The film “Upstream Color,” directed and written by Shane Carruth, in short is a uniquely bizarre piece of science fiction that questions the traditional lifestyle of its viewers, gently inquiring upon topics most humans are disinclined to face. This independent film features the lifecycle of a parasite that, while used for evil purposes, in the end resembles the natural courses of life bringing the humans effected back to their animalistic roots. Within “Upstream Color” the heroine is rather unusual due to the fact that instead of inventing an obviously positive character that saves the day, Carruth uses a parasite as the heroine of this film. While in the short term the parasite feeds off of human bodies and causes the minds of those infected …show more content…
Even film critics such as Caleb Crain for The New Yorker can be quoted saying “In ‘Upstream Color,’ the hero is a parasitic worm” (Crain). But how, exactly, has the parasite been a literal hero? The answer to this is simply the parasite causes the humans it infects to revert to the type of lifestyle Thoreau advises humans to live by. To illustrate, “Thoreau left off eating meat because he found it ‘not agreeable to my imagination’ and considered vegetarianism ‘part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement’” (Crain). Thoreau’s idealism that humans shouldn’t consume the flesh of other animals is present within the film. After the human character’s parasites have moved on into their new homes inside the pigs and a connection is formed between human and animal, the characters feel rather ill when they try eating hamburger meat, and dislike the experience. In this scene, there isn’t much dialogue between the two characters of Kris and Jeff, they look rather uncomfortable, and there is dialogue present that proves they dislike the taste of meat. Another illustration of the desired Thoreau lifestyle is to not live in the past or for the future but rather, deliberately in the moment. Within the film “Upstream Color”the parasite opens the consciousness of those infected up to suggestion from others, who take advantage of those infected by stealing money, forcing them to do pointless tasks for days, etc which leads to the destruction of their normal calculated lives in society preluding the parasite. “By destroying the careers that Jeff and Kris previously led, the worm frees them to live in the moment, and on the surface of the moment, as Thoreau recommends. Their bankruptcy frees them, too, of any serious financial attachment to houses” (Crain). Jeff and Kris, along with the other minor characters
Lundberg describes how the demand for animal protein was incredibly higher than the production. She quoted Marlow’s article stating, “A nonvegetarian diet requires 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than does a vegetarian diet and the greatest difference comes from beef consumption” (Lundberg 483). She then questions: "Do we really want to wait until it’s too late to change our way of eating?” (Lundberg 485). These two points will make readers subconsciously pause to answer this question themselves, put themselves in the situation imagining the products used and having an immediate reaction to it.
Chris McCandless does not wish to follow defined life structure that society enforces to simply be alive, instead, he chooses to take a seek a path to live a life with purpose. Such an eagerness to seek detachment from what is expected by society, is enforced by not only McCandless but also Thoreau. A primary factor resembling this, is McCandless’ view that many people “live within unhappy circumstances...yet will not change…they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism...damaging to the adventurous spirit(40).” The detesting tone risen through the confliction of “unhappy circumstances” and “damage,” to “safety, conformity and conservation,” emphasis his will to separate from a lifestyle lacking change. This is done
Although Jim identifies himself as a vegan in front of Alena, he is the opposite. Boyle’s introduction shows Jim’s love towards meat. "Beef, mutton, pork, venison, dripping burgers, and greasy ribs - it was all
Throughout the passage many devices appear so the reader can have a deeper understanding of Thoreau’s attitude towards life. “Let us spend one day as deliberately as Nature, and not be thrown off the track by every nutshell and mosquito’s wing that falls on the rails. Let us rise early and fast, or break fast, gently and without perturbation;
To conclude, Thoreau believed that people should be ruled by conscience and that people should fight against injustice through non-violence according to “Civil Disobedience.” Besides, he believed that we should simplify our lives and take some time to learn our essence in the nature. Moreover, he deemed that tradition and money were unimportant as he demonstrated in his book, Walden. I suggested that people should learn from Thoreau to live deliberately and spend more time to go to the nature instead of watching television, playing computer games, and among other things, such that we could discover who we were and be endeavored to build foundations on our dreams.
