Most recent public comments by Alison Ng https://nowcomment.com/users/12985 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339064 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339064 I think the film shows how a decision you make affects a whole web of other people, whether you know them or not. We tend to forget that strangers are people who also have families, hopes, dreams, etc. We are selfish because we think about our own needs in the moment, but we have to open our eyes and realize that our decisions affect other people and that needs to be considered before acting. Herzog focuses on texting and driving, because it is a very strong and emotional topic. Not only that, but almost everyone owns a phone that has the ability to text message. People are able to connect with many different aspects of the film because these situations are apart of everyday life. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338832 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338832 The documentary is about him just as much as it’s about McDonalds or how fast food is detrimental. It’s filmed in a first person perspective – Spurlock is talking directly to his audience. This film also creates an image of Spurlock. Even though the experiment is questionable, he wants to see what would happen. He’s a risk taker. Even when the doctors advise him to stop, he doesn’t. This also shows that he’s true to his word; he said he would eat McDonald’s for 30 days and doesn’t back down, no matter how disastrous it could end up being. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338831 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338831 Ebert’s personal experience causes him to be more of advocate of the film compared to a viewer learning about the shocking facts. I think Ebert was aware of these statistics before he watched the film (since he talks about losing weight). Because of that, his review was in a way, skewed from the beginning, since he was aware of the facts and all this documentary does is prove those facts. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338178 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338178 I think F for Fake is explores (but doesn’t really explain) the blurred line between fiction and truth. It does so by weaving together different stories, some of which are real and some of which are made up. One story in the film is about Elmyr de Hory, a man who forged art paintings (this story is real). He deceived others by tricking them into thinking his paintings were painted by famous artists. But an argument presented in the film asks: is forgery art? Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338175 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338175 The first four paragraphs tell the reader that Orson Welles isn’t the person you should trust because of his attitude and demeanor. It also suggests that Welles has perfected the act of deceiving, which in turn means that he’s good at making people believe him. But no matter how truthful he sounds, it’s still a lie (or not the full truth). Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337039 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337039 In Listen to Britain and The Way We Live, the horrors of war aren’t really touched upon. Instead, it is shaped in a more promising, hopeful light. Even though bad things happen, people still go on and prevail and live. In Promised Lands, Sontag shows war as the nightmare that it is - destruction, death and suffering. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337035 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337035 If I am correct, the title reflects the fact that both groups were in fact, promised the land of Israel. I think this is the case because both religions say that that land is holy and that their people belong there. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337033 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337033 I personally think the lack of a narrator allows a viewer to become more engrossed in the film. With a narrator, one is constantly reminded that she is being spoken to. A voice presents certain information, and the viewer is supposed to accept that information and take it in. The lack of a narrator allows the viewer to make her own conclusions about the things being presented. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337032 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337032 The word ‘documentary’ has a certain connotation to it. For the most part, the general public sees a documentary with this idea of learning/being educated. In addition, most people think that documentaries try to be as objective as possible (even though this is clearly not the case). Maybe Sontag did not want the connotation of what a documentary is perceived to be to be attached to her film. That way, if the connotation changed in the future, her film wouldn’t be confined to represent a specific style. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335501 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335501 The hearing was televised, which means everyone presenting the case knew America would be watching. Entertainment can be used to present a certain view point and persuade, which the lawyers wanted to do since everyone in the country would be keeping track. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330261 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330261 I think the dates are used to show the timeline of when Plath began to think of suicide. All of the dates correspond to Ted in some way. In the beginning, the dates are spread out. At the end, they are consequential. By doing this, it also shows a build-up of emotions and it ends with her actually committing suicide. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330260 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330260 This phrase means that it is not definite, but that one can make a reasonable/rational conclusion based on information and facts known. Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:21:28 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330259 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330259 A siege is an attack or battle, and here winter was a battle to Plath. Metaphors allow for things to be described in different ways. It can also convey certain feelings or ideas that would not normally be used to describe something. I think Metaphors also allow for a more distinct definition of something, which narrows down a reader's interpretation of the text. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330257 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330257 Plath's works are used to explain/convey her emotions. Plath wrote these pieces; the author assumes that she used her own emotions and experiences as inspiration for her works. But by doing so is assuming that the poems are about a certain thing. Although there might be information/evidence that suggests these works are based off of life experiences, there is no way to truly know. Writing is interpreted differently by every reader. