The Moon Landing Hoax

SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moon's service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

A. Burgess - A Clockwork Orange

Explanation of the novel's title
Anthony Burgess wrote that the title was a reference to an alleged old Cockney expression "as queer as a clockwork orange".¹ Due to his time serving in the British Colonial Office in Malaysia, Burgess thought that the phrase could be used punningly to refer to a mechanically responsive (clockwork) human (orang, Malay for "person"). It is possible, however, that Burgess invented the phrase as a play upon the expression "a work of pith and moment".
Burgess wrote in his later (Nov. 1986) introduction, titled A Clockwork Orange Resucked, that a creature who can only perform good or evil is "a clockwork orange — meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with color and juice, but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil; or the almighty state."
In his essay "Clockwork Oranges"², Burgess asserts that "this title would be appropriate for a story about the application of Pavlovian, or mechanical, laws to an organism which, like a fruit, was capable of colour and sweetness". This title alludes to the protagonist's negatively conditioned responses to feelings of evil which prevent the exercise of his free will.

Point of view from one person
A Clockwork Orange is written in first person perspective from a seemingly biased and unreliable source. Alex never justifies his actions in the narration, giving a good sense that he is somewhat sincere; a narrator who, as unlikeable as he may attempt to seem, evokes pity from the reader through the telling of his unending suffering, and later through his realization that the cycle will never end. Alex's perspective is effective in that the way that he describes events is easy to relate to, even if the situations themselves are not. He uses words that are common in speech, as well as Nadsat, the speech of the younger generation.

Plot summary

Part 1: Alex's world
Set in dystopian 2017, the novel opens with the introduction of protagonist, fifteen-year-old Alex, who, with his gang members (known as "droogs") Dim, Georgie, and Pete, roam the streets at night, committing violent crimes ("ultraviolence") for enjoyment.
Essentially, the first part of the novel is a character study of the protagonist. We learn that Alex and his "droogs" (Russian for friends) have their own language known as Nadsat, and their own hierarchy, in which Alex is the leader. There is a general disregard for the law and for older generations — creating an image of a youth movement that is taking control of this fictional future. (This of course being the exaggeration of the concern that came with the changing values of the 1960s, in which teenagers were becoming decidedly more unruly and rebellious.)
Part 1 involves Alex reflecting on his illegal activity (which involves the rape of two 10-year-old girls, and also the wife of writer F. Alexander). It describes the treachery of his droogs, resulting in Alex's capture and prison sentence for murder.
The use of lyrical language and Nadsat somewhat masks the horrible imagery of Alex's actions, and, to some extent, Alex is able to draw empathy from the reader, through his friendly nature towards his audience (referring to them as his "only friends," and to himself as "Your Humble Narrator," etc.).

Part 2: The Ludovico Technique
After getting caught for his crimes Alex is sentenced to 14 years for murder. Alex gets a job as an assistant to the prison chaplain. He feigns an interest in religion, and amuses himself by reading the Bible for its lurid descriptions of "the old yahoodies (Jews) tolchocking (beating) each other", imagining himself taking part in "the nailing-in" (the Crucifixion of Jesus). Alex hears about an experimental rehabilitation programme called "the Ludovico Technique", which promises that the prisoner will be released upon completion of the two-week treatment, and will not commit crimes afterwards.
Partially by taking part in the fatal beating of a cellmate, Alex manages to become the subject in the first full-scale trial of the Ludovico Technique. The technique itself is a form of aversion therapy, in which Alex is given a drug that induces extreme nausea while being forced to watch graphically violent films for two weeks. Among the films shown are propaganda films such as Triumph of the Will, which includes Alex's beloved Beethoven (last movement of the 9th symphony). He pleads them to remove the music, but they refuse to edit it, saying it's "for his own good", and that the music may be the "punishment element". At the end of the treatment, Alex is unable to carry out or even contemplate violent or sexual acts without crippling nausea. He is also unable to listen to classical music without experiencing the same jarring physical reaction.

Part 3: After prison
The third part of the novel concentrates mostly on the following punishment to which Alex is subjected after his treatment. Alex encounters many of his former victims, all of whom seek revenge upon him. He finds himself powerless to defend himself against them, due to feelings of sickness and fear of death, as a reaction to the violence. He finds he has been replaced by a lodger in his home, and wanders into the public library, only to be attacked by an aging old man who he had beaten up with his droogs in chapter one. The police are called by the librarian and when they arrive, he sees that the police are no other than his old 'droog' Dim, and arch enemy Billy Boy. Taking advantage of their positions, they take Alex into a rural part of town to beat him up, and then leave him to his own devices. While looking for solace, Alex falls into the hands of F. Alexander, the husband to the woman whom he earlier raped. Friends of the writer intend to use Alex as a weapon against the political party, exposing the terrible things that have been done to him. Although it is not clear as to whether the friends of F. Alexander intend it, their playing of a symphony by Otto Skadelig below Alex in a locked room drives him to throw himself out of a window instead of enduring the sickness of the treatment's conditioning. Alex's suicide attempt fails, and leads to his being cured, after the bad publicity for the political party that follows.
Touching on themes of the power struggles between old and young generations, the corruption of the police, and also politics, and attempted (but failed) suicide, the third section of the novel is the most reflective of the troubles of future society, mostly shown through the final chapter, where Alex reflects that he and his friends have either been killed (Georgie), fallen victim to the state (Dim's becoming a police officer) or outgrown their destructive behaviour (Pete). Alex finds that he no longer finds pleasure in "ultra-violence" and yearns for a wife and a child of his own. Alex knows that the generation after his will probably be just as destructive, and the one after that,"...and nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers. and it would itty (go) on till the end of the world..." — perhaps revealing Burgess's ultimate deliberation on the unruly youth.

