Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fahrenheit 9/11 summary
How war has been romanticized
Fahrenheit 9/11 summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fahrenheit 9/11 summary
Fair?enheit 9/11
It was a typical Saturday at Florida State University. The Noles has defeated, pretty decisively, UNC and the people were conducting normal activities. However, this Saturday was different in the fact that Academy Award winner Michael Moore was to speak to students at the Ruby Diamond auditorium about the upcoming 2004 presidential election. I had received my ticket from the College Democrats, who had arranged for their group to have block seating. During the event itself, which included an introduction by Andrew Gillium, a local Tallahassee politician, Michael Moore talked about his various complaints about President Bush’s policies and told young voters to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. He also showed some extra clips from his movie Fahrenheit 9/11. This movie, which is a “documentary”, grossed over 110 million dollars in the U.S (Kopel 2). The budget for the film itself was only 6 million dollars. Michael Moore had won the Oscar for Bowling for Columbine the year before for Best Documentary, and so this film was very much anticipated by both sides of the political aisle. To add to this expectation, Moore was an outspoken opponent of the Bush administration and had used his 2003 acceptance speech at the Oscars to blast Bush’s war on Iraq. This film, at least from my perspective, was the result of great passion and zeal.
The film itself, in the words of many commentators, a “two hour hate letter to Bush”, and in my opinion it was. This film was coming out on the heels of Mel Gibson’s hit success, The Passion, and the same type of intense controversy was surrounding Fahrenheit 9/11.
The movie premiered in June, and according to a friend of mine the opening night was jammed pack in Tallahassee itself, which was showing the film only at the Miracle 5 Theater. All across the nation, Moore’s film was number 1, grossing huge amounts of money. It was expected to generate huge profits all across the globe, for it was a film many who oppose President Bush were waiting to see. I was amazed at how this film was treated as if it were Moses handing down the law, and with all the hype I decided that it was time for me to see it
I did not think I would get to see this movie. My beliefs about the war and terrorism could be thought of as Pro-Bush, and I highly distrusted anything Moore had to say after seeing Bowling for Columbine, which I believed contained distortions.
Nash’s argument regarding to how the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” throughout the American Revolution has been supported from the previous pieces of evidence. Moreover, the pieces of evidence listed to support Gary B. Nash’s argument are supported in embodying the true manner on how the American colonists fought to let go of their submission with the British and try to throw down Parliaments Policies. The evidence presented illustrate how the radical-lower class politics erupted to other citizens that favored British policies and caused riots that led to the account for the Revolution itself. The issues regarding to how these radical-lower class demanded British favorites demonstrated how far reaching the people would go to demolish but historically demonstrate their pride and purpose in freeing themselves from Parliament rule. These evidential claims help proclaim what argument Nash is making suggesting that radicalism was performed indeed to a very extreme point but rather to an effective point in which led to the creation of the American
Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that extensively covers the origin and ideas preceding the American Revolution. Wood’s account of the Revolution goes beyond the history and timeline of the war and offers a new encompassing look inside the social ideology and economic forces of the war. Wood explains in his book that America went through a two-stage progression to break away from the Monarchical rule of the English. He believes the pioneering revolutionaries were rooted in the belief of an American Republic. However, it was the radical acceptance of democracy that was the final step toward independence. The transformation between becoming a Republic, to ultimately becoming a democracy, is where Wood’s evaluation of the revolution differs from other historians. He contributes such a transformation to the social and economic factors that faced the colonists. While Gordon Wood creates a persuasive argument in his book, he does however neglect to consider other contributing factors of the revolution. It is these neglected factors that provide opportunity for criticism of his book.
Fahrenheit 451 Montag, a fireman who ignites books into glowing embers that fall into ashes as black as night. In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, a message in which society has opened its doors to mass devastation. Guy Montag, a “fireman”, burns houses that have anything to do with books instead of putting fires out like the job of a real fireman. In Montag’s society, books are considered taboo, and owning books can lead to dire consequences. Ray Bradbury portrays a society in which humans have suffered a loss of self, humanity, and a powerful control from the government resulting in a fraudulent society.
In conclusion, many people may view Michael Moore as being uneducated and just ranting about his dislikes; however, he writes about what most of us believe and do not admit out loud. The purpose of any piece of information is to inform the public. Michael Moore effectively informs the reader about America’s poor education system, why and who to blame for this unfortunate truth, and lastly what actions can be done.
