I Love Lucy: The Popular TV Show

I Love Lucy: The Popular TV Show The baby blue, mascara spiked eyes widens, the head tilts, the electric orange curls bob, and the wide, lipsticked mouth takes another teaspoon full of Vitameatavegamin syrup. The ever popular TV show, I Love Lucy, is back on the air with a new season of drama packed episodes. Ready to record the commercial that will propel her into show business, Lucy Ricardo downs the nutritional syrup, unaware that the product contains twenty-four percent alcohol. As she advertises the virtues of the product, her awareness slowly drifts away, and her face slips into a stupefied straight stare. The innocent, child-like Lucy is thoroughly drunk and very funny. One of the most beloved housewives in media history manages to make a complete fool of herself once again and successfully enrages her husband. Lucille Ball was a comedienne, film, television, and radio actress, and the star of I Love Lucy. In 1951, the first episode of I Love Lucy, Lucy Thinks Ricky is Trying to Do Away with Her aired on public television; it became an instant favorite for viewers around the nation. What Lucille Ball achieved, however, had much more lasting impact. On top of being the first woman in television to be head of a production company, Lucille Ball became a pioneer that brought about the Golden Age of Television. Due to the success of I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball managed to establish television as a viable medium of entertainment in an era where media is dominated by filming industries; before I Love Lucy came about, television was mostly used as a means of keeping in touch. Not only did Ball change the face of television, she paved the path for future female actresses. Lucille Balls unique sense of humor, acquired through her own experiences, shaped the modern world of entertainment and left an irre placeable mark on society. Unlike her famous situation comedy alter ego Lucy Ricardo, Lucille Ball was not at all naive and clumsy. By the time I Love Lucy went on air in 1951, Ball was over forty and had been in show business, playing mostly glamour roles, for twenty years. Lucille Ball was born on August 6th, 1911 in Jamestown, New York. She lost her father, who was a mining engineer, at the age of four. Her mother, who was a concert pianist, encouraged her into the field of entertainment. At the age of 15, Lucille Ball pursued her dreams of becoming a part of vaudeville in John Murray Anderson Dramatic School. But unfortunately for her, by the time she hit New York City the era of vaudeville was over or as Ball said it Vaudeville was dead, but I didnt know it! Forced to live on doughnuts and coffee, Ball managed to make ends meet as a model and showgirl. Unsatisfied with her current living style, Ball managed to pull some string with an old friend and hooked up with an agent looking for support actresses in comedy routines and plays. Over the course of the next few years, Ball worked on many productions such as Room Service with the Marx Brothers. She was willing to work all sorts of parts that other female actresses did not want to take. They knew Id run, Id scream, Id fall Id do what I was asked to do. () Because of her willingness to learn how to act, she landed parts in The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, and most male comics. Some of the unconventional parts that Ball took caused her to have a much more unconventional sense of humor in her later works. This marked a period of tremendous growth in Balls comedic style and image. She was becoming someone recognizable and likeable a personality type. Lucille Balls first major recognized work came in 1947. She was chosen as the lead actress for a radio show called My Favorite Husband, which was sponsored by CBS. Her experiences on My Favorite Husband contributed greatly to Balls style of humor and I Love Lucy. Through the radio show, Ball learned the basic elements of timing her lines to laughs coming from a live audience. She also developed a combination of slapstick with both sexuality and domesticity. () This set Ball apart from most previous American women film comedians; it was common for women in slapstick to be a support prop, victims of male-initiated comedy, or star grotesques who had neither conventional sexual allure nor the prospect of social normalization through marriage. () Lucille Ball became one of the first female comedians to have connections with the domestic Ball gave off the similar feeling of being a part of the family. In 1940, Lucille Ball fell in love and eloped with