Macbeth Movie Act 1-3 Response

1. What was it like to SEE the acts after READING the acts--how was the experience different?

After reading acts 1-3 in Shakespeare's story Macbeth, I had a picture in my mind where the scene's were being taken place, what the characters looked like, and how they talked. After watching the movie, all of my previous play settings in my mind have been drastically altered. I have to say I was a little disappointed in the movie because after hiring all the phenomenal actors I was expecting to see a setting in the 1050's in castle or an open field. Instead the play was produced like a play and took place on a dark stage with minimal props. This experience was very different from what I had imagined because I was expecting the plays background to change rather than stay the same the whole time. The actors who portrayed the characters did a very fine job. Their accents and their facial expressions really lead me to believe that this was what people in the 1050's spoke like. The actors also used great body language in the movie. In the reading it was sometimes difficult for me to comprehend what the mood was in the play, but with the help of the actors body language I was able to easily tell if their character was in anguish, contentment, or sorrow.

2. Which character were you most intrigued by or surprised by in the movie version? Why?

I was most intrigued by the weird sisters in the movie version. I was intrigued because I was shocked how dark and unpredictable they were. I new that they were rather shadowed, but after seeing the witches being played by professional actresses my opinion on them completely changes. When I first saw the witches I thought the were rather calm, but after their opening soliloquy my opinion quickly changed. The witches were a great opening for the movie because they almost describe how dark the coming acts will be.

3. Which scene was most memorable for you--briefly describe it and explain why you think it was so powerful.

The scene that was most memorable for me was the scene when Banquo was stabbed to death. The reason Macbeth ordered a murder upon Banquo was because he learned that Banquo would father kings. Banquo's son, Fleance, was the only heir of Banquo. If Macbeth were to kill Fleance and not Banquo, then Banquo would assume it was Macbeth because the only other person who knew his fortune was Macbeth. This meant that Macbeth had to order the murder of Fleance and Banquo so that the threat of Fleance would be destroyed and the assumption of Banquo would be destroyed as well. This scene was so powerful because Banquo was Macbeth's best friend and to order the death of your life long friend stirs up much emotion.

4. If you were the director, what would you have done differently with the setting of the play?

As I have already stated I would actually have a set where the actors would act in order to make the play seem more lifelike. I understand that the dark stage would better symbolize Shakespeare's play aspect, but I think to keep the audience more engaged in they should involve modern day technology to paint a nice background. Other than that I think the director did a wonderful job with acts 1-3 so far.

5. If you could re-cast the play in a modern setting, who would you choose to play each of the following characters and why (consider famous actors and actresses):

Macbeth
Lady Macbeth
Banquo
Duncan


For Macbeth I would cast Will Farrell. I know how ridiculous this sounds, but I think if we involved some comedy in the already dark Shakespearean play it could be a tremendous success.

For Lady Macbeth I would cast Emily Watson. Due to the fact that Shakespeare wrote this play in 1600's English, I think an actress with a British accent is what the play needs. Emily Watson can be rather dark in movies and combined with a British accent could amount to a tremendous actress for this movie.

For Banquo I would cast John C. Riley. This pick is already because of the preexisting friendship between him and Will Farrell. This could also could hit home more when Will Farrell orders the murder of his best friend.

For Duncan I would cast Morgan Freeman. Due to the fact that he is old and has a voice that sounds like he has seen much in his life, I think that his traits brought to King Duncan could really portrait the wisdom and generosity that King Duncan has given.

Leadership

Why is leadership necessary?

Leadership is necessary because it is the foundation for success. For example, in our modern world, the United States is lead by a leader, the president. Without a leader the US citizens would be confused because no directions would be given that would allow citizens to best accommodate America. With the lack of a leader comes a reign of chaos. This is why leadership is the foundation for success.

From a follower's perspective, what is the ideal leader?

From a follower's perspective, a leader is someone who is brave, fair, strong, intelligent, and caring. These traits allows the leaders people to be best cared for under the hands of their patriarch or matriarch. The type of leader influences the lives of his/her people drastically. If a tyrant is appointed to office the people will suffer. If a caring, ethical leader is appointed then the people will flourish.

Why might it be hard for leaders to live up to this ideal?

It might be hard for leaders to live up to their followers ideal's because their own ideals for a leader could be different than their people's. This could cause confusion and anger if the leader believed that he should focus on his countries defenses, but his/her people might be more focused on improving water conditions. Leaders sometimes have difficulty living up to these ideals because they may be too engrossed with the power they have attained. Power can cause people to act irrationally and not think what is best for others.

