Providing figurative language, Audubon compares the darkness of a group of pigeons to a rare scientific phenomenon that only an intellectual might consider. Furthermore, Audubon asserts his intellectual perspective by employing words such as “velocity,” “perpendicularly,” and “angular lines” to describe the birds. Only a man of science would utilize this specific diction, suggesting a scientific approach. Audubon’s scientific perspective is further proven by him, “counting the dots...” (13). Instead of absorbing the sight of the birds as a human who is simply moved by the beauty of nature, Audubon counts the birds and sees them as dots in the sky as opposed to just enjoying them.
I’m not a writer, I’m a monkey! I’m supposed to be swinging on tree branches and digging up ants, not sitting under fluorescent lights ten hours a day (Ives 1635)! Similarly in the movie Office Space, the main character Peter cries, “Humans were not meant to sit in little cubicles starring at computer screens all day filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements”(Office). Mike Judge has experience directing actors in the movie Office Space who go through the same kind of frustrations the characters in the play experience. For this reason and others mentioned prior, I know he would be excellent at highlighting the satirical situations involved in Words, Words,
Quick cutting from Melanie to the birds shows the confusion of The short story “The Birds” is similar to the movie “The Birds” in many different ways. In both the short story and the movie, there is a statement of confusion. For example, “The Room Scene” in the short story, Nat’s children are being attacked by birds in their rooms and Nat comes in to see what was happening. In shock, his first decision was to push the kids out of the room so that he could fight off the birds himself. DuMaurier relies heavily on sensory imagery to convey the attack of the birds.
Blatantly, Alfred Hitchcock introduces his movie with a shot of cawing birds, establishing suspense, and then drops the audience on their rears, stranded with a few shots of squawking birds. There is lack of a pertinent element in the film that runs amuck in the story, and this element is foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is one of the various strengths in Du Maurier’s The Birds and it is by far the most effective, and so one can elaborate to the conclusion that without a plethora of clues, the reader is numb to arising suspense. Another opportunity given to Hitchcock was the option of paralleling his movie to the genius of the story, because without taking some material from the author, his version is almost a different species and thus the lack of suspense. Furthermore, Daphne Du Maurier stresses important details so the suspense is evident.
This conflicting notion of freedom develops throughout the story. In the beginning, the reader gets exposed to the first hints of this relaxed attitude of restricted freedom when the man shows “no sign of fear or hurry” and actually smiles (9). As his comfort with the ropes increases, it becomes part of his identity. The reader learns that he was fully capable of freeing himself if he chose to do so; however, “when the show was over he did not take off his rope,” like the other circus performers (12). One of the more paradoxical lines that further demonstrates his binding freedom reads, “the thought of losing his rope, about which he had felt indifferent earlier in the season, now depressed him” (14).
Although it is hard to notice the subtle themes and messages portrayed throughout the film due to its gentle and cute presentation, at the start of the film a key element is revealed. The only significant male presence at Bambi’s birth is the old owl. Owls are generally portrayed as wisest and most sophisticated of the animals in the forest, Disney plays off of this stereotype, making the owl out to be wise, knowing about spring time and the amorous effects on animals, portraying him as the “leader” bird whenever any other birds are shown. However, the owl seems to take up the role of an old and dying set of ideological values and beliefs, being against young love as seen in the spring scene where he educates Thumper, Bambi, and Flower on falling in love. He also seemingly recognizes the significance of Bambi’s birth more then the other animals, save Bambi’s mother.
But in the last line the Emperor suddenly sees the futility of his actions, when he realizes birds were the spark of the innovation and will be again. Comment: I honestly believe that Bradbury was a visionary. As a young man, he was fascinated with science and used to spend hours
The term "flapper" refers to the idea that they are young birds "flapping" their wings, referencing their young age and "young" idea, and their loose clothing symbolized freedom from constraints from society. Flappers were young, independent, brash, and sometimes more than a little bit "naughty", at least compared to what their family back on the farm expected. The attitude of a flapper was characterized by stark truthfulness, fast living, and sexual behavior. Flappers seemed to cling to youth as if it were to leave them at any moment. They took risks and were reckless.
Why would there be angels? Curious people come snooping and pay the couple to see this creature. The village people that decide to give money to see the winged man are kind to help the couple. This story comments upon humanity, where curiosities drive people to mess with things they aren’t sure about. What makes this man not human besides his wings?
Yes, the speech and the interaction between the boys is awkward, stilted, even sometimes stuttered, but in this case, it’s not a sign of bad acting; it is the point. The awkwardness is due to the constant fear of being cast out, and the “bad dream” quality of the film is very well reflected by this. Another great aspect of