Screening of Sugar Cane Alley and Eve's Bayou Essay

Screening of Sugar Cane Alley and Eve's Bayou - Essay Example It is one of the French films, which were directed by Palcy Euzhan in 1989. It has its setting in Martinique during the 1930s. The film revolves around the story of the mistreatment by the whites as they worked as slaves during the 1930s. The film is mainly based on the semi-autobiographical novel that was compiled by Zobel Joseph (Rue). The cinematography that has been used in the movie consists of tilt-shift photography. The cinematographer applied medium sized lenses to ensure the control of the plane of focus orientation making certain parts of the image appear sharp. This is the reason for the different shapes and lightings of the image in the film. Part of the film also reveals the traditional cinematography with dull brown outlooks. The music in the movie is has slow rhythm and low tone that allows for the clear narration of the movie hence facilitating the comprehension of the viewers. The teacher, Mr. Rock has the most influence on Jose. His influence is academic and racial related (Rue). He accuses him falsely because of plagiarism when he writes an essay explaining the suffering of the slaves in the sugar cane plantations. I identify myself with Jose. He is focused and is forgiving. He actually marches my traits. Formal education is portrayed in the film through the school learning system. Scholarships are other examples or elements found in the formal education. The movie also shows that formal education does not allow for copying of other people’s ideas (plagiarism), therefore, it stresses on creativity and absolute originality. Joe runs away from school after being accused of plagiarism. Informal education is shown on the movie through the teachings of Joe by his grandmother. This form of education does not require class work or education.... Joe runs away from school after being accused of plagiarism. Informal education is shown on the movie through the teachings of Joe by his grandmother. This form of education does not require class work or education. It is not also expensive like formal one hence no scholarships for it. Contrast, in the film, is portrayed through the depiction of class difference in the film. Joe’s grandmother, Tine is one of the extreme poor individuals in this society. There are extremely rich people in the same society, for instance, Leopold’s parents who are landowners. The filmmaker has employed his tactics and experience in ensuring that the entire film is not about the sentiments of Jose’s education, through the inclusion of his grandmother. The way Tine is treated is meant to inform the viewers on the core theme of the film, which is racism, and class disparities during the 1930s American societies. Leopold and his parents have been portrayed as opportunistic individuals. They offer Jose food in return for his labor service in their farm making him miss classes. This, in turn, is a portrayal that the society consists of class disparities and unfairness reins the entire society. The scene with Jose and Medouze is an educative one whereby Jose learns of the past and the experience undergone by his grandparents and ancestors (Rue). Despite being the fact that the movie is based on the novel, there is a distinct between the novel and the movie. The difference is on the settings of the two. The settings are on two different places and time. The movie was produced in the 1960s whereas the book was published earlier than that. Gender issues have been revealed in the movie as one of

A Dialogue Paper on Human Cloning :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

A Dialogue Paper on Human Cloning This dialogue is between two students at the university. Steve is a little uncomfortable about cloning, while Sally presents many valid arguments in favor of it. Steve presents many moral questions that Sally answers. Steve: Hi, Sally. Are you aware that the Scottish embryologist, Ian Wilmut, cloned a sheep from adult cells, and now, there are many moral, economic, and political questions that must be answered. Sally: Interestingly enough, I was just reading about this topic in a magazine. I was amazed at the simplicity of the cloning process used by Dr. Wilmut and his colleagues. The process of cloning a sheep begins by taking the cells from the udder of an adult sheep, and placing them in a culture with few nutrients. The purpose of this is to starve the cells so that they stop dividing. This switches off the active genes. While they starve these cells, they take an unfertilized egg from a different ewe, and remove the nucleus from this unfertilized egg. Then, they place the unfertilized egg cell next to one of the original starved cells Steve: How do the two cells come together? Does it happen spontaneously? Sally: No, it does not happen spontaneously. An electric pulse fuses the two cells together. A second electric pulse makes the cell divide. After six days, Dr. Wilmut placed this embryo into a different ewe, and after a normal gestation period, the new baby sheep named Dolly was born. She was named after Dolly Parton. Steve: But cloning is not new. In 1952, researchers in Pennsylvania cloned a live frog. What makes Dr. Wilmut's achievement so special? Sally: Yes, it is true that a frog was cloned in 1952, but those scientists used an embryonic cell. Dr. Wilmut used an adult cell. Steve: What is the difference between using an embryonic cell and an adult cell? Sally: Embryonic cells are "undifferentiated." Undifferentiated cells have not gone through changes that make some cells into skin cells or muscle cells or brain cells, for example. Undifferentiated cells can become any cell in the body because it can activate any gene on any chromosome, but as cells develop, the DNA of certain cells fold in particular ways making large portions of the DNA inaccessible. This makes sure that the wrong genes do not get turned on at the wrong time or in the wrong place.

