Character, theme and narrative in the soap opera Essay Example for Free

Character, theme and narrative in the soap opera Essay From watching one particular episode of the famous soap Eastenders I was able to attain plenty of information and reference to certain areas of a soap. There are specific codes and conventions to particular narratives that are easy to identify. Obviously in each soap, the same sort of things occur and the audience can recognise this, thus such an appeal for soaps. In this single episode of Eastenders, the themes included are easily identifiable as being part of a soap. It includes all the drama in everyday life within one session of 30minutes. We are able to see potential fights, arguing, loving and a typical goodie and baddie scenario. Also there is mention of wedding and divorce, evidently showing mixed emotions. Furthermore, a noticeable feature of Eastenders is that there is a comic relief as there is a build up of suspense and tension, then a scene change to Patrick who supplies the audience with moments of laughter, along with a small selection of other characters. Location is an immense feature to Eastenders. There are a number of places you anticipate to be featured in each episode the Queen Vic pub being the most notorious. Also within one street (square) there is 6 places of work all featured in this one episode. The jobs all being inter-gender and featuring different types of characters who play different roles with a wide range of age gaps. Ie. Garage, launderette, cafà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½, E20 nightclub and a B B. In this 30 minute slot, which in Eastenders time is one full day from early morning to late night, we are able to see the pub closed, quiet and busy. Also when the pub is featured, the concentration is only on a conversation involving just two people, although you can hear other characters in the atmos, they are not seen. This is where camera angles become important. Over the shoulder shot is most commonly featured throughout when showing a clip of two characters talking. Also whilst in the middle of a conversation there is a sharp camera swap to a close -up view of the person speaking, which only last for a few seconds. These are things that the audience take for granted but need plenty of thought and trials. There is only one point in the episode where one person is shown alone this being Peggy Mitchell who is talking to herself and allowing the viewers to empathise with her and share her emotions. She is a dominant family-heading female who is stressing her unhappiness to the viewers. This is when we see a wider range of camera angles used as the photographers want us to see her differently and also let us see the setting and background which is a clever tactic so we can recognise where she is and what her method of thinking is. Also the cameras seem a similar distance away from each character, and this means they never raise their voice and throughout the same volume of speech is enforced. A synopsis of what is actually happening in the episode is a number of storylines revolving around each other most of them having some sort of link or connection. The storylines are as follows : * Phil Mitchell after his disturbed ex-wife Lisa and his baby * A triangle love situation between Little Mo, comical Billy and Mr. Nasty Trevor. * Sonias relationship with both Gus and Jamie * Janines flirting and misleading this linking into events occurring in the bed and breakfast. * Toms mental state of mind * Jim Brannan losing his job and Ricky in desperate need of one There is also other small ones developing but these are the main pinpointed ones. The storylines are age specific, therefore aimed at a wide range of viewers. In addition to this as storylines build up and characters become uneased in the episode, there seems to be no atmos/background music to dramatise the situation, which is a convention often employed by soap-makers. No music at all is used throughout the episode, excluding the catchy and easily remembered theme tune at the beginning of the soap. Also the mini-cliffhangers at the conclusion of the soap is followed by the distinctive tune. This soap, like most others has no graphics used or clear use of modern hi-tech technology. There is just a simple, straightforward map of the East end of London at the beginning with the River Thames flowing through. This being very eye-catching and appealing. On the whole it is obvious to see that one 30minute episode of a soap can include so much detail, information and thought.

Gun Control Laws Will NOT Reduce Crime Essay examples -- Gun Control E

Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that â€Å"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed("The Constitution of the United States," Amendment II)." This means that citizens of the United States have the right to privately own and possess firearms. However, this has created controversy because some believe that there are many who abuse this right to commit criminal acts. Some believe that this amendment only applies to the eighteenth century lifestyle when the United States was under British control. A collective rights theory asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was looked into by two key Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Hel... ...duction of Crime." Texas Review of Law & Politics 8.1 (2003): 175-87. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015. Martynenko, Natalia, and Eduard Martynenko. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Confiscating Property as a Criminal Law Measure." Internal Security 3.1 (2011): 225-30. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015. Moorhouse, John C., and Brent Wanner. "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?" CATO Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-24. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015. "Second Amendment." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 10 June 2015. Wodarz, Dominik, and Natalia L. Komarova. "Dependence of the Firearm-Related Homicide Rate on Gun Availability: A Mathematical Analysis." PLoS ONE 8.7 (2013): 1-13. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015.

