Essay --

Michael Jackson Michael Jackson was a very charismatic, influential individual. He took the world by surprise as his long, successful career blossomed at such a young age. Throughout his many years of hard work, and unparalleled performances, he changed the world with his music. He became one of the most popular recording artists, delivering his sweet, funky tones, smooth dance moves, and versatile music capabilities across the world. He was a legend that continues to influence other musicians, as well as his large, loyal fan-base, and is well-deserving of the title of â€Å"The King of Pop† Michael was born on August 29, 1958 in Gary, Indiana. He lived with his 5 siblings, and his Parents. The Jackson family was poor, but managed to get by in their little house on, coincidentally-named, Jackson St. The Jackson brothers were born into a musical life. Their father, Joseph had previous musical experience with his blues group, The Falcons. Unfortunately their career did not take off, and they eventually broke up. Joseph saw something in his children. He saw what they were capable of, musically, and in the early 1960’s formed a group with Michael’s three older brothers, Jackie, Tito, and Jermaine known as, â€Å"The Jackson Brothers†. Michael at a very young age was influenced by artists such as Sammy Davis Jr., Smokey Robinson, and James Brown. At the age of only five years old, his mother would watch him singing and dancing along to old James Brown 45s, and she knew there was something special in him. (Jackson, â€Å"Michael Jackson: The Life o f an Icon). Michael was presented to his brothers and father, and was a quick addition to the Jackson’s musical group, taking over his brother, Jermaine’s position as lead singer. Joinin... ...o come. â€Å"If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.† - Michael Jackson Jackson, Michael. Moonwalk. Crown Archetype, 2009. Print. "Triumph & Tragedy: The Life of Michael Jackson." Rolling Stone, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2014. . "Michael Jackson." Billboard, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2014. . Michael Jackson: The Life of an Icon. Dir. Andrew Eastel. Universal Pictures, 2011. DVD. Torribio, Sarah. "The Man in the Mirror: Jackson's skewed self-image." Examiner, 1 July 2009. Web. 17 Jan. 2014. . This Is It. Dir. Kenny Ortega. Sony Pictures, 2009. DVD.

CLassical vs. Hellenistic :: essays research papers

A range of sculptural styles appeared during the Hellenistic period. For example, a highly academic style, which tells a story through a range of symbolic figures, was used in a relief carved by Archelaos of Priene, The Apotheosis of Homer (150? BC, British Museum, London). The relief was dedicated to the Muses or to Homer and shows the poet along with figures representing the World, Time, Homer’s great epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey, and other literary images and ideas. But perhaps the most distinctive Hellenistic style is one sometimes called Baroque. Hellenistic Baroque, like the Baroque style of 17th-century Europe, is defined by its melodramatic, exaggerated effects. It is especially associated with the ancient city of Pergamum, and its masterpiece is the so-called Great Altar of Zeus built atop the city’s acropolis sometime from about 190 to 156 BC. (A reconstruction of the west facade of the Great Altar is housed in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin, Germany.) The monument may in fact be a shrine to Telephus, Pergamum's legendary hero and founder, rather than to Zeus. The life story of Telephus, from his birth to his exploits as a mature hero, unfolds in a continuous frieze inside the monument. A podium supports the monument and around it an even larger frieze recounts the Battle of the Gods and the Giants. Some figures seem ready to leap off the wall. Some even crawl up the sides of a staircase that visitors use to reach the altar. The mus cles of the figures are taut and pronounced, the drapery sweeping and tumultuous, the poses violent and dramatic, the faces expressive and pained. In one scene, the goddess Athena has caught a giant by the hair; he gazes helplessly toward the sky as he tries to free himself from her grip. His expressive pose resembles that of a Trojan priest, Laocoà ¶n, in a later statue of Laocoà ¶n and his Sons (Vatican Museums), shown as he struggles to free himself from giant snakes. Although the names of the sculptors of the Laocoà ¶n are known (Athanadoros, Hagesandros, and Polydoros of Rhodes), the exact date of the statue is a matter of dispute.

