Vlad Dracula - A Makeup Plot :: essays research papers

Character Analysis – Count Vlad Dracula   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The man known as â€Å"Dracula† was Vlad Tepes (the Impaler) - a king in one of the historical parts of Romania. Born in 1431 in Sighasoara, Transylvania, Tepes grew up in a Germanic, and later Turkish atmosphere (as a prisoner from 1444 to 1448), became a tyrannical ruler that was feared throughout the lands, then died in 1476 in a fight defending his country.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Based off of the motion picture â€Å"Bram Stoker’s Dracula†, Count Vlad denounced God after the death of his beloved, Elizabeta. Allegedly, in his rebirth, Vlad (known in legend and in history as Dracula or Dracul) became an unholy demon to avenge Elizabeta’s death for all of eternity.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The form of Dracula that I’m portraying (he had many in the film, including a wolf form, dignified prince, demon, and bat) is seen in the beginning of the picture when he is first introduced in real-time. Jonathan Harker first arrives at the Romanian castle and is greeted by this creepy, cryptic, and subtlety intimidating old man. He is garbed in royal red satin as if he still rules this land and its . . . people. Though visually ancient, his eyes seem much younger than his body and skin present them to be; and his smile – his features crinkle up to this . . . hideous grin.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the world of makeup design, this version of Count Dracula is quite complicated; the film didn’t win an Academy Award for Best Makeup for nothing! Gary Oldman sat in the makeup chair for a long time for this role. In analyzing his visage, we can see that the ancient face of the Count is aged very carefully by the extensive use of latex. The natural wrinkles of Oldman’s face were heightened drastically. The skin tone itself was of a sickly white – not albino, just white enough to be really old and still slightly human. Oldman’s eyebrows were completely covered (with the latex) and were replaced with slight strands of white hair. His cheekbones, bones on the top of his eyes, and chin cleft were nicely accentuated. Due to their dark and sunken nature, his eyes themselves are quite focused on and almost hypnotic – a well-known characteristic of the Count. Though he is very VERY â€Å"up there† in age, his weathered look give s him a sense of his struggling history and inner strength.

Can Politics Be Regarded as a Science Essay

The debate as whether politics can be regarded as a science is ‘complex, voluminous and multi-faceted one’ . The origins of political analysis lie in the philosophical tradition of Plato and Aristotle whose work was fundamentally rooted in the normative. At the very early stages of politics as an academic discipline, the great thinkers of the time were not concerned with empirical evidence; instead basing their ideas on literary analysis. The emphasis on the normative that comes with the traditional study of politics suggests that politics is not a science as it cannot be objective. This was followed by the emergence of the normative model of political analysis and what Peter Lasslett called the ‘the death of political philosophy’. This movement was spearheaded by Machiavelli who was known as the father of the ‘politics model’ of political science. For example, he changes the value-laden question (what is better? ) into a scientific one; what is safer? The shift from the prescriptive to the descriptive and impartial suggests that political thought has shifted away from the traditional philosophical to the scientific model. The empirical model of political thought emphasised the importance of experience as the basis for knowledge and this later developed into positivism which dictates that the social sciences should adhere to the methods of the natural sciences . An extreme version of this was also created called ‘logical positivism’ which stated that only statements which were empirically verifiable and aimed to say something about the meaning of political concepts are legitimate . In fact the empirical model is seen as the foundation of comparative politics that is now the standard form of analysis in the UK and the US. This method seeks to develop generalizations by comparing different states or political systems. This produces slightly more informative results as one is more likely to be able to produce an ideal political situation through comparison rather than just using empirical evidence alone. However, there have been criticisms of the validity of comparative politics most notably from Alasdair MacIntyre. He states that creating law-like cross cultural generalizations between countries with radically different cultures is not as valid as proponents of comparative politics make it out to be . He uses the example of a study by Almond and Verba that states that Italians identify less with the actions of their government than the English or Germans because they of a survey asking what they took pride in . The point that McIntyre then goes on to make is that the notions of pride in Italy and England are vastly different and thus