Russia, 1905 - 1917, The Causes of Revolutionary Change Essay Example for Free

Russia, 1905 1917, The Causes of Revolutionary Change Essay Q3. Using your knowledge of the events of 1917 (March November) explain how the Bolsheviks were able to take over the government in November. The Bolsheviks were able to take over the Government in November 1917 by exploiting the mistakes made by the Provisional Government, their unique ideology, Lenins policies and propaganda, and an element of luck. These were the main factors for their seizure of power, but other factors combined together to allow the Bolsheviks to complete their objective. The Bolsheviks seized power, because they had a unique ideology. Their ideology was that a revolution had to be created, instead of just waiting for it to happen. They thought that they had to lead from the front. The Social Revolutionaries were unable to lead a revolution as they were too sparsely spread out across Russia, which is a vast country. The Mensheviks thought that a revolution would spontaneously occur as a larger proportion of the population urbanised. The truth is that this would never happen in the near future, because currently only about nine or ten percent of the population inhabited the cities. The other ninety percent were peasants who lived deep in the countryside. Lenin, a previous political exile knew that this degree of urbanisation would never happen, as Russia was too vast a country, and didnt have a transport system that was capable of allowing people from the countryside to come to the cities. Another unique idea that the Bolsheviks had was that they were the only party that wanted to end the war, while the rest of the parties (the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries) wanted to continue with the war effort. The majority of Russians thought that the war was also a bad idea, as it intensified the problems that were facing Russia at that time, such as starvation in the cities, terrible urban working conditions and the lack of land owned by the peasants. The war had caused these problems, and the continuation of the war did not remedy the situation. Plus the war was going badly, as the Russian army was able to put up some resistance against the Austrians, but suffered repetitive defeats at the hands of the Germans. The Bolsheviks unique ideology was therefore a very significant factor, as if they had not led from the front, a revolution would have never happened, and the All Russian Congress of Soviets wouldve been the legal ruling body of Russia. Another reason why the Bolsheviks took over the government in November 1917 was because of Lenins unique policies and propaganda. The Bolsheviks grew from a small insignificant party since the split of the Social Democrats in the London Conference, to dominate the Petrograd Soviet by November 1917. Lenin said that if the Bolsheviks gained power, then he would provide Peace, land and bread. This single phrase offered something that would make everyone happy. He promised peace, an end to the war, which was something that the majority of Russians wanted. The peace would allow the army to come home to their families. Peace was such a unique policy, as the Bolsheviks were the only party to offer it. The rest of the now legal political parties wanted to carry on with the war effort, even after they had seen that it had caused so much strife. He also offered land, something that was desired by nearly ninety percent of the population, the peasants. Before the peasants were forced to farm the common land of their village, or Mir, but Lenin offered that they would have their own land, something that they could own for themselves. And lastly, but not at all least was that he offered bread to the people. He offered a cure to starvation, which had plagued the cities, starving the umpteen number of urban workers, who had already been working longer hours to provide equipment for the front. Lenin said and promised things that he never planned on carrying out, but simply used them to win the support of people. The best example of this was when he came back from exile and stepped off the Sealed Train, he then said All power to the Soviets! In April 1917 but he did not mean this, but used it as a political tool to provoke peoples thoughts, and was very effective propaganda. He also used other slogans such as the one mentioned above to stimulate the Russian publics minds, and to gain their support. Lenin also managed to seize power in November 1917, because of his impeccable timing. Lenin was offered to lead the revolution during the July Days, but at that time he would have been taking power for the Soviets, including the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries. Lenin refused to take power at this time, but he didnt know for sure if he would have another opportunity to regain power. This risky move paid off later, as later on a Russian general (Kornilov) who was fighting on the front thought that the Provisional Government was weak, and he sought to re-introduce the Tsarist system. The leader of the Provisional Government (Alexander Kerensky) thought that Kornilovs army was finally going to overthrow the Provisional Government. He turned to Lenin and said that he would give him all the weapons of Petrograd if he would protect the city from the oncoming troops. Lenin accepted this plea and the private army of the Bolsheviks (the Red Guard) was given Petrograds weapons. On the 27th of August Kornilov marches his troops from the front towards Petrograd. When Kornilovs troops reach Petrograd, army discipline collapses and they abandon Kornilov to join the Red Guard. Now the Red Guard has the weapons of Petrograd, and an extended army due to the mutineers. The Provisional Government had made a huge mistake. They had given not only some, but all the weapons of Petrograd to the Red Guard leaving themselves defenceless. After Lenin had control of weapons, which were supplied to him by the Provisional Government, and an army that had rapidly gained support from the public and mutineers. He now had all