Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin during his life composed a thesis on the evolution of a species and how its processes are carried out. Darwin the wise and religious man he was saw the implications to his findings and set his thesis aside for many years (12 years). In the advent of someone else making claim to his discoveries he published Origin of Species a comprehensive look at observations noted while aboard The Beagle.

In much the same fashion as then people have looked at these findings through distorted lenses. The great debate over the question of God not only arose in the publishing of Darwin’s thesis but also still persists today. Taking a comparative look at the mindsets of then and now I aim to distinguish truths about the theory of evolution and its poor liking.


Further undertakings of the project will delve into the lives of some Americans today who have closed their mind to the ideas of science. Specifically touching on the awe that is inspired by the complexity of science I hope to mold a discussion that leds to a greater understanding of the how a supreme being can still be assumed while accepting the inevitable fact that is evolution.

Product Placement

In the new book entitled Cathy’s Book a very problematic situation arose. Ms. Wells the author talks with companies that her characters use in the book. The talks often lead to the company such as Cover Girl supporting the book with additional advertisement and sponsorship. Cathy’s Book is geared towards the teen girl population and has become a best seller. Problems arise with other novelists doing similar endeavors. Which characters are simply promoting products and which truly should be written the way they are is a tough distinction. Ms. Wells states, “ Mackenzie loves Converse. Does Converse want a to work with us? I have no clue. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Mackenzie loves Converse.” However when asked later if Nike came to her to strike a deal Ms. Wells said she could write in a character that liked Nike.


The moral dilemma arises with when has a book gone to far with its promotions. In the growing world of advertisement today are novels/books a free enterprise yet untapped. Or is it propaganda to let young children get plugged repeatedly for the silly things they don’t need? Books should be tools of learning not tools for advertisement, down with the corporations.

From New York Times (Tuesday Feb 19, 2008)

If These Walls Could Talk

Enjoying a beer late one night, Edward Albee saw scrawled in graffiti the line “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” in a bathroom mirror. This stuck him as, “a rather typical, university intellectual joke.” Later Albee put these words of wit to use as the title to his now infamous play. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf was very edgy for its publication date in 1962, yet won multiple awards including a Tony Award for Best Play. The play centers on two university faculty couples and their masochistic drunken games. The Whole Art Theatre’s unique seating (theatre in the round) and George and Martha’s roles being flawlessly acted by a married couple, Martie and Richard Philpot, made for a conviction of emotion that led to a sensation on stage.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf revolves around an alcoholic night of torturous games played by the two couples. These games divulge intricate detail about the marital status of the two couples. George sarcastically titles the four games: “Humiliate the Host,” “Get the Guests,” “Hump the Hostess,” and “Bringing up Baby.” In the first game “Humiliate the Host,” George is crushed with humiliation as Martha describes him as a “FLOP.” Her claims that he will never amount to anything more than an Associate Professor of History are taken to heart. In “Get the Guests,” George turns his humiliation towards Nick and Honey by addressing their “hysterical pregnancy” and consequential marriage. “Hump the Hostess” is an act committed between Nick and Martha. However, it was found unbelievable in the play as Nick fails to fully roam the body of Martha. Instead, Nick keeps his hands and lips to himself. The final game leaves Martha utterly distraught as George relays information to her that their son has died.

The older couple George and Martha has a very angry and volatile relationship that finds them lashing out at one another verbally and often physically. One scene finds George strangling his wife in a fit of anger. Randy Wolfe decision as director to use the married actors Martie and Richard Philpot to play Martha and George was ingenious. They depict the chemistry and hatred of George and Martha’s long-standing marriage to near perfection. Slapping and spitting on one another in deep verbal arguments with gusto, their parts have impeccable believability. In comparison to Martie and Richard few could have lived up to the expectations set for the younger couple. A sub-par performance was witnessed from Trevor Maher as Nick and Carol Zombro as Honey.

