Creed

SPOILERS for Creed ahead. You have been warned.

One of the biggest movies from last year was Creed, a movie that continued the famous Rocky franchise. It followed Adonis Creed, the son of Rocky's friend Apollo, as he tried to become a boxer. At the beginning of the movie his mother won't allow him to, and as a result no trainer in his hometown of  Los Angeles will train him. He decides to move across the country to Philadelphia, where his aim is to enlist his father's friend Rocky to train him. He is very brash and undisciplined, and as a result is not a very good boxer. Adonis can't any fights without a trainer, and Rocky refuses to train him. But after weeks of Adonis training alone, Rocky changes his mind and agrees to help. Though Adonis isn't receptive of Rocky's methods, he learns to trust Rocky and begins to improve.

All this time Adonis has been going by his mother's last name, Johnson. He is feels that using his father's name will prevent him from making his own legacy. However when heavyweight champion "Pretty Ricky" Conlan offers to fight him with the caveat that Adonis takes his father's last name, Adonis hesitantly agrees. In the fight for the title, Adonis does better than anyone expects, but loses to Conlan by decision. However the impressive showing teaches everyone that Adonis Creed is for real, and it appears he has a bright future ahead of him.

Creed clearly fits Aristotle's definition of a comedy. It doesn't use crude humor, or even much humor at all. But Adonis fits the role of the comic hero. He begins unhappy, not a talented boxer, and resenting his father. However by the end he clearly has a great future in boxing and has come to accept his father's legacy as a part of who he is. He is the most ordinary of ordinary people, found by his mother in the foster system, and the audience cheers his rise to stardom. It is these qualities that make Creed a comedy, with Adonis as the hero.

The Princess and the Frog

One of today's examples of a great comedy (and also one of my favorite movies) is Disney's The Princess and the Frog. The movie follows Tiana, a poor waitress from New Orleans that dreams of one day owning her own restaurant. She meets a prince, who promises to get her the restaurant she has been trying to save her money for if she can help him turn back into a human, because he of got involved in some voodoo rituals and was turned into a frog. Though they hit some bumps along they way and getting them both back to their human form takes longer than they expected, they eventually succeed. And although they had hardly gotten along when they first met, they eventually fall and love and get married, and open the restaurant Tiana had been dreaming of together.

This is a perfect example of a comedy because Tiana, a likable, hard working woman manages to go from poor and taking on multiple jobs and shifts, to finding the love of her life and opening the restaurant she has always wanted. The story leaves you with the satisfaction of watching a deserving character get all she wanted in life and more. She was able to prove everyone wrong that had told her her dreams were not achievable by opening the business she had always talked about, and was able to make it incredibly successful.

Tragedy Shmagedy

When I was in middle school and we started reading novels in class, I started to see a pattern: every single book we read was sad. "Sad" could range anywhere from To Kill a Mockingbird, which features some pretty depressing death scenes, to Elie Wiesel's Night, which tells the story of the Holocaust. Each book was serious, depressing, or - officially speaking - tragic.

I got pretty upset about this. I had started to realize that many scholars of English literature only considered serious works to be "good" while funny books weren't even worth discussion, and that didn't sound right to me at all. Why did a book have to make you sad in order to be meaningful?

I think that comedies are just as important to culture as tragedies. Stories that make us laugh or make us satisfied are perhaps even more powerful than stories that make us cry. The power lies within the author's ability to make the reader laugh at surprising things, or be satisfied by an ending that they didn't expect.

In order for a story to teach you something, it has to end in a way that you can't see coming. The easiest way to do this is to create a tragic ending, because there are infinite ways to ruin your characters' lives. But creating an ending that satisfies the reader in a way they didn't think could satisfy them can teach them even more about themselves, and the world, and all the range of emotions within it.

Ratatouille

Who doesn't love a good Pixar movie? I've never really considered any Pixar movie a comedy. It's a kids a movie. Kids movies have a genre all their own. However, Ratatouille was ranked as #27 on Rotten Tomatoes's (a movie review site) on their list of top comedies, which got me thinking. I believe that Remy, the rat-chef is truly a comedic hero. He is an average, but pompous rat. He believes he can do better than his other rat counterparts, and he does. He successfully becomes th chef of his own restaurant, but not without the help of his good friend Linguini. Remy is a true underdog. Rats are gross and dirty-- no one wants them near their food and yet he becomes a world class chef, even though he had to overcome many, many obstacles to achieve his goal. The idea of a rat becoming a chef is ridiculous, and yet Remy succeeds. Remy shows are that we are not always confined to the box that we are born into. Rats can chefs!