the correct tools, which he needed for a job that he had masterminded: to take control of Russia legitimately. Now, he had time on his side, so he waited for the correct time to take control. The day he took control finally fell on the 6th November 1917, because that was the day before the All Russian Congress of Soviets was to meet. Due to his impeccable timing, he was able to take control before this meeting, which was to decide the fate of the Russian political system; therefore he was able to claim legitimacy. This showed that Lenin was very astute, as he had had chances to try and win power before, but he did not opt for that option, but waited until circumstances to his liking, and took advantages of them, resulting in the Bolshevik party ruling Russian headed by himself. The reason why the Bolsheviks took power in November 1917 was because they exploited the mistakes that had been made by the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government did not listen to what the people wanted, while Lenin told them what they wanted to hear, and subsequently won their support. The Provisional Government relaxed the censorship law, and therefore allowed new influential ideas to spread. This factor combined with the legalisation of political parties meant that these new ideas were large parts of the policies that the newly legalised parties used to try and gain support. The re-entry of political exiles into the country, such as Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were all major mistakes, which Lenin in particular exploited as he stimulated the way people thought about the revolution that had recently occurred, and made them think if anything had actually changed. Once people had thought about that question, they realised that nothing had actually changed: there was still starvation in the cities, the peasants had no land, working conditions hadnt improved, but had worsened, inflation was still a major problem and the common people of Russia (the peasants and urban workers) were still denied a say. A factor that contributed to the Bolsheviks taking power in November 1917 was something that could not be controlled: luck. Lenin and the Bolsheviks by far did not have a perfect plan on how to take power. They were lucky on three prominent occasions. The first was that Lenin decided not to seize power in July shortly after the July Days riots that took place in the major cities of Russia. The people asked him to lead the way to a fresh revolution as he called it, but he refused, as at that time the Bolshevik party was still a very small minority in the Petrograd Soviet (which was the most influential Soviet in Russia), as he would be taking power for the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries. This refusion of power at that time was very risky tactics by Lenin, as he didnt know if he would have another chance to try and take power again in the future. The second prominent example of luck was the taking place of Kornilovs Revolt. Kornilov was a general who was fighting on the front. He was a keen supporter of the Tsar and the Tsarist system in the whole, and thought that the Provisional Government was doing a bad job of ruling over Russia. He thought that if he could get rid of the Provisional Government somehow, then the Tsar might be re-instated as the rightful leader of Russia. Kornilov planned to March his army to Petrograd and retake power by forceful means if necessary. When the Provisional Government heard about his plans, they began to panic, as they had never faced a situation remotely similar to this in the past. As they had no force of their own present in Petrograd at that time, they turned to Lenin to see if he and his personal army made up of Bolsheviks (the Red Guard) would protect Petrograd from the oncoming army. The Provisional Government said that they would give all the weapons of Petrograd to the Red Guard if they would protect the capital. Lenin jumped at this opportunity when it arose, as he knew that the Provisional Government were making a huge mistake. When Kornilovs army did reach Petrograd, they mutinied and joined the Red Guard. Now the Red Guard had the weapons of Petrograd, and were firmly in control of the situation. This was pure luck by the Bolsheviks, as they did not know if Kornilov was going to revolt in the future when Lenin refused power previously in July, but by chance the circumstances became favourable for him. From the evidence I have given, I conclude that the Bolsheviks were able to take over from the Provisional Government in November 1917, because they had had a great leader in the form of Lenin, who had impeccable timing, motivating policies and propaganda and a unique ideology of what to do with Russia. They were also able to exploit the mistakes made by the Provisional Government, and an element of luck had play in their seizure of power. The Bolsheviks unique ideology was that they should end the war, while the rest of the newly formed political parties wanted to carry on with the war effort for the same reasons as the Provisional Government did, and that was because they didnt want to be seen as cowards. The Bolsheviks knew what the people wanted, and stimulated them accordingly with the use of some crowd-pleasing policies and propaganda. The Bolsheviks leader Lenins astute timing of the day to seize power, the day prior to the meeting of the All Russian Congress of Soviets. Luck did have a part to play in this seizure of power, and without it, the All Russian Congress of Soviets would probably have become the legitimate controlling body of Russia, but circumstances played into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The aggressive political tactics of the Bolsheviks: the idea that you had to go out and create a revolution did eventually pay off, as if they had done what the Mensheviks had done, then the revolution would never have taken place, and Russia would be ruled by another body. The prime reason for success was the masterminding and swaying of public thought, courtesy of the Bolshevik leader, Lenin.

