At first when I read this passage it wasn't as obvious because I didn't know what I was really looking for, but after I re-read it, it became clear that she clearly distinguished between her personal thoughts and thoughts of others. It sometimes is hard to make it clear who idea you are talking about, but the templates from this section will make it a lot easier.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Chapter 5 exercise 1
When reading the passage from the historian Julie Charlip, it was for the most part easy to identify between her referring to other people's ideas and referring to her own. She separated the "they say" from the "I say" very well. For example she refers to views of others in the article when she writes, Marx and Engels wrote..., I once asked a sociology professor what he thought... his definition, and the average American will tell you. When adding her own input she makes it obvious by making various statements such as, I find myself..., But I always felt that..., I'm sure thats what..., and As a historian...
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Chapter 4 exercise 1
She first states what the issue is, then gives two opinions on the problem. She talks about how Bowles and Gintis said that there are rewards for different behaviors that come from the different social classes. On the other hand, Bernstein, Bourdieu, and Apple talk about how certain knowledge and skills are favored to the upper classes more then the working classes. When you read this section of the writing you could possibly assume that she is agreeing with the main problem stated in the first sentence of the reading, but then she goes into talking about how there hasn't been any huge attempts to research the issue. You could easily conclude that she disagrees on the situation because she doesn't feel like she has enough background information on the problem to believe anything anyone says. Overall I would say that Jean Anyon has an agree/disagree standpoint on the situation.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Exercise 7j
- In terms of layout and design Cassidy Trom was not going for the typical boring research paper that you would expect in an english class. Instead this paper brings in large titles, pictures, captions, and enlarged quotes to clearly show her main topic. It is very unlikely that you would get bored when reading this paper because even though there are words surrounding everything, the pictures help explain what is being talked about. Her layout seems like it is more for a newspaper then an english class. This style of writing is probably the biggest help when it comes to the emphasizing part. If you were to write a typical paper with no pictures or large headlines, then it would be harder to show what your emphasis is, but with the capability of using pictures, the main points are obvious.
- This layout will affect how the audience reads it because they will read what is most interesting first. Like for example the title is large and bolded, obviously I am going to take the time to read the title because it must be important if bolded. Normally when reading a regular research paper I don't pay as much attention to the title because it is just like everything else. The pictures will be looked at as soon as you flip to the next page, which might not be a bad thing because it gives a some what preview of what you are about to read about. I find the large quotes interesting because it shows you that the writer feels like this is important and that we should comprehend it and understand how it works in with the paper. The way the paper is set up also breaks up the reading so it is not all one long paper. This may be beneficial because instead of getting bored from what you are reading, the reader may actually enjoy reading what the paper is about.
- If the fancy stuff was removed, the paper would just turn into an ordinary, boring research paper. You would have to have some other way to make your paper stand out from everyone else's. Without the emphasis of all the stuff added, this paper would not be as exciting and wouldn't be as attention grabbing as it was before. The content of the paper wouldn't change at all, and it would still be a great paper, it's just the point would not be proven as easily as it would have with the pictures and bolded sections.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Abby Schaffer
English 1106
18 February 2009
This film allowed myself to actually hear what the characters sounded like. Instead of imagining what Marjane, her parents, her grandmother, friends, neighbors, etc. sounded like, we heard them for ourselves and were able to compare what we heard to what we previously thought. For instance during the film we actually saw how bratty Marjane was, which was perfectly portrayed in scenes such as when she tried to attack the young boy with screws. Another aspect we were able to see was how Marjane felt she knew everything about the war. It was funny to listen to her explanations about the war because she did not really know all the facts, so she just restated everything she heard, even if it wasn’t right.
By visualizing the characters and hearing them instead of looking at them on a piece of paper it allowed you to picture everything better. The cool thing was that this entire movie took place in French, resulting in sub-titles, which isn’t as bad as you think it would be. I did not mind that I had to read subtitles because if I didn’t hear the characters in Marjane’s natural language I think it would have taken away from her real experience. Along with the sub-titles, if you paid attention to the music in the background, you would hear how perfectly it went along with the scenes. For example whenever something terrible happened, there was either complete silence that set the mood or gloomy depressing music.
