Transcendentalism is a sort of Americanized romanticism in my eyes. As I'm taking AP European history, its very interesting to see the similarities in these two ideologies. I've been able to more fully comprehend transcendentalism because of it. Transcendentalism is believing in the individual. I think the strength of transcendentalism is the trust it places in the individual. As seen in Self Reliance, he says that one must not follow the institution or the government but ones own inner will. Many of the transcendentalists claimed an inner good to humans or that we all have a little piece of God within ourselves, but we just need to listen to it.
This point is the transcendentalists' weakness. I don't really believe that all humans are innately good. In all honesty, its a question of cultural upbringing for a lot of it. For example, in New Zealand native population culture, they are raised to murder any person that crosses them that's not part of their family. Men in these tribes are respected for the amount of kills they make and murder and warfare is common and accepted. Oh, they also are cannibals eating the bodies of their deceased loved ones, which is all cool and good. Well, in western culture that's basically satanic. I mean, I think most people have empathetic behaviors --being able to understand how others feel, feeling for them-- but some people don't categorize "good" in the same way. This could also be due just to mental differences. I think some people are just born with more or less understanding on how others feel. By claiming that there's good in everyone in some way claims that we would all make the right decision if given the opportunity or in the right circumstance, but would we really?
Transcendentalists, on the other hand, make a good point that one person can make the major difference. Many times, all a movement needs is one person to start a cascade of other events to follow. Many today believe that speaking against the system or the government or anything is futile because it won't make difference but it takes one grain of sand to tip the scale, or something like that.
I'm not a transcendentalist. In many ways, humans are social animals that often work in groups or with others. Although I agree with the point that people should stand up for what they believe in especially if it's not the majority, I don't think that people are innately good and what they have to say is useful.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
The Great Gatsby
Luhrmann used a diverse amount of cinematographic techniques in order to achieve the same artistic goals as Fitzgerald tried to in his book. He especially used symbolism and scene timing in expressing the same feelings.
In scenes where the reading pace was fast, the screenshots lasted seconds and quickly moved with the actors. With moments of great contemplation such as when Nick sees Daisy and Jordan for the first time, the camera panned and stayed on the scene for a long time. Personally, I think Luhrmann definitely did a good job at mimicking the overall feel of The Great Gatsby but the movie lacked the beautiful fluency the book has.
One symbol that greatly stood out in his film was the green light. Many scenes would end with its ever distinct glow. This is just one example of the infinite symbolism this movie tried to mimic from the book. Another poignant one was when Gatsby left the room after Daisy. It was when he had expected her to rebuke her love for her husband but she instead was convinced to stay in her current life with her husband. As Gatsby leaves the room, the elegant lamp tips and shatters. This represented Gatsby losing his money facade; that without Daisy, Gatsby didn't seem rich anymore and most likely didn't need to be. This wasn't even noted in the book but adds to Fitzgerald's infinite precision to symbolism.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Luhrmann's cinematographic style, and it can be unpleasant to watch at times. The movie sometimes lacked the artistic flow of Fitzgerald's words through trying to imitate Fitzgerald style. On the other hand, the feel of the book was there. The overall confusion and beauty is present. Just like when I read the book, after watching the movie I felt Gatsby had been betrayed, used, and exploited by those around him. In the end, in both artistic forms I felt like money had manipulated and corrupted. Overall, I think Luhrmann achieved his goal only to my disdain for his directing style.
In scenes where the reading pace was fast, the screenshots lasted seconds and quickly moved with the actors. With moments of great contemplation such as when Nick sees Daisy and Jordan for the first time, the camera panned and stayed on the scene for a long time. Personally, I think Luhrmann definitely did a good job at mimicking the overall feel of The Great Gatsby but the movie lacked the beautiful fluency the book has.
