“After the wedding” is a Danish drama created and directed by Susanne Bier. The film was a popular work of art that was selected for the Academy Award for best foreign language film. The film contains many aspects ranging from global planning and other social and political issues. It also incorporates urban poverty, neighborhood, city, and the region. The movie is simply about a philanthropic young man (Peterson) who left the western life to run an Indian orphanage that is in danger of closing due to lack of funding. The young man is very passionate about saving the lives of the destitute children but unfortunately, he has no money to run his mission (Chahine, 2007). Due to the vulnerable nature of Peterson’s mission, he undergoes several manipulations …show more content…
In this world, no one can just offer help without any conditions that are often beneficial. For one to give, he/she must receive something in return. Jorgen offers to help Peterson with the money to run the orphanage, but the offer came with tight conditions tied to it. Peterson had to relocate to Denmark to attend the wedding of the tycoon’s daughter (Dargis, 2007). The desperation of those people in need makes those in power want to exploit the poor to their advantage. The politics of giving is so mean that one has to make certain sacrifices to benefit from it. So many people have fallen victim of circumstance not because they are willing but because the only option they have is to comply with the …show more content…
The love that he had for the children made him take the bold step of moving back to Denmark despite Pramod 's request for him to attend his birthday party (Chahine, 2007). Most people are forced to abandon their private lives to attend to the situations that face them. Peterson did not know that the condition for getting the donation was just to participate in a wedding party but also to take care of Jorgen’s family, which turned out to be his family. Jorgen did not give Peterson a chance to make such a big decision by himself, but he pressurized him by revealing that he suffers a terminal illness and therefore not capable of taking care of his family. From the human heart that the young man had, he was obligated to help (Dargis,
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
In the essay “Spare Change”, the author, Teresa Zsuaffa, illustrates how the wealthy don’t treat people facing poverty with kindness and generosity, but in turn pass demeaning glares and degrading gestures, when not busy avoiding eye contact. She does so by writing an emotional experience, using imagery and personification whenever possible to get to the reader’s heart. Quite similarly, Nick Saul writes, in the essay “The Hunger Game”, about how the wealthy and people of social and political power such as “[the community’s] elected representatives” (Saul, 2013, p. 357) leave the problem of hunger on the shoulders of the foodbanks because they believe “feeding the hungry is already checked off [the government’s] collective to-do list” (Saul,
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
The movie Doubt is set in a private Catholic School in 1960s. Sister Aloysius is the principal of the school, and Father Flynn is the clergyman in the church. While the movie deals with some moral dilemmas such as doubt versus certainty, rigidity versus openness and so on, the central theme of the story pivots on accusation on Father Flynn of child molestation. The story has a hanging ending where Father Flynn is proven neither guilty nor proven innocent. Based on the contents of the movie and my own analysis, I believe that certainty plays a bigger role in accusations and I believe that Father Flynn had been falsely blamed and I am also against the rigidity of the society.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
“Good Night, and Good Luck” is a 2005 American drama film about how United States (US) was plagued by the threat of communism, creating a tense atmosphere within US in the early 1950s. Fear of communism was inevitable and Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin exploited those fears. CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow and his producer Fred W. Friendly challenged McCarthy and aimed to expose him of his agendas. Although their actions brought about many consequences, the two men persevered in their stance and eventually brought down McCarthy successfully.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a film made in 2004 directed by Joel Zwick that evidently portrays several sociological concepts throughout the film. This film highly demonstrates the sociological topics of gender and culture all through the movie. The roles of gender, gender stratification as well as gender stereotyping are exemplified during the film. As for culture, the film displays subculture, counterculture, ethnocentrism, cultural relativism and cultural diffusion. My Big Fat Greek Wedding focuses on a single 30-year-old Greek woman, Toula Portokalos, who works at her family’s restaurant. Toula’s life takes a turn when she unexpectedly falls in love with a man who is not Greek. The film revolves around Toula’s family as well as her boyfriend,
The ways in which Bridesmaids rejects patriarchal structures while simultaneously supporting them establishes a unique ideology: in order to meet the cultural comedic conception, these female characters reject particular standards of patriarchy, but the ways in which they do so successfully are due to their adherence to masculine norms and symbolic reversal (Buckley 19). Thus, Bridesmaids resists the male gaze and gives women empowerment to take the an active role in comedy, liberating them in the sense that it equates their humor to that of men’s, to embody new forms of feminine desire for women in cinema. In response to the men at the beginning of this essay who would say Bridesmaids doesn’t deliver this, Tina Fey has some words for them, “We don’t fucking care if you like it” (Moss).
Sex, love, depression, guilt, trust, all are topics presented in this remarkably well written and performed drama. The Flick, a 2014 Pulitzer Prize winning drama by Annie Baker, serves to provide a social commentary which will leave the audience deep in thought well after the curtain closes. Emporia State Universities Production of this masterpiece was a masterpiece in itself, from the stunningly genuine portrayal of the characters of Avery and Rose, to the realism found within the set, every aspect of the production was superb.
Arthur says that “no one has a unique status” (Arthur 708) when it comes to pain, that it is all equal, however the difference is that you can feel your own pain and even that of those close to you. Therefore, it is obvious that we would sacrifice saving more famine victims in faraway countries to allow for our family to live more comfortable lives, distant from the poverty line. However, it is still in our nature to be generous and giving, therefore it is looked amicably upon when people are charitable. Furthermore, it is generally not taught to children from a young age that it is imperative to give large amounts to sufferers in faraway countries. Instead, children learn to stay away from strangers, that they are threatening and untrustworthy, therefore we are cautious beings. To provide an excessive amount of personal resources to faraway countries in order to relieve drastic suffering takes a consequentialist view. It would drive people to living their lives always looking ahead, at how to maximise gains and most effectively give away these gains. Their lives would subsequently become worthless, living only to better others’ lives, being likened to slavery. This would surely lead to a variety of problems, suicide, for one. For if everyone’s purpose on earth is to help the suffering, and those
After watching the movie “The Break Up”, I can say that the protagonist Brooke Meyers and Gary Brobowski are a couple that live together in a condo where they share everything and care about each other. From the beginning to the end of the movie the couple experience different changes in their relationship, which start when they met in a baseball game, and end up when they decide to break up. This movie have clear examples of the different stages of interpersonal relationships, and how they affect us and our lives.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by a moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge to our traditional notions of charitable giving. The essay argues in favour of donating, and of the moral obligation imposed upon us to contribute and help the global poor with humanitarian purposes. By critically assessing Singer’s writing, this reflection paper will study the main arguments advocated for from his work, as well as possible objections.
While images of starving orphans may touch the hearts of wealthy westerners, those same images may be deceiving the viewers to achieve higher donation rates. The cash is then distributed in a way that the organizations see fit. The donor learns nothing about the political and economical structure in the third world country that they have “supported,” and they continue about their day with no knowledge of where their money actually ended up. There is a lack of education, and as a result the financial gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase.
Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.