Humorous and heartwarming, Ratatouille is a comedy that fits Aristotle's classic definition of a comedy and encourages watchers to look beyond their horizons and dream big.

Started from the Bottom

A recent movie I saw this past weekend was St. Vincent with Melissa McCarthy and Bill Murray. I really enjoyed it because it had some humorous parts as well as some serious and realistic parts. A quick summary of the plot is that Vincent (Bill Murray) is a gambler and a drunk that has no money. He lives in a broken house that is dull and boring. Maggie (Melissa McCarthy) and her son Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher) move into the house next door. When Oliver loses his keys he has to ask Vincent if he can stay with him until his mother returns home from work. Vincent eventually becomes Oliver’s babysitter and they form a close relationship. Vincent impregnates a hooker so he begins to prepare himself to become a father. With the help of Oliver, he quits smoking constantly and eases up on the drinking and smoking. In return, Vincent teaches Oliver how to stand up for himself and become a man because his father is not really in the picture. However, his addiction to drugs and alcohol lead him back down a terrible path. He has a stroke in his home and is found by Oliver and his mother. Between Oliver, Maggie, and the hooker/lover, Vincent regains full mobility and lives a happy life with his new child and wife. 

I would consider St. Vincent a comedy according to Aristotle because it is a story of the rise in the fortune of a sympathetic central character. While at first a viewer may not see Vincent a someone they admire, they realize his previous struggles and come to appreciate him more. Specifically, after they realize that he was in the army and saved over 200 soldiers and when he has his stroke. A comic hero does not put much effort into making the audience like them, but rather the audience comes to like them based on their actions. Vincent is a comic hero because he does not perform any actions that make people want to like him. His drinking and smoking around Oliver makes people think he is irresponsible and stupid. Another criteria for a comic hero is that the person needs to be an ordinary person. Vincent is not privileged or have any special talents so he can be considered an ordinary person and therefore a comic hero.

I think this movie is an example that people can really change for the better. They can grow and change, which creates more opportunities for themselves to become successful. They can be successful in life by achieving happiness, earning more money, or even finding true love. A comedy is simply the satisfaction of deserving people succeeding. Vincent clearly succeeds in his life because he has a son, overcomes his alcohol and drug problem, and lives a happy life with his wife and neighbors.

Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure And How It Defends Aristotle's Comedy

Comedy is a very broad topic and there are a plethora of types of comedy. Aristotle defines comedy as a story of the rise in fortune of a sympathetic central character. In a comedy, there is a comic hero that gains the support from the audience even if they're a person of little charm or worth. Aristotle also suggests that comic figures in a comedy are average in their morals and are ridiculous. However, the most sympathetic comic figures, according to Aristotle, end up proving their real worth through their character in different situations.

Specifically, a Farce Comedy is one containing absurd characters, hilarious improbability, and a plot full of wild coincidences and complications. Based on Aristotle's definition of what a comedy is, Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure is a comedic film that meets Aristotle's criteria and enhances our understanding of the world such as the human condition, human nature, etc.

Pee Wee Herman is about a main character named Pee Wee who throughout the whole movie, has an obsession with his bike. Even though Pee Wee is a childish man who values his bicycle over everything, he still is someone who fascinates the audience and rises in fortune. Through his whole journey, not only do his friends sympathize with him, but the viewers are forced to because he is so passionate. He ends up losing his bike while visiting his friend and his life completely goes downhill from there. The rest of the movie is his adventure recovering his bike. He initially believes that his evil neighbor who always loved his bike stole it, but a movie cast ended up taking it for their set. By the end, Pee Wee was able to get his bike back.

This movie is a comedy and it is meaningful solely because it helps us understand the world. In life, people own precious things that they take great care of. It's part of human nature to love someone or something, and this comedy enhances this idea through a ridiculous character who loves his bike a little too much. The plot is crazy and Pee Wee goes through many hardships to finally reunite with his bike. Pee Wee is ultimately able to prove his real worth by showing his determination and bravery in his quest for his bike. Comedy allows us to understand parts of life through humorous characters and stories. Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure not only proves Aristotelian comedy to be true and important, but it also gives us perspective on people's priorities and decision making through humor.

