The film, The Cove (2009), directed by Louie Psihoyos, is a movie about a man, Ric OBarry, who wanted to do everything possible to save the dolphins that were being captured off the coast in Japan in Taiji. Ric OBarry started off this epidemic of capturing dolphins when he captured five dolphins and trained then for a show called “Flipper”. After one of the dolphins died in his arms, he made the decision that he wanted to end the capturing of dolphins. This documentary is about all of the things OBarry and his crew had to do to try and end the slaughtering of the 23,000 dolphins a year in Japan. What keeps this film so entertaining is the fact that they get you into the film from the very beginning. You feel for these dolphins that are dying every day. As a viewer, you just want them to succeed with their goal of ending the killings.
Ric OBarry explains in the beginning of the movie the attempts him and his colleagues had completed in effort to end the killings of the dolphins. While explaining, we learn how dangerous trying to end the slaughters will be and that colleagues had been killed throughout trying to complete their goal. OBarry tells the viewers that the killings were taken very serious in Japan and was kept as much as a secret as they could.
The climax of this movie was when OBarry’s team went out to the cove to set up all of the cameras and underwater microphones. It was so intense because we didn’t know if they were going to get caught or not. Because OBarry had already been to jail multiple times and because people had been killed, it was a big deal that they didn’t get caught. The first night the crew tried to set up all of their equipment, they almost got caught and had to sneak out of the cove. Another intense part of the film was when they finally did get away and got all of the proof they wanted caught on camera. It was satisfying in a way because it made you feel like the slaughtering on the dolphins would quit but when the movie came to a conclusion it stated that the killings in Japan hadn’t been stopped so that was very unsatisfying to see. In conclusion, this film was a depressing movie. I didn’t realize how many dolphins were being killed every day. I hope it will end soon.
The film, Koyaanisqatsi (1983), directed by Godfrey Reggio, is a film that is very different from your average movie. This film had one word: Koyaanisqatsi, which is a Hopi Indian term for life out of balance. This film also had no characters or a plot. It takes a person with a certain mentality to watch this film and get true meaning out of it. This film is mainly videos of things that occur in a person’s everyday life but at a much faster speed then it actually happens. There are many beautiful things this film shoots such as the desert, waterfalls, clouds, sunsets, mountains, air, water, sunrises, and many more things. It helps you notice the beauty and true structure of nature and makes you realize how we, as humans, might take this everyday beauty for granted.
This film can be looked as pure beauty if you look behind what is being shown to you as a movie and focus on the structure of nature. People don’t realize how beautiful sand is, when it’s just lying there, on the ground in perfect formation. The movie is in such high speed you notice the perfect lines that are always in the sand. When watching this movie you realize that the sand is beautiful no matter where the wind blows it. Also in this film it shows water and clouds moving at an extremely high speed. The clouds are just flowing through the sky and the waves are just rolling through the ocean. For a split second, it’s hard to tell a difference between the two of them. There are distinct straight lines through each of them and it is just another example of the true beauty of the structure of nature.
This movie has no dialogue throughout the entirety of the film. The point of that is to leave it to the viewer to determine the message they specifically want to take away from it. When watching this film I thought that it was trying to express to the viewer that technology is taking over the world and we aren’t appreciating Mother Nature like we should. If you, just for one second, look beyond the point of the film, and just look at the structure of nature throughout the movie, you will notice the exquisiteness that surrounds us. This film did a great job showing the viewer’s how beautiful something can be without having to say more than a word. The movie has its points, but the structure of nature is so breathe taking that it can be separated from the arguments and ethics this movie tries to prove.
Does sex and violence in the media have an effect on adlolesence?
If the person you looked up to the most decided that they wanted to jump off a bridge would you do it too? No, you would not jump, or would you? Hollywood’s “bridge” of reference is their efforts to expose all of its viewers to more sexual content. Let’s face it, sex sell. Hollywood and the media put their business out there for everyone that wants to see or read about it. Movie directors do as they please and do not think about how it will influence other people; as long as they are making money, they are happy, even if it means they are setting a bad example for our generation. They cannot have sexual content in movies or television shows, expecting teenagers not to be influenced to experiment. Hollywood’s sexual promiscuity has had a negative effect on the culture because media and popular entertainment have contributed at a culture which glorifies casual sexual encounters.
