Substance Over Sogginess: The Great Darcy Debate

Fitzwilliam Darcy: causing women to swoon and setting impossibly high standards for men for over two hundred years.  Having been memorialized in Jane Austen’s famous 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy has become a well-known and cherished character in the literary world.  Countless Austen aficionados have fallen in love with his honesty, honor, and charming, gentlemanly manners.  Throughout the years, many men have attempted to portray this beloved and noble cavalier, from Laurence Olivier in 1940 to Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen in the 2000s, but have any of these ambitious actors truly succeeded in this endeavor?  Have any of these men been able to fill this distinguished gent’s shoes?  While several men have rendered remarkable and commendable performances, there has been one man whom I believe merits special recognition for his outstanding and superior performance: Matthew Macfadyen.  In the 2005 British adaptation of the book, Matthew Macfadyen perfectly captures not only Darcy’s dynamic persona, but also embodies his dark and mysterious visage.  

          Before I plead my case, though, or rather Matthew Macfadyen’s case, let me paint a picture of the character of Jane Austen’s Darcy for those of you who may not have had the pleasure of getting to know him.  At the beginning of the novel, Mr. Darcy is a proud, rich, and rather socially awkward bachelor with an aloof and snooty attitude toward those who are of a lower social status than he.  To use Austen’s own words, “he was the proudest, most disagreeable man in the world, and everybody hoped that he would never come there again (chapter 3).”  So basically, Darcy is a snobbish piece of work and nobody likes him, except perhaps his best friend Mr. Bingley and his not-so-secret admirer Miss Bingley (the aforementioned friend’s sister).  But, unfortunately, Elizabeth Bennet, the object of his affections, finds him the most detestable man in existence.  But the unsuspecting Elizabeth does not know the real Mr. Darcy, that is, the misjudged man beneath the ego.  This man is dignified, honorable, surprisingly humble, and absolutely charming.  All it took was a beautiful, headstrong woman to expose these qualities and reveal to Darcy himself that those of a lower social class are not to be looked down upon after all, as had been instilled in him from his youth.  By the end of the book, both Darcy and Elizabeth have learned to lay aside their prejudices and (spoiler alert) end up falling in love and getting married.  That is Mr. Darcy, and the premise of Pride and Prejudice, in a nutshell.

          Now that the groundwork is laid, let me tell you why I believe that Matthew Macfadyen perfectly depicts the illustrious Fitzwilliam Darcy.  From the moment that Macfadyen enters the scene, the audience feels his sense of superiority and aloofness, especially as he surveys the crowd at the ball, looking down upon those he deems less fortunate than he.  But nearly every man who has played Mr. Darcy has been able to achieve this same outward pride, so what is it about the character of Macfadyen’s Darcy that sets him apart from the rest?  It is the awkwardness and anti-socialness that he so perfectly captures.  Darcy is an introvert, which is clear when he says in the novel, “I certainly have not the talent which some people possess… of conversing easily with those I have never seen before.  I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done (chapter 31).”  Rebecca Harrington, an editor on the Huffpost website, admits that “Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy is different.  He stammers.  He shifts his weight often enough.  His hair was upsetting.  He seems at times to almost be crawling out of his own skin.  His Darcy is awkward and perhaps less attractive, but rather more real.”  I completely agree with her statement that he is simply more real.  He gives a more accurate representation of the true nature of Darcy.  The pride and sense of superiority that has been instilled in him from infancy makes him uncomfortable and awkward in social situations, which Macfadyen captures brilliantly.  This characteristic adds a completely different dimension to the character displayed on the screen.  

As to the claim that it makes him “perhaps less attractive,” that may be true, but it is still more accurate to the original Mr. Darcy.  Shaina Ghuraya touches upon this subject in her article comparing Colin Firth’s Darcy with Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy.  She mentions the fact that Firth fans commend his dark, brooding, and sexy performance, but asserts that the Darcy that Jane Austen is not really like that.  She insists that “part of what makes Mr. Darcy such an endearing character is that he really is none of those things.  Sure he is proud, arrogant, and definitely handsome, but he is also shy, socially inept, and awkward.”  Macfadyen captures all of those characteristics; it is as simple as that.

