Citizen Kane Discussion Response

Citizen Kane is an attack on the American Dream (money= happiness). Do you agree?

            The "American Dream" essentially states that money equals happiness; the more money you have, the more happy you'll be, although that's not necessarily true. I believe that the statement that Citizen Kane is an attack on the American Dream. Charles Foster Kane, although he had more money then any man should need, died as an miserable old man. Which is the main attack on that money, in fact, does not mean happiness.

            Citizen Kane plot of finding what 'rosebud' meant, actually shows where Kane's happiness truly layed. In his childhood. From the scene where we see his parents making a deal to give him away, we see Charles outside playing in the snow, having a grand time. After his second wife left him, Charles Foster Kane came to the realization that even though he had been trying to fill his void of happiness with money and lots of "stuff", like statues, he will never be as happy as he was during his childhood with his precious "Rosebud".

What makes a movie a 'classic'?

1.If a movie is a comedy, what is necessary for that movie to become a classic?

Movies like Caddyshack, Airplane!, and Monty Python's the Holy Grail are all comedies in which I would consider to be classics. Like any classic, they're memorable, but what makes them memorable? Well, of course, they're funny. These comedies are more or less, simple. It does not take a 'braniac' to understand the joke. Whether it be visual, or dialogue, the joke always gets to the audience, and makes them laugh. Classic comedies should leave the audience with sore cheeks by the end of the film.

2. If a movie is an action film, what is necessary for that movie to become a classic?

Movies like Troy, Gladiator, and Jurassic Park, are action movies which I believe would pass as a classic action movie. They have a bit of everything; comedy, romance, thrill, drama, and fear. Classic action movies should be able to excite the audience, no matter how many times they've seen it. The audience should almost feel 'in the action', being able to feel everything, the explosions, chase scenes, etc. A classic action movie will always crack a few jokes, normally through a witty remark, or a shocked expression after a unbelievably lucky feat. The protagonist will always win in the end. Classic action fills should leave the audience with adrenaline, and excitement, almost wishing they could do things like the protagonist was able to accomplish.

3. If a movie is a drama, what is necessary for that movie to become a classic?

Dramas like Citizen Kane, Schindler's List and Casablanca are some dramas which have already become classics, and have, and will, pass the test of time. Classic dramas should have the audience feel pity for the characters. The audience will feel the pain, happiness, sadness, fear, and other key emotions throughout the drama.

            One movie, or movie(s), I believe will become a classic movie and pass the test of time, is the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Many Disney movies have become classics, or cherished movies.  It would be hard to find anybody who has not heard of Disney characters such as Cinderella, Snow White, Beast, Mickey, Minnie (the list goes on and on...). Captain Jack Sparrow, played by Johnny Depp, will become one of those characters. Already, in the few years the series has been out, Captain Jack Sparrow, captain of the Black Pearl, has become a movie icon. It will be a difficult task to find somebody who has not even heard of Jack Sparrow, even if they have not seen the movie. When one watches Johnny Depp play the character Captain Jack Sparrow, you do not see the actor Johnny Depp playing the character, you only see the character, Jack Sparrow. It is like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins as the chimney sweeper. The chimney sweeper is now an icon. Other reasons as to why Pirates of the Caribbean will become a classic is that is an new story, a new concept, and it is based off a ride at Disney World's Magic Kingdom. It is the only movie that I know which was based off a ride, and not the other way around.

What makes a movie a 'classic'?

How is a movie a classic?

1.If a movie is a comedy, what is necessary for that movie to become a classic?

Movies like Caddyshack, Airplane!, and Monty Python's the Holy Grail are all comedies in which I would consider to be classics. Like any classic, they're memorable, but what makes them memorable? Well, of course, they're funny. These comedies are more or less, simple. It does not take a 'braniac' to understand the joke. Whether it be visual, or dialogue, the joke always gets to the audience, and makes them laugh. Classic comedies should leave the audience with sore cheeks by the end of the film.

