The Auteur Theory Film Studies Essay

The Auteur Theory Film Studies Essay -The auteur theory, if defined as the ultimate foundation for a filmmakers vision, can be a rather unstable remark for one to give. Who in the beginning of film history declared that a director must adhere to a specific genre with a specific style? It seems, like anything else, that the reasoning behind this theory is for a person to find a way to make sense of it all. However, one could argue that a filmmaker has reasoning behind why they have chosen their career path in the first place, or what kind of themes they want to express to the public. No matter what the genre or screenplay, a filmmaker can become a true auteur if they exhibit the same thematic preoccupations, the same recurring motifs and incidents, and the same visual style and tempo (Wollen 73).   In this essay, I will argue that Andrew Sarriss definition of film auteurism, along with Jim Kitses and Peter Wollen redefinition of its traditional and structuralist conceptions, are displayed in M. Night Shyamalans The Happening (along with his other films) as an example of the filmmakers auteurism. Andrew Sarris assesses a filmmakers auteurism under three pieces of criteria: technical competence, personality evident through oeuvre (director as stylist), and beauty of interior meanings of films. Technical competence, as a notion of value, surfaces the idea that a badly directed or undirected film has no importance in a critical scale of values, but one can make interesting conversation about the subject, the script, the acting, the color, the photography, the editing, the music, the costumes, etc (Sarris 69). In an interview with CNN, Shyamalan insists that The Happening is the best B movie you will ever see, thats it. Thats what this is. With this information, Shyamalan lays out the foundation of the films technical competence in relation to his past films. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and Lady in the Water were assumingly created to the best of Shyamalans artistic abilities. Shyamalan premeditated The Happening with the notion that it would not be displayed as one of his ideal aesthetic pieces of cinema. It has been widely known that Shyamalan has had direct influences from science-fiction shows like The Twilight Zone, therefore audiences should be able to suspend moments of realism because, premeditatedly, bizarre and unexplained scenes are going to occur. Its going to test your patience, imagination, and social pressure, meaning that it almost dares you to laugh at inexplicable moments of dialogue and scenarios, and while it would be easy to write them off as bad filmmaking, if more effort is put into discover whats really happening or whats trying to be displayed (Shyamalans B-movie approach) , the stronger the payoff will be. For example, the scene where Mark Wahlberg is talking to a plastic plant, pretty funny right? Sure, if you look at it from the standpoint that its just Mark Wahlberg talking to a plastic plant. But if you think about it abstractly, the scene is completely appropriate to the films narrative. After evacuating New York City, being dropped off in a random town in Pennsylvania, then running from an attacking environmental force thats never fully explained, isnt it crazy enough to think that after all this, a person might begin to lose a sense of normalcy? Why not talk to the plant? It cant hurt to try new approaches to a specific scenario in order to figure out what could be happening, no matter how crazy it makes you look from an outside perspective. Sarriss film auteur definition extends even further, to the filmmakers personality and its visible evidence throughout oeuvre (director as stylist). A director must exhibit certain recurring characteristics of style which serve as his signature. The way a film looks and moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels (Sarris 69). With The Happening, there is clear evidence of Shyamalans personality. Since The Sixth Sense, he has been become known as the master of suspense. He never sells himself out to violence. Instead, he uses it as a tool to build towards a much more apocalyptic fear. The Happening is never explored from a large-scale angle like War of the Worlds, but rather the larger event that is taking place simultaneously merely peeks from the corners of the screen. Any filmmaker can physically blow things up so long as they have a decent budget. Instead, Shyamalan blows up our imagination. According to Sarris, the auteur theory must have a director with a specific style. Going along with Sarriss quote, the way Shyamalan uses violence in the film fits his personal and socially known filmmaking vision. For example, the scene where multiple bodies hang from hoses on trees is incredibly and meaningfully staged. As a passing car witnesses this, could you imagine sitting in that car and be thinking: What in the hell happened here that caused people to end up like this? Its so much scarier with scenes like this to leave the actual act of violence to the imagination because the imagination has no limits. Thats what makes this all the more horrifying. Shyamalan could have taken the lazy way out by going all Saw