Blog 15: Reflection

Interestingly enough, I feel like I might have digressed. In September, I was so eager to learn new things. I mean, I’m sure everyone was. But as the weeks went by, I was becoming over it. I became less motivated to do anything, whereas in the beginning of the semester I was eager and willing to do my work. This happens all the time though, so it’s not something I’m surprised at. I’m just not as enthusiastic as I was in September. I’m sure this cycle will repeat when the spring semester kicks in. There is, however, one thing (school-wise) that has changed for the better. My interest in film and cinematography has increased immensely. I’m seriously considering going into this career field. I still have a lot to learn but now I finally know for sure what I want to study. I was so iffy this semester about what I wanted my major to be. Up until last month, I wanted to change my major to photography, but my American Film class has grown on me and is so intriguing now so I’m going to just stick to media studies. The American Film class changed my ways of looking at films. It’s so much deeper than the storyline or plot. All the cinematography stands out to me now. I wish I was more aware of this when I saw Inception.

Outside of academics, I don’t think I’ve changed much. My social skills still suck. I’m still the reserved type I was back in September. That’s actually something that I wish would’ve changed. It’s not that I’m shy, I just don’t really talk to anyone unless I’m spoken to first. In my mind, that’s a problem and should be fixed.

I have been watching a lot of documentaries lately. One in particular, Very Young Girls, made me realize how good I have it. I’ve been a lot more appreciative and grateful of what I have. Don’t get me wrong, I’m always grateful but you know, sometimes you just need a reminder cause it’s easy to forget.

I would get a little deeper and personal on this blog but I’m not one to share personal feelings with anyone, so that’s all for now.

English 103 Research Paper

Jasmine Hurtado
Dr. Vasileiou
ENG103


Realities of West Side Story

West Side Story, a film set in the late 1950s in New York City, is a modern twist on Romeo and Juliet. It is a love story between a caucasian male and a Puerto Rican immigrant. Maintaining a relationship was difficult because of their differences and the people around them. Violence and gang activities were also a main aspect of the film. Tony, one of the Jets, falls in love with Maria who is Bernardo's sister, the leader of the Sharks. Many problems arise because of the gang rivalries. Unfortunately, there were three deaths in the film. Riff, the leader of the Jets, and Bernardo are killed in a rumble. The film does not end on a positive note. Tony is shot and killed by one of the Sharks. Most of the film was filmed in Los Angeles so exterior scenes weren’t true to New York City. The opening sequence, however, was shot in Lincoln Center, New York.


The film’s portrayal of New York City was very similar to how it actually was. In the 1950s, tons of Puerto Ricans migrated to New York City, which was known as The Great Migration, not to be confused with the African American Great Migration that took place in the early 1900's. This actually happened to be the third wave of this migration, but by far the largest. By 1953, Puerto Rican migration to New York reached it's peak when 75,000 people left the island. Estimates are that more than one million Puerto Ricans migrated during the 1950s. The main areas in New York City that Puerto Ricans fled to were The Bronx, Brooklyn and East Harlem, which would later be known as Spanish Harlem for obvious reasons. By 1964, the Puerto Rican community made up 9.3 percent of the total New York City population. The New York Puerto Ricans, or "Nuyoricans", would borrow words from the english language and make it into "spanglish". ("Latino Education Network Service") In other words, english words were spoken with spanish pronunciations. It is a very improper way to speak but it showed their adaptation to a new country. The Puerto Rican characters in West Side Story seemed to know good english and their accents weren’t too strong. It makes sense to not give them such a strong accent because it is a movie where audiences need to understand what they were saying but there wasn’t a hint of "spanglish" in the film. (Perez y Gonzalez, and 118-19)


In West Side Story, the Puerto Ricans were not treated with respect, but instead like pieces of dirt, even by authorities. One of the officers, in reference to the Puerto Ricans, said, "Boy, oh boy. As if this neighborhood wasn't crummy enough." Just like the film, they weren't treated respectfully when they arrived to New York City. There were signs on restaurant doors that read, “No dogs or Puerto Ricans allowed”. It was tough because "...although they were U.S. citizens, Puerto Ricans were seen as immigrants who wanted what rightfully belonged to white Americans----jobs, an education, housing and the American dream. This subjected Puerto Ricans to ostracism, prejudice, discrimination, and violence." (Perez y Gonzalez, and 118-19) It was a rather unfortunate situation. If you didn’t know any better, you would think Puerto Ricans were some type of aliens from outer space.


The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party was founded on September 17, 1922. The reason for starting this party was to gain independence. By 1950, there was an office located in New York City. On November 1st, 1950, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, two Puerto Rican nationalists, attempted to assassinate President Truman. They believed this would help Puerto Rico gain its independence quicker. ("Harry S. Truman Library and Museum")
In the 1950s, it was normal to have rumbles between rival gangs. The way these rumbles were set up was like the film. They would go to neutral locations or “turf” and the War Cousellor’s of each gang would set a time and place. ("West Side Story") In West Side Story, it was Doc's Candy Store. (Kendall) It all seems very accurate in the film, however, what they failed to show were African Americans. They received discrimination too and resided in the same cities as the Puerto Ricans but that wasn't shown in the film at all. (Greene, and Pranis 15-16) The only types of people the film showed were whites and Puerto Ricans, which isn't realistic.