... which represents how fleeting time is. Thoreau is aware that the time he has been given is so very limited, especially compared to an eternity, but like the river, time will go on even if he isn’t alive to witness it. “I have always been regretting that I was not as wise as the day I was born.” Compared to where he was in his life when he wrote this, when he was born there was a lot less to be concerned about. Babies are able to live the simple life which Thoreau desires. When we’re young we don’t possess as much of the knowledge as we do when we get older, our intellect can be compared to time. As we grow older we gain more knowledge, the two go hand in hand, but when we are young we aren’t wise so nothing is troublesome, which is why Thoreau says he wishes he was as wise as he was when he was born, life is never as simple as it was the moment you were born.
T.C. Boyle’s “Top of the Food Chain” is a narration about man’s selfish mistakes. The narrator's tone is used to show man’s disregard for organisms that have little to no benefit to them or are considered a nuisance. “The thing was, we had a little problem with the insects…” The narrator’s tone is quickly shown as selfish and works for only his comforts and is indifferent to the chaos that his choices make.
Thoreau believed that labor was not only the activity that could bring material profits, but also a play which made man complete and developed simultaneously” (Ma 384). Thoreau's work was experiencing nature and living transcendentally in order to share the quality of life that nature provides. We see Thoreau in many aspects of today’s society, whether it’s Lisa from The Simpsons, a means of transportation, or political protests, they all follow a Thoreauvian idea of looking at the bigger picture and seeing what really matters. This way of thinking was created because one man decided that society was too mainstream and he moved off to the edge of town and reflected; people these days that do that are referred to as “hipsters” but the influence had to come from somewhere, and that was Henry David Thoreau.
Nestled under the ‘hawkish’ wing of Johnny Friendly, the beginning of the film sees Terry Malloy a daft “bum,” too preoccupied by “standing with the right people, just to have a bit of change jingling in his pocket” to deeply contemplate morality. Tainted by a distressing antiquity, Terry Malloy has habituated to a ‘dog-eat-dog’ world of Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest,’ where “taking it out on their skulls” is the appropriate method of resolution. “Its eve...
He says, “It follows that there is great displeasure in knowing about a food economy that degrades and abuses those arts and those plants and animals and the soil from which they come. For anyone who does know something of the modern history of food, eating away from home can be a chore. My own inclination is to eat seafood instead of red meat or poultry when I am traveling. Though I am by no means a vegetarian, I dislike the thought that some animal has been made miserable in order to feed me (Berry 41).” For instance, there is a place in Coalinga, California called the Harris Ranch. This is the home of the famous beef. One bad thing about this place is that that there isn’t enough space for the cows to move and they aren’t free to eat. They were all stuck in their own concentration camp where they were fed with hormones, and tortured, by the farmers. It is really sad when cows live their whole lives hopeless. This is because those arrogant farmers think it would be right and good to treat these cows terribly and earn money. So eating cows that were surrounded by fences is not a smart idea because their wounds and hormones contribute to poor health. “If I am going to eat meat, I want it to be from an animal that has lived a pleasant, uncrowded life outdoors, on bountiful pasture, with good water nearby and trees for shade. And I am getting almost as
Throughout Thoreau’s essay, he expressed his opinions and beliefs on the importance of civil disobedience in a society. He talked about how one must use his or her moral sense, conscience, to decide what is just and unjust. From here, Thoreau urged his readers to take action, to stop the machine from continuing its lifeless duty. His call to action is if a system is prone to corruption, the people must disobey it. This means that personal endangerment may be needed to do what is right. Going against the status quo to uphold justice and ethics is the basic message behind Thoreau’s essay.
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
... Nature, including human beings, is `red in tooth and claw'; we are all `killers' in one way or another. Also, the fear which inhabits both human and snake (allowing us, generally, to avoid each other), and which acts as the catalyst for this poem, also precipitates retaliation. Instinct, it seems, won't be gainsaid by morality; as in war, our confrontation with Nature has its origins in some irrational `logic' of the soul. The intangibility of fear, as expressed in the imagery of the poem, is seen by the poet to spring from the same source as the snake, namely the earth - or, rather, what the earth symbolizes, our primitive past embedded in our subconsciouness. By revealing the kinship of feelings that permeates all Nature, Judith Wright universalises the experience of this poem.
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...