Do you think Professor Kingsfield respected his students? How can you tell? Have you ever had a teacher like him?
In all honesty, Kingsfield had the right amount of respect most professors of his stature would offer to their students. Coming from a prestigious university, Kingsfield does not see light to the lighter side of life, rather that the campus grounds is a sanction for work ethics and nothing more. That is not to say he is a coarse, bitter professor; Kingsfield shows a very cutthroat persona that many liberal minded or spirited individuals would find appalling. However, his attitude in the class is a means to harden the students and further their development for the rough, jagged field of Law, especially in an atmosphere that is considered to be one of the most prestigious environments to foster that skill. Fortunately, I never had a teacher to the likes of Kingsfield, but should that day ever come, I would come to terms and understand the reasoning behind their motives. Nonetheless, I would still possibly curse them out should I ever get tired of their bull.
"What surprised you about the portrayal of law school in the movie? Which parts to you think were the most realistic/least realistic?"
Interestingly enough, the most surprising portrayal in the film is Hart's idiocracy. For a Harvard student, Hart's interaction with women (as well as the absurdly sensual confrontation that ensues with one) is ultimately a reflection of his lacking courtship. Seriously, he's pretty much a jerk. He has this dominant controlling mindset that does reflect his academic side, but also displays how he is unable to shut it off and assimilate to a comfortable lifestyle. Once again, in other words, he seems like a pompous rich kid. Nonetheless, I believe the display of rigorous coursework, the mental breakdowns, and the over encompassing stress are legitimately accurate in the film, considering students who have NOT EVEN BEEN TO A LAW SCHOOL ALREADY EXPERIENCD THAT.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Monday, August 25, 2014
"Inside Job"
How did the message conveyed by the film make you feel? Were you angry at all? If so, why?
While corporate greed is nothing short of new in American culture, it certainly does not abstain me from feeling not only enraged but completely cheated. As a youthful adolescent, surely one may think how something that I most likely have no background knowledge of can make me bitter and hostile, and possibly even claim it is a proponent of my personal jealousy, but that is far from the truth. The fact of the matter is that corporate greed is nothing short of new and it has become so common that the criminals behind it are capable of even doing it before our very own faces, and we could do nothing but whine, complaint, and mope over the situation while they stand behind their gilded Pretorian guards. The standard of paper currency is merely a capitalistic ideal that pertains to the American understanding of economy (a matter that which is becoming global as the economic standard), so it seems that those who have the most of it our the ones who have a great deal of leverage in all matters of power (a fact that was discussed and proven using CDOs). And to add injury to insult, people must suffer in order for them to achieve their financial successes, a true reflection of selfish animosity that underlies the fueling principles of corporate greed, the true wolves of Wall Street.
What does the term "inside job" mean, generally speaking? Do you think it accurately applies to the state of affairs in the movie?
The term inside job pertains simply to just that: a job done on the inside. Most of the principles of CDOs, regulations, and other economic vocab words are more inclined to the financial community, which is where a great deal of shady business takes place. Not only that, but most of these crimes are committed through loosely justified bills and acts such as merging and bailing, a definite sign of social networking and dealing that is otherwise absent from the public domain. However, as privatized as these deals may be, they do manage to leak out into the public sphere and still these crooks manage to get away with their heinous crimes based on constitutional rights that never pertained to the concept of a corporation until the early twentieth century, let alone are they unable to efficiently hide their lies with inadequate acting.
While corporate greed is nothing short of new in American culture, it certainly does not abstain me from feeling not only enraged but completely cheated. As a youthful adolescent, surely one may think how something that I most likely have no background knowledge of can make me bitter and hostile, and possibly even claim it is a proponent of my personal jealousy, but that is far from the truth. The fact of the matter is that corporate greed is nothing short of new and it has become so common that the criminals behind it are capable of even doing it before our very own faces, and we could do nothing but whine, complaint, and mope over the situation while they stand behind their gilded Pretorian guards. The standard of paper currency is merely a capitalistic ideal that pertains to the American understanding of economy (a matter that which is becoming global as the economic standard), so it seems that those who have the most of it our the ones who have a great deal of leverage in all matters of power (a fact that was discussed and proven using CDOs). And to add injury to insult, people must suffer in order for them to achieve their financial successes, a true reflection of selfish animosity that underlies the fueling principles of corporate greed, the true wolves of Wall Street.
