POST 16: Elephant, a Gus Van Sant movie (2003)

Cover of the film

1) What struck you most in the film?

At first sight, what struck me the most in the film, was the way it was shot. I found it exceedingly slow, with very long scenes where the characters were taken from behind. I am convinced that if you had to show this movie to an unsuspecting viewer while omitting scenes of violence he or she might think it was a simple documentary about the life of american teenagers. I also think it is a movie that needs a lot of explanations to be fully understood. More particullary the scene that struck me the most is the one in which the afro american boy with the yellow shirt begins to walk along the corridors wich are full of corpses and fires, but he continues to walk as if nothing was going wrong. Moreover he faces one of the killers but he continues his walk, so obviously the boy is also killed. This scene struck me because I really don't understand why the director had to show this cruelty.

2) What also impressed you?

Something that impressed me was the fact that the film it is not a drama, neither a documentary, and it is obviously not a terror movie. It is just a meditation about the tragedy. This struck me because I did not expect it. In addition to this, one of the things that impressed me the most in the film is concerning the characters, the way in which they are portrayed. Although the movie is filmmed like a documentary to be more realistic, the teenagers are stereotyped like in a typical american movie; with the popular ones and the geeks. Furthemore, the film tries to be realistic but in my opinion it gives very little information about the shooters and why they did it what they did. In short, I was impressed by the main charaters, the one who was the artist and 'the angel'. I really didn't see the point of this characters in the film, they are like extras but the action mostly evolves around them.

3) Did you find anything more particularly upsetting?

First of all, what I found extremelly dreary was the fact that the film is based on the real Columbine High School Massacre events and this makes me think about the purpose of the director to make this movie. I do not see the point of creating a film about such a tragic affair and something that disturbs me is the fact that the director has changed some details when one of the killers shoots to death the other or when the director builds up a story saying that the killers were gay. I think that the film inevitably plays with morbid fascination about something that is really sad, and if I belonged to the victims family I would not have liked to see a film about that awful event.

4) What did you find very disturbing?

Something that impressed me a lot and that I found disturbing is the fact that the film shows how easy is for teenagers to obtain a gun. The shooters just ordered the guns in a website and a few days later they received them at home. This is also related to the idea that these boys are not controlled by their parents and this may be the reason why they did not realize the heaviness of their acts. The feeling of being misunderstood, the loneliness and the lack of control and communication by adults led them to do such a dreadful thing.

5) What was most shocking?

In my opinion what is the most shocking in the film is the way in which violence is represented. I found the violence scenes obscenely cruel in its randomness and what impressed me the most was the fact that this scenes are shown without any background music as if you were living the tragedy. I found that in the movie, Van Sant simply follows a number of students and teachers as they arrive at the school and go about their daily routines and then some of them are intersected by the killers and many of those die. Ohters escaped for no particular reason. You just don't see coming this violence and therefore you are shocked. 

Although I was shocked by the violence scenes, I think they are necessary to understand what really happened at the Columbine High School.

6) What does the film  suggest about the two school shooters?

In the film the school shooters are represented as two misunderstood teenagers even if one of them seems to have mental problems. My feeling is that Van Sant wants to show that the loneliness, the fact of been misunderstood and the lack of attention ends having teenagers with revenge feelings. An important scene that shows this is when we are taken to the killers home. There, things like the internet, the violent videogames, the absent parents, the repressed sexuality and the example on the tv of the nazism values make conditions suitable for the atrocity they go for.

To sum up, I personally think that the director wants to say that they are not entirely guilt because their environnement was the suitable one for them to make this ke this atrocity.

7) What's more, what does the film director make clear about the two killers?

On the one hand we can say that it is obvious that the film director wants to make clear that the two killers were not completely guilty about what they did. He shows them like normal teenagers with musical skills, and a passion for videogames not as killers or monsters. But their environnement and especially the fact that they have not been controlled by their parents or teachers, leads them to do such a terrible thing. On the other hand we can insist on the fact that Alex seems to have mental problems and it is him whocommands the operation. If we interpret it like this, Eric is nothing more than a violent teen who just looks for attention.

