building the mind of the future
DESCRIPTION
Portfolio for my English 1102 classTRANSCRIPT
Mrs. Redding’s English 1102 class
By: Brittany Evans
Building the Mind of the Future
Brittany Evans
Mrs. Karen Redding
English 1102
2 May 2012
English 1102 Final Portfolio Title
Table of Contents
Analytical Cover Letter…………………...……………………………………………...……1
Quality Comparison……………………………………………………………………...……2
Least Successful Paper (The original final draft submitted to me) ……………...……2
Most Successful Paper (The original final draft submitted to me)….……………...…7
"What’s the Difference?" Paragraphs…………………………………………………..10
Revision Samples……………………………………………………………...………………11
Least Successful Paper (with mark-up) ……………………………...………….……11
Least Successful Paper (new final version) …………..……………...………….……15
Most Successful Paper (with mark-up) ……………………………...………….……19
Most Successful Paper (new final version) …………..……………...………….……22
Free Choice Essay (with mark-up) ……...…………………………...………….……25
Free Choice Essay (new final version) …….………………………...………….……28
May 2, 2012
Karen P. Redding, M.A. Assistant Professor of English Gainesville State College Oconee Campus 304 Oconee Classroom 1202 Bishop Farms Parkway Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Dear Mrs. Redding, My name is Brittany Evans and I am a freshman at Gainesville State College. As I look back at my pieces of writing during my English 1102 class, I see how much my writing has changed. I have learned a lot and have improved my writing extensively. I have gathered pieces of my writing that I have done over the spring semester and organized it into this final portfolio. Looking through the pieces you can see how my writing has changed since English 1101. In English 1101 I was taught to focus on the “big picture” and to go into extensive detail when writing. I felt that my writing did not improve from the class and it was hard to because I never felt that my writing was good enough. I also had trouble with my grammar and was never taught how to correctly fix my grammatical errors. Since taking English 1102, I have become more confident as a writer and it has made me actually enjoy writing more. You have indicated for me to pay more attention to the subjects I am to relating to. My least successful essay was “Socially Derived Monsters.” Although this essay had a unique topic, it lacked attention of common grammatical errors. My most successful essay was “Who Can Be Trusted.” I chose this essay because I felt had a great theme and made it really fun to write about. This piece made me proud of my writing.
I feel that it is necessary for you to read my portfolio in order to fully recognize how much this class has improved as a writer and how hard I am willing to work as a student. I have editing skills to critique and improve my writings as best as I can. Once you view my portfolio you will see how much hard work I have put into your class. Thank you for the knowledge and criticism you have given me to make me a better writer. Sincerely, Brittany Evans
Least Successful Paper Original
“Societal Derived Monsters”
There are many ways our generation today has formed our own idea of
“monsters.” Monsters can be identified as the scary creatures you see in horror films or
television shows, someone convicted of statutory rape or even a homeless man on the
street with nothing but a ragged green jacket and ratty untied Converses. Steven Asma
and Edward Ingebretsen’s articles, “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion” and
“Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” you are told of how the general public today
looks towards and creates monsters to combat its own fears and battles with reality. In
today’s generation we go back and forth with their existence. Mainly society does not
want any association with monsters due to their position on the social order and the fact
that we are repulsed and scared by them. Although we may run from them, we also like
the idea of monsters because they allow us to set ourselves free from reality and expand
our imagination to envision life through another set of eyes.
In the article, “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Steven Asma discusses why
people are so intrigued with monsters. Asma states that the interest of monsters has
amplified in the twenty-first century and has extremely progressed with the anxiety
following the tragic events of 9/11, the demise of the economy, and even the conflict in
Iraq (1). Since the beginning of these three events, movies, books and television shows
about monsters have become extremely popular, “people can’t seem to get enough of
vampire lately” (Asma 1). Being a part of any monstrous kind allows us to take a walk on
the wild side and free ourselves from the everyday normalcies (Asma 1). Our generation
is infatuated with watching scary movies or reading books because it makes us visualize
and question what we would do in that same terrifying life or death situation (Asma 1).
