The Best of the Best: A Tribute to My Students
One of my students (Rob) with trophies he won for various accomplishments in World Lit
Here's where you will find a tribute to my students. These sample essays are among the "best of the best" collected from various assignments in various classes that i've taught over the past few years. These students bit the apple-- hard! I have learned from them and enjoyed their work; these essays are only a small sampling of many that make me continue coming back semester after semester! So... crack open a root beer, and enjoy! :)
++PS: I can't always get these to format correctly. Please note that all text should be double-spaced. Titles should be centered. Paragraphs should be indented. ETC.
Essay 1- English 1301, Composition. Assignment: Narrative Biography
Students were asked to narrate the biography of a famous dead person. JM took the prompt and truly made it his own, as he always did. I had JM as a student for two consecutive semesters; I was always excited to read his work. He mentioned to me that other teachers had always judged his work harshly... but from my perspective, JM is a creative genius.
J.M.
English 1301
Essay 1: Narration
Heart-Shaped Barq's [title should be centered]
The life and personality of Kurt Cobain can easily be described using an anagram I developed called “The Musician’s D.E.A.T.H. Pattern:” depressing, eccentric, artful, tragic, and hilarious. Kurt was born in 1967 in a town that doesn’t matter, because the only important fact is that he ended up in Seattle. His home life was hectic and slated with domestic disturbances, but it would inspire him to lead one of the biggest rock bands in history and would also sprout an addiction to Barq’s Root Beer. Don’t tell Kurt about the popularity thing though; he’d be pissed. As Kurt grew into a man, music began to act as the only cure for his chronic depression brought on by his home and school-life, but he quickly resorted to Barq’s Root Beer.
Cobain’s parents were the source of most of Kurt’s angst; his father was negligent and only desired for Kurt to do what he himself wanted. When his parents divorced, Cobain felt completely alienated from his friends and family, like a separate entity that couldn’t be touched. In school, Cobain was ridiculed and called “gay,” and, while these comments were worth a grain of salt to him, they took their toll may have been responsible for his incompletion of high school. Kurt’s tough upbringing could be blamed for his use of drugs, his first experience of which was at 13, when he drank a can of MUG’s Root Beer with a friend. He soon found a new vice with music, though, when he got his first guitar for Christmas in his early teens. After teaching himself, he eventually formed the punk band “Fecal Matter,” and finally went on to form one of the most popular bands in rock music.
Cobain formed Nirvana with friend Kris Noveselic; after settling on a lineup, Nirvana recorded their first album, Bleach, which was welcomed with a large underground following and play time on college rock stations. Cobain was ecstatic with their level of success, but their fame skyrocketed with the release of Nevermind, led by the hit single “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” leading to a highly profitable tour of Europe. The tour began to take a beating on Cobain, though; he had been experiencing chronic stomach pain his entire life, but the pain was now constant, and no doctor could cure it. Cobain had been drinking Barq’s Root Beer in moderation since he was nineteen years old, but he began drinking Barq’s Root Beer more often to ease the pain as it grew. Mentally, Kurt was uneasy; the touring schedule of any band gaining new levels of success can be hard, but Kurt had been battling what now seemed to be a case of depression grown from his adolescent angst. On top of this, he began to feel like most of his fans misunderstood him, and he felt guilt for betraying his underground rock idols by giving his music to, what he considered, the undeserving masses. Everything seemed to start colliding together in an incontrollable sphere of chaos, and Barq’s Root Beer seemed to be the only thing that could tame the madness.
As his addiction to the bubbly pop grew off-and-on, so did his self destructing love life. After Cobain began dating Courtney Love in 1991, his friends believed the strong relationship would wean Kurt off of his Barq’s Root Beer addiction, but it only grew when Cobain learned that Courtney loved to drink Barq’s Root Beer as well, and it became a past time for both of them to participate in together. After fathering a child, relapsing after rehab, a couple of overdoses on Barq’s Root Beer and an attempted suicide, Love, along with Kurt’s friends, convinced him to go through a detox program in L.A. Cobain reluctantly complied, but escaped from the facility and caught a plan back to Seattle. Over the next week, Cobain was a ghost. He was seen in random spots throughout Seattle, but could not be contacted; his depression was uncontrollable, and his loved ones began to worry.
Kurt Cobain was found dead on April 8, 1994 of an apparent self-inflicted gun shot wound to the head, and a lethal dose of Barq’s Root Beer in his blood. Found next to him was a shot gun, a syringe, a suicide note, and a crumpled can of Barq’s Root Beer. His suicide note referenced how he no longer felt moved by listening to or writing music, and he hadn’t felt that excitement that he loved in too long. Clearly, Barq’s Root Beer took over a part of his life that music had previously fulfilled, but as many people know, in the long run, no brand of root beer can stem the type of fruit that is longed for. Barq’s Root Beer pulled that trigger on Cobain, figuratively and perhaps physically (it’s possible, supposedly); and all Kurt was left with was a dead body and a freed soul; a beating heart had been absent long before he died and replaced with Barq’s Root Beer; in his chest now underneath his ribcage lay nothing but heart shaped Barqs’.
A Post Script
To Whom It May Concern:
The previous document was, as you know by now, a written report on the artist Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. While reading this biography, you may have noticed one of several fallacious statements:
Thank you,
The writer
++PS: I can't always get these to format correctly. Please note that all text should be double-spaced. Titles should be centered. Paragraphs should be indented. ETC.
Essay 1- English 1301, Composition. Assignment: Narrative Biography
Students were asked to narrate the biography of a famous dead person. JM took the prompt and truly made it his own, as he always did. I had JM as a student for two consecutive semesters; I was always excited to read his work. He mentioned to me that other teachers had always judged his work harshly... but from my perspective, JM is a creative genius.
J.M.
English 1301
Essay 1: Narration
Heart-Shaped Barq's [title should be centered]
The life and personality of Kurt Cobain can easily be described using an anagram I developed called “The Musician’s D.E.A.T.H. Pattern:” depressing, eccentric, artful, tragic, and hilarious. Kurt was born in 1967 in a town that doesn’t matter, because the only important fact is that he ended up in Seattle. His home life was hectic and slated with domestic disturbances, but it would inspire him to lead one of the biggest rock bands in history and would also sprout an addiction to Barq’s Root Beer. Don’t tell Kurt about the popularity thing though; he’d be pissed. As Kurt grew into a man, music began to act as the only cure for his chronic depression brought on by his home and school-life, but he quickly resorted to Barq’s Root Beer.
Cobain’s parents were the source of most of Kurt’s angst; his father was negligent and only desired for Kurt to do what he himself wanted. When his parents divorced, Cobain felt completely alienated from his friends and family, like a separate entity that couldn’t be touched. In school, Cobain was ridiculed and called “gay,” and, while these comments were worth a grain of salt to him, they took their toll may have been responsible for his incompletion of high school. Kurt’s tough upbringing could be blamed for his use of drugs, his first experience of which was at 13, when he drank a can of MUG’s Root Beer with a friend. He soon found a new vice with music, though, when he got his first guitar for Christmas in his early teens. After teaching himself, he eventually formed the punk band “Fecal Matter,” and finally went on to form one of the most popular bands in rock music.
Cobain formed Nirvana with friend Kris Noveselic; after settling on a lineup, Nirvana recorded their first album, Bleach, which was welcomed with a large underground following and play time on college rock stations. Cobain was ecstatic with their level of success, but their fame skyrocketed with the release of Nevermind, led by the hit single “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” leading to a highly profitable tour of Europe. The tour began to take a beating on Cobain, though; he had been experiencing chronic stomach pain his entire life, but the pain was now constant, and no doctor could cure it. Cobain had been drinking Barq’s Root Beer in moderation since he was nineteen years old, but he began drinking Barq’s Root Beer more often to ease the pain as it grew. Mentally, Kurt was uneasy; the touring schedule of any band gaining new levels of success can be hard, but Kurt had been battling what now seemed to be a case of depression grown from his adolescent angst. On top of this, he began to feel like most of his fans misunderstood him, and he felt guilt for betraying his underground rock idols by giving his music to, what he considered, the undeserving masses. Everything seemed to start colliding together in an incontrollable sphere of chaos, and Barq’s Root Beer seemed to be the only thing that could tame the madness.
As his addiction to the bubbly pop grew off-and-on, so did his self destructing love life. After Cobain began dating Courtney Love in 1991, his friends believed the strong relationship would wean Kurt off of his Barq’s Root Beer addiction, but it only grew when Cobain learned that Courtney loved to drink Barq’s Root Beer as well, and it became a past time for both of them to participate in together. After fathering a child, relapsing after rehab, a couple of overdoses on Barq’s Root Beer and an attempted suicide, Love, along with Kurt’s friends, convinced him to go through a detox program in L.A. Cobain reluctantly complied, but escaped from the facility and caught a plan back to Seattle. Over the next week, Cobain was a ghost. He was seen in random spots throughout Seattle, but could not be contacted; his depression was uncontrollable, and his loved ones began to worry.