on us, producing over the top gore that has no purpose to the story. Theres a difference between horror and violence, and instead, Shyamalan seems to grasp this concept and use violence to enhance the story. He has shown this in every single one of his movies, even with The Happenings limitless R-rating. Sarriss third and final piece of criteria for assessing a directors auteurism is the beauty of the interior meaning behind a film. Sometimes a great deal of corn must be husked to yield a few kernels of internal meaning (Sarris 71). The post 9/11 atmosphere in our society still looms in the back of everyones mind. Shyamalan, instead of abusing this fear, induces it into interpersonal paranoia. The strangeness of each scene allows multiple scenarios of fear. The vibes coming off each character suggests that the events in The Happening are terrorist attacks. Why? Because its the first thing that enters everyones mind. The media has us so convinced that an act of terrorism is the only possible explanation of an attack on American soil that it has become the epitome of mass cultural fear. The standardization of mass culture (in this case, the media of mass culture) dictates the audiences reactions, telling them how to think and feel. Clement Greenberg, an American art critic of the 20th century argues that the Kitsch (German word meaning mass culture) associated in filmmaking has become extremely easy to notice. For example, a clichà ©d horror scene consists of objects jumping onto the screen after moments of eerie noises or silence (The Prom Night example). Formulaically, its the feeling that someone is going to jump out and scream a standardized horror clichà ©d line like boo! or gotcha! Shyamalan on the other hand, takes this persona and reverses it. Instead of forcing the audience into feeling a specific reaction, he allows them to think for themselves. Jim Kitses and Peter Wollen redefine the traditionalists and structuralist conceptions of auteurism in a simplistic manner that remains to this day, arguably, as an odyssey. Kitses claims that genre is to filmmaker as language is to speaker. The very foundation of meaning for an artist to work with is the roots in which they display the most comfort. Kitses explains that the meanings, characters, stories, and imagery come from the structure of the genre and the present culture in which the filmmaker is working within. Applying this to Shyamalans personal authorship, both Kitses and Wollen express their theories: In my view the term (auteur theory) describes a basic principle and a method, no more and no less (Kitses 89) and exhibit the same thematic preoccupations, the same recurring motifs and incidents, and the same visual style and tempo (Wollen 73). Shyamalan, in almost all of his films tackles big social themes, being mostly end of the world scenarios (Signs, The Happening) and/or socially known fears (The Village, The Sixth Sense). In Signs, Shyamalan takes a basic principle (an alien invasion towards planet earth) and applies his own basic method to it (the event is seen through the eyes of an American family trying to survive it). By adding his own layers of substance to Kitsess basic principle and method, Shyamalan ultimately creates his own personal authorship. Signs has the same basic principle as Steven Spielbergs War of the Worlds, but each director has their own vision towards it. Both Signs and War of the Worlds are about an alien invasion towards planet earth in which an American family tries to survive it, but unlike Spielberg, Shyamalan doesnt physically blow up the world, he enforces the imagination on the viewer and only implies physical destruction. Roger Eberts review of Signs furthers this argument: I will not even say whether aliens appear in the movie, because whether they do or not is beside the point. The purpose of the film is to evoke pure emotion through the use of skilled acting and direction, and particularly through the soundtrack. It is not just what we hear that is frightening. It is the way Shyamalan has us listening intensely when there is nothing to be heard. I cannot think of a movie where silence is scarier, and inaction is more disturbing (Roger Ebert). Kitses and Wollen have very similar opinions in the basic elements of the auteur. Kitses expresses that it involves a basic principle and a method, where Wollen argues that it exhibits the same thematic preoccupations. However, the process of getting the film to a concrete medium is where the two differ. Kitses compares genre to filmmaker as language is to speaker. When a speaker speaks a language, they may say it on their own terms, with different tones, dialects, expressions, emotions, speed, etc. therefore in translation to cinema, a filmmaker may express a genre their own way without the interference of an outside medium. While that it very much the case in many situations, the auteur must also face several realities, most evidently the wants and desires of the films financier (in other words, the studio) and the potential incidents that could destroy a films credibility. The director does not have full control of his work. This explains why the auteur theory involves a kind of decipherment, decryptment. A