8) What kind of approach to the school shooting itself did Gus Van Sant opt for?

In my opinion, Gus Van Sant with this film just wants to give a realistic view of the event. One thing that Van Sant refuses to do is try to 'explain' why the killers act as they do. He's know that there is no single explanation for sucha behaviour, that arises from a variety of sources and that is primarily the product of a general feeling of alienation in modern society. That is why he did not want to show the killers as guilties, he wanted to show them as misunderstood teenagers. I think that the message of the film is focussed on the importance that must be given to Education.

9) Moreover, what's the main consequence of the realistic treatment he uses? What about the 'poetic' touches he instills throughout the film?

Above all, Van Sant makes a realistic treatment of the movie because he takes the spectator at the very moment when the action takes place, in real time, with the victims and the killers; he also makes temporal leaps and repeats his narrative from different points of view. The main consequence of this, is the fact that the viewer gets used to the slowness and the calm of the film until the moment the killers arrive. That is why this realistic treatment is so interesting, because he turns the viewer into another character walking around the high school : at the cafeteria, along the corridors, in the library and that shocks much more than a mere violent scene. My feeling is that Van Sant uses this realistic treatment mainly to prove that this could happen at any High School. 

Concerning the poetic touches, they are presented mostly by the fast and slow motion; sometimes showing the sky with background music. I am under the impression that he does it to give some trascendence to the movie and to make the viewer think about what he has just seen. All in all I think that this poetic touches formed the originality and the subjectivity of the movie.

10) As a conclusion, what must we admit about the way in which the killing and the killers are perceived by the film viewers?

I am convinced that there are various opinions about the film and about the way in which the killing and the killers are perceived because every viewerfeels different things. However, the fact that the movie is filmed like a documentary with those long scenes make the viewer become familiar with the characters and the high school and like this the tragedy become more astonishing and perturbing. Moreover, after seen the movie for the first time I think that all the viewers have the same impression, they are confused, asking questions about what they have just seen and they are also shocked by the violence and the rhythm of the killing scene. I think that Van Sant wants to show the killers as victims of the society and not as monsters. Nevertheless the same impression of the viewers is to see them like moonstrucks teenagers that think that what they are doing is playing, but then they perceive them as misunderstood guys.

Elias, the photographer

John: "The angel"

Benny " the other angel "

Michelle, a nerdy girl

Nathan, the popular football player

Eric and Alex, the two killers

POST 15: School shootings in the USA

A school shooting is a form of mass shooting involving a gun attack on an educational institution, such as a school or university.

The Event

                Mementos left on Rachel's grave at

Chapel Hill Memorial Gardens.

The tennis courts have been covered by mourners with flowers
and mementos.

The Columbine High School massacre was a school shooting that occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, an unincorporated area of Jefferson County in the American state of Colorado. In addition to the shootings, the complex and highly planned attack involved a fire bomb to divert firefighters, propane tanks converted to bombs placed in the cafeteria, 99 explosive devices, and carbombs. The perpetrators, senior students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher. They injured 21 additional people, and three more were injured while attempting to escape the school. 

I've read the stories of all the victims and what impresses me is the fact that William Sanders, the only teacher that was killed managed to save the life of more than 100 students.

The Shooters

Dylan Klebold

Eric Harris

What I found incredible is the fact that the shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were two senior students of the American high school only two weeks away from graduation. According to what they said in the hate-filled journals and videos they left behind, they wanted to take revenge on the people they accused of picking on and snubbing them. They wrote a journal and planed the attack. Moreover, what I found astonishing is also the fact that these students had all this ire inside.
As we can see in the other web, students say revenge is clearly the major reason for school shootings. But another reasons could be that they werevictims of physical abuse at home or because  they had mental problems. Personally I think it is because they did not have a good education or maybe because their parents had not paid them the necessary attention .

