Transcendentalism

Transcendentalism was a spiritual movement in the 1820's/30's and it came about through many authors and new writing innovation. A couple of these transcendentalist authors were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Margaret Fuller. These people mostly believed that every person has a goodness inside of them and that society has corrupted us. Many of their writing styles revolved around the themes of nature and self reliance. I have a few different takes on their beliefs.

I do believe in self-reliance and self-trust, but I also believe that this would only be a possible society in an ideal world. The ugly truth is, that many people reject the idea of trusting their self. I also believe that many people would have a hard time listening to one mans inner judgement(heart) instead of a Jury's justice. I also had a hard time comprehending the righteousness or the fairness of that kind of trial.

I believe that most people have a goodness inside of them. I also believe that society is some what corrupt. I do not believe however, that society corrupts us. If we created society, that is corrupt, then we ourselves must also be corrupt. So if we have goodness inside then society must also have a goodness.

I am somewhere in between being a transcendentalist and not. I believe in self-reliance, self-trust, self-love but, I believe it would only work in an ideal world. I do believe in their new writing innovations; very creative/deep and thought provoking. I do not believe that everyone has goodness in them, sometimes there is just that one person. I also do not believe that all of society has corrupted us, most of it probably has, but society can do/has done some good (ex:saving lives). Transcendentalism isn't for everyone, and I am one of the people who could have stood in the middle of this one.

The Great Gatsby

One part that Baz Luhrmann's version changed was near the end. Gatsby was waiting outside Daisy's house, after she hit Myrtle, and Nick came around and said he would go check on her. When Nick checked on Daisy, Tom's hand was supposed to be on Daisy's hand. They were supposed to look like they have solved a greater problem. Instead Tom's hand was on her back and Daisy just looked sad. The affect that came over me in the book, that the green light was already behind Gatsby, did not come to me while watching the movie at this part.

 Also, Baz Luhrmann's version changes the death scene. I really liked how at first you didn't know if Gatsby was actually dead. It seemed surreal. Of course I was expecting a difference between the movie and the book, but this was a giant difference to me. We were supposed to see leaves swirling through red water and Gatsby was supposed to be staring at the stars. I felt that the swirling leaves and the red water were significant to Fitzgerald's style and Luhrmann changed it. I also felt that Gatsby staring up at the stars had a meaning, there were other places in the book that the stars came into play and made the entire scene seem more colossal. Although I know the movie is never as good as the book, I was surprised that Luhrmann decided to change those two scenes.

Now that I have set aside, what I believe, the major scenes that Luhrmann has changes I can take a look at what he has kept the same. I believe that Luhrmann excelled in the green light scenes. The green light can symbolize hope and that emotion definitely came over in the film. Also, I loved the party scenes, the overall excitement and frenzy of the Gatsby parties was shown in this version. And one last visual that I believe Luhrmann did an amazing job at showing was T. J. Eckleburg's eyes. I got goosebumps when a crazed George Wilson said, "God sees all!". And I kept thinking, "Oh please no!", sometimes you just have to hope that the movie director took pity on the poor man and in the end he truly does live. Unfortunately Gatsby still dies, in the movie and the story.

Bowling for Columbine

Film director Micheal Moore created a persuasive documentary about the shooting at Columbine High School. In his film he addresses the issues with guns in America.

One strategy he included in his film, to make it more persuasive, was sarcasm. At a point in the film a man believed America doesn't kill people. Moore continued in the film to show thousands of murders that America committed playing "What a Wonderful World". He also narrated, "...our country bombs another country who's name we can't pronounce". His sarcastic view shows his viewers the extent of which some Americans are uninformed about their own country's affairs. America does kill people.

Another strategy he uses are personal interviews, which instills emotion into his audience. In his film he interviewed two boys that had disabilities from being shot at Columbine. It is heartbreaking to see their scars and to know they will never be the same as they were before the shooting. They even had remains of the bullets inside of them. Moore used the compassion towards the boys to pressure a big company into not selling bullets of firearms anymore.

Along with using some other strategy's, such as: irony, and shock, Moore created a persuasive film that addresses gun issues in America.