M. Atwood - The Handmaid's Tale

The story is told from the perspective of Offred, a handmaid. Offred is a patronymic which describes her function in the Republic of Gilead. Offred belongs to her Commander, Fred, as a concubine; her real name is not revealed.
As the novel opens, the government of the United States has been overthrown several years earlier. The country has been taken over by Christian fundamentalists who have renamed it and made it into a theocratic state. Women must submit to men and no longer have any civil rights. Their chief function is childbearing and taking care of their husbands. This has been imposed as a means to improve the birth rate as infertility has become rampant due to environmental pollution. This also makes it a serious problem for the handmaids as the punishment for failing to produce a child after attempts with three commanders is to be declared an Unwoman and then sent to the colonies. Furthermore, Gilead does not recognize male infertility.
Highly placed party men — known as Commanders — in the Gilead government are given handmaids to have sex with and bear their children, just as Bilhah and Zilpah, handmaids to the biblical matriarchs Rachael and Leah, bore children for them with Jacob when they were infertile. Handmaids are drawn from "fallen women" — those who have committed sexual crimes.
The narrator was previously married to a divorced man. Since divorce has been declared retroactively non-existent, she was declared to have been living in sin with him. Her daughter is taken away from her to be raised by another family, and she, with proven fertility, is forced to become a handmaid. Offred is placed in the household of the Commander Fred, and Serena Joy, his wife.
Handmaids spend a maximum of two years in a particular household before they are moved. Those who cannot conceive within three placements are deemed barren Unwomen and sent to the colonies, so that many genuinely fertile Handmaids seek to impregnate themselves using alternative methods. For example, when Offred receives a medical check-up, the doctor offers to "do the job" for her. Similarly, Fred's wife Serena Joy arranges an illicit affair between Offred and Nick the chauffeur, so that Offred may conceive and produce a child for Serena Joy and her husband and avoid deportation. The dual pressure to conceive produces an insurmountable psychosis in the handmaids. Offred frequently refers to the words secretly carved in dog Latin inside her closet where no one can see, presumably left by a former handmaid — Nolite te bastardes carborundorum (Don't let the bastards grind you down). Offred's current assignment is her third after she had failed to become pregnant with her previous two Commanders.
This third assignment differs from her earlier experiences in that she is given, in various disjointed episodes, glimpses that all is not as it seems in Gilead. Through these glimpses she discovers that the people in her life, while paying lip service to Gilead's rigid mores, seek various means of expressing their illicit desires.
Offred initially becomes aware of these transgressions when Fred orders her to visit his study late at night. He wishes to establish a more personal relationship with her, as he is forbidden to converse with her outside of their monthly sex. He offers to play Scrabble with her. Since women are forbidden from reading and restricted to specific duties assigned to them, this is an illicit activity. He also obtains forbidden hand lotion for her and allows her to read books and magazines from the past. On one occasion, he dresses her in a sexy costume and smuggles her into Jezebel's, a nightclub and brothel run by the party. He asks that she keep all this secret from his Wife, Serena Joy.
At the same time, Serena Joy has also asked Offred to keep secrets from the Commander. Resentful of having been deprived of her formerly prominent role as a televangelist and right-wing lecturer, she feels the only thing that can give meaning to her life is a child. Since the Commander is likely to be sterile (his previous handmaids did not conceive), Serena Joy suggests that Offred attempt to conceive a child with Nick, the chauffeur, later revealed to be a member of the Mayday underground resistance.
Nick and Offred begin an emotional and sexual relationship which they continue until the end of the novel where it is left a little ambiguous whether Offred's transgressions have been discovered and is taken away for them or is being smuggled out of the household by the resistance movement. By this time, Offred and Nick believe that she might be pregnant.
Even though her fate is not made clear by the ambiguous ending, since she was able to make tapes on which she recounts her experiences — as stated in the appendix — it seems likely that she was rescued and may have been able to leave the country via the "Underground Femaleroad." Offred's on-tape narrative is treated as a historical document and is discussed at an academic conference far in the future.

