Mel Gibson's Brave heart Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Mel Gibson's Brave heart - Movie Review Example Though special effects somewhat gives the sensation but unless and until a good direction and camera are co-operating, everything turns to be a flaw. One simple instance can justify this statement and that is character movement. If a character walks away in a room, camera must be moved or positioned to frame his movements adequately. If it's a scene where one wants to show the whole image of a ship or a building then aerial shot is preferred where track won't serve the purpose. Aerial shots are done with crane or helicopter. A minute mistake during camera can lead into wrong understandings. If there is a shot where person is getting surprised and it is taken as either long or mid shot then the actual feeling of astonishment may not be clear in frames. Camera usages stand a very important tool in one movie making. Braveheart (1995) is a movie which shows an excellent art of direction and camera that gave it to the honor of five Academy Awards in the 68th Academy Awards ceremony, inclu ding the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Director. It's the camera and only the camera which can take one movie either to Oscar platform or out of its market. Camera operators need good eyesight, artistic ability, and hand-eye coordination. They should be patient, accurate, and detail oriented. Camera operators also should have the ability to hold a camera by hand for extended periods. Braveheart is the partly historical, partly mythological, story of William Wallace, a Scottish common man who fights for his country's freedom from English rule around the end of the 13th century. Braveheart: An Example of Creativity For one film, the starting and ending shots are two important aspects. As "first impression is the last impression", first scene of movie is very important to generate interest into viewers' minds. It tells about the movie basic, means its category whereas ending scene should summarize the whole story into a single scene. If it starts with murder or attempting to murder scene that means movie is more likely of thriller type. Braveheart starts with the natural views: high hills and dense forests; camera was done from helicopter and using crane. If it was not done so then it would be impossible for someone to get the feeling in depth. This is giving a message that it's a movie related to the lifestyle of people during ancient times and warlike nature. Story begins with a little boy William, who grows up and later becomes the central character of the story. In his childhood he lost his father and only brother. The art behind the camera can be explained by few examples. In one situation William was alone and no one was there with him except one little girl. In the shot it was shown by placing the boy alone and crying, before him his father was being buried by someone else and other villagers were leaving the place except one little girl, with her face turning towards William. All these emotions were captured into a single time shot. A good director is one who can express most of the ideas in least amount of time without losing its interest upon the audiences. Instead of doing in a single one if multiple slots were taken, frame might have lost its natural rhythm. After that, boy got a company from his

Clifford thinks Pascal and James are wrong Essay

Clifford thinks Pascal and James are wrong - Essay Example This needs explanations: if we believe in God and God exists, we remain innocent; if we believe in God and God does not exists, we still remain innocent; if we do not believe in God and God does not exist, we can’t be sure that we remain innocent as we can’t know for sure if God exists; if we do not believe in God and God exists, we are guilty. Thus, it is better to believe in God, than not to believe and therefore, according to Blaise Pascal, everybody should believe in God. The William James has a similar point of view. He also states that we should believe in God and waiting for evidence is not right for humans. Waiting for any evidence to decide if to believe or not may lead us to much losses. According to the philosopher, if a man hesitates to propose to a woman waiting for evidence that she is his ideal, he risks to lose her as she may accept the proposition of someone else. The same is with religion and belief. James states that those people who believe may enjoy the life of religious people and those who do not may lose this chance. Blaize Pascal and William James are sure that people should believe in God. William Clifford can’t agree with them. It does not mean that this philosopher states that we should not believe in God, but he call us to involve some doubt and states that it is necessary as it is our duty. He provides an example to explain why: a ship-owner had an old ship. He knew that it was old and he also knew that some people were going to have a voyage on its board. He did not have any time or facilities to repair his ship and he preferred to pin his hopes on Providence that would not have allowed people to die. As a result these people died as the ship was broken. This testifies that blind belief in Providence may lead to disaster. â€Å"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any

Breakfast at Tiffanys Essay Example for Free