2. If a movie is an action film, what is necessary for that movie to become a classic?

Movies like Troy, Gladiator, and Jurassic Park, are action movies which I believe would pass as a classic action movie. They have a bit of everything; comedy, romance, thrill, drama, and fear. Classic action movies should be able to excite the audience, no matter how many times they've seen it. The audience should almost feel 'in the action', being able to feel everything, the explosions, chase scenes, etc. A classic action movie will always crack a few jokes, normally through a witty remark, or a shocked expression after a unbelievably lucky feat. The protagonist will always win in the end. Classic action fills should leave the audience with adrenaline, and excitement, almost wishing they could do things like the protagonist was able to accomplish.

3. If a movie is a drama, what is necessary for that movie to become a classic?

Dramas like Citizen Kane, Schindler's List and Casablanca are some dramas which have already become classics, and have, and will, pass the test of time. Classic dramas should have the audience feel pity for the characters. The audience will feel the pain, happiness, sadness, fear, and other key emotions throughout the drama.

            One movie, or movie(s), I believe will become a classic movie and pass the test of time, is the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Many Disney movies have become classics, or cherished movies.  It would be hard to find anybody who has not heard of Disney characters such as Cinderella, Snow White, Beast, Mickey, Minnie (the list goes on and on...). Captain Jack Sparrow, played by Johnny Depp, will become one of those characters. Already, in the few years the series has been out, Captain Jack Sparrow, captain of the Black Pearl, has become a movie icon. It will be a difficult task to find somebody who has not even heard of Jack Sparrow, even if they have not seen the movie. When one watches Johnny Depp play the character Captain Jack Sparrow, you do not see the actor Johnny Depp playing the character, you only see the character, Jack Sparrow. It is like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins as the chimney sweeper. The chimney sweeper is now an icon. Other reasons as to why Pirates of the Caribbean will become a classic is that is an new story, a new concept, and it is based off a ride at Disney World's Magic Kingdom. It is the only movie that I know which was based off a ride, and not the other way around.

Top 10 Problems with Modern TV

I believe that all the porblems in this article are valid arguements as to why modern television has turned into, well, horrible television. I have watched very little television lately, and any television shows I have watched, I find that all the reasons are true. Every single show, on television, there is no real-life looking people. For example, if you go to a hospital, there would not be a a huge amount of "hot and "handsome" nurses and doctors, like it is portrayed in doctor shows like "House" or "Grey's Anatomy". Which also, there are way too many shows based in the hospital.

Reality TV also is another huge problem, especially when mixed with other issues, like bad concepts. I once saw a game show where if you got the questions wrong, or lost the round, your end result would be that you're tossed off a building. Yes, with a bungie cord, and safety harness so that the contestant doesn't die... but still, it is kind of a stupid concept. Also with reality television, it makes sense that none of the "actors" are acting like themselves. Knowing that they're being filmed on camera, they act different. Even off camera, many people act differentllt when they're under pressure (like peer), or even being watched by live.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/television/tv_impact_kids.cfm

Crossfire on Canada's New Jets

Jordan Day

Mr. Jamieson

EMS 3O1

TBD

Crossfire of Canada’s $9+ Billion Jets

            Canada is huge country. Canada has a lot of land, and we, as a country, need to protect that land, especially in the North where there is so much land and airspace that can be so easily invaded. Canada’s current fighter jets, the aging CF-18’s, are not expected to last past 2020. The Canadian Government and the military will need to replace them. In recent months, the government has announced that it is going spend upwards of $9 billion dollars to replace the CF-18’s. The issue is not the purchase of new jets to replace our aging fleet, but the cost, process, and the new jet itself. The Conservatives are under much criticism for their choice. Both CBC and the National Post have posted articles that are biased to a certain opinion of the new jets. So the F-35 jets; are they the right jets for Canada?

            CBC’s article, posted on September 15^th, 2010, covers the Conservatives, and their defence of their plans to spend upwards of $9 billion on a new fleet a of stealth fighter jets. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, at a Commons defence committee meeting said that the F-35 Lightning II Jets is “the right plane, this is the right number, this is the right aircraft for our Canadian air forces and for Canada,” (CBC) CBC really focused on the positives of their purchase, and the Conservatives’ reasons for their plan, using fear as a motive. Quoting Peter MacKay’s warning that, “if we don’t make this purchase, there is a real danger we will be unable to defend our airspace”. (CBC) The article touched on the criticism of the other parties, saying how the Liberals demanded to know why the contract for the new jets went straight to aerospace super giant Lockheed Martin, without letting other countries make the bid on the deal. But the article moves directly back to the defence of the Conservative government, stating that the government was “determined that the F-35 was the only jet to match Canada’s specific needs”. (CBC) As a whole,  CBC gave off a positive vibe, stating that F-35 jets, and the purchase of them, would have a positive impact on Canada.