The special effects for this movie worked perfectly. By choosing a black and white, animated theme the directors chose a path that related to the graphic novel. If they were to choose real actors, I think that the point of the movie would have been ruined. According to the A.O. Scott, “In this age of Pixar and “Shrek,” it is good to be reminded that animation is rooted not in any particular technique, but in the impulse to bring static images to life” (The New York Times). Scott’s point is saying that instead of bringing in characters that were not going to be able to portray Marjane’s image, they decided to be as simple as possible. By using animated characters, it shows everyone that you do not need all the big time actors and actresses in the movie to get your point across. Also the fact that the entire movie was in black and white besides the few scenes in the airport proves a point that they are trying to make it more and more like a comic book.
One problem that I had was the transitions that occurred. During the entire movie I felt like it was choppy and not smooth. The poor transitions occurred more often in the beginning, but when it happened it was blatantly obvious. Once a scene was over it seemed like they would just pause for a split second then move on. It could just be my perception, but I felt like these poor transitions happened for a good majority of the movie. Eisner would argue that, “ …when there is need to compress time, a greater number of panels are used. The action then becomes more segmented, unlike the action that occurs in the larger, more conventional panels” (30). He basically is saying that even though it may have appeared choppy, the director could have done it purposely. There is not a lot of time given to movies, so the idea of jumping from point to point in the beginning could easily have been on purpose. Who knows, maybe the director was trying to make it as much like a comic book as possible.
If asked if the movie portrayed the book well, I would agree. McCloud himself writes, “…however you might say that before it’s projected, film is just a very, very, very ,very slow comic!” (8). His point is that even though we don’t think about movies in this way, it is actually a comic, just sped up. In the sense of Persepolis, which is actually a comic, the connection between the two was accomplished very well. It wasn’t like a lot of movies that were made based on books that didn’t follow the books storyline very well, but of course it did leave some things out. A movie is maximum of about two and a half hours long: a short time span to fit a lot of information in. For the most part I thought that the directors picked the correct scenes to portray, and filmed them almost exactly like how the book illustrated them. Unlike some of the other movies that were made from comic books, Persepolis stayed true to the original graphic novel. Everything from the characters to specific instances that occurred in the book was visually correct in the movie. I thought it was cool how during the movie I saw almost exact pictures from the book, which again emphasized how well the movie worked off of the book.
Overall I feel that the movie version of Persepolis eventually worked up to the standards that I was expecting. If I needed to recommend it to someone I would say that it is unlike any other movie you saw that was based off of a comic book. If you are trying to get away from the action heroes and super powers that are considered the “interesting” comics, then Persepolis would be a great choice for you. Demonstrating all of the characteristics of a comic book, this movie correctly analyzes Marjane’s life during a war and will give you a viewpoint of the war that you never saw before.
Works Cited Page
Scott, A.O. (2007, December 25). Movies. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from The New York Times Web site: http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/movies/25pers.html
English 1106
18 February 2009
Persepolis Movie Review
Before watching Persepolis, I expected it to be different then what it turned out to be. The movie could easily be considered a very condensed version of the graphic novel. Including the important scenes from the book, the movie actually went further into the life of Marjane Satrapi. When the movie ventured into Marjane’s life after her parents sent her away, it surprised me because I thought it was only going to be on the first part. If you are like me and felt that you were just left hanging when the book ended, then the movie would be very beneficial to you.This film allowed myself to actually hear what the characters sounded like. Instead of imagining what Marjane, her parents, her grandmother, friends, neighbors, etc. sounded like, we heard them for ourselves and were able to compare what we heard to what we previously thought. For instance during the film we actually saw how bratty Marjane was, which was perfectly portrayed in scenes such as when she tried to attack the young boy with screws. Another aspect we were able to see was how Marjane felt she knew everything about the war. It was funny to listen to her explanations about the war because she did not really know all the facts, so she just restated everything she heard, even if it wasn’t right.
By visualizing the characters and hearing them instead of looking at them on a piece of paper it allowed you to picture everything better. The cool thing was that this entire movie took place in French, resulting in sub-titles, which isn’t as bad as you think it would be. I did not mind that I had to read subtitles because if I didn’t hear the characters in Marjane’s natural language I think it would have taken away from her real experience. Along with the sub-titles, if you paid attention to the music in the background, you would hear how perfectly it went along with the scenes. For example whenever something terrible happened, there was either complete silence that set the mood or gloomy depressing music.
