Movie Review: Inside Out

Pixar has shown itself supreme in the field of animated motion pictures. Blockbusters such as Toy Story (1995), Finding Nemo (2003) and Cars (2006) have transformed animated pictures from strictly kid-friendly to ingenious lessons for the whole family. Pixar seeks to strengthen its already positive filmmaking legacy with Inside Out (PG, 2015). In the fiction masterpiece, directors Pete Docter and Ronnie del Carman explore the inner workings of the human brain with humor and wit. With its endless creativity and relatability to viewers of all ages, Inside Out is yet another Pixar home run.

No teenage girl enjoys leaving her home and friends for a strange new town, and eleven-year-old Riley is no exception. Always happy-go-lucky, Riley’s emotions are put to the test when her parents inform her that they are moving from Minnesota to San Francisco. Much of the movie is set inside Riley’s brain, where five self-explanatory personified emotions struggle for control of her behavior: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Fear (Bill Hader). Throughout Riley’s coming-of-age journey, the characters controlling her brain struggle to preserve the silly, happy nature Riley once maintained so effortlessly.

From the outset, the inventive plot of the film sparks interest in the viewer. The idea of bringing the human brain to life through a whole new world is inspired and heavily intriguing. For example, the “Islands of Personality” control Riley’s core traits like family, friendship, hockey, honesty and silliness. As Riley grows older and loses her innocence, these Islands get destroyed and Riley’s behavior changes in real life! The masters of Riley’s mind are perfect foils of one another; for instance, Joy and Sadness are opposites, and their levels of control over the brain will largely determine Riley’s behavior. The main conflict of the story—Riley’s depression—begins when Sadness accidentally infects her core memories, turning happy recollections into grim reminders of past misery. The viewer is left with eyes wide open at the movie’s ability to capture the abstract in a such an entertaining way.

The most fascinating element of the movie is the collision of two worlds, one real and the other figurative. What happens to Riley throughout the movie is grounded in common, everyday life: the new kid moves into town, she gets embarrassed at school, she struggles to make friends, and in turn her family relationships deteriorate. However, what happens inside her brain is a revelation to all in the theater, and Pixar does an excellent job of interplaying these two worlds. For example, Joy and Sadness visit “Dream Productions,” the figurative center in the brain where dreams are formed and played out by real characters. The last thing they want is to wake Riley up with an excessively scary dream. The film switches back and forth between the dream being directed inside the brain and Riley’s sleep being affected by the dream she is having. This perfect synthesis of two worlds is an essential element of Inside Out’s greatness.

Finally, Pixar’s hit, much like its others, holds something to gain for all ages. The humor and wackiness of the film appeals to children. Tweens will be able to relate the most as they witness one of their own struggle with the experience they know all too well. They will enjoy Riley’s first date, one of those awkward middle school get-togethers where parents reluctantly step back as they realize their little one is growing up too fast. Finally, Riley’s is not the only brain that is explored in the movie. Riley’s parents are extremely protective in her fragile emotional state, and daddies and mommies watching will surely have a laugh as they see themselves on the big screen: overprotectiveness, love, and commitment that goes mostly unappreciated.

Pixar’s Inside Out is an absolute must-see. With its humor and picture-perfect animations, it is a true crowd-pleaser. Next time you’re planning a family night, Inside Out is sure to bring smiles to the whole crew!

Book Review: The Things They Carried

War is a traumatizing and life-changing experience. In The Things They Carried (1990), Tim O’Brien brings the trials and tribulations of war to life and attempts to convey both the physical and emotional burdens of the battlefield. O’Brien seeks to show his readers the side of war we seldom hear about; the indelible emotional scar of death and loss that continues long after the dust of battle is cleared. O’Brien’s journey, loaded with the emotions of war and the strength of brotherhood, makes this novel one you won’t want to put down.

Imagine being forced to risk your life. Now imagine being forced to risk your life for a cause you do not even agree with in the first place! This is the plight of Tim O’Brien in 1968, when he receives his draft notice to join the US military’s Vietnam effort. O’Brien relays the stories of the Alpha Company, the platoon of soldiers in which he fights.