great many features of films analysed have to be dismissed as indecipherable because of noise from the producer, the cameraman or even the actors (Wollen 77). Audiences and critics can become subconsciously superstitious if one is not careful to consider the fact that films undergo realistic challenges like anything else. Shyamalan has experienced these heartaches just like any other filmmaker. In The Sixth Sense, his favorite scene (an alternate ending with an extended version of Bruce Williss wedding video speech) was cut from the film due to a studio decision. In Signs, Shyamalan was disappointed with his cinematographers (Tak Fujimoto) visual representation of the aliens. Furthermore, one must insist that Kitses wrote his analysis on the auteur theory before the Internet world affected the cinema. For example, the definitive twist in Shyamalans The Village was leaked online before its theatrical release date, ultimately allowing the entire world to access the films signature plot twist. This not only directly contributed to the films box-office disappointment, but also its initial critical failure, which discouraged the meaning of Shyamalans message. One could argue that The Sixth Sense would have suffered the same fate of The Village had the Internet been a primary resource and if the films ending was leaked online before its theatrical release in 1999. The structure of a movie is premeditated by an auteur, but a films outcome may have an end that does not justify the means. In a perfect filmmaking world, Kitsess theory would reign supreme on the idea that genre is to filmmaker as language is to speaker, but Wollen understands that things can happen beyond the control of an auteur. It simply means that it is inaccessible to criticism. We can merely record our momentary and subjective impressions (Wollen 77). Perhaps this is why Shyamalans films are becoming more appreciated as time goes on. One example of this is Unbreakable, which was initially a critical and box-office disappointment (in relation to The Sixth Sense) upon its release date in August of 2000, but over the years a cult following on DVD and VHS has sparked rumors of a potential sequel. Sarris, Kitses, and Wollens theories are visible in todays mainstream discussions. Shyamalans statement in the CNN interview stating, The Happening is the best B-movie ever is filled with Sarriss ideas of technical competence in the criteria for a films auteurism. Wollen is seen in Roger Eberts reviews on both Shyamalans Signs and The Happening. Ebert states in his Signs review that in a time when Hollywood mistakes volume for action, Shyamalan makes quiet films. In a time when incessant action is a style, he persuades us to play close attention to the smallest nuances (Roger Ebert). Every Shyamalan film since The Sixth Sense has had a summer release date. The filmmaker has an off-rhythmic beat in a year of Hollywood releases. M. Night Shyamalans The Happening is a movie that I find oddly touching. It is no doubt too thoughtful for the summer action season, but I appreciate the quietly realistic way Shyamalan finds to tell a story about the possible death of man (Roger Ebert). Personal taste aside, a theatrical release of a Shyamalan movie is always a movie event. In many ways, we know what to expect from his films. First and foremost (in accordance to mainstream logic), his box-office numbers are usually very successful (Lady in the Water is his only film that failed to produce a profit in its theatrical run). A Time Magazine interview has Shyamalan defending his financial success. Except for Pixar, I have made the four most successful original movies in a row of all time (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village). If youre not betting on me, then nobody should get money. Ive made profit a mathematical certainty. Im the safest bet you got. Behind his films financial successes are their other obvious components. The science-fiction genre is a must, his release dates are similar (theyve ranged no further in the summer season than June through August), and his characters all embody the struggles of interpersonal and emotional growth.   Through this mainstream discussion, an auteur (in this case, Shyamalan) exhibits the same thematic preoccupations, the same recurring motifs and incidents, and the same visual style and tempo (Wollen 73). Shyamalan, whether or not many believe he has lost his touch, is still a prime example of film auteurism. When watching one of his films, you always know you are watching a Shyamalan movie. It is clear with his setting (every one of his films is set in Philadelphia,) his vision (large scale events shown through a small-scale,) and his themes (the power of love, the fear of violence, and the importance of the imagination). His technical competence, personal evident throughout oeuvre, and internal meeting are all elements in his personal authorship in American cinema. Like anything else, only time has any real ability to create an understanding, in this case behind the man who was once called The Next Spielberg, the elements of his film auteurism, and the theorists who have timelessly argued the notion of the terms infinitely interpreted foundation.

