Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2008
REVIEW
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is written by Stephen Chbosky. He was born in 1970 in Pennsylvania in the USA. The book tells the story about the high-school student Charlie. Charlie writes letters to an unknown person, but starts always with “dear friend”. In these letters he tells about his life. He is a very sentimental guy, who tries to cope growing up, friendships and love. Charlie is a trustworthy boy and everyone can lean on him. He wants to be a good friend, good son and a good brother. But there are things, which are happened in his past, which he has to come over and finds his own right way to society.
It’s a really naturalistic book, which shows all the horrible and great, important and unimportant, easy and complicated events in a teenager’s life. In this book you can find nearly every problem a young person could have with love, friendship and finding the right way. The reader goes with Charlie through all his bad and good times. This is a very exciting and startling story. It’s a book which is able to make you thinking. It’s a book full of hope and confidence, and Charlie can (with his philosophic appendage) touch your heart more than once. It’s a book about learning to be like you want to be, never give up and finally how important it is to be loved (particularly for Charlie). I think it’s a really advisable book. We have to thank Stephen Chbosky.
words: 251
Samstag, 3. Mai 2008
second exam correction
Writing task:
Violence in our world and in the media is a controversial topic. It’s everywhere, in movies, schools and also in some families. But where are the problems and what can we do?
Michael Medved is an opponent of violent movies and there are some ideas I agree, but also one I disagree with. He says that Hollywood tells us four big lies. The first one is that only a few people are influenced by these movies. I totally agree with Michael Medved, who thinks that there enough copycat killers. There are always some who believe that it’s funny to shoot someone just because a movie shows it like this. In my opinion also the second argument of the advocates is a big lie. Medved claims that it’s absolutely wrong to argue that violent in movies only show the reality. Reality isn’t like this. For example, nearly no one saw a real murder, but everyone watches hundreds of them on TV. In addition, it’s also absolute rubbish that only violent movies are successful, which is (like Medved think) the third big lie. I also agree with this point. If we look at the most really successful movies we can find mainly family or romantic movies, for example “The Lion King”. Finally, there is one lie left and in contrast to the others I disagree with Medved’s at this lie. Hollywood claims, that nobody is forced to watch violent movies. The argument of Medved is that we don’t have to watch it to know what kind of horrible things happen. But I think that it’s not the same. There is a difference between watching this films and hear about it.
We also have to wonder why we are living in a violent society. First, I think that violence is something we learn. Children learn from their parents and their surroundings. In addition, it’s also an instinct. People always were violent and they will be. Maybe violence is something to save our lives. Morover, violence is a reaction. If someone is violent to someone else, it is to expect that one day the victim also gets violent.
If we look at our children, we can notice that also there is a lot of violence. In my opinion there are two things to do, which can stop or reduce that. First we have to stop showing violence on TV. Children should not be allowed to watch that. And the other one is,, that we have to be better role models and show them what is right and wrong.
To conclude, I want to say, that we have to be aware of violence and we should protect our children for a better world.
Violence in our world and in the media is a controversial topic. It’s everywhere, in movies, schools and also in some families. But where are the problems and what can we do?
Michael Medved is an opponent of violent movies and there are some ideas I agree, but also one I disagree with. He says that Hollywood tells us four big lies. The first one is that only a few people are influenced by these movies. I totally agree with Michael Medved, who thinks that there enough copycat killers. There are always some who believe that it’s funny to shoot someone just because a movie shows it like this. In my opinion also the second argument of the advocates is a big lie. Medved claims that it’s absolutely wrong to argue that violent in movies only show the reality. Reality isn’t like this. For example, nearly no one saw a real murder, but everyone watches hundreds of them on TV. In addition, it’s also absolute rubbish that only violent movies are successful, which is (like Medved think) the third big lie. I also agree with this point. If we look at the most really successful movies we can find mainly family or romantic movies, for example “The Lion King”. Finally, there is one lie left and in contrast to the others I disagree with Medved’s at this lie. Hollywood claims, that nobody is forced to watch violent movies. The argument of Medved is that we don’t have to watch it to know what kind of horrible things happen. But I think that it’s not the same. There is a difference between watching this films and hear about it.
We also have to wonder why we are living in a violent society. First, I think that violence is something we learn. Children learn from their parents and their surroundings. In addition, it’s also an instinct. People always were violent and they will be. Maybe violence is something to save our lives. Morover, violence is a reaction. If someone is violent to someone else, it is to expect that one day the victim also gets violent.
