She wrote this to me after reading my mother/daughter post:
 |
| Click photo to read it better haha |
Isn't this sweet? :)
 |
| Even Google is celebrating again like last year! |
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Happy International Women's Day!
Today is International Women's Day! To celebrate, I decided to post an e-mail my mommy sent to me when Women's History Month began this year, just like I did last year on this day. <3
She wrote this to me after reading my mother/daughter post:
Isn't this sweet? :)
She wrote this to me after reading my mother/daughter post:
Isn't this sweet? :)
Monday, March 5, 2012
Real Influential Women Role Models (Real and Fictitious): Mother/Daughter Duos from TV Shows
To kick off Women's History Month, I decided to post photos of some of my favorite mother/daughter relationships from TV shows. I'm not going to write about them individually because I pretty much like every duo for the same reasons, but this is a post to honor them.
What I like about every single one of these mother/daughter duos is their strength and abilities to take on challenges together. No topic is off limits when it comes to conversation. They have very close, healthy one on one relationships. A lot of times, these strong female characters remind me a lot of my relationship with my own mother. <3
What I like about every single one of these mother/daughter duos is their strength and abilities to take on challenges together. No topic is off limits when it comes to conversation. They have very close, healthy one on one relationships. A lot of times, these strong female characters remind me a lot of my relationship with my own mother. <3
 |
| Brooke and Hope Logan from "The Bold and the Beautiful" |
 |
| Taylor Hines and Steffy Forrester from "The Bold and the Beautiful" |
 |
| A nice shot of all four of them :) |
 |
| Lorelai and Rory Gilmore from "Gilmore Girls" |
 |
| Blair and Starr Manning from "One Life to Live" |
 |
| Edith Bunker and Gloria Stivic from "All in the Family" |
 |
| Maude Findlay and Carol from "Maude" |
But there are so many more! Who are some of your favorite mother/daughter duos from TV, film, etc.?
Happy Women's Herstory Month Everyone!
Happy Women's Herstory Month Everyone!
Also, Happy 100th Blog Post to "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" :D
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Reflections about...Dept. of Theatre and Dance Romeo and Juliet Performance Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 7:30 PM
One thing I forgot to mention in my last Romeo and Juliet post is that a reason why I think they chose to perform that particular play at Montclair State University is because it is so well known. They know that this is how they can get audiences. Montclair seems to do this sporadically. They have the intricate, different materials, but then they bring in shows that are more close to home to even it out and of course they all have the same result. Romeo and Juliet was sold out, just like how Sweet Charity and Sweeney Todd were also sold out shows.
So since I ranted last time about just how well known Romeo and Juliet is to our society, here are some observations I have made about the play from this particular performance that perhaps aren't so well known.
"I bite my thumb at you, sir."
This is actually one of the lines that opens up the play. It's so awesome because we can totally relate to obscene gestures, which is exactly what this is. Thanks, Shakespeare! :D
A funny background story about this is how I always thought the line was "I thumb my nose at you," meaning the person would flick his or her thumb on his or her nose. My friends and I in high school, when we were reading the play in English class freshman year, would do this to each other as a joke.
Fast forward to now. My friend Kelly and I always argued about which is correct: "I bite my thumb at you" or "I thumb my nose at you." We would even look it up and they would both appear correct. She and I saw Romeo and Juliet at school opening night, and we finally got our answer. Kelly poked me while we watched the scene to prove her victory.
Thanks, Shakespeare. -__-
By the way, when the servants are having their first battle among each other, Juliet was actually one of the spectators on the side cheering them on. I thought that was odd considering how the character of Juliet wouldn't be expected to have any part of this feud. I know this was a decision to have a good number of people cheer for the battle, considering that it was a small cast, but it's Juliet, you know? It just looks weird lol.
Why are they fighting?
Does anybody else wonder how this family feud began in the first place? Is it said and I just missed it? I feel like Shakespeare might have included this detail. I know it doesn't really matter, but it's just something that crossed my mind as I was watching it. Knowing the reasons why something is happening helps the audience comprehend the story better and can also help the characters settle their disputes better. I'm just under the impression that the two families have been fighting so long that they have forgotten what the fight is about. Either that or their ancestors started the fight and it continued down the generations.
Why Juliet is actually a strong female Shakespeare character
I used to really dislike this kid. I just pictured her such a teenage drama queen, and Romeo no better. I really don't think I'm the only one.
What's funny to is, in this Peak Performance, Juliet was actually excited about her attachment to Parris. It wasn't until she meets Romeo that everything goes haywire and she starts to get miserable and fight against it.
The thing is though, I've now realized that she is pretty intelligent Shakespearean female character regardless of how she is often viewed. She is constantly being suppressed by everyone around her so she has to figure out what to do on her own. She goes to get help from other people of course, but the fact that she even takes the initiative to do so, being a young girl, is pretty admirable.
I disliked her too because I felt she was too young to be so passionate about love. However, in this time period, she is old enough to get married, so it does make sense that she would be so mature about men and how she handles situations.
Couldn't she just have told family/Parris?
Well, maybe not her family, because they seem pretty domineering and wouldn't even consider her explanation, but I feel like they wouldn't get as mad at her. She doesn't give them any reason for being defiant, so that is why they get so angry. But, telling them that she is in love with and married to the son of their greatest enemy may not go over well anyway, so I guess it's for the best.
At least tell Paris. He seems like a nice enough guy to understand. He seems like one of those guys who would do anything for the object of his affections, even let her go. Sad to say it, but he also seems like he would make a pushover of a husband. The only reason why he has issues with Romeo is because Romeo killed Tybalt and he considers him a threat. He has no idea about the connection between Romeo and Juliet.
I also don't understand why she doesn't tell her Nurse about the potion she takes from Friar Lawrence. She tells her everything else in her master plan so why not this? It would have been nice if she knew about this because perhaps she could've helped matters.
Something Lady Capulet says to Juliet
I never really noticed this until I saw this play, but Lady Capulet says the following words to her daughter after Juliet defies her father:
Talk not to me, for I'll not speak a word.
Do as thou wilt, for I am done with thee.
Then afterward Juliet gets all upset. However, I took this line as "Well that's nice of her, letting her daughter do what she wants." If a mother were to say these words to her thirteen-year-old daughter nowadays, the daughter would be like, "Fine! Screw you, Mom! I will!" And because, like I said, Juliet is in an adult position to take matters into her own hands, I'm surprised she doesn't take this as a blessing and adopt the rebellious teenage attitude. A lot of times teenagers consider themselves old enough to handle things they cannot handle on their own. Here, Juliet is a teenager but in this time period IS old enough to handle things on her own, but she freaks out when her mother verbally abandons her.
There's something that has to be said about how Mercutio gets stabbed by Tybalt in Romeo's arms.
I first I thought Zazzali included this, but apparently the script calls for it because later on Mercutio gets mad at Romeo for getting in the way and perhaps he would not have been stabbed if he didn't. It's just such a powerful scene because the music stops playing, the action is done, and the audience focuses on Mercutio collapsing and Romeo holding onto him. It almost looks slow motion and silent. It's a very mesmerizing moment.
This is the main thing that struck me that never did so before. Okay, so we know that Tybalt stabs Mercutio in Romeo's arms. Benvolio drags him off and he dies offstage. Romeo, out of vengeance, goes to kill Tybalt, succeeds, and then runs away seeing the error of his ways. When this happens the whole cast runs onto the stage around Tybalt's body and mourns his death.
Um...Mercutio died too...
What the heck? Nobody seems to care about Mercutio! Mercutio dies and nobody but Romeo and Benvolio react right away but when Tybalt dies suddenly all of Verona gets bent out of shape? They ignore the fact that Tybalt was not the only one to die in the brawl. Mercutio is totally disregarded by everybody besides his two friends. His death is acknowledged, I will admit that, but it isn't acknowledged until Tybalt is killed. I think that's what made me take notice of this. It makes it seem like he was such an insignificant person to them, like they don't care, as if they wouldn't have noticed his death if Romeo had not killed Tybalt as well. That's not fair!
