"How to Spot a Liar"

        In this Ted Talk, Pamela Meyer talks about different ways that you can tell if a person is lying. It is amazing to think that all persons are liars. Even though we say we are against lying, because from a young age we are taught that it is wrong, our words are discredited by the lies we constantly make. 

Meyer says that 1 year olds lie by using concealment, 2 year olds bluff, 5 year olds lie and manipulate by using flattery, 9 year olds use cover ups, and by the time you are a teenager, you lie to your parents in 1 out of 5 interactions. It is incredible how from a young age we begin to lie to our parents in order to stay out of trouble and rid ourselves of consequences due to our bad behavior. We don't realize that by lying instead of admitting our wrongdoings we are making it even worse. According to Meyer, everyday you are likely to be lied to from 10 to 200 times a day, so I suggest from now on you be on the lookout! 

There are many signs that you can look for to tell if a person is lying. Usually we believe that when a person is lying, they will fidget and they won't make eye contact, but when people lie they keep their upper body straight and they make sure to look you straight in the eye. People who lie usually shift their blinking rate, point their feet towards an exit, lower their vocal tone, and put objects between them and the people they are lying to. Also, people who lie will use way too much detail and use formal rather than informal language, for example they will say "did not" instead of "didn't". I learned that women lie more to protect other people, men lie more about themselves, and extroverts lie more than introverts. People lie for many different reasons it might be to get out of trouble, to blame another, or to protect someone else. 

I found it interesting how Meyer explained that lying is a cooperative act. Usually we think of the person being lied to as the victim, but Meyer is trying to say that the person who is being lied to is unconsciously taking part in the lie. The only way that we can abstain from participating in a lie is to learn to identify the signs of a person who is lying. When people learn to identify these signs, lying will become more looked down on. Only then will honesty become more valued in our every day lives.

Hamlet: Denmark High School for troubled kids

       Hamlet has been performed by many productions in different settings and time periods. If I had to choose an alternate time and place for Hamlet  to be performed in I would choose a high school for troubled kids in the present day. To be more exact, in Denmark High School run by principal Claudius and vice principal Gertrude. This high school would be of high prestige and very well known to enforce good behavior on their students. Hamlet would be spending his senior year at Denmark high school as opposed to boarding school because he has been asked by his parents to serve as a model of the perfect student for the others. Polonius would serve as a counselor for the kids and a close friend of Claudius that he trusts very much. His daughter Ophelia would be one of the many trouble makers in the school that is obviously not good enough for Hamlet. Horatio, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern would be students and friends of Hamlet.

An interesting part of the play to be performed in this time and place would be Act 3 Scene 1. In this scene Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would be meeting with Claudius in his office, ashamed of disappointing their dear principal because they failed to find out what was causing Hamlet's madness. Then to try to prove that Hamlet was going mad from his love for Ophelia, Polonius would set up a meeting between them. Ophelia would be all alone in a classroom pretending she is a hardworking student that is doing her homework. Hamlet would walk in and would find it suspicious that she is actually working for once. Meanwhile Claudius and Polonius would be spying on them through an air vent. Hamlet would become aware of the set up and make fun of poor Ophelia for thinking that he ever cared about her. Then Ophelia would run out of the classroom broken hearted. Claudius would then resolve that Hamlet is not mad for love and would then plan for Hamlet to go back to boarding school.

"To Be or Not to Be" Soliloquy

    

      In Act 3 Scene 1 of Hamlet, Hamlet delivers his "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy. In this soliloquy he is debating whether it's better to suffer the troubles that life brings you, or to take matters into your own hands, and end your troubles by committing suicide. Here are two videos that I found portraying the scene. 

The only aspect in which the videos relate is that they made the scene appear very dramatic. In Gibson's video, the fact that Hamlet is surrounded by tombs makes his words about death seem more vivid. In Branagh's video, Hamlet staring at himself in the mirror makes it seem like he is searching for an answer in himself.

In Gibson's video, Hamlet is in a dark underground crypt surrounded by many tombs. This setting has a huge impact on the soliloquy that Hamlet is delivering because you can see his strong desire to be in their place. I like how throughout the video Hamlet walks around, sinks to the floor, and can't stay still because it shows his restlessness about the subject at hand. In this video, Hamlet emphasizes the downside of death, and his distress about what awaits in the afterlife. Hamlet also shows his anger about being too scared to die and having to endure what comes. 