Breakfast at Tiffanys Essay The movie begins appropriately with the lead Holly Goligthly having breakfast outside of Tiffany’s in New York and already that sets the tone of the whole movie. She’s dressed in a black Givenchy dress and her hair resembles something of a pineapple. She is looking in to the store and we see her perfectly polished reflection in the well-polished windows. Appropriately I say, since the title says just that, Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Even though is seems unimportant, just a title, Tiffany’s plays a central role throughout the movie but not just as a location for several of the scenes. It represents everything Holly wants and doesn’t seem able to get or allow herself to want. Holly as a character is a very intriguing creature. Her quirkiness and seemingly free-spirit leaves me wanting to emulate her, doing my hair and make-up in the same way and act like she does. It’s not until the middle of the movie when I realize that under that perfect exterior lays a very broken and confused spirit. The ideas of the perfect and glamorous feel of Tiffany’s are nouns Holly tries to apply to herself. The presumed shallowness of the sales people and the expensive merchandise makes me understand that for her, money and the played identity of Holly Golightly, controls her life. It leaves me with a sense of longing to understand this complex personality and question was lies beneath the surface. It becomes clearer throughout the film that even though it seems very shallow there is a compassion and depth to Holly and so also to Tiffany’s. One of my favorite scenes that clearly represent this is when Holly and Paul Varjak spend a day doing things they have never done before and end up at Tiffany’s. Due to the censorship of the time, the movie was released in 1961, it is never outspoken, but definitely clear what lengths both Holly and Paul, will go for money. In this scene money is not the focus, and the ring from the Kracker Jacks becomes a representation of the humanity in not only Holly but Tiffany’s and even the city of New York. Every decision the director has made in this film is very carefully selected, and even though the details are very subtle at first glance, they all support the idea I believe the film is trying to portray. New York as the big, glamorous city where wealth and beauty seem like a commodity. The belief that anybody can pretend to be what they want, or in Holly’s case, hide what they are. Every detail becomes important. Holly dressing almost exclusively in black but when she thinks she has finally gotten what she want, knits a red dress. Her empty apartment that in that same moment gets decorated and the only reason we know it’s not real is because the cat still has no name. There are so many different layers to this film and I guess that is why it has become a classic. Every time you see it you discover new details or change your mind about the mysterious and ever changing Holly.

An Analysis Of Shaffers Equus

An Analysis Of Shaffers Equus The play is in two acts, the first consisting of twenty-one; the second of thirty-five scenes. It is not realistic in that it includes flashbacks performed onstage (like a movie). However, it is an explanatory one with Shaffers notes while read. It is a play consisting of individuals rather than types. Each character has his/her individuality along with his/her own perspective of life. We learn about the characters from what other characters tell about them; from what they tell about themselves; as well as from Shaffers explanation about them within parentheses. Although it is an open ended play it goes far from the lineer plot structure with its amazing climax. The forward and backward action of the play makes it a different one. Moreover while the play has speech when the time is present, it contains action when it is backward. It is a symbolic play and can be called a journey into the mind of Alan Strang, a seventeen year old boy. It analyzes Alans religious obsession with horses which is based on his complicated feelings due to his religious background and his increasing sexual side as a teenager. This confusion of religion, in fact, is a consequence of some signals from his religious, middle-class mother and his atheist, working-class father. Alans perception of religion and sexuality is conflicted and his way of praying becomes a fear of a horse spirit named Equus. He ends up with blinding six horses in the stable because of the fact that they have watched him with a girl. Rosefeldt states that Equus is inspired by a real-life event of which the author had very little details. Someone told Shaffer about a boy who blinded horses (Rosefeldt 89). Equus, the horse gradually becomes a source of freedom and worship for Alan. As he worships Equus passionately, Alan goes away from being normal. There are two main characters in the play, Martin Dysart and Alan Strang, the protagonist. While the play is Alans story, it soon becomes Dysarts story, too. Dysart is a psychiatrist and is asked to treat Alan Strang. Dysart admits to treat Alan as a patient, believing his lawyer friend Hesther Salomon that the boy has something special. In Act I, the audiences learn that Alan comes from a Christian mother Dora Strang and an atheist father Frank Strang who have argument in agreeing how to raise