It's definitely obvious that blood is thicker than water here. Everybody cares about Tybalt's death because he is Lady Capulet's brother's son. Mercutio was just a friend of Romeo's, or like Kelly refers to him as when I asked her about this, "a kid who lives up the street." I think the thing is I've always associated Mercutio with the Montagues, and therefore put him in the family as a brother/cousin figure, when in reality he's kind of an outsider everywhere. Or, perhaps he is a median between the two. He does land himself on the guest list for the Capulet party. How did THAT happen? That's another thing this performance brought to my attention. How do the Capulets not notice that the Montague kid's friend is coming to their party? Wouldn't that bother them? He goes by his own name on the list, so it's not like he disguised the fact that he is attending. I guess he's just such a party goer that he knows his ways around the system.
However, this little observation I made has helped me to connect Romeo and Juliet with another Italian classic: The Godfather.
Oh yeah? Don't believe me? A bit of a stretch? Keep reading.
After Tybalt is found dead and Benvolio explains what happened (That's his only purpose in this play, let's be honest), Ben reveals that Romeo did the deed and so therefore Romeo is exiled by Prince Escalus and if he is found, sentenced to death. Much like in The Godfather, you mess with a family member, your mess with the whole family. You're going to get it and they will not yield until you do.
But another thing both of these Italian classics bring to the table is the idea that friendship equals family. When Don Corleone forms a friendship with someone, he forever has an alliance with them and he would do anything to help them. In Romeo and Juliet, it's the same thing. I already said about how I consider Mercutio a Montague family member even though he is just Romeo and Benvolio's friend. When Tybalt disrespects Romeo, Mercutio gets all pissed off and challenges him to a duel to protect Romeo's honor. When Tybalt kills Mercutio in this duel, Romeo mourns the death of his friend and vows to kill Tybalt in their own duel, and succeeds. The only difference is, I don't think death is the intent when it comes to Mercutio and Tybalt's battle. As you can see, respect is a huge theme in both Romeo and Juliet and The Godfather as well. And, of course, they both involve Italian families. Everything I have mentioned here has a connection to the Italian family culture.
Alright, so that should be the end of my Romeo and Juliet ranting...for now. The play has been closed for like a week and a half now lol.
I actually saved this post for today for a reason. It's the final day of February...and... Happy Leap Year Everyone! This is my only chance to post something on here on February 29 for awhile lol.
So since I ranted last time about just how well known Romeo and Juliet is to our society, here are some observations I have made about the play from this particular performance that perhaps aren't so well known.
"I bite my thumb at you, sir."
This is actually one of the lines that opens up the play. It's so awesome because we can totally relate to obscene gestures, which is exactly what this is. Thanks, Shakespeare! :D
A funny background story about this is how I always thought the line was "I thumb my nose at you," meaning the person would flick his or her thumb on his or her nose. My friends and I in high school, when we were reading the play in English class freshman year, would do this to each other as a joke.
Fast forward to now. My friend Kelly and I always argued about which is correct: "I bite my thumb at you" or "I thumb my nose at you." We would even look it up and they would both appear correct. She and I saw Romeo and Juliet at school opening night, and we finally got our answer. Kelly poked me while we watched the scene to prove her victory.
Thanks, Shakespeare. -__-
By the way, when the servants are having their first battle among each other, Juliet was actually one of the spectators on the side cheering them on. I thought that was odd considering how the character of Juliet wouldn't be expected to have any part of this feud. I know this was a decision to have a good number of people cheer for the battle, considering that it was a small cast, but it's Juliet, you know? It just looks weird lol.
Why are they fighting?
Does anybody else wonder how this family feud began in the first place? Is it said and I just missed it? I feel like Shakespeare might have included this detail. I know it doesn't really matter, but it's just something that crossed my mind as I was watching it. Knowing the reasons why something is happening helps the audience comprehend the story better and can also help the characters settle their disputes better. I'm just under the impression that the two families have been fighting so long that they have forgotten what the fight is about. Either that or their ancestors started the fight and it continued down the generations.
Why Juliet is actually a strong female Shakespeare character
I used to really dislike this kid. I just pictured her such a teenage drama queen, and Romeo no better. I really don't think I'm the only one.
What's funny to is, in this Peak Performance, Juliet was actually excited about her attachment to Parris. It wasn't until she meets Romeo that everything goes haywire and she starts to get miserable and fight against it.
The thing is though, I've now realized that she is pretty intelligent Shakespearean female character regardless of how she is often viewed. She is constantly being suppressed by everyone around her so she has to figure out what to do on her own. She goes to get help from other people of course, but the fact that she even takes the initiative to do so, being a young girl, is pretty admirable.
I disliked her too because I felt she was too young to be so passionate about love. However, in this time period, she is old enough to get married, so it does make sense that she would be so mature about men and how she handles situations.
Couldn't she just have told family/Parris?
Well, maybe not her family, because they seem pretty domineering and wouldn't even consider her explanation, but I feel like they wouldn't get as mad at her. She doesn't give them any reason for being defiant, so that is why they get so angry. But, telling them that she is in love with and married to the son of their greatest enemy may not go over well anyway, so I guess it's for the best.
At least tell Paris. He seems like a nice enough guy to understand. He seems like one of those guys who would do anything for the object of his affections, even let her go. Sad to say it, but he also seems like he would make a pushover of a husband. The only reason why he has issues with Romeo is because Romeo killed Tybalt and he considers him a threat. He has no idea about the connection between Romeo and Juliet.
I also don't understand why she doesn't tell her Nurse about the potion she takes from Friar Lawrence. She tells her everything else in her master plan so why not this? It would have been nice if she knew about this because perhaps she could've helped matters.
Something Lady Capulet says to Juliet
I never really noticed this until I saw this play, but Lady Capulet says the following words to her daughter after Juliet defies her father:
Talk not to me, for I'll not speak a word.
Do as thou wilt, for I am done with thee.
Then afterward Juliet gets all upset. However, I took this line as "Well that's nice of her, letting her daughter do what she wants." If a mother were to say these words to her thirteen-year-old daughter nowadays, the daughter would be like, "Fine! Screw you, Mom! I will!" And because, like I said, Juliet is in an adult position to take matters into her own hands, I'm surprised she doesn't take this as a blessing and adopt the rebellious teenage attitude. A lot of times teenagers consider themselves old enough to handle things they cannot handle on their own. Here, Juliet is a teenager but in this time period IS old enough to handle things on her own, but she freaks out when her mother verbally abandons her.
There's something that has to be said about how Mercutio gets stabbed by Tybalt in Romeo's arms.
I first I thought Zazzali included this, but apparently the script calls for it because later on Mercutio gets mad at Romeo for getting in the way and perhaps he would not have been stabbed if he didn't. It's just such a powerful scene because the music stops playing, the action is done, and the audience focuses on Mercutio collapsing and Romeo holding onto him. It almost looks slow motion and silent. It's a very mesmerizing moment.
Why mourn Tybalt and not Mercutio?
This is the main thing that struck me that never did so before. Okay, so we know that Tybalt stabs Mercutio in Romeo's arms. Benvolio drags him off and he dies offstage. Romeo, out of vengeance, goes to kill Tybalt, succeeds, and then runs away seeing the error of his ways. When this happens the whole cast runs onto the stage around Tybalt's body and mourns his death.
Um...Mercutio died too...
What the heck? Nobody seems to care about Mercutio! Mercutio dies and nobody but Romeo and Benvolio react right away but when Tybalt dies suddenly all of Verona gets bent out of shape? They ignore the fact that Tybalt was not the only one to die in the brawl. Mercutio is totally disregarded by everybody besides his two friends. His death is acknowledged, I will admit that, but it isn't acknowledged until Tybalt is killed. I think that's what made me take notice of this. It makes it seem like he was such an insignificant person to them, like they don't care, as if they wouldn't have noticed his death if Romeo had not killed Tybalt as well. That's not fair!
