Blog 20: Final Version of Major Research Essay

Shannon Murray

Dr. Vasileiou

ENG 103.2682

20 May 2011

Living Life On the Waterfront

            No one expected the success of the film, On the Waterfront, not even the cast and crew.  After twelve nominations and eight Oscars at the 1955 Academy Awards for categories including Best Actor, Best Director and Best Screenplay, this influential film changed the movie industry forever (IMDB).  During an era of “epics and musicals” this film “with its social theme and location shooting, and in particular its close observation of working-class life…was far from typical of its time” (Neve).  On the Waterfront directed by Elia Kazan and written by Budd Schullberg is the story of a longshoreman, played by Marlon Brando, who works at the Port of New York and New Jersey in the 1950s and witnesses corruption in the labor unions, which are ultimately controlled by the mob.  There is a “code of silence” which all of the longshoremen, must live by if they want to continue living their life; they must do nothing and say nothing.  Although this film is not a documentary, which is often assumed, it depicts the lives of longshoremen on the waterfront during 1950s, which is the time it was filmed and the time the story takes place.  Kazan and Schullberg worked hard to make sure that On the Waterfront was portrayed realistically regarding the social, political and economic aspects of life at that time in New York City. 

            On the Waterfront seemed to be cursed from the beginning.  Originally released in July of 1954, this classic film, with an all-star cast such as Brando, Karl Malden and Eva Marie Saint, and an Academy Award winning director Kazan (Gentleman’s Agreement, Streetcar Named Desire) “very nearly went unrealized” (Fisher 238).  After several rewrites of the script from Schullberg to make it more “Hollywood” and several more rejections from producers such as Twentieth Century Fox, producer Sam Spiegel agreed to make the picture with the help of United Artists and Columbia Pictures.  They originally had a budget of $800,000 which was enough financing for an independent, black and white film, but they couldn’t seal the deal with Brando for political issues in the film.  After offering the role to Hoboken bred Frank Sinatra, they made an agreement with Brando, who was an “overnight sensation with his performance as Stanley Kowalski in the 1947 Broadway production of Tennessee Williams’ Streetcar Named Desire,” and persuading Columbia Pictures to increase the budget to $880,000 (Fisher 244-45).  The dark and violent film which was actually filmed in Hoboken instead of a pier on the West Side, and was filmed November through December, mainly outside and in the cold.  The film is about a man named Terry Malloy, Brando, who acts as an accomplice to the mobsters running the waterfront, but never actually kills anyone he just plays “D & D,” deaf and dumb.  Since he is working under the mob, he is guaranteed a job everyday at the ports loading and hauling with the other longshoreman.  Doing half as much and making twice as much as everyone else, he follows the code by never talking to anyone, especially the police.  The character of Father Pete Barry, who is a typical witty and loud Irishman, but a not so typical priest, is based on a real person named Father Peter Corridan, who was a huge part in the making of the film.  Both Corridan and his alter-ego Barry fight against the union and try to convince the longshoreman to speak out against them, for all the men who have died trying to speak out.  Terry falls for Edie Doyle, played by Saint, who is the sister of Joey Doyle, a man recently killed by the mob for talking with the help of Terry.  Throughout the film Terry struggles with whether he should stay loyal to the mobsters and his brother who have always taken care of him, or whether he should stand up for what’s right.  Eventually he decides to testify against Johnny Friendly in court to defend everyone who has been killed by these murderers.  At the pier he knows he has something coming for him, and after they brutally beat him up, he stands up and walks away, followed by the other couple hundred longshoremen.