Kurt Cobain was found dead on April 8, 1994 of an apparent self-inflicted gun shot wound to the head, and a lethal dose of Barq’s Root Beer in his blood. Found next to him was a shot gun, a syringe, a suicide note, and a crumpled can of Barq’s Root Beer. His suicide note referenced how he no longer felt moved by listening to or writing music, and he hadn’t felt that excitement that he loved in too long. Clearly, Barq’s Root Beer took over a part of his life that music had previously fulfilled, but as many people know, in the long run, no brand of root beer can stem the type of fruit that is longed for. Barq’s Root Beer pulled that trigger on Cobain, figuratively and perhaps physically (it’s possible, supposedly); and all Kurt was left with was a dead body and a freed soul; a beating heart had been absent long before he died and replaced with Barq’s Root Beer; in his chest now underneath his ribcage lay nothing but heart shaped Barqs’.
A Post Script
To Whom It May Concern:
The previous document was, as you know by now, a written report on the artist Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. While reading this biography, you may have noticed one of several fallacious statements:
- There are many allegations in this paper that accuse root beer (namely Barq’s Famous Olde Tyme Root Beer) of deteriorating Kurt Cobain’s mental and physical health. This is not true; it was Heroin.
- There is one instance in which a can of Barq’s Root Beer is incriminated for flat-out murdering Kurt Cobain. This is impossible, as a can of Barq’s Root Beer is rounded and doesn’t have many sharp points. Also, the can of Barq’s Root Beer found at the scene of Kurt Cobain’s death was empty and crumpled, so it was dead.
- You may think that the Barq’s Root Beer can committed a murder/suicide, but that’s ridiculous.
- The voice of this report may deceive you into thinking that the writer is opposed to Barq’s Root Beer, but this is wrong; Barq’s Root Beer is the writer’s second favorite root beer, after IBC Root Beer.
Thank you,
The writer
This sample essay is a RESPONSE to the film "Adaptation". The paper will likely make no sense to someone who is not familiar with the film; the writer takes on the voice of the main character. This brilliant paper received an "A" grade; it is by JM, but it was not written for my class.
This Paper is About Flowers [title is centered; paper is double-spaced]
This is bigger than me. Everything is bigger than me; Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman, the average person in general, Susan Orlean, The Orchid Thief, John Laroche… even John fucking Laroche is some kind of complex entity that I cannot handle. Why do I even try? My inane fantasy: I go to school, it is NCTC, a community college; I then transfer to UNT: it is a college that is renowned for it’s music curriculum and heavily criticized for it’s writing program. This is pointless; the mermaids, they do not sing for me, especially now, with me, all that can’t be completed. Why would I be a writer; it is pointless, it is useless; writers are completely arbitrary these days. I love someone… fuck, do I really?... I’m so young, how could I know? I can’t… I can’t know…. It’s just these feelings. Am I adapting; adapting? I have to be, with these feelings, and, oh my god, I cannot write this paper… about the fucking screenplay of Adaptation… I can’t; the entire thing: it’s above me, it achieves more than I could ever hope to achieve as a writer, it destroys me…. Why is all of this about me? Why is this beautiful story, about Kaufman adapting, making this screenplay about these flowers… why is it so unique and beautiful; why did I just delete an adverb before the word beautiful… why is this so important to me: it has to be. This paper is not about flowers.
Heartbroken, pathetic, hallow; why are these all words I also use to describe myself? Why can I not talk in public settings? Why can’t I talk to anyone? Am I really that sad? I think I am; I think I’m Kaufman. I think it’s sad. Kaufman could do it. Kaufman had to be discrete, but it wasn’t because he was ashamed of the script, it was because he knew the executives wouldn’t buy into it. He knew it was good; I should be like that. OK, so Kaufman had this assignment: write a movie script about this book. This book is about flowers. Sprawling. New Yorker. Bullshit. Why couldn’t Kaufman write what he wanted? A film about flowers, and only flowers, and how beautiful they supposedly are? Actually, he did. I think he did.
He gives us the story, the themes; he is the story. Kaufman is the exceptional writer, but Donald represents the raw, money making persona inside of Kaufman. He knows how to write a blockbuster, but, initially, he doesn’t want to. This is good; I should write about this. I don’t know how to expand that though, really talk about it in detail. I can’t even expand on an original thought in my head; why the fuck would I be a writer, then? Maybe I could be chemistry major. Or biology. Ooh maybe a Biochemist. Fuck, I hate chemistry and biology. Kaufman, he adapts; he eventually embraces the “Donald” inside of him; maybe I can do that – maybe I can write a good paper, a paper that expresses how I feel about all of this(Kaufman, Orlean, Donald, Adaptation, The Orchid Thiefe, Life) in some conventional manner that just makes sense. I think conventional things are beautiful, but, in the end, they are conventional, average. Average like me, and I am definitely not beautiful; flowers are beautiful, Kaufman is beautiful.
This Paper is About Flowers [title is centered; paper is double-spaced]
This is bigger than me. Everything is bigger than me; Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman, the average person in general, Susan Orlean, The Orchid Thief, John Laroche… even John fucking Laroche is some kind of complex entity that I cannot handle. Why do I even try? My inane fantasy: I go to school, it is NCTC, a community college; I then transfer to UNT: it is a college that is renowned for it’s music curriculum and heavily criticized for it’s writing program. This is pointless; the mermaids, they do not sing for me, especially now, with me, all that can’t be completed. Why would I be a writer; it is pointless, it is useless; writers are completely arbitrary these days. I love someone… fuck, do I really?... I’m so young, how could I know? I can’t… I can’t know…. It’s just these feelings. Am I adapting; adapting? I have to be, with these feelings, and, oh my god, I cannot write this paper… about the fucking screenplay of Adaptation… I can’t; the entire thing: it’s above me, it achieves more than I could ever hope to achieve as a writer, it destroys me…. Why is all of this about me? Why is this beautiful story, about Kaufman adapting, making this screenplay about these flowers… why is it so unique and beautiful; why did I just delete an adverb before the word beautiful… why is this so important to me: it has to be. This paper is not about flowers.
Heartbroken, pathetic, hallow; why are these all words I also use to describe myself? Why can I not talk in public settings? Why can’t I talk to anyone? Am I really that sad? I think I am; I think I’m Kaufman. I think it’s sad. Kaufman could do it. Kaufman had to be discrete, but it wasn’t because he was ashamed of the script, it was because he knew the executives wouldn’t buy into it. He knew it was good; I should be like that. OK, so Kaufman had this assignment: write a movie script about this book. This book is about flowers. Sprawling. New Yorker. Bullshit. Why couldn’t Kaufman write what he wanted? A film about flowers, and only flowers, and how beautiful they supposedly are? Actually, he did. I think he did.
He gives us the story, the themes; he is the story. Kaufman is the exceptional writer, but Donald represents the raw, money making persona inside of Kaufman. He knows how to write a blockbuster, but, initially, he doesn’t want to. This is good; I should write about this. I don’t know how to expand that though, really talk about it in detail. I can’t even expand on an original thought in my head; why the fuck would I be a writer, then? Maybe I could be chemistry major. Or biology. Ooh maybe a Biochemist. Fuck, I hate chemistry and biology. Kaufman, he adapts; he eventually embraces the “Donald” inside of him; maybe I can do that – maybe I can write a good paper, a paper that expresses how I feel about all of this(Kaufman, Orlean, Donald, Adaptation, The Orchid Thiefe, Life) in some conventional manner that just makes sense. I think conventional things are beautiful, but, in the end, they are conventional, average. Average like me, and I am definitely not beautiful; flowers are beautiful, Kaufman is beautiful.
The topic of this essay was to explicate a poem. The format for this assignment is the same as the "music analysis" assignment you'll have in this particular class. This is an example of a simple, straight-forward approach to an assignment. It may not be as creative as JM's, but it is clear, concise, and it conveys the explanation in a perfectly acceptable way. JM's work earned A's and A+'s; BJ's earned A-'s and B+'s.
B J 3 March 2005
Eng. 1302 TT 5:00
A Soldier and a Poet [No bold, center]
Throughout history, many poets have written about the horrors of war, but few have actually witnessed them first hand as Wilfred
Owen did. Originally an English teacher, Owen enlisted in the English Army in 1915 and served in the Fifth Battalion of the
Manchester Regiment. He saw action all over Europe and was later awarded the Military Cross for his exemplary service to the
Queen and country. He wrote “Anthem for Doomed Youth” in 1917 to reflect his feelings about war and death.
Taken literally, “Anthem for Doomed Youth” is a description of the vast killing fields of World War I. Only the “monstrous anger of the guns” (line 2) can be heard while young men and boys “die as cattle” (line 1). It is the overall hopelessness of war that Owen centers his poem around. Only the “shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells” (line 7) usher the fallen souls to the afterlife. There is no ‘decent death’ or ‘proper burial’ in wartime.
