Transcendentalism eludes to a very complex definition which includes many factors and qualifications, but in simple terms, I believe it means that one is independent from society and does as he or she pleases. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are rebelling in a negative way, but rather that they have become self-reliant and intuitive to their own needs and desires. As far as strengths and weaknesses go regarding transcendentalism, I think it depends on the opinion of those classifying it; it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some may view it as a force of unnecessary rebellion. A strength however, would be that an individual is going after what he or she wants versus simply sitting back and enjoying the ride. They are not following those around them, but rather taking a chance and going after what he or she desires.
I agree with the fact that transcendentalists are go-getters. It's nice to see that people go after what they want even if it defies any sort of social norm. However, this could transform into something I would disagree with depending on the severity of the action one chooses to act upon. Some situations may become too intense, and I would not feel comfortable participating. Sometimes it's okay to just sit back and go with the flow depending on your beliefs surrounding the situation.
Personally, I do not view myself as much of a transcendentalist. When it comes to my own opinions and desires, I am not exactly extremely vocal or authoritative about them. I try to weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of a situation before taking action. It is important to me that I understand the consequences of my actions before I act. I always stand up for myself and try to lead by example, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I take all matters into my own hands. I take into account how other people feel about an idea or how they may react to a situation before I jump right in.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
The Great Gatsby
Most people recommend that one reads the book before the movie because the movie never gives the book justice; however, I did things backwards. I happened to watch The Great Gatsby before reading the book in class, and my perception from the movie was quite different from what I interpreted while reading the novel.
Throughout the movie, I was rooting for Gatsby, hoping he would be able to win over Daisy in the end. It only seemed right. After all, they had never truly stopped loving each other -- at least that's the way Gatsby portrayed things. While reading the book though, the way Gatsby went about things rubbed me the wrong way; it seemed a bit creepy. Just think about it...Gatsby bought a house across the Sound to be able to keep an eye on Daisy, he threw huge parties only hoping she would show up, he knew Nick was her cousin, and he seemed to know everything about her life. Its a bit stalker-like if you ask me.
For some reason, I did not catch this vibe from the movie -- it seemed normal and right. In the movie I thought Tom was the one holding Daisy back because she feared what might have happened if she left him, but after reading the book I knew that was not the case. Daisy was selfish and careless not because of Tom's influence, but because that is the kind of person she has turned out to be. ¨They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they made...¨ is exactly how I would describe Daisy by the end of the book.
The book gives both Daisy and Gatsby a bad name. They go about things all in the wrong way and pay for it in the end.
Throughout the movie, I was rooting for Gatsby, hoping he would be able to win over Daisy in the end. It only seemed right. After all, they had never truly stopped loving each other -- at least that's the way Gatsby portrayed things. While reading the book though, the way Gatsby went about things rubbed me the wrong way; it seemed a bit creepy. Just think about it...Gatsby bought a house across the Sound to be able to keep an eye on Daisy, he threw huge parties only hoping she would show up, he knew Nick was her cousin, and he seemed to know everything about her life. Its a bit stalker-like if you ask me.
For some reason, I did not catch this vibe from the movie -- it seemed normal and right. In the movie I thought Tom was the one holding Daisy back because she feared what might have happened if she left him, but after reading the book I knew that was not the case. Daisy was selfish and careless not because of Tom's influence, but because that is the kind of person she has turned out to be. ¨They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they made...¨ is exactly how I would describe Daisy by the end of the book.
The book gives both Daisy and Gatsby a bad name. They go about things all in the wrong way and pay for it in the end.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Bowling for Columbine
Before viewing the documentary Bowling for Columbine, I had never heard of Michael Moore. It is quite possible that I have seen other films produced by him, but I wouldn't know. One thing that I do know about Michael Moore though, is that he has strong, strategic strategies that pull in the audience and persuade each and every viewer to side with him, or at least realize that he does make a valid point.
Michael Moore uses a sense of sarcasm and humor, which draw in the audience and keeps them from growing bored. The sarcasm was used to bring out some of the downfalls that exist within the gun control laws today, or shall I say lack there of. Although it is addressed towards a more serious topic, it really helps open ones eyes to how bad the "laws" of gun control really are. This same idea is also brought up when we are shown the a clip of Chris Rock's standup comedy show. It was hilarious and kept my attention, but it also made me realize the faults of gun control in the United States.
Moore also provides insight into the debate about gun control by using graphic images and real video footage. Because I have never witnessed or been so closely affected by a shooting like at Columbine or Flint, these occurrences don't seem as real to me. I never think that something like this could happen at my school, but after viewing the video clips and images, it makes it seem much more real and possible.
What really pushed Moore's view to a great height was his use of statistics. It was crazy to see the deaths by guns each year in America as opposed to other counties, Canada especially. Moore practically sold me on the idea to move to Canada; it seems like a much safer place. This also relates to Michael Moore's big idea that America is plagued by fear. Maybe we all do live out of fear and that is why there is such a higher percentage of American's who are killed by gunfire each year.
Michael Moore definitely knows how to draw in an audience through an outstanding array of strategies. He keeps the film interesting yet maintains the big idea. If his documentary didn't get you thinking about our gun control in the United States, I don't know what will.
Michael Moore uses a sense of sarcasm and humor, which draw in the audience and keeps them from growing bored. The sarcasm was used to bring out some of the downfalls that exist within the gun control laws today, or shall I say lack there of. Although it is addressed towards a more serious topic, it really helps open ones eyes to how bad the "laws" of gun control really are. This same idea is also brought up when we are shown the a clip of Chris Rock's standup comedy show. It was hilarious and kept my attention, but it also made me realize the faults of gun control in the United States.
Moore also provides insight into the debate about gun control by using graphic images and real video footage. Because I have never witnessed or been so closely affected by a shooting like at Columbine or Flint, these occurrences don't seem as real to me. I never think that something like this could happen at my school, but after viewing the video clips and images, it makes it seem much more real and possible.
What really pushed Moore's view to a great height was his use of statistics. It was crazy to see the deaths by guns each year in America as opposed to other counties, Canada especially. Moore practically sold me on the idea to move to Canada; it seems like a much safer place. This also relates to Michael Moore's big idea that America is plagued by fear. Maybe we all do live out of fear and that is why there is such a higher percentage of American's who are killed by gunfire each year.
Michael Moore definitely knows how to draw in an audience through an outstanding array of strategies. He keeps the film interesting yet maintains the big idea. If his documentary didn't get you thinking about our gun control in the United States, I don't know what will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)