As opposed to Gibson's video, Branagh's video incorporates Ophelia, Polonius and Claudius. This setting really differs from Gibson's because there is a lot of light, mirrors, and the color white. I like how at the beginning, Hamlet walks in, looks around, and makes sure he is alone. Then he proceeds to study himself in the mirror and question what he should do. I think it was a great idea for Hamlet to take out a dagger because it really shows that he wants to kill himself and end his troubles. He progressively walks closer to the mirror and puts the dagger dangerously close to his face.

Overall, I preferred Gibson's video a lot more than Branagh's. First of all, I think that the setting of the crypt made Hamlet's words a lot more credible. Also, in this video Hamlet shows many of his emotions such as confusion, anger, and concern. In Branagh's video, I don't think Hamlet shows much emotion at all.

Short Works Edited Paragraph

Original Conclusion Paragraph:
The couple's paranoia to keep their family safe from any outside threat ends up backfiring at them. Their incentive to keep their home safe ends up dying not because of any outside threat, but because of their overprotection. Gordimer portrays the couple as cautious people that eventually become paranoid to prove her point that too much of anything is bad for you. Things are only good in moderation because if you over do, the results might be tragic.

Revised Conclusion Paragraph:
     The couple's paranoia to keep their family safe from any outside threat ends up backfiring at them. Their  main incentive to keep their home safe ends up dead, not because of any outside threat like they feared so, but due to their overprotection. Gordimer portrays the couple as cautious people that eventually become paranoid to prove her point that too much fear, especially if it is unaccounted for, can lead to tragic results, and that it is best to live in moderation. 

Branagh's Decent Portrayal of Hamlet

Kenneth Branagh's depiction of Act 1 Scene 5 of Hamlet was acceptable. Although there were many parts that ruined the mood, there were also some that I thought were true to the play.

At the very beginning of the scene, it really bothered me that the ghost of Hamlet's father scared him by coming out of nowhere and by grabbing him by the arm. In his discussion of the scene, Branagh did say that he meant for Hamlet to be scared, but it would have been a lot better if Hamlet had been scared because he was about to see a ghost, not because the ghost purposefully scared him by grabbing him. Another thing that I disliked was that throughout the entire video, the ghost was speaking in a very annoying, raspy, and whispering voice. Hamlet is hard enough to understand, and the ghost's voice made it even harder to tell what he was saying. Also, I think that throughout most of the chat with the ghost,  Hamlet had a blank expression and it was hard to tell what he was feeling. 

The best part of Branagh's portrayal of scene 5 was when they passed the background story and the recounting of events. I liked the image of the old king sleeping peacefully in his garden, although they don't provide much detail about that scene in the play, I think it was portrayed well in the video. Same goes for the poisoning of the king, it was a good touch to pass a visual of  how awful the poisoning of the king was because it made it even worse that his own brother would cause him that pain. Branagh said that he wanted Claudius to look affected by killing his brother. Although it is not mentioned how Claudius reacts in the actual play, by making Claudius look affected, Branagh made it seem like he might have regretted killing his brother.The illustration of Gertrude spending time with both the old King and Claudius added to the point that she moved on too fast, which is just how Hamlet explains it in the play. I also liked that at the end, Hamlet seemed vulnerable and showed some of his grief and affection by touching his father's ghost's hand.

The best aspects of Branagh's portrayal of Act 1 Scene 5 of Hamlet were definitely the parts that showed the illustrations of the background story. They provided insight on what Hamlet might have been imagining as his father's ghost spoke to him.Some of Branagh's choices on how to present the ghost could have been better, but overall his depiction of the scene wasn't too bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNF1MADUz2E&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgQiHPDvpx0&feature=player_embedded

First Impression of King Claudius

       When king Claudius is introduced in Hamlet, he immediately sets off a bad impression. The first thing shakespeare lets us know about Claudius is that he marries his dead brothers wife, an action that I find very unsettling. Claudius is doing his best to demonstrate his superiority now that he is king, but in my opinion, he comes off as arrogant. I also think he serves as a bad fatherly role towards Hamlet by being insensible and inconsiderate towards his feelings.

Only one month after the death of his brother, the old king of Denmark, Claudius marries his wife. He makes it seem like he is providing a balance of emotions for himself and for the kingdom, " Have we (as 'twere with a defeated joy, /With an auspicious and a dropping eye, / With mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage, / In equal scale weighing delight and dole)" (1.2.10-13). But how can he feel both sorrow for his brother's death, and happiness for marrying his dead brothers wife? I find this balance to be unnatural and his ideas contradicting. Still, he pretends that everything is fine when it most clearly isn't.

