Prior to watching the film, I had heard many things about Citizen Kane. I had heard that it was the best film ever made, that you had to watch it at some point in your life, that you either love it or hate it, etc. I can say with certainty that I truly did enjoy the film. I liked it more than Vertigo, which was released after Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane was just overall more entertaining, I liked the plot more, I liked the characters more, and the film just seemed overall more lively. I especially liked Kane’s character, and I really enjoyed how we saw him fall from grace throughout the film, and the different accounts on his life were also interesting. We are supposed to take away that the American Dream isn’t all that great, and having everything that you could ever want in material items doesn’t grant you happiness. Kane never had someone in his later years that he could say loved him, and having no one can lead you into a dark hole of dispair that even money can’t get you out of. His wives both left him after complications, his coworkers and his lifelong friend left him, and he sat alone in his gigantic estate, with no one to call his own, and died alone, reminiscing of his childhood when he was cared for and had people who loved him. Orson Welles was making fun of a man in a similar situation that was known to be a old and crabby man, probably due to the same reasons, which just proves the point that money and pwer can’t always make you happy. It’s the people in your life and the people who you care about that really keeps you happy and helps you have meaning in life. I feel that many people today cannot grasp this concept, as today’s society is centered around having material items that cost an arm and a leg to own, just as a status symbol. If the kis in the lower grades saw this movie, I can almost guarantee that they would think it was stupid and a waste of time, which is quite unfortunate. If more people today watched this movie and took the advice from it, there is no doubt that the world would be a better place. Anyways, the movie was excellent, I liked the message it was trying to convey, and I liked the way it went about conveying that message.
Just as I thought I had escaped the clutches of confusing and seemingly overly complicated poetry, we are given these 3 pieces of work. These three works are all connected by then main overarching theme of social acceptance and social norms, but they also have their own smaller and more unique themes that are elaborated upon. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock’s theme is the unfairness and often saddening realities that are the social ladders of early 1900’s society, when this poem was written. The poem develops this along the entirety of the poem, by telling the sad story of J.Alfred Prufrock, a servant to a rich family who wishes to speak to a woman of higher social status, but is unable to because he fears the backlash from social difference. The saddest part is that he comes to terms with that right off the bat, without any differentiating thought. The theme of Disillusionment of 10 o’clock is the stupid and self-depricating action of conformity. The poem goes about building this by calling the people who do this nothing more than ghosts who go to bed every night and dream of nothing of worth or value, and describes the common drunken sailor passed out on deck as the real person of worth, as they are having a dream that is more worth while than the conformist’s lives will ever be. The theme of anyone lived in a pretty how town is to be more than just what everyone else is. A boy lives in a town that isn’t different from any other, and anyone else could be in his position and have nothing change, iterating the fact that society is losing it’s sense of individuality for the sake of fitting in. And when the boy and girl die, they are just another couple the exit existance without an impact. Of the three poems, I would say that I enjoyed Disillusionment of 10 o’clock the most. It was short and conveyed its message in a way thyat I thought was interesting, and I also find it very comical that a drunken sailor has more worth than society’s elite.
I thought the short story was interesting. The use of dialects were interesting to read, and also interesting to decipher. Once explained, the story gets ever better. When we were told that it was making fun of people who judge people by their looks and that the narrator was being lead on to being even more of a fool, I was very satisfied the the story and I actually thought it was funny. Now I anticipate that Huckleberry Finn is going to be quite the adventure to read, and I am not disappointed so far. I don’t know much about it, but after already reading some of it for reasons, (ahem), I know a little bit, like the writing style Twain is going for and the names of some characters. After reading the short story, I can anticipate that the book will continue to be written in a way that is authentic to the way characters would have acted in real life and how they will have spoken. I can also anticipate that some satire will be interwoven into the story in a subtle way. Finally, iMom, for one, wasn’t as creepy as some people made it out to be. That aside, I like the way that the creators chose to convey their message that they were trying to convey to the world. They were trying to make fun of our idiotic beliefs and dependence on technology, and having that come back to bite us with killer androids that bake babies was an eye-catching way to do so. I thought it was a funny way to do so, as usually something like this is portrayed by something out of the Terminator movies, but having something like a docile helper turn on you is somewhat different. I’m not saying this hasn’t been done before, but I’ve never seen it done in this way. All in all, I liked all of these examples of satire, and am excited to read more of Huck Finn.