Scene Analysis Of Casablanca Film Studies Essay

Scene Analysis Of Casablanca Film Studies Essay Second Essay Question: Deconstruct a scene from one of the films weve seen this semester. Address how the director used the actors, dialogue, lighting, camera movement, sound, editing, and production design to get their point across in the film. Casablanca was released in 1942 by the director Michael Curtiz. The film was considered one of the best motion pictures ever made. The films actors, strong emotions, and loving triangle all helped out in having a classical film. The last scene in Casablanca where Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) and Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) were saying their final goodbyes as an airplane was in the background setting was one of the greatest scenes in the history of cinematic. Actors: Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart): Rick Blaine was the owner of Ricks Cafà © Amà ©ricain. He apparently appears in the whole film to be a man who is not moved by anyone. He refuses to take drinks from the customers of the cafà ©. He also didnt seem to care about the war and that refugees have gathered in Casablanca. From the start of the film and Rick shows himself as a mysterious and complicated man but on the other hand he is also generous, discriminating, and political. After Ilsa has arrived to Casablanca, flashbacks came across Ricks mind and reminded him of the time they spent in Paris. He appeared to be so much happier than he is without her. Another difference is also that back in Paris he was called Richard. After the attack of the Nazis, Rick and Ilsa agreed to leave Paris together. But Ilsa stood Rick up in the train station, and this was their separation. Rick was in so much pain of what Ilsa did to him and suffered from heartbreak. After that, Ilsa showed up at the bar, Rick reacted so angrily and refused to give her and Victor Laszlo the letters they need of transit. Finally, at the end of the film Rick becomes the hero and he sacrifices his love to Ilsa and his life in Casablanca so that Victor Laszlo can get away with Ilsa and finish his political work. So basically there were three characters that Ricks appeared in the movie with. First, In Paris he was so romantic, then in Casablanca he was hard-hearted, and finally at the end of the film he appeared to be self sacrificing hero (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman): Ilsa is extremely loyal to her husband, Victor Laszlo. She believes she love Laszlo, but on the other hand she also says that she is in love with Rick, back when they were in Paris and also after she arrived to Casablanca. She had a very good reason to tell Rick that she loves him when she was in Casablanca so that she can get the letters of transit that she needs. Her feelings are always dreamy and vague which makes it hard to understand her right. Long time ago when Rick was in Paris, she sent him some letters claiming that she cant see him anymore. And that now can be a proof of her capability to protect her real feelings from those people who loves her. From all the characters in Casablanca, Ilsa was one of the most people who clearly had a lot of pain from the unexpected change of wealth. First of all, her husband Victor got arrested and reported to be dead. Then, when he came, she was supposed to escape with him throughout Europe with the Nazis. After that, in Casablanca she met Rick once again and fell in love with him all over, but unfortunately she was suppose to leave him once again. Ilsa didnt had an easy life, and one of the greatest tragic in the whole film is her fate. Finally, at the closing scene of the film, we can feel that the chances of Ilsa living happily ever after ending do not exist. Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid): One of the main characters in Casablanca is Victor Laszlo, who is the least complicated person. He is an absolute noble hero. Victor Laszlo is a handsome and confident man. His wife was Ilsa and he loves her so much to the extent that when he knew about her and Rick he accepted the fact and claimed he understands. He was ready to give anything for Ilsa to get away safely from Casablanca. Victor likes politics. His want of beating the Nazis is the best ambition for all the actions he ever took. He places himself as a favored to battle through it. As much as Victor Laszlo is priceless to the Allies as much as he is critical to the Nazis. Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains): Louis is not a man of strong opinion, but was a friend to whoever had power. He never likes Strassers believes but he works with him. For a part in the film, Louis was shown as a careless and selfish man who cared about absolutely nothing but himself. He takes advantage of pretty women refugees and usually gets fixed winnings from the casino of Rick. He told Rick not to count on him as a friend, but he couldnt hide his feelings for his friend (Rick). Towards the ending scene of the film, the men committed to their friendship when they committed themselves to the Allied cause. Rick committed by shooting Strasser and letting Ilsa escape with Victor out of Casablanca, while Louis committed by choosing to get away from Casablanca along with Rick. Lighting: The lighting has a great effect on the mood of the whole film. At the beginning of the movie most of the scenes and shots were brighter than when the film came towards the end where they were darker. There was a scene close to the ending scene of the film in Ricks cafà © where Victor Laszlo was taking refuge after the meeting was attacked. The scene inside the cafà © was at night and it had an absolutely low key lighting. The drama of the movie was being built slowly through the beginning up till the end of the movie. The dimness of the film increases the drama and the worry of the viewers more. The shots towards the end of the film become more extreme due to the gap among special parts of the shots. This Chiaroscuro effect also helped in raising the worry due to the clear bright lights and deep dark shades. Against the light of the background, there was Captain Renault, a poster boy, wearing his black uniform. Those two were shots from the final scene when Rick holds Cap tain Renault as a hostage and pressure him into letting Victor Laszlo getaway. Moreover, there was a fog in this final scene in the airfield, that had a gray invading of the scene and actors, which generate a feeling of suspicious. That resulted in making the viewers not knowing how the fight is going to be solved. Here the lighting technique was sharp and differs from the cinematography that is in all the other parts of the film. Sound: The director used the sound in this scene effectively. While filming the movie, he discovered that the sound stage was very small to be suitable to an actual airplane. So he decided to put the actors on a soundstage at Warner Bros where there was no real airplane. He also puts up half and quarter size models of Lockheed Electra 12A. The scene was raped around the machine that produces fog to cover up the artificiality of the background set. In this last scene of the movie, the actors never left the soundstage of the airplane. Also, towards the last scene of the movie, there was a shot that shows very quick