The film The Cove produced by Louie Pshioyos in 2009 is a documentary about dolphins. This documentary explains how every year in Taiji, Japan 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered while only maybe ten are captured and put in captivity to be trained. Most of this documentary is about how unethical and wrong it is for them to kill so many dolphins, how ever it also does a good job of showing why the Japanese feel that they need to slaughter them.
Airing the opposite side of an argument is very important when trying to get your point across. Without the counter argument it is much harder to get your point across. The counter argument is there to show the other side and help emphasize why your argument is the right side to be on. For example in this movie the whole point is to explain why killing dolphins is so bad and why it shouldn’t be done, if there wasn’t the other side aired on why the Japanese actually do it then the point of the movie wouldn’t be as valid.
Though they did air the other side of the story as to why the killing happens the argument was not convincing. The main argument that they used as to why they killed the dolphins was that they used it as a source of food. Though they felt this was a good argument and the documentary pointed this out its not a convincing argument at all in the fact that the documentary explains why this is not a valid point. They explain it isn’t a valid point by actually testing dolphin meat and showing that it is actually very toxic. When testing the meat they found that there were high levels of mercury found in it, which is very harmful to the human body when consumed. So yes they air the opposite side of the argument its not a convincing argument because they do an excellent job and disclaiming their argument.
I think airing the most unethical arguments are the most important for the sake of “fairness”. I believe this because I believe that people need to know what things are going on so that something can be done about it. Most times when something as unethical as the killing of 23,000 dolphins is kept from the knowledge of the public, and when something like this is happens the public deserves to know. The government has no right to keep this from the public. The public has the right to know, and the right to voice their opinion to. So I don’t think that there is anything that is unethical to air because the public has the right to know what’s going on.
So I think this documentary by Louie Psihoyos does an excellent job of getting his point across while voicing the other argument while at the same time informing the public on what is really happening. Now that the public knows what is going on now something can happen and this can stop because it needs to stop, and this documentary did an excellent job of showing how wrong it is.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Blog # 5
The film Koyaanisqatsi produced by Godfrey Reggio in 1983 is a film with no dialogue. It’s a film that only has music. This is such a unique way to produce a film that not many people would think of doing. This type of film really forces you to watch the film in a way that normally isn’t watched.
To watch a film with no words/dialogue the film has to be looked at from a different perspective. Most times when people watch a movie they follow the plot line of the film through the dialect of the different characters. The audience also has to come up with the plot or message based of the images that are produced. This already changes the way the movie requires you to view it compared to a narrative film. Typically while watching a narrative film the eyesight automatically zones in on the person talking just like in real life. When a person is talking you look at them. However in a movie like Koyaanisqatsi the eyesight has nowhere to zone in on, therefore the audience looks everywhere, allowing the audience to take in all the art and hard work that went into producing the film. It allows the audience to look at the different affects and the quality of the movie. One affect in particular that is used in this film that helps shape and make the movie is the lighting. Most times that is something we skip over our eyes are too focused on who is talking, but when you have nothing set to look at like the person talking then your eyes can wonder and appreciate the small things that make a movie and to also recognize how much work went into it.
Another way this film really forces the audience to view this movie differently is the fact that they now have to listen to the music to set the mood and speed of the movie. In this type of film it’s the music that makes the story instead of words. Music can speak to someone in so many different ways and can make different people have different emotions. A person has to come up with their own interpretation of the film. When watching a typical narrative film there is normally always music but that’s not the main focus point therefore attention isn’t brought to it. However with that being the only sound that is being made that is where attention is brought forcing the audience to interpret the music in some way, which is a change for most.
This is very discomforting to most. Most people don’t like having to come up with something on their own. They don’t like having to think out of the box to come up with some sort of story. They don’t go to watch a movie and have to make up the story themselves they watch it for the storyline already created. They feel that its difficult and challenging and when people are forced into that type of situation they find it discomforting. Most people also find discomfort in the fact that there are no words. Now a day everything is about talking to so and so having to do such and such that they barely have time to sit and relax and not have sound except for music. They find that in a way its a type of silence and so many people find discomfort in silence.
I however did not find the movie discomforting at all. I actually found it very enjoyable. I liked being challenged in having to look at this movie in a different perspective than I was accustomed to. I also enjoyed having the opportunity to see the work that went into the movie with out it being pointed out to me because I was not distracted by characters and dialogue. I also like the fact the way I saw the movie and the plot line I came up with may be different from a person who watched it at the same time because there is no set plot its what ever you make of it. So yes it makes you view the movie differently then that of a narrative film but it also makes you think more creatively and out of the box. Puts you out of that comfort zone and makes you think for yourself.
To watch a film with no words/dialogue the film has to be looked at from a different perspective. Most times when people watch a movie they follow the plot line of the film through the dialect of the different characters. The audience also has to come up with the plot or message based of the images that are produced. This already changes the way the movie requires you to view it compared to a narrative film. Typically while watching a narrative film the eyesight automatically zones in on the person talking just like in real life. When a person is talking you look at them. However in a movie like Koyaanisqatsi the eyesight has nowhere to zone in on, therefore the audience looks everywhere, allowing the audience to take in all the art and hard work that went into producing the film. It allows the audience to look at the different affects and the quality of the movie. One affect in particular that is used in this film that helps shape and make the movie is the lighting. Most times that is something we skip over our eyes are too focused on who is talking, but when you have nothing set to look at like the person talking then your eyes can wonder and appreciate the small things that make a movie and to also recognize how much work went into it.
