Fiddler on the Roof

So before we begin the show, I'd just like to comment that this is one of my absolute favourites, I encourage everyone to watch...beautiful, tragic, hilarious, and profound. Good stuff, good stuff.

Mkay, the show is beginning. I like to picture the dawning fiddler scene appearing from behind a curtain. "You might say all of us are fiddlers on the roof. Trying to scratch out a decent tune, and not fall and break our necks." This opening song, Tradition, sets up the rest of the show so perfectly. At this point, tradition seems so ideal and so invicible. Everyone in the family has a place. This niche does not seem oppressive at this point. The viewer finds himself imagining the hollowed out jobs that each family member was designed to do and saying things like, "Of course! A Kosher home."

So after the credits roll the matchmaker drops in. Tzeitl is extremely upset by this considering that she is the oldest daughter and first in line to get married. These marriages are arranged, hence the matchmaker, and Tzeitl is afraid that she will be forced to marry an old man, a bald man, an unnatractive and unlovable man. Unfortunately for Tzeitl, the matchmaker brings news that a wealthy butcher has "set his eye" on her, and her mother is thrilled at the prospect.

Tzeitl is in touch with the reality that most matches are less than ideal for a poor girl with no dowry. However, her two younger sisters are naive and full of wishful thoughts that they will get the very best in a match and live happily ever after. Tzeitl wakes them up to their likely prospects and by the end of the discussion they are in no hurry to marry.

Tevye sings his song about wishing he was a rich man. Then he heads to town and a few very important things occur; the men gather around and one reads aloud that Jews have been evicted from a very nearby town. This is a dark cloud that gets darker and more eminent as the film progresses. Directly after this, a young scholar, who is a Protestant Christian, comes into town. He has radical views and is not shy about telling complete strangers about them. Through a brief conversation, he is hired at Tevye's home to tutor his daughters.

Tevye returns home with Perchik the tutor and the Sabbath begins. After the family is introduced, a very interesting parallel scene happens between Tevye and his wife and Motel (Tzeitl's childhood sweetheart) and Tzeitl. The older couple, a product of a long ago arranged marriage, argue over whether or not Tevye should talk to the butcher (although she does not tell him why), while Motel and Tzeitl argue in a more subdued manner about whether or not Motel should talk to her father and ask for her hand. Both women get their way and both men agree to talk to the third party. However, when Motel is given the chance, his will fails him and his fear of losing Tzeitl forever (and of Tevye yelling at him) take over. Tevye goes and talks to the butcher and agrees to let him marry Tzeitl...after a very long and awkward misunderstanding.

They drink on it and return home. On the way, a police officer leaks the news to Tevye that there will be "a little unofficial demonstration" among the Jews. What he means is that there will be looting and trouble of that sort around town just so if the authorities come through, they can see that the police officers "did their duty." So the discrimnating cloud darkens a little more.

Back at home, Perchik is tutoring Tevye's daughters. After the young ones leave, he and Hodel have an argument over his interpretation of a Bible story. He seems to shatter a little bit of the traditional glass she lives in.

Shortly after, Tzeitl's parents tell her she is to marry the butcher. Perchik's radical views become more evident as he argues on Tzeitl's behalf that money is no reason to marry, but is rather "the world's curse." Tzeitl has a breakdown and her father tells her he will not force her to marry. Motel comes and asks for her hand immediately following the breakdown. Tevye then has a breakdown of his own over the fact that the "children" have matched themselves, not keeping with the Jewish tradition of the time.However, after a far-away inner dialogue, he decides out of love for his daughter to allow them to marry. They are overjoyed. :)

Later, Tevye has to break the news to his wife that her daughter will no longer be marrying a rich man. Instead of being honest, he decides to feign a dream/omen that Lasar's late wife visited him and warned that if Tzeitl marries her husband that she will kill her in the night. In the dream, Tzeitl's grandmother also put in a good world for Motel. To the superstitious woman, this was more than enough to carry her favour from Lasar to Tzeitl's beloved.

At Tzeitl and Motel's sunset wedding that was very soon to follow, her family reminisces about the couple's childhood. Although it was not originally their first choice, and although the parents know that it will be hard for the "children" as they start out together, they are happy for them. And it's beautiful. There's dancing and rejoicing and drinking and lots of well-wishes. Lasar is bitter about the loss of his bride however, and this causes a great deal of tension within the wedding party. Unfortunately, this is the least of their problems when the police force arrives to crash the party, ransack the wedding gifts, and destroy the beauty of the night. There is a turning point in the show here--it gets very dark after this point--and never really goes back to the way it was.

