1000

Say NO! to the death penalty.

I personally believe in capital punishment.

           Capital punishment should be abolished to ensure preservation of human rights and integrity of governmental morality. First, the execution of the death penalty results in a grave violation of human rights in case of false accusation. For instance, capital punishment was abolished in the UK after the wrongful death of Timothy Evans, who was an innocent victim of a mistrial. Unlike other sentences, death penalty is irrevocable. Second, the law enforcement cannot be a justification of killing, because there is no such thing as “moral killing.” Additionally, placing death penalties onto murderer is paradoxical since government is committing “murder” in the name of justice.

           Life imprisonment can be an ideal alternative as it does not have the critical drawbacks of the death penalty. In addition, it can inflict much harsher punishments to mass murders or terrorists who deserve such extreme measures. For these reasons, capital punishment must be eradicated.

So where's Waldo, really?

           For the last two decades, <Where’s Waldo?> series has been an unforgettable companion to its young readers. Despite being a very straightforward and plain puzzle book, Waldo and his friends are continuously well-received, sustaining its worldwide fame. Why is it so successful? It’s quite simple: The puzzle is challenging. While its target audience is young children of age 3-5, the puzzle is not immediately solved by older audience. Naturally, the book occupies its real target –the children – with considerable amount of time, and encrypts a powerful image. This image has an advertising effect, enabling a smooth transition from generation to the next one. This seemingly irrelevant analysis is necessary to justify the non-triviality of the question “Where’s Waldo?” and to reveal that Waldo is something much more significant than a mere children’s book.

          As been previously mentioned, the puzzle is straightforward: One is asked to find Waldo, the sleek main character, in a two-page illustration teeming with other characters in a random environment (e.g. Department store, beach, etc.) It is quite obvious, but of course it is difficult to find Waldo in the crowd although he is elaborated some distinct features which slightly lighten the burden. Same applies in real world – even a newlywed couple will be incapable of spotting one another in a picture of overcrowded beach. In this sense, the question “Where’s Waldo?” is a powerful metaphor to the withering of individuals in a crowd. Indeed, most, not if all, of individuals are just mere specks when they are surrounded by the crowd. And this is not limited to the literal application of the meaning.

           Incapable of detecting a certain individual in a picture of a crowd is not a big deal. However, the same phenomenon is prevalent in the real society as well. For instance, Mr. Smith is a competent worker, a caring husband, and a father who always has time for his kids. But from the point of view of the society, he is an insignificant part of the economically active population. If Mr. Smith is fired, he is not an “unemployed”; rather, he is a particle comprising the unemployment rate. Every individual is so unimportant and loses its identity as a discrete entity in a society. Colleges strive to select highly distinctive students through brilliant essay prompts – such as this one – but sadly all the efforts are in vain because the individuality is disregarded in today’s society.

Individuality is consequently ignored.

           Except for the very few people whose distinct influences reach out to every part of the society, the members of society are no more than a “Waldo” in the gigantic illustration. While the question “Where’s Waldo?” is preoccupied with Waldo and his special features that differentiate himself from the crowd, it paradoxically implies what an insignificant being Waldo is, due to the very fact that one must give efforts to find him. “So, where’s Waldo, really?” Well, every one of us is a Waldo – a small, meaningless speck of dirt. And if one needs to ask that question for his Waldo, he is going to have hard time finding him. Good luck to all the players of the virtual <Where’s Waldo?>.

Ben X: A different - no, a special - film

What needs to be further remarked? He's handsome.

         It was not hard to detect there was something "different" about the protagonist from other characters. An Asperger's sufferer, Ben was badly bullied by his classmates, sympathized by his parents and teachers, and the viewers, of course. Frankly, he was "different", but not "different" different. He was a typical "different" movie character; hard - not impossible - to come across in real life, but frequently met in a frame. The movie, <Ben X>, was somewhat similar to its main character - another movie featuring a mentally challenged person, another movie leeching off of the audience's sympathy for its gross revenue. That was my first impression.

