A Walk In The Clouds - A Wonderland Called Sentiment Essay example --

In an era when harsh actuality of everyday life propels one to the realm of insanity, to a pharmaceutically induced sleep, or to a dreadful state of existence, it is a pleasure for a fairytale world to engulf an individual. Although for only a brief time of ninety minutes, that ninety minutes is as refreshing as a relaxing soak in a warm tub of water. â€Å"A Walk in the Clouds† provides the means of escape by way of a delightful romantic fantasy. At a time when movies seem compelled to be asocial, when it is more effortless to smirk than to sigh, this film refreshingly takes us to a dream world, if only for a time.Director Alfonso Arau brings sentiment to a story set in post-World War II California. Paul Sutton (Keanu Reeves) has returned home to a wife he married only one day before shipping out. Having nothing in common, Paul sets out from San Francisco first by train then on a bus. On the train he meets Victoria Aragon (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon). After mistaking train tickets, he and she end up on the same bus. He defends her honor by kicking the rear ends of two ruffians. Moreover, in doing so, is kicked off the bus. He finds his damsel in distress, Victoria, her sitting on one of her suitcases and crying in the middle of the road. This is her home, the Napa Valley of California.The road is picturesque, a rural path with overhanging trees, and the perfect beginning for a storybook romance. She confesses to a pregnancy by her college professor and the shame she will bring upo...

How Shakespear Makes Act 1 Scene 5 of Rome & Juliet Dramatically Effect

How Shakespeare Makes Act 1 Scene 5 of Romeo and Juliet Dramatically Effective   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At the start of Act 1 Scene 5 the guests at the Capulets’ ball have just finishes dining and Sampson and Gregory, the two head servants, are complaining that a number of the servants, especially Potpan, are not helping to clear up: â€Å"Where’s Potpan that he helps not to take away?† Most of the servants are trying to clean up quickly because they want to have their own party later. The scene then moves on to Lord Capulet inviting all of the guests to come and dance, he is making jokes and the mood seems quite relaxed and jovial: â€Å"You are welcome, gentlemen. Come, musicians play.† This first part of the scene presents the audience with a lively, laid-back and fun atmosphere and is more light-hearted than the previous scenes. It is a complete contrast from the fighting and arguing in the first scene.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One of the ways Shakespeare makes this scene dramatically effective is the way he portrays Romeos thoughts when he first meets Juliet. Romeo uses very poetic language and appears to be a bit of a romanticist. He likens Juliet to a dove among ugly crows: â€Å"Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear, So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows† Romeo is stunned by Juliet’s beauty. It is a case of love at first sight and Romeo is smitten with Juliet after this first passing: â€Å"Did my heart love till now?† Romeos form of speech is far more poetic then ...

Aircraft Carriers: A Global Force Essay -- Military Science

In history though many countries share the same essential technologies they employ them in different manners which may be affected by military aims, geography and potential foes.   In particular in the Second World War this can be seen in the use of the aircraft carrier and the aircraft they transported.   Prior to World War II the major navies of the world did not view the aircraft carrier as a strategic weapon; instead the battleship was seen as the major force multiplier of the navy. This belief was because of the enormous firepower the battleship brought to the fight however; by the end of World War II the aircraft carrier would cement its place as the navy’s strategic projection platform. I will demonstrate this by explaining how Britain, Japan and the United States all developed and used their aircraft carriers in different manners, how the transition of the airplane from a scout to a fighter played a pivotal role in the use of aircraft carriers and how the battleship proved not to be the projection platform it was thought to be. The use of carriers by Britain, Japan and the United States was vastly different.   That these 3 nations developed and used carriers in different manners can be accredited to their own history and geographic placement.   Britain and the United States entered the Second World War with the premise that the battleship still ruled the waves and all doctrines were based on that principle.   Britain used hers to escort warships and track U-boats but most importantly they were used to ferry planes to Africa and Malta, the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Mediterranean.   The impact they had on Axis operations in Africa was significant.   The greatest contribution of British carriers was in the hunt for th... ...o protect her vital mercantile trade.   Japan being the aggressor and needing imports had to take the war to the enemy by using her carriers in an aggressive manner. The aircraft carrier became the most important ship in every navy because of its ability to project air power over a much larger area than the battleship. Navies were now capable of destroying enemy navies without ever coming within range of the ships main guns. Works Cited Howarth, D. The Dreadnoughts. Time Life Books. Illustrated History of WW2. (1969). Readers Digest Association . Leckie, R. (1998). The Wars of America. Castle Books. Spurr, R. (1981). A Glorious Way To Die. New Market Press. Writer, S. (2010, 11 5). USS Enterprise (CV-6) Conventional-Powered Aircraft Carrier. Retrieved from Military Factory: http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-Enterprise-CV6 Aircraft Carriers: A Global Force Essay -- Military Science In history though many countries share the same essential technologies they employ them in different manners which may be affected by military aims, geography and potential foes.   