Alan. Alans mother tries to impose religion on Alan and does not avoid talking about sex as well. As he grows up and becomes a teenager, his mothers words become confusing for him. Alans obssesion with the horses is actually a typical result of his mothers words: Dora. I used to tell him a funny thing about falling off horses. Did you know that when Christian cavalry first appeared in the New World, the pagans thought horse and rider was one person? Dysart. Really? Alan. (sitting up, amazed) One person? Dora. Actually, they thought it must be a god. Alan. A god! Dora. It was only when one rider fell off, they realized the truth. Dysart. Thats fascinating. I never heard that before . . . Can you remember anything else like that you may have told him about horses. Dora. Well, not really. They are in the Bible of course. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha. Dysart. Ha, ha? (Equus 11) Dora has also let Alan watch some Western films without his fathers knowledge (Equus 12). She is the one in the play introducing the word equus stating that it is a Latin word for horse by which Alan is fascinated since he has not heard a word with two Us (Equus 12). As for Frank, he has never approved of his wife teaching Alan Bible since he is an atheist. For Frank, Alans psychology has been corrupted because of Doras teachings of Bible. Alan has been having nightmares in which he keeps saying Ek! . . . Ek! . . .Ek! (Equus 14). Dysart first tries psychotherapy to learn the reasons for Alans problems. However, those therapies consequently reveal some interesting clues about Dysarts own problems. Alan is a clever boy and he tries to work on Dysarts psychology in the way Dysart does: Dysart. Do you dream often? Alan. Yes, do you? Dysart. Yes. Do you have a special dream? Alan. No. Do you? Dysart. Yes. What was your dream about last night? Alan. Cant remember. Whats yours about? Dysart. I said the truth. Alan. Thats the truth. Whats yours about? The special one. Dysart. Carving up children. (Equus 14) Shapiro who analyzes the play technically, suggests for the relationship between Dysart and Alan: [T]he symbolic aspect is in the phrases Dysart uses to set the scene in motion. What they symbolize is Dysarts dishonesty, as Alans symbolic event also revealsAlan is playing a symbolic event with an iconic, truculent aspect, the object of which is the audiences recognition of Dysarts dishonesty In this case the audience knows from the Nurses previous indexical event that Dysart knew about Alans nightmares. Thus, they should recognize that Dysart began the interview with a lie. Consequently, the interview cannot proceed until Alan turns indexical. He will do this once Dysart becomes truthful. Hence, Alan suggests that they interview each other. (Shapiro 111) In the tenth scene of the first act, the audience is again introduced to a flashback. During this second therapy, Alan goes back to the time when he was six years old: Horseman. Whoa! . . . Whoa there! Whoa! . . Sorry! I didnt see you! . . . Did I scare you? Alan. No! Horseman. (looking down at him) Thats a terrific castle! Alan. Whats his name? Horseman. Trojan. You can stroke him, if you like. He wont mind. (Equus 19) In this scene Alans parents arrive and warn the horseman. His father takes him from the horsemans shoulders and they get angry with the horseman. Frank who is strictly against riding horses is sad to see Alan hurt, however Alan is glad to have ridden a horse. He explains his act saying I wanted to laugh! (Equus 20). It is here clear that Alan as a boy, demands to have joy; no matter how his parents think. It is the passion destroyed by his parents. What Dysart really wants to learn is the reason why Alan blinded the six horses in the stable. As a psychiatrist, Dysart wants to go into the deepest places of Alans psychology in order to give some meaning to this act of Alan. However, Alan neither explains why he blinded the horses nor tells something that can help Dysart find some reason behind it. He continues playing with the psychiatrist. In the eleventh scene we are told that Alan, when he was twelve, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ insisted on buying à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ {the picture of Christ loaded down with chains} with his pocket money, and hanging it at the foot of his bed where he could see it last thing at night (Equus 21). However, Frank, the atheist father tore and threw it away. Instead of the picture, he put a photograph of a horse which made Alan happy. In the fifteenth scene, Dysart has finally managed to have more clues about Alans situation. He has learnt from Frank about a girl in Alans life and decided to ask some questions about the stable. Alan takes the audience to the previous year when he first talked to Jill a middle-class girl in her early twenties. At this time, Alan is working in a shop and Jill has come to the shop in order to buy some blades for a clipping machine to clip horses (Equus 29). Jill is working in a stable owned by Harry Dalton. She suggests Alan ride horses however Alan is here hesitant since he knows his parents would be against it. He finally agrees to go to the stable and meet Dalton. As soon as he arrives the stable, Dalton tells him about the horses and teaches him how to ride a horse. Here we are introduced to Nugget, a horse which