GUN OWNERSHIP ( thesis stament)

U S A government should forbid  free access to guns, since violence involves more violence,  security could be increased and as a result we wouldn´t feed the thriving gun industry.

The lack of food resources.....

   The lack of natural food is an increasing problem, because the human being is using up the ecological resources of the planet Earth. In fact, this year the ecological footprint – a measure that represents the amount of resources necessary to supply the human population compared with the biosphere´s ability to regenerate itself and provide services- has been exceeded. This means that it is more and more difficult to find natural and healthy products; the raising prices make poor people unable to access them. Therefore, if we do nothing to change this situation, we will run out of our resources, each year there will be more and more people with nothing to eat and in the end we will use up all the food.

In order to solve this problem, many alternatives have been proposed along History. One possible solution is to eat little children (because their meat is more tender) as proposed in 1729 by Jonathan Swift in his  well-known essay A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal. However, this remedy was already criticised for not being very ethic even at that time. In spite of being a satirical essay to highline the attitudes toward poor people, there were some who took it seriously.

Another solution could be to produce soylent green as suggested in the film starring Charlton Heston. It is a retro futuristic film about an overcrowded planet Earth and how the population survives on rations produced by the Soylent Corporation, a green cookie that contains "high-energy plankton". However, if you have seen this film, you will know why this remedy is inviable, unless certain prejudices or civilization taboos are dismissed.

Thus, a final answer (since these solutions are not the ideal proposals for everybody, as people may be reluctant to apply them) that involves fewer difficulties would be a more responsible behavior in preventing the lack of resources. For instance, it could be solved educating or making the population aware about it. Therefore, if every one of us acts responsible, we will avoid this urgent issue.

                                                      

FIRST PRACTICE: Living in the countryside

   If I had to choose I would like to live in the countryside. Generally speaking, it is true that living in a big city may be more attractive, but residing in a rural area has always been more comfortable and healthy. In fact, there is less pollution in the countryside than in an urban area, because, for instance, driving is not necessary to go anywhere there. Furthermore, if you looked for a job in the countryside, it would be easier to find one, because there are more opportunities, due to the fact that it less crowded than a large town. In addition, the countryside, or a small village, provides you a more relaxing and contemplative way of life, and its gastronomy is organic and ecologic, unlike city´s gastronomy. Therefore, for these reasons, I prefer residing in a rural area instead of living in a big city, since this way of living is more gratifying than living in a big crowded city.

Disadvantages of watching dubbed films and original language versions.

If you are thinking of watching a film in the near future, both options -dubbed and O V- have disadvantages, unless the original  version is in your mother tongue.  Sometimes dialogs and subtitles are not well synchronized. In addition, subtitles are not always faithful to the original script; this is usually a matter of space, but as a result some expressions or nuances are lost. And if you have to be reading subtitles all the time you can miss images or visual details. On the other hand, watching a dubbed film implies missing the actors´ voices; this means that you cannot appreciate their whole performances. Besides, since a dubbed film doesn´t allow you to listen to the original voices, you do not have the chance to improve your listening skills. Furthermore, dubbed versions may manipulate the original dialogs, as happened with Franco´s censorship. For instance, that happened in Mogambo (as one of the main characters couple is presented as brother and sister instead of husband and wife in order to hide an adultery, but in the end it unintentionally seems an incest) and in several Hitchcock films, etc. 

Bringing up baby vs. What´s up doc?

In  the cinema world, classic movies are often used as the main source, model, reference... for a new film that is called the "remake" of the previous one.

 For instance, in 1972 Peter Bogdanovich directed What´s up doc, which  is a version of Bringing up baby, directed by Howard Hawks in 1938, tough there are more similiraties than differences between them. In general terms, both storylines share some similar basic points, because one film as well as the other are screwball comedies.  In fact, the main female characters are akin to each other; in the more recent film this character is performed by Barbara Streisand and in the earlier one that lead role is played by Catherine Hepburn. Both Catherin and Streisand play a "madcap girl". Furthermore, they fall in love with a charming absent-minded scientist, though in What´s up doc he is a geologist -Ryan O´Neal- and in Bringing up baby  a paleontologist - Cary Grant-. Thus, the big mess in the earlier one is caused by a little dog that hides a dinosaur´s bone, whereas in the remake it is originated by the confusion of several identical suitcases, one of them carrying the professor´s stones. 

      On the other hand, one of the main diferences between these films consists in the 30´s one being black and white in contrast to the 70´s one, which is a colour film. Another difference is the presence of animals; in the first one,  unlike the second one, there is not only a little dog, but also two leopards (which protagonize one of my favourite scenes). Therefore, despite the fact of being two films from different times, there is so much more that connects them. 

By the way, Baby is a leopard!

The conjuring

The conjuring is one of the worst terror films I have ever seen.  It is a film "based" on a true story:  Roger and Carolyn Perron move into a dilapidated farmhouse and paranomal fenomens begin to happen.  Among other things, this is due to the big melting pot created by the scriptwriter.  All the famous terror films are in there, not only films like The Exorcist, Chucky, Poltergeist, It, The sixth sense..., but also tipical terror settings, scenes and images, like "there is something in the basement; I´ll go and see", the rocking cheer or the swing moving alone, the  bed sheets hanging up on the backyard ... In fact, when you think it is imposible  for another trite scene to appear, there goes the solitary ball...Therefore, I can´t understand why it has been so successful, because for me is just another comercial terror film. 

You got: Well-Loved Book

"Your pages are loose and dog-eared, your spine broken many times over. You’re the book someone stays up late with, reading you under the covers over and over again." 

I agree, but the quizz is too anglo-saxon and I don´t know about all the options!!!