Recent orders
Dicks Androids and Scotts Replicants
Dicks’ Androids and Scott’s ReplicantsPhilip K. Dick has written over fifty novels, and is considered among some of the greatest experimental writers of the 1950s and ’60s, such as; William Burroughs, J.G. Ballard, and Thomas Pynchon.(Star 34) He has written science-fiction and regular fiction. His fiction usually spoke of people trying to figure out who they are, or what they are supposed to be. He is best known, however, for his work in science-fiction, and this represents the majority of his work. He has, also, won awards for two of his science-fiction novels. He won the Hugo Award for best novel in 1962 for The Man in the High Castle and the John W. Campbell Memorial Award for best novel of the year in 1974 for Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said (Brians 1). An opera has been based on one of P.K.D. later novels, Valis (Brians1). One of his short stories, We Can Build It for You, was made into a movie recently. The movie was Screamers, starring Peter Weller. He has also had two of his novels, We Can Remember It for You Wholesale (Total Recall), Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Blade Runner), made into movies. Of the two, Blade Runner (B.R.) has had the greatest impact. B.R., however, differs greatly from Dicks’ original novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (D.A.D.O.E.S.) Blade Runner was released in 1982 under the direction of Ridley Scott, who also made another sci-fi classic, Alien.
The film begins in the city of Los Angeles. The year is 2019. The city of Los Angeles is overpopulated, teeming with all sorts of humans. Japanese ADs are all over the place. The Japanese input was strictly the director, Ridley Scot’s. Scott saw the future world being controlled by the Japanese. Philip K. Dick did not mention this. The planet is recovering from World War III, although I’m not sure they actually say this. In the book, the war is clearly stated and was called World War Terminus. The effects of the radiation has mutated some people. Only the ones who had not been disfigured or altered genetically by radiation from the nuclear bombs could emigrate, (leave the planet earth). Some, who were perfectly healthy chose to stay, however. They stayed because they were stubborn and wanted to die on the planet they were born on. The chicken heads had to stay, it was law. Chicken heads is Dick’s term for the disfigured or the genetically altered. They are also referred to as specials. There are no chicken heads in the movie. None of this is made clear in the movie, but this is what is explained in the novel. The ones who do emigrate to other planets receive one free worker to help them with their settling of a new home. The worker is not human. It is an android. In the movie they are called replicants or skin-jobs. These are the newest versions of androids, which were created by the Rosen Association. They are Nexus-6. Nexus-6 mimic humans in every way, except in one thing, they have no empathy.
Empathy is the ability to feel for another. For example, if you cared for a puppy that was beaten, skinned, and then left to die, that care would be empathy. Androids don’t have this trait. They would watch the puppies’ skin be removed without a blink in their eyes. They can pretend to feel, but they’d have to know first there was something disturbing about the skinning of a puppy. The nonexistent empathy of replicants is never discussed in the movie, but it is pretty obvious in the way they kill or try to kill. This lack of empathy scared many humans on earth, so a law was passed that didn’t allow androids on the planet. In the novel, this is where the bounty hunters come in. Their job is to retire (kill) the androids, who have somehow escaped to earth or just were never weeded out from the other humans.
You might be wondering why I said bounty hunter instead of blade runner?
Well, the term blade runner is never used in the novel. Apparently, Ridley Scott wanted a specific name for the people who hunted down the androids. He didn’t want to just call them bounty hunters. Scott was told of a William Burroughs book named Blade Runner: The Movie. The book was never a movie. Burroughs just had that in the title. Scott liked the way blade runner sounded, so he bought the rights of the Burroughs novel (Blackwood). That is how he came up with the title and a name for the hunters of the replicants.