will soon have an important part in the play. When Alan is left alone with the horses in the stable, his passion returns. What Dysart wants to learn is whether Alan ha d a date with Jill; however Alan is again escapist in his answers and he instead tries to question Dysart about his own dates. It is in scene seventeen where the audiences come to realize the inner conflict of Dysart. Alan tries to catch Dysart from his weakest point. Dysart has never had any sexual relationship with any women in his life, including his wife. He is nervous when he is asked why he does not have any children and suddenly needs cigarettes. His soliloquy in this scene is a clear evidence about this psychiatrists psychology: What am I, then? . . . Wicked little bastard [Alan] knew exactly what questions to try. Hed actually marched himself round the hospital, making enquiries about my wife. Wicked and of course, perceptive. Ever since I made that crack about carving up children, hes been aware of me in an absolutely specific way. Of course, there is nothing novel in that. Advanced neurotics can be dazzling at that game. They aim unswervingly at your area of maximum vulnerability. . . Which I suppose is as good a way as any of describing Margaret. (Equus 32) The next scene reveals Dysarts problems with his wife Margaret. Dysart explains Hesther why they did not have any children. He blames Margaret for this. He states that Margaret sits beside [their] salmonpink, glazed brick fireplace, and knits things for orphans; for him, his wife is a domestic monster who is the Shrinks Shrink (Equus 34). While Dysart likes to read about Ancient Greece, Margaret hates such things. Their marriage is including two different persons, being very similar to Alans parents marriage. Shaffer prefers to give this marriage from one point of view that of the husband. We never meet the wife. Dysart is unhappy and uncomfortable in his marriage. He tells his friend, Hesther: Do you know what its like for two people to live in the same house as if they were in different parts of the world? Mentally, shes always in some drizzly kirk of her own inheriting: and Im in some Doric temple clouds tearing throuh pillars eagles bearing prophecies out of the sky. (Equus 34) In this scene Dysart seems to cure himself; it is his confrontation with his own confused psychology. He is obsessed with the concept of normal. According to Hesther, Dysart is trying to restore Alan to a normal life and Dysart is confused when he thinks about the meaning of normal and being a normal person. For Hesther, it is the smile in a childs eyes (Equus 35), and for Dysart, [i]t is also the dead stare in a million adults (Equus 36). Rosefeldt explains Dysarts psychology as follows: More than any other character, Dysart is aware that he is trapped in a chain of substitutions. Dysart longs to reach the passion of pagan worship. His wife reduces the sacred acrobats to absurred [50] freaks and equates the heroes of the Iliad with ruffians [50]. He cries out, Oh the primitive world. . . what instinctual truths were lost with it [50]. Alienated and alone, Dysart knows he has lost contact with these primitive truths and is hopelessly trying to regain them. For communicating with the gods, Dysart substitutes the vicarious experience of reading books on the cultural shelf [50]. Instead of reaching up to the gods, he brings home Kodachrome snaps of Mount Olympus [50]. The power of the gods rests in the Hellenic pantheonAlso, Dysart touches a reproduction statue of Dionysus [50}. The power and essence of the god is replaced by the physical presence of the god, which is replaced by the statue of the god, which is replaced by a reproduction of the statue. (Rosefeldt 92) Dysart, in order to learn more about Alan, now chooses hypnosis technique and Alans problems are revealed as follows: Dysart. Now, Alan, youre going to answer questions Im going to ask you. Do you understand? Alan. Yes. Dysart. Good. Now I want you to think back in time. You are on that beach you told me about. The tide has gone out, and youre making sandcastles. Above you, staring down at you, is that great horses head, and the cream dropping from it. Can you see that? Alan.Yes. Dysart.You ask him a question. Does the chain hurt? Alan.Yes. Dysart. Do you ask him aloud? Alan. No. Dysart. And what does the horse say back? Alan.Yes. Dysart.Then what do you say? Alan.Ill take it for you. Dysart. And he says? Alan.It never comes out. They have me in chains. Dysart.Like Jesus? Alan.Yes! Dysart.Only his name isnt Jesus, is it? Alan.No. Dysart.What is it? Alan.No one knows but him and me. Dysart.You can tell me, Alan. Name him. Alan. Equus. (Equus 37) Alan is now unconscious with the effect of hypnosis. In his imagination, the horse is chained like Jesus. Now it is clear that Alans imagination has been influenced by his mothers teachings of Bible as stated before by Frank. For Alan, Equus lives in all horses and is chained because of the sins of the world (Equus 38). When Alan goes back to the time he was twelve, looking at the picture of Equus, Dysart asks him questions about the stable. The stable is the temple of Equus where Alan washes and brushes him. Equus wants to be ridden by Alan but he does not show Alan how to ride him: He showed me nothing! Hes a mean bugger! Ride or fall! Thats Straw Law (Equus 39). Equus is no pagan