touring Cuban bandleader Desi Arnaz. They moved in together, married, and began a sequence of events that led to I Love Lucy. Because of the couples busy careers, they were frequently separated month at a time. Their marriage slowly fell apart. At that time Lucille Ball was offered by CBS to transfer her radio show My Favorite Husband to television. Ball, seeing this as an opportunity to patch up her marriage, brought her husband into the television show as the male lead. Thus I Love Lucy debuted on CBS in October 1951 and became an instant sensation. Eisenhowers presidential inauguration in January 1953 drew twenty-nine million viewers, but when Lucy gave birth to Little Ricky in an episode broadcast the next day forty-four million viewers (72% of all U.S. homes with TV) tuned in to I Love Lucy. I Love Lucy is arguably the TV show that had most influence on modern television media culture. Television in the 1950s was purely a domestic medium always showing images of marriage and family. The story of I Love Lucy reflected the couples own family life in the funhouse mirror of a sitcom premise. Lucy, played by Lucille Ball, is a frustrate housewife who longs to escape the confinement of her domestic role and participate in a larger public world, especially that of her husband Ricky, the leader of the Tropicana nightclub. Conflicts arise when Lucys desire to go beyond the roles of a housewife clash with Rickys equally passionate belief of a traditional housewife. This dynamic is established in the very first episode when Lucy disguises herself as a clown and sneaks into Rickys nightclub act. In all the consequent episodes following, Lucy rebels against the restrictions placed on the lives of domestic women, the boring routines of cooking and housework, taking care of the child ren, and the financial dependence upon the husband. Each episode centers upon Lucys acts of rebellion taking jobs, performing at clubs, making money-making schemes, or trying to fool Ricky are all in attempts to expose the absurd restrictions placed on women in a male-dominated society. Sadly, because of the era, her attempts are forever thwarted in every episode. By entering the public domain, Lucy inevitably makes a mess of things and is forced to retreat and return to the status quo of domestic life that is picked up in the next episode. However the message left by Lucy remains in the consciousness of viewers for the times to come. Balls style of comedy played a great role in conveying this message to the general audience. As a mere comedian from the perspective of an outsider such a message would probably not get much consideration. However, Balls type of domestic comedy allowed to her to much more than an outsider; in fact, the character Lucy is considered by many people as part of the family. Ball was able to get past the emotional barrier that many other comedians could not. Lucille Balls use of quick witted situational ironies combined with her position as an insider allows the much male-dominated audience to slowly accept the idea of women playing a more active role and having more power in society. On top of fighting for women rights, Lucille Balls I Love Lucy reached many milestones that became pivotal in shaping modern television. Programs before I Love Lucy were aired live from New York City studios to Eastern and Central time zone audiences. It was captured by kinescope for the viewers in the West Coast. Kinescope pictures quality was dramatically less than films. However, Ball and Arnaz took advantage of the movie industry filming techniques and captured their series on film. CBS allowed the couple to go through with their idea; in exchange for a cut in their salary, Ball and Arnaz gained one hundred percent ownership to the series. The idea of reruns had not been established or tested during her time, but Ball bet on the inevitable growth of television and ended up with huge returns an investment that quickly turned Ball and Arnaz into the first millionaire television stars. Lucille Ball has certainly left her mark on our society. Not only is she a pioneer in the struggle for equality amongst men and women, she shaped modern television into what we know today. Her title Queen of Comedy is well deemed. Along with her Living Legend Award and Legacy of Laughter Award, Lucille Ball paved the path for future female comedians to take stage. Anyone who has ever seen I Love Lucy will forever remember Balls signature laugh and her clumsiness which often times lead her into silly situations. Lucille Ball will forever be glorified in the hearts of Americans.