One symbol that greatly stood out in his film was the green light. Many scenes would end with its ever distinct glow. This is just one example of the infinite symbolism this movie tried to mimic from the book. Another poignant one was when Gatsby left the room after Daisy. It was when he had expected her to rebuke her love for her husband but she instead was convinced to stay in her current life with her husband. As Gatsby leaves the room, the elegant lamp tips and shatters. This represented Gatsby losing his money facade; that without Daisy, Gatsby didn't seem rich anymore and most likely didn't need to be. This wasn't even noted in the book but adds to Fitzgerald's infinite precision to symbolism.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Luhrmann's cinematographic style, and it can be unpleasant to watch at times. The movie sometimes lacked the artistic flow of Fitzgerald's words through trying to imitate Fitzgerald style. On the other hand, the feel of the book was there. The overall confusion and beauty is present. Just like when I read the book, after watching the movie I felt Gatsby had been betrayed, used, and exploited by those around him. In the end, in both artistic forms I felt like money had manipulated and corrupted. Overall, I think Luhrmann achieved his goal only to my disdain for his directing style.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Bowling for Columbine
I am for increased gun control. I say this as a premise for all of my future statements. This documentary actually took a different angle than I had expected. In the past, most articles pin point the lack of gun regulations as the reason for the high rate of gun related homicides in the United States. Our numbers are in the 11,000 while Europe's barely pass 200 deaths, but Michael Moore makes the interesting point that Canada also has an extremely low death rate of about 60 yearly. He then points out that Canadians have a lot of guns like the in the United States. Michael Moore raises the good question why do we see so many gun homicides in the United States?
Michael Moore does a really good job at using pro-gun members statements against themselves. For example, at the end of the documentary, he speaks with a NRA leader and asks him why he has loaded guns in his house. The speaker says that it's his 2nd amendment right to do so, but then, Moore insists on why he has loaded guns: he's not in danger, doesn't feel like he will need to use the guns, and doesn't necessarily need to uphold his 2nd Amendment right by keeping loaded guns in his house. The speaker almost ignores Moore's statements and insists that it was his right to do so. Almost like a Red Herring, the NRA member insists on a point that has nothing to do with the question. Moore then asks him why we have so many gun related deaths in the US, and the man says it must be because of our violent past. Throughout the documentary, Moore had already strongly proven that that wasn't the case --Germany showed to be a good example of having a more violent history than the US--. The NRA member doesn't even care to understand and insists on his 2nd Amendment rights. To what point can these members continue on insisting on an irrelevant point? We get it, we have the right to bear arms --which is kinda vague may I add-- but that doesn't answer the terrible amount of deaths we've had in the United States. 500 of those 11,000 deaths were exclusively due to accidental discharge. I understand their point that we must stand behind our constitution, but can they at least give us an answer to why we have so many deaths in this country? They say they care so much to protect themselves, but they can't seem to protect their neighbors.
In the end, what I really liked about this documentary was its open endedness. Unlike other articles, Moore doesn't give an answer to why we have so many shootings in this country. He just asks a lot of questions, sometimes begging the question, but he asks questions none the less and presents facts. Obviously on many points he was being biased since his a socialist, but in this documentary at least, I don't think it was too prevalent. I mean, come on; some of the men who supported gun rights were plain old clueless. Such as the man who was accused of assisting in the bombing of a federal building. He said that one day we might have to take over the government, and we will need to use our guns to do so. Then Moore says that Ghandi didn't use guns, and he toppled the entire British empire. The man didn't know who Ghandi was.
Michael Moore does a really good job at using pro-gun members statements against themselves. For example, at the end of the documentary, he speaks with a NRA leader and asks him why he has loaded guns in his house. The speaker says that it's his 2nd amendment right to do so, but then, Moore insists on why he has loaded guns: he's not in danger, doesn't feel like he will need to use the guns, and doesn't necessarily need to uphold his 2nd Amendment right by keeping loaded guns in his house. The speaker almost ignores Moore's statements and insists that it was his right to do so. Almost like a Red Herring, the NRA member insists on a point that has nothing to do with the question. Moore then asks him why we have so many gun related deaths in the US, and the man says it must be because of our violent past. Throughout the documentary, Moore had already strongly proven that that wasn't the case --Germany showed to be a good example of having a more violent history than the US--. The NRA member doesn't even care to understand and insists on his 2nd Amendment rights. To what point can these members continue on insisting on an irrelevant point? We get it, we have the right to bear arms --which is kinda vague may I add-- but that doesn't answer the terrible amount of deaths we've had in the United States. 500 of those 11,000 deaths were exclusively due to accidental discharge. I understand their point that we must stand behind our constitution, but can they at least give us an answer to why we have so many deaths in this country? They say they care so much to protect themselves, but they can't seem to protect their neighbors.