idol; he is unmistakably the Judeo-Christian God, born in the straw [39] (stable of Bethlehem) and wearing the sandals [40] of Christ. As Christ suffered for mankind, Equus takes the punishment for Alans sake. The Ark of the Covenant symbolizing the contract between God and man becomes the Ark of the Manbit [41], which Alan holds in his mouth. The lump of sugar becomes Equus Last Supper [42]. Alan beckons Equus, Take my sins. Eat them for my sake [43]. Equus is Jesus, the Son of God, the Redeemer who takes away the sins of the world. Just as Christ launched his attack against the House of Mammon, Alan launches Equus against their mutual foes: The Hosts of Philco and The Hosts of Remington, the rulers of the shallow and materialistic world of substitutions. Equus is Alans redeemer, the Godslave [43]. (Rosefeldt 92) Alan rode Equus every three weeks in Daltons stable. He stole the stables keys and went there secretly to ride Equus. Dysart wants Alan to remember a scene in the stable: He throws out his arms and shows himself fully to his God, bowing himself before Nugget (Equus 41). Alan is pleased to touch Nugget but he is distressed when he remembers his eyes. He gives Nuggets sugar, the last supper before Ha ha. Here [Alan] whispers his Gods name ceremonially: Alan. Equus! . . . Equus! . . .Equus! (Equus 42), and he says: Stay, Equus. No-one said Go! . . . Thats it. Hes good. Equus the Godslave. Faithful and true(42). The Equus voice increases in volume Alan. (Shouting) WEE! . . . WAA! . . . WONDERFUL! . . . Im stiff! Stiff in the wind! My mane, stiff in the wind! My flanks! My hooves! Mane on my legs, on my flanks, like whips! Raw! Raw! Im raw! Raw! Feel me on you! On you! On you! I want to be in you! I want to BE you forever and ever! Equus, I love you! Now! Bear me away! Make us One person! He rides Equus frantically (Equus 44) The end of Act I is the climax, a strange combination of religion and sexuality. Equus is now the god that rules Alan. The word AMEN! ends Act I (Equus 44). In Act II, Frank is interestingly absent in the play. (That may be symbolic but we do not know why). Dora seems to realize her faults in rising Alan. She comes to see that it is not the child but the parent who is faulty. She sees Alan as a little victim who has done nothing at all (Equus 47). However in her speech to Dysart, she strangely puts the blame on Alan and blames Dysart for questioning her family as if they are guilty: Dora. (ignoring him; more and more urgently) Look, Doctor: you dont have to live with this. Alan is one patient to you: one out of many. Hes my son. I lie awake every night thinking about it. Neither of us sleeps all night. You come to us and say Who forbids television? Who does what behind whose back? as if we are criminals. Let me tell you something. Were not criminals. Weve done nothing wrong. We loved Alan. We gave him the best love we could. All right, we quarrel sometimes all pparents quarrel we always make it up. My husband is a good man. Hes an upright man, religion or no religion. He cares for his home, for the world, and for his boy. Alan had love and care and treats, and as much fun as any boy in the world. I know about loveless homes: I was a teacher. Our home wasnt loveless. I know about privacy, too not invading a childs privacy. All right, Frank may be at fault there he digs into him too much but nothing in excess. Hes not a bully . . . (Equus 47) This speech of Dora reveals both her and Franks faults although she typically insists that they have been good parents to Alan. Shaffer uses this technique for many characters in this play in order to be effective: The character is here revealing herself through her own words; that is to say Shaffer lets the character talk about herself in order to achieve objectivity. Dora, the religious mother lastly puts the blame on the Devil thinking that Devil came to Alan. She is portrayed as a typical irresponsible mother who is unaware of the process her son grows up: I only knew he was my little Alan, and then the Devil came (47). Both of the parents fail in dealing with their teenager son. It is a step of Alan for adolescence in which Alan is learning about life. Parents quarrelling is not something as trivial as Dora thinks. It really affects the child since he stays between two different versions of beliefs, two different truths those of the mother and of the father. Alans crisis has in fact begun when Jill Mason attempted to seduce him one night when Alans horse god, Equus was there in the stable. Alan blinds six horses with a metal spike (Equus 3) in the second act of the play and it is seen as a consequence of his guilt and shame. Although he does not want to remember anything about Jill, Dysart makes him tell about all at last. It is the most important flashback after the one about Equus. Dysart encourages Alan to remember it in order to get over it. Everything begins with Jills inviting Alan out. Although he has to go home, he accepts her offer and they go to the cinema. At the cinema, Alan tells Jill, there was no girl except for her. Soon, it is understood that the film is a pornographic one. Dysart asks him: Was that the first time youd seen a girl naked? and Alan says Yes! (Equus 58). Then suddenly, Alan realizes that his father is at the cinema, too. With the fear of being caught at such a film, he tries to hide himself. When he is caught, Frank shouts at Alan and the three leave the cinema. Outside, Alan tries to speak to his father: Alan. I I Ive never been there before. Honest . . . Never . . .