M. Atwood - Oryx and Crake

Science fiction is generally served to the public in either one of two delicious flavors. One is of the Star Trek variety--this is a critique or mirror of contemporary society via a comparison to a future, technologically-advanced and therefore improved humanity. The second and far more prevalent kind of sci-fi, is that of the neophobe, anti-capitalist Terminator ilk--these yarns of dystopia play off the fear of humanity's inevitable campaign into the future and away from what is familiar.

Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake is an unapologetic member of this second variety--a species of literature whose blank check negativity and cynicism I find more than a little bit boring. However, beyond the politics, Atwood's work succeeds on a variety of more immediate levels.The story centers on a lonely and miserable middle-aged man wandering through a post-apocalyptic North American wasteland. He is perhaps the last human on the face of the Earth and prefers to be known as "Snowman."

The story is spliced with vignettes from his pre-apocalypse incarnation as "Jimmy," which lead the reader up to and through the destruction of society at the hands of a deadly virus.
The only other living things are genetically-altered pigs, skunks, and wolves and a tribe of child-like modified humans Snowman calls "Crakers." As the story unravels, we learn about Snowman/Jimmy's former life growing up in a corporate compound which functions to keep its employee-residents safe and separated from the dangerous and dirty common-folk who inhabit "the pleeblands." It is here where, in his early adolescence, Jimmy meets a young genius with a god complex whose real name we are never privy to, but is only known to us by his video game moniker, "Crake."
With Oryx and Crake, Atwood has painted a joyless vision of a future where genetic-engineering is a lucrative and pervasive facet of human existence and in which individuals are depersonified (is that a word?--I choose to think that it is) as best exemplified by young Jimmy and Crake's obsession with web sites offering access to child pornography, real-time video suicides, and executions. Now, here is a perfect example of where the politics of science fiction lose me -- there is little exposition given to the benefits these new technologies have surely given to humanity, and the whole of this future society is damned by the author on the basis of a base voyeurism expressed by a futuristic bourgeois Beavis and Butthead. And now that I've properly (and may I add, brilliantly) included a pop-culture reference to illuminate a flaw in the novel's logic, I would like to present you, my rapt reader, with my paragraph on the shortcomings of science fiction politics:
I'll offer no argument that there is need for caution as new technologies and societal evolutions arise, but I'll offer no support for the notion that anything new is inherently destructive. Since the invention of the steam engine, rates of murder and rape have risen and fallen as have social trends towards compassion and the percentage of literacy in the third world. There is no proof that any of these wobbling trends (which have wobbled up and down since the beginning of time) have had any connection with a faster method of traveling the Mississippi. There are no components of human existence that have continually worsened due to the march of technology (outside of environmental pollution, which admittedly is a problem to be solved, but certainly not the denouement of mankind). But all the while, diseases have been cured, pains have been alleviated, and new frontiers have been discovered and conquered. For the past century or so, science fiction writers (and later, their film maker kin) have sought to frighten their audiences with fantastic tales of technology-born horrors, much of which has (as fictional futures have morphed into actual pasts) proven to be little more than iliterary exaggeration, puppets, and CGI.
_____________________________________________________________________

An excerpt - MANGO

Snowman wakes before dawn. He lies unmoving, listening to the tide coming in, wave after wave sloshing over the various barricades, wish-wash, wish-wash, the rhythm of heartbeat. He would so like to believe he is still asleep.On the eastern horizon there's a greyish haze, lit now with a rosy, deadly glow. Strange how that colour still seems tender. The offshore towers stand out in dark silhouette against it, rising improbably out of the pink and pale blue of the lagoon. The shrieks of the birds that nest out there and the distant ocean grinding against the ersatz reefs of rusted car parts and jumbled bricks and assorted rubble sound almost like holiday traffic.Out of habit he looks at his watch — stainless-steel case, burnished aluminum band, still shiny although it no longer works. He wears it now as his only talisman. A blank face is what it shows him: zero hour. It causes a jolt of terror to run through him, this absence of official time. Nobody nowhere knows what time it is.‘Calm down,’ he tells himself. He takes a few deep breaths, then scratches his bug bites, around but not on the itchiest places, taking care not to knock off any scabs: blood poisoning is the last thing he needs. Then he scans the ground below for wildlife: all quiet, no scales and tails. Left hand, right foot, right hand, left foot, he makes his way down from the tree. After brushing off the twigs and bark, he winds his dirty bedsheet around himself like a toga. He's hung his authentic-replica Red Sox baseball cap on a branch overnight for safekeeping; he checks inside it, flicks out a spider, puts it on.

Euthanasia

The subject of voluntary euthanasia is far from simple - even the most sympathetic cases raise difficult ethical questions.
Pro-euthanasia campaigners say it is a matter of personal freedom.
As suicide is no longer a crime in the UK, they argue that it is not only just, but also an essential part of civilisation that people can be helped to die in dignity and painfree.
They argue that refusing to help someone is immoral. It could even cause more injury and distress, if the suicide attempt is botched. Opposing that view is a coalition of opinion.
Some religious groups believe life is sacrosanct and only God can decide when to terminate it.
Other groups worry that allowing any system of legalised killing would be open to abuse.
Recent research from Holland suggests that despite that country's strict rules concerning voluntary euthanasia, many doctors are failing to carry out the necessary checks or contact the appropriate authorities.