How can one properly relate the true experience of war? When attempting to accomplish such a task, it is difficult to fit into the concrete genres of literature (fiction, nonfiction etc). O’Brien’s novel is a masterful first-person narrative that finds it somewhere in between. While the setting of the novel—a jungle during the Vietnam War—renders the book grounded in real events, the characters, emotions and events that take place are far stretches from the truth. The resulting genre is metafiction. Additionally, O’Brien utilizes a stream-of-consciousness style to accurately portray the experiences of the soldiers. This technique, heavily utilized in the "Speaking of Courage" tale, provides the reader with a beautiful, uninterrupted peek into the natural workings of the mind and feelings of a soldier.

War is not fun. It is dirty, bloody, and unforgiving. O’Brien uses profanity as a symbol of the emotions and attitudes of the soldiers in his platoon. They are tough and full of grit, and the dirty language they use aligns perfectly with the dirty life they live. This makes the novel fun to read, because there is no sugarcoating and there is no mushy gushy. It is war in its pure nakedness. The reader is particularly struck by O’Brien’s use of contrast, paradox and oxymoron, all of which give the writing some umph! and highlight the confusion that comes with being a soldier. The reader learns that war can turn one into a man but can also kill him. The depth of the novel is truly fascinating and intriguing, provoking salivation as the reader anxiously flips through the pages.

No book is perfect, however, and The Things They Carried is no exception. An off-putting element about the novel is it’s lack of continuity. It is confusing and frustrating to be heavily immersed in a heart-wrenching story, only to be interrupted by a new narrative, the relevance of which is not readily recognizable. For example, the rapid and unexpected transition from intense wartime to calm lakeside driving that happens from the chapters “Style” to “Speaking of Courage” may leave readers begging for answers. However, while this can be disconcerting, it is but a single negative element that is clearly outweighed by the various positives of the novel.

Finally, the component of the story that makes it so appealing and relatable for readers everywhere is the overarching idea of unbreakable friendship through difficult times. During the war, nothing comes easy. The men in the Alpha Company must rely on and trust one another in order to survive. At this point in their lives, the soldiers have little to fall back on: no parents to offer love, no girls to provide comfort, and no stable shelter to provide protection. What they do have, however, is one another. For example, soldiers Dave Jensen and Lee Strunk make a deal: if one of them sustains a bad enough injury in battle, the other would kill him to put his out of his misery. When Kiowa dies, the emotional impact it has on O’Brien bleeds through the pages. Years after the war, O’Brien visits Kiowa’s grave to pay homage to the friendship they had. After so long, the thing that leaves the biggest impact on O’Brien is the bonds he creates in the heat of the war.

Friendship, however, is only one piece of the puzzle. Tim O’Brien gives the audience the full range of emotions that come with war in his novel. The ideas conveyed in The Things They Carried are reminiscent of the “Lost Generation” of 1920s, when authors like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sinclair Lewis wrote about their disillusionment of society after First World War. O’Brien leaves the reader with mouths wide open, wondering how war can be so “thrilling,” “drudgery,” and “fun,” all at the same time.

Apple vs. Big Brother

Their company name may be Apple, but the pickle in which the Palo Alto-based tech giant currently finds itself in is far from fruity. After a devastating mass shooting in San Bernadino, California, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) believes that the criminal's iPhone may hold key information as to his whereabouts immediately after the attack. They have requested that Apple creates new software to grant them access to the iPhone, but Apple has repeatedly refused. At what point do we sacrifice privacy for the greater good of our country?
With their "1984" Super Bowl commercial in 1984, Apple exploded onto the scene as the computer company which would save the world from the stranglehold of IBM. Their allusion to George Orwell's 1984, a novel set in a future totalitarian society, cemented IBM as the bully and Apple as the saviors. That was all cute, but now we are dealing with a real-world situation. This is no longer a metaphorical battle against big government. This is a real one. Furthermore, it is one Apple should give up.
Since 1984, Apple has come out with countless (and by countless I mean over 300) new products. They have come out with over two hundred new software updates over this time! Now, the government is calling, and it is calling with a purpose. Apple needs to man up and do what it does best: make functional software. If anything, they should be rushing to take such an opportunity. They would not be making software for mere enjoyment, but they have the chance to help our country prevent future terrorism. This is an opportunity which cannot be underestimated. Apple, I know you care about privacy. But take one for the team on this one. Make the dang software. It could save lives.