Another way this film really forces the audience to view this movie differently is the fact that they now have to listen to the music to set the mood and speed of the movie. In this type of film it’s the music that makes the story instead of words. Music can speak to someone in so many different ways and can make different people have different emotions. A person has to come up with their own interpretation of the film. When watching a typical narrative film there is normally always music but that’s not the main focus point therefore attention isn’t brought to it. However with that being the only sound that is being made that is where attention is brought forcing the audience to interpret the music in some way, which is a change for most.
This is very discomforting to most. Most people don’t like having to come up with something on their own. They don’t like having to think out of the box to come up with some sort of story. They don’t go to watch a movie and have to make up the story themselves they watch it for the storyline already created. They feel that its difficult and challenging and when people are forced into that type of situation they find it discomforting. Most people also find discomfort in the fact that there are no words. Now a day everything is about talking to so and so having to do such and such that they barely have time to sit and relax and not have sound except for music. They find that in a way its a type of silence and so many people find discomfort in silence.
I however did not find the movie discomforting at all. I actually found it very enjoyable. I liked being challenged in having to look at this movie in a different perspective than I was accustomed to. I also enjoyed having the opportunity to see the work that went into the movie with out it being pointed out to me because I was not distracted by characters and dialogue. I also like the fact the way I saw the movie and the plot line I came up with may be different from a person who watched it at the same time because there is no set plot its what ever you make of it. So yes it makes you view the movie differently then that of a narrative film but it also makes you think more creatively and out of the box. Puts you out of that comfort zone and makes you think for yourself.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Uniforms: A Way of Taking Away Individuality or Uniting All Students as One
Just how important are the cloths we wear? Are cloths really what make us different? Is this really how we should be defining ourselves; by the cloths we wear? Yes it is important for one to be able to express ones individuality, but there are ways to do this without it being a fashion show. The best solution for this is uniforms. Uniforms are a way for students to be on an equal playing field when it comes to the world of fashion. Which in today’s society plays a major role. However, “Many students simply do not like wearing uniforms. They complain that uniforms take away individuality, promote conformity, or are unflattering or uncomfortable” (School Uniforms).Though students come up with many reasons for no uniforms it comes down to the fact that “uniforms were doing something to prevent violence, improve school climate, and help parents out financially” (Konheim). So although it is important for one to be able to express them self, it is also important to have the safest and most productive place of learning possible.
In today’s society we all want to express ourselves as individuals and have the nicest cloths out there. Why would anyone want to have a uniform that would not allow them to express who they are? No one would, this is why most students hate the idea of having to wear uniforms. Students like being able to go out shopping with friends and pick out cloths that express who they are. When they pick out cloths they pick what they
think looks best and what is most comfortable to them. There are those that say; “Expressing myself through how I dressed was my way of asserting my individuality and making it clear that I was unique” (Washington). Importing uniforms in schools takes away a persons ability to express who they are through their clothing which is the way many students like to express themselves. It takes away their ability to feel that they are unique and themselves. Its an easy way for someone to first see the type of person they are with just a glance.
There then is the whole idea of conformity. While growing up as kids we were always told to be ourselves no matter what. How are kids suppose to be ourselves if we are all conformed to look the same. How does this help kids express who they are. In the real world there is no uniform. There may be a dress code that is highly required for one to follow other wise a job could be loss, but there is no actual uniform. In the real word people have to deal with the possibility that they will be judged by what they are wearing. There will be no one there to punish a person for saying something negative about ones cloths. Its all part of life and everyone has to deal with it. So we might as well get use to it in school before we have to face it out in the real world. Just how well does conformity work anyways? Milena Stephenson age 16 says “ you still have separation from the rich and the poor. Because even though there is a uniform some people buy their uniform from a nicer place than those with less money” (Stephenson, M). Hearing this from a student that actually has a uniform, it makes you question if there is still going to be the separation why have uniforms at all.
Uniforms are uncomfortable and just don’t look pretty. Kids spend eight hours a day in a school sitting in classrooms listening to teachers talk all day. They not only have to sit in a school and listen for eight hours, they also sit in extremely uncomfortable chairs. If kids are already sitting uncomfortably they at least want comfortable cloths to wear. Some people have issues with the idea that people will judge others by what they are wearing and yes that will probably happen, however not everyone cares. Some people dress for the sole purpose of being comfortable. Many students will wear sweatpants and sweatshirts to class not really caring what they look like or what others think of them, they just want to be comfortable and uniforms do not help there.
