Did Elizabeth Lizze Borden murder her parents Essay

Did Elizabeth Lizze Borden murder her parents - Essay Example This question has puzzled many critics, researchers, writers and people associated with the legal punishments since the last century. The general public has also shown great interest in the subject that what had compelled a young daughter to kill her parents? Did she really kill them or there was someone else involved in the case that did not show up to the front screen. The events of a hot summer day in 1892 remained a mystery however; history has offered us some interesting facts which can prove to be helpful in solving this case of brutal killing. On August 4, 1892 Mr. Andrew Jackson Borden with his second wife Abby Durfee Gray was found brutally murdered in their house located in Fall River, Massachusetts. It was a hot sunny day and both were killed by a sharp axe (Watson, Elizabeth E.). Lizzie Borden was at home when the incident took place and was accused of the criminal act. But she was declared innocent after the trial. The town people believed that she had murdered her parents however even after more than 100 years the mystery has remained unsolved. Nobody knows about the actual murderer. Despite of her being indicted she inherited a considerable property from her father’s wealth. THE MYSTERY Critics and writers have a strong consensus on one point of the case that it was none other than Lizzie who murdered her father and step mother using a very sharp axe. The possible reason for such a brutal act is suggested to be the family disputes going on between Mr. Andrew Borden and his daughter Lizzie Borden in relation to the distribution of property among the family members of Lizzie’s step mother, Abby Gray. ... Whereas on the other side Lizzie was extremely disturbed after the death of her mother she never accepted the new family member, Ms Abby as her mother again. She was a well respected lady among the town members but the uncertainty going on within the family was known to everyone. It was a hot morning when Mr. Andrew was found dead in his room lying on the sofa. His body was showing the marks of heavy wounds including the poor condition of his head which was struck eleven times with a sharp instrument. His eye balls were cracked which clearly represented the extremely cruel nature of the murderer. On the other hand his wife’s body was found in the guest room. She was kneeled down on the bed which showed that she had been setting the bed when someone stabbed her head from the back using the same instrument nineteen or more times. Fortunately or unfortunately Lizzie was at home when the incident took place and she was the one who informed mates and servants. As soon as the news s pread out neighbors and town people also get in to see what has happened as the Borden family was considered one of the richest families in the town and that the murder was too much suspicious. Soon after the murder Lizzie was arrested as being accused of doing the criminal activity but was released after some months of trial (Kent, David). Her declared innocence put many questions in front of the critics and general public that either she was a real murderer or the court’s decision was a justified one? Argument Research shows that she had committed the crime because throughout the trial session she was continuously changing her statements, she was seen very nervous and frequently changed her answers about her position when his father came back home. First she said that she was in

Weekly Assignment Essay Example for Free

Weekly Assignment Essay In Moore’s proof if an external world, he is attempting to show that we can know things outside of our own us (Moore; 144). He proves this by using the example of showing his hands, pointing at one hand and saying â€Å"here is my right hand† then pointing to the other and saying the same thing (Moore; 144). He states that by just being able lift hand is proof that it exists. He provided three conditions that support his claim which are that; if his two conclusions differ from one another, which they do not. If he knew proof but did not believe it and vice versa; and finally if his conclusion did not follow the premises which it did (Moore ; 145). Moore addresses the issues that readers have about the fact that he is not answering the question. He claims that they are seeking a statement saying, â€Å"Here’s one hand and here’s the other†, to prove external existence by coming up and examining both hands (Moore; 146). This statement is meant to accommodate all the examples of proof of external objects (Moore, 147). It is very unlikely that on exists because for that statement to be true there would have to be an initial proof that a person is not dreaming which is quite difficult to do. Moore also provides an additional proof for objects that have previously existed by saying:† I held up two hands above the desk not very long ago, therefore two hands existed not very long ago and therefore at least two external objects have existed at some time in the past† (Moore; 146). He uses this as a solution to Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) problem of the existence of external objects; because it shows that the objects have existed at some point in time (Moore;146).

