Usually when it comes to books being made into films, the books are markedly superior. However, the 1940's film adaptation of John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" proves to be an exception to this trend. It stands alone as an excellent film that is true to the spirit and overall message of the original work. The ending of the book and the film contrast sharply. The book finishes rather bleakly while the ending in the film, while far from saccharine, offers a ray of hope for the Joad family as they persevere through the worst of the great depression. While normally I object to modifying an original work, especially one considered to be one of the defining pieces of literature of the 20th century, the ending created for the film version is more appropriate to its purpose. The book when it was first published served as an outraged voice bringing attention to the inhumanity and desolate state many poverty stricken families faced during the great depression. It described the situations faced by ruined farmers and migrant workers accurately at at time when those not in such a situation might be oblivious to it. This was before the information age. Although the entire country and western world was affected by the great depression, many were ignorant of what the worst off faced: corruption, starvation and exploitation. This book caused a huge uproar in the United States. It became a bit of a polarized issue. The "red menace" of communism was well rooted at the time "The Grapes of Wrath" was published meaning that all anti-capitalist writings were heavily scrutinized and highly suspect. Some even accused Steinbeck of inflating the degree of destitution experienced by those most affected by the great depression. Others praised the work as a long coming accurate portrayal of those who had truly lost everything.
The movie however by design did not serve to inflame viewers. It was designed as entertainment with the essence of the struggle portrayed by Steinbeck. While incorporating and presenting the situation outlined in the book, the ending offers some hope to the viewer without detracting from the strength of the message. Really, who wants to see a film with a bleak, hopeless ending? Viewers are informed of the terrible situation but do not leave the film feeling hopeless. Instead, I think one might feel enlightened, seeing a point of view and situation present but unseen. Also, by the time the film was published, the worst of the depression had past - no "exposé" was required. The endings to each form of the story suit their purpose and their timeframe. The book's inflammatory message would definitely would be weakened if it ended as the movie did.
The Grapes of Wrath's message extends much farther than just the great depression itself. It emphasizes the value of humanity and how humanity can be unjustly lost amid the figures of a ledger. It is of course also relevant in the economic uncertainty present in the world today. While we narrowly avoided a true depression in the economic recession of 2007, it certainly brings to thought what has been and what might have been.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!
I find it a little sad that in the wake of global warming, one of the gravest environmental issues modern man has ever encountered, governments of the world instead of searching for solutions would rather profit from our continued addiction to oil. It seems hypocritical to give dire warnings on the environmental repercussions of both drilling for and burning oil while simultaneously bellowing at the top of the world “its mine!” over a reserve of oil, the very substance that chiefly brought about this global disaster in the first place.
History seems to be repeating itself to a degree amongst the northern governments encircling the arctic. It feels almost like the colonial attitude toward land claims has returned: One merely plants a flag in something no one has planted a flag in before, and it then belongs to you. According to this outdated line of reasoning, the moon is technically American soil. It’s the North American gold rush all over again – but this time black gold is up for grabs.
Instead of trying to monopolize on the ominous signs of global warming, I think governments should instead invest in the development of alternative, sustainable energy sources. One of the real incentives for researching these alternative fuels is the fact that oil reserves will not last forever. By tapping into this huge reserve, I fear that such projects would be put on the back burner. Awareness of this issue might be forgotten temporarily: smothered by a flood of cheap, available oil.
What scares me the most however is that Russia is a player in this game. Russia does not exactly have the best track record regarding the environment. Even more alarming is the creation and intended use of these nuclear power platforms. One need only look askance at the Bay of Kola near Murmanske to see first hand Russia’s past of mishandling nuclear waste. Within Kola, lies a fleet of decommissioned nuclear submarines. As these Soviet relics are eaten away by rust, they spew gouts of nuclear waste into the sea. Should a nuclear incident occur in the Arctic, this solution is clearly unacceptable. Further, considering that Russia is known to be an illiberal democracy, rampant with corruption, who is to say they will follow all international laws and standards? Even more disconcerting is the apparent risk for environmental catastrophe involved in deep sea drilling. Could Arctic waters suffer the same damaging effects of the Mexican Gulf? What if one of these nuclear power platforms, let alone one of the oil-rig platforms, suffers an explosion? Considering that an effort spanning the globe to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, which includes some of the world wealthiest and most technologically advanced countries, struggled to just stop the flow of oil. I shudder to think if the consequences of a nuclear incident. Personally, I am not confident the Russian government would take full responsibility if such an event occurred.