Why did war break out in Europe in 1939?

When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 he promised to reverse the Treaty of Versailles, like many Germans Hitler believed that the treaty of Versailles was unjust and blamed Germany’s problems on the peace settlement. He also hate it so much he called the German leaders who signed it ‘The November criminals ‘this shows his hatred towards the treaty, but this wasn’t the only reason why he dislike the treaty so much, the treaty was a constant remainder to Germans of their loss in First World War and the treaty was also a symbol of Germanys defeat and disgrace that came with it, it humiliated the Germany. Hitler thought it would be necessary to destroy the Treaty of Versailles in order to further his aims, also when Hitler came to power, reparations had been reduced and eventually cancelled in 1932 but most of the points were still in place. Hitler’s aims were to change the territorial settlement of Treaty of Versailles by regaining lands which had been taken from Germany at Versailles, including the Saar and Danzig and bring the seven million German-speaking people in Austria, and the four million in Czechoslovakia and Poland, into his empire this again involved destroying the peace settlement of 1919. He also wants to build up his army to prove Germany was still the Great power and to expand in east, probably against communist USSR- Hitler hated Communist. This aim was probably intended for future confirmed as the greatest power in Europe. The first stage of Germans struggle would be to strengthen its lands in Europe. He couldn’t do it alone; Hitler felt the main enemies will be France and USSR, so his aim was to get friendship with Italy and Britain against them. In the 1930s there were two incidents that really tested the League of Nations. The Manchurian Crisis was caused when Japan had been dissatisfied with the peace settlement at the end of the First World War, Many thought the answer would be the expansion of Japan into Manchuria; this would make room for growing population and markets for Japanese good. In September 1931 the Japanese claimed that there had been an explosion on railway line at Mukden, which they said was sabotage by the Chinese, there was no certainty that there had been an explosion but this gave an excuse for the Japanese army to invade. The Japanese army quickly defeated the Chinese at Mukden, they hadn’t got permission from the government but success was so popular in Japan that army was now in control of Japanese policy. China claimed Japan had committed an act of aggression, Japan claimed that it had gone into Manchuria to restore order in the end Japan had done wrong but it had already reorganised Manchuria and called it Manchukuo, and Japan walk out the League. The Abyssinian Crisis was caused when Italy launch an attack on Abyssinia , it was one of few places Africa which had not been taken by the European countries and it was easy to attack because it was next to Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland . The Italians had tried to do this in 1896 but had been defeated at the battle of Adowa; Mussolini planned gain revenge for this defeat and wants to benefit the Italian economy. Italy, like Japan in 1931, was in permanent member of council of the League. The Manchurian Crisis had given Mussolini the impression that the league would not resist an act of aggression by a major power. In these sources you can see the League of Nations non-action in Abyssinian Crisis and Manchurian Crisis showed other nations like Germany that the League are powerless and irrelevant, giving Hitler the impression that he can do what he wants because the league didn’t do anything with the other Crisis’s. In 1936 Hitler began his policy of reclaiming lost German territory and Neville Chamberlain who become prime minister in 1937, he believed in taking an active role in solving Hitler’s grievances , he felt that Germans had good reasons to be upset at many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles . What he wanted to do was to find what Hitler want and show him that reasonable claims could be met by negotiation instead of by force, so this way the problems of treaty could be solved, Germany could be satisfied and there would be no war, so he made an appeasement and Hitler could get what he wants, little did Chamberlain know of the risks of appeasement. After 1937 Frances supported appeasement because of the increased of security it had with the building of the Maginot line and Britain already agreed because they didn’t want a war and they felt sorry for Germany because of the treaty. Hitler got what he wants with the appeasement. In 1939 Hitler made an agreement with Stalin called the Nazi-Soviet pact, the pact was strange because Fascism and communism were sworn enemies and Hitler never hidden his opposition to communism as expressed in Mein the Kampf. The Nazi-Soviet pact went against the Anti-Comintern pact that Hitler signed with Italy and Japan in 1937, which was in opposed to communism. In the pact the USSR and Germany agreed not interfere against other power in event of war, secret clauses divide Poland between them, the USSR took the land it lost at the end of First World War and Germany receiving the west of Poland