My expectations going into this movie were somewhat high because it is regarded to be the greatest movie of all time. But after watching it my expectations dropped dramatically. It was really boring and the biggest challenge was trying to pay attention they whole time. It’s only been a few days since we watched it and I already forget a lot that happened in that movie. In my opinion the best part of the movie was the cinematography. It was used in creative ways that showed importance throughout the film. The shots that made some character bigger than others had a good affect. It showed you had the authority and who was in power. The shot with the mirrors was cool too, mostly because no one else was able to replicate it. The worst part about this film (the bad and ugly) was the pacing and how boring it was. It it was probably the most boring movie I ever watched. And the pacing was bad how it went back and forth and was just super slow all around. The only important scenes that you needed see was the scene were he was a kid at his old house in the snow. And the 1st scene when the burned the sled (rose bud). Its kind of ironic how at the end they were burning all the “junk” and keeping all the stuff that had “worth” even though the sled was the only thing that had worth to him because that was when he was actually happy. I kind of predicted that rose bud had something to do with his childhood after he picked up the snow globe, but I had no idea it was the sled.. The theme of this film is making a mockery of the American Dream. The American Dream is that anyone, no matter the circumstances, is able to succeed and be successful at what they’re trying to accomplish. It’s known as the land of opportunity. And Charles Foster Kane was able to do this because he didn’t have a very rich childhood. The whole point of this movie is to get the point across that money can’t buy happiness, And Charles Kane is the perfect example of that. He had all the money in the world but he was never happy. First of all, he never chose that life for him. He never wanted to be some successful business man, but his mom made that decision for him, which is pretty evil. All he wanted to do was be loved and seen as a good person. That’s why he ran for governor, so people can see him as a good guy, but he only really did it for himself and not for the people. The same thing when he built his wife an opera house. She hated opera singing and wanted to stop doing it, but he forced her to keep doing it because it made him look good some how. This movie made a great point, but it couldn’t have done it in more boring way.
All the poems that we read are all related, and they’re all talking about society. Each poem has a different theme about society, some are more obvious than others. The first poem, “The Love Song” is telling the story of a guy who’s stuck in hell. I believe the theme of this poem is how we put on fake face and personality to seem “better” or more acceptable to society’s standards. Bu when we put on a facade like that, we’re only faking ourselves. You can tell the guy in the poem is insecure about himself, because he has trouble and overthinks how he should approach the women in the room. He really cares about the way he looks and is presented, so that is way he was sent to hell for being a liar. The second poem, “Disillusionment of 10 o’clock” deals with society but in a different way. I think its referring to what society thinks is correct and acceptable. It first talks about night-gowns so we have the idea that it’s talking about high class people. It also says that they’re not “strange” so we get the sense that they’re considered “normal” by society’s standards. But then it mentions that they’re dreaming of “baboons and periwinkles” which sounds like a pretty lame dream. But then it mentions a sailor whose drunk and asleep, but he’s dreaming about catching tigers in red weather. Obviously the sailor is having a way better dream, and he would be considered someone who’s rejected by society or low class. And the last poem, “anyone lived in a pretty how town” talks bout society in a confusing way. I believe (but not sure) its referring to how life just keeps going on and repeating, and events that happen in the past eventually get forgotten. It keeps mentioning the season and the days and nights, and that’s supposed to be saying how life is s cycle. I feel like “The Love Song” is most applicable to our society today and it is also my favorite. Most people try to make themselves seem acceptable to society, whether its in real life or on social media. “anyone lived in a pretty how town” was probably my least favorite because it was the most confusing.
The first time I read “The Celebrated Jumping Frog From Calaveras County” I thought it was just a piece of literature that was there just to waste your time, and I wasn’t completely wrong. When you first read it, you think the narrator is smart and you think Simon Wheeler is dumb because of the way he talks. He uses words like “feller” and “curiosest” so you get the impression that he’s not that smart. The narrator then asks Simon Wheeler if he knew where Leonidas W. Smiley is. Simon Wheeler then talks about a completely different person. The reader and the narrator both think that Simon is clueless because he’s talking about a different person and we think that Simon just wasted our time. But Simon was telling some pretty unbelievable stories that HE knew weren’t true, so he ended up just wasting everybody’s time and made us and the narrator look like the idiot. It was making the point that just because someone doesn’t look or seem smart, can really be smarter than the person who thinks they’re smart. I don’t know too much about The Adventures Huckleberry Finn, but I think I no enough information to know what it will be about. Mark Twain wrote it so I know there’s going to be a lot of satire in it. I think it’s supposed to satirize the racism in the south. There’s going to be a lot of racism in it. I think it tells a story of a boy and a slave that go on some adventure and the boy isn’t racist. My opinion and what I know about it will probably change after I read it, but I’ll have to wait until then. The short film we watched iMom caught me by surprise. It satirizes our dependence on technology and how we rely on it too much. It also satirizes parenting and we see the different types of parents and how and why they use and have an iMom. The boy’s mom you can see doesn’t really care for him that much. The baby is obviously the favorite child, and when he was talking to her she was on her phone and was more focused on going out and partying and not focusing on taking care of her children. The ending really caught me off guard, which was the creepiest part of the film.