Nationalism and the French Revolution

Nationalism and the French Revolution The French Revolution is synonymous with nationalism. In fact, there can be little doubt that the concept of a nationalist revolution was born from the discord that built up in and around the periphery of France during the 1780’s. There was, however, little cohesion or malice aforethought with regards to events that took place after the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Rather than being a planned experiment in nationalism, the French Revolution should instead be interpreted as the result of pent up forces and frustrated political ambitions that had been fermenting in France and throughout Europe for the previous one hundred years. The nationalism of the revolution era was thus rare; a total kind of nationalist ideology that in theory was concerned with furthering the ambitions of ‘la patrie’ (the nation) but which in reality was too dynamic for its own good. The various modes of political office that dominated France over the forthcoming decades were wholly unpre cedented and unable to be contained within the national borders of France alone. As Bouloiseau declares, â€Å"the regime’s intentions were pure, but it lacked the means to put them into practice.†[1] For the purpose of perspective, the following examination of the role that nationalism played in the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars must adopt a chronological approach, attempting first to trace the genesis and subsequent evolution of the nationalist uprising before attempting to draw a definitive conclusion as to why the nature of the revolution was far too complex to be explained in simple ideological terms. First, however, a definition of nationalism within the specific historical context in which it was formed must be ascertained in order to establish a conceptual framework for the remainder of the discussion. Nationalism could not have emerged as a populist form of political ideology without there first having been the introduction of the paradigm of the ‘nation‑state’, which was first institutionalised after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. France, Spain, Prussia, Switzerland, Holland and Sweden all signed treaties during the course of 1648 bringing to an end a variety of international conflicts that had beset the European continent for the previous eighty years. The treaty acknowledged the political legitimacy of states on the European mainland, giving rise in the process to the idea of international relations – the foundation of modern foreign policy. This was an important break with the past where relations between countries had been conducted via the historical continental monarchies and the ‘ancien regime’ that had governed feudal, pre‑industrial Europe for centuries. After 1648 the watershed notion had been implanted which suggested th at the rule of the old continental monarchies was coming to an end and that it would be the nation‑state that would become the determining factor in political affairs in Europe in the future. It is a significant point and one that should be borne in mind throughout the remainder of the discussion: without the Peace of Westphalia there could not have been a nationalist revolution, neither in France or anywhere else. Before it, it is difficult to conceive of nationalism in the modern form that is talked of today. The revolution itself was the result of a century of frustration that had built up around the inability to turn this new concept of the nation‑state into a political reality. For instance, despite the increasing urbanisation and industrialisation of the country the monarchy, nobility, aristocracy and the landowners continued to economically and politically dominate France throughout the opening decades of the eighteenth century. Moreover, as was the case with the last days of the Roman Empire, the behaviour of the traditional elite in France appeared to get more lavish and decadent with each passing year so that, by July 1789, France was absolutely ripe to experience what Marxists would understand as a ‘revolution from below’. The intellectuals and the bourgeoisie were able to use a variety of oratorical and politically inflammatory means of inciting the disaffected French masses into open rebellion at this time. One of these means was nationalism. By constantly c laiming that the monarchy and the nobility were destroying the cultural fabric of France, the leaders of the revolution (bourgeois men such as Maximilian Robespierre) were able to quickly turn a large‑scale riot into a wholesale nationalist revolution. In this sense, the dictatorship of Robespierre and The Terror that took effect from July 1793 to July 1794 should be seen as marking the birth of political modernity. â€Å"Robespierre is not so much the heir of Enlightenment as the product of the new system called Jacobinism, the beginning of modern politics.†[2] Modern politics in this instance is a pseudonym for nationalism, which after the French Revolution became the defining concept in European politics until the end of World War Two and the destruction of the Nazi State in 1945. Indeed, the link between the revolution, nationalism and what the twentieth century would come to understand as fascism must at this point be underscored. Fascism, much like the political dictators of the French Revolution, was only able to come to power via a protracted period of liberal decadence having taken place beforehand. Thus in much the same way as the leaders of the French Revolution right wing fascist leaders used nationalism as a means of highlighting the need to undergo a revolutionary national re‑birth; to attempt to form a phoenix from what they perceived as the ashes of political ineptitude and cultural decadence. â€Å"Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.