On a final note, I wonder if those planning to use these opening up Arctic shipping lanes have considered the possible impact on northern wildlife? The Arctic ecosystem is extremely fragile and is already suffering from the effects of global warming. The receding ice caused by global warming has already had a huge negative impact on Polar bear populations. Drowned polar bears have been found for the first time on record as the distance they must travel to hunt and migrate grows larger every day. Are they strong enough to withstand the additional stress of oil-rigs, nuclear power platforms and shipping traffic, or will they face extinction?
As one sees life on Earth struggling to cope with the environmental pressures relating to global warming, it begs the question:
Are we strong enough?
History seems to be repeating itself to a degree amongst the northern governments encircling the arctic. It feels almost like the colonial attitude toward land claims has returned: One merely plants a flag in something no one has planted a flag in before, and it then belongs to you. According to this outdated line of reasoning, the moon is technically American soil. It’s the North American gold rush all over again – but this time black gold is up for grabs.
Instead of trying to monopolize on the ominous signs of global warming, I think governments should instead invest in the development of alternative, sustainable energy sources. One of the real incentives for researching these alternative fuels is the fact that oil reserves will not last forever. By tapping into this huge reserve, I fear that such projects would be put on the back burner. Awareness of this issue might be forgotten temporarily: smothered by a flood of cheap, available oil.
What scares me the most however is that Russia is a player in this game. Russia does not exactly have the best track record regarding the environment. Even more alarming is the creation and intended use of these nuclear power platforms. One need only look askance at the Bay of Kola near Murmanske to see first hand Russia’s past of mishandling nuclear waste. Within Kola, lies a fleet of decommissioned nuclear submarines. As these Soviet relics are eaten away by rust, they spew gouts of nuclear waste into the sea. Should a nuclear incident occur in the Arctic, this solution is clearly unacceptable. Further, considering that Russia is known to be an illiberal democracy, rampant with corruption, who is to say they will follow all international laws and standards? Even more disconcerting is the apparent risk for environmental catastrophe involved in deep sea drilling. Could Arctic waters suffer the same damaging effects of the Mexican Gulf? What if one of these nuclear power platforms, let alone one of the oil-rig platforms, suffers an explosion? Considering that an effort spanning the globe to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, which includes some of the world wealthiest and most technologically advanced countries, struggled to just stop the flow of oil. I shudder to think if the consequences of a nuclear incident. Personally, I am not confident the Russian government would take full responsibility if such an event occurred.
On a final note, I wonder if those planning to use these opening up Arctic shipping lanes have considered the possible impact on northern wildlife? The Arctic ecosystem is extremely fragile and is already suffering from the effects of global warming. The receding ice caused by global warming has already had a huge negative impact on Polar bear populations. Drowned polar bears have been found for the first time on record as the distance they must travel to hunt and migrate grows larger every day. Are they strong enough to withstand the additional stress of oil-rigs, nuclear power platforms and shipping traffic, or will they face extinction?
As one sees life on Earth struggling to cope with the environmental pressures relating to global warming, it begs the question:
Are we strong enough?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Pakistani Puzzle
This first English 122 blog post topic happens to be a rather thorny one.
For those who cannot see the question posted on the English 122 master blog, it concerns the relief response (or lack thereof) to aid those affected by the recent devastating floods in Pakistan. Dr. Morris asks us why the relief response thus far has been so sluggish and meagre in comparison to those of the Haiti earthquake disaster and the previous Tsunami.
There are a number of unfortunate circumstances which explain this apparent discrepancy in generosity. I don't think most people in both the United States and Canada necessarily prefer a Haitian victim to a Pakistani one. Both victims are human beings and both have suffered the devastating effects only a large scale natural disaster can produce. The need of either vicim is equally great. Keeping that in mind, I think the problem lies in the realm of international politics and security between countries.