John constable :: John constable

John constable What made Constable different from the majority of his contemporaries was his attitude towards the things that he saw. He was not, like so many other landscape artists, a conscious seeker of the picturesque. As an artist he was virtually self-taught and his periods of formal study amounted to little more than process of directive discipline. His real master was his own sensitive and perceptive eye (Peacock, 15). It was through a study of nature rather than by a study of academic principles that his artistic philosophy was evolved. It was at East Bergholt on the Suffolk side of the river Stour on 11 June 1776 that artist John Constable was born. The house where John was born is now disappeared, but its prosperous Georgian solidity exists for us in a number of his paintings (Peacock, 15). Golding, Jonh’s father, was a miller and the owner of water mills at Flatford and Dedham, and two windmills at East Bergholt (Taylor, 10). The Constables were a large family, John was the fourth of six children. Though much is not recorded of John’s first school experince , he was sent to Lavenham at age seven (Shirley, 39). There like most of the pupils, ill-used, he finished it in Dedham grammar school under a Dr. Thomas Grimwood. John did not do well in his studies to justify seeking a career in the church like his father had wished (Taylor, 11). In fact, Constable’s only record of excellence at Dedham was in penmanship, and so he was quickly directed into the family business, becoming locally kno wn as â€Å"the handsome miller† (Shirly, 39). For a year John worked in his father’s mills and so acquired first-hand knowledge of the miller ’s trade. In the mills what John learned probably stood him in a better stead that all the formal instruction in art he would ever receive (Peacock, 16). In 1796 he went on an apprenticeship in London. John apprenticeship to John Thomas Smith, a draughtsman and engraver, known as â€Å"Antiquity Smith†. Constable assisted by making sketches that might be used as subjects for his work. Golding Constable grew impatient and dismissed his son’s taste for painting as a young man’s whim, and with the need for help in the mills, Golding summons John back to Bergholt (Taylor, 17).

Realism and Naturalism Essay

Throughout the history of theatre there have been many schools and styles. Theatre is ever changing as a reflection of society and what society wants. But out of all these styles, there are two which, when blended, produce a type of theatre that can always live and flow with society and not drastically alter to fit in with the world’s ever changing ways. These are Realism and Naturalism. When combined, they form a powerful, truthful and powerfully real theatre. The two men who have best managed to best combine these two elements are Konstantin Stanislavski with his â€Å"system,† and Anton Chekov with his dramatic writings and specifically, with his work in The Cherry Orchard The main beliefs of Realism and Naturalism are that the theatre needs to shun melodrama and spectacle and, instead, present something that is real and true to life. They believe that the most influential factors in a person’s life are heredity and environment, and they feel that the characters shown need to be more that two dimensional stock characters. They need to have real motives and emotions and possess all the complexities that go into making a true personality and a true person. Naturalists feel that plays should not be written in any sort of dramatic sequence or structure because that is not true to life. Realists embrace the desire for reality on stage, but also feel that dramatic structure follows the actual structure of life and structure and poetry should be integral parts of drama. Konstantin Stanislavski felt that same need for reality on the stage. He spent the majority of his life searching for how an actor can create truth on stage and, in doing so, he tapped into many of the same veins of humanity that Naturalists and Realists did. He expressed the same desire of Naturalists for a realistic theatre that shows life with its dramatic structure and intrigue. â€Å". . . I was beginning to look for genuine life in [the theatre], not ordinary life, of course, but artistic life† (Bentley, 220). And he went looking for it the same way that realists and naturalists did. He began to look for a natural order for things and to devise a systematic plan from that natural base. He went looking for truth. And, again, he found it in the same place as the Naturalists and realists did. He found that, for an actor to bring full life to a character and full reality  to the stage, he must both create a character with a real soul, and he must not rely on stage tricks t o do so. â€Å"An actor, [Stanislavski] thought, must have some sort of spiritual preparation before the beginning of a performance. Not only his body, but also his spirit must put on new clothes† (222). This type of acting blends perfectly with realistic drama, which contains characters whose souls are inherent to the script. He did not, however, feel that he was subscribing to either school of thought. He stated that he felt that realism and naturalism were not things that needed to be pushed onto the stage, but when a good actor takes on the role and fully builds his character from the inside out and truly lives the reality of the stage, reality will flow from it with out outside help. â€Å"As soon as [the realism] is justified, it becomes either unnecessary or it is not noticed at all . . .