Films and Series
The tragic events that occurred at Columbine High School were profound and have inspired many movies and series all over the world to express the strong feelings they have about the matter in writing and film. 
Just having a look on the sinopsis of the movies, I found these ones the most interesting and the ones that show better what happened at the Columbine High School.

Zero Day is a 2003 American film directed by Ben Coccio about a school shooting.

The film begins with the introduction of Andre Kriegman (based on primarily on Eric Harris) and Calvin Gabriel (based primarily on Dylan Klebold) announcing their intention to attack their high school, calling their plan "Zero Day". They keep a video diary on the camera, carefully hiding it from their friends and families. The majority of the film is portrayed through their video filming, and shows them planning, preparing, and explaining some of their motives. The final scene of the movie show the boys arriving at school on May 1 and preparing their plan and weapons in Andre's car. 

Even if I have not seen this film I think it certainly sticks to reality. The characters seem to be like the real boys that attempted in April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School. Besides, the fact that they have a video diary in wich they tell their intentions is also a detail related to the real events.

Bowling for Columbine 

This movie is a 2002 American documentary film written, produced, directed, and narrated by Michael Moore. The film explores what Moore suggests are the main causes for the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, and other acts of violence with guns. Moore focuses on the background and environment in which the massacre took place and some common public opinions and assumptions about related issues. The film also looks into the nature of violence in the United States.

I have chosen this film for several reasons. First of all I chose it because I have seen another Michael Moore's movies and I think that he did a very critical job specially with American society. Moreover, I have chosen this film because I found interesting the tittle. I think here Moore titled the film like this because the shooters from Columbine easily got their hands on guns, and he uses that story as a basis for the movie. Finally I will say that I think Moore is a very brave filmaker because he managed to talk about a controversial issue such as the carrying of weapons in USA.

These are the reasons most commonly mentioned for the recurrence of school shootings in the USA.

1	They want to get back at those who have hurt them.
2	Other kids pick on them, make fun or them, or bully them.
3	They don't value life.
4	They have been victims of physical abuse at home.
5	They have mental problems.
6	It is easy for them to get a gun.
7	They do not get along with their parents.
8	They have witnessed physical abuse at home.
9	They drink alcohol or use drugs.
10	They do not have any good friends.
11	They see violence on TV, in movies, in videos, and in computer and video games.
12	Violence is a way of life in their neighborhood.
13	Other kids encouraged them to do it.
14	Their teachers don't care about them.
15	They are afraid of their own safety.
16	They are bored.

About this list I wanted to point out that in my opinion the main reason of this kind of terrible event is the fact that youngest are able to have a gun easily. Further, I will say that another main issue is the fact of education. I think that most of the times young people feel misunderstood and parents have to take on to their children's friendships or sometimes they have to spend more and better time with them.

Personal Opinion
I'd like to point out that I don't like how the web is designed. I think that they mix the terrible events of the Columbine High School massacre with things like films about school shooting. Also I don't know if it's useful to show all the videos and the diaries of the shooters. I think that the website plays with morbid fascination about something that is really sad, and if I belonged to the victims family I would not like to see all this kind of things about that awful event.

Other photos....

Police investigate the multi-media room just off the library, where several staff members hid.

Inside the cafeteria. The tented yellow cards on the tables are police evidence markers. 

A photo of Jessica Holliday along with other students of Columbine High
fleeing the school was turned into a cover for Newsweek later that same month.

Teens escape down Pierce Ave

POST 14: Individual Documents on 'Spaces & Exchanges' Notion

First of all, to illustrate the notion Spaces and Exchanges, it is important to define the terms. On the one hand, the idea of space deals with the geographical and symbolic areas that societies occupy and the interactions carried out among them. On the other hand, an exchange is when we give in return for something received – this can be anything from economics, culture, gifts, medical or financial aid. This notion is a nowadays topical issue.The different cultural, economic, sociological and language interactions have shaped and characterised our modern-day world. That’s why I wonder if we can say that the world is becoming a smaller place. To answer this question I have chosen two documents illustrating firstly the development of a global world and then the importance of the virtual world.