Blog #5: Ana Juan

Precis

Ana Juan, in her 2001 New Yorker cover illustration, asserts that the Twin Towers will always be a part of the New York City skyline, even after their tragic destruction. She accomplishes this through a unique artistic technique, drawing the skyline of New York and including the Twin Towers in the reflection of the Hudson River. Juan hopes to encapsulate the feelings of the country in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack, and capitalizes on her opportunity to draw the cover page of such a publication in such a critical time. Anyone looking to understand the importance of the Twin Towers in the history of New York City would appreciate this drawing.

Response

This drawing is definitely an illustration of the quote: “a picture is worth a thousand words.” At the time, nobody could find the words to explain the feelings of America, specifically the city of New York. Ana Juan was able to do this with a simple drawing. It was nothing that fancy, it was just perfect. It is so beautifully simple. Hundreds of people died, and hundreds of families were affected by loss and injury due to the collapse. Again, the emotions hidden within those statistics are far too significant to convey with words. With Juan’s drawing, anyone in need coud interpret the drawing the way they wanted to, and it gave words to the speechless. Juan was a master with the brush, and she proved it here.

Blog #4: Go Carolina

Precis:

David Sedaris, in his “Go Carolina,” asserts that there was a special mold for teenage boys when he was growing up, but if you didn’t fit that mold you should embrace your personality instead of trying to be like everyone else. Sedaris employs personal anecdote, self-deprecating humor, sarcasm and analogies to illustrate this message. His purpose is to show his audience that even though society may knock on your door, it may be better to do things “the hard way” and go against the tide to be your true self. He appeals to an audience of men, women, boys and girls who are struggling to find their identity through the noise of their external influences.

Response:

1. The speech therapy story is very telling of school methods. It basically posits that teachers are out to get students who they perceive as “different” or “slow," and they want to publicize the shortcomings of their students. In the story, Mrs. Samson is referred to as an “agent” who is coming to take David for his crime of being unable to pronounce his s’s. I don’t think this depiction of school methods is true. Especially at the Cooper Yeshiva High School for Boys, and especially with this teacher named Mrs. Ashley Brown, there is a sense of a common goal between the students and the faculty. I think this holds true as a general principle as well: teachers usually come to sincerely care about their students, and they just want the best for them.
2. Sedaris uses humor admirably throughout this piece to illustrate things that, upon deeper analysis, should not be taken lightly. For example, when Mrs. Samson is thinking about putting a sign on the speech therapy room. Sedaris thinks that it should say “FUTURE HOMOSEXUALS OF AMERICA.” I mean, when I read this I laughed out loud, but it’s actually kind of sad. He’s only a child, and he feels like everybody sees him as different, as a homosexual, someone who is inferior to them. Sedaris uses the humor so well and it makes his stories that much more fun to read.
3. Sedaris’ tone is lighthearted and fun. He takes things to the extreme and really uses his imagination. For example, he says that the teacher was probably saying things like “David’s not here today but if he were, he’d have a speech therapy session at two-thirty.” This gives the story, one with so much underlying meaning, a comic relief that is essential for its enjoyment.

Blog #3: Toni Morrison

Precis

In her “Nobel Lecture on Literature” (1993), Toni Morrison establishes the power of language to develop or destroy nations, cultures and independence. Morrison tells a fable, uses sophisticated diction, and employs narration in her quest to honor the beauty of language throughout her speech. Morrison wishes to instill in her audience a love for language, a respect for something which has far more power than they had thought. She is preaching to any man or woman in the world who wants to learn about language.

Response

1. Morrison has an extremely positive attitude towards language. This is a woman who had devoted her entire life to writing beautiful stories for others to enjoy. If you think Morrison’s work was only for the sake of her peers, however, you are sorely mistaken. Toni Morrison grew up as a black girl in a world where blacks were inferior to whites, and language was her main source of pride and it gave her a sense of belonging that she failed to find anywhere else.
2. At the beginning of the story, the woman wants these kids to realize that the bird is in their hands. It is their responsibility, whether it is alive or dead. The bird, however, is symbolic of language, and the woman has disdain for these children who make language a matter which it was not intended to be. However, later in the story, she understands that these kids just want to learn about language and how to use it. They want her to teach them how to look at language the same way she does.

The Importance of Getting History Right

Throughout time, governments and institutions have use propaganda techniques to twist information in order to persuade readers. In every situation, there are simple, yet effective ways to make the aggressor look like the victim, and the terrorized seem malicious. Although subtle, these techniques make a world of difference. Racial and ethnic minorities can easily be marginalized and discriminated against without justice being served. With the growing trend of newspaper and media bias, this issue is becoming increasingly relevant today. Until we succeed in accurately presenting historical events, we will repeat our past mistakes and continue to live in an unjust world of bias and hate.