A Lady of Letters and Cream Cracker under the Settee by Alan Bennett Es

"A Lady of Letters" and "Cream Cracker under the Settee" by Alan Bennett The two monologues I am going to be writing about are two elderly women who are lonely and trapped in their own homes. I will be talking about how Doris, one lady from 'Cream cracker under the settee' and Irene, the other lady in 'Lady of letters' are suffering from loneliness. Doris and Irene both live alone. They don't seem to have any special friends. For example, Irene doesn't like being people calling her Irene. People who come across Irene must call her Miss.Ruddock; nobody has called her Irene since her mother died. Only real friends may call 'Miss Ruddock' Irene. But both Doris and Irene have people who do you look out for them like the policeman who calls in to check on Doris from time to time. Both monologues are talking, and looking directly into the camera, at many different angles. This gives a great effect, as the person talking in the monologue seems to be talking to 'YOU', in the audience. In the monologues the women mainly talk about the past and by comparing the day they were 'kiddies' to the days of today. This is how monologues are a lot different to dramas. Monologues are an interesting way for the people in the audience to see the opinions and thoughts of another person, maybe older or maybe younger. Both these monologues don't have a grouped name such as, action, horror or comedy but if I had to catorgise these monologues, I would say they are 'real life tragedy's'. There are the little side comments which the author for both monologues, Bennett, has made to make the make the audience giggle but the whereas the individuals in the monologue, in this case Doris or Irene, aren't aware that whate... ...the Settee' my emotions stayed practically the same all the way through the monologue, as for 'Lady of Letter' I felt a number of emotions for Irene, Happy, angry, sad. I felt a lot of sympathy for Doris when she was talking about her family but i feel no sympathy for Irene. As I said, my feelings stayed the same for Doris but I did feel frustrated at times, as it is frustrating when 'you' know what's best for someone but that someone doesn't understand. My feelings varied a huge amount for Irene mainly because Irene's feelings varied an amount. Both monologue were encouraging in there own ways. 'Cream cracker under the settee' did get a bit tedious at times and sometimes made me want to fall asleep due to the same tone of voice droning on and on. I had a lot more to write about for Lady of Letters because I thought there was a much better story line.

Billie Holiday Essay -- essays research papers

To understand the controversy that Billie presented one must first go to the root or source of such controversy and examine Billie's childhood. Billie was born Eleanora Harris to her father Clarence Holiday and mother Sadie Fagan who were just fifteen and thirteen years old, respectively, at the time (A 91). Born between 1912 and 1915 in Baltimore, the date unsure, Billie grew up without her father, who moved away early on in her life. Billie and her mother used to fight a lot, when her mother was around. Much of the time Billie was left in the care of relatives or friends, many of whom were unloving (E). Billie's relationship with her family was very weak, as Billie throughout her life and career never or rarely got family approval or recognition (W 13). The extent to which Billie did not get along with her family is evident as she was chastised for her grandmother's death at the age of six (E). The turmoil within Billie's family was manifested when Billie commented later on in life that "As far as I'm Concerned, all the Fagans are dead" (W 14). This made her family very mad and lead to their further abandonment of Billie. Aside from the superficial tension between Billie and her mother, they did their best to remain loyal to one another and provide for each other (W 201). As Billie grew older, life grew harder and reality slowly became more and more real for her. At age 10, Billie was raped, further strengthening Billie's image of reality. As Billie grew old...