“In previous generations, teens had less access to the television and the media, and parents often had help from schools, churches, and neighbors in backing up their children’s efforts, parental influence was more likely to show in a child’s action,” says reporter, Suise Turk. Many adults, 40 years old and over, feel that they freely watched television when they were young and do not believe that they were negatively affected. Now-a-days, teens have much more freedom with whatever television shows they want to watch, what time they are going to bed, what movies they are allowed to go see in the theater, and many more things. “50 or some years ago, everyone from little girls and grandmothers, to little boys and grandfathers wanted to be a star. Hollywood was clean on screen and everyone loved it. There were always the occasional Hollywood tragedies like: arrests, drug use, cheaters, alcohol, and eating disorders which the sheltered culture was starting to pick up on.” Turk says. Now every time you turn on your television on there’s something sexual showing, sometimes it may be to different extents, but there is always some type.
Researcher have found that watching hours of sexual related material on television can influence teens to have sex at an earlier age. The American Psychological Association says, “Studies have found a link between watching television shows with sexual and becoming sexually active at an earlier age. Between the sexually explicit music videos and an increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. The new research is the first to show an association among teens.”
In the absence of effective sex education at home or at school, the media has became the leading sex educators in America. Hollywood and the networks are producing the most suggestive and explicit programming in their history. “Teenagers who watch television are still going to find little information about the consequences of unprotected sexual practices among the many portrays promoting sex. The high-dose exposure to portrayals of sex may affect adolescents from developing beliefs about cultural norms. Television may create the illusion that sex is more central to daily life than it truly is and may promote sexual initiation as a result of media cultivation,” Jessica Okey says. Adolescents receive a considerable amount of information about sex through television may influence teen pregnancy by creating the perception that there is little risk engaging in sex without using contraceptives and accelerating the initiation of sexual intercourse, (Collins page 14). “Teens with the greatest exposure are 2.2 times more likely to have had intercourse at ages 14 to 16 then similar teens that had the least exposure, says Okey. The amount of sexual content on television has doubled in recent years and there is little representation of safer sex practices in those portrayals. “Sexual content on television is widespread and increasing significantly. The most important conclusion is that risk or responsibility messages seem to have reached a plateau, and remaining stalled on a relatively low plain of quite modest visibility,” says Kunkel Dale. Here there are 4 different researchers that have basically said that if Hollywood is going to have so much sexual content showing so frequently, they need to explain the correct messages, both sides to sex. They need to make sure that they include the consequence of sex, and how to have safe sex.
“Exposure to sexual content on television predicted teen pregnancy with adjustment for all covariates. Teens that were exposed to high levels of television sexual content were twice as likely to experience a pregnancy in the 3 subsequent years, compared to those with lower levels of exposure.” (The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy). “Sexual content appears in 64 percent of all television programs; of those programs with sexual content average 4.4 scenes with sexually related material per hour. The talk about sex on programs is found more frequently,’ says Dale. The fact that all this sex is on television and on movies so much is not a good thing for our generation at all. It could be why our culture values have changed from past generations. During this generation people lack respect for themselves and their bodies.
Sexual behavior is strongly influenced by culture and television, and is an integral part of The United State teen culture. The average youth watches around 3 hours of television daily. There, sexual messages are a commonplace. (The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy). “Studies have found a direct link between sexy media and teen promiscuity, theorizing that teens view the sex-filled messages as if they came from trusted family or friends, “ Okey says.
Sex in the media is everywhere. Teens simply can’t avoid that topic. Researchers discovered that in 2003, 83 percent of episodes of teenagers’ choice contained come kind of reference to sexual behaviors. “Research shows that teens do look to media for guidance on where they are supposed to fit into the world. It is clearly demonstrated that when they look to the media they are often influenced by inaccurate pictures of sex in the real world,” Okey says. It isn’t fair to the children that aren’t comfortable with being themselves, to rely on the media to become the person they think they are supposed to be. The media is one sided and should mix it up so everyone feels comfortable in their own body. “Television is the predominant mass medium, and it also plays an important role in sexual socialization of America’s youth, providing stories that someone inspire, often inform, and consistently contribute to the sexual views and behaviors of adolescents and young girls,” Dale says. “Sex is plentiful on television consequently; television’s treatment of sex is ripe with opportunity to convey critical messages about sexual health that may literally save lives. The odds are high that viewers will find sexual themes and topics in most of the programs that they watch.” Reporter HendrikaMeischkle says.
“In reality the blame has to fall at the feet of the parents who fail to properly educate their children in the “facts of life” as they really are. Everyone has the right to press the off-button or change the channel. More scientific data is needed on the effect of entertainment media on teenage sexual behavior to convince Hollywood to change,” James Scott says. The parents can’t control the fact that sex is on every channel from MTV, the movies children want to watch, to even the daily news, so the parents cannot do anything about that. There should not have to be any more scientific data needed for Hollywood to change its ways. The way our generation has changed compared to past generations is enough data.
