Hecate's Netflix Narrative

Me, myself, and I

Upon my recent introduction into the magical modern media known to the mortals as Netflix, I have discovered many works in which (witch?) I see aspects of myself.  I have done what is referred to as a "Netflix binge," where the viewer religiously watches a series, with each episode back-to-back for hours.  My only interruption consisted of the pestering pop-up question inquiring to whether or not I was still watching my picture. The following is a brief synopsis of the titles and how they relate to me.

***Spoilers***

Mean Girls:

This is a picture in which a bold, outsider girl joins the popular crowd in order to find out all of their dirty little secrets.  When the girl, Cady, actually becomes popular, I noticed similar manipulative qualities to which I also possessed.  Seeing her take control of the popular crowd (and eventually the school), reminded me of the ways I manipulated Macbeth through the witches.  The only thing I would change is the end. I was very disappointed when Cady gave up all of the power she had attained in order to be friends with the losers.

Breaking Bad:

In this popular series, a middle-aged chemistry teacher, upon his diagnosis of terminal lung cancer, concocts a flawless method to create an influential (and rather expensive) potion known as methamphetamine.  The chemistry teacher, Walter White, has a minion by the name of Jesse Pinkman who helps Mr. White in the brewing of his concoction.  While they do have a business relationship, Walter White does attempt to guide Jesse in his day-to-day life, specifically, overcoming the obstacle of addiction.  While this goal is more of a positive one, it does mirror my attempts to help the witches kill Macbeth. 

Parent Trap:

In this flick, two very different girls discover that they are twins, and with that knowledge they discover that they have the same parents who have been separated their whole lives.  The girls attempt to reunite their parents through a variety of schemes, and in the end, they lead their parents to each other.  Their deceit and manipulation reminds me of my own, as I told to witches to trick Macbeth into thinking he had the upper hand in the conflicts that were to follow.  

High School Musical:

This is a motion picture in which the many social groups of ambitious teenagers are represented as driven to pursue science, music, or athletics.  The social standards are shaken when two teenagers from different social groups decide to pursue an activity that neither of their previous cliques prescribe as the "status quo."  I compare myself here to the character of Taylor, who shows the same ambition I do in reference to pursuing her goals. Taylor is in fact so ambitious, she stages a fake encounter between the protagonist and his best friend that ends up separating the aforementioned teenagers. Her hopes in doing this were that upon their separation, as Gabriela would assist her in winning the Science Olympiad. 

Cabin in the Woods:

In this, the last of my recommendations, a group of college-aged students find themselves in a (you guessed it) cabin in the woods.  In the beginning of the film, the audience is led to believe that the cabin is just an ordinary cabin that is located in the woods, but, as the movie progresses, the audience begins to learn that the cabin is an alter used for a ritualistic sacrifice to save the world.  As the curtain is pulled back the differences between appearance and reality are shown in their true nature.  This type of outsider deception is exactly the same as that to which I influence the witches in their interactions with Macbeth.  However, unlike the weak mortals that sought to deceive in this flick, no mere child could ever thwart the great Hecate.   

Power corrupts?

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Action

Shakespeare has written numerous plays about crazy kings or kings going crazy.  Prime examples of this claim are King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth, all of whom begin as (debatably) sane human beings, but by the end, they have gone mad.  Even in Romeo and Juliet, the parents of the two are overstepping their bounds and becoming overly involved when addressing the topic of marriage of their children.  Shakespeare writing multiple stories on the topic of "good people gone bad" supports the idea that Shakespeare agrees with the idea that power corrupts.

The best example of Shakespeare's work to pull from is Macbeth.  (There will be spoilers, but this work has been out for about four-hundred years, so I really am not spoiling anything.)  Once upon a time, Macbeth was completely happy with where he was in life, and then these witches told him he could have more power.  Enthralled, Macbeth decided to pursue this prophecy and, with some persuasion from his wife, killed King Duncan.  With this new-found power, and the shock of killing someone, Macbeth goes a little bit... mad.  In order to maintain the throne, he hired other people to kill his friend, Banquo, whose sons are also a part of the prophecy.  He also indirectly (but purposefully) kills Banquo to cover up his crimes.

I think it's important to note that Macbeth hires other people to do his dirty work.  Before, when he was in the right mind and had less influence, Macbeth killed King Duncan himself with great moral distress.  By involving other people in his crimes, he was able to divert some of his guilt.  A part of Macbeth's downward spiral is his intense amount of paranoia, but he was only able to act upon this paranoia quickly with the power he had.  Therefore, Shakespeare's work, especially Macbeth, supports the idea that he believed that power corrupts.

I also agree with this statement.  In history, we can look back at the different ways in which countries were run, and the governments in which all of the power was concentrated in one person are usually remembered because the reins were horrendous.  Some examples of these people are Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin.