While You Were Sleeping

If you know me, you know that I'm a romantic comedy enthusiast, particularly those of the late 80's through the early 2000's. (The golden age of rom coms if you ask me!)

A lot of people think that these movies are trash and carry no meaning or significance, but I am willing to fight to defend them, especially While You Were Sleeping.

A young Sandra Bullock plays an adorably frumpy cat-owning Lucy, who works as a token collector at a CTA train stop. She fantasizes about a dapper rush hour regular, Peter, one day sweeping her off of her feet, but on Christmas day, he gets mugged and pushed onto the tracks, unconscious. She rescues him, and at the hospital, a nurse tells the doctors that Lucy is Peter's fiancee so that she can visit his room. Due to a series of misunderstandings, Peter's entire family is led to believe that Lucy actually is Peter's fiancee and treat her as one of their own.

If you are familiar with Aristotle's requirements for a comedy, you would be expecting Lucy to marry Peter when he wakes up, move from her tiny apartment to his fancy penthouse in the heart of Chicago, and live happily ever after.

Rather than following this path, Lucy (and the viewing audience) falls in love with Peter's carpenter brother, Jack. After quite a lot of tumult, Jack and Lucy (shocker!!) end up together and get married.

Although this movie does not necessarily follow all of Aristotle's guidelines for a comedy (Lucy doesn't marry the rich lawyer and move up in class and social status) Lucy remains the comedic hero by following her heart and gaining a family.

The Tragic Comedy of Edward Scissorhands

In my opinion, Aristotle's definition of a dramatic comedy is very true, and is still shown in works today. In TV and movies, there are tons of moments of dramatic comedy, some go unnoticed while others are more prevalent. I do believe that dramatic comedy is an important art form.

One of my favorite movies, that I have always considered a dramatic comedy is Edward Scissorhands. As strange as this movie may seem, there are so many underlying themes and ideas that really help to prove the points of a dramatic comedy. To go along with Aristotle's defintion, the movie shows ordinary people, a teenage girl named Kim and her family and friends, having their life turned upside down by a robot-human with scissors for hands, making Edward the comic hero. 

The movie focuses on Kim and Edward's life together, and Edward helps to make Kim realize what things in her life and who is important. But, the movie has some dark elements, such as the fact that Edward is constantly taken advantage of because of his lack of social skills, but these things are seen as funny. Edward would be the tragic hero because of his change over the course of the movie, but in the fact that he stays humble and brings a funny light to a pretty otherwise saddening movie is what makes this a tragic comedy.

This movie helps to enhance our understanding of the world. The movie gives such clear lessons about knowing who to have in your life and the problems of judgement. All of this is brought through somethings comedic, tragic, or both. Without the parts of comedy, this movie would be very depressing and not relay the message as well. I really do agree with Aristotle's definition of a tragic comedy and I think that Edward Scissorhands  really does portray this.

Little Miss Sunshine

I will be analyzing one of my favorite movies, "Little Miss Sunshine," in defense of the idea that dramatic comedy is in fact a meaningful art form. Aristotle decided on two main elements that define a comedy: all the major characters must be ordinary people; and the circumstances of the protagonists life go from bad to good. To quote the article given to us on comedy, "A comedy is a story of the rise in fortune of a sympathetic central character."

"Little Miss Sunshine" is the story of a very ordinary family, each member having their own set of problems that they deal with throughout the movie. In this movie, I consider the protagonist to be the same as the comic hero, youngest daughter Olive Hoover. She has been invited to compete in the "Little Miss Sunshine" pageant all the way out in California. She snags the respect of the audience with her seven-year-old charm and they are therefore rooting for her [and her family] the whole film. The only way to get Olive to the competition is to have the entire family pile into their beat up VW bus and take the trip together. An outrageous, hilarious, and completely lovable adventure of course ensues. SPOILER ALERT! Although the family just barely makes it to the pageant in time, and Olive does not even come close to winning, the ending is so fantastic and funny that its a happy ending without technically being a happy ending (one would expect for Olive to win).