If we look at our children, we can notice that also there is a lot of violence. In my opinion there are two things to do, which can stop or reduce that. First we have to stop showing violence on TV. Children should not be allowed to watch that. And the other one is,, that we have to be better role models and show them what is right and wrong.
To conclude, I want to say, that we have to be aware of violence and we should protect our children for a better world.
Freitag, 22. Februar 2008
ESSAY
Violence in movies is a controversial topic, which splits the opinions into very different parts. There are the violent movie lover, who needs the violence for some action and this special adventure felling, and the detractor, who would like to forbid it this minute.
There are three arguments which argue to a ban on violent movies.
First, we can say, that so much violence in movies is not realistic anymore. If we look at the most violent movies, we notice, that the violence is exaggrated and dramatise and there is no real-life-violence any more. For example Kill Bill. Second, non violent movies are successful, too. There are many other things that make a movie into a successful one. In most cases violence, special unrealistic violence isn’t necessary. The last of the three arguments is that one of the “Theories of violence” say, that violence is something that we learn. We hear about violence, see it, e.g. in movies, experience it and imitate it.
There are also a few arguments against such a ban.
One argument is that the majority of people don’t get violent, because of the movies. It’s not correct to generalise it. In addition, most are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn’t copy it. Finally we can say that we don’t turn into a non violent society just because we don’t show violence. Violence will always be a part of our world and it won’t disappear, just because of a ban on violent movies.
So, if we look at all these arguments it’s difficult to say, what would be the better way. Everyone has to come to his own decision.
There are three arguments which argue to a ban on violent movies.
First, we can say, that so much violence in movies is not realistic anymore. If we look at the most violent movies, we notice, that the violence is exaggrated and dramatise and there is no real-life-violence any more. For example Kill Bill. Second, non violent movies are successful, too. There are many other things that make a movie into a successful one. In most cases violence, special unrealistic violence isn’t necessary. The last of the three arguments is that one of the “Theories of violence” say, that violence is something that we learn. We hear about violence, see it, e.g. in movies, experience it and imitate it.
There are also a few arguments against such a ban.
One argument is that the majority of people don’t get violent, because of the movies. It’s not correct to generalise it. In addition, most are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn’t copy it. Finally we can say that we don’t turn into a non violent society just because we don’t show violence. Violence will always be a part of our world and it won’t disappear, just because of a ban on violent movies.
So, if we look at all these arguments it’s difficult to say, what would be the better way. Everyone has to come to his own decision.
Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007
Snow falling on cedars
When two men visited the boat of Carl Heine, all lights were on, but the owner was absent. When they put in the flue they discovered the death man. After they examined the boat and Carl, it seems to be a foul play.
The American Japanese Kabuo Miyamoto is charged because of following evidence.
At that night Kabuo was at sea, where he met Carl.
On Carl’s boat they found two kinds of batteries, a D8 and a D6 in the battery holder. Carl used D8, Kabuo d6 batteries.
When Carl was exhumed, they found a wound behind his left ear, which came likely from one of those kendo strikes Japanese used. They assumed that Kabuo hit Carl with a gaff. The gaff was found, like a net, on Kabuo’s boat and there was blood from Carl on it.
Kabuo also has a motive.
Once, Kabuo’s family has worked for the Heines. The Miyamotos wanted to buy land from Carl Sr., who did agree to an eight-year, lease-to-own contract. The problem was that laws at that time prevented aliens from owning land. So they make a deal, that after the last payment was made, Carl would deed the land to Kabuo.
But because of the war the Miyamotos had to leave. They ever did the last two payments and after Carl Sr. dead, his wife sold the land to another.
When the war was over and Kabuo came back, he went to Carl to ask for selling him the land again. Carl wanted to think about.
Later it turns out, that Kabuo was innocent. In that foggy night Kabuo helped Carl and gave him one of his batteries, because Carl’s battery was dead. Because Kabuo had only D6 batterys, which are bigger than D8s, they had to prepare the battery holder. By doing this, Carl hurt his hand and blood on the net and Kabuo’s fishing gaff. They talked about the land and Carl agreed to sell his land to Kabuo, who went back to the harbour.
Carl, who has put a lamp to the mast, when his battery died, wanted to put the light down. When he was on the top of mast, he tried to put the lamp away, a wave came, because of a big ship, and Carl fell down. He hit his head on the boat, get unconscious and fell into his own flue. His dead was an accident.