An example drawn from my personal life is found on the track, more specifically, in pole vault.  In the sub-culture of pole vault, we have all of the new people (also known as the "rookies") do all of the dirty work.  By dirty work, I mean removing the mat cover or cleaning out the water-filled pit.  When I was a rookie, I was pressured to do all of the work by the more experienced participants, but now, starting my fourth year, I am the one applying the pressure.  Now that I don't have to do the work, the underclassmen are being forced to by myself.  As I have gained more influence and power in the world of pole vault, I have definitely put in less effort towards the maintenance of the area, and forced that effort upon others.

All in all, I definitely agree with the idea that power corrupts.

Con(not so)temporary Art

Within the past couple of weeks, my high school's IB Diploma Programme (yes, programme) took a field trip to the local Contemporary Art Museum of Raleigh.  More specifically, we were visiting the exhibit called Limited Visibility, where each artist displayed a lack of image, rather than a whole, to allow the audience to reflect upon perception. I thought it was pretty nifty, as we were able to watch videos and participate with the art.  The non-crowded, open atmosphere of the museum combined with modern architecture made the museum itself a work of art.

The exhibit:  Limited Visibility

One piece of art that I found interesting was titled "Blind self portrait listening to the beetles while scratching a notched stick so to invoke, the universal magic of the power of destruction," created by Abraham Cruzvillegas in 2013.  I couldn't believe the title when it was first dictated to me, so here are two pictures: the label of the piece, and the piece:

                        

To be frank, my initial thoughts were: I could totally do this.  All the art was composed of was acrylic paint on top of pages with images, cut into various quadrilaterals, and hung up on a wall (169 in total).  But, if I were to create this, I would not have created a meaning behind it (I would have made the curtains just blue).  In order to fully interpret this piece, the title must be analyzed. 

The "blind self portrait" portion could mean that the audience is "blind" to the "self portrait," and the "self portrait" could mean the secrets or life of an individual.  When sketching this piece, I decided to color it, and when I realized the yellow wasn't just pure yellow (I needed to add some brown), I had a revelation:  each of these squares symbolizes someone's life.  Adding some brown to the yellow made it look like an exotic skin tone; as a result each of these squares now symbolize a person to me.  This is a representation of how I look into a crowd of people: on the surface they all appear the same (or extremely similar), but in reality each of them has life story that is unknown to me.

To build upon my "every square is a person theory," these squares are various shapes and sizes, with no two identical.  This could be because each person has a unique shape, whether it is tall or short, or a little heavy or a little light.  It can also be observed that the edges of some of these squares are a little ragged or have an imprint of the image covered, people are the same way.  Distinguishing physical characteristics can allow some of a person's story to bleed through a thin cover.  A unique scar, a cool tattoo, or even a wild hair style could allow an observer to make correct assumptions about another's past.

The droop of the rectangles could symbolize the burden of life that each of us possess, but at this point I should just assume that the curtains are just blue.  

It's really strange how something that appears so simple could be that complex.

~

To close, I would like to show off my amazing drawing of "Blind self portrait listening to the beetles while scratching a notched stick so to invoke, the universal magic of the power of destruction."

Yes, I am the next van Gogh.

Anatomic Advertisements

CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., 2005.
Source URL: http://www.thekarachivoice.net/business--charity/category/hardees

            This is a Carl’s Jr. (Hardee’s for us from the East Coast) advertisement for the “Super Star” burger.  The ad predominantly features Paris Hilton dressed scantily (in black) eating a burger on the right of the image, and a giant burger on the left of the image.  Not as clearly seen, there is also a large black truck in the background.  There are two suggestive phrases on the advertisement, which are “She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter.  She’s lying” and “It’s gonna get messy.”  Both of these phrases are located on the left of the image, the former is located above the burger, while the latter is located below the burger.  The second quote (“It’s gonna get messy”) is located next to the logo of the company, while the first quote (“She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter.  She’s lying”) is larger and stands out more in the advertisement.

            This advertisement is doing what all ads do:  Sell its product.  The way in which the ad intends to do this is by implying that this burger will help men get women.  The featuring of Paris Hilton’s body in a provocative manner enforces the idea that sex does sell.  The intended audience of this image is predominantly heterosexual men, who are more likely younger or college aged.  This audience is taught that the exposure of a woman’s skin is considered attractive.  An alternate audience could be women who want to have a body similar to the one displayed in the image, and who have been taught that this is the ideal body type.  Unintentionally, this ad perpetuates stereotypes of women, causing women to feel insecure about themselves, while simultaneously causing men to expect all women to look, feel, and behave in this manner. 

            The deadly sin displayed in this advertisement is lust. 

Canterbury Comparison

Freebie!