One of my favorite things about this movie is how real all of the characters are. Their emotions seem realistic and valid and the entire movie is this weird mix of happy and sad. To me, the movie has always been very on point when it comes to accurately demonstrating human emotion and relationships, without being overly dramatic or unrealistic. Besides being a great thing about the movie, this closeness to how human nature actually is also strengthens the movie as a meaningful work of dramatic comedy. "Little Miss Sunshine," in its following of the comic hero and her totally average family, is an underdog story with a twist. While Olive did not win the pageant like she wanted, the audience still gets the feeling of satisfaction that typically comes with a comedy and seeing commendable people succeed.

Music as Poetry: Message Man

h! Eh! Eh! Eh!

Eh! Eh! Eh! Eh!

No no no no no no (Eh! Eh! Eh! Eh!)

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah (Eh! Eh! Eh! Eh!)

The loser hides behind

A mask of my disguise

And who I am today

Is worse than other times

You don’t know what I’ve done

I’m wanted and on the run

I’m wanted and on the run

So I’m taking this moment to live in the future

Release me from the present

I’m obsessing, all these questions

Why I’m in denial

That they tried this suicidal session

Please use discretion when you’re messing with the message man

These lyrics aren’t for everyone

Only few understand

"Message Man" by Twenty-One Pilots is a poem. The lyrics use rhyming, metaphor, and inference in order for the singer to illustrate his meaning of the song. He rhymes certain phrases that connect with each other, either because of what they are describing or if they are connecting key phrases or ideas. Rhyming allows a listener, or this case reader, to connect all parts of the song because they have a pneumonic device to trigger their memories of other lyrics. In terms of metaphor, the entire song is a metaphor for communication. The singer is trying to explain that because of assumption and blurred lines between people and ideas, a person can be constantly misunderstood. That leads to feelings of anxiety and discourse for most parties involved. Pilots uses inference when describing how people need to be careful with the things they share and who they share them with. He knows from experience that when that doesnt happen, trouble usually follows.

Twenty-One Pilots is a great band, and their whole album "Blurryface" is amazing. 

Men Search

In the semi-autobiographical novel, A Man’s Search For Meaning, Viktor Frankl describes, in detail, the daily brutality, horrors, and humiliation that stripped so many people of their dignity and humanity in the concentration camps as well as his own struggle to find a sense of meaning in the face of such lifeless horror.

Frankl shares that eventually one's normal reactions to the shock, pity, and disgust, simply shut down and he/she is left in a state of relative apathy. The reader then begins to think that with only callousness can one endure such horrific circumstances. However, in spite of the tragic circumstances, Frankl suggests that the type of prisoner one becomes, regardless of the brutal constraints, depends on some interpersonal decision, not just unchangeable environmental conditions. According to Frankl, even at a time and place where every bit of freedom seems to have been stolen, in the even most deprived conditions one can find: the freedom to choose one’s attitude toward one's own suffering.

While reading Frankl’s piece, I couldn’t help but relate it to an excerpt taken out of Henry Miller’s Wisdom of the Heart. A collection of short stories and essays that he wrote during World War II.

“There is an illusion of ‘end,’ a stasis seemingly like death. But it is only an illusion. Everything, at this crucial point, lies in the attitude which we assume towards the moment.”

-Henry Miller (1891-1980)

Singer's Solution to Poverty

I really liked Singer's solution to world poverty, although it was quite provocative and blunt. Although the notion of Americans and the rest of the world giving up everything excessive except for the bare necessities in favor of money to charities is harsh advice, it does hold some merit in that it would most likely greatly reduce world poverty. However I have some concerns to this theory. This theory completely eliminates the idea of wealth or surplus besides food and shelter. This may seem melodramatic, but this could potentially slow down the evolution of society. If we applied this theory, we would eliminate technology which has helped civilization grow for centuries. Isn't part of evolving as a society finding things to do with our wealth and surplus other than living for basic survival? Although it does of course seem reasonable to donate money to children, I feel like donating until we all only survive with bare necessities is not a practical or ideal solution.

Singer and Poverty

With the growing problem of wealth inequality Peter Singer offers a solution, although it is somewhat controversial. His solution is that everybody who has any money to spare should give it to charity in order to alleviate global suffering, While this solution certainly seems like it could work, there are quite a few flaws. For one, it is a pretty unrealistic solution. Almost nobody in today's society would even want to give up all of their extra money to someone else. Many would prefer to split that money between things they want and charitable donations. In fact, the US donates more money to charity as a percentage of income then any other country. In addition, it makes no sense within our current economic system to even attempt such a solution. In any mixed market economy it makes no sense to give all of our money to charity because then there is no way to support most of the industries within the economy.

