All involved with politics should be reserved for adults.
Agree/ disagree. I think that adults do acquire a more well rounded knowledge than teens, but that doesn’t mean that they should be the only ones with a voice. I think that it is everybody’s duty to educate themselves to the point where they merely have an opinion on matters, even if somewhat minimal, with information to back it up, besides what we are bombarded with by the media, or our parents, etc. It doesn’t have to be anyone’s main focus, but as long as youngsters are aware of what is going on around them, outside the protective bubble they live in, that could be just enough. The problem is though that most teenagers do not show interest in such matters, therefore leaving the picture open for mainly adults to modify and control. If everyone had a voice, things may be better off.
The troubles of all young people (besides money and class) re similar everywhere.
Agree/ disagree. It’s certain that all teenagers around the world are dealing with mutual situations up to a certain point, such as growing up, peer pressure, stereotypes, and more. Some issues are faced by almost everybody of this age. Every person is an individual though, leading a different life, with different factors affecting them from all around. It’s the time when people begin to shape the paths they wish to follow, and put themselves in situations that they may choose. Everybody has a different personality, and lives in a slightly different world from everyone surrounding them, so each person must face things that are different from the masses, more personal and less about the common issues surrounding us everywhere.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
STOLEN ART
Title – Documentaries
Episode – Doc: Looted Art: Part II
Date – January 17th, 2008
Time – 22:21
Website – Got it from iTunes , but it’s a BBC podcast, so http://www.bbc.co.uk
Description of Episode from the Podcast producers – “Charles Wheeler is on the trail of art seized by the Soviets at the end of World War II”
The Pushkin Museum, Russia
I chose this podcast because I am interested in art, and it’s history, and enjoy listening to or viewing pretty much any documentary by the BBC. It gives me an insight of what’s going on in the world today with some way or another, even if the art involved is much older. The truth is though that the interview of Andy Warhol that Tate created, was 18 minutes and 46 seconds long, not reaching the minimum time limit.
A BBC employee and a member of the Commission of Looted Art in Europe have traveled to Russia, where they seek to find out what has happened to some stolen art.
In the Pushkin Museum in Moscow they discuss with the director about these pieces, taken at the end of World War II by the Red Army. There is an estimate of 100,000 pieces of art that may be being hid in Russia, some taken by an organization put together by Stalin to rid Germany of anything precious they could. 11 million books were taken as well, of which 7 million cannot be found and identified today. In 1945 though, 25 million Soviet Citizens were already dead, the art unprotected, so it wasn’t considered “stealing”.
Besides being stolen though, many pieces were destroyed as well. Russia is a victim of the war as well, but this still doesn’t give them the right to the art, much of which was stolen by the Nazis from Jewish families and surrounding European countries. These pieces must have huge sentimental value for the people they were stolen from, anything that resembles their now lost family.
In the late 1990’s though, a law was passed stating that all this art that was taken was now legally Russian property. Some of these family heirlooms have even been put on public display, and now representatives of the families these belong to are trying to sue. The law is controversial, with the Russia supporting that since now it is their property they have the right and ability to return the art legally, but when asked if any returns have been made, they are simply told that this is none of their business, and say the have pretty much returned everything already. When a walk is taken in the museum, certain works of art that belonged to families where identified.
The radical opinion states that nothing should be returned, whereas the liberal opinion is to give or at least consider giving the art back. People who support the liberal point of view are accused of being unpatriotic. The art is somewhat considered rightfully theirs because of the scars they hold from the war. Russia no longer considers Germany an enemy, but is hesitant still. One of the arguments supporting the radicals is that the Germans never returned anything they took from the Soviet Union, so why should they? Perhaps it turns out that the issue isn’t white or black.
I would suggest that anybody who is interested in current affairs or interesting stories connected with what has happened to art over time, should listen to this podcast, and to the BBC channel in general.
Episode – Doc: Looted Art: Part II
Date – January 17th, 2008
Time – 22:21
Website – Got it from iTunes , but it’s a BBC podcast, so http://www.bbc.co.uk
Description of Episode from the Podcast producers – “Charles Wheeler is on the trail of art seized by the Soviets at the end of World War II”
The Pushkin Museum, RussiaI chose this podcast because I am interested in art, and it’s history, and enjoy listening to or viewing pretty much any documentary by the BBC. It gives me an insight of what’s going on in the world today with some way or another, even if the art involved is much older. The truth is though that the interview of Andy Warhol that Tate created, was 18 minutes and 46 seconds long, not reaching the minimum time limit.
A BBC employee and a member of the Commission of Looted Art in Europe have traveled to Russia, where they seek to find out what has happened to some stolen art.