Researchers have also found that there are others contributing factors, that when combined with “sexual references from television exposure” could promote teenagers promiscuity. Those factors are: age of teenagers, teens who have older friends, getting low grades, engaging in rebellious acts, sensation seeking, single parents, less to no interaction with family, lack of parental monitoring, and lack of religion. All of these could possibly have a huge impact in how our generation acts now. Which does take some of the fault off of the media.
Many viewers will encounter in advance sexual content, including portrayals of sexual intercourse on almost a daily basis. Average viewers would see six shows containing sexual content without the slightest mention of sexual risk or issues for everyone that included any references to such topic. There is a growing body of evidence to confirm that including safe sex messages in television programming can play a meaningful role in sensitizing viewers about important sexual health issues and concerns.
So, are you one that is jumping off the Hollywood bridge? Because it looks like there are many that are. Hollywood can keep the sex in there shows and movies as long as the can show all the risk, responsibilities, and the concerns because without all of that, all Hollywood is doing other than entertaining America, is setting a bad example for our generation which therefore reflects on the actions our culture is taking today.
Work Cited
American Academy of Pediatrics.(2001). Sexuality, contraception, and the media. Pediatrics, 154, 172-186.
Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., Kunkel, D., Hunter, S. B., &Miu, A. (2004). Watching sex on television predicts adolescent initiation of sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 114, 280-289.
In the outstanding film, Apocalypse Now Redux (2001) that was nominated for 8 academy awards, there are many things that the actors do to make their role essentially stand out. One of the biggest and most important roles played was also one of the shortest roles played throughout the entire movie, it was Brando Kurtz character. He had one of the most powerful roles but did the least amount of acting and wasn’t shown until the very end of the film. Although he wasn’t in the film much he would have won the most intimidating award from my point of view. The way he presented himself in this movie is what made him so frightening. From the lack of actual acting he did, to his eyes, to his facial expressions, or lack of facial expressions, just his body language in general.
The entire plot of this movie was to assonate Kurtz, a soldier that had gone insane. He had become a lunatic. You don’t see Kurtz until the end of the movie and because of that, the film does a great job building the viewer’s opinions about Kurtz up and making you feel threatened by him without even seeing him. All you hear are the reason he is wanted and horror stories about how evil he actually seems. Because throughout the film, reaching the end of the river is so feared, you already have thoughts of what this man could look like.
When you finally do see Kurtz, his body language is what makes him so utterly captivating and terrifying. When you see him the light always hits his face with some sort of way where you can’t see his face at all or it is partially visible. When you do see parts of his face you can always notice his eyes. They stick out because they seem so bitter and absolutely malicious. The people worship this man because they are so afraid of him. When you come to a place that you aren’t familiar with and you notice how worshiped someone is, that makes you feel obligated to approach the thought of him with the same opinion.
At the end of the movie, some changed their mind about Kurtz and he isn’t such a bad person. But essentially at the end of the film Kurtz is so terrifying because of the way he is built up throughout the film. From everything you hear before Kurtz is even shown, you know this man is nothing but purely evil. When you do finally meet him, you notice how his body language is almost immediately. You hardly see his face because the darkness is always hiding it. His eyes always look so confident and frightening. Kurtz is fundamentally shown as a wicked, malevolent character that is not to be taken lightly.
In Chinua Achebe’s “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” Achebe converses his interpretations of this novella. He makes sure the reader leaves knowing how he truly feels about this piece of literature. Achebe discusses throughout his critical essay that he doesn’t feel as Joseph Conrad used a good selection of words and believes that his word choice was not the best. Achebe thinks that Conrad was using trickery words that did nothing but just complicate what he was saying. He also looked as Conrad as a “thoroughgoing racist” (343). This may be true when reading it now but it may not have been the case when Conrad was writing. Achebe also feels as if Conrad is trying to “set Africa up as a foil to Europe” (337). Achebe has a right to his own opinions and feelings towards Conrad and his writing but is it accurate that he says so much in such a negative way towards him? Achebe tries to bring out some of the positive things that took place in Heart of Darkness but for the most part it seems that he is more interesting in calling Conrad out and putting the novella down for all of the bad things Achebe thought Conrad did in his writing.