The Port of New York and New Jersey covered a vast area of land, which had everyone struggling for power.  The Hudson County waterfront was a big part of the port that was sometimes overlooked even though it was just across the river.  Although the West Side of New York is where Schulberg originally imagined the setting for his screenplay, it was not the location chosen to make this film.  The film was actually shot in Hoboken instead of the crowded and noisy streets of the city.  This was one of the first postwar films to prove that Hollywood wasn’t the only place where films could be made.  Filming in Hoboken was a plus because it still felt like the city and a primal film set without actually feeling like a real place and it was “a perfect blank canvas on which New York filmmakers inscribed their vision” (Fisher 252).  According to Peter Manso, Marlon Brando’s biographer, “Schulberg practically lived on the Hoboken waterfront,” to ensure the realism shined through in his writing even though his reports thus far have been based on the West Side (Fisher 253).  Throughout the film the location is never mentioned and remains unknown.  However there were problems faced in creating a neutral environment between the New Jersey side and the New York side.  “It offered no Jesuit schools or parishes” needed to portray the true role of Father Pete Barry that Father Corridan struggled for (Fisher 256).  That being said, the New Jersey side was a lot safer for the longshoreman to seek assistance and join the cause.  There was also the problem of which pier to film on since most of them were nonexistent or unavailable.  An “immediate renovation” of Pier 3 resulted in a “940-foot double deck” pier renamed Pier 1 and became an extremely important background in On the Waterfront (Fisher 258).  The locations used in Hoboken were all real places that were altered to keep the location impartial such as Hoboken Yacht Club, which was used as Johnny Friendly’s office, and the rooftop of an apartment building where the pigeons were kept.  Even though Hoboken wasn’t the center of the struggle for power in the port, it was still dangerous.  Kazan once stated, “The atmosphere was that violent…We were right in the midst of life on that picture, and it shows, doesn’t it?” (Fisher 264).  This film portrayed realism so well because of its location and shooting a film at a time where true hardships were being experienced.

The actors in the film had a huge role in portraying the film in a realistic way.  Even before his infamous, “I could have been a contender” line in the film, Marlon Brando had since proved himself as a serious actor in previous films such as Streetcar Named Desire in which he gave “one of the greatest Method performances of all time” (Lewis 223).  Method acting was a “style of acting that forsakes the expression of artificial emotions by gestures and other acting techniques for more naturalistic expressions based on the actor’s own deeply felt emotions,” which helped Terry Malloy’s character (Lewis 223).  In a scene where Edie drops her glove in the park, Brando picks it up and tries it on, which added both spontaneity and realism to the scene.  According to his co-star Eva Marie Saint, “Marlon would never do any scene quite the same…It became the catalyst to keep me in the scene” (Fisher 268).  “The long take of Terry and Edie Doyle first talking in a playground, are classics of naturalistic acting style and emotional realism” used by both actors throughout the film (Neve). Schulberg even hired Brando a “former professional middle weight…to teach Brando to carry himself like an ex-fighter” (Fisher 271).  Although Terry’s character is not specifically based on a single person, he does represent the people who ignored the politically run and socially unjust waterfront system, but eventually stood up for themselves.  Brando, who “was fifteen or more years younger than the top male box-office stars of the fifties, including John Wayne, Gary Cooper and James Stewart” further established himself after receiving the Best Actor Oscar for his truly believable role in On the Waterfront. 

Brando and Karl Malden were both favored by the people of Hoboken for their “easygoing camaraderie with the townspeople” (Fisher 262).  However, Brando wasn’t the only Method actor who really helped to shape this film.  Malden’s character, Father Barry, was based on the most important person in the entire waterfront reform, Father Corridan.  He spent eleven days with the priest, who was known for his drinking as well as his unconventional and tough attitude, just to prepare for the role.  When the real Pete Corridan walked onto set the first a longshoreman asked, “Are you the real or the phony one?” (Fisher 252).  “Malden wore Corridan’s hat and coat throughout the shoot” just so he could really feel the character he was portraying (Fisher 262).  In the scene where Malden flawlessly delivers the “Christ in the Shapeup” speech, which was the actual speech of Father Corridan, some critics felt that his role was “way too dominant” as well as “unbearably hammy with his sermons” (Fisher 272).  What these critics failed to understand was that the real Father Corridan delivered that same speech verbatim a few years prior and it was the “soul and spirit” of Schulberg’s original script.  That role rewarded Malden with an Oscar nomination the following year.

In the film, most of the extras that played longshoremen were real longshoremen (Neve).  They “were ferried across the river” every morning, paid $15 per day, the same amount for a day’s work on the pier, and they even participated in “shapeups” which are true longshoremen hiring methods, where the strongest and fittest men are picked to work (Fisher 262-63). Kazan wanted real longshoremen so they could show true emotion and didn’t have to “try to look like real people” (Fisher 263).  Kazan also felt the midwinter cold and outdoor shooting really made the actors look like normal people instead of celebrities, and created a bond of stamina between extras and actors.  He said, “It showed true struggle and suffering because they had no choice” (Fisher 263).  A thirteen year old resident of one the buildings, named Tommy Hanley, was originally hired to feed the pigeons on the rooftop.  When they found out that his father was a longshoreman and had been murdered when he was only a baby, “they promised the youngster a part in the film” (Fisher 263).  Even though some of these things are not so obvious, every decision was made to bring out character’s emotions and to bring a strong sense of realism to the film.  Schulberg remembered in an interview that, “hundreds of longshoremen were in the movie…and racketeers watching from the sidelines.  It was unreal.  What we were putting up on screen was happening all around us” (Fisher 265).

