Bullying

My topic is bullying in schools. My target audience are adults, who I feel can take the responsibility, more so than children, to help solve this worldwide problem. I experienced bullying in El Salvador when I was in school in the seventh grade, and the experience has always stayed with me and has partially shaped who I am today, and who I will become.

"TOUGH ENOUGH" is my slogan and advertising campaign design. I revised my proposal from my essay in such that I am targeting all adults rather than to specifically address the government, who has the ability to make and pass new laws regarding bullying. If parents of bullied children, as well as parents of bullys, are made aware of this situation through this ad campaign, then maybe they can start to make the necessary changes and bring more attention to the government to make changes in the laws regarding bullying.

My advertisement is a magazine ad. It shows a girl who is not looking at the camera. She looks down, not out to her audience. Her hands support her head. She looks sad, and she gives the impression that she has a lot on her mind. The phrase TOUGH ENOUGH makes the reader think what happened to this girl, or is this girl tough enough to take on life or whatever it is that this girl is involved with. The picture of the boy with the words tough enough is a very powerful image. The boy looks like a bully.

The imagery and the slogan are very captivating which draws the reader into the ad and gets the reader involved. The image and slogan also makes a lasting impression on the audience that is viewing this advertisement campaign.

Bullying

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/22987784/detail.html

The article is about the suicide of Phoebe Prince, after she was bullied by other students at South Hadley High School in the state of Massachusetts, USA. The investigations revealed that she was bullied three months before her death, and even on the day of Phoebe's death, she was subjected to verbal harassment and physical abuse in full view of employed teachers. The problem discussed in the article is bullying in schools.

I propose that more severe laws need to be passed to prevent bullying and these laws need to be enacted. There should be severe penalties including jail time for students who bully and termination of employment for teachers and faculty witnessing such abuses and not reporting them immediately. If we take this solution, students will be seriously aware of the problem and the cases of bullying will decrease in the schools, because students will be severely punished if they bully someone else. Moreover, this solution will prevent teachers to ignore the bullying problem, because if they don't pay attention, they'll lose their jobs. Children who are being bullied shouldn't be left alone at this critical part of their life and development, because they are more vulnerable. I think that the students who bullied Phobe need to be severely punished and held accountable for their actions. Teachers who witnessed this abuse also need to be held accountable as well because they did not try to stop it. However, severe laws will make no difference to the bullying problem unless parents intervene. There are some recommendations that parents can used:

-Don't tell the child to ignore the bully.

-Don't blame the child for the bullying.

-Emphasize with the child by saying the bully is wrong and it is not the child's fault.

-Don't encourage physical retaliation.

Teachers, and parents need to make rapidly and quick decisions and the incident of bullying needs to be investigated immediately and given top priority by the legal authorities if necessary. We should take the solution proposed because bullying is a serious situation, and it needs immediate attention.

Newspaper source: New York Times

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

FILM REVIEW; The Sorcerer's Apprentice

By ELVIS MITCHELL

Published: November 16, 2001

THE world may not be ready yet for the film equivalent of books on tape, but this peculiar phenomenon has arrived in the form of the film adaptation of J. K. Rowling's ''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.'' The most highly awaited movie of the year has a dreary, literal-minded competence, following the letter of the law as laid down by the author. But it's all muted flourish, with momentary pleasures, like Gringott's, the bank staffed by trolls that looks like a Gaudí throwaway. The picture is so careful that even the tape wrapped around the bridge of Harry's glasses seems to have come out of the set design. (It never occurred to anyone to show him taping the frame together.)

The movie comes across as a covers act by an extremely competent tribute band -- not the real thing but an incredible simulation -- and there's an audience for this sort of thing. But watching ''Harry Potter'' is like seeing ''Beatlemania'' staged in the Hollywood Bowl, where the cheers and screams will drown out whatever's unfolding onstage.

To call this movie shameless is beside the point. It would probably be just as misguided to complain about the film's unoriginality because (a) it has assumed that the target audience doesn't want anything new and (b) Ms. Rowling's books cannibalize and synthesize pop culture mythology, proof of the nothing-will-ever-go-away ethic. She has come up with something like ''Star Wars'' for a generation that never had a chance to thrill to its grandeur, but this is ''Young Sherlock Holmes'' as written by C. S. Lewis from a story by Roald Dahl.

The director, Chris Columbus, is as adept as Ms. Rowling at cobbling free-floating cultural myths into a wobbly whole. The first film from a Columbus script, ''Gremlins,'' had the cheeky cheesiness of an urban legend written for Marvel Comics. Mr. Columbus probably felt like the right choice for ''Harry Potter'' because he has often used the same circuit boards as Ms. Rowling to design his fables. His ''Home Alone'' movies, ''Mrs. Doubtfire'' and ''Stepmom'' employ the theme of abandonment by parents as if it were a brand name. And like Mr. Columbus's films, Ms. Rowling's novels pull together archetypes that others have long exploited. This movie begins with a shot of a street sign that will cause happy young audiences to erupt in recognition, as the dry-witted giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) drop a baby at the Doorstep of Destiny.