However kids put it to say they don’t want to wear uniforms there are actually many perks to having them. Two things that uniforms help do is “reduce violence in schools by diminishing gang influence and easing competition over clothing“ (Konheim-Kalkstein). As said earlier in the paper many ways kids express themselves is by their clothing and that in includes colors worn that can be related to gangs. It has been proven that “In fact, gang violence is one of the most influential reasons for adopting uniform policies” (Konheim-Kalkstein). So now by enforcing uniforms it takes away the distinguishing different members of different gangs therefore eliminating the violence between them. Uniforms not only get rid of gang violence but also the “competition over clothing”. School should not be a fashion show and that who ever has the top of the line cloths is the best, that is just not fair to those with not enough money. As student Katie Line says “I think they [uniforms] are an amazing way to keep everyone on the same level.” Uniforms help eliminate the “I’m cooler than you because I have nicer cloths than you” status that kids feel. This competition is a form of school violence because kids who don’t have the nice designer cloths get picked on. Often times this lowers a students self esteem so uniforms also eliminate that as well. uniforms help in a major way of getting rid of school violence.
Uniforms also can help with parents financial situation. Especially with the way today’s economy is. A lot of parents just don’t have the money to provide their kids with the top of the line clothing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, however those kids with a lot of money would go and buy all the more expensive cloths and then think they are above those who don’t have designer cloths. it has been said that, “School uniforms are a bargain. They are becoming far less expensive than many other clothes. Schools argue that school uniforms are economical, especially compared to designer clothing, and parents agree given school uniform durability” (Pros and Cons). This means that not only will they save money but the cloths will last longer because the cloths were “made for repeated wash and wear” (Pros and cons). Cheryl Stephenson mother of Milena Stephenson says that “after two years of uniforms the budget is cheaper for there is no need for new cloths every year” (Stephenson, C.). Some people believe that uniforms actually cost more, yes at the beginning they might but looking back to what Cheryl said, over time it does save money because new wardrobes don’t have to be bought every year and the cloths last longer.
Uniforms also help create a better school environment. Some say that “uniforms make schools safer…behaviors improve…learning improves” (Sholes). Students are now able to focus and pay attention in class because they are not concerned about the cloths that others are wearing therefore allowing students to learn more which helps improve test scores. Not only cam it improve this but it also makes school look more professional:“Some say that a child in a school uniform is more likely to take school seriously. Putting on the school uniform signals he or she is going to school just like dad dresses up to go to work. Schools report that when students dress in "work clothes" rather than "play clothes" they take a more serious approach to their studies.” (Pros and cons)This pretty much explains it. Students will be dressed nicer therefore will look at it as a type of work environment, which in a sense it is because a students “job” is to go to school and get an education. With the nicer clothing and business type attire students will more likely take school seriously thereby improving behavior and improving there abilities to focus and learn.
One of the major concerns people have with uniforms is their thought that uniforms take away a persons individuality. This is not true at all. There are many other ways for one to express them self without having to have nice cloths. There are plenty of ways to accessorize an outfit to make it ones own. There is jewelry that can be worn to give the outfit the pop. A certain hair cut can also change someone’s look in a major way. So we have accessories and hair cut and then there is the most important one the way you act. Katie says “how you look should not define you” (Line). She is very right it should not matter how we look. What really should matter is the way one acts. Uniforms help this because now students are not able to quickly judge someone based on clothing they actually have to get to know the person before making judgment.
So over all yes it is important to express who we are but we can do this with out having to wear the nicest cloths or cloths with funky designs and sayings on them. Students need to learn to be able to express themselves through actions and not looks. Along with learning new ways to express themselves they also have safer and better learning environment. Uniforms do have its pros and cons but the pros out weigh the cons making uniforms the better choice. There is no definite answer, for it is all a matter of opinion and everyone’s opinion is different. But if we were to think logically then it is clear to see that uniforms is the way to go. Students are still capable of being an individual if they can learn to do so and schools have a nicer environment while the students look nicer and learn more. It also gives the student a way of showing their school pride with the fact that most uniforms a in some way school colors or have their mascot somewhere. So I feel that uniforms are logically the way to go.
Works Cited
Line, Katherine. Personal interview. 26 Oct. 2010.
Konheim-Kalkstein, Yasmine L. “A Uniform Look” American School Board Journal
193.8 (2006): 25-27 Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
“Pros and Cons of School Uniforms.” Article Base. 9 Sept. 2005. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.
“School Uniforms.” Current issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale,
2010. Gale Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Sholes, DeLene. “School Uniforms Pros and Cons.” Suite101.com 22 April, 2009. Web.
25 Oct. 2010.
Stephenson, Cheryl. Personal interview. 26 Oct. 2010
Stephenson, Milena. Personal interview. 26 Oct. 2010
Washington, Melissa. “Should Public School Children Wear Uniforms: No” Helium.
Web. 25 Oct. 2010.
In today’s society we all want to express ourselves as individuals and have the nicest cloths out there. Why would anyone want to have a uniform that would not allow them to express who they are? No one would, this is why most students hate the idea of having to wear uniforms. Students like being able to go out shopping with friends and pick out cloths that express who they are. When they pick out cloths they pick what they
think looks best and what is most comfortable to them. There are those that say; “Expressing myself through how I dressed was my way of asserting my individuality and making it clear that I was unique” (Washington). Importing uniforms in schools takes away a persons ability to express who they are through their clothing which is the way many students like to express themselves. It takes away their ability to feel that they are unique and themselves. Its an easy way for someone to first see the type of person they are with just a glance.