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330256 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330256 For me, the phrase “destiny’s doorstep” equates to the saying ‘at the right place’ or ‘it is fate.’ This point is a major point in Plath’s life, and the phrase hints at what is to come. But while it hints at the future, it also makes her new position sound positive. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330252 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25279?scroll_to=330252 Quotations not only present what someone has said, it also stresses certain ideas or statements. It brings attention to certain things, which in turn supports the tone of the piece. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329149 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329149 I have used the wrong word. In Triumph of the Will, although they are faithful, it is still a job. And when you're given a task to complete in a job, you have to do it or suffer consequences. But both marches are expressing opinions and beliefs, even though they are opposite. Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:36:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=327685 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=327685 The people choose to march in THE WAY WE LIVE; by doing so, they are expressing their opinions. In TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, it is military. They are doing it because they were ordered to do so. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:47 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325834 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325834 I had to look up this definition too since peripatetic is not a word I am familiar with. I learned something new today. Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:37:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325833 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325833 'Perhaps' is a question. The word 'likely' is used to show the writers have made their own conclusions based on information they know. 'Likely' is more certain. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:45 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325832 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325832 The mention is reminding the reader that everything told is genuine. These events are really Sontag's experiences. The reader is kind of like the interviewer. Although the reader isn't answering questions, he/she is reading Sontag's answers. The reader and the interviewer are taking in information, which Sontag is given to us. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325831 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325831 The paragraph is not only informing the reader about Sontag's experience, it is also visually visually copying it. Sontag's mother only spoke briefly about the father's death; the paragraph follows by also being brief. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325829 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325829 The earlier paragraphs detail her parent's absence, but do not explain where they are. It is the first question the reader wants answered. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:45 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325826 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325826 It questions the authenticity of her memory. The text mentions that the event happened around 1937, which means the date of her recollection is not exact. And if the date is not exact, the details memory could also be an approximation. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325823 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325823 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325821 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25280?scroll_to=325821 When I read that she had a nanny, I immediately thought about the absence of her parents. I also concluded that her parents/guardians had some money, since they could afford a nanny. In addition, the first paragraph notes Sontag's age (four) and her ability to think critically, since she is questioning a word used by her nanny. The sentences imply that Sontag is intelligent, since most children do not think like that. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323414 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323414 To write well, one needs to understand the rules of writing. Not just understand them, but also know how to use the rules in writing. I think this diary is about “knowing all the rules” because it is written well. Usually, a diary is informal. One’s thoughts do not follow a set of rules; instead, diaries are used to capture thoughts and feelings as one recalls a memory or an event. This is a narrative written in a diary-form. And to write a narrative well, let alone one in diary-form, one must know the writing rules. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323413 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323413 It allows the reader to know exactly how the author feels, because the reader can picture herself giving someone *that* look. The “use your imagination” thing also goes along with the author’s humorous/sarcastic tone. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323411 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323411 I think it depends on the person and the place. While 9 times out of 10, someone wouldn't say that, people do. Earlier this year, I was on a train going home to NJ with two friends. One friend had a donut and the worker collecting tickets had asked if she planned on sharing, since we (another friend & I) didn't have a donut either. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323410 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323410 I've heard that when some actors take on a role, they practice the part by literally becoming that character by talking, acting and thinking by said character. Throughout the excerpt, I've noticed that the author is doing the same thing - he is, in ways, becoming Sylvia Plath. He is quick to note what she enjoyed or would have noticed. He is adopting her character in order to be able to write about her. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323409 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323409 With a diary-like approach, it is easier to tell a story in parts, since diaries are formed by focusing on different aspects/times of day in different passages. At the same time, I think telling a story in parts like that makes it more difficult to tell a story well. It’s one thing to write in diary-form; it is another thing to connect the dots and create a well-constructed narrative from it. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323408 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323408 Since it is a diary, the author can end it the way he seems fit. But personally, I think it is a good ending. In the beginning of this excerpt, the author focuses on people’s actions and responses around him. But the author is American and he notes British people. At the end of the diary, he’s back in the states and comments on an American’s response. This not only ends the diary with the author’s sarcastic tone, but also in a way, is the beginning of a new observation. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323406 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323406 The library is an orderly, serious place, and the dining room is open and friendly. At the library, the author holds his tongue; at the restaurant, he doesn’t and makes a comment about the sausages. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323404 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323404 That words transcend people, places and time. Before reading this, the owner had a certain view of the house. After reading this, the owner’s view began to change since you comment on the previous owner and his quirks and attachments. The author writes that he wants to say “Do you know you are demolishing a bit of history: the home of the Labour Party leader who ran against Margaret Thatcher in 1983?” to the workman. The owner also gave the author the opportunity to speak those words, and if he did, also get an answer. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323402 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323402 It means to gesture disrespectfully with your hands. I think it's used somewhat ironically here, in order to show the author's tone. When people agree to use the internet in public spaces, the rules say that you should not be using the internet for an obscene or inappropriate business. Instead of noting that, the author goes and comments on how he wants to make obscene gestures at the people working in the library. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323401 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323401 In my mind, I see Crikey as "WTF" or "jeez." Or really any other word people say when caught off guard or when surprised. I don't hear this term used now, but I remember hearing Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter) use this word this a lot. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=323400 Although I'm not familiar with the actor you are referring to (I now know said man is Belushi from the comments), did you write that line in the diary while thinking of the actor? Or was that a realization after going back and re-reading what you had written? Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=322184 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=322184 A few thoughts come to mind: 1) Using 'you' when speaking is something a lot of people do. I find myself using it without realizing. It is possible that when the author first formed the sentence in his mind, that was most natural. 2) 'You' could be referring to himself. It sounds like a mental note. He recalls past incidents and realizes too late he should have acted a different way, given his experiences. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=322183 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=322183 In this paragraph, we are able to discern that the author is American, or at least from America. More specifically, the author is familiar with NY and not so familiar with the streets of Britain, since he makes remarks about what NY taxi drivers would do compared to what he is currently seeing in Britain. In addition, I also think the author is an outgoing fellow since he decided to speak to a stranger. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=322182 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25283?scroll_to=322182 Generally, diary entries are written in first person. They are also usually narratives, that tell a sequence of events over a short period of time (like a day). In this work, I think those exact aspects I listed above makes this a diary. It is written in first person and it details a sequence of events. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=322181 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=322181 Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:29:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=322180 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=322180 Did other films at the time not acknowledge women? I mean, even thought gender roles were a social norm, women still went to the movies and were audience members... Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321929 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321929 I think the juxtaposition of the two allows one to appreciate music more. When one is surrounded by constant dissonance, one yearns for consonance, which music brings. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321928 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321928 I do agree that the film wants to show that times have changed - that woman are presented with more opportunities. I'd like to add that I think focus on individual women is propaganda. A female audience member watching this would see herself in that person. And if she didn't, maybe the film is saying that she could be that person, the one who works in a heavy precision metal factory or is self-assured and independent. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321927 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321927 Music is a creative expression. In addition, I think it can be categorized as an escape of some sorts. No matter how harsh life gets, music can be a constant. Music can evoke every emotion possible; one can feel happy, or sad, depending on the song and the song he/she chooses to hear. Not only that, but music was also used as propaganda. Today, marching bands are known for playing at halftime shows. But marching band originated with the armed forces; soldiers would play instruments. Although I’m not 100% positive for the reason behind it, I think it has to do with rallying the troops. Music excites. A lot of songs also were written with a nationalist perspective. Take American’s national anthem for example. While citizens of a country can be very different, music, like war, can bring people together. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321926 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=321926 Listen to Britain is definitely more subtle. To me, it does not scream WAR. Typing in the video link, I was most certain that it was going to be war propaganda. It is, but it does so without using any typical war footage – such as soldiers marching, or showing of artillery. Instead, it focuses on the citizens completing daily tasks. