There are many different tools a professor can use to help illustrate to the students the material that is expected to be learned, but by Professor Carpenter using the Wall Street Journal as our main instructional tool it helped teach the call up to date real world problems that are effecting most every topic that was covered in class. Not only were we able to learn about the events that are happening in the world of communications we were able to discuss them, and be more educated on the topic and even hold conversations outside of the classroom regarding the topics that were learned in class.
I feel that it was very effective to read the Wall Street Journal every day. Most of the topics that were read about in the paper struck our intrests and made it interesting. I feel it was more effective than if we were instructed to read about events that happened years ago, because we can't relate to those problems which makes it harder for us to pay attention or even want to pay attention. I also like how by disucssing these events that are written about the The Wall Street Journal we beomome more aware of what is effecting the world around us. Whereas if we were learning about events that took place 5-10 years we wouldn't be learning up to date information therefore we would be unaware of what was going on in the present day.
Though reading The Wall Street Journal helped keep me informed on the current news, I don't think that I will be continuting my subscrption to The Wall Street Journal. I do however plan on subscribing to a different news paper, possible USA Today or Orlando Senitnal. I think that reading the news paper and watching the news has helped given me usful information that will benifit me greatly. I did however download The Wall Street Journal application for my iPhone, and I do plan on checking it to help keep myself updated.
I am very glad that instead of using a textbook in communications we used The Wall Street Journal. I liked learning and being taught through current news and not from events that took place in the past. I think it was very helpful, and the information that we learned while reading The Wall Street Journal will benifit us greatly by keeping us well informed.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Road: Book vs. Movie
"The Road" was both a phenomenal book and film. While reading "The Road" I was both intrigued and interested as to how Hollywood would portray this story, and after seeing the movie I was impressed with how closely the film followed the book. Though the book was enticing and unusual the movie quickly surpassed the book in my opinion. Though the movie followed the book closely there were some differences such as the amount of flashbacks the Father has, the illusion of hope, and the play out of certain events.
The movie surpassed the book because of the way Hollywood made the events in the movie stand out more in my mind and brought a lot more emotion and feeling to the scenes. The movie portrayed many of the important events that took place in the book and didn't leave out any detail. By watching the movie it helped me understand and bring to life the story.
One way that the movie differed from the book was the amount of flashbacks the father has of his wife. In the book the mother was briefly mentioned twice. While the movie had multiple flashbacks of the mother. One scene that stood out to me the most was when the mother finally decided to walk away from the father and the boy and to surrender to life, however in the book the mother didn't just walk away Cormac McCarthy describes the brutally suicide committed by the mother.
Another difference between the movie and the book was the sign of hope given towards the end. In the book McCarthy shows hope by describing fish swimming in the stream, whereas the movie betrayed hope by showing a live beetle fly from an open Chewing Tobacco can. Though they both show signs of hope and life one was presented while the father was still alive and the other after his death.
The last significant difference between the movie and the book is the play out of certain events. In the book the father found clean water in a house that was very crucial because it helped the boy and the father survive but that was not expressed in the movie. Also, in the movie it showed that the boy and the father were able to take a large amount of food from the bunker leaving them enough to spare a can for the robber, but in the book since the boy and the father had lost their cart they were forced to take only as much as they could carry, when they soon ran out of food before they reach the coast. Though these are two key parts of their survival thankfully Hollywood still managed to kept other crucial scenes in the movie.
All in all, the movie followed the book closely, however there were still some differences. I liked how the movie was able to include the most important events and was impressed with how well it was able to be protrayed. A lot of times Hollywood is unable to really capture the authors initial ideas, but I feel in this movie Hollywood hit the nail on the head and captured just was Cormac McCarthy was trying to protray.
The movie surpassed the book because of the way Hollywood made the events in the movie stand out more in my mind and brought a lot more emotion and feeling to the scenes. The movie portrayed many of the important events that took place in the book and didn't leave out any detail. By watching the movie it helped me understand and bring to life the story.
One way that the movie differed from the book was the amount of flashbacks the father has of his wife. In the book the mother was briefly mentioned twice. While the movie had multiple flashbacks of the mother. One scene that stood out to me the most was when the mother finally decided to walk away from the father and the boy and to surrender to life, however in the book the mother didn't just walk away Cormac McCarthy describes the brutally suicide committed by the mother.
Another difference between the movie and the book was the sign of hope given towards the end. In the book McCarthy shows hope by describing fish swimming in the stream, whereas the movie betrayed hope by showing a live beetle fly from an open Chewing Tobacco can. Though they both show signs of hope and life one was presented while the father was still alive and the other after his death.
The last significant difference between the movie and the book is the play out of certain events. In the book the father found clean water in a house that was very crucial because it helped the boy and the father survive but that was not expressed in the movie. Also, in the movie it showed that the boy and the father were able to take a large amount of food from the bunker leaving them enough to spare a can for the robber, but in the book since the boy and the father had lost their cart they were forced to take only as much as they could carry, when they soon ran out of food before they reach the coast. Though these are two key parts of their survival thankfully Hollywood still managed to kept other crucial scenes in the movie.
All in all, the movie followed the book closely, however there were still some differences. I liked how the movie was able to include the most important events and was impressed with how well it was able to be protrayed. A lot of times Hollywood is unable to really capture the authors initial ideas, but I feel in this movie Hollywood hit the nail on the head and captured just was Cormac McCarthy was trying to protray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)