The rent for apartments in the 1950s was about $293. By the 1960s it raised almost a full hundred dollars to $365. In 1957, the cost of living is as follows:


("Cost of Living in 1957")

The Puerto Rican characters in West Side Story were employed, so it wasn’t unrealistic for them to be able to survive without worrying about not having money to eat or live. They lived in slums. (United Nations Human Settlements Programme 71)
The film addressed an issue that was very true to what really happened in the 1950s. The Puerto Ricans were discussing Tony, the man who Maria fell in love with, and they said he had a job as a delivery boy. However, Chino, one of the Puerto Ricans, had a job as a delivery boy but he was paid only half of what Tony made, simply because one is an American and the other is considered an immigrant. From 1954 to 1965 the mayor of New York City was Robert F. Wagner. He welcomed any Puerto Rican to work. There were many cheap jobs for them to work. ("Latino Education Network Service")


West Side Story’s portrayal of New York seemed very accurate. There wasn’t anything in the movie that made you question if what happened was truly possible. Although some parts, like showing African Americans, were completely absent, it was still a realistic representation of New York City life in the 1950s.





Works Cited

"Cost of Living in 1957." Heartbeat's One and Two - 50's and 60's. Web. 2 Dec 2010. .

"Culture 60's." West Side Story. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov 2010. .

"FAQ: Assassination Attempt on President Truman's Life." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec 2010. .

Greene, Judith, and Kevin Pranis. "Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies." Justice Policy Institute Report (2007): 15-16. Web. 30 Nov 2010. .

"History." Latino Education Network Service. LATINO/A EDUCATION NETWORK SERVICE, n.d. Web. 27 Nov 2010. .

Kendall, Paul. "50 years of West Side Story: the real Gangs of New York." Telegraph (2008): n. pag. Web. 30 Nov 2010. .

Perez y Gonzalez, Maria. Puerto Ricans in the United States . Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., 2000. 118-19. Print.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme, First. The challenge of slums: global report on human settlements. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications, 2003. 71. Print.

Blog 12: Outline of Major Research Essay

I. Introduction

A. Plot


II. Social Realities

A. The Great Migration (1950’s)
B. Adapting to the English language
C. How Puerto Ricans were treated
D. Labor

Blog 14: Draft of ENG 103 Paper

West Side Story, a film set in the late 1950's in New York City is a twist on Romeo and Juliet. It a love story between a caucasian male and a Puerto Rican immigrant. Maintaining a relationship was difficult because of their differences and the people around them. Violence and gang activities were also a main aspect of the film. Tony, one of the Jets, falls in love with Maria who is Bernardo's sister, the leader of the Sharks. Many problems arise because of the gang rivalries. Unfortunately, there were three deaths in the film. Riff, the leader of the Jets, and Bernardo are killed in a rumble. The film does not end on a positive note. Tony is shot and killed by one of the Sharks.

The way New York City was portrayed was very similar to how it actually was. In the 1950s, tons of Puerto Ricans migrated to New York City, which was known as The Great Migration, not to be confused with the African American Great Migration that took place in the early 1900's. This was actually the third wave of this migration, but by far the largest. By 1953, Puerto Rican migration to New York reached it's peak when 75,000 people left the island. Estimates are that more than one million Puerto Ricans migrated during the 1950's. The main areas in New York City that Puerto Ricans fled to were The Bronx, Brooklyn and East Harlem, which would later be known as Spanish Harlem for obvious reasons. By 1964, the Puerto Rican community made up 9.3 percent of the total New York City population. The New York Puerto Ricans, or "Nuyoricans", would borrow words from the english language and speak "spanglish". ("Latino Education Network Service")In other words, they would say english words with spanish pronounciations. It is a very improper way to speak but it showed their adaptation to a new country. In the film, the Puerto Rican characters seem to know good english and their accents aren't too strong. It makes sense to not give them such a strong accent because it is a movie and audiences need to understand what they're saying but the characters didn't even speak "spanglish". (Perez y Gonzalez, and 118-19)

In West Side Story, the Puerto Ricans were not treated with respect. They were treated like a piece of dirt, even by authorities. One of the officers in the film said "Boy, oh boy. As if this neighborhood wasn't crummy enough." He said that in reference to the Puerto Ricans. Just like the film, Puerto Ricans weren't treated respectfully when they arrived to New York City. "...although they were U.S. citizens, Puerto Ricans were seen as immigrants who wanted what rightfully belonged to white Americans----jobs, an education, housing and the American dream. This subjected Puerto Ricans to ostracism, prejudice, discrimination, and violence." In the 50's, it was normal to have rumbles between rival gangs just like West Side Story. They would fight over girls, much like what happened in the film. The way these rumbles were set up was also like the film. They would go to neutral locations and set a time and place. In West Side Story, it was Doc's Candy Store.(Kendall)The makers of West Side Story made sure to include this. However, what they failed to show was African Americans. They received discrimination just like Puerto Ricans but that wasn't shown in the film at all. They only types of people the film showed were whites and Puerto Ricans, which isn't realistic.

The film addressed an issue that was very true to what really happened in the 50's. The Puerto Ricans were discussing Tony, the man who Maria fell in love with and they said he had a job as a delivery boy. However, Chino, one of the Puerto Ricans, had a job as a delivery boy but he was paid only half of what Tony made, simply because one is an American and the other is considered an immigrant.

Blog 13: Minority Report Response

If someone were to tell you that there was a system ran by the government that stopped murders before they happened, you would probably think it was a good idea. What could possibly go wrong? Those "murderers" would be locked away and unable to harm anyone. However, there are problems that arise with this solution. Is it ethical to lock someone up for a crime they haven't committed yet? The major part in the question is the word "yet". This is a debate that is potentially never ending. Like one of the characters in the movies stated, "just because i stopped it from happening, doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen." I found that statement to be very profound. I completely understand this perspective and agree with it. Obviously, it is impossible to be able to see the future and pick out potential murders but there are people who have thought about committing crimes who have been taken away or accused of eventually doing it. For example, the man who was suspected of attempting to bomb Times Square this summer was found and taken into custody by authorities. Apparently, in Minority Report, the crimes were definitely going to happen because of the precogs and the characters' ability to see the future. With the example I made about the alleged terrorist, the crime wasn't definite because we can't see the future. Whether we can see the future or not, I don't find these things to be wrong. There are pros and cons to everything and I rather be safe than sorry.