New York City has been through some of the most corrupt leaders such as Tammany Hall and John “Cockeye” Dunn but it also included a lot more gangsters like “King Joe” Ryan, Frank Hague and the McCormack brothers.  Since the late 19^th century there have been some questionable people in charge at the West Side waterfront.  A prominently Irish Catholic community grew in this area over the years.  Families moved as close to the pier as possible so the men had a better chance of getting work and providing for their families.  Thousands of men would show up for work and only a few hundred would actually be picked.  Poverty was extremely high, especially because of the money the mobsters were taking out of the paychecks of the longshoremen.  If you had a problem or went to the police, you most likely ended up in the bottom of the Hudson River.  The laws we have today to protect the rights of labor union workers did not exist.  It was a dog eat dog world and basically it was survival of the fittest.

Works Cited:

1. Fisher, James T. On the Irish Waterfront. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009. Print.

2. Fisher, James T. “Insert Title Here.” The Irish Waterfront. 25 May 2011. Web. 25 May 2011. <http://irishwaterfront.wordpress.com/>

3. Lewis, Jon. American Film: a history. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. 223-25. Print.

4. Neve, Brian. “On the waterfront.” History Today 45.6 (1995): 19. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 27 May 2011.

5. “On the Waterfront.” IMDB. Web. 25. May 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/tttle/tt0047296/>

6. Williams, Gregory H. The City College of New York Class of 1954 50^th Anniversary Reunion. Class of 1954 Reunion Committee. City College of New York, New York, NY. 06 June 2004. Speech.

7. “The Year 1954.” The People History. Copyscape, 2004. Web. 35 May 2011. <http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1954.html>

Blog 19: Reflection on Archives Essay

For my archives essay, I went to the archives copied and read all of the articles and statements in chronological order.  After reading everything I had a great understanding of New York and the U.S.A. at the time of the proposed “planned shrinkage.”  I then looked online to broaden my research with different testimonials and accounts of the idea.  Overall the archives helped me learn more than any of my other research.  There were very specific articles that gave me actual statistics regarding the amount of people who lost jobs, how much debt we were in as a city and as a country and other information that was extremely useful while writing this paper.

                The introduction of the archives project gave direct orders of what the essay needed to contain.  While reading all of the information from the archives, I was a little bit confused about what we were writing about.  But after I read the introduction everything made more sense.  Each page had a specific purpose to help develop the paper into a well written research and argumentative paper.  The introduction also helped me to organize my paper better.  I wasn’t sure where all of the information went at first but I divided it up to make sure everything made sense. 

                I believe that the archives paper was much easier than the research paper.  There was only a certain amount of information that we had to be familiar with which made the paper less overwhelming than the research paper.  It also only had be about 4 pages, while the research paper had to be a minimum of 7 pages and required a lot more work.  That being said, I enjoyed writing the research paper a lot more than I enjoyed writing the archives paper.  The research paper was about a movie that I really enjoy called On the Waterfront.   It also happens to be a film that I studied previously with a professor who wrote a book on the film.  Since I am well rehearsed in everything that was involved in the movie, the paper was a lot easier to write about.

Blog 18

blog 17

Blog 16

Blog 15: Minority Report Response

I believe that offering security for all is necessary, but the way they offer it in the film Minority Report is extremely unethical.  Everywhere you go in our nation’s capital, Washington D.C., is monitored by retina scanners which track where people are in the city.  Whether you are shopping, or going to work or riding the metro the scanners and ultimately the police know exactly where you are.  This system completely ignores our right to privacy as human beings.  I do believe that in the film the price to pay for security is way too high.  The Precrime system in D.C. did eliminate murder completely for a span of 6 years, but it also put innocent people away in prison.  The precogs saw that these people were going to commit crimes, but they really didn’t commit them yet, thus making them innocent.  But after the “criminals” were arrested, the halos were placed on their heads.  Once the halos were on them they were at the total mercy of the police, and the police could extract and information or memories from the peoples subconscious minds.  The extraction of information is a serious violation of privacy.  As our world moves closer and closer and beings to advance into a world similar to the one in Minority Report, it’s scary to think that the one safe place we have left is our minds and that in the future that might not even be safe anymore.  Where will the line be drawn?  