including Danzig and the Polish Corridor. This pact benefited both Hitler and Stalin because it meant that Hitler attack on Poland was inevitable and he was prevented two danger of wars on two fronts and in the end they both got bits of Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France keep their pledge and on 2 September they declared war on Germany , much to Hitler’s surprise, Britain warned him that it would join the war if Germany invade Poland . THERE WAS NO HOPE OF OTHER Munich. Hitler had gone too far. The collapse of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 proved to be last straw for the appeasers. Public opinion in Britain’s was in favour of opposing Hitler. On 1 septemberb1939 German troops invade Poland. On 3 September Britain declared war on Germany. So that’s how invasion of Poland led to war in Europe, Hitler went too far and Britain was not just going to watch!!!. Although it was Hitler’s actions which led to war, many other factors were important in making the war happen like the way the League of Nations handled the Manchurian Crisis and Abyssinian Crisis, it gave a green light to dictators and other country which were trying to bend the rules which the league had set. Hitler took advantage of Crisis’s to put his plans forward to reversed the treaty of Versailles and to get Germany out of there depression, make Germans proud again and make there empire powerful again. There were many other factors that led to war like great depression , it hit USA first and spread like shockwave a cross the world and it was a vicious circle because none of the country could afford to paid its loan or to traded, so no money was coming in and no one was getting paid and there was no money and the people suffered, they just want a way out and Hitler saw a way to get his people out of this by getting out of treaty and getting back his land and others that wasn’t his in first place and by doing this he caused what we know as the second world war. There are hundreds of reason that led towards the war and some are just the timing but most are the fault of Hitler and his malicious planning , he saw an opportunity and he took it , causing country to turn against country ,friends against friends, father against sons ., causing a war we still haven’t recover from emotionally may never do so Why Did War Break Out in Europe in 1939 When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933; he had a lot of frustration against the Treaty which he thought was unfair. For example the enormous amount of reparation, it literally got Germany bankrupt. The restriction of army had also caused a lot of anger; Hitler and the Germans felt humiliated as the army used to be Germany’s pride and symbol before the First World War. Moreover, Germany was not allowed self-determination and joining of the League of Nations. These further made the Germans feel humiliated and dishonoured. The loss of colonies and territories had not only made Germany lost human resources, they were also important industrial areas which provide resources and markets. Therefore when Hitler came to power in 1933, he pledged that he would abolish the treaty to recover the Germany economy brings back German’s pride. Hitler also felt a strong necessity of increasing German territory, which came from the idea of ‘Lebensraum’, a German word for living space. His aimed was clearly to bring Germany back to where it was before the war, a proud and strong nation. In the 1930s there were two incidents that really tested the League of Nations; they were the invasion of Manchuria and the Abyssinia crisis. During the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the league had done a bad job by delaying to solve their own local problems- it took them a year to produce a report to condemn the Japanese in1933 (when Hitler came to power). However, Japan intended to invade more of China to ‘defend their selves’, thus the powerless League voted to approve it when only Japanese voted against as an insult. Witnessing the incident, Hitler could be almost certain that League was too useless and weak to stop his future actions. In 1936 he took a huge risk by sending German troops to remilitarise Rhineland; however he was confident due to the incident happened in Manchuria, as well as the Abyssinian crisis which was happening at the exact same time. The league was too weak by then as they were distracted by the Abyssinian crisis; they only condemned Hitler’s action but had no power to do anything else. Thus Hitler won; the remilitarisation of Rhineland as well as a huge gain in confidence. In 1936 Hitler began his policy of reclaiming lost German territory. He wanted an â€Å"Anschluss with Austria†, that is to bring the two nations together even though they were banned to ally under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler started to manipulate the Nazis to stir up trouble, to call for democratic plebiscite and eventually he sent his own troops into Austria to â€Å"defend democracy†, when the real intention was probably to make sure people vote for Anschluss under the watchful eyes of the army. British Prime Minister, Chamberlin, had also supported the idea of uniting Austrian with the Germans. Britain and France had both followed the policy of Appeasement in