Why We Use Stereotypes

Why stereotypes? Why can’t we just be judged by our own individuality and not based on someone else’s? Stereotypes basically give people untrue â€Å"facts† about different ethnic groups and their certain characteristics and behaviors. So in this essay I’m going to have to set things straight. I’ll define what stereotypes are, why do people use stereotypes and who/how does it usually affect people. Stereotypes are exaggerated or distorted beliefs or images about a person or group of people. They assume that everyone in the group have the same characteristics leading them to believe that they are all alike.No one is born believing in stereotypes, they are usually learned from the media (TV, radio, etc), parents, peers, and etc. Even when a stereotype is positive it affects the mind so much that there is no room for a person to show their individuality or how different they can be. Many people use stereotypes because it’s hard for them to take in all this complicated information about other people in the world. People find it difficult to spend the necessary amount of time learning to understand why or what different ways people behave.So then due to that we start accepting stereotypes because their easier for us to understand. Stereotypes affect people all over the world. There isn’t one group of people that isn’t affected by stereotypes (due to the fact that everyone is basically different from us). The effect that stereotypes take is that it eliminates the challenges of us getting to know and understand people who are different from us. They don’t allow people to be considered different. They give us a general overview of whole groups of people so we know what to expect and how to act when they’re seen.Also when we have problems with someone of a different group, we usually identify the problem as it having to be associated the group rather than the specific person. So the do impact us on ho w we think, and feel. Stereotypes also make us very judgmental about others and unfortunately they frequently do. Stereotypes make us believe that someone (or that group of people) did something to us, rather than the problem, fear, or rigidity/closed thinking we have within ourselves. Stereotypes have left a big effect on us. We can’t be seen as different with them around so we must try to eliminate them.We need to actually take the time to get to know people instead of accepting stereotypes just because their easier. Everyone is different, so you can’t just look at someone and think this is how they act based on what’s said about the group in general. Get to understand people based on their individuality not what you hear. Though no one is born believe in stereotypes they are usually learned from the media (which usually impacts us anyways). So in conclusion stereotypes are not what’s best to be used and are basically false.

Harvard Concept (Fisher and Urgy)

â€Å"Getting to Yes† (also called the Harvard concept) describes a method called principled negotiation to reach an agreement whose success is judged by three criteria: 1. It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. 2. It should be efficient. 3. It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. The authors argue that their method can be used in virtually any negotiation. Issues are decided upon by their merits and the goal is a win-win situation for both sides. Below is a summary of some of the key concepts from the book. The four steps of a principled negotiation are: 1. Separate the people from the problem 2. Focus on interests, not positions 3. Invent options for mutual gain 4. Insist on using objective criteria In principled negotiations, negotiators are encouraged to take the view that all the participants are problem solvers rather than adversaries. The authors recommend that the goal should be to reach an outcome â€Å"efficiently and amicably. † The steps can be described in more detail as follows. Step 1: Separate the people from the problem All negotiations involve people and people are not perfect. We have emotions, our own interests and goals and we tend to see the world from our point of view. We also are not always the best communicators; many of us are not good listeners. Getting to YES outlines a number of tools for dealing with the problems of perception, emotion and communication. However, the authors stress that separating people from problems is the best option. The keys to prevention are: â€Å"building a working relationship† and â€Å"facing the problem, not the people. † Think of the people you negotiate with on a regular basis. Generally, the better we know someone, the easier it is to face a negotiation together. We tend to view people we don't know with more suspicion: just what is â€Å"Bob† up to? Take time to get to know the other party before the negotiation begins. Think of the negotiation as a means to solving a problem and the people on the other side as partners helping to find a solution. Ideally both parties will come out of a negotiation feeling they have a fair agreement from which both sides can benefit. If the negotiation feels like a situation of â€Å"you versus them†, the authors suggest a couple of options: 1. Raise the issue with [the other side] explicitly†¦'Let's look together at the problem of how to satisfy our collective interests'. 2. Sit on the same side of the table†¦. Try to structure the negotiation as a side-by-side activity in which the two of you – with your different interests and perceptions, and your emotional involvement – jointly face a common task. Step 2: Focus on Interests, Not Positions The authors use a simple example to explain the difference between interests and positions: â€Å"Two men [are] quarrelling in a library. One wants the window open and the other wants it closed. †¦. Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants the window open: ‘To get some fresh air [his interest]'. She asks the other why he wants it closed: ‘To avoid a draft' [his interest]. After thinking a moment, she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft. † The interests of the two men are the desire for fresh air and the desire to avoid a draft. The men's positions are to have the window opened or closed. The authors say we need to focus, not on whether the window in their room is opened or closed, but on how we can meet both the need for fresh air and the need to avoid a draft. More often than not, by focusing on interests, a creative solution can be found. In this little example, each man has one interest but in most negotiations, each party will have many interests and these interests will likely be different than yours. It's important to communicate your interests to the other party. Don't assume they have the same interests as you or that they know what your interests are. Don't assume you know what interests the other party has. Discussion to identify and understand all the interests is a critical step in the process. Step 3: Invent Options for Mutual Gain The authors feel that a common problem with many negotiations is there are too few options to choose from. Little or no time is spent creating options. This, they feel, is a mistake. There are four steps to generating options: 1. Separate inventing from deciding. Like in any brainstorming session, don't judge the ideas people bring forward, just get them on the board. 2. Broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer. Remember the men at the library? The only option they saw was opening or closing the window in the room they were both sitting in. In fact, there are many options: borrow a sweater, open a window in another room, move to a different spot, etc. 3. Search for mutual gain. In a negotiation, both sides can be worse off and both sides can gain. Principled negotiations are not about â€Å"I win† and â€Å"you lose†. 4. Invent ways of making the other party's decisions easy. Since a successful negotiation requires both parties to agree, make it easy for the other side to choose. This is where putting yourself in the other person's shoes can be very valuable. What might prevent â€Å"Bob† from agreeing? Can you do anything to change those things? Step 4: Insist on Using Objective Criteria Principled negotiations are not battles of will. There is no winner and you don't need to push your position until the other backs down. The goal is to â€Å"produce wise agreements amicably and efficiently†. Use of objective criteria helps remove the emotion from the discussion and allows both parties to use reason and logic. You may have to develop objective criteria and there are a number of ways that can be done, from â€Å"traditional practices†, to â€Å"market value† to â€Å"what a court would decide†. Objective criteria â€Å"need to be independent of each side's will. † Once objective criteria have been developed, they need to be discussed with the other side. The authors provide some guidelines: 1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. 2. â€Å"[Use] reason and be open to reason† as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied. 3. â€Å"Never yield to pressure†, only to principle. Common Challenges Following these steps should lead you to a successful outcome, but it isn't always that easy. The authors then go on to address three types of common challenges negotiators face. Sometimes the other party is more powerful than you: â€Å"The most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives: first, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible. † To protect yourself, develop and know your BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. † The result you can obtain without negotiating is your BATNA. â€Å"The better your BATNA, the greater your power† so it's essential to know your BATNA and take time to make sure it's as strong as it could be. The same will hold true for the other party. There are three steps to developing your BATNA: 1. Invent a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached† 2. Improve some of the more promising ideas and convert them into practical alternatives. 3. Select, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best Sometimes the other party just won't play: In a principled negotiation, you don't want to play games with the other party and you don't want them playing games with you. The authors advocate three approaches to getting things back on track in this situation: 1. Concentrate on the merits: talk about interests, options and criteria 2. Focus on what the other party may do: try and identify the other party's interests and the principles underlying their position. 3. Focus on what a third party can do: bring in a third party to assist if steps 1 and 2 aren't successful Sometimes the other party uses dirty tricks: You may encounter a party who won't shy away from using dirty tricks. The process for dealing with this type of tactic is to follow the process for principled negotiations: 1. Separate the people from the problem 2. Focus on interests not positions 3. Invent options for mutual gain 4. Insist on using objective criteria 5. If all else fails, â€Å"turn to your BATNA and walk out† The authors close with three points: 1. â€Å"You knew it all the time. † Much of what goes into a principled negotiation is common sense. The authors have developed an understandable framework to share the approach with others. 2. â€Å"Learn from doing. † You won't become a better negotiator unless you get out there and practice. 3. Winning: â€Å"The first thing you are trying to win is a better way to negotiate – a way that avoids your having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what you deserve and of being decent. You can have both. â€Å"