The theater in the round setting makes for a spectacular viewing experience. Situated in seats that corresponded to the walls of George and Martha’s living room, the outlandish conversations are viewed from an insider perspective. This vantage point captures the full expression of the actors. As Martha taunts George over his failures, his bottom lip quivers and his face becomes bright red with frustration. The theatre in the round produces a conviction of feelings as antagonizing lines are shot from one actor to another. The emotion on the actor’s faces was as easy to read as the words on the program.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf enthralls the audience with its twisting plotline and voracious argumentative dialogue. The sensation of the play is attributed to the raw emotion that George and Martha wore on their faces with each line they spat at one another. The pair’s quality of acting was closely seconded by the effects of the theatre in the round. It was this seating that gave a real feel for being a part of the set, a wall to the room, a close observer to the madness at hand.

Maybe More Isn't Better

A growing number of Americans find comfort in a psychologist. The overly worked and overly stressed American lifestyle often leads to repressing problems. Americans unable to conjure enough time to work through their own matters employ a psychologist. HBO, recognizing this common denominator in Americans, airs its original series In Treatment. Cornering an audience, HBO allows viewers to look into the psychoanalytical appointments of fictional characters. Addressing the depressing problems of others In Treatment fails to hold the viewer’s attention. In Treatment’s plot line is overtaxing, the action of it’s characters are unbelievable, and its short episodes address a depressing topic.

In an opening episode the patient Laura (Melissa George) sits weeping for an exuberantly drawn out period. Long enough to merit changing the station. In a frantic ultimatum between marriage and separation Laura leaves her boyfriend. Escaping to a bar she randomly has sex in the bathroom with an unknown man. The sound of pissing in the neighboring stall conjures different feelings in Laura. After halting the unknown man’s penetration Laura pleasures him in other ways. She explains all of this to her psychoanalyst Paul Weston (Gabriel Byrne) down to every last detail, and then leaves the room to throw up. Laura then ends the session by confessing feelings for Paul. Placing Laura, the emotionally distraught and love seeking women, next to the well-composed psychoanalyst made Laura’s love confession all to predictable from the beginning. Furthermore, the writers take Laura’s story too far making it unbelievable and hard to identify with the character of Laura. A one nightstand at her place might have been believable but a bar bathroom is gross. Sex may sell but the extent to which it is taken leaves a sickly aftertaste.

To end each week of episodes Paul visits his own therapist Dr. Gina Toll (Dianne Wiest) who was an old mentor to Paul. A long mentor/mentee history is drawn between them, yet the reason for their fallout is never brought to light. Fighting through their session together the dissonance between them is also failed to be resolved. The problem would seem easy for two psychoanalysts to address but is only danced around. Paul the central character of the series would presumably be the character most developed. However, little information about Paul is given. Instead more problems with his life are presented that tax the viewer further. Pleading for information about the relationship between Gina and Paul the conversational session only leads to more tangles that frankly just annoy. The poorly written episode ends with no idea of why Paul has chosen now to visit Gina. The limited information given does not intrigue, it angers.

In Treatment looks at the problems of our overstressed Americans head on. Americans in an awkwardly ironic scenario have turned to the unrealistic dilemmas of television for enjoyment and release. Finding release in the overly complex problems that Laura brings on herself seems counter intuitive in this age of stress. Theses depressing problems aren’t a release but a form of masochism that only prompts further stress. In Treatment is designed for the rising mass of overly worked overly stressed Americans who will stay up for thirty more minutes to get a fix of drama.

A matter of Trust

A Matter of Trust

Charles Isherwood pans Oroonoko in his theatrical but offers it up to others less cultured in the art. Isherwood stating that, “Oroonoko was a disappointment on stage” continues with “theatergoers looking for a romantic story told in crisp, simple strokes might want to check out Oroonoko.” Isherwood asserts himself as a very knowledgeable theatre critic with discussion of other plays, The Piano Teacher and Coram Boy, followed by the director’s reputation.

Okoonoko seems a simple play to follow, staged in Africa it tells of two lovers separated and sold into slavery. After being realized as royalty Oroonoko, the lead character played by Albert Jones, has the chance to rescue his love Imoinda, played by Toi Perkins. Isherwood describes the play as, “staged with considerable liveliness and fluidity.” The set, costumes and lighting all frames the play handsomely, states Isherwood.

The play’s lack of psychological intricacy, narrative sophistication, and depth of feeling is its downfall. Questions arise to weather Isherwood’s opinion matches most. In revealing his depth of knowledge in theatrical arts, Iserwood might not be the opinion to spring a decision off of. As Isherwood says, after giving the lines to Imoinda’s love confession, “delight or exasperate, depending on your taste. The same could be said for the whole of Oroonoko.”