Case studies
And then of course there are the relatives.
When faced with their loved ones' pain, and often the indignity of their condition, many are desperate and believe the best course is for their relative to die.
During Dr Cox's court case and subsequent appearance before the General Medical Council, Ms Boyes' family never wavered in their support for the doctor's actions.
When doctors at Airedale Hospital in Yorkshire asked the High Court for permission to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Hillsborough victim Tony Bland, his family supported the application.
And recently the family of Mary Ormerod, who died after being starved of food and fluids, praised the doctor involved as being caring and committed.
Although euthanasia is illegal in the UK, there are some grey areas. A doctor can legally give a person an overdose of an opiate like morphine - even if they know it will kill the patient.
As long as the intention is to ease suffering, they cannot be prosecuted for murder. Known as the principle of "double effect", many doctors admit that they have done this - even that their motives were mixed.
But critics say some GPs resort to this before exhausting all other options.

Pain relief
Many experts in pain relief say that doctors too often do not know enough about caring for terminally-ill patients and the latest advances in pain control.
It has also been common practice in hospitals for doctors to write "Do Not Resuscitate" or DNR on the notes of some frail patients.
In those circumstances, nurses and doctors will not attempt to revive a person who has - for example - a heart attack, because keeping them alive would, in the opinion of the medics, inflict more suffering.
Opinion polls suggest the general public is more sympathetic towards those who attempt to kill themselves - even that there is support for changes in the law to decriminalise the act of helping someone commit suicide. However, it is very unlikely that any political party will support any changes in the law in the near future.

Romeo + Juliet - directed by B. Luhrman

In Looking for Richard, actor/director Al Pacino expresses his great hope for his film -- to extend his enthusiasm for the Bard's plays to a broader audience. In a very different way, that's what Baz Luhrmann is attempting to do with this radical approach to "Romeo and Juliet". Luhrmann hasn't fashioned this motion picture with the stodgy, elitist Shakespeare "purist" in mind. Instead, by incorporating lively, modern imagery with a throbbing rock soundtrack and hip actors, he has taken aim at an audience that would normally regard Shakespeare as a chore to be endured in school, not a passionate drama to ignite the screen.
Make no mistake, this Romeo and Juliet isn't the match of Franco Zeffirelli's unforgettable 1968 classic. While Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes make an effective couple, their romance doesn't burn with the white-hot intensity of Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey's. Nevertheless, this interpretation is so fundamentally different from anything to have come before it that there's no danger of repetition. By the same token, there have been two different "Richard III"s in the past twelve months, and no one is complaining.
For those who aren't aware, "Romeo and Juliet" tells the tale of two "star-cross'd" teenage lovers who secretly fall for each other and marry. Their families, the Montagues and Capulets, have been fierce enemies for decades, and, even as Romeo and Juliet say their wedding vows, new violence breaks out between the clans. In the end, their love is doomed. When Romeo mistakenly believes Juliet is dead, he poisons himself. And, when Juliet discovers that he is dead, she too commits suicide.
Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet (properly titled William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet) takes the play and deposits it in a modern Verona Beach that is part decaying Miami and part Mexico City. By the director's own admission, this is a created world, borrowing aspects of its unique visual style from such diverse periods as the 1940s, 1970s, and 1990s, and using a variety of classic films (most notably Rebel Without a Cause) for inspiration. Fast cars with roaring engines replace horses. Guns stand in for swords and daggers. The resulting hybrid background is startling.
Romeo and Juliet's camera is restless, always moving. There are times when the rapid cuts and raging soundtrack might cause understandable confusion between the movie and a rock video. Indeed, with all the camera tricks, special effects (such as a roiling storm), and riotous splashes of color, it's easy to lose the story in the style. Luhrmann's intent was never to drown Shakespeare's dialogue in technique, but it happens, especially early in the film. In the process, the more subtle intangibles of the romance are irretrievably lost.
The movie settles down when Romeo (DiCaprio) and Juliet (Danes) first come face-to-face, gazing at each other through the transparent panes of an aquarium while a love ballad plays in the background. It's a delicately romantic moment whose magic is never quite matched by any other scene in the film. Danes makes a breathtaking Juliet, merging strength and fragility into one. DiCaprio isn't quite as successful as Romeo; there are times when his delivery of Shakespeare's dialogue sounds forced, and, on at least one occasion (when he learns about Juliet's supposed death), he goes way over-the-top.
The supporting cast has its share of successes and failures. John Leguizamo plays a particularly effective Tybalt, Juliet's Latino cousin. Despite a terrible accent, Miriam Margolyes gives a delightful interpretation of Juliet's nurse. In a daring move that works, Harold Perrineau's Mercutio is presented as a high-energy drag queen who gets a chance to strut his stuff to a disco tune with Shakespearean lyrics. Pete Postlethwaite (as Father Laurence) and Vondie Curtis-Hall (Captain Prince) are both at ease in their roles. Brian Dennehy's presence is, as always, imposing, but, as Lord Montague, he doesn't have more than a handful of lines. Less successful are Paul Sorvino's cartoon-like portrayal of Lord Capulet and Diane Verona's Blanche DuBois-flavored version of his wife. And a pair of characters, Paul Rudd's Paris and Jesse Bradford's Balthasar, are so ineffectual that they're virtually invisible.
There are moments of comedy in Shakespeare's play, and Luhrmann tries to transfer some of these over, in addition to adding a few of his own. One in particular, with Romeo ineptly scaling a trellis for the famous balcony sequence, is ill-placed. Also, there are times when the director gets a little too cute. A run-down theater in Verona is called "The Globe" (the name of the locale where Shakespeare's plays were originally performed), and the astute viewer will catch visual references to "The Merchant of Verona Beach", "Rozencranzky's", "Wherefore L'Amour", and "Out, Out Damn Spot Cleaners".
Ultimately, no matter how many innovative and unconventional flourishes it applies, the success of any adaptation of a Shakespeare play is determined by two factors: the competence of the director and the ability of the main cast members. Luhrmann, Danes, and DiCaprio place this Romeo and Juliet in capable hands. And, while such a loud, brash interpretation may not go down in cinematic history as the definitive version of the play, hopefully it will open a few eyes and widen the audience willing to venture into any movie bearing the credit "based on the play by William Shakespeare."