The underlying meaning of “Anthem for Doomed Youth” is the senselessness of death and war. Owen asks “What passing bells for those who die as cattle” (line 1), eluding that death goes relatively unnoticed and unappreciated in war. He makes several references to rituals or activities that are present at proper Christian funeral services or burials. These practices are absent on the battlefields that Owen fought on. The “choir of wailing shells” (line 7) and orisons or prayers spoken only by “the shuttering rifles’ rapid rattle” (line 3) combine to become a kind of battlefield funeral ceremony for each fallen soldier. Owen clearly felt that these young men deserved more dignity and honor in their violent deaths than they had received.
In the last line of “Anthem for Doomed Youth”, Owens writes “and each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds” (line 14) to end the poem. This act is consistent with traditions of darkening rooms where dead bodies lie out of respect. It can also be interpreted as the actual experience of dying. The coming of darkness is another descent into the hopelessness and misery of killing and combat. In this darkness there are no candles to “shine the holy glimmers of good-byes” (line 11).
“Anthem for Doomed Youth” is taken from Wilfred Owen’s actual experiences with war and the death that accompanies it. This poem explores the casualness in which so many people die with no service or ceremony to honor their death or to celebrate their life. Wilfred Owen himself was killed in combat one year after this poem was written while leading a raiding party across the Sambre-Oise Canal in France, in 1918.
Works Cited
Owen, Wilfred. “Anthem for Doomed Youth”. Literature: Reading, Reacting, Writing. 5th ed. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen Mandell. Boston: Heinle, 2004. 791. [should be hanging indent]
Unknown Author. “Wilfred Owen Biographical Table”. Online Posting. 25 February 2005. www.wilfred.owen.association.mcmail.com
Here's how JM would approach the same type of assignment (this one is music analysis instead of poetry, but it is basically the same). Please note that this only works because it is JM's own, unique style! If you try to force this type of creativity, it doesn't work. If you are confused, JM is taking the perspective of Holden, the main character in "Catcher in the Rye" (a famous book). He is using his voice to write his essay. This is supposed to be a formal essay assignment-- but JM hits all the formal elements in a seemingly informal way.
The Prince by J.D. Salinger
Before things get rolling, I guess you’ll probably wanna know what this goddam thing is about. See, there’s this song called “When Doves Cry,” by the musician Prince. At first glance, the guy looks like a flamboyant phony who’d play real cheesy funk music, which I guess he does, but for one reason or another it’s good. Well, the song’s good; I mean it’s great, and, not to sound like a goddam pansy or anything, but I like the message he’s throwing out there. I’ll just go ‘head and get this outta the way; the “Doves” song and all of his other songs are terrifically sexy. They really are. The images this guy gets stirring around in my head make me feel like some kinda goddam freak. Besides the sexy stuff, and this next part’s what makes the song so terrific, there’s a deep, personal meaning behind it. That kinda stuff takes guts, talkin’ about how you’re whole relationships gone to shit and it pretty much mirrors your own parent’s big stinked up marriage. I don’t know why I wanna talk to you about this song so much; I guess I just find it interesting how Prince’s use of sexiness in “When Doves Cry” can be pretty goddam distracting, but at the heart of the song there’s a deep personal confession and social commentary pertinent(word of the day; nifty, huh? pertinent.) to today’s society.
So like I said, this guy is talking about how this relationship that he had, one he thought was perfect, went down the hole. First, this Prince guy is talkin’ to his girly and making all of us, the listeners, think that everything’s fine and dandy with them. He asks her to “Dig, if you will the picture/of you and I engaged in a kiss” (lines 1-2), and all this other cheesy, sexy stuff like “the sweat of your body covers me” (line 3). Things start ta heat up, like in a courtyard filled with violets they start doing the deed, and while they’re goin’ off the “animals strike curious poses” (line 8). For Chrissake, the goddam animals are shocked by the manner these guys’re doin’ it. Anyway, after all this hogwash things turn sour.
So now that Prince is done bein’ all sexy, the song gets depressing; just like that, it turns from a raunchy rant into a sad song. The girl leaves him, and he’s askin’ her “how can you just leave me standing/alone in a world that’s so cold?”(lines 11-12). It’s sad, ‘cause then the guy’s sittin’ there alone, askin’ himself why this goddam broad is gone, cause he cared about her or some such lovey-dubby bullshit. He starts to compare their relationship to his parents’, sayin’ “maybe I’m just like my father-too bold/maybe you’re just like my mother/she’s never satisfied,” (lines 14-16) like he’s finally realized how his parents ended up causing any relationship he’s in to get all stunk up. I guess the best way say it, so you get what I’m sayin’, is that his parents fought in front of him all the time, and damn well didn’t even necessarily like each other, and now this relationship’s kinda mirrors that one because it’s what he grew up with; it’s how he learned to handle relationships with broads. The last line of the chorus is goddam poetic, when he’s talkin’ about them screaming at eachother all the goddam time; he describes it as the same sound as “When doves cry.” (line 19) So, basically, it’s the parents’ phony relationship that put this sad bastard in the position he’s in.
The point that this Prince guy makes is what makes the song so important. It really is. See, at a social aspect, millions of kids are going through this situation; you know, the parents divorce and are open about fighting and everything, so the kid grows up and thinks that that’s what relationships are like. When he’s talking about the screams, about how it sounds like “when doves cry” (line 19), he’s talkin’ about how unholy the sanction of marriage has become. I don’t wanna sound like some phony sophisticate or anything, but that’s what it sounds like. Marriage is, in his mind, suppos’ta be peaceful, holy, and such, but it’s not, because of his goddam past. And it’s sad, you know. Tons of people, not just this guy, have gone thru this situation; their parents fight all the damn time, and they witness it, so they think that’s the way a goddam relationship is supposed to be.
It’s getting’ late and all now, so I guess I gotta wrap this thing up. If you were too goddam lazy to read this thing I wrote, I’ll sum everything up right now incase you just skipped to the end. Basically, this guy and girl are in a real sexy relationship, and things get all stunk up, and it’s all because this sad bastard’s parents’ fought all the time and so it’s kinda all he knew, you know? And a lot of people would just think that this song is nothin’ but sexy, but it’s message is pertinent to society, and that’s what makes the song beautiful. It really is.
About The Author
JM was born on September 14, 1988, and has been small and insignificant for most of his life.
Selected Works:
Lesbian Lovechild: The Baffling Birth of John Mayben
Chicken Soup for Hopelessly Sardonic Soul
James Joyce: Asshole or Genius?
Lesbian Lovechild: The Baffling Birth of Lance Armstrong
B J 3 March 2005
Eng. 1302 TT 5:00
A Soldier and a Poet [No bold, center]
Throughout history, many poets have written about the horrors of war, but few have actually witnessed them first hand as Wilfred
Owen did. Originally an English teacher, Owen enlisted in the English Army in 1915 and served in the Fifth Battalion of the
Manchester Regiment. He saw action all over Europe and was later awarded the Military Cross for his exemplary service to the
Queen and country. He wrote “Anthem for Doomed Youth” in 1917 to reflect his feelings about war and death.
Taken literally, “Anthem for Doomed Youth” is a description of the vast killing fields of World War I. Only the “monstrous anger of the guns” (line 2) can be heard while young men and boys “die as cattle” (line 1). It is the overall hopelessness of war that Owen centers his poem around. Only the “shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells” (line 7) usher the fallen souls to the afterlife. There is no ‘decent death’ or ‘proper burial’ in wartime.
The underlying meaning of “Anthem for Doomed Youth” is the senselessness of death and war. Owen asks “What passing bells for those who die as cattle” (line 1), eluding that death goes relatively unnoticed and unappreciated in war. He makes several references to rituals or activities that are present at proper Christian funeral services or burials. These practices are absent on the battlefields that Owen fought on. The “choir of wailing shells” (line 7) and orisons or prayers spoken only by “the shuttering rifles’ rapid rattle” (line 3) combine to become a kind of battlefield funeral ceremony for each fallen soldier. Owen clearly felt that these young men deserved more dignity and honor in their violent deaths than they had received.
In the last line of “Anthem for Doomed Youth”, Owens writes “and each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds” (line 14) to end the poem. This act is consistent with traditions of darkening rooms where dead bodies lie out of respect. It can also be interpreted as the actual experience of dying. The coming of darkness is another descent into the hopelessness and misery of killing and combat. In this darkness there are no candles to “shine the holy glimmers of good-byes” (line 11).
“Anthem for Doomed Youth” is taken from Wilfred Owen’s actual experiences with war and the death that accompanies it. This poem explores the casualness in which so many people die with no service or ceremony to honor their death or to celebrate their life. Wilfred Owen himself was killed in combat one year after this poem was written while leading a raiding party across the Sambre-Oise Canal in France, in 1918.
Works Cited
Owen, Wilfred. “Anthem for Doomed Youth”. Literature: Reading, Reacting, Writing. 5th ed. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen Mandell. Boston: Heinle, 2004. 791. [should be hanging indent]
Unknown Author. “Wilfred Owen Biographical Table”. Online Posting. 25 February 2005. www.wilfred.owen.association.mcmail.com
Here's how JM would approach the same type of assignment (this one is music analysis instead of poetry, but it is basically the same). Please note that this only works because it is JM's own, unique style! If you try to force this type of creativity, it doesn't work. If you are confused, JM is taking the perspective of Holden, the main character in "Catcher in the Rye" (a famous book). He is using his voice to write his essay. This is supposed to be a formal essay assignment-- but JM hits all the formal elements in a seemingly informal way.