My experience with satire and humor is one that isn’t too complicated. I’ve always really enjoyed stuff like stand-up and comedic shows or reads that make fun of people. I understand that the act of making fun of people is a form of satire itself, so that would be the experience I have with it. And conveniently, satire is listed as a form of humor, so I can safely say that this is my favorite form of humor as well. An example of the satire I enjoy are the multiple late night shows that make fun of current events or people. Stuff like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon. I especially like watching Stephen Colbert rag on out current president, who isn’t necessarily in cool water right now. Now for Mark Twain, I do not know much about him, and I have little experience with his writings. But from what I can tell, he is the type of writer that I would enjoy, as he utilizes satire in his works. After looking up some information about Mark Twain, I find it most interesting that he wasn’t just a writer. He was also a riverboat pilot, journalist, lecturer, entrepreneur, and an inventor. This definitely makes him seem much cooler than most other writers, and having so many other jobs allowed him to use the many different perspectives that he has seen throughout his time working these different jobs. He could see how many different people there were and how different they are from each other, and I imagine that this enhances his stories in a way that not many other writers could capture. All in all, I’m excited to read the book that is Huckleberry Finn, as I can’t wait to see how Twain manages to capture and bring this story to life.
When we first began the movie, I didn’t have high expectations. My dad at home has many Alfred Hitchcock movies, and whenever he got me to watch one, I always thought they were drawn out and boring. Then again, that was when I was younger, but even so I still went in not expecting much. I though that it was just gonna be another convoluted and boring 2 hours, but I can safely say that that wasn’t the case. It may be because my brain has had time to develop and understand a film like this, as the last time I watched a Hitchcock movie was at least 10 years ago, but my initial impression of the film was very good. I was immediately drawn into the story from the beginning, when they showed the source of Scottie’s vertigo, and the way Hitchcock portrayed vertigo was really inventive, considering this movie was made in the 1950’s. The actors’ acting ability wasn’t cringey, which usually pulls me out of the movie and distracts me, but thankfully that wasn’t the case. In fact, I thought the actors and actresses handled the plot very well, considering how unusual it can be considered to be. I liked a lot of things about it, as said, and I actually have a hard time trying to find out what I don’t like about it. I guess I could say that I don’t enjoy the beginning and how slow it takes to get moving, but that is really the only thing. I’m sure if I think long enough and examine the film closer I can find more things I don’t like, but now isn’t the time for that, as we have a film critique to write. If I had to change the fil to fit more for modern audiences, I probably would make the film easier to follow. It may sound bad, but the way I see it, today’s audiences definitely don’t care about intricancies like they did in the past. Many audiences today only care about being told the story easily and and a way that will entertain them. That would be the only thing I would do to suit modern audiences.
As similar to the other works in this type of literature, my initial reaction to this work was despair and confusion. I think many of my classmates will say the same thing, including my table members. However, also similar to how the other works went, over time I slowly began to understand what was going on, even if what I thought was going on was wildly wrong, which we will see proven when my group presents our section of the poem. Speaking of our group’s section, our initial thoughts, surprisingly, didn’t seem that negative. I didn’t hear any immediate complaints, and for the most part, we generally understood the text we were given. However, as I said before, we understood it in our own way, which could be laughably bad compared to the actual meaning, which I’m sure will get a few laughs from McGarry once we present. It seems to be a common similarity between Transcendentalist writers that their works are often confusing in nature to read and interpret. I’m not sure what Whitman’s writing style was before he adopted his Trascendentalist beliefs, but as with the other writers, his word choice and way of describing and explaining things confusing to me. It takes time for me to fullt understand what he is trying to say, most often only after a brief explaination from McGarry. I believe the most important lines in my section are the ones about grass. Not surprisingly, those lines make up the entirety of the section. Therefore, what I am trying to say is, my entire section is important. All jokes aside, I would say the most important lines in my section are the ones comparing the different generations to the grass, and saying that they have their own effect on them. They are important to conveying meaning to the section because they are the basis of Whitman’s whole way of describing things. As said before, the theme of grass is used numerous other times in the poem, and not just in this particular section. The main difficulties I’m having with the work is trying to interpret the meaning behind his words, sometimes to no avail. Though, with time, I’m sure that my tablemates and I will somewhat decipher what Whitman has to say within these words.
Government is a mess. It’s full of overcomplications, narcissism, and the trifles of polititicians. Despite this, however, it is necessary to prevent the world from destroying itself. That is why I disagree with “that government is best which governs least.” The government keeps the common populace in check with laws, restrictions, etc. If left to their own devices by a government that doesn’t govern as much as it should, the populace would destry itself in a wave of crime and the wants of people only out for personal gain. The role of government to an individual person is being the big man on top. The government is always meant to be the thing that punishes you for your misdeeds, which keeps the population in check. Honestly, in today’s world, no government currently commands my respect. All of the governments today, especially ours, seem to be a shell of its former self. Just look at France. They are in the middle of a mass protest, which could possibly end with the removal of the president, all because of the government’s bad choices. A government that would command my respect would be one that takes into account the needs of the people, and one that doesn’t seem to be in some sort of conflict every year. The role of civil disobedience today is to be a tool used by the populace to get what they want from the government. Whether it be through peaceful protests, or violent riots, citizens use civil disobedience to let the government know they want something. Whether or not it is effective depends on the government. If it is a democratic and free speech government like ours, mass protests more often than not are effective in succesfully achieving the goal of the protestors. However, if the government is suppressive, like a dictatorship, mass protests unfortunatley would most likely be shut down at a moments notice, most often with force. Civil disobedience is inherent in amost every society, and every government that runs that society. Even when discouraged, it is bound to show up in one way or another.
