Any Given Sunday essays

Any Given Sunday essays On any given Sunday youre going to win or lose. The point is-can you win or lose like a man? This quotation from Oliver Stones Any Given Sunday is not only responsible for the films title; it relates to the movies theme of what it means to be a man. Unfortunately, Stone does not introduce a new masculinity but instead reinforces the manufactured consent of power relations between men that is hegemonic masculinity. Any Given Sunday is the story of a fictional football team (Miami Sharks) that is struggling after several losses and team conflicts to make a comeback with a rookie quarterback. Although the film criticizes the roles of class and race in football, it still supports masculine stereotypes through its comparisons between football and war, its limited character development of female roles, and sympathetic portrayal of Coach DAmatos classic masculinity. The opening scenes of Any Given Sunday dramatize action on the football field, offering obvious comparisons to fighting on a battlefield during a war. Players move in slow motion, grunting, their helmets clanking, and the sounds of colliding bodies echo. Players bark insults and threats at their opponents before knocking them to the ground and injuring them to the point that doctors have to carry them off the field in stretchers. Meanwhile, thousands of fans sit in the stands, cheering loudly as their team gives an opponent a concussion or rips out an opponents eye. Throughout the film, the football games are portrayed in a battle-like manner with a similar sense of drama. Players continue to severely injure each other while coaches and the audience encourage them to keep playing to the death. For example, after numerous concussions, the doctor tells the second string quarterback he could be putting his life on the line if he continues to play. Wh...

Response Essay Samples Can Make Writing An Essay Easier And More Enjoyable

Response Essay Samples Can Make Writing An Essay Easier And More EnjoyableResponse essay samples can make writing an essay easier and more rewarding for anyone who needs to write a paper for school. They are also easy to use and quick to start using to try out and see if they work for you. They will also allow you to start writing an essay and not worry about some of the frustrations that come with having to write in a hurry.One of the best parts about response essay samples is that they are more personal to you than typical essays. You can take what you like about other people's essay and use it to help you with yours. These can be used for your essay, first drafts, or even just for personal use. This is good because you get to work on what really matters to you.Response essay samples come in all shapes and sizes and some can be very long, while others are short and concise. It is important to make sure that you choose an essay that is specific to your own personal circumstances. Fo r example, you may need to compose an essay about something you have never seen or done before.Other times you may want to write a personal essay and that may include writing about a family member or friend. This way you will not have to explain things you already know, which makes it much easier.It is also good to see what your essay looks like after you finish it and this can be done by reading the final version and seeing how it comes together. This will help you work on ideas and angles before actually writing your essay. It is a good idea to take a second look at your essay and see how it works before you actually start writing.When you are trying out essay samples, you may notice a few things to focus on when writing your own response. These include using the keywords and sentence structure that you are trying to accomplish with your essay. Other than that, it is important to focus on the point that you want to make.Overall, response essay samples are great to get started writ ing your own essay. They can help you through the process and make it easier and more fun.