During his speech to the court, Claudius seems insulted because Fortinbras doesn't believe in his ability as king, "Now follows that  you know. Young Fortinbras, /Holding a week supposal of our worth/ Or thinking by our late dead brothers death / Our state to be disjoint and out of frame," (1.2.17-20).  Since the kingdom is at its lowest for just losing its king, and because Fortinbras doubts the abilities of Claudius, he is ready to get back land won over by the old king. Claudius is clearly insulted by this criticism and has to show that he is worthy of the throne by resolving the problem. Claudius is proud and arrogant, and he is most likely looking to surpass the old king and be more admired than he ever was.  

When Claudius tries acting fatherly towards Hamlet, he does a pretty bad job. First of all, he steels Hamlet's throne by marrying his mother after his father's death. Then he tells Hamlet to look at him as if he were his father, when clearly Hamlet does not want his father to be replaced. Instead of being understanding towards Hamlet's feelings and providing comfort, Claudius tells him that, "But to persevere/ In obstinate condolement is a course/ Of impious stubbornness. 'Tis unmanly grief. / It shows a will most incorrect to heaven," (1.2.96-99).Who wants to hear that they should man up and stop mourning when they've just lost a loved one? No one, especially not from the person that is trying to replace them. 

       So far, my first impression of king Claudius is very lousy and I'm expecting the worst from him.

Paranoia in "Once upon a Time"

Paranoia in “Once Upon a Time”

      Nadine Gordimer portrays the married couple in “Once Upon a Time” as alert and overprotective people who try to turn their home into a safer place. At first, they only seem cautious  when it comes to their security, but as the story progresses, they make more drastic changes, turning their home into an uncomfortable place. Towards the end, the couple’s need for protection makes them paranoid and causes the death of their own child.Gordimer portrays the couple as alert and overprotective to warn others against resorting to extremes because the results may be catastrophic. 
When Gordimer introduces the couple, they are aware of possible dangers, and so they have the basic means of caution. They are careful about what people they bring into their house and so they have, "a housemaid who [is] absolutely trustworthy and an itinerant gardener who [is] highly recommended by the neighbors" (Gordimer 232). These are people they can count on to contribute to the security of their home because they are not strangers that might be dangerous or have bad habits, they are people who can be trusted. In addition, Gordimer also says that the couple is, "inscribed in a medical benefit society, their pet dog [is] licensed, they [are] insured against fire, flood damage and theft , and subscribed to the local Neighborhood Watch"(Gordimer 232). The couple has medical insurance and protection against some things that they can’t control, like their dog running away or natural disasters. In addition, they volunteer to keep the surrounding neighborhood safe as well. These are all common precautions that many people take, which only makes them conscious about the dangers that surround them. 
However, as the story unfolds, Gordimer makes the couple seem more and more worried about their safety. Since the couple is afraid of housebreaking, they install burglar bars and, "from every window and door in the house where they [are] living happily ever after they now [see] the trees and sky through bars"(Gordimer 233). Gordimer makes the couple cage themselves in in order to keep the danger out. Also, in order to prevent burglaries, the couple has a security system installed which doesn't end up serving its purpose well. This happens because, "When the little boy's pet cat [tries] to climb in by the fanlight to keep him company in his little bed at night, as it customarily [has] done, it [sets] off the alarm keening through the house" (Gordimer 232). Instead of warning from attempts of breaking in, the alarm announced the whereabouts of the cat and so they get used to the sound of the alarm. Having the burglar bars and the alarm system installed makes the couple lose some of their comforts because they are bothersome mechanisms that disrupt their peace.
At the end, Gordimer makes the couple's need for protection turn into an obsession and their son suffers the consequences of their actions. Their ultimate response to acquire security is to get, "a gang of workmen [come] and [stretch] the razor-bladed coils all around the walls of the house"(Gordimer 235). The couple installs a very dangerous mechanism and it comes with dire results. While playing a game, their son gets tangled in it and," the bleeding mass of the little boy [is] hacked out of the security coil with saws, wire-cutters, choppers, and they [carry] it the man, the wife, the hysterical trusted housemaid and the weeping gardener into the house" (Gordimer 236). Instead of serving as protection from people on the outside, it turns out to be deadly for their child.
The couple's paranoia to keep their family safe from any outside threat ends up backfiring at them. Their incentive to keep their home safe ends up dying not because of any outside threat, but because of their overprotection. Gordimer portrays the couple as cautious people that eventually become paranoid to prove her point that too much of anything is bad for you. Things are only good in moderation because if you over do, the results might be tragic.