The special effects for this movie worked perfectly. By choosing a black and white, animated theme the directors chose a path that related to the graphic novel. If they were to choose real actors, I think that the point of the movie would have been ruined. According to the A.O. Scott, “In this age of Pixar and “Shrek,” it is good to be reminded that animation is rooted not in any particular technique, but in the impulse to bring static images to life” (The New York Times). Scott’s point is saying that instead of bringing in characters that were not going to be able to portray Marjane’s image, they decided to be as simple as possible. By using animated characters, it shows everyone that you do not need all the big time actors and actresses in the movie to get your point across. Also the fact that the entire movie was in black and white besides the few scenes in the airport proves a point that they are trying to make it more and more like a comic book.
One problem that I had was the transitions that occurred. During the entire movie I felt like it was choppy and not smooth. The poor transitions occurred more often in the beginning, but when it happened it was blatantly obvious. Once a scene was over it seemed like they would just pause for a split second then move on. It could just be my perception, but I felt like these poor transitions happened for a good majority of the movie. Eisner would argue that, “ …when there is need to compress time, a greater number of panels are used. The action then becomes more segmented, unlike the action that occurs in the larger, more conventional panels” (30). He basically is saying that even though it may have appeared choppy, the director could have done it purposely. There is not a lot of time given to movies, so the idea of jumping from point to point in the beginning could easily have been on purpose. Who knows, maybe the director was trying to make it as much like a comic book as possible.
If asked if the movie portrayed the book well, I would agree. McCloud himself writes, “…however you might say that before it’s projected, film is just a very, very, very ,very slow comic!” (8). His point is that even though we don’t think about movies in this way, it is actually a comic, just sped up. In the sense of Persepolis, which is actually a comic, the connection between the two was accomplished very well. It wasn’t like a lot of movies that were made based on books that didn’t follow the books storyline very well, but of course it did leave some things out. A movie is maximum of about two and a half hours long: a short time span to fit a lot of information in. For the most part I thought that the directors picked the correct scenes to portray, and filmed them almost exactly like how the book illustrated them. Unlike some of the other movies that were made from comic books, Persepolis stayed true to the original graphic novel. Everything from the characters to specific instances that occurred in the book was visually correct in the movie. I thought it was cool how during the movie I saw almost exact pictures from the book, which again emphasized how well the movie worked off of the book.
Overall I feel that the movie version of Persepolis eventually worked up to the standards that I was expecting. If I needed to recommend it to someone I would say that it is unlike any other movie you saw that was based off of a comic book. If you are trying to get away from the action heroes and super powers that are considered the “interesting” comics, then Persepolis would be a great choice for you. Demonstrating all of the characteristics of a comic book, this movie correctly analyzes Marjane’s life during a war and will give you a viewpoint of the war that you never saw before.
Works Cited Page
Scott, A.O. (2007, December 25). Movies. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from The New York Times Web site: http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/movies/25pers.html
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Abby Schaffer
English 1106
18 February 2009
When reading the graphic novel I felt that Marjane did an excellent job portraying the characters, but it was not until I saw the movie where I felt I actually knew the characters personally. Instead of imagining what Marjane, her parents, her grandmother, friends, neighbors, etc. sounded like, we heard them for ourselves and were able to compare what we heard to what we previously thought. For instance during the film we actually saw how bratty Marjane was, which was perfectly portrayed in scenes such as when she tried to attack the young boy with screws. Another aspect we were able to see was how Marjane felt she knew everything about the war. It was funny to listen to her explanations about the war because she did not really know all the facts, so she just restated everything she heard, even if it wasn’t right.
By visualizing the characters and hearing them instead of looking at them on a piece of paper it allowed you to picture everything better. The cool thing was that this entire movie took place in French, resulting in sub-titles, which isn’t as bad as you think it would be. I did not mind that I had to read subtitles because if I didn’t hear the characters in Marjane’s natural language I think it would have taken away from her real experience.
The special effects for this movie worked perfectly. By choosing a black and white, animated theme the directors chose a path that related to the graphic novel. If they were to choose real actors, I think that the point of the movie would have been ruined. Other critics would say that too many special effects would ruin the film, but the special effects are not the typical ones that you would expect. Instead of hydraulics and fireworks, the special effects in this movie were more on the animated side. The fact that the entire movie was in black and white besides the few scenes in the airport proves a point that they are trying to make it more and more like a comic book. One problem that I had was the transitions that occurred. During the entire movie I felt like it was choppy and not smooth. The poor transitions occurred more often in the beginning, but when it happened it was blatantly obvious. Once a scene was over it seemed like they would just pause for a split second then move on. It could just be my perception, but I felt like these poor transitions happened for a good majority of the movie.