Many people, though, argue that Colin Firth’s performance is superior.  Joan Klingel Ray, who is an English professor at the University of Colorado, claims that “the Darcy in the film (with Matthew Macfadyen) does not have the quality of attractiveness that Colin Firth has.  I don’t want to cause any offence but Colin is simply a much better looking man than Matthew.”  In response to this, I have to ask the question: who cares?  I disagree with her that Colin is the better looking man, but the looks do not matter so much as the character, which Matthew clearly embodies more accurately.  If you look past the steamy wet shirt scene that Firth is so famously known for, you will see that it is the innocence and vulnerability that Macfadyen portrays that is exactly what makes Mr. Darcy so attractive, and not the eye candy that is Colin Firth.  Firth does present the pride and aloofness of Darcy perfectly, but he does not bring the added dimension of introvertedness and social awkwardness that Macfadyen does.  It is also worth mentioning that Macfadyen only had a couple hours to develop this complex and intriguing character, while Firth had an entire television season.  That fact speaks for itself of the ingenuity and superiority of Macfadyen’s performance.  

  
        While this modest review will not end the age-old debate over who played the best Mr. Darcy, the fact cannot be denied that Matthew Macfadyen captures Jane Austen’s Darcy brilliantly and accurately.  His multidimensional performance portrays not only Darcy’s hubris, but also his awkwardness and charm, perfectly.  His innocence and vulnerability have captured the hearts of countless Austen enthusiasts.  Jane Austen herself would have been proud.

"He Took His Skin Off For Me"

                "He Took His Skin Off For Me" portrays a deep and hidden message about love: that if you want someone to love you, you have to show them that same amount of love in return.  The woman expected the man to give everything he had to her, he gave up his skin, but she was not willing to do the same for him.  Love does not work this way.  It is a give and take kind of relationship.

                 Her unwillingness to reciprocate his love for her caused him to grown unhappy and resentful of the sacrifice that he had made for his beloved.  He became completely vulnerable to her, barring his inmost self to the world, but she still did not return this love like he desired.  She ignored the fact that his job was suffering, that he had lost his friends, and that he was in agony from the lack of protection from the cold.  She saw him looking at his skin, wishing he could put it back on, but still selfishly held on to the sacrifice he was making, unwilling to show her love in an act of similar magnitude.  You cannot expect someone to give himself/herself to you unless you are ready to completely give yourself to that person as well.

Virunga Movie Review

Virunga is a tantalizing and thought-provoking documentary portraying an in depth view of the conflicts in the Congo, told from the perspectives of a journalist covering the story and the park rangers who are protecting Virunga park.  This park is unique because it is the only natural habitat of a certain type of gorilla, which are endangered and are quickly dying out.  It is also home to many other forms of wildlife which the park rangers have sworn to protect with their lives.  The British company SOCO is attempting to exploit the natural resources, namely oil, of the land in the Congo which includes areas of the park.  This would displace the gorillas and other animals in the area, and destroy a beautiful and awe-inspiring piece of nature.  A rebel group has since risen up in the Congo in order that this company might take over the land.  This group, M23, have displaced thousands of individuals and families because of their fighting, and have killed almost 130 park rangers since 1996. 

In the movie, we get an insider look of the conflicts that have ensued, and we see the effects that is has had on the local people and the environment.  SOCO has denied any illegal movements or wrong-doings, but through the use of undercover interviews in this documentary, we see the true nature of it's employees.  They downplay the importance of the park in order that they might receive more support for their endeavors.  SOCO and M23 are motivated by money and power and give no thought to the repercussions.  But the people of Virunga know the real story.  They understand the beauty of the park and the need to protect the natural inhabitants.  They are willing to and have given their lives in order to save the home of these gorillas.

This movie gives these people a voice.  It gives them the power to spread their story to the rest of the world in order to raise awareness to the crimes against the country and against nature itself that SOCO is trying to commit in the Congo.  Virunga is a powerful documentary.  Maybe, hopefully, it will help save this beautiful park and its primate inhabitants.