For example, would you run or hide is someone was chasing you. To show the
differences between being a monstrous and being non-monstrous, Asma tells two stories
of men. Both men were classified as monsters due to their erratic behavior, but only one
man truly is a monster. The first story is of Bruce Shapiro who walked into a coffee bar
with friends and within a matter of minutes, chaos had broken loose. Shapiro found
himself, like a spectator at the cinema, watching a man, Daniel Sylvia, fly around the
room killing everyone in his path. When the Shapiro tries to leave, Sylvia stabs him in
the back. Presumably the first thought is that Sylvia is of course a monster, but in
actuality he is just a “mentally ill man who snapped” (Asma 3). This example goes to
show sometimes we mistake something as monstrous that is indeed ill. The second story
is about a male teacher in Afghanistan whose home is broken into by four armed men
who then force his wife and children watch as they murder him. Unlike Sylvia, the four
armed men are indeed monsters. Asma shows that monsters today are still a well-
known topic and that they “cannot be erased from our language and thinking” (4).
Monsters have been positioned as “symbols of human vulnerability and crisis and as
such they play imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace” (Asma
1). These examples allow you to envision what your response would be if you were faced
with the same problem. We learn that this thinking amplifies our entire imagination and
leads us wanting more. As a whole, the concept of monsters helps us face obstacles in
real life, such as overcoming our fears by learning what our reactions would be in
unknown situations.
Throughout Edward Ingebretsen’s article, “Monster Making: A Politics of
Persuasion,” it states that as a society today we use monsters as persuasive tools and
civil agents to reflect the scapegoat upon which social order is formed. Today monsters
have a wide range of classifications; it can be the poor man on the corner, a jailed man,
etc. They are created as civil agents by media and politics to spark an interest for the
public. Ingebretsen states that “the ongoing stability of any society depends upon the
presence of monsters” (25). Although they serve as a danger at times, they also serve as
a sense of security and comfort. In the article, Ingebretsen frequently uses the life of
Jeffrey Dahmer, Susan Smith, and other social monsters to serve as examples of
behavior that is socially acceptable. Hearing the stories of their lives and deaths, show
the public how to be appropriate in society and what happens when you are not.
Through the example of Dahmer, Ingebretsen states that the scenes of villain venturing
usually provide ways in which the societal body achieves a cleansing by ridding
themselves of the “diseased or undesired elements” (26). The media placed Dahmer as a
monster, knowing that he must die for his wrongful doings and that it cannot be our
fault. Classifying him as a monster expresses to us not what he is about but what we, as
audience and citizen wannabes, are about (Ingebretsen 28). As a whole, monsters show
us who we are by demonstrating what we would be if we fail to keep our necessary social
performance as humans (Ingebretsen 29). We place monsters in a negative light for this
reason; we all want liked and be lawful human beings. Although sometimes the
classification is not fair, we are forced to put it aside and do what is classified to our
social body as right.
The two articles have shown that as a generation we are fighting a continuous
battle with monsters. On one hand we are repulsed by them and look to them to feel
better about our own mistakes in life. By this we result in saying, “well I did wrong but
what he did was worse.” On the other hand they indulge our curiosity, relieve us from
stress and leave us wanting more in exploring our imagination. Ultimately monsters are
personal; they are us and our failed selves.
Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. Monsters and the Moral Imagination. Print.
Rubin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State
University Press. Pg. 115 – 124.
Most Successful Paper Original
Who Can Be Trusted?
By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will be
able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to
control devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology
continues to advance further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of
what the future holds with these advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion
within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of lighting and camera angles
in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the general population and
specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.
An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie.
The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much of a
bigger light is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the
artificial lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling
that life in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the
audience envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling
of mistrust on technology.
In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James
Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where
detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies
him as the focal point in the scene. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram
look extremely real, as if Dr. Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real
world holograms do not exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the
feel of uncertainty with technology.
Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks
to Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera
zooms in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face.
Proyas continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and
the room is shown to actually appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on
Robertson’s face continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to
show the audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson.
Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of
certain characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in,
Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the
character itself. Proyas demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget
Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When
the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in extremely close and gives the database a
powerful and almost intimidating quality. This perspective gives the viewers a thought
that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies the idea of VIKI having artificial
intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film leading up to Dr.
Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the robots and other
technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and almost like the
technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand.
When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between
two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays
intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the
audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the
robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film
technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce
this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the
robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower
and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though
it was acting out of obedience and trying to help its owner. The closer Spooner gets to
the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This
growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the
thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well.
Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several
uncertainties about it being used. No matter how smart and more advanced technology
may become, it can never differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since
technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen
through the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be
trusted and the advancements in the future must be watched upon exceptionally close.