†[3] The association with fascism is also useful for the way in which it spreads light on how the revolution was unable to be contained with the sovereign national borders of France alone. Like Nazism, nationalism in the context of the French Revolution was a highly unstable ideological solution to a long-term socio‑political problem. The revolution likewise required an external enemy in order to maintain popular support and political legitimacy. Thus, war became the lifeblood of the revolution as, during the course of the 1790’s the leaders of the French Revolution decided that it was no longer enough to have successfully removed from power the former political elite from France; rather, an expansion of the ideology and the means of putting that ideology into practice abroad became the raison d’à ªtre of the regime. â€Å"During the 1790’s the policies pursued by France undoubtedly contributed to mass political mobilisation elsewhere in Europe.†[4] The Napoleonic Wars which followed should be seen as the wars of nationalism which raged across the European continent over the following two decades. Yet there was a tangible sense of a faà §ade appearing whereby the French claimed to be conquering foreign territory in order to transfer the libertarian, enlightened principles of the revolution to lands that had hitherto not been afforded such a valuable political and social insight when in fact the struggles that Napoleon embarked upon across the continent were simply a means of affirming the French nationalists’ belief that they alone were the superior European race. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the invasion of Russia – again a move that strikes immediate comparisons with Hitler and Nazi Germany. By crossing the Urals and moving into the realms of Russian authority, Napoleon finally discarded the mask of the revolution that he had so far been sporting. In no way could the take over of Russia be seen as anything other than the expression of nationalism over political theory. Russia at the time was still an almost entirely feudal country with no industrialisation to speak of even in the major towns and cities such as St. Petersburg. In addition, there was no sophisticated social class system to speak of which could have proved to be a launch pad for a nationalist revolution taking place in Russia on anything like the same scale that had happened in France. Therefore, the invasion was, in the final analysis, simply due to the will of Napoleon and the nationalistic French to increase the revolutionary empire by overcoming the historical pariah of European politics. Furthermore, just like all the other nationalist leaders who went before and came after him, Napoleon was ultimately proved to be incorrect: nationalism (as manifested by the Tsar and the Russian civilian population) was a force that was just as capable of defending a sovereign border territory as it was of invading and con quering it. Nationalism was clearly a double‑edged sword so far as France and Napoleon were concerned. Essentially, the more land the French army seized, the more the Prussians and the English revelled in their own forms of nationalism which were ignited in the first place by French aggression and sustained by the military ambitions of its dictatorial leader. It remains within the realms of conjecture as to whether or not the British Empire would have been established as rapidly and successfully as it was without the experience of the Napoleonic Wars to both inspire as well as crystallise it. There can be little doubt that the rivalry of the two (which had been meted out in the colonial wars that took place at the same time in North America and Canada) had been the result of a growing sense of tension due to the nascent nationalism of both countries. The French Revolution proved to be the catalyst behind the ultimate expression of this nationalistic warfare between the United Kingdom and France – a potent political concoction whose reside is still very much in evidence in the modern era. Mention at this point must be made of the ideological and philosophical impetus behind the French Revolution in order to manufacture an argument against the idea that the uprising was solely the revolt of nationalistic fervour, which it clearly was not. No seizure of power by a people over a ruling government can be anything other than the combination of a number of highly complex social, cultural, economic and political processes. The build up to the storming of the Bastille has been described as the golden age of Enlightenment – an epoch that oversaw the signing of the Declaration of the Rights of Man in America (July 1776), which signalled the notion of all men being born equal and of human beings having been born with certain rights that must be upheld by national and international law. This vision of liberalism that was sweeping across the early modern western world was not initially a vision that was inspired solely by nationalism. Certainly in the United States it is not possible to speak of a nationalist revolution simply because the thirteen colonies at that time consisted of such a mixture of European immigrants as to make the concept of a nation‑state wholly inadequate for the newly conceived ‘Americans.’ The ideal was, rather, a child of ideological and philosophical writings that emanated predominantly from France via contemporary cultural commentators such as Rousseau an d Voltaire. Again, these ideals did not accentuate the nationalism inherent within Enlightenment. Instead they promulgated an essentially socialist view of a new European order that was designed upon a kind of meritocracy rather than values pertaining to inheritance; where ability was seen as more important than historical connection. â€Å"Anyone who excels in something is always sure to be sought after, opportunities will present themselves and merit will do the rest.