(a review by J. Berardinelli)

W. Shakespeare - Romeo and Juliet

PROLOGUE
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whole misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
The continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

Carl Theodor Dreyer - Vampyr

Really couldn't help posting this!

W. Shakespeare - Julius Caesar

ANTONY

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

William Shakespeare - Othello, the moor of Venice

OTHELLO

It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul,--
Let me not name it to you, you chaste stars!--
It is the cause. Yet I'll not shed her blood;
Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow,
And smooth as monumental alabaster.
Yet she must die, else she'll betray more men.
Put out the light, and then put out the light:
If I quench thee, thou flaming minister,
I can again thy former light restore,
Should I repent me: but once put out thy light,
Thou cunning'st pattern of excelling nature,
I know not where is that Promethean heat
That can thy light relume. When I have pluck'd the rose,
I cannot give it vital growth again.
It must needs wither: I'll smell it on the tree.

(Kissing her)

Ah balmy breath, that dost almost persuade
Justice to break her sword! One more, one more.
Be thus when thou art dead, and I will kill thee,
And love thee after. One more, and this the last:
So sweet was ne'er so fatal. I must weep,
But they are cruel tears: this sorrow's heavenly;
It strikes where it doth love. She wakes.

John Osborne - Look back in anger

The three-act play takes place in a one-bedroom flat in the Midlands. Jimmy Porter, lower middle-class, university-educated, lives with his wife Alison, the daughter of a retired Colonel in the British Army in India. His friend Cliff Lewis, who helps Jimmy run a sweet stall, lives with them. Jimmy, intellectually restless and thwarted, reads the papers, argues and taunts his friends over their acceptance of the world around them. He rages to the point of violence, reserving much of his bile for Alison's friends and family. The situation is exacerbated by the arrival of Helena, an actress friend of Alison's from school. Appalled at what she finds, Helena calls Alison's father to take her away from the flat. He arrives while Jimmy is visiting the mother of a friend and takes Alison away. As soon as she has gone, Helena moves in with Jimmy. Alison returns to visit, having lost Jimmy's baby. Helena can no longer stand living with Jimmy and leaves. Finally Alison returns to Jimmy and his angry life.
The problem, which even a fine revival like this production has, is with the melodramatic qualities of the narrative. Osborne's script became almost a template for the new school of writers, and it is difficult to present his work without being aware that there is a faint whiff of formula about it. But despite the plot's shortcomings (which were recognised even by such a fierce admirer as Tynan), it still has the power to startle. There was an audible intake of breath from the audience when Jimmy fell into Helena's arms. Thanks to a fine performance from William Gaunt the sympathy felt by Colonel Redfern, Alison's father, for Jimmy came as a revelation, but still totally understandable within the framework of the play.
The language, too, still has the power to shock, such as when Jimmy, unaware of Alison's pregnancy, says to her:
“If only something—something would happen to you, and wake you out of your beauty sleep! If you could have a child, and it would die. Let it grow, let a recognisable human face emerge from that little mass of India rubber and wrinkles. Please—if only I could watch you face that. I wonder if you might even become a recognisable human being yourself. But I doubt it.”
It is a tribute to Gregory Hersov's direction and Michael Sheen's performance as Jimmy that this does not seem overblown or ridiculous.
Some of the imagery and language doesn't travel too well historically and reflects only the preoccupations of the era. It is difficult, for example, to imagine jazz being quite as exotic as it is for Jimmy. Or to understand the intellectual courage of saying about a gay man, “He's like a man with a strawberry mark—he keeps thrusting it in your face because he can't believe it doesn't interest or horrify you particularly. As if I give a damn which way he likes his meat served up”. At the time homosexuality was still illegal in Britain.
The production stays close to Osborne's original stage-image. This enables it to show the play as standing at a crossroads both of the British stage and also of political and historical epochs. Before the show, the title is projected onto the curtains like a jazz album cover. Between scenes, wreaths of cigarette smoke rise up the curtains. An era is evoked. Matilda Ziegler's Helena also captures a lost period of weekly repertory theatre, of companies travelling the country with precisely the sort of play that Look Back in Anger was attacking; a world evoked with such nostalgia in The Dresser. It was a time when actors auditioned in suits or the sort of starched twin-pieces that Helena wears before she moves in with Jimmy. The admiration of William Gaunt's Colonel Redfern for Jimmy's principles and his amusement at Jimmy's description of Mrs Redfern as “an overfed, overprivileged old bitch”, are set against his total lack of comprehension of what Jimmy's life actually means. Alison says to him “You're hurt because everything is changed. Jimmy is hurt because everything is the same. And neither of you can face it. Something's gone wrong somewhere, hasn't it?” Or as it was put in a Daily Express article from December 1959 which is quoted in the programme: “Out of this decade has come the Illusion of Comfort, and we have lost the sense of life's difficulty”.
It is clear from Osborne's script that there was no lack of a sense of life's difficulties around at the time. But the emphasis had shifted from the martyred expressions of the British ruling class and their “white man's burden”, as represented in Colonel Redfern, to a more serious appraisal of life for those outside that ruling class. Emma Fielding does a good job playing Alison, who has grown up with the one attitude but has been forced by her situation into the other. Fielding gives a good performance as the woman who tolerates Jimmy's invective, living constantly with the threat of something erupting in front of her. Helena on the other hand ultimately cannot stay with Jimmy precisely because of the destruction of all her old certainties.
