The courtroom verdict at the Courtlandt trial had an immense impact on the lives of each main character in The Fountainhead. The revolutionary Roark is acquitted of the felony of destroying a public building. This verdict shakes the world of the evil Toohey, ultimately destroying him. It means the psychological destruction of Gail Wynand, a hard working businessman and friend of Roark's. It also brings on the collapse of the spineless Peter Keating, and it is the last event that lets Dominique fully accept Roark's philosophy and free herself of his negative ways.
Ellsworth Toohey is the embodiment of evil. His ambition is not only to physically own people but also to capture possession of their souls by breaking them down and in this way he gains power over them. He confesses to Peter that, "If you learn how to rule one single man's soul, you can get the rest of man kind. It's the soul Peter, not whips or swords or fire or guns…. it must be broken" (635). Toohey understands that the world is full of Peter Keatings', the ones that need reassurance and recognition from others. He made it very clear that he wanted power. “I want my world of the future. Let all sacrifice and none profit. Let all suffer and none enjoy. Let progress stop" (639). He also saw this progress in Roark's eye, in his soul and in his work and he despised him for it. He knew very well that great men can't be ruled and "Anything that can't be ruled must go" (638). That was the reason he had to destroy Roark. He believed that by praising the Keatings of the world and laughing at the Roarks, he would manipulate the public to condemn and destroy the only man that could save them from themselves. Ellsworth believed that he had succeeded and that he had the power because he ruled the public, but he did not. He found this out when the jury found Roark not guilty. For this verdict it meant that the world he had believed to have owned was ready to embrace Roark's philosophies and was ready for the things that Toohey hated the most: individualism and progress. Toohey had failed, Roark had won and this destroyed Toohey.
Gail Wynand, a rugged newspaper industrialist, had succeeded in becoming one of the wealthiest men of his time. He owned everything within his reach, but lacked the possession of his own soul.
There are other contrasting aspects of the stories that call for attention. Most significantly Benito Cereno – ultimately – portrays slaves as evil and Babo as the mind behind the cunning plan that deceives Captain Delano. The reason for this one-sided representation is naturally the fact that we experience the story from Delano’s point of view. In the beginning, we perceive Babo as the typical docile, helpful, and faithful servant so often portrayed in other slave characters such as Stowe’s Uncle Tom and Jim in Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. Babo is more than just a slave; he is a “faithful fellow”, “a friend that cannot be called slave” . And despite all the underlying hints of a slave insurrection, Delano does not grasp their meaning. Examples are the slaves’ treatment of the Spanish sailors and the hatchet polishers , but in Delano’s narrow-minded world, only the white man is capable of conceiving plans of ‘evil’. And when he – and the reader too – finally sees “the mask torn away, flourishing hatchets and knives, in ferocious piratical revolt”, he is embarrassed and “with infinite pity he [withdraws] his hold from Don Benito” . From this moment on, Babo is a malign devil and Melville removes speech from Babo’s mouth. This strengthen our opinion of Babo as ‘evil’ even more, for how can we sympathise with him without hearing his version of the story? Apparently, Melville proposes no other alternative for the reader than to sympathise with the white slave owner Don Benito, whom Babo so ingeniously deceives.
Both the “character” of Frederick Douglass in Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and the character of Babo in Herman Melville’s Benito Cereno are, among many things, a tale of heroism. Although there are clear distinctions between Douglass’s autobiography and abolitionist work and Cereno’s fictional work -specifically in terms of how they resisted slavery and to what extent they were successful- both protagonists use their intelligence and strength to overcome their white masters and a society that has subordinated them.
Like Esther, Joan Gilling grew up in the same small town; she also won the writing competition and was sent to New York to work for the same magazine. Joan was also very conscious about how the world identified her as an individual. She didn’t want to conform to what society sa...
Frank Darabont (writer-director-producer) in 1999, returned to the director’s chair for the first time in five years. Darabont, who not only directed Shawshank Redemption, but adapted it from a Stephen King story, followed the exact same path with The Green Mile. The film was released by Warner Bros. Pictures, and Produced by Castle Rock Entertainment, Darkwoods Productions, and Warner Bros. David Valdes is the producer, David Tattersall, B.S.C. is the director of photography, Terence Marsh is the production designer, and Richard Francis-Bruce is the film editor.
Through her rich and wealthy lifestyle, Judy represents what living in the upper class would be like for Dexter. Fitzgerald presents this idea by stating that Dexter “wanted not associated with glittering things and glittering people- he wanted the glittering things themselves” (1012). The “glittering thing” that Dexter wants to possess is Judy Jones. He does not wish to be just like any another wealthy individual, but wishes to possess this “glittering thing,” so that he wi...
...t, cruel, and even emotionless. However, this is far from true. Louise Mallard may have been relieved to hear about her husband’s death and she may have died of the disappointment at hearing he was actually alive, but she is only human. She desires freedom from oppression and freedom to be her own woman. She cares deeply for her husband, but he tied her down in a way that she did not like. The weight was far too much to bear, despite what feelings she held for Brently Mallard. She has a wide range of emotions, including the grief toward the death of Mr. Mallard. Mrs. Mallard’s thoughts and feelings are no different than those belonging to any other person.