Battle of Gazala in World War II

Battle of Gazala in World War II The Battle of Gazala was fought May 26 to June 21, 1942, during the Western Desert Campaign of World War II (1939-1945). Despite having been thrown back in late 1941, General Erwin Rommel began pushing east across Libya early the following year. Responding, Allied forces constructed a fortified line at Gazala which extended south from the Mediterranean coast. On May 26, Rommel opened operations against this position by attempting to flank it from the south with the goal of trapping Allied forces near the coast. In nearly a month of fighting, Rommel was able to shatter the Gazala line and send the Allies retreating back into Egypt. Background In the wake of Operation Crusader in late 1941, General Erwin Rommels German and Italian forces were compelled to retreat west to at El Agheila. Assuming a new position behind a strong line of fortifications, Rommels Panzer Army Afrika was not attacked by British forces under General Sir Claude Auchinleck and Major General Neil Ritchie. This was largely due to the British need to consolidate their gains and build a logistical network after an advance of over 500 miles. Largely pleased with the offensive, the two British commanders had succeeded in relieving the siege of Tobruk (Map). Major General Neil Ritchie (center) addressing other officers in North Africa, May 31, 1942. Public Domain As a result of the need to improve their supply lines, the British reduced their frontline troop strength in the area of El Agheila. Probing the Allied lines in January 1942, Rommel found little opposition and began a limited offensive east. Retaking Benghazi (January 28) and Timimi (February 3), he pushed on towards Tobruk. Rushing to consolidate their forces, the British formed a new line west of Tobruk and extending south from Gazala. Beginning at the coast, the Gazala line extended 50 miles south where it was anchored on the town of Bir Hakeim. To cover this line, Auchinleck and Ritchie deployed their troops in brigade-strength boxes which were linked by barbed wire and minefields. The bulk of the Allied troops were placed near the coast with progressively fewer as the line extended into the desert. The defense of Bir Hakeim was assigned to a brigade of the 1st Free French Division. As the spring progressed, both sides took time to resupply and refit. On the Allied side, this saw the arrival of new General Grant tanks which could match the German Panzer IV as well as improvements in coordination between the Desert Air Force and troops on the ground. Rommels Plan Assessing the situation, Rommel devised a plan for a sweeping flank attack around Bir Hakeim designed to destroy the British armor and cut off those divisions along the Gazala Line. To execute this offensive, he intended the Italian 132nd Armored Division Ariete to assault Bir Hakeim while the 21st and 15th Panzer Divisions swung around the Allied flank to attack their rear. This maneuver would be supported by the 90th Light Afrika Division Battle Group which was to move around the Allied flank to El Adem to block reinforcements from joining the battle. Fast Facts: Battle of Gazala Conflict: World War II (1939-1945)Dates: May 26-June 21, 1942Armies Commanders:AlliesGeneral Sir Claude AuchinleckMajor General Neil Ritchie175,000 men, 843 tanksAxisGeneral Erwin Rommel80,000 men, 560 tanksCasualties:Allies: approx. 98,000 men killed, wounded, and captured as well as around 540 tanksAxis: approx. 32,000 casualties and 114 tanks Fighting Begins To complete the attack, elements of the Italian XX Motorized Corps and 101st Motorized Division Trieste were to clear a path through the minefields north of Bir Hakeim and near the Sidi Muftah box to supply the armored advance. To hold Allied troops in place, the Italian X and XXI Corps would assault the Gazala Line near the coast. At 2:00 PM on May 26, these formations moved forward. That night, Rommel personally led his mobile forces as they began the flanking maneuver. Almost immediately the plan began to unravel as the French mounted a vigorous defense of Bir Hakeim, repelling the Italians (Map). A short distance to the southeast, Rommels forces were held up for several hours by the 7th Armoured Divisions 3rd Indian Motor Brigade. Though they were forced to withdraw, they inflicted heavy losses on the attackers. By midday on the 27th, the momentum of Rommels attack was faltering as British armor entered the battle and Bir Hakeim held out. Only the 90th Light had clear success, over-running the 7th Armoured Divisions advance headquarters and reaching the El Adem area. As fighting raged over the next several days, Rommels forces became trapped in an area known as The Cauldron (Map). Turning the Tide This area saw his men trapped by Bir Hakeim to the south, Tobruk to the north, and the minefields of the original Allied line to the west. Under constant assault by Allied armor from the north and east, Rommels supply situation was reaching critical levels and he began to contemplate surrender. These thoughts were erased when early on May 29 supply trucks, supported by the Italian Trieste and Ariete Divisions, breached the minefields north Bir Hakeim. Able to re-supply, Rommel attacked west on May 30 to link up with the Italian X Corps. Destroying the Sidi Muftah box, he was able to split the Allied front in two. On June 1, Rommel dispatched the 90th Light and Trieste divisions to reduce Bir Hakeim, but their efforts were repulsed. At the British headquarters, Auchinleck, fueled by overly-optimistic intelligence assessments, pushed Ritchie to counterattack along the coast to reach Timimi. Rather than oblige his superior, Ritchie instead focused on covering Tobruk and reinforcing the box around El Adem. On June 5 a counterattack did move forward, but Eighth Army made no progress. That afternoon, Rommel decided to attack east towards Bir el Hatmat and north against the Knightsbridge Box. Italian Ariete Division tanks at the Battle of Gazala, June 10, 1942. Public Domain The former succeeded in overrunning the tactical headquarters of two British divisions leading to a breakdown of command and control in the area. As a result, several units were severely beaten through the afternoon and on June 6. Continuing to build strength in the Cauldron, Rommel conducted several attacks on Bir Hakeim between June 6 and 8, significantly reducing the French perimeter. By June 10 their defenses had been shattered and Ritchie ordered them to evacuate. In a series of attacks around the Knightsbridge and El Adem boxes on June 11-13, Rommels forces dealt the British armor a severe defeat. After abandoning Knightsbridge on the evening of the 13, Ritchie was authorized to retreat from the Gazala Line the next day. With Allied forces holding the El Adem area, the 1st South African Division was able to retreat along the coast road intact, though the 50th (Northumbrian) Division was forced to attack south into the desert before turning east to reach friendly lines. The boxes at El Adem and Sidi Rezegh were evacuated on June 17 and the garrison at Tobruk was left to defend itself. Though ordered to hold a line west of Tobruk at Acroma, this proved unfeasible and Ritchie began a long retreat back to Mersa Matruh in Egypt. Though Allied leaders expected Tobruk to be able to hold out for two or three months on existing supplies, it was surrendered on June 21. Captured Allied soldiers march out of Tobruk, June 1942. Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-785-0294-32A / Tannenberg / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Aftermath The Battle of Gazala cost the Allies around 98,000 men killed, wounded, and captured as well as around 540 tanks. Axis losses were approximately 32,000 casualties and 114 tanks. For his victory and the capture of Tobruk, Rommel was promoted to field marshal by Hitler. Assessing the position at Mersa Matruh, Auchinleck decided to abandon it in favor of a stronger one at El Alamein. Rommel assaulted this position in July but made no progress. A final effort was made the Battle of Alam Halfa in late August with no results.

