft rhythm to a just a louding beat stopped and when Tybalt called Romeo, it was just silence. Again I think Baz Luherman purposely stopped the music in that moment and purposely lead the music up higher and then silence to show that if the audience wasn't paying attention before, they should now because this part is important. Romeo didn't see Tybalt until his name was called. They are from two different sides of power who both cannot stand each other. (Romeo tried reaching out to Tybalt but Tybalt refused.)
And then at the very end of the movie, there was no music. In the death scene specifically. When Romeo first arrived at the church, there was. But all while he was talking, there wasn't. All you heard was his voice. And when he took some of the poison, a slow and low song played until he died. Then there was complete silence while Juliet sobbed and looked around for a way to kill herself. And there especially was no music when she picked up the gun and shot herself. The (2nd) climax of the scene held no music. I think Baz Luherman wanted the audience to really pay attention to what was happening in the scene and to clearly hear everything and not everything with music.
When i think about all the things Baz Luherman purposely did in this movie for a ceratin reason i think about the music. I think that whenever Baz Luherman thought a scene or part was very important for the audience NOT to miss, he played music and then stopped it. He wanted to grab the audiences attention and then deliver the climax in silence for meaning of importance to that specific part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)