It's definitely obvious that blood is thicker than water here. Everybody cares about Tybalt's death because he is Lady Capulet's brother's son. Mercutio was just a friend of Romeo's, or like Kelly refers to him as when I asked her about this, "a kid who lives up the street." I think the thing is I've always associated Mercutio with the Montagues, and therefore put him in the family as a brother/cousin figure, when in reality he's kind of an outsider everywhere. Or, perhaps he is a median between the two. He does land himself on the guest list for the Capulet party. How did THAT happen? That's another thing this performance brought to my attention. How do the Capulets not notice that the Montague kid's friend is coming to their party? Wouldn't that bother them? He goes by his own name on the list, so it's not like he disguised the fact that he is attending. I guess he's just such a party goer that he knows his ways around the system.
However, this little observation I made has helped me to connect Romeo and Juliet with another Italian classic: The Godfather.
Oh yeah? Don't believe me? A bit of a stretch? Keep reading.
After Tybalt is found dead and Benvolio explains what happened (That's his only purpose in this play, let's be honest), Ben reveals that Romeo did the deed and so therefore Romeo is exiled by Prince Escalus and if he is found, sentenced to death. Much like in The Godfather, you mess with a family member, your mess with the whole family. You're going to get it and they will not yield until you do.
But another thing both of these Italian classics bring to the table is the idea that friendship equals family. When Don Corleone forms a friendship with someone, he forever has an alliance with them and he would do anything to help them. In Romeo and Juliet, it's the same thing. I already said about how I consider Mercutio a Montague family member even though he is just Romeo and Benvolio's friend. When Tybalt disrespects Romeo, Mercutio gets all pissed off and challenges him to a duel to protect Romeo's honor. When Tybalt kills Mercutio in this duel, Romeo mourns the death of his friend and vows to kill Tybalt in their own duel, and succeeds. The only difference is, I don't think death is the intent when it comes to Mercutio and Tybalt's battle. As you can see, respect is a huge theme in both Romeo and Juliet and The Godfather as well. And, of course, they both involve Italian families. Everything I have mentioned here has a connection to the Italian family culture.
Alright, so that should be the end of my Romeo and Juliet ranting...for now. The play has been closed for like a week and a half now lol.
I actually saved this post for today for a reason. It's the final day of February...and... Happy Leap Year Everyone! This is my only chance to post something on here on February 29 for awhile lol.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
My Very First Montclarion Article of the Year and Spring 2012 Semester and How it Helped me to Appreciate a Shakespeare Classic
Yes, this is an entry of my first theater review for The Montclarion in both the year and spring semester of 2012, AND my senior year, but this particular production got a reaction out of me, so I think I am going to write a "Reflections about..." piece about it as well.
Okay, so here's the background story to this article.
First off, I was never a big fan of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
We all know the story right? Two families in Verona, Italy are fighting and their teenage kids fall in love but then kill themselves. The End.
Okay, I know it's more complex than that, but it's annoying! Both Romeo (16) and Juliet (13) are so lovey dovey and gushy after just meeting each other at a party and planning to marry that night only a few days ago at their young age that it's just so nauseating to me. I know the balcony scene is the most iconic scene in any drama, but to me, it's not that great. It just drags on and is, you guessed it, gushy. The best part about any of the characters in this play is that they are Italian!
Another thing I don't like about it is that it is so overdone to the point where it's bland and medicore. It's the play to which most of us are introduced as children, so therefore, we grow up with it, see many different versions of it, and it's not very exciting after a while. There are also so many parodies of it. If one of the plots on a TV show is that characters are performing a play, most likely that play is Romeo and Juliet, as if there are no other options. Of course, when I was a freshman in high school reading the play for my English class, our teacher told us that freshmen are taught this play at that level because it's the simplest. Well, I guess it is. So I guess that's why it's used for TV? Maybe. I know that Romeo and Juliet is probably Shakespeare's most famous work, but it is just such a common play. It is always there.
But here's the thing. Given these reasons, I was really skeptical when I heard that one of the Peak Performances of Montclair State University for the 2011-2012 season was going to be Romeo and Juliet, and this goes way back to this past summer when I read about this season's performances on the school website. I'm just so used to Montclair presenting the most intricate of theater. You see the stuff I write about on here. When I was a freshman at Montclair, they performed Shakespeare's As You Like It and I appreciated that because you never hear about that play, so it was nice to actually see it performed and it was different! But Romeo and Juliet? That just seems like a step back from what Montclair normally offers. To me, Romeo and Juliet is a high school play, not exactly a college performance featuring college students majoring in the theater field, matching the same caliber as the other theater Montclair offers. When I first saw it on the website, I wasn't even sure if I wanted to see it considering my feelings about it. And I knew I would probably see it because my goal is to see every show presented by the Department of Theatre and Dance, so I was dreading it.
Fortunately, I was wrong about everything. :)
As time went on and I befriended people involved with the production, I grew more and more excited for it and them. Romeo and Juliet, now playing at the L. Howard Fox Theatre until February 19, is now one of my favorite Peak Performances since I began attending MSU. It has that Montclair flair. There's the play, but then there's something magical about it that just engages the audience. It just made me appreciate the play and story more. Granted, Romeo and Juliet themselves are still gushy and I still can't stand that, but that's to be expected so I am willing to look past it and accept it.
Want to know why I like this play so much? One reason is that thankfully they don't include that Romeo and Juliet theme "A Time for Us." I was actually expecting it and wondering if they were going to use it and I am so glad that they don't. It's a good song and piece of music, but there's something about it and how romantic and droll it is that just makes the play that much more depressing. Others are that the whole entire play is one gigantic "Peak Performance and its awkward sexual moments," the music and costumes much resemble our current time period so it is relatable, the acting and delivery of the performers helped me to understand the storyline better, the set is extremely simplistic, using black blocks and a ladder for instance, and at times it is actually pretty funny. For more reasons, check out my review here. Enjoy!
If you can, be sure to see this play before it closes to see what I am talking about! :D
Another reason why I liked this play is that it made me realize things about it that I had never realized before, but I will save those for another post.
Okay, so here's the background story to this article.
First off, I was never a big fan of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
We all know the story right? Two families in Verona, Italy are fighting and their teenage kids fall in love but then kill themselves. The End.
Okay, I know it's more complex than that, but it's annoying! Both Romeo (16) and Juliet (13) are so lovey dovey and gushy after just meeting each other at a party and planning to marry that night only a few days ago at their young age that it's just so nauseating to me. I know the balcony scene is the most iconic scene in any drama, but to me, it's not that great. It just drags on and is, you guessed it, gushy. The best part about any of the characters in this play is that they are Italian!
Another thing I don't like about it is that it is so overdone to the point where it's bland and medicore. It's the play to which most of us are introduced as children, so therefore, we grow up with it, see many different versions of it, and it's not very exciting after a while. There are also so many parodies of it. If one of the plots on a TV show is that characters are performing a play, most likely that play is Romeo and Juliet, as if there are no other options. Of course, when I was a freshman in high school reading the play for my English class, our teacher told us that freshmen are taught this play at that level because it's the simplest. Well, I guess it is. So I guess that's why it's used for TV? Maybe. I know that Romeo and Juliet is probably Shakespeare's most famous work, but it is just such a common play. It is always there.
But here's the thing. Given these reasons, I was really skeptical when I heard that one of the Peak Performances of Montclair State University for the 2011-2012 season was going to be Romeo and Juliet, and this goes way back to this past summer when I read about this season's performances on the school website. I'm just so used to Montclair presenting the most intricate of theater. You see the stuff I write about on here. When I was a freshman at Montclair, they performed Shakespeare's As You Like It and I appreciated that because you never hear about that play, so it was nice to actually see it performed and it was different! But Romeo and Juliet? That just seems like a step back from what Montclair normally offers. To me, Romeo and Juliet is a high school play, not exactly a college performance featuring college students majoring in the theater field, matching the same caliber as the other theater Montclair offers. When I first saw it on the website, I wasn't even sure if I wanted to see it considering my feelings about it. And I knew I would probably see it because my goal is to see every show presented by the Department of Theatre and Dance, so I was dreading it.