Transnational companies- Priceton University -2014

The first document raises the idea of the development of a global world. It introduces one of the two most famous transnational companies that dominate different countries: Starbucks and McDonalds. It was published by the Princeton University and its objective is to show the worldwide distribution of the stores of both companies. Both of them are presented with a world map above their logo that exposes the places were they get their products as well as were their shops are established all over the world. Furthermore on one side we can see a graph that shows the  number of Starbucks stores worldwide, and one the other side the Mcdonald's amount of  sales compared to other fast food chains.

In the first place, Starburcks chain spands across nineteen countries. This can explain why coffee beans can come from one country while milk can come from a different country hundreds of kilometers away. As we can read in the document, Starbucks production connects some of the poorest countries in the world with some of the wealthiest. It follows from this that there are more and more Starbucks shops around the world, and as we see in the graph nowadays there are 6,200 stores worldwide with three new stores opening daily. Moreover, the circles make the distinction of the Starbucks shops by country, for example we have more than 1000 shops in the United States whereas in countries like Australia or China there are just 1 to 24 Starbucks shops.

Concerning Mcdonald’s, what stands out from the map is the amount of restaurants worldwide. Comparing with Starbucks, Mcdonald's restaurants are much more  spread across the world than Starbucks ones. In fact, McDonald's has over 31,000 restaurants in 118 countries. Besides, it is clearly seen in the graph that Mcdonald's surpasses by far the other fast food restaurants.

To sum up, this document depicts the idea that the world is controlled by the exchanges of transnational companies who offered globally standardized food and who stract materials from different countries. To answer the question we can say, that in some way the world is becoming smaller because the same products (or food) are consumed all over the world.

As regards the question of a globalized world we should focus on another important aspect of today's society: new technologies. As a matter of fact the appearance of new technologies has changed the way in which human communicate and exchange information.

This second document is a video that was produced in June 2004 by the University of East Anglia, UK. The video shows how social media can change the world. Moreover it explains that 26% of the Global population from different countries is using social media. That’s why they say that social media are helping to create a global village, mobilizing activism and increasing access to information. It gives examples about how social media helped social changed, like in Jamaica distributing information about HIV or in Mexico where citizens have used social media to report information about drugs. Consequently, social media is a way to unify and connect people all over the world.

Nevertheless, social media reveals also worldwide differences, for instance three fifths of population remains unconnected and even some governments ban websites like facebook or Youtube… Social media has turned so powerful that governments qualifies it as a menace for society and control it. Also, part of world population think that the internet is not relevant to their lives. Although, the video asserts that there are more mobile devices than toothbrushes and that new technologies have the power to change the world.

In short, this video explains that social media is becoming an important mainstay of the exchanges all over the world. It is a way to connect people from side to side. But it has still to evolve because there are some parts of the world that remain unconnected.

To put in a nutshell, we have seen two important powers that control today’s exchanges: the multinationals that shared out the same products all over world and the influence of the virtual world with social media. Both examples show that world is becoming a smaller and standarized place, eventhough there are still deep inequalities with people who continue to be out of this globalized system. To relate this to another notion,we can briefly ask ourselves if this standarization  is erasing people identities creating a uniformed world and if this can be considered as progress.

POST 11: SPACES & EXCHANGES: ¿Qué? A cartoon by Nate Beeler (2007)

Nate Beeler is the editorial cartoonist for the Columbus Dispatch. His award-winning cartoons have appeared on CNN, Fox News, and in such publications as Time, Newsweek. He is one of the most widely read editorial cartoonists, with his cartoons distributed internationally to more than 800 publications. We are going to describe and interpret a cartoon made by Beeler that illustrates immigration in the United States related to the notion of Spaces and Exchanges.