the 1930s. Britain’s leaders may have felt they had no option but to appease Hitler, even when there were obvious risks to such a policy such as it would encourage Hitler to be aggressive, allowed Germany to grow too strong, etc. France was invaded by Germany a several times and thus feeling a need to make peace. However, the main reason could be that they felt too vulnerable to go on war that they were perhaps in denial of Hitler’s potential and danger with or without their own acknowledgement. In 1938, Hitler had successfully took over Sudetenland very much due to the leaders of Britain and France’s naivety of trusting Hitler as well as their reluctance to go on war to stop Hitler’s action. In 1939 Hitler made an agreement with Stalin not to attack one another. They signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact and announced the terms to the world. While privately they also agreed to divide Poland between them. Stalin was very worried as Hitler had openly stated his interest in conquering the Russian land. He signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact because he was not convinced that Britain and France would be strong and reliable enough as allies against Hitler. Another advantage was that he had planned to take over the Baltic states of eastern Poland, which had been part of Russia in the Tsar’s day. Although he did not believe Hitler would keep his word anymore, but he hoped the alliance with Germany could buy him time to build up his forces against the attack he knew would come. To Hitler’s advantage, he saw Russia as a good geographical ally in a sense hat he would have helpers up in the north if a war breaks out in the west. Hitler and the Soviet forces invaded Poland in 1939; one right after another. Poland was soon taken over by the two nations. However, it was not satisfying for Hitler, he demanded even more. He was certain that Britain and France would be weak as they always had been and would not risk going on war over Poland, and thus he planned an attack on his temporary al ly, the USSR. However, this time the Britain and France kept their pledge and stood up for France, declaring a war against Germany. Hitler was caught by surprise, the war broke out sooner than he had expected and it was against the wrong opponents. Hitler would have never predicted that the invasion of Poland would lead to war in Europe and eventually turned into a World War again. Despite the fact that it was Hitler’s actions which led to war, many other factors were important in making the war happen. As I have mentioned it was the League’s incapability in settling peace that had led to frustration of the Germans to tear up the treaty. It was Britain and France’s weakness that had gained Hitler’s confidence and encouraged him to gamble more the next time. It was the various countries’ fear and reluctance to go on war to stop Hitler that had allowed him to take a bigger step each time. After all, Hitler was just taking advantage in every situation before the war and was responding to people’s weakness and naivety by demanding for more. When Britain and France finally stood up to declare war on Germany, Hitler was already stronger than before and it in the end it turned out to be another World War.

Just Walk On By, By Brent Staples - 1014 Words

In today’s society people assume that when you are a tall black man that walks alone in the dark you could be a mugger, rapist, or even worse. Brent Staples, the author of â€Å"Just Walk on By†, has felt this discrimination his whole life. Throughout his essay he explains how others have discriminated against him and judged him based on his skin color and how he walks alone in the dark. As his essay continues, he writes about how after being ran away from and watching others cross the street so they didn’t have to walk past him, he began to hum symphony tones while walking in the dark to make others feel less threatened. He also keeps to his side of the sidewalk when walking past someone so he doesn’t get in their space and so they don’t think he is following them. After reading this essay multiple times, I have concluded that I agree with the main points of how people perceive others in the dark as muggers or rapists and that humming while walking and staying in your space has the potential to make others feel more safe while passing you on a late-night walk. I completely agree with Staples main point that states when you are a tall black man on a late night walk in the dark, people will assume the worst in you. People will assume that others are going to assault or hurt them because they are scared, especially in the dark, and are un-purposely assuming that other people could be rapists, muggers, or worse. In my opinion, part of the reason people get scared and makeShow MoreRelatedJust Walk On By Brent Staples Essay1357 Words   |  6 PagesIn his essay, Just Walk on By Brent Staples explains how throughout his life, it is hard being a black man without having others discriminate against him because he is a tall, black man who works as a journalist in a predominantly white field. In Ta-Nehisi Coates book Between the World and Me Coates is addressing his son about the truth of being black in a society that is inherently races and the constructed stereotypes on them