Elkins Frankenweenie

http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201293/reg_1024.Frankenweenie.mh.100312.jpg

Tim Burton’s 2012 animated feature Frankenweenie may not be his best film yet, but it most definitely screams “Tim Burton!” And by that, I mean it includes everything that makes Tim Burton who he is: outsiders, archetypes, gothic themes, etc. It is also fitting that the 1984 version of Frankenweenie was one of Burton’s first films – the 2012 version is like a more perfect version of the 1984 film.

The 1984 version, being about thirty minutes long or so, obviously has a shorter, more basic story than the 2012 version. In the 1984 version, the only storyline is bringing Sparky back to life, the townspeople chasing him, and Sparky’s acceptance by the townsfolk. The 2012 version includes that storyline (which it drags out) and also includes the storyline of the science fair, where many of Victor’s classmates steal Victor’s idea of bringing the dead back to life, resulting in a catastrophe of many different monsters plaguing New Holland. All in all, I liked the original Frankenweenie more than the 2012 version. The 2012 version, I felt was unnecessarily long and included pointless things (such as the different monsters coming to life). Not that the different monsters idea was not creative, I just do not think it was really needed for the movie to be enjoyable.

However, one thing I think the 2012 version has over the 1984 version is stop-motion. I did not dislike the live-action of the original – it was very well done. I just think more artistic things can be done with stop-motion. Characters can be exaggerated to levels that would be difficult for live actors to pull off (Edgar is a prime example of this), and, in general, the look of the different characters is in no-way impeded by an actor’s set characteristics – the filmmakers more or less can literally do anything they want to make the characters look just right. Also with stop-motion, Burton can exercise his signature drawing habits (really skinny people, creepy faces) as seen with Victor and the girl that looks like Staring Girl from Oyster Boy. Ultimately, live actors do not allow an audience to get as in-depth into a movie as with stop-motion – there are too many faces one might recognize. With stop-motion, the only thing one might recognize in regards to the actors is the voices.

There are multiple scenes taken out of the 1984 version that are almost identical with the 2012 version. These scenes, such as the scene in which Sparky is brought back to life and the whole windmill sequence, get a sort of upgrade. They take longer, are better described, and are over all just “shinier” than in the 1984 version.

I did not hate the 2012 version of Frankenweenie, but nor did I think it was Burton’s best. I enjoyed its artwork, and felt that it had many creative elements to it, but I do not think its creativity justifies its length. It did succeed over the 1984 version in some aspects, but, overall, I think the 1984 version told the same story better in a more concise way.

Elkins Sweeney Todd

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.275858.1314344162!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-sweeney-todd1-jpg.jpg

            Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a musical that I can only describe as a “bloody delight.” It’s songs are filled with gruesome content and are largely revenge-driven. It is about an outsider (Burton’s favorite thing) who, in a quest for revenge, turns into a monster that kills people in a barber shop left and right.

            With that being said, the cannibalism in the movie is really quite revolting and elicits a response akin to “gross” from me. Cannibalism is a metaphor for the city of London, where one essentially just becomes a piece of meat and loses all individuality to those that give them work. It is a very “man-eat-man” kind of world, and the use of cannibalism makes that phrase quite literal. Sweeney Todd, in a way, turns this notion of “the commoner working for the aristocrat” on its head by literally serving the aristocrats to the commoner. One might argue that this is all Mrs. Lovett’s fault (and one could argue that she’s just trying to survive in a world that does not like her awful meatpies), but, at the end of the day, it is hard not to see Todd as a monster. I do not even think it elicits a “the aristocrats got what they deserved” response; the audience is just horrified at what Todd has become.

I think Burton overcomes moral revulsion, murder, and cannibalism by using the character Toby. After losing the con-artist Pirelli, the audience feels a twinge of sympathy for him, as he has nowhere else to go. Todd and Mrs, Lovett take him in (which is nice of them) and he grows close to Mrs. Lovett, but incredibly suspicious of Todd (as he should). Toby is the only one in the “family” that has a notion of morality, and this becomes really important once he finds out what going into the meatpies. After Todd murders Mrs. Lovett, Toby delivers the justice that has been a long time coming by slitting Todd’s throat with a razor (which is ironic because that is the same way in which Todd killed all of his victims).

            With Sweeney Todd, Burton delivers a musical rife with violence and cannibalistic metaphors.