My topic for the debate is Net Neutrality – Con side. My side for this topic is sort of in the middle. For one thing, I don’t want my ISP to determine what I see on the internet. On the other hand, I think the government should’t have free reign on what ISP’s can and cannot do, as that would be restricting their freedoms to grow, and essentially inhibits capitalism at its core. I already know that this is a heavilt debated topic, and that much of the American populus is divided on the topic. Based on a single google search, I got a lot of articles based on the debate and definitions of it. Even though this debate started a while ago, there are still many people raising their own opinions and keeping the debate alive, even though net neutrality itself is gone. I plan on approaching this with how net neutrality can hurt us as a society, and why we should avoid it for the betterment of the internet. An ethical issue would be if the government has the right to control ISPs and determine how they run their business. Preventing them from running their company how they want, even if it means stopping ISPs from restricting certain content on the internet, is inherently bad. Because net neutrality is associated with the internet, and many kids, including the ones in my class, use it excessively, I could use emotions like anger to get the kids on my side, and make the pro side of net neutrality look worse than it is. This debate is going to be rough, I think. Net neutrality is something that many kids have a solid opinion on, and it will be difficult to change their opinions on it. From what I have seen, many people are for net neutrality, and believe in it fiercely. Also, many sources online are for net neutrality, and it will be difficult to find information for the con-side. The whole internet seems to be on the pro-side, so I’m definitely going to have to search deep for any useful information helping my case.
A current issue that could be up for debate is one that is pretty popular at the moment: immigration. More specifically, the border wall and if it is even necessary. One side is pro-wall, believing that it will do nothing but help our current immigration issues. On the other hand, the opposing side believes that the wall won’t be enough help to justify it’s constuction, and is a waste of money. Pro-wall’s main argument is that it will stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming into the country, and also keep less desirable people who wish to to harm to our country out. Anti-wall’s main argument is that the wall will not solve all of our immigration issues, and that it is an enormous waste of money. Personally, I’m with the anti-wall side for this debate, because most of all I believe that it is a huge waste of time. Our country’s money can be used for a much better things, like funding education, but is instead being used to pay for an unnecessary wall that will slow down illegal immigration by a small amount. It is all just incredibly stupid in my opinion. Moving on to how my school year has been going, I would say it has been going fairly well. I had a rough patch in the beginning of the year regarding homework, but after a hard scolding from my mother and losing my phone for a while, I’ve mostly gotten back on track. I’d rather not have to deal with that again. If I had to change anything, I would want to improve my ability to balance my work and after school activities. Since play is starting once more, and I am a Head Technician for it, balancing school work and the work I need to do for play will be difficult, if I once again fall behind due to laziness. If I can successfully do this, I can gain the trust of my teachers and parents once more that I am a responsible and hard-working student. The only thing I can see preventing this is my tendency to procrastinate and occasional laziness. I will need to work on those if I wish to succeed.
This was probably one of the hardest endeavors I have ever undertaken. Trying to micromanage yourself throughout the week wasn’t fun at all, and once I realized that, I had a harder time focusing on following the virtues and slipped even more. Industry was by far my worst virtue, as that had the most red put down. Not wasting time on things you don’t need to do is the exact opposite of what my daily life consists of, as I most often enjoy Youtube, Netflix, or my PS4 at the end of the day when all of my work is done. Temperance was my second worst, as I love to eat food, and I usually caught myself walking to the fridge, picking out an apple or piece of chocolate and instinctivly eating it, because that’s what I do to keep myself occupied. The next three I failed go hand in hand because of one person. Moderation, Silence, and Tranquility were all hard to follow throughout the week because of Tyler Kenney. Tyler and I do this thing where I bring up a conversation starter or give my opinion on something, and he will always disagree with it, even if he may also agree with it, just to get on my nerves and start a pointless debate. We have debated on the stupidest things over the past seven days, which in turn made me angry and annoyed with him, which made us continue to yell at each other over pointless topics, completeing the trinity of Moderation, Silence, and Tranquility. I would have had many less read markings if it wasn’t for Tyler. As for the rest of the virtues, they weren’t as difficult. I hadn’t wasted money on anything, I’ve had an easy time staying motivated, and I’ve been extra grateful over the week, making sure to thank my mother extra for making dinner, or thanking my friends and family for sticking it out with me so far. I shouldn’t have to explain chastity, that virtue is easy to follow once you put your mind to it. I don’t think I can say the same for some of the other kids in my grade though. In the end, I can understand why Franklin had such a hard time with these. It is very difficult to change yourself completely instantly, and if you are just starting out, you will inevitably fail. But after going through this once, I can see myself undertaking this again.