Essays / Films must be regarded primarily as historical artifacts - film essay [3]

thanks alot :)

Undergraduate / USC Short Answer! ("to incorporate Hollywood into my studies") [7]

this is really good. just one thing, the last sentence;
it's only fitting for me to combine my own communication skills with my love for entertainment into a curriculum that I will genuinely enjoy learning.

shouldn't the end of that be, "... into a curriculum where i will genuinely enjoy learning." ??

Undergraduate / essays for penn state u (career goals / personal statement) [12]

in the first sentence, "I thought engineering jobs are mysterious and awesome.", this should be changed to "were mysterious and awesome", you've used two tenses in one sentence and it will prob be the first thing people would notice when reading it. :)

also...

"It is normal for a boy like me, and even many adults, because average people, in the typical run of ordinary life, do not ever have any personal dealings with engineers, even though we benefit from their work every day. "

this is too long and a little 'all over the place'. maybe change it to something like;

it was normal for a boy like me, and even many adults to think this because people who live in the typical run or ordinary life never really think of the engineer, despite benifitting (spell that right) from their work every day.

Essays / uni film essay, how all films are carriers of cultural identity & ideology [8]

thts great thanks, this is what i have so far, its seriously the roughest of first drafts though...

The majority of films in all categories are the unconscious instruments of the ideologies, which produce them.

Is this statement a fact or simply just an idea brought forward by certain film theorists and audiences? To decide whether all films actually are carriers of cultural identity and ideology, it becomes essential to look at a range of films from different countries and cultures, films that support opposite political poles and differ in their views of sexual and religious ideas, and most importantly the historical content of the films in question.

Every country has a different culture and a different way of living, and each country therefore views cultures that are foreign to their own in a different way. Because of this simple fact, movies can be and are perceived differently depending on the audience viewing it. For example, in Japanese culture, it is seen as rude and disrespectful to make eye contact with another person while they are engaged in conversation. However in American and British culture, the lack of eye contact during a conversation is looked upon as a lack of social skills and basic manners. If portrayed in film, a Japanese audience would see this simple act, or lack of it, differently to an American audience.

Every country and its people are looked upon in certain ways throughout film history. For example, the British have, for many years been seen as stiff upper lipped gentlemen and women who are patriarchal and serious. This national identity proves to be how many people, from Britain and abroad would describe the British:

A recent study surveyed groups of forty to fifty students in their first year of university or the last year in secondary school in England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Finland, Greece and the Philippines. They were asked to mark various nationalities on a range of characteristics. The British came out as reserved, practical, peaceful, serious, calm, skeptical and self-controlled.

The character of certain nationalities and the cultural identity of countries will change in film throughout history depending on the countries state at the time the film was made. Because of this it could be argued that films are not in fact carriers of cultural identity, but are actually just mirror images of what the ideologies of the country are at the time. For example:

American films made during the Depression in the 1930s reflect many of the left-wing values of Roosevelt's New Deal. During the turbulent Vietnam - Watergate era (roughly from 1965 to 1975), the American cinema became increasingly violent, confrontational and antiauthoritarian. During the Reagan era of the 1980s American movies turned to the right, like the American society in general. Many movies made during that period emphasize military supremacy, competition, power, and wealth.

British films are a large portrayer of cultural identity. Because of the history of great play writes and live theater, Britain has always had a strong literary heritage and this, therefore comes across in the films it produces, many being adaptations of the works of the most famous British play write, William Shakespeare, or historical dramas. For example, Alexander Korda's The Private Life of Henry VIII. Counteracting the lavish costumes and perfect scripts of these theatrical adaptations, is the counterculture of regional films made throughout England. These films usually contain unknown actors with strong regional dialects, playing working-class characters and these films almost always contain strong antiestablishment ideology; for example, The Full Monty and Purely Belta.

Films that support opposite political poles are also carriers of cultural and national identity. For example, Sergei Eisensteins film October (Ten Days That Shook Earth) is a celebration of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and is very left wing in it's political standing.

even though these are my own words, when the uni checks for plagerism it wont come up positive for being posted on this site will it?