(to Dysart) He didnt seem to hear. Jill tried. Jill. Its true, Mr.Strang. It wasnt Alans idea to go there. It was mine. (Equus 59) Alan. (to Dysart) The bus wouldnt come. We just stood and stood . . . Then suddenly he spoke. Frank. (stiffly) Id like you to know something. Both of you. I came here tonight to see the Manager. He asked me to call on him for business purposes. I happen to be a printer, Miss A picture house needs posters. Thats entirely why Im here. To discuss posters. While I was waiting I happened to glance in, thats allI had no idea they showed films like this. Im certainly going to refuse my services. Jill. (kindly) Yes, of course. Frank. So long as thats understood. (Equus 59) Interestingly enough, Frank explains why he himself is there instead of asking Alan why he is there. He has certainly come to the cinema for the same reason with Alan and Jill. Thus Alan and Frank are scared of each other. Frank leaves them and Alan stays with Jill. More importantly, Alan has been now introduced to the adult life with the film. He wants to make love with Jill. She takes Alan to the Stables because they cannot go to Alans or Jills house. Alan does not want to go to the Stables; he prefers a home. Alan. Why not your place? Jill. I cant. Mother doesnt like me bringing boys back. I told you . . . Anyway, the Barns better. Alan. No! Jill. All that straw. Its cosy. Alan. No! Jill. Why not? Alan. Them! Jill. Dalton will be in bed . . . Whats the matter? . . . Dont you want to? Alan. (aching to) Yes! Jill. So? Alan. (desperate) Them! . . . Them! . . . Jill. Who? Alan. (low) Horses. Jill. Horses? . . .Youre really dotty, arent you? . . . What do you mean? He starts shaking Oh youre freezing . . . Lets get under the straw. Youll be warm there. Alan. (pulling away) No! (Equus 62) Alan does not want to be seen by the horses since he thinks it would be a shameful act according to his religion. Although Jill shuts all the doors in order not to be seen by the horses, he is not comfortable. Alan cannot help but think of Equus and he sees Equus instead of Jill. Thus, his attempt to make love with Jill fails. Angrily, he shouts at Jill: Get out! (Equus 65). His psychology in this scene is horrible: Alan. (to Dysart) He was there. Through the door. The door was shut, but he was there! . . . Dysart. Laughing? Alan. (to Dysart) Mocking! . . .Mocking! . . . Standing downstage he stares up towards the tunnel. A great silence weighs on the square. (To the silence:terrified) Friend . . . Equus the Kind . . . The merciful! . . .Forgive me! . . . Silence. It wasnt me! Not really me. Me!. . . Forgive me! . . .Take me back again! Please! . . . PLEASE! (He kneels on the downstage lip of the square, still facing the door, huddling in fear) Ill never do it again. I swear . . . I swear! . . . Dysart. And He? What does He say? Alan. (to Dysart whispering) Mine! . . . Youre mine! . . . I am yours and you are mine! . . . (Equus 67) Equuss Nuggets eyes are rolling and Alan is sure that he has seen them make love. Eyes! . . . White eyes! . . . never close! Eyes like flames coming coming! . . .God seest! God seest! . . . NO! . . . (Equus 68). Alan stabs out Nugget and other five horses eyes. He yells in hysteria as he collapses on the ground (Equus 68). Dysart is about to finish his process of normalizing Alan. However he does not know whether he should be happy to have this patient cured. He calls it madness (Equus 68). In the end, Dysart appears to have cured him. {Equus is a] troubling play about a psychiatrists struggle to understand the passionately conceived but torturous personal mythology of Alan, a disturbed adolescent. If a psychologist of religion had gone after the young mans associations to G-o-d, he or she might have retrieved references to the pallid secondhand God of Alans parents, but would likely have missed Alans dramatic psychic creation of a personal diety he called Equus. Although it might be argued that this is the kind of exceptional case that falls more into the psychopathology of religion and is no basis for generalization, I am more and more struck by how distinctive and sometimes quite original are the spiritual formulations of individuals. (Mc Dargh 90) The play really includes the idea of passion versus reason. It is about a psychiatrist who thinks he can solve everything by reason and at the same time about an adolescent who is filled with passion but forced by his family to leave his passion. The battle of passion and reason in the case of Alan seems to end with the defeat of passion; however, Shaffer certainly prefers a combination of two. It is not only Alans but also becomes the inner conflict of Dysart. While the horses represent freedom and sexuality, Martin Dysart represents reason as a doctor. During the play, the two characters have difficult times. Dysart shows a change in his attitude towards passion. As for Alan, he is treated by the psychiatrist to become normal. Alan is caught up between his own creation of religion and what is expected by him. He has to feel himself acceptable (Equus 68) since reason rather than passion is what is accepted by society. Dysart lacks passion and is jealous of