Cabeza de Vaca and his Encounter with the Indian Tribes Research Paper

Cabeza de Vaca and his Encounter with the Indian Tribes - Research Paper Example This research will begin with the statement that the journey and expedition of Governor Pamfilo de Narvaez, followed by around 600 men and five ships along with the officers including Cabeza de Vaca , the Treasurer and alguacil mayor, Alonso Enriquez, the Comptroller, Alonso de Solis, Quartermaster to Your Majesty and Inspector, Juan Suarez, a Franciscan Friar, Commissary and four more friars for capturing and ruling over the provinces beginning from the River of Palms to the cape of Florida is amazing. The incidents that were encountered during this harrowing expedition have been presented by Cabeza de Vaca in this book called The Journey and Ordeal of Cabeza de Vaca. His account of this terrible journey of the southwest part of America certainly leaves us with a feeling trepidation on the one hand and astonishment on the other. The lifestyles of the Indians clearly reflected their ability to survive against the odds and tame their environment.  During their first phase of the jou rney, from Spain through Cuba to Tampa Bay, the Governor, decided to move further, into inland areas despite the opposition of Cabeza de Vaca that segregated them from their supporting vessels and left them in miserable conditions without sufficient food and water. However, this is the first time that the fleet confronted the attack of the Indian tribes. During their second voyage that took them to the coast of Texas, the inhabitants in this area were primarily Karankawa Indians. In fact, the survivors and Cabeza de Vaca were the first non-Indians known to hit this coast. The hostile attitude of these Indian tribes towards the foreigners and enslaving Cabeza shows their struggle for survival. Broadly speaking, the Indians were in a constant state of warfare with their environment and knew little about life on the other part of the globe. The only thing that characterized the Indian tribes included their aggression and toughness which can be accounted to the antagonistic environment in which they lived. In one of the instances, Cabeza has stated that â€Å"they were bidding us go†, (31).

Breaking Prison Rules Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Breaking Prison Rules - Essay Example A fact that he may have decided to use to his advantage but to my detriment as an officer. He most likely believes that I would help him communicate with the gun group based upon my openly known supportive stance. But regardless of my personal belief in their cause, my duty as a keeper of the peace must be upheld. Therefore, I know that as a prisoner, he has no right to communicate with the outside world without due clearance and permission from the proper authorities. It is therefore quite obvious that, owing to his situation, I will not be violating his rights as a person when I open the letter and read the content for evaluation purposes. Depending upon the content, I may opt to pass the letter along or, if the letter proves detrimental to public peace or has a direct relevance in the on-going investigation, choose to submit the letter as further evidence to the court through the district attorney or his

