Recently in Rory Purdon Category

I think that John is a very interesting character. He is both among the most noble characters in the play (Pretty much one of the only good guys, along with Elizabeth, some of the farmers, and depending on your view of him, Hale [He does try to save people near the end, and wants them to lie simply to save their life rather than to root out witches and such]) but at the same time is technically responsible for all the deaths in the story, most likely several orphans and widows, and all because he wouldn't not sleep with his maid. And even then he is angry at his wife for even mentioning it despite the fact that it's causing what amounts to the execution of at least half a dozen innocent people. But in all truth it's Abigail's fault. I also don't know how John would react to certain things; do to my not every having been a Puritan Farmer in Salem during the witch hunt, or a Puritan Farmer in Salem, or a Puritan Farmer, or a Puritan, actually. I might have some basis if he was younger, lived in Ontario, and wasn't a farmer. On another note, does Cheever actually appear in the play? I forget what he did if he actually appears. Considering John's record of getting people to help him (His first maid had an affair with him, and that led to this whole incident. His second maid ended up saying he was trying to get her to lie to the court that there was no witchcraft, and got John accused of witchcraft, an accusation that ended with his death.) Cheever probably ended up being the executioner that hanged John or something.

I think the scene I have to do (First part of the Act 2, until Mary Warren comes in) is rather interesting (I use the term I think, or some variation on it [I thought, etc.], a lot when starting my drama journals, don't I?). However, Elizabeth is a bit too suspicious of John (Though I don't have much experience being a Puritan farmer's wife whose husband had cheated on her, obviously), as she thinks he may be up to no good with Abigail despite the fact that she should know that it takes a while to seed a field as big as their field, and John gives a completely logical reason for why he doesn't immediately run out the door and tell everyone that Abigail is a liar (The reason being that he doesn't have any witnesses that can confirm Abigail's confession, and considering the fact that he is trying to be nice to his wife, he has a legitimate reason for having lied to her about other people being there). I do think the tension between them is conveyed well by the lines and the stage directions, such as John adding things to the stew without Elizabeth knowing, him talking about how he wants her to be happy in the same scene that has him later arguing with her and pretty much calling her a suspicious and heartless person. Also, how can something have a purple smell? I can understand an orange smell, since oranges actually are a fruit, and they are orange, but not purple. As well, why would a small amount of salt make a soup taste better? Is John a smoker? Or just a jerk that can't stand admitting something he didn't make is good?

I think that the Crucible is an interesting play. The way it shows how a situation can spiral out of control simply due to peoples wants causing them to turn on each other is rather interesting, and very chilling. For instance, despite the Rebecca Nurse being viewed as good and kind, another woman accuses her simply because she is jealous of Rebecca, and tells Hale that it is Rebecca's fault that she had a bunch of miscarriages. Eventually it spirals so out of control that even Hale, who is considered the expert on witchcraft, can't convince anyone to stop. As well, it is rather interesting to see how easy it is to convince someone that something is really happening, for example, Abigail convincing the girls to accuse people and pretend that they are being cursed. On the other hand, it is rather annoying, as the whole thing comes down to the main conflict being between a farmer and some idiotic teenage girl who hasn't a single intelligent idea and can't understand basic logic, such as, the guy isn't going to marry you if you get his wife executed for witchcraft, you fool. Kind of undermines the story when the entire plot is set in motion by stupidity. If you haven't guessed by now, I think that Abigail is a terrible villain. At least the other people accusing people of witchcraft simply for their own personal gain have reasons that actually would work, such as, I want that guy's farm, and if he's dead, I can just take it, or, I hate this person, so why not try and get them executed? Those reasons are logical, and can work. They may be driven by greed, completely immoral, and disgusting reasons, but at least the accusers are actually thinking, and don't remind me of Bella from Twilight. The play is helped by having more villains than Abigail, and by Procter being a generally intelligent protagonist (Yes, he could have immediately gone and said that Abigail had told him that there was no witchcraft, and while Elizabeth suggests that it is only because he loves Abigail that he doesn't go, I agree with the reason he gives, that no one is going to believe him if he says "The girl you all think is great and is helping to root out witchcraft is a liar, and I know this because she told me a few days ago while me and her where alone in a room with no other witnesses to her confession that there was no witchcraft!". Yes, these people do somewhat believe in things such as witchcraft and such, but they usually require some form of proof.). Hale is another character I like, as he isn't a villain, despite being the man in charge of finding signs of witchcraft. He changes, from being completely devoted to helping Paris and others find witches at the beginning, to thinking that some people are being wrongly accused, to wanting people to confess not because he wants to root out witches, but because he knows that others will execute them, and he doesn't want any more blood spilt at the end. In the end, the good parts out weight the bad parts, and I think it is a rather good play. One last thing, at the part when Abigail and the other girls are pretending to be possessed by Mary Warren and are saying the same things she says, if I were Mary, I would probably prove they are faking it by saying something they wouldn't think I would say, such as "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers" or something along those lines.