The Role of Violence in Beowulf

It is clear that violence, or at least military action plays an important role in the world of Beowulf. The events in Beowulf's life are strongly connected to combat: he saves the Kingdom of Denmark by defeating both Grendel and his mother; he serves as the King of Geatland's advisor and champion; he is elected King of Geatland after the former king and his son are killed in battle and successfully for fifty years; and he kills the fire-monster and save Geatland (Slade; Bullfinch).The violence in Beowulf does not appear to be engaged in gratuitously, for its own sake, or out of cruelty. Instead, the violence serves as a tool to achieve various goals. The men in Beowulf engage in violence in defense against an attack, threat or as Hill suggests, a feud. Military action is used as a method of getting wealth and additional territory. Lastly the use of violence is seen in terms of good versus evil, with Beowulf and his people in the role of the good.Both of the major scenes of violence i n the poem are aimed at specific targets and occur as responses to attacks made by Grendel, his mother, the lady troll-wife on Denmark, and by the dragon that attacks Geatland. When Beowulf saves the kingdom of Demark from destruction at the claws of Grendel he is responding to the attacks Grendel has been making on the Danish court. Hrothgar, king of Denmark, was â€Å". . . success in warcraft given,/honour in war, so that his retainers/ eagerly served him until the young war-band grew/into a mighty battalion† (Slade, 64-66).As a result of his success he decides to build a â€Å"mead-hall† where he can give his wealth to â€Å"young and old, such as God gave him† (Slade, 72). The poem does not tell us against whom Hrothgar has fought to gain his wealth, but the description of his lineage is a positive one that does not lend itself to indiscriminate attacks and raiding (Slade 1-63). When the Danes are unable to defeat Grendel Beowulf leads a group of men and su cceeds in killing Grendel and, when she seeks revenge on Beowulf the next day, Grendel's mother.Although Beowulf's purpose was to save Denmark from Grendel, due to his great deed, Beowulf receives both wealth and reputation. He returns to his own country: Geatland. There he serves the country well, ultimately becoming King of Geatland. After Beowulf had been king for fifty years, a dragon attacks the country; Beowulf is the only one who will fight it. He succeeds in killing the dragon, but is killed during the fight. It is clear the people in the world of Beowulf used violence to gain both wealth and honor. As mentioned above Hrothgar has made his fortune by military action.Since Hrothgar is not condemned for his acts, but is celebrated by men and given gifts from the gods, in fact the poet tells us that Hrothgar is â€Å"old and good† (Slade 130) Based on this it appears unlikely that such a method of gaining wealth was considered inappropriate, but is a tool to be used to g ain wealth. Beowulf himself leaves Denmark with a great wealth of gold and an honorable reputation for his abilities to fight. Since Beowulf is the celebrated hero of the poem it appears certain that violence as a means to wealth is accepted by the people in the world of the poem.The people in the poem regard themselves as engaging in the universal fight between good and evil with themselves fight on the side of goodness. The poet tells us that Grendel was â€Å"condemned with the kin of Cain† (Slade) and a result of the feud between Abel and Cain, i. e. , good versus evil (Slade 106-114). Consequently when Beowulf fights against Grendel, his mother, and the dragon, he is fighting against creatures that were brought into being when Cain murdered his brother.Kennedy proposes that not only does Beowulf describe the battle between good and evil, but contains â€Å"a deeply pervasive infusion of Christian spirit coloring thought and judgment, governing motive and action, a conti nuous and active agent in the process of transformation† (Kennedy, xlix). Gordon takes a more conservative approach and points out that Christianity did not supplant the native pagan beliefs all at once, but co-existed in Northern Europe at this time (Gordon 1). It is evident that violence plays an important part in the live and traditions of the people of the poem.It appears however that instead of indiscriminate raiding, raping, and pillaging one associates with the Vikings, violence was seen as a tool for defense, building wealth, and participating in the fight against evil. However it must be remembered that Beowulf presents only the side of the Danes and the Geats and does not tell how the people who lost their lives and wealth to Hrothgar viewed these people.Works CitedBullfinch, Thomas. The Age of Fable. Published April 2000 by Bartleby. com;  © 2000 Copyright Bartleby. com, Inc. 29 Mar. 2007 < http://www.bartleby. com/182/301. html>.Gordon, R. K. trans. Anglo-Saxon P oetry. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1954.Hill, John M. â€Å"Anthropological Approaches to Old English Literature: A Special Issue. † Philological Quarterly (1999): 1. Questia. 30 Mar. 2007 .Kennedy, Charles W. trans. Beowulf: The Oldest English Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.Slade, Benjamin, Ed. and Trans. , 2003. Diacritically Marked Text of Beowulf Facing a New Translation. 29 Mar. 2007 < http://www. heorot. dk/beo-intro-rede. html>.