Alan (Equus 50); he is u ncomfortable in this process of normalizing. He gradually gets worried that he should not cure Alan because this would be the end of Alans passion, so he does not want to give an end to that passion which he lacks but desires. Dysart confesses to Hesther, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that boy has known a passion more ferocious than I have ever felt in any second of my life. And let me tell you something: I envy it (Equus 50). Dysart is thus obsessed with passion saying Passion, you see, can be destroyed by a doctor. It cannot be created (Equus 69). It is a disturbing play in which Shaffer makes use of sound effects to make it psychologically effective. The horses are performed by actors who wear horse masks. As for the scene props, Shaffer makes use of light in order to emphasize his themes (Innes 228). Light is used in the play as an indication of Alans psychology. There are dream sequences, and a scenic structure that cuts across the logic of time as well as cause and effect following the irrational associations of the subconscious, plus ritual chanting, stylized masks and mythic archetypes (Innes 228). Shaffer ignores the three unities of Aristotle; there are scenes belonging to different places and different times; and there is no unity of action. However, Shaffer directly connects the past action of the play to the plot of present events; and the scenery connects more with the psychological life of the character than to the surface plot. As for the setting, it changes from scene to scene it is both internal and external; even in a single scene being both internal and external. It begins when Alan is seventeen years old and goes back to the previous years. The point of view is also variable; Shaffer lets the audience see the things from each characters point of view and Shaffer uses the omniscient narrator in order to emphasize each point of view. The play is about an adolescent who has deep complicated conflicts in his relationships with his parents and his first flirt Jill. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ {The play is not only} an extremely useful source book for an understanding of madness and family processes, it is also an affirmation of the dramatherapists long-held credo: that art can tell us things that science cannot (Davis xiii). Shaffer is successful at portraying the psychology of characters and Equus is a good work of drama in which the themes of passion, reason and worship and the idea of normal and abnormal are linked by Shaffer in order to make his audience question their beliefs and society.

Legalizing Euthanasia for Terminally Ill Patients is Neccesary Essay e

On average, 151, 600 people die per day (Ross). Countless people live in fear of death, due to the massive uncertainties. They fear the pain and suffering that often precedes death, so they do everything they can to stay alive, even if it means staying connected to life support for months, completely immobile and unresponsive. Because medical technology has advanced substantially in recent years, scientists have created ways to achieve an easy and simple death, now known as euthanasia. In Greek, euthanasia translates to â€Å"easy or painless death† (Barnard). However, in modern times the question of legalizing euthanasia has become majorly controversial. Legalizing euthanasia for terminally ill patients is necessary because it will allow patients to die with dignity, it will prevent patients from having to live a low quality life full of suffering, and it will allow patients to have a choice of life or death rather than be required to by the government. Many people say that euthanasia is wrong because it is murder. However, when patients are terminally ill, they are no longer truly living. Terminal illness is defined as being hopelessly ill with no chance of recovery (Jussim). Legalizing euthanasia will allow terminally ill patients the option to die with dignity. According to the Savannah Morning News, â€Å"There is something to be said for dying with dignity. And ‘heroic measures’ that prolong a person’s physical existence when there is no meaningful hope for recovery can rob patients of that dignity† (Murphy). Many family members want to keep their family member alive for as long as possible, but in the case of terminal illnesses, they are simply prolonging something that is inevitable. Contrary to what many people believe about death... ...e calm after a storm. Death is only the beginning. Works Cited Barnard, Christiaan. Good Life, Good Death: A Doctor’s Case for Euthanasia and Suicide. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc, 1980. Print. Bonin, Angela. â€Å"Human Euthanasia, The Debate: The Arguments for Both Sides.† Examiner.com. Examiner.com. 20 Feb 2012. Web. 27 April 2014. Jussim, Daniel. Euthanasia: The â€Å"Right to Die Issue.† Hillside: Enslow Publishers Inc, 1993. Print. Murphy, Mark. â€Å"There’s Something to be Said for Dying With Dignity.† SavannahNow.Com. Savannah Morning News. 2 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 April 2014. Paris, John J. Euthanasia. San Diego: Greenhaven Press Inc, 2002. Print. Ross, Stephen. â€Å"Worldwide Missions.† Wholesome Worlds. Wholesome Worlds. n.d. Web. 20 April 2014. Tyson, Peter. â€Å"The Hippocratic Oath Today.† Nova beta. Nova. 27 March 2001. Web. 20 April 2014.