Essay on the Vengeful and the Virtuous in William Shakespeare :: Biography Biographies Essays

The Vengeful and the Virtuous in Shakespeare Whether you hate your King, your Christian rival or a neighboring foe, if you're in a Shakespeare play then you will be punished.   In the first act of each play Shakespeare shows a conflict between two groups of people, one is vengeful the other virtuous.   After the conflict is introduced, the malignant characters have important parts of their lives taken away and in the end the ultimate penalties of each are inflicted.   All of the antagonists are left desolate in the end of the plays by either lost fortunes or their lives.   Shakespeare takes good care to give the protagonists of the plays much reward for being on the right side of the spectrum.   As the characters hate increases throughout the play they begin to loose what is precious to them, first in small amounts, but in the end, they are stripped of all they love and value.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The basis for the hate is introduced to the audience very early on in all three plays.   The Capulets and the Montagues were neighboring feuding families.   Shakespeare never states the reason for the dispute between the two but he does clearly show the hatred from the beginning.   "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" (I i 1-4).   These first few lines of the play clearly describe the hatred between the two families and at the same time foreshadow an unpleasant end.   In "The Merchant of Venice", Shylock more boldly states, "I hate him for he is a Christian" (I iii 39).   This cry of hate is also early on in the play, which clearly helps show the reader that he is the antagonist of the play.   In "Henry IV" it is revealed in the first scene that a young Hotspur has kept prisoners of war away from th e King.   He calls the King Bolingbroke behind his back out of disrespect.   "All studies here I solemnly defy, save how to gall and pinch this Bolingbroke.   And that same sword and buckler Prince of Wales (I iii 227-229).   In Shakespearean plays, a character who hates or plots against the King is automatically the villain of the play.   The first act in all three plays revealed the characters for the audience to root against throughout the play.

Babel’s Internal Conflicts Essay

Babel’s collection of short stories Red Cavalry was one of the first books that exposed the Russian people to the harsh realities of the Polish-Soviet war. At first the stories seem to be historical fiction meant to entertain; however, upon closer reading these stories become pieces that convey strong moral, religious, political and emotional sentiment. Each short story represents a certain theme, but it is My First Goose that encompasses very well Babel’s feelings towards his own identity. The story illuminates the dynamic relationship between the insider and the outsider through careful use of imagery, tone, and imagery. More specifically, My First Goose addresses Babel’s conflicted sense of identity and self as a Jewish man. In My First Goose, as well as in many of Babel’s other works, the narrator is an ambiguous character that resembles the author (in what way? How do you we know this? ). Although very little information is given about the narrator, by the end of the story readers understand the narrator’s conflict with his identity (this sentence doesn’t really fit here; it is a bit off topic from the rest of the paragraph). The narrator is introduced as an outsider, one who is neither racially (is he a different race? ) nor physically equal to the men of the 6th Division. Savitsky, the first â€Å"insider† that is introduced (phrasing is stylistically awkward), is depicted as a extremely masculine figure whose â€Å"long legs looked like two girls were wedged to their shoulders in riding boots† and whose built body â€Å"split the hut like a banner splitting the sky†. The erotic (perhaps â€Å"erotically despicted/described/portrayed†) , masculine Cossack stands in stark contrast to the envious, feeble, timid, glasses wearing â€Å"powder puff†. Babel chooses to depict the ethnic other as virile and powerful while painting the narrator, a man whom he closely resembles, as a weak, almost effeminate, creature. The choice to do so indicates that the author cannot come to terms with his identity; rather he longs to be as strong and macho as the Cossacks. From the narrators exchange with Savitsky, â€Å"Ha, you lousy fellow, you! They send you to us, no one even asks us if we want you here! † it is suggested that the narrator is an outsider, an intellectual with traits associated with Jews. And even when verbally assaulted the narrator still â€Å"envied the flower and iron of Savitsky’s [that] youth†. Moreover, it is the portrayals of the obvious difference in strength, sexuality, and confidence between the narrator and Savitsky that suggests that Babel viewed his Jewishness as a source of shame. Instead of respecting the fact that the narrator can read and write, skills that were very rare, the Cossack leader mocks the narrator telling him that he would