Well here i am 2nd post in less than a month! Yes, unexpected i know but i guess this will make up slightly for the gap i had in my previous 2 posts, anyway onto what we were supposed to do.
Okay well the text that i will be comparing The Ghost Road to is the famous Apocalypse Now. Obviously anyone who was in my class last year or has seen the movie knows what its about but for those who don't...
Basically, its a about a crazed chap named Willard who is essentially a secret service agent, but a like a war one not a spy one, who is sent on a mission to 'terminate' another crazed chap this being called Kurtz. Set during the Vietnam War Willard travels upriver revealing to us many of the sight and sounds that made the Vietnam War one of the most insane and incomprehensible wars known to man.
First things first, in both texts the war is portrayed in a negative light where 'no-ones in control' where 'no-one knows who's in charge', its being fought because the generals and commanders have started it for a reason which at the time seemed good and legitimate but as time has gone on the reason has been lost in the confusion and mayhem which the war created. Examples of this include the Du-Long bridge in Apocalypse Now and the final battle scene of The Ghost Road, all the fighting and death is just senseless in both of them. They're are only really fighting because 'they lost [their] bearings in the night'.
Next comes the characters, (thankfully this is not an essay so i can just do the main character). Willard and Prior are both alike in the sense, war is the only thing that both of them really know and understand and now that they have witnessed the 'horror' they can never go back to society the same person they left it as. They both are detached from their comrades however we glimpse acts of compassion and courage from both us indicating that a piece of there humanity still remains. They are both classless, they move in and out of upper and lower classes with ease and regularity, taking full advantage of what each others to them. Both masters of exploitation and getting what they want.
That's it for now, possibly more to come if inspiration hits but dinners up....
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Coll Hub
Today was a memorable day as the release of the Coll Hub sparked debate in the general populace of the school especially in the 7th form.
Since everyone loves being a critic, I will start with praise for the magazine. As the 1st page says this is not a magazine which is replacing the Collegian or the Wellingtonain but rather a more light hearted, entertaining type of magazine. (Having said that anyone seen the photo of Hunter, Ben, Nick etc etc in the Wellingtonian taking on a classic windy Wellington day??? that’s class). Therefore I was pleased to see articles ranging from politics, music, and literature to sport and of course an interview with a student. Next the presentation of the magazine, with a colour front and back page, it was eye catching and therefore you just had to open it and see what it was all about. Inside articles are spread all over the pages, with many not even following straight lines making it a much more interesting read. The articles themselves are relatively short, so even your year 9 with a concentration of a goldfish will be able to finish. And accompanying them are pictures and graphics all glossy printed giving it the image of a magazine in a bigger budget then reality reveals.
However with praise comes criticism, (before I start remember these are my personal opinions and therefore you do not have to agree with them), I could be wrong here since I didn’t actually read the articles and skipped over them as soon as I saw the titles as 'from the left side/from the right side' and that they were written by politically obsessed personal being our very own jdiggle and Paul hunt. All very good and worthwhile having your first actual article about politics when like me your audience will be or is 18 when the election rolls around this year but unfortunately 80+% of the school will not be making it a bit irrelevant.
Next the interview with Jesse Johnson aka jj, quite unsurprisingly this article was the most popular and funniest, simply because he plays rugby therefore all I think I need to say is "ruuuugbyyy??" Obviously I know he’s taking the piss, being in his accounting class and knowing that the teacher doesn’t love him at all but rather it is more likely that the complete opposite is true but doesn’t this just show reinforce the stereotype of rugby players are not the brightest people in the world. I've always wondered why that actually was surely the knocks they take to the head don’t kill that many brain cells. Anyway the article was short, to the point, easily relatable and therefore was the most liked.
Like I have said earlier, I thought the layout of the magazine was unique and made reading far more interesting but going so far as cutting words off the page??? I know we are a scholarship English class and can work things out very easily what the missing words probably are, but I guarantee you that there is a large amount of kids still scratching heads. While this could be accidental I find it hard to believe as no where on any other pages does there seem to an edge cut prematurely short.