†[5] This inexorably socialist, libertarian seed that was first planted in what would become the French Revolution is a vital tool for understanding how nationalism alone cannot be seen as responsible for the events of 1789 and the ensuing wars which followed. The ideological impetus behind the revolution was one that genuinely envisaged a utopian new world order that would not be dictated by corrupt and inadequate people the likes of which had conspired to ruin France since the Middle Ages. The reasons as to why this ideal of a revolution from below turned into a large scale international war is entirely due to the make up of mankind, which is especially inclined to be corrupted by power and to look towards routes of making profit out of the conquer and subjugation of alien races. The point has been made before and it must be made again: this kind of overt nationalism that took control of France during the late eighteen and early nineteenth century was the driving force behind all interc ontinental relations over the following one hundred and fifty years. The French Revolution thus oversaw the beginnings of the reign of realpolitik when military might became the only means of maintaining dominance in a Europe increasingly influenced by cultural intolerance and overt political nationalism. Conclusion â€Å"1789 meant a revolution in ideas, in institutions and individual opportunities, which a quarter of a century of upheaval and war made irreversible.†[6] As the above quotation suggests, the revolution that took France by storm during the final years of the eighteenth century was an extremely potent political process that seemed to gather intensity as the success first of the bourgeois dictatorship of The Terror and second of the military dictatorship of Napoleon cemented the ideals of the Enlightenment upon the European mainland. However, although this process might have began as an expression of egalitarian views pertaining to the freedom of all men, the reality of the revolution was one that spoke volumes about the essentially violent nature of the human condition and the extent of the socio‑political frustrations that had been steadily rising since the middle of the previous century. The greatest beneficiary of this volatile mixture was without doubt nationalism – the only ideological force that was able to hold together the disparate aims and ideals that conspired to make up the French Revolution. Nationalism and th e defence of la patrie were used as rallying cries by the petty bourgeoisie, the revolutionary instigators of the Terror and the imperial machinations of the Napoleonic war machine. To what extent these people were successful in their aims of inciting a nationalist revolution remains an issue that still resides predominantly within the realms of conjecture. There certainly appears to be a major schism between the nationalism that gripped the streets of Paris and the other chief urban centres of France and the relative tranquillity of the rural areas of the country that largely retained their bonds both to the nobility and to the ancien regime in the years that immediately followed the revolution[7]. In the final analysis, the concept of la patrie meant very little to the uneducated proletariat working on the rural estates in the agrarian parts of the country where economic necessity took precedence over revolutionary rhetoric and nationalistic uprisings. This then suggests that nationalism is inexorably tied to industrialisation, urbanisation and the ability to wage mobile industrial warfare across a large land mass. This is exactly what happened one hundred and fifty years after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo when the distorted vision of nationalism that inspired the French Revolution came back to haunt Europe and the world on an unimaginable scale. BIBLIOGRAPHY Andress, D. (2005) The Terror: Civil War in the French Revolution London: Little, Brown Co. Bouloiseau, M. (1983) (translated by J. Mandelbaum), The Jacobin Republic, 1792‑1794 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Dann, O. and Dinwiddy, J.R. (1988) Nationalism in the Age of the French Revolution London: Continuum Furet, F. (1981) (translated by E. Forster), Interpreting the French Revolution Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism London: Pinter Merriman, J. (2004) A History of Modern Europe Volume 2: From the French Revolution to the Present London: W.W. Norton Co. Pilbeam, P.M. (1995) Republicanism in Nineteenth Century France, 1814-1871 Basingstoke: Macmillan Rousseau, J-J (1971) (introduction and translated by J.M. Cohen) The Confessions London: Penguin Voltaire (1964) (introduction and translated by J. Butt) Zandig London: Penguin Zeldin, T. (1980) France 1848-1945: Intellect and Pride Oxford: Oxford University Press Selected Articles Biddis, M. (October 1994) Nationalism and the Moulding of Europe, in, Journal of the Historical Association, Volume 79, No. 257 London: Blackwell Footnotes [1] Bouloiseau, M. (1983) (translated by J. Mandelbaum), The Jacobin Republic, 1792‑1794 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.227‑8 [2] Furet, F. (1981) (translated by E. Forster), Interpreting the French Revolution Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.204 [3] Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism London: Pinter, p.26 [4] Biddis, M. (October 1994) Nationalism and the Moulding of Europe, in, Journal of the Historical Association, Volume 79, No. 257 London: Blackwell, p.416 [5] Rousseau, J-J (1971) (introduction and translated by J.M. Cohen), The Confessions London: Penguin, p.271 [6] Pilbeam, P.M. (1995) Republicanism in Nineteenth Century France, 1814-1871 Basingstoke: Macmillan, p.267 [7] Zeldin, T. (1980) France 1848-1945: Intellect and Pride Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.2-5