Fortunately, I was wrong about everything. :)
As time went on and I befriended people involved with the production, I grew more and more excited for it and them. Romeo and Juliet, now playing at the L. Howard Fox Theatre until February 19, is now one of my favorite Peak Performances since I began attending MSU. It has that Montclair flair. There's the play, but then there's something magical about it that just engages the audience. It just made me appreciate the play and story more. Granted, Romeo and Juliet themselves are still gushy and I still can't stand that, but that's to be expected so I am willing to look past it and accept it.
Want to know why I like this play so much? One reason is that thankfully they don't include that Romeo and Juliet theme "A Time for Us." I was actually expecting it and wondering if they were going to use it and I am so glad that they don't. It's a good song and piece of music, but there's something about it and how romantic and droll it is that just makes the play that much more depressing. Others are that the whole entire play is one gigantic "Peak Performance and its awkward sexual moments," the music and costumes much resemble our current time period so it is relatable, the acting and delivery of the performers helped me to understand the storyline better, the set is extremely simplistic, using black blocks and a ladder for instance, and at times it is actually pretty funny. For more reasons, check out my review here. Enjoy!
If you can, be sure to see this play before it closes to see what I am talking about! :D
Another reason why I liked this play is that it made me realize things about it that I had never realized before, but I will save those for another post.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Theatrical Nudity From an Actor's Perspective: One on One Time with Actor Michael Brewer
Remember those days when I talked about theatrical nudity in the Spring 2011 semester production of The Grapes of Wrath and about the practice in general?
We're still in those days.
I FINALLY had the chance to talk to senior Acting major Michael Brewer, who played "Al" in The Grapes of Wrath, about his views on the subject. Click here to remind yourselves of my opinions about the character of "Al" and how he contributes to theatrical nudity. This video has been a long time coming and I am so glad that I finally got the chance to accomplish it. He was very enthused to talk to me about it.
Check out our interview here. I apologize for the sound in this video. It was breezy the day we filmed. (P.S. Michael is sitting on a sculpture outside of Life Hall. I think something artistic like that is a pretty appropriate background. My friend Kelly and I hung out there once and it is one of our favorite landmarks on campus.)
We also talk about what is next for him as an actor. Michael will be playing "Lord Capulet" in this semester's production of Romeo and Juliet, which is premiering next week! Click here for tickets and more details. Best of luck to the cast and crew of Romeo and Juliet!
Thank you again to Michael for talking with me!
We're still in those days.
I FINALLY had the chance to talk to senior Acting major Michael Brewer, who played "Al" in The Grapes of Wrath, about his views on the subject. Click here to remind yourselves of my opinions about the character of "Al" and how he contributes to theatrical nudity. This video has been a long time coming and I am so glad that I finally got the chance to accomplish it. He was very enthused to talk to me about it.
Check out our interview here. I apologize for the sound in this video. It was breezy the day we filmed. (P.S. Michael is sitting on a sculpture outside of Life Hall. I think something artistic like that is a pretty appropriate background. My friend Kelly and I hung out there once and it is one of our favorite landmarks on campus.)
We also talk about what is next for him as an actor. Michael will be playing "Lord Capulet" in this semester's production of Romeo and Juliet, which is premiering next week! Click here for tickets and more details. Best of luck to the cast and crew of Romeo and Juliet!
Thank you again to Michael for talking with me!
Monday, January 9, 2012
Do Plays Need a Conflict? A Lack Thereof in Ferber and Kaufman's Stage Door
I wrote a brief article about Peak Performance's Stage Door for The Montclarion, but unfortunately they were unable to use it. I might post it as one of my lost articles on here. This piece is not the article. I wrote this essay for my blog and it is actually a lot more detailed than the article I wrote for the paper so I figured I'd post this one to give the play some written recognition.
After A Chorus Line, the next Peak Performance I saw on campus is Stage Door, a play written by Edna Ferber and George S. Kaufman. I had to see it for classes and actually read it in my "Introduction to Theatrical Medium" class. It is a very enjoyable play, but I have one complaint about it: There doesn't seem to be a conflict.
If the girls don't get jobs, the audience doesn't feel heartbroken for them but rather say, "Well, that's life." It's not a big deal to me because people lose jobs and have difficult jobs all the time in everyday life, so it's not looked upon as a conflict for a story but rather as something that normally happens. People always work their way up in their careers. This makes the play very bland. The lead character Terry is also very bland and doesn't even change from beginning to end, so there isn't any character development either. She is given the chance to work in film as opposed to theater, but she refuses. In A Chorus Line, the audience learns about the different struggles the characters have endured, so therefore it is more heartfelt. Also, you get to know every character individually and share the journey with them as opposed to Stage Door when you only get to know Terry and share only her journey. Sure they try to show background of other characters as well, but Terry is the only one you truly get to know from beginning to end because her story is the only story the play really follows in-depth.
However, I still like the play regardless of this lack of conflict and powerfulness in delivery. I have a tendency to like plays and other mediums that involve groups of girls together. Madeline, a childhood favorite, The Crucible, and A Children's Hour are among some of my favorites. The fact that the women in Stage Door are very into theater is another reason why I enjoy it.
So the question I pose is, does a play absolutely need a significant conflict for it to be enjoyable?
Well, I guess not, because I straight up told you that I like Stage Door. But I guess what I am arguing is whether or not a play needs that energized spark in order for people to like it and ultimately leave a lasting impression. For example, when I saw Sweeney Todd in Kasser I felt a huge adrenaline rush because it was so amazing. When I saw The Rimers of Eldritch in Fox I felt numb, in a bad way because of the rape scene, but regardless it was still memorable because of how it made me feel. When I saw The Grapes of Wrath in Kasser, I felt numb, in a good way because it was magical. However, when I saw Stage Door, I didn't feel anything explosive like that. I felt relaxed and sat back and enjoyed it. I did the same thing when I saw A Chorus Line in Memorial, but I felt a better connection with that story.
Sitting back and enjoying a play in a relaxed manner isn't a bad thing. That's what plays are for, to relax and enjoy a show as a brief escape from reality. But the thing with theater and art too is it makes you come to realizations about life because of what it exposes, so in this way theater has two functions. Sometimes having such an emotional reaction from a play and therefore obsessing over it afterward, because you like it, can be exhausting, so I guess it's nice to not have every play do that to a person. Sometimes plays have to be tame to juxtapose the plays that are not. The contradicting of both types of plays helps them to stand out as artistic pieces and also helps audiences appreciate and enjoy both in the long run.
After A Chorus Line, the next Peak Performance I saw on campus is Stage Door, a play written by Edna Ferber and George S. Kaufman. I had to see it for classes and actually read it in my "Introduction to Theatrical Medium" class. It is a very enjoyable play, but I have one complaint about it: There doesn't seem to be a conflict.
Stage Door takes place in a 1930s rehearsal club where young actresses live as they try to find work in New York. We follow the storylines of the characters, especially the lead character Terry Randall. Throughout the play we watch her struggle to keep a job and start her career as an actress. She then ends up getting a lead role with her boyfriend's help at the end. I'm happy for her, but that kind of bothers me because of its convenience considering her man, David Kingsley, is an agent who falls in love with her.