Archives Essay

Shannon Murray

Dr. Vasileiou

ENG 103.2682

10 May 2011

To Shrink or Not to Shrink?  That is the Question

            Public housing in New York City has been around since the 1930s and has been pretty vital in the survival of the city.  A man named Roger Starr once said “I cannot imagine what the city would be like without it.”  This man, Roger Starr, who in the 1970s was the New York City Housing Administrator, is known for advocating “one of the biggest controversies that a housing administrator ever got into,” an idea known as “planned shrinkage.”  This strategy planned to gradually reduce municipal services such as, sanitation collections, public transportation, ambulances, etc., to “encourage, within limits, the movement of people from these neighborhoods to more concentrated areas,” which would speed up population movement.  Basically, Starr suggested a reduction of public services in the slum areas which were already deteriorating and already had residents moving out.  This concept, which was first proposed back in 1976, was suggested in the first place to help assess the budget crisis not only in New York City, but the entire United States, and to also conserve the public services that were left after all of the budget cuts nationwide.  It was targeted at areas such as the South Bronx, and Brownsville and was said to have a “greater redevelopment value” once the areas were vacant.  The whole plan was really proposed to earn back some revenue for the city and to give certain areas a new reputation.  Although this proposal may come off as extremely unethical, it is important to understand where Starr is coming from and it is necessary to look at the whole picture from an unbiased point of view.

            One year before “planned shrinkage” was even introduced, in the year 1975, the United States was in a recession, “the country’s worst recession in 34 years” to be exact.  The current deficit was $78 billion under the President Ford administration and inflation was seriously hurting New York City.  For a few days in May the nation witnessed a very public verbal argument between the Mayor of New York and President Ford.  The Mayor of New York City, Mayor Abraham Beame on May 13, 1975 ordered that 13,782 job positions were to be dropped as of July 1, 1975.  The entire country was in debt, but in order to meet its requirements for the new budget, it was necessary.  Five hundred twenty-five Police Officers were to be let go, along with 332 Firefighters, 791 Sanitation workers, and 4,907 teachers and Education related workers to just name  a few.  The following day on May 14^th Mayor Beame made a statement to the people about President Ford and his lack of interest in helping New York City saying that “New York’s problems are not created by the sins of its people, but by the national policies,” and stating that the Ford administration was “crippling our city.”  Mayor Beame pretty much blamed the economic problems on President Ford, and was irate that he wasn’t even offering to help.  The next day, May 16^th, a statement was released from the Governor of New York, Hugh Carey and Mayor Beame saying that President Ford and the Republicans in power have denied their request for Federal assistance and rejected any proposal for State assistance.  They stated how “police protection will have to be substantially reduced” and “the remaining services will be both inefficient and thin, beyond all contemplation and beneath what the citizens have a right to expect.”  They said that Ford is simply trying to make an example out of New York City for the rest of the nation, but this “crude political act” will “prove disastrous to the people.”  They plead one last time to the President saying “we call upon them to reconsider…and not to abandon the people in a time of economic crisis.”  Another day later on the 16^th of May a statement was released to the public about more drastic cutbacks that would have to be made in the city if the President does not agree to help.  Another 38,000 positions will be eliminated by June 30^th adding to the already 13,782 which is almost 52,000 jobs lost and an 18% decrease in the work force.  Mayor Beame took some time to make himself look like the “good guy” to the public.  He stated, “In the brief 16 months I have served, I have managed to slash almost $1 billion in budgetary expenses.”  He then gives examples of what all of these lost jobs would mean and how it would affect everyone in the city.  “Police street patrol will reduce by 25% causing response time to double” with 911 calls being screened or just completely ignored altogether.  Four hospitals will close along with day cares centers, and “10 Child Health Stations depriving 10,000 children of health services.”  Public schools, colleges, welfare centers and prisons are just a few of the many places that would be affected by the job reduction.  Mayor Beame’s final statement on May 20^th is a very angry and upset one.  He says that the President is punishing New York for “past budgetary practices” when he should be worried about the $78 billion debt our country is in.  These statements just show how bad the economy was at that time and why we were all desperate for some sort of plan to get us all out of our recession.  Almost a year after the drama between the Mayor and the President, Roger Starr proposed the idea of “planned shrinkage” and the city is quick to voice their anger of this new plan.  Some headlines read, “Starr Under Fire for Plan to Shrink Slum Services” and “A Display of Ignorance” and the articles read to be very biased.  Many people were so upset they called for Starr’s resignation, while others protesting and even attacked him while he speaking at a public conference.  His plan was called, “genocidal, racist, inhuman, arrogant and irresponsible” by certain Councilmen.  In a 1993 interview Starr remembers a time when he turned on the radio to hear a young Puerto Rican woman say “Starr hates us Puerto Ricans.  He wants to drive us out of the city.”  Even Mayor Beame, who he described as a “very, very sweet man” and someone who hated to offend anyone, was very unsure of the idea.  Overall, the plan was so unpopular that he became an extremely hated man very quickly.