â€Å"get hacked to pieces just for wearing glasses†. And even when shown an obscene gesture by a young peasant the narrator still admires the face of the boy, futher emphasizing how unacceptable he is as a Jew. By accepting his inferiority the narrator further emphasizes his distain for identity. The obvious difference between the narrator and the commander that the author chooses to convey shows how the narrator, and to a certain extent the author, feels his â€Å"Jewishness† makes him inadequate compared to the Cossack soldiers. This paragraph seems a bit unfocused; see if you can pull out the two (? ) main threads and build separate paragraphs around each of them, with a clear, unifying topic sentence for each one) The narrator’s conflict with himself reaches a tipping point when he meets the old woman, and at this point he must make a choice to be an insider or outsider. This crucial decision characterized the reason for Babel’s short story, and he consciously choose to allow the narrator make the choice he did (sentence is awkwardly phrased). After settling down, the narrator begins to read, showing that he is still in touch with his intellectual and Jewish nature; however, he decides to stop reading when he encounters a old woman with glasses (this seems more summary than argument). The bespectacled old woman recognizes him as a Jewish â€Å"comrade† and seeks sympathy from her fellow Jew commenting that â€Å"this business makes me want to hang myself†. At this point the narrator and the author is (subject verb agreement; but also, is the author faced with a choice? faced with a choice: he could acknowledge the old woman as kin and defend his Jewish identity, or he could heed the advice of the quartermaster and â€Å"mess up a lady†. The narrator, and more importantly the author (why â€Å"more importantly the author†? ), decides to violate the only thing the old woman has left. This violation is symbolic: the narrator pushes the white neck of the goose into excrement and pierces the neck of the goose with the sword of another Cossack then forces the woman to cook the goose. With this act the narrator discards his Jewish identity, crushing it in dung, killing it with a borrowed sword. (Here, for example, is a possible place for a paragraph break; then start with a new topic sentence)And only after he has proven his masculinity is he accepted to eat with his new â€Å"brothers†. The narrators is offered a seat at the dinner table and given pork to eat, which he eats without question, with this communion his conversion by the â€Å"heathen priests† is complete. By having the narrator make this choice, Babel not only implies that he may have made the same decision, but also condones the idea of discarding the weakness and intellectualism associated with Jews in favor of violence and ignorance of the Cossacks (that’s a big claim to make—be careful about trying to read the author’s mind! ). At this point it seems that the narrator has completely discarded his Jewishness and embraces his new identity. After his communion with the Cossacks it seems (the repetition of â€Å"it seems† is wishy-washy and non-committal) that the narrator has completely left his identity behind, but it is soon evident that parts of him (wording) remain Jewish, remnants of his Jewishness that cannot be erased (awkward phrasing). Upon completing his violent and brutal killing, the narrator returns to his role as an intellectual and reads a speech given by Lenin to his new comrades. This shows that no matter how hard the narrator tries to escape his identity, he is still the feeble intellectual who has to borrow the sword of a Cossack to kill. The narrator is allowed to sleep with the Cossacks, (that citation doesn’t really add anything here) but even the warmth and camaraderie the narrator receives does not allow him to escape his actions. The last line reveals that a part of him will never be able to accept what he did to gain acceptance from the Cossacks. His heart â€Å"screeched and bled† from his denial of his Jewish identity. Killing the goose and eating pork directly violated his Jewish morals and although superficially he expressed no remorse, subconsciously he cannot accept the Cossack ways. This ambivalent attitude towards one’s identity characterizes Babel’s feelings towards his own attitude. In this story we see a narrator who struggles with the definition of self, and this struggle directly reflects Babel’s own struggles. (again, this paragraph seems to jump from point to point to much; make sure each paragraph is built around a unifying topic sentence; see if you can pull out two point from this one paragraph and bring them out more clearly by creating a separate paragraph for each one) In not only My First Goose, but in most of the short stories of Red Calvary the narrator struggles with his identity as a Jew. Although one cannot be sure what Babel attempts to convey in his pieces, it is clear that the narrators of Babel’s stories undergo the same mental turmoil Babel went through during his service in the Polish Soviet war (this last sentence doesn’t really work as a conclusion).