The answer to my question seems to be pretty obvious. Of course a play needs a conflict. Without a conflict there would be no story. Though we see Terry resolve her conflict, the play doesn't necessarily keep you at the edge of your seat until it happens. In Arcadia, the characters try to figure out if Lord Byron committed a murder and who the hermit in a painting is. All of the events throughout the play are clues working up to the ending when all is revealed. In Sweeney Todd, Todd's ultimate goal is to kill Judge Turpin for the negative impact he has had on his life. The audience questions whether or not he will succeed. In The Grapes of Wrath, the Joad family must find a way to California and make ends meet during the Depression. Will they finally settle down and find a place to call home or will they continue to bask in uncertainty? In The Rimers of Eldritch, the characters must determine what happened regarding Skelly Manor's death and much like in Arcadia the scenes are clues to find this out. In The Seagull and A Man of No Importance, the focus is more on character development rather than plot. The conflicts are more inwardly based rather than outwardly. Characters struggle with their own inner conflicts and relationships with others. Will they accept themselves and work out their issues or will they hit rock bottom? The one show that resembles Stage Door is A Chorus Line because both display people desperate for jobs on the stage and show you background stories of the performers that people don't normally think about. However, the difference is, in A Chorus Line, the audience doesn't know who Zach will chose for the job until the very end, so it gives them something to look forward to. Are we supposed to look forward to seeing if Terry gets an acting career by the end of the play? I'm sorry, but for some reason, that is boring to me.
These plays I mention have a purpose and a reason for their existence. They have stories to tell and they want the audience to share in the experience and suspense. The audience solves the conflicts with the characters if the characters and audience members have a strong enough connection. Stage Door doesn't give the audience much reason to care about the characters and plot from my perspective.
A play's solid conflict is the core of a story. Everything that happens in a story surrounds that conflict. In Stage Door, this isn't necessarily the case. My thing is that Stage Door is more like a reality show than a play with conflict. It isn't a play with a beginning, middle, and end, but rather a bunch of written moments documenting the lives of these women, especially Terry. It represents young women in their everyday lives trying to get jobs in the theater rather than being faced with one conflict to resolve (or not resolve) by the end of the play. It looks like a normal everyday setting and the characters are so natural with each other. It is written that way and the actresses portray it that way. This is actually a reason why I like the play. I like the natural flair it has. However, even though each of them have their own agendas, they don't seem to grow as characters much. They interact with each other, leave, and show up again. They go to their jobs and other appointments and seem like interesting individuals to get to know, but because everything is so sporadic and brief, the audience isn't given a chance to care about these characters as individuals, so therefore it is more difficult to feel for them in their struggles. Well, the audience does care if the women get jobs or not, but our hearts don't necessarily ache for them because there aren't much connections between the audience and the characters for this to be so, probably because there are so many of them. All of the characters blend in together, except a select few. You actually want to see this select few more because they seem very potentially entertaining, but you don't, probably because it would require more time and effort to incorporate it all.
A play's solid conflict is the core of a story. Everything that happens in a story surrounds that conflict. In Stage Door, this isn't necessarily the case. My thing is that Stage Door is more like a reality show than a play with conflict. It isn't a play with a beginning, middle, and end, but rather a bunch of written moments documenting the lives of these women, especially Terry. It represents young women in their everyday lives trying to get jobs in the theater rather than being faced with one conflict to resolve (or not resolve) by the end of the play. It looks like a normal everyday setting and the characters are so natural with each other. It is written that way and the actresses portray it that way. This is actually a reason why I like the play. I like the natural flair it has. However, even though each of them have their own agendas, they don't seem to grow as characters much. They interact with each other, leave, and show up again. They go to their jobs and other appointments and seem like interesting individuals to get to know, but because everything is so sporadic and brief, the audience isn't given a chance to care about these characters as individuals, so therefore it is more difficult to feel for them in their struggles. Well, the audience does care if the women get jobs or not, but our hearts don't necessarily ache for them because there aren't much connections between the audience and the characters for this to be so, probably because there are so many of them. All of the characters blend in together, except a select few. You actually want to see this select few more because they seem very potentially entertaining, but you don't, probably because it would require more time and effort to incorporate it all.
If the girls don't get jobs, the audience doesn't feel heartbroken for them but rather say, "Well, that's life." It's not a big deal to me because people lose jobs and have difficult jobs all the time in everyday life, so it's not looked upon as a conflict for a story but rather as something that normally happens. People always work their way up in their careers. This makes the play very bland. The lead character Terry is also very bland and doesn't even change from beginning to end, so there isn't any character development either. She is given the chance to work in film as opposed to theater, but she refuses. In A Chorus Line, the audience learns about the different struggles the characters have endured, so therefore it is more heartfelt. Also, you get to know every character individually and share the journey with them as opposed to Stage Door when you only get to know Terry and share only her journey. Sure they try to show background of other characters as well, but Terry is the only one you truly get to know from beginning to end because her story is the only story the play really follows in-depth.
However, I still like the play regardless of this lack of conflict and powerfulness in delivery. I have a tendency to like plays and other mediums that involve groups of girls together. Madeline, a childhood favorite, The Crucible, and A Children's Hour are among some of my favorites. The fact that the women in Stage Door are very into theater is another reason why I enjoy it.
So the question I pose is, does a play absolutely need a significant conflict for it to be enjoyable?
Well, I guess not, because I straight up told you that I like Stage Door. But I guess what I am arguing is whether or not a play needs that energized spark in order for people to like it and ultimately leave a lasting impression. For example, when I saw Sweeney Todd in Kasser I felt a huge adrenaline rush because it was so amazing. When I saw The Rimers of Eldritch in Fox I felt numb, in a bad way because of the rape scene, but regardless it was still memorable because of how it made me feel. When I saw The Grapes of Wrath in Kasser, I felt numb, in a good way because it was magical. However, when I saw Stage Door, I didn't feel anything explosive like that. I felt relaxed and sat back and enjoyed it. I did the same thing when I saw A Chorus Line in Memorial, but I felt a better connection with that story.
Sitting back and enjoying a play in a relaxed manner isn't a bad thing. That's what plays are for, to relax and enjoy a show as a brief escape from reality. But the thing with theater and art too is it makes you come to realizations about life because of what it exposes, so in this way theater has two functions. Sometimes having such an emotional reaction from a play and therefore obsessing over it afterward, because you like it, can be exhausting, so I guess it's nice to not have every play do that to a person. Sometimes plays have to be tame to juxtapose the plays that are not. The contradicting of both types of plays helps them to stand out as artistic pieces and also helps audiences appreciate and enjoy both in the long run.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Ahem...my First Published Article of the YEAR!!!
Much like during my summer break, I am lucky enough to have gotten the opportunity to work for Patch during my winter break as well. This is actual my premiere article for Bloomfield Patch.
Andrea D'Arco and I went to the same grade school, Lacordaire Academy. I actually graduated with her older brother. She and I had recently become friends on Facebook when I saw her post a link about a show she is in Off-Broadway. I then decided to do a profile story on her.
Click here for my article!
Andrea D'Arco and I went to the same grade school, Lacordaire Academy. I actually graduated with her older brother. She and I had recently become friends on Facebook when I saw her post a link about a show she is in Off-Broadway. I then decided to do a profile story on her.
Click here for my article!
Monday, January 2, 2012
Happy One Year Anniversary to "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" Part 2
Okay so here we go! The Top Five Blog Posts of "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" So Far! :D
#5 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Representations
Published: September 2, 2011
Page Views: 167
"GLEE!" This post was a long time coming in my brainstorming, so I was glad to write out all my qualms with the show and get them out there. It's funny because after writing this series I wonder why I even like the show lol. I'm proud of this piece and worked very hard on it. I like how I touch on a lot of different points about what is and is not represented in "Glee" rather than just one solid subject. I think my favorite part is the "White Guys are Stupid" section. I personally think it's pretty funny. If you look at different TV shows, and maybe even movies and plays, this formula is very prominent nowadays.
That being said, how ironic that this post is next on this list...