Perhaps the only truly sympathetic character in the play is Cliff, here excellently played by Jason Hughes. From his role as Jimmy's foil in the early exchanges, to appearing as Alison's real friend, to the point when he decides that he does not want to stay in the flat, Hughes gives a magnificent portrayal of solidness. Whilst Alison is forced to accept Jimmy's rages because her family background has robbed her of any other viable option, Hughes shows us Cliff as someone who is keeping the peace by hiding his real character—by playing along with all the games.
In Jimmy Porter, Osborne created what came to be seen as a model of the “angry young man”—railing at the lack of passion of his age, entreating Alison and Cliff to show some enthusiasm. He is marvellously, unreasonably idealistic in a wildly unfocussed way. Kenneth Tynan, who described Jimmy as “the completest young pup in our literature since Hamlet”, criticised those who attacked the recklessness of Jimmy's attacks. “Is Jimmy's anger justified? Why doesn't he do something? These questions might be relevant if the character had failed to come to life; in the presence of such evident and blazing vitality, I marvel at the pedantry that could ask them. Why don't Chekhov's people do something? Is the sun justified in scorching us?”
It is just this “evident and blazing vitality” that Michael Sheen represents so well. Spluttering with indignation, retreating into his pseudo-literary takes on vaudeville, firing off his vindictive gags almost because he can do nothing else. Osborne, throughout his work, was fascinated by end-of-pier music hall and vaudeville. In The Entertainer, one year later, he used vaudeville and its washed-up performer Archie Rice in a brilliant take on the crisis in post-war British society. Here he has Jimmy and Cliff perform a variety-style number, “Don't be afraid to sleep with your sweetheart just because she's better than you”, as well as trading cheap cracks in true hackneyed music hall style.
More than any other writer of his generation, Osborne was fascinated by the tragedy lurking at the heart of the light entertainment performance. Michael Sheen adds another layer to this in his spluttering soliloquies, carrying with them an echo of Tony Hancock's ridiculous suburban pretensions. It is a fascinating comparison: Hancock, the parodist of lower-middle-class aspirations, and Jimmy Porter, the raging expression of the frustrations of the lower middle class. Sheen has a lightness of touch that suits Jimmy's failed jokes and misplaced comments, as well as his more furious denunciations of the absence of passion.
The impact Osborne had on British theatre is incalculable. With Look Back in Anger he brought class as an issue before British audiences. Under Hersov's direction, Sheen articulates the realisation of a man who has reached the limits of the possibilities open to him but is struggling to retain his dignity. “Why don't we have a little game?” he asks. “Let's pretend that we're human beings, and that we're actually alive”. Sheen gives a marvellous performance of a man running in circles trying to find a way out.
Osborne has often been criticised for not seeing a way out, and not explaining more carefully the crisis in which Jimmy finds himself. Robert Wright, reviewing the first production in the Star, wrote “He obviously wants to shake us into thinking but we are never quite clear what it is he wants us to think about. Is it the Class Struggle or simply sex?” This incoherence in Jimmy's rage is both strength and a limitation to the play.
It is apparent from the text that Osborne recognised this limitation, even tacitly. Helena criticises Jimmy, saying, “There's no place for people like that any longer—in sex, or politics, or anything. That's why he's so futile.... He doesn't know where he is, or where he's going. He'll never do anything, and he'll never amount to anything.” It seems almost a recognition that within his own work there are insufficient answers. This goes hand-in-hand with Jimmy's statement that “people of our generation aren't able to die for good causes any longer.... There aren't any good, brave causes left.”
Such a statement could be read as the voice of pessimistic nihilism. Writing about Celine's novel Journey to the End of Night, Trotsky described it as “a book dictated by terror in the face of life, and weariness of it, rather than by indignation. Active indignation is linked up with hope. In Celine's book there is no hope.” That is clearly not the case here. Jimmy yearns for passion, and clings to the idea of it. When Alison returns to him he tells her “I may be a lost cause, but I thought if you loved me, it needn't matter.” There is a vision, however confused, of the possibilities of human existence. What makes Jimmy's statement so interesting is precisely the historical context in which it occurs.
Kenneth Tynan, who referred to the play's “instinctive leftishness” in his Observer review, wrote in a piece on “The Angry Young Movement” that Jimmy Porter “represented the dismay of many young Britons ... who came of age under a Socialist government, yet found, when they went out into the world, that the class system was still mysteriously intact.”
It is the mistaken association of the post-war Labour government with the failure of socialism per se that accounts for Porter's frustration. Osborne, active in various protests at the time, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, articulated his own sentiments through his lead character. In this respect, it is possible to see in the play expressions of the political impasse that had been reached in Britain during the 1950s, as a result of the domination of intellectual life by Stalinism and social democracy.
Nonetheless, it is also possible to see a challenge, albeit confused and unclear, to that impasse. There remains somewhere at the play's core, even if it cannot be explained, hope. There remains a belief that somehow people can survive the worst and perhaps even overcome it; a belief in humanity, and the possibility of a way forward.