Definitions of Justice in the Melian Dialogue

Amidst an interlude in the fierce struggle for power between the two dominant Greek poleis, Athens and Sparta, the Peloponnesian war, there was unrest. Despite the Peace of Nicias, belligerence between the two states did not cease, but rather took on a new face. While careful to remain within the parameters set several years before in the peace treaty, Athens moved cautiously, but aggressively in establishing alliances, albeit coerced, and strengthening its empire. It was at this juncture that it made its move toward securing the small, weak island-state of Melos, which in its neutral independence suggested danger to the Athenian empire.In a move not of fairness, but of survival, Athens offered the Melians an ultimatum: to be subjugated under Athenian rule as a colony, or be utterly destroyed. It is the Melian dialogue which follows and presents the presumed diplomatic debate between the two nations; the Melian people’s argument for their own neutrality, and the Athenian peopl e’s attempt to persuade them to submit. The issue which arises in light of the events at Melos remains to be whether it is the people of Melos’ views of justice which is correct, or if it is Athens’ definition which is truer.By examining each city-state’s contributions to the Melian dialogue, each respective interpretation becomes clear, enabling further judgement on the event’s outcome. The Athenians offer the Melians a choice in their own fate, both of which result in Athens’ domination; essentially, this boils down to the Athenian’s definition of justice lying in expediency for those in power. Not a question of fairness, for them, justice lies in survival, and that which results in the most certain preservation of both the subduer and the subdued is just, â€Å"†¦ t would involve your submitting before suffering the worst possible fate, and we would profit from not destroying you,† (Thuc, V, 91). For the Athenians, thei r own pursuit of power, and that which enables its acquisition, is paramount to survival, and as heirs to this mentality, they believe it only natural and therefore not reprehensible, â€Å"divinity†¦ and mankind†¦ are under an innate compulsion to rule wherever empowered. Without being either the ones who made this law or the first to apply it after it was laid down, we applied it as one in existence†¦ and one that will endure for all time,† (Thuc. V, 105). The Athenians see no injustice in doing simply as their nature impels them to do. In fact, the Athenians see their offer of subjugation to the Melian people as more than reasonable, â€Å"What we will demonstrate is that we are here to help our empire and that there is salvation for your city in what we are now about to say, since we hope to rule over you without trouble and let both parties benefit as you are saved,† (Thuc. , V, 91). Following their belief in doing what is necessary to strengthen th emselves, even at the expense of others, is what brings Athens to Melos.The Melians, contrarilly, see justice as grounded in fairness. They contend that action based in reason is the true definition of justice. â€Å"There is every advantage in your not destroying a universal benefit, but that at all times there be fairness and justice for those in danger,† (Thuc. ,V, 90). This belief in abstinence from aggression without cause is what defines the fundamental differences in the Athenian’s and the Melian’s philosophies. As a neutral state, Melos remained impartial up until it was confronted by Athens, and it is this confrontation which violates the Melian definition of justice.Having not been harmed by the Melians, nor threatened, they had no right, in the Melian’s eyes, to act toward them with hostility. Desiring only to be left alone, the Melians wanted Athens to accept their neutrality and depart, â€Å"You would not tolerate our staying neutral, frien ds not enemies, but allies of neither side? † (Thuc. , V, 94). According to the Melian definition of justice, Athens has no reason or right to inflict any harm upon them, nor to coerce them into the loss of their independence.Having had no desire to take part in the war between Athens and Sparta, Melos’ conception of justice was disregarded as Athens imposed their own definition of justice upon the island-state, at which point, Melos was forced to fight. The results of Athenian’s view on justice are exemplified its being an empire state holding power over many and acting with aggression when the opportunity for greatness is before it. Holding justice to be that which benefits the strong, the building of an empire serves to allow the mother nation-state to collect monetary benefits and resources from those states which it dominates.This collection enables the powerful polis to become more so and then further its sphere of influence. Additionally, this definition o f justice permits an ambitious city-state to spread, conquering not only the states which stand in direct opposition, but also any that could serve as a barrier to reaching absolute greatness. The Melian’s definition of greatness, likewise, serves to explain its position as an isolationism island city-state. In order to act justly, in accordance with Melian belief, a nation-state must act with aggression only in instances where it is necessary for the safety and welfare of its citizens and only as defensive.Justice would require the respect of a peaceable state’s existence, and the humane treatment of all wartime participants. A just state could not openly provoke another state without cause, nor upset its independence. Ultimately, it was not only a question of justice which lead to the genocide at Melos, but also one of power. It was the Athenian’s drive for power, especially control over others, which lead to its provocation of the Melians, and in fact, their definition of justice nearly demanded it.Under the belief in that which served its own benefit as justice, Athens was spurred toward the indispensable pursuit of power, specifically power over the Melians. The Melian philosophy of neutrality and fairness is in direct opposition to this bellicose ideology. At its heart, the fundamentals of Melian justice conflict with the pursuit of power, i. e. , dominance over others and therefore with Athens, resulting in an insurmountable discrepancy over which their negotiations are futile to transcend.Though the Melian dialogue is a primarily fictional account of a conversation written by a former Athenian, it is clear that the definition of justice that is favored in Thucydides’ account is that of the Melians. Logical and noble, it is the Melian’s defenses of their own interests that wins out as the stronger, while leaving the Athenians’ assertions of justice sounding brutish, pessimistic, and altogether contrary to modern conceptions of justice. It is the Melian’s definition which wins out as truly virtuous and altruistic, exactly what justice should be.

