Question 3 Celebrity Testimony Ads

            The world of the media is a very cutthroat-shady business. Many things go on that are kept secret and hidden away from the general public. Advertisement is a large branch of the media, and the most important part of it as well since it is responsible for making the companies money. People in this line of work are very competitive and slick; usually “weasels” that tend to get away with certain things. As a result, there are many types of ads that can or cannot work. One of these happens to be testimony of celebrities for a product. Sue Jozui makes a very valid point about these types of ads on how they are the worst type and are insulting to the audience since no one is expected to like something because someone else likes it too. But there is a line to be drawn to separate the good and the bad aspects of these ads. And Sue is somewhat wrong. In order to tell whether these ads should be band or not, one must put themselves in the world of advertisement to see from their point of view. One should also analyze the purpose of this ad, and one should take notice of the effect.

            Advertisers are constantly trying to come up with new commercial techniques or themes. They’re doing this because the methods used before aren’t working so well now. But testimonies from celebrities are a type of ad that can never get old. Meaning it’s something that will always work. Many celebrities are idolized by a large group of people so the advertisers notice this and see the large impact one person can do. For example, Matthew Mcconaughey, “Dallas Buyers Club,” recently won an Academy Award for best Male Performance in a Leading Role. He’s currently blossoming with his career. Call it a comeback. People have seen this, and now he has appeared in a Lincoln Automobile’s commercial. The sales went up 20% as a result. To the media, starts and celebrities are seen as money, that’s why many companies fight over the contracts of these people. More celebrities will rise, and the commercials will never die out.

            Many if these ads are lazily made with the idol summarizing the product. But very few are well made and are successful that affect the audience the most. The purpose of these ads is to get the audience’s attention first, and to buy the certain product, but it differs from each commercial. For example, a product can be beneficial to people and a celebrity truly likes it so much that he/she wants to participate in the commercial. Some of these commercials raise awareness to a product as well as an organization or group of people.

            The effects of these commercial should be viewed on as well in order to determine whether they should be removed. The effects could be: people buy a certain product more, the star gets paid, people are happy with what they purchased, and the companies make more money. If all these examples are met, and at few times they are, then there is no need to band anything. But if the commercials do become offensive, then they should be removed. The chances of people listening to a celebrity are slim. So all one has to do is worry about themselves.

Question 2- Abigail Adams

Abigail Adams wrote a letter to her son, the second President of the United States John Quincy Adams, who is traveling with his father and a diplomat. John Adams seems ambitious from the letter and his mother seems a bit worried about him traveling overseas. The letter has, at first, a skeptical tone which later on turns to a more motherly mood. Abigail also uses blandishment to appeal to her son through emotions. Metaphors also play a role in the rhetorical devices Adam uses in her writing all in order to make sure that John returns home safe as she expects.

            The beginning portion of the letter shows the skeptical tone Abigail portrays in order for her son to realize she has a sense of remorse. For example, the sentence on line three, “If I had thought…” shows how she feels guilty by sending her son to the voyage. She then, obviously expresses her skepticism of him leaving to a different country in that same sentence. From then on, the tone changes a bit to her being gentle and giving compliments to her son, as a mother should. In lines 21 and 43, Adams uses the phrase “my son” to convey her motherly love and remind him that he is cared for and missed at home.

            The letter is sprinkled with flattery and compliments to appeal to John Quincy Adams. Abigail uses this for one major reason: to remind John that he carries advantages that will help him on the journey. On the second paragraph, Abigail states that John does have “knowledge of the language” allowing him to have a benefit toward the country he will be visiting. As well as in line 24 Abigail states what is expected of him on the voyage. This reassures him that he does carry around perks that will help him. The fourth paragraph compares him to Cicero. These examples show how Abigail cares for her son and now comforts him on his journey as well as supports it.

            Metaphors are found on many lines in order to give a philosophical appeal towards her son. These metaphors are generally used to convince John that he still has much to learn. The first example would be “the stream of river” mentioned in the third paragraph. The river represents a traveler, John, and as it flows it runs through rich veins of minerals to improve its qualities. The minerals represent the experience or ideas that John will have on his voyage which will later on enhance his mind and way of life. On line 35 “the fruit of experience” is mentioned to also show how Adams isn’t done absorbing knowledge at all. The following sentences quickly express how John has to face problems and experiences to become a better and matured person.