Time passes--Motel and Tzeitl have been married for some time. They are poor, but happy together. Tevya prays that God will give Motel a sewing machine so that they will be able to have a more comfortable life.

Perchik confides in Hodel that he will be leaving to go join in a revolution. But before he goes, he, in a very roundabout way, asks Hodel to marry him. Although it is his personal defense mechanism to go into political mode whenever he feels uncomfortable, he allows Hodel to remind him of the necessity of love and affection within a relationship.

When Hodel and Perchik go to Tevye to announce their engagement, Tevye has a very difficult time understanding that they did not ask for his permission, only for his blessing. "At least Motel and Tzeitl asked him, they begged him." Again Tevye is struggling with "tradition," or more accurately, pride. But again, out of love for his child, and out of the belief that God has matched them and begun the work, he gives his blessing...and his permission. :)

Inspired by this, Tevye brings up the subject of love for the very first time with his wife of 25 years. They discuss their past--how they met for the first time on their wedding day, how their parents told them "they would learn to love each other." And after 25 years, it seems that they have.

Far away, Perchik has been captured and taken away to a settlement in Siberia for his rebellion against the government. He has sent for Hodel, and she has chosen to go to him. She understands that she may never see her family again, but she makes this "melancholy choice" out of love. Tevya prays only that God will take care of his daughter, and that she will dress warm.

At home, Motel and Tzeitl have a "new arrival." Motel has received the sewing machine that he has been praying for. The town turns out to see it, and we discover that he and Motel also have a baby. Though they seem to be doing well, Tevya's youngest daughter is in torment. She is in love with the Catholic boy she met on the road earlier in the film, and she knows that they will never be able to marry while he is outside of the faith. However, she confesses to her father that they wish to be married. In response to this, he says what is one of my absolute favourite quotes from this show..."A bird may love a fish, but where would they build a home together?" He forbids her to ever mention it again.

Desperate, Tevye's youngest daughter marries her beloved without permission from her family, without notifying her family at all. Golde runs home to tell Tevye, and he seems to be in complete shock. He resolves that their disobedient child is dead to them now, without ceremony and without mourning. In the midst of this shock, she suddenly appears, begging him to accept her marriage. He inwardly debates, but just as she chose her love over her tradition, he decided to choose his tradition over his love. He disowns her, and both parties separate, heartbroken in different ways.

Nonverbal Communication

In the short film "Mr. Bean," the main character relies mainly on nonverbal communication. This means that he rarely speaks, but rather conveys the messages he wishes to send in other ways, such as facial expressions, body language, actions, and hyperbole. His audience understands him very clearly even without the use of words. However, the actors around him in the film itself often seem not to notice his outbursts or not to consider them humorous. When Mr. Bean decides to cheat on his exam, the audience immediately understands what he is up to. However, for the remainder of the scene, the film focuses not on understanding his message, but rather on all the crazy ways he tries to complete one task.

In the second skit with the swimsuit, Mr. Bean tries very hard to not look conspicuous to those around him, which seems to be a reoccuring theme within all of his comedy. However, the skit introduces irony when the man he is worried so much about gets out of his chair and makes evident that he is blind by using a walking stick.

In the church skit, the comedy is introduced by placing the outrageous Mr. Bean in a very reverent and quiet seting. The slightest occurences such as sneezing or dozing off or opening a wrapper cause the biggest problems, magnified of course by his exaggeration of every situation.

In all of Mr. Bean's skits, although he doesn't speak, devices such as irony and hyperbole are very liberally used. The audience understands these familiar situations without the use of verbal explanation or elaboration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second video, Mr. Bean is having a day out on the town. He seems to be focusing on financial situations; giving money, having money, spending money

. What stands out to me the most about this section in particular are the basic human emotions that he feels. His escapades are so humorous to us because we know exactly what it's like to feel all the basic things that he feels and think many of the same thoughts. This is why verbal communication is unnecessary. The difference is that we would never actually do these things and he just does without a second thought.

School Uniforms

"For eight hours of my day, five days a week, I live in a world where everyone looks just like me. I consider myself to be a creative individual, but if you were to see me among my friends at school, you wouldn't 'know me from Adam.' In the morning when I wake up I don the exact same colours and fabrics and patterns I wore the day before, and I feel as though every day is exactly the same. I find myself losing interest in academic and extracurricular activities. I feel stifled and squelched."--Unfortunately, this could be the response of any student forced to wear a uniform in his public school. Although the motives behind a move for a school uniform may be sincere and good, the fact is that a school wide uniform inhibits self-expression, it teaches students that conformity is the solution for conflict, and contrary to popular belief, it does not prevent violence or the formation of cliques and gangs within the school environment.'