Pavlov's drooling dogs

While Ivan Pavlov worked to unveil the secrets of the digestive system, he also studied what signals triggered related phenomena, such as the secretion of saliva. When a dog encounters food, saliva starts to pour from the salivary glands located in the back of its oral cavity. This saliva is needed in order to make the food easier to swallow. The fluid also contains enzymes that break down certain compounds in the food. In humans, for example, saliva contains the enzyme amylase, an effective processor of starch.
Pavlov became interested in studying reflexes when he saw that the dogs drooled without the proper stimulus. Although no food was in sight, their saliva still dribbled. It turned out that the dogs were reacting to lab coats. Every time the dogs were served food, the person who served the food was wearing a lab coat. Therefore, the dogs reacted as if food was on its way whenever they saw a lab coat.
In a series of experiments, Pavlov then tried to figure out how these phenomena were linked. For example, he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling

Different kinds of reflexes
Reflexes make us react in a certain way. When a light beam hits our eyes, our pupils shrink in response to the light stimulus. And when the doctor taps you below the knee cap, your leg swings out. These reflexes are called unconditioned, or built-in. The body responds in the same fashion every time the stimuli (the light or the tap) is applied. In the same way, dogs drool when they encounter food.
Pavlov's discovery was that environmental events that previously had no relation to a given reflex (such as a bell sound) could, through experience, trigger a reflex (salivation). This kind of learnt response is called conditioned reflex, and the process whereby dogs or humans learn to connect a stimulus to a reflex is called conditioning.
Animals generally learn to associate stimuli that are relevant to their survival. Food aversion is an example of a natural conditioned reflex. If an animal eats something with a distinctive vanilla taste and then eats a tasteless poison that leads to nausea, the animal will not be particularly eager to eat vanilla-flavoured food the next time. Linking nausea to taste is an evolutionarily successful strategy, since animals that failed to learn their lesson did not last very long.
Pavlov's description on how animals (and humans) can be trained to respond in a certain way to a particular stimulus drew tremendous interest from the time he first presented his results. His work paved the way for a new, more objective method of studying behavior.
So-called Pavlovian training has been used in many fields, with anti-phobia treatment as but one example. An important principle in conditioned learning is that an established conditioned response (salivating in the case of the dogs) decreases in intensity if the conditioned stimulus (bell) is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus (food). This process is called extinction.
In order to treat phobias evoked by certain environmental situations, such as heights or crowds, this phenomenon can be used. The patient is first taught a muscle relaxation technique. Then he or she is told , over a period of days, to imagine the fear-producing situation while trying to inhibit the anxiety by relaxation. At the end of the series, the strongest anxiety-provoking situation may be brought to mind without anxiety. This process is called systematic desensitization.
Conditioning forms the basis of much of learned human behavior. Nowadays, this knowledge has also been exploited by commercial advertising. An effective commercial should be able to manipulate the response to a stimulus (like seeing a product's name) which initially does not provoke any feeling. The objective is to train people to make the "false" connection between positive emotions (e.g. happiness or feeling attractive) and the particular brand of consumer goods being advertised.

