Nowadays people are alarmed about all the violence in the world and the media. Many experts are searching for ways to stop the increase. In my essay I will address these issues.
I personally believe there are various reasons for the violence in this world. To start with, there art some reasons that are frequently mentioned, namely violence is something that we learn. We see and imitate it if we want to. In addition is also the result of stupidity and frustration. When we are frustrated, we become aggressive and have stupid ideas. Finally, negative emotions like hatred are often cause by violence.
I totally agree with Medved when he exposes the four big lies of the media. Like Medved I doubt that violent movies are just harmless entertainment and that they don’t influence the public. This argument is illogical because a film studio said that a film saved lots of lives. This film influences people and a violent movie just as much. Likewise it’s right that you don’t have to watch it if you don’t like it, however, it’s impossible to escape such films. Finally, I’m sure that family entertainment is also very successful, so that is no reason to produce more violent films.
I believe in near future violence can only be reduced among children. First, their upbringing is important because it will influence their attitude to violence. Beside there are diverse films, which are good for the child’s education. Second, the family life helps children to reject violence. To conclude, the best idea to reduce violence among children is to keep them busy with other interesting things. So if your child is aggressive, go out with him to a sports club.
Monday, 5 May 2008
Friday, 22 February 2008
A pro/con essay writing of a ban on violence in movies
Everyday we are confronted with violence. There are many discussions whether violent films should be censored or forbidden, but what is pro a ban on violence in movies?
There are three arguments which argue to a ban on violent movies.
First, I think, so much violence in movies is not realistic anymore. If we look at the most violent films, we notice, that the violence is distended and dramatise. For example House of Wax. Such a film is very unrealistic. Second, non violent movies are successful, too. In films like “Der Schuh des Manitu" or "Ratatouille" there is no violence, but very successful. There are many other things that make a movie famous. The last one is that one of the “Theories of violence” says that we can learn violence. We see the violence in movies and imitate it like my brother.
There are also powerful arguments which are against a ban on violence in movies.
Most films are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn’t copy it. In addition, the majority of people don’t get violent, because of the movies. Finally I think that we don’t turn into a non violent society just because we don’t show violence. Violence is a very big part of movies or of our whole world and it won’t be better just because of a ban on violent movies.
In my opinion violence in films should not be forbidden, because sometime I myself like to watch violent films and violence will always exist with or without violent movies. I also think our life would be boring without violence in world.
There are three arguments which argue to a ban on violent movies.
First, I think, so much violence in movies is not realistic anymore. If we look at the most violent films, we notice, that the violence is distended and dramatise. For example House of Wax. Such a film is very unrealistic. Second, non violent movies are successful, too. In films like “Der Schuh des Manitu" or "Ratatouille" there is no violence, but very successful. There are many other things that make a movie famous. The last one is that one of the “Theories of violence” says that we can learn violence. We see the violence in movies and imitate it like my brother.
There are also powerful arguments which are against a ban on violence in movies.
Most films are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn’t copy it. In addition, the majority of people don’t get violent, because of the movies. Finally I think that we don’t turn into a non violent society just because we don’t show violence. Violence is a very big part of movies or of our whole world and it won’t be better just because of a ban on violent movies.
In my opinion violence in films should not be forbidden, because sometime I myself like to watch violent films and violence will always exist with or without violent movies. I also think our life would be boring without violence in world.
Sunday, 16 December 2007
Snow Falling on Cedars
FACTS:
Why do they suspect Kabuo Miyamoto, a Japanese-American fisherman?
The local sheriff, Art Moran and his deputy, Abel Martinson, found Carl Heine’s body, a fisherman, trapped in the boat’s fishing net underwater. They discovered an odd wound on his head. A practicing physician, Horace Whaley, notes that the wound resembles wounds he saw during the World War II, on soldiers who had fought in hand-to-hand combat with Japanese soldiers.
Of particular interest is a dead engine battery that was found on the boat. The type of battery is different from the type that Carl normally used to power his boat but it matches the type of battery that Kabuo used on his boat.
Art Moran found one of the mooring ropes on Carl Heine’s ship did not match the other three ropes but did match those on Kabuo’s boat. Furthermore, one of Kabuo’s ropes is brand new. Art thinks that he lost one and had to replace it.
Art soon discovers the blood-covered gaff. Dr. Sterling Whitman, a haematologist testifies that the blood on Kabuo’s fishing gaff is human blood, type B positive. This type matches Carl Heine’s and is relatively rare. Kabuo, on the other hand, is type O negative, so the blood clearly did not come from him. But Dr. Sterling admits that he did not find any bone splinters, hair, or skin on the gaff. He says that it is more likely that the blood came from a minor wound the coroner found on Carl’s hand.
Etta Heine, Carl's mother, accuse Kabuo of murdering Carl for racial and personal reasons. Because Kabuo wants to buy the Heines’ strawberry farm but he simply showed up too late to buy the land.