When asked how they felt about school uniforms, according to online idebate.org, students from all walks of life protested that they threaten self expression. According to Riverdale High School sophomore Chelsea Liverpool, "students like to express [themselves] through clothes and don't want to be viewed the same as [their] classmates." Uniforms virtually suffocate individualism, whereas many modern-day teachers in America would like to say that they recognize each student for their individual talents and assets. This is not to say that the clothes a student wears advertise all of his or her talents and assets, but if a system removes the extremely personal quality of what a youth is allowed to wear on his back, it is a traumatizing unverbalized statement all on its own. According to Alastair Endersby of Bishops Wordsworth School in Salisbury, England, "Uniform was better suited to an age of rote learning and military-style discipline than to the more exploratory and creative values of modern education--values which are increasingly important to the wider economy." Some schools in Australia are even banning "noisy jewelry" as a part of their dress code. Each student is expected to be orderly to the point of conformity and focused to the mindset of machinery.

Aside from a being a threat to valuable self-expression, school uniforms also threaten a student's social skills. Many nay-sayers of uniforms point out that school uniforms teach students at a very malleable age that conformity is the solution for conflict. The idea behind the uniform is that if everyone looks the same no one will have a problem with anyone else. In the real world, this is a logical fallacy, and a very dangerous one at that. Uniforms may have been proven in some areas to decrease behavioral problems, given. However, as soon as these robots graduate high school and head out into the real world, they will discover that the dull and colourless world they have slept in for half a decade ended when the caps and gowns came off and that the modern, right-brained world that everyone else lives in does not play by uniform rules. Why should these intelligent youths be placed at such a disadvantage? Better to learn the art of interpersonal communication while they are young than discover they have been sheltered and deceived thier whole educational careers too late.

Unfortunately, supporters of school uniforms are still very securely convinced that uniforms are worth all of the misfortune that befalls their wearers just because of the magical way they mow down gangs, cliques, and all other hateful groups at the roots. However, as a soon-to-be high school graduate, I can personally say from experience that hateful children that desire to exclude and bully others will find a way to do so no matter what everyone is wearing. It is a foolish idea that says that one can take a group of students with behavioral issues, strap new clothes to their back and to everyone else's, and through this method eliminate gang activity. True, this may be an effective way to cut down mockery of clothing, but students who have the need to mock in order to feel good about themselves will not be stopped by this minor speed bump. The only thing that will change is that these students will find something new and possibly more deep to chew on and hurt others with. Gang members can still thrive with their connotative headbands taken away and their symbolic clothing discarded. In fact, after such a blow to their ego and a suffocation of their basic rights, they may even come back with rebellious vengeance.

Students from all over the country and even the world are railing against the unsightly blemish of school uniforms in their home towns. Uniforms squelch individuality, deceive students and deprive them of their social skills, and all the while try to claim that they are virtually eliminating the bad behavior of the student not by dealing with him personally, but by dealing with the clothes on his back. I am so fortunate to have lived in a world where I could choose how I wanted to present myself every morning that I woke up, and I would not deprive anyone of that right.

March 5th.

Duel.
For the entire first section of the film I was focused completely on the radio dialogue going on. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be. I'm still wondering if it's significant to the plot of the two vehicles in some deep mysterious way that I'm just not seeing. Surely not. Unless it would be the introduction to the theme of Alpha male roles. The radio dialogue was addressing whether or not the caller (male) was the head of the family or if his dominating wife was. At that point, the two male vehicle drivers began to have their need for speed. At the gas station the driver of the little car made a snide comment about not being "the boss" in his own household. So that could be the underlying point of the dialogue in the beginning....to introduce a reoccuring theme.

Like the radio, it's these aspects in the beginning of the film, the random and possibly irrelevant moments, that fascinate me the most. They make me look even harder than I originally was for a more complicated plot than two vehicles on the highway. At the gas station the camera seemed to make a point of a heavyset woman doing laundry. I kept waiting for her to do something important. I kept waiting on the gas station attendant to say something meaningful.

The two vibes I picked up on the most throughout were aggression and suspense. There was a strong air of mystery surrounding the driver of the tank. We didn't know who he was, we couldn't see his thought processes. This kept us interested. We as viewers were automatically on the side of the driver of the red car from the beginning, we felt his fear with him when the diesel turned homicidal. It's interesting to me that this film managed to make such a simple plot into such an attention-grabber. And -keeper.

So bizarre.

Moral of the story: Men who avoid confrontation will get chased by crazy tanker trucks until they learn how to put on their big girl panties.

Banning iPods, March 3.

Schools have taken another step in the direction of communism.
The next item on the agenda is to ban iPods from campus.