In particular in the Second World War this can be seen in the use of the aircraft carrier and the aircraft they transported.   Prior to World War II the major navies of the world did not view the aircraft carrier as a strategic weapon; instead the battleship was seen as the major force multiplier of the navy. This belief was because of the enormous firepower the battleship brought to the fight however; by the end of World War II the aircraft carrier would cement its place as the navy’s strategic projection platform. I will demonstrate this by explaining how Britain, Japan and the United States all developed and used their aircraft carriers in different manners, how the transition of the airplane from a scout to a fighter played a pivotal role in the use of aircraft carriers and how the battleship proved not to be the projection platform it was thought to be. The use of carriers by Britain, Japan and the United States was vastly different.   That these 3 nations developed and used carriers in different manners can be accredited to their own history and geographic placement.   Britain and the United States entered the Second World War with the premise that the battleship still ruled the waves and all doctrines were based on that principle.   Britain used hers to escort warships and track U-boats but most importantly they were used to ferry planes to Africa and Malta, the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Mediterranean.   The impact they had on Axis operations in Africa was significant.   The greatest contribution of British carriers was in the hunt for th... ...o protect her vital mercantile trade.   Japan being the aggressor and needing imports had to take the war to the enemy by using her carriers in an aggressive manner. The aircraft carrier became the most important ship in every navy because of its ability to project air power over a much larger area than the battleship. Navies were now capable of destroying enemy navies without ever coming within range of the ships main guns. Works Cited Howarth, D. The Dreadnoughts. Time Life Books. Illustrated History of WW2. (1969). Readers Digest Association . Leckie, R. (1998). The Wars of America. Castle Books. Spurr, R. (1981). A Glorious Way To Die. New Market Press. Writer, S. (2010, 11 5). USS Enterprise (CV-6) Conventional-Powered Aircraft Carrier. Retrieved from Military Factory: http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-Enterprise-CV6

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t Essay

â€Å"First rule of magic: always be the smartest person in the room.† This is demonstrated all throughout the mysteriously riveting 2013 movie Now You See Me, directed by Louis Leterrier. A group of four magicians: Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher), Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson), and Jack Wilder (Dave Franco), all receive a card with a date and location on where to meet. Upon meeting at the designated meeting spot, they discovered they were all chosen to be part of a series of special magic acts. They are from then on referred to as The Four Horseman. For their remarkable acting, thrilling stunts, and magical storyline, Now You See Me is an excellent pick for all ages to enjoy. The film follows The Four Horseman and their quest on helping people who got cheated out on their money by performing magic acts. The Horseman begin one of their shows by doing a magic trick where the audience pulls out a piece of paper with their account balance on, and the balance suddenly increases to a higher amount of money. The horseman call up to the stage Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine), who is the owner of Tressler Insurance. They explain that all the people in the audience have been cheated due to Tressler’s Insurance, and the money that was going into the audience’s accounts was coming out of Tressler’s bank account. Since the events of the horseman have been going on, the FBI hire agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) to investigate along with Alma Dray (Melanie Laurent) of Interpol. In addition to the FBI, an illusion exposer Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), try to uncover the mysteries of the illusions. Throughout the movie, it is unexplainable to why the horseman are undergoing these illusions without any benefits for themselves. However, it is revealed that agent Rhodes hired the horseman to get revenge on Bradley and the others that were involved for his father’s death. Many people seek revenge when something traumatic happens in their life. In the movie, it is revealed that Agent Rhodes’ father died from a faulty safe that he used in one of his underwater magic tricks. Rhodes is the hooded figure in the beginning of the film who chose the four magicians who later became The Four Horseman and help him seek out revenge. In the Horseman’s first magic trick, they chose a random guest out of the audience for their show. This illusion included the man getting teleported to a bank in Paris where he helped get money from the bank, and the money was then rained down from the ceiling of  where the show was being held. At another one of the Horseman’s shows, an illusion was preformed where money was stolen from Arthur Tressler’s account and placed into the audience’s accoun ts. These two illusions were not just random picks. The man’s bank that was in Paris and Tressler’s insurance company both would not give any benefits to Rhodes’ family after his father’s death. Rhodes also targeted Thaddeus Bradley because when his father was alive they were rivals. Rhodes’ father did the underwater trick that had the faulty safe because Bradley was in competition with him