If asked if the movie portrayed the book well, I would agree. It wasn’t like a lot of movies that were made based on books that didn’t follow the books storyline very well, but of course it did leave some things out. A movie is maximum of about two and a half hours long: a short time span to fit a lot of information in. For the most part I thought that the directors picked the correct scenes to portray, and filmed them almost exactly like how the book illustrated them. Unlike some of the other movies that were made from comic books, Persepolis stayed true to the original graphic novel. Everything from the characters to specific instances that occurred in the book was visually correct in the movie. I thought it was cool how during the movie I saw almost exact pictures from the books, which again emphasized how well the movie worked off of the book.
Overall I feel that the movie version of Persepolis eventually worked up to the standards that I was expecting. If I needed to recommend it to someone I would say that it is unlike any other movie you saw that was based off of a comic book. If you are trying to get away from the action heroes and super powers that are considered the “interesting” comics, then Persepolis would be a great choice for you. Demonstrating all of the characteristics of a comic book, this movie correctly analyzes Marjane’s life during a war and will give you a viewpoint of the war that you never saw before.
English 1106
18 February 2009
Persepolis Movie Review
Before watching Persepolis, I expected it to be different then what it turned out to be. It was a really good idea to read the graphic novel version before watching the film because if you didn’t, I do not think you would have received the full effect. The movie could easily be considered a very condensed version of the graphic novel. Including the important scenes from the book, the movie actually went further into the life of Marjane Satrapi. I thought that we were going to see the same ideas and plots that the book contained, but when they moved on to what Marjane’s life was after her parents sent her away, I felt like it was a really good addition. If you are like me and felt that you were just left hanging when the book ended, then the movie would be very beneficial to you.When reading the graphic novel I felt that Marjane did an excellent job portraying the characters, but it was not until I saw the movie where I felt I actually knew the characters personally. Instead of imagining what Marjane, her parents, her grandmother, friends, neighbors, etc. sounded like, we heard them for ourselves and were able to compare what we heard to what we previously thought. For instance during the film we actually saw how bratty Marjane was, which was perfectly portrayed in scenes such as when she tried to attack the young boy with screws. Another aspect we were able to see was how Marjane felt she knew everything about the war. It was funny to listen to her explanations about the war because she did not really know all the facts, so she just restated everything she heard, even if it wasn’t right.
By visualizing the characters and hearing them instead of looking at them on a piece of paper it allowed you to picture everything better. The cool thing was that this entire movie took place in French, resulting in sub-titles, which isn’t as bad as you think it would be. I did not mind that I had to read subtitles because if I didn’t hear the characters in Marjane’s natural language I think it would have taken away from her real experience.
The special effects for this movie worked perfectly. By choosing a black and white, animated theme the directors chose a path that related to the graphic novel. If they were to choose real actors, I think that the point of the movie would have been ruined. Other critics would say that too many special effects would ruin the film, but the special effects are not the typical ones that you would expect. Instead of hydraulics and fireworks, the special effects in this movie were more on the animated side. The fact that the entire movie was in black and white besides the few scenes in the airport proves a point that they are trying to make it more and more like a comic book. One problem that I had was the transitions that occurred. During the entire movie I felt like it was choppy and not smooth. The poor transitions occurred more often in the beginning, but when it happened it was blatantly obvious. Once a scene was over it seemed like they would just pause for a split second then move on. It could just be my perception, but I felt like these poor transitions happened for a good majority of the movie.
If asked if the movie portrayed the book well, I would agree. It wasn’t like a lot of movies that were made based on books that didn’t follow the books storyline very well, but of course it did leave some things out. A movie is maximum of about two and a half hours long: a short time span to fit a lot of information in. For the most part I thought that the directors picked the correct scenes to portray, and filmed them almost exactly like how the book illustrated them. Unlike some of the other movies that were made from comic books, Persepolis stayed true to the original graphic novel. Everything from the characters to specific instances that occurred in the book was visually correct in the movie. I thought it was cool how during the movie I saw almost exact pictures from the books, which again emphasized how well the movie worked off of the book.