Lustreware - Medieval Islamic Pottery Technique

Lustreware (less commonly spelled lusterware) is a ceramic decorative technique invented by 9th century C.E. Abbasid potters of the Islamic Civilization, in what is today Iraq. The potters believed that making lustreware was true  alchemy  because the process involves using a lead-based glaze and silver and copper paint to create a golden shine on a pot that contains no gold. Chronology of Lustreware Abbasid 8th c -1000 Basra, IraqFatimid 1000-1170 Fustat, EgyptTell Minis 1170-1258 Raqqa, SyriaKashan 1170-present Kashan, IranSpanish (?)1170-present Malaga, SpainDamascus 1258-1401 Damascus, Syria Lustreware and the Tang Dynasty Lustreware grew out of an existing ceramic technology in Iraq, but its earliest form was clearly influenced by Tang dynasty potters from China, whose art was first seen by those of Islam through trade and diplomacy along the vast trade network called the Silk Road. As a result of ongoing battles for control of the Silk Road connecting China and the West, a group of Tang dynasty potters and other craftsmen were captured and held in Baghdad between 751 and 762 C.E. One of the captives was the Tang Dynasty Chinese craftsman Tou-Houan. Tou was among those artisans captured from their workshops near Samarkand by members of the Islamic Abbasid Dynasty after the Battle of Talas in 751 C.E. These men were brought to Baghdad where they stayed and worked for their Islamic captors for some years. When he returned to China, Tou wrote to the emperor that he and his colleagues taught the Abbasid craftsmen the important techniques of paper-making, textile manufacture, and gold-working. He didnt mention ceramics to the emperor, but scholars believe they also passed along how to make white glazes and the fine ceramic pottery called Samarra ware. They also likely passed along the secrets of silk-making, but thats another story entirely. What We Know of Lustreware The technique called lustreware developed over the centuries by a small group of potters who traveled within the Islamic state until the 12th century, when three separate groups began their own potteries. One member of the Abu Tahir family of potters was Abul Qasim bin Ali bin Muhammed bin Abu Tahir. In the 14th century, Abul Qasim was a court historian to the Mongol kings, where he wrote a number of treatises on various subjects. His best-known work is The Virtues of Jewels and the Delicacies of Perfume, which included a chapter on ceramics, and, most importantly, describes part of the recipe for lustreware. Abul Qasim wrote that the successful process involved painting copper and silver onto glazed vessels  and then refiring to produce the lustrous shine. The chemistry behind that alchemy was identified by a group of archaeologists and chemists, led by who reported Spains Universitat Polità ¨cnica de Catalunya researcher Trinitat Pradell, and discussed in detail in the Origins of Lustreware photo essay. The Science of Lusterware Alchemy Pradell and colleagues examined the chemical content of glazes and the resulting colored lusters of pots from the 9th through 12th centuries. Guiterrez et al. found that the golden metallic shine only occurs when there are dense nanoparticulated layers of glazes, several hundred nanometers thick, which enhance and broaden the reflectivity, shifting the color of the reflected light from blue to green-yellow (called a redshift). These shifts are only achieved with a high lead content, which potters deliberately increased over time from Abbasid (9th-10th centuries) to Fatimid (11th-12th centuries C.E.) luster productions. The addition of lead reduces the diffusivity of copper and silver in the glazes and helps the development of thinner luster layers with a high volume of nanoparticles. These studies show that although the Islamic potters may not have known about nanoparticles, they had tight control of their processes, refining their ancient alchemy by tweaking the recipe and production steps to achieve the best high reflecting golden shine. Sources Caiger-Smith A. 1985. Lustre Pottery: Technique, tradition, and innovation in Islam and the Western World. London: Faber and Faber. Caroscio M. 2010. Archaeological Data and Written Sources: Lustreware Production in Renaissance Italy, a Case Study. European Journal of Archaeology 13(2):217-244. Gutierrez PC, Pradell T, Molera J, Smith AD, Climent-Font A, and Tite MS. 2010. Color and Golden Shine of Silver Islamic Luster. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 93(8):2320-2328. Pradell, T. Temperature resolved reproduction of medieval luster. Applied Physics A, J. MoleraE. Pantos, et al., Volume 90, Issue 1, January 2008. Pradell T, Pavlov RS, Gutierrez PC, Climent-Font A, and Molera J. 2012. Composition, nanostructure, and optical properties of silver and silver-copper lusters. Journal of Applied Physics 112(5):054307-054310.