any comparison would have to start by identifying the virtues that are embedded within the institutions. However, he goes on to add that this shortcoming doesn’t completely devalue the work of comparative politics. Karl Marx was the first to describe politics in terms of science and, along with Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, was described one of the main architects of political science . He believed that he could methodically determine trends in history and from these deduct the future outcomes of social conflicts. However, whilst this approach may seem to be simply empirical in its approach to political analysis it has been confirmed that ‘his theories yield testable propositions that allow rigorous evaluation and even falsification’ . His role represents a dramatic shift from the political philosophers of the traditional Greek model as he famously said in his Theses of Feuerbach that ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it’ . However, whilst Marx may have been the first person to truly combine scientific methodology with political thought, questions can still be raised over its validity. For example, the fact that Marx predicted the fall of capitalism whilst in fact state socialism has been on the retreat. There has also been criticism of Marx’s methods. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper criticised scientific socialism as a pseudoscience due to Marx’s methods of looking at historical trends and using them to create universal laws which couldn’t be tested of disprove. This may suggest that the Marxist model of political analysis as a science is not correct. Despite this it is important to note how, whilst Marx’s predictions may not have proved correct, his methods and the concept of politics as a science is unquestionable. Enthusiasm for the idea of political science grew in the 20th century with the creation of the American Political Science Review in 1906 and also the emergence of the behaviouralism movement in the 1950s and 1960s. This was the period coined as ‘the behavioural revolution’ by Robert Garner who claimed that ‘number crunching†¦in relation to electoral behaviour was the gold standard’ whilst normative analysis was rendered ‘at best, unnecessary and at worst, meaningless’ . This can be viewed as the most compelling case for politics being regarded as a science as it is the first time that objective and quantifiable data could be tested against hypotheses. The form of political analysis that was emerging in this period was heavily based on behaviouralism which worked on the principle that social theories should be constructed on the basis of observable behaviour which provides quantifiable evidence for research. This lead to increased interest and activity in the field of quantitative research methods such as voting behaviour, the records of legislators and the behaviour of lobbyists. It was also at this time that David Easton claimed that politics could adopt the methodology of the natural sciences . Here we can see how the initial links that Marx drew between politics and scientific research methods have been refined with the use of quantifiable rather than just empirical evidence. There have been objections to the usefulness of behaviouralism in the study of politics though. One argument has been that it has significantly limited the scope of analysis by preventing it from going beyond what is directly quantifiable or observable. The idea behind this is that whilst the methodical basis behind behaviouralism may be scientifically sound that doesn’t mean that it is the way to analyse politics. This raises the question as to whether politics should be regarded as a science rather than could it. The very nature of politics is that it is inherently human and to discard all that is not empirically verifiable in its study is to neglect the very essence of politics. This argument could be viewed as irrelevant to the question however because it actually looking at whether politics should be regarded as a science and not if it could. This being said Andrew Heywood presents a valid criticism of the methodology of behaviouralism and the use of quantifiable data. The scientific basis of behaviouralism is that it is objective but in order for this to be so it has to be ‘value-free’. He claims that facts and values are ‘so closely intertwined that it is often impossible to prise them apart’ and that theories are always based on assumptions human nature . This argument presents a major threat to the legitimacy of behaviouralism and suggests that the methodological basis behind it is not sound enough to equate to the conclusion of politics as a science. Whilst the methodology of political science may be all well and good, this doesn’t necessarily lead us to the conclusion that politics should be regarded as a science. There have been many arguments to suggest that despite the existence of quantifiable and empirical evidence, it is actually damaging to study politics in a scientific manner. For one, the very nature of political science is that it is descriptive rather prescriptive. This idea seems to be counter intuitive to the very study of politics as a discipline. Whilst, the added scientific