Reaction Paper on Bride of Frankenstein

The adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Bride of Frankenstein came to me as a shock. It was not so much the effects, the black-and-white, or the acting that was out of the ordinary, but it was the characterization.

          We are plagued with movies that are anthropomorphic in nature, but the Bride of Frankenstein posits a very unique case. We all know of the Monster’s history, from Dr. Frankenstein’s creation of him to his capture and eventual escape. It is this perception of the character as an untamed, un-human monster that permeates popular opinion. However, the movie gave us another side of him – the one that is only looking for a companion. Is that not a human need?

          When the blind man took him in, I was afraid for the man but the Monster, if he is still to be called so, exceeded my expectations. He did not only welcome the man’s companionship; he tried to please the man in the simplest of things. Is it not a human act to feel empathy? To me, this genuine othering, leading up to his longing for a friend when Dr. Pretorious offered him, is enough sign of his humanity. Especially when rejection came, his reaction was that of a human in actual despair and loneliness.

          This says so much about society’s conception of right and wrong, of normal and abnormal. Should anyone (or anything) fail to meet its standards, it is immediately ostracized, without aiming to understand or dig beyond the surface of apparent monsterhood. The movie made the monster dumb because ostracizing the Monster would require a lack of communication between him and the humans. It worked, because the more human side of the Monster came out only when he was already communicated to by someone patient enough to see him more than a monster.

          As a whole, The Bride of Frankenstein gives us a clear representation of man, both at his most brilliant (as in the scientists’ feats) and at his most desperate (the Monster), and how Monster transforms into man through love.

Christine Joy L. Galunan
2013-50860

Reaction Paper on Rhetoric of Cancer

Too often, we take for granted the value of discourse in our approaches to situations, conditions, and state of affairs that warrant words to describe them. Andrew Graystone attempts to clarify the roots of this underlying problem in our language regarding cancer. According to him, the war rhetoric dominates in our everyday approach to cancer, and this is problematic because as a survivor from three years back, he knows his body well enough to remember his cooperation with cancer cells instead of the popular metaphor of battling against them.

St. Francis of Assisi is said to have treated cancer as a sister illness, which were as much a part of his body’s family as were other body parts. This is a reflection of his religious perspective, in which bodies are not our own, and whatever occurs to it out of surprise is not in our control; living harmoniously with it is the only choice possible.

‘Winning the fight against cancer,’ therefore, is dominantly liberal in the modern view of cancer. In this light, man is highly charged with being ‘master of [his] fate, captain of [his] soul,’ as William Ernest Henley puts it in his poem Invictus. Cancer cells are then treated as foreign objects to the human body, as man did not choose to grow them; it is in his choice, however, to kill these alien cancer cells through his own courage and persistence.

This aversion to submitting to fatalism and to cooperation greatly highlights the power of human agency versus that of the structure in which he is present. Although cancer is treated as a structure in which the ill are subjected to, the liberal perspective treats the ill conversely as highly capable human agents who can change the structure or overcome it.

And what’s problematic with this, as later discussed by Graystone, is its misunderstanding of the human body – as separate mind and body entities. This manifestation of Cartesian dualism creates a border between the controller (mind) and the controlled (body). However, this cannot hold true, as especially in sickness, the body functions as one. There is also a limit to what the mind can voluntarily control, and this includes cancer cells.

If we keep going with the prevalent cancer discourse, we are disempowering patients from cooperating with their own bodies and giving them, instead, a false sense of power over their illness, which may ultimately lead them to frustration and in time, a sense of powerlessness if their bodies fail to ‘cooperate.’

Christine Joy L. Galunan
2013-50860

Reaction Paper on All the Time in the World

In Greek mythology, Kronos was the ferocious destroyer of worlds, a Titan who fathered Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. In etymological roots, kronos is a Greek word that carries the meaning time. In these classical accounts, there seems to be a connection between time and the destroyer. This cannot be more apparent than in the fate of the hero in the Twilight Zone episode All the Time in the World.

