MOVIES

Hello everyone!

I wish to take this time in my blog to address some films that have recently peaked my interest.  Last year I had American Film class so I had an outlet for such movie discussions, but now I have a blog which i can serve this purpose rightfully.

In Sociology we have recently watched the Michael Moore (2002) documentary Bowling for Columbine. Using the Columbine school shooting of 1999 as his starting point, Michael Moore investigates our nations obsession with guns and violence. He focuses on many points in the documentary such as our nation's history, the media and news, gun murders, Marilyn Manson and music, government backed violence, and organizations such as the National Rifle Association. Before seeing the film I knew that I was not very pro-gun. I am not sure why, but guns give me a feeling of anxiety. I do not even have to see them in person to put myself into a panic. Something that comes to mind is the scene in Goodfellas (1990) where Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) is threatening his wife with a loaded gun in their bedroom. I could not even watch the scene with getting "freaked out", for lack of a better phrase. So naturally I know that I lean to left on issues like gun patrol (but not limited by). I do not feel guns to be a necessary, and they only seem to cause trouble. The film brought many interesting points up, but did not come to a definite conclusion. Some points that stood out in my mind were the fact that our country has a total of over 11,000 murders by gun a year. Where as other countries have significantly less. For example I recall Japan had less that 29. Canada, just north of us and a nation of hunters with quite similar gun laws, has much less murders than us. They watch the same movies, and play the same video games. so why is this such a problem for our country? The film was trying to explain the epidemic of violence that has arose in our country, but we agreed in class that they did not come to a definite conclusion. All countries have violent histories, many watch the same movies and listen to the same music, so why has this occured here. I keep thinking about this, I too cannot come to a conclusion. There is one theory I have come up with, and it stems from a 60 Minutes episode I saw sometime last year, that named the Danish the happiest people in the world wheere as we were ranked 23. The Danes had stated in their interviews that they feel less pressure to succeed. They put less emphasis on achieving beyond their limits, and because of this when great things happen they are happy and when bad things happen they are not devastated. Maybe as Americans we have too much pressure in areas like competition, this leads to great stress. Not everyone that is stressed out is going to kill someone, but I think one can loosely draw a parallel. Also was Americans our highs or happiness are great, and our lows are also monumental. Maybe this could be a reason. I think people more need to see things for the bigger picture, rather than the here and now. These are just my thoughts, but I would advise you all to see the film and make your own theories on the matter! Either way you stand on the matter I think it is very interesting.

Okay, here is something else I would like to address. Has anyone very seen the movie trailer for the new film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Its directed by David Fincher, who also did Fight Club, and stars Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and Tilda Swinton. It is based off a short story by Francis Scott Fitzgerald, about a boy who is born an old man, but ages younger through his life. It seems to be a love story where they both meet in the middle if that makes sense. It comes out December 15, and reviews already written think it has the possibility for being up for 11 Oscars. It looks like its going to be epic. Brad Pitt, director of Fight Club, Francis Scott Fitzgerald, and a fantasy plot wrapped in a love story, everything I would want in a movie!

Check out the trailer at this link

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/thecuriouscaseofbenjaminbutton/

Okay everyone that is all I have for now! Happy Thanksgiving!

THE THINGS THEY CARRIED RESPONSE

I do agree with Tim O' Brien that "human life is all one thing, like a blade tracing loops on ice..."(236).  I agree that while a person grows in maturation and reasoning skills and other qualities we do still hold certain qualities and characteristics that are stagnant and always present.  Often times these qualities come out in different scenarios as we grow older, but they stem from the same quality that is ever present throughout our lives.   In the case of Tim O' Brien he feels that he still has the same look in his eye that he has as a fourth grader, and this I believe to be true.  

One seminole point in the novel is the repeating theme of guilt for not standing up for what you think is right.  Tim O' Brien no matter if he was watching the girl he loved being bullied as a young boy or not objecting to fight a war he believed to be unjust, has this conscience quality of remorse.  This is just a piece of his personality that he would let certain things stay with him, and think and rethink them over and over again.  I do not think this is a type of quality everyone possesses, but it is an example of a piece of Tim O' Brien that is "absolute and unchanging" (236).  I think that as one grows older they still have a piece of them self that is the same as when they were young.  Although they become more mature and reasonable as an adult certain pieces of them will never differ, and they rear their heads in different scenarios that go along with the age and life of the person. 

O' Brien's nature is to rethink, revisit, and reevaluate events that have occurred in his life.  This can be seen through the fact that some chapters are written more then once, the fact that he is writing his story in a novel, that he does go back to Vietnam to visit where he lost one of his best friends and comrades, and that he still talks about his childhood girlfriend he lost to a brain tumor.  He is just one of those people that tend to swell on things, be it not bad or good, but it is an example that is true to the fact that people, though they look very different physically over the course of their life, they are still the same as they were when they we children.   