I think that the appropriate response to the crisis brought to light by Singer is somewhere along the lines of what we have been doing so far. Of course, there are still many problems in the world. But, the solution isn't to spend every cent not spent on necessities on charity. The solution, in my opinion, is to further encourage charitable contribution without saying that you need to give x amount in order to actually make a difference.

Why Can't We All Be Saints?

I believe singer's fundamental argument is that we have internalized the ideologies on which capitalism is based. We, like Bob and his Bugatti, believe we are entitled to all of our unnecessary possessions because we have bought them with our hard-earned money. Material possessions have become extensions of our identities (like the cars we choose to drive or the clothes we choose to wear) and have become increasingly difficult to part with. We are perfectly content with our excess.

In reality, we have simply gotten lucky. We live comfortable lives and have opportunities to make money because of where and when we were born. Humans' access to food, water, and shelter is based on something arbitrary. Singer's response is simple: no individual is inherently more entitled to the basic necessities of life than another. One's excess is another's deficit. I think most of us would agree, yet we are unable to shake the entitlement that capitalism has instilled in us.

Unless we actively work to uproot the system of capitalism from our lives, we are perpetuating it. We are all aware of its detrimental effects and its illusory nature. Singer's thesis is radical and idealistic, but it is only unrealistic if we want it to be. There is no reason why we can't all be saints.

Fixing Poverty

Singer's argument is very passionate and inspiring, but the thought of suffering and not being allowed to enjoy my life as comfortable as you want to, because someone doesn't have what you have will never ever happen. Not for the reason of that everyone is too selfish but because life doesn't work that way. Nothing is ever just given out. Sadly hunger is a very serious topic and is plagued around the world in many nations, but there must be a better solution to the problem than to pull an ole "If I cant have it you can't either", type system.

A Gradual Help

As much as I enjoyed Singer's writing, I couldn't help but feel attacked by him. I have a job and therefore do have the extra $200 in my bank account that Singer keeps referring to, but does it mean that now, by not donating it, I am subjecting a child to death? It made me feel dirty and embarrassed that I might otherwise spend that money on a want of mine, rather than this child's need- even though I am only 18. Of course when I get older, and have a steady job I will have the extra $200 again, which I have already planned on sending to starving children. I can't stand to watch the UNICEF commercials knowing that when I get an uncomfortable hunger between fourth and fifth period it is significantly different from what these children are feeling. But, Singers argument that a man would rather save his car than a child floored me. I couldn't even imagine the type of person that could choose his car over a person's life and not feel an immense amount of guilt for the rest of his or her life.

 I can't believe that Singer wants every person to chuck tens of thousands of dollars overseas each year (and frankly, I doubt he cuts his paycheck in half as well as he expects us to do). But, if we could instead get thousands, or millions, of people to give a tens- a hundred dollars each as a community, couldn't the people be more willing to donate next time if we did it collectively? Something simple as a go fund me could raise millions of dollars if everybody, instead of buying their $10 Starbucks breakfast, donated the same amount. And then again donated in the next week. Fishing out thousands as Singer wants at once turns people away because they are suddenly short that much, while just a couple here or there is a gradual decrease.
Even so, one shouldn't give all that money to one charity. If the money is spread among local, national and world charities, yes one will not get as much, but by only donating to starving children overseas we are forgetting about problems in our own backyard. To some people helping animals in rescue shelters in their own town, or war veterans will make more of an impact to them than a child they will never meet, and that decision is entirely up to them.

The Meaning of Suffering

"Man's Search for Meaning," by Viktor Frankl, is the story and journey of a man being held in an Auschwitz concentration camp. The author explains how the mindset of a man can alter the longevity of their life and how they go about living it. The book poses the question,  "How was everyday life in a concentration camp reflected in the mind of the average prisoner?" Frankl uses a psyhcotherapeutic method that involved identifying a positive purpose or goal and then actively imagining how one could achieve it. He believed that the mind had more impact on one's life, rather than physical experiences or ailments. He summarizes that a prisoner goes through three stages while part of a concentration camp: they experience shock when first entering the compound, then apathy which motivates them to act in ways that only keep themselves and their friends alive, and finally the loss of morality or personality which leads to delusions of liberation or survival.