I love satire. Mostly because most of my favorite type of humor includes satire, sarcasm, and dark humor. Any humor that crosses the line or makes someone or something look stupid is the best type of humor because it’s “taboo.” I probably get most of my humor and comic relief from the internet because you can find pretty much anything on the internet. The person who’s the best at this type of humor is a youtuber called FilthyFrank. He pretty makes the most offensive and absurd content on the internet. Sadly he doesn’t make videos anymore because he is famous, but his legacy still lives on. Most people probably seen a meme or gif of him and didn’t know he was. All of his videos would trigger so many people and would cross the line, and that is why people loved him. One of videos is called Pimp my Wheelchair which was supposed to be satire of the show Pimp my Ride. In the video he has his friend with cerebral palsy be the person getting the new wheel chair. It is satire because he thinks that he’s doing something great for this person with cerebral palsy, at the same time he treats him like absolute trash and acts like an awful person, which e does in all his videos. The video is so freaking funny and messed up which is just great. He has another video called Weeaboos where he makes fun of people who think they are Japanese through watching anime. He has so many videos that just make want to laugh and be disturbed at the same time and it is great.
I don’t know a lot about Mark Twain, but I know he writes a lot of satire and comedy. He was also the person to write HuckleBerry Finn. I thought it was interesting that he originally wasn’t even an author but a miner. I thinks it is kind of cool how some one realized that they weren’t good at the career they had, and instead they pursued their passion and are able to succeed from it.
After watching the entire movie Vertigo a physiological thriller made by Alfred Hitchcock in 1958 with a budget of 2.5 million, it was alright I guess. I guess the thing I like the least about the film that it’s really boring and not much happens until the end. A lot of times it felt like they were just trying to stretch out the run time because some scenes where longer than they had to be. Especially the scenes where Scotty would follow Madeline in the car. They lasted so long, longer than they had to be, and were unnecessary and boring. There were more than one of those scenes too, which is even more stupid. Those are the scenes where you go leave to get snack or a drink or something. And he’s so obviously not driving a car. Another thing I didn’t like about the movie Vertigo a physiological thriller made by Alfred Hitchcock in 1958 with a budget of 2.5 million, is that the plot holes were everywhere. Some were so big that you could’ve fall into them. First of all, how did Gavin and Judy escape the tower that Madeline got tossed of from? There were people there the moment she fell, you think they would’ve investigated the place where she fell from. Also, Judy and Madeline weren’t the same person, so you think that Scotty would investigate the body after it fell and realize that it wasn’t the same person he’s been following around the whole time. Another thing, why wouldn’t Judy leave the city after helping Gavin murder his wife? She looks just like Madeline, so she didn’t of the possibility of Scotty potentially seeing her? And the one time when Scotty followed Judy back to his home, they talked for like two seconds then she left. Did she really want to drive all the way to Scotty’s house just to say one thing and leave? Makes no sense! And the whole plan to kill Madeline was over complex and extra. like did you really need to make up that your wife was possessed and that’s why she “killed herself?” The plot looks like a minefield now.
Song of Myself is probably one of the best poems that we have done so far. It’s easy to understand and talks about easier understandable stuff. I like how the entire poem is written throughout his life and you can see how much his writing and him as a person had changed. The first section my group was assigned is about getting through the tough times and obstacles trying to hold you back during life. But it also talks about not letting all these bad things change who you are and changing in what you believe in. It also relates to transcendentalism because it talks about how much we advance as human beings when it says. “The latest dates, discoveries, inventions, societies, authors old and new.” Another important line from this section is when Walt Whitman says,”Looking with side-curved head curious what will come next.” This line is basically saying that he is excited for the future because there’s always a chance that things can get better. This section is important because it gives good advice to the reader and the port was probably going through something similar to what was written in the poem. Section 17 was a short one. At first, the poem talks about the poet’s thoughts and saying that he did not originate the way he thinks and acts, he says, “These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands.” This can be said about most beliefs and ideas today, that they were all previously thought of back then. Then I think the rest of the poem talks about the people or “obstacles” that you’ll encounter in your life. He then says if they can’t help you get out of bad situation you’re in, or what problem you’re dealing with, they don’t matter. I don’t think section 17 related to transcendentalism as much as section 4 does, but it still has some. I think the transcendentalism ideas in this section relate to becoming better as an individual. There is one line in section 4 that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, “Looks down, is erect, or bends an arm on an impalpable certain rest.” This didn’t make much sense to me.