It's "plass-koh-ness"

I'd say that both my first and middle name have little to no significance.  My first name was given to me because it started with a "P" (just like my last name!) while both of my grandmothers have the middle name "Louise."

That's nothing too special.  My last name, the one my parents didn't choose, has more history.

Once upon a time (80 years ago, give or take a few years) my great-grandfather and his wife and kids moved from the Ukraine to the United States.  My great-grandfather and his "Plaskonos-posse" were immigrating with a group of people from Greece.  As a result, the customs officials thought my great-grandfather's last name was Greek, and thus, spelled it (phonetically) incorrectly.

You see, before my ancestors moved to the United States, our last name was pronounced "vlass-koh-niece" (fun fact: it is literally translated to "flat nose").  The customs official responsible for the papers for immigration spelled it as "plass-koh-nohs."  Currently, my family says it as "plas-koh-ness" to preserve at least a part of the original pronunciation (the "niece" piece).

To be honest, it's awesome having a last name that no one (I know) else has, but it's kind of a double-edged sword.  On one end I'm thinking "Woah it's so unique and cool!" and on the other I'm thinking "No one knows how to say it without help, and that's annoying."  I usually ask my friends to call my dad "Mr. Plaz" or "Mr. P" just so I don't have to correct them.

When I was younger, I used to be upset when people said my last name incorrectly.  Now, I've given up on correcting people when pronouncing "Plaskonos" incorrectly, but if someone asks how to say it, they will say it correctly by the time I'm done with them.

These are just a few mis-pronunciations that I've heard:

• Plass-kah-nohs (this is very common, but where does the extra "a" sound come from?)
• Plass-kin-nohs
• Plus-kah-niss
• Plus-kin-ows
• Plass-koh-nass

(This is especially annoying when my close friends have no idea how to say my surname.)

I'd rather have a last name that sounds cool, has history, but not difficult to say.  "Smith" and "Scott" would be too simple.  Something along the lines of "Genesky," or "Franch," would be ideal.

Even though my last name is difficult to pronounce, I still want to keep it through marriage.  My surname helps keep me rooted to my identity; why would I get rid of something I use to identify myself?

I am Paige Plaskonos.  I am a part of a family, a team, and a school.  I struggle with a question:  is it more important that I define myself as an individual or a part of a whole?  Let's take a step back: in order to retain my individuality between social circumstances, I try to remain the same person between each group.  Constant, if you will.  I don't make an attempt to be "fake," but I want people to like me, so I socially adapt.  If socially adapting makes me fake, so be it.

By subjecting oneself to a group, a person is stripped of his or her identity.  This person is now labelled, and instead of celebrating what makes this person unique, we now celebrate what he or she is a part of.  We begin to celebrate parts instead of wholes.  What I find interesting, is each person wants to be the same and simultaneously stand out.  You can be the same by being a part of a group, but you can only stand out by what separates you from the group.  What makes you unique, defines you.

Everyday We're Othering

Wing Young Huie, 2012, Chicago Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN
http://know.wingyounghuie.com/image/25321609633

At first glance, it is noticed that this is an image of a dilapidated American flag.  The flag is torn, well-worn, and slightly pellucid.  The sky is bleak, meaning that is cloudy and a little gloomy.  The house on the left is yellow and appears to be in a well-kept condition.  In addition, the tree on the right side of the image appears healthy, as it has a plethora of leaves that are all green.  Based on the observations from above, it can be concluded that this is someone’s front yard.

Upon further examination, the presence of the dilapidated flag is surprising.  Both the house and the tree appear to be in good condition, so why wouldn’t the flag be?  Also, the American flag is a symbol for American freedoms and liberties.  The fact that it is broken down and slightly translucent in this image shows the photographer’s perspective of America not being as perfect as we all pretend it to be.  The house and other visible property being in good condition implies that the flag was intentionally left out of there to give a silent protest against the extreme nationalism present in our country. 

By protesting the society, the person who owns the flag is “othering” his or herself.  It is considered the norm to respect and almost worship our society, and this flag-bearer is doing the complete opposite, making him or her stand out.  There are traditions set by the military or precedent, and the flag waving in its beaten down state defies those precedents.  Another way to view this image is the photographer trying to make the government seem like the others.  The star “strangled” banner could be a symbol of how messed up the government is.

Offred, in The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood, “othered” herself, similar to this photograph, by implying she was the only “unbeliever” in her area.  An unbeliever is someone who does not believe in how the government is running the society. Being an “unbeliever” was a crime in the time of Gilead, and coming out as an unbeliever resulted in extreme punishment.  Dissimilar to Gilead, modern America allows for its citizens to protest the way in which it is run.  Being an “other” is also a little bit more celebrated in the United States, as we have all kinds of celebrations, for example, gay pride parades.  Both Atwood and the photographer created bleak images, either through words or through a photograph.