Quality Comparison
Reviewing essays from the beginning of the semester can be exciting. Since taking
my English 1102 class, I have learned so much more over the semester then I knew the
first day of class. I find it funny looking back at my essays and comparing them to the
comments that were made. When a person first submits a paper, they think that all of
the errors are fixed and the paper is perfect, but when a teacher’s eyes wander over it
and make changes, the writer begins to see places where the paper needed work. I
looked back at my first essay, “Socially Derived Monsters” and also my second essay,
“Who Can Be Trusted.” I chose my first essay as my least successful essay and chose my
second essay as my most successful. Although, both papers had flaws in each, overall my
second paper had a better theme and idea.
Both essays had flaws in each. A common mistake I used was using “my voice” and the
words, what and is throughout my essays. For example, from my first essay, “Socially
Derived Monsters,” I continually used my voice in the sentence, these examples allow
you to envision what your response would be if you were faced with the same problem”
(Dahmner, Essay 1) Revising this essay, I mainly kept “my voice” or my opinion when
analyzing the text. I had to watch carefully since it is a common I make. In my second
essay, “Who Can Be Trusted,” the main problem I faced when writing this essay was
using the form of be, is, too much. Almost every paragraph I used the word, is. It was
difficult trying to go back and fix the sentences without them. Also in this essay, I used
unnecessary words to try and complete the sentence. For example, “he filmmakers use
bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate that a bigger light is shown on
technology” (Essay 2).
Although, there were errors in each essay, both had perfections as well. In my first essay,
“Socially Derived Monsters” had a great thesis. For example, “Although we may run
from them, we also like the idea of monsters because they allow us to set ourselves free
from reality and expand our imagination to envision life through another set of eyes”
(Essay 2) I was really proud of this thesis and gave me the confidence when I wrote my
second essay. In my second essay, “Who Can Be Trusted,” I wrote an introduction
sentence to immediately grab the reader’s attention. For example, “by the year 2020, the
first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves,
broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips
implanted into our brains” (Essay 2). Having good introduction sentences and
paragraphs, allows you to continue great writing throughout the paper.
Both, “Socially Derived Monsters” and “Who Can Be Trusted” were carefully thought out
and edited. I chose my first essay as my least because it needed the most grammatical
work. My second essay I thought overall had a great central idea and only had a few
grammatical errors. I related closely with it. After revisiting and revising both essays
errors, I composed two new essays. Having written an essay a while back and then
coming back to it with a fresh set of eyes, allow you to recognize the errors you would
not have noticed originally.
Evans1
Brittany Evans
English 1102 / Redding
Synthesis: Final Draft
31 January 2012
“Societal Derived Monsters”
There are many ways our generation today has formed our own idea of
“monsters.” Monsters can be identified as the scary creatures you see in horror films or
television shows, someone convicted of statutory rape or even a homeless man on the
street with nothing but a ragged green jacket and ratty untied Converses. Steven Asma
and Edward Ingebretsen’s articles, “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion” and
“Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” you are told of how the general public today
looks towards and creates monsters to combat its own fears and battles with reality. In
today’s generation we go back and forth with their existence. Mainly society does not
want any association with monsters due to their position on the social order and the fact
that we are repulsed and scared by them. Although we may run from them, we also like
the idea of monsters because they allow us to set ourselves free from reality and expand
our imagination to envision life through another set of eyes.
In the article, “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Steven Asma discusses why
people are so intrigued with monsters. Asma states that the interest of monsters has
amplified in the twenty-first century and has extremely progressed with the anxiety
following the tragic events of 9/11, the demise of the economy, and even the conflict in
Iraq (1). Since the beginning of these three events, movies, books and television shows
about monsters have become extremely popular, “people can’t seem to get enough of
vampire lately” (Asma 1). Being a part of any monstrous kind allows us to take a walk on
Comment: Socially
Comment: PR #29
Comment: Careful – your audience comes from a range of generations.
Comment: What do you mean?
Comment: Lovely thesis!
Comment: PR #36
Evans2
the wild side and free ourselves from the everyday normalcies (Asma 1). Our generation
is infatuated with watching scary movies or reading books because it makes us visualize
and question what we would do in that same terrifying life or death situation (Asma 1).
For example, would you run or hide is someone was chasing you. To show the
differences between being a monstrous and being non-monstrous, Asma tells two stories
of men. Both men were classified as monsters due to their erratic behavior, but only one
man truly is a monster. The first story is of Bruce Shapiro who walked into a coffee bar
with friends and within a matter of minutes, chaos had broken loose. Shapiro found
himself, like a spectator at the cinema, watching a man, Daniel Sylvia, fly around the
room killing everyone in his path. When the Shapiro tries to leave, Sylvia stabs him in
the back. Presumably the first thought is that Sylvia is of course a monster, but in
actuality he is just a “mentally ill man who snapped” (Asma 3). This example goes to
show sometimes we mistake something as monstrous that is indeed ill. The second story
is about a male teacher in Afghanistan whose home is broken into by four armed men
who then force his wife and children watch as they murder him. Unlike Sylvia, the four
armed men are indeed monsters. Asma shows that monsters today are still a well-
known topic and that they “cannot be erased from our language and thinking” (4).