What does the term "inside job" mean, generally speaking? Do you think it accurately applies to the state of affairs in the movie?
The term inside job pertains simply to just that: a job done on the inside. Most of the principles of CDOs, regulations, and other economic vocab words are more inclined to the financial community, which is where a great deal of shady business takes place. Not only that, but most of these crimes are committed through loosely justified bills and acts such as merging and bailing, a definite sign of social networking and dealing that is otherwise absent from the public domain. However, as privatized as these deals may be, they do manage to leak out into the public sphere and still these crooks manage to get away with their heinous crimes based on constitutional rights that never pertained to the concept of a corporation until the early twentieth century, let alone are they unable to efficiently hide their lies with inadequate acting.
Monday, August 18, 2014
"Tampopo"
What are some of your favorite foods related to your own cultural background?
Given that I'm Mexican, I love tacos, have an affection for horchata, cherish burritos, adore frijoles, am infatuated with nachos, praise mole, take advice from arroz con leche, chow down on pan dulces, and chug Coke with cane sugar, this is what I eat. It is all very yummy...
What are your fondest memories of food?
Interestingly enough, my fondest food memory is eating at The Pantry in Downtown LA. T'was a bright and sunny morning. The cars were hustling and the buses were bustling...I could remember at a young age standing outside this old classic pantry café behind a very long line, the morning sun beaming down on my face as I was surrounded by a swarm of young girls - my sisters. The heat made me impatient, alongside my sisters who were the embodiment of chaos, but alas the line finally subsided and we all eventually entered the most glorious café restaurant ever. You would expect flashy décor, flawless floors, and flashy waiters and waitresses, but that's not what I saw. I saw noire styled décor, creased concrete walls, bustling waiters and waitresses, and a chaotic kitchen - all within an air conditioned environment. We were seated down and were complemented with water and coleslaw, which, by far, remains to be the most infamous platter of coleslaw ever chowed on. As if that was not enough, we were given battered bread, with wonderful assortments of jelly and butter. And this was only the appetizer. The main course was but moments away, and when it came, it surely brought joy as I stuffed my face with the most fulsome pancake I had ever eaten - and I still have yet to meet a competitor to rival my opinion. It is always there, at The Pantry, where the food is always hearty and the moments are merely cherishing, that I truly enjoy the notion of eating.
Given that I'm Mexican, I love tacos, have an affection for horchata, cherish burritos, adore frijoles, am infatuated with nachos, praise mole, take advice from arroz con leche, chow down on pan dulces, and chug Coke with cane sugar, this is what I eat. It is all very yummy...
What are your fondest memories of food?
Interestingly enough, my fondest food memory is eating at The Pantry in Downtown LA. T'was a bright and sunny morning. The cars were hustling and the buses were bustling...I could remember at a young age standing outside this old classic pantry café behind a very long line, the morning sun beaming down on my face as I was surrounded by a swarm of young girls - my sisters. The heat made me impatient, alongside my sisters who were the embodiment of chaos, but alas the line finally subsided and we all eventually entered the most glorious café restaurant ever. You would expect flashy décor, flawless floors, and flashy waiters and waitresses, but that's not what I saw. I saw noire styled décor, creased concrete walls, bustling waiters and waitresses, and a chaotic kitchen - all within an air conditioned environment. We were seated down and were complemented with water and coleslaw, which, by far, remains to be the most infamous platter of coleslaw ever chowed on. As if that was not enough, we were given battered bread, with wonderful assortments of jelly and butter. And this was only the appetizer. The main course was but moments away, and when it came, it surely brought joy as I stuffed my face with the most fulsome pancake I had ever eaten - and I still have yet to meet a competitor to rival my opinion. It is always there, at The Pantry, where the food is always hearty and the moments are merely cherishing, that I truly enjoy the notion of eating.