Cinematic Techniques in Nabokovs Laughter in the Dark Essay -- Movie

Cinematic Techniques in Nabokov's Laughter in the Dark    Vladimir Nabokov's Laughter in the Dark takes the movies for its style as well as its subject matter. In recounting the farcical tragedy of director Albinus and starlet Margot, Nabokov imports a wide variety of techniques and imagery from the cinema into the novel. But Nabokov's "cinematic" style is not analagous to that of a screenplay: the polished prose is always tinged with the novelist's trademark irony. Gavriel Moses notes that    Nabokov's most consistent reaction to popular films in their public context is his awareness that the film image... is overwhelming in its insistent claim to presence and, as a consequence, to truth. But in formula films perceived uncritically or absorbed inertly, film tends to displace... what is really important in life and to impose its own schematic simplifications upon life's teaming and idiosyncratic details. (62)    Virtually all the characters in Laughter in the Dark take their understandings of life from the film industry. Their ideas and impressions, therefore, tend to be rather banal, predictable, and superficial. Nabokov's people never surprise the reader, never think unusual thoughts, never reveal unexpected depths. In contrast to the complex psyches found in Tolstoy and Chekhov, for instance, Albinus, Rex, and Margot are cartoons, with speech balloons floating above their heads. Indeed, even their thought processes resemble the interior monologues of characters in Hollywood films. So, for example, when Nabokov transcribes Albinus's silent thoughts, he employs a standard voice-over template:    Albinus, his queer emotions riding him, thought: "What the devil do I care for this fellow... ...chcock: Fifty Years of His Motion Pictures. New York: An Anchor Book, Doubleday, 1992. Originally published by Hopkinson and Blake in 1976.    Works Consulted Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, Inc., 1999. First published 1955. Raguet-Bouvart, Christine. "Camera Obscura and Laughter in the Dark, or, The Confusion of Texts." Translated from the French by Jeff Edmunds. Seifrid, Thomas. "Nabokov's Poetics of Vision, or, What Anna Karenina is Doing in Kameraobskura." Copyright 1996 Board of Trustees of Davidson College. Originally published in Nabokov's Studies #3 (1996). http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/seifrid1.htm Simon, John. "Vladimir Nabokov: The Russian Years." From The New Criterion Vol.9, No.6, February 1991. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/09/feb91/nabokov.htm   