Elkins Big Fish

http://reelclub.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bf1.jpg

The character Edward Bloom in Big Fish is, I think, the type of person that most people aspire to be. He is good at everything (star baseball player, star football player, etc.) and he works hard with a smile on his face. His personality is also very likable, and the sheer imagination that he uses to make his stories come to life is hardly a con for him.

            Throughout the movie, Bloom meets many people that are much less like him. These people (such as the giant, the circus owner, and the people of Spectre) are kind of the darker characters of the film.  Of course, compared to Edward, anyone might seem dark. But these characters are the ones that are either rejected by society or reject society themselves. Lots of times, they are just misunderstood characters, and that is why they like Edward so much – he takes the time to understand and get to know them.  I want to talk about two scenes that illustrate this special communication between Edward and these outsiders: the scene in which Edward leaves the town with the giant and the scene in which Edward throws the stick for the werewolf.

In the first scene I chose, the town is terrified of the so-called man-eating giant that lives in a cave. They have no idea what to do with him until Edward volunteers to deal with him. Edward goes and offers, humorously, to sacrifice himself. Once Edward and the giant talk with each other, they both realize that the giant (whose name is Carl) is as human as can be and just needs a “bigger city.” Edward gains a better understanding of the misunderstood giant because he genuinely gets to know him (when most would not go near him).

In the second scene I chose, Edward throws a stick for a seemingly dangerous werewolf (who is, in fact, the circus owner). This situation is a little different from the scene with the giant as Edward gets to know the circus owner from working for him for three years. Edward at first meets the werewolf when it jumps on him and viciously attacks him. However, after a brief confrontation, Edward throws a stick and realizes that the werewolf wants to play an innocent game of fetch.

I think everyone wants to be Edward. He’s kind, smart, and extremely talented. The father-son relationship in Big Fish is obviously what drew Burton to direct this film, but I cannot help wondering if the allure of exploring how a person such as Edward works had an even stronger pull.

Elkins Sleepy Hollow

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/sleepy-hollow-765071l.png

First off, let me just say that I enjoyed Burton’s rendition of the “Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” I feel that Washington Irving’s story really intrigued Burton, but was not enough for him. He wanted more and decided that he would, in a sense, “finish” it. So, while I enjoy Irving’s story for what it is, I feel that Burton’s version of Sleepy Hollow gives a more definite version of the story that raises no questions.

            Burton, I think, did more than simply create a horror story using Irving’s ideas and character names. I think that he not only created a more definitive version of the story for himself (as I have already said), but he also gave his audience a chance to live in a world where a headless Hessian goes around chopping peoples’ heads off. Burton is making use of Irving’s story to transport the audience to a more different world. Most movies do this kind of transportation, but, with Sleepy Hollow, it is more of an immersion. The audience has a real fear of the horseman and wants to follow Ichabod Crane in his quest to uncover the horseman’s secret (at least I did).

            Burton’s changes to Irving’s original story, I think, are like casualties in order to make Sleepy Hollow a horror story (instead of just a mystery). Crane is a detective from New York instead of a schoolteacher well ingrained in the culture of Sleepy Hollow and there is no question that the horseman exists in Burton’s film (whereas, in the story, it is probably Brom Van Brunt running Crane out of town). I liked these changes – it makes the characters feel fuller. Crane has a back- story and a real personality incomparable to the almost 2-D Crane in the Irving story, and the audience understands why all of the townspeople are terrified – the headless horseman is not merely just a scary story.

            Burton did well in both making Irving’s original story more “finished” and in turning the story into a horror movie. Changing some elements of Irving’s story, while brutal, were necessary. All-in-all, it seems that Washington Irving was writing a horror story all along.

Elkins Planet of the Apes

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPFcrO_ErnR3MbZ6tNbGQPiMQRNA1lWP4nRz-KQLn_UKkYAJA8ullViqgKIYq0XEqSYUIUo8EUshb8CXMJBHntkvmp4Alj5JgmD22IDof2Jp_CUcQRvCxbYTgUwc6cyFIsPlzNH0q4DsI/s400/Apes+New+3.jpg

One duality I found very interesting in Planet of the Apes was that of science vs. primitivism. Both the 1968 version and Burton’s version deal with this duality, although Burton’s version is a little more fleshed-out. In the 1968 version, Taylor’s story of crashing on the planet in a spaceship (speaking of which, there’s another link – the main characters of each film are horrible at landing their respective space-ships) is dismissed as heresy against the ape religion. In Burton’s movie, the technology that Davidson possesses makes the apes fearful.