element to political analysis gives us the added advantage of scrutiny and academic rigour it will never produce any political ideas without the normative aspect of political philosophy. This presents to us how damaging political science can be if studied in isolation since the very nature of the political analysis is one that should be aimed at progression, change and determining how to achieve our political ideals. In fact in recent years, the validity of political science has started to be questioned by political scientists themselves. As an undergraduate Charles Lindblom apparently fled the ‘mushiness’ of political science to pursue a graduate study of economics and David Easton proclaimed that he had ‘political science [as a] coherent body of knowledge’ had no basis . This suggests that whilst political science doesn’t translate as smoothly in practice. The Perestroika Movement began in October 2000 with an anonymous email to the American Political Science Review calling for a ‘dismantling of the Orwellian system that we have in the APSA. The movement was largely a reaction to the so called ‘mathematicization’ of political science and a desire to achieve methodological pluralism. Specifically, it ‘aimed at challenging the dominance of positivist research, particularly research that assumes that political behaviour can be predicted according to theories of rationality ’. Whilst this movement could be seen as a criticism of political science it could just as easily be seen as highly constructive. It recognises the merits of politics being studied as a science yet wants it to e more inclusive and less restricted in terms of methodology. However, this presents a problem for the positivist wing of political scientists that stick to the assertion that political science should obey the methods of the natural sciences. From this we can come to the conclusion that criticisms of political science is not proof of how politics shouldn’t be regarded as a science but is instead just an example of two methodological factions within the discipline. We can see how the historical development of political science presents a good case for the idea that politics can be regarded as a science. Some claim that politics is a science because it ‘offers knowledge based on systematic enquiry’ . However, this claim bases itself on a loose definition of science and one that many political analysts wouldn’t be completely satisfied with. The arguments for politics being regarded as a science lie more in the stringent scientific methodology that can seemingly be applied to political analysis. Whilst there have been many criticisms of methodology of political science I think that the major qualms that academics have is with the danger of studying political science in isolation. The obsession with empirical data that developed during the ‘behavioural revolution’ could easily be labelled as counter-intuitive seeing as it completely disregards the normative. Despite this I think that politics can still be regarded as a science, yet it is just important that this is combined with elements of the old philosophical tradition.

Richard III by William Shakespeare - 1483 Words

Richard woos two women in the play, both in unique ways, however succeeds in the end. He uses many manipulative patterns and persuasive techniques that help him succeed in his wooing of both women. As the both of the wooing is done by Richard himself there are many similarities, nevertheless many differences as the first wooing is to the woman in person and second wooing is wooing the daughter through her mother. The main difference between the two scenes are that Richard intended to be king in Act 1 Scene 2 and already is king in Act 4 Scene 4. This may be seen as a disadvantage in the wooing of Anne as he has no power, therefore cannot offer it and as an advantage in the wooing of Elizabeth as he can offer power as Elizabeth has lost her power when her husband died. So even though at first she is determined not to give in, the thought of gaining power changes her mind. Anne, however, is needlessly of power and only gets persuaded due to Richard’s flattery techniques. As both women are in anger with him, they are prepared to kill him. However, Richard having power can be a disadvantage for Elizabeth because if she kills him it will be a treason which is much worse than Anne killing him when he is not king as it will only be classified as a murder. Richard woos Anne to become king and woos Elizabeth so that their marriage will forge a nifty alliance between the two divisions. Even though he woos both women for two differentShow MoreRelatedRichard IIi, By William Shakespeare1168 Words   |  5 PagesChildren bring out the underlying disposition and wicked intentions we all possess. Richard III, by William Shakespeare, is a tragic play about the Duke of Gloucester who desires to be the king of England. He does this through the manipulation and murder of many characters, including Queen Elizabeth’s children, Prince Edward and the Duke of York. These children emphasize some of the â€Å"adult† themes in the play and reveals the devastating nat ure of these themes. Their characteristics and deaths allRead MoreRichard IIi By William