#4 Hope vs. Steffy: Virginity vs. Promiscuity in Young Women Represented by a Soap Opera
Published: August 18, 2011
Page Views: 398
YES! I'm glad this one was so popular! If I'm not mistaken, this may be one of my blog posts I did not post on Facebook in the places I normally post them, so I'm happy that people were able to find it! Like my other posts about sex, this one also covers a topic that is very important to me. I was actually hoping to give you an update of what's been happening on the show since then, so now is the perfect time to do so. Okay let's see, this piece was published in August and we are now in January...and it is STILL the same storyline! No wonder people are sick of it! It's been dragged on for almost five months now! Basically everything I said I didn't want to happen happened. Liam married Steffy and Hope is all heartbroken over it. Steffy is on a quest to keep Hope away from Liam and now has gotten her brother Thomas involved. Thomas, who is smitten with Hope, has now proposed to Hope last Friday but just today she rejected him because she wants it to be right and is still hung up on Liam. AND, for that matter, we still don't know what Liam wants. He is still caught between two women and letting other people constantly tell him what to do. Actually, you know what?? He fits the model of a "Dumb White Male TV Character" pretty well! The show plays weekdays on CBS at 1:30 PM on the east coast. Check it out if you want. Maybe my ranting about it doesn't exactly convince you that it is worth your time, but still. You'll most likely see Liam because his storyline has been the most prominent nowadays and we pretty much can't get away from him. See for yourself if you agree that he fits the model like the other guys do. It's SO annoying!
#3 PBS Kids TV Shows and their New Characters that are Actually Worth our While
Published: June 21, 2011
Page Views: 519
Hey cool! One of my few blog posts NOT about sex! This one is actually the positive half of my discussion about new PBS characters. I like that I wrote about both sides of the debate.
#2 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Storylines (mainly Quinn's)
Published: September 5, 2011
Page Views: 927
"Glee" again! I guess people find it entertaining when I rant about Quinn Fabray. Like all of my posts about "Glee," I worked very hard on this one. It was the last post I published before my Fall 2011 semester started and I took a break from blogging, so I'm happy to have ended for a while on a post of which I am proud.
And the #1 "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" blog post so far is...
You probably could've guessed this one...
PBS Kids TV Shows and their Not-So-Heartwarming New Characters
Published: June 10, 2011
Page Views: A whopping 2,006!
I'm very pleased that my top blog post since I started blogging is one that is NOT about sex, but rather goes back to my childhood roots. The popularity of this piece shows that we still care about PBS and the intelligence and innocence it provides for our kids. I worked hard and long on this piece. I actually think I spent the most time on this one than I do on the other posts, so I am proud that it was and is a very successful piece!
A lot of these posts are tagged with the "Masterpieces" label, meaning that they are a bit lengthier than others and I put much effort into them, making them thought out expressive essays, and also have a good handful of comments, so I'm happy that my hard work has invoked a lot of thought and has not gone unnoticed. I also appreciate the positive comments the posts have gotten. I often wonder what kind of comments my controversial pieces would get, for I don't want my published views to instigate online arguments, but this has not been the case. I appreciate those who have commented for keeping things professional and clean. I also really like how people have searched for certain keywords and how come across my works that way.
Here's to plenty more new intriguing posts in the new year! :D
#5 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Representations
Published: September 2, 2011
Page Views: 167
"GLEE!" This post was a long time coming in my brainstorming, so I was glad to write out all my qualms with the show and get them out there. It's funny because after writing this series I wonder why I even like the show lol. I'm proud of this piece and worked very hard on it. I like how I touch on a lot of different points about what is and is not represented in "Glee" rather than just one solid subject. I think my favorite part is the "White Guys are Stupid" section. I personally think it's pretty funny. If you look at different TV shows, and maybe even movies and plays, this formula is very prominent nowadays.
That being said, how ironic that this post is next on this list...
#4 Hope vs. Steffy: Virginity vs. Promiscuity in Young Women Represented by a Soap Opera
Published: August 18, 2011
Page Views: 398
YES! I'm glad this one was so popular! If I'm not mistaken, this may be one of my blog posts I did not post on Facebook in the places I normally post them, so I'm happy that people were able to find it! Like my other posts about sex, this one also covers a topic that is very important to me. I was actually hoping to give you an update of what's been happening on the show since then, so now is the perfect time to do so. Okay let's see, this piece was published in August and we are now in January...and it is STILL the same storyline! No wonder people are sick of it! It's been dragged on for almost five months now! Basically everything I said I didn't want to happen happened. Liam married Steffy and Hope is all heartbroken over it. Steffy is on a quest to keep Hope away from Liam and now has gotten her brother Thomas involved. Thomas, who is smitten with Hope, has now proposed to Hope last Friday but just today she rejected him because she wants it to be right and is still hung up on Liam. AND, for that matter, we still don't know what Liam wants. He is still caught between two women and letting other people constantly tell him what to do. Actually, you know what?? He fits the model of a "Dumb White Male TV Character" pretty well! The show plays weekdays on CBS at 1:30 PM on the east coast. Check it out if you want. Maybe my ranting about it doesn't exactly convince you that it is worth your time, but still. You'll most likely see Liam because his storyline has been the most prominent nowadays and we pretty much can't get away from him. See for yourself if you agree that he fits the model like the other guys do. It's SO annoying!
#3 PBS Kids TV Shows and their New Characters that are Actually Worth our While
Published: June 21, 2011
Page Views: 519
Hey cool! One of my few blog posts NOT about sex! This one is actually the positive half of my discussion about new PBS characters. I like that I wrote about both sides of the debate.
#2 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Storylines (mainly Quinn's)
Published: September 5, 2011
Page Views: 927
"Glee" again! I guess people find it entertaining when I rant about Quinn Fabray. Like all of my posts about "Glee," I worked very hard on this one. It was the last post I published before my Fall 2011 semester started and I took a break from blogging, so I'm happy to have ended for a while on a post of which I am proud.
And the #1 "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" blog post so far is...
You probably could've guessed this one...
PBS Kids TV Shows and their Not-So-Heartwarming New Characters
Published: June 10, 2011
Page Views: A whopping 2,006!
I'm very pleased that my top blog post since I started blogging is one that is NOT about sex, but rather goes back to my childhood roots. The popularity of this piece shows that we still care about PBS and the intelligence and innocence it provides for our kids. I worked hard and long on this piece. I actually think I spent the most time on this one than I do on the other posts, so I am proud that it was and is a very successful piece!
A lot of these posts are tagged with the "Masterpieces" label, meaning that they are a bit lengthier than others and I put much effort into them, making them thought out expressive essays, and also have a good handful of comments, so I'm happy that my hard work has invoked a lot of thought and has not gone unnoticed. I also appreciate the positive comments the posts have gotten. I often wonder what kind of comments my controversial pieces would get, for I don't want my published views to instigate online arguments, but this has not been the case. I appreciate those who have commented for keeping things professional and clean. I also really like how people have searched for certain keywords and how come across my works that way.
Here's to plenty more new intriguing posts in the new year! :D
Happy One Year Anniversary to "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" Part 1
Happy New Year 2012 Everyone! Let's all make this a great one! :D
Can you believe that exactly one year ago today I created "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time?" I did it as a way to create new beginnings for the year 2011 and it was by far one of the best decisions of my life. I love this blog because it is a way to outlet my opinions and showcase my writing. Thank you to all those who appreciate my blog and have been reading it this past year! Here's to plenty more reading and writing in 2012!
To celebrate, let's take a look back at the Top Ten Most Popular Blog Posts of "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" during the first year of its run. I'm proud that these made the list because I consider these some of my best writing on this blog. A good majority of them are the pieces I wrote about sex, actually. Imagine that, sex being a popular thing to read about. Shocker.
#10 Real Influential Women Role Models (Real and Fictious): Kahlan Amnell and Cara Mason
Published: March 11, 2011
Page Views: 55
I'm actually pretty surprised this post made my Top Ten List as opposed to other ones. I actually felt that other posts from the 2011 edition of this series were more popular than this one, though I did often see this one show up in my list of most recently viewed posts, so I guess this isn't much of a surprise after all since it is one of the most popular posts of the series so far. Not that I'm complaining ;). This post is actually one of my favorites from the series and I had a lot of fun writing it because both Kahlan and Cara are very strong unique female characters from a very interesting story. I wouldn't consider them very popular characters, however, so that is another reason why I enjoyed showcasing them.