          Thus, it was difficult to understand the presentation of characters' interviews which seemed to hint at a "shocking incident." The audience knows - I know - a twist, one that is so abused but still necessary to save the otherwise dull plot, is to be presented at the end of the movie. A massacre, a suicide, but why emphasizing its existence? With these questions in mind, the movie progressed. Towards the end, I found out how deadly wrong my expectation was.

          The movie blooms into a brilliant piece in the very end of the running time. Ben plans a revenge with Scarlite to take his revenge on the bullies. Since this was something novel to the movie after a tedious presentation of continuous violence done to Ben, it effectively grasped more audience attention. However, contrary to my hope, shortly after it was revealed that Ben committed suicide on a ferry, which was caught on a video clip. I was bemused - what about the revenge? Was he talking about arousal of guilty conscience within the bullies? Then he resurrected. And THAT WAS PURELY AWESOME. The unexpected twist of faking a suicide practically compensated for everything: Routine characters, dull plots, giving out the twist, etc. In fact, implication of some violent form of outbreak perfectly fooled me, and the ending approached as an even bigger surprise. In terms of best twist, <Ben X> has presented me with the biggest pleasure compared to all other movies.

          Another impressive aspect of the movie is how it successfully illustrated a protagonist of the kind who reached the resolution through his own effort. Because to be precise, he is a below-average character of his kind. While other characters suffering from autism had extraordinary intelligence (e.g. John Nash in <Beautiful Mind>, Raymond Babbitt in <Rain Man>), Ben had none of that. Ben's, a character closer to real-life autism patients, achievement therefore was even more impressive, which added up to the positive aspects of the movie <Ben X>.

             <Ben X> is not a masterpiece; its plot is occasionally choppy, and it does not really bear any valuable virtue that we need to save for ourselves. However, it definitely does not deserve my cursory accusations of it being a lame, dull film. Armed with an ingenious twist and a pleasurable diversion from the movies of its kind, <Ben X> and Ben proved their existence to be more than different - they are special.

Earthlings Ver.2

Earthlings: Sure, what a SUCCESSFUL film!

         Earthlings is a 2005 documentary about the cruelty of humanity’s use of animals as pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and subjects for scientific research. The film aims to conjure up misanthropy in its viewers, and it does so successfully towards most of the innocuous viewers. The film embarks ambitiously with Schopenhauer’s three stages of truth, and ends with petty emotional appeal devoid of reason and supportive evidence. Simply put, Earthlings is closer to a vegan promotion video in disguise than an actual documentary film. This is due to the fact the message the film tries to deliver cannot be delivered in a "documentary" film.

           Perhaps the most serious error the film commits is its overdependence on pathos. With a touch of hyperbole, it can be said the film uses only the pathos as its mode of persuasion. Pathos, a technique in communication which appeals to emotions of the audience, is an effective way of expressing the director’s intentions. However, in a documentary film whose obligation is to enrich its audience with objective knowledge to enable them to give their opinion about the issue, pathos should be avoided. The film has a very simple structure – in fact, it does not comprise logical steps – of showing disgusting scenes of cruelty done to the animals, one after the other. The director Monson throws around some little numbers to formulate a correlation between the graphic scenes of the film and the injustice. But the reaction of the audience viewing the film is  not due to the statistics, but due to the graphical scenes. In a sense, the film seems to appeal to the authority – ethos – by inserting footages of slaughter in a slaughterhouse and the scene of elephant taming in a circus tent. However, the director explicitly adapts only the most aversive scenes of the situation to slander the system altogether as sets of inhumane methods done to animals. Needless to say, there exists no logical structure in the film more than juxtaposing of five parts, where each of the parts is another juxtaposition of visual violence.