To begin with, this cartoon depicts three characters in black and white. On the left  we have two reporters. First, a cameraman dressed with a plaid shirt, is carrying a huge video camera that covers his face. On it there is a sticker with the words: ‘TV NEWS’.  Beside him, is represented a reporter. He is wearing a black suit with a grey tie. He is holding a microphone in one hand and has his other hand in his pocket. Smiling, he speaks to the camera and asks the third character: We’re here live with the 3000 millionth american! How do you feel about this milestone sir? These two characters are interviewing the man who is on the right. Contrary to them, he seems to be scruffy and dirty because he is wearing a cap, a white tank top, jeans  and surprisingly he has no shoes. Furthermore, he has a moustache and the shirt that he wears reveals his chest hair. He is carrying a bag full of things in one hand and a sleeping bag under the other arm. Clinging to his trousers is barbed wire. He seems to be confused and does not understand the situation that is why his only answer is the Spanish question: ‘¿Qué?’ wich means ‘What?’.

It is obvious that with this cartoon, Beeler wants to criticise the treatment given to immigrants who arrive in the United States. First of all, we can deduce through the answer given by the character interviewed that he seems to be a Mexican who has just crossed the border, this is seen because of the barbed wire that usually protects borders from illegal crossing. In fact the Mexico- United States border is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world. The illegal immigrants are called wetbacks because they have to cross the Rio Bravo that divides both countries. Moreover, with this cartoon the artist wants to point out the fact that sometimes journalists make reality up pretending something that it is not true just for the salce of the show. In addition to this, here the reporter qualifies the situation as a milestone just because the Mexican man has just arrived despite all the troubles that he must have gone through. To sum up just with a little glance at both characters we can see they belong to opposed worlds.

In relation to the notion Spaces and Exchanges this cartoon reveals a current reality: the clash of two worlds, North and South, rich and poor world. Although Beeler illustrates this scene in America this ‘illegal’ migration happens everywhere in the world and not only because of money and work but also because of wars. On the other hand those who are rich and powerful can cross the border easily. As a conclusion this cartoon evinces the idea that with new technologies huge amounts of people are able to see what is happening around the world but just a few react.

POST 10 : TATTOOS & GANGS

Why do you think more and more people wear tattoos (regardless of whether they belong to gangs or not)?

People have been getting tattooed for thousands of years. In fact, historians have found ancient Egypt tattooed mummies. Nevertheless in western world the ones that got tattoed were pirates, convicted people and even soldiers (with the tipical tattoo 'Mother's love'). This was a symbol of social membership of this groups. Moreover, nazis used tattooes to class prisonners in the concentration camps.

Nowadays things have gone further. Pop art and pop music has made tattooes a symbol of distinction or a way of complaint. Singers, football players and celebrities were the first of being tattoed. Mass society and more precisely fans want to look like their leaders.

There are different reasons for which people get tattoed. One could be the importance of appearance, to make a difference or to become fashionable. And if we go deeper there are some people who think that the body is like a temple where your creativity and your personnality can be depicted. To sum up getting tatooed has turned nowadays in something trivial.

The football player David Beckham showing his tatoos

The singer Amy Winehouse a symbol for pop music showing his tattoos

Why do young people join gangs? 

All the gangs are not the same. Their rituals, people they target change from gang to gang. Whereas the reasons of joining gangs are often the same. To joing a gang or a group means that you are not social isolated because to be part of that group means in some way to exist so you are accepted and you become 'cool' sometimes related to peer pressure. Usually, people who joing gangs have lived in a difficult environment with domestic violence in their homes so they have a desire of being protected. This idea is related to a need of food or money and maybe a lack of parent supervision.

Latino gang member proud of his tattoos. That is to say that usually
gang bangers wear tatoos

Advertisement about Gang Life

Advertisement about gang life

What link can you see between both topics and the notion of power?