In the end, what I really liked about this documentary was its open endedness. Unlike other articles, Moore doesn't give an answer to why we have so many shootings in this country. He just asks a lot of questions, sometimes begging the question, but he asks questions none the less and presents facts. Obviously on many points he was being biased since his a socialist, but in this documentary at least, I don't think it was too prevalent. I mean, come on; some of the men who supported gun rights were plain old clueless. Such as the man who was accused of assisting in the bombing of a federal building. He said that one day we might have to take over the government, and we will need to use our guns to do so. Then Moore says that Ghandi didn't use guns, and he toppled the entire British empire. The man didn't know who Ghandi was.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Sound and Fury
This documentary made me mostly furious. It seemed to me that the deaf family members in the documentary took a unilateral view to what community their children could be raised in and ignored the multidimensional life their children could have lived. Having been a child of a biracial, bilingual, foreign family, I was disappointed that this documentary did in no way address how many children in this world adapt very well to two different spheres of life.
I understand that being deaf and speaking are two different experiences, but I also fully understand how adaptable children are. When I was four years old, I barely spoke any French but fluently understood it. After I finished pre-K we moved to France where I fully learned to read, write, and speak French in about nine months. Children's minds work like sponges and adapt like the flu every year. After only two years of living in Paris, I decided I no longer wanted to speak English and excel only in French. I had skipped a grade and only continued to improve. When I moved back to the United States in 2004, my English was deplorable. Again, I adapted and am now one of the top ten students in my class. My entire life I have been thrown from different cultures and languages like a basketball but I still have excelled in my current life. On the contrary, in my humble opinion, without this severe experience in my early life, I would have never been as successful as I am today.
To this exact point, I would like to comment on the Sound and Fury situation. Heather was obviously a very bright and excited four year old. She could have easily maintained her sign language abilities and learned to speak like I learned English. Although it would obviously be a very different experience, I think it would have occurred. Her family was being completely unreasonable in their fear of having her lose her deaf culture. I'm a proud Guadeloupean, Frenchwoman, and American to this day. I have learned about all my cultures and stand for their values like Heather would have.
Ultimately, I was kinda right. Mr. Kunkle told us later on that Heather did get the cochlear implant and was quite successful in her life. So, I told Peter and Nita so.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Elevators
The small metal box closes as I hold on to the railing. I implore for the person next to the button panel to press my floor --or just let me out at any level really--. The contraption lifts and my stomach squeezes. At any point this elevator could stop. It could come crashing down. And I honestly can't do anything about it. I hate elevators.
In my short lifetime I have grown to tolerate elevators, but this symbiosis developed gradually after my traumatic experience in Chicago. When I was 10-years-old, my family had decided to visit the beautiful city of Chicago. Having only been minutes within our lavish Mariott hotel, I grew bored of the dull checking in. I then dragged my cousin along with me to perform some mischief; or at the very least have some fun. That's when we found the elevators. Their doors were golden and glimmered like the gates to heaven.
What better way to entertain oneself then with the classic elevator jump? As the floor pushes ones body at extreme speeds, one must wait for the stop. For when that elevator stops, the body's momentum follows that of the elevator: up. If one jumps at the same time, one flies. What better way to have fun!
My cousin and I excitedly walked into the golden box and pressed the button of our choice. Pressing the 5th floor, I gave my cousin, Malika, an excited look. How had my mom let us go by ourselves like this? She had told me I could go wherever as long as I came back soon! One elevator ride would do just the trick.
The doors smoothly closed as Malika and I waited. We felt the pulse of strings and levers pull up our cage and gently yet quickly sensed the vertical motion of our bodies. We waited. We anticipated. We timed. And we jumped! What a rush. The gold doors opened again for us and we walked out, visited the floor, and giggled back to the elevator doors. But this time, an eerie sign appeared at our arrival: Wet Floors. Malika, not being able to read English (she was from France), saw this as a warning.
"Should we go?" she asked.