Pakistan immediately receives some negative political and media coverage due to its location. As it is located in "the middle east," the public relations of the nearby countries such as Iraq, Iran, Isreal, Afghanistan are projected upon it. The terrorism threat as well as war in Iraq politically stain the region. I'm sure more than one Canadian or American has wondered that if all donated funds actually reach those in need of relief. It's no secret that the Pakistani government as well as other nearby governments have a reputation for being quite corrupt. Yet, this alone is not likely a factor as the Haitian government also suffers from deep rooted corruption. The difference between the two is a matter of where the diverted funds may go. Could my donation for relief end up funding terrorism? Haiti lacks this international security stigma. Further exacerbating this lack of confidence in where the money may end up is the internal instability within Pakistan. Political upheavals regarding territory, especially with India, are both common and heated. Violent protests break out frequently. Funds not diverted due to corruption could be lost as the government is ineffective and not well liked by many of the governed. Pakistan's political image has been further tarnished by the recent nuclear deal with China. Pakistan has stated the technology will only be used peacefully. Yet, with such an unstable and corrupt government how can they guarantee that nuclear arms will not be developed secretly? This idea particularly scares the UN and its members as Pakistan is a country that did not sign the original Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Overall, I think people may worry about where donated relief funds will eventually end up and what threat that may pose to their own country let alone the world.
The political image of Pakistan I imagine affected the amount media coverage there has been of the disaster. I did not even hear about the floods until about 2 weeks after they had started. It was not advertised on television as far as I know. I only found out listening to the radio on a Sunday afternoon. The media coverage of the Haitian disaster was far greater and informed the public far more effectively.
Even if the media coverage of the floods in Pakistan was better handled, I wonder if the donation gap would still exist if one ignored the international political and security concerns. Perhaps unlucky timing for the disaster detracted from relief efforts. The Haitian earthquake occurred at a time when a natural disaster of that magnitude had not occurred for some time. As such, it stood out as a great deviation from the norm. Conversely, the Pakistan floods began not long after the Haitian earthquake. Perhaps some had donated what they could afford that year to Haiti and could not make an equal contribution to Pakistan. The flood's shock value was certainly less as the Haitian earthquake was and is still in peoples minds alongside it. Pakistan did not benefit from the individual focus that Haiti did. On that note, casual listeners to the radio or television and those skimming the newspaper might mistake Pakistani natural disaster coverage for the Haitian earthquake and dismiss it as old news.
All these factors aside, it's unfortunate that the people of Pakistan must suffer from these political and media obstacles created by governments. They are suffering just as much as the people of Haiti were and need much in the way of humanitarian aid. How can their government deal with this huge scale natural disaster when it can barely function or remain stable at the best of times. It's hard to see an easy solution as even if funds were available, how would we make sure it reached those who need it most?
Pity the nation.
For those who cannot see the question posted on the English 122 master blog, it concerns the relief response (or lack thereof) to aid those affected by the recent devastating floods in Pakistan. Dr. Morris asks us why the relief response thus far has been so sluggish and meagre in comparison to those of the Haiti earthquake disaster and the previous Tsunami.
There are a number of unfortunate circumstances which explain this apparent discrepancy in generosity. I don't think most people in both the United States and Canada necessarily prefer a Haitian victim to a Pakistani one. Both victims are human beings and both have suffered the devastating effects only a large scale natural disaster can produce. The need of either vicim is equally great. Keeping that in mind, I think the problem lies in the realm of international politics and security between countries.