Special Project: MOMI Activity

The layout of the museum was set up in a way so that you can go through it and see the history of moving image in chronological order. It’s a smart idea because then you can see the progress and all the innovations that were made. I didn’t really have a reaction because I was already expecting the layout to be the way it was. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It only makes sense. Even though we learned some of the things that were shown to us, I still learned a lot. The fact that some parts of the museum was hands on made it even better. We got to see the very primitive stage of moving image with the optical illusions such as the bird in the cage. Also, the section where I think 3D was kind of explained was so interesting and it was hard to look away because it was so appealing to the eye. When she showed us the first or one of the first video games, Pong, it was crazy to me that people enjoyed playing that back in the day. One of the most fascinating parts of the museum was when the soundtrack of movies was explained to us and we got to see Titanic as an example. I don't really know what story is being told. I just know it just showed how moving image evolved.

Blog 11: Media Research Paper

Alfred Hitchcock

Films are an important part to mass media. They are used for various different purposes such as entertainment and education. It is also an art form that has been developed over the years. Alfred Hitchcock is a major influence to film and is looked as one of the greatest directors of all time.

Hitchcock was born on August 13, 1899 in London, England. In 1924, Hitchcock received the opportunity to go to Germany by Michael Balcon as an apprentice and contribute to other directors' films. "It was here that he fell under the spell of German expressionism, whilst working as art director on F.W. Murnau’s Der Ietzte Mann" ("filmsdefrance.com") and it was evident in all of his films. Being inspired by other filmmakers and their techniques such as "Eisenstein and his theories on montage" ("filmsdefrance.com") and how to use the camera in a subjective way, he decided to begin creating his own films. His first few attempts were a failure. But by 1926, he got the gist of things and his first successful film was created.

"Alfred Hitchcock was one of only a handful of directors able to make a the successful transition from the silent era of cinema." (Collinson) He had a successful career in the UK as a director with films such as The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, Blackmail and The 39 Steps. By the time Hitchcock moved to Hollywood in 1940, he already had an incredible repertoire of work under his belt. Hitchcock made his first American movie in 1940 entitled Rebecca. "With that film, Hitchcock's Hollywood career took off." (Lewis 259) To no surprise, it won Best Picture at the 1940 Academy Awards. He proceeded to make popular films for years.

Hitchcock liked to be challenged technically. He had a great understanding and knowledge of moviemaking and even wrote the production section for the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Flint, B.) He liked to test his boundaries and from that came his technical innovations to cinematography. He was praised by Francois Truffaunt, a leading director of France's New Wave. He said that "Hitchcock is almost unique in being able to film directly, that is, without resorting to explanatory dialogue, such intimate emotions as suspicion, jealousy, desire and envy." This statement may have seemed great but detractors thought Hitchcock's films lacked substance and significance. They actually hit the needle on the head. Hitchcock didn't care as much about the plot as he did about the technical aspects of his films. The story didn't matter to him. He actually preferred less complicated dialogue. "If your story is confusing or requires a lot of memorization, you're never going to get suspense out of it." (Bays) It wasn't about what was happening. It was more so about how can he visually get what is happening across to others on film. A famous quote from Hitchcock was "..what is drama, after all, but life with the dull bits cut out..." The dull bits referred to anything unnecessary and irrelevant. He wanted to "create an experience for the spectator. Often, the least important element in a Hitchcock film is the plot." ("filmsdefrance.com")

One of the first notable techniques Hitchcock used was a concept called "Macguffin". He didn't create it or name it. He gave the credit to one of his screenwriters, Angus McPhail. However, he popularized it. It was introduced in his 1935 film The 39 Steps. The Macguffin was a "device around which the plot revolves but which is not actually central to the film." ("filmsdefrance.com") It was a "plot contrivance that really didn't matter." (Hitchcocked!). "It's an object to keep the story going." (Hitchcocked!) It's what drives the plot but isn't made out to be a big deal. It can also be referred to as bait because it metaphorically reels the spectator in. "The McGuffin is essentially something that the entire story is built around and yet has no real relevance." ("Essortment")

In 1948, Hitchcock's first film in color, Rope, was released. It seemed to have almost no cuts and be a smooth, long running film. However, that is not the case. There is a total number of ten cuts. Hitchcock challenged himself to making a film that was on-going with almost no cuts or elapsed time. It is a difficult task to do without it being play-like. The main reason why a film couldn't be done in one take was because 10 minutes was the maximum length of a reel at the time. ("Enlightenment - The Experience Festival "

"I undertook 'Rope' as as stunt; that's the only way I can describe it. I really don't know how I came to indulge in it. The stage drama was played out in the actual time of the story; the action is continuous from the moment the curtain goes up until it comes down again. I asked myself whether it was technically possible to film it in the same way. As an experiment, Rope may be forgiven. [sic]"
--Alfred Hitchcock ("Hitchcock and Me")


This technique was very innovative and has been used to "hide" edits. Steven Soderbergh's film Erin Brockovich used this technique at a point in the movie thanks to Alfred Hitchcock. Another reason why Rope is praised for its innovations is because it was shot on a single set. (aside from the opening scene.)