Monsters have been positioned as “symbols of human vulnerability and crisis and as
such they play imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace” (Asma
1). These examples allow you to envision what your response would be if you were faced
with the same problem. We learn that this thinking amplifies our entire imagination and
leads us wanting more. As a whole, the concept of monsters helps us face obstacles in
real life, such as overcoming our fears by learning what our reactions would be in
unknown situations.
Comment: Is this a quotation?
Comment: Why? Explain how this fits (it does, but be explicit for your audience)
Comment: slang
Comment: ?
Comment: Why? Explain the difference? (it’s significant!)
Evans3
Throughout Edward Ingebretsen’s article, “Monster Making: A Politics of
Persuasion,” it states that as a society today we use monsters as persuasive tools and
civil agents to reflect the scapegoat upon which social order is formed. Today monsters
have a wide range of classifications; it can be the poor man on the corner, a jailed man,
etc. They are created as civil agents by media and politics to spark an interest for the
public. Ingebretsen states that “the ongoing stability of any society depends upon the
presence of monsters” (25). Although they serve as a danger at times, they also serve as
a sense of security and comfort. In the article, Ingebretsen frequently uses the life of
Jeffrey Dahmer, Susan Smith, and other social monsters to serve as examples of
behavior that is socially acceptable. Hearing the stories of their lives and deaths, show
the public how to be appropriate in society and what happens when you are not.
Through the example of Dahmer, Ingebretsen states that the scenes of villain venturing
usually provide ways in which the societal body achieves a cleansing by ridding
themselves of the “diseased or undesired elements” (26). The media placed Dahmer as a
monster, knowing that he must die for his wrongful doings and that it cannot be our
fault. Classifying him as a monster expresses to us not what he is about but what we, as
audience and citizen wannabes, are about (Ingebretsen 28). As a whole, monsters show
us who we are by demonstrating what we would be if we fail to keep our necessary social
performance as humans (Ingebretsen 29). We place monsters in a negative light for this
reason; we all want liked and be lawful human beings. Although sometimes the
classification is not fair, we are forced to put it aside and do what is classified to our
social body as right.
The two articles have shown that as a generation we are fighting a continuous
battle with monsters. On one hand we are repulsed by them and look to them to feel
Comment: Transition needed.
Comment: This is a good example of how to synthesize these two articles: both discuss the problem of socially acceptable behavior and “norms”
Comment: Are these direct quotations??
Comment: Overgeneralization – not necessarily true
Comment: Good point.
Evans4
better about our own mistakes in life. By this we result in saying, “well I did wrong but
what he did was worse.” On the other hand they indulge our curiosity, relieve us from
stress and leave us wanting more in exploring our imagination. Ultimately monsters are
personal; they are us and our failed selves.
Brittany,
Your thesis is just marvelous, and your concluding paragraph sums up a potential synthesis beautifully. In fact, much of the evidence and many of the ideas in the body paragraphs show insight and thoughtfulness. Right now, however, you’ve simply separated two analyses and combined them only at the beginning and the end. For a synthesis, integrate the two articles together to support the same ideas – you have shown that you can identify these similarities, but now you need to reorganize your body paragraphs for coherence to that thesis. (Does that make sense?) As to your writing, you clearly have made effort to have your own “voice,” and you have several instances of just lovely prose. I want you to redouble your efforts towards clarity of structure and vividness of diction. Watch out for those “question words” (PR #28) and the to be verbs and the passive construction (PR #24 & 25) to add energy and power to your language. I very much look forward to your next paper!
Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. Monsters and the Moral Imagination. Print.
Rubin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State
University Press. Pg. 115 – 124.
Comment: Great concluding sentence.
Least Successful Paper Final Version
“Socially Derived Monsters”
Our generation today has formed our own idea of “monsters.” Monsters can be
identified as the scary creatures seen in horror films or television shows, someone
convicted of statutory rape or even a homeless man on the street with nothing but a
ragged green jacket and ratty un-tied Converses. Steven Asma and Edward
Ingebretsen’s articles, “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion” and “Monsters and
the Moral Imagination,” tell of how the general public today looks towards and creates
monsters to combat its own fears and battles with reality. In today’s generation we go
back and forth with their existence. We do not want any association with monsters due
to their position on the social order and the fact that we are repulsed and scared by
them. Although we may run from them, we also like the idea of monsters because they
allow us to set ourselves free from reality and expand our imagination to envision life
through another set of eyes.
