Using the Spanish ‘Estar’ With Prepositions

Using the Spanish ‘Estar’ With Prepositions The verb estar is frequently followed by a preposition in ways that are uncommon with the English equivalent to be. Here are some of the common combinations: Estar a Estar a doesnt have a consistent meaning, although it is used in a variety of contexts. It can often convey the idea of being at or in a situation. As in the first four examples, it is often used this way in the first-personal plural or we form. Estmos a tres dà ­as del inicio de los juegos. (We are three days away from the games. Literally, we are at three days from the start of the games.)Estamos a 14 de febrero. (Today is Feb. 14. Literally, we are at Feb. 14.)Estamos a 30 grados. (It is 30 degrees. Literally, we are at 30 degrees.)Mi hermana est a oscuras. (My sister is ignorant of whats going on. Somewhat literally, my sister is in the dark.) Estar con In addition to indicating who someone is with, estar con can be used to indicate illnesses, what a person is wearing, and other characteristics: Tengo un amiga que est con la influenza porcina. (I have a friend who has swine flu.)Hay dà ­as que estoy con dolor constante. (There are days Im in constant pain.)Estaba con pantalones cortos y una playera blanca. (He was wearing short pants and a white T-shirt.)Cuando estamos con prisa, es fcil pasar por alto algunas prcticas de seguridad. (When were in a hurry, its easy to overlook some safety measures.)La carne estaba con mal olor. (The meat smelled bad.)Estamos con duda sobre estos medicamentos. (We are in doubt about these medications.) Estar de Temporary situations including roles, employment, and emotions are often expressed using estar de. Some examples: La red social ms popular est de cumpleaà ±os. (The most popular social network is having a birthday.)No te pongas serio. Estaba de broma. (Dont take it seriously. He was joking.)Estoy de acuerdo contigo. (I agree with you.)Mi hermano est de chofer. (My brother is working as a driver.)Estamos de vacaciones. (Were on vacation.) ¿Quà © tipos de vestidos estn de moda? (What types of clothing are in style?)Los Smith estn de aniversario. (Its the Smiths anniversary.)Los conductores estn de huelga. (The drivers are on strike.)El jefe est de un humor muy feo. (The boss is in a very ugly mood.) Estar en Estar en is often used much like to be in. Est en buena condicià ³n la carretera. (The road is in good condition.)Las autoridades locales estaban en conflicto con los operadores de turismo. (The local authorities were in conflict with the tourism operators.)Esta pgina web est en construccià ³n. (This web page is under construction.) Estar por When followed by a noun, estar por typically means to be in favor of someone or something. Estoy por la inmigracià ³n legal. (I am for legal immigration.)No es verdad que todos està ©n por la democracia. (It isnt true that everyone is for democracy.) When estar por is followed by an infinitive, it can mean that the the infinitives action has yet to occur. Often, estar por followed by an infinitive suggests that the action will occur soon. Estoy por salir de viaje desde Buenos Aires a Asuncià ³n. (I am about to leave on a trip from Buenos Aires to Asuncià ³n.)Raquel estaba por comer cuando se dio cuenta de que todos la estaban mirando. (Raquel was about to eat when she noticed that everyone was looking at her.) ¡Estamos por comenzar nuevas aventuras! (Were on the verge of beginning new adventures!) Estar sin Estar sin is used much like estar con but with the opposite meaning. (Of course, it can also mean to be without): De momento estoy sin dolor. (At the moment Im not in pain.)Unas 8.000 personas estaban sin hogar en la ciudad. (There are some 8,000 homeless people in the city.)Estoy sin dinero y sin amigos. (I am penniless and friendless.) Estar sobre Although estar sobre is usually used literally to indicate being above a person or thing, it can also be used figuratively in a way similar to the English stay on top of, meaning to closely watch or supervise. En el trabajo no es necesario estar sobre los millennials. (On the job, it isnt necessary to keep a close eye on millennials.)Todo el tiempo estoy sobre mis hijos para que estudien. (Im always hounding my children so that they study.)