and challenged him to it. The themes in the film were performed well by the actors. So, the acting in Now You See Me was a great fit for the characters in the film. I loved Dave Franco’s character. He did a great job with the action role he was put in and being the underdog who had to fight and pull off stunts. For example, when the FBI finds the horseman in the apartment room, Franco’s character is left behind to get rid of papers and other information they had in the room. The agents come in the room, and Franco has to try to fight them away. The performance is very believable, and he makes it seem that fighting was natural and easy. This role in an action film contrasts from the movie Franco stars in, 21 Jump Street. This film is a comedy and Franco pulls of the different genres of movies. Another star I liked was Isla Fisher. Fisher played Henley Reeves, a magician who focused on intense stunts. I really loved Fisher in the movie The Bachelorette, which was a romantic comedy. She excelled in this movie and excels in Now You See Me, an action film. Fisher is great at performing her stunts and presenting the illusions. For example, when she first does her trick in the box of water and when she explains the transportation illusion. I like how she has a hint of mystery and wonder in her voice. One person that stood out as a performer was Mark Ruffalo, who played Agent Dylan Rhodes. I have seen him in many different movies and roles; two of my favorite movies Ruffalo has stared in are Rumor Has It and 13 Going On 30. In both of these movies, he is portrayed as a love interest and did really well. In contrast, his part in Now You See Me was an FBI agent, and he looked like a natural and as if he fit the part of a real agent. Ruffalo did a good job of not giving away that he was the one who brought the Horseman together and the one was behind it all. Along with the acting I thought the overall film was very believable as well. Although some tricks were a bit farfetched such as the  teleportation device, a lot of the tricks were believable. For example, the card tricks that Daniel Atlas does are very similar to magicians now, and hypnosis is a very believable thing to people who go to shows today. â€Å"The more you look, the less you see† is a quote said multiple times throughout the film. This ties into the stunts aspect of the movie because if you look closer to the tricks and analyze them you lose the full excitement and awe of the illusions being performed. The film had a very distinct style and ways of using each characters abilities. But there is another movie that it reminds me of, The Prestige. In this movie, there are two rival magicians that compete for the fame and try and steal each other’s tricks and secrets. There are both similarities and differences in these two films. In Now You See Me, Rhodes’ father is killed because of a faulty safe in an underwater magic trick her performed. Similarly, in The Prestige a woman is killed when she cannot escape from a box of water in a trick. At the end of the film, one of the main characters also drowns in a glass box filled with water used for a magic act. Another similarity is in the very end of both films the man who was responsible for the death and deception of another person is tricked, and they both end up in jail. In Contrast, The Prestige is more about the lives of the two men and how they try to compete and get the upper hand, while Now You See Me was about magicians helping one person get revenge on something that happened years before. Although Now You See Me is similar to other movies, it had great special effects and stunts. I thought the most impressive special effect was the scene of the car chase. They did a good job of making the chase look believable. When the car wrecked, rolled across the highway, and blew up into fire and smoke, the special effects made it look realistic and as if it really could have happened. A stunt scene that was performed well was when Jack Wilder fights the agents in the apartment building. The fight had a lot of advanced moves and violence and Wilder made it seem realistic. He has such ease in the stunts that really made his performance stand out. Another example is the final show that the horseman perform. There were lots of lights and the final three hor seman were projected on the buildings while they talked somewhere inside. When the horseman announce that it is their last show and said goodbye, they proceeded to jump off of a tall building. The special effects make it look as if the horseman turn into money as they fall from the rooftop. Because of  all the special effects and tricks that happen, I think the movie’s title was based off this. When the horseman perform their shows and tricks, they do it in front of everyone. Since they often show the audience what they are doing and explain what is happening, I think that is why it is called Now You See Me. It is also a play off the common saying â€Å"Now you see me, now you don’t†. This is a common saying among magicians because they often make things disappear and reappear, and the audiences don’t always see all their tricks and how they are executed. In my opinion, Now You See Me was an outstanding movie. The overall theme and storyline was easy to understand. One of the best scenes was when Jack Wilder fights off Dylan Rhodes. I loved the action of this scene and how it was performed. The best part of the fight was when Wilder fights Rhodes with magic. By doing this it shows that Wilder is versatile in his role of not only a magician but a great fighter as well. I would love to go and buy this movie so I could watch it more than once. This is a movie I really enjoyed and would love to watch more so I could see more of the details and pay more attention to the tricks. I would rate this a 10 out of 10 and would recommend it to others if you like exciting films that keep you interested and wondering what will happen next.