Shakespeare1725 Words   |  7 Pagespoints to be discovered among the lines the author writes. Richard III is a play written by the great playwright, poet, and storyteller, William Shakespeare. He was a man who wrote many popular stories known today as some of the greatest works of literary art ever read. He lived throughout the late 16th century into the early 17th century, a time where he produced many plays that were appreciated by the masses and even some royalty. Richard III, one of his popular works, is rife with political criticismsRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Richard IIi1414 Words   |  6 Pagespleasures of these days† (Shakespeare I.i.26-31). William Shakespeare’s Richard III depicts Richard, Duke of Gloucester’s, rise to power through means of manipulation, dishonesty, and violence. His actions lead to the eventual deaths of himself and those he seized pow er from. Based on historian Thomas More’s account of Richard III, it is apparent that Shakespeare was greatly influenced by More’s writings. Thomas More places a great deal of emphasis on King Richard III being â€Å"[...] hard-favoredRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Richard IIi855 Words   |  4 Pagesof all, now fearing one / For she commanding all, obey’d by none† (4.4. 783). Queen Margret, in William Shakespeare’s, Richard III, appears as a shadow of her former glory as England’s deposed Lancastrian ruler among current Yorkist rule. Widowed, deposed, and banished, she is a women deprived of power. Nevertheless, Margret plays a larger role than her shortcomings advertise. In Richard III, Shakespeare reinstates the Lancastrian monarch’s power by giving her a strong character and an adept controlRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Macbeth And Richard IIi906 Words   |  4 PagesWilliam Shakespeare employs a variety of techniques in his plays to show good characters from bad characters; one such technique as the application of deformity or an abnormality manifests itself physically and psychologically with the dramas. The incorporation of a defect, whether it be physically or psychology, reveals flawed characteristics within the said character. Most of these flawed characteristics, though revealed in different situations, share similar problems and consequences. For exampleRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s King Richard IIi1188 Words   |  5 Pagesresonate over time and are affirmed between texts as shown in William Shakespeare’s play ‘King Richard III’ (1591) and Al Pacino’s docudrama ‘Looking For Richard’ (1996). King Richard III examines the irrational behaviours and moral ramifications of a power lust Richard to explore ideas of the relentless pursuit of power, betrayal and deceit, reflective of the theocentric context of the Elizabethan society. Centuries later, Looking Fo r Richard explores Pacino’s journey to reshape a Shakespearean textRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Richard IIi1216 Words   |  5 PagesWomen play a compelling part in the play Richard III. On one hand, they can be viewed of as vulnerable and weak as they base their lives on the power and deeds of the men. However, their curses appear to have a prophetic ability. In a way women are the possessions of the men who be wed with them, nevertheless the women advance themselves with absolute emotive potency. The women produce much of the spiritual strength behind the political activities of the play. Paying attention to the men solely weRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Richard IIi1979 Words   |  8 Pageshis men. To go into more detail, Richmond addresses his â€Å"countrymen† (Shakespeare, 5.4.216) to provide a means of hope and strength for the upcoming battle against Richard III. There are two main themes or ideas that should be noted about this passage. The first, that Ri chmond uses his speech to create a divine shroud that serves to illuminate the concept of divine work that is (in his case, but not so much in the case of Richard II) at play. This concept of the divine right of kings had been an understoodRead MoreEssay about Morality in Richard III by William Shakespeare463 Words   |  2 PagesMorality in Richard III by William Shakespeare In Richard III, Shakespeare invites us on moral holiday. The early part of the play draws its readers to identify with Richard and thereby to participate in a fantasy of total control of self and domination of others. We begin to be pulled into the fantasy in the plays opening speech, where Richard presents himself as an enterprising, self made villain and offers an elaborate justificationRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s King Richard IIi1258 Words   |  6 PagesRichard: What have you done to me! Shakespeare: My historical tragedy â€Å"King Richard III† is just my dramatic presentation of your exploits in your bloody pursuit of the throne. Pacino: My postmodernist docudrama â€Å"Looking for Richard† is my modern interpretation of Richard III. My attempt to establish connections that enhance our understandings and interpretations of our respective contexts, ideas and values, primarily involving the representation of the human condition through the character of Richard