two aircraft engines that has dramatic noise from the strong piston engines driving up and the fan spinning round in a high speed. One of the shots was showing the right side of the engine of the aircraft. And the other shot shows the left side of the engine. Along with those shots, the fog was being spread to go with the cloudy smoggy look that covers the rest of the closing scene. The director was so talented in making a great job in sound editing so that the sound of the engines makes the film mix together well with the soundstage of the film. Camera Movements and Dialogue: The ending scene of Casablanca had many camera movement techniques. After Captain Renault (Claude Rains) and Victor Laszlo depart, the camera starts to follow Rick and Ilsa, where it was neither of their view points. The camera was from the side. After that, Rick sends Ilsa to escape with Victor. After a cut away to Captain Renault, the camera builds up again to highlight the remarkable conversation; the camera was also from the side. As the camera follows up again at the final minute it shifts to Rick. Then the camera goes into a series of reverse angle shots first from Rick to Ilsa, then to Rick again, then to Ilsa, then to Rick again, and finally back to Ilsa one more time. The camera shifted either to the face of the person who was talking or to the other person. There was a hidden meaning in these shifts of the camera. It either meant stressing the conversation or drawing attention to understanding what is said. Another frame got both characters (Rick and Ilsa) in, that changed into an analytical point of view shot of Ilsa. Her tears were glowing in her eyes and the feeling of the light was becoming softer at her face. At the same time, Rick was talking to her and said Im not good at being noble, but it doesnt take much to see that the problems of three little people dont amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. After that, Ilsa dropped down her chin, because she felt that she was crushed by fate. Then Ricks hands held Ilsas chin and raised it up again saying Now, now . And this was a close up in the camera movement. After that there was a cut of the point of view of Ilsa, and the hidden meaning here is so that women viewers will be able to understand her situation. Rick said Heres looking at you kid. Then a shot of a close up happened again, where it demonstrates that Ilsa understood that Rick wants the best for her and that she accepted his decision of letting her escape with her husband. Then there was a cut back to the point of view of the guy that she really loves. After that the emotions stopped for a few seconds with a fast cut away to Major Strasser, who is the Nazi commander in charge of Casablanca, who was walking fast to reach to the airport. The camera then goes back to the airport, where a private conversation was held between Rick and Victor who were facing each other. Ilsa was at the background of the scene trying to wipe her tears away. Then there was a fast shot of Captain Renault from Ricks point of view. There was again couple of reverse angles which were used to highlight the speakers conversation. First, from Victors point of view there was a fast cut away to Ricks point of view of Ilsa. Here all three of them were in the frame together. And she backs up what Rick is saying. The shot after that returns to Rick then to Victors face who believed what Rick said and accepted his brave explanation. Then there was a three shot right after the two shots of Rick and Victor, with Ilsa on the right side wiping her tears away and she was considered in the staging position. Then a shot went back to Rick and Victor alone when Victor was saying: Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win. After that a shot went to the engines of the plane. Then there was a three shot of the characters looking at the plane. Then a few series of close ups follows with a great awareness of the eyes of the actors as they act in response to the actions. First, Rick looks at the plane then at Ilsa, and Ilsa looked back at him, then both Rick and Ilsa looked at Victor, then Victor looked right into Ilsa and said: Are you ready, Ilsa?, so she turned her head for the last time and looks at Rick, then at Victor and she said: Yes, Im ready. In this scene Rick is giving up on Ilsa and making her getaway with Victor, and Ilsa on the other hand is accepting Ricks decision in letting her go. Next, a cut to a wide shot of all the three actors appeared. Ilsa stepped in front and the camera movement started following in and to the left to set up some characters significant. For the first time, Ilsa stands next to Victor and Rick was alone facing them. Ilsa said: Good-bye, Rick. Then there was a close up of Ilsas face that softly softened the light at her face and completed saying: God bless you. Next, there was a high angle shot of Rick, the Director is trying to emphasize that we are looking for the first time down to Rick, because Ilsa was gone from his life forever, and was back with Victor. Then he said: Youd better hurry. Youll miss that plane. We were seeing this scene from Victors point of view because now the couple is Ilsa and Victor. After that, the camera was far away from the staging position when Ilsa and Victor were walking away towards the plane. That scene was taken again from Ricks point of view, where he was seeing both of them walking out of his life. And by that he realized the generous sacrifice he has done. After that, the camera showed a reverse angle shot of Victor and Ilsa, as a couple this time, walking to the camera. Then they looked at one another and we can see that Ilsa was trying to hold herself together. And as they get closer to the camera, we see that Victor was slowly cut off when the camera was slowly moving to the left side. The director wanted to focus the attention here on Ilsas face because she was walking away from the man she loves. After that the camera cuts into a close up to Rick alone in the frame (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). After that, the camera cut away to both Captain Renault when Major Strasser just came. Major Strasser tries to make a phone call for help, when Rick asked him not to, but since he didnt respond, Rick shot him. Then the police arrived, and in few seconds Captain Renault said: Round up the usual suspects. Now, Rick and Captain Renault are alone at the closing scene of the film. They watched the plane as it took off from both their point of view and then from a revered angle shot. The director tries here to make the viewers feel the loss of Rick in his eyes. After that another revered angle shot to their point of view appeared then the plane faded away within the fog (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). Finally, Rick and Captain Renault walked away together. Then the camera gets into a crane shot by rising up by looking down in a high angle shot at them as they keep walking from the staging position. Then Rick says: Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Then as they continue walking the music arise (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). As for this Dialogue, the beautiful friendship that will start to begin between Rick and Captain Renault was the last closing sentence in Casablanca. Moreover, the dialogue of