Ishmael Chambers, a reporter, realizes with the help of the radio at the lighthouse archives that a large freighter, the Corona would have produced waves easily large enough to upend Carl’s boat and knock him overboard. He steals one of the carbon copies of the lighthouse report from that night’s log so he proves Kabuo’s innocence.
Ca. 340 words
(In fact it was an accident: Carl was in the midst of tying a lantern to the mast when a massive wave from the Corona crashed into his boat, throwing him from the mast. As he fell, his head struck the boat, knocking him unconscious. He fell into the water and drowned.)
Why do they suspect Kabuo Miyamoto, a Japanese-American fisherman?
The local sheriff, Art Moran and his deputy, Abel Martinson, found Carl Heine’s body, a fisherman, trapped in the boat’s fishing net underwater. They discovered an odd wound on his head. A practicing physician, Horace Whaley, notes that the wound resembles wounds he saw during the World War II, on soldiers who had fought in hand-to-hand combat with Japanese soldiers.
Of particular interest is a dead engine battery that was found on the boat. The type of battery is different from the type that Carl normally used to power his boat but it matches the type of battery that Kabuo used on his boat.
Art Moran found one of the mooring ropes on Carl Heine’s ship did not match the other three ropes but did match those on Kabuo’s boat. Furthermore, one of Kabuo’s ropes is brand new. Art thinks that he lost one and had to replace it.
Art soon discovers the blood-covered gaff. Dr. Sterling Whitman, a haematologist testifies that the blood on Kabuo’s fishing gaff is human blood, type B positive. This type matches Carl Heine’s and is relatively rare. Kabuo, on the other hand, is type O negative, so the blood clearly did not come from him. But Dr. Sterling admits that he did not find any bone splinters, hair, or skin on the gaff. He says that it is more likely that the blood came from a minor wound the coroner found on Carl’s hand.
Etta Heine, Carl's mother, accuse Kabuo of murdering Carl for racial and personal reasons. Because Kabuo wants to buy the Heines’ strawberry farm but he simply showed up too late to buy the land.
Ishmael Chambers, a reporter, realizes with the help of the radio at the lighthouse archives that a large freighter, the Corona would have produced waves easily large enough to upend Carl’s boat and knock him overboard. He steals one of the carbon copies of the lighthouse report from that night’s log so he proves Kabuo’s innocence.
Ca. 340 words
(In fact it was an accident: Carl was in the midst of tying a lantern to the mast when a massive wave from the Corona crashed into his boat, throwing him from the mast. As he fell, his head struck the boat, knocking him unconscious. He fell into the water and drowned.)
Monday, 3 December 2007
Task 2:
I think real art always says something about human passions or feelings. For me, art is something that makes me see something in a different way. If someone just throws a lof of paint onto a canvas and you can't even see what it's meant to be how can you call it art? It doesn't shows your emotions. Also a photo isn't art for me. It can't convey your feelings. This photo is very simple. In the foreground there is a woman with a white dress, light green shoes and a red shovel. The very special thing is, that you can't see the whole woman, but only her legs. In the background there is a blurred garden with many flowers. In my opinion this photo isn't art because art is when you create something.
ca. 135 words
ca. 135 words
Task 1:
Dear Lisa,
How are you? I must tell you about a very interesting picture named "The Problem we all live with". It depicts a skinny black girl with a white pleated dress with a bow. She's a bit off centre. In her left hand she holds her school stuff: two or tree notebooks, a ruler and pens. She also has two white ribbons in her hair and white sneakers with white socks. On the right side there are marching two policemen with police badges. One has a dark suit with cuffs and the other behind him has a light grey suit with a laple and a tie. In front of the lean girl there are also two policemen with a dark and a light grey suit and polished shoes. All four policemen have a turn-up and a yellow arm band on their left arm. The white writing reads "Deputy Us Marshall". It's very illegible, unfortunately. The first man with the light grey suit on the left side has a writ in his suit pocket. In the background there is a wall with a ledge. On the ground there lies a smashed tomato who hurled at the wall. There are tomato spatter and bits of.
In my opinion the artist wants to express the racism of his time. I find the atmosphere the artist creates quite effective. What I find fascinating is the stark contrast between the black small girl and her dazzlingly white clothes. Never have I seen such a intriguing painting before.
Yours, Angela
ca. 250 words
How are you? I must tell you about a very interesting picture named "The Problem we all live with". It depicts a skinny black girl with a white pleated dress with a bow. She's a bit off centre. In her left hand she holds her school stuff: two or tree notebooks, a ruler and pens. She also has two white ribbons in her hair and white sneakers with white socks. On the right side there are marching two policemen with police badges. One has a dark suit with cuffs and the other behind him has a light grey suit with a laple and a tie. In front of the lean girl there are also two policemen with a dark and a light grey suit and polished shoes. All four policemen have a turn-up and a yellow arm band on their left arm. The white writing reads "Deputy Us Marshall". It's very illegible, unfortunately. The first man with the light grey suit on the left side has a writ in his suit pocket. In the background there is a wall with a ledge. On the ground there lies a smashed tomato who hurled at the wall. There are tomato spatter and bits of.
