Author: WyattPitts

To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer? The movies are called “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “In the Heat of the Night”. According to Google, “Scout Finch (Mary Badham), 6,and her older brother, Jem (Phillip Alford), live in sleepy Maycomb, Ala., spending much of their time with their friend Dill (John Megna) and spying on their reclusive and mysterious neighbor, Boo Radley (Robert Duvall). When Atticus (Gregory Peck), their widowed father and a respected lawyer, defends a black man named Tom Robinson (Brock Peters) against fabricated rape charges, the trial and tangent events expose the children to evils of racism and stereotyping.” That is the first movie, but what about the other one? According to Google, “African-American Philadelphia police detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) is arrested on suspicion of murder by Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger), the racist police chief of tiny Sparta, Mississippi. After Tibbs proves not only his own innocence but that of another man, he joins forces with Gillespie to track down the real killer. Their investigation takes them through every social level of the town, with Tibbs making enemies as well as unlikely friends as he hunts for the truth.”

To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer? I can’t say that I was ever pulled into either of these movies. Meaning, I never felt that I could have been a part of it, or a side character. I always thought that I was an observer. there are movies where I am pulled into them, but these two were neither one. The movies could have been better, but I can’t change it, so I just didn’t really feel into the movies. 

Why do voters accept the riches of movie stars, but resent the riches of businessmen? Businessmen and movie stars are both rich, but people love movie stars and hate businessmen. why do they love movie stars? Well a lot of people feel like they connect to the part the actor plays. They think it’s amazing how they can act and make a movie they love. Many people might have a crush on famous movie stars. But why do they hate businessmen? Many businessmen lie and cheat for their money. They trick people and do things that no one likes. Not every businessman does this, but that’s what businessmen re remembered for. It is unfair to many people, but they can try to change it if they want to. The people can also be jealous of the businessmen that they have a lot of money, but for some stupid reason not movie stars. They might change their minds if businessmen started doing things the right way and showing people that they are. 

Compare and contrast the attitude of each movie regarding guns. The two movies which I will compare are “High Noon” and “Shane”. These are two western classics made around the same time. First a little bit of info about each. 

High Noon was a western classic made in the year 1952. According to Google, “Former marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is preparing to leave the small town of Hadleyville, New Mexico, with his new bride, Amy (Grace Kelly), when he learns that local criminal Frank Miller has been set free and is coming to seek revenge on the marshal who turned him in. When he starts recruiting deputies to fight Miller, Kane is discouraged to find that the people of Hadleyville turn cowardly when the time comes for a showdown, and he must face Miller and his cronies alone.”

Shane was also a western classic made in the year 1953, one year after High Noon. According to Google, “Enigmatic gunslinger Shane (Alan Ladd) rides into a small Wyoming town with hopes of quietly settling down as a farmhand. Taking a job on homesteader Joe Starrett’s (Van Heflin) farm, Shane is drawn into a battle between the townsfolk and ruthless cattle baron Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer). Shane’s growing attraction to Starrett’s wife, Marian (Jean Arthur), and his fondness for their son Joey (Brandon de Wilde), who idolizes Shane, force Shane to realize that he must thwart Ryker’s plan.”

Both movies are westerns, so they both have a big gun fight at the end, but neither of the main characters wants to use their guns. In High Noon, Will Kane was former marshal and there are times when he needs to use his gun, but his new wife  does not want him to shoot anyone so he tries not to. In Shane, the main character Shane was a former gunslinger who did not want to kill anymore. Both did not want to kill, but for separate reasons. 

What would you miss the most if you had to go back to 1955? What would you miss the least?  

Well, it would depend on if it was just me, or if it was the entire world going back in time, but lets just say that it was me. I would miss my friends and family the most. I would also miss the technology because things are so much easier nowadays with it. I would also miss the music and food. 

What would I miss the least? All the idiotic things that people are doing today. Having affairs more often, abortion, etc. 

If there is no ‘price level,’ how could anyone prove that monetary inflation raises prices? According to Wikipedia, “The general price level is a hypothetical measure of overall prices for some set of goods and services, in an economy or monetary union during a given interval, normalized relative to some base set. Typically, the general price level is approximated with a daily price index, normally the Daily CPI.” This says that there is no such thing as a price level. If there was a price level, then everyone would pay the same amount for different things. There is no set price because of inflation, so the prices just keep rising. 

Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers? When I watch a movie, I am looking for things that I will like. There are different themes that I like. Comedy, action, most others. If I watch a movie with things in it that I like, then I will want to watch that movie again. I won’t watch it again if there isn’t something in it that I like. I am involved in a movie if I like it. this is manipulation. When you are involved in a movie, then you are being manipulated. The authors of the movie want the audience to watch their movie again. they will put things in it that the audience will like. they try to manipulate the audience into watching the movie again. If nobody wants to watch the movie again, then the author did a bad job, so they do their “best” to put things in it that the audience will love. 