In the article, “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Steven Asma discusses the
reason people are so intrigued with monsters. Asma states that the interest of monsters
has amplified in the twenty-first century and has extremely progressed with the anxiety
following the tragic events of 9/11, the demise of the economy, and even the conflict in
Iraq (1). Since the beginning of these three events, movies, books and television shows
about monsters have become popular, “people can’t seem to get enough of vampire
lately” (Asma 1). Being a part of any monstrous kind allows us to take a walk on the wild
side and free ourselves from the everyday normalcy's (Asma 1). Our generation is
infatuated with watching scary movies or reading books because it makes us visualize
and question how we would react in the same terrifying life or death situation (Asma 1).
For example, would a person run or hide if another person was chasing them. To show
the differences between being monstrous and being non-monstrous, Asma tells two
stories of men. Both men were classified as monsters due to their erratic behavior, but
only one man truly is a monster. The first story is of Bruce Shapiro who walked into a
coffee bar with friends and within a matter of minutes, chaos had broken loose. Shapiro
found himself, like a spectator at the cinema, watching a man, Daniel Sylvia; fly around
the room killing everyone in his path. When the Shapiro tries to leave, Sylvia stabs him
in the back. Presumably the first thought is that Sylvia is of course a monster, but in
actuality he is just a “mentally ill man who snapped” (Asma 3). This example shows that
as people, we sometimes mistake a person as monstrous who in actuality is ill. The
second story is about a male teacher in Afghanistan whose home gets broken into by
four armed men who then force his wife and children watch as they murder him. Unlike
Sylvia, the four armed men are indeed monsters because they knowingly kill a man and
are not diagnosed as ill. Asma shows that monsters today are still a well-known topic
and that they “cannot be erased from our language and thinking” (4). Monsters have
been positioned as “symbols of human vulnerability and crisis and as such they play
imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace” (Asma 1). These
examples allow his audience to envision what their response would be if they were faced
with the same problem. We learn that this thinking amplifies our entire imagination and
leads us wanting more. As a whole, the concept of monsters helps us face obstacles in
real life, such as overcoming our fears by learning the reactions they would have in
unknown situations.
Throughout Edward Ingebretsen’s article, “Monster Making: A Politics of
Persuasion,” it states that as a society today we use monsters as persuasive tools and
civil agents to reflect the scapegoat upon which social order is formed. Today monsters
have a wide range of classifications; it can be the poor man on the corner, a jailed man,
etc. They are created as civil agents by media and politics to spark an interest for the
public. Ingebretsen states that “the ongoing stability of any society depends upon the
presence of monsters” (25). Although they serve as a danger at times, they also serve as
a sense of security and comfort. In the article, Ingebretsen frequently uses the life of
Jeffrey Dahmer, Susan Smith, and other social monsters to serve as examples of
behavior that is socially acceptable. Hearing the stories of their lives and deaths, show
the public how to be appropriate in society and what happens when you are not.
Through the example of Dahmer, Ingebretsen states that the scenes of villain venturing
usually provide ways in which the societal body achieves a cleansing by ridding
themselves of the “diseased or undesired elements” (26). The media placed Dahmer as a
monster, knowing that he must die for his wrongful doings and that it cannot be our
fault. Classifying him as a monster expresses to us not what he is about but what we, as
audience and citizen wannabes, are about (Ingebretsen 28). As a whole, monsters show
us who we are by demonstrating what we would be if we fail to keep our necessary social
performance as humans (Ingebretsen 29). We place monsters in a negative light for this
reason; we all want liked and be lawful human beings. Although sometimes the
classification is not fair, we are forced to put it aside and do what is classified to our
social body as right.
The two articles have shown that as a generation we are fighting a continuous battle
with monsters. On one hand we are repulsed by them and look to them to feel better
about our own mistakes in life. By this we result in saying, “well I did wrong but what he
did was worse.” On the other hand they indulge our curiosity, relieve us from stress and
leave us wanting more in exploring our imagination. Ultimately monsters are personal;
they are us and our failed selves.
Brittany Evans
Macie McCannon
English 1102/Redding
Synthesis: Final Draft
288 February 2012
Who Can Be Trusted?
By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will
be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to control
devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology continues to advance
further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of what the future holds with these
advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas
uses the focus of lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology
by the general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.