Drama Journal Number IV LOST TRACK

I really don't have much of an opinion on the warm up. I can't say if they help or not because the only classes we've had where we don't do the warm-up are the ones where it wouldn't be useful. I have noticed in past years that the vocal warm up does help a bit, but makes the class look rather bizarre. Especially the big mouthed frog. Otherwise, I have no opinion on the warm ups.  They probably help somewhat, but as said before I wouldn't be able to notice the effect. This record of opinion on the aforementioned exercises shall be recorded within the medium known as Java code.

I don't know what else to say so here's a random story. Everyone says how cruel it is for Macbeth to have killed the king, his ruler, boss, and houseguest, in his sleep, but what about the two guards he frames? The guards get blamed, then killed, all to divert the blame and then make sure they can't defend themselves or reveal that they were drunk, even though they never saw Macbeth do anything that would prove his guilt. Though, they probably would remember who got them drunk, Lady Macbeth, and the fact that your with got the two bodyguards of the murder victim drunk on the night of the murder would probably make people suspicious, and he probably knows better than to think that saying his wife, the mastermind of the plot and his co-conspirator, was helping the kings sons in the murder. Why? He has no proof, and saying this would imply he knew of the plot and didn't say or do anything, making him look guilty, as well as the easier to point out fact that his wife could easily reveal the entire plot. Sure, she's a loyal enough wife to be fine with convincing her husband to murder his boss and their ruler with the only reason being a vague prophecy told to him by witches that he would be king of somewhere at sometime, but what reason is there to be loyal to someone who is using you as a scapegoat for a crime that you're both guilty of. Also, why does everyone jump to the conclusion that it was the king's sons that bribed the guards? Sure, they have something to gain, but they're his sons! They love him! As well, no one entertains the idea that someone, upset at Duncan breaking tradition, decided to kill two birds with one stone by murdering Duncan and blaming it on the sons, or that the sons probably aren't as stupid as to try to get away with murdering their father just as soon as he announced Malcolm as his heir. I, obviously, have no experience in such matters, but if you had something to gain from someone's death, but you have to wait for them to do something before you actually get the thing from their death, wouldn't you wait until while after the date that you officially gain said item or title before murdering the person? It's like if a person has life insurance that takes effect after a certain date, and the day after it takes effect, they die. It just seems suspicious. Then again, this is medieval Scotland, not modern day New York, where they have CSIs and detectives that make a living by figuring stuff like this out. That would be an interesting show, though. CSI: Macbeth, premiering July 3^rd at 10 pm.

As for the whole method of teaching and opinions, I disagree with both Hector and the new teacher whose name I have forgotten already. It doesn't make sense to just do what the students want, as then they only learn things that they didn't need a teacher to learn, as they had already researched it. As for the new guy and his method of getting noticed by just choosing to pretend to have a different opinion just because the other opinion is shocking and not often used. I think that if you're asked to write your opinion on something, you write your actual opinion, not the one you think is shocking and different unless that really is your opinion. Just writing one you think is shocking rather than your actual opinion isn't writing your opinion, it's writing an opinion. Then again, I don't know what they were asked to write specifically, and if it is just supposed to be an opinionated essay on a topic, then just choosing to write from the more shocking opinion is okay, at least from my view, so long as it doesn't say that it has to be your opinion.