In the Pushkin Museum in Moscow they discuss with the director about these pieces, taken at the end of World War II by the Red Army. There is an estimate of 100,000 pieces of art that may be being hid in Russia, some taken by an organization put together by Stalin to rid Germany of anything precious they could. 11 million books were taken as well, of which 7 million cannot be found and identified today. In 1945 though, 25 million Soviet Citizens were already dead, the art unprotected, so it wasn’t considered “stealing”.
Besides being stolen though, many pieces were destroyed as well. Russia is a victim of the war as well, but this still doesn’t give them the right to the art, much of which was stolen by the Nazis from Jewish families and surrounding European countries. These pieces must have huge sentimental value for the people they were stolen from, anything that resembles their now lost family.
In the late 1990’s though, a law was passed stating that all this art that was taken was now legally Russian property. Some of these family heirlooms have even been put on public display, and now representatives of the families these belong to are trying to sue. The law is controversial, with the Russia supporting that since now it is their property they have the right and ability to return the art legally, but when asked if any returns have been made, they are simply told that this is none of their business, and say the have pretty much returned everything already. When a walk is taken in the museum, certain works of art that belonged to families where identified.
The radical opinion states that nothing should be returned, whereas the liberal opinion is to give or at least consider giving the art back. People who support the liberal point of view are accused of being unpatriotic. The art is somewhat considered rightfully theirs because of the scars they hold from the war. Russia no longer considers Germany an enemy, but is hesitant still. One of the arguments supporting the radicals is that the Germans never returned anything they took from the Soviet Union, so why should they? Perhaps it turns out that the issue isn’t white or black.
I would suggest that anybody who is interested in current affairs or interesting stories connected with what has happened to art over time, should listen to this podcast, and to the BBC channel in general.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
BILBO NEEDS A DATE
Hobbit Hunts Husband
Petite, hairy, medium weight but still nice and lean (food is scarce for us great adventurers). Sensitive, not too outgoing (has been out of the house quite a lot lately, but wishes he was home on the inside), thoughtful (saved dwarves on several occasions), and mighty strong brave(he can boast that. Has gotten Thorin&co. out of trouble plenty of times. Was actually quite scared but that’s not the kind of thing one would mention), cunning(or maybe just plain lucky). Enjoys spending quiet time in hobbit hole(mentioned everywhere, duh) and drinking lots of tea whilst eating many cakes. Prefers warm and cozy environments. Hates an empty stomach (despises being hungry) and the cold, or being tired, or anything relatively uncomfortable really. Looking for significant other willing to stay home for quiet time and cuddles. Must be qualified as a chef, preferably an expert on the dessert area. Must be small. Preferably furry feet. Elves, spiders, and wolves not accepted. Must be able to create small landscape drawings with smoke from pipe. Must have cloaks in all colors of the rainbow.
Email: couchpotato@recipeworld.adv
Digits: HOME FTW 941-1457-069
Thursday, October 16, 2008
TIMES ARE HARD FOR DREAMERS
Le Fabuleux Destin D' A M E L I E Poulain
Amelie is a French film, written and directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, starring Audrey Tautou and Mathieu Kassovitz, released in 2001.
Amelie is an out of the ordinary girl, that has a sudden inspiration one day, and from then on does small things to make other people happy. Through making other people joyful, she gains small sparks of bliss herself. One day though, she bumps into a stranger, and falls instantly in love with him. She has his photo album that he left behind, and therefore a reason to find out more about him, and meet with him to give it back. Amelie isn’t so simple though- she leaves small riddles for him to solve, it’s as if she’s postponing things. It’s about time she does something for herself, and we see that in the end, Amelie may be a little afraid of fate.
The main characters in the film are Amelie, and Nino. Amelie is an open minded, poetic, beautiful on the inside woman. She is played by Audrey Tautou, who at the time was a still pretty unknown actress; it was this film that made her gain some recognition. Nino, the similar in character boy that Amelie falls in love with, is an absent-minded, gentle, special boy. He is played by Mathieu Kassovitz, an even less known actor. I think that they both played their roles extremely well, taking care in adopting the necessary body language and facial expressions that their characters would have. I also think that the choice of using two unknown actors to star in the film could be wise, seeing as they didn’t have any stereotypes of former films to fit into particularly, and were viewed as fresh in their unique roles.
The music, was written and composed by Yann Tiersen, especially for the film. The main songs used have several versions, each differing one playing in an appropriate scene. The instruments used in some, such as the accordion, give the feel that could be found in the streets of Paris. None of the songs have any words, and therefore must express emotion only through the means of sound, making it even more extraordinary. The film was a success for Yann Tiersen as well, for the audience adored his music, and it is widely listened to today.