An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie. The
filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much of a bigger light is
shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the artificial lighting in the
movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life in the future is not
what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience envision life as more
modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of mistrust on technology.
In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James
Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where detective
Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies him as the focal
point in the scene. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as
Comment [kpr1]: Really? Or just in that film? If the former...wild! What is your source for that information?
Comment [kpr2]: Dangling preposition
Comment [kpr3]: PR 15
Comment [kpr4]: Well said.
Comment [kpr5]: Do you mean “excessive”?
Comment [kpr6]: …for what purpose? Set up your paragraph more explicitly here.
Comment [kpr7]: wordy
Comment [kpr8]: can you provide a specific example from the film to support this idea?
Comment [kpr9]: How are the scenes numbered?
Comment [kpr10]: Okay – why is that important with regards to your thesis?
if Dr. Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not exist
and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with technology.
Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to
Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms in on
Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas continues to
directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room is shown to actually
appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face continuously throughout
the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the audience that there is also mistrust with
Robertson.
Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of certain
characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits
either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas
demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and
Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in
extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This
perspective gives the viewers a thought that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies
the idea of VIKI having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance
film leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the
robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and almost
like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand. When Proyas
chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between two characters, either during
a conversation or during an action scene, it displays intensity as well as reinforcing reactions
and emotions between the characters and the audience. He demonstrates this technique when
Comment [kpr11]: Good.
Comment [kpr12]: Do you also mean “artificial”? I wonder if you can elucidate further on the difference or correlation between the two (unrealistic and artificial) to further develop your ideas.
Comment [kpr13]: PR 24
Comment [kpr14]: Interesting. Why does it imply that mistrust? (I think you have a point, I just want you to clarify)
Comment [kpr15]: As do all filmmakers – can you revise this to be specific to this film and your thesis?
Comment [kpr16]: Yes…and? Your audience understands the general purpose of zooming, etc, but they’re curious about your take on it in this film.
Comment [kpr17]: Good!
Comment [kpr18]: Try “This perspective implies/suggests that she has a mind of her own”
Comment [kpr19]: Word choice
Comment [kpr20]: Great!
Comment [kpr21]: See my comment kpr 16
Detective Spooner chases after the robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him.
Proyas uses the film technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To
reinforce this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the
robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower and
concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though it was acting
out of obedience and trying to help it’s owner. The closer Spooner gets to the robot, the shorter
the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This growing shortness of lengths
displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the thought that the technology gives an
uneasy feeling as well.
Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several uncertainties
about it being used. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may become, it can
never differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since technology is based on
statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen through the film techniques
demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be trusted and the advancements in the
future must be watched upon exceptionally close.
Macie and Brittany,
It’s interesting to read this paper after the speaking with you in class about your struggles
with the thesis and your evidence in support of that controlling idea. I’ll be honest: this paper
was worth the hard work! It’s well-organized and engagingly written. Your evidence is clear and
relates to your thesis quite nicely. Well done!
I’ve offered a few suggestions for further development as you revise for your portfolio,
and I want you to really challenge yourselves to revise your language even more for specificity
and vividness (get rid of all the passive voice and the “to be” verbs). Thank you both!
Comment [kpr22]: Nice.
Comment [kpr23]: Awkward.
Comment [kpr24]: ? do you mean “in theory”?
Comment [kpr25]: Well…never say never, right?
Comment [kpr26]: I’m not sure what you mean by this statement…
Comment [kpr27]: I don’t know if he’s making an argument against technology in general…only inside the world of his film.
1
Most Successful Paper Final Version
Who Can Be Trusted?
In an article written by MSNBC, by the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain
will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live
holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips implanted into our
brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that
knowledge in mind, the thought the future holds with these advances frightens and
creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of
lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the
general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.
An excessive amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie.
The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate that a bigger light
is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie shows darker, the artificial
lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life
in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience
envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of
mistrust on technology. We used the scene selection part on the DVD to know the
number of each scene.
In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James
Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where
detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies
him as the focal point in the scene, to show that he is the most important object in the
room. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as if Dr.
Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not
2
exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with
technology.
Proyas also uses artificial lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to
Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms
in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas
continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room
shows to appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face
continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the
audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson.
Alex Proyas, including all other filmmakers, use various camera angles and
shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film.
When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the
characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this
technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective
Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in
extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This
perspective implies that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then gives the idea of VIKI
having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film
leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the
robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and
almost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper
hand.