Overall I feel that the movie version of Persepolis eventually worked up to the standards that I was expecting. If I needed to recommend it to someone I would say that it is unlike any other movie you saw that was based off of a comic book. If you are trying to get away from the action heroes and super powers that are considered the “interesting” comics, then Persepolis would be a great choice for you. Demonstrating all of the characteristics of a comic book, this movie correctly analyzes Marjane’s life during a war and will give you a viewpoint of the war that you never saw before.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Suggestions for Writing ex. 2
Both critics seemed to have extremely different ideas about the movie "Spider Man 2". Todd Gilchrist thought that the sequel did not deserve any of the praise that it received, while Robert Ebert thought that the movie was absolutely amazing. They mainly disagreed on many things, but there was a couple times where they agreed. For the majority of both of these reviews, both critics gave an overall summary, talked about the characters, and then gave their own view on what the movie should do in comparison to the actual comic book. Todd Gilchrist thought that although the movie was not terrible as a whole, it needed areas of improvement. He went about explaining this by tearing apart the film piece by piece. In a way I guess you could expect this from a critic who did not really like the movie. Of course someone who loved the movie wouldn't want to intentionally find flaws that made it not as perfect as they thought it was.
In the summary, Gilchrist seems to think that the main character, Peter (Tobey Maguire), finds his life becoming not as exciting in the sequel, while Ebert thinks Peter thrives due to additions in the script. Probably what stood out the most to me when reading the second critique was how Roger thought that "Spider Man 2" was unlike the other comic book related movies, which veered away from the original comic books. He thought that these movies should not only focus on superpowers and the main points people think of when they think of super-heroes, but instead focus on what the original books thought was important. He felt that the effects were not over the top and actually contributed to the movie, making you feel that the objects were real and not just "robot" like.
Overall you could say that the two critics differed in their opinions on how a sequel should evolve. Gilchrist thought that they should be exciting and keep you on your toes by adding new emotions and deepening the plot, while Ebert thought that the sequels should be less high tech and more like the original books. If i was to pick someone to agree with, I would say that I would want to take both sides and make them into one. Agreeing with Gilchrist that these kinds of movies should not be dragged on, but also agreeing with Ebert that they should not be over packed with special effects and over the top characters. When reading the two reviews we see how the critics use similar methods to review the movie, which leads us to seeing their different viewpoints. Not everyone is going to agree that a movie is perfect, but the only thing that can be taken out of these response is the fact that there is always room to change, even when someone thinks it is the best piece of work.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Persepolis Movie vs. Book
On Wednesday when we were about to start the film I thought that it was going to be a full out movie with like real actors and actresses. To my surprise it was in basically the same format that the book was in, except all the voices were in French and you had to read subtitles. I was not upset that there were subtitles because I am used to reading them due to having to watch lots of movies in my French class in high school. In a way I thought it added to the movie because you got to see a different side of Marjane, her cultural French side, then we saw in the book. At first I thought the comic scenes were stupid because it was basically the same thing we just did, but as the movie continued I found myself liking it more and more. Although they left out some scenes, for the most part the major scenes were included.
Unlike the book, during the film you did not really have time to reflect on what happens. When reading the book you got to read the words, look at the pictures, then reflect, but in the movie it was like a ton of information just bombarded you all at once. Also in the movie I feel that it is choppy and just random scenes from the book placed into motion picture format. The transitions are probably the part that would need the most work on because when they decide to move on from one scene it is like a small pause instead of a smooth transition.
Although the movie has some flaws, I think that overall it gives us a better picture of what is going on in Iran. Now, instead of reading and imaging what is going on, we actually get to grasp more then what we got from just looking at the pictures. For instance, we see actually how bratty Marjane is and how cruel the environment is during the war period. Instead of imagining what Marjane sounded like, now I have better description that helps connect my book thoughts of her to what I see in the movie. I don't think I would have liked the movie as much as I do, if I hadn't read the book before. I think reading the book before we watched a movie was a great idea because we got to understand what was going on and get out own vision of everything. The movie then was just to further our knowledge and give us a motion vision instead of just pictures. I am now really interested in the film and am excited for us to finish it tomorrow. In a way I am hoping it paints a better picture in my mind of the ending because after reading the ending in the book I was disappointed. Who knows, maybe the movie will leave me on a better note then the book.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