            Abigail Adam uses a motherly yet skeptical tone in her letter as well as flattery, and metaphors. These rhetorical devices are used to show Abigail’s worrisome, support, and proudness of her son all done expertly. In the end of the letter a small theme is hinted at, and that theme is hope.

Question 1 Locavores

            Locavores is a trend or a hobby that has been sweeping the nation, if not the world. People are now eating food that is produced locally to have certain amounts of benefits, but there are a few more problems than there are benefits. There is more money spent and there is health at risk as a result.

Locavores believe that eating locally is better for the environment rather than purchasing groceries from a mega chain. That isn’t completely true. “ A 2006 academic study discovered that it made more environmental sense for a Londoner to buy lamb shipped from New Zealand than to buy lamb raised in the U.K.” (Source C McWilliams). Here it can be seen that some areas are more advanced in producing a sort of product than other areas. Each region has certain resources that make it better suited to growing and producing food in the most efficient way.

            There is no traditional description to what a locavore needs to eat. They might eat what is grown in their state or within a 50 mile boundary. “Some areas might find it fairly easy to eat locally, people in other parts of the country and world have to look farther afield.” (Source F Roberts) Additionally locavorism tries to balance out local farming and corporate farming. But that is not possible with a large population to support; food has to be mixed out as fast as possible. Thus the food in an environment can run out and people can become less healthy as a result.

            The connection of local farming to effectiveness and sustainability is doubtful. The locavore obsession with reducing food-miles has been deflated as a false economy that may actually worsen carbon productions. That’s because the high-volume, long haul food transportation perfected by industrial agriculture. At times, the environment can actually be at risk as a result of local farming.

Stream of Consciousness

            “They’re going to hate it! They’re going to hate it!” I kept telling myself as my short documentary started to play. As you can see, I’m a pretty confident person. I looked around my 10^th grade English class as they all stared up at the screen. I had worked up until 11 pm making this project (that was pretty late for me). The videos that had gone up before mine weren’t “A” worthy material, so I was somewhat confident. Still, I was shaky nervous hiding in my seat and I hear ”Baba O’Riley” start to play. A montage of news anchormen discusses the topic of the NSA leak. The next five minutes were terrifying. I had to hear my dumb voiceover talk about the issue of government surveillance. Once it had finished, almost everyone had clapped. Apparently it was one of the best videos yet. And at that moment, I knew I had potential. But that’s merely the middle of the story.

Yes, it was a Daniel-Day Lewis film that essentially changed my ever so boring life. It was in the year 2007, my father had rented a movie, as he usually did on the weekends, and started watching it around noon. I was around 11 years old, so I wasn’t paying much attention to the TV. However, my dad called me to watch a scene. I didn’t know who the main actor was; all I knew was that he had mastered his role. As you can guess, it was Mr. Lewis playing one of his best roles in one of the best films of the decade. I was watching Daniel Day Lewis playing oilman Daniel Plainview in a little movie titled “There Will Be Blood.” Mr. Plainview was arguing with his deaf son, whom was about to start his own oil company. I watched the film until the end, and of course it changed the way I saw movies.

            I used to think that films were just to entertain people, and I never thought of them as a form of art. But a few years later, I re-watched that film from start to finish and I loved it. I realize that the film, having an almost boring premise if one was to explain it to another, had mastered the art of filmmaking. The cinematography was fantastic, the acting and soundtrack were perfect, along with the directing. It was at that moment, right when I heard Johannes Brahms’s Violin Concerto in D major that that made me realize: I want to create that. I wanted to make movies like the person who made this one did. So my thirst for critically acclaimed movies began, and I fell into the world of film.

            This brings us to our next topic: Directors. After I had watched marathons of movies after another, I became interested in the people making them. I learned about Steven Spielberg (although I had heard his name before), Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Andeson, Spike Jonze, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, and much more. David Fincher had become my favorite. His most notable films would be “Fight Club”, “Seven”, and “The Social Network.” I noticed that all of his films have a dark tint in them and usually consist of plot twists. He had become very influential towards me. The more movies I watched, the more researching I did. And soon enough, another revelation came. After making two documentaries in a single year, I thought I had potential to become a filmmaker, and I hope to follow my dreams in becoming a film director.