When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between
two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays
3
intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the
audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the
robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film
technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce
this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the
robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower
and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though
it was acting out of obedience and trying to help its owner. The closer Spooner gets to
the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This
growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the
thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well.
In theory, although technology looks safe and reliable, there are several
uncertainties about its usage. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may
become, it can may or may not be able to differentiate between right and wrong as
humans do. Since technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative
outcome. Seen by the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology
cannot be trusted.
Free Choice Essay Original
Watkinsville, Georgia
Imagine a town where everyone waves to each other, whether from in the yard
or when driving down the street, where safety is a custom and anyone needing a cup of
sugar does not have any hesitation about walking across the street to ask a neighbor.
Watkinsville, Georgia, is my home town. It is more than just a random, small country
town with farms and country folk. It has generations and generations of close families
and businesses. My town is a crowned jewel to its people. Growing up in my town is
perfect, compared to a city such as Atlanta, Georgia. Crime, traffic, and noise are not
issues families have to worry about. People know their neighbors, and everyone is
friendly. I think my hometown is a wonderful safe environment for children to be raised
in.
Growing up in a small rural town has several advantages. Among them are
safety and security. Because Watkinsville is smaller and less populated, everyone knows
everybody and the sense of being safe is established early on. With a police station right
down the street, policemen consistently patrol around town checking the surrounding
neighborhoods. The constant surveillance gives the community a further sense of
protection. As a child, every day after homework was finished; neighborhood friends
and I had the freedom of playing hide and seek all over the neighborhood. Because of
the safety us kids could travel to each other’s yards even blocks away and not worry
about a thing. The one rule we had to follow was to come home before dinner or at least
before dark. Continuing into my early teen years, my friend Macie and I would ride our
bikes and walk around our neighborhood or in town. We would go to Sweet Retreat, the
ice cream shop in the town plaza, the park located a few blocks away or one of the locally
owned restaurants for an afternoon snack. As our parents repeatedly let us travel on our
own, we also gained independence. With young children playing outside, a safe
community is a must.
Another significant characteristic about my home town is the closeness of the
community. During my senior year in high school, several community changing events
occurred. We had a precious boy lose his life and another discover he had cancer. The
first occurrence was November 6, 2010, when Jordan Ellis, a senior at North Oconee
High school was in a tragic car accident with four of his other classmates. Sadly, his life
was taken. From the day the news spread, our entire community began to change. A
rivalry established between our two schools, Oconee and North Oconee High school, got
set aside, and together we became one family. Wanting to show the impact Jordan had
on everyone’s lives, parents and family’s made t-shirts, jerseys, wristbands, and car
decals. A grand slam band concert and an annual rodeo were established by close
friends to help raise money for the Jordan Ellis Memorial Fund. To show support for
North Oconee, my school held a scrimmage baseball game in Jordan’s honor where we
sold barbeque plates. All of the money raised between the two was given to Jordan’s
fund. Through this, the community became stronger and closer.
A few months before my 2011 class’ graduation, a doctor diagnosed Matt Bell, a
fellow student, with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [A condition marked by an enlargement of
the lymph nodes, spleen, and liver]. Sadly, Matt was unable to finish his senior baseball
season because of his chemo treatments. In support of him, our class wore lime green
ribbons at school and on our robes at graduation. Luckily, in August 2011, Matt was
cured of his cancer.
Today, we still feel the bond of closeness we established from the shaped
experiences with Jordan and Matt. This bond reminds us that when tragic events occur,
we are there for each other and together we will make it through the hard times that
follow. Having the safety, security, the friendly faces and the compassion of the
community in times of need, are requirements of a community where a child is raised.
Having these characteristics in my town has made me a better person in life and has
allowed me to be friendly to people whom I see on the street in other towns. It has
allowed me to have a safe and secure childhood, free from crime, drugs and other
misfortunes that children are surrounded by when raised in a large city. In addition,
having watched our community recover from these tragic events, I could not imagine
greater people to be surrounded by. The lessons I have been taught will be with me
throughout my life. Watkinsville, Georgia, is a wonderful town for children to grow up
in.
Free Choice Essay Final Version
Watkinsville, Georgia
Imagine a town where everyone waves to each other, whether from in the yard
or when driving down the street, where safety is a custom and anyone needing a cup of
sugar does not have any hesitation to walk across the street and ask a neighbor.
Watkinsville, Georgia, is my home town. It is more than just a random, small random
town on a map; it is a crowned jewel to its people. Growing up in my town is perfect,
compared to a city such as Atlanta, Georgia. Crime, traffic, and noise are not issues
families have to worry about. People know their neighbors, and everyone is friendly. I
think my hometown is a wonderful safe environment for children to be raised in.
