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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)