Summary Of Her Dealings With The Jellyby Family

In her dealings with the Jellyby family, Esther observes what could be written off as simply a dysfunctional family. With a mother figure who has her eyes firmly and narrowly set upon the distant shores of Africa and her charity work there, Dickens creates a vital representation of the problems of telescopic philanthropy. Mrs. Jellyby’s husband and children are all but ignored. While he could have entrusted the Jellyby family fully to his third-person narrator, Dickens instead uses Esther as the vessel through which their story is primarily told. When Esther and Caddy Jellyby visit Mrs. Jellyby, after gaining Mr. Turveydrop’s blessing for Caddy’s engagement to Prince, Esther wishes an absent Mr. Jellyby well. In reply, Mrs. Jellyby says,†¦show more content†¦This is not the first time she does this, nor is it the last. In Chapter Six, â€Å"Quiet at Home,† Dickens gives us another example of her more important purpose in the novel: [Jarndyce] asked me what I thought of Mrs. Jellyby. She exerts herself very much for Africa, sir, I said. Nobly! returned Mr. Jarndyce. But you answer like Ada. Whom I had not heard. You all think something else, I see. We rather thought, said I, glancing at Richard and Ada, who entreated me with their eyes to speak, that perhaps she was a little unmindful of her home. Floored! cried Mr. Jarndyce. I was rather alarmed again. Well! I want to know your real thoughts, my dear. I may have sent you there on purpose. We thought that, perhaps, said I, hesitating, it is right to begin with the obligations of home, sir; and that, perhaps, while those are overlooked and neglected, no other duties can possibly be substituted for them. (Norton 60-61). It would be difficult to find a more direct statement regarding Dickens’ personal opinions about foreign policy and domestic charity in relation to misguided overseas philanthropy. While he presents situations surrounding Mrs. Jellyby and Mrs. Pardiggle to convey this thematic message, as relayed through both his omniscient narrator and Esther’s observations, this is the only time he uses a character to make such an