† (229). Stanislavski embraced the same ideas of the Realist and Naturalist thinkers, but he didn’t place the emphasis on them. Instead, he felt they would emerge as soon as the actor fully filled the role. And no one wrote better roles for this approach to theatre that Anton Chekov. Chekov was able to write plays that embodied the idea of true, artistic life, and The Cherry Orchard is a shining example of that. He takes a moment that has dramatic appeal and is emotionally charged, and recreates it in a way that is true to life and yet exaggerated at the same time. He creates a reality that is so real, it almost appears fake. However, it is this style of drama that is a perfect vehicle for Stanislavski’s system of acting. As Barrault says in his essay â€Å"Why The Cherry Orchard?.† â€Å"The Cherry Orchard is one of the few plays in which a whole cast could really get so profoundly lost as to cease to believe that they are in a theatre, and believe on the contrary that this family truly exists and that they are in real life . . .† That was Stanislavski’s goal for his actors. That was the ultimate peak to reach. So why is this not Naturalism if the actors create a full reality? Also, he creates this complete reality, yet it is a reality steeped in poetry and lyric. So why is it not Realism if he creates truth through poetry? As Barrault says, â€Å"This play belongs neither to the naturalism of the beginning of the century nor to realism, it belongs to truth, and truth always has two faces, a real one, and a poetic one.† And that is the true form that theatre should take. It doesn’t have to be one way or the other, as the Realists and the Naturalists seem to think. True reality is a blend of both. And Chekov was the master of that form. He so cleanly blended the two ideas that it is impossible to separate them into separate places. And through this masterpiece of dramatic writing, Stanislavski’s systematic method of creating truth can have a fighting chance at reaching the heights that it is capable of. So it is that through a mixture of the two schools of thought and the work of the two men who have mastered it that theatre can reach a point of beauty and truth and can display reality and drama in a way that doesn’t need to adapt with the changes of life because it is based in life. The theatre that emerges from this blend has its roots deep in the heart of humanity and what people truly want, and, consequently, will never die.

Seattle University Essay

Why do you feel that Seattle University is a good match with your educational goals? Seattle University’s Jesuit teaching makes this college one of my top choices. My approach to education is eerily similar to Seattle University’s mission statement. I thrive best in an environment that focuses on educating the whole person through academics and spirituality. Since faith is a key component of my life, I want an education that views intellect and faith in a complementary way. Combined with Seattle University’s emphasis on community service, I will also learn how to make an impact both locally and globally.As I grow into adulthood I want to push myself. I also want to find new ways to make a difference in my surrounding community. Through Seattle University’s various service programs, I can nurture that goal. Albeit there are many Jesuit universities scattered throughout the country, Seattle University’s Matteo Ricci College of Humanities sets it apart from all others. I am extremely fortunate to attend John F. Kennedy Memorial High School where Matteo Ricci classes are offered. I am currently taking the Public Policy/Social Justice course.The class has uncovered various avenues of critical thinking that I have never considered before. I have discovered more about myself in this one semester than I have in the previous three years of high school. I fit into the groove of Seattle University courses and their well-rounded, introspective distinctiveness. Finally, Seattle is home. I was born and raised in this eccentric city, a city whose culture is reflected by Seattle University’s student body. I prosper in diverse surroundings, because I enjoy being exposed to many different types of people and cultures. I believe there is something to learn from all walks of life.

Collapse of the Housing Market.

Collapse of the Housing Market. The purpose of self-governing is to make government work better by allowing people to help govern themselves. And the people do that by electing Representative to talk for them, to protect life, liberty and personal properties. â€Å"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property†¦ and that consists in being protected and governed by laws made, or assented to, by the representatives of the people, and conducive to the general welfare† (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Lecture XXIV).Yes I believe that the congress lived up to protect life, liberty and personal properties, because they used â€Å"†¦Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consiste nt with the safe and sound operation of such institutions†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Community Reinvestment Act, October 12, 1977) They did this so everyone could get a house. They also wanted to get more people into house so the economy could move.Because of that the demand for houses increased and so did the prices and most people were not able to afford and could not get a loan form the bank. Because of that the government â€Å"†¦in 1995 gave the CRA serious teeth: regulators could now deny a bank with a low CRA rating approval to merge with another bank—at a time when the arrival of interstate banking made such approvals especially valuable—or even to open new branches. Complaints from community organizations would now count against a bank’s CRA rating. † (Lawrence H. White, â€Å"How Did We Get into This Financial Mess? † Cato Institute, November 18, 2008). HUD also â€Å"actively pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into backing the enormous expansio n of the nonprime mortgage market†¦. To fund their enormous