Women Deserve More than Hormonal Birth Control

            Hormonal birth control is dangerous and puts women at risk of serious and unnecessary health problems.  Unfortunately though, many women are not informed of these risks nor are they educated on safer, natural alternatives.  In a world that is increasingly concerned with "going green" and being more healthy and organic, it is interesting that there is a strong push use artificial means of family planning when there is a completely natural and viable alternative available.  Natural family planning is that alternative.  It is just as effective as hormonal contraception when utilized properly, and it does not involve ingesting fake hormones and putting your body at risk in order to avoid pregnancy. 

            Hormonal contraceptives come in several forms, the most common and widely used of which is known as the pill.  But all varieties contain some synthetic form of estrogen and/or progesterone which disrupts a woman’s natural cycle and tricks her body into thinking that it is pregnant.  Pregnancy is avoided by either preventing ovulation or not allowing the fertilized egg to implant into the uterine wall, thus aborting it. According to the CDC, 17% of women living in the United States between the ages of 15 and 44 are currently on the pill, and roughly 80% of women in the same age group have taken the pill at some point in their lives.  Side effects of these fertility suppressors include migraines, weight gain, decreased libido, breast tenderness, increased risk of blood clots, and irregular bleeding or spotting, to name a few.  While many of these symptoms are simply irksome and not very serious or unmanageable, other symptoms, such as the increased possibility of blood clots and breast cancer, can and have proven to pose serious and sometimes fatal health risks for many women.  How many women really know about the risks they are taking?  The unfortunate answer is probably not too many, because we women put a lot of trust in our doctors instead of taking the time to do the research for ourselves.  

           The media does not help in this case, because they tend to highlight the positive side effects of the pill, such as in this article on WebMD.  Planned Parenthood, a highly esteemed and trusted source for reproductive health information, also advocates the use of the pill.  On their website, they do identify certain risk factors associated with the pill, but they also assert that it does not cause any problems in the long run, but rather “that over the long term, use of the pill has offered many health benefits to millions of women worldwide.”  This claim is falsified by studies that prove otherwise.  This one from 2007 showed that the risk of artery-clogging plaques increased 20 to 30% for every 10 years that a woman is on the pill.  If such a prestigious and influential establishment like Planned Parenthood does not provide us with adequate material on the subject, how are women supposed to be informed of the consequences of choosing this form of birth control?

  

          These risks are also often underplayed by the physicians and individuals who are recommending this option to women.  Jamie Hergenrader was one such woman who did not understand the danger that her birth control posed to her health until she nearly died of a blood clot in her leg, mistakenly thinking that it was simply a muscle cramp.  According to Jamie in article on the Huffington Post website, “I had no reason to worry because I had no idea what kind of damage birth control could cause.”  Hergenrader fortunately was able to be properly diagnosed and treated, but many women are not so lucky.  A study conducted in France in 2013 found that 20 women die every year from untreated blood clots caused by the pill, and another 2,500 suffer non-fatal blood clots, which leave many with lifelong health problems.  Several women still have to take regular injections of blood thinners in order to avoid any future occurrences of clots, even though they no longer take hormonal contraceptives.  Another little known side effect of the pill worth mentioning is the increased risk of stroke.  According to the American Stroke Association, “Women who take even a low-estrogen birth control pill may be twice as likely to have a stroke than those who don’t….”  These synthetic hormones seriously mess with a woman’s body, and too many women find that out the hard way.

            The use of hormonal birth control also depletes a woman’s body of several important vitamins and nutrients.  The metabolism of these pills requires the liver to use extra amounts of vitamin C, B-complex vitamins, magnesium, and zinc.  Deficiencies in these nutrients can cause weight gain, mood swings, depression, fluid retention, and heart disease.  This additional side effect is rarely, if ever, mentioned by doctors and the companies who produce the contraceptives.  Again, women are not being informed of consequences of ingesting these synthetic hormones.  Additionally, if these side effects aren’t enough to discourage someone from taking these pills, Dr. Carolyn Dean asserts that the long-term effects of most of the birth control pills on the market have not been studied.  This means that we have no idea of the the effect they have on a woman’s long term health or her future fertility.  