On the opposite side, the National Post’s article by John Ivison, on October 29^th, 2010, seems to say that the Canadian Government should take more time to think about it before making a final decision. The article, titled “Time out is needed on $16B jet deal”, focuses more on the negative aspects of the jets, and the Liberals attack on the Conservatives, rather than the positives. Wait, $16 billion? Did CBC not say $9 billion? Yes, but CBC only stated the cost of the new jets themselves, which would be $9 billion for 65 jets. However, CBC failed to note the maintenance contract, which could as much as double the overall cost of the jets. Even from the title, it gives off a more negative vibe then the Conservatives would like. The article is not necessarily saying that Canada should not buy the jets, merely slow down and “seek some third-party validation” so that we may know that we are in fact, getting the “best deal at the best price”. (National Post) The article quoted Industry Minister Tony Clement, that “It is the best plane on the market. I will say on your program, I’m not the expert.” (National Post). This statement, which they decided to use in the article, makes it seem that, not only this source, but the government, is seriously uninformed and unknowing of all the facts, which as the power to raise more questioning of the Government.

            Are the new F-35 Lightning II Jets from Lockheed Martin the right choice for Canada? In my opinion, I believe that they are what Canada needs. Yes, so they will cost up to around $18 billion, but they are the best of the best. Canada is a huge country, with lots of land to cover. The jets would be able to protect, and monitor our airspace in the North, relatively easily, and if need be, they could get from the East to West coast faster than any other possible mode of transportation and defence. Would you buy a car without seatbelts, solely because it was cheaper, and risk the lives of not only yourself, but your children as well? I sincerely doubt it. That is what the Canadian Government is doing for us. They aren’t skimping out on price, buying a cheaper jet to protect our airspace. They  Government is trying to buy the best protection its “children”, and to defend our country which is our home. Admittedly, it would be nice if the government would prove that the F-35 Lightning II jets are the only fighter planes which meets all of the Canadian military requirements for a next-generation fighter. If there were better jets, I would hope we would get them rather then the F-35’s, but if they are the best, I see no reason why Canada should not get the absolute best option, for all of Canada’s safety.

This Much I know

            I am a smart kid. In public school, even a bit of high school, I never did my homework; I never studied for any tests, and I would miss a lot of school and go on vacations and trips because it would be easy for me catch up. I would simply show up, do my work, and if there was anything extra I had to do (besides the assignments and projects) for home, I did not do it. Everything we learned came to me easily, I easily understood the majority of the lessons taught to me and my peers. I remember one time, in grade 6, that my teacher got mad at me because I would not do my homework, so she quizzed me, and I got every answer right! That showed her! I thought school was a breeze.

This habit of mine went on for several more years; would not study, would do minimal amounts of homework, and I would still get decent grades, and would genereally be happy with my performance throughout the year. Until grade 10... In grade 10, things became a little more difficult. It became a little harder if I did not study or do my homework, and it was a little more harder for me to get back up to speed if I missed a few days of classes. I remember the first time I legitimately took the time to study for a test; grade 10 history. I barely made my 80% average that year.

Although I should have learned my lesson, by the end of that year, but again, I didn't. I cleaned up my habits a little in grade 11 and beginning of grade 12, but I still did not do the majority of homework, or studied as hard as I could have. At the middle of last school year, however, I did a total cleanup on my habits. Studied harder, did much more homework... and sucess came! I got higher marks then I did in grade 11, and I was happy.

What I know now, that I did not know before, was that studying and doing your homework actually helps. It will provide results. Although that should be a given, I did not believe so. Now that I'm older, and I've learnt more, I now see the benefits of studying.

OOGIDY BOOGIDY! I have a kid beside me telling me to tell the world about my day... well it SUCKS! I'm at school!