During World War II, Germany was the center of propaganda. They had recently suffered huge financial losses in the aftermath of World War I, and Adolf Hitler took over, a persuasive character with an unmatched greed for power. He appointed Josef Goebbels as the Minister of Propaganda, and the government proceeded to brainwash their citizens with glamorous ideas of patriotism and nationalism. All books, newspapers and films were heavily censored by the government. Through these methods, they were able to put their evils on a pedestal and make it seem like they were doing nothing wrong, when in reality they were committing a mass genocide of European Jews.

Such explicit propaganda is not the only way groups have misrepresented history in the past. Sometimes, the omission of key information when presenting a story can change the story so drastically and flip the roles of those involved. For example, during the Memphis Massacre in the late 1800s, newspapers flipped the narrative, making the black men and women seem like beastly monsters while portraying the white citizens as innocent victims of unfortunate circumstances. This was far from the case. In reality, the whites were terrorizing the blacks, dehumanizing them in every way possible by murdering many and putting the rest at fear. However, nothing was done about the situation because many were convinced that nothing problematic was going on in Memphis because of the inaccurate portrayal of the events through the media.

A final example, on a bit closer to my heart, is that of the current situation in the Middle East. Most American media providers, being liberal as they are, twist the headlines and portray events far differently from the way they occur. They always make Israel seem like the bully, simply because it has more resources. For example, on Sunday October 11th, the Los Angeles Times had the headline, “6 Palestinian Teens Die Amid Mideast Unrest.” This was the truth, not the whole truth, and everything but the truth. In reality, those teenagers stabbed three Jews before being shot out of self-defense. If you look at the facts, they were clearly the instigators in this case. However, when the event goes through the news filter, the whole story is changed.

Overall, news outlets have to improve at objective reporting instead of biased headlines. This way, our world will be a world of historical truth, where people will be able to judge events by looking at articles instead of having to look at several newspapers in order to get the full picture of one event. The twisting of history in the past has led to nothing besides evil; because if you are doing good things, why would you have a problem with those events being publicized? The only reason for twisting history is to hide evil. If we can get history right, our world will be  better place.

Blog #2: Vietnam Veterans Memoral

Precis:

Maya Lin, a twenty-one-year-old Yale University student at the time, designed a monument to memorialize the fallen soldiers of the Vietnam War. Her design is unique and effective because it slopes downward with the path, and people viewing it can see themselves reflected in the stone, which facilitated the increase in external awareness that Lin desired. Lin wanted to capture the attention of Americans with her V-shaped design, which stood out amidst the myriad of white buildings at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Lin’s audience includes young ambitious foreigners who fear discrimination in their careers and also anyone who wants to commemorate those fallen in battle.

Response:

Maya Lin is such an inspiration to me and it is amazing to see what she was able to accomplish. As the daughter of a Chinese immigrant, some may ask, “What does this girl know about the Vietnam War and American history?” Given her credentials, however, I would venture to say this girl is entitled to be the designer of such a monumental memorial and we should celebrate her accomplishments instead of scorn them. I mean, it gives me so much hope to see someone so young doing such great things. She is only four years older than me! If I am able to achieve something of that magnitude in the next four years, I will be satisfied with my life accomplishments.

Questions
1. The design is what makes this monument so incredible. So many times we see these monuments that are the same, and honestly it can get mind-numbing. It is impossible to display all the emotions and intricacies of someone’s life through a metal block. It is disrespectful to the fallen to enshrine them in such a boring way. Lin recognized this and was able to construct a memorial that was both appropriate and gave respect to the uniqueness of each individual it commemorated.

2, I think this kind of memorial says a lot about veterans and the nature of war. You know how they say a picture is worth 1,000 words? In my mind, a sculpture is worth a million. The added dimensions of the work make it so much more than a simple painting. They way Lin included EVERY single name of the soldiers on the memorial speaks to the value of human life and the blood, sweat and tears each soldier put into the war. It would be grossly disgraceful not to commemorate and acknowledge each life lost. Each soldier had their own unique story. Additionally, the length of the memorial is shocking. It covers a ridiculous amount of ground. I think this element of design said a lot about war. It cannot be sufficiently remembered with a small structure. This structure required a whole lot of work, just the same way a whole lot of work was put into the war.