Patterns of Democracy Essay

The book Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performances in Thirty-Six Countries compared consensus democracy vis-a-vis majoritarian democracy as society’s backbone towards social and economic development. Through its discourse, it made evident that consensus democracy exhibits a more mature type of democracy as it better responds to many of the contemporary community’s social and political issues such as women’s rights, environmental awareness and voter’s turnout. The books presented ideas that broadened my perception of sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues. It has effectively demonstrated the complexities of our society and the dynamics of democracy in particular. For this, the book is a good baseline for building our political awareness and ideological stance. However, I find consensus democracy, as presented in the book, a very debatable concept. As the book relates, consensus democracy is a type of government where every sector with a valid purpose is given due representation in the socio-civic segments of society. It has been practiced and seen success in Switzerland, Belgium and even international organization such as the European Union among others. Among its identified key characteristics are the formation of a grand coalition where elite leaders of each sector recognizes the dangers of non-cooperation; exercise of mutual veto which requires consensus to confirm the majority rule; proportionality where representation in the national and civic segments of the society is equal to the sector’s population; and segmental autonomy which creates a sense of individuality and allows for different culturally-based community laws (www. wikipedia. com). Popular literature credits Arend Lijphart as is the primary promoter of this type of democracy. Lijphart sees consensus democracy as â€Å"kinder, gentler† approach compared to majoritarian democracy. The book advocates this type of democracy – also called consociationalism – not only as an antidote to countries in conflict but also as the supreme state of society. The way he presented and navigated his evidences into asserting the numerous advantages of consociationalism is obviously coming from a one-track mind. Understanding his standpoint as an avid and pious promoter of this political theory as evidenced in his early works such as Democracy in Plural Societies (1977), he must have been so immersed and engrossed on this concept. There is no question that this type of democracy works, in some situations far better even, than other democracies. Yet, as a reader, one may not help but feel overwhelmed by the bombardment of too-good-to-be-true attributes and then start to look for flaws and critique the concept. In his narration on how idyllic consensus democracy is, he missed out on several obvious contentions which real life circumstances may pose on its actual implementation. He may also have overlooked some contextual considerations that had served as crucial factors in the success of consociationalism. Therefore as a review of his work – Patterns of Democracy – it would be insightful to mention several observations from an outsider’s point of view. Consensus democracy is ideal; in fact it’s too ideal it seems too good to be true. Operating from a realist point of view, consociationalism is a fantasy. It is difficult to imagine sectors of the society – each with its own agenda and interest, some with contrasting views as the other – would come together and work for a policy that may not have any effect on their cause. There will always be an opportunity cost which one or several sectors should be willing to pay. The question now is how much each sector is willing to sacrifice for the common good. Also, the sectors which they intend to integrate in policy-making initiatives are largely issue-based. This introduces another complexity since some of them are ad-hoc groups that disintegrate once their mission has been realized, unable to sustain the support of its subordinates. Except for some constant concerns such as labor, health and education, sectors with less important concerns need not to be raised on national level regardless of its populace. Institutionalizing a long term sectoral representation and compromise agreements in a much diversified society is a serious challenge to meet, and even harder to maintain. Consensus democracy dreams of a welfare state with less violence, more equality, and greater environmental concern, and all the good things every government aspires for its people. However, the book discussion of consensus democracy makes it seem so easy to realize, eliciting false hopes, leading to unrest and eventual breakdown of the society. There is nothing wrong in setting goals but it should also be practical and pragmatic as to not mislead the people into an overnight change. The goals of consociationalism could also be interpreted as being preachy. As in the case of consociationalism in Lebanon which was tagged as â€Å"confessionalism† due to its religious linkages, consensus democracy defies the separation of church and state – a characteristic common to most democratic states. Aligning the government’s policies with that of the church’s is a U-turn back to the conservative ages which democracies have long tried to break from. Another comment on the book is that it had the impression of being too imposing. Though it may have seen several successes in some countries as in the Netherlands and Belgium, this type of democracy cannot be forced upon other states. Again, operating from a relativist’s perspective, one must realize that each sovereign state is a unique entity. In fact, recognizing pre-conditions for better application of consensus democracy is in itself a recognition that it cannot be function as effectively in other states. This is precisely the purpose of comparative politics where various forms of governments are studied to determine which would work best in a particular society. Contrasting consensus democracy with majoritarian democracy was Lijphart’s way of highlighting the positive facets of the former. However, the manner on which the comparison was presented seems to be discrediting the latter in order to elevate the status of consociationalism. It is ironic that consensus democracy calls for tolerance for unparallel views for various sectors yet he is maligning majoritarian democracy to forward his thoughts. This manner of persuasion holds no chance in a consensus democracy for it will only stir more conflict and cleavages among disparate groups. As sectors are represented by elites in a consensus democracy, it manifests an imbalance in the society; elites who have their own interests to protect, have secured places in the society and have nothing much to lose should they fail to forward their cause. This leaves the sectors they represent helpless should the elites decide go with the majority. The minority will have no power against the majority in fear of retaliating on them with a bigger impact. This scenario is highly hegemonic. Lastly, the federalism by means of identifying the racial and cultural backgrounds is not cohesive, rather it’s the opposite. Continuously referring to them as the minority will not improve the chances of garnering greater support. This will allow the so called ethic groups to detach from the coalition and pursue their own initiatives in some other venue that may not be as diplomatic as consociationalism suggests.