In 1958, Hitchcock released a film called Vertigo. The dolly zoom effect which was first developed by Irmin Roberts, was used by Hitchcock in this film and was popularized. It was innovative in the sense that it represented a "falling-away-from-oneself feeling". Because Hitchcock used this technique in Vertigo (and later on in Marnie), other filmmakers began using it. An example of a more current film that has used this technique is in The Lion King when Simba realizes there is a stampede coming and the camera zooms in on him but the background pulls away dramatically. ("Television Tropes & Idioms")

Hitchcock didn't like his films to be predictable. That is what caused suspense. According the documentary, The Men Who Made The Movies: Alfred Hitchcock, he wanted the viewer to have some sort of background information. He gave the example of a bomb unexpectedly going off after a five minute dialogue about baseball. He said the audience would be shocked for ten seconds. Then he changed the scenario and said showing the audience the bomb under the table earlier in the scene with a five minute stamp will make their reaction different. Instead of being shocked after the dialogue, he wants the anticipation of the bomb going off to be high. That's the difference between something being suspenseful and something being surprising. He wants the audience to wish they could help whoever is having the dialogue and talk to the screen as if the characters could hear them. "But, one important factor; if you work the audience up to this degree, that bomb must never go off and kill anyone. Otherwise, they will be extremely angry with you."(documentary) It gives the audience an experience. “He would show the audience thing that the main character may not be aware of. Since you already feel for the characters, you're thinking 'Guy! Dude! Look!'” (Hitchcocked!)

How many times have films had villains where they were sinister, dark and easy to hate? Those traits are way too common and are repetitive. Hitchcock liked to make the villains in his films likable. He "suggested that in our times, evil can intrude anywhere...wearing any mask." (The Men Who Made the Movies: Alfred Hitchcock) He doesn't like to portray the villain as it would be portrayed fictionally. They shouldn't be scary. They should be charming and attractive. That played a large part in why Hitchcock's films were so suspenseful. He says that "evil and good are getting closer together today. That the hero is no longer tall with a perfect profile...and the villain doesn't kick the dog anymore. He is a charmer." (The Men Who Made the Movies: Alfred Hitchcock)

Hitchcock liked the revisit themes in his films and one of those themes voyeurism. "Hitchcock found really interesting ways to represent the pleasure of watching other people." (Hitchcocked!) There was a lot of spying going on in his films. "There's a titillation factor in observing and watching what other people are doing and knowing something that they don't know you know." (Hitchcocked!) This statement makes so much sense and is very true. Hitchcock wasn't just pulling things out of the sky. He knew that society was actually like this. People liked to know things without others knowing they know. He just made it so that this concept would come off very creepy. He made an entire film based off this idea. "Rear Window essentially is a film about voyeurism."(Hitchcocked!)

Hitchcocked!, a documentary on Alfred Hitchcock was released in 2006. Many modern day directors praised his work and share how his work influenced them. They gave their insight on Hitchcock's film techniques and concepts. Keith Gordon stated "I can't think of a director who's had more influence on modern filmmaking than Hitchcock. When you see a horror or suspense film now, it's almost impossible that it hasn't been influence by Hitchcock." That is an extremely bold statement. Coming from a successful modern day horror film director, this statement holds a lot of value. "If I had to pick one filmmaker that has probably informed most of my filmmaking, it would probably be Alfred Hitchcock." This was said by Victor Salva. It's amazing to see other filmmakers and directors not be afraid to give credit and say who they were inspired by. To have a documentary about Alfred Hitchcock with other accomplished directors commentating shows how relevant he was to filmmaking. Ernest Dickerson did the most and stated that Hitchcock defined modern film grammar.

Other than films, Hitchcock dove into the medium of television. He was one of the first film directors to make use of television when it first became popular. Hitchcock was the host and producer of a television series entitled Alfred Hitchcock Presents which lasted 10 years; from 1955 to 1965. ("TV.com") It featured dramas, thrillers and mysteries. He also appeared in a book series called Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators until his death.

“Alfred Hitchcock is one of the most popular directors of all time because of his ability to keep the pace and suspense through an entire movie” ("United States History") When making films, Hitchcock always had the viewer in mind. He tried to find ways to engage the audience in a not so obvious way. He made the audience feel emotionally connected to the characters because of his film techniques. He wasn't just an ordinary filmmaker; he was a visionary and is responsible for being an innovator and pioneer in suspense and psychological drama. He isn’t known as the “master of suspense” for nothing. “He was an entertainer in a popular medium who was also expressing himself. The fact that he had dark things to express made his work all the more interesting and all the more unique.” (Hitchcocked!) His innovative techniques and concepts are still being used to this day.




Works Cited
"Alfred Hitchcock ." filmsdefrance.com. N.p., 2009. Web. 28 Oct 2010.

Bays , Jeff. "How to turn your boring movie into a Hitchcock thriller... ." Leading With Personality. N.p., Dec 2007. Web. 28 Oct 2010. .

Collinson, Gary. "Silent Master: The Early Films of Alfred Hitchcock." Flickering Myth. 08 Feb 2010. Web. 28 Oct 2010. .

"Rope film - Innovations: Encyclopedia II - Rope film - Innovations." Enlightenment - The Experience Festival . N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct 2010. .

"Alfred Hitchcock film techniques." Essortment. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct 2010. .

Flint, B., Peter. "Alfred Hitchcock Dies; A Master of Suspense." The New York Times on the Web. The New York Times Company, 30 Apr 1980. Web. 28 Oct 2010. .

"Alfred Hitchcock’s Technical Wonder, “Rope”." Hitchcock and Me. N.p., 30 Sep 2010. Web. 30 Oct 2010. .

Hitchcocked!. Dir. Jeffrey Schwarz." Automat Pictures: 2006, Film.

Lewis, Jon. American Film A History Film. Ed. Peter Simon. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. Print.

The Men Who Made the Movies: Alfred Hitchcock. Dir. Richard Schickel." The American Cinematheque: 1973, Film.