#9 Virginity...for Men
Published: December 27, 2011
Page Views: 69
I'm very impressed that this post made the list because I posted this one just last week. A lot of people "liked" it and it got a lot of comments and instigated plenty of discussions. I'm very happy that this post has/had such a positive following. The message I send through it is very important to me. I felt that it was something that needed to be said, so here's to hoping that it might start some kind of revolution.
#8 Women Enjoy Sex. Get Over It.
Published: October 19, 2011
Page Views: 85
Needless to say I was pretty angry when I wrote this one. I was actually in the process of writing another blog post or a paper when I felt that this one couldn't be delayed. Like #9, this one also sends a message that is very important to me and I am proud that it is a popular post. I often see it show up in my list of recently viewed posts. Maybe this one will also start a revolution and help people celebrate female sexuality and discontinue uses of words that downplay it. I can often refer back to it when I write other posts on here.
#7 Discussing Theatrical Nudity with Professor and Director Susan Kerner
Published: September 23, 2011
Page Views: 88
I'm kind of surprised and disappointed that none of my "Peak Performances and their Awkward Sexual Moments" posts made the list, but this one counts considering it is a spinoff of that series. I'm very happy with how enthusiastic my professor was during our interview. It was a very intelligent discussion. I got my answers about theatrical nudity, something I had been wondering about for a while. Ever since then she has been a proud supporter of my blog. It's nice that one of my blog posts involving theater, especially theater at my school, made this list, because this is the only one to do so.
#6 Genitalia: Should it be Discussed on TV?
Published: July 8, 2011
Page Views: 111
Yes. This. There's always a big debate of what should or should not be censored and for what reasons. This is me basically stating my argument against what is considered taboo about sex in the world and what we should do about it or if we should do anything about it at all.
So what blog post made #1? Stay tuned! I will post the Top 5 Blog Posts of All Time later on tonight!
Can you believe that exactly one year ago today I created "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time?" I did it as a way to create new beginnings for the year 2011 and it was by far one of the best decisions of my life. I love this blog because it is a way to outlet my opinions and showcase my writing. Thank you to all those who appreciate my blog and have been reading it this past year! Here's to plenty more reading and writing in 2012!
To celebrate, let's take a look back at the Top Ten Most Popular Blog Posts of "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" during the first year of its run. I'm proud that these made the list because I consider these some of my best writing on this blog. A good majority of them are the pieces I wrote about sex, actually. Imagine that, sex being a popular thing to read about. Shocker.
#10 Real Influential Women Role Models (Real and Fictious): Kahlan Amnell and Cara Mason
Published: March 11, 2011
Page Views: 55
I'm actually pretty surprised this post made my Top Ten List as opposed to other ones. I actually felt that other posts from the 2011 edition of this series were more popular than this one, though I did often see this one show up in my list of most recently viewed posts, so I guess this isn't much of a surprise after all since it is one of the most popular posts of the series so far. Not that I'm complaining ;). This post is actually one of my favorites from the series and I had a lot of fun writing it because both Kahlan and Cara are very strong unique female characters from a very interesting story. I wouldn't consider them very popular characters, however, so that is another reason why I enjoyed showcasing them.
#9 Virginity...for Men
Published: December 27, 2011
Page Views: 69
I'm very impressed that this post made the list because I posted this one just last week. A lot of people "liked" it and it got a lot of comments and instigated plenty of discussions. I'm very happy that this post has/had such a positive following. The message I send through it is very important to me. I felt that it was something that needed to be said, so here's to hoping that it might start some kind of revolution.
#8 Women Enjoy Sex. Get Over It.
Published: October 19, 2011
Page Views: 85
Needless to say I was pretty angry when I wrote this one. I was actually in the process of writing another blog post or a paper when I felt that this one couldn't be delayed. Like #9, this one also sends a message that is very important to me and I am proud that it is a popular post. I often see it show up in my list of recently viewed posts. Maybe this one will also start a revolution and help people celebrate female sexuality and discontinue uses of words that downplay it. I can often refer back to it when I write other posts on here.
#7 Discussing Theatrical Nudity with Professor and Director Susan Kerner
Published: September 23, 2011
Page Views: 88
I'm kind of surprised and disappointed that none of my "Peak Performances and their Awkward Sexual Moments" posts made the list, but this one counts considering it is a spinoff of that series. I'm very happy with how enthusiastic my professor was during our interview. It was a very intelligent discussion. I got my answers about theatrical nudity, something I had been wondering about for a while. Ever since then she has been a proud supporter of my blog. It's nice that one of my blog posts involving theater, especially theater at my school, made this list, because this is the only one to do so.
#6 Genitalia: Should it be Discussed on TV?
Published: July 8, 2011
Page Views: 111
Yes. This. There's always a big debate of what should or should not be censored and for what reasons. This is me basically stating my argument against what is considered taboo about sex in the world and what we should do about it or if we should do anything about it at all.
So what blog post made #1? Stay tuned! I will post the Top 5 Blog Posts of All Time later on tonight!
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Virginity...for Men
Recently I have been coming across different things associated with female virginity until marriage. In this trailer for the documentary The Purity Myth, based on the book of the same name by Jessica Valenti, the subject of female purity is the focus, seeming to put it in a negative light. My first impression of this trailer wasn't necessarily a good one because to me it seemed that it was downplaying waiting for marriage, which is something I promote in one of my other posts. However, I then noticed that Valenti's point is more so arguing with the notion that a woman's worth is labelled on whether or not she is "pure" and that purity pushes women into submission, which are concepts I do not agree with, so in this way I began to look at the trailer more favorably. I like how she brings up the idea of the purity balls when daughters pledge their virginities to their fathers (which is cringeworthy, because women shouldn't have to pledge their virginities to the first man in their lives and make their purity "official" through a ceremony) and how people look down upon feminism and think of it as this evil concept in the world (which angers me, especially when women talk against it). People have the wrong idea when it comes to feminism, Planned Parenthood, etc., so I'm glad this documentary brings it out.
I then came across a book in CVS called 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Daughter, written by Vicki Courtney. Here is the website pertaining to the book. At first this book had a bad impression on me as well because I felt all she was doing was promoting abstinence as the only answer, which to a lot of people it is not. She argues how the media masks female promiscuity as female empowerment when in reality that is not the case. However, I began to appreciate the book as I kept reading because she is entitled to write about how she feels on the subject just as much as I, and it is refreshing to see a mother write books about these subjects, helping women realize that it is okay to wait, encouraging them that it is the right path, rather than brainwashing them to do so, and also include truthful information about abortion, not lies. It is very comfortingly written and explores options in a non-condescending manner.
This got me thinking: "Why don't we have this conversation with young men?" Perhaps Courtney will touch upon this idea in her new book 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Son, but it just seems like women are often the focus for purity and virginity until marriage and men are often disregarded. In fact, it seems that men are more encouraged to lose their virginities than keep them, whereas for women it is the exact opposite. There are comedy movies dedicated to this sort of idea, such as Superbad and American Pie. The old double standard: A boy has sex, he is a MAN. A girl has sex, she is a SLUT.
I actually like the idea of women saving themselves for marriage, even though there are times I write favorably towards the free love concept. I find that saving oneself for that special someone to whom you eventually make a commitment is very admirable and safe. My thing is, however, if a man isn't going to wait for his woman, why should a woman wait for her man? I think that might be my main argument against saving sex for marriage, other than the fact that this is a concept we are normally taught, not necessarily a realization we come upon later in life after we sexually mature. In other words, it should be mentioned as the best option with the best outcomes, but it shouldn't be something mentioned as the only option, keeping people in the dark of what other alternatives they have. I know I wrote before about how sex is a normal human thing just like eating and sleeping is, but I guess what I did not include is how sex is more connected to emotion and attachment between people as opposed to the other two, which is why we should be more careful. It should be an honor to be each other's first, and last. There are times that I have been told that a man who is a virgin over the age of twenty-five is probably not the kind of guy women should get involved with, for there must be something wrong with him. It's just that male virginity is looked upon as such a bad thing that men feel so inadequate if they don't place their penis inside some kind of female orifice. It seems like everything in the world convinces men that they should act on their primal instincts right away or else they will immediately be emasculated.