Casablanca was all filmed on a soundstage, but that doesnt make it any less of great dialogue. Editing: The editing of Casablanca was attractive and high in excellence. At the closing scene of the film, the close ups of the airplane with the engines represented the scene as if it was in a real airport with a real plane, and was so hard to find out that all of that was acting in front of a fake plane. Moreover, when the shot was on the airplane taking off, it appeared that the first part of the airplane was the real one and the second part was the studio effect. All together, the story, casting, acting, dialogue, staging, music, sound, lighting, camera movement, editing, and production are so great that viewers just cared about whats happening, not about how the film was created and done. Third Essay Question: Some historians argue that films reflect the political and social mores of society at the time of its creation, is this accurate statement? Is the subject matter of the movies weve watched driven by society or does society drive the entertainment industry to create films within a specific moral, social, or political context? Discuss. More frequently, American movies reflected the absolute influence of the society. The industry is willing to sell more products. That case was mainly right when it came to studio era. J. Dudley Andrew, who is a movie scholar, saw and noticed that in The Major Film Theories: A natural rapport grew up between the public which went to the movies weekly and the producers who needed to supply the people with a variant of what they liked and were used to. (Gehring, 1997). Some movies influence society. For instance: Star Wars it still has a continuing force, which was released again in 1997. Gehring, who is a professor and an author of lots of film books, his occupation covered a some of his adolescence of the 1967s which is called dark comedy to get back on the1930s fashion of clothings. Hollywood tries to safegaurd its contribution, because they are not new nor warrantied. Furthermore, the film production is more involved in reflecting societys desires and needs than in directing them. People who puts all the responsibility and guilt on Hollywood for the most part of the societys troubles are not noticing nor considering real life mores and films (Gehring, 1997). The fiction part in Hollywood has been acknowledged for a long time by the majority of critics and reviewers of the genre between high art and mass culture. For the common audience of those fictions, there has been a lot of questioning about the behavior and sexual mortality in the film trade; there was also a concern about the moral value of films and their impact on the society as a whole (Springer, 2008). Some Hollywood movies reflect social attitudes or generalize from specific films. Fictional films are very difficult and hard to make. Social products are completed, distributed, and received by the audience. The critics examine completely in order to evaluate their roles as historical evidence. For instance: it is too risky to take into consideration only some films from a particular period of time as an easy reflection to the American society. Furthermore, the attitudes that are represented in a particular film might symbolize a chain of compromises cautiously designed to be non-offensive. Also, some individual firms and companies might point out indicate very unusual attitudes toward race relations or womens rights for example. Approaches about class, gender, ethnicity, work, and all other aspects of life are represented in fictional films and movies as they are novels and plays. As a mass visual entertainment, those fictional films reflect the social attitudes in a precise dramatic manner. Some movies which were released from 1915 to about 1955 were Americas mainly popular structure of narrative entertainment. At that time, movies tended to be targeted to larger group of audience, who are even larger than most of the audience of plays and novels. Moreover, movies by then reflected social attitudes more precisely than any other medium, as they got into the maximum number of people. The huge amount of audience doesnt necessarily mean that movies in America characterized all points of view. In filming a movie, directors and staff tries to avoid certain controversial points of view in order not to offend a huge number of people. Also, the producers of films try not to insult any wide groups of people and they normally stay away from political controversial, so that they can be able to sell the film internationally to make profit. A film that is driven by the society is basically stating whats really happening in the real world in a movie. Some movie directors try to reflect the picture of whats happening in the world or society by exaggerating a little more. Other film directors might just mirror real life in their movies. Others might be brave and in their movies that they show what is hidden in the society and represent it in their movies. A great example of a movie that is driven by the society could be Casablanca. Since it was filmed during War World II and it has some political and social mores of the society. Another example is the movie Amadeus, since it was a story about the lives of Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri, who are two composers and that was during the latter half of the 18th century On the contrary, some movie director wants to add something to the society or want to drive a new idea or message into it, so they do that in their movies. This is what its called society drives the entertainment industry to create films within a specific moral, social, or political context. Those kinds of movies are more open minded, because it requires more creativity and imagination to come up with something new more than the movies that are driven by the society. Most of those kinds of movies are imaginary movies. Another issue of argument of the same field might be that modern society is addicted to media entertainment. Simply, people in society couldnt live without all the noises, the images, the technology weve reached to nowadays. Media and films might affect society as well. It could have positive or negative influence on people. For example, violence movies might affect children, teenagers, or adults as well. They might get influenced unconsciously with what they watch in those violent movies. It can affect ones moral values, political, and social mores and make them more aggressive. Moreover, films of teenagers drinking or dealing with drugs also affect adolescence negatively. On the other hand, movies that have great morals affect people positively. For example, movies that might deal with family gathering throughout the whole film, can teach the audience the importance and the value of a family. In conclusion, a lot of writers, historians, and people argue about weather films reflect our political and social mores of our society or vice versa. The subject of the matter here is still and will remain a subject of argument and discussion, although it defers from one movie to another. Some movies combine both. For instance, a movie can be driven by society and also could be that society drove the entertainment industry to create the film or parts of it within a specific social moral and political context.