As for characters, most of them are okay, though some are annoying, and some are stereotypes, for example, Rudge, the unintelligent athlete. As well, the guy who saves Hector's job (I really can't remember most of their names), the cool guy who everyone likes that solves the main problem in the end.Or the headmaster,who is just the cliche bad person in charge of an organization who cares more about (power/results/money/whatever the writer doesn't like) than (insert whatever the writer says is good here). I also don't like how it treated as okay to solve the problem of Hector's crime (Is it a crime? I don't have much knowledge of the legal system in the UK at the time, though if they're just making him retire early, it doesn't seem as bad, but wouldn't it count as pedophilia or something?), as it basically let's both Hector and the headmaster get away with something bad by committing a crime (The guy gets Hector his job back by blackmailing the Headmaster with the fact that he does basically the same thing to the secretary as Hector does to them).

In the end, I think it's okay, but nothing special. It wouldn't be the first movie to come to mind if I was recommending a movie, but I wouldn't really discourage someone from watching it.

Pearl Gidley by Gary Kirkham

The Registry Theatre, 122 Fredrick St Kitchener. Thursday November the 3^rd

Tickets: $5 with EyeGo Card

Overall, I thought that Pearl Gidley was well performed with good sets, actors, and a good story, but that I didn't like it. It's just that I didn't like the story, and there's nothing the actors or production crew could do. I would like to stress that it's not a bad story, in fact it's rather good, and it's just that I personally dislike it, however would still recommend this play.

The main strengths of the play are the actors, who manage to perform the play very well.          It never seeming like the actors are just acting, and the lines evoke the emotions behind them very well. Often their body language showed their emotions rather well, so that they didn't need to say anything at times. Kathleen Sheehy, who plays the titular character, does a good job playing a bitter old woman, and Brad Cook, who plays Charles, the young Vietnam veteran, is rather good, easily portraying a young man recently back from a war, who is staying with strange strangers. Jen Cornish, who plays Pearl's sister Edith, does a rather good job of portraying her character, the yin to Pearl's yang. The sets are well put together, so nothing needs to be said about them really. The story rather good, and the only times I dislike it tend to be more of my personal opinion rather than it truly being bad.

As I said several times before, I do dislike parts of the story, especially near the end, though it is mainly just my opinion. The only part that isn't completely personal opinion that I dislike is how the titular character's secret is handled, since you only find out rather late in the play that there is a secret. If it wasn't for a certain teacher's comments, I would have thought that Pearl was just bitter and untrusting for no other reason than to annoy people around her.

Overall, it was a good play, with the only problem being me. I'd recommend this play to most people who like plays and have seen most of the plays that are running at the same time as it, but they really want to see another play.

Drama Journal 3

Rory Purdon

I thought I did quite a bit better at my monologue the second time in front of the class than the first time, partially because I could build pauses into the presentation, and pass it off as it just being me taking a drink or thinking. I do think I need to work on my voice, as I don't really sound like what the man probably is supposed to sound like, though on the other hand, he would probably be trying to sound upper class (and failing at it), so a very badly done upper class English accent could work for him. I also think I need to try to use the prop, the flask, better than I did, as I think I only used it twice. As well, I think that a bottle of beer or whisky would work better than a flask, as it sounds more like he's in a bar, and therefore would have a bottle rather than a flask. I did just think to use the flask the day of the presentation, as I saw that Jacob brought it in for his monologue. As such, if I have to do this again, I would make sure to bring in an empty beer bottle to use. I liked the other monologues quite a bit, and the only thing I think should've been worked on was the one line Jacob missed, but I only noticed it because I was the one holding his lines, and it still sounded very good even with the mistake. I do think that Jeff's was about some dude who was exasperated due to the massive flood of patients he has to deal with after 9/11, Jacob's was about some crazy dude who wasted money buying his favourite artist's painting so he could burn it due to his being a stupid idiot that blames the fact that people care about how much a painting costs as being bad and thinks that the fact that, why yes paintings do actually have a monetary value, as somehow making the paintings no longer paintings. And Robin's was about some woman with bad aim deciding to shoot her husband.