Why is this happening? Teachers and staff agree that if iPods are forbidden then it could "stave off" cheaters. Evidently iPods have become the new weapon of choice among students in the line of discreet dishonesty. Students can hide them in clothing and fool unattentive teachers, saving answers in the lyrics archive and sometimes even using recorded vocals to recite answers in their ear during exams.
Who does this affect? The honest and dishonest student alike.
Where is this occuring? It is spotting the US from California to Washington to Texas to New York. Beyond our soil, Canada and Australia have even jumped on the bandwagon.
"I think it will become a national trend," commented Shana Kemp, spokeswoman for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "We hope that each district will have a policy in place for technology. It keeps a lot of the problems down."
When will this become visible in the majority of public schools? The trend has already begun.

As my introduction may have already implied, I strongly disagree with this movement. Schools have banned hats, cell phones, even calculators in some cases, desperately hoping that cheating in their classes will dwindle until it is a forgotten, ancient practice. Admittedly, it's a noble thought. Doubtless, their intentions are good. However, the root of the cheating problem was never a hat, a cell phone, a calculator, or even an iPod. As Kelsey Nelson, a 17-year-old Mountain View High School senior stated, "...people who are going to cheat are going to cheat, with our without them."

At Duke, incidents of cheating have declined noticeably in the past ten years. This could be because students here are held to a standard of honesty. Tim Dodd, executive director for The Center of Academic Integrity at the university stated, "Trying to fight the technology without a dialogue on values expectations is a losing battle."

What teachers and school boards must understand is that technology is not the problem. Technology is a tool. And it can be every bit as useful as it is harmful, even in the case of iPods. If teachers want cheating to decline, they must address the root of the problem, the cheater. I would think that eventually it would become evident that no matter what one tries to ban and forbid, there will always be a new, creative way to cheat if a student desires to do so. If this trend continues, the students of the future will be secluded to a solitary cell with a stone tablet and a pot shard.

A teacher at Batesville High once said, "It is alarming to me that in the past one hundred years, the only thing I can see that hasn't changed at all is the structure of the basic classroom." We can no longer run from the incorporation of technology in our daily lives; we can no longer try to suffocate it in the school system. I am not sure that cheating will ever be squelched or staved. However, I am sure that banning iPods is not the way to handle this issue.

For additional support on these thoughts check out THIS ARTICLE by Mike Elgan, a fellow protester against the iPod banning movement.

March 1st.

"Nothing travels faster than light, with the exception of bad news, which follows its own rules." -Douglas Adams

Today I was assigned by my Oral Communications teacher to read three news articles. The first was a horrific and detailed description of the damages done by a very recent earthquake in Chile. The article made an effort to focus on the lootings that had occured in the midst of the havoc, while including death tolls and numbers of survivors at strategic intervals. "Shocked survivors were left without power, water, or food," the page read, pulling at my empathy and pumping me with pathos.

The second was a political and pompous article on global warming. The title read, "How do you convince people of global warming in a snow storm?" as though the higher-ups really were perplexed by this question. This was confirmed when, by the end of the article, the conclusion seemed to simply say on their behalf, "Just trust us--it's happening." It gave statistics and NASA research claiming that this past decade has been the warmest yet. It also included some Al Gore dialogue, which....well. Need I say more?

The third article almost seemed quiet and resigned as it told of a very tragic, very recent storm in Europe. This storm definitely claimed less lives than say, the earthquake in Chile. It was not as government coddled as the global warming article. However, it seemed to hit closer to home than both, specifically naming situations in which lives were lost.

Other than the fact that all were depressing in their own special way, these articles had much in common. On the surface, of course they were all factual updates on recent weather issues that the public is at least in some way interested in. However, on a deeper level, each of these articles had the ability, carried a certain weight...that made me walk away from them feeling more aware and more opinionated (due to the fact that I was more informed) than I was when I arrived here. My apathy corroded, at least to a certain degree, as I was quietly and gradually removed from my little world and given a peek inside a bigger one.

I suppose the entry that caught my attention the most was the last entry I read on the European storm. The article pointed a tactful finger at the conditions of France's sea walls, which were allegedly old and weak. When confronted and criticized about the matter, France's President simply stated, "This is not the time." Although the article seemed to portray this as a cowardly dodge from the line of fire, I couldn't help but feel differently. As much as the loss of lives is tragic, and as much as I may feel differently if I was a family member of one of the deceased or missing, and even though it may be true that the death toll would have been less if the sea walls had only been thought of sooner, it concerns me that in the midst of a tragedy as volatile and uncontrollable as a natural disaster, the public is still looking for someone to point the finger at. Isn't that just like humans?