"Alfred Hitchcock Presents." TV.com. CBS, n.d. Web. 29 Oct 2010. .

"Alfred Hitchcock." United States History. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct 2010. .


"Vertigo Effect." Television Tropes & Idioms. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct 2010. .

Blog 10: Gattaca response

“The new ideal human, the genetically engineered ‘superior’ human, will almost certainly come to represent ‘the other.’ If history is a guide, either the normal humans will view the ‘better’ humans as the other and seek to control or destroy them, or vice versa” (236).

I fully agree with this hypothesis. The normal humans were on this planet first. Therefore, there's no reason to not think the new genetically engineered human is the "other" because I sure would. I feel that the normal humans would try to eliminate the "better" humans because we aren't accustomed to the new humans. The "other" represents someone that is different. We don't want anything foreign.

I also think the normal humans would try to eliminate the new ones because of competition. There's always someone better than us but it feels like it would be cheating if humans were "made" to be better. It isn't natural. Coinciding with genetically engineered humans doesn't seem fair.

In Gattaca, the "other" humans were the opposite of what I think. The "other" were the invalids which are the normal humans. It's not fair that invalids weren't allowed to have good jobs or allowed to be combined with the valids. Even the name "invalid" is crazy to me. How do you call original humans invalid? That's pretty absurd if you ask me. I like to refer the "valids" as fake humans. The "invalids" should've tried to take out the genetically engineered humans.

Blog 9: Essay 2 (Hero)

Don't Believe the Hype


Hero was more than just a story about Bernie Laplante and John Bubber's heroic acts. The way the media was portrayed made me do a lot of thinking. I already knew that trusting the media was wrong but the movie illustrated how naive people can be. It shows different perspectives of how people take in what the media says.


The everyday people who watch the news, listen to the radio and read the newspaper were naive and it was easy to see that they believe everything they hear or read. When the reporter was interviewing people to get their reactions on whoever the hero was, everything seemed to be exaggerated. He was even considered to be the "Angel of Flight 104." The little kid who thought his father was still in the plane even said that the hero gladly went to rescue his dad. This is a great example of how people will eat anything they hear up. Laplante definitely didn't say "Sure, I'll save your father", like the kid made it seem. In actuality, Laplante went in the plane very bitterly. However, because of the interviews and what the kid said, it made the "unknown" hero likable.


The media had people sucking up to Bubber. They would do anything for him. Gail even tried to kiss him when they were in the elevator alone. When the reenactment of the plane crash was being filmed, someone even said to Bubber, "every moment of life I owe to you" , and then kissed him on the cheek. I think that's going way overboard. He was being treated like a god. He didn't deserve any of that attention. The media treated the situation like it was the second coming of Jesus. It's very honorable that someone saved people's lives but there are boundaries and I feel as if the sucking up to Bubber crossed those boundaries.


Bubber isn't a complete scum bag for lying. He inspired a child to wake up from a coma. He also saved Laplante from almost falling off the ledge of a building. The media made sure everyone knew that. Although, these things actually happened, that was the only heroic or inspiring act Bubber had done. This didn't add to saving people from the burning plane because that never did happen. But, because no one knew that, the media portrayed Bubber as almost supernatural.


When Bubber was about to commit suicide, people and news reporters were gathered all around. They had no idea why he wanted to kill himself. According the media, Bubber's life was perfect. He had all the money and fame, so this confused people. They hadn't known he was lying and feeling guilty. Again, this shows people had no knowledge of what the real situation was because of how the media manipulated it.


Someone who did know exactly what was going on was Laplante. Multiple times in the movie, he referred to the media as "bullshit". When he was talking to Gail, the reporter, he said "you can't believe one word you see on tv, not one word." I'm sure he knew that before the plane crash ever happened, but now that he was in this predicament and was the only one who knew the truth, that statement was coming from a place of experience.


Laplante said it best; the media is bullshit. Hero can definitely teach others a lesson about not believing everything they hear or see in the media. Nothing is really as it seems.

Blog 8: The Concept of the Other

a) give a description of your "other."
In my opinion, there's no such thing as normal. Everyone is different. Therefore, it's hard for me to choose what I consider to be the "other." If there was a gun at my head and I had to choose the "other", it would have to mentally challenged people. The reason being is that I cannot identify with them. That doesn't mean I want them to be eliminated from this planet.


b) explain what it is about it that makes you feel such opposition to it
I feel that I can't relate to them in the way they get treated because of their disability. I couldn't imagine going through the problems they go through. It's hard live in our society and be seen as a normal person when you are mentally disabled. It's an unfortunate thing that people think this way.


c) discuss what has happened or would happen in situations where you have to interact with someone who belongs to "the other" as you define it. You should make sure that you do not write something offensive to members of that group, but at the same time if you keep good manners you should express your ideas openly.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem interacting with someone I consider "the other." However, it might be hard communicating and understanding what they're trying to say to me. I don't think I've ever interacted with someone who was mentally disabled. I would like to experience it and see how I would handle it.




FOLLOW-UP

I know I have been seen as "the other" by my parents because of the music I listen to. I listen to all types of music but the main one is hip hop. It's not the same "hip hop" that you hear on the radio. I don't listen to what everyone else listens to. I get questioned a lot by my parents for my reasoning of being so attracted to it. They don't understand how I can just listen to someone rap all day long. My mom is always saying "Don't you get tired of it?" It's pretty annoying. I don't see my parents any different because they don't understand my musical taste. As I said before, to me, no one is normal. Nobody has the same tastes. It can be annoying at times that I get questioned but it doesn't bother me so much anymore.

Blog 7: Outline and Annoted Bibliography

i haven't finished developing all my ideas for the thesis but this is what I have so far.