The Impression of Life on the Western Front in the Blackadder Goes Fort

To what extent does the 'Blackadder Goes Forth' series give an accurate impression of life on the western front? In this essay I will be writing about life on the western front and the trenches in The First World War and how accurately the 'Blackadder Goes Forth' series portrays it. The First World War started on 4th August 1914 because the Archduke of Austro-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand got shot by a Bosnian named Gavrillo Princip. Austro-Hungary declared war on Bosnia and all the allies got involved and it turned into a huge World War which lasted longer than expected. The war then finished in 1918. Blackadder goes Forth was written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton in 1989. Both of them have historical backgrounds. Blackadder is a BBC comedy series set in the trenches of the Western Front in The First World War. It starred Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Laurie, Tony Robinson and Stephen Fry. It was filmed in a studio in front of an audience. It was intended for an adult-thinking audience. It was made to entertain and also give the audience some historical knowledge about the trenches. I will be evaluating the last episode ?Goodbyeee? to see how it compares to real life on the western front. On the western front the soldiers had to build trenches to provide defence for the army and hold their position to show their opponents they weren?t going anywhere. The trenches were built in a crocked line next to each other because if the line was straight and a shell landed on it the explosion would kill and injure much more people then if it was straight. They had barbed wire and Sandbags at the top of trench to protect them from enemies coming in and attacking them. The trench had many layers and at the bottom there were dug outs were the sold... ...ries. There was lots of useful information to a historian about recruitment, the tactics and if they were changed the casualty rate could have decreased, and that there was a huge presence of death in the trenches. There was also some information about the weather and the trenches but it didn?t seem too wet and cold in the dug outs, which it would have been because of the awful weather at that time. Some things were imprecise about the trenches like there wouldn?t have been a sink, the dug out was too big and it looked too warm in there. The inaccuracy is because of the filming conditions and they wouldn?t have been able to fit a camera crew and the actors into a smaller dug out and they couldn?t have made it too wet as they were filming in a studio. I would still rely on the episode ?goodbyeee? to tell me what life was like in the trenches and on the western front.

Customer Types

Customer Types Tanya Myers HTT 200 March 22nd, 2013 Karen Stevens Customer Types According to the AH&LA website the typical lodging customer in 2011 stayed 40 % for business and 60 % for leisure. The typical lodging customer in a business room is a male, age 35 to 54 years old. The typical lodging customer is employed in a professional or managerial position with an average annual income of $119,388. They usually stay by themselves, make reservations ahead of time and pay $129. 00 per night for the room. 0% of the business travelers spend one night, 22% spend 2 nights and 38% spend 3 or more nights in a hotel. The typical lodging customer in a leisure room is usually 2 adults ages 35 to 54, with an average annual income of $89,736. They usually are auto travelers and also make their reservation ahead of time; they pay $109. 00 per night for the room. 47% of the leisure travelers spend 1 night, 27 % spend 2 nights and 26% spend 3 or more nights in a hotel (The American Hotel and Lodgi ng Association, 2013). 3 different lodging types would be Executive Conference Centers, Health Spa’s and Resorts.I feel that business travelers would stay the most in the Executive Conference Centers; this is because they offer both small meeting rooms and classrooms. Meals and recreation facility use are often included in the room rate this would be very convenient for a business traveler to have everything they need handy under one roof. The traveler looking for relaxation, stress management, or to pamper themselves would love to visit a health spa. The health spa often includes mineral baths, fitness facilities and massage therapists. The baby boomers are usually the one’s that love to go to this type of lodging.When I picture a resort I think of destination type lodging such as Mexico, Hawaii and the Caribbean. The type of traveler that would go to these would be one looking for tons of amenities, including lots of food with fine dining. Some cities are desirable f or year round resort visitation such as Orlando and Las Vegas. I think that any type of lodging depends on the person and what suits them, they have to make sure they amenities are good before they travel and that they prepare ahead of time. Sources The American Hotel and Lodging Association. (2013). Retrieved from ahla: http://www. ahla. com