Dr. Budra's insightful but his remarks on masculinity are shallow, incomplete, and wrong. He claims Benedick drops masculinity by siding with Beatrice, but that's a flagrant distortion. She wants and needs his masculinity; she was just crying for the needs of "a man's office" in defending Hero's honor. How is Benedick's challenging Claudio NOT masculine? Instead of dropping masculinity, he's maturing in it by using it for what is right. He switches loyalties because his love is in the right and his brothers in arms are in the wrong, and though you could dismiss it as a toxic "bro code," it is no small matter to go against the ones you fought a war with.
I disagree with the question and answer segment when dealing with the name of the play. From my personal gathering the title "Much Ado About Nothing", while it could be just a common phrase at this time does, in fact, encapsulate the entire plot and is not carelessly applied. Everything in both plots (Benedick/Beatrice and Hero/Claudio) is a swarming of drama that when boiled down to it is actually melodramatic or fake drama altogether. Example: Claudio shaming and "killing" Hero at the wedding because of her being a convicted tramp, was actually a lot of effort over something that ended up not being true and in the end, is negated completely. Don John and Borachio's plan to ruin the lives of everyone they disagree with, while clever took up a lot of effort and caused a stir but they were caught and punished so their efforts were in vain. Everything in the play was a catastrophe of rumors and extravagant efforts that ended up to not matter, hence the name "Much Ado About Nothing".
Concerning the title, there is actually a pun if we can call it like that in the title as 'nothing' was pronounced [noting] at the time and thus had a few different meanings: noting such as observing/spying/overhearing/eavesdropping/... which happens a lot in the play if we pay attention.
So I got told to watch this and take notes for my English assignment which filled me with dread. However, this turned out to be the best thing I’ve watched in a while. I expect a few other people reading this are in my class! They’ll know who I am ha! Good lecture!
Noting - I just read about that - no, it isn't sexual, just sounded like eavesdropping back in the days. And that's why it would make sense in this particular play.
This exploration of the play offered by Dr. Bura seems to me delectable and insightful. I'm not sure why the young people in this audience, which by the way, appears to be the minority, displays a certain degree of disagreement or inconformity whenever he takes examples of modern life to breakdown either the personality of the characters or the or the circumstances that contribute to explain why the events occurred the way they did.
Not at all. Missed all th imagery and themes and meaning. Missed all of it. Completely. Detracts from it by blowing through the most meaningful parts. Doesn't know what he is looking at or what he is hearing. And yet speaks about it so laughingly and dismissively. Lost on this guy.
I was sitting here enjoying this and then they just had to drag in a slam at Donald Trump. I can understand someone in the audience suggesting it, but it should not have been accepted by the person giving the lecture. The assumption is that Trump supporters, who are virtually illiterate, will not be watching so it is OK. Well, they have achieved their goal. This particular Trump supporter, who happens to hold a Master's degree in English Lit from UCLA, is leaving.
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Budra's insightful but his remarks on masculinity are shallow, incomplete, and wrong. He claims Benedick drops masculinity by siding with Beatrice, but that's a flagrant distortion. She wants and needs his masculinity; she was just crying for the needs of "a man's office" in defending Hero's honor. How is Benedick's challenging Claudio NOT masculine? Instead of dropping masculinity, he's maturing in it by using it for what is right. He switches loyalties because his love is in the right and his brothers in arms are in the wrong, and though you could dismiss it as a toxic "bro code," it is no small matter to go against the ones you fought a war with.
I disagree with the question and answer segment when dealing with the name of the play. From my personal gathering the title "Much Ado About Nothing", while it could be just a common phrase at this time does, in fact, encapsulate the entire plot and is not carelessly applied. Everything in both plots (Benedick/Beatrice and Hero/Claudio) is a swarming of drama that when boiled down to it is actually melodramatic or fake drama altogether. Example: Claudio shaming and "killing" Hero at the wedding because of her being a convicted tramp, was actually a lot of effort over something that ended up not being true and in the end, is negated completely. Don John and Borachio's plan to ruin the lives of everyone they disagree with, while clever took up a lot of effort and caused a stir but they were caught and punished so their efforts were in vain. Everything in the play was a catastrophe of rumors and extravagant efforts that ended up to not matter, hence the name "Much Ado About Nothing".
Concerning the title, there is actually a pun if we can call it like that in the title as 'nothing' was pronounced [noting] at the time and thus had a few different meanings: noting such as observing/spying/overhearing/eavesdropping/... which happens a lot in the play if we pay attention.
This guy is great! Loved this talk!
So I got told to watch this and take notes for my English assignment which filled me with dread. However, this turned out to be the best thing I’ve watched in a while. I expect a few other people reading this are in my class! They’ll know who I am ha! Good lecture!
Really interesting. Presented with humour and precision. Good work for the filming quality as well.
This was amazing!!! Great presentation!
👌🏾engaging! Loved this!
Noting - I just read about that - no, it isn't sexual, just sounded like eavesdropping back in the days. And that's why it would make sense in this particular play.
That was great!! Thank you so much for uploading it! ♡
Can you upload more of his talks? or recommended readings/resources?
Please post more! or recommend resources that teaches the same information
Great presentation!
Sir your acting very good 👌
This exploration of the play offered by Dr. Bura seems to me delectable and insightful. I'm not sure why the young people in this audience, which by the way, appears to be the minority, displays a certain degree of disagreement or inconformity whenever he takes examples of modern life to breakdown either the personality of the characters or the or the circumstances that contribute to explain why the events occurred the way they did.
Delightful!
What?!? Noooo.
Not at all. Missed all th imagery and themes and meaning. Missed all of it. Completely. Detracts from it by blowing through the most meaningful parts. Doesn't know what he is looking at or what he is hearing. And yet speaks about it so laughingly and dismissively. Lost on this guy.
I was sitting here enjoying this and then they just had to drag in a slam at Donald Trump. I can understand someone in the audience suggesting it, but it should not have been accepted by the person giving the lecture. The assumption is that Trump supporters, who are virtually illiterate, will not be watching so it is OK. Well, they have achieved their goal. This particular Trump supporter, who happens to hold a Master's degree in English Lit from UCLA, is leaving.