            Roger Starr’s good friend Robert Moses once said “there’s only one way to make a housing problem go away, and that’s to start with vacant land.”  This statement probably gave Starr his inspiration for his idea of “planned shrinkage.”  He felt the only way to help these areas and start to gain revenue was to start fresh and have everyone move away from the slums he wanted to redevelop.  Moses told Starr he wanted to move people out of their buildings and demolish their homes and then continue to do this until all of the slums are finished.  Starr then said, “Bob, you don’t really think that you can treat people nowadays as though they were parcels in the package room in the railroad station, you just move them around without asking them whether or they like it or not.”  Starr did have a concerned side to him, he just believed in being brutally honest.  He understood that people were human beings and had to be treated with respect.  Thus, Starr had motivation to think of a better way to go about doing this, for the wellbeing of New York and its inhabitants.  Starr had some problems with rent-control “because rent control was destroying New York City’s private housing stock from the middle ranges down to the lowest ranges.”  He also had problems with public housing.  He states, “The problem is to fill the housing with tenants who are not destructive and who pay their rent, and who we want to keep there forever because they’re good tenants, and the problem with government programs is that you find yourself having to take in tenants who are extremely destructive and whom you can’t get rid of.”  He also has problems with these tenants doing drugs and things that weren’t foreseen at all like “urinating in the elevator.”  All of his problems have to do with different things he has experienced with people and he is mostly concerned.  He stated that with all of the economic problems in the United States there city was in bad shape because it had borrowed all of its money.  He felt frustrated because he feels like he has to “take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.”  His philosophy about these populations of people was just that he wanted them to be self-sufficient people who can thrive off of their new community, but even if he “offered a step up to families of low income, this did not guarantee that these families would indeed take the step upward in putting their lives in order.”  He did not have problems with one particular race, he simply wanted to make sure that the people in these new developments were the right choices for the tenants.

            I believe that Roger Starr, although blunt about his opinions wasn’t the “homicidal lunatic” everyone thought he was.  After World War 2 he was released from the army and went straight to work for his father’s business.  He then joined the board of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council and eventually was picked by Mayor Beame to be the housing and development administrator.  I believe that “planned shrinkage” could have been a very successful strategy but the way Starr presented his ideas made the people involved become very defensive.  It was meant to be a way to pick up the dying areas of the city and make them the best they could be, thus boosting their revenue, and given the financial status of the city and the country, any little bit of profit could help.  I also think that his idea was appropriate for the times.  He did not mean to come off racist, nor did he force any type of migration on these people in the projects, these people just happen to be minorities who settled in these areas.  It was also a way for the people to move to nicer parts of the city, and for those areas to become nicer for others to move in.  I don’t think that “planned shrinkage” was such a bad idea, but I think it would have worked better in a different time.

Special Activity: MOMI

Blog 13: Draft of Archives Essay

Blog 12: Gattaca Response

Throughout history there always has been one group of people that has been considered “the other.”  No matter what we do as humans discrimination will exist and will continue to exist if we continue to thrive for a better and more superior human.  I believe that if history is a guide, the genetically enhanced “better” humans will seek to control and perhaps eliminate “the other” which would be normal and natural humans.

In the film, Gattaca, they show a world where naturally conceived and delivered babies are a dying breed.  Once a baby is born they can see the life expectancy, the diseases he/she might be prone to, and any other disabilities or factors that may affect the child’s future.  After giving birth to one normal son, Vincent, the family decides to genetically pick their next son so he will have a better and happier future.  They can pick the sex, eye color, hair color, IQ, etc. for their next son, Anton.  Throughout the brothers lives there is constant competition.  However, Vincent is always losing to his younger brother because they didn’t get to decide on his makeup.  Vincent love of space drives him to do well in school and work towards being an astronaut his whole life.  One day at dinner his father says, “The only way you will see the inside of a space ship is if you’re cleaning it,” which showed a young Vincent what he might expect from people for the rest of his life.  He was just as capable of being an astronaut as anyone, but he was still susceptible to heart problems and a short life expectancy.  Thus Vincent and the rest of the natural born babies became “the other” people in society.