The American Japanese Kabuo Miyamoto is charged because of following evidence.
At that night Kabuo was at sea, where he met Carl.
On Carl’s boat they found two kinds of batteries, a D8 and a D6 in the battery holder. Carl used D8, Kabuo d6 batteries.
When Carl was exhumed, they found a wound behind his left ear, which came likely from one of those kendo strikes Japanese used. They assumed that Kabuo hit Carl with a gaff. The gaff was found, like a net, on Kabuo’s boat and there was blood from Carl on it.
Kabuo also has a motive.
Once, Kabuo’s family has worked for the Heines. The Miyamotos wanted to buy land from Carl Sr., who did agree to an eight-year, lease-to-own contract. The problem was that laws at that time prevented aliens from owning land. So they make a deal, that after the last payment was made, Carl would deed the land to Kabuo.
But because of the war the Miyamotos had to leave. They ever did the last two payments and after Carl Sr. dead, his wife sold the land to another.
When the war was over and Kabuo came back, he went to Carl to ask for selling him the land again. Carl wanted to think about.
Later it turns out, that Kabuo was innocent. In that foggy night Kabuo helped Carl and gave him one of his batteries, because Carl’s battery was dead. Because Kabuo had only D6 batterys, which are bigger than D8s, they had to prepare the battery holder. By doing this, Carl hurt his hand and blood on the net and Kabuo’s fishing gaff. They talked about the land and Carl agreed to sell his land to Kabuo, who went back to the harbour.
Carl, who has put a lamp to the mast, when his battery died, wanted to put the light down. When he was on the top of mast, he tried to put the lamp away, a wave came, because of a big ship, and Carl fell down. He hit his head on the boat, get unconscious and fell into his own flue. His dead was an accident.
Sonntag, 2. Dezember 2007
first exam correction
Task 1
Dear Lisa!
How was your week? I hope as good as mine. Yesterday I went to an art exhibition with Mum. It was really fascinating. In the first room there was a special picture by an artist named Norman Rockwell. The picture is called “The problem we all live with”. In the picture you can see a little girl with a white dress. On the left side (in front of her) and on the right side (behind her) are two men. All of them are walking on a pavement. The men wear suits and yellow armbands, with the words “Deputy us Marshall” on them. In the background you can see a wall with a smashed tomato and the word “Nigger” is written on the wall, too. I get the impression that the artist tries to convey a bad feeling. The little girl seems to be lonely and scared. The men are not black like her. It’s quite possible that it is a scene of a South African street. Maybe the artist wants to emphasize the racism and lack of humanity in this area.
I assume that the men are policemen.
This painting made me think about all the black people in South Africa and about their problems. Remember the title! It’s really a beautiful painting. If you have time, watch it on the internet. I’m sure you will like it, too.
In love Anna
Task 2
It’s really difficult to say what is art and what isn’t art. In my opinion nearly everything is art. – This photo, too, because as I see it the artist expresses his feelings with this picture and this makes it art. If someone disagrees with me it’s no problem. Art is free thinking and there are different ways to express or to show this. Art or not art? Is that so important? Our world is a modern world. There should be place for things like that. Art means to express what I want to express. It’s not important how and why. It needs more acceptance and awareness in our time. In my opinion it’s o.k. to say it’s a bad picture, but it’s not o.k. to say it’s no art. If you want to see it as art, it can be art. You only have to try!
Dear Lisa!
How was your week? I hope as good as mine. Yesterday I went to an art exhibition with Mum. It was really fascinating. In the first room there was a special picture by an artist named Norman Rockwell. The picture is called “The problem we all live with”. In the picture you can see a little girl with a white dress. On the left side (in front of her) and on the right side (behind her) are two men. All of them are walking on a pavement. The men wear suits and yellow armbands, with the words “Deputy us Marshall” on them. In the background you can see a wall with a smashed tomato and the word “Nigger” is written on the wall, too. I get the impression that the artist tries to convey a bad feeling. The little girl seems to be lonely and scared. The men are not black like her. It’s quite possible that it is a scene of a South African street. Maybe the artist wants to emphasize the racism and lack of humanity in this area.
I assume that the men are policemen.
This painting made me think about all the black people in South Africa and about their problems. Remember the title! It’s really a beautiful painting. If you have time, watch it on the internet. I’m sure you will like it, too.