Two scenes that illustrate how the science vs. primitivism conflict helps to develop character through conflict: the scene where Davidson retrieves his supplies from his crashed space-ship and the scene where General Thade breaks the red decoration and finds the gun. The scene where Davidson retrieves his supplies from his crashed space-ship is important because it further expands the gap between the humans and the apes. When Davidson fires his gun, one of the apes says, in a hushed voice, “Sorcery.” Sorcery and magic in general are usually just terms for sciences we do not yet understand, and thus we dismiss them as being associated with “the Other,” which sort of gives it a negative connotation. The apes hold strongly to their religious beliefs, and, as this scene illustrates, are hesitant to deal in matters that question their religion.

The scene where General Thade breaks the red decoration and finds the gun also helps to illustrate the apes’ fearfulness of technology. Thade, a character that already hates humans, is introduced to the invention of the gun by his father, who says that the gun is “the symbol of destruction” or something like that (I don’t remember exactly what was said). The apes are a civilization that uses swords and spears to fight (a very medieval thing) and don’t use modern weaponry (or, at least, none that I saw). His dying father’s condemnation of guns further deepens Thade’s hatred of those who use them  - the humans (although, I’m not sure how the apes grew to use the modern weaponry as seen in the end  - to be honest, I thought the ending was just kind of dumb).

Burton uses Planet of the Apes to again deliver a message he’s well familiar with: the misconceptions that most hold for one another. Although,  I think Burton did a weaker job of addressing that message with this film than his previous films (but that’s just me).

Elkins Mars Attacks!

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/30400000/Mars-Attacks-mars-attacks-30461376-720-384.jpg

Two scenes that I felt perfectly illustrate how Burton satirizes government and the military in Mars Attacks!: the scene where Professor Kessler is adamant about how the aliens are “more technologically advanced, so therefore peaceful” in the beginning of the movie in the Oval Office, and the scene where Jack Black’s character cannot shoot his gun and then grabs the American flag and shouts, “I surrender!” In Independence Day, the scientist of the movie solves the problem of the alien force-field, allowing the army to destroy the aliens. In Mars Attacks!, the scientist of the movie is consistently wrong and plays a part in the government’s humorous blundering. In Independence Day, the soldier carrying the American flag would be the one who fights until he/she has nothing left.  That soldier in Mars Attacks!, like I said, yells, “I SURRENDER!”

Another comparison of both films is how the American President is respected. In Independence Day, he is well-respected and commands authority. In Mars Attacks!, he may as well be a Las Vegas hustler.

In Mars Attacks!, I think Burton is trying to tell the audience that social institutions are not immune to criticism. Just because people collectively think of a high office or an esteemed institution as “sacred” does not mean that those things are untouchable. Everyone thinks of the President of the United States as being a seat of untouchable power (which, it in some ways is, but that is beside the point). Burton, in his dark humor, laughs at this and makes the president both have a sort-of nervous breakdown and kills him in one of the strangest, funniest ways that I have seen in film. I think that this message of nothing being sacred is really one of the only serious things about the movie.

I do not, however, think that films such as Blade Runner and Rise of the Planet of Apes take themselves too seriously – I have seen both and thoroughly enjoyed them. They have important messages that I would not listen to unless they were put into a movie format (but maybe that is just me).

Burton, in Mars Attacks!, really only makes one thing clear to me: nothing is beyond criticism. And that is the way it should be.

Elkins Ed Wood

http://www.thefilmyap.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ed-wood-inside31.jpg

Let me start off by just saying that I thoroughly enjoyed Buton’s Ed Wood. I thought it was well-done and really brought me in like a sort-of drug. With that said, I absolutely hated watching what I could of Plan 9 from Outer Space. I understand that it is supposed to be terrible and that it is supposedly the “best B-movie of all time,” but I could only get through about thirty minutes before I had to start asking myself, “What am I doing?” Taking the risk of sounding arrogant, but I truly think (in this rare case) that I could do a better job. But that is not the point of this blog. I want to talk about three elements of Burton’s Ed Wood that pay homage to what Wood was doing in his films.