Outline

Thesis: Walt Disney had a great influence in entertainment in the 20th century.

- Disney appealed to all different types of people.
- Disney's influence on animation. (He made the first color cartoon.)
- He was a television pioneer. (He was first to present full-color programming with "Wonderful World of Color")
-He used more than one medium to get his work across.


Conclusion: Walt Disney was an innovator.







Bibliography


A, Brad. "Walt Disney Biography." JustDisney.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct 2010. .

A bio can be very useful for this midterm because it can say where Disney got his his inspiration from. I can also find out his big accomplishments through a bio.




"Walt Disney and His Influence on the Mass Media." N.p., 03/1993. Web. 18 Oct 2010. .

The title says it all. I can find out why he was such an influence on mass media.




Lewis, Jon. American Film A History. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. 235. Print.

Since this is an american film book I can include Disney's influence in the film industry.



Campbell, Richard, Christopher Martin, R., and Bettina Fabos. Media & Culture An Introduction to Mass Communication. 7th Edition 2011 Update. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. 422. Print.

In this textbook, I can see Disney's early years and his development of the iconic Mickey Mouse. I can also find how his company diversified.




Gabler, Neal. Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination. Vintage , 2007. Print.

I have yet to read this book but I read reviews on it and it says that this has a lot of the truth behind Disney and his accomplishments unlike information you can find on the internet which isn't always true.





Barrier, Michael. The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney. 1 edition. University of California Press, 2008. Print.

This is another book that i haven't read but I also read a review for this and I found that readers found this even more enlightening that Gabler's biography of Walt Disney. This is a quote from a review "Barrier knows animation inside and out, and he uses his knowledge to give us a picture of a real man and boss who tried to make animation great." By just reading that line, I know I will be able to get a lot of useful information out of this book.

Blog 6: Hero

Hero was more than just a story about Bernie Laplante and John Bubber and the heroic act that took place. The way the media was portrayed made me do a lot of thinking. Laplante was the hero all along, yet no one knew that. The media exaggerated the story so it made "the hero" look like an angel. It is ironic because of Laplante's bitter and cynical personality.  Bubber was the one who received all the credit and fame for saving everyone from he plane. The media portrayed him incorrectly from his initial interview to the reenactment of the incident. Bubber was the mainly responsible for the way he was portrayed because he lied and he never came out and told the truth. This made me hate him yet like him all at the same time. I hated him because he was a liar. He knew he was wrong but still continued to go with the flow. However, he isn't a complete scum bag. He inspired a kid to wake up from a coma and he saved Laplante from almost falling off a building. But, none of that would've happened if he hadn't lied.  

Laplante said it the best; the media is bullshit. This movie can definitely teach others a lesson about not believing everything they hear or see on tv. Nothing is really as it seems. 

Blog 3: The Matrix Analysis

"Free your mind." This seemed to be a running theme throughout The Matrix. Morpheus kept reiterating that phrase to Neo. Freeing your mind would let go of ignorance and help you see the truth. Morpheus stated, "The mind has trouble letting go". Morpheus also said, "...you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into prision that you cannot smell, or taste, or touch... a prison for your mind." He's basically telling Neo, that he's ignorant.

Doing research, I found that The Matrix has a connection to and was most likely influenced by Buddhism. Buddhism is about discovering the full potential of mind, speech and body, which is said to be our true nature. The Matrix relates to this. The Buddhist doctrine says that the world is an illusion that we must break out of in order to achieve enlightenment.

The first time Neo was connected to the Matrix, he was terrified. He was also in denial and he had a panic attack. It was a lot of information to retain at once. He wanted to go back to where he came from. This is when Cypher started to do some thinking. Just like Neo, Cypher had been taught about freeing his mind. The difference between these two characters was that Cypher no longer wanted to know the "truth". He tells Neo that he regrets ever taking the red pill and wishes he would've taken the blue one. He felt like he was misinformed and Morpheus didn't give him a full explanation of what he was getting into. He must've been curious to know what the "truth" was, but he soon realizes that knowing the truth is not worth all the trouble. Cypher meets with Agent Smith and he tells him that ignorance is bliss. What the brain tells us is true keeps us satisfied as opposed to what the actual truth is. You could tell that Cypher had been struggling with this for a while and he had enough.

The first time "free your mind" kind of clicked with Neo is when he went to see Oracle and there was a kid in the waiting room bending a spoon with his mind. Neo looked perplexed but also curious. He attempted to do the same and he succeeded. I think that he wasn't too sure on how he accomplished it, but either way he did. The time when I think the idea of freeing the mind really clicked with Neo was when he was in the most danger. Towards the end of the movie, he was able to stop the bullets that the agents shot from reaching and he also was able to defeat Agent Smith in a physical fight. He was quicker.

Cypher thought ignorance was bliss. All Morpheus wanted was for everyone to free their mind to flee from the ignorance but Cyper couldn't handle it. He wanted everyone to achieve enlightenment just like in Buddhism. Neo succeeded in this while Cypher just couldn't deal. This shows that perhaps ignorance isn't bliss because Cypher didn't even end up surviving in the whole movie while Neo did.


Resources:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~papinnie/matrix.html#Free%20from%20Extremes
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/maxtrixbuddhism.htm

Blog 5: Plan for media paper

I chose the topic of Popeye but I have a feeling that it’ll be hard to get 7 pages out of it so I really want to do some research and perhaps change my topic. I also thought about Betty Boop but again I’m not sure yet. I feel like if I do my midterm on a real person, I’ll have a much successful paper.
I googled Popeye real quick and I found that it was more than just a cartoon show on tv. It was originally featured in a comic strip. I’m just not sure if Popeye has made such an impact in mass media. I have to find out . When I looked up Betty Boop, I found that she was known as the first sex symbol in animation.
I hope to find a lot of books on my topic. Since Popeye is from the 20’s and Betty Boop is from the 30’s I’m sure I won’t have a problem finding many sources.