There then is the whole idea of conformity. While growing up as kids we were always told to be ourselves no matter what. How are kids suppose to be ourselves if we are all conformed to look the same. How does this help kids express who they are. In the real world there is no uniform. There may be a dress code that is highly required for one to follow other wise a job could be loss, but there is no actual uniform. In the real word people have to deal with the possibility that they will be judged by what they are wearing. There will be no one there to punish a person for saying something negative about ones cloths. Its all part of life and everyone has to deal with it. So we might as well get use to it in school before we have to face it out in the real world. Just how well does conformity work anyways? Milena Stephenson age 16 says “ you still have separation from the rich and the poor. Because even though there is a uniform some people buy their uniform from a nicer place than those with less money” (Stephenson, M). Hearing this from a student that actually has a uniform, it makes you question if there is still going to be the separation why have uniforms at all.
Uniforms are uncomfortable and just don’t look pretty. Kids spend eight hours a day in a school sitting in classrooms listening to teachers talk all day. They not only have to sit in a school and listen for eight hours, they also sit in extremely uncomfortable chairs. If kids are already sitting uncomfortably they at least want comfortable cloths to wear. Some people have issues with the idea that people will judge others by what they are wearing and yes that will probably happen, however not everyone cares. Some people dress for the sole purpose of being comfortable. Many students will wear sweatpants and sweatshirts to class not really caring what they look like or what others think of them, they just want to be comfortable and uniforms do not help there.
However kids put it to say they don’t want to wear uniforms there are actually many perks to having them. Two things that uniforms help do is “reduce violence in schools by diminishing gang influence and easing competition over clothing“ (Konheim-Kalkstein). As said earlier in the paper many ways kids express themselves is by their clothing and that in includes colors worn that can be related to gangs. It has been proven that “In fact, gang violence is one of the most influential reasons for adopting uniform policies” (Konheim-Kalkstein). So now by enforcing uniforms it takes away the distinguishing different members of different gangs therefore eliminating the violence between them. Uniforms not only get rid of gang violence but also the “competition over clothing”. School should not be a fashion show and that who ever has the top of the line cloths is the best, that is just not fair to those with not enough money. As student Katie Line says “I think they [uniforms] are an amazing way to keep everyone on the same level.” Uniforms help eliminate the “I’m cooler than you because I have nicer cloths than you” status that kids feel. This competition is a form of school violence because kids who don’t have the nice designer cloths get picked on. Often times this lowers a students self esteem so uniforms also eliminate that as well. uniforms help in a major way of getting rid of school violence.
Uniforms also can help with parents financial situation. Especially with the way today’s economy is. A lot of parents just don’t have the money to provide their kids with the top of the line clothing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, however those kids with a lot of money would go and buy all the more expensive cloths and then think they are above those who don’t have designer cloths. it has been said that, “School uniforms are a bargain. They are becoming far less expensive than many other clothes. Schools argue that school uniforms are economical, especially compared to designer clothing, and parents agree given school uniform durability” (Pros and Cons). This means that not only will they save money but the cloths will last longer because the cloths were “made for repeated wash and wear” (Pros and cons). Cheryl Stephenson mother of Milena Stephenson says that “after two years of uniforms the budget is cheaper for there is no need for new cloths every year” (Stephenson, C.). Some people believe that uniforms actually cost more, yes at the beginning they might but looking back to what Cheryl said, over time it does save money because new wardrobes don’t have to be bought every year and the cloths last longer.
Uniforms also help create a better school environment. Some say that “uniforms make schools safer…behaviors improve…learning improves” (Sholes). Students are now able to focus and pay attention in class because they are not concerned about the cloths that others are wearing therefore allowing students to learn more which helps improve test scores. Not only cam it improve this but it also makes school look more professional:“Some say that a child in a school uniform is more likely to take school seriously. Putting on the school uniform signals he or she is going to school just like dad dresses up to go to work. Schools report that when students dress in "work clothes" rather than "play clothes" they take a more serious approach to their studies.” (Pros and cons)This pretty much explains it. Students will be dressed nicer therefore will look at it as a type of work environment, which in a sense it is because a students “job” is to go to school and get an education. With the nicer clothing and business type attire students will more likely take school seriously thereby improving behavior and improving there abilities to focus and learn.
One of the major concerns people have with uniforms is their thought that uniforms take away a persons individuality. This is not true at all. There are many other ways for one to express them self without having to have nice cloths. There are plenty of ways to accessorize an outfit to make it ones own. There is jewelry that can be worn to give the outfit the pop. A certain hair cut can also change someone’s look in a major way. So we have accessories and hair cut and then there is the most important one the way you act. Katie says “how you look should not define you” (Line). She is very right it should not matter how we look. What really should matter is the way one acts. Uniforms help this because now students are not able to quickly judge someone based on clothing they actually have to get to know the person before making judgment.