The way a blade runner can know if an android is a human or not is through the Voight-Kampff test. This is shown in the movie, although not used as much as in the novel. The test consists of the tester setting up several scenarios and seeing the testes’s responses. The responses are measured through dilation in the eyes and the blushing of cheeks. The blushing is recorded by a device that is placed on your face and the dilation of the eye; by a laser that shines in your eye. An example of something that Deckard or whoever was administering the test would say was: “You are watching an old movie on TV, a movie from before the war. It shows a banquet in progress; the guests are enjoying raw oysters.” “Ugh,” Rachel said; the needles swung swiftly.
“The entree,” he continued, “consists of boiled dog, stuffed with rice.” The needles moved less this time, less than they had for the raw oysters. “Are raw oysters more acceptable to you than a dish of boiled dog? Evidently not.”(Dick 45) A human would react more to the dog than raw oysters. This showed that this particular subject, Rachael Rosen, was an android. It wouldn’t just be one question though, it would be many. All would be something along these lines, though. After, he found out for sure; the android, ( or in the movie: replicant), would be retired. The Voight-kampff test is only shown at the beginning of the movie when Dave Holden is administering the test to Polokov, a replicant. The main character of the novel and movie is Rick Deckard . Deckard is played by Harrison Ford. He is a blade runner (bounty hunter) that has come out of retirement. Rick is hired to track down four androids: Roy Baty, Pris, Luba, and Polokov. The original number of replicants had been five, but one of his colleagues, Dave Holden, had already retired one. The name of the retired replicant is never mentioned. The original five had killed their human masters on another planet, stolen a ship, and illegally come to earth. In D.A.D.O.E.S., the original number of androids is eight and Holden retires two, leaving six for Deckard. Holden was only able to kill one; because he is paralyzed by Polokov, while administering the Voigt-Kampff test. This, also, is what happens in the novel: Polokov shoots a laser through Holdens’ back. So, Deckards’ search begins, and the hunt for the replicants’ (androids) is on.
The remaining part of the film, is Deckard tracking down and killing the renegade replicants.
When first released, B.R. was not a commercial success.(Star 39) Some audiences members loved it, but others didn’t think it was so great. The box office showed the latter: not very good. The film made little money. But, one thing that almost all people did enjoy from the film was the scenery and the visionary background. The set designs were wonderful. Roger Ebert, a critic of the Chicago Sun-Times said, ” It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of it’s own, but it is thin in its human story” (Ebert 1) Ebert gave it an overall rating of three stars. His opinion, though, summed up the majority opinion of the few people who went and saw it at the theater. The special effects and background were great, but the plot was weak. It was just another action film, with a lot of violence; nothing unique about it. Even though the movie did not make money at first; over the years, it would become a cult classic. The late interest was most likely sparked by a new version that would be released years after the original release of the movie. The version, Blade Runner: The Director’s Cut, was what the director, Ridley Scott, originally wanted (Scott). Apparently, the original movie that came out at theaters in 1982 had been tainted by Hollywood producers, with editing (Berry 16). They said the film was too confusing and didn’t have a happy ending. “Preview audiences found this ending too ambiguous and bleak” (Smith 2) you have to have a cheesy happy ending in Hollywood.
The 1982 release has Deckard and Rachael, (a replicant that is an exact copy of the daughter of the President of The Rosen Association; he falls in love with her), at the end, riding off into the country. Supposedly, these scenes were outtakes from The Shining (Smith 2) The producers didn’t like Scotts ending. In Scott’s ending, Deckard and Rachael enter an elevator, and then the movie abruptly ends. Too unhappy.
The producers also thought the movie was too confusing and not clear, so they added a voice-over; someone narrating the story (Berry 16). The narrator was Deckard (Harrison Ford).
Blade Runner: The Director’s Cut, returns the original scenes. The happy ending is gone, and there is no more voice-over. This changed the effect of the movie. In the 1982 release it gave you the feel of an old Bogart movie. In the new version, a new mood is brought out, and a better effect is created. The narration was totally unnecessary. The movie becomes more enjoyable.