In love Anna
Task 2
It’s really difficult to say what is art and what isn’t art. In my opinion nearly everything is art. – This photo, too, because as I see it the artist expresses his feelings with this picture and this makes it art. If someone disagrees with me it’s no problem. Art is free thinking and there are different ways to express or to show this. Art or not art? Is that so important? Our world is a modern world. There should be place for things like that. Art means to express what I want to express. It’s not important how and why. It needs more acceptance and awareness in our time. In my opinion it’s o.k. to say it’s a bad picture, but it’s not o.k. to say it’s no art. If you want to see it as art, it can be art. You only have to try!
Montag, 19. November 2007
What happens when we die?
We all have to die one day. But it’s really difficult to explicate what I think about death.
I have no precise idea what happens when we die. There are so many theories about death, also in our English book. There are different people with individual conceptions about death. Their beliefs vary from lack of ideas and belief in ghosts to reincarnation. In my opinion no theory is absurd and every one of them could be the right one. So I can understand all of them, but there is no one who I totally agree with.
I hope death is “neutral”. There are no bad or good feelings, no sense of time and no form of living. It's a place with no limits, like the universe. The people are disembodied and their souls are "flying" around.
Words: 136
I have no precise idea what happens when we die. There are so many theories about death, also in our English book. There are different people with individual conceptions about death. Their beliefs vary from lack of ideas and belief in ghosts to reincarnation. In my opinion no theory is absurd and every one of them could be the right one. So I can understand all of them, but there is no one who I totally agree with.
I hope death is “neutral”. There are no bad or good feelings, no sense of time and no form of living. It's a place with no limits, like the universe. The people are disembodied and their souls are "flying" around.
Words: 136
Mittwoch, 26. September 2007
Giuliani forced into climdown
Giuliani forced into climdown
My own summary:
A museum (NY) got problems with the mayor Giuliani, because of an art exhibition, where an artist provoked with a picture (Virgin Mary adorned with elephant dung). When the Museum refused to withdraw the work the Mayor withhold the funding. It ended in a legal battle, which was won by the Museum.
words: 51
Summary by the class:
There has been a legal battle between Mayor Giuliani and Brooklyn Museum about Ofili’s Virgin Mary in the sensations exhibition. He threatened to withhold the funding and to evict them. The museum won because of the fight to free speech after six months and he gave in.
words: 47
The letter:
Dear Editor!
I read your article about Giuliani and the art exhibition in New York.
I must admit that I was really shocked when I read the article. But it wasn’t because of the picture. I dislike Giuliani. He seems not to be a very tolerant person, doesn’t he?
In my opinion he exaggerated and I also think it was illegitimate to withhold the funding.
I agree with the Museum.
In our world are different kinds of art and everyone likes another one best. I have no problem with “shocking art”. Sure, it isn’t me favourite, but I am not against it. If someone dislikes “shocking art”, he/she hasn’t to visit a “shocking art exhibition”.
Art should be free and nobody should be able to forbid this sort of expression. That applies to Giuliani too.
Of course there are situations where it’s better to make an exception, but this does not apply to Chris Ofili’s Virgin Mary.
A.D.
words: 157
My own summary:
A museum (NY) got problems with the mayor Giuliani, because of an art exhibition, where an artist provoked with a picture (Virgin Mary adorned with elephant dung). When the Museum refused to withdraw the work the Mayor withhold the funding. It ended in a legal battle, which was won by the Museum.
words: 51
Summary by the class:
There has been a legal battle between Mayor Giuliani and Brooklyn Museum about Ofili’s Virgin Mary in the sensations exhibition. He threatened to withhold the funding and to evict them. The museum won because of the fight to free speech after six months and he gave in.
words: 47
The letter:
Dear Editor!
I read your article about Giuliani and the art exhibition in New York.
I must admit that I was really shocked when I read the article. But it wasn’t because of the picture. I dislike Giuliani. He seems not to be a very tolerant person, doesn’t he?
In my opinion he exaggerated and I also think it was illegitimate to withhold the funding.
I agree with the Museum.
In our world are different kinds of art and everyone likes another one best. I have no problem with “shocking art”. Sure, it isn’t me favourite, but I am not against it. If someone dislikes “shocking art”, he/she hasn’t to visit a “shocking art exhibition”.
Art should be free and nobody should be able to forbid this sort of expression. That applies to Giuliani too.
Of course there are situations where it’s better to make an exception, but this does not apply to Chris Ofili’s Virgin Mary.
A.D.
words: 157
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)