           Another flaw in the film is its superficiality. The film comprises five parts of humanity’s injustice done to the “animal friends,” namely “Pets, Food, Clothing, Entertainment, and Research.” With sufficient amount of investigation, each one of the five parts can be made into different documentaries in depth. For instance, systemization of food production bears much more serious issues than the apparent process of killing the animals, which may distraught the audience. Inferior conditions of animals in slaughterhouse and deadly disease, such as influenza, as ramification of such conditions are heavy topics that must appear as a relevant issue. Additionally, as the film advocates nature, humans, and animals are all Earthlings, the film ought to cover the harmful consequences of poor systemization towards the environment and the fellow human beings. But instead, the director Monson chose to forcefully fit in all five parts into a less-than-two-hours less-than-a-mockumentary film. As a result, only the graphic violence is left in the audience after the film, and it has a provisional effect of turning some of the audience into a vegan. However, it is only provisional as the new vegans would have no idea what they are advocating, which was not presented in the film.

           Lastly, the film does not fully understand the subject of its content. In other words, director does not know what he is talking about. I, as an audience myself, could not give a direct refutation towards error of the film, although it was clear the falsely misanthropic documentary was far from being objective. The last part about the animal research, however, explicitly revealed the ignorance of the film and reduced its integrity and validity as a documentary film. The film argues that the results of the animal research cannot be applied to humans whatsoever, a complete fallacy which demeans most of the experimental researchers. For instance, http://www.mofed.org/Animal_Research.htm describes how animal research was successful in eradicating various deadly diseases that were otherwise untreatable. This lack of professional knowledge can be deemed as a reflection how this film would be effective only towards the audience equally ignorant as the director. 

              Apart from the fact that it is a documentary film and the responsibilities it bears as one, Earthlings is a very well-made film. It does a succinct yet very powerful job in advocating its argument. However, the very argument it tries to convey is not rational. The main aspect Earthlings tries to criticize in modern day animal treatments is not treatments themselves but the systemization of the process.  However, living in a tightly organized society, such systemization is inevitable to ensure a stable survival of the mankind. In this sense, it is reasonable to oppose the mindless tortures of animals for the sake of entertainments. Nevertheless, the crippled aspects of the documentary that is against the essential interests of the mankind break the film as a whole. Hence, while Earthlings is a very successful film indeed, it is a poor documentary and it does not assume its burdens as one. 

Oh, and where's the part about nature?

FF

1.    Mar. 30, 2014. “We regret to inform you that…”

2.    Yay! I get to use the whole room by myself on Christmas!

3.    See & Send Scores

Status: Available Online

4.    Okay. I start studying at 12 o’clock sharp. Wait, it’s already 12:05? Ah, then make it 1.

5.    Due: Tomorrow. Word count: 7

6.    English Composition: 89.48

7.    Put that gun away from your head or I shoot you!

8.    “I fully concur with the documentary film Earthlings and its message. Wait, today’s Chicken Day? Yippee!”

9.    “Today, the headmaster Dr. Yun Chung-il will make a speech.”

10.*

            *: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-05-22/1242954008425.jpg

Ben X - Monster X

  From the first glance, the movie was quite intriguing. In fact, a curious combination of autism and video game, <Ben X> is able to grasp the any kind of audience quite successfully. I found myself very engaged in the movie soon enough, and I somehow established a very strong desire to disclose the rest of the plot. Indeed, the main strength of <Ben X> is its power to lead the audience to crave for the next event. Although the plot might be relatively porous as a whole, individual events in the plot is so vibrant and in a sense, graphical.
  So far, I don't have a clear idea about the ending of the movie yet, due to its mercurial nature. Nevertheless, I was able to draw a correlation between Ben X and Monster X. At first I just joked to establish the relationship to imply how they share X in their names, but soon I found a significant similarity. Monster X, a boss monster in the game <Cave Story>, was originally a cat. But it turned into a monster due to radioactive environment. I thought this was somewhat similar to what is happening within Ben's mind. Ben is a "hero" in the video game, but a victim of bullying in real life. This difference between idealistic virtual reality and harsh reality, I believe, will result in a sudden outburst, which may turn Ben into a monster. It seemed Ben in the movie is quite similar to Virginia Cho in their situations, although it is not certain that Ben will commit a massacre as Cho did.