Who is Heath Ledger?

If I was to say the name “Heath Ledger” two years ago the reaction I would receive would be completely different than the one received today. Two words, signifying one man, an actor poised to become one of the greatest of his time. Or is this just the symbol we attach to him now? Was he really on his way to become one of those elite actors among the ranks of Marlon Brando and Paul Newman, or is this just our societies reaction to losing a young man far too soon?
Now, when the words “Heath Ledger” are said the thoughts that come racing to our minds are not teen idol, Australian actor, or curly blonde hair but rather simply one word – the joker. Jonathan Culler writes that signs “…are defined by a network if relations, both internal and external” (56). Internally, through Ledger’s portrayal of the character, society sees a troubled young man lost within a dark character and an actor that has given himself to the role beyond all recognition of the initial self. Externally we see a distraught character bound by hatred and disillusioned ideas of anarchy trying to set the world ablaze. This character serves as a symbol, not only in regards to the fictional character, but now (due to Ledger’s death) a symbol of his own plight in his final days. The image of the Joker is not simply one for Ledger but a symbol for Ledger’s downfall leading towards his death. His submission to his roles, especially while filming the Dark Knight, led to his dependency on pharmaceutical drugs and preeminent death.
Today, Ledger is not only an actor but is also the Joker. In this respect he has embodied the sign through the outcome of his passing. Since there will be no other opportunities to understand Ledger as a father, a man, or in another role, the memory of his self will be seen through his portrayal of the symbol (the Joker). He is forever immortalized in this complex character, which in itself is a shell of a human being.

Devour

A tortured creature stands in complete darkness devouring a stiff motionless body. His eyes bulge out of their sockets as desperation and fear torment him. His hands dig into the man's back as blood trickles around the edges of the body. The creature's hair and beard are overgrown showing a lack of care for his own good, rather a being succumbing to his inner-most demons and allowing them to consume all signs of sanity. The only fragments of light are found in the face of the creature, the body of the man, and the creature's knee - the rest of the canvas and almost the entierty of the creature are drenched in black.

Aristotle Drops Back For The Pass...

There are moments in life when certain words must be said in order to lift a man’s spirit to accomplish a difficult task. Whether the words used are right or wrong the most important factor is that the words are delivered with emotion and weight. The following speech delivered by Al Pacino, taken from Oliver Stone’s football drama Any Given Sunday, uses many of Aristotle’s rhetoric techniques in order to force a catharsis on, not only the characters in the film, but also on the audience.

In Aristotle’s Poetics he states, “The change of fortune will be, not from misery to prosperity, but the reverse, from prosperity to misery, and it will be due, not to depravity, but to some great error either in such a man as I have described or in one better than this, but not worse.” (Aristotle 73). Pacino emphasizes his own troubles and misfortunes in order to illuminate struggle, determination, and redemption. Aristotle believed that the best tragedies are “constructed in this way” (Aristotle 73) and Oliver Stone’s use of taking a successful coach and lowering him to a disgruntled alcoholic at the end of a career makes the tragedy work. Not only does Pacino’s fall from power and understanding of his plight make his character tragic, but the emotion used during the speech lifts the entire locker room into a frenzy.
Aristotle also believed in the effect that rhetoric has on Logos (logic), Ethos (community), and Pathos (emotions). In Pacino’s speech he targets every single one of Aristotle’s ideas in order to motivate his players. The most used of the three is his appeal to Pathos, due to his references to his own struggles and the metaphors to “climbing out of hell” and fighting spirit. Coinciding with the pathos is the recognition between Jamie Foxx and Al Pacino in the scene. Aristotle writes, “a recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge…” (Aristotle 71). This is seen during the speech when Foxx realizes the impact of the speech and begins to walk towards Pacino as if handing over his trust and self to Pacino. The recognition of both characters serves not only to bring the two together but to also connect the two emotionally, through pathos. The recognition also works on another level through their understanding or their individual selves. Pacino recognizes that he is “too old” and “can’t do it for them” therefore he is incapable of providing for the group. Foxx recognizes that he is the key to their team’s success and without his involvement the team cannot be successful. The combination of the two men’s understanding is what forms the bond and ascends both men to higher levels.

Works Cited

Murray, Penelope. “Aristotle: Poetics”. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books, 2000. 57-97

7940962f. “Al Pacino’s Inspirational Speech”. YouTube. 4 August 2006.

Origins: The Chicken or The Egg

Although many of Plato's ideas are unrealistic found within Plato’s Republic some part of me does agree with the idea that there are certain aspects of human nature that have been further developed through our nature functioning in a society than simply from innate aspects. For my first example I will discuss a problem that has plagued our humanity since day one: War. In Plato’s Republic he states that by censoring war myths to the youth of the society this can eliminate war altogether. This statement originates two issues: 1) War is a learned experience and not a natural part of nature and 2) By eliminating all ideas surrounding war in a culture than war altogether will be nonexistent.
In order to fully comprehend Plato’s idea of censorship I will argue both sides of the point in order to clarify the topic completely. First I will argue how this could possibly work. If a child is brought up learning stories of love and understanding while being taught to solve every situation through a method of communication instead of violence than a society free of violence is possible. How can someone who has never seen or heard of throwing a punch or firing a weapon be capable of such actions? This idea is hard to swallow for every one that will read this post will have experienced violence in more than one form therefore imagining the concept of a lack of violence in society will be hard to grip also making this idea hard to swallow. I do agree that there are some aspects of our nature that are innate, such as when suffocating air from any being there will be a forceful retaliation since it is nature’s way of securing the most vital part of life: life itself. This is where Plato’s concept hits some uncertainty.
The other side of the argument will insist that a society free of violence can never be completely free of violence because a member of a society will eventually succumb to the rawest of human emotion – anger. If not within the society than the influence will come in from an outside culture or society. Unless Plato wants to separate Greece from the rest of the world than violence will undoubtedly be introduced in his society for there will be another society out there in the world that believes only in violence to solve their situation. Can anyone say the Romans?
Even though my deepest of feelings want Plato to be true in his theory, reality forces me to believe otherwise. As long as there are people, there will be violence. Regardless of the amount of censorship and lack of talk about violence, it is as part of nature as breathing. The best example of this is in animal nature. There are predators, and there is prey. A tiger does not sit down and explain to another tiger how to hunt, how to kill, and how to survive. There are natural elements involved that cannot be taught or explained. Violence is nature.