growth, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to borrow huge sums in wholesale financial markets. Institutional investors were willing to lend to the government-sponsored mortgage companies cheaply †¦ because they thought that the Treasury would repay them should Fannie or Freddie be unable. † (Lawrence H. White, â€Å"How Did We Get into This Financial Mess? ,† Cato Institute, November 18, 2008).Congress tried to help the people by putting out more funds like The American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI). ADDI helped first time house buyers by paying their down payment or the closing cost. This helps more people to buy a house. â€Å"The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorized up to $200 million annually. Funds were appropriated for fiscal years 2004-2008†¦. ADDI helped first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs† The original pu rpose of the president was to carry out any decisions that congress made, but the president was not independent of Congress.Congress still remained completely in charge of how their decisions were carried out. The president is part of the executive who was to look up to congress so there is not a person making all the decision. All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body [in the Virginia Constitution of 1776]. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 73 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. † (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 13, 1784). But when it came to the housing market the president/ executive department and agencies did not live up to their purpose in their actions in the area of housing. For example â€Å"President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. † (Carol D.Leonnig, â€Å"How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed the Crisis,† Washington Post, June 10, 2008). In 1999 the Clinton administration viewed Fannie Mae as a hazard trying to prevent the housing bubble and collapse. â€Å"Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers issued a warning, saying, â€Å"Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly. ’ It was a signal moment. An administration official had said in public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be a hazard† (â€Å"How Washington Failed to Rein in Fannie, Freddie,† Washington Post, September 4, 2008).The Clinton administration really didn’t like Fannie because they tr ied to â€Å"discouraged Fannie and Freddie from buying predatory subprime loans. Department of Housing and Urban Development called for Congress to enact legislation to â€Å"prohibit the purchase by each of these entities of predatory loans. † Fannie Mae was designed to help people. The sole purpose of them were to get banks to sell loans to people that would not always be able to get loans and then Fannie and Freddie would buy those loans form the bank giving back the money back to banks. The U. S. government had created Fannie Mae in 1938 to buy mortgages from banks that loaned money to homebuyers†¦. It was a Depression-era creation designed to ease financing costs for borrowers still recovering from the economic devastation of the 1930s† (Gretchen Morgenson, Reckless Endangerment, 13). To bring compotation and have verity the government created Freddie Mac so more loans could be bought and more people would invest. â€Å"†¦from an agency of the governme nt into a partially private entity that issued common stock to public investors†¦.The president’s idea was to get the company’s liabilities off the government’s balance sheet† (Gretchen Morgenson, Reckless Endangerment, 13). To get Fannie and Freddie get going on it own, they would sell stock where people would be able to by one of loans that Fannie and Freddie would buy form the banks, but the good thing was if the person was not able to pay back to Fannie and Freddie, the person who bought the loan would get paid back form the government. That got more people to invest in Fannie and Freddie. To fund their enormous growth, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to borrow huge sums in wholesale financial markets. Institutional investors were willing to lend to the government-sponsored mortgage companies cheaply †¦ because they thought that the Treasury would repay them should Fannie or Freddie be unable. † (Lawrence H. White, â€Å"How Did We Get into This Financial Mess? ,† Cato Institute, November 18, 2008). Around 1999 Fannie and Freddie became so big that the government was losing more money then making money.The treasury did not like that they had to pay back to the people who invested in Fannie and Freddie. They went in public saying that they are â€Å"hazard†. â€Å"In the fall of 1999, Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers issued a warning, saying, â€Å"Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly. ’ It was a signal moment. An administration official had said in public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be a hazard† (â€Å"How Washington Failed to Rein in Fannie, Freddie,† Washington Post, September 4, 2008).After this one could see how strong Fannie and Freddie has become and more people decided to investigate but were never able to bring it up and who did were sued and lost a lot. â€Å"Gensler and ot her Treasury officials feared the companies had grown so large that, if they stumbled, the damage to the U. S. economy could be staggering. Few officials had ever publicly criticized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Gensler concluded it was time to urge Congress to rein them in†¦.The bill failed† (â€Å"How Washington Failed to Rein in Fannie, Freddie,† Washington Post, September 4, 2008). When the economy downturn in 2001 due to lots of mortgages not paid and more foreclosed houses, the Federal reserve tried to bring it up by expanding the U. S. money supply the goal was to bring up the economy by putting money into the economy and people start spending. â€Å"In the recession of 2001, the Federal Reserve System, under Chairman Alan Greenspan, began aggressively expanding the U. S. money supply†¦.The expansion was accompanied by the Fed repeatedly lowering its target rate for the federal funds (interbank short-term) interest rate. The federal funds rate began 2001 at 6. 