The Prince by J.D. Salinger
Before things get rolling, I guess you’ll probably wanna know what this goddam thing is about. See, there’s this song called “When Doves Cry,” by the musician Prince. At first glance, the guy looks like a flamboyant phony who’d play real cheesy funk music, which I guess he does, but for one reason or another it’s good. Well, the song’s good; I mean it’s great, and, not to sound like a goddam pansy or anything, but I like the message he’s throwing out there. I’ll just go ‘head and get this outta the way; the “Doves” song and all of his other songs are terrifically sexy. They really are. The images this guy gets stirring around in my head make me feel like some kinda goddam freak. Besides the sexy stuff, and this next part’s what makes the song so terrific, there’s a deep, personal meaning behind it. That kinda stuff takes guts, talkin’ about how you’re whole relationships gone to shit and it pretty much mirrors your own parent’s big stinked up marriage. I don’t know why I wanna talk to you about this song so much; I guess I just find it interesting how Prince’s use of sexiness in “When Doves Cry” can be pretty goddam distracting, but at the heart of the song there’s a deep personal confession and social commentary pertinent(word of the day; nifty, huh? pertinent.) to today’s society.
So like I said, this guy is talking about how this relationship that he had, one he thought was perfect, went down the hole. First, this Prince guy is talkin’ to his girly and making all of us, the listeners, think that everything’s fine and dandy with them. He asks her to “Dig, if you will the picture/of you and I engaged in a kiss” (lines 1-2), and all this other cheesy, sexy stuff like “the sweat of your body covers me” (line 3). Things start ta heat up, like in a courtyard filled with violets they start doing the deed, and while they’re goin’ off the “animals strike curious poses” (line 8). For Chrissake, the goddam animals are shocked by the manner these guys’re doin’ it. Anyway, after all this hogwash things turn sour.
So now that Prince is done bein’ all sexy, the song gets depressing; just like that, it turns from a raunchy rant into a sad song. The girl leaves him, and he’s askin’ her “how can you just leave me standing/alone in a world that’s so cold?”(lines 11-12). It’s sad, ‘cause then the guy’s sittin’ there alone, askin’ himself why this goddam broad is gone, cause he cared about her or some such lovey-dubby bullshit. He starts to compare their relationship to his parents’, sayin’ “maybe I’m just like my father-too bold/maybe you’re just like my mother/she’s never satisfied,” (lines 14-16) like he’s finally realized how his parents ended up causing any relationship he’s in to get all stunk up. I guess the best way say it, so you get what I’m sayin’, is that his parents fought in front of him all the time, and damn well didn’t even necessarily like each other, and now this relationship’s kinda mirrors that one because it’s what he grew up with; it’s how he learned to handle relationships with broads. The last line of the chorus is goddam poetic, when he’s talkin’ about them screaming at eachother all the goddam time; he describes it as the same sound as “When doves cry.” (line 19) So, basically, it’s the parents’ phony relationship that put this sad bastard in the position he’s in.
The point that this Prince guy makes is what makes the song so important. It really is. See, at a social aspect, millions of kids are going through this situation; you know, the parents divorce and are open about fighting and everything, so the kid grows up and thinks that that’s what relationships are like. When he’s talking about the screams, about how it sounds like “when doves cry” (line 19), he’s talkin’ about how unholy the sanction of marriage has become. I don’t wanna sound like some phony sophisticate or anything, but that’s what it sounds like. Marriage is, in his mind, suppos’ta be peaceful, holy, and such, but it’s not, because of his goddam past. And it’s sad, you know. Tons of people, not just this guy, have gone thru this situation; their parents fight all the damn time, and they witness it, so they think that’s the way a goddam relationship is supposed to be.
It’s getting’ late and all now, so I guess I gotta wrap this thing up. If you were too goddam lazy to read this thing I wrote, I’ll sum everything up right now incase you just skipped to the end. Basically, this guy and girl are in a real sexy relationship, and things get all stunk up, and it’s all because this sad bastard’s parents’ fought all the time and so it’s kinda all he knew, you know? And a lot of people would just think that this song is nothin’ but sexy, but it’s message is pertinent to society, and that’s what makes the song beautiful. It really is.
About The Author
JM was born on September 14, 1988, and has been small and insignificant for most of his life.
Selected Works:
Lesbian Lovechild: The Baffling Birth of John Mayben
Chicken Soup for Hopelessly Sardonic Soul
James Joyce: Asshole or Genius?
Lesbian Lovechild: The Baffling Birth of Lance Armstrong
Research Paper
Here is JM's approach to the research paper assignment -- a review of a documentary film.
Holy Shit.
“Holy shit;” it’s a crude, expletive combination of words often used as a exclamation describing an event that one finds shocking or terrifying, but it might just be the most appropriate/ironically comical response after viewing the documentary “Jesus Camp.” The film was directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, was understandably nominated for an Oscar, and won grand prize at the Silverdocs Film Competition. The film documents an Evangelical church camp named “Kids on Fire,” and mainly focuses on three subjects: two of the camp’s attendees named Levi and Rachel, and camp director Becky Fischer. “Jesus Camp” shows us the shocking home life of these children, as well as their time under Fischer’s power. Ewing and Grady present an argument opposing Evangelism by showing short clips of radio talkshow host Mike Papantonio, a “practicing Christian appalled by the fundamentalists’ political agenda,”(Scheib 5) but offer no other form of narration; by using only showing the viewer the workings of the camp the filmmakers effectively establish that they are against Evangelical Christians. After viewing the film, any sensible person could see that Evangelism is not only dangerous for children, but for the entire Nation. So, if the film is this convincing, it must have extraordinary bias, correct? No, all Ewing and Grady had to do to show the insanity of the Evangelical Church is film raw footage inside the lives of these people, and the Church’s vile exploitation of children; therefore, the subject at fault for any fallacy in this film is the Evangelicals themselves.
The effectiveness of “Jesus Camp” is topped off with the filmmakers’ superb filming techniques. The development of the main characters’ through the film is so pristine it feels like it could have been written in a script. At their introduction, Levi and Rachel are seemingly “expressing their love for Jesus with genuine fervor”(Scheib, par. 2), but later in the film the children’s true motives, their want for acceptance, comes to light. Another example is Becky Fischer’s blatant hypocrisy growing in nearly every scene she’s in, such as the very overweight Fischer critiquing adult Christians for being too lazy to fast like other religions (it isn’t their fault; unlike Fischer, most people don’t have enough body fat to go into hibernation for a month’s time). The camera work is also impressive for a documentary, as the oblivious Fischer actually thought the film would make her religion look appeasing, so cameramen were allowed to roam freely. As stated before, the film “maintains a patient, unobtrusive outlook from the [well established documentary filmmaker] D.A. Pennebaker school” (Ingman, par. 1) by using a lack of narration to it’s advantage. All of these aspects aid the film in providing a truthful, insane, and terrifying look at the innards of the Evangelic Church.
Aside from it’s political strength, the most terrifying power of the Evangelical Church, as portrayed in this film, is it’s talent of taking advantage of children, and how the Church implants it’s warped ideas into the most impressionable minds. It’s becoming a widely used practice in the Evangelical Church to use tactics to appeal to children, such as minister Ronnie Hill touring the country offering “door prizes” kicking off each night with “a brand name food being served like Papa John’s Pizza, Chick-fil-a, Taco Bell, etc.,” (Boston 2) or Evangelic Churches throwing Jesus-friendly haunted houses that involve classic scare tactics to encourage children to find God. (Shimron) Fischer herself talks of how the Church needs to recruit children at a young age because at that age “they can’t make their own choices,” but her statement is quickly contradicted by her use of toys and high priced computer equipment she chooses to use to keep a grasp on the children. It becomes painstakingly clear throughout the film that Levi and Rachel enjoy the church because they would otherwise suffer socially; Rachel talks of how it would be fun to be a martyr because others would praise you, and Levi, while practicing a sermon, vocally fantasizes roars from the audience as he steps onto stage. The Evangelical Church takes these vulnerable children, and, rather than teach them strong values and morals applicable in everyday life, they are used as pawns for a future culture war.