1.) I do agree that a government should offer more freedom for how it’s citizens live their lives, but they should supply equality among its citizens. Communism is the worst type of government because the government controls everything. They control how you think, what is right and wrong, what you’re able to buy and purchase, and it puts a limit on how much you’re able to live. And that type of government just ends up being corrupt and control hungry. Our type of government has way more freedom, put there are still some restrictions too it. Obviously I think all government should have laws that keep the peace and offer stuff to it’s community, but in order to do that we need taxes. But some of the taxes that we have pay don’t directly affect us so we just end up paying to something that doesn’t matter to us.
2.) The government we have know has some of my respect, but there is a lot of stuff that they keep secret from us. Some times we don’t know where our tax dollars are going. And they’re ALWAYS watching us and spying on us and know what we’re doing. It kind of creeps me out how your phones are always listening to you and there are cameras everywhere now so you lose all your privacy. But they also supply us with a lot of opportunities and the economy is good right now so I can respect them for that.
3.) Civil disobedience still plays a major role in society today. It shows that we can still have an influence on our government to make change and evolve as a society. Mr Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are perfect examples, even though they made change in the past. They were able to majorly influence entire nations to change the way their government worked and aced and they did it peacefully, which also shows that we don’t have to resort to violence to get change. If the people want change, they’ll get change (unless they live in a communist state lol). The government should be influenced by its people, not its leader.
This excerpt was complete nonsense and stupid. I thought the last excerpt made no sense, but this one makes it look like children’s book in comparison. He rambles on about a farm and the woods for no reason. I could read this from the bottom up and it still make the same amount of sense. I found no connections between this and Emerson’s. Either way they’re both trash. The first part he’s sad about the farm. I only the first paragraph in the conclusion because i knew it was hopeless to try to make sense of it. The benefit of him leaving society and living in the woods is that he won’t be part of society any more and we’ll never have to deal with him again. I wouldn’t miss a single thing from him. And why would I want to live in the woods? Modern readers should take this as an example of what not to write and how transcendentalism should have not been a thought back then. This does the opposite of transcendentalism.
I feel like people should only argue when something is worth arguing about. Obviously people argue in debates, but they also argue everywhere, and it could be about anything. Even stupid stuff. I don’t get into a lot of arguments, but I usually argue better when I know i’m right and the other person just decides to deny logic and accept that i’m right. Usually when I do get in arguments, its about something stupid. A lot of my peers argue in different ways, mostly when it comes to my friends. It depends what they’re arguing about and who they’re arguing to. Some of my friends will argue like civilized people, and others just insult the person they’re arguing against the whole time. It depends who they’re arguing to though because my one friend is usually respectful and argues with facts. But when he argues with his brother, he just insults him the whole time and they end up fighting. Adults usually argue better then teenagers do because they actually use logic. I haven’t seen a lot of adults argue about stuff but they’re usually civilized and aren’t yelling random crap at each other. In order to develop a valid argument, you have to know what you’re arguing about. You need multiple points and reasons to prove that you’re right, you can’t just say the same thing the whole time and expect to win the argument. And you actually need to listen to what the other person is saying because you can make a counterargument from the stuff they say. Also you have to be civilized when arguing so people take you seriously. Nothing really changed on my thought of the topics that we debated about. Mostly because the we didn’t hear most of the debates so I couldn’t hear what each side had to say. And for the gun control debate, I already agreed with Jamie’s side going into the debate and she won. Also my debate I agreed with the side I was selected for, and I didn’t get to here the other side so nothing really changed.
My debate topic is about net neutrality and I have to argue for the pro side. I don’t personal agree or like net neutrality. I think its stupid that companies can control what we see or do without paying them a fee. But to be honest I don’t really fully understand net neutrality, so this will be hard either way. I know a lot of people were against net neutrality when it was first announced, but I feel like a lot of people didn’t understand it correctly and got a different idea of what it actually is. This is what I think I know about net neutrality without doing any research. So basically, companies can restrict and limit access to what you can view and access when it comes to web browsing if it something they don’t want you looking at. Or they can make you pay a fee. An example of this is if you have Verizon, they could charge you fee or just restrict you from viewing other phone company websites, like AT&T’s website. I just looked up net neutrality and I still don’t know what it really is exactly. I seem to have the right idea, but i’m not confident for this debate. And i’m still confused for the pro side. Am I arguing that I want net neutrality, or am I agreeing that we keep without it. I could address this logically by stating facts that prove my point and thinking of what my opponent will say and prove them wrong. I can bring up ethical point that it is restricting freedom of internet browsing and accuse them for agreeing to do that. Once again I don’t really know what side i’m arguing for, but i”ll eventually think of something. I can definitely use emotions in my debate. I feel like that’s what most people listen to know when it comes to arguing anyway. I can bring up angry emotions in my debate. Hopefully the audience listens to emotions. Most importantly I hope i’m smarter than the person i’m going up against so i can win with ease.