Who are the leaders in your life? (consider the various levels of leadership…include as many as you can)

I have many leaders in my life. My leaders are for different aspects of my life. My sports leader is Tiger Woods because he has been arguably the greatest athlete to walk on the earth. My life leader is my Dad because he has taught me moral values and life lessons that I will never forget. My final leader is my humanitarian and good person leader. Bono, lead singer of U2, is probably my favorite non-political leader. His songs incorporate peace and love, which basically say war is not the answer peace is. Bono also has donated more than half of his life earnings to charities around the world. This is why Bono is one of my three main leaders.

Who is a particular leader that you admire? What is it about her/his “leadership style” that appeals to you? Why does this work for you?

I know this may sound funny, but a particular leader that I admire is Fred Couples, captain of the 2009 Presidents Cup US golf team. I particularly admire Fred's leadership qualities because he is very laid back and offers advise to his team only when it is helpful. Fred does not make any offending comments and almost everybody that has ever met him is immediately impacted by his upbeat personality. This style works for me because I would love to be the kind of guy that always says the right things at the right time and also be the nicest guy at the same time. Kindness is the leadership style I think works best.

What are a good follower's responsibilities? When do these conflict with a leader's responsibilities?

Good follower's responsibilities are loyalty, dedication, and to be hardworking. These responsibilities almost never conflict leaders responsibilities in a negative way because these three main traits allow for affective co-operation with the followers and leaders.

If you watched Miracle, answer these questions. If not, skip to 8. Evaluate Herb Brooks as a leader---be specific and give examples for ALL answers

• What was his leadership style?

Herb Brooks leadership style was almost a father like role. Instead of comforting his followers and telling them is was okay they made mistakes, he told them to get better or go home. This father like role motivated the followers to improve to show their leader how good they were.

• Why do you think he chose to use this style?

I think he chose to use this style because his followers were accustom to being the best hockey players of their regions. This style of leadership was a way that would keep the hockey players from getting to cocky because his style would allow nothing, but perfection.

• Do you agree with his choice? Was it the only way? Would you have liked to have been on his team?

I do agree with Herb's choice. I think their were other ways to coach the team, but this method I believe would be most effective. I would have loved to be on this team because I would have won a gold medal.

• How did Herb Brooks utilize his assistants? Were they necessary for the team’s success? Explain

I'm sorry I don't quite remember how Herb utilized his assistants because I think I missed the main chunk of the movie, but the assistants were necessary for the teams success. The assistants acted as a second coach so while Herb was doing one thing for the team his assistants would be doing another thing helping the team. This allowed more things to get down, which helped the teams success.

• The US won the Gold Medal---does that mean that Coach Brooks’ methods were justified?

Yes. Herb's job was to coach his team to win the Gold medal, nothing else. He accomplished his job against unbelievable odds. This shows that Herb's methods worked, thus justified.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Explain Jared Diamond’s theory about how geography impacted Europe and made them "accidental conquerors?"

Jerad Diamond's theory was that the reasons some cultures flourished while others were left behind was because of the geographical location. Europe's geographical location made them accidental conquerors because guns, germs, and steel affected their culture the most. For example, steel weapon making was being perfected in the fertile crescent, known as modern day Iran. Due to Europe's proximity to the fertile crescent, the culture's of Europe were affected much more than the culture of South America. This geographical benefit allowed for Europe to advance in weapon making technology, while South American civilizations were left behind. This geographical benefit was vital in the conquest of South America because the South American civilizations were still fighting with outdated equipment while hundreds of years of weapon improvement in Europe allowed for the most advanced weapons. Germs and guns were also influenced in everyday European society. These three main deadly weapons were the keys to the Spanish takeover of South America. These weapons were bestowed accidentally to the Spanish only because of their geographical location thus making them accidental conquerors.

Steel vs. Bronze

The battle of Steel weapons vs. the outdated bronze weapons was no battle. Steel is much stronger and springier than a bronze sword, which are the two main components for a successful sword. The reason Europe required steel weapons while the Inca's were deprived from the new technology was because of the two countries geographical location to the fertile crescent, where steel weapons were being perfected. While the Spanish were just a stones throw from the fertile crescent, the Inca's were a world away. The great body of water, the Atlantic Ocean, was an obstacle that the Inca's didn't think to cross. This was partly because they were located on the Pacific Ocean side of South America and partly because they had a rich and fulfilling life and didn't seek the 5 G's that the Spaniards did. The steel weapons were an unfair match against the Inca's bronze weapons, which allowed the Spaniards to have an improved fighting ability, which the Inca's lacked.

Horses vs. Llamas

The Spanish war trained horses vs. the cultural incorporated llamas was an unfair match as well. While Spanish horses offered war advantages, mobility, and a seat to ride upon for many miles, their Incan counter part, the llama, offered just wool and milk. While agricultural and clothing benefits are helpful to society, they are not as helpful on a battlefield. The Spanish horses caused sheer terror on the battlefield by intimidating the opponent. The horses also acted as a platform from which the Spanish could attack from. It is much easier swinging a sword downwards throughout the course of a battle than swinging the sword on a level plane for the course of the same battle. The choice between horses or llamas is simple in a battle, the horse can be used as a modern day tank, while the llama is there for moral support.