The Path to Knowledge :: Philosophy Papers

The Path to Knowledge Recent ethnographies suggest that tribal cosmologies address topics of philosophical relevance and offer valuable insights into the nature of perennial philosophical problems. For example, while postmodern and feminist thought has argued that the verification of knowledge is directly related to political interests, I argue that there are other vantage points not related to such interests that serve as valuable measures for the acceptance of knowledge. Direct empirical verification of the ontological presuppositions that govern the assessment of anthropos in the context sub species aeternitatis empowers an individual to understand his or her role within culture as well. The methodological bounty described in ethnography signals for philosophers to question the categorization of transcendence merely as 'religious experience.' This paper argues that humans may have the capacity both to recognize the divine and to give objective descriptions through symbols and language which allow for t he development of methodologies in order to access that knowledge at will. Many postmodern and feminist thinkers place knowledge into the domain of politics and power. Such insights allow for the deconstruction of social realities and for postulating democratic principles in accepting multicultural philosophies. The recognition of form, however, cannot substitute for content. The educative function of politics reveals important insights into the human condition and allows one, for example, to see postmodernity in the context of historical events, such as the resourceful relationship between reason and capitalism, the transition from living law to positive law (cf. Northrop 1960), and the shaping of thought through liberalism and nihilism. An important feature of postmodern thought is its acceptance of multiplicities of viewpoints. By entertaining disparate claims for truth that originate in diverse methodological and historical origins, postmodernitsts learn to employ creative strategies to solve conceptual disjunctions much like anthropologists must learn to cope with the collapse of their worldviews when 'going native.' Such experiences, however, can be fertile ground wherein new scientific methodologies might have a chance to blossom. A recent study on tribal epistemologies (Wautischer 1998) demonstrates a type of understanding that stands outside the methodological scope of naturalistic observation. The exploration of human consciousness beyond linguistic thought will caution any philosopher to claim that behavior and intelligence can be understood by referring to deterministic principles. In this context, philosophical discourse continues to fulfill a vital role in educating humanity. It is misleading to assume that philosophical inquiry is primarily a political enterprise. Rather, a philosophical sense of wonder gives value and respect to diversity, gives empathy for other human beings, and concern for other life forms.

Terrorism - Using Social Security to Fight Bush’s War :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Using Social Security to Fight Bush’s War I have a rational fear: a fear that the September 11th attack has given the Bush administration a free hand in pursuing a conservative domestic agenda. This has so far been unspeakable in the media. But it must be said, lest it happen for sure. Where is the $40 billion for the war on terror coming from? Not from a rise in taxes and not from sacrifices to be made by the rich. Where then? The only available source I can think of is the Social Security "lockbox," which is now wide open. The conservatives have been trying to raid the Social Security fund for some time, and the Democrats had fought them off until now. Before September 11, the suggestion to take $40 billion from the Social Security "surplus" would have been indefensible. Has it now been done-with every Democratic senator voting for it and all but one of the Democrats in Congress? Think of it: Are your retirement contributions-and mine-are going to fight Bush's "war." No one dares to talk about it that way. It's just $40 billion, as if it came out of nowhere. No one says that $40 billion dollars comes from your retirement contributions. No one talks about increasing taxes. We should at least ask just where the money is coming from. If the money is coming from social security, then Bush has achieved a major goal of his partisan conservative agenda-without fanfare, without notice, and with the support of virtually all Democrats. Calling for war, instead of mere justice, has given the conservatives free rein. I fear it will only be a matter of time before they claim that we need to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for national security reasons. If that most "pristine" place falls, they will use the national security excuse to drill and mine coal all over the country. The energy program will be pushed through as a matter of "national security." All social programs will be dismissed for lack of funds, which will be diverted to "national security." Cheney has said that this war may never be completed. Newt Gingrich estimates at least four or five years, certainly past the 2004 election. With no definition of victory and no exit strategy, we may be entering a state of perpetual war.