I thought it very interesting when Moore interviewed citizens in Canada about gun issues in America. And that they're responses went along the lines of, "...we wouldn't shoot anybody if we got mad" and "yes we own guns...", "we keep our doors unlocked", "yes I have been robbed before". Then he goes to the leader of the NRA's home in Hollywood and he keeps loaded guns in his locked house, even though he has never been robbed, and has a very large spiked fence surrounding his property with high-tech security.

Maybe the gun issues surround the fact that most Americans store their guns loaded. In case of an emergency the guns can be used quickly for protection. In Japan, who has virtually eliminated shooting deaths, they keep their guns and their bullets locked in different parts of the house. If Americans did this it would be unlikely that accidental shootings would happen and that a child would be able to get a hold of the gun and a bullet. Also, Japan citizens tell their police where the gun is located. This would allow police more control over any situation involving a gun.

Moore's film persuades his audience that America has a gun issue, if children are dying and murdering(which they are) there is an issue. He persuades his audience through the strategies of shock, irony, personal interviews, and sarcasm. Do "Americans have the responsibility to be armed" at the extent of thousands of lives, many children's lives?

Pick: Noise or Silence

Imagining a world without sound was a very hard thing for me to do, if not impossible for a hearing person. Both the hearing family and deaf family made very intelligent and weighted arguments. The deaf side of the family for the Artinian’s, made points on how they are changing Peter’s personality. They then continued to ask “Why can’t you accept him for him, you’re an awful mother.” But, since the Artinian’s are hearing they believed they were fixing Peter because he was broken. The deaf didn’t like being referred to as broken. They believed there was nothing wrong with being deaf. There is nothing wrong with being deaf in my opinion but, the majority of Americans are hearing able. Which means that with cochlear implants Peter and Heather would both be able to communicate better with a bigger world. They would have more job opportunities and there would be no barriers between speaking and hearing worlds. Except maybe for Peter if his parents decide not to teach him sign language. Which was another point the deaf people argued. “Are you going to tell him he’s deaf?"

There are two main discourses in this film.  One is being deaf and one is being hearing able. These are two different worlds and, it is hard for them to imagine each others worlds because they are such opposites. They also communicate differently, although small amounts can be understood from each side.  The deaf side wants the children to embrace their deafness and to be added into the deaf community. The hearing able want the children to be like them, to appreciate all of the sounds. They believe deaf people are missing out on life. Deaf people believe that hearing able people are missing out. Both are right. These two discourses often conflict with each other during the film. There are many times in the movie where both sides are shown, and they are shown equally. This works really well in the film and allows the audience to see both sides of the story. It allows the audience to make their own decisions. I believe, however, that a hearing able person will be biased towards themselves and vise-versa with a deaf person.

Scared of A Closed Basement Door

Nine years ago, almost a decade, I was annoying my eldest sister.  And I must have annoyed her til the point she could not longer take. As punishment, my struggling unwilling body was pushed through the open basement door by a very agitated twelve year-old. Slowly my pink elephant socks slid on the tile floor. Where the tile of the kitchen floor ended the wooden unfinished stairs of the basement started.  My feet hit the first step and the door was slammed shut behind me. I crouched down on the first step and sat as close to the door as I could. A wailing, whooshing sound started coming up the unlit stairs, the light switch was too far away. Shadows of  demons and other unimaginable nightmares moved around at the bottom; waiting for me to move, for me to breath so they can sense where I was. I was not going to give the monsters the satisfaction of eating me. I did not breath. It had to be years later that the door was opened and I sprinted towards the light and the safety of my bedroom and stuffed animal friends.  When my parents came home, my eldest sister was scolded after I told them of my punishment.

Now nine years past, I sit at my kitchen table doing homework. The house is silent, everybody has gone to the library. The heater in the basement kicks up with a small whurring cough and the basement door, which had been left open a foot, slams shut. And, in my mind, I see a little girl crouching at the top. My heart rate picks up as I walk over to the basement door.  With all the lights in the kitchen turned on, I open the door and let the child that could be there escape the nightmares in the basement. The basement door will never stay shut again. 