Pakistan immediately receives some negative political and media coverage due to its location. As it is located in "the middle east," the public relations of the nearby countries such as Iraq, Iran, Isreal, Afghanistan are projected upon it. The terrorism threat as well as war in Iraq politically stain the region. I'm sure more than one Canadian or American has wondered that if all donated funds actually reach those in need of relief. It's no secret that the Pakistani government as well as other nearby governments have a reputation for being quite corrupt. Yet, this alone is not likely a factor as the Haitian government also suffers from deep rooted corruption. The difference between the two is a matter of where the diverted funds may go. Could my donation for relief end up funding terrorism? Haiti lacks this international security stigma. Further exacerbating this lack of confidence in where the money may end up is the internal instability within Pakistan. Political upheavals regarding territory, especially with India, are both common and heated. Violent protests break out frequently. Funds not diverted due to corruption could be lost as the government is ineffective and not well liked by many of the governed. Pakistan's political image has been further tarnished by the recent nuclear deal with China. Pakistan has stated the technology will only be used peacefully. Yet, with such an unstable and corrupt government how can they guarantee that nuclear arms will not be developed secretly? This idea particularly scares the UN and its members as Pakistan is a country that did not sign the original Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Overall, I think people may worry about where donated relief funds will eventually end up and what threat that may pose to their own country let alone the world.
The political image of Pakistan I imagine affected the amount media coverage there has been of the disaster. I did not even hear about the floods until about 2 weeks after they had started. It was not advertised on television as far as I know. I only found out listening to the radio on a Sunday afternoon. The media coverage of the Haitian disaster was far greater and informed the public far more effectively.
Even if the media coverage of the floods in Pakistan was better handled, I wonder if the donation gap would still exist if one ignored the international political and security concerns. Perhaps unlucky timing for the disaster detracted from relief efforts. The Haitian earthquake occurred at a time when a natural disaster of that magnitude had not occurred for some time. As such, it stood out as a great deviation from the norm. Conversely, the Pakistan floods began not long after the Haitian earthquake. Perhaps some had donated what they could afford that year to Haiti and could not make an equal contribution to Pakistan. The flood's shock value was certainly less as the Haitian earthquake was and is still in peoples minds alongside it. Pakistan did not benefit from the individual focus that Haiti did. On that note, casual listeners to the radio or television and those skimming the newspaper might mistake Pakistani natural disaster coverage for the Haitian earthquake and dismiss it as old news.
All these factors aside, it's unfortunate that the people of Pakistan must suffer from these political and media obstacles created by governments. They are suffering just as much as the people of Haiti were and need much in the way of humanitarian aid. How can their government deal with this huge scale natural disaster when it can barely function or remain stable at the best of times. It's hard to see an easy solution as even if funds were available, how would we make sure it reached those who need it most?
Pity the nation.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Resurrection and Feather Dusters
I have returned.
Jokes aside, this blog has been resurrected and will be updated once a week at the very least. This preternatural phenomena has been brought about by the fact that one of my University courses, English 122, requires that I maintain a blog throughout the term. The topics of these new posts will vary as I will be writing or commenting on events and philosophical questions posed by my new English Professor, Dr. Mark Morris. I suppose now I know for a fact that someone might actually be reading my mad ramblings. This notion cheers me, as one of the reasons I began neglecting this blog was the feeling that no one actually read my posts other than my grandmother. It seemed silly to put the effort into editing a entry and posting pictures when picking up the telephone or getting on my bike to speak with her directly was far less time consuming.
While school related posts are a given, I would like to finish my chronicle of my year in France. I have half a dozen entries written in rough which ideally I would like to publish. On more recent events, I would like to also write on my stay in Hawai'i this last July and share some of the amazing sights and sounds I experienced. Whether or not I post on these topics in the near future is uncertain. With a full course load, keeping up with course work is the first priority. While I know I will write about these travelling experiences eventually, they may not appear for quite some time.
To those who are viewing this blog for the first time, I welcome you and hope I can keep you at least a little entertained while completing the required tasks for the course. You are welcome to read and comment, be you teacher or pupil, on any previous or present posts. This is a nice and clean blog, so please keep it PG and note that those who wish to say nasty or hateful things about myself, or others need not reply to the posts. Keeping that in mind, anyone is welcome to give constructive criticism or pose alternative opinions on the subject matter and the writing itself should they have the notion. I enjoy discussion and debate.
I conclude this reintroduction armed with a metaphorical feather duster and the intent to clean up this old blog. Hopefully, the broken links, missing pictures and old information will be fixed, scrubbed and renewed before too long. I want it looking presentable for company!
Alec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