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321598 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321598 Fascism puts power into the hand of of a select group of individuals that run the state, and democracy puts power in the hands of the citizens. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321597 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321597 I agree with you completely that it is an introduction/first impression of a topic. And while it is up to a viewer to decide what course of action to take after watching a film, what comes to my mind is the statement that "entertainment keeps the masses stupid." So a documentary can be a starting point for someone who sees a documentary as a starting point. But what showing documentaries to children, or someone who is not educated in a topic? Documentaries are educational, even though they are subjective. And that in itself can create problems if topics are not researched further. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320561 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320561 When we were going over our writing samples in class the other day, Professor Rollyson kept telling a lot of us to "show, not tell." I think this is a perfect example of that - the reader is able to conclude he is depressed through the author's description. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320560 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320560 I think one feeling is comfort, although I don’t think he knows exactly what feeling he is talking about either at this point in the story. The ocean is water and water is the base for all life. Ishmael is suicidal and has wanted death; water is life and symbolizes his will to live and appreciation for all things living. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320558 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320558 Cato the Younger was known for disagreeing with Caesar and killed himself because he did not want to live by Caesar’s rules/power. As Cato escaped his environment by killing himself, Ishmael escapes his environment on land by escaping to sea. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320556 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320556 In the Bible, Ishmael is the son of Abraham and Hagar. Hagar is the servant of Abraham’s wife Sarah. Ishmael and Hagar were banished to the desert at Sarah’s request. Although Ishmael’s life was full of strife in the beginning, Ishmael ends up having a decent life and many sons. His sons go on to become leaders and continue the family tree. I think this story is going to be about a man who will go on a journey and find meaning in life, even though he has had an unfortunate path. I expect the character to go through hardships, but learn from them and prosper. I also think there would be a happy (or some-what happy) ending. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320552 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30622?scroll_to=320552 At first, I thought Ishmael wanted to go to sea because he got bored with his surroundings and wanted an adventure. He says that nothing is holding his interest on shore; I interpret that there is no place, person or thing keeping him from leaving. Essentially, he has nothing (no one to care about, nothing he cares about) and is looking for something (even though we don’t know what it is yet). As I read further, I realized that he needed to get off land to escape. He details depression, or a lack of wanting to live, as his reason to venture out to sea. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=320549 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=320549 I think this comment is really accurate. When I was younger, I never realized that history lessons were actually subjective views of events. People who write books pick and choose the things they want to talk about, specifically whether or not they want to write on a certain subject. They also choose what information to include or omit. A documentary is exactly like a history lesson. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=320532 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=320532 I think that the film’s narrative is inspired by Riefenstahl. Triumph of the Will shows a lot of people in power giving speeches that rally the audience. The narrator in Why We Fight follows the same concept; speaking lines that create this perfect image of Britain and its people. In addition to that, Riefenstahl’s film shows many visuals of the Nazi party in formation. Riefenstahl wants to show their efficiency and obedience. Capra also worked off those visuals and focused on Britain’s citizens to also show their efficiency and obedience, not for a person but for a nation. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=320507 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=320507 If I am getting this right, my understanding is that fascism is where one leader controls a state and collectivism is where the state is controlled/ruled by specific belief. Both believe in the idea that the nation is more important than the individual and that each person must act in a way that benefits the nation. If my understanding is correct, Capra could be both because both have the base idea to be nationalistic. But when it comes to the closer details, I do not think Capra could believe 100% in both ideas. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318601 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318601 There are many different things that come to mind when I hear this statement. The first is ‘seeing is believing.’ A lot of media allows an individual to see whatever it is. In this case, the audience views clips of Hitler and his followers. Even though the film portrays a certain view, it is still a view that is physically in front of us. Because it is physically there, it is an actual event. Another thing I think of is the idea that media keeps the masses stupid. Media is a form of entertainment. It captures our attention, and many times, keeps us from thinking too much into things. That being said, when media is persuasive, many are quick to accept that view. That can lead to mass belief, which in turn creates a pressure for everyone to believe in the same view. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318576 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318576 I was put in the POV of someone who believed in Hitler- which really played with my mindset. This film was created during Hitler’s rule; years later, knowing what Hitler did, I went into the film with certain notions and beliefs about Hitler and the Nazi Party, but the film was still able to challenge those things. I found myself thinking that they were efficient and organized. He directs a lot of his messages towards the youth and speaks to them not as children, but as powerful, independent human beings. As a young adult watching this, I understand why Hitler’s words are convincing. Watching this film now makes me ponder whether or not I would have followed him if I was a young person in Germany during that time... And that is frightening. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318573 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318573 A Pavlovian response is a form of conditioning, or association of one thing with another. Pavlov is known for his experiments with dogs. Usually, dogs would get excited and salivate at food itself. In Pavlov’s experiment, Pavlov rang a bell, and then fed the dogs. Eventually, the dogs would just become excited by the ringing of the bell, not by the sight/smell of the food. The dogs had been conditioned to expect that one thing came with another; in this case, the ringing bell came with food. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315981 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315981 Like we discussed in class today, different mediums evoke different responses. A film is viewed, while a score is heard. A musical score tells a story on its own. By adding a score to a film, a score heightens the experience because the audience is able to hear a story, while seeing it on screen. Different aspects of music create an array of emotional response from the listener. (For example, high pitched staccato notes build the feeling of being in a hurry or rushing.) Also, one's experience can change if a movie is played with two different scores. I originally watched this movie on YouTube with a different score. With the in-class viewing, I felt that the score was more invasive because my emotional reactions were stronger. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315979 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315979 I do not think the film suggests apprehension, but I think that Vertov decided to create a film like this because there were none like it before. And as a result, Vertov received questionable feedback. Hence, the NYT review quoted in Ebert's review. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315977 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315977 Yes. The way I see it is that a person's perspective about nature changes depending on his/her own emotions. So nature is not viewed the same way by everyone. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315976 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315976 Although I agree with your comment, a lot of questions come to mind. Civilization always appears to be going against nature, because civilization wants to "grow" and create new things (such as technology). But civilization came from nature. And civilization is always drawn to nature and always comes back to it. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315762 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315762 Hardy writes “the heath wore the appearance of…” I find this statement really intriguing. To ‘wear’ something means to put on or to cover and ‘appearance’ is the way something looks. Usually, one says “I wear” or “I appear,” never “I am wearing the appearance of.” What comes to mind is acting, or a performance. To me, Hardy’s word choice makes it sound like the heath is acting. If It is, what is the heath as itself (when it’s not putting on a show)? Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315759 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315759 I think Hardy applies the description of “haggard” to the Heath through the perspective of a person. The narrator is telling a specific story about one character or a specific set of characters, and these characters happen to view the Heath as haggard because it mirrors how they feel. The sentence includes the words “to a more recently learnt emotion.” Haggard is a word that is usually used to describe an adult, or a person who has been through a lot. The title of this book is The Return of the Native. Knowing the title, this passage hints that it is an older, exhausted person is returning to a past place or memory of easier times. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315536 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315536 All documentary films have an idea they want to convey; I think Vertov’s idea is to show actuality. His film is titled “Man with a Movie Camera.” In this film, a man shoots with a camera. He chooses different scenes and settings. The audience watches this man film. Then the audience sees the film. And a woman cutting and editing the film. The audience also sees another audience watching the produced film. In the review, Ebert mentions how other artists shocked the world with the pieces they created. That is what Vertov does by showing the production stages of his film. A movie does not show actuality, but acting, and Vertov goes against the movie norm by creating this film. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315522 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315522 I think this filmed is organized in multiple ways. One way that comes to mind is the order of people and objects in which Vertov puts on screen. After watching the film and remembering back on it, the things I remember are: the woman getting out of bed in the beginning, the moving trains/trolleys/cars throughout the film, the crowds, the busy streets, the crowded beach, the various physical games (sports), the mental games (checkers, chess), the ambulance and finally at the end, the camera which seems to move on its own. After going and listing all of the things I remember, this brings me to another thought that comes to mind when talking about the organization of this film: stream of consciousness. Different shots and scenes are shown with different time lengths, which allow Vertov to give us a constant stream of information. This reminds me of my thoughts, which come one by one, but also all together at once sometimes. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315519 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315519 When I read “locked into the traditions of the stage play,” the first thing that comes to mind is ‘to act.’ In other words, every movement, every act was deliberate and planned out. In addition to that, when I think of a staged performance, I think of the dramatization and emotion of the characters in every scene that happens. Things that happen in a performance (no matter what it is) is there in order to elicit emotion from the audience. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315517 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315517 While society strives to progress and come up with new ideas, the usual response to something new is disapproval. I think people react this way not because that actually dislike it, but that they do not know how to feel. New things are unfamiliar territory, which comes with apprehension. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315034 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315034 Even though these people are dressed differently, the land’s appearance does not change. At the same time, I also think that while Hardy says Civilization changes (physically and mentally), Civilization is still drawn to the familiar and constant. In this case, it is Egdon, or the heath. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315032 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30619?scroll_to=315032 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:40:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30612?scroll_to=313957 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30612?scroll_to=313957 In addition to different styles and tools, reading also exposes writers (and people in general) to a larger vocabulary. I know the only reason why I know certain words today is because I encountered them in while reading when I was younger. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:18 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30612?scroll_to=313956 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30612?scroll_to=313956 In addition to that, different people are distracted by different things. For example, some people think listening to music while doing something (writing, homework, etc) is distracting, while others do not. Music also helps some writers. Since this is the case, why eliminate all distractions if they aid you in writing? Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30612?scroll_to=313955 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30612?scroll_to=313955 Here is how I rank King’s rules. Here, I focused on writing as more of a personal activity instead of writing as a job. If I was ranking his rules as if I wrote professionally (and had a deadline), they would definitely be in a different order. 1. First write for yourself, and then worry about the audience. 2. Writing is about getting happy. 3. Don’t worry about making other people happy 4. Don’t use passive voice. 5. Stick to your own style. 6. The magic is in you. 7. Write one word at a time. 8. You become a writer simply by reading and writing. 9. There are two secrets to success. 10. Read, read, read. 11. Turn off the TV 12. Dig. 13. Avoid adverbs. 14. Avoid adverbs, especially after “he said” and “she said.” 15. But don’t obsess over perfect grammar. 16. Eliminate distraction. 17. Take a break. 18. The research shouldn’t overshadow the story. 19. Leave out the boring parts and kill your darlings. 20. You have three months. In addition, here are a few rules I would add to the list: - Let your writing guide you. Especially when it comes to fiction, characters and ideas want to be heard; the author is the medium in which they are told. - Write whatever comes to mind. Even if you think it’s bad, there’s always a chance that what you wrote down can be a catalyst for something else. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313177 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313177 I mean, yes, to interest people means popularity of the film. But at the same time, there are some daily routines of reality that I find (and I’m sure others) find interesting. What if Flaherty made his documentary boring? If that were the case, maybe the general public wouldn’t expect incredible excitement from documentaries and instead would have adapted to appreciate the mundane more. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313174 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313174 Yes exactly. And I think it is a good choice to begin the class with Ebert’s review. Because Ebert points out that that the film cannot be reality, it is important to keep in mind that a lot of documentaries – whether made today, or almost a hundred years ago – can be true reality (because people in them know they are being filmed, which in turn changes the way they act). The only way it can be 100% truthful is if people are filmed without their knowledge. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=312471 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=312471 Ebert’s statement means that the scenes shown are not true reality, or actual events that happened. Why? Because there was a camera, catching Nanook’s every move, which Nanook and the other Inuit people were aware of. When people are being filmed, their actions are no longer 100% true because the fact that they are being filmed is always on the back of their mind. In addition, Ebert’s statement also hints that the producer (Flaherty) had a say in what type of scenes he wanted. By having an idea and discussing it with the star of the film is in a way, assisting reality; things will happen because it was planned out. Ebert also reveals that he is not really upset with Flaherty’s documentary. Before he says “realities admittedly assisted,” he says that Flaherty is “a man who has been called the father of the documentary, whose films are masterpieces.” By leading into the comment with these statements, Ebert is bringing attention to the fact that Flaherty is known for his works for a reason, even though they may not fit into today’s definition of a documentary. At the same time, by putting “realities admittedly assisted” in his review, I think Ebert wants people to at least be aware of the fact that not everything in the film is completely true. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=312470 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=312470 Ebert reviewed the film in 2005, 83 years after the film released. In 2005, the general public knew what a documentary was, and the criteria that it was supposed to follow (to show events that actually happened). Here, when Ebert notes on the “purity of Flaherty’s methods,” he is pointing out the fact that in 1922, there were different (or really no) rules and expectations for filmed documentaries. Here, although some of the events in the film were staged, Ebert points out that these events still took place. In other words, although a person can tell another person to do something, a person cannot tell nature what to do. In this review, Ebert focuses on Nanook catching a seal. Flaherty might have told Nanook to catch a seal, but that did not mean Nanook was to be successful. In the end, the film shows a seal being caught. The scene, which would be called ‘staged’ today, still expresses the actual way the Inuits captured their food. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:15 -0500