Why are these children so susceptible to Evangelism, though? Well, most of them are subjected to it from birth. In America, 75% of home schooled children are from Evangelical families (the other 25% are just really socially awkward), and the Child Evangelism Fellowship is taking an aggressive stance to “educate” children in public schools, usually aiming for children aged 5 to 12. (Boston, par. 5) In one scene from “Jesus Camp,” Levi is seen receiving a lesson on creationism from his mother, in which she debunks evolution saying “science doesn’t prove anything.” She and Levi then talk about how offensive it would be if a public school teacher were to say “creationism is stupid,” but it would be acceptable if the teacher said the same statement regarding evolution. Raising a child like this is a sure fire way to ensure the child is ready to fight for church who’s beliefs offer fallacy after fallacy. Levi’s mother could have been a master satirist when, in her 3 minutes of screen time, she gave a textbook definition of the faulty either/or reasoning fallacy, stating, in regards to her Evangelical beliefs, that “there are two people in this world, those who love Jesus and those who don’t.” These children were raised by ignorant people, and are now being trained by, well, even more ignorant people who are hell bent on saving America through Evangelism. Vulnerable children are subject to this religion by their parents, who would rather give them false hope of empowerment and leading them to “believe they can change the world” (Turan, par. 7) than letting them make their own unbiased choices.
“Jesus Camp,” in some sense, is impenetrable to being criticized. The film easily gets it’s point across to the view, but it does so in such an unobtrusive manner that it is impossible to find fallacy in Ewing and Grady’s argument. The only thing that could have improved the film is perhaps a follow up on Levi and Rachel as they hit their teenage years so the viewer can see if there is any kind of success rate with Fischer’s “pawns for Evangelism” plan.
Overall, for the third time, Ewing and Grady’s “Jesus Camp” is an informative, well executed documentary, due to it’s fly-on-the wall filming tactics and the terrifying methods of the Evangelical Church. This is a documentary that should not only be seen by the non-Evangelicals that are looking for more of a reason to hate them, but also members of the religion themselves who, after viewing this film, may realize just how dangerous this could be. The film is certainly capable of showing the political power that Evangelicals do have, and how that could grow with the corruption of so many children, and that should be scary enough for anyone to realize that this force needs to be stopped for the sake of the separation of church and state. The film receives a big thumbs up from me, as well as a “Holy shit!”
Holy Shit.
“Holy shit;” it’s a crude, expletive combination of words often used as a exclamation describing an event that one finds shocking or terrifying, but it might just be the most appropriate/ironically comical response after viewing the documentary “Jesus Camp.” The film was directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, was understandably nominated for an Oscar, and won grand prize at the Silverdocs Film Competition. The film documents an Evangelical church camp named “Kids on Fire,” and mainly focuses on three subjects: two of the camp’s attendees named Levi and Rachel, and camp director Becky Fischer. “Jesus Camp” shows us the shocking home life of these children, as well as their time under Fischer’s power. Ewing and Grady present an argument opposing Evangelism by showing short clips of radio talkshow host Mike Papantonio, a “practicing Christian appalled by the fundamentalists’ political agenda,”(Scheib 5) but offer no other form of narration; by using only showing the viewer the workings of the camp the filmmakers effectively establish that they are against Evangelical Christians. After viewing the film, any sensible person could see that Evangelism is not only dangerous for children, but for the entire Nation. So, if the film is this convincing, it must have extraordinary bias, correct? No, all Ewing and Grady had to do to show the insanity of the Evangelical Church is film raw footage inside the lives of these people, and the Church’s vile exploitation of children; therefore, the subject at fault for any fallacy in this film is the Evangelicals themselves.
The effectiveness of “Jesus Camp” is topped off with the filmmakers’ superb filming techniques. The development of the main characters’ through the film is so pristine it feels like it could have been written in a script. At their introduction, Levi and Rachel are seemingly “expressing their love for Jesus with genuine fervor”(Scheib, par. 2), but later in the film the children’s true motives, their want for acceptance, comes to light. Another example is Becky Fischer’s blatant hypocrisy growing in nearly every scene she’s in, such as the very overweight Fischer critiquing adult Christians for being too lazy to fast like other religions (it isn’t their fault; unlike Fischer, most people don’t have enough body fat to go into hibernation for a month’s time). The camera work is also impressive for a documentary, as the oblivious Fischer actually thought the film would make her religion look appeasing, so cameramen were allowed to roam freely. As stated before, the film “maintains a patient, unobtrusive outlook from the [well established documentary filmmaker] D.A. Pennebaker school” (Ingman, par. 1) by using a lack of narration to it’s advantage. All of these aspects aid the film in providing a truthful, insane, and terrifying look at the innards of the Evangelic Church.
Aside from it’s political strength, the most terrifying power of the Evangelical Church, as portrayed in this film, is it’s talent of taking advantage of children, and how the Church implants it’s warped ideas into the most impressionable minds. It’s becoming a widely used practice in the Evangelical Church to use tactics to appeal to children, such as minister Ronnie Hill touring the country offering “door prizes” kicking off each night with “a brand name food being served like Papa John’s Pizza, Chick-fil-a, Taco Bell, etc.,” (Boston 2) or Evangelic Churches throwing Jesus-friendly haunted houses that involve classic scare tactics to encourage children to find God. (Shimron) Fischer herself talks of how the Church needs to recruit children at a young age because at that age “they can’t make their own choices,” but her statement is quickly contradicted by her use of toys and high priced computer equipment she chooses to use to keep a grasp on the children. It becomes painstakingly clear throughout the film that Levi and Rachel enjoy the church because they would otherwise suffer socially; Rachel talks of how it would be fun to be a martyr because others would praise you, and Levi, while practicing a sermon, vocally fantasizes roars from the audience as he steps onto stage. The Evangelical Church takes these vulnerable children, and, rather than teach them strong values and morals applicable in everyday life, they are used as pawns for a future culture war.
Why are these children so susceptible to Evangelism, though? Well, most of them are subjected to it from birth. In America, 75% of home schooled children are from Evangelical families (the other 25% are just really socially awkward), and the Child Evangelism Fellowship is taking an aggressive stance to “educate” children in public schools, usually aiming for children aged 5 to 12. (Boston, par. 5) In one scene from “Jesus Camp,” Levi is seen receiving a lesson on creationism from his mother, in which she debunks evolution saying “science doesn’t prove anything.” She and Levi then talk about how offensive it would be if a public school teacher were to say “creationism is stupid,” but it would be acceptable if the teacher said the same statement regarding evolution. Raising a child like this is a sure fire way to ensure the child is ready to fight for church who’s beliefs offer fallacy after fallacy. Levi’s mother could have been a master satirist when, in her 3 minutes of screen time, she gave a textbook definition of the faulty either/or reasoning fallacy, stating, in regards to her Evangelical beliefs, that “there are two people in this world, those who love Jesus and those who don’t.” These children were raised by ignorant people, and are now being trained by, well, even more ignorant people who are hell bent on saving America through Evangelism. Vulnerable children are subject to this religion by their parents, who would rather give them false hope of empowerment and leading them to “believe they can change the world” (Turan, par. 7) than letting them make their own unbiased choices.
“Jesus Camp,” in some sense, is impenetrable to being criticized. The film easily gets it’s point across to the view, but it does so in such an unobtrusive manner that it is impossible to find fallacy in Ewing and Grady’s argument. The only thing that could have improved the film is perhaps a follow up on Levi and Rachel as they hit their teenage years so the viewer can see if there is any kind of success rate with Fischer’s “pawns for Evangelism” plan.
Overall, for the third time, Ewing and Grady’s “Jesus Camp” is an informative, well executed documentary, due to it’s fly-on-the wall filming tactics and the terrifying methods of the Evangelical Church. This is a documentary that should not only be seen by the non-Evangelicals that are looking for more of a reason to hate them, but also members of the religion themselves who, after viewing this film, may realize just how dangerous this could be. The film is certainly capable of showing the political power that Evangelicals do have, and how that could grow with the corruption of so many children, and that should be scary enough for anyone to realize that this force needs to be stopped for the sake of the separation of church and state. The film receives a big thumbs up from me, as well as a “Holy shit!”
RESEARCH PAPER AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Here is an excellent research paper written for my World LIt class. The assignment is to review a film while comparing it with the work it is based on or inspired by.
A P
English 2332 – 1200
Hollie Domingue
03 MAR 2010
To Be Complete, One Must Look Inside One’s Self
Love has lost its luster, thrown around like candy, and felt only in the heat of passion, but real love, Eros, is the difference between an unbroken unity and the relentless search to find fulfillment. Hedwig, from John Cameron Mitchell’s Hedwig and the Angry Inch, searches for completeness in mind and body. Themes of love and finding one’s “other half” resonate from Plato’s The Symposium. Mitchell, along with Stephen Trask, the composer for the music of Hedwig, applies the themes from The Symposium into the music with the same eye opening, profound, and moving message. Hedwig recounts her life through song as the front person for the band “The Angry Inch”. The band follows Tommy Gnosis, Hedwig’s ex-lover, who has become famous stealing Hedwig’s music. Hedwig’s life plays out through flashbacks, short soliloquies, and hand-drawn animation. In the end she finds that being whole is accepting who she is rather than finding love in people.