Living Like Weasels

Rhetorical Precis:

In her essay “Living Like Weasels” (1974), Annie Dillard urges her audience to step back from their daily stresses and live a carefree life. She illustrates this lifestyle by examining the weasel and its “wild” and nonchalant nature, and uses personal anecdote, alliteration and metaphors to convey her ideas. Dillard’s purpose is to relay to her audience her dream life, one without care and full of passive appreciation for nature, and to let them know that they can enjoy the same way of life as well. Her openness about her own life creates a positive relationship with her audience, people who appreciate good literature and the beauty of nature.

Response

1. The numbered sections in the essay are very helpful for the reader because it divides the essay into sections. It’s kind of like big paragraphs containing little paragraphs inside, if that makes sense at all. For example Section I discusses, at length, the weasel and how it lives. To the reader, this is a very abrupt beginning to the essay. Why is Dillard randomly talking about weasels? In Section II, she explains why she was even thinking about weasels - because she exchanged a long glance with one at Hollins Pond the week before. The whole essay is a stream of consciousness, and Dillard is all over the place with her thoughts. The sections proved to be a reader's dream.

2. The line “noticing everything, remembering nothing…” is very telling and encompasses Dillard’s main point of her essay. Throughout her whole “Living Like Weasels,” Dillard is trying to explain that we can learn something from the way the weasel lives - without desiring unnecessary commodities, rather being content with what it needs. All the weasel knows is what it needs. The weasel notices everything; it is highly aware of his surroundings and can react to a dangerous situation if it may arise. But the weasel doesn’t remember things, meaning it does not hang onto things and get all emotional and whatnot. This makes life much simpler for it, and it lives a happy life eating, mating and scurrying in the parks.

5. Dillard emphasizes the “wild” nature of the weasel and suggests humans could stand to be a bit more wild in their own lives. This is a fascinating proposal, and it goes hand in hand with everything else she suggested we learn from the weasel. The weasel is a creature of instinct - it does what it wants to do without necessarily weighing the consequences beforehand. While such behavior could possibly prove detrimental, many times we hold ourselves down by constantly thinking about what others will say about what we do. Sometimes one needs to stop overthinking life, and as Nike likes to say, just do it.

Blog 8: Satire Precis and Oregon Militia Response

Precis

In his “Making Tennessee Great Again”, Bruce Vanwyngarden defiantly claims that he is fed up with the “oppressive know-nothing” running the state of Tennessee and, after being inspired by the Oregon militiamen, has begun occupation of Big Hill Pond State Park in protest. He lends credence to his frustration with state government by pointing to their “imaginary war against Sharia law,” and he intimidates the opposition by announcing his weaponry, which includes a semi-automatic shotgun and some loaves of bread, among others. Vanwyngarden intends to catch the attention of the government just like the Oregon militia, and he wants to convince people of their corruption by pointing out their political and personality flaws. He stands tall as a beacon of hope to all frustrated Tennesseans and an example for citizens of other states who are scares of acting out against oppressive organized government.

Response

I could not be more boggled by the situation in Oregon. It all started with Cliven Bundy, who for years has denounced the power of the federal government and unlawfully used federal land for cattle ranching. After the government warned him many times to no avail, they began to fine him for continuing to use the land in Nevada for his own personal benefit. Now, his fines amount to over one million dollars and, in an act of solidarity, he and many of his followers have occupied a government reserve area in Oregon. There has already been fighting there but the federal government decided to scale it down in fear of fatal consequences. During the scuffle at the reserve, people on the militia side reportedly set women and children at the front of things so that if the federal power opened fire, they would be opening fire and women and children which looks terrible.

To me, this is all ridiculous. The federal government is the federal government and ultimately they have the power in our country. Without regard for the validity of the federal government, our country would fall to pieces. Just because Cliven Bundy doesn’t feel he is subject to obey the law just like everyone else, he is not granted the right to rebel without due justice being served. He needs to man up, take responsibility for his selfish wrongdoings, and restore order to this situation by paying his fines and promising not to do any more damage. The fact that this man has not been imprisoned for his blatant disregard for the law blows my mind. No longer can citizens feel they can do whatever they want because they feel like it. This is America. We stand for freedom, but logical freedom. Not a self-created idea of freedom which seemingly puts oneself above the law to which most everyone else willingly complies.