Finally, the McEvedy article... boy can I relate to that article. Just in case anyone still doesn’t know I was captain and probably took it a bit more seriously and harder than most people. I’m still a bit bitter about it to be honest. I’m quite sorry, but saying we expected to walk in and just be given the shield through right?! You have got be f**king kidding me, I don’t know about the writer of the article but some of us trained four+ times a week for 12 weeks before hand to try and be ready for this competition. Remember its the athletes how actually do the competing and I tell you now we were not arrogant, we knew it was going to be tight from the start and gave blood and tears to try and make sure we were the ones who came out on top. So try and get the whole story next time before you print something like this again. Having said that, I would like to thank everyone how supported us and apart from the loss itself the day went very well as many of you will agree with me. Which brings me to my next point about us not being gracious in defeat? Okay so we are up ourselves but this doesn’t come without a certain amount of reason why. Obviously for someone who has been at this school for just over a term and has come from a much larger country winning probably doesn’t come on a consistent basis as it does at this college. But I’ve been at this college for over 4 years and to list the achievements and accomplishments of the students who have been through this college is frankly as impossible as counting to infinity (thanks matt for this comparison by the way). We have won so many national and regional titles, had had national athletes selected in so many sports to represent N.Z and proven ourselves as the best school in such a variety of things it becomes hard to imagine how the school doesn’t have a lot of self belief in itself and its students.
That’s my ranting done for the day, feel free to rebuttal me or voice your opinion either way comment!!!
(and again ignore the many grammatical and spelling errors)
Since everyone loves being a critic, I will start with praise for the magazine. As the 1st page says this is not a magazine which is replacing the Collegian or the Wellingtonain but rather a more light hearted, entertaining type of magazine. (Having said that anyone seen the photo of Hunter, Ben, Nick etc etc in the Wellingtonian taking on a classic windy Wellington day??? that’s class). Therefore I was pleased to see articles ranging from politics, music, and literature to sport and of course an interview with a student. Next the presentation of the magazine, with a colour front and back page, it was eye catching and therefore you just had to open it and see what it was all about. Inside articles are spread all over the pages, with many not even following straight lines making it a much more interesting read. The articles themselves are relatively short, so even your year 9 with a concentration of a goldfish will be able to finish. And accompanying them are pictures and graphics all glossy printed giving it the image of a magazine in a bigger budget then reality reveals.
However with praise comes criticism, (before I start remember these are my personal opinions and therefore you do not have to agree with them), I could be wrong here since I didn’t actually read the articles and skipped over them as soon as I saw the titles as 'from the left side/from the right side' and that they were written by politically obsessed personal being our very own jdiggle and Paul hunt. All very good and worthwhile having your first actual article about politics when like me your audience will be or is 18 when the election rolls around this year but unfortunately 80+% of the school will not be making it a bit irrelevant.
Next the interview with Jesse Johnson aka jj, quite unsurprisingly this article was the most popular and funniest, simply because he plays rugby therefore all I think I need to say is "ruuuugbyyy??" Obviously I know he’s taking the piss, being in his accounting class and knowing that the teacher doesn’t love him at all but rather it is more likely that the complete opposite is true but doesn’t this just show reinforce the stereotype of rugby players are not the brightest people in the world. I've always wondered why that actually was surely the knocks they take to the head don’t kill that many brain cells. Anyway the article was short, to the point, easily relatable and therefore was the most liked.
Like I have said earlier, I thought the layout of the magazine was unique and made reading far more interesting but going so far as cutting words off the page??? I know we are a scholarship English class and can work things out very easily what the missing words probably are, but I guarantee you that there is a large amount of kids still scratching heads. While this could be accidental I find it hard to believe as no where on any other pages does there seem to an edge cut prematurely short.
Finally, the McEvedy article... boy can I relate to that article. Just in case anyone still doesn’t know I was captain and probably took it a bit more seriously and harder than most people. I’m still a bit bitter about it to be honest. I’m quite sorry, but saying we expected to walk in and just be given the shield through right?! You have got be f**king kidding me, I don’t know about the writer of the article but some of us trained four+ times a week for 12 weeks before hand to try and be ready for this competition. Remember its the athletes how actually do the competing and I tell you now we were not arrogant, we knew it was going to be tight from the start and gave blood and tears to try and make sure we were the ones who came out on top. So try and get the whole story next time before you print something like this again. Having said that, I would like to thank everyone how supported us and apart from the loss itself the day went very well as many of you will agree with me. Which brings me to my next point about us not being gracious in defeat? Okay so we are up ourselves but this doesn’t come without a certain amount of reason why. Obviously for someone who has been at this school for just over a term and has come from a much larger country winning probably doesn’t come on a consistent basis as it does at this college. But I’ve been at this college for over 4 years and to list the achievements and accomplishments of the students who have been through this college is frankly as impossible as counting to infinity (thanks matt for this comparison by the way). We have won so many national and regional titles, had had national athletes selected in so many sports to represent N.Z and proven ourselves as the best school in such a variety of things it becomes hard to imagine how the school doesn’t have a lot of self belief in itself and its students.