Years later Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), sporting the jagged thunderbolt scar across his forehead, is living there with his terrors of an aunt (Fiona Shaw) and uncle (Richard Griffiths).

Harry is the kid all kids dream they are. His special abilities are recognized by people other than the ones who have raised him. Hagrid returns to rescue him from his tiny room under the stairs and clues Harry in about the boy's inner force, which is why he doesn't fit into the world of Muggles, the nonmagical and nonbelievers.

Harry is shown the way to Hogwarts, an English boarding school for wizards run by Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris), where Harry pals up with the gawky but decent Ron (Rupert Grint) and the bossy, precocious Hermione (Emma Watson). The instructors, who rule the classrooms with varying degrees of imperiousness, include the acid Snape (Alan Rickman) and the mousy stutterer Quirrell (Ian Hart).

The casting is the standout, from the smaller roles up; it seems that every working British actor of the last 20 years makes an appearance. John Hurt blows through as an overly intense dealer in magic equipment, schooling Harry on selecting his tools. While shopping for his magic equipment, Harry comes across the Sorcerer's Stone, a bedeviled jewel whose power affects his first year at the enchanted school.

Mr. Radcliffe has an unthinkably difficult role for a child actor; all he gets to do is look sheepish when everyone turns to him and intones that he may be the greatest wizard ever. He could have been hobbled by being cast because he resembles the Harry of the book cover illustrations. It's a horrible burden to place on a kid, but it helps that Mr. Radcliffe does have the long-faced mournfulness of a 60's pop star. He also possesses a watchful gravity and, shockingly, the large, authoritative hands of a real wizard.

The other child actors shine, too. Ms. Watson has the sass and smarts to suggest she might cast a spell of her own on Harry in the coming years and, one supposes, sequels. Mr. Grint has a surprising everyman quality, but the showstopper is Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. This drolly menacing blond with a widow's peak is Harry's plotting foe, and he has the rotted self-confidence of one of the upperclassmen from Lindsay Anderson's ''If.'' There has never been a kid who got so much joy from speaking his oddball name.

Ms. Shaw and Mr. Griffiths are enjoyably swinish, the most resolute of Muggles. Mr. Rickman, whose licorice-black pageboy has the bounce of a coiffure from a hair products ad, is a threatening schoolroom don who delivers his monologues with a hint of mint; his nostrils flare so athletically that he seems to be doing tantric yoga with his sinuses. The mountainously lovable Mr. Coltrane really is a fairy-tale figure that kids dream about.

The movie's most consistently entertaining scene features a talking hat, and that's not meant as an insult. The Sorting Hat, which has more personality than anything else in the movie, assigns the students to the various dormitories; it puts Harry, Ron and Hermione together.

But the other big set pieces are a letdown. The Quidditch match -- the school sport that's part polo, part cricket and part Rollerball, played on flying brooms -- has all the second-rate sloppiness of the race in ''Stars Wars -- Episode 1: The Phantom Menace.'' It's a blur of mortifyingly ordinary computer-generated effects.

Given that movies can now show us everything, the manifestations that Ms. Rowling described could be less magical only if they were delivered at a news conference. And the entrance that may be as eagerly awaited as Harry's appearance -- the arrival of Voldemort (Richard Bremmer), the archvillain -- is a disappointment, a special effect that serves as a reminder of how much he stands in Darth Vader's shadow.

This overly familiar movie is like a theme park that's a few years past its prime; the rides clatter and groan with metal fatigue every time they take a curve. The picture's very raggedness makes it spooky, which is not the same thing as saying the movie is intentionally unsettling.

No one has given Harry a pair of Hogwarts-edition Nikes, nor do he, Hermione and Ron stop off to super-size it at the campus McDonald's: exclusions that seem like integrity these days. (There's no need for product placement. The Internet is likely to have a systems crash from all the kids going online to order maroon-and-gold scarves, which Harry and his dorm mates wear.)

Another kind of exclusion seems bothersome, though. At a time when London is filled with faces of color, the fleeting appearances by minority kids is scarier than Voldemort. (Harry's gorgeous owl, snow white with sunken dark eyes and feather tails dappled with black, gets more screen time than they do.)

Mr. Columbus does go out of his way to give a couple of lines to a little boy with a well-groomed head of dreadlocks. This movie may not be whiter than most, but the peering-from-the-sidelines status accorded to minorities seems particularly offensive in a picture aimed at kids. It's no different in the books, really, but young imaginations automatically correct for this paucity.

