Hey guys it is Casey back here again after oh so long. anyway this is just an exam practice that my classmates have to read and critique so nothing special

In both of these texts, We are presented with different interpretations of New Zealand, one bad and one hopeful. The first text, we are the tenants, has a very distinctly dreadful feeling like it is old and withered past its prime. The interpretation in the Limestone excerpt is one of hopefulness with the POV character longing to be there. These two texts also come from the perspectives of two very different types of people, In we are the tenants, it is an immigrant. In the Limestone excerpt, it is someone of the middle class. These are two very different perspectives on the same subject which in this case is how they view New Zealand. We are the tenants presents New Zealand in a very dark and dreadful tone almost like it is a place that you really do not want to go unless you are absolutely desperate. From the limestone excerpt, it is presented almost as a utopia of the 21st century that seems too good to be real but it is real.

These contrasting viewpoints present a duality that exists in nearly every country on earth. There are good parts and there are bad parts. It also shows that you are really only going to get whichever based on your income. The Immigrant in We are the tenants lives in a place that could be called a slums type area and they do not have the money to afford housing that most middle-class people have.

Anyway I will see you all in the next post bye bye.

MAD MAX FURY ROAD, Close viewing practice

 Hey guys it is Casey here with a brand new post for the first time in forever. But all joking aside, I am working on a close viewing assesment for the fantastic film MAD MAX, FURY ROAD by George Miller. This is not the actual series of paragraphs that will be in my assesment but these are just a practice run at this close viewing thing. So enjoy my ramblings.

Dialogue is a very important thing to consider in any film with some scenes shining more than the rest. The scene “redemption” is a masterclass in dialogue where every word has a meaning behind it and does not come out of nowhere. They build upon not only the world of Mad Max but also the characters that inhabit it. “This is the best shot I’ll ever have” is probably the most important line in this scene as it not only reveals who Furiosa is but also what she desires. She is someone who wants to be free and has attempted it many times before the events of the film. Now because she has the War rig, she finally has the one shot that will give her what she wants and that is redemption. Redemption for what she has done in the past and to be free of the tyrannical rule of Immortan Joe. This one very significant line reveals so much about her Character that you just have to give Miller a massive pat on the back for it. Miller's purpose in this very careful choice of words is to give us insight into the character of Furiosa, to understand her better and why she is doing what she is doing. Because of this, we see that this is not the first attempt Furiosa has done but she still attempts it whenever she gets the chance and this is the best she will ever get. The effect this has on the audience is one of understanding of these characters. It also allows us to empathize better with the characters and show us just how far the relationship between Furiosa and Max has come. Because previously they were at each other's necks whereas now they are a close approximation of friends. MIller uses dialogue to enhance character design in a very clever way. Each line is very carefully chosen to not only make sense to the average viewer but also mean something to the character saying the line. The theme of redemption shines through each of these lines, and eventually leads to the main message of the film which is “make good with what you have.” All of the dialogue has been leading to that without explicitly saying it. 

Music is one of those things that can really take an already great scene and make it so much better. The music that is heard here is played on a violin in a tone that conveys sorrow and a longing for something more. It is very soothing and a nice break from the action music of the previous scene in the quagmire. Max and Furiosa are talking and we hear the soothing strings of a violin in the background rising and falling in volume when needed. It specifically becomes silent just before Furiosa says redemption, giving that word more impact on the audience as it is something important to Furiosa.Miller’s purpose with the violin is to make this scene very different from others which all have metal music and it serves as a nice break from the action. The tone is particularly sorrowful which makes sense as this may be a painful memory for Furiosa after being taken by Immortan Joe at a young age. The effect this has on the audience is one of sympathy for Furiosa in conjunction with the dialogue in an almost melancholic way. It makes us want her to find her redemption and fulfill her dream of going home to the green place which they unknowingly just passed. The music works with the dialogue to make us feel for Furiosa as she is telling Max of a painful memory and the music amplifies that meaning. It rises and falls depending on what is being said in the moment with the dialogue taking over fully when it needs to and the music all but disappears from those moments. You could call this scene a sort of therapy session for Furiosa as she finally has somebody to talk to that understands her pain in a way. It could be like she has had depression for a long time and is now finally talking to somebody because she has hope that she can get out of it now with the help of someone she has grown to trust throughout the film.

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 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

Well, I hope you guys all enjoyed the Heros journey just as much as I have and I will see you in the next post if there ever is one.bye bye

 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.

Be Assertive Learning Review

 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.

1. What are the four types of behavioral responses, and what does each mean (in your own words)?

Passive/ being quiet throughout the entire conversation, never explaining your ideas or responding to others.

Aggressive/Actively being mean to others in the conversation by using various insults directed at a certain figure to get your own way with little regard for the other persons well being.

Indirect/ not directly dealing with the situation yourself but having someone else do it for you.

Assertive/explaining your ideas while also respecting the others ideas

2. What is the definition of Assertive Communication?

Assertive communication is talking in a way that gets your ideas across while also respecting the ideas of the other person

3. What are the three ‘describes’? When should you use them?

The situation/being specific and objective while also focusing on behavior and not motives./ when you need to act professional

Feelings/using "I" statements and focusing on positive feelings while not trying to be too emotional./ when you are trying to get your point across to anyone who is listening

What changes you want/being specific but reasonable and stating your course of action politely but firmly./ when you are trying to get people to help your course of action and not work against it.

4. List and explain 5 of the ‘Assertive Communication Tools’. Think of your own example for each.

1."I" statements, truly express how you feel about what has been presented

2.Think we as well as me, think about the others around you and their ideas and not just your own.

3.Be positive, do not act sad or depressed but be upbeat with the situation

4.Thank them, Thank them for contributing their ideas about the situation.

5.Go for agreement, Make people want to agree with your ideas

5. List and explain in your own words 3 barriers to assertive communication.

Culture/ different cultures can have different ways of doing things than yours

Gender/ certain genders are stereotyped to be better at certain stuff than the other

Age/ their is a general idea that if you are older than you hold more authority than someone who is younger

6. What does assertive communication look like?

Assertive communication is explaining your ideas while also being polite and considering others ideas

7. What does assertive communication sound like?

Being very firm but polite about the situation

8. What does it mean to act like a scratched record when it comes to your boundaries?

Acting like a scratched record means that you just constantly repeat your opinion on the situation at hand no matter how many times that person tries to convince you otherwise.

9. Think back to a time when you or a friend used a behavioral response that was not assertive.

What type was it? What did you say? What happened as a result? What could you have done

differently?

Most of the conversations that I have with my friends are always very assertive and very rarely

are they not assertive but we always reconcile shortly afterwards and I think I have the potential to

keep that up for quite a while so there is really not much we can do all that differently

10. Reflect on your behavioral responses until now. How do you usually respond to tricky situations?

Do you want to change the way you respond, moving forward?

What will you try to remember in the future when difficult situations arise?

I am usually very passive in these sort of situations unless I have an idea that I think needs to be

heard and I am very much assertive when that time comes. I don't think I will be changing my way of

communication anytime soon though.