I think the term ”reason” means why something is the way it is. For this midterm, the “reason” would be why the person or event changed mass media. The term “evidence” would be how they changed it. I don’t know what “argument” is. I would think it’s the same as evidence but I’m pretty sure I’m wrong.

Blog 4: Reflection

1) What have you learned about writing academic texts so far? Anything from ideas of audience to invention techniques to thesis and topic sentences can be discussed here. Do not simply repeat whatever notes you took in class--the point is for your thoughts on what we did in class: Did these concepts connect with things you already knew and how did you make these connections? If something was unfamiliar, how did you approach it? What is still puzzling to you about these writing concepts? What are you not sure of regarding them?

What I’ve learned from writing academic texts were different ways to brainstorm ideas. I learned to free write. I’m familiar with this technique but I’ve never done it for class. I do it on my own if I have something to get off of my chest. Free writing for an essay, in my opinion, is fun. It gets my ideas out in such a raw way. It can capture emotion that I probably wouldn’t get if I was over thinking it. I plan on using this technique for every single essay I do from now on. Well not class essay because there’s no time but when I do them at home I will be use free writing as a first draft. We also learned to think of a main idea and then branch out to different topics within that main idea. This is a technique I learned back in middle school. I used this technique a lot when I was younger. It makes the writing process a whole lot easier and faster.
I thought I knew what a thesis was but learning about it showed me that I really didn’t know. I thought it was just the main idea of a specific topic. I guess in a way it kind of is, but it’s really just my position on a topic. Everything I learned in class was clear to me so now I don’t have any problems with it. (At least I think I don’t.)



2)What did you think of the interaction with ENA 099? Does such interaction make blogging more meaningful for you or not? How was writing to someone not in class different from making comments on classmates' blogs? Did trying to critique someone else's summary make you more confident that you know the criteria for a good summary?

Interacting with ENA 099 was a cool experience. I like the fact that I got feedback from someone other than my professor. Even getting feedback from my own classmates was nice. Every time I write something, I don’t think it’s good enough. Having someone else give their opinion on what I write helps me grow. Interaction definitely makes blogging more meaningful because blogs are for the whole world to see, so knowing that it isn’t just for the professor actually makes me a little more relaxed to get my thoughts out.
Writing to someone who isn’t from my class was different from writing to my classmates because I couldn’t put a face to who I was speaking to. It’s a little weird writing to someone who I’ve never seen, let alone met. Either way, I like reading other people’s post and giving feedback. I feel like my advice is usually helpful. Critiquing another summary helped me learn what should or shouldn’t be included. Next time I have to write a summary, I’ll know exactly what to include.



3)Area of reflection of your choice: What else would you like to share with all of us?

I hope that we continue to interact with other classes. I would like to see the growth of the other students as the semester continues. Even commenting on my own classmates blogs is good because we are given the same exact assignment. Seeing how they approached their assignment as opposed to how I did it may give me some ideas for another assignment. It’s really cool seeing a bunch of different variations of the same assignment.

Blog 1: The Cave and I (Revised)

Ignorance is not bliss. Therefore, living in a cave being completely oblivious from the truth doesn’t scream happiness to me. Knowledge is power. Knowing the truth is eye-opening. In Plato's text, the prisoner that left the cave and went out into the light suffered from sharp pains. The truth hurts. When people’s outlook on the world is shattered, it is upsetting. No one wants to be told that all they’ve ever known was a lie. In the passage, Socrates said, "...in the world of knowledge, the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort..." It means the truth doesn't come easily.

Supposedly, being ignorant from the truth makes one feel safe and comfortable. To me, it’s never good to feel comfortable. How can you develop and grow as a human being if you’re comfortable with what you already know? Why not become more knowledgeable? It blows my mind when people say they’d rather not know something. It might hurt their feelings, but that’s how you become stronger as a person. I rather be heartbroken by the truth than be happy because of a lie.

For example, there are many tv shows, movies and books that have spouses cheating on each other with someone else. The cheater (let’s just say it’s a man) says he has business to handle but in actuality he is on his way to go cheat on his wife. When he comes home back to his wife, he acts normal as if nothing has happened. The wife doesn’t suspect a thing because her husband is acting normal. Little does she know, he’s out with a bunch of women every weekend. The man is trying to save her from heartache by keeping this information away from her. But is this really the right thing to do? I wouldn’t say so. If their love was really strong, he’d tell her the truth and possibly work things out. At first, the wife would be in denial because of how normal he would act when he would get home, but eventually, she would put two and two together and have the courage to act on it. No woman would say to her husband, “I wish you hadn’t told me. Now our marriage is going to fall apart.” I don’t know anyone who would say such a thing. They would want to know so that they could make the decision to stay and work it out or get a divorce. See, not knowing her husband was cheating is comfortable for the wife, but it isn’t the right way to live.

The truth can leave a huge impact on one's life. Your whole outlook on life suddenly becomes extremely different. Change can absolutely be a great thing. In my past, there had been this one person who I was very close with and we told each other everything. She was basically an older sister to me. She later became a bad influence on me but I didn't see it as that. I was just "having fun". My mother found out the things we were doing and she confronted my friend. As soon as that happened, everything became different. She wasn't the person who I thought she was. I found out from another friend that she had been talking about me behind my back. She started treating me different. She became an ice queen towards me. Our relationship hasn't been the same since. Now she's just a person I used to know; I don't know her anymore. The whole situation left me heartbroken. I felt like the prisoner from Plato's text who got to leave the cave and see the real world. He was in pain and suffering from seeing the truth and that's exactly how I felt. It took a long time for me to accept the fact that we were no longer friends and that everything had changed so quickly. Letting go of someone who was putting a burden on my back was actually upsetting but I was relieved at the same time. It was a learning experience that I grew from. I believe that when the truth changes everything, it is positive, even if the situation happened in a negative way. I even have "embrace change" tattooed on my arm. The truth will set you free. This sounds very cliché, but I believe that it is true.