In his films, Wood was following his own vision, delving into what he loved, and using what he could to complete his films. In Ed Wood, Burton showed how desperate Wood was to “make it big.” He got the frugal amounts of money from wherever he could and tried to live his dream however he could. All he wanted to do was live out his vision (even though one would have a difficult time arguing that his vision was 20/20) and he did just that. I am reminded of the scene where Wood meets the great Orson Welles (incomparable in success) who tells him to just do what he loves, and not to let anyone else get in the way of that.

I do like how Burton included the filming of some of the scenes of Wood’s actual movies (such as the graveyard scenes from Plan 9 from Outer Space). It seemed to me that the scenes from Burton’s movie looked a lot faker than those in Wood’s actual movie – sort of like Burton saying, “You know, guys, it could have been worse.” I think Burton did this for no other reason than that the movie would not be Ed Wood’s life if there were no scenes of him actually filming his masterpieces. And when I say masterpieces, I am talking from Wood’s perspective.

Elkins Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy

http://fictionworms.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ahern-ps-love-you.jpg?w=640

One poem that really stood out for me was “James.” It is only two lines (short and sweet), and centers around one of the simplest of actions: Santa offering a teddy bear to a little boy named James. However, Burton gave the story a twist and said that James had been “mauled by a grizzly earlier that year,” making this simple good deed of Santa’s an unknowingly cruel one. The picture is even telling, showing a down-on-his-luck boy with a mauled eye (presumably from the bear) being given a toy bear. I can imagine that James is feeling a sense of abandonment as this figure that supposedly cares for all is seemingly mocking his predicament.  The picture reminds me of The Nightmare before Christmas, where a man (or skeleton) wanting to do good for others instead ends up causing a crisis. This may be a stretch, but I can see how James might feel alone in his current state, as a jolly man that supposedly brightens children’s’ lives makes light of his situation.

As for Jung’s archtypes, I do not see how any of them might perfectly apply in this situation. I can, however, see how Santa might be a Wise Man/Sage. It would require looking at the figure of Santa in a different light from the one I cast in the first paragraph, but, if one were to imagine Santa as knowing all (thus knowing about James’s bear attack), then giving James the teddy bear might not be so much a gesture of mocking him so much as a gesture of telling James to “toughen up.” It could be read as a way to tell James (albeit harshly) that life can be tough and that it is best to stare life’s challenges right in the eyes and laugh. Or, it could be that James already tried laughing at and staring a bear in its eyes and was mauled for that reason. The teddy bear could be Santa’s way of saying “bears are not all that bad – like this one, for instance.” Maybe it is something entirely different.  Whatever the case may be, Burton is trying to deliver some sort of profound message (a message that could, in fact, state that not all bears are bad).

Elkins Mardi Gras

http://bigfishpresentations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Mardi-Gras-3.jpg

I have lived in Louisiana all my life and was indoctrinated into Mardi Gras at a very young age. However, from what I have heard (I was not able to be in New Orleans during Mardi Gras), there is a huge difference between my experiences and what New Orleans offers – mainly in the degree of what one can get away with, which is what I want to blog about.

            In social psychology, I have learned that when a person is in a group where all are wearing masks (making it difficult to identify one single person), then that person is more prone to behave in a way that he/she would never do under normal circumstances. In Mardi Gras, this effect is very much in play with the practice of masks and parades. Also, there is the fact that Mardi Gras takes place right before the Catholic tradition of Lent (a very restrictive time), so people are much more desperate to get in as much as possible before being made to restrict themselves.

            Do not get me wrong, I enjoy Mardi Gras well enough. I enjoy the sights and the spectacles, but I also think that there is a dark side to it that goes unnoticed a lot of the time. I hear of people fighting for Mardi Gras beads (and of people getting injured from these fights), which normally, people would not really give a second glance (at least, I do not). I know that drunken people do many crazy things with no thought to responsibility, which I know is somewhat part of the fun.

            This somewhat darker side of Mardi Gras is present in many of Tim Burton’s films. For example, in Edward Scissorhands, one person is not enough to confront him, but, when it becomes a bunch of housewives and their husbands, they create enough of a force to drive “the monster” away (showing that one sole person does not have to have all of the blame). In Beetlejuice, Betegeuse uses carnival tactics in order to scare away the Deetses, and to “put on a show.” I am not sure what Burton is trying to say in these scenes, but I have a feeling that he is critical of how the normal person celebrates in the Carnival atmosphere.    