Mitchell incorporates Pausanias’ speech of two types of love, earthly and heavenly, into Hedwig’s romantic life. First, the example for earthly love is the relationship Hedwig, called Hansel before the sex-reassignment surgery, has with Luther, an Army sergeant. Luther finds Hansel sunbathing and “falls in love” with him. Luther convinces Hansel to have the sex-reassignment surgery; Hansel becomes Hedwig. The surgery was botched leaving Hedwig with “one inch mound of flesh” (film). Hedwig relocates to Junction city, Kansas and is “abandoned by her husband for another androgynous boy” (Holden, par. 11) soon after. Luther personifies Pausanias’ idea that earthly, common, love is the attraction to the “bodies rather than minds” (Pausanias 13). Hedwig soon begins a relationship with Tommy Speck, a 17 year old aspiring musician and “Jesus freak” (film). Hedwig and Tommy’s relationship reflects Pausanias’ idea of heavenly love. This relationship is portrayed “as a delightful union of mentor and apprentice” (Sypniewski 570) defining it even more as a heavenly love. Hedwig’s relationships leave her feeling incomplete because they were based purely on physical attraction until she meets Tommy, and there is a meeting of the minds.
The intellectual relationship between Hedwig and Tommy leads Hedwig to believe Tommy is the last piece of the puzzle of her life; this conveys the theme of “soul mates” from Aristophanes’ speech. Traskwrote the song “The Origin of Love” after reading the speech of Aristophanes. The song is “allegorical to a fault” (Brasor, par. 9), and captures the whole of Hedwig’s tragic story of being “half man, half woman” (Hunter, par. 2). The song was the first thing on paper and encompasses the central idea of Hedwig’s story. Throughout the film, Hedwig is in pursuit of love, and love is “the reunification with the other half” (Sypniewski 573). Aristophanes’ speech is a creation story; “there were three human genders…the shape of each human was a rounded whole…with four hands and the same amount of legs, and two identical faces” (Aristophanes 22). These ancient humans defied the gods so Zeus split them all down the middle, and the humans were left searching for their “other half”. Hedwig thinks she has found her “other half” in Tommy. In her narrative, Hedwig explains seeing the “emptiness…only a few puddles of bluish pain [sloshing] around inside; same blue as [her] eyes” (film). This solidifies Hedwig’s feelings of being complete with Tommy. Tommy and Hedwig begin a “Platonic” relationship where Hedwig teaches Tommy about love and music.
Tommy and Hedwig’s collaboration through music captures the essence of Diatoma’s dialogue with Socrates that love is a “reproduction and birth in beauty” (Diatoma 44). This reproduction, however, is “intellectual rather than a biological progeny” (Nehamas 1) because for one, Hedwig is not a woman by nature, and two, together they give birth to music. Hedwig serves as Tommy’s guide as he “[ascends] the ladder of knowledge” (Murray, par. 3), and dubs him “Tommy Gnosis”; “gnosis” being the Greek word for “knowledge”. Diatoma also says that one should strive towards self advancement along with having a guide. Tommy fulfills the idea of self advancement when he finally strikes the right chord to a song. Hedwig does not help Tommy, but merely gives him the boost of confidence that he needs. Diatoma’s speech also reflects Mitchell’s “creation” of Hedwig And The Angry Inch. Mitchell has created “something that wasn’t there before” (film) which is a visual interpretation and contemporary view of what was discussed at the dinner party some light years ago.
John Cameron Mitchell brought to life the different meanings of eros, some negative, some positive. Hedwig And The Angry Inch and The Symposium are both profound, thought-provoking, and sends a message of self reflection to all who come across either the text or the film. It is apparent the film “has been thought through, planned, [and] acted out with utter and total conviction” (Hunter, par. 5). The lesson to be learned is one should not be looking for the “other half” in people, but rather, “look inside what [one] already [has]” (Murray, par. 3).
Annotated Bibliography
Brasor, Philip. “Going All the Way Over the Wall.” Rev. of Hedwig And The Angry Inch dir. by John Cameron Mitchell. The Japan Times online. The Japan Time, 27 February 2002. Web. 21 February 2010.
This review gives a backdrop and short synopsis of the film. Brasor incorporates the songs and their meanings into his review. He speaks more about the music and what they mean than the film. He states that this film described more as burlesque, but has a deeper meaning. “Mitchell’s themes are more formidable, and he makes rock serve these themes rather than the other way.” He also talks about the characterization of Mitchell’s Hedwig. I used this in my paper to describe the song, “The Origin of Love”.
Holden, Stephen. “Betwixt and Between on a Glam Frontier.” Rev. Hedwig And The Angry Inch” dir. by John Cameron Mitchell. The New York Times online. The New York Times. 20 July 2001. Web. 21 February 2010.
In this review, Holden offers a short summary of the movie, but mainly focuses on the musical score comparing it to David Bowie’s music and music of the 70’s rock. Holden does make note of the philosophy in the songs and mentions Plato’s Symposium. Holden explains that Hedwig is in search for her other half, and brings up the symbolism in the comparison to everything being split: “split eggs, phases of the moon, and the division of Berlin.” Holden speaks of the film in a positive manner, and mentions “everyone has the freedom to couple however he or she chooses.” This is a retort against those who would think of ill of the film. I used this in my paper to support the theme Pausanias’ speech of common love and heavenly love as it pertains to Hedwig’s relationship with Luther.
Hunter, Stephen. “Hedwig: To Halve And Have Not.” Rev. Hedwig And The Angry Inch” dir. by John Cameron Mitchell. The Washington Post online. The Washington Post. 03 August 2001. Web. 21 February 2010.
This review hardly gives a synopsis of the film, but does discuss the film as a whole. Hunter mentions that precautions should be taken if one decides to watch the film; like a disclaimer. He states that the music of the film is “full of anger, bitterness, self-hatred, and energy.” The songs express all the moods Hedwig feels throughout the film. He speaks in favor of this film. Hunter speaks highly of the director and the music composer, be he also speaks highly about the actors in the film. I used this in my paper to support Mitchell’s work on the film as both director/actor
Hedwig And The Angry Inch. Dir. John Cameron Mitchell. New Line Cinema, 2001.
This film, created by John Cameron Mitchell, recounts the life of Hedwig, the lead singer of the band called The Angry Inch. It is a story told through music, short narratives, and hand-drawn animation. The band is following around Tommy Gnosis, Hedwig’s ex-lover who stole her music and became famous, playing a chain of Bilgewater restaurant. The music, written by Stephen Trask, capture the essence of the speeches made in Plato’s Symposium. It is a story of looking for completion and self discovery. I used quotes from the film to support my explanations of Hedwig.
Murray, Penelope. “The Symposium.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 126 (2006): 211. JSTOR. Web. 21 February 2010.
This article critiques a translation of The Symposium done by Richard Hunter. Hunter not only translated Symposium, but also gave explanation to the dialogue, and highlights “key moments in the dialogue’s reception.” Murray then gives insight to the time for which the dinner party takes place, and parts of some of the speeches made that night especially Diatoma’s dialogue with Socrates. I used this article to support my paragraph including Diatoma’s speech.
Nehamas, Alexander. “Only in the Contemplations of Beauty is Human Life Worth Living, Plato, Symposium.” European Journal of Philosophy 15.1 (2006): 1-18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 February 2010.
This article’s main idea is how to attain being whole through the philosophies of Plato and Gregory Vlastos, who is a critique of Plato’s work. The main speech used in Nehamas’ article is Socrates’ conversation with Diatoma, a prophetess. It speaks of the “ladder of knowledge” and how might be able to ascend said ladder. He touches other speech’s too, but the particular dialogue between Socrates and Diatoma supports “the contemplation of beauty” and its worth to human life. It is a rather long, boring article, but I found it useful to support my paragraph in which I discuss Diatoma’s speech.
Plato. The Symposium. London: Penguin Classics, 1999. Print.
This book captures a dinner party on night in Ancient Greece. This dinner party was in celebration of the comic Agathon and his success with his play. The speeches made that night praise Eros, the Greek god of love, and raise questions if humans could ever obtain wholeness through knowledge and wisdom. The text also discusses homoerotic relationships that were practiced during the times. The speakers all agree that for a young boy, old enough to think for himself, to gain knowledge and wisdom they must have an older lover who can guide them along the path of knowledge. I took the themes discussed in three of the speeches, and used the text to support the paragraphs dedicated to each speech.
Sypniewski, Holly M. “The Pursuit of Eros in Plato’s Symposium and Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 15.4 (2008): 558-586. EBSCOHOST. Web. 21 February 2010.
This amazing article brings forth the similarities found Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Symposium. Sypniewski juxtaposes the themes of speeches from Symposium and how they’re played in the film. She goes through each speech and gives an explanation to why and how it worked so well in the film. As one reads this article, one can see the difference scenes playing out from the movie. I thought this to be one of the best articles I have read on the subject matter. I used this article to support my paragraph discussing the theme from Aristophanes’ speech, and how Mitchell used it in the film.
Here is an excellent research paper written for my World LIt class. The assignment is to review a film while comparing it with the work it is based on or inspired by.