WHY I WRITE By Jon Krakauer

I write because I like to find the truth.  I like to dig deep into unexplainable events and try to get the truth out of them to enlighten my audience.  As a journalist I like to report on the truth, and sometimes I feel a short magazine article does not fulfill this instinct I have.  I must search for the answers when in some cases there are none to be found.  As a human being we are all curious in nature, but most people do not have the will to take their curiosity to the next level. Such ambition has always been instilled in me and clearly shows through all the challenges I endeavour to take.  In the case of Chris McCandless I felt I had to find the answers, because no one else would have.  His story would have compelled some to, but I had to take it to the next step, and I feel this determination is what makes me a good author.  I do not speculate, I do the research and find the facts.  By researching these unique people's stories I hope to learn about myself in some regards.  I often times see myself in people like Chris McCandless and by learning about them I can better understand my being.  In the same respect I hope for the reader to share in the experience, and find some of themselves in the truth of these real life stories.  I write because it is my job, for myself and my audience, to know the true accounts of these peoples lives, and by finding out their story I hope for us to better understand ourselves.  

 

Into The Wild

"Poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue; it is hard for an empty bag to stand upright" - Benjamin Franklin



Benjamin Franklin is clearly stating that money is the root to happiness in this quote. He believes living in poverty robs a man of a will to live. He goes on to use the imagery of an empty bag standing upright which does not work at all, unless the bag is full in order to enhance his first statement.
In terms of my novel, this statement by Ben Franklin would not hold up at all. Chris McCandless' valued the words of Tolstoy and Thoreau, who both believe money and material things clutter ones mind, and when you free yourself of these possessions you are free and happy. Neither of these three men, Tolstoy Thoreau or Chris, would agree with Franklin. When Chris McCandless first ventures into the wild he burns all his case "in a gesture that would have done Thoreau and Tolstoy proud" (Krakauer 29). He needs to free himself of everything before he can totally start fresh and make a new life for himself using himself as his only resource. In doing this he is experiencing a life very raw which is what he wants. In values the aesthetic beauty of nature, but not the over pleasure of possessions. Further on the narrator refers to a period of time Chris "entered Las Vegas with no money and no ID" (37), and excerpt of Chris' diary reads "it is the experiences, the memories, the great triumphant joy of living to the fullest extent in which real meaning is found. God it's great to be alive. Thank you!" (37). This passage shows that ones does not need money to be happy or "spirited" like Ben Franklin states. Chris is perfectly content with out having anything, and this seems to be a time he is the happiest. He feels money is unnecessary and without it he can be a better person who does not take anything for granted. Another point is Chris did have money and knew how to work hard. Page 115 reads "...the teenage Tolstoyan, believed that wealth was shameful, corrupting, inherently evil--which is ironic because Chris was a natural-born capitalist with an uncanny knack for making a buck" (115). This shows that one can resist money and this does not mean they are not hard working, but to Chris he felt it should not be a priority. Chris McCandless aka Alex Supertramp, if alive, would have been one to debate this Ben Franklin quote.

Significance of Oskar's connection to Hamlet?

Oskar's connection to Hamlet can be applied in a few different ways.
The first being that Oskar plays the part of Yorick in his school play. Yorick is a court jester, and as many know court jesters often acted as clowns or fools in order to provide entertainment. I think this reflects how Oskar often feels when he is around his classmates. He has a couple of friends he says, but it seems that he is usual picked on or the but of their jokes. Oskar may feel as though when he is around his peers that he is their entertainment, and he does not fully fit in with them due to his unusual nature.
The second connection i made was between Oskar and the actual character of Hamlet. Hamlet and Oskar alike both had their fathers brutally killed, Hamlet by his own uncle and Oskar by the hijackers. In both cases neither were justifiable and both characters' worlds are then from that moment on centered on the fact they lost their fathers. Both are completely obsessed with their fathers' deaths, and feel unsettled at that. Hamlet is completely consumed with the question "to be or not to be", meaning he is uncertain wether he should avenge his father and die in the process or let the fact that he was murdered go. You could argue the same for Oskar that he too is also consumed with a similar question. Oskar is so caught within the situation that he is almost not living his life therefore not being. He is stuck with his greif and he can go either way with it. Let it go and move on or hold on to the grief which is restricting him. Oskar feels like once he lets go of his greif he is forgetting his father and losing him, like his mother has done. That is what is making this tough for Oskar. He is unsure of how to cope with his lose without losing his memories of his father, but by holding on he is not living his life the way he should be as a nine-year-old child.
The significance of the Hamlet references in the novel is for the reader to further grasp the way Oskar feels and is thinking through tying in Hamlet illusions. Hamlet being a very popular play that most will recognize and be able to relate the two stories. The author wants to use Hamlet as a vehicle for the reader to more so understand his character, without having to actually state the similarties.