This is why I am here. I felt the need to write this piece because I guess I should be the one to help men realize that their virginities are not in vain. Men have a right to be virgins just as much as women do. The thing is, virginity should be a choice, not because a man finds it difficult to lose it and that a woman is taught to save it. People should save their virginities for their significant others if they so chose because they feel it is the best thing to do. It's doesn't even have to be because it's what God wants, though I do believe it is what He prefers. It should be because it's what feels right and what a couple wants to share with each other in the moment of passion.
So, virgin men, these are the words I want to say to you: It's okay. Really. It's okay. Just because you have never had sex before doesn't mean you aren't a man. Even if you don't like the idea of being a virgin until marriage and your current virginity isn't by choice, just because you haven't had sex yet it doesn't mean you are a freak of nature. There is nothing wrong with you. There are people out there, women included, that appreciate male virgins entirely. You know why? Virginity these days is unique. Virgins are different and interesting. Also, you know virgins are most likely sexually healthy with no children. In fact, your virginity is actually nobody's business. If you are proud of your virginity, by all means feel free to proclaim it. But to me, virginity and sex life should be revealed between two adults who are going strong in their relationship and figuring out their next step as a couple. I believe that everyone has his or her match with whom he or she will gel well. So don't worry. Chances are your day will come when you will have sex with someone and that person just might be worth waiting for in the long run.
In other words, don't be afraid to be like this guy. This young man is 24-year-old quarterback for the Denver Broncos Tim Tebow, who is pretty much portrayed as a godsent to the world. (No pun intended but this is actually pretty accurate. His devotion to his Christian religion is his trademark.) I saw his photo on the cover of one of my father's magazines awhile ago and ever since then he's all I've been hearing about. A lot good, some bad. For instance, people have been mocking him for his faith. "Tebowing," the act in which Tebow gets down on one knee and prays during a game, is now very well known and is now an act along the lines of "planking." I'm not sure if the whole "tebowing" thing is supposed to be mocking Tebow's praying tendencies or not, but regardless I admire Tebow for sticking to his beliefs, taking everything calmly, and just being a decent human being. He seems to have a lot of fans who constantly admire him. He does nothing wrong whatsoever. He makes it impossible to dislike him because you never hear anything bad about him and I hope we never do. He almost seems too good to be true, almost too perfect.
Then I found out something else that made me admire him even more and decide to include him in this post. Apparently, he is remaining a virgin until marriage. Oddly enough, he reveals this at a press conference.
I then came across a book in CVS called 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Daughter, written by Vicki Courtney. Here is the website pertaining to the book. At first this book had a bad impression on me as well because I felt all she was doing was promoting abstinence as the only answer, which to a lot of people it is not. She argues how the media masks female promiscuity as female empowerment when in reality that is not the case. However, I began to appreciate the book as I kept reading because she is entitled to write about how she feels on the subject just as much as I, and it is refreshing to see a mother write books about these subjects, helping women realize that it is okay to wait, encouraging them that it is the right path, rather than brainwashing them to do so, and also include truthful information about abortion, not lies. It is very comfortingly written and explores options in a non-condescending manner.
This got me thinking: "Why don't we have this conversation with young men?" Perhaps Courtney will touch upon this idea in her new book 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Son, but it just seems like women are often the focus for purity and virginity until marriage and men are often disregarded. In fact, it seems that men are more encouraged to lose their virginities than keep them, whereas for women it is the exact opposite. There are comedy movies dedicated to this sort of idea, such as Superbad and American Pie. The old double standard: A boy has sex, he is a MAN. A girl has sex, she is a SLUT.
I actually like the idea of women saving themselves for marriage, even though there are times I write favorably towards the free love concept. I find that saving oneself for that special someone to whom you eventually make a commitment is very admirable and safe. My thing is, however, if a man isn't going to wait for his woman, why should a woman wait for her man? I think that might be my main argument against saving sex for marriage, other than the fact that this is a concept we are normally taught, not necessarily a realization we come upon later in life after we sexually mature. In other words, it should be mentioned as the best option with the best outcomes, but it shouldn't be something mentioned as the only option, keeping people in the dark of what other alternatives they have. I know I wrote before about how sex is a normal human thing just like eating and sleeping is, but I guess what I did not include is how sex is more connected to emotion and attachment between people as opposed to the other two, which is why we should be more careful. It should be an honor to be each other's first, and last. There are times that I have been told that a man who is a virgin over the age of twenty-five is probably not the kind of guy women should get involved with, for there must be something wrong with him. It's just that male virginity is looked upon as such a bad thing that men feel so inadequate if they don't place their penis inside some kind of female orifice. It seems like everything in the world convinces men that they should act on their primal instincts right away or else they will immediately be emasculated.
This is why I am here. I felt the need to write this piece because I guess I should be the one to help men realize that their virginities are not in vain. Men have a right to be virgins just as much as women do. The thing is, virginity should be a choice, not because a man finds it difficult to lose it and that a woman is taught to save it. People should save their virginities for their significant others if they so chose because they feel it is the best thing to do. It's doesn't even have to be because it's what God wants, though I do believe it is what He prefers. It should be because it's what feels right and what a couple wants to share with each other in the moment of passion.
So, virgin men, these are the words I want to say to you: It's okay. Really. It's okay. Just because you have never had sex before doesn't mean you aren't a man. Even if you don't like the idea of being a virgin until marriage and your current virginity isn't by choice, just because you haven't had sex yet it doesn't mean you are a freak of nature. There is nothing wrong with you. There are people out there, women included, that appreciate male virgins entirely. You know why? Virginity these days is unique. Virgins are different and interesting. Also, you know virgins are most likely sexually healthy with no children. In fact, your virginity is actually nobody's business. If you are proud of your virginity, by all means feel free to proclaim it. But to me, virginity and sex life should be revealed between two adults who are going strong in their relationship and figuring out their next step as a couple. I believe that everyone has his or her match with whom he or she will gel well. So don't worry. Chances are your day will come when you will have sex with someone and that person just might be worth waiting for in the long run.
In other words, don't be afraid to be like this guy. This young man is 24-year-old quarterback for the Denver Broncos Tim Tebow, who is pretty much portrayed as a godsent to the world. (No pun intended but this is actually pretty accurate. His devotion to his Christian religion is his trademark.) I saw his photo on the cover of one of my father's magazines awhile ago and ever since then he's all I've been hearing about. A lot good, some bad. For instance, people have been mocking him for his faith. "Tebowing," the act in which Tebow gets down on one knee and prays during a game, is now very well known and is now an act along the lines of "planking." I'm not sure if the whole "tebowing" thing is supposed to be mocking Tebow's praying tendencies or not, but regardless I admire Tebow for sticking to his beliefs, taking everything calmly, and just being a decent human being. He seems to have a lot of fans who constantly admire him. He does nothing wrong whatsoever. He makes it impossible to dislike him because you never hear anything bad about him and I hope we never do. He almost seems too good to be true, almost too perfect.Then I found out something else that made me admire him even more and decide to include him in this post. Apparently, he is remaining a virgin until marriage. Oddly enough, he reveals this at a press conference.
Now, I'm not sure if there is any truth to this, but if you think about it, what man would say he is a virgin waiting for marriage if he isn't?
Isn't this amazing? It's very rare that you meet a male virgin let alone meet a man who admits to it so proudly so I commend Tebow entirely. He is actually one of my current heroes. Tebow gives me hope that there are indeed men out there that are saving themselves for that special woman and are not ashamed of it.
You can find the Facebook pages of both Jessica Valenti and Vicki Courtney on my Facebook page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)