Technology

Technology is overly present in our everyday life.  We use technology in almost every task that we do.  It is present when we brush our teeth, regardless of whether we have an electric or regular toothbrush.  Nearly everything is technologically designed to suite our needs.  Everything that we use.  The chairs and couches that we sit on, or the utensils and dishes that we eat on/with were all designed to suite our needs and make our lives easier.  Technology is the reason that our lives and the objects in our lives evolve.  The first computer, for example, were very large and made up an entire room and could perform a minimal list of tasks.  Now, the average cell phone can be considered more advanced than the first computers and smart phones are, basically, capable of the same things as many laptops and personal computers.  It is simply shocking.  Technology will continue to improve our lives as long as human beings are present on this planet.

My Paper

All in all, I thought my paper went smoothly.  I chose to discuss the differences between Deckard's character in the novel and in the film.  I based my paper on three particular examples that displayed the differences between the two: the complexity of the characters (The novel's Deckard was much more round than the film version and seemed complete as a character.), the way in which each character was portrayed (The film's version of Deckard was shown in a darker light, while the novel's Deckard wasn't really portrayed in a particularly dark or gloomy manner.), and, lastly, the differing relationships with women between the two characters (In the novel, Deckard is married, cheats on his wife, but then comes back to her; and, in the film, Deckard is divorced and falls for Rachael.).  I didn't have any problems, although, I felt that I had much to say in my paragraph's about the differing character complexity and not quite as much to say about the other two points.  I don't think, however, think that it negates from the paper in any way.  I conclude my paper, stating my opinion that the novel is a much greater detailed and, overall, superior story when compared to the film adaptation.

The film "Fahrenheit 451": Summary and Review

The 1966 film, "Fahrenheit 451,"is an adaptation of Ray Bradbury's novel of the same name and directed by Francois Truffaut.  The film is set in a future society where the government controls the people and what they are exposed to.  The goal of the government is to form a society that is void of their own opinion and that will conform to all the government's wishes.  In order to do this, the government administers drugs to the citizens and, most importantly, outlaws all printed reading material.  The government feels that if the citizens are given nothing to read, then they will not be able to think for themselves and, thus, will not be a threat to the government.  The people, most of whom appear clueless, receive their news and entertainment from large, wall-length television screens that display what the government wants them to.  The film's main character is Montag.  Montag is a firefighter whose job in the film is to seek and burn all the books that he can.  Although, Montag is married to a Linda, he meets hi new neighbor, Clarisse.  Clarisse is very interested in reading and she introduces Montag to the beauty of reading.  In turn, Montag becomes fascinated with reading. Eventually, it is realized that Montag has been stealing books in order to read them.  When he is discovered, he torches his captain with his flame thrower and takes off, fleeing the scene of the book burning.  Shortly after, he discovers a secret society of people, who, like him, love to read and think for themselves.  Montag, also, finds his neighbor, Clarisse, who first sparked his interest in reading.  Together, the members of this society memorize books and hope that there knowledge can one day be put to use.

All in all, I enjoyed the film and thought that it was rather interesting.  I felt that the story itself, originally by Ray Bradbury, was a great choice to adapt into a film.  Although I haven't read the novel, after seeing the movie, it seems that the society in which they live in is similar to the society in George Orwell's "1984."  In addition, given the time (1966) in which the film was made, it was very good.  For example, the special effects were excellent.  All of the extravagant fire scenes and the fact that the fireman carried flame throwers, added to that perception that the film was ahead of its time.  They didn't get it exactly right, however, as the people do not look anything like they do nowadays, which was the "future" that the film was shooting to portray. For instance, the fireman looked like they belonged on an episode of "Star Trek," rather than burning books. Also, I found it funny and a bit ironic that the fireman started fires in the film, as opposed to fighting them.  Back to my first point, all this movie did was make me interested in the book. I really enjoyed the concept of the story, but I simply felt that I wasn't getting the entire story.  I'm sure that the book is much better, which is most often the case when a book is adapted into a movie.

Three Interesting Points in "Objectified"

The documentary, "Objectified," was very intriguing.  Going into the film, I was not aware of the process that most designers go through when designing new object or improving an old one.  The documentary showed how a few different groups of designers brainstorm, jot down ideas, craft a plan, and then put that plan into action.  I also found the part with the Apple designer very interesting.  He explained how may of the Apple products are made to be flawless, meaning that when people view them they accept the appearance of the object as a "staple" or a "standard," rather than coming up with their own ideas on how to improve upon the object.  In addition, I found it interesting how the MacBook only contains about 6 different parts, since the designers aim to make each part do many things.  All in all, this film was very interesting and I am glad that I watched it.

Blade Runner Scene

The scene I found most interesting from the film Blade Runner was the last scene involving Roy and Deckard.  It was quite peculiar that after fighting and trying to kill each other for a good amount of time, they would stop, sit, and end up not killing each other.  The two are fighting throughout J.F. Sebastian's apartment complex for a while.  Roy toys with Deckard.  Roy breaks his fingers then lets him go and he counts down numerous times to give Deckard time to run away and hide.  After the first couple times that this happened it was apparent that Roy wouldn't end up killing Deckard.  Deckard eventually makes his way up to the roof of J.F.'s building, where he is met by Roy.  In order to escape Roy, Deckard attempts to jump across to the roof of the adjacent building.  He misses the roof but grabs hold of a piece of protruding steel.  Roy jumps across to where Deckard is holding on.  As he is standing over Deckard ready to knock him off the ledge and kill him, something comes over him.  Deckard climbs up and Roy sits next to him.  Roy is about to die and knows it.  He didn't take Deckard's life because there was no point.  His mission was to find a way to elongate his life, which, according to Tyrell, is not possible.  Therefore, since his mission is not possible, there is no reason to take Deckard's life in the name of his failed mission.  He passes away and then Deckard is able to carry on with his life.