Amelie has a very distinct aesthetic to it. Everything is themed green and red, which are contrasting colors, but somehow every frame manages to look harmonious. Nothing out of the ordinary is presented, for one of the catch-themes of the film is how Amelie seems like normal girl, therefore there aren’t any elaborate costume, or setting designs shown. It isn’t all set into a basic reality though, for we see speaking photographs, and moving paintings. These are done well, and without the need to seem utterly convincing, because of the context in which they are set, where we are allowed to assume that the characters are imagining the interaction between them, for they are dreamers. Though the filming doesn’t strictly follow the rule of thirds, because of the range of angles used (from above, from below, directly in front of the subject, far away, extremely close, etc) this doesn’t make any shots less interesting, and on the contrary can create a pleasing visual symmetry. There is also a variation of the kind of material being watched, with time lapse and stop motion included.
I personally absolutely adored this film. I have seen it countless times and cannot find any flaws in it. Everything in it makes it easy to watch, and enjoyable. The images please your eyes, the music is ear candy, and the content makes you think. When I am ill, the only thing that will console me is watching Amelie. It makes a comment on human virtues, and how one can use them to do benefit to themselves, as well as others. It is also about love, dreaming, looking at the small things in life, the details, and savoring each moment. It makes you look at everything differently after you have watched it, you look at the clouds for shapes, you feel the rain, and you listen to the rustling of leaves on the pavement. It also portrays a love story, without any of the common cliché’s, adding even more romance to the plot. It proves that people have the power to create the kind of world that they want to live in, and fill it with splendor, wonder, and anything else they desire. Amelie was made to say : life is beautiful.
Amelie is an out of the ordinary girl, that has a sudden inspiration one day, and from then on does small things to make other people happy. Through making other people joyful, she gains small sparks of bliss herself. One day though, she bumps into a stranger, and falls instantly in love with him. She has his photo album that he left behind, and therefore a reason to find out more about him, and meet with him to give it back. Amelie isn’t so simple though- she leaves small riddles for him to solve, it’s as if she’s postponing things. It’s about time she does something for herself, and we see that in the end, Amelie may be a little afraid of fate.
The main characters in the film are Amelie, and Nino. Amelie is an open minded, poetic, beautiful on the inside woman. She is played by Audrey Tautou, who at the time was a still pretty unknown actress; it was this film that made her gain some recognition. Nino, the similar in character boy that Amelie falls in love with, is an absent-minded, gentle, special boy. He is played by Mathieu Kassovitz, an even less known actor. I think that they both played their roles extremely well, taking care in adopting the necessary body language and facial expressions that their characters would have. I also think that the choice of using two unknown actors to star in the film could be wise, seeing as they didn’t have any stereotypes of former films to fit into particularly, and were viewed as fresh in their unique roles.
The music, was written and composed by Yann Tiersen, especially for the film. The main songs used have several versions, each differing one playing in an appropriate scene. The instruments used in some, such as the accordion, give the feel that could be found in the streets of Paris. None of the songs have any words, and therefore must express emotion only through the means of sound, making it even more extraordinary. The film was a success for Yann Tiersen as well, for the audience adored his music, and it is widely listened to today.
Amelie has a very distinct aesthetic to it. Everything is themed green and red, which are contrasting colors, but somehow every frame manages to look harmonious. Nothing out of the ordinary is presented, for one of the catch-themes of the film is how Amelie seems like normal girl, therefore there aren’t any elaborate costume, or setting designs shown. It isn’t all set into a basic reality though, for we see speaking photographs, and moving paintings. These are done well, and without the need to seem utterly convincing, because of the context in which they are set, where we are allowed to assume that the characters are imagining the interaction between them, for they are dreamers. Though the filming doesn’t strictly follow the rule of thirds, because of the range of angles used (from above, from below, directly in front of the subject, far away, extremely close, etc) this doesn’t make any shots less interesting, and on the contrary can create a pleasing visual symmetry. There is also a variation of the kind of material being watched, with time lapse and stop motion included.
I personally absolutely adored this film. I have seen it countless times and cannot find any flaws in it. Everything in it makes it easy to watch, and enjoyable. The images please your eyes, the music is ear candy, and the content makes you think. When I am ill, the only thing that will console me is watching Amelie. It makes a comment on human virtues, and how one can use them to do benefit to themselves, as well as others. It is also about love, dreaming, looking at the small things in life, the details, and savoring each moment. It makes you look at everything differently after you have watched it, you look at the clouds for shapes, you feel the rain, and you listen to the rustling of leaves on the pavement. It also portrays a love story, without any of the common cliché’s, adding even more romance to the plot. It proves that people have the power to create the kind of world that they want to live in, and fill it with splendor, wonder, and anything else they desire. Amelie was made to say : life is beautiful.