Blog 2: The Allegory of the Cave

In "The Allegory of the Cave", Socrates uses a metaphor to describe people living in an illusion. The prisoners were in a cave and all they were exposed to were shadows. They didn't know that they were looking at shadows. What they thought were books were shadows of books. What they thought were people, were shadows of people. They were figuratively blind. One of the prisoners got to experience the real world and saw the truth. Everything he had ever known was a lie. Actually, illusions aren't lies. They have two different meanings. Lies are told intentionally. A liar intentionally hides the truth from someone. When you are living in an illusion, you are ignorant. You don't have the knowledge to understand that what you know isn't true.

There are many examples in human history that show people all over the world who have lived in an illusion. One person in particular was Ptolemy of Alexandria. Basically, in the second century, he believed that the Earth was in the center of the universe and did not move at all. Supposedly, the Sun, the Moon, planets and the stars revolved around the Earth. That is clearly not true. He didn't know better though.

Although Ptolemy's geocentric theory was wrong, it made others question it and prove it wrong. It probably sparked something in Nicolaus Copernicus. He believed that the planets orbited the Sun and the Moon orbited Earth, which is true. But, he also believed the Sun was the center of the universe and didn't move. That isn't true. So, Ptolemy and Copernicus lived in illusions, much like the prisoners from the cave. Later on, it was discovered that what Ptolemy and Copernicus believed wasn't true.

It is scary to know that I might be living in an illusion. My truth may be something that hasn't been discovered yet. I know the way the government works is an illusion. I just don't know the facts and thats scares me. It makes me ignorant and i need to know the truth.

Resources:
http://www.plusroot.com/dbook/09Illusion.html
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/basics/g37/

Blog 1: The Cave and I

Ignorance is not bliss. Therefore, living in a cave being completely oblivious from the truth doesn’t scream happiness to me. Knowledge is power. Knowing the truth is eye-opening. In Plato’s text, the prisoner who goes leaves the cave and goes into the light suffers from sharp pains. The truth hurts. When people’s outlook on the world is shattered, it is upsetting. No one wants to be told that all they’ve ever known was a lie.

Supposedly, being ignorant from the truth makes one feel safe and comfortable. To me, it’s never good to feel comfortable. How can you develop and grow as a human being if you’re comfortable with what you already know. Why not become more knowledgeable? It blows my mind when people say they’d rather not know something. It might hurt their feelings, but that’s how you become stronger as a person. I rather be heartbroken by the truth than be happy because of a lie.

For example, there are many tv shows, movies and books that have spouses cheating on each other with someone else. The cheater (let’s just say it’s a man) says has business to handle but actually goes out and does his dirty work. When he comes home back to his wife, he acts normal as if nothing has happened. The wife doesn’t suspect a thing because her husband is acting normal. Little does she know, he’s out with a bunch of women every weekend. The man is trying to save her heartache by keeping this information away from her. But is this really the right thing to do? I wouldn’t say so. If their love was really strong, he’d tell her the truth and possibly work things out. At first, the wife would be in denial because of how normal he would act when he would get home, but eventually, she would put two and two together and have the courage to act on it. No woman would say to her husband, “I wish you hadn’t told me. Now our marriage is going to fall apart.” I don’t know anyone who would say such a thing. They would want to know so that they could make the decision to stay and work it out or get a divorce. See, not knowing her husband was cheating is comfortable for the wife, but it isn’t the right way to live.

The truth can leave a huge impact on one’s life. Your whole outlook on life suddenly becomes extremely different. Change can absolutely be a great thing. In my past, there had been this one person who I was very close with and we told each other everything. She was basically an older sister to me. We were put into a certain predicament that I won’t go into detail with and in the blink of an eye, everything became different. She wasn’t the person who I thought she was. Our relationship hasn’t been the same since. Now she’s just a person I used to know; I don’t know her anymore. It took a long time for me to accept the fact that everything had changed so quickly. Letting go of someone who put a burden on my back was actually upsetting but I was relieved at the same time. I believe that when the truth changes everything, it is positive, even if the situation happened in a negative way. I even got “embrace change” tattooed on my arm. The truth will set you free. This sounds so cliché, but I definitely believe it.

Draft for Blog 1

Hey my name is Jasmine Hurtado. I'm 18 years young. I'm puerto rican & dominican. Yes, I'm a gemini. No, i don't have two personalities or am two-faced or anything else that relates to being a gemini. I don't like labels; I just am who I am. I'm pretty shy. It just depends on the situation. I've been dancing for about 10 years. I started out with ballet, tap & jazz. The movie Breakin really got me wanting to learn hip hop. I can't do what they do in that movie because I geared towards the choreography route & not actual hip hop dancing which is breakdancing. If I could find someone that could teach me and had the patience, that would be great. With that being said, I really appreciate hip hop culture. The elements include DJing, MCing, graffitti & bboying. I could go on for days talking about this. Hm, what else? I like writing poetry but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm good at it. There's always room for improvement. This is random but sadly for me, I've been the same height since I was 12. I want to grow. lol Last but not least, I'm addicted to twitter. When i first started, I told myself I wouldn't get to that point. Guess what? I got to that point.