It is very common in the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent $2.6 billion on advertising that year, from which $2 billion was used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008). Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who belongs to the Democratic Party, broadcast the first commercial we will analyze, the title is “Seven” referring to the seven houses his opponent John McCain owns; Barack Obama tries to engage pathos which refers to the audience of the message (Ramage et Al. 2012) utilizing a form of fallacy known as “appeal to pity”, this fallacy tries to “appeal to the audience’s sympathetic feelings in order to support a claim that should be decided on more relevant or objective grounds” (Ramage et al.
The women in Beowulf are barely discussed and seem to exist solely for the use of the men. They are weak and portray none of the legendary qualities that the men display. Wealhtheow, the Queen of Danes and Hrothgar's wife, is the only female character in the epic that talks. In a speech to her husband, we are able to see that she is a strong woman, who is able to speak her mind. She tells the king that it is good that he adopted Beowulf, but reminds him that he already has two sons. However, her speech is made while she carries the drinking goblet to all of the men in the room, "Wealhtheow came in,/ Hrothgar's queen, observing the courtesies./ Adorned in her gold, she graciously handed the cup first to Hrothgar, their homeland's guardian,/ urging him to drink deep and enjoy it because he was dear to them" (612-618). When she is given the opportunity to talk, she only praises the men and plays a role defined by their society.
This movie enlightened me because in learning the different ethicists. I was able to see how a care ethicist and virtue theorist acts. It was a very emotional movie. This showed me the different medical plans they have available. What do their plans offer to me; if I am ever put in situation like John Q.? I have to know what medical plan I have to have; God forbid anything every happened to me or my family we can be covered.
This movie was inspiring and encouraging to anyone who is struggling with something. Overcoming his controversies in life became the main point of the movie. Knowing that this movie was based upon a true story inspires the people even more.
It recounts the documentary we watched called “4 little girl” and the bombing that they endured at church. It was a horrific bombing that affected much more than those families affected but the whole African American community because this was where they organized a lot of boycotts and marches. This bombing hit the heart and soul of the black residents. And like we distinguished in class the segregation that occurred was increasingly different depending on who you ask. The film covered a lot of the things that we learned about MLK and his courage in Alabama especially the rainbow coalition that they were able to unite after the attacks on African Americans were broadcasted. George Wallace was also displayed in the movie and his acts of being on both side. We see him defending the racial class and then later trying to help the lower African American class. It helps one confirm how racist that he is by allowing these acts as the governor of
In Michael Moore 's Stupid White Men, he discusses many world and governmental issues facing America. He focuses on the corruption that has befallen the nation due to the Bush Administration. He forcefully gets his point across without worriment of opposing opinions. Moore focuses greatly upon political, environmental, economic and social issues due the Bush administration, which he believes to be the cause of many of today 's national issues. Moore’s Stupid White Men focuses on the damages done by the Bush Administration and its impact on national dilemmas. Although Moore 's premises on the topic is tipped in a negative favor, he provides reasonable points to aid in his argument to encourage an agreeable response.
I did not see the movie until the experiment was complete, in order to keep this experiment unbiased. I think that the anti-semitism in the movie was extraordinarily clear. I actually think it is totally contrary to the Catholic doctrine. Another thing is the history of the Gibson family. Mel’s father, Hutton, is an open anti-semite, holocaust denier, and accuses the current pope of being Jewish. When a person grows up in a household learning that, it stays with the person. I can prove this with another experiment. Kids who grow up getting physically abused, are usually abusive parents themselves.
This movie does provoke a dialogue on race that, according to author and journalist Jeff Chang, "has been anathema to Hollywood after 9/11." During the first viewing of
According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugee is a term applied to anyone who is outside his/her own country and cannot return due to the fear of being persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a group or political opinion. Many “refugees” that the media and the general public refer to today are known as internally displaced persons, which are people forced to flee their homes to avoid things such as armed conflict, generalized violations of human rights or natural and non-natural disasters. These two groups are distinctly different but fall ...
Refugee is an important term and concept existing in international studies. In order to understand the problems confronting refugees, we must first know the definition and the concept of refugee.
Before seeing The Passion of the Christ I hadn't heard much about it except that it was very violent and politically incorrect. In fact I hadn't seen or heard a review that said if it was good or bad or if it was well acted or if it was worth the watch. Everyone just seemed to be interested in saying that it is too violent, the movie should not have been made and Mel Gibson shouldn't be making money from a story about Jesus. (It made $212m in its second weekend in the US)