25 percent and ended the year at 1. 75 percent. † † (Lawrence White, â€Å"How Did We Get into This Financial Mess? ,† Cato Institute, November 18, 2008). But this did not help, low interest rates affect the behavior of investors. They stopped buying bonds and The Federal Reserve Board’s decision to slash interest rates to propel the economy was hurting investors who lived on the income generated by their holdings. In 2001, mortgage lenders †¦ understood that the low interest-rate environment was driving investors to securities that yielded more than Treasury bonds and other relatively conservative fixed-income instruments. † Due to less people-buying bond, the federal reserve made the interest rate low but they had to raise the house price to balance it. That way people saw this as in opportunity to buy a house with low interest rate. Example form 26D. In 2005 federal reserve desperately made the discount form 4. to 6. 5 to help get the house market rolling again. â€Å"In August [2005], the Federal Reserve Board increased its discount rate to 4. 5 percent, up from 2 percent the summer before. The Fed was finally trying to tap on the brakes of a runway real estate market† (Gretchen Morgenson, Reckless Endangerment, 286) What the feds tried to fix by getting more blacks to buy because of people getting on them form being racist kicked them in the butt when more than half had there house foreclosed. In October 1992, â€Å"Mortgage Lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA Data† was published by the Boston Fed. Its authors were [Alicia H. ] Munnell, Lynn E. Brown, and Geoffrey M. B. Tootell†¦. Racial bias by mortgage lenders, Munnell and her colleagues wrote, not only existed it was pervasive. The HMDA data showed that black and Hispanic loan applicants were far more likely to be rejected by banks than were whites. The rejection ratio for minorities was 2. 8 to 1 compared with white applicants†¦ . There was only problem.The methods used by the Boston Fed researchers to prepare their report were flawed†¦. The analysis did not consider whether an applicant met a lender’s credit guidelines† I was happy that congress wanted to help anyone who wanted a house, there intensions were good by creating Fannie and Freddie but when people figured out that they can buy loans form Fannie and Freddie will be payed back when they know the owner of that mortgage will never be able to pay back. More community lost there value due to this.

The Different Styles of Narration

Narrators in Film and Novel In this chapter, Stam introduces the different styles of narrators in Novel. According to him, they vary from the first-person report-narrator to the multiple letter writers of epistolary novels, to outside-observer narrators of reflexive novels like Don Quixote and Tom Jones, to the once intimate and impersonal narrator of Madame Bovary, to the â€Å"stream-of-consciousness† narrators, on to the intensely objective/subjective obsessional narrators of Robbe-Grillet.What interests Stam is the fact that these different styles of narration cannot be really explained by the conventional terms that exist. That happens because language and grammar are the foundation of the traditional analysis of film and literature and in this context have leaded to a terminology based on them, a terminology such as first-person narrator or third-person narrator. This kind of grammar based terminology and approach, can create confusion and obscure facts like writers shif ting person and changing the relation between narrator and fiction.For Stam though, the most important issue is not the grammatical â€Å"person† as he says, but the control an author has over the intimacy and the distance and how he calibrates the access to a character’s knowledge and consciousness. Literary narration can be complicated through film because of the verbal narration (voice over/speech of characters) and the capacity a film has to present the different appearances of the world.Andre Goudreault says that filmic narration is more powerful than â€Å"monstration† (showing) and â€Å"narration† (telling) and that for him, editing and other cinematic procedures consist of the evaluation and the comments of the filmic narrator. This way films tell stories (narrate) and at the same time stage them (show). Stam explains that  «the film as â€Å"narrator† is not a person (the director) or a character in the fiction but, rather, the abstract instance of a superordinate agency that regulates the spectator’s knowledge ».In other words â€Å"le grand imagier† and the â€Å"meganarrator†, all names attributed to the narrator, can be considered as the conductor of an orchestra who uses the instruments of cinematic expression as musical instruments. The author (Stam) continues his chapter by explaining how a double play of forms can be made possible through sound cinema. Voice-over narration and monstration (showing) mutually reinforce each other like in Sunset Boulevard where the scene is supposed to be a visual manifestation of what Joe Gillis is saying. We will also come across that during my extract analysis.In more modernist films like India Song (1975) and Last year at Marienbad (1961) the two forms contradict each other, in a sense that what is told is not what is being shown. Since sound made its appearance in film, cinema has been as Chion says â€Å"vococentric†, it has an orientation toward the human