A P
English 2332 – 1200
Hollie Domingue
03 MAR 2010
To Be Complete, One Must Look Inside One’s Self
Love has lost its luster, thrown around like candy, and felt only in the heat of passion, but real love, Eros, is the difference between an unbroken unity and the relentless search to find fulfillment. Hedwig, from John Cameron Mitchell’s Hedwig and the Angry Inch, searches for completeness in mind and body. Themes of love and finding one’s “other half” resonate from Plato’s The Symposium. Mitchell, along with Stephen Trask, the composer for the music of Hedwig, applies the themes from The Symposium into the music with the same eye opening, profound, and moving message. Hedwig recounts her life through song as the front person for the band “The Angry Inch”. The band follows Tommy Gnosis, Hedwig’s ex-lover, who has become famous stealing Hedwig’s music. Hedwig’s life plays out through flashbacks, short soliloquies, and hand-drawn animation. In the end she finds that being whole is accepting who she is rather than finding love in people.
Mitchell incorporates Pausanias’ speech of two types of love, earthly and heavenly, into Hedwig’s romantic life. First, the example for earthly love is the relationship Hedwig, called Hansel before the sex-reassignment surgery, has with Luther, an Army sergeant. Luther finds Hansel sunbathing and “falls in love” with him. Luther convinces Hansel to have the sex-reassignment surgery; Hansel becomes Hedwig. The surgery was botched leaving Hedwig with “one inch mound of flesh” (film). Hedwig relocates to Junction city, Kansas and is “abandoned by her husband for another androgynous boy” (Holden, par. 11) soon after. Luther personifies Pausanias’ idea that earthly, common, love is the attraction to the “bodies rather than minds” (Pausanias 13). Hedwig soon begins a relationship with Tommy Speck, a 17 year old aspiring musician and “Jesus freak” (film). Hedwig and Tommy’s relationship reflects Pausanias’ idea of heavenly love. This relationship is portrayed “as a delightful union of mentor and apprentice” (Sypniewski 570) defining it even more as a heavenly love. Hedwig’s relationships leave her feeling incomplete because they were based purely on physical attraction until she meets Tommy, and there is a meeting of the minds.
The intellectual relationship between Hedwig and Tommy leads Hedwig to believe Tommy is the last piece of the puzzle of her life; this conveys the theme of “soul mates” from Aristophanes’ speech. Traskwrote the song “The Origin of Love” after reading the speech of Aristophanes. The song is “allegorical to a fault” (Brasor, par. 9), and captures the whole of Hedwig’s tragic story of being “half man, half woman” (Hunter, par. 2). The song was the first thing on paper and encompasses the central idea of Hedwig’s story. Throughout the film, Hedwig is in pursuit of love, and love is “the reunification with the other half” (Sypniewski 573). Aristophanes’ speech is a creation story; “there were three human genders…the shape of each human was a rounded whole…with four hands and the same amount of legs, and two identical faces” (Aristophanes 22). These ancient humans defied the gods so Zeus split them all down the middle, and the humans were left searching for their “other half”. Hedwig thinks she has found her “other half” in Tommy. In her narrative, Hedwig explains seeing the “emptiness…only a few puddles of bluish pain [sloshing] around inside; same blue as [her] eyes” (film). This solidifies Hedwig’s feelings of being complete with Tommy. Tommy and Hedwig begin a “Platonic” relationship where Hedwig teaches Tommy about love and music.
Tommy and Hedwig’s collaboration through music captures the essence of Diatoma’s dialogue with Socrates that love is a “reproduction and birth in beauty” (Diatoma 44). This reproduction, however, is “intellectual rather than a biological progeny” (Nehamas 1) because for one, Hedwig is not a woman by nature, and two, together they give birth to music. Hedwig serves as Tommy’s guide as he “[ascends] the ladder of knowledge” (Murray, par. 3), and dubs him “Tommy Gnosis”; “gnosis” being the Greek word for “knowledge”. Diatoma also says that one should strive towards self advancement along with having a guide. Tommy fulfills the idea of self advancement when he finally strikes the right chord to a song. Hedwig does not help Tommy, but merely gives him the boost of confidence that he needs. Diatoma’s speech also reflects Mitchell’s “creation” of Hedwig And The Angry Inch. Mitchell has created “something that wasn’t there before” (film) which is a visual interpretation and contemporary view of what was discussed at the dinner party some light years ago.
John Cameron Mitchell brought to life the different meanings of eros, some negative, some positive. Hedwig And The Angry Inch and The Symposium are both profound, thought-provoking, and sends a message of self reflection to all who come across either the text or the film. It is apparent the film “has been thought through, planned, [and] acted out with utter and total conviction” (Hunter, par. 5). The lesson to be learned is one should not be looking for the “other half” in people, but rather, “look inside what [one] already [has]” (Murray, par. 3).
Annotated Bibliography
Brasor, Philip. “Going All the Way Over the Wall.” Rev. of Hedwig And The Angry Inch dir. by John Cameron Mitchell. The Japan Times online. The Japan Time, 27 February 2002. Web. 21 February 2010.
This review gives a backdrop and short synopsis of the film. Brasor incorporates the songs and their meanings into his review. He speaks more about the music and what they mean than the film. He states that this film described more as burlesque, but has a deeper meaning. “Mitchell’s themes are more formidable, and he makes rock serve these themes rather than the other way.” He also talks about the characterization of Mitchell’s Hedwig. I used this in my paper to describe the song, “The Origin of Love”.
Holden, Stephen. “Betwixt and Between on a Glam Frontier.” Rev. Hedwig And The Angry Inch” dir. by John Cameron Mitchell. The New York Times online. The New York Times. 20 July 2001. Web. 21 February 2010.
In this review, Holden offers a short summary of the movie, but mainly focuses on the musical score comparing it to David Bowie’s music and music of the 70’s rock. Holden does make note of the philosophy in the songs and mentions Plato’s Symposium. Holden explains that Hedwig is in search for her other half, and brings up the symbolism in the comparison to everything being split: “split eggs, phases of the moon, and the division of Berlin.” Holden speaks of the film in a positive manner, and mentions “everyone has the freedom to couple however he or she chooses.” This is a retort against those who would think of ill of the film. I used this in my paper to support the theme Pausanias’ speech of common love and heavenly love as it pertains to Hedwig’s relationship with Luther.
Hunter, Stephen. “Hedwig: To Halve And Have Not.” Rev. Hedwig And The Angry Inch” dir. by John Cameron Mitchell. The Washington Post online. The Washington Post. 03 August 2001. Web. 21 February 2010.
This review hardly gives a synopsis of the film, but does discuss the film as a whole. Hunter mentions that precautions should be taken if one decides to watch the film; like a disclaimer. He states that the music of the film is “full of anger, bitterness, self-hatred, and energy.” The songs express all the moods Hedwig feels throughout the film. He speaks in favor of this film. Hunter speaks highly of the director and the music composer, be he also speaks highly about the actors in the film. I used this in my paper to support Mitchell’s work on the film as both director/actor
Hedwig And The Angry Inch. Dir. John Cameron Mitchell. New Line Cinema, 2001.
This film, created by John Cameron Mitchell, recounts the life of Hedwig, the lead singer of the band called The Angry Inch. It is a story told through music, short narratives, and hand-drawn animation. The band is following around Tommy Gnosis, Hedwig’s ex-lover who stole her music and became famous, playing a chain of Bilgewater restaurant. The music, written by Stephen Trask, capture the essence of the speeches made in Plato’s Symposium. It is a story of looking for completion and self discovery. I used quotes from the film to support my explanations of Hedwig.
Murray, Penelope. “The Symposium.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 126 (2006): 211. JSTOR. Web. 21 February 2010.
This article critiques a translation of The Symposium done by Richard Hunter. Hunter not only translated Symposium, but also gave explanation to the dialogue, and highlights “key moments in the dialogue’s reception.” Murray then gives insight to the time for which the dinner party takes place, and parts of some of the speeches made that night especially Diatoma’s dialogue with Socrates. I used this article to support my paragraph including Diatoma’s speech.
Nehamas, Alexander. “Only in the Contemplations of Beauty is Human Life Worth Living, Plato, Symposium.” European Journal of Philosophy 15.1 (2006): 1-18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 February 2010.
This article’s main idea is how to attain being whole through the philosophies of Plato and Gregory Vlastos, who is a critique of Plato’s work. The main speech used in Nehamas’ article is Socrates’ conversation with Diatoma, a prophetess. It speaks of the “ladder of knowledge” and how might be able to ascend said ladder. He touches other speech’s too, but the particular dialogue between Socrates and Diatoma supports “the contemplation of beauty” and its worth to human life. It is a rather long, boring article, but I found it useful to support my paragraph in which I discuss Diatoma’s speech.
Plato. The Symposium. London: Penguin Classics, 1999. Print.
This book captures a dinner party on night in Ancient Greece. This dinner party was in celebration of the comic Agathon and his success with his play. The speeches made that night praise Eros, the Greek god of love, and raise questions if humans could ever obtain wholeness through knowledge and wisdom. The text also discusses homoerotic relationships that were practiced during the times. The speakers all agree that for a young boy, old enough to think for himself, to gain knowledge and wisdom they must have an older lover who can guide them along the path of knowledge. I took the themes discussed in three of the speeches, and used the text to support the paragraphs dedicated to each speech.