“God Sees the Truth, but Waits” by Leo Tolstoy Essay

Biography: Leo Tolstoy was born in Tula Province, Russia, on September 9, 1828. His mother died when he was only two years old. After Tolstoy’s father died in1837, he was cared by his relatives. He attended Kazan University for three years but he never could complete it because of joining to Russian army on active duty. However, being a soldier could not stop his desire to write literary plays and during his duty he published his first work childhood. After writing childhood, he continued on writing autobiographic plays and his life on the army; the works included boyhood, Sevastopol Tales book, youth and an uncompleted work entitled The Cossacks. In 1859, Tolstoy returned to Yasnaya Polyana and devoted himself to be management and study educational practices. In 1862, He married Sophia Andreevna Behrs who was 16 years younger than him. They had thirteen children which five of them died at early age. His wife helped him as a secretary to complete is works, especially on writing his first great novel, War and Peace. Their early life was full of happiness and they had no problem. However, their relationship became progressively worse as he was being radical to the extent of disowning his inherited and earned wealth. He was known for his complicated and paradoxical personality. In 1972, he wrote the short story of God Sees the Truth, But Waits which was about a merchant who was jailed innocently. In his life, he has written a lot of short stories which the well-known ones are The Candle, How Much Land Does a Man Need?, Little Girls Wiser than Men and The Coffee House of Surat. In 1973, he wrote the novel of Anna Karenina which was the best known one in his writings. Other most famous works were The Living Corpse and The Death of Ivan Ilyich. In his life, furthermore, he wrote various pieces on social, political, and economic topics ranging from vegetarianism to capital punishment but could not be published because of government. Tolstoy died on November 20, 1910 in Astapovo, Russia. Tittle: Throughout the tittle, Tolstoy wants to tell the readers the fact that reality can be hidden but one day it comes out. The tittle has a lot of interpretations considering real life and the events of the story. God  always sees the truth in whatever people do, but the meaning of â€Å"waits† is debatable and purposeful. First of all, in the tittle, the notion of the truth is isolated and not became known for some reasons. Sometimes, God examines those people who have good personality and looks gentle among people so that they prove their faith. On the other words, He takes them to a bad situation to purify their sins and reward them for their patient. And no one knows what is happening in the future; people may see something wrong, but in reality it will be good, and vice versa. So, if people commit illegal works and sins, they always do secretly and keep them silent. At this time, just God knows the truth and waits to see whether the man is going to regret or not, and do the right thing or not. Regarding the short story, there are two opposite characters, Aksionov and Makar; innocent and guilty. At the beginning of the story, readers know that Aksionov is not the doer of the murdering but he is sentenced to be in jail for 26 years. A part of the truth, God knows about everything but waits. For Aksionov, there are two truths which the first one is his meek personality. But the second one is the reality of his personality in every conditions. God does not make something to declare his innocence till He examines him by punishing and away from his beloved family, and to see what Aksionov will do, seek to revenge or forgive. By this bad condition, the true reality of Aksionov will be obvious to all, because if he revenges himself upon Marker and ruins his life as him, he has no difference with Makar. Plot: Once upon time, in the land of Vladimir, a young merchant named Ivan Dmitri Aksionov lived with his family. He was in his young life and very happy by experiencing luxurious things that was offered by the world. One day of summer, when he was about to go to Nizhny fair as he planned, his wife warned him not to go. She told him that she had a bad dream, she said â€Å"I dreamt you returned from the town with hair of grey.† Ivan laughed and showed himself as if he didn’t care and continued on going to the fair. In the half way of his traveling he met a merchant. He drunk tea with him at the night and shared a room in the inn. Aksionov did not use to sleep for long hours, so he decided to wake up and continued his journey. While he was in the way of his journey, he was stopped by two soldiers in a troika to  begin asking questions. Their questions were about the merchant that he met on the travel and spent time with him for he was found dead. As all evidences of the crim e were pointing guiltiness of Aksionov, he was imprisoned. When his wife heard this bad news, she remembered her dream. She was very worried to her husband and thought that her husband was guilty. Aksionov felt sadder when he realized this thought. 