I think as readers analyzing these two different pieces should step back and look at the facts first. We should first off notice that Conrad and Achebe are two completely different races and that could be a major factor in the question as why these two may bump headswhen it comes to Heart of Darkness. Conrad is a Caucasian man and Achebe is an African American. Even today, between those two races, there are conflicting opinions and feelings, so of course there would be about this piece of writing. Also we must look at the time difference from when both writers actually wrote. Conrad wrote this piece 1899 when everything that he was writing about actually took place. Achebe wrote his many years after. “It was certainly not his fault that that he lived his life at a time when the reputation of a black man was at a particularly low level” (344). He understand that part, but he continues to go on about how Conrad was still very revealing when it came to discussing a black man in the novella. None of the problems that Achebe talks about in his essay were occurring at the time when he actually composed his piece. So is it accurate for Achebe to call Conrad a “thoroughgoing racist” (343)? I personally don’t think it is. Achebe may have his own individual opinions that involve his race, but he didn’t take part in what all Conrad did during his time. Racism was viewed in a completely different way and I don’t think it is reasonable for Achebe to use his own interpretations to judge Conrad in such a way. Achebe said “It took different forms in the minds of different people but almost always managed to sidestep the ultimate question of equality between white people and black people” (342-343).I think he is right when saying that people are going to have different opinions about racism according to what race you actually are, but there was a difference is the equality of white and black people during Conrad’s time and I don’t think that Achebe understands or accepts that. “His obvious racism has, however, not been addressed. And it is high time is was!” (344). This proves my point that Achebe doesn’t seem to want to comprehend that himself and Conrad were different people, that were of different ethnicity, born in different time periods, where different actions and thoughts took place regarding racism. The some of the things that Achebe says directed towards Conrad seems almost as if he has some sort of hate towards him and he seems very passionate about it. Achebe says, “Whatever Conrad’s problems were, you might say he is now safely dead. Unfortunately his heart of darkness plagues us still” (345). That is harsh. By him referring to Heart of Darkness in that sense, by comparing it to a plague, it just shows his true feelings toward this piece. How can someone be safely dead? Achebe was slightly cruel when discussing Conrad and I think it was somewhat uncalled for.
Achebe writes a lot of different things about Heart of Darkness, and some are positive things about it but for the most part they are all negative. Even though we all know if we have read the novella that it is a very complex piece of literature but that is what it is known for and so highly thought of for. Achebe does a very good job leaving out some of the many positive things about Heart of Darkness out. It seems to me that he wants critics to read his critical essay discussing the novella and to not think twice about even reading it. Achebe, in my point of view, doesn’t appreciate the choice of words Conrad uses or how he uses them. It almost seems as if Achebe is saying that he could write it better himself. Achebe, I think, is somewhat jealous of Conrad. It seems to me that in his critical essay he tries to write like Conrad does in Heart of Darkness. He tries to make what he is saying more complex than it really is. Achebe is writing a critical essay discussing the novella so I don’t see any reason why he uses trickery throughout his writing. It seems as if he is trying to show off. In Conrad’s case, his trickery is what he is known for in the Heart of Darkness. “When a writer while pretending to record scenes, incidents, and their impact is in reality engaged in inducing stupor in his readers through a bombardment of emotive words and other forms of trickery mush more has to be at stake than stylistic felicity” (338). That quote proves my point exactly. Achebe is calling Conrad out on the choice of his words throughout the entire novella when in this one sentence he is being absolutely hypocritical. He made his sentence much more complex than it needed to be.
Achebe isn’t exactly this bad man that he is made out to be throughout my entire essay. There are some points where he gives Conrad some kind of credit where it should be handed out. He says, “Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which is better than any other work that I know displays that Western desire and need which I have just referred to…. Conrad, on the other hand, is undoubtedly one of the great stylists of modern fiction and a good-story teller into the bargain” (337). Although this quote came at the very beginning of his essay before he starts to go off on a rant about how racist he believes Conrad is and how he didn’t use the right words he knows that deep down no matter how badly he wants to not say this stuff, that it must be said.
Achebe makes sure that throughout his entire critical essay, he gets most of his opinions out about how he feels towards Conrad and his novella, Heart of Darkness. He begins by stating that he thinks that Conrad is one of the best at doing what he does, telling stories. He thinks that he has a very creative imagination and does somewhat of a good job writing what he wants. He also then goes on by calling Conrad a “thoroughgoing racist” (343). He expresses his strong feelings about how he looks at racism and stands up for his own race. He makes it known that he doesn’t exactly appreciate how Conrad portrayed the way African Americans were treated in this book which might be a reason why he discussed this in particular quote which I think was Achebe’s complete purpose of the critical essay, “to set Africa up as a foil to Europe” (337). He lastly makes in known that he doesn’t think Conrad used to the right words in his writing. He in a way challenges Conrad and his vocabulary. Achebe thinks that Conrad may have been to trickery with his word choice. When reading Achebe’s critical essay it seems as if he is saying that he could almost write Heart of Darkness better himself than Conrad did. While reading Achebe’s essay I don’t feel as if it should sways someone’s opinion that had planned on reading the novella because it is a biased essay. If you had read this essay you would need to know that Conrad was a Caucasian and Achebe was an African American and that the novella and the critical essay were written during two completely time periods. Achebe wrote his piece during a time when things that were taken place at that particular time may have influenced his final opinions about Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” Armstrong 336- 49.
