ELEPHANT

ELEPHANT QUESTIONS


1. The first thing that particularly struck me in the film was how easy it was for the two young men to order a gun. It seemed as if he just ordered it on internet and had it delivered to his house as if it were a completely legal, ordinary delivery. I find it striking that it is that easy to get a hold of a gun in the USA, especially for two young school boys. 

2. What impressed me, was the filming techniques used. The originality of the way the movie is filmed is impressive and subtly gives us clues of what awaits us later on. For example when the camera man films the "jock" from behind as he walks into the school, it makes us feel as if he was being watched, furthermore the attention to detail on the costumes for example is also quite impressive. To use the same example, the fact that the "jock" is wearing a red sweatshirt with a white cross on it makes us think that he is being targeted.

3. I was mainly upset by the attitude of the two young shooters, who seemed to not realize the horror of their plan, I found it nonsensical that they would target everyone at the school even the students who suffered from bullying just like them. Furthermore, they acted calmly as if it was just a game that had no consequences.

4. I thought that the fact that the film director took the liberty of changing the end of the story was slightly disturbing because seeing as its a true story, even tragedy, I was surprised that he didn't think it was necessary to honor the truth and depict the event  how it really happened. This is in reference to when the main shooter meets up with his partner and shoots him, to then continue his killing spree on his own. This was surprising seeing as during the real event the two shooters killed themselves together. 

5. What was also shocking was the lack of response on the victims part, none of them picked up on the obvious clues, enough to stop the shooting. For example John is aware off what is about to occur but barely makes an effort to warn people or call the police. He just goes to find his father and asks him questions on a neutral, unstressed tone of voice.

6. The film suggests that the two school shooters were both being bullied at school, and that they had lots of interest in the history of the III Reich and Nazism. They also both played violent aggressive video games, that perhaps made them more numb to the idea of killing people. 

7. The film director makes it clear that the two shooters feel nothing during the shooting, they show no pity or any sentiment of any kind for that matter. One of them even says, "the most important thing is to have fun".  They target anyone and spare no one. 

8. Gus Van San approaches the event in a very cold manner in my opinion, almost in a journalistic way, portraying first an ordinary school day in an ordinary american high school. Although I thought it was interesting and important that he shows the normal day to day life of most american teenagers because it creates a bigger contrast and shock with the events that follow. 

9. The fact that the film director uses such a realistic technique, which the public isn't really used to anymore in this day and age when most films are "hollywoodised", perhaps takes away some of the sentiment of the film. It gives off a slightly cold and unsentimental feeling and the viewer is therefore perhaps slightly taken aback by this factor.  But the filmmaker still has a touch for poetic symbolism and attention to detail that are  not always easy to pick up on in a first viewing. The viewer must pay attention in order to enjoy the poetic passages of the film which makes it more of an effort for the viewer which i think is much better because it fights against having a passive public that uses the minimum amount of concentration to understand the film.

10. The killers and the killing is perceived as cold and even with a slight exaggeration in the lack of reaction in some of the characters cases. The event is still perceived as a tragedy and the fact that it is a true story obviously makes the viewers more sensitive to the film. 

THE US GUN CULTURE

Here is the first cartoon we will study:

Steve SACK, on www.startribune.com,

Gun Lobby and Congress (2010)

Description:  This document is a cartoon by Steve SACK published on the news website star tribune in 2010. In this cartoon we can see two small fat men in suits, one of them (on the left) represents a gun lobby and the second one (on the right) represents Congress. The man on the left is handing a big bag of money to the man on the right. Behind them, we can see Congress with the American Flag (aka star-spangled banner). Running down the stairway is a long trail of blood that finishes in a puddle at the bottom of the stairs. The gun lobby has a speech bubble that reads "now where were we, before we were so rudely interrupted?"

Interpretation: We could interpret this image as an illustration of the corruption that takes place in congress, and the pressure they receive from gun lobbyists who manipulate the government to assure that no anti gun laws pass. The trail of blood coming down the stairs could mean that there has been a shooting in congress to make the whole situation even more paradoxical, and show that congress often suffers from gun violence in the country as well. The lobbyists speech bubble tells us that their transaction was interrupted, probably by the shooting, but he clearly isn't worried by the event. His facial expression shows that he is confident and sneaky.  Clearly big companies and lobbyists are able to control our governments and states because they have been given far more power than they should have merely because they are the ones that bring the money into the country and maintain a stable and prosperous economy.

Dave GRANDLUND, on www.davegranlund.com, 

Second Amendment and NRA (2013)

Useful definitions: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. 