26 years in prison made Aksionov a well-grounded and God-fearing man. In spite the fact that his family has completely forgotten him, he still serves as a â€Å"Grandpa† to the other prisoners. Then came a new prisoner named Makar Semyonich. After a while, they knew each other, Aksionov discovered that Makar was killed the merchant. Although he realized everything but he uttered nothing about it. One night, while the prisoners were sleeping, Aksionov saw that Makar dug the earth. Makar told him not to tell anyone about what he has seen or else he would kill him. One day, a soldier noticed that a prisoner took some earth off his boots, when the soldier immediately started for searching any escaping plans and found the tunnel. At that time, they asked the prisoners who knew about the plan, but no one replied. Since Marker warned them if they declared anything, they would be killed. Finally, the governor asked Ivan for he was the most generous man there. But Ivan said it is not my job and I don’t care. At night, when Aksionov was on his bed and about to sleep, Makar went to him to thank him. He felt very sorry for he made Aksionov suffer for all this years. He did not want forgive till he sobbed to Aksionov, then said the Lord will forgive you. Makar said that he will confess to the governor so that Ivan would be free. In fact, since Aksionov had no family neither home, he did not want to go out of prison. Rather, he waited for his last hour to come. In spite of what they’ve talked about, Makar Semyonich confessed his guilt. But when the order for Ivan Dmitri Aksenov’s release came, he was already dead. Conflict: Sadness comes to Aksionov when he found out that the man he stayed with last night has been killed. The soldiers searched his bag and found a knife with blood. In fact, Aksionov is not the murder, but at the end of the story he sees Makar in the same jail that he has been prisoned who is the killer. In the short story, there are some conflicts: 1. Man vs Man : Aksionov with himself and Makar 2. Man vs Nature: Aksionov with his black fate 3. Man vs society: Aksionov (as an innocent man) with court decision. Characters: Protagonist: Aksionov: he was a young merchant lived in the town of Vladimir. He had two shops and a house of his own. Aksionov was a handsome, fair-haired, curly headed fellow, full of fun, and very fond of singing. In one of his journey, he accused by murdering a merchant and was sentenced to be jailed for 26 years. Although he was innocent, but he couldn’t anything with his fate. Finally he found the murder and forgave him for sake of God. Antagonist: Makar: He was a bad person who appeared at the end of the story. He was the real murder who killed the merchant and wanted to kill Aksionov but he couldn’t. He felt shame for what he did for Aksionov and begged him for forgiveness. Finally, Aksionov forgave him and Makar confess the secret to the governor. Themes: The short story takes place in Russia, Vladimir (Aksionov’s home and inn) and in Siberia where Aksionov was arrested. And the story was narrated in omniscient style that the narrator seems know all of the things that happen there. 1. Forgiveness vs Revenge and Bitterness Leo Tolstoy, the writer, wants to show the readers what is the real forgiveness and what wise people do when they face difficult situations. In the short story, Aksionov has to accept his fate which becoming a murder while even he did not kill the merchant. After 26 years the governor found out that he was not the murderer when Makar, who was the real murderer, came to the jail and confessed his fault and asked for forgiveness. Aksionov forgave him without having desire to revenge. This shows the fact that Aksionov was different from normal people; people often revenge upon their enemies whenever they can. Furthermore, he also did not announce the truth  as he promised to Makar. 2. Truth vs †Justice† Aksionov did not get justice that earned by himself. He was a good and innocent man, but court judged him as a murderer. In our daily life, we can see a lot of the same examples that people get something that they don’t deserve. Court and also people judge the event as they see their appearance not reality. It declares the fact that every judgments are true. 3. Injustice vs Forgiveness It is belonged to the religious idea that people should be kind in every situation. Aksionov was areligious man which followed that idea and finally forgave Makar. Aksionov may represent Tolstoy’s characteristic because Tolstoy was a religious man. 4. Innocence vs injustice The evident faults in the injustice system. The idea that God does what he does, such as withholding the truth, to allow us the opportunity to learn something vastly more important, such as the power of forgiveness the power of circumstance and persuasion over logical thoughts and deductions. Tone of the Short Story: The tone of the story is human’s depression and sorrow which is very tragic, and sympathetic. We can see the sympathetic depression of Aksionov When Makar asking Aksionov for forgiveness, he replied: â€Å"It is easy for you to talk,† said Aksionov, â€Å"but I have suffered for you these twenty-six years. Where could I go to now?