Good Will Hunting is a film which conveys many interlocking themes and messages to its viewers. One of these nicely woven themes is placing trust in the people we care about as well as people we have only recently become acquainted with. Another message, arguably more significant than the last is finding and pursuing the potential one has and bringing meaning into our lives in any form we choose. I believe the potential and success this film demonstrates is that success, growth, and meaning in a person’s life does not always have to come in the form of advancing in a career or social status but rather in the form of overcoming hardships and developing close reciprocating relationships.
“Raging Bull” (1980) is not a so much a film about boxing but more of a story about a psychotically jealous, sexually insecure borderline homosexual, caged animal of a man, who encourages pain and suffering in his life as almost a form of reparation. Martin Scorsese’s masterpiece of a film drags you down into the seedy filth stenched world of former middleweight boxing champion Jake “The Bronx Bull” LaMotta. Masterfully he paints the picture of a beast whose sole drive is not boxing but an insatiable obsessive jealously over his wife and his fear of his own underling sexuality. The movie broke new ground with its brutal unadulterated no-holds-bard look at the vicious sport of boxing by bringing the camera into the ring, giving the viewer the most realistic, primal, and brutal boxing scenes ever filmed. With blood and sweat spraying, flashbulbs’ bursting at every blow Scorsese gives the common man an invitation into the square circle where only the hardest trained gladiators dare to venture.
Previously, the narrator has intimated, “She had all her life long been accustomed to harbor thoughts and emotions which never voiced themselves. They had never taken the form of struggles. They belonged to her and were her own.” Her thoughts and emotions engulf her, but she does not “struggle” with them. They “belonged to her and were her own.” She does not have to share them with anyone; conversely, she must share her life and her money with her husband and children and with the many social organizations and functions her role demands.
Emerging Adulthood represents the period of development from late teens through their twenties, mainly focusing on the ages 18-25. This is the period which people start exploring and realizing the capabilities of their lives, which then helps them characterize as adults and no longer teenagers. This topic of psychology is compelling to me because it’s a stage that every adult has lived through, it’s interesting that we have all experienced it differently based on our life circumstances and demographics. It’s interesting to see the changes throughout the years and eventually it will be easier for young people to explore these years as more young adults are going to school nowadays. It teaches me to further understand why emerging adults go through
When lives are involved they are given the undesirable task of speaking to a frightened and unstable nation. The goal of the speech is to grieve with the nation, as well as lift the nation up so that the citizens do not dwell on the tragedy, but to rise from the tragedy. While mourning they need to remember to stay strong and to come together as there are strength in numbers. Each president does this through a eulogy that displays ethos and pathos through tone, quotations, repetition and a “unique blend of eulogistic content and elements” (Campbell and Jamieson, 2008, p. 75). In times of tragedy it is the president’s job to offer solace and calm through a responsive speech. Their primary goals of this speech or eulogy is to help the nation come to terms with the death of a loved one, with the president helping the nation to make sense of the tragedy, “transform symbols of destruction to symbols of renewal” and finally to explain how he ensures it will not happen again (Campbell and Jamieson, 2008, p.
Wealth has both a good and a bad side. It can change the life of a person for the better or worse, and that is clearly shown in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God. Wealth affects the lives of the characters of Their Eyes Were Watching God very differently than the characters of The Great Gatsby. Janie’s wealth came about, mainly, from her failed relationships.
The film Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles, is a great example of how a man can be corrupted by wealth. Through the characters in the film we can observe how Charles Foster Kane, an idealistic man with principles, can be changed and misguided by wealth and what accompanies wealth. The film takes places during the late 19th century and early 20th century, a time in American history when the world is changing and wealth is a great power to change it with. Through the story telling of Kane’s life we are able to see how wealth changes, not only Kane’s ideals, but his actions and how he perceives the world.
The main themes of the story are loneliness, materialism, and freedom from society. Tyler was created because of the lack of connection the narrator had with the people around him. The narrator was lonely and attended so many support groups because of it. He was not rejected at the support groups because the members thought he was sick just like they were. Materialism is a reoccurring theme as the narrator mentions how he has worked his entire life for the Ikea items in his apartment. He tried to fill the void in his life by buying worthless, meaningless stuff. People spend too much time working for things they do not need. The narrator comes to the conclusion that, “You are not your job or your possessions.” Only once a person realizes that can he or she finally let go and start living. “It’s only after you’ve lost everything,” Tyler says, “that you’re free to do anything.” In order to be free, we must not care about the stuff we own. Our whole lives are spent working to pay for stuff. If we did not have stuff to pay for, we would not have to work as hard and our time could be spent doing something more meaningful.
According to the article “Is Student Plagiarism Increasing”, students still understand that plagiarism is wrong, they say; they are just lazy and choose to plagiarize because they believe they can get away with it.” (“Is Student Plagiarism Increasing?”). Schools can implement harsher punishments for cheating, they can embarrass the cheater by publishing their name or even worse, they can expel them from school but even with those potential consequences, students are still cheating because they are getting away with it. Even with tools used now to catch plagiarism, no program is fool proof. If more than 50% of students admit to cheating but very few get caught, it’s impossible to completely stop students from cheating. While there may be many ways to curb cheating in some students who are mature and focused on their educations and learning the course material, these same methods may not work on a cheater. There is no way to stop a student who cheats, gets away with it and continues to see nothing but success in their education and potentially their