Comments by Hui Maggie Su Most recent public comments by Hui Maggie Su https://nowcomment.com/users/12963 This part in the film really makes me feel sad when Shaw said how sorry he is that Megan didn't have her dad walks her in her wedding. His action results in many lifetime regrets for him and the victim's family. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340393 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340393 Fri, 22 May 2015 10:21:19 -0400 I love the idea of turning Shaw to an activist. It gives him a chance to "make-up" his mistake somehow. Even though he can't make the two men alive again, but by testifying and confessing, he warns other people not to do the same mistake. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340378 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340378 Fri, 22 May 2015 00:27:05 -0400 Totally agree. Even just fixing the volume of the radio or connecting to your phone would take away your attention. How about talking to someone on your phone through Bluetooth? You are multitasking because you need to think while driving. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340377 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340377 Thu, 21 May 2015 22:13:22 -0400 He began by showing how serious the aftermath can be by driving and texting. The driver doesn't even remember what he texted because it's not important compared to the 2 death. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340365 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=340365 Thu, 21 May 2015 19:50:28 -0400 Players in theater always overplayed to entertain the audience. He compares this trial to a "surreal theater" to show how unbelievable they were. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=340346 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=340346 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:06 -0500 The reviewer is giving the audience a better understanding of the McCarthy's case by introducing the recent Starr's case. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=340334 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=340334 They were both "dramatic and wild" and were investigated under public scrutiny. He does not have to be Clinton's supporter but he is defiantly not Starr's supporter. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:06 -0500 ALSO, Spurlock eats this for every meal everyday to prove against the judges' statements in the law suits in the beginning of the film. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338898 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338898 The statement says if the lawyers can prove that eating McDonald's "for every meal of every day is unreasonably dangerous"... Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 The reviewer is stating that he agrees with Spurlock by speaking from first point of view of himself eating McDonald's and how much calories it was. He also says that Spurlock's own experiment in the film "proves" his statemnt. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338892 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338892 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 He made him self an experiment to prove how eating super sized fast foods changed his body and health. A live example speaks much louder than just a plain statement. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338890 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338890 Through his journey, we can actually see how he struggles both physically and mentally. By acting as a model, his experience also reminds us how we can be experiencing the same thing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:04 -0500 The reviewer focused on the statistics because statistics are facts and facts tell the truth. Just like how Spurlock used footages from the doctors to show the truth of how bad his health is getting to. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338887 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338887 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:04 -0500 Its very reasonable for people to order a Medium/Large size fries than a smaller one. Why? Because smaller sizes cost almost the same amount of money. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338886 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338886 Its $4.49 for 10 pc. of chicken nuggets AND ONLY $5 for 20 pc. The why they advertise "super sizes" makes you go for those bigger meals. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 Eating McDonald's everyday and always ordering super sized meals are definatly not realistic. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338885 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338885 However, Spurlock is not trying to film a everyday life. He's trying to show us a result in a concentrated time period. Audience only realizes how scary the results are when Spurlock exaggerates the experiment. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 Of course~ since I wanted to experience the fun of the film, I did convince myself to trust the story his telling. You can choose to figure out the trick while watching a magic OR just watch it and be like "Wow!" https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338376 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338376 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 Welles is interested in Irving because they are both experts in tricking their audiences in their works. The reviewer is not interested in Irving because he is not the subject that he's reviewing. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338234 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338234 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 It's about tricking the audience with fake stories while letting them know that art (film) are always somehow fake. Also, people are enjoying to be fooled and still willing to get fooled. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338233 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338233 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 The reviewer is asking both the audience and himself. For me, although the story that's been told in the film is fake, but the movie is defiantly a real movie. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338230 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338230 It's Real because it's a movie that plays around fake. Welles uses the whole plot to show us a form of fake. Also, the actions thats been shot are something that actually happened. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 He is having fun faking this film. He also want us to have fun watching this fake film while knowing that we've been fooled. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338225 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338225 Just like the beginning and the ending of the film, Welles uses magic to give an example of how people like to be fooled. We still want to watch the magician fooling us even though we know that is fake. Just like this film, the name of the film already told us it's fake, but we liked the feeling of trusting the story. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 Welles can be trusted because he confessed in the beginning of the film. However, you can also choose NOT to trust him because he already told you that it's going to be fake. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338224 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338224 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 Sontag didn't use a narration because she wants the viewer to experience Israel by watching the footages and hear the sounds made from the people in Israel. Riefenstahl didn't use narration because Hitler is the authority. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337064 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337064 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 Documentary is more about objective facts. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337061 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337061 She wants the audience to feel her perspective of Israel while watching this film. Therefore, she think the film is not a documentary because its subjective. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 To show that Sontag has reputation in film culture. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337059 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337059 To give us a background on her film career. Since she's been a film critic and has wrote novels, essays and plays, she know what she's doing in Promised Lands. Althrough the contents seems unorganized, she has her point based on her film experience. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 The content doesn't seem to interest people outside of Plymouth. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330966 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330966 The film talks about the details of reconstruction Plymouth. The story is more like an local news than national news. People in other parts of the country would not want to spend a film long time to dig into the details of a city they are not living in and the aftermath that they are not getting benefit from. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:51 -0500 The people are marching for the future of their home and the soldiers and people in Triumph of the Will are marching for a person, Hitler. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330962 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330962 In The Way We Live, the marching are self-driven by the people. They are doing it for themselves. Its democratic. For example: The sign says "BIGGER HOUSES for (drawing of people)." In Triumph of the Will, soldiers and people are marching for Hitler because Hitler portraits himself as their savior. Its fascism. For example: The hands are for Hitler. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:51 -0500 It's "real" and yet "not real" https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314015 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314015 Ebert says that this film "is not cinema verite...and yet in a sense it is". It's not real because what is presented on the screen is not the reality; the wives and children are not Nanook's children and the hunting was a performance. It's also real because the film posed the problem of reality; the struggle and life of Eskimos. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 Documentaries are "twisted realities". https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314012 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314012 Ebert might saying that although documentaries are showing realities, but the "realities" audience see are being edited; any scene in the film was chose to be shoot and edited into the film. According to John Greerson, documentaries are "the creative representation of reality." For me, the word "creative" means the realities are no longer untouched. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 a good "teaser" + example https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314011 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314011 This seal scene could be the most intense scene in the film. Ebert chooses this "teaser" to talk about in the beginning so the audience would want to read/ watch the rest of the review/film. The scene is also a good example of what this whole documentary is about. It explains Nanook's character and what he does for living. This"...desperate tug of war" between Nanook and the seal reflects the conflict between the Eskimos and the nature. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500