              The pill is also considered to be a group one carcinogen, significantly increasing a woman’s risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer.  To put this in context, it is classified alongside radium and arsenic according to their carcinogenic properties.  Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a prominent breast surgical oncologist who co-founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.  She has been providing breast health care to women for over 25 years, and during most of those 25 years she prescribed hormonal birth control to many of her patients, but now speaks out against its use.  Speaking at the “50 Years on the Pill” conference in Washington D.C. in 2010, she questions, “When is it ever right to give a group one carcinogen to a healthy woman?  We don’t have to take a group one carcinogen to be liberated.”  I support Dr. Angela’s view that we women do not need to suppress our fertility in order to be “liberated.”  There is nothing “liberating” about disrupting a woman’s natural cycle in order to prevent a fundamental process that is necessary to perpetuate the human race through the use of synthetic hormones that cause cancer, among other things.  Fertility is not a problem that needs to be solved.  Many women do believe that this is the case though.  They believe that by removing the possibility of conceiving a child from the sexual act allows women to go to college, advance their careers, and ultimately have more control over their own lives.  But is increasing your risk of cancer in order to achieve this end really liberating?  No.  We women deserve more than that.  We deserve a better, natural way to take control of our fertility.  

  

          All of this considered, though, I do understand that many women believe that they need to pill in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and therefore choose to overlook the harmful effects it has on their bodies.  The pill is rather effective, but even then, between one percent and eight percent of women get pregnant every year while on the pill, depending on whether most women are using it properly or not.  But what if I told you that there is a way of preventing pregnancy that is just as effective, natural, does not cause any of these harmful and troublesome problems, and all that it involves is a pen and some paper and a bit of self control?  This method is known as natural family planning.

 Natural family planning is a method of family planning that involves a woman charting her menstrual cycle through the use of one or more methods that brings about a greater awareness of her cycle and fertility.  It is completely natural, safe, and effective when utilized properly.  The effectiveness rates among couples who are really committed and responsible about using this method are around 90%.  This is comparable to the effectiveness of hormonal methods of birth control, which is right around 91%.  So there really is no difference in the effectiveness of each, contrary to what you may have been told by popular media.  While it may take some effort to learn the methods, the benefits greatly outweigh the time it takes.  There are no harmful side effects, it provides a woman with a greater understanding of her body and her natural cycle, and it actually improves a husband and wife’s relationship.  

In a study on the differences in the relationships between couples using natural family planning (NFP) and couples using hormonal contraceptives, the findings indicated that “the NFP couples in this study felt that their method of family planning helped them to gain a greater fertility awareness, increased communication, provided self-control and confidence, a shared responsibility… and provided them with more ways of expressing their intimacy.”  Contrast this with the results from the couples using contraception, who indicated that they did not feel like their method of family planning had any impact on their relationship.  While their method of birth control did reportedly have any negative effect on their relationship, it certainly did not bring them closer together and encourage communication, as in the case of the NFP couples.  Couples who use NFP have a significantly lower divorce rates as well, only 0.2%.  While correlation does not necessarily mean causation, these findings are still representative of the effects that the fertility awareness method has on a couples relationship.

       
      In conclusion, hormonal fertility suppressors are dangerous to a woman’s health and are not worth the risk.  They cause an unnatural imbalance in a woman’s hormone levels, which can cause several problems, some riskier and more life-threatening than others.  There is no cause for women to subject themselves to this when there is an equally effective and safer method of birth control available.  Natural family planning is exactly as its title implies: natural.  It has no harmful side effects, is just as effective, and brings couples closer together.  Do not believe the media hype that the risks of hormonal contraceptives are negligible.  Do the research and take the time to educate yourself on natural alternatives of family planning.  Take the time to chart your cycle and become more aware of your natural, bodily rhythms.  We women deserve more than fake hormones and risky side effects.  We deserve a better, safer, and natural way to take control of our fertility and our lives.  