voice, which, in the cinema, according to Stam can provide information and focus for spectatorial identification. A debate has started about whether a film can actually narrate. Film theorists believe that filmic â€Å"narration† is only a fiction of the human mind.They don’t argue of course about films being able to develop certain processes of â€Å"narration† but they state that these processes can only be considered as cheap copies of a â€Å"narrator†. This logic though can also be valid for novelistic narrators. Theorist like Christian Metz, consider film to be a deployment of â€Å"impersonal† narration in which case the narrator is both the one that provides the fictional world and the one that comments on this same world. Stam chooses to stand on another important matter of narratology, the relationship between the events told and the temporal standpoint of the telling.For example, whether the telling if the story is takin g place after the events of the story, which is called a retrospective narration, or prior, in which case, as he explains, we have an oracular or prophetic narration. In some cases, the telling and the events are simultaneous or even interpolated, meaning that they take place during the intervals between the moments of the main action. For Stam, the question is how all these different settings of time manage to be translated within adaptations. There is the case of â€Å"embedded narration†, where a story contains another story inside it, in a narrative mise-en-abyme.This is the case of the extract I have chosen to analyze. These substories go by the term of hypodiegesis. This occurs when a story contains a sub-story. For Genette, the term â€Å"diegesis† refers to three things, the time and space, the participants, and the events in a narrative. Around this term he creates terms such as â€Å"autodiegetic† (when the narrator generates and tells his own story), â€Å"homodiegetic† (when the narrator is part of the story but is not the protagonist) and â€Å"heterodiegetic† (when the narrator is not part of the story at all). â€Å"Autodiegetic† comes from the greek word â€Å" †, â€Å"homodiegetic† from â€Å" and â€Å"heterodiegetic† from â€Å" †. â€Å" † means â€Å"narrative† and â€Å" † has the meaning of â€Å"itself†. â€Å" †means it has a resemblance with something and â€Å" † that it is something different. So when the narrator is autodiegetic it means he is narrating himself, when he is homodiegetic, he narrating about something similar with him and when he is heterodiegetic he is narrating about something different that him. Stam adds that the narrator can be single or collective, a group narrator and that off screen narrators can be single, multiple or even contradictory like in the case of Citizen Kane.He also makes a distinction between living and dead narrators. A dead narrator would be when at the time the narrator is talking it has been known to us that he is already dead in the story. So the narration would probably take place after the events. Stam continues his analysis by referring to reliability. Narrators can be completely suspect (like Leonard in Memento, the movie I have chosen to analyze) ,more or less reliable, or serve as dramatized spokespersons for the implied author. The modern period has a taste for changing narrators and unreliable ones.This is the case of the bildungsroman, a literary genre that focuses on the psychological and moral growth of the protagonist from youth to adulthood and in which character change is extremely important. Sometimes, also, the reliability of a narrator as the governess in James’s Turn of the Screw can cause difficulty for literary interpretation. Cases of â€Å"lying narration† are also offered in the cinema. What is challenging for Stam, is to find a way to reproduce in a way all the ambiguity and readerly decipherment of the text, on a cinematic register.Self-obsessed neurotic narrators like Humbert Humbert in Lolita, tend to be relativized by adaptation in a severe manner. While the narrator in the novel is â€Å"autodiegetic†, in the film he switches to â€Å"homodiegetic†. The problem is that the discursive power an unreliable narrator possesses is drastically reduced by film because of the multitrack nature of the film. In a novel, there is only one track available and that is the verbal track, which is of course controlled by the narrator.In a film though, even if the narrator can partially control the verbal track by the use of voice-over or character dialogue, that same control remains subject to a great amount of constraints such as the presence of other characters, voices, objects etc. While it’s not impossible to portrait an unreliable first-person narration in the cinema, all the problems mentioned above lead us to understand that it would be extremely difficult and could only be succeeded by relentless subjectification in almost all the cinematic registers.Point of View This chapter of â€Å"The Theory and Practice of Adaptation† tries to answer questions concerning focalization and point of view which is a term that has been regarded as problematic. â€Å"Point of view† can either refer to an ideological orientation, an emotional stance or even to the angle from which a story is told. Unlike literature, this term in cinema is always literal because of the camera set-ups that are required. Nevertheless, it can be figurative too at the same time, through the use of cinematic means.For Stam, an authorial point of view can be sensed in films. He explains that the film’s multitrack and multiform nature are to be seriously considered if we want to understand the cinematic point of view since each and every filmic track and procedure can convey one. Next, Stam takes interest in the relationship between the knowledge of the character and that of the narrator, something that has been referred to as