"Let me" inform "you"

             On July 30, Robin Thicke decided to publish his thoughts on women in his new song "Blurred Lines". Sending a message to the young generations that women want men. That it's in our "nature" to act like an "animal". That we "must wanna get nasty... you wanna hug me... I know you want it." His song undermines respect that all human beings should get equally. It is his way of saying that women are the problem in relationships: "You're far from plastic, Talk about getting blasted, I hate these blurred lines." When he says you're far from plastic, he is implying that we are real. We have feelings and emotions. Then he says something completely different, that we talk about getting blasted. That it's so confusing and women send mixed messages. And I am sure that some women probably do. But when you write a song about "blurred lines" and the fact that it's okay to cross them, "And that's why I'm gonna take a good girl, I know you want it." That's just not okay. He is sending a universal message that says it is okay to cross women's boundaries because it's in our nature, we're just animals. Oh, but don't worry, we're far from plastic.

             But it also sends the message that all men think they can "domesticate" and "liberate" women. And that men think women are the weaker sex. "What you don't like work." But, just like the above statements, this might apply to some, but not the majority.

              At first I thought that this song was really catchy. I would find myself singing it during random times of the day. Then, when I took the time to look up the lyrics, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that pop-stars today think that they can say whatever they want--even if it is offensive. Pop musicians have a responsibility for the messages that the promote to the world. Because their words are heard near and far. "With great power comes great responsibility." And musicians have great influence, or power, over their listeners. What bothers me is that young people are going around singing this song, much like I did, and not even knowing what they are implying. Or that when they sing the song they are agreeing with and supporting his claims. That women are a weaker sex, and that they want men because they are animals.

             To smooth things over with the public, Thicke claimed that he was making fun of stereotypical R&B and hip-hop discourses. Except for the notion that there is no evidence, in words or the music video, that he is making fun of anything. If the R&B stereotype is nudity, such as Miley Cyrus's Wrecking Ball music video, then how does the audience know that he is not just participating in it, but making fun of it. Because there is no evidence for or against his disclaimer, many people are going to take their own opinions of his song and music video. Creating a very biased song that will be listened to and re-watched hundreds of thousands of times. Maybe a biased song with nudity is the way Thicke is trying to gain money. Looking at it from that prospective, he is a very smart man trying to get people worked up about it. He makes money when people tell their friends, "Hey, did you hear about the new song that's getting all these bad reviews. Let's watch it and see what all the talk is about." Maybe everyone should let it go and focus instead on the good songs out there. Let profit go where profit is deserved, and vice-versa. 

August 1, 1944

For my non-fiction book I chose to read "The Diary of a Young Girl--Anne Frank."  Anne Frank was a little Jewish girl who lived during the Holocaust. She started her journal June 12, 1942. By July 10th her family had moved to a very small secret annex in Anne's Father's workshop. It was strange to read this book and comprehend that everything that she talked about actually happened.  Many times Anne would act as a child. Running to her parents bed when gun shots and bombings could be heard. But who could blame her?  She was thirteen years old. But surprisingly, she also many times acted as an adult. She was a very stubborn person and maybe that is what made her stand up to the adults in the little annex. I cannot imagine living at a time of such horror. The saddest parts of this diary were when Anne learned of what happened to her Jewish friends and neighbors. And when she learned about the gas chambers. "Perhaps that's the quickest way to die."

Another thing that became obvious to me, as time went on in her journal, was that I could see that Anne was maturing. "As long as you can look fearlessly at the sky, you'll know that you're pure within and will find happiness once more." She said these words when she was falling in love with Peter, one of the Van Daans, who was also in the safe annex.

On Tuesday, August 1, 1944 Anne Frank wrote her last diary entry. Three days later the eight people living in the Annex were arrested along with two of their helpers. Hermann was gassed to death shortly before the gas chambers were dismantled. Peter was forced to take part in the death march were he died three days before the camp was liberated. Margot and Anne died the winter the typhus epidemic broke out within days of each other. First Margot, then Anne. That spring the camp was liberated. "The bodies of both girls were probably dumped in Bergen-Belson's mass graves." "Otto Frank was the only one of the eight to survive the concentration camps."   "...he devoted himself to sharing the message of his daughter's diary with people all over the world."   

All of them were so close to surviving, it's truly heartbreaking. Anne Frank is a legend. And through words and stories her legend lives on.