"Malika, it means wet floors! It's fine," I confidently responded.
But I felt it too. That feeling of premonition. But we walked in.
The elevator went down with ease. I looked at Malika smugly. It wasn't until the doors didn't open that I looked away from her. Malika looked at me. Tears formed in her eyes. She was panicking asking me what to do. She was 3 years older than me, but I was the only one who spoke English. The venomous elevator floor buttons all read numbers except for one blood red circle; emergency call. I pressed it. My voice stayed firm as a lady picked up on the other line. Malika cried in the corner as I spoke. We heard men calling our voices asking if we were ok. The room was tiny and my mind congested. Responding ok, we waited for them to fix it. I held Malika. I waited. I closed off my emotions like the doors of the elevator. When the doors opened, fresh air breezed by and my youthfulness came back --the adult ability of making decisions was suffocating me--. My emotions burst and I realized my fear.
I feared being trapped, I feared being alone, I feared being an adult, I feared emotional distress, I feared death.
My mom, having found us after hours, came up to me asking, "where were you?!"
I said one thing, "I hate elevators," and burst out crying.
In my short lifetime I have grown to tolerate elevators, but this symbiosis developed gradually after my traumatic experience in Chicago. When I was 10-years-old, my family had decided to visit the beautiful city of Chicago. Having only been minutes within our lavish Mariott hotel, I grew bored of the dull checking in. I then dragged my cousin along with me to perform some mischief; or at the very least have some fun. That's when we found the elevators. Their doors were golden and glimmered like the gates to heaven.
What better way to entertain oneself then with the classic elevator jump? As the floor pushes ones body at extreme speeds, one must wait for the stop. For when that elevator stops, the body's momentum follows that of the elevator: up. If one jumps at the same time, one flies. What better way to have fun!
My cousin and I excitedly walked into the golden box and pressed the button of our choice. Pressing the 5th floor, I gave my cousin, Malika, an excited look. How had my mom let us go by ourselves like this? She had told me I could go wherever as long as I came back soon! One elevator ride would do just the trick.
The doors smoothly closed as Malika and I waited. We felt the pulse of strings and levers pull up our cage and gently yet quickly sensed the vertical motion of our bodies. We waited. We anticipated. We timed. And we jumped! What a rush. The gold doors opened again for us and we walked out, visited the floor, and giggled back to the elevator doors. But this time, an eerie sign appeared at our arrival: Wet Floors. Malika, not being able to read English (she was from France), saw this as a warning.
"Should we go?" she asked.
"Malika, it means wet floors! It's fine," I confidently responded.
But I felt it too. That feeling of premonition. But we walked in.
The elevator went down with ease. I looked at Malika smugly. It wasn't until the doors didn't open that I looked away from her. Malika looked at me. Tears formed in her eyes. She was panicking asking me what to do. She was 3 years older than me, but I was the only one who spoke English. The venomous elevator floor buttons all read numbers except for one blood red circle; emergency call. I pressed it. My voice stayed firm as a lady picked up on the other line. Malika cried in the corner as I spoke. We heard men calling our voices asking if we were ok. The room was tiny and my mind congested. Responding ok, we waited for them to fix it. I held Malika. I waited. I closed off my emotions like the doors of the elevator. When the doors opened, fresh air breezed by and my youthfulness came back --the adult ability of making decisions was suffocating me--. My emotions burst and I realized my fear.
I feared being trapped, I feared being alone, I feared being an adult, I feared emotional distress, I feared death.
My mom, having found us after hours, came up to me asking, "where were you?!"
I said one thing, "I hate elevators," and burst out crying.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Blurred Lines? Or Quiet Clear?
Through the reading of both articles "Blurred Lines" Is Cocky. Yes. But Rapey? No. and ‘Blurred Lines,’ Robin Thicke’s Summer Anthem, Is Kind of Rapey, I was able to form an opinion from two radically polar articles--so I think I'll be taking the middle route--. I have many internal issues discussing about the song "Blurred Lines". It seems to me that the lyrics and music video doesn't imply rape, but that the depiction of women within the video definitely makes me uncomfortable.