â€Å"focalization†. According to Todorov, three were the possibilities: narrators could either know more, less or as much as the characters.Of course, one might argue that quantity is not always the case, since the two can also know differently. Gennete chooses to make a distinction between narration (who speaks or tells) and focalization (who sees) and then separates this last term into three sub-terms. â€Å"Zero focalization† refers to narrators who know much more than the rest of the characters. â€Å"Internal focalization† occurs when events are filtered through a character and is subdivided into â€Å"fixed† for when it is limited to a single character or â€Å"variable† for when it’s passed from character to character.Finally, â€Å"external focalization† takes place when the rea der cannot access to point of view and motivations and can only be a simple observer of external behavior. Andre Goudrault and Francois Jost argued that the term of focalization can create problems when it comes to the visual medium of cinema since the sound film has the ability to show what a character sees and say what he thinks at the same time. They proposed a separation of these two functions by the use of two terms. The first term is â€Å"ocularization† and refers to the relation of what the camera shows and what the character is supposed to be seeing. Focalization† was used by the two narratologists to characterize the cognitive point of view adopted by the story. Stam also examines how â€Å"point of view† intersects with â€Å"style†. Adaptations have been considered less modernist than their sources but that is not the case with adaptations like the one of Virginia Woolf’s Orlando by Sally Potter in 1992 or Bunuel’s That Obscure Ob ject of Desire, where, in the contrary, the novel’s modernism is amplified. The author chooses to conclude this chapter not by answering questions, but rather by asking them.He is interested in the handling of temporality and wonders if instances of Genette’s â€Å"pause† take place in the novel and the adaptation, as montage sequences or as static close shots without action. He mentions Cristian Metz’s eight syntagmatic types in the cinema (one-shot sequence or autonomous shot, parallel syntagma, bracket syntagma, descriptive syntagma, alterning syntagma, scence, episodic sequence, ordinary sequence) and asks how these types are useful and wonders about the existence of any correlations with temporality in film and their nature.He questions the role of description in novel and film and wants to know if there is a possibility of pure (unnarrativized) description in any of these two mediums and finally sets the question of stylistic equivalences across the m. MEMENTO [pic] Memento is a film directed by Christopher Nolan and released in the year 2000. He wrote the story with his brother Jonathan Nolan, based on a short story published by Jonathan called Memento Mori. The whole film can be divided in 22 colored and 22 black and white sequences plus the opening sequence which runs backward and is shown in slow motion.In order to understand the analysis of the sequence chosen (1. 22. 58 – 1. 48. 43) a brief introduction to the movie’s plot is necessary: Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) is a former insurance investigator whose wife was killed during an assault in their home. During that assault he sustained a head trauma and now suffers from a memory dysfunction which makes him unable to create any new memories after the incident. He remembers of everything prior the incident though like who he is, what his job was and everything about his life with his wife.But each time he wakes up he can’t remember where he is, why he is there or what he did and who he met the day before. He cannot trust anyone and his whole life is one big constant puzzle solving. There is only one thing that motivates him and that is to hunt down and kill his wife murderer. To collect the facts needed to avenge his wife he has developed a strategy that consists of taking polaroid pictures of everyone he meets, of the place he lives in and so on while also getting tattooed on his body every important information he comes across. pic]Leonard’s tattooed body In his investigation he is helped by two persons, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). The viewers of Memento find out pretty fast that a mentally ill character like the one of Leonard Shelby is an extremely unreliable narrator. Nollan gives us hints about the unreliability of human memory . [pic][pic] We can also see Leonard being manipulated by others and making mistakes while collecting information on his wife’s murderer. [pic][pic] We can see here that he mistakes the I of the license plate for a 1What is very interesting in the revenge story In addition to Leonard’s revenge story is the embedded story of Sammy Jankis and his wife which we will encounter in the sequence I have chosen to analyze. [pic] EXTRACT ANALYSIS Introduction The selected movie extract (1. 22. 58 – 1. 48. 