So over all yes it is important to express who we are but we can do this with out having to wear the nicest cloths or cloths with funky designs and sayings on them. Students need to learn to be able to express themselves through actions and not looks. Along with learning new ways to express themselves they also have safer and better learning environment. Uniforms do have its pros and cons but the pros out weigh the cons making uniforms the better choice. There is no definite answer, for it is all a matter of opinion and everyone’s opinion is different. But if we were to think logically then it is clear to see that uniforms is the way to go. Students are still capable of being an individual if they can learn to do so and schools have a nicer environment while the students look nicer and learn more. It also gives the student a way of showing their school pride with the fact that most uniforms a in some way school colors or have their mascot somewhere. So I feel that uniforms are logically the way to go.
Works Cited
Line, Katherine. Personal interview. 26 Oct. 2010.
Konheim-Kalkstein, Yasmine L. “A Uniform Look” American School Board Journal
193.8 (2006): 25-27 Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
“Pros and Cons of School Uniforms.” Article Base. 9 Sept. 2005. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.
“School Uniforms.” Current issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale,
2010. Gale Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Sholes, DeLene. “School Uniforms Pros and Cons.” Suite101.com 22 April, 2009. Web.
25 Oct. 2010.
Stephenson, Cheryl. Personal interview. 26 Oct. 2010
Stephenson, Milena. Personal interview. 26 Oct. 2010
Washington, Melissa. “Should Public School Children Wear Uniforms: No” Helium.
Web. 25 Oct. 2010.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Blog #4
Apocalypse Now Redux (2001), directed by Francis Ford Coppola, does an excellent job of capturing Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness. Though there are many differences between the two Coppola does a great job of getting the characteristics of the characters dead on. In particular his casting of Mr. Kurtz is perfect. Between physical characteristics and the lighting in the scenes Mr. Kurtz comes off as this frightening and terrifying character. In the movie Kurtz is played by Marlon Brando.
Brando’s physical features make him perfect for the part. When looking at Marlon Brando, his natural features already look intimidating. He is a very large man. His height is 5’9”, making him look very tall compared to those around him. Not only is he large in height but he also is stocky. Him being so stocky makes him even more intimidating. This movie takes place in the Vietnam during the Vietnam war. So the Vietnamese people all look really thin and with Kurtz having control it seems to be even worse with the way hew takes care of them or lack there of. This makes the fact that Brando’s Kurtz is so stocky even more frightening and terrifying, because his stature is much larger compared to those around him. He looks like he could take on anything. Though it may not play a major role, the fact that he is bald gives off the terrifying frightening vibe. He gives off that top military guy in charge feel. He is the guy in charge and he is aware and uses that to his advantage to take control. So his physical features played a major role in him being frightening and terrifying.
Another tribute that helps make him frightening and terrifying is the way the lighting was used in the filming. In particular the lighting in the scene where Willard (Conrad’s Marlow) first meets Mr. Kurtz. In this scene Willard walks in and Kurtz is laying in bed in complete darkness. Then you just hear him talk, his voice is deep and gives off this terrifying and frightening sensation. His presence in complete darkness metaphors to the darkness in himself, his lost of control. The lighting then changes and he sits up, half his face is lit and the other half covered in darkness. This is a metaphor to even though he has given off the impression of being completely lost there is still good in him. The lighting may show the good but it also is really creepy looking and makes him very frightening.
So over all I think that Coppola’s casting for Mr. Kurtz was perfect. Between the lighting and Brando’s physical features Kurtz comes off as very terrifying and frightening. I would never want to come across him and I think that is exactly how Conrad want his character to be.
Brando’s physical features make him perfect for the part. When looking at Marlon Brando, his natural features already look intimidating. He is a very large man. His height is 5’9”, making him look very tall compared to those around him. Not only is he large in height but he also is stocky. Him being so stocky makes him even more intimidating. This movie takes place in the Vietnam during the Vietnam war. So the Vietnamese people all look really thin and with Kurtz having control it seems to be even worse with the way hew takes care of them or lack there of. This makes the fact that Brando’s Kurtz is so stocky even more frightening and terrifying, because his stature is much larger compared to those around him. He looks like he could take on anything. Though it may not play a major role, the fact that he is bald gives off the terrifying frightening vibe. He gives off that top military guy in charge feel. He is the guy in charge and he is aware and uses that to his advantage to take control. So his physical features played a major role in him being frightening and terrifying.
Another tribute that helps make him frightening and terrifying is the way the lighting was used in the filming. In particular the lighting in the scene where Willard (Conrad’s Marlow) first meets Mr. Kurtz. In this scene Willard walks in and Kurtz is laying in bed in complete darkness. Then you just hear him talk, his voice is deep and gives off this terrifying and frightening sensation. His presence in complete darkness metaphors to the darkness in himself, his lost of control. The lighting then changes and he sits up, half his face is lit and the other half covered in darkness. This is a metaphor to even though he has given off the impression of being completely lost there is still good in him. The lighting may show the good but it also is really creepy looking and makes him very frightening.