A lack of imagination pervades the movie because it so slavishly follows the book. The filmmakers, the producers and the studio seem panicked by anything that might feel like a departure from the book -- which already feels film-ready -- so ''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' never takes on a life of its own.

Someone has cast a sleepwalker's spell over the proceedings, and at nearly two and a half hours you may go under, too. Its literal-mindedness makes the film seem cowed by the chilling omnipresence of its own Voldemort, Ms. Rowling, who hovered around the production.

The movie is so timid it's like someone who flinches when you extend a hand to shake. This film is capable of a certain brand of magic: it may turn the faithful into Muggles.

''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' is rated PG (Parental Guidance suggested), probably so that kids older than 12 won't think it's baby stuff. It includes scenes of magic someone must have found intense and threatening and a soupçon of strong language.

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE

Directed by Chris Columbus; written by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J. K. Rowling; director of photography, John Seale; edited by Richard Francis-Bruce; music by John Williams; production designer, Stuart Craig; visual effects supervisor, Rob Legato; produced by David Heyman; released by Warner Brothers. Running time: 146 minutes. This film is rated PG.

WITH: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), Richard Harris (Professor Dumbledore), Ian Hart (Professor Quirrell), John Hurt (Mr. Ollivander), Alan Rickman (Professor Snape), Fiona Shaw (Petunia Dursley), Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall), Julie Walters (Mrs. Weasley), Zoë Wanamaker (Madame Hooch), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley), David Bradley (Mr. Filch) and Richard Bremmer (Lord Voldemort).

Assignment 3: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C0CE2D8173BF935A25752C1A9679C8B63

I chose to analyze the film review for the motion screen picture "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The review was written for and printed in The New York Times newspaper published on November 16, 2001. Elvis Mitchell, the writer of the review, called the film "a phenomenon." He labeled it a phenomenon because the film is an adaption of J.K. Rowlings' book, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The film was the most highly awaited movie of 2001. The film followed the book word by word, causing this reviewer to write about the film unoriginality due to the fact that the target audience does not want anything in the film to deviate from the book.

Elvis Mitchell wrote an effective review for this film, but he is moderately negative of the movie. He describes the film as "never taking on a life of its own", and as "having a lack of imagination" because the film "so slavishly follows the book." The target audience for the film was the people who read the book, and who are fans of the book. That is the criteria that the review relies on. The film follows the book very closely, and does not want to deviate far from the vision of the author of the book. The criteria is effectively grappled with by the reviewer. He obviously does not like the fact that the movie follows the book so closely. Mr. Mitchell also describes the characters of the movie, as well as different scenes from the movie. He states the casting is a standout, and that the child actors shine in their performances. He talks about the plot of the film, and how the main character, Harry, comes across the Sorcerer's stone. The author made a detailed evaluation of the film. The effectiveness of the evaluation is very good. The characters are described very well, and the plot is revealed just enough to peek the readers interest to see the film.

"Mobs in Mexico Attack Fans of Emo Music"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89265941

Emo is a term used to describe just about every new band that breaks onto alternative radio. Emo is short for the word emotional. The term originated in Washington DC in the early 80s. It describes the music of bands such as Rites of Spring, Thursday, Saves the Day, Dashboard Confessional, and Jimmy Eat World. The music consists of deeply impassioned and emotional lyrics. The instruments are the guitar, the bass, the drums and vocal.

I chose the argument in the article "Mobs in Mexico Attack Fans of Emo Music." Emo music has made its way from the United States to Mexico. This music has not been accepted very well in Mexico. Most emo fans are teenagers about 15 years old. They dress and look different than most teenagers. Most Mexican youth hate emos and even attack them. On March 7, 2008 in the city Queretaro, Mexico a mob of 800 people gathered from the Internet to beat severely three emo fans. This was not an isolated incident. The next week in Mexico City people protesting that violence were attacked. Riot police had to be called in to protect them.

There is not just anti-emo violence on the Internet, but there is also anti-emo violence on TV. Kristoff, a TV personality on a music channel, called emo culture worthless and called the music rubbish and garbage. He was aggressive and had a harsh tone. He made these comments about emo fans days before the incident happened in Mexico. He was inciting the violence.

On the surface, the stasis seems to be an example of schoolyard dynamics. Teenagers see emo fans as an easy target, because they are usually younger and come from comfortable, middle class backgrounds. But the real controversy seems to be something much more disturbing. Emo music fans wear tight jeans, makeup, and dye their hair black. The emo's clothing style is against the hypermasculine Mexican culture as well. The stasis is homophobia. At the core of this is the homophobic issue. The other arguments are just window dressing for that. It is the conservative side of Mexican society fighting against something different. The article does not take any side of the argument, but one can think that discrimination and violence towards a group is always negative. Violence is not the solution. Understanding differences between people is the solution.