That’s my ranting done for the day, feel free to rebuttal me or voice your opinion either way comment!!!
(and again ignore the many grammatical and spelling errors)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fringe Festival (Familiar Strangers)
So on the night of 21/02/08, I went to an outdoor theatre production. Part of the film festival, hears a quick description of what it was all about....
"An entertaining promenade theatre experience of the people on Wellington's streets. Meet carnivalesque characters on an adventure through the pavements, alleyways and curbside philosophies of the inner city. Eight site-specific performances directed by Rachel Lenart ('Bouncing With Billie') and James Hadley ('Lovers Of Central Park')."
Basically I showed up at paramount theatre with my mates, we were split into 4 "communities" with the rest of those attending. From there we were given a map and a set of instructions to follow. We left the theatre with no clue of the performances to come.
Our first instruction was to walk down the alley between the Mermaid and St James Theatre and look for an old man who seemed lost. As soon as we saw him he greeted us and began talking about his life. Ranting about the cities problems and his 'Belinda' it seemed as if he was a crazed old man. But as we continued listening to him you became aware of how what his life was like, how he had survived on the streets for so long and the sights that he had seen.
His act was short and fun, which I thought was really good, keeping it short enough not to bore us but long enough to get our attention and make us think. So this meetings with strangers continued while walking everywhere in the greater Courtney central vicinity. Strangers included: a homeless bum, a crazy tree girl, rain jacket girl, schizophrenic woman and a French looking prostitute.
Personal highlights had to be the 'damsel in distress' by far one of the funniest acts she provided a detailed insight into the con life; 'your birthday is exactly one month after you the meet the guy alright?' 'oh shit I'm late for my 1st date with Jeff, remember you have to show up to the 1st one on time and then u can show up whenever the bloody hell you want'. Also the two backpackers, a Russian and German backpacker meet in Waitangi park, what follows is a comical dialogue and acting scene which finishes with the German chick proclaiming 'you shall cook me dinner for disturbing my chaos!' to which the Russian gent replies 'only if its at your place', before the two run off.
I thoroughly enjoyed the whole production and would recommended anyone to see it if they need something a bit light-hearted and don’t mind a little walking. the great thing about this play is that if you were to walk past any of these actors, as they were waiting for there group to come and begin acting to them, you would not take any notice of them as they blend in to the Wellingtonian background and life.
(ignore the many grammatical mistakes I probably made)
cheers for reading
"An entertaining promenade theatre experience of the people on Wellington's streets. Meet carnivalesque characters on an adventure through the pavements, alleyways and curbside philosophies of the inner city. Eight site-specific performances directed by Rachel Lenart ('Bouncing With Billie') and James Hadley ('Lovers Of Central Park')."
Basically I showed up at paramount theatre with my mates, we were split into 4 "communities" with the rest of those attending. From there we were given a map and a set of instructions to follow. We left the theatre with no clue of the performances to come.
Our first instruction was to walk down the alley between the Mermaid and St James Theatre and look for an old man who seemed lost. As soon as we saw him he greeted us and began talking about his life. Ranting about the cities problems and his 'Belinda' it seemed as if he was a crazed old man. But as we continued listening to him you became aware of how what his life was like, how he had survived on the streets for so long and the sights that he had seen.
His act was short and fun, which I thought was really good, keeping it short enough not to bore us but long enough to get our attention and make us think. So this meetings with strangers continued while walking everywhere in the greater Courtney central vicinity. Strangers included: a homeless bum, a crazy tree girl, rain jacket girl, schizophrenic woman and a French looking prostitute.
Personal highlights had to be the 'damsel in distress' by far one of the funniest acts she provided a detailed insight into the con life; 'your birthday is exactly one month after you the meet the guy alright?' 'oh shit I'm late for my 1st date with Jeff, remember you have to show up to the 1st one on time and then u can show up whenever the bloody hell you want'. Also the two backpackers, a Russian and German backpacker meet in Waitangi park, what follows is a comical dialogue and acting scene which finishes with the German chick proclaiming 'you shall cook me dinner for disturbing my chaos!' to which the Russian gent replies 'only if its at your place', before the two run off.
I thoroughly enjoyed the whole production and would recommended anyone to see it if they need something a bit light-hearted and don’t mind a little walking. the great thing about this play is that if you were to walk past any of these actors, as they were waiting for there group to come and begin acting to them, you would not take any notice of them as they blend in to the Wellingtonian background and life.
(ignore the many grammatical mistakes I probably made)
cheers for reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)