Monday, October 13, 2008
ODD TIMES WEEKLY
A new political movement is thought to have begun in many of the major cities around the world. People have been witnessed everywhere, having the lack of proper bottom clothing essentials. Both women and men are now roaming the streets looking normal from the waist up, but only in their underwear from the waist down. Many argue that this is a call to society to break free of social rules and boundaries, via displaying the unexpected and non-socially acceptable.
Monday, September 29, 2008
BRAIN.
To live a life with fear is to live half a life
Agree- If you live your life with fear, you will end up avoiding doing everything that you aren’t ready to deal with. Either that, or as you engaging in things, you’ll end up dreading them the moment they’re happening. Neither of the two is pleasant. You can’t ever really enjoy something, for you’re fearing what could happen. Satisfaction or relief will end upcoming from not doing things, instead of the opposite.
Ignorance is bliss
Depends- If one is bliss because they choose not to want to know anything, therefore not worry about anything, then that is true. Although, at the same time, greater feelings can be achieved with knowledge, positive ones. With knowledge, also comes the negative side, the learning of the hardship in the world. One could choose to ignore this though, or know it and simply live with the fact- and still be bliss. It changes according to the content of the situation.
It’s better to take chances and lose, than to never take chances
Agree- You will never achieve anything without taking chances. Perhaps one doesn’t lose by not taking chances, but there is zero chance they will win. Everyone learns from their mistakes. If you lose, you can always try again, but don’t hesitate just because you’re afraid of losing. You can only get to places by risking what you’ve got.
Agree- If you live your life with fear, you will end up avoiding doing everything that you aren’t ready to deal with. Either that, or as you engaging in things, you’ll end up dreading them the moment they’re happening. Neither of the two is pleasant. You can’t ever really enjoy something, for you’re fearing what could happen. Satisfaction or relief will end upcoming from not doing things, instead of the opposite.
Ignorance is bliss
Depends- If one is bliss because they choose not to want to know anything, therefore not worry about anything, then that is true. Although, at the same time, greater feelings can be achieved with knowledge, positive ones. With knowledge, also comes the negative side, the learning of the hardship in the world. One could choose to ignore this though, or know it and simply live with the fact- and still be bliss. It changes according to the content of the situation.
It’s better to take chances and lose, than to never take chances
Agree- You will never achieve anything without taking chances. Perhaps one doesn’t lose by not taking chances, but there is zero chance they will win. Everyone learns from their mistakes. If you lose, you can always try again, but don’t hesitate just because you’re afraid of losing. You can only get to places by risking what you’ve got.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
AY AMOR
Rosalinda enters room
:03 Rosalinda: Fernando Hose
Fernando Hose stands up
:06 Rosalinda: I’m so happy, I brought you the money
Eduardo stands up
0:12 Eduardo: Excuse me.
Eduardo leaves room
0:14 Fernando Hose: How?
(stern look on face)
0:16 Rosalinda: Oh my love my darling, that’s not important, the point is I got it for you my love
0:23 Fernando Hose: How? How? Did you steal your mother’s jewels again? Do you think I want that kind of money? Did you sell your body?
(they are following each other in room)
0:34 Rosalinda: No, No, look it’ll all be alright this time
Fernando Hose turns around
0:36 Fernando Hose: No! I’m tired of your games
0:38 Rosalinda: What do you want from me?
0:39 Fernando Hose: Nothing. I want nothing from you. You think this is alright? Being a criminal, using your ways to repay off people you owe money to? (laughs) Well I’m not like that. Don’t want you’re your money. Get a job.
0:57 Rosalinda: Listen to me. How have you ever helped me, hm?
1:00 Fernando Hose: How? How can I? You’re doomed anyway.
1:02 Rosalinda: Christ!
1:03 Fernando Hose: No. You don’t understand Rosalinda.
1:08 Rosalinda: Why are you doing this to me? I’ve tried so hard. (Pause). Look, I love you. I’m in love with you. I’d do anything for you. And I have.
Rosalinda takes Fernando Hose’s face in her hands
1:27 Fernando Hose: I loved you too you know. I did once. But how do you think I feel? Don’t you think I’ve gotten hurt enough? I’m not doing this anymore. I’m not.
1:43 Rosalinda: Hah. Yes. I suspect you think you’re the only one that’s gotten hurt in this entire situation don’t you? Well, it isn’t like that you know. I’ve suffered too. I’ve suffered even more. I’m not doing this anymore either. I hate you. I never want to see your face on this earth ever again. Oh, and as if all you did wasn’t enough, you have the nerve to judge the way I’m keeping my part of the deal. But you know, Fernando Hose, I am Rosalinda the great. I will crush you, my love. I will kill you. I will make your life a living hell. Be ready. It’s so over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