Interview Essay Essay

I conducted my interview with Mrs. Michelle G. Escala; a woman with simple dreams and hopes in life. I approached her with all the kindness, respect, and humility. I started my interview by introducing myself and my purpose for conducting the interview. I was quite nervous during my interview, but I was still able to deliver my prepared questions. Mrs. Escala showed kindness to me during my interview. I could sense her sincerity and confidence while answering all my questions. She is a teacher at Tarong Elementary School, who is willing to inspire pupils and students to learn and to live the value of their existence. Mrs. Escala received her Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education from Philippine Normal University, Cadiz City in 2003 and her Masteral in Elementary Education from University of Southern Philippines in 2011. She took the Licensure Examination for Teacher and she passed and now, she’s enjoying her profession. Mrs. Escala was never influenced by anyone to take up the course Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education; it’s her own choice and will. She stated that taking up BEED is the first step in preparing for this profession. She also believes that grades and extracurricular activities are important. She was a consistent honor student since her younger years, she actively participate in their school paper and other organization in their school. In addition, she said, in order for you to finish your studies and to achieve your goal, you must strive hard, manage your time wisely, love what you do, and have faith in God. After finishing her studies, before she becomes a full time teacher, she started as a substitute teacher for about half a year. She also stressed the importance of Practice teaching because it will give you experience and you can meet what is truly the work of a teacher. She also said that attending to seminars either near or far is important because through these a ctivities you can learn more and it will help you to be more professional. Mrs. Escala stressed that teaching is not that easy. You have to be as patient as you can towards your pupils. You must be patient in teaching them their lesson, especially when difficult time comes in. She stated that the most difficult part in teaching is when you know you gave your best but still pupils fail to show what is expected from them. She also said that we must also accept the fact that everybody is not equal in all aspect; we must acknowledge the weaknesses of the pupils and then teach without expecting too much. Teaching has deadlines that must be met, which creates pressure  and the feeling of constantly being rushed. She also said that you must not be absent in your class because it’s not you that will be affected, but the students. Even though there is a reason for you to be absent, she added, you must give them some assignments or activities before the day you’re not there so that their day won’t be wasted, or maybe you must make it up to them on the day that your back. But not all the times it seems to be difficult, there are times it’s easy to handle and fulfilling especially when you achieve your goals for the pupils. She said that what she is trying to achieve with her students is for them to learn, to digest what she taught in class, and hopefully they will be inspired to live with the values she is instilling in them. She also added that it is a great achievement for a teacher to see their pupils progressing physically, intellectually, socially, and financially, that’s why she is aiming to produce pupils to become functionally upright, and useful as well as productive citizen of the society. Mrs. Escala said that her work is satisfying, not in a way that she is satisfied with the food but she is satisfied with her pupils because they are pretty comical. She even added that she would choose teaching all over again, because she loves her job and this is where her heart really belongs. I feel my interview is really beneficial. I learned a lot about her, as well as some about what it is like to be a professional. It was encouraging for me to speak with someone who loves her job so much. My interview with Mrs. Escala provided me information about being a professional and how to be a responsible student and soon to be a professional like her. She also provided me with â€Å"real world† information; information about life and how to handle the difficulties and not letting those difficulties to be a hindrance in pursuing and achieving your goal. Conducting an interviews with her prove to be a great learning experience because it help me a lot and now, I have more knowledge about responsibilities, career opportunities, and what it’s like to be a professional. Even though my interview is not related to my course, it is still challenging and worth remembering. Now, I have more and better idea and understanding of how to achieve my goal, and my goal is to become a Certified Public Accountant.