Do you think that Diamond's theory is still relevant in today's modern world?

I do think Diamond's theory is still relevant today. In the world today geographical location affects the world primarily with natural resources. For example the world's black gold, oil, is located primarily in the Middle East. The Middle East holds the largest oil reserve in the world not because they decided to settle right on top of a buried treasure, but by pure chance which makes them an "accidental conqueror", just like the Spaniards. Geographical location is key to the success of a culture and with that being stated, cultures who are at a geographical disadvantage have two options:
1. To move to another geographical location
2. Try to use the current geographical location to its strengths and trade amongst other cultures who have the resources you need, but can't effectively produce.

Exploration is at the heart of the human experience

Exploration is the heart of human experience and motivates us to create, discover, and journey. Exploration has lead us to create and discover some of the most powerful and advanced weapons. For example the continents of Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa were connected by land that could be traveled. This lead to the expansion of different culutres. At times different cultures expanding boundaries would collide at which point a truce was worked out or a battle would emerge. In order for one culture to have the advantage in these important battles the most strategic leaders, motivated armies, and above all, the most advanced weapons would decide the crucial turning points. These demands lead to the invention of the gun and weapons made from steel. Exploration is the explanation why people want to discover treasures, lost cities, and maybe religious artifacts too. The sense of exploration is close to the heart. With out it no "Indian Jones" movies would have been created, no life altering discoveries would be made. Without exploration we would be no different than cavemen who walked the earth thousands of years ago.

For more information on Guns, Germs, and Steel, please visit:

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

The Mission- Review

I have recently watched the movie The Mission in my MMW and English 10 class. The movie portraits the issue between the Jesuits, Spanish, Portuguese, and Guarani Indians in the 1750's. The movie takes place when the Portuguese are about to buy certain parts of South America from the Spanish. The one flaw in this plan is that the Guarani Indians have inhabited the land for centuries. The Portuguese plan to take advantage of these Indians by enslaving them for their own benefit. While in the process of buying the South American territories from Spain a group called the Jesuits were converting Guarani Indians to the Christian faith. This caused problems to the Portuguese because if the Guarani Indians sought sanctuary in one of the Jesuits religious regions, the Portuguese could not in slave the Indians. A court was called to order to asses weather the Jesuit's religious regions would be kept under Portuguese rule as it was under Spanish rule. In the end the court decided that the Jesuit's religious regions would not be kept and the Portuguese would gain control of all the religious regions. This enraged the Guarani Indians and they decided to fight the Portuguese. This revolt was crushed and the Portuguese gained control over all the land they bought and the Jesuits religious regions.









In the movie, The Mission, the Guarani Indians were protected by a set of huge waterfalls. Above the falls there was a plateau on which the Guarani Indians lived upon. This provided the Indians with safety due to the fact that if someone wanted to navigate the path to their home a gigantic obstacle, the falls, laid in their way. Towards the end of the movie, a scene shows the Portuguese climbing up the falls with grappling hooks and ropes. This obstacle shows that even the Portuguese, the owners of the land, had trouble climbing the falls even with their hi-tech equipment. The Guarani Indians were also protected by the Atlantic Ocean too. The reason that the Portuguese or any other foreign country had not already taken the Guarani Indians captive was due to the vast amount of water in their way. This provided the Indians with protection and in a way invisibility too for many years. This great body of water was a huge geographical object that only a few ships were daring enough to cross.

I believe that the Jesuits and the other Europeans who attempted to convert the Guarani Indians were selfish. I think that the Jesuits and the Europeans were selfish because they were imposing their beliefs and ideas into a group of people who maintained their way life for centuries. I understand you may think that the Jesuits weren't selfish when they stayed back to help the Guarani Indians defend themselves and I think that in that moment they were unselfish. The reason I classify the Jesuits as selfish is because maybe if the Jesuits weren't looking to convert the Guarani Indians above the falls, maybe the Portuguese would have never learned the whereabouts of the Guarani Indians. Some things are not meant to change and the spirit and culture of the Guarani Indians was one of them.

Here is a helpful website with a more in depth summary on the movie The Mission: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/The_Mission_(film)

Are We Better Off Today Than We Were Yesterday?

Are We Better Off Today Than We Were Yesterday?

Yes. I believe we are better off today than yesterday. I know advertisements have been put out that say, green house gas levels have risen, hurricanes have increased tenfold in intensity, and relief does not come soon enough to disaster victims. I believe that by taking the beginning steps towards our goal of fixing each problem we have made progress in our world. This is why I believe that we are better off today than we were yesterday, simply because we have made the effort to fix these problems when in our past we have neglected to do so.