†¦ My wife is dead, and my children have forgotten me. I have nowhere to go†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Personal value: The purpose of Tolstoy in giving Aksionov’s suffering is to show us a good example of real generous man. He wants to tell us that God knows everything but does not appear the reality purposefully. It does not mean that He hates His people, but examines them so that they realize their real personality. Look at Aksionov, after suffering for 26 years, he felt inner peace when he forgave his enemy. The short story tells the readers must to be faithful in Go, in every moments of life, because He will bring justice to every  situation. By reading the whole story, the readers learn the power of forgiveness and its impact on offering inner peace. Moreover, they will learnt to be freed from being angry and indignant with the world and having achieved ‘inner peace’. Tolstoy used a nice style in writing the story that interact the reader to read the whole story. The title is ambiguous that makes the reader to read the story so as to find the ambiguity. Throughout the short story, he pointed on some perspectives such as religion, society and politician. Through the characteristics of Aksionov, he viewed that people must believe in God and his power. And he pointed out that religious people should be gentle and calm in difficult situations. Furthermore, he showed us that some time you cannot use what you have in society. Aksionov was rich, he had two shops and a house, but at the end he couldn’t use them and even lived with his family. In addition, although he was innocent, but he and his wife couldn’t win the court because they did not have witness. Finally, the writer tells the reader that when people let someone down God will pick him up.

“Fair Game” Film Review Essay

Born in New York City in 1965, director Doug Liman is known for producing multiple things from the T.V series the â€Å"O.C† (very successful) to another T.V series that flopped in â€Å"Mr. and Mrs. Smith (which only aired the pilot). He is most known for his work with â€Å"The Bourne Identity† saga. Which leads us to one of his most recent works â€Å"Fair Game†. When talking about what particular â€Å"genre† this movie possessed, we will have to quote â€Å"IMDB† and use the words Biography, drama, and thriller. As Haas would protest when the controversial conversation would come up about if it fits the political â€Å"genre†. He would simply break movies into four categories, which fits into â€Å"Politically Reflective Films†, â€Å"Socially Reflective Films†, â€Å"Pure Political Films†, and â€Å"Auteur Political Films†. I would actually put this somewhere around the â€Å"Pure Political Film† cate gory in my opinion. It opened in October 2010 and starred Naomi Watts (Valerie Plume), Sean Penn (Joe Wilson), and Sonya Davison (Chanel Suit). Watts is known for her busy career including movies like â€Å"21 grams†, and the two â€Å"Ring† movies. Penn has been just as busy performing in classics such as â€Å"Fast Times at Ridgemont High† to teaming up with Watts in â€Å"21 grams†. â€Å"Fair Game was nominated for 6 awards, taking home two victories. It was the 2010 â€Å"Best Narrative Feature† at the Mill Valley Festival Awards. It also claimed the â€Å"Freedom of Expression Award† at the National Board of Review. With top-notch actors, and an experienced aggressive director, â€Å"Fair Game† set out to become a memorable film and a must see. Did it succeed? Let me start critiquing the empirical (content) part of the film as mentioning the character Joseph Wilson, who served as a U.S ambassador to Gabon, San Tome, and Principe in previous duty. He was a diplomat with a very heavy opinion and was also very blunt. He was sent to Niger to investigate the situation of the White Houses suspicion that Iraq was buying Uranium from the African country for Nuclear power. Wilson who was approached because his wife Valerie Plume was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (who’s character we will get into later), accepted to her approval. As Wilson came back from his endeavor he heard the famous speech that Bush gave when he addressed the Union. He became very prideful and stubborn with what he knew. He simply thought that it was untrue in every way possible. He went on to submit a piece in the â€Å"New York Times† claiming these reports to be false. Not only does this strike outrage with his stance with the White House, but it puts his wife’s job in jeopardy. This ultimately causes his wife’s identity as a CIA officer to leak (only Wilson and parents knew before this). This puts an end to Valerie Plume’s operations in which she had been helping a family of 15 get out of Baghdad during war, which caused a great deal of stress and trust being broken. Then both started receiving death threats and could not be seen in public without getting ambushed by reporters, taxi drivers, among others. The once happy marriage was being put to the test as Valerie takes the kids to her parent’s house searching for answers. Eventually as time passes by, Valerie realizes that he was right to fight the â€Å"wrong fight† (Valerie was also considered as â€Å"Fair Game† as one quote in the movie indicated.). She then proceeds to show up back at their home with a quote I loved from the dialogue, â€Å"Are you ready to fight?