Elkins Edward Scissorhands

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23300000/Edward-Scissorhands-edward-scissorhands-23334084-1140-1200.jpg

Fairy tales are no strangers to using violence in their stories to teach a moral. However, more often than not, they usually take place in some far-away place. This is not the case with Edward Scissorhands, which makes the violence in fairy tales all too real.

Edward Scissorhands is not your typical fairy tale. In fact, the only real things it takes from a run of the mill fairy tale are a mysterious castle (which blends kind of awkwardly with the suburban setting of the rest of the movie), a book-end type of framing, and a so-called “monster” that no one really understands. Edward’s creation is pulled straight out of the confines of a fairy tale world – he is in the middle of human and creature, and no one really knows how to react to him.

Edward, as the story progresses, gets taken in by a more or less friendly family and, by the end of it, becomes known to be a murderous monster by the suburban families (except for the family that takes him in). What goes on in between those two events is a commentary on human morality – and how it is shown in a more modern setting. The movie asks the question of “Where did all the good people go?” It is a question that most people will likely point to themselves in answer. I, however, think that the “good people” asked about never existed simply because people cannot be categorized as either good or bad.

While I would not say that the suburban townspeople are evil and want anything that is different to go away and die, they do have normal human faults. They use Edward for his creativity and his scissor hands, but, as soon as they are given reason to believe he is a monster through and through, they forget what he has done for them and shun him for the supposed “monster” that he is made out to be.

I think Burton has shown us a unique new perspective on the fairy tale that is fairly ironic. Burton manages to make the typical monster that has nothing but hate for those it terrorizes (seen in countless fairy tales) the townspeople, and he manages to make the innocent thing being terrorized the so-called “monster” – Edward Scissorhands.

Elkins Batman Returns

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/8900000/Michelle-Pfeiffer-catwoman-selina-kyle-8971857-446-480.jpg

Catwoman has always been a staple of the Batman universe that no one really knows quite what she is. In all of her incarnations, really only two things remain with her: her normal, tamer side is Selina Kyle, and she changes (usually at night) into Catwoman – her more destructive side. I think Burton was able to capture this well in Batman Returns. She more than makes up for the boring, uninteresting character of Vicki Vale in Batman, and she provides a new wheel for the plot in the movie to continue, using Selina Kyle and Catwoman as more or less two different characters in the same body (like Bruce Wayne/Batman).

“We’re like two sides of the same thing, cut down the middle.” Batman tells Catwoman something along the lines of this quote in the scene where he reveals for a second time to Catwoman who he is. This quote also sums up Batman and Catwoman’s relationship in a very concise way. One side of both of them (“the Masked Side”) is forever in conflict with the other, and the other side of both of them is always tame and cordial to the other (“the Normal Side”). Neither one really knows exactly what the other has up his or her sleeve. It truly is one of the most complicated relationships I have ever seen on screen.

With Bruce Wayne, Selina Kyle is cordial and follows social norms. They both seem very superficial to one another, and I cannot imagine that the plot of the movie would go anywhere if it were just these two normal people talking to each other the entire time. It only really gets interesting when the audience starts to see the other side leak through both them.

With Batman, Catwoman is a tricky beast that some could argue is more feline than human. All of their interactions with each other are pretty much comic-book fights. She uses seduction on him, and Batman never really seems to be able to predict what she is going to do next (and he is the World’s Greatest Detective). A perfect example of this is the last scene, right before she kills Max Schrek (after Bruce Wayne invites her to live in his Manor, which she denies only after leading him on a bit).

The Catwoman/Selina Kyle and Batman/Bruce Wayne relationship is incredibly complicated and Burton achieves something that he has always said: no one is only one thing.

Elkins Batman

http://www.confusedmatthew.com/Batman-Films.php

Being a huge Batman fan, I have been looking forward to this watching this movie since day one. It has been a while since I have seen it, so I was pretty excited to watch it. With that in mind, I enjoyed it overall, but the inner Batman fan in me was annoyed by some of the changes (Joker’s origin story, Batman killing, the whole killing of Bruce’s parents). But that is not the point of this post, though I could complain a fair amount about the film (do not get me wrong, though – I enjoyed it). I want to talk about the Joker.