Film Theory Outline Essay Example for Free

Film Theory Outline Essay From the very beginning of film, theorists have tried to dissect or understand the nature of the new medium of art. As a result various theories of film have emerged, such as feminist, auteur, psychoanalytical, Marxist, Editing and Structuralist. This essay attempts to give an outline of these various theories. One of the first theories to emerge is Editing theory, coming from the context of early Russian cinema. A key event in this regard is the experiment carried out by the film-maker Lev Kuleshov in 1918, in which he demonstrated that what the viewer perceives depends on how images are juxtaposed with each other through inter-cutting. See more: essay apa format Thus, when a human close-up is juxtaposed with a bowl of soup, the perception is of hunger, but when juxtaposed with a shot of a coffin the same close-up is perceived to express grief. Kuleshov concluded that juxtaposition was crucial towards the effect, and thus advocated the use montage in film-making. Other film-makers like Sergei Eisenstein played close attention to these findings, and made use of them in his masterpieces of montage, such as Battleship Potemkin and October. He also spelled out a comprehensive film theory based on editing in a highly influential essay from the late twenties. In it he outlined he various categories of editing, such as metric, rhythmic, tonal, overtonal, and intellectual. For example, with intellectual montage a scene may be inter-cut with something immediately unrelated, but which nevertheless works as metaphor is a more profound sense. The above came to constitute soviet montage theory, which was in contrast to the Hollywood system of continuity editing. Montage is a very visible component of film, whereas continuity editing aims to make inter-cutting invisible, so that the viewer may concentrate on the flow of the narrative in an easy way. Since the fifties a parallel theory of editing has emerged in the West which embodies the Hollywood ethos. In the same essay Eisenstein proposed a Hegelian interpretation of film montage, and which came to form the basis of Marxist film theory. He suggested that montage worked by the principle of the Hegelian dialectic, where thesis is said to beget antithesis, and are resolved in the end through synthesis. For example, when human close up is inter-cut with a glass of water, the viewer interprets this as thirst. If the face is the subject, then its antithesis is the object of vision, i. e. the glass of water. ‘Thirst’ is merely the synthesis of the two. It is present in neither of the two shots in consideration, yet emerges form the inter-cutting of the two. Of course, it was through the Hegelian dialectic that Marx had derived his famous concept of the proletariat revolution, and Marxism was the avowed principle of the Bolshevists. Therefore, it is not surprising that Eisenstein’s theories found a favorable audience in the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was instrumental in forming of Socialist realism, which became the state sponsored ideology in art. Marxist film theory soon found itself as defined in opposition to capitalistic and bourgeoisie art, in which the narrative of the protagonist finds prominence. Eisenstein’s films attempt to obliterate the presence of the protagonist, concentrating instead on the clash of images towards creating a larger ideological narrative. Even then he was accused by the authorities for not championing the workers, and for indulging in the internal mechanics of film, which was deemed to be a kind of formalism. Marxist theory held that the purpose of art is to overcome all ‘forms’ towards dialectical purification. Formalism was felt to be a bourgeoisie component. Marxist theory, as it has flourished both in the East and the West, concerns itself with dissecting films in order discredit bourgeoisie forms, usually those emerging from the Hollywood system. A native western theory of film was late in developing, and a crucial starting point was the theories developed by Andre Bazin, as editor of the French film magazine Cahiers du cinema. Up to that point films were seen as merely commercial vehicles, and Hollywood had evolved into a mighty and well groomed machine that churned films for the pleasure of the masses. Analyzing these films Bazin came to the conclusion that it was the director who left the most characteristic stamp, and as illustration he held up the work of directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks. He advocated that directors infuse their personal vision into the films under their charge, in order that they become the complete authors, which is the ideal state. This came to be known as the Auteur theory of film, which was given a more formal presentation by Francois Truffaut. Directors were described as using the camera as a pen towards composing their films. Another significant idea of Bazin’s was that film should aim for â€Å"objective reality†. This was in opposition to prevalent theory based on montage, which said that object of film is to manipulate reality. This instrumental approach led to the formulation of Structuralist film theory, which examines the structure of the components of film as they come together meaningfully. Instead of the dialectical approach of Eisenstein, the analysis takes into account conventional devices that have come to acquire meaning. The components that come into play are camera angle, lighting, juxtaposition, shot duration, cultural context etc. Meaning is usually accounted for by convention, and conventions change according to social and economic circumstances. For example, the highly commercial nature of Hollywood films has created the Institutional Mode of Representation, in which cinematic devices are used that make film viewing easy and exciting. For this reason it incorporates the established ideology with little departure from the norm. Other interpretations overlook the mechanics of production and instead considered the viewer as the focus of study. Psychoanalytic film theory offers such an interpretation. It is largely influenced by the views of the French philosopher Jacques Lacan regarding the child’s ‘mirror stage of development’. According to this theory the developing child endeavors to see a reflection of itself in all the objects it encounters. Psychoanalytic film theory replicates this situation with the viewer of film. The viewer is always looking for self-identification in the process of watching a film, and in this sense uses the medium as a mirror. It is usually the male protagonist who provides the focus of this identification, and functions as a conduit by which the desires of the viewer are played out. The film is said to have constructed a ‘gaze’ for the benefit of the viewer. Sometimes the gaze is simply the viewpoint of the protagonist; at other times, in the more graphic sequences, the viewer is allowed to gaze directly. Psychoanalytic theory is careful to point out that such identification is merely illusion, and therefore it differs from the identification of the child growing up, whose identifications come to form tangible character. Feminist film theory takes psychoanalytical theory a step further, in that it interprets the gaze as scopophilia, or ‘the desire to observe in secret’, which is also known as voyeurism. Such desire is sexual in origin, and feminist theory is framed in the context of the man wanted to gaze at the woman. Such a theory provides a ready explanation of the objectification of woman in film, a phenomena that has been noticed from the very beginnings of the medium. As in psychoanalytical theory, the male protagonist provides the focus of identification, but his specific desire is to objectify the women in the film, a desire which is vicariously shared by the viewer. There are three levels of objectification. First there is the camera’s point of view, then that of the protagonist, and finally that of the viewer himself, who is allowed to gaze at the women directly. Critics of this theory point out that the female viewer is not taken into account, for women also go to see the same films, and they enjoy them too. However Laura Mulvey has given convincing arguments to explain female enjoyment. She says that it is either through a masochistic identification, or a transsexual one. In the first the female takes secret pleasure in male domination. In the second, the female identifies with the male protagonist, and thus shares in the pleasure that men take. However, she is also continuously slipping back into her female identity, which is said to be a mask that she wears. Identification with the male pushes her uncomfortably close to the image of the subjected women, and the masquerade allows her to maintain a distance from it. Feminist film theory is a harsh criticism of the norms of cinema, which is also blamed on the patriarchal norms of society. The advocacy is to make films that overcome the norms, and therefore to make films that are free from female objectification.