† Plume finally decides to back her husband and goes in front of congress to tell the truth and everything she knows about the situation. She says she does her best as a covert operational officer and it’s because she loves her job and her country. This ends with National Security adviser Scooter Libby being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. One thing that I was appreciative of was the way director Doug Liman set the stage from the beginning in how he wanted you to portray this movie. He took you into the behind the scenes of the White House after September 11, 2001. He showed you what kind of pressure was on not only the president and White House, but also all of the related institutions including the CIA. The biggest threat to America was Iraq and Suddam Hussein. As America eagerly waited a rebuttal or response from Bush and company, the president came up with a game plan. That game plan set the pitch for the rest of the movie. In justifying taking action against Hussein and Iraq, Bush addresses the State of the Union in 2003 alluding to Uranium’s use in building weapons of mass destruction. Was this true? This is only up to ones opinion at this time. My take on what a good movie needs to do is to ultimately grab the viewer right from the start. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Most audiences (which James Combs quotes â€Å"A film participates in a political time not in how it was intended, but how it was utilized by those who saw it.† ) feel bored and robbed when movies sometimes do this, but it is necessary to get the full effect at the end. â€Å"Fair Game† simply did a fairly decent job setting up the viewers by telling Valerie’s character story first, this makes most appreciate her, so it kind of puts you in her shoes when she awakes one day and her husband’s opinion is in the paper (something that would forever change her life). I like how it put my mind to a critical thinking stage. What would I do in her situation? This in my eyes makes a great film. There were also parts of the film that I did not care so much about and I will explain why. First if Iraq and Suddam Hussein were the main threats as terrorist to the United States, doesn’t that give us enough justice to go to war with them as it is? Why need to make up something about nuclear power (if that was the case) in order to get the ok. This is a true example of what I do not like about â€Å"biographies† that relate so much into the current events. Something to this nature (even though it is fiction) bothers me in the slight est. The second thing was the story of Hammad and his 15 family members waiting to get to safe territories out of Baghdad because of Valerie’s word. It simply turns a huge story which kind of dominated most of the movie, into â€Å"Hammad and family are missing†. I was just hoping for a better conclusion to that story. This seemed to get the director to his main message no matter the case. Overall I believe the main point of this movie was to give you the overall behind the scenes look at the political side of things after a recent tragedy such as September 11, 2001. It shows you every angle that’s involved including the White House outlook to the CIA, to every one person being affected by these situations. It discusses that there are a ton of things that go on behind the scenes that not many people ever get to see. Things like this beg you to ask the question every time there is a current event situation. Is it true? Along with discussing and analyzing it. The one thing you do not do is write a post to the newspaper questioning the president, because we all know (quote from movie said to Wilson â€Å"The White House men are the most powerful people in the world†.) how that ends up. My rating for this movie was 3 out of 4 stars. I enjoyed most of it, especially the plot. I also thought the acting had a big affect on turning a good movie to something more. I enjoyed going back a few years and remembering exactly what I was doing during the time of these current events. Only a few nitpicks that I didn’t like which could’ve had my rating go even higher, which I discussed earlier. When suggesting this film to others, I would only recommend if politics were at a interest in you. If not the case, I could think of other films instead. I have friends that are both. I am going to conclude this review with a quote from the movie. Jack replies to Valerie when she is questioning his actions. I thought of it as being very deep, â€Å"Do you want to be loyal to your husband or to the CIA?† The following were used as resources for my work: 1. IMDB.com 2. Political Matinee: Hollywood’s Take on American Politics, edited by Richard Herrera