by those in power. Both Coates and Staples agree on the fact thatRead Mo re`` Just Walk On By `` Brent Staples984 Words   |  4 PagesIn his one of the most known articles, â€Å"Just Walk on By,† Brent Staples tries to touch readers’ hearts with his emotional words and an optimistic character. He points out an important yet normally disregarded issue of our society. He shows how a black man’s character is viewed in the society; they are mostly seen as thieves, robbers, rapists, muggers and as many other criminal personalities. However, Staples believes he is not one of those and supposes that all black men are not similar to how theyRead MoreJust Walk on by - Brent Staples Essays1305 Words   |  6 PagesMayo ENG 101-1035 30 October 2012 Just Walk on By In Brent Staples’ essay, â€Å"Just Walk on By† the author describes his experiences, feelings, and reactions towards the discrimination he has faced throughout his life as a black man. Staples describes several different personal experiences of when he felt that he had been judged or discriminated against by other people based on the color of his skin and how that contributed to his overall appearance. Staples has continuously been perceived as aRead MoreAnalysis Of Just Walk On By Brent Staples715 Words   |  3 Pages Text E1 is titled just walk on by, written by Brent Staples. He was born in Chester Pennsylvania and was an author/editorial for the new york times. The text is an essay and was written in 1986 while the major events of racial profiling and brutality were a big issue. Throughout Brents life, as an African-American, he lived with being discriminated and verbally abused by other races for example, whites. In the text he tells the how he feels when people run away from him or how he feels when whitesRead MoreJust Walk On By Brent Staples Analysis740 Words   |  3 Pagesbecause of their race. In â€Å"Just Walk On By,† Brent Staples explains how his presence makes others scared and uncomfortable because of the assumptions put on black men. Staples tries various tactics, such as whistling and walking faster, in order to deal the way others act towards him. Staples isnt the only one to experience the power of altering public spaces. At the beach last spring break, I realized that I also had an ugly affect on others because of my presence. Like Staples, I tried different waysRead MoreAnalysis Of Just Walk On By Brent Staples1653 Words   |  7 Pagesinto – the ability to alter public space in ugly ways.† Just Walk On By: A Black Man Ponders His Power to Alter Public Space, was written by Brent Staples. Staples was born in 1951 in Chester, Pennsylvania. He graduated Widener University with a B.A degree in behavioral science and the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. in psychology (History). To white people, specifically white women, any person of color is seen as a threat to them. Staples wrote this narrative argument to show that people of colorRead MoreAnalysis Of Just Walk On By Brent Staples1030 Words   |  5 PagesBrent Staples’ essay titled, â€Å"Just Walk On By†, really impacted and resonated with me. His essay was about the many discriminations that African Americans face every day. He was able to deliver this powerful me ssage by telling the story of how he faced stereotypes and racial profiling almost all the time. He describes how just a simple walk at night could threaten and frighten a local white civilian. Every day he was seen as a dangerous and outlawed criminal because of the color of his skin. HeRead MoreAnalysis Of The Poem Just Walk On By Brent Staples 941 Words   |  4 Pagesthe essay â€Å"Just Walk on By†, by Brent Staples, Staples makes the generalized claim that both caucasians and african americans, including Staples himself, contribute to the stereotyping of black men, as all around shady characters, in their own way, however, not all black men fit the stereotype. The first, and main portion of his essay, Staples spends supporting the first part of his thesis, that both caucasians and african americans contribute to the stereotype in their own way. Staples explains howRead MoreJust Walk On By Black Men And Public Space By Brent Staples1433 Words   |  6 PagesJust walk on by Black Men and Public Space by Brent Staples is an interesting and captivating piece of writing. His publication captures one s interest and makes a person think about the role of prejudice in his or her daily interactions. It is full of metaphors, which achieves the desired figurative effect. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, is the founding document of the traditions of the politics of the United States (Lucas). It clearly explains the fundamental ideas that constituteRead Moreâ€Å"Just Walk on By: Black Men and Public Space† by Brent Staples1449 Words   |  6 Pages In Brent Staples’ Just Walk on By: Black Men and Public Space, Staples describes the issues, stereotypes, and criticisms he faces being a black man in public surroundings. Staples initiates his perspective by introducing the audience in to thinking he is committing a crime, but eventually reveals how the actions taken towards him are because of the fear linked to his labelled stereotypes of being rapists, gangsters and muggers. Staples continues to unfold the audience from a 20 year old experience