Chapter 2 Template

            Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D., argues that the risks of birth control highly outweigh the benefits.  In her article on Mercola.com titled "Just Say 'No' to Birth Control Pills," Dean asserts, “I don’t advocate the use of birth control pills.  Yes, they are effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, but the risks far outweigh those benefits.”  She reminds us that the pill promotes continuous high levels of estrogen in the body, which fools the body into thinking its pregnant.  It disrupts a woman’s natural cycle, which is unhealthy and harmful.  She cites current research outlining the side effects of hormonal birth control, which include increased risk of breast cancer, weight gain, mood changes, increased risk of blood clotting, and migraines, to name a few.  She also asserts that current studies show a correlation between yeast overgrowth and high levels of estrogen.  The symptoms of a yeast infection for a woman on the pill include infertility, endometriosis, psoriasis, fibromyalgia, and many others. 

Dean believes that these risks outweigh the benefits of preventing pregnancies and avoiding irregular periods, and I agree with her.  She lists safer alternatives to the pill, such as condoms, but emphasizes the use of the Creighton Model Fertility Care System.  This system is a natural and effective way of tracking a woman’s cycle to prevent unwanted pregnancies that does not use any artificial and unnatural devices or drugs.  I completely endorse this method of family planning, as it is safe and healthy and requires only that a woman track her natural cycle and abstain from intercourse on the few days in which a woman can become pregnant.

Chapter 3 Template

            Jamie Hergenrader shares her story about her personal experience with hormonal birth control in her article on the Huffpost website titled “The Dangerous Side of Birth Control.”  She was taking a newer pill containing drospirone, which is a synthetic version of progesterone and causes the user to have an even higher risk of blood clots.  According to Jamie, when she started developing pain in her leg, she “…had no reason to worry because I had no idea what kind of damage birth control caused.”  Today’s women are not completely and properly informed of the dangers and consequences of taking birth control.  After this one event, which nearly costed her life, she spent seven months recovering, which consisted of “... ER trips, doctor visits three to four times a week and a few blood-thinning medications consisting of shots injected in my abdomen and a daily pill.”  All this suffering could have been avoided had Jamie been properly informed of the risks of the pill she was choosing to take.

            Jamie was lucky that she caught her symptoms early on and was able to act, but many women are not so lucky.  She states that according to research, “about half of people who have blood clots show no symptoms, making it much harder to diagnose and therefore, possibly fatal.”  Even those who survive often have lifelong health issues as a result.

Because of this experience, Jamie says she will be more careful and educate herself more about the dangers of birth control in the future.  It is unfortunate that many women learn the hard way about the risks of hormonal birth control by going through what she went through.  Women should be more informed of the risks of hormonal birth control and need to be educated on safer and more natural alternatives.

Chapter 1 Template

            Alice Park discusses a recent research study by neurologist Dr. David Gaist in her article on the online TIME magazine from January 22, 2015, titled “Birth Control Pill Risks May Now Include Brain Cancer.”  In the study, Dr. Gaist discovered that women taking hormonal contraception containing estrogen and/or progestin have an increased chance of developing a brain tumor known as glioma. This cancer is rare to begin with, but their chances of developing this type of tumor increases by 50 percent or more.

            While Miss Park argues that this risk is minuscule and that it is no reason for a woman to stop taking birth control, I contest this presumption and instead ask the question: Why do we women knowingly ingest artificial means of preventing a natural process when it poses such a health risk to us?  I believe that Alice Park greatly underestimates the seriousness of this finding.  The discovery by itself is none too monumental, but if you take into account all the other risks that birth control contributes to a woman’s body and health, then the gravity of the situation mounts.  Notice how the title of the article includes the words, “may now include…,” thus implying that this is not the only finding of hazards linked with the use of hormonal birth control. 

            In conclusion, although Park asserts that this study poses no real threat to the population of women currently on the pill, I say that this discovery is simply another piece of evidence to reason that hormonal birth control is more harmful than helpful to women.  This is not the first case study that has proven a link between the pill and serious health risks, nor shall it be the last.