Created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane, the Joker has always been Batman’s nemesis and has always wanted to create as much trouble as possible simply for the hell of it. He is a trickster character, and like every good trickster character, he pushes the limits of power. I think Burton made it very clear as to what kind of trickster Joker is, from destroying paintings to killing mass people (which I think undermines the idea of a trickster in a way, but I will get to that later). From the Joker using witty one-liners to contaminating Gotham’s cosmetic products, Burton definitely supports the idea of a trickster with the Joker’s witty, somewhat playful destruction – all with a smile on his face.

However, I also think that Burton undermines the idea of a trickster in two key ways. The Joker has no special powers, and does not outwit people as much as just kills them. The Joker is someone who could potentially fit into our own world, so magic is out of the question. The Joker uses guns when he can, and kills people in whatever way he sees fit. Like the art museum scene (with Vicki Vale) and the very end, Joker does not seem to care who he kills, as long as it is creative (“I’m the world’s first fully-functional homicidal artist").

The Joker in Batman makes a very dark, very convincing trickster that fits well in this movie. He is a homicidal maniac, and one never knows what he will do next, which I think was Burton’s intention.

Elkins Beetlejuice

            Death is a fact of life that is inevitable. There’s a 100% failure rate in people that have tried to live forever. No matter how important or rich a person is, death makes us all equal in the end. America refuses to believe this.

            What with such popular trends in the media telling us to “live while we can” and new advances in medicine allowing us to live just a little bit longer, Americans, it would seem, cannot and will not grasp the concept that at some point they will depart from this life here on Earth. Death, I think most can agree, is a concept that most do not want to hasten. Why think about dying when one can think about living forever? Hollywood films, like Beetlejuice (especially Beetlejuice), would rather people laugh at death, which most are more than willing to do.

            Beetlejuice, a story of ghosts and the after-life, would appear at first to be a movie about accepting death as just another phase of life, and that death is not the end-all-be-all that people believe. Yet, I believe it does not accept death at all. It wants to sugar-coat it and say that people will just come back as ghosts, and it will be the same as life – waiting rooms and all. Take the Maitlands, for instance. They had no idea they were dead until they started experiencing weird things and found the manual called Handbook for the Recently Deceased. Their only conflict throughout the movie was scaring the Deetse’s out of the house so that they could continue living in it and work on the model city. Even at the end of the film they are helping Lydia with her school work and continuing to live their lives as before.

I do not know if Burton did this intentionally or not, but in one scene Mrs. Maitland tries to scare Mrs. Deetse by in a closet by tearing off her own face. Mrs. Deetse bats her out of the way, a symbolic moment of how the Deetse’s do not think about death.

In Beetlejuice, Tim Burton makes one thing clear: death, in all its forms, is something Americans want to ignore.

http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/beetlejuice-the-movie/images/23838576/title/beetlejuice-screencap

Elkins Introduction

My name is Charles Elkins. I am from Plaquemine, Louisiana (near Baton Rouge). I am presently a psychology major. I chose this Tim Burton Seminar because I enjoy some of his movies. I enjoy reading and watching movies, as well as playing a few video-games.  I also enjoy humor quite a bit and do not like to take anything too seriously (and by too seriously, I mean over-the-top).

I am a Freshman at Loyola University New Orleans, which is kind of obvious since I am in this class.  I am a frequent redditor (although I do not like to get sucked in like a few people), and dislike using Facebook. I enjoy history, with my favorite subject area being the Italian Renaissance (although, that changes from time to time). I dislike being under pressure, so I get things done rather early. I also enjoy English.

I am very awkward in social situations, which is one reason as to why I am a psychology major. I like to delve into the human brain and see what makes us work. Currently, I am taking social and abnormal psychology, both of which really fascinate me. I find it interesting that humans want to learn more about the world in which they live in, yet barely understand themselves. I want to understand why people are the way they are.

I am a huge nerd. I like Game of Thrones (currently on Storm of Swords in the books), Harry Potter, Doctor Who, etc. I could go on. My family (I have a brother and a sister) enjoy taunting me with said nerdiness, which I am perfectly fine with them doing. I am a  big Batman fan (although, I have not seen Tim Burton’s take on him in quite a while, so this seminar should be good for that).

I enjoy travelling. Usually, my family and I go to a foreign location during the summertime (my favorite has been England, where I plan to study abroad in the near future). I like to learn about different cultures and languages in the places where I travel. I also enjoy koalas quite a bit.