Here, we find a man burdened by ordinary life, masquerading as a bank clerk while hiding a secret identity as a bibliophile. Too often, he lands himself in reprimand over neglect of the most basic duties. He is the quintessential escapist, who was lucky enough to hide himself during a massive (nuclear) wipeout. Everything was destroyed, except for his most coveted objects – books from a nearby library. Piling them up by year, he was already starting to read when the universe decided to tip the scales over once again. He lifted the cracked frame from the ground, lenses dropping piece by piece. He had all the time in the world, but he could read no more.

Although I did observe certain facts of life such as ‘you can’t have it all,’ or dependence on technology (i.e. glasses), what was more striking was the role of time in the story. Neither was it passive nor merely in the background. It was time the destroyer, who had man in his clutches. At first, it was selfish against man, very present in the struggle for escape; in the end, being (cunningly) generous with him, then conspiring with Fortuna to destroy man.

The episode was unorthodox in its approach to battling out conflict of the character, because the destruction of his enemies (relationships, work, etc.) was not brought about by the character, which is also the reason why in the end, he cannot be able to go around the ultimate conflict that came upon him.

Christine Joy L. Galunan
2013-50860

Rhetoric of Cancer

In the documentary-podcast Rhetoric of Cancer, Andrew Graystone explains how cancer changed his life. He said that for the 3 years he had cancer, he learned how to live with it, to go to bed with it, and to wake up with it. Because of this, he learned to love his body all the more, because he didn't want his body to experience more stress than what it is already experiencing. He didn't want to have a war in his body. He learned to accept it, that these bad cells were already a part of him. He also said that some people had a military style in dealing with his cancer. They were saying "you're gonna fight this thing" and the like which made him worry about it since he wasn't really the brave kind of person.

There is also an existing metaphor for cancer. Like the term "warheads", relating it to an experimental drug that targets the bad cells. Another one is "he lost his battle to cancer". It is obvious that military metaphors are what's always used for cancer. This may be problematic because some people are treating cancer as an enemy, which maybe it is, but sometimes you should know how to live alongside cancer.

Andrew Graystone, in the end, said that cancer is somehow a gift as well. It made him change his perception about it and it made his religion stronger. Of course he said that cancer and illness is a bad thing, but he said that it isn't necessarily evil. He said that it is normal in this world. There's a badness to it, but there is no wrongness to it.

This woke me up. All of my grandmother's siblings had cancer, which makes me a possible candidate as well. I've been worrying about cancer all my life, even if I don't have it. Andrew Graystone's perception about it is refreshing and for me, right. He said that you shouldn't hate or despise cancer, since it's already a part of you. You should just know how to live with it, and hope that it goes away. Your hatred won't do you any good. Look at the bright side of things, even if it is easier said than done. Try not to stress yourself to much by associating military language to cancer, but just do your best in making your body as healthy as possible. This, for me, is a good way to live with and alongside cancer.

Anna Isabelle R. Lejano
2013-14235

Isaac Asimov's Nightfall

Isaac Asimov's Nightfall is a sci-fi dystopian story wherein the people reached a tragic end upon discovering that their universe is much bigger than what they had expected. At first, the scientists thought that the darkness itself resulting from the eclipse was what will make the people burn the cities in the hopes of having a light source because of the fact that they haven't experienced darkness ever in their entire life. But it turns out that when the eclipse came about, they saw so many stars, and so they realized that their universe is much more vast than they had known. And the bizarre thing is, this realization drove them insane.

Relating this to reality, many people are afraid of what's out there. We all know that we are only a part of one galaxy, and there are still billions and billions of galaxies out there. Some people cannot fathom the idea that the place they know now isn't the only place that exists, and so they choose not to believe in it. They choose not to believe in Science altogether because they are afraid to know the truth behind certain things, behind certain ideologies that have been popularized over time despite it being a lie. They choose to be blind to the truth because they are scared that their beliefs are different from what's real. I think that Science is a tool for making us see what is real and what is not, and so people shouldn't be afraid of it. Instead, they should embrace it. We should use science to earn knowledge about the world, and not oppose it. Whatever we discover with science, we should accept wholeheartedly, and use it to make ourselves ask more, to be more curious, and to question things that need to be questioned.

