How do we as Christians deal with a postmodern world?

In a worldview that celebrates disorder and holds to relativism, it is a challenging hurdle for Christians to take on. As Christians, we must first take on the challenge of relativism by showing people how absurd the level of subjectivity in society is. We believe in objective, concrete truth that is true for all people at all times. We must enforce this with solid evidence and combat the subjectivity with logic and examples of issues that they would call "morally wrong," no matter how postmodern they are. We need to show them that there is a right way to do things and that it is to glorify God. The advantage that Christians have against postmodernism is that it is a relatively indifferent mindset, meaning that it can be altered without too much provocation. If we make sense to them, they may be able to agree with our logic. Whatever they believe is true to them and vice-versa. If they are open to believing that whatever is true for others is ultimately thier reality, they still have the possibility of accepting it.

Why is Captain Jack Sparrow Postmodern?

In Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Jack Sparrow, the infamous and illusive scallywag does whatever he wants without caring about other peoples opinions. He believes that whatever works for him is what is right and "good" and if it doesn't work for others, then so be it. He is so postmodern in his mindset that it sometimes gets him into trouble, not taking others advice and applying it in a most intelligent manner. Although his methods are extremely strange, he almost always gets the job done and that is good enough for him. He doesn't care if anybody else doesn't uphold his ideals and viewpoints, but he would like to see them go along with it anyways. He believes in no universal truths and is willing to compromise the official pirate "code" of parle.
He sees things differently than other people as well; whatever is beneficial to his cause is obviously nothing to be overlooked lightly. Nonetheless, he manages to get himself out of the strangest of circumstances even when it seems that there is no hope. His "reality" is ultimately somewhat patchy due to the excessive alchohol that he drinks, therefore he is postmodern because his line between reality and illusion are undoubtably blurred. And so concludes my blog on the postmodern pirate.

Why include a game about questions in a movie about existence?

Existence is populated with questions, Isn't it?
It we are to truly ponder our existence, it will be impossible to do so without questioning it.
Why are we here? What is our purpose? These are just some of the questions that undoubtably come about when thinking about humanity. A game about questions correctly classifies the film Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead because it makes us think that there are questions that have to be answered. No one can continue forever asking questions, but must find purpose in obtaining the truth. Becasue Rosencrantz and Guildenstern only have a purpose that is assigned to them by authoritative figures, they have a temporary purpose. This purpose will be gone once thier task is complete and then they will realize that they truly have nothing to live for again. Purposelessness only asks questions, it can neither give or remember answers. Answers are for the enlightened, those full of purpose. It asks and does not seek, therefore it completely matches the charaters in which it portrays.

Said with approval?

Horatio tells Hamlet in line 56: "so Rosencrantz and Guildenstern go to it." In this line of text i gathered that he is neither saying it with approval or dissaproval. He is only stating it as a fact. There is no context that proves that his mood is either sorrow or recognition. He is stating it, neither defining whether it is a bad or good thing. It is as if he has lost all emotion within himself and disconnected from the dissolussioned world around him. It almost seems robot-like in the way he says it. It is mysteriously nonchalant. I think that he finally realized that everyone around him was all tied to Hamlet and that everything was inevitable, even the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There was absolutely nothing that he could do to make the situation any better. Therefore, I feel that it is a much needed statement which clearly defines the indifferent attitude of Horatio.

Prufrock

Prufrock has a very interesting lack of structure which actually supports itself visually with each short phrase. The love poem is random and all over the place, much like real love. Prufrock cannot seem to find this true love however, because it seems time is slipping away from him that he will never get back. The ups and downs of love are well displayed in the text with it switching back and forth without any pattern whatsoever. It seems that he is stuck in a downward spiral toward a vauge sense of nothingness.

Prufrock helps us visually imagine the complexities of love. There is no way to "put love into a box" or try and simply define it by words. In fact, words cannot even begin to define love. The author's amazing ability to show us these incomprehensible ideas and mangled thoughts of ficticious fancy truly enables us to see a portion of a glimpse of his struggle to find love. The words are more impactful in short phrases. Words by themeselves have much more emphasis and come with a whole lot more meaning than words in a sentence. Simple, yes. Meaningfull, absolutely. The way each section is broken down and separated from the rest is a work of absolute genious.

What does Ophelia mean in her statement to Claudius?

In act four, scene five, Ophelia is speaking to King Claudius when she utters the phrase "Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be." (43). She has been tormented by the fact that her father Polonius is now dead. She knows that Hamlet does not love her and she is wondering about what her future beholds. With everything lost, her madness mirrors Hamlet's own state of being. Throughout act four, scene five, she sings her dialogue in discussion with Queen Gertrude and the King.

In her maddened state she tells the queen singing: "He is dead and gone, lady, He is dead and gone; At his head a grass- green turf, At his heels a stone." Her fathers sad passing has prompted her crazed state. She knows not what the future beholds for her or the kingdom. She is posing an interesting question inadvertantly through a statement. She really wants to know the meaning of what has all happened and where they are all going to go from there. She is not accepting her fathers death, but she is reliving the sadness over again in her mind. She wonders how things can continue to remain in any state of normalcy. Even though they know what they are like at this point in time, she distinctly points out that the future is unknowable and they could become so much different depending on the choices they presently make.

Play or Film? Which is more effective?

Personally, I prefer the play to the movie. Many of the scenes are out of order and in the wrong setting in the movie and it makes it slightly more difficult to follow the story. When we read in class there is a certain interaction that takes place between us as the characters. We try as best as we can to portray the mood of the character and the tone of thier voice. One problem is that sometimes, we do not always match with the characters intended tone. We apply a different tone that does not fit, which is sometimes confusing. It is not always our fault though because the play direction in some cases is somewhat vague and leaves room for interpretation

Amidst this confusion, I think it is beneficial for us to try and read the text as smoothly as possible. When we read, we analyze in our heads and interpret from that what the meaning is.
There are numerous benefits in reading it in class. We can stop to analyze a body of text and figure out the motives and thought processes for each character. Yes, this is significantly slower than watching the movie and quickly hearing each character speak, but it is also more in depth and true to the original play. Hollywood tries to spruce things up and add unneeded content which did not exist in the play. The same can be said about the lack of content in the movie that is included in the text.

There are misconstrued ideas and scenes that do not have as much impact as the play. One example is the scene where Hamlet stumbles into Ophelia's closet where she is sewing. Hamlet in the movie is portrayed as more calm, unshaking and not as crazy as was described in the play. In the play he was shaking uncontrollably and his sigh was supposed to be one that could kill him. It was toned down in the film which reduced it's overall effectiveness. It also failed to show him finding his way to the door and opening it without looking ahead of him. The scene cuts out as he is walking away from Ophelia. His acting however is completely convincing when he stares at Ophelia as he leaves her.

In many instances, the movie is more effective in displaying the story as a whole. When we read certain sections in class, it seems to be choppy and we tend to get a fragmented view of the story rather than a general picture in our head. The flow of events is more understandable when we read first and then see the scene in the movie. We can then judge whether the movie is true to the text.