Statues of David Essay -- essays research papers

There have been many staues of David sculpted by famous artists like Donatello, Verrocchio, and Michelangelo. Bernini’s version of David and is about to begin his attack on Goliath, as he appears posing. The statue seems to be moving through space and the action suggests that the action of flinging the stone requires a lot of room around David. The statue forces the observer to look past the actual subject and focus more on the surroundings. He seems to have very muscular legs, and appears to be ready to turn and throw a stone from his sling. This is the most dramatic pose that Bernini could have picked and was chosen because it shows a sudden burst of energy and a moment of suspense as well. Bernini’s David is different from that of other artists because there is an expression of concentration that makes the statue a more imposing piece of artwork.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Donatello’s David was created for the courtyard of the Palazzo Medici. The statue takes on a different pose, and was one of the first free-standing nude statues of the ancient world. l when compared to Bernini’s, it is more classical. Bernini’s rendition is posing and relaxed like a Greek god would be. Donatello made the ancient Greek style popular during this time. Donatello’s David has long flowing hair and has one of his legs placed firmly on top of the head of Goliath, representing his victory over the behemoth. He portrayed David as the slayer of Goliath and as a symbol of the independent republ...

Archetypal Themes Present in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” Essay

The origins of Shakespeare’s play â€Å"Romeo and Juliet† are relatively unknown. It’s hard to believe, but this archetypal theme of ill-fated love predates Shakespeare by more than a thousand years. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines â€Å"archetype† as: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. One of the first pieces of written work to include this common archetype of ill-fated love was Ovid’s â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe.† Written around A.D eight, and published in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, this poem recounts the story of two forbidden lovers who come to a tragic end, a theme recurring in literature. Shakespeare and Ovid both employ similar and different archetypal symbols within their work. One common archetypal symbol in both Ovid and Shakespeare’s work is the wall, symbolizing forbidden love. Ovid gives life to the wall by describing it as â€Å"hateful,† thus personifying the wall. Another example of how Ovid makes the wall more than just a inanimate barrier between the two lovers is when the lovers speak to wall. A most memorable line was when Pyramus and Thisbe declared, â€Å"But for you we could touch, kiss,† addressing the wall as a person. In comparison, in â€Å"Romeo and Juliet† the â€Å"wall† was the Montagues and Capulets fierce hatred for one another. In â€Å"A Midsummer’s Night Dream†, Shakespeare further develops this symbol of forbidden love by casting the wall as a character played by a person. This transforms the wall into more than just an inanimate object, but as an actual living thing that is separating the two lovers. Shakespeare and Ovid employ different means of personifying the wall, but in both, the wall is represented as a symbol of forbidden love. Another powerful archetypal symbol in â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe† is the mulberry tree. Ovid uses the mulberry tree as a symbol of death and the ill-fated love of Pyramus and Thisbe. Ovid’s poem starts out with a description of the mulberry tree, informing the reader that once upon a time the red berries of the mulberry tree were actually as white as snow. Like all of the other  tales in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, this poem is focused around change, in this particular case, the change in color of the berries of the mulberry tree. Ovid tells us that the berries were stained red by the blood of Pyramus as he committed suicide upon finding Thisbe’s blood-stained cloak. Another archetypal symbol of death, similar to the mulberry tree, is the lion used by Ovid, the harbinger of death. In fact one can view death itself as another â€Å"wall† that separates Pyramus from Thisbe, until she joins him in death. Archetypal symbols of death, such as the mulberry tree and the lion, appear in numerous works of literature, and can be identified in Shakespeare’s plays. Up until this point, I have been analyzing Ovid’s and Shakespeare’s use of archetypal symbols, but it is also important to point out some similarities and differences between both authors. â€Å"Romeo and Juliet† and â€Å"A Midsummer’s Night Dream† both incorporate elements from â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe†. However, the parallels between†Romeo and Juliet† and â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe† are more authentic, given that â€Å"A Midsummer’s Night Dream† is Shakespeare’s satire of â€Å"Romeo and Juliet†and â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe.† Both â€Å"Romeo and Juliet† â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe† have parallel plots, common symbols, and archetypal characters. On the other hand, the original â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe† is somewhat similar to the amusing rendition that the characters of â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe† that Bottom and his friends from â€Å"A Midsummer’s Night Dream† perform. However, there are some differences. In â€Å"A Midsummer’s Night Dream† Ovid’s work is performed crudely and absurdly, meaning that Shakespeare was well aware of these oft-repeated symbols and themes and wished to parody them. Next time I read a piece of literature, I will have my eyes open for some of the archetypal symbols the Ovid and Shakespeare use in their work. Being able to recognize archetypal themes and symbols gives the reader a profound and more meaningful understanding of the text. Both Ovid, in â€Å"Pyramus and Thisbe†, and Shakespeare, in â€Å"Romeo and Juliet† and â€Å"A Midsummer’s Night Dream,† employ common archetypal symbols as a way to enhance the story that they are telling. Works Consulted: Hosley, Richard (1965). Romeo and Juliet. New Haven: Yale University Press. Roberts, Arthur J. (1902). â€Å"The Sources of Romeo and Juliet†. Modern Language Notes