The followers of B.R. grows; as the sparks of interest touch them with this improved movie. This is how the director had originally created it. B.R. should have been released this way, originally. Proof of this is shown just in this newfound interest. Remember, the movie originally bombed at the box office, but now people loved it.
The second director’s cut, however, would fan those sparks of interest up into flames.
There had been rumors, that in the original screenplay, it was quite obvious that Deckard was a replicant. Deckard, the replicant hunter, was a replicant himself! Blade Runner: The Directors Cut II confirmed this rumor.
Evidence is plentiful that Deckard was actually a replicant himself. First, is the glowing eyes (Bitnet 22) When he(Deckard) goes to meet The President of The Rosen Association to discuss the knowledge of any replicants on earth, there is a replicant owl and if you watch when the owls’ head turns, you can see an orange glow in its; eyes. The glow is also in Rachael eyes, and can be seen in Roys’ when he is first introduced in the movie. Later, if you watch closely, you can see that same glow in Deckards eye in a scene where he is talking to Rachel of someday someone will hunt her down. When he turns his head, you can see the glow.
Critical Thinking Analysis Essay, The Inside Job, a documentary narrated by Charles Ferguson
Critical Thinking Analysis Essay, The Inside Job, a documentary narrated by Charles Ferguson
Presented by
Institution
Presented to
Date
The Inside Job is a documentary narrated by Charles Ferguson that gives an analysis of the main events that led to the collapse of Wall Street economy (Riley 3). This documentary focuses on the roles played by both the government and private sector in accelerating the financial meltdown that cost millions of people their jobs, homes, and savings (Marshall 13).
The banking institution forms one of the major private sectors that bear the blame of the financial crisis in the film “The Inside Job”. The film provided a wide range of view on how corrupt the US banking institutions are that led to the 2008 crash (The Guardina 1). The high levels of corruption portrayed by bosses managing big banks in the country made them work for self-gain without any public interest. As the film narrates, Frederic Mishkin, could not bother looking for any solution despite the warning that the economy was about to crash. Moreover, the Royal Bank of Scotland boss, Sir Fred Goodwin, was a disgraced manager who misused many public funds and went unpunished. In addition, banking institutions over-paid their employees who performed little tasks. Risk managers in the banking institutions also failed to inform the authority about the status of their banks. Some stated that by giving true information about their banks, it would cut down their multi-billion dollar profits. The government could also not challenge the trading shares that generated billions of profits (Bullard 35-40).
On the other hand, banks contributed to the financial crash as shown in the film as shown by the high level of consumption by ordinary people that increased country debts. According to the film, bankers contributed to the collapse because they invested too much to make their living happy but could not afford to pay back their loans. Many bank debts, credit card debts, and personal loans were recorded during this period and banks could not stop offering loans to individuals and institutions. Moreover, the accounting firms never performed their roles effectively (Hartmann 20-22). These firms had the responsibility of monitoring bank accounts and giving recommendations to the government on the bank’s ability to trade. Many banks bribed such accounting firms in order to favor them, a step that created room for more debts in the country (Marshall 12).
The labor department under the government sector contributed to the economic fall of Wall Street in the film “The Inside Job”. The film director portrayed key people in the government from the labor ministry whom he termed as corporate criminals and political corrupt leaders who hijacked the American economy (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 1-2). The ministry announced creating more than 10,000 job opportunities and increase in the unemployment rate but these were just virtual figures (Hellenic Statistical Authority 15). Moreover, the film criticizes president Obama’s government for failing to carry out reforms in the labor department after becoming the president. Ferguson also terms president Obama as a selfish person who bailed out the America’s public sector by giving many cash to his friend’s companies (Ferguson). In addition, some of the known criminals who contributed to the 2008 financial crisis still go unpunished. In the film, Ferguson explained how senior people in the labor department lobed the government more cash to start their own private firms after leaving the government sector.