But Frankl does support the notion that there is value in suffering. It can teach you that regardless of the condition of your life, a person must maintain a look on the future, in order to survive the present. In the simplest terms, suffering allows a person to hope, which is an extremely powerful and inspirational force in the right circumstances.

In King Lear, the suffering Lear experiences leads him to realize his past follies and acquire a sense of empathy and remorse. He would not have fought against his evil daughters or repaired his relationship with Cordelia if he had not experienced a sense of dread and sorrow. Even though he died, he finished his last few hours with his daughter who he truly loved, and who loved him back.

A Rich Man's World

Before reading the article by Peter Singer I had a pretty strong opinion of money. My father works in finance and growing up in a decently conservative household I've always felt that donations are always nice and greatly appreciated, but not always necessary. Not that my family never donates to any causes, but we are just fairly particular in what we choose to do with our money. Yet, we definitely are the type of people to spend money on lavish vacations and home construction/re-modeling.

After reading this article my opinion was not altered to a huge amount. Great points were made about donating money and the benefits of it, but sometimes it seems all too distant to me. I'd much rather help with a local organization where I can see what my money is doing and how it is affecting people. The tough thing is although there are certainly plenty of problems/poverty in the United States, there are greater struggles abroad that Americans are donating to help to. It can often be difficult to donate your money when you're not seeing any of the results. Who exactly are you helping? What exactly is your money being used for? Personally, this is what would make me a bit reluctant to donate. 

I personally felt that this article was a bit to the extremes. Truly, my mind does not work exactly as Singer's does and I am not constantly thinking about how each and every decision I make will affect my life and those lives around me. Additionally, I live from my parent's money so it is not typically up to me what money we donate, etc.

Someone also made a great point on the blog about donating your time rather than money. This is an especially great idea because it gives much more of an experience and can help you realize what people are going through and you're helping people face to face rather than just giving money and that's it.

Oceans Away

Peter Singer's article discussed what our obligations are to help people who are less fortunate than ourselves. He used a couple different metaphors to explain his point. Both metaphors, the one in which the woman has to decide whether or not to take back a boy she unknowingly gave to an organ peddler and the one in which the man has to decide whether or not to save his car or a distant child from a runaway train, can be easily compared to our personal decision of whether or not to give our money away to help dying people. However, it is hard for people to see it that way. We consider the woman a monster if she does not take the boy back and the man evil if he chooses to save his car over a child. Yet it is not often that people choose to give their money away to charities that could save a child's life instead of spending it on themselves. The children seem so far away that they hardly exist in our minds and we are always doubtful that our money will even do anything to help them. We are also stuck in the mindset that we don't need to give away our money because other people will do it for us. Why give $200 to a charity if someone across the country will give that charity $1,000? Someone else will always make up for our shortcomings. With that mindset, no money will ever be donated to charity and thousands of children's lives will not be saved. We all hope that we would choose to save the child over our car, but it's easy for us to say that while sitting at home on a nice couch with oceans obstructing our view of the endangered children. I agree with Singer's general argument, a privileged person does have an obligation to give a portion of money away to those who need it much more than them. But I don't know how much they should be obliged to give. As someone who lives off of my parents' income, it is harder for me to know what a good amount is. But I like the analogy of giving a substantial amount of money away to parts of Bob's body being amputated by the train. Eventually, the privileged person will no longer be living a comfortable life. If their life is more comfortable than the dying person in another country, should they continue to  give more? I'm not sure that I know the answer.

Distribution of Wealth

In King Lear, Lear declares that his surplus of wealth should have been used to lessen the gap between those in poverty and those of wealth. This more even distribution of wealth would thus give every person the equal chance which they deserve. Peter Singer mirrors this ideal in "Singer Solution". He proposes that those who have excess funds, rather than spending it on themselves and luxuries, that have become so common in American's daily lives, they should donate the money that is not spent on necessities to a worthy cause which will save the lives of impoverished children. 

While, in theory, this concept is simple and easily accomplished, it also has faults. These faults lie within the behavioral patterns which our society has so carefully bred. In our modern, materialistic society, having more expensive products within one home is a sign of prosperity which in turn implies favorable social standing. Being programmed with a mantra of "more, more, more" our wallets are open to those items which impress rather than good moral standing. It is often not until someone is put in a position of the less fortunate that they want to help the less fortunate. Just like in King Lear, people are not willing to give up their opportunities to have these extra luxuries until they have already lost it.