Agenda Setting Theory. Summary

Agenda Setting Theory I. The original agenda: not what to think, but what to think about. A. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw regard Watergate (American political scandal – 1970’s. It ended in President Nixon resigning from office) as a perfect example of the agenda-setting function of the mass media. B. They believe that the mass media have the ability to transfer the salience (importance) of items on their news agendas to the public agenda. II. A theory whose time had come. A. Agenda-setting theory contrasted with the prevailing selective exposure hypothesis, reaffirming the power of the press while maintaining individual freedom.Agenda-setting theory set to prove that we don’t have as much control over our beliefs as we would like to think. (selective exposure: says people know what they are interested in, and what they believe/find important. They choose to expose themselves to media sources that provide them with information that matches their interests and c onfirms their existing beliefs) B. The hypothesis predicts a cause-and-effect relationship between media content and voter perception, particularly a match between the media’s agenda and the public’s agenda later on. causal relationships are different than correlational relationships – note how the findings change between studies). III. Media agenda and public agenda: a close match. A. In their groundbreaking study, McCombs and Shaw first measured the media agenda. B. They established the position and length of story as the primary criteria of prominence (i. e. where it was in paper – front page – and how long of an article it was – more writing equals more important (discourse makes meaning)) C. The remaining stories were divided into five major issues and ranked in order of importance. D.Rankings provided by uncommitted voters (uncommitted = undecided; these are people who have not made up their minds yet) matched closely with the mediaâ⠂¬â„¢s agenda. IV. What causes what? A. McCombs and Shaw believe that the hypothesized agenda-setting function of the media causes the correlation between the media and public ordering of priorities. B. However, correlation does not prove causation. 1. A true test of the agenda-setting function must show that public priorities lag behind the media agenda. (this would prove that one comes before another and is the cause of the other) 2.McCombs and three other researchers demonstrated a time lag between media coverage and the public agenda during the 1976 presidential campaign. C. To examine whether the media agenda and the public agenda might just reflect current events (reality), Ray Funkhouser documented a situation in which there was a strong relationship between media and public agendas. The twin agendas did not merely mirror reality, but Funkhouser failed to establish a chain of influence from the media to the public. (this was the Vietnam War example) D.Shanto Iyengar, Mark Pet ers, and Donald Kinder’s experimental study confirmed a cause-and-effect relationship between the media’s agenda and the public’s agenda. V. Who sets the agenda for the agenda setters? A. Some scholars target major news editors or â€Å"gatekeepers. † B. Others point to politicians and their spin-doctors. C. Current thinking focuses on public relations professionals. D. â€Å"Interest aggregations† are becoming extremely important. VI. Who is most affected by the media agenda? A. Those susceptible have a high need for orientation or index of curiosity. B.Need for orientation arises from high relevance and uncertainty. VII. Framing: transferring the salience of attributes. A. Throughout the last decade, McCombs has emphasized that the media influence the way we think. B. This process is called framing. 1. A media frame is the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. 2. This definition suggests that media not only set an agenda but also transfer the salience of specific attributes to issues, events, or candidates. C. There are two levels of agenda setting. . The transfer of salience of an attitude object in the mass media’s pictures of the world to a prominent place among the pictures in our heads. (what to think about) 2. The transfer of salience of a bundle of attributes the media associate with an attitude object to the specific features of the image in our minds. (how to think about it) VIII. Not just what to think about, but how to think about it. A. Two national election studies suggest that framing works by altering pictures in the minds of people and, through the construction of an agenda with a cluster of related attributes, creating a coherent image.B. Salma Ghanem’s study of Texans tracked the second level of agenda setting and suggested that attribute frames have a compelling effec t on the public. C. Framing is inevitable. D. McCombs and Shaw now contend that the media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us who and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it. IX. Beyond opinion: the behavioral effect of the media’s agenda. A. Some findings suggest that media priorities affect people’s behavior. B. Nowhere is the behavioral effect of the media agenda more apparent than in the business of professional sports. C.McCombs claims â€Å"Agenda setting the theory can also be agenda setting the business plan. † D. Will new media continue to guide focus, opinions, and behavior? 1. The power of agenda setting that McCombs and Shaw describe may be on the wane. 2. The media may not have as much power to transfer the salience of issues or attributes as it does now as a result of users’ expanded content choices and control over exposure. X. Critique: are the effects too limited, the scope too wide? A. McC ombs has considered agenda setting a theory of limited media effects. B. Framing reopens the possibility of a powerful effects model.C. Gerald Kosicki questions whether framing is relevant to agenda-setting research. 1. McCombs’ restricted definition of framing doesn’t address the mood of emotional connotations of a media story or presentational factors. 2. Although it has a straightforward definition within agenda-setting theory, the popularity of framing as a construct in media studies has led to diverse and perhaps contradictory uses of the term. D. Agenda-setting research shows that print and broadcast news prioritize issues. E. Agenda-setting theory reminds us that the news is stories that require interpretation.