The Founding Fathers of the United States are the individuals of the Thirteen British Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown and established the United States of America. Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights.^[3][5][6]Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975.^[7] It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.^[8]


Description: This document is a cartoon by Dave Grandlund and was published on his website www.davegrandlund.com in 2013. Its title is "Second Amendment and NRA". In this cartoon we can see two statues, the first is an old statue of a young man who could be a soldier from the time of the founding fathers, he carries a war riffle in his hand and the drawing is accompanied by the text: " Second Amendment, as defined by the Founding Fathers". The drawing on the right is of a larger man carrying at least three big modern riffles with a meaner look than the young man on the left. He is standing on a huge stack of gold ammo and the text that accompanies this second character is "The Second Amendment, as defined by the NRA".

Interpretation: This cartoon is trying to show that the Second Amndment has evolved since its creation, mainly because at first it was created to protect the right of the North American people to defend themselves and carry a gun to do so. That is why the statue on the left is of a young man who looks up in honor and seems slightly defenseless if he didn't have the riffle in his hand. We can see that the Second Amendment has been turned into much more than that today, especially because of big gun lobbies such as the NRA, seeing as they have so much power the lobbies are able to control and manipulate the restrictions and protective laws against gun bearing. This allows certain Americans to abuse of their right to bear a gun merely to defend themselves and authorizes almost anyone to get a hold of a gun and make any use of it. The dangers of legalized gun possession are therefore very high seeing as the government and congress haven't got much control over the laws and restrictions imposed to the public.

EXCHANGES IN REAL AND VIRTUAL SPACES (3rd DOCUMENT LVA)

The personal document that I have chosen to illustrate the notion of spaces and exchanges is a news article from the BBC News website about the European university exchange program "Erasmus".
The Erasmus program was create to encourage a European solidarity between the young generations,  and to allow students to discover new cultures and connect with different people. Furthermore this program allows you to broaden your mind and vision of the world which is always positive.

This program is obviously an exchange in a real space as the student travels physically to a new country and therefore has the opportunity to visit and integrate into the society and even learn a language, but surprisingly it is also a virtual exchange because the preparation beforehand organised by the university allows you get a taste of your experience virtually before you actually go.

You have the opportunity to chat via Skype to your future fellow students and do virtual tours of the university you would be studying at. Virtual tours are a recent creation that allows to travel virtually to other places on your computer, thanks to google earth satellite images.  It is an excellent way to help the student decide where he/she will go and to make sure that they do not leave their home country with no prior knowledge of what awaits them abroad.

In my opinion this program is truly phenomenal and has many positive sides. First, you experience a virtual exchange and communicate, visit and get a feel for the country you will be living in thanks to virtual tours and chat groups, then you experience a physical exchange where you really go to the country and discover it again because there is no such thing as travelling virtually in my opinion, the only way to truly discover a new place is to physically go there and see it with your own eyes.


Here is the article that I have chosen:

Erasmus exchanges get down to business

By Sean CoughlanBBC News education correspondent

• 30 April 2014
 
• From the sectionBusiness

These are external links and will open in a new window
• Share this with Facebook
 
• Share this with Twitter
 
• Share this with Messenger
 
• Share this with Email
 
• Share

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK

Image captionThe exchange scheme wants to help apprentices as well as students

Global education

• Canadian Arctic teacher wins global prize
• Don't forget us, says Chibok schoolgirl
• Why high-flying Singapore wants more than grades
• Montreal ranked top city for students

For a generation of European students, the Erasmus programme has been synonymous with having a good time while studying in another country.

Three million students have taken part in this exchange visit project over 27 years.

There were serious underlying principles about life skills, employability and getting a taste of another culture.

But it also had an optimistic international feel-good factor. This European Union project was where higher education met overseas travel and the spirit of Eurovision.

There has even been a spin-off movie about the social experience of Erasmus students house-sharing in Barcelona. It's a rom-com with lessons.

But times have changed. And so has Erasmus, which is now rebranded as Erasmus+.

The youthful idealism is being replaced with something with a harder edge and a more clearly defined strategic purpose.

Workplace skills

Youth unemployment and the lack of job skills are now the more sober background.

Image copyrightOTHER

Image captionAndroulla Vassiliou says youth unemployment is Europe's biggest challenge

The relaunched Erasmus will be expected to play a much bigger role in improving workplace skills.

If the image of Erasmus has been students spending time in picturesque European university towns, it is now also about apprentices from southern Europe finding about workplace training in the engineering centres of Austria and Germany.

