Hey guys it is Casey back here again after such a long time whre I am in ENGLISH, surprise, surprise. Anyway today I have created an infographic detailing the heros journey for Max rokatansky as seen in the incredible film MAD MAX FURY ROAD. I hope you all enjoy
Hey guys it is Casey back here again where I am in English again where I am still working on Auteur theory but comparing to different Auteurs by the name of Stanley Kubrick and Baz Luhrmann. Basically I am talking about what makes them both unique and how they contrast heavily with each other.
Stanley Kubricks style is an aesthetically pleasing one with heavy use of contrasting colours and perspective. Particularly the use of single point perspective is used in his films where the camera is focused on a singular point. The long tracking shot is used a lot in his films as Kubrick uses it to build suspense in what is coming next. A lot of thought is put into each of films which are almost all adaptations of literature. He has over the years developed an understanding how to translate literature into the visual world.
https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/stanley-kubrick/#:~:text=From%20his%20early%20fascination%20with,thought%2C%20it%20can%20be%20filmed.
Baz luhrmann is seen in the film industry as the anti Kubrick because they both have heavily contrasting styles. Kubricks style is more purposeful and nothing is overdone whereas Luhrmann has a more flamboyant style making his work more of a work of art than a thought provoking masterpiece. He often does this much to the displeasure of media critics saying he is not following the source material properly even though the result is a more artistic version of the story he is telling.
https://www.ipl.org/essay/Baz-Luhrmanns-Film-Making-Style-PJAASP4E6G#:~:text=Baz%20Luhrman%20is%20an%20innovative,a%20connection%20to%20the%20audience.
Anyway I hope you all enjoyed and I will be seeing you all in the next post bye bye.
Hey guys it is Casey back here with a brand new post that is also the first for the year 2021. I am in ENGLISH today studying a concept known as Autuer theory and I am just explaining the three main things about it from Andrew Sarris. I hope you all enjoy this post regardless of how short it is
technique
In the article, Sarris says that technique can make or break a film as a director with no technical competence would be "cast out from the pantheon of directors" as it were. What this means is that an Autuer should be competent about their direction with the film as it is an art form like so many others.
style
The artistic style is something that the director or Autuer is responsible for and it means that when you look at the directors works then you will notice aspects that could be considered the directors signature. These similarities across films have similarities to the director in how they think and feel.
meaning
The meaning of the film is extrapolated between the directors personality and his material. This means that there is a connection between the material of the film along with what the director is like as a person.
So anyway I hope you all enjoyed this post and I will see you all in the next one bye bye.
Hey guys it is Casey back here again with yet another post where today I am in math's looking at the question of when is a network transferable. A network in this sense for those of you who do not know is a series of nodes that are connected by branching paths to form a network of nodes.
What is a transferable network?
A transferable network is a network where you can draw a single line across the network while going over each part only once. This is a very simple concept to grasp but it also raises the question of how do you determine if a network is transferable or not?.
A way of determining if a network is transferable or not is by the amount of paths that are connected to each node. You simply need to see if the network has 2 odd nodes or not. what an odd node is sums up to a node that has an odd number of paths connected to it. If the network has more than 2 of these kind of nodes then it is considered not a transferable network. An example of this is the Konigsberg bridge problem.
The Konigsberg bridge problem is a rather famous one in the world of networks and is an example of a non transferable network. A man by the name of Leonhard Euler who is a famous Swiss mathematician, physicist, astronomer, geographer, logician and engineer who had said that it is impossible to make a journey across all 7 of these bridges while crossing each one only once. This is a true statement and Euler made a rule to tell if a network is transferable or not. That rule was if the network had 2 and only 2 odd nodes or no odd nodes at all then it is transferable. If you look at the bridges and count up the nodes then you can see that they are all odd and none are even meaning that this network is not transferable.
There are a couple of things you should keep in mind when determining if a network is transferable or not aside from the rule that Euler had stated. There are three rules that should be easy to remember with the hard part being remembering them.
The network is transferable when
1.If all nodes are even then you can start and finish anywhere on the network
2.Are two nodes odd. You can only start and finish on these parts
3.If there are more than two odd nodes then the network is non transferable
Another thing you can use to help you with this is called the order of the nodes which is very simple to make and put into effect. Basically all you need to do is take note of which node is which in alphabetical sequence so you would have something like A1,B3,C4 etc.
If you find more than 2 odd numbers in that order then your network is non transferable as stated by the third rule. These rules should be easy to remember if network of nodes is transferable or not.
Anyway I hope you guys all enjoyed and I will see you all in the next post bye bye.
Hey guys it is Casey back here again in English as you have come to expect where today I am simply writing a review of what we have been doing in English this past week which is being assertive in a variety of situations. So anyway, all I have to do is answer the following questions in being assertive in conversation.
What are the four types of behavioral responses, and what does each mean (in your own words)?
What is the definition of Assertive Communication?
What are the three ‘describes’? When should you use them?
List and explain 5 of the ‘Assertive Communication Tools’. Think of your own example for each.
List and explain in your own words 3 barriers to assertive communication.
What does assertive communication look like?
What does assertive communication sound like?
What does it mean to act like a scratched record when it comes to your boundaries?
Think back to a time when you or a friend used a behavioral response that was not assertive.
Reflect on your behavioral responses until now. How do you usually respond to tricky situations?
Hey guys it is Casey back here again with yet another post where I am in Math's for a change where I must tell you guys facts about basic shapes in Math's. So let's see how well this goes.
Square: This can be described as a shape with multiple sides of equal length whose angles are all 90 degrees. If you were to draw a diagonal line from one corner to the opposite then you will see that all diagonals are equal as well as the lengths and angles.
Rectangle: This is very similar to a square but with one key difference, not all the lengths are equal. two of the sides are one length while the other two are either larger or smaller. All of the angles are still 90 degrees each. The diagonals are also equal for this shape as is the case with most quadrilaterals.
Equilateral: This is not a shape itself and more of a description of a set of shapes. An equilateral is a shape with all of its sides being of equal length. So squares and triangles fit into this category nicely.
Quadrilateral: This is like an equilateral in that it describes a series of shapes and not one single shape. This is different to equilateral through the fact that it describes any four sided two dimensional shape meaning that if it has four sides and does not exceed 3 dimensions then it is a quadrilateral.
Rhombus: This is a shape that has 4 equal straight sides and often takes the shape of a diamond but it can be said that a square is a Rhombus as well. The only real difference is the fact that a square has all of its angles at 90 degrees whereas a Rhombus does not. It has equal diagonals as well as most quadrilaterals but they would be vertical and horizontal on this example above this text.
Trapezium: This shape can be described as a four sided shape with one pair of parallel lines and no more. Basically think a triangle but without the tip and you are on the right track.
Parallelogram: This is a shape with 2 pairs of parallel lines whose angles are not right angles. There is also no line of symmetry like with most shapes on a parallelogram.
Anyway I hope you guys all enjoyed this post and I will see you all in the next one bye bye
