Some situations that the show brings might not happen in our lives, but it is good to have a better understanding of the situation than not to know. Most televisions shows are not about violence and drama. Cartoons shows like; Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park and many more inform their viewers in ways that might seem unusual and might only seem as entertainment than educational. In the article “Family Guy and Freud, Jokes and their relation to the Unconscious”. Antonia Peacocke explains that every show has some education
There are many factors that could categorize ‘The Simpsons’ as being popular culture, one of them being its intersexuality. The show makes great use of both parody and pastiche as a reference to other popular culture texts such as Star Wars, Psycho and the James Bond films. The sitcom also features guest appearances by stars of popular culture, such as actors, sports personalities and musicians. Very few people in these roles could be classed as examples of high culture. The other major factor in ‘The Simpsons’ being termed popular culture is the fact that the show is in animated form.
Overall watching this movie was a mind blowing experience. Not only was it educational but it was semi funny as well, and it appealed well to me as an audience. Since the two main narrators are possibly credible for the information that was given in the movie the facts can be believable and understood. There were multiple things that I didn’t know that were pointed out in this movie, and things I would have never guessed could happen in the world. One of the main things that struck my attention was the segment about incentives with real estate agents.
Everything seems to be in Alex’s favor until his gang grows tired of his tyranny, and decides to trick him, landing him in prison after murdering a widowed cat lady. After serving a partial jail sentence, Alex is let out for what he comes to know as the “Ludovico Technique” which using nauseating drugs and overly violent films, conditions Alex against his violent nature. The novel, which was later adapted into a film by Stanley Kubrick, became a controversial subject of debate for many years, as several copycat crimes followed its release. According to fiction writer Joseph Aisenberg; “a woman was raped by assailants performing “Singing In the Rain”; boy gangs marauded around England dressed as the droogs; Arthur Bremmer, who shot George Wallace, reported in his diary having watched the movie and been inspired to get Wallace all through it” (Aisenberg, 3). The existence of violence in the novel is paralleled by an immersion of fine art and culture, but is severely limited due to the narration style of the story.
In The Book Thief, Liesel and Rudy both face death; Liesel more so than Rudy as she has to deal with the loss of not only her entire family but also the loss of her best friend. In The Boy in the Stripped Pyjamas the relationship between Bruno and Shmuel encounters death in a horrifying way as they both are killed, Shmuel on purpose and Bruno by accident. The theme of friendship within these texts is one of the most important. The friendship between Liesel and Rudy in The Book Thief is presented in a more simple way compared to the friendship that was formed between Bruno and Shmuel. In The Book Thief the innocence of Liesel and Rudy was lost because of the events in the book that they lived through.
In the novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury uses the motif of fire to convey the differences and similarities between Montag and his wife, Mildred. Initially, Montag possesses similar beliefs as his wife as to what fire symbolizes and their marriage is fairly harmonious. However, as the plot develops, Montag recognizes the dystopia within his society and changes how he thinks about fire. This, in turn, creates dissention in his marriage to Mildred. In this way, Montag and Mildred can be compared and contrasted in terms of their beliefs about fire.
While there are undoubtedly subversive, or corrupt elements in the novel, arguments for censoring it generally misrepresent its more nobler intentions and greatly exaggerate its subversive designs. Putting aside the overinflated claims of the novel's most extreme critics and supporters, the diversity and intensity of readers' reactions to The Catcher in the Rye suggest that the issues it raises are significant ones. Consequently, it seems likely that readers will continue to have heated discussions about this "minor" classic for a long time to come. One of the issues that has been debated ever since the novel's initial publication is whether or not it qualifies as a significant work of literature. Does it offer significant insights into the complexities of human existence and the development of American culture, or does it simply appeal to vulgar adolescent minds with its obscene language, complaining about everything without developing any positive insights of its own?
These two lines of action are eternally intertwined and entirely dependent on each other – the story’s plot will not reach one goal without reaching the other. While the film seems to be consistent with many of the elements that characterized classical Hollywood movies, there are also several aspects in which Possession departs from the classical system of narrative and style. The most obvious and withstanding constituent is the way that time is portrayed. The entire movie is, essentially, two movies that alternate when their scenes will be shown. Scenes jump from present-day London to scenes from a medieval English village but the separate stories each help to piece together parts of the other story.
Evidence showed that respondent set fire to the apartment of his neighbor, Hope Collins, in an attempt to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who were spending the night together in the apartment below. The intended victims escaped unharmed, but Hope Collins’ 2 year-old daughter Cynthia died in the fire. At trial, the state presented evidence of respondent’s intent to kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, but not of specific intent to kill Cynthia Collins. The state also offered expert forensic evidence to show that the fire had been started deliberately. The respondent did not contest this forensic evidence at trial because his retained arson expert had reported that the State’s evidence conclusively established arson.
The movie begins with a romantic scene between Marion and Sam in a hotel room, while their departure is somehow filled with depression and disappointment, due to Sam’s inability to pay his alimony very soon. Then Marion, who works in a real state office, in a moment, decides to steal $ 40,000 and flees the state. On her way, she stops by Bates Motel. After talking to Norman Bates, a disturbed young man and also the owner of the motel, who apparently lives with his old and invalid mother, Marion is murdered by Norman’s mother in her room while taking a shower. Then, Norman appears on the scene of the murder and hides the evidence, including the stolen money, by putting the body in the car and drowning in in a nearby lake.