While most European Union budgets have been cut, Erasmus+ has received a 40% increase, with over 14bn euros (£12bn) over seven years. It will be expected to accelerate the numbers it reaches, with a target of four million young people.

A cluster of other education and training projects are also being brought under the Erasmus brand.

The European Commissioner responsible for the project, Androulla Vassiliou, has been spreading the message of the new-look Erasmus. Last week it was launched in Berlin, this week the roadshow was in London.

The urgent problem that Erasmus+ will be expected to help tackle is the economic and social damage of having 26 million people unemployed across the European Union, with six million of them young people.

"It is the biggest challenge that Europe faces," she says.

But Ms Vassiliou spoke of the "paradox we face in Europe" in the mismatch between young people's skills and the jobs available.

Apprenticeship swaps

At the same time that unemployment is high, there are two million job vacancies across the European Union where employers cannot find people with the right skills.

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK

Image captionSince the 1980s, millions of students have taken part in Erasmus exchanges

The underlying problem is the lack of good vocational education - and she wants countries with serious problems with youth unemployment, such as Spain and Greece, to learn from more successful training systems operating elsewhere within the EU.

"We know that in countries where they have high-quality vocational skills and training, like Germany and Austria, their youth unemployment is very low.

"We are encouraging partnerships between countries that have a good system of vocational training with countries that don't have it, in order to learn from each other."

Ms Vassiliou said she wanted to encourage cross-border approaches to some of the root causes of young people being unable to find work - such as poor reading skills, a lack of foreign languages and dropping out of school at too early an age.

In the UK, the Erasmus+ project will provide funding of almost a billion euros (£820m) over seven years, with the aim of reaching about a quarter of a million students. Within the UK, Erasmus+ will be delivered by the British Council.

'Knowledge alliances'

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock welcomed the expanded remit and said it was "absolutely realistic" to envisage exchange visits for vocational learners as well as university students.

"The idea of spending part of your apprenticeship overseas in countries which have brilliant apprenticeship programmes is a very attractive one," he said.

Image captionSkills Minister Matthew Hancock says EU money is being spent more carefully

Mr Hancock also backed the more focused approach of the revamped Erasmus. "Reform is about making sure where European money is spent it's spent properly."

Erasmus+ will still have an important role for higher education and schools. The funding will support exchanges of two million students and 800,000 lecturers, teachers and education staff.

There will also be support for exchanges with countries outside the European Union.

Universities will be backed to form 150 international Knowledge Alliances, where institutions and businesses from different countries will work together on promoting innovation and entrepreneurship.

The role of the European Union is to support the increasingly important international dimension of education, says Ms Vassiliou.

"The world of education is globalising and facing a set of common challenges that demand co-operation, the cross-border transfer of innovation and the sharing of ideas," she said at the launch event in London.

And she wanted the exchanges between students from different countries to continue "opening minds and changing lives".

QUANTITY VS QUALITY

The difference between quantity and quality is often staggering and is very important. To illustrate this I have chosen the subject of agriculture.

As we can see in the picture on the left monoagriculture takes up a huge amount of space and produces a large quantity of low quality foods. Since they often use pesticides or GMO's the the nurishing elements in the foods they grow often diminish or even disapear. They are also put in special conditions so that they can be exported all across the world, (for exemple frozen) which also harms the goods.
 On the contrary in the second picture we can see an organic farm that uses the permaculture method. It consists in growing lots of different kinds of food in the same space instead of just one species. The crop is 100% natural and has suffered no human alterations.  It's quantity of nutrients, vitamins etc is much higher than in the first scenario, they therefore are of a much better quality.


 This second document illustrates perfectly the difference between mono and permaculture. As we can see it explains that monoculture is more quantity based and is used on a national or global scale whereas permaculture is quality based and works on a smaller, locan or community orientated scale.

Of course permaculture is not only better agricultural system for the quality of the goods but also for the ecological impact. Indeed permaculture is much more sustainable and minimizes waste and carbon footprint. Seeing as lots of different fruits or vegetables are grown in the same space and at the same time this is an extremely effective agricultural technique. Monoculture requires much more time to produce just a single kind of fruit, vegetable or cereal, and much more space and energy.

I particularely like this document because it clearly shows the differences between monoculture and permaculture in all areas. It shows that although monoculture may produce a higher quantity of food, permaculture is a much more effective sustainable and healthy way of agriculture.

Therefore to conclude, permaculture is superior in technical, environmental and organisational quality, whereas monoculture is superior only in the quantity of food produced.