Awe of Art

Oscar Wilde a true scientist applies the laws of science to art, a previously unheard of method. Earnest questions Gilbert with how great art can be the result of a single man rather than the result of the whole, “imagination of races, rather than of the imagination of individuals?” Gilbert replies that the man discovering the ideals and writing them down defines the art. A concept held true in science, the finder receives the praise for the findings. Biological mechanisms in all science fields have existed for centuries in the art form that is life. Complexity explained, the spin, or future direction that experimental findings have really is criticism. What is the greatest of all art? Gilbert suggests the answer in his lines, “If we live long enough to see the results of our actions… Each little thing we do passes into the greater machine of life, which may grind our virtue to powder and make them worthless, or transform our sins into elements of a new civilization, more marvelous and more splendid than any that has gone before.” These thoughts are an exact definition of evolution and the processes of natural selection. Gilbert lays down ideas that set science as the last true art that can be developed and its writings, critiques, the methods by which man enlightens others to the complexities of things that have been in existent since the beginning of the species.

“To create a new world that common eyes look upon, and through which common nature seeks to relies their perfection,” is the study of life and life-like processes. To sit in awe at the complexity that defines man, his being, and coming of existence takes great thought and criticism to discover and quite possibly the last true art form in existence. Science does suggest a fresh departure of thought, passion, and beauty. The illusions of the dreamer the man that discovers the pathways to science and understands its action is a true artist.

The fundamental question then arises, is the illusionist greater than the creator?

Age Before Beauty

“You don't have to lay an egg to know if it tastes good,” Pauline Kael on the infimious question of, “well if you know so much about movies why don’t you make one.” Kael knows movies and was a consult to Paramount Pictures. With undisputable commitment to her passion, Kael’s insite, knowledge, and opinion make her the most highly esteemed critique ever; her taste in film leads to a bitter feeling with those she pans.

Her distinguishment between in vivo and in vitro shooting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid being the prime exaple, is a feat no other notices. Kael, defiantely a nitpicky critic, rips throught a scene with a candle, she states,“someone should have taken a lighted wick to [the scenartist’s] ideas.” Insiteful, without a doubt, in Top Gun Kael rants on longwindedly about the differential height between the leading couple, Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis. And if there is any one thing that Pauline Kael is, it is passionate! Her passion forefronts her work in the twenty-three years in criticism at The New Yorker, her twelve books, and the influence she has on the movie industry. Why some lose confidence in her criticism leads to opinion, some movies are just enjoyed by a different crowd.

A college girl states to her boyfriend, “Well I don't see what was so special about that one [Shoeshinie].” Kael’s attitude towards the movie was simply close minded, “For if people cannot feel Shoeshine, what can they feel?” Kael in a quarrel with a lover viewed the movie in a different mindset. Kael’s taste focuses primarily on three ideals: physical violence depicted in detail, sex and eroticism, and horror. Her narrow set of guidelines has a far-reaching potential for many movies, exemplified in only a few, those of which she raves.

Kael’s reviews frequently give little background on the movie, switching abruptly to a deeper topic. The greater insight she hands out in her movie critiques is irrelevant to the reader. Trying to fill a word quota, Kael writes of, “cheap and easy congratulations on their liberalism,” during her review of Hiroshima Mon Amour. She continues her promiscuity in review with Top Gun calling it a “self-referential commercial.” Maybe her over-aged crowd has the twenty-minutes to spare, most don’t, get to the point! Kael’s aging opinion is further noticed in her dislike for the Sopranao, Seinfield, and actor such as Chris Farley and Adam Sandler. Her pan of It’s a Wonderful Life just does not line up. This sensational film is idealized by so many, as a masterpiece. So it falls, Kael’s taste just does not match-up to some.

Impressed by her work, she undisputedly knows what she is doing. Her critique of Perer Pan in Afterglow sheds light onto something greatly overlooked and made easily identifiable after she states it. Chaplin’s movie Peter Pan was mean-spirited. It is this type of criticism that catapults Pauline Kael to the position she holds. Art being a media that represents everything to one yet nothing to another is what makes film critique so problematical. In the face of this complicatedness, Kael is revered, rightfully so, as the greatest film critiques of her time.