The accountability of these two sectors would have saved America the shame of being in an economic crash. Firstly, the banking sector could have ensured all its employees perform their duties and anyone suspected of misusing funds face the law. In addition, the government should have ensured all banks in the country record their source of profits and their financial status in order to avoid debts. Secondly, the government sector should have performed a better analysis of the labor department in order to ensure proper distribution of salaries to all civil servants. Moreover, the government should hold all people accountable for the crash and prosecute them in order to act as a lesson to others.
Works cited
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. press release, March 20, 2013, web. http://www.federalreserve.gov/
newsevents/press/monetary/20130320a.htm.
Bullard, James Neely. “Systemic Risk and the Financial Crisis: A Primer.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 1 Sept. 2009: 30-51. Print.
Dir. Charles Ferguson. Inside job.. Perf. 10. Sony, 2010. HD-DVD.
Hartmann, P. Currency competition and foreign exchange markets – The dollar, the yen
and the euro, Cambridge University Press. 2011
” Inside Job: how bankers caused the financial crisis | Film | The Guardian .”Latest news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian | theguardian.com | The Guardian . N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/feb/17/inside-job-financial-crisis-bankers-verdicts>.
“”Inside Job” Director Charles Ferguson: Where Are the Criminal Prosecutions for Financial Crisis? | Democracy Now!.”Democracy Now!. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/1/i
Marshall, John. The financial crisis in the US: key events, causes and responses. RESEARCH PAPER 09/34. 2009.
Riley, Felix. The inside job. London: Michael Joseph, 2012. Print.
Dickinson’s and Whitman’s Literary
Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Dickinson’s and Whitman’s Literary Works’ Reflection of the Late Romantic Period
Introduction
The Romantic Period was an intellectual movement characterizing various works of literature, music, architecture, criticism, and history emanating from the late 18th century to the mid 19th century. Romanticism was viewed as a rejection of the calm, order, balance, rationality, idealization typical of the Classic period. To some extent, romanticism was a reaction against 18th-century rationalism, enlightenment, and materialism in general. Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman were both 19th-century poets who wrote poems mainly based on ideologies of immortality, death, and nature. Emily Dickinson is a renowned poet known for her unusual use of syntax and form; a signature that earned her the title ‘The poet of the paradox.” Although Dickinson wrote about 1800 poems in her lifetime, only a handful were published. Walt Whitman, born in 1819, sought to move from the usual literal tradition of the old world forging new and distinct literature. His style was mainly innovate-free and celebrated the American landscape in his verses. This essay speaks to how both Whitman’s and Dickinson’s works reflect the Late Romantic period in America. In both Walt Whitman’s and Emily Dickinson’s works, each author embodies the attitudes of Romanticism including a deep admiration of the beauty of nature, an understanding of the self, and increased examination of the moods, personality, and mental potentialities of their moods, and a special predilection for aspects seemed mysterious and weird
Deep Appreciation of the Beauties of Nature
Firstly, in their unique way, both Dickinson and Whitman speak to the late Romantic period by showing appreciation for nature’s beauty. In her poem Hope is the Thing with Feathers, she writes, “Hope is the thing with feathers. That perches the soul and sings the tune without words and never stops at all.” In this text, one sees Dickinson’s appreciation for nature because she uses a bird as a metaphor to pass on a message about hope. The bird sings non-stop and does not demand anything even during the direst situations. She refers to hope as the thing with feathers and as a bird living with the human soul. The fact that the bird sings come rain or sunshine, good and bad times, and through storm or gale points to the nature of human beings and their capacity (Folsom, 276). Additionally, in his poem Song of Myself, Whitman writes, “My tongue, every atom of my blood, formed from this soil, this air Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same.” This text points to the notion of heredity and its role in extending generations. The poem generally is a self-expression that explores communion possibilities between people. The speaker talks about how every atom of their blood was formed from air and soil which are two aspects of nature. The speaker also talks about how his parents were also born from the same soil and air as did their parents too. This shows the connectedness that exists between him and his predecessors. This is an aspect of nature and its beauty. The relevance of nature as explored by both Dickinson and Whitman is that it brings healing to the sorrows of people (Wright, 40). Particularly for the romantic period, nature was viewed to be a source of revelation by using simple language to shape nature and talk about God’s creation.
