My reaction to this movie was not very good. It was hard for me to focus on the movie because it was in black and white and the graphics were terrible. There were also some points in the movie that I found stupid, like the “jump scare” with the bird…. like what the actual heck was that. Dumbest thing I have ever witnessed in my whole entire life, and I have Shaye as a sister and see her do a lot of dumb crap. I think we are supposed to take away that something that happens in your childhood is still a big deal and can still affect you when you’re older. Things that happen in your childhood set the tone for your attitude for the rest of your life, children remember everything. Charles cannot be happy because he was stripped of his innocence and happiness as a child when he was taken away from his family and taken to a quiet boring house. This movie also interests me because this is a situation where Kane has money, and he still is not happy. People living in today’s society think that if they have money there is no reason for them to be sad or depressed, when that is actually not true at all. In fact, I know multiple people right now that have money and are depressed or not happy with life at all. Money is not everything. To Kane, this was exactly it. He would have been happier with his family as a child then he would with money as an adult. I feel that people take advantage of what they have and don’t actually realize how lucky they are to have a family of their own. Some people think they will be happy once they have money, or once they buy that new car, but when they buy it or make the money and are still depressed, they wonder why. I think this is a lesson all of society needs to learn because at the end of the day money is not everything. After work, you go home to a family, and if you’re loaded with no family, you will be more than likely to come home to hug a bottle off gin. Some of his behaviors through his life also show that he dies not care about the money at all. Sleeping around, getting kicked out of colleges, all show he does not care at all about his body, or the money he had lost from dropping out of school. He was careless with his life. I personally think the plot of this story was well written, as well as the underlying idea of money cannot buy happiness, but I feel if they want a modern audience to enjoy the film, it should be remade into something even better than it is now.
My favorite poem out of the three we had discussed in class was hands down The Love Song of Alfred Prufrock. This is going to sound dark, but I hate reading happy poems, I feel like they are stupid and irrelevant. I liked this poem in particular because just reading the thing made no sense, but actually interpreting every line interested me to truly find out what he was really talking about. I think it is harder to make a dark poem rather than a positive poem, so I also liked how unique the situations were in this poem. I feel that one of the underlying themes for this poem is that the truth is ugly. This person had been lying his whole life, but since they are both sentenced to hell and no one is leaving, he decided to tell the truth and tell us the reader how it really is and how this individual thinks of themselves. The other two poems are called Disillusionment of 10 o’clock and Anyone lived in a pretty how town. These poems are all connected through society and how it is perceived or distorted. In Disillusionment of 10 o’clock, the person that is describing the situation basically says when it is time to go to bed, you decide what you want to wear and no one can judge because no one sees you, but they all still decide to be the same and all wear white. They are never dreaming because of how mediocre they are and that they’re okay with it. This guy is drunk out of his mind and is dreaming about catching fish and tigers. The last poem refers to the boy and anyone and the girl as no one, taking away any physical features of either, and even their gender. This to me describes society and how everyone is looked at by each other. I believe most people don’t think about the importance of individuality, and calling a specific person “anyone” shows that perfectly. To society’s standards, you are a nobody, and everyone is okay with that. I can’t choose to decide which one is most relocatable to today’s society because they all do. The first poem shows the reader how fake people can be, the second shows how people are living but not actually living their lives how they want to, and the third one shows the reader how insignificant they really are to the world. All completely terrible, and can describe most of Americans.
I actually liked reading “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” because it was easy to understand and follow and what the story was about was interesting and intriguing. I honestly enjoyed the satire Mark Twain used because he made fun of the reader, and it was interesting to read because I had absolutely no idea until after the fact. I never thought to think if Simon Wheeler was actually smart or not, and it turns out that he was actually very educated and had intellect. Someone dumb and uneducated would never be able to make up stories like Wheeler did. The one thing I think I know about Huck Finn is that it takes place somewhere where lots of farming takes place. I don’t really know anything about it besides seeing some of the projects laying around the room from last year. I do’t know much about the book, but I am actually interested to read it because Twain’s short story about the frog was good, so I’m sure this book will be intriguing too. I found the short film “Imom” very weird and somewhat dark. The fact that at the very end they zoomed in on the chicken sitting in the baby’s bed really made me feel uncomfortable because everyone in the room knew where the baby had actually ended up. It really hit my core and gave me a rotten taste in my mouth to see mother’s buying a replacement because they don’t want to be in their child’s life. The satire going on in this film is making fun of the moms which was unfortunately very accurate to modern life mothers. My favorite was the party parents that decided to have a kid and also go out every night of the week. It just made me sick because my mom is on her own to raise three kids, and she always finds a way to be at everything everyday for us. She is always helping us through hard times and trying to give us everything we need, and to see mothers not care at all just really made me feel badly for society as a whole.