In the essay, “The Man on the Moon” by author George Annas, he talks about

TO BE CONTINUED

Blog 11: The Concept of Other

In today’s society, no matter what society you are a part of, there are always groups or minorities that don’t fit in with the rest of the population.  These groups are referred to as “the other” and can have negative connotations.  Personally there is one group that is considered “the other” that I don’t particularly agree with and that has no connection to me whatsoever.  This group would be the Nazis.  We all know that Nazis were the group of a World War 2 Germany who followed the dictator Adolf Hitler and thrived for genocide of Jewish Europeans.  It took six years and the massacre of over 6 million Jews for the world to realize how to put a stop to it.  And although Germany received harsh punishment back in 1945 and struggled with a new government for so many years, they are now working their way to a better Germany.  Last year Germany celebrated the 20^th birthday of the “Republic of Germany.”  And although times have changed and relationships have been mended, there is still animosity towards Germans. 

                We constantly make fun and call people “Nazis” as an insult when really we need to be worried about the Nazis in the states.  Nazis still exist all over the world, but the United States is probably more famous for them, second to Germany.  The idea of the original Nazis was to promote an Aryan Nation of blonde haired, blue eyed children.  Hitler was all about “survival of the fittest” and he wanted a new Germany to represent this.  In the United States the meaning of Nazi is the idea of white supremacy very similar to the Ku Klux Klan.  I feel such a great opposition to these groups of people because I hate the message of hatred that they are spreading.  Children grow up in these cult-like atmospheres and are exposed to a lot of violence and hatred.  Every time we progress in America, it’s this “other” that brings us 2 steps back after we take 1 step forward into the future.

Blog 10

       The content of the course so far has been very interesting.  The movie the Matrix was fun to watch and analyze.  And I’m excited to watch the other movies we will watch in class.  So far I think I have learned a lot in this course.  My introductions and conclusions are really improving.  I am always thinking of a thesis and topic sentence for my other classes, but this class really showed me the right things to do.  Learning how to write an essay properly and cite everything is something I have learned so many times over the years, but in this class I feel like we really break down the concepts to make it easier to write.  The themes that we have discussed so far (illusions, ignorance, bliss, and knowledge) are all engaging topics that can be argued any way that seems fit.

       So far I think my strength on my blog would be how I personalized it.  After the class is done I want to continue to take pictures and write pieces for my blog whether they are poetry or just creative writing.  I love the idea of having my own blog but my weaknesses would probably be updating and editing my blog.  I am not as technologically savy as most people and I’m usually very confused by my own blog.  I think the blogs help me a lot more that just writing papers all the time because it allows us to use our creative side.  Even though the whole world can see my blog, it doesn’t feel as formal to me.  I feel more comfortable knowing that its my own blog and I can update as I please.  I have always wanted to start a blog and now I can use this to show my family my progress with school and my writing. 

       
      My strongest pieces would probably be my essays.  My first essay was very strong and so was my Matrix essay (even though I haven’t posted the rest of it yet).  I am sort of a perfectionist and I don’t like posting my blogs unless I know they’re perfect.  I am going to spend some time over spring break to update everything and make my blog something I am proud of and willing to show everyone.  My family has yet to see it, but I want to make it something my family, friends and professors love.  

See you all after Spring break :)

-Shan

Blog 9 Media Paper Draft

Blog 8

Should someone be happy and ignorant? Or unhappy and knowledgable?  This is the question asked by each of the main characters, Neo and Oedipus.   Both The Matrix and Oedipus the King have similar themes about ignorance and knowledge.  In The Matrix Neo is living in a world that isn’t real.  It’s a world where the people believe something to be real when in reality they are in a horrible world where they are being used for their energy power.  Once Neo meets Morpheus and the rest of the gang they introduce him to reality.  He learns that everyone is believing a lie and he questions if he even wanted to know this world.  Oedipus seriously doubts the truth for

They both also followed the path set by the prophet in the stories.  Oedipus unawaringly kills his father and marries his mother, and Neo was told he was the one.  All of these things came true for them.

Some of the differences between Neo and Oedipus were the way they handled their knowledege.  Neo took responsibility and tried to learn their ways, while feeling the pressure of being the one.  While Oedipus poked his eyes out and tried to find ways to punish himself.  Neo accepted his fate while Oedipus just couldn’t bear the thought. 