In my opinion the artist wants to express the racism of his time. I find the atmosphere the artist creates quite effective. What I find fascinating is the stark contrast between the black small girl and her dazzlingly white clothes. Never have I seen such a intriguing painting before.
Yours, Angela
ca. 250 words
Thursday, 27 September 2007
letter
Dear Jane Hughes,
I read your article about the Brooklyn museum, which was very interesting.
In my opinion the row due to a British art exhibition is ridiculous and I am glad that the city’s mayor R. Giuliani gave in. I disagree with him, because art is something different for everyone. It is anyway difficult to describe.
There are people, who like “shock art” and they also have the right to see it in an art exhibition.
I personal think that the picture Virgin Mary of Chris Ofili isn’t “shock art”.
When an artist use blood or visceral organs that is disgusting and “shock art”! But on the other hand it’s also art and some people like it. I think such picture should alos be in an art exhibition although it’s barbarous.
Yours Angela
I read your article about the Brooklyn museum, which was very interesting.
In my opinion the row due to a British art exhibition is ridiculous and I am glad that the city’s mayor R. Giuliani gave in. I disagree with him, because art is something different for everyone. It is anyway difficult to describe.
There are people, who like “shock art” and they also have the right to see it in an art exhibition.
I personal think that the picture Virgin Mary of Chris Ofili isn’t “shock art”.
When an artist use blood or visceral organs that is disgusting and “shock art”! But on the other hand it’s also art and some people like it. I think such picture should alos be in an art exhibition although it’s barbarous.
Yours Angela
Friday, 4 May 2007
Charlotte Bronté
Jane Eyre
Hey! My name is Angela Duelli. I live in the Victorian period and I’m a poor young girl. My best friends are Rose and Mrs. Herbert, together we are a pickpocket gang.
One cold day Rose and I took a walk, but I forgot my coat. We didn’t go back to get it because we thought we could steal something. Suddenly we saw a desperate woman lying on the ground. As soon as we ran to her, we tried to speak with her but she was at the end of her nerves and didn’t notice us. She had a precious coat over her arm, so we used this moment and stole it. As I put it on, I recognized that it was a coat from a man. A little while later the woman asked,”What are you doing?” Rose and I were terrified and asked stupidly, ”Can we take this coat?”
I thought if she says “no” I would run away!
To my amazement she said, ”Never mind! As long as you find a way how I can get away from here.”
“That can be done. What is your name? Do you have money?”
“Jane Eyre. Yes.”
I heard wheels and I saw a coach coming along. I stopped it and asked to be taken as far as the woman’s pound would pay for. The inside was empty. I helped her to enter and the coach rolled on its way.
Afterwards Rose and I spoke about Jane Eyre. Rose thought that she was Mr. Rochester’s fiancée, but I could not believe that. When I put my hand into the coat-pocket I felt something hard. I pulled it out and I saw jewels!!
Changes in the book:
Chapter 31 Flight
… It was soon after midnight that I rose and, taking nothing except my money and by mistake Mr. Rochester’s coat. …
Explication: Mr. Rochester put his jewels which he wanted to give to Jane in his coat and forgot it there.
335 words
Hey! My name is Angela Duelli. I live in the Victorian period and I’m a poor young girl. My best friends are Rose and Mrs. Herbert, together we are a pickpocket gang.
One cold day Rose and I took a walk, but I forgot my coat. We didn’t go back to get it because we thought we could steal something. Suddenly we saw a desperate woman lying on the ground. As soon as we ran to her, we tried to speak with her but she was at the end of her nerves and didn’t notice us. She had a precious coat over her arm, so we used this moment and stole it. As I put it on, I recognized that it was a coat from a man. A little while later the woman asked,”What are you doing?” Rose and I were terrified and asked stupidly, ”Can we take this coat?”
I thought if she says “no” I would run away!
To my amazement she said, ”Never mind! As long as you find a way how I can get away from here.”
“That can be done. What is your name? Do you have money?”
“Jane Eyre. Yes.”
I heard wheels and I saw a coach coming along. I stopped it and asked to be taken as far as the woman’s pound would pay for. The inside was empty. I helped her to enter and the coach rolled on its way.
Afterwards Rose and I spoke about Jane Eyre. Rose thought that she was Mr. Rochester’s fiancée, but I could not believe that. When I put my hand into the coat-pocket I felt something hard. I pulled it out and I saw jewels!!
Changes in the book:
Chapter 31 Flight
… It was soon after midnight that I rose and, taking nothing except my money and by mistake Mr. Rochester’s coat. …
Explication: Mr. Rochester put his jewels which he wanted to give to Jane in his coat and forgot it there.
335 words
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)