Behaviourism

Behaviorism originated with the work of John B. Watson, an American psychologist. Watson claimed that psychology was not concerned with the mind or with human consciousness. Instead, psychology would be concerned only with behavior. In this way, men could be studied objectively, like rats and apes.
Watson's work was based on the experiments of Ivan Pavlov, who had studied animals' responses to conditioning. In Pavlov's best-known experiment, he rang a bell as he fed some dogs several meals. Each time the dogs heard the bell they knew that a meal was coming, and they would begin to salivate. Pavlov then rang the bell without bringing food, but the dogs still salivated. They had been "conditioned" to salivate at the sound of a bell. Pavlov believed, as Watson was later to emphasize, that humans react to stimuli in the same way.
Behaviorism is associated today with the name of B.F. Skinner, who made his reputation by testing Watson's theories in the laboratory. Skinner's studies led him to reject Watson's almost exclusive emphasis on reflexes and conditioning. People respond to their environment, he argued, but they also operate on the environment to produce certain consequences.
Skinner developed the theory of "operant conditioning," the idea that we behave the way we do because this kind of behavior has had certain consequences in the past. For example, if your girlfriend gives you a kiss when you give her flowers, you will be likely to give her flowers when you want a kiss. You will be acting in expectation of a certain reward. Like Watson, however, Skinner denied that the mind or feelings play any part in determining behavior. Instead, our experience of reinforcements determines our behavior.
Behaviorism originated in the field of psychology, but it has had a much wider influence. Its concepts and methods are used in education, and many education courses at college are based on the same assumptions about man as behaviorism. Behaviorism has infiltrated sociology, in the form of sociobiology, the belief that moral values are rooted in biology. What are the presuppositions of behaviorism?

1. Behaviorism is naturalistic. This means that the material world is the ultimate reality, and everything can be explained in terms of natural laws. Man has no soul and no mind, only a brain that responds to external stimuli.

2. Behaviorism teaches that man is nothing more than a machine that responds to conditioning. One writer has summarized behaviorism in this way: "The central tenet of behaviorism is that thoughts, feelings, and intentions, mental processes all, do not determine what we do. Our behavior is the product of our conditioning. We are biological machines and do not consciously act; rather we react to stimuli."

The idea that men are "biological machines" whose minds do not have any influence on their actions is contrary to the biblical view that man is the very image of God - the image of a creative, planning, thinking God. In fact, Skinner goes so far as to say that the mind and mental processes are "metaphors and fictions" and that "behavior is simply part of the biology of the organism." Skinner also recognizes that his view strips man of his "freedom and dignity," but insists that man as a spiritual being does not exist.

3. Consistently, behaviorism teaches that we are not responsible for our actions. If we are mere machines, without minds or souls, reacting to stimuli and operating on our environment to attain certain ends, then anything we do is inevitable. Sociobiology, a type of behaviorism, compares man to a computer: Garbage in, garbage out.
This also conflicts with a Christian worldview. Our past experiences and our environment do affect the way we act, of course, but these factors cannot account for everything we do. The Bible teaches that we are basically covenantal creatures, not biological creatures. Our nearest environment is God Himself, and we respond most fundamentally to Him. We respond either in obedience to or rebellion against His Word.

4. Behaviorism is manipulative. It seeks not merely to understand human behavior, but to predict and control it. From his theories, Skinner developed the idea of "shaping." By controlling rewards and punishments, you can shape the behavior of another person.

As a psychiatrist, one of Skinner's goals is to shape his patients' behavior so that he or she will react in more socially acceptable ways. Skinner is quite clear that his theories should be used to guide behavior: "The experimental analysis of behavior has led to an effective technology, applicable to education, psychotherapy, and the design of cultural practices in general, which will be more effective when it is not competing with practices that have had the unwarranted support of mentalistic theories."
In other words, Skinner wants behaviorism to be the basis for manipulating patients, students, and whole societies.
The obvious questions, of course, are: Who will use the tools? Who will pull the strings? Who will manipulate the technology? No doubt, Skinner would say that only someone trained in behavioral theory and practice would be qualified to "shape" the behavior of other persons. But this is contrary to the biblical view, which commands us to love our neighbor, not to manipulate him.
In summary, the ethical consequences of behaviorism are great. Man is stripped of his responsibility, freedom, and dignity, and is reduced to a purely biological being, to be "shaped" by those who are able to use the tools of behaviorism effectively.