My experience with satire is more than likely a little larger than what I actually realize. I think of satire as something used to mock something else, so I actually look at satire a lot with all the memes I scroll through daily. My favorite humor is affilative humor because I like to look at funny videos that make me and my friends laugh really hard. Sometimes I can look at funny videos or memes for hours and not even feel bored. I enjoy looking at cat videos and memes that make me laugh really hard to the point where I have abs. For example, there is one video of a cat farting so aggressively that he literally jumps into the air, and its’s not even that funny at first, but if you watch it over and over again its hilarious. There is another one that I also enjoy a lot with cats. There is this cat that had been meowing all morning and the owner recorded it and auto tuned its voice to sound cool and did that to the cat all over the house. Then there is one with a ferret and he is running around and pushed a tree over and his little head pops out while his owner is yelling at him its very funny. There is also a meme I posted in Mr. Pavalko’s room that talks about a pug named pugerino. He’s super cute and it’s my favorite so ya’ll should stop down in Mr. P’s and check it out. I don’t know anything about Mark Twain and really don’t care to, but now I have to. The one interesting thing I found out about Mark Twain was that he actually dropped out in fifth grade. It is impressive that he has been so successful with only a fifth grade education. Twain was also a steamboat pilot so how one does that with a fifth grade education I don’t know, but I mean good for him. To wrap it all up, satire is in my life a lot considering I have watched every episode of the office and also have looked at so many videos I can’t even count them.
Just by reading the title, I wouldn’t think it was anything more than a movie about someone being dizzy, but in reality the vertigo in the story isn’t even a big player. I really think deep down I like the movie just because there are so many plot twists you don’t see coming because in today’s movies you always know what is going to happen, but at the same time, I do not like what actually happens during the twists. I personally think that if this were to be remade with better acting and graphics it would be amazing. One of the bigger things I don’t like with this movie is that the acting does not seem real at all. You can definitely tell that they are acting, and not set in the scene. I do like the plot itself though. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a movie similar to this, making Vertigo refreshing for viewers because it’s not something people just automatically know the ending to. One thing I would definitely change for a modern crowd is the use of graphics for when Scotty has his mental break. It’s too much and too flashy to the point where I didn’t even know what was going on, and someone had to tell me. I also think making the dialogue easier to follow would help keep the audience focused because there were points where I just lost focus and didn’t understand what the cast was getting at. I am not finished with the movie, but right now things are starting to heat up. I could not imagine how much of a hit this film would be if it became modernized, but with an almost identical setup for characters and their personalities. All this film needs is a couple little additions for it to be fantastic for modern viewers. Yes, it would end up being a good movie but, I personally do not think I would like it just because of the plot twists and what happens during the film. If it makes any sense, I like the idea of the movie, I would just rather not have to go through that emotional roller coaster the viewer has to go through.
My initial reaction to Song of Myself was that it was extremely long and it also did not look interesting at all. Our section was very confusing because there were so many ways to interpret each line, and if it was interpreted the wrong way, we wouldn’t get credit so it was annoying to have to pick through and make sure every interpretation was correct. His devotion to transcendentalism allowed the work to be very nature based, and he also related everything back to nature and used many aspects of nature as analogies for other meanings. I think the most important line from section 6 was ” A child said What is Grass? Fetching it to me with full hands” because the child is pure and having the grass represent society allows the child to hold society to a more pure state, because that is all the child knows at this point in his life. One difficultly I am having with the work is it was written so long ago, and some of the words he chose are hard for me to interpret and understand what he is trying to say. Some of the lines from the poem are so confusing to analyze because of his word choice and also because half the words in this poem have underlying meanings. I struggle with poetry to begin with so having to analyze a poem that is so complex has been frustrating and confusing. I feel like if I could understand what Walt Whitman is trying to say I would enjoy reading this poem, but the information is too dense for me to pick apart. The way I reacted to this poem was just confusion because there are so many ways to interpret things in every line that it is confusing to make sure I have the correct understanding of it that McGarry wants. I’m hoping to be done with this poem soon because the thought of having to analyze more of this poem is very annoying. It also doesn’t help that the very little notes I had are nowhere to be found, but it’s fine because they didn’t help much anyways.