So over all I think that Coppola’s casting for Mr. Kurtz was perfect. Between the lighting and Brando’s physical features Kurtz comes off as very terrifying and frightening. I would never want to come across him and I think that is exactly how Conrad want his character to be.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Racism in Joseph Conrad's "Heart od Darkness"
Racism in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
Over the years many authors and critics have critiqued Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness. This is no different for author Chinua Achebe. Achebe had an article published called “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” explaining to the reader how much of a “thoroughgoing racist” Conrad is (343). Although Achebe correctly points out the racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, his argument is flawed because he neglects the novels literary quality, level damaging accusations, and anachronistically applies contemporary standards to a 19th century piece of fiction.
Achebe makes many valid points where Conrad comes off as a racist throughout his novella. Achebe argues that Conrad is racist in how he portrays the Africans language throughout the book. He quotes Conrad as he is having the Africans talk: “Mistah Kurtz—he dead.”, then quotes “‘Catch ’im,’ he snapped with a bloodshot widening of his eyes and a flash of sharp teeth—‘catch ’im. Give ’im to us.’ ‘To you, eh?’ I asked; ‘what would you do to them?’ ‘Eat ’im!’ he said curtly” (341). This shows Conrad portrays the Africans are below the Europeans how they are uneducated and have poor speech habits. Not only does this show how the Africans are beneath the Europeans but also this is Conrad going back to another comment made in calling the Africans “Cannibals” (340). This type of comment is very degrading and racist.
Upon meeting a black person for the first time Conrad says: “A certain enormous buck nigger encountered in Haiti fixed my conception of blind, furious, unreasoning rage, as manifested in the human animal to the end of my days” (344). Achebe is showing that not only in this book is Conrad racist but he has always been racist. The fact that Conrad used the term “nigger” also shows how racist he is. This is a word that should never be used under any circumstance it rude, crude, and very demeaning towards anyone. Another word that is used that is demeaning is when he explains how the Africans are “savages” (341). Words such as these show such racism. So in context Achebe is correct in implying how Conrad’s novella is racist, but that is where it stops his article still has many flaws.
Achebe’s first flaw is where he neglects the novels literary quality. When Achebe reads this novel he only sees the racism in Conrad. What he should be looking at is the novella Heart of Darkness as a fictional story and not some type of biography or non-fictional piece of work. As Achebe progresses through his article he moves from critiquing Conrad’s novel to attacking him as a person. For example when Achebe says a quote mentioned in the previous paragraph about his first encounter with a black person; “a certain enormous buck nigger…manifested in the human animal to the end of my days” is not necessary (344). When critiquing a book there is no need to bring in personal experiences from the author unless it is some type of biography, which Heart of Darkness is not. In his article he continues on explaining how “Conrad is a dream for psychoanalytical critics” (345). Here again Achebe is talking about just Conrad and not the novel. He then goes on to explain a study that was done on him by Bernard C. Meyer, M.D. Achebe explains how Meyer goes on about hair and hair-cutting in Conrad but not once does he explain Conrad’s attitude toward black people. From this Achebe concludes that “Western psychoanalyst must regard the kind of racism displayed by Conrad as absolutely normal” (345). There was nothing here about the novel at all, all it was talking about was a study that was done on Conrad and how he didn’t agree with the outcome of the study. The title of this article is not “An image of Africa: Racism in Conrad”, but “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”. In the title of Achebe’s article the title of Conrad’s novel so that is what Achebe should focus on not Conrad as a person.
Achebe’s second flaw is his level damaging accusations. The main accusation that is made throughout Achebe’s article is that Conrad is a racist. So far we have gone over how yes Achebe is accurate in the accusation that the novel has a lot of racism in it, but making an accusation that the author is actually racist is a very large accusation. Making an accusation like this is not only damaging to Conrad but also can be damaging to Achebe. This can hurt Achebe’s reputation in that why would someone want to read something by someone that accuses someone else without real proof of that accusation being true. The most popular accusation made is when Achebe says “Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist” (343). This is a pretty straight forward accusation that can really damage someone’s reputation. Another major accusation that Achebe
Achebe’s third flaw is he anachronistically applies contemporary standards to a 19th century piece of fiction. What most people including Achebe need to realize when they read Conrad’s novel is that it is not written by today’s society rules and standards. This novel was written in the 19th century, when so many things were different. In a previous paragraph it was talked about how Conrad was racist by the language he used for the Africans and the European, but how would Achebe know if that wasn’t how people talked back then. Achebe say’s “It was certainly not his fault that he lived his life at a time when the reputation of the black man was particularly low level” (344). From this quote it is clear that Achebe is aware of the time difference in which Conrad wrote this novel so why does he still act like it was written in today’s society. Yet he still decides to bash Conrad in calling him racist even though in his time it was
Achebe is correct when he says there is racism in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. After reading the novel anyone will find that that is a true statement. However Achebe fails to realize that the reality of things is that that is really the way things were during that time and he should not be punished for that. His novel should be looked at as a literary fiction piece of work not a biography or non-fiction. He should not be judged based on it, because it is not real. Achebe fails to do this and in my opinion that makes me not in favor of Achebe and less willing to read other books or articles by him.
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.”