Understanding of the Self and Increased Examination of Human Personalities and Moods
Secondly, Dickinson and Whitman also examine the personalities, moods, and mental potentialities of human beings, an attitude that was common during the late Romantic period. In his poem, I Hear America Singing Whitman praises the many different people that are in his nation America. Whitman writes that he hears American singing with various carols and he mentions carpenters, mechanics, and mason as they are working, getting ready for work, or as they leave. This points to the individuality of all the workers who despite working differently are singing the same song. Masons, mechanics and carpenters singing together shows how individuality blends with collective bargaining, commonality, and personal expression (Herrmann, 34). Whitman jubilantly celebrates his country people with song and emphasizes the kind of song they sing and their voices pointing to their diverse personalities, moods, and mental potentialities. Furthermore, Dickinson also makes reference to the same in his poem If I Can Stop One Heart From Breaking. Dickinson writes, “If I can ease one life the aching, or cool one pain, or help one fainting robin, Unto his nest again, I shall not live in pain.” This text is about the deeds that human beings do to ensure that the life of another person is not in vain. The speaker in this poem is saying that they would happily dedicate their lives to helping those suffering from heartbreak, despair, and deep sadness. The author examines the personality of human beings and their moods by showing that they care for other people that are around them. The author wishes they can be of help to a fainting bird in helping it get back to its nests. This speaks to the sensitive and vulnerable side of the speaker. In essence, both Dickinson and Whitman do a good job in examining the personalities of their human characters in both poems, an attitude that remains at the center of Romanticism.
A Special Predilection for Aspects Deemed Mysterious and Weird
Thirdly, both Dickinson and Whitman make reference to the predilection for weird and mysterious subjects which were common attitudes of the late Romantic period. Particularly, both poets address the topic of death in their works. In her poem “Because I could not stop for death,” Emily Dickinson talks about immortality and death. She writes, “Because I could not stop death, he kindly stopped for me, the carriage held but just ourselves and immortality.” Essentially, this text is interprets the mortal experience from the viewpoint of immortality. The speaker points to the timelessness of eternity using phrases such as immortality, mortality, and mortality (Hsu, 56). Similarly, Whitman also displays a liking for the weird by writing that, “Was it doubted that those who corrupt their own bodies conceal themselves? And if those who defile the living are as bad as they who defile the dead?” The text speaks to the components of the body including the body. Whitman opines that the body is nothing short of a miracle. It is wonderful beyond description and provides people with a unique identity connecting them to all other people that are alive. The text also raises the question of whether those that defile the living also defile the dead. Both authors touch on mysterious and weird topics that have to do with death, immortality, and the soul.
Conclusion
In closing, Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitson explore the attitudes of the late romantic period of American in their literary works. They both touch on the topic of death, immortality, mortality, and the soul; topics that are deemed weird and mysterious in society. Additionally, they also demonstrate increased examination moods and personalities of human beings. In their own unique way, both authors also reference deep appreciation for nature in the poems. All these attitudes speak to the common characteristics that were distinct in the late Romantic period.
Works Cited
Folsom, Ed. “Walt Whitman: A Current Bibliography, Winter/Spring 2018.” Walt Whitman Quarterly Review 35.3 (2018): 276-287.
Herrmann, Steven. Emily Dickinson: A Medicine Woman for Our Times. Fisher King Press, 2018.
Hsu, Li-Hsin. “The Romance of Transportation in Wordsworth, Emerson, De Quincey, and Dickinson.” Romanticism 25.1 (2019): 45-57.
Wright, Jaime. “Emily Dickinson: A poet at the limits.” Theology in Scotland 24.1 (2017): 35-50.