Monday, August 11, 2014
"The Namesake"
1) "What is the symbolism behind the shoes in the film?"
In the film "The Namesake", Gogol's family undergoes a drastic cultural transition throughout the film, starting from the very beginning of the film to the very end of it. With Gogol entering the United States at a young age, his culture is drastically different from that of his parents, who are very much inclined with their Indian heritage. Gogol grows into the American way of life, picking up a more secular, independent background while his parents are use to a more close-knit, family orientated background, especially his mother, Ashima. But as time rolls on, both Gogol's and Ashima's worldviews begin to change, for the two begin to assimilate to each other's culture. Ashima assimilates to American culture while Gogol becomes closer to his Indian heritage. The significance of this assimilation is the series of events that precede their decisions. In the beginning of the film, Ashima puts on two tone shoes to embody her assimilation into American culture. Gogol's reconnection with his heritage occurs shortly after the death of his father, with him putting on his recently deceased father's shoes. It is here that Gogol assimilates to the cultural heritage that defined his father, given that he had remained so distant from him for so long (a result of American culture). By putting on the shoes, Gogol gains this desire to fill his father's place, so he can feel close to his father. In short, shoes embody the assimilation into new cultures.
2) What was symbolism of Gogol's name? Does he ever come to terms with it? What's the significance of your own name and how was it chosen?
Gogol's name in the film is an allusion to Nikolai Gogol, a Russian writer during the romanticist movement of the early 19th century. Gogol's name is in respect to the writers for Gogol, much like his historical counterpart, developing a talent for mimicry within his written works at an early age. This personal merit is similar to the film's Gogol, who attempts to assimilate to multiple cultures and traditions all while remaining the same individual. In the end, Gogol never addresses the acceptance of the name, but comes to realize his constant mimicry and thus resigns that merit in an effort to define himself despite his given name. Given that my first name and middle name are biblical, I feel that my name does bear the weight of the two biblical characters, but that does not define who I am or who I desire to be.
In the film "The Namesake", Gogol's family undergoes a drastic cultural transition throughout the film, starting from the very beginning of the film to the very end of it. With Gogol entering the United States at a young age, his culture is drastically different from that of his parents, who are very much inclined with their Indian heritage. Gogol grows into the American way of life, picking up a more secular, independent background while his parents are use to a more close-knit, family orientated background, especially his mother, Ashima. But as time rolls on, both Gogol's and Ashima's worldviews begin to change, for the two begin to assimilate to each other's culture. Ashima assimilates to American culture while Gogol becomes closer to his Indian heritage. The significance of this assimilation is the series of events that precede their decisions. In the beginning of the film, Ashima puts on two tone shoes to embody her assimilation into American culture. Gogol's reconnection with his heritage occurs shortly after the death of his father, with him putting on his recently deceased father's shoes. It is here that Gogol assimilates to the cultural heritage that defined his father, given that he had remained so distant from him for so long (a result of American culture). By putting on the shoes, Gogol gains this desire to fill his father's place, so he can feel close to his father. In short, shoes embody the assimilation into new cultures.
2) What was symbolism of Gogol's name? Does he ever come to terms with it? What's the significance of your own name and how was it chosen?
Gogol's name in the film is an allusion to Nikolai Gogol, a Russian writer during the romanticist movement of the early 19th century. Gogol's name is in respect to the writers for Gogol, much like his historical counterpart, developing a talent for mimicry within his written works at an early age. This personal merit is similar to the film's Gogol, who attempts to assimilate to multiple cultures and traditions all while remaining the same individual. In the end, Gogol never addresses the acceptance of the name, but comes to realize his constant mimicry and thus resigns that merit in an effort to define himself despite his given name. Given that my first name and middle name are biblical, I feel that my name does bear the weight of the two biblical characters, but that does not define who I am or who I desire to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)