Sypniewski, Holly M. “The Pursuit of Eros in Plato’s Symposium and Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 15.4 (2008): 558-586. EBSCOHOST. Web. 21 February 2010.
This amazing article brings forth the similarities found Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Symposium. Sypniewski juxtaposes the themes of speeches from Symposium and how they’re played in the film. She goes through each speech and gives an explanation to why and how it worked so well in the film. As one reads this article, one can see the difference scenes playing out from the movie. I thought this to be one of the best articles I have read on the subject matter. I used this article to support my paragraph discussing the theme from Aristophanes’ speech, and how Mitchell used it in the film.
Description Essay Sample
This is JM's description essay. The assignment was to describe a painting and reveal its message. Again JM uses his signature "dialogue" style, where he takes on a persona to create a voice. This is very risky... but he pulls it off.
A Plague Upon Our Houses!
I’ll never forget the day I built a time machine and discussed Le Bejeurer sur l’Herbe by Edouard Manet with two French aristocrats from the 18th century. The whole thing started as a joke between a friend and I, but somehow on one exceptionally mundane Monday I found myself sitting in my bedroom with the two strange men. As they settled themselves in, and after I ignored their introductions and tentatively named them “Pierre” and “Henry,” they looked up at my admittedly overly-pretentious wall-size poster of Manet’s work, and the discussion began.
“Absolutely atrocious,” stated Pierre, “that woman is nude among two clothed men!” “Look at the woman in the background, friend,” exclaimed Henry, “I believe she is bathing!” While trying to calm these two prudes down, I threw in my own two-cents: “Manet didn’t even focus on making his brush stokes unnoticeable; it’s interesting,” “Brush strokes!? Brush stokes are the last of the problems with this Satan-painting. The shrubbery in the background looks as if it were painted inside the painting itself.” “A painting inside of a painting! Pierre is right! Ludicrous! Look at the fruit basket, Pierre; it has been knocked over and the fruit is scattered upon her discarded clothes.” “It is probably a result of committing sex, Henry. This woman must be a prostitute.” The discussion was getting interesting, and rather than giving these time-travelers an important piece of technology or some item that could invariably change the world, I wanted to continue discussing Manet’s piece, so I initiated a little more conversation with the aristocrats concerning the painting.
“So, what do you guys think about the colors used?” Pierre replied sharply, “The colors this heathen has used would be fine, if he hadn’t used such a bright skin tone for the woman. It draws too much attention to her sinful body!” Henry reiterated his previous thoughts about the insanity of a painting inside of another painting, and he suggested that the idea of the people simply being models in front of a poorly painted backdrop was unprofessional and uninspired. “The colors used for the background are too light and look as though no attempt was made to express the beauty of nature’s backdrop,” he continued. I grew tired of Pierre and Henry’s criticism, so I tried to discuss with them a deeper meaning to the painting.
“Guys, guys, guy’s… enough bashing on Eddy, I think maybe we need to think about some kind of reasoning to explain why all of these, what you two would call, inconsistencies are noticeable in this work,” I said as if any reasoning would calm the two douche bags known as Pierre and Henry. Pierre shot back “Explanation? I can will give you an explanation, boy. This “painting” serves no purpose other than to corrupt the society we live in! It is unclean! Disgusting filth! A plague upon our houses!” At this point Pierre became so overcome by his rant that he punched Henry in the face hurling him into unconsciousness. “Christ, Pierre. You need to chill. Listen, I think there’s more to this painting than you think. Let’s say these people are just models in front of a backdrop; that in it’s own is a bold artistic statement with the naked woman accompanying two clothed men, as it clearly made you two uncomfortable and angry. The woman, if you noticed, is looking directly at the viewer, as if she knows that the image will be labeled “unclean,” but her indifferent face says that she doesn’t care; she is in her natural state and finds nothing wrong with that. If you ask me, Manet is trying to show us that nature is beautiful, and that includes the human body; the naked human form should not be viewed as such a taboo subject in his society, and art especially should not adhere to this or any taboo.”
As I took a breath, I looked down to find Pierre had fallen asleep during my lecture. After drawing on their faces with sharpee and taking funny pictures with them in homoerotic poses, I killed them, disposed of their bodies(I couldn’t remember how Bill and Ted’s Most Excellent Adventure ended, so I wasn’t sure how to send them back to their time), sat back on my bed, and examined Edoaurd Manet’s work. As much as I hated those two French dudes, they helped me respect the painting much more, as I got to see firsthand the outrage it could cause in Manet’s time. Not only did I respect the punch behind it, but I saw the light brushstrokes, the backdrop, and the colors used in a new light; I respected this painting from every angle now. As I sat on my bed wearing the funny hat and shoulder pad’s that I stole from Pierre, I continued to stare at this piece of art and felt overwhelmed by the beauty.
Work Cited
Manet, Édouard. Le Déjeuner Sur l'Herbe. 1863. Musée d'Orsay, Paris
A Plague Upon Our Houses!
I’ll never forget the day I built a time machine and discussed Le Bejeurer sur l’Herbe by Edouard Manet with two French aristocrats from the 18th century. The whole thing started as a joke between a friend and I, but somehow on one exceptionally mundane Monday I found myself sitting in my bedroom with the two strange men. As they settled themselves in, and after I ignored their introductions and tentatively named them “Pierre” and “Henry,” they looked up at my admittedly overly-pretentious wall-size poster of Manet’s work, and the discussion began.
“Absolutely atrocious,” stated Pierre, “that woman is nude among two clothed men!” “Look at the woman in the background, friend,” exclaimed Henry, “I believe she is bathing!” While trying to calm these two prudes down, I threw in my own two-cents: “Manet didn’t even focus on making his brush stokes unnoticeable; it’s interesting,” “Brush strokes!? Brush stokes are the last of the problems with this Satan-painting. The shrubbery in the background looks as if it were painted inside the painting itself.” “A painting inside of a painting! Pierre is right! Ludicrous! Look at the fruit basket, Pierre; it has been knocked over and the fruit is scattered upon her discarded clothes.” “It is probably a result of committing sex, Henry. This woman must be a prostitute.” The discussion was getting interesting, and rather than giving these time-travelers an important piece of technology or some item that could invariably change the world, I wanted to continue discussing Manet’s piece, so I initiated a little more conversation with the aristocrats concerning the painting.
“So, what do you guys think about the colors used?” Pierre replied sharply, “The colors this heathen has used would be fine, if he hadn’t used such a bright skin tone for the woman. It draws too much attention to her sinful body!” Henry reiterated his previous thoughts about the insanity of a painting inside of another painting, and he suggested that the idea of the people simply being models in front of a poorly painted backdrop was unprofessional and uninspired. “The colors used for the background are too light and look as though no attempt was made to express the beauty of nature’s backdrop,” he continued. I grew tired of Pierre and Henry’s criticism, so I tried to discuss with them a deeper meaning to the painting.
“Guys, guys, guy’s… enough bashing on Eddy, I think maybe we need to think about some kind of reasoning to explain why all of these, what you two would call, inconsistencies are noticeable in this work,” I said as if any reasoning would calm the two douche bags known as Pierre and Henry. Pierre shot back “Explanation? I can will give you an explanation, boy. This “painting” serves no purpose other than to corrupt the society we live in! It is unclean! Disgusting filth! A plague upon our houses!” At this point Pierre became so overcome by his rant that he punched Henry in the face hurling him into unconsciousness. “Christ, Pierre. You need to chill. Listen, I think there’s more to this painting than you think. Let’s say these people are just models in front of a backdrop; that in it’s own is a bold artistic statement with the naked woman accompanying two clothed men, as it clearly made you two uncomfortable and angry. The woman, if you noticed, is looking directly at the viewer, as if she knows that the image will be labeled “unclean,” but her indifferent face says that she doesn’t care; she is in her natural state and finds nothing wrong with that. If you ask me, Manet is trying to show us that nature is beautiful, and that includes the human body; the naked human form should not be viewed as such a taboo subject in his society, and art especially should not adhere to this or any taboo.”
As I took a breath, I looked down to find Pierre had fallen asleep during my lecture. After drawing on their faces with sharpee and taking funny pictures with them in homoerotic poses, I killed them, disposed of their bodies(I couldn’t remember how Bill and Ted’s Most Excellent Adventure ended, so I wasn’t sure how to send them back to their time), sat back on my bed, and examined Edoaurd Manet’s work. As much as I hated those two French dudes, they helped me respect the painting much more, as I got to see firsthand the outrage it could cause in Manet’s time. Not only did I respect the punch behind it, but I saw the light brushstrokes, the backdrop, and the colors used in a new light; I respected this painting from every angle now. As I sat on my bed wearing the funny hat and shoulder pad’s that I stole from Pierre, I continued to stare at this piece of art and felt overwhelmed by the beauty.
Work Cited
Manet, Édouard. Le Déjeuner Sur l'Herbe. 1863. Musée d'Orsay, Paris