Armstrong 336-49
Armstrong, Paul B, ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Blog # 3
Almost everyone in today’s society uses oil. Whether it be in oil for heating there house, oil for cooking food, or oil for driving their car, almost everyone in today’s society uses oil. So the fact that “nearly five million barrels of had gushed from, BP’s well” was a catastrophe (Gulf of Mexico). This in no way shape or form could be considered a good issue. It is bad in every way you look at it. With this horrible accident, actions were taken right away to try and prevent the leak from growing.
The spill started April 20, 2010, and once the well was first spotted to be leaking the company quickly started trying to fix it. The company failed many times before they finally claimed to have capped the Macondo well on July 15. Only then five months later after the initial spill got out of control did the federal government say that the well was dead. The government had a pressure test confirm that cement had been pumped into the bottom of the well through a relief well making it finally sealed. After this was done the government stated that the Macondo well and two relief wells were to be abandoned. (Gulf of Mexico) “BP said that tests showed there was no cement, oil or gas in the annulus at the interception point, so there was no need to first pump heavy drilling mud into the annulus through the relief well, a procedure known as a bottom kill” (Fountain). So why was this procedure even done?
That procedure done was called bottom kill they then did a procedure called top kill where mud and cement were pumped in to plug the casing pipe. With this procedure done scientist thought that the oil would get trapped in the annuals so work was suspended untill they could figure out if there was in trapped oil or not. Later that week BP states that there was no oil trapped so work was continued. (Fountain)
Though BP was trying their best to stop the leak they did start to point fingers at other companies for being the cause of the leak. They put blame on their “contractors, especially Transocean, which owned the rig, and Halliburton, which performed cement jobs on the well” (Urbina). BP claims that they relied on Halliburton for the well design and the cement work but also claims they should have kept a better watch on the Halliburton workers as they worked. Mr. Bely says “Halliburton should have done more extensive testing and signaling to BP that there were issues to think about and BP should have done a better job of ensuring that that happened” (Urbina). Halliburton retorts back by saying “The well owners is responsible for designing the well program and any testing related to the well…Contractors do not specify well design or make decisions regarding testing procedures as that responsibility lies with the well owner” (Urbina). So now there is the whole problem with exactly whose fault is it that there is this large oil spill in the ocean.
The problem now isn’t whose fault it is or why certain procedures were done its how can oil drilling be safer and what has been taken away from the whole experience. “The American Petroleum Institute and industry task forces have identified specific measures to make operations safer and more environmentally responsible” (Making Oil Drilling). This is really good now companies are working on making oil drilling safer because it is known that our society need oil. There are new regulations for the well that must take place, the well “must be inspected and certified by industry, government and third-party professionals. New rules governing the cementing and casing of wells must be strictly observed. Every stage of the drilling must be monitored and certified by independent engineers” (What). So now we have learned from our mistakes and will try and make it safer for us to still use oil.
The spill started April 20, 2010, and once the well was first spotted to be leaking the company quickly started trying to fix it. The company failed many times before they finally claimed to have capped the Macondo well on July 15. Only then five months later after the initial spill got out of control did the federal government say that the well was dead. The government had a pressure test confirm that cement had been pumped into the bottom of the well through a relief well making it finally sealed. After this was done the government stated that the Macondo well and two relief wells were to be abandoned. (Gulf of Mexico) “BP said that tests showed there was no cement, oil or gas in the annulus at the interception point, so there was no need to first pump heavy drilling mud into the annulus through the relief well, a procedure known as a bottom kill” (Fountain). So why was this procedure even done?
That procedure done was called bottom kill they then did a procedure called top kill where mud and cement were pumped in to plug the casing pipe. With this procedure done scientist thought that the oil would get trapped in the annuals so work was suspended untill they could figure out if there was in trapped oil or not. Later that week BP states that there was no oil trapped so work was continued. (Fountain)
Though BP was trying their best to stop the leak they did start to point fingers at other companies for being the cause of the leak. They put blame on their “contractors, especially Transocean, which owned the rig, and Halliburton, which performed cement jobs on the well” (Urbina). BP claims that they relied on Halliburton for the well design and the cement work but also claims they should have kept a better watch on the Halliburton workers as they worked. Mr. Bely says “Halliburton should have done more extensive testing and signaling to BP that there were issues to think about and BP should have done a better job of ensuring that that happened” (Urbina). Halliburton retorts back by saying “The well owners is responsible for designing the well program and any testing related to the well…Contractors do not specify well design or make decisions regarding testing procedures as that responsibility lies with the well owner” (Urbina). So now there is the whole problem with exactly whose fault is it that there is this large oil spill in the ocean.
The problem now isn’t whose fault it is or why certain procedures were done its how can oil drilling be safer and what has been taken away from the whole experience. “The American Petroleum Institute and industry task forces have identified specific measures to make operations safer and more environmentally responsible” (Making Oil Drilling). This is really good now companies are working on making oil drilling safer because it is known that our society need oil. There are new regulations for the well that must take place, the well “must be inspected and certified by industry, government and third-party professionals. New rules governing the cementing and casing of wells must be strictly observed. Every stage of the drilling must be monitored and certified by independent engineers” (What). So now we have learned from our mistakes and will try and make it safer for us to still use oil.