Blog 7

Thesis:
I will show that the influence of Television in our society does not directly affect our behavior and the rise in violence, but it does affects those who choose to watch it and what they choose to watch.

Supporting details:

1. The people who allowed access to television in their households; overexposure
   
2. The original stars on TV in the 1960's were modest and humble.
   
3. Violence, crime, war started way before the invention of television.
   
4. The demographics were completely different back then.
   
5. Television opened up a different world to people, instead of drilling violence into their minds.

MLA Annotated Bibliography


Dubner, Stepehen. Steven Levitt.  Freakonomics. New York City: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.
Felson, Richard. "Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior." JSTOR. (1996): Print.

Blog 2 Make-Up

Matrix Essay

            In the movie The Matrix, there are many historical and cultural references to books, films, mythology and history that are used in the film to develop the characters and convey the film’s message across to the audience.  The allusion I chose to discuss, which clarifies the theme of the movie was the animated Disney film Alice in Wonderland and Lewis Carroll’s original book Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.  The protagonist of the film, Neo, shares many similarities with the adventures that Alice experienced, but in completely different ways and about 200 years in the future.  Furthermore, Alice’s experiences and struggles have been read, watched and understood by millions of people, making it a great reference to portray Neo’s struggle and the film’s theme of reality vs. the Matrix.
    

One connection of Alice in Wonderland and The Matrix is that in the beginning of the story each of them are offered a choice.  They can decide their fate and they are well aware of this privilege.  However, they both had something brave in them and went into the unknown.  With Neo, Morpheus takes him into a room and prepares him for the worst.  He reminds him that there is no turning back now and says, “I imagine that right now, you’re feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole.”Morpheus uses that reference to try to relate to Neo at this difficult time.  When trying to explain the Matrix he offers him two different pills.  First, Morpheus offers Neo the blue pill and says, “You take the blue pill, the story ends you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.”  Then he continues, “Or you take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” 

Blog 6

Blog 6: The idea of the prison house of language

In the allegory of the cave Socrates refers to the "prison-house of sight." More recent philosophers and thinkers have talked about the prison-house of language (most notably Jacques Lacan and Fredric Jameson). This week you did some preliminary research on the concept. Write a short essay explaining the concept in your own words and give some examples for your readers. Possible audiences would be your classmates and students in other LaGuardia classes (for example my ENG 99 students)

Blog 5

The Allegory of the Cave

     The Allegory of the Cave is written by the philosopher Plato, but is told in the perspective of his mentor Socrates.  Socrates tells his friend Glaucon the story of people who have been chained down in a cave their whole lives.  There is only a little bit of light along the cave from a fire, which is all the people know.  Socrates suggests to Glaucon to then take the people out of the cave and introduce them to sunlight.  He wonders what would happen if they saw the sun, if they would run away to the cave or embrace it and take pity on those who can’t experience it.  He then suggests that the people might try to kill the one who left for trying to persuade them to go outside.  The cave is all they know and no matter how convincing his argument is they won't leave.

     What Socrates is trying to explain to Glaucon with this hypothetical story is that humans live in pure ignorance and they refuse to accept the truth no matter what.  These people have lived their whole lives in a single illusion and that's what they choose to believe.

Cuban Missile Crisis

Blog 4: The Allegory of the Cave through History

(in-class on Tuesday)
Plato uses the allegory of the cave to discuss the situations in life where people live in an illusion or refuse to accept the truth. Discuss such a situation from human history and explain what the illusion was; you can use internet resources but do not simply copy/paste them. Also, do include the full website where you found your information.

Cuban Missile Crisis

Throughout the “Cold War”  there was in fact no actual physical war, it remained verbal as the United States, Cuba and the U.S.S.R  (Soviet Union) constantly threatened each other.  The one and only time it became close to violent was during the Cuban Misille Crisis in 1962.  To this day we aren’t positive why they were created or even if they were going to attack the U.S.             The government only confirmed that the were building missiles and what type of missiles they were.  I believe the whole “crisi” was an illusion that the government told the people of the United States and elsewhere around the world, to scare us and persuade us to take action against Cuban and the Sovet Union.  I beleve it was a staged event to put us all in panicked state while we gave our government power to do as they wish.  I believe it is a very similar situation to the “weapons of mass destruction” in the Middle East.