43) is a sequence shot in Scope like the entire film is and in black and white as half of the movie’s sequences are. Those sequences were shot that way in order to be separated from the colored ones. Black and white sequences are shown in a chronologically forward order whilst the colored ones are shown backwards and don’t have a linear narrative structure.In this specific extract, Leonard Shelby narrates part of Sammy Jankis’s story, probably the most important one because it describes how he killed his wife by giving her an overdose of insulin. As it is explained to the viewers earlier in the film, Sammy suffers of the same condition as Leonard. Leonard investigated his case when he was still healthy and working for the insurance company and refused Sammy’s insurance claim by proving it was a psychological condition rather than a physical one. Relation between Stam’s text and the Memento sequenceStam refers in his chapter Narrators in Film and Novel to the case of â€Å"embedded narration† and how embedded narratives generate hypodiegesis. Hypodiegesis occurs when a substory is embedded within stories. In the case of this extract, the story is the one of Leonard’s hunting down his wife’s killer while dealing with his condition , and the substory , the one of Sammy Jankis’s condition and how his wife tries to deal with it. In the sequence Leonard is speaking on the phone with someone yet unknown to the viewers who is supposed to be a police officer.During their conversation, â€Å"Lenny† talks about his condition while comparing it to Sammyâ €™s and decides to speak about what happened to him and his wife. This is when hypodiegesis occurs. [pic] Once this embedded narrative begins we are the scene is no longer situated in the same place and the characters have changed. As Leonard narrates the camera serves as a visual manifestation of what he is describing. We see him in a room with Sammy’s wife crying just after we hear him speaking about how she came to see him in his office.Then he talks about how, persuaded he could â€Å"snap out of† this mental condition, she put him through his final exam. [pic][pic] Then we are transported back to the Jankis’s home where Leonard does not describe the fact that she tricks her husband into giving her three consecutive insulin shots (as it is shown) but only talks about how she found a way to test him hoping she would call his bluff. As Stam says â€Å"a voice over narration gradually gives way to direct monstration, yet we somehow take what is monstrated to emanate from the initial narrative†.What makes this substory so interesting is the fact that the story of Sammy Jankis may in fact be the story of Leonard Shelby. Perhaps this whole parallel story wants to show the viewer that Leonard's own wife was killed not by a murderer but by Leonard himself. There are several hints that point out the lack of the character’s reliability and lead us to conclude that his substory is a fabrication of his own subconscious. Reliability is actually a very interesting issue for Stam and in this case our narrator belongs to â€Å"those who are almost completely suspect† as they are called in Stam’s text.There are three important moments in the sequence that help us understand Leonard’s unreliability. The first one is when he takes in his hands a picture of himself (which later we learn it was took the moment he killed his wife’s murderer) and turns it the other way so that he doesn’t see it anymore. At the same time he says â€Å"It’s completely fucked because nobody believes you, it’s amazing what a little brain damage will do for your credibility. I guess it’s some kind of poetic justice for not believing Sammy†. [pic][pic] The fact that he hides the picture shows the viewers that he does not want to see it.He does not want to see himself while he tells Sammy‘s story, because he wants to forget that it is actually his story. He is lying to himself and wants to believe his lies. His words have also great meaning. He says that nobody believes him and that he has no credibility. He is again talking about himself because it is he that does not believe himself and he knows that he is not credible. His subconscious is projected to the viewers, we can see how deep inside he knows he is lying and he is fighting to believe these lies.As he says he didn’t believe Sammy, or, maybe he didn’t believe himself? The second hint is given to the sp ectators when he looks at one of his tattoos which is â€Å"remember Sammy Jankis† and at the same time says on the phone â€Å"Like Sammy. What if I‘d done something like Sammy? †. [pic] In this case, a doubt is raised, both in our minds and in Leonard’s mind. What if he had done something like Sammy? What if he had killed his wife without knowing it? The ending will show that he actually did kill his wife exactly how Sammy is supposed to have.The tattoo reminds him of Sammy, he needs that tattoo, he needs to be reminded of Sammy, otherwise there would be no meaning for him to continue on leaving. He needs to mask the facts in such a way so that he’ll have a purpose to go on. Remembering Sammy Jankis means to forget about what he did. The last moment that points out to Leonard’s lack of reliability is the most visual one. While Leonard describes how Sammy was put in a home after the death of his wife, we can see Sammy sitting in a chair at t he exact home. The camera starts to zoom in on him, when, at a certain point, a doctor passes in front of him and we have a cut.When the action starts again, the doctor gets out of the way and we can get a glimpse (for exactly 2 frames) of Leonard sitting in that same chair instead of Sammy, just before the scene ends. It is obvious that Nolan wants the viewers to see that Sammy and Leonard are the same person and that Leonard is actually describing his own story. [pic][pic] Conclusion Memento is a film with unique narrative structure. The story behind it is rather simple but the narrative structure is extremely elaborate and constant attention from its spectators is needed.The lack of short memory of the protagonist and and the chaos following him and his attempts to put together the puzzle of his wife’s murder are linked to whole storytelling in a very intelligent way. The fact that the main plot’s narrative structure is backwards and that its conclusion is revealed in the opening sequence, along with the mix of color and black and white sequences, can sometimes confuse the spectators as much as the main character. The spectators are this way driven to identify themselves in Leonard, sharing with him the confusion and the feelings of each revelation, as well as those of the disappointing truth.