It is very easy to manipulate a movie viewer. the viewer can see all that is happening. the setting is clear and you can hear what is happening. You feel like your a part of the movie. Everything is explained and there usually no cliffhangers, unless the viewer is watching a season of a show. the viewers do not have to use their imagination, unless they need to because everything is already explained. You don’t need imagination when you watch a movie. 

This is different from when you read a book. You have to use your imagination to picture what is happening. You don’t know what the setting looks like, so the author will do their best to escribe it so that you can picture it correctly. It is much more difficult to manipulate a book reader that a movie viewer. 

I enjoy reading more that watching a movie, but much more people love watching movies more that reading books. That is why it is important manipulate the viewers, so that they will watch more of your movies. 

Is tax-funded education inherently bureaucratic? Tax-funded education are things like public schools, because they receive money from the government to continue their teaching. In return, they have to teach what the government wants then to teach. Private schools are not tax-funded education because they don’t receive money from the government to continue teaching. According to Wikipedia, “Bureaucracy is a system of organization where decisions are made by a body of non-elected officials. Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials.” Non-elected officials are officials (or people in a place of authority) who were not voted to where they are. In America, we vote for president and governor. There are other people above us who are not voted and they are just put there by someone. Like the vice president. We don’t vote for him/her, the president picks whoever he wants. 

Is tax-funded education inherently bureaucratic? Yes, tax funded education is inherently bureaucratic. We don’t vote for it, but it happens anyway. In fact, it is what we pay for with out taxes. We fund schools with the money the government robs from us. The school system used to be a monopoly. Kids had to go to school, so the government taught the kids whatever they wanted to. Thankfully, now we have private schools and homeschools. These are not tax-funded and safe to teach kids the truth. 

How can profit arise in a free market economy if every factor of production is paid what it is worth to customers? According to Investopedia, “The factors of production are land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital. These inputs are needed for the creation of goods and services.” What it is worth to customers is the value of the item. According to Harvard Business Review, “Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.” In a free market economy the seller gets to make the prices. Different items have different prices depending on their value. If all the prices were the same, then profit couldn’t go up. Things need to be sold at what their worth to make a higher profit. Sometimes they can be sold for more, but that is risky. the government doesn’t understand this and so tries to make businesses sell things at similar prices. Some businesses go out of business because of this. 

Why did the characteristic features of Stewart and Wayne in these films rocket them to permanent stardom? The two films which this essay will talk about are “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” and “Stagecoach”. Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne were two famous actors and were part of Hollywood’s Golden Age. They were both gifted actors and had characteristics which made them stand out. 

Jimmy Stewart was born and raised in a small town in Pennsylvania. When he was older, he wanted to go to the United States Naval Academy. His father didn’t want him to and insisted that he went to Princeton University instead. He did this. He started out by majoring in Architecture. While doing that, he became involved in drama and music clubs. Eventually he decided to change his major to acting instead of architecture. After graduating from Princeton, he joined the University Players. This was a summer stock company for college students. While there, he met James Fonda, his lifelong friend and fellow actor. After the summer, they both moved to New York in order to pursue their careers. Jimmy Stewart found a couple small Broadway roles. He eventually began to star in many films including “Next Time We Love”, “You Can’t Take It With You”, and “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Jimmy stared in roles where he played honest men in times of hardships and trials. Because of this, he related to the audience because his character struggled with life, but in the end he chose to do the right thing. This is what the audience wanted to do in a similar situation. 

John Wayne was born in 1907 in Iowa, but was primarily raised in California. He was turned down by the United States Naval Academy. He attended USC on a football scholarship, but lost the scholarship due to a bodysurfing accident. After that he needed to find a job. Wayne found work by acting in small parts for Fox films. This led to his first big film “The Big Trail” in 1930. He acted in several B movies. He connected with the audience because he acted as an ultimately good man that other men could connect with. 

The division of labor required to create a simple household tool. 

How often do you sit on a chair? Probably every day. But do you ever wonder how much work goes into making one of them? No one knows how to make a chair by themselves. If you tried, you would fail. First, you would need to chop down a tree. To chop down a tree you would need an ax. To get the ax, you would need to make it yourself. If you know how to make a chair, but not an ax, then you couldn’t make one. And what if you become hungry? You would need food. If you wanted meat, you would need to raise your own animals, butcher them, and cook them yourself. What if you wanted a salad? You would need to grow your own vegetables which takes months. If you could do all these things, you would still need to carve the tree into a chair and if you don’t know how to do that, then you need to make a machine that does do it. You can’t do this, so you can’t make your own chair. Your not dumb, it is just not possible.