I actually do not believe that “the government is best which governs least”. I feel that the government keeps the United States safe and somewhat under control. I like to use the analogy of saying the parent represents the government, and the child represents citizens of the United States. I think this shows the role of our government to the people well because parents show guidance to their children, punish them when they are wrong, and allow them to stay out of trouble for the most part because of their threats. I think Thoreau means to allow a democracy when he states “let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it”, because this way every man would have respect because everyone has a say. I do not think Civil Disobedience is effective today because the definition states “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest,” and most people need to pay their fines and taxes so they stay out of jail because they have families to take care of. Other aspects of civil disobedience still might be out in the world but I do not have any recent examples of this to share. I know it was substantial in the past because the amount of people that participated made it hard to ignore, but I also think we would not have the same quantity of people ready to protest now, as we did back then. It’s unfortunate because I think it would be a logical way to get your opinion seen by the government, but I just feel that people are not as inclined today to protest as they were back then. Mass amounts of people had to fight for their rights, and yes some people still need to today, but not nearly as many people are fighting in comparison to how many have already fought. I honestly feel that if something substantial happened in the government, and it took away from most Americans, then we could break out Civil Disobedience, but until the I personally don’t think problems in the United States are big enough for it to be beneficial or even used properly.
Thoreau and Emerson’s excerpts remind me of something being original. In Emerson’s excerpts he talks about how society changes everyone into acting and sometimes even looking the same, and how we should change and break out of society to live by your own standards. I also found that in his excerpts he explained the idea of pushing yourself to become better whether that is good for society or not. This also could relate to Thoreau because his new house in a sense can almost be looked at as if he was playing the role of God, and according to the bible, God wants everyone to be successful and themselves. I connect the thought of originality to both Thoreau and Emerson’s thoughts because they both wanted everything to become unique and not set in stone like society had been doing. Thoreau just uses a house to help instead of humans. He tries to say that it doesn’t matter if your rich or poor, a house is a house and can still find happiness. Society is really the reason today as of to why people feel insecure about their homes because society has attacked them and made people think they aren’t as good as others if they don’t have a giant house. The benefits of just going out to the woods is that you can get away from all the toxic people in your community, the ones that are responsible for society becoming the way it is. I would miss interaction with other humans, but at the end of the day I don’t think it is worth being around toxic people just for some interaction. I really think I could do it if I had a house out there with electricity and a dog. I think I could live happily if i had a dog with me. I think they’re better than most humans anyways. I think the biggest thing to take away for a modern reader is that society does not have to define you. People should be free to be able to be whoever they want to be and not get ridiculed for it.
I generally enjoy arguing with people to an extent. I wouldn’t even call it arguing because everyone is civil and hears each side of the argument, so I would call it a debate over an argument. I enjoy debating like this on a daily basis because it allows young people to be involved in world controversies that adults try to tell us we shouldn’t have an opinion on because we’re too “young”. It also helps start conversation and makes me feel like the conversation was actually worth wasting my breath on, and I like hearing what other people say about the topic. Our actual debate was a little too formal for me to actually enjoy debating. I like talking about issues when someone can say something, and then everyone listens and takes it into consideration, and then they get to speak on their side of the argument. I just like that more because it flows easier than having a rebuttal and also having to state all of our points at once. I don’t like arguing with my mom because she feels the need to shove her side of the argument in my face. I understand that she may feel that she wants me to understand her reasons, but there are also reasons to support the other side and it annoys me when she always thinks her side is right, so I stopped bringing up controversial conversations to her. My topic on abolishing the electoral college has made me do a ton of research. At this point I was pro abolishing the electoral college, but at this point I think I want them to keep the electoral college because without it, it would give the people too much power. This debate was actually pretty hard. Trying to make a professional constructive with reliable sources and statistics took a lot of research and also a lot of time and effort to construct in general. The rebuttal was even harder to create because you have to take the opponents side’s points, and find a way to make them bad. All in all, I liked debating, but I wouldn’t do it this way again unless I was forced to.
The topic I have for the debate is pro abolish the electoral college. In my personal opinion, I am against abolishing the electoral college, so this is going to be interesting. I really didn’t know much about the topic before I did some research, but even now that I know a little more about the subject, I still don’t necessarily care about it. When you google search “abolish electoral college” the first thing that comes up is a website saying it should be amended in the constitution, so my thoughts are that people feel strongly about abolishing the electoral college. I also now think I need to do more research before I choose a side because it seems that there is a lot of information supporting pro abolishing. My plan to address this topic is to start doing research. After I do research, I think I will continue by stating each side and then listing arguments that can be made for each side as well on a piece of paper so my thoughts feel more organized before I start to do anything else. I think if I bring in “the rights of the people” then i’ll be okay because then people will know I am arguing for them and will feel more inclined to side with me rather than someone saying to keep the electoral college. Some ethical issues with abolishing this could potentially be racial, or because of religion. I feel like in today’s society, anyone can make an accusation that someone is doing something because of their race or religion instead of the actual problem at hand. This is why this topic will be hard because Im sure there are multiple people that feel that they are trying to abolish the electoral college for the wrong reasons. I am glad that I got this over abortion or a topic like that because they are so controversial I would almost feel uncomfortable debating those in a school setting especially because some people are too immature to handle the conversation. So I don’t really want to debate electoral college because I think it is boring, but at the same time I am glad I got this.