Work Cited
Fountain, Henry. "BP Begins Last Step in Sealing Stricken Well in the Gulf". nytimes.com, 17 Sept.2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010
"Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill". nytimes.com, 23 Sept. 2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010
"Making Oil Drilling Safer: A View from the Industry". nytimes.com, 1 Oct. 2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010.
Urbina, Ian. "BP Spill Report Hints at Legal Defense". nytimes.com, 8 Sept. 2010. web.7 Oct. 2010.
"What Have They Learned?". nytimes.com, 5 Oct. 2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Blog # 2
It has been may years since Joseph Conrad wrote the novella Heart of Darkness, and even now writers are still writing critical responses to this piece of work. In these critical analysis’s the writers voice their opinions on how they feel about the book. Two well known writers that have critiqued this piece of work is J. Hill Miller and Chinua Achebe. With every critique comes different opinions some are positive and some are negative but we are all entitled to our own opinions.
J. Hill Miller wrote a critical response titled “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”. The main point of this critical response is clearly stated in the title: should we or shouldn’t we read the book Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The main point is the reiterated at the end of the article when he says “I return to my beginning. Should we, ought to read “Heart of Darkness”? each reader must decide for himself or herself” (Miller 474). Miller expresses his opinion on the book but still leaves it up to the reader to make their own opinion. He writes “ no one bears witness for the witness, and no one can read for you” (Miller 465). Miller isn’t telling us what to believe, he wants the readers to read for themselves and make there own decisions.
A strength that I particularly really liked in Miller’s article is Miller’s ability to argue that “Heart of Darkness” is a work of literature. He says: “‘Heart of Darkness’ is a literary work, not history, autobiography, travel writing, journalism, or any other genre” (Miller 465). Clearly he is saying that we cant look at this as if this is the feeling of what the author or that it is true but we need to look at it as a work of literature. He says “A second way ‘Heart of Darkness’ presents itself as literature in the elaborate tissue of figures and other rhetorical devices that make up, so to speak, the texture of the text” (Miller 465). He then goes on to talk how about Conrad uses similes, irony, metaphors, and personification to write and make it a piece of literature not just a story.
In Chinua Achebe’s article “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, Achebe took a completely different view. His main point was that of racism throughout the book. He flat out says “The point of my observation should be quite clear by now, namely that Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist” (Achebe 343). This leads to the major problem with this article that unlike Miller, Achebe does not just look at that book he takes the book and start to blame the author when in fact this is a work of nonfiction and there is no need to take it out on the author. He says “whatever Conrad’s problem were, you might say he is safely dead…Unfortunately his heart of darkness plagues us still” (Achebe 345). This is completely unnecessary to say. As a fellow author it is not right to say this type of thing and that though Achebe is African it does not give him the right to bash another authors writing to this extent and harshly come out accusing Conrad as being a racist and that fact that Achebe does this really turns off readers.
Armstrong, Paul B. ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2006.
Miller, J. Hillis. “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?” Armstrong 463-474.
J. Hill Miller wrote a critical response titled “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”. The main point of this critical response is clearly stated in the title: should we or shouldn’t we read the book Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The main point is the reiterated at the end of the article when he says “I return to my beginning. Should we, ought to read “Heart of Darkness”? each reader must decide for himself or herself” (Miller 474). Miller expresses his opinion on the book but still leaves it up to the reader to make their own opinion. He writes “ no one bears witness for the witness, and no one can read for you” (Miller 465). Miller isn’t telling us what to believe, he wants the readers to read for themselves and make there own decisions.
A strength that I particularly really liked in Miller’s article is Miller’s ability to argue that “Heart of Darkness” is a work of literature. He says: “‘Heart of Darkness’ is a literary work, not history, autobiography, travel writing, journalism, or any other genre” (Miller 465). Clearly he is saying that we cant look at this as if this is the feeling of what the author or that it is true but we need to look at it as a work of literature. He says “A second way ‘Heart of Darkness’ presents itself as literature in the elaborate tissue of figures and other rhetorical devices that make up, so to speak, the texture of the text” (Miller 465). He then goes on to talk how about Conrad uses similes, irony, metaphors, and personification to write and make it a piece of literature not just a story.
In Chinua Achebe’s article “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, Achebe took a completely different view. His main point was that of racism throughout the book. He flat out says “The point of my observation should be quite clear by now, namely that Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist” (Achebe 343). This leads to the major problem with this article that unlike Miller, Achebe does not just look at that book he takes the book and start to blame the author when in fact this is a work of nonfiction and there is no need to take it out on the author. He says “whatever Conrad’s problem were, you might say he is safely dead…Unfortunately his heart of darkness plagues us still” (Achebe 345). This is completely unnecessary to say. As a fellow author it is not right to say this type of thing and that though Achebe is African it does not give him the right to bash another authors writing to this extent and harshly come out accusing Conrad as being a racist and that fact that Achebe does this really turns off readers.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”. Armstrong 336-349.Armstrong, Paul B. ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2006.
Miller, J. Hillis. “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?” Armstrong 463-474.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)