First of all we have seen that being tattoed has turned trivial in western society, because more and more people get tattoed. Whereas, it continues to be a symbol of a social membership and also it is something that makes you different from the rest. On the second part we have seen that young people joing gangs because of their difficulties on their homes, it is a desire of being protected but also it can be related to the idea of becoming cool.
All in all, on both topics we see an illustration of the notion of power very close. First of all we have the idea of identity, of being accepted on both cases. Getting tattoed means to record your identity through different forms of self-expression and within gaing a distinction of the mass society but being accepted in some cultural environments. Similarly, in the case of joining a gang there is always this idea of being part of a group, being accepted.
Moreover, the notion of progress can also be seen in this topics as the idea of being superior to the rest, being different or have more social influence in people because of tattoes or gangs.

Video tattoo covered makeup: 

The man with more tattoos in the world 

The Draw of 'Dead Town'

 1. Gabriel Hinojos is a young man who got out of a street gang 'F13' that stands for 'Florencia 13' in Los Angeles. He is the typical example of a young trying to leave a gang. He went to a tattoo removal center called Ya stuvo the spanish translation for 'that's enough, I'm done with that' (l.2) to get his gang tattoo removed from just bellow the eye. It was the only way for him to stop being part of the gang.

2. As we see in the text Ya Stuvo means '' that's enough, I'm done with that'' (l.2). It is a tattoo removal center in Los Angeles. From time to time surgeons would kindly offer their skills to erase gang members' tattoos with laser. Gabriel Hinojos has gone there 45 times and as the journalist says his reaction was ''He grimaced in pain as the surgeon extracted the ink from the soft skin under his eye'' (l.8).

3. In the context of the article 'Black teardrops' is this symbolic tattoo below the eye that some gang members often have to show that they have been in prison or have killed someone. The more teardrops you have, the more respect you would earn from the gang members. The teardrops could also mean that the gang members don't cry because they are tough men.

4. This short sentence means that Gabriel Hinojos is feeling repented about what he did by joining this gang. It also means that he has a lot of tattoo teardrops because he has been convincted to prison so many times. Gabriel was obviously the meanest of the Florencia 13 gang.

5. The article shows that getting out of a gang is very difficult. Gabriel Hinojos compares this situation to getting a tattoo removed: " slow, painful, scarring" (l.18).

6. Getting out of a gang it is not always possible, as we see in line 18 "In street lore, a gang banger can never leave a really brutal gang like Mara Salvatrucha 13."

7. Nevertheless, getting out of the F13 gang is not easy but it is possible if you have killed the right amount of people and if you have managed to earn drug money for the gang. The article illustrates this fact on line 22: "In practice a gang member like Gabriel can get out of a tough (...) if he has served time in prinson and 'done the work'- shown that he can sling drugs and wield a gun" 

8. On lines 22- 23 Gabriel explains  that escaping of a gang life is extremely difficult. The fact is that when you enter in a gang you leave it the most part of the time when you die or you leave it if you have done the right things like been in prison or sling drugs. It is quite clear that if you stay in a gang for years, knowing all the secrets, you can't leave it easy. Moreover, after having this kind of life, you going to have some problems to adapt yourself to society normal life.

9. At the end of the article we see that Gabriel represents a symbol for all these youngsters that lived the difficulties of a gang life and that cannot leave it because they are afraid. However by reading the last three lines we understood that months later after celebrating his archivement being on the White House with Laura Bush, Gabriel was back in jail. This passage illustrate the idea that leaving a gang is extremely difficult and not always possible.

10. The picture represents the moment when Gabriel Hinojos went to the tattoo removal center Ya Stuvo for extracted the ink from his skin with laser. He is wearing sun glasses but his face expression shows that the surgery is, as he said "slow, painful and scarring" (l.18). This potograph is very significative with the meaning of the article because the expression of Gabriel Hinojos shows to us that he is tough and brave