I have seen both film versions of True Grit, the 2010 rendition being the most recent for me.  After reading the original novel I have concluded in my own opinion that an American western theme is still clearly represented, yet the typical “mold” has been in some ways broken.

For me there is an obvious difference between the characters played by John Wayne and Jeff Bridges. John Wayne is known for being a classic western movie star of his time. It’s not to say that Hollywood and modern media producers do not still romanticize their content, though I believe such “fluffing” was much more prevalent in the 40s and 50s. I believe John Wayne played Rooster as more of a typical “hero” and in that case followed a formula in regards to the usual Western myth, a “cowboys and Indians” sort of element that came popular with his time.

Of course, today those stereotypes have been exposed for their faults. I believe Jeff Bridges depicted Rooster’s idea in a more accurate way to what a man of the time might have been. In the past there were much more prevalent gender roles, of which were socially reflected to a degree in the time that John Wayne was an actor. Audiences of that era were expected to see that Wayne’s Rooster was “just doing his job”. A man was supposed to be tough and it wasn’t questioned. But I feel we question Bridges’ Rooster and that we are obligated to do so anyway. The Coen Brothers film exposes the hardships of the time that the film is set. But in this sense it feels like a more realistic depiction to me.

So, True Grit still goes on about tough characters surviving in a tough, new world, but over all I think that the main character’s gender plays a huge role in breaking it out of the usual myth. In comparing the two movie renditions, I feel that the first caters toward a more ordinary Western, while the latter displays a much clearer, pragmatic view on the environment of the time. Like anything, it depends on perspective how you might form an opinion. I do personally prefer the Coen Brothers film. And on a side note I was happier about the more accurate age of Mattie’s actor in it versus its predecessor. I believe part of the earlier’s casting choice also came from the tendencies of the time.

Here we are, a ramble about Pride and Prejudice.

To be honest, prior to this assignment I had never read, or watched any form of Pride and Prejudice. After reading the book I decided to watch the movie starring Keira Knightley and I even tried a little bit of the 1995 BBC (thank you, Amazon Video). I think it was necessary for myself to see multiple interpretations because I have a sort of humorous bias about life. Sometimes it takes me a bit of effort to see past my own feelings. But in that case, I have this to say:

No matter what we have a tendency to super impose our personal ideas onto what works we see. It's for the same reason that art is most often only determined by opinion and cannot produce a definite answer. And in this situation I think the relationships presented in Pride and Prejudice are very much relevant to our generation. It is not uncommon now for families of many social statuses to push expectations and assumptions down on their members.

Relevant to Elizabeth's cause, I have been in similar places in my life. Perhaps not to the same degree, but some people expect so much out of a person. They nitpick about appearance, or attitude despite there being no real issue. It can still be tough to be yourself without others pressuring you, and in that pursuit I feel Elizabeth is an important role model.

Romance in more socially developed areas may not function as it does in this book, but we can still see similar common worries between any gender today. Of course today’s society has become more accepting and people are more likely able to partake in what feels natural to them without ridicule. Not that society is perfect yet, and that is another reason why the lessons in Pride and Prejudice still apply. Without observing habits of our past, how can we take the first steps to changing them?

            My final opinion on the book is that I am glad to have finally read it and in comparison to the movie, or the TV series, of course it was better. Though I didn’t mind either of the film productions. The series was obviously less dramatic, a bit hokey to me, but that’s what made it fun to watch. And I suppose it some sort of way it made it easier to “chew”.

I suppose this will be counted as some kind of an introduction to me! In that case, welcome, Folks!

I can’t say too much about my origin, in detail, I mean. Mother’s family members were cobblers from England, and my Father’s family raised chickens in France. Very few of them came to North America during the revolutionary period in the US. Most of the others came through to New York about a hundred years ago. 

On a more current perspective I’m at Ringling because of how my great Aunt and Uncle have influenced me. They’re artists out in the middle of nowhere, Arkansas. The great Ozark mountains are where they chose to settle down. It’s a beautiful, natural place...until you roll in the grass. Ticks everywhere. 

But, my aunt and uncle's family is my biggest influence. They are all potters. Their son Johnny I call uncle since, he is a second cousin and is quite a bit older than me. I consider this family the closest to me because they inspire me. Johnny likes to sculpt but has a knack for silly little comics and things. He’s always inside his own head and I take a lot of my own habits from his visits to town when I was little. 

I’m happiest when I get to be ridiculous and play with my ideas. But back on the sculpting matter, I feel most satisfied when I can see my work in a functional space, as opposed to a flat surface, a drawing, or something like that. It was more of a recent realization, but as I think about it, Johnny encouraged me to discover that about myself. I’m sort of following in his footsteps by sculpting, but in my own way. He’ll stick with his traditional clay, and I’ll continue learning digital programs.

By realizing that I wanted to do 3D work I did find out a bit more of my own ideology (in some backwards way, I guess). I’ve always had trouble describing it because it tends to change with my mood and I’d rather be fluid with my opinions and thoughts than upset others. I always try my best to see all sides of a situation and in that regard think that ideology is very individualistic. As long as no one is hurting me, why should I care how they feel about one thing, or another? 

Then again I like this in-between ground where things contradict each other and opposites exists within themselves. I love paradoxes. I have a great need to experience depth and duality. I want things to feel real and to be explained to me, why, or how they exist. That is why I am seeking the 3 dimensional format at this point in time. I’m not sure how anything I make, or say will be interpreted but to be honest, the frustration in that is also the fun.