I'll start by just saying the NSFW version of this video is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY! Don't get me wrong, I don't think nudity in visual art form is something to be preached against or vetoed from our society, but this form of nudity honestly just makes me completely uncomfortable. For one, why are the men fully clothed? In Trycia Romano's article she states, "Thicke has insisted, a bit guilelessly, that by having the women naked, he was pushing the boundaries." But is Thicke really pushing the boundaries? In today's society, we have innumerable amounts of women being depicted as objects and half naked. Words stating that women are just looking for rich boys, that we're bitches, and such. So in that sense, the nudity isn't very much different for it still shows women as being manipulated within public view.
Want to know what would have been "pushing the boundaries" Robin? If you were a half naked in a music video with a skin tight banana hammock on for your bottoms. The ladies would love it! But all of a sudden, putting women on an equal level ground with men is pushing it too far. For me, consent is having both players being on the same level --whether that consists of both saying "Yes" or "lets get naked", that's up to the players--. Thus, for me to feel more comfortable about the whole "Blurred Lines" video, the men should be as naked as the women.
Although the music video was kind of offensive, I don't think the lyrics of the song should be seen as "rapey". I thoroughly agree with Jennifer Lai's interpretation; '"Someone who says "I know you want it" is probably overly cocky and presumptuous as hell by assuming you/she wants “it,” but nothing about "I know you want it"'. The lyrics seem to me more like a group of cocky, self absorbed men thinking they have a chance with this girl than men who intend to rape someone. The "Blurred Lines" title aspect reflects that the girl isn't sure whether to let loose or stay in her self possessed state.
Overall, I don't think Robin Thicke was trying to have people think he was okaying rape. I think, like Jennifer Lai stated, "Blurred Lines" is a publicity stunt to get people's attention. And if you think about it, he's done a pretty good job.
I'll start by just saying the NSFW version of this video is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY! Don't get me wrong, I don't think nudity in visual art form is something to be preached against or vetoed from our society, but this form of nudity honestly just makes me completely uncomfortable. For one, why are the men fully clothed? In Trycia Romano's article she states, "Thicke has insisted, a bit guilelessly, that by having the women naked, he was pushing the boundaries." But is Thicke really pushing the boundaries? In today's society, we have innumerable amounts of women being depicted as objects and half naked. Words stating that women are just looking for rich boys, that we're bitches, and such. So in that sense, the nudity isn't very much different for it still shows women as being manipulated within public view.
Want to know what would have been "pushing the boundaries" Robin? If you were a half naked in a music video with a skin tight banana hammock on for your bottoms. The ladies would love it! But all of a sudden, putting women on an equal level ground with men is pushing it too far. For me, consent is having both players being on the same level --whether that consists of both saying "Yes" or "lets get naked", that's up to the players--. Thus, for me to feel more comfortable about the whole "Blurred Lines" video, the men should be as naked as the women.
Although the music video was kind of offensive, I don't think the lyrics of the song should be seen as "rapey". I thoroughly agree with Jennifer Lai's interpretation; '"Someone who says "I know you want it" is probably overly cocky and presumptuous as hell by assuming you/she wants “it,” but nothing about "I know you want it"'. The lyrics seem to me more like a group of cocky, self absorbed men thinking they have a chance with this girl than men who intend to rape someone. The "Blurred Lines" title aspect reflects that the girl isn't sure whether to let loose or stay in her self possessed state.
Overall, I don't think Robin Thicke was trying to have people think he was okaying rape. I think, like Jennifer Lai stated, "Blurred Lines" is a publicity stunt to get people's attention. And if you think about it, he's done a pretty good job.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle- My Non-Fiction Novel
Do you know what you eat? Do you realize what your food does to you? In Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, she discusses her unique one year nutritional journey in the southern Appalachians. Her entire family and she decided to take a bold step in food consciousness by only eating local food for a year. This eye-opening book reveals the plight of food companies and the benefits of eating locally. The genetic modification forced onto fruits, vegetables, and meats to survive long travels is a source of nutritional deficit. In several parts of her book, Barbara Kingsolver implies the taste superiority in local foods and the benefits they bring to our environment. Overall, this was an eye opening non-fiction read that truly informed me on the United States' food corporations.