Anna Isabelle R. Lejano
2013-14235

Music and Science

Even though music and science might be two completely different and diverse concepts, there already had been several instances in our history wherein the two were combined together, actually complimenting each other well. First person who we discussed was William Herschel, an astronomer and at the same time a composer. His interest in music also led him to his interest in mathematics, and in turn, astronomy. Another person we discussed was Gustav Holst, who composed The Planets. Apparently, each movement of the suite is named after a planet of the Solar System and its corresponding astrological character as defined by Holst. We also discussed the Aquarium and the Fossils by Camille Saint-Saens, Space Exploration from Frank Sinatra, Elton John to Glam Rock, the Cold War and Sting to Thomas Dolby, Evolution and Fat Boy Slim's Right here Right Now, The Big Bang Theory. All these are songs having science as their main topic.

I think that these various songs exhibit and represent science very well. Science is very frustrating and tiring to understand at certain times, and so incorporating it into music is a good way for keeping it light and for remembering various information about science better. Even though at first it might seem weird and corny to make a song about science, it actually is effective and is a better way than teaching science in the traditional manner. Maybe nowadays science is not really the conventional choice when it comes to picking a subject for a song, but I think that it will be beneficial, especially for young kids, to learn science in a more creative way, which is through music. Music is essential in our lives and it is listened to by many. Science is also essential in our lives and is studied by many. Judging from these, I honestly think that combining science and music is not only entertaining and fun, but it could also make us learn more about science in a way that we won't get bored easily and it could make a big difference in our perception about science. 

Anna Isabelle R. Lejano
2013-14235

Imelda

I'm pretty sure everyone knows who Imelda Marcos is. Probably, some know her because of the fact that she's the former first lady of the late Ferdinand Marcos. Maybe others know here because of her frugality and aristocracy. Even in other countries, she is known because of her fantastic jewelry, tremendous shoe collection, and fabulous fashion statement. But really, who is Imelda Marcos?

For me, what I know about her is that she's hated by many because according to some people, she is the reason for the downfall and for the bad decisions Ferdinand Marcos made. Also, many people despise her because of her arrogance when it comes to her wealth. Apparently she likes showing off and making people see how nice her things are. Although this is the case, there are also a lot of people who downright adore her. Marcos loyalists still worship her at her feet. Why? Let's find out through the documentary that sir made us watch.

The documentary showed the past Imelda Marcos, and the present one. It is said that she was really pretty when she was a teenager, and many handsome young men wanted to court her. Nonetheless, she still chose Ferdinand Marcos. They haven't know each other for that long, but they immediately got married. People said this marriage is solely for politics, but Imelda Marcos said otherwise. According to her, she really loved him and they had a fantastic relationship. Some people who were close or who knew Imelda were interviewed upon this matter, and a few of them said that Imelda was pressured into being this perfect lady, just so she could impress Marcos. They said that Marcos controlled Imelda. Signs of an imperfect marriage came to the surface. One further said that Marcos was not really loyal, he had no mistresses, but he had casual flings.

I think that regarding this matter, maybe this really was a political marriage. Because of the fact that they've only known each other for a week or two before getting married, it was too hasty and I think this was because of political reasons.

At first, the people really like her because she had this certain appeal. She was really pretty, she dressed nice, and she could sing very well. But then when martial law came, many people turned against her, saying that she and her husband were evil. Many people began to notice that she was too frugal, and so they started to really despise her.

When Imelda was being interviewed about this, she said that beauty is important. I think that self-image is very essential to her, and probably she thinks outward appearance is as important as the inside. She even said that the outside reflects what's on the inside.

She also has a seemingly different philosophy/religion in life. In the documentary, when she started drawing and mapping out several stuff and information about life/happiness/love, I really thought she was making it up? I applaud her for her creativity, but even the priest who was interviewed was weirded out.

Summing it all up, I think Imelda Marcos is really a complex person. It depends to you what side of her you will believe in, but one thing's for sure: it is not easy to understand her whole persona.

Anna Isabelle R. Lejano
2013-14235