The world was told that we almost entered a,”nuclear war”  during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  But during a crisis like so

and excuse for the bay of pigs

no alert was ever issued

We wanted them to take their missiles out no matter what

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#U-2_flights_find_missiles
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/sovietsbomb.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cuban_missile_crisis.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/cuba.htm
http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war16.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no1/article06.html
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/03-cold-war-timeline.htm
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/04-cuban-missile-crisis-timeline.htm
http://www.mgr.org/sect10.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50RNAbmy3M&feature=player_embedded
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/115a/history/cubanmissle.html

Blog 3

Things I believed when I was younger...

• I used too believe in the tooth fairy until she didn’t leave money under my pillow anymore.  My mom said she, “forgot.”
• Santa Claus didn’t respond to my letter.
• I believed in ghosts until my dad told me they didn’t exist
• I used to believe in peter pan and that I could fly.
• I used to think Billy Joel’s name was Billy idol.
• Clowns were evil.
• Vampires.
• Clifford the big red dog.
• I used to think when adults drank alcohol they were alcoholics but I learned only when they drink too much.  I told mom dad was an alcoholic after a summer at my dad’s house and then she explained to me.
• All adults were suppose to be nice until I had my 2^nd grade P.E. teacher
• There was a purple house down the street that I thought was haunted but then it was knocked down a few months later.
• I would never go trick or treating alone because I thought it was scary, but I learned no ghosts were going to hurt me.
• I would cry every time I walk into a cemetery.
• My mom told me I was a great singer, until my friends laughed at me.
• I thought cigarettes were drugs and I saw the neighbor smoking and tattled, but I learned from my sister that they were just tobacco.
• Candy man in the mirror, until I did it at a sleepover
• I thought my sisters were my full sisters, but my teacher told me they were my half sisters because we had a different dad.
• My friends told me I was a mistake because I was so much younger than my sisters.
• My sister told me if I kissed a boy that my mouth would turn green.

Blog 1

         As a society, we are forced to act a certain way when in public, compared to our usually selves in private.  Take New York for example, our lives are constantly under pressure to act a certain way everyday.  This pressure can be problematic as it can affect our individuality, sometimes at a slow pace, or rapidly.  There is a New York standard that we live up to and an attitude we thrive for.  Our behavior in public is very different than at home.  This change of attitude can even be subconscious from repetition, but we want our behavior to give a good impression when in public.

         Public transportation is a way New Yorkers get from here to there on a daily basis.  How you look or act on the train can affect they way you are portrayed in public.  These strangers make a snap judgment on your appearance or behavior no matter what.  There is a constant need to look good in New York.  Some people won’t even leave the house without make up and their new suit or outfit on.  When you see a person on train with last season’s shoes or a mismatched outfit you immediately judge.  When I am home I will wear different color socks and my pajamas or something comfortable, but I would not be caught dead in public with that outfit.  We like to look “put together” and successful as if we have something to prove to these other people.  Even a total stranger’s opinion matters to me and to most New Yorkers.  Which is why we choose to dress or look the way we do.  This pressure can be very problematic, but will remain unchanged.  No matter what we do people will always judge and we will always care.

         New Yorkers also tend to forget their manners in public.  Everyone is always in a rush to get somewhere and our behavior changes.  Instead of saying “thank you” and using the magic word “please,” we push past people and curse at each other if someone walks to slow.  The New York lifestyle is very fast paced and chaotic and after you live here for a while you get used to it.  But when we see tourists we roll our eyes, we scream “SHIT” when we miss a train even if there are children around.  We forget that we aren’t the only people in the city and our behavior can seriously offend others.  Being impolite and selfish is seriously problematic because all of our actions can affect the people around us.  We laugh at homeless people instead of thinking about what they have been through.  We forget that everyone struggles with things that you couldn’t even imagine.  We take that out on people around us instead of working on it at home.  But when we get home we like to be relaxed and with our family.  The at home attitude is what we should also be feeling in public, but for some reason we don’t and most of us never will.

         In conclusion, our private and public lives will continue to remain separate lives because of the pressure on us by society and our lifestyle.  Perhaps we can learn to just be ourselves everywhere we go but we feel as if we are constantly under a microscope.  I feel that if we learn to stop judging each other, we can learn to treat each other with respect and understand them more from just one look.

         

Draft For Blog 1

Hello world, my name is Shannon Marie and I am currently a student at Laguardia Community College.  I just started this blog for my English Composition class to post my essays and any other written materials i might have.  I have always wanted to start a blog and this class gives me a chance to start!  I will be on later to write a little bit more.

See you later,

Shan