Barbara Kingsolver's novel was very uniquely written. Throughout her book she presented small articles on relevant nutritional facts or local food producers contacts. With every point she made, Kingsolver would use "How to Find a Farmer" and "The Price of Life" by Steven L. Hopp to enforce her point and inform the reader. In addition, Kingsolver included in each chapter at least one article written by her own daughter, Camille Kingsolver. Each anecdote related to the month or subject at hand rendering the book into a beautiful whole.
Each chapter represented a month with its beautiful difficulties and rewards. Times such as March presented challenges with the beginning of the harvest; only a meager handful of green onions and meats were attainable. In the August chapter, the tomato and squash plight occurred. Kingsolver would spend days chopping, cooking, and canning these vegetables to use over the winter. Each chapter had its own personality and provided a unique piece of information.
Overall, this book did a great job at presenting information. The author took care in using her own personal experiences to expose and teach the reader. For example, Kingsolver explained explicitly the details of grocery store foods. All year, California sends millions of pounds of fruits and vegetables all over the United States. This provides U.S. citizens vegetables that are normally out of season onto the food provider shelves. In the middle of winter when no tomato sprout would dare speak its name, you will find ripe and shiny red tomatoes in your grocery store. Unless you live in California, this fruit was shipped to you from thousands of miles away --and if you didn't know, tomatoes aren't in season in December--. This all-year-round process consumes a lot of energy. By buying these shipped goods, you consume gallons of petroleum. Over 10% of our oil intake is used for food transportation. In this way, Kingsolver took care in well informing the reader.
Although the author does take many stern opinions throughout the book, the reality of the situation still stands; global warming isn't a question of if anymore but when. In her humble opinion, if you can avoid wasting energy by eating only local foods all year like she did, do it. But if you can't, do your best. Try to eat more locally. Recycle a bit more. Buy a hybrid. Bike to work. "This (global warming) is a now-or-never kind of project"(345). Barbara Kingsolver's ultimate point was very clear in the end. She has tried to help the world. Maybe if we all tried, we could save this earth from a less catastrophic outcome and give us more time on this spinning block. This was an eye opening book.
Barbara Kingsolver's novel was very uniquely written. Throughout her book she presented small articles on relevant nutritional facts or local food producers contacts. With every point she made, Kingsolver would use "How to Find a Farmer" and "The Price of Life" by Steven L. Hopp to enforce her point and inform the reader. In addition, Kingsolver included in each chapter at least one article written by her own daughter, Camille Kingsolver. Each anecdote related to the month or subject at hand rendering the book into a beautiful whole.
Each chapter represented a month with its beautiful difficulties and rewards. Times such as March presented challenges with the beginning of the harvest; only a meager handful of green onions and meats were attainable. In the August chapter, the tomato and squash plight occurred. Kingsolver would spend days chopping, cooking, and canning these vegetables to use over the winter. Each chapter had its own personality and provided a unique piece of information.
Overall, this book did a great job at presenting information. The author took care in using her own personal experiences to expose and teach the reader. For example, Kingsolver explained explicitly the details of grocery store foods. All year, California sends millions of pounds of fruits and vegetables all over the United States. This provides U.S. citizens vegetables that are normally out of season onto the food provider shelves. In the middle of winter when no tomato sprout would dare speak its name, you will find ripe and shiny red tomatoes in your grocery store. Unless you live in California, this fruit was shipped to you from thousands of miles away --and if you didn't know, tomatoes aren't in season in December--. This all-year-round process consumes a lot of energy. By buying these shipped goods, you consume gallons of petroleum. Over 10% of our oil intake is used for food transportation. In this way, Kingsolver took care in well informing the reader.
Although the author does take many stern opinions throughout the book, the reality of the situation still stands; global warming isn't a question of if anymore but when. In her humble opinion, if you can avoid wasting energy by eating only local foods all year like she did, do it. But if you can't, do your best. Try to eat more locally. Recycle a bit more. Buy a hybrid. Bike to work. "This (global warming) is a now-or-never kind of project"(345). Barbara Kingsolver's ultimate point was very clear in the end. She has tried to help the world. Maybe if we all tried, we could save this earth from a less catastrophic outcome and give us more time on this spinning block. This was an eye opening book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)