Growing up in a small rural town had several advantages. Among them are
safety and security. Because Watkinsville is a smaller town and less populated, everyone
knows everybody and the sense of being safe is established early on. With a police
station right down the street, policemen consistently patrolled around town checking
the surrounding neighborhoods. The constant surveillance gave the community a
further sense of protection. As a child, every day after homework was finished;
neighborhood friends and I had the freedom of playing hide and seek all over the
neighborhood. Because of the safety us kids could travel to each other’s yards even
blocks away and not worry about a thing. The one rule we had to follow was to come
home before dinner or at least before dark. Continuing into my early teen years, my
friend Macie and I would ride our bikes and walk around our neighborhood or in town.
We would go to Sweet Retreat, the ice cream shop in the town plaza, the park located a
few blocks away or one of the locally owned restaurants for an afternoon snack. As our
parents repeatedly let us travel on our own, we also gained independence. With young
children playing outside, a safe community is a must.
Another significant characteristic about my home town is the closeness of the
community has with one another. During my senior year in high school, several tragic
events occurred. We had a precious boy lose his life and another discover he had cancer.
The first event was November 6, 2010, when Jordan Ellis, a senior at North Oconee
High school was in a tragic car accident with his other classmates. Sadly, his life was
taken. From the day the news spread, our entire community began to change. A rivalry
established between our two schools, Oconee and North Oconee High school, got set
aside, and together we became one family. Wanting to show the impact Jordan had on
everyone’s lives, parents and family’s made t-shirts, jerseys, wristbands, and car decals.
A grand slam band concert and an annual rodeo were established by close friends to
help raise money for the Jordan Ellis Memorial Fund. To show support for North
Oconee, my school held a scrimmage baseball game in Jordan’s honor where we sold
barbeque plates. All of the money raised between the two was given to Jordan’s fund.
Through this, the community became stronger and closer.
A few months before my 2011 class’ graduation, a doctor diagnosed Matt Bell, a
fellow student, with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [A condition marked by an enlargement of
the lymph nodes, spleen, and liver]. Sadly, Matt was unable to finish his senior baseball
season because of his chemo treatments. In support of him, our class wore lime green
ribbons at school and on our robes at graduation. Luckily, in August 2011, Matt was
cured of his cancer.
Today, we still feel the bond of closeness we established from the shaped
experiences with Jordan and Matt. This bond reminds us that when tragic events occur,
we are there for each other and together we will make it through the hard times that
follow.
Having the safety, security, the friendly faces and the compassion of the
community in times of need, are requirements of a community where a child is raised.
Having these characteristics in my town has made me a better person in life and has
allowed me to be friendly to people whom I see on the street in other towns. It has
allowed me to have a safe and secure childhood, free from crime, drugs and other
misfortunes that children are surrounded by when raised in a large city.
In addition, having watched our community recover from these tragic events, I
could not imagine greater people to be surrounded by. The lessons I have been taught
will be with me throughout my life. Watkinsville, Georgia, is a wonderful town for
children to grow up in.
Most Successful Paper Final Version
Who Can Be Trusted?
In an article written by MSNBC, by the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain
will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live
holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips implanted into our
brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that
knowledge in mind, the thought the future holds with these advances frightens and
creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of
lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the
general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.
An excessive amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie.
The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate that a bigger light
is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie shows darker, the artificial
lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life
in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience
envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of
mistrust on technology. We used the scene selection part on the DVD to know the
number of each scene.
In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James
Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where
detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies
him as the focal point in the scene, to show that he is the most important object in the
room. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as if Dr.
Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not
exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with
technology.
Proyas also uses artificial lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to
Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms
in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas
continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room
shows to appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face
continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the
audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson.
Alex Proyas, including all other filmmakers, use various camera angles and
shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film.
When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the
characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this
technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective
Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in
extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This
perspective implies that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then gives the idea of VIKI
having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film
leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the
robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and
almost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper
hand.
When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between
two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays
intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the
audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the
robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film
technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce
this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the
robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower
and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though
it was acting out of obedience and trying to help its owner. The closer Spooner gets to
the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This
growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the
thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well.
In theory, although technology looks safe and reliable, there are several
uncertainties about its usage. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may
become, it can may or may not be able to differentiate between right and wrong as
humans do. Since technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative
outcome. Seen by the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology
cannot be trusted.