Tina Modotti :: Essays Papers

Tina Modotti Even though Tina Modotti is considered a Mexican photographer because her artistic career was mostly based in Mexico and the American Southwest, she was born in Undine, Italy in 1896. She moved to California in 1913 and was employed in various labor-intensive factory jobs. She was first known mainly because of her relationship with photographer Edward Weston, for whom she was a model in the 1920s; but her abstract, portrait, and still-life photographs â€Å"showed her to be an accomplished photographer in her own right† (encyclopedia). In the 1920s, Modotti was active with Mexican revolutionaries, joining the Mexican Communist Party, and having close connections with the Mexican Artists’ Union. When her lover, Cuban revolutionary Julio Antonio Mella, was found murdered in 1928, she was accused but acquitted of complicity in his murder (encyclopedia). Modotti was eventually deported to Berlin because of her revolutionary ties when there was an assassination attempt on the Mexican president Pascal Ortiz Rubio. From Berlin, she moved to Moscow in 1931 and abandoned photography temporarily in favor of revolutionary causes there. She also lived in France and Spain before returning to Mexico clandestinely in 1939. When back in Mexico, she continued photography and political work until her death of a heart attack in 1942 (encyclopedia). Most of her surviving famous photographs were from her period in Mexico between 1923 and 1926. The photograph entitled â€Å"Staircase, 1925† is a good example of an abstract architectural image. Composition features in this work include the use of repetition of a line pattern, and perspective. â€Å"It is a picture of space becoming a pattern – a construction of lines and triangles stretched very tightly towards two dimensions – in which depth is both precisely described and subtly denied† (Szarkowski). It bears a resemblance to the drawings of M.C. Escher, where the eye is tricked into seeing an impossibly three-dimensional object. Here, an obviously three-dimensional subject is shortened to appear flat, due to the lack of contrast between near and far distances. The photograph â€Å"Flor de Manita, 1925† shows great equity between figure and ground shapes. It is a plant that has large sweeping curves, but because of the darkness of the subject and the lightness of the background, if viewed from a distance, the nature of the subject is obscured and one sees only white and black shapes that harmoniously coexist with one another.