Organizational Behaviour Learnings

Organizational Behaviour Learnings: OB course has given me a better understanding of the behavioural processes in an organization and provided me with a guideline for tackling various situations that I am likely to come across and be better equipped to function as a future manager within any stage of my work-life. During my work life at TCS,I have come across various kind of people. Some of them being arrogant,stern,unapproachable vis-a-vis others who were friendly, helpful and always in high spirits. Initial days the question I kept asking to myself was to do all the work assigned to me by myself or should I seek help from my colleagues. It was the initial steps I was taking into an unknown corporate jungle and I was full of doubts. One of the learning’s I had was how to balance work and life. There were periods of long working hours when we will have to work extra hours and come to office during the weekends. Along with this there was continuous phone calls asking for updates and the likes during the few hours I got to spend away from work. As a beginner I was eager to do more work and take on the added responsibility. But as the pressure mounted it was affecting my physical and mental self. OB gives us an insight into such a situation upfront and offers on how to tackle them to have a balanced work-life. One other key things one has to learn is to say NO to things. Even if you are the smartest and most hardworking employee on the planet ,it is impossible to do everything by yourself. We must learn to turn down the tasks which we logically could conclude that we wont be able to finish within the timeline and also learn to delegate and share work. Pursuit of career growth is only one facet of life and we must learn to juggle between the various other roles of life also. As I took up the role of leading a team of 20 people, the various uncertainties such as whom to assign what work, how to manage deadlines coming from superiors, learning the art of allocating time between meetings and dealing with various team dynamics as a manager came to life. Task allocation had to be done judiciously, prioritizing the work at hand and assigning it to the right people. I soon had 3-4 team members who were very enthusiastic and ready to take upon more challenging tasks and on the other hand a few who were very laid back and didn’t take work seriously. The trick was in assigning the high priority challenging tasks to the first kind and the mundane tasks to the other. Alongside this I used to talk to all my team members if they were dissatisfied with what they did and how I could make work-life better for them. As we fill into the shoes of a manager, we move from an individual perspective to managing a team wherein each of the team member has to be understood and also the team dynamics. OB learning comes in handy as it teaches us about how the team dynamics differs from an individualistic point of view. I handled multiple tasks within the project and hence had to work under different people, each having his/her own take on their subordinates and they treated them differently. We should understand the nature of the people we work under and modify the way we present ourselves to them as each one’s expectations will be different. This is where Interpersonal communication and relations that we learn in OB helps us to evolve with our Boss. OB also teaches us about how to handle emotions and personality in a work environment. There were many situations where I got frustrated with my Boss or with my team mates. This naturally happens as we are working on stringent timelines and clash of ideas are likely to happen. Maintaining composure and dealing with such emotionally challenging situations can define your personality among your colleagues. Another vital factor is the motivation we expect from the work – life. Personally I always was focussed on climbing up the corporate ladder and looked forward to new challenges. During initial phases I was subjected to monotonous, time consuming work. I was going off-course and there wasn’t any motivation in me to work. My manager noticed this and after a brief talk, she understood the negative effect it was having on me and further gave me different role and responsibility which instilled new life in me to work and bought back the urge in me to perform. Understanding what you want, your hygiene and motivating factor early will enable you to enjoy your work and hence have a positive effect overall. Also the lure of an onsite was an added motivation that many employees shared in hope of earning big bucks and spending time overseas. Organizational politics is an unavoidable part for any employee . Its a social work group where biases, favouritism’s and down-play rules. I also got entangled and initially caught unaware on which side to take. There are multiple teams in parallel and taking side with one senior or group will irk the other. Here is where tactfulness and being smart counts and here we must also learn to utilise the art of persuasion. A persuader must match his emotional fervour to the audience’s ability to receive the message and use the smarter way of negotiation. Many a times during my work life I had to convince the team members about the importance of work they are doing and the impact it carries within the project. Also as a team lead I had to persuade and convince the project manager of the additional resources I needed or for extending the timelines. Another aspect that forms the crux of OB is the way of communicating yourself and making yourself being heard. In a MNC with the large work group and complex hierarchies, one must really put in the extra effort to be heard amongst the crowd. For me, I learnt the secret lies in persistence and not giving up when you are ignored. If you give up no one is going to care about what you told and its brushed aside. On the other hand if you can reason yourself and understand whom to communicate it to within the hierarchy it makes all the difference. Working as a part of an Agile team we used to have daily stand-up meetings with the onsite where each days performance was analysed and commented upon. A manager has to be prompt in explaining his team’s daily activities and resolve any conflict that occurs due to clash of ideas. A team goal is defined at the start and objectives are laid which are pursued by the team. Whilst the manager has to deal with the complexities occurring in the work place, a leader is one who has to deal with the change. We had a leader who kept a watch on the proceedings and kept looking for other alternatives, technology advancements, client requirement changes etc and incorporated some breakthrough changes which redefined the goals and objectives that was set in initial stages. The drawbacks I found in OB learning was the extend up to which these theoretical learning’s could be taken over and practically applied to the ever changing and fast paced workspace. The theories and case studies are rational and very relevant to the current organizational scenario. But the effectiveness it can deliver as a pure theory subject is what raises my concern. Unless we learn these behavioural norms in an active way like learn it while experiencing it ,these theories will remain just as a dormant learning within us. The effectiveness could be brought in by giving more role plays and real life case studies which can be solved by us by creating a virtual organizational simulation inside the four walls of a classroom.

Closer Critique essays

Closer Critique essays Closer, performed on November 26, 2000 at the Mark Taper Forum was an overall excellent show. The show is about two men and two women who are thrown together by chance. Throughout the play they connect, disconnect and reconnect in bewildering combinations with each other as they try to get closer All their privacies as well as secrets are brought out in the open and nothing is hidden. It is presented to the audience in a daring, and obscene manner, which is at the same time thrilling, intimate, and funny. Closer reveals much about todays modern sexual politics and how little we sometimes really know about it. During the performance I found it difficult at times to follow, however this is at no fault of the actors and only of that of the playwright. All the actors presented themselves extremely well. There are several moments such as the opening that contain monologues. This in my opinion is always one of the hardest things to do however I thought that the actress was not in her moment during the beginning of her monologue. She seemed to be just saying her lines while staring into space. It was only after a few minutes where it seemed like she turned on a switch and suddenly popped into character. I thought about this for a while and I kept wondering why she could do it a few minutes into her monologue but not at the beginning. The only conclusion that I had for this was that the show was held for nearly twenty minutes and this added stress to the actor (since she had the opening of the show) and perhaps she warmed down in this period of time. This only convinced me more on how important it is to warm up before a show as we discussed in class. There also was one point in the show where no lines existed between two characters. They were chattering over the Internet and the only way we knew what they were saying was there was a projection screen that displayed wha ...