A Primer on Arc Elasticity

A Primer on Arc Elasticity One of the problems with the standard formulas for elasticity that are in many freshman texts is the elasticity figure you come up with is different depending on what you use as the start point and what you use as the endpoint. An example will help illustrate this. When we looked at Price Elasticity of Demand, we calculated the price elasticity of demand when the price went from $9 to $10 and demand went from 150 to 110 was 2.4005. But what if we calculated what the price elasticity of demand when we started at $10 and went to $9? So wed have: Price(OLD)10Price(NEW)9QDemand(OLD)110QDemand(NEW)150 First wed calculate the percentage change in quantity demanded: [QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / QDemand(OLD) By filling in the values we wrote down, we get: [150 - 110] / 110 (40/110) 0.3636 (Again we leave this in decimal form) Then wed calculate the percentage change in price: [Price(NEW) - Price(OLD)] / Price(OLD) By filling in the values we wrote down, we get: [9 - 10] / 10 (-1/10) -0.1 We then use these figures to calculate the price-elasticity of demand: PEoD (% Change in Quantity Demanded)/(% Change in Price) We can now fill in the two percentages in this equation using the figures we calculated earlier. PEoD (0.3636)/(-0.1) -3.636 When calculating a price elasticity, we drop the negative sign, so our final value is 3.636. Obviously, 3.6 is a lot different from 2.4, so we see that this way of measuring price elasticity is quite sensitive to which of your two points you choose as your new point, and which you choose as your old point. Arc elasticities are a way of removing this problem. When calculating Arc Elasticities, the basic relationships stay the same. So when were calculating Price Elasticity of Demand we still use the basic formula: PEoD (% Change in Quantity Demanded)/(% Change in Price) However, how we calculate the percentage changes differ. Before when we calculated Price Elasticity of Demand, Price Elasticity of Supply,  Income Elasticity of Demand, or Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand wed calculate the percentage change in Quantity Demand the following way: [QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / QDemand(OLD) To calculate an arc-elasticity, we use the following formula: [[QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / [QDemand(OLD) QDemand(NEW)]]*2 This formula takes an average of the old quantity demanded and the new quantity demanded on the denominator. By doing so, we will get the same answer (in absolute terms) by choosing $9 as old and $10 as new, as we would choosing $10 as old and $9 as new. When we use arc elasticities we do not need to worry about which point is the starting point and which point is the ending point. This benefit comes at the cost of a more difficult calculation. If we take the example with: Price(OLD)9Price(NEW)10QDemand(OLD)150QDemand(NEW)110 We will get a percentage change of: [[QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / [QDemand(OLD) QDemand(NEW)]]*2 [[110 - 150] / [150 110]]*2 [[-40]/[260]]*2 -0.1538 * 2 -0.3707 So we get a percentage change of -0.3707 (or -37% in percentage terms). If we swap the old and new values for old and new, the denominator will be the same, but we will get 40 in the numerator instead, giving us an answer of the 0.3707. When we calculate the percentage change in price, we will get the same values except one will be positive and the other negative. When we calculate our final answer, we will see that the elasticities will be the same and have the same sign. To conclude this piece, Ill include the formulas so you can calculate the arc versions of price elasticity of demand, price elasticity of supply, income elasticity, and cross-price demand elasticity. We recommend calculating each of the measures using the step-by-step fashion we detail in the previous articles. New Formulas: Arc Price Elasticity of Demand PEoD (% Change in Quantity Demanded)/(% Change in Price) (% Change in Quantity Demanded) [[QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / [QDemand(OLD) QDemand(NEW)]] *2] (% Change in Price) [[Price(NEW) - Price(OLD)] / [Price(OLD) Price(NEW)]] *2] New Formulas: Arc Price Elasticity of Supply PEoS (% Change in Quantity Supplied)/(% Change in Price) (% Change in Quantity Supplied) [[QSupply(NEW) - QSupply(OLD)] / [QSupply(OLD) QSupply(NEW)]] *2] (% Change in Price) [[Price(NEW) - Price(OLD)] / [Price(OLD) Price(NEW)]] *2] New Formulas: Arc Income Elasticity of Demand PEoD (% Change in Quantity Demanded)/(% Change in Income) (% Change in Quantity Demanded) [[QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / [QDemand(OLD) QDemand(NEW)]] *2] (% Change in Income) [[Income(NEW) - Income(OLD)] / [Income(OLD) Income(NEW)]] *2] New Formulas: Arc Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand of Good X PEoD (% Change in Quantity Demanded of X)/(% Change in Price of Y) (% Change in Quantity Demanded) [[QDemand(NEW) - QDemand(OLD)] / [QDemand(OLD) QDemand(NEW)]] *2] (% Change in Price) [[Price(NEW) - Price(OLD)] / [Price(OLD) Price(NEW)]] *2] Notes and Conclusion So now you can calculate elasticity using a simple formula as well as using the arc formula. In a future article, we will look at using calculus to compute elasticities. If youd like to ask a question about the elasticities, microeconomics, macroeconomics or any other topic or comment on this story, please use the feedback form.

Fair Values in Accounting for Financial Instruments Assignment - 1

Fair Values in Accounting for Financial Instruments - Assignment Example AASB 139 defines a fair value as â€Å"the amount for which a liability or an asset may be exchanged between willing and knowledgeable parties in an arms length business deal†. Therefore, fair value accounting is a financial measurement of liabilities and assets of a company at fair value (Kemp, 2005, pp. 1-2). As a consequence of the synchronization of international accounting standards and additional disclosure requirements regarding risk and volatility, companies are changing from historical cost accounting to fair value accounting. Fair value accounting provides the users of financial statements present economic state of affairs of a company and presents a better manifestation of market values liabilities and assets, and consequently, the actual company’s worth. The companys financial statements become more relevant and useful in the marketplace for decision-making. In addition, fair value shows changes in economic conditions; thus, application of fair value for all financial assets allows investors to obtain a fairer and truer view of the actual financial situation of a company (Ryan, 2008, pp.3-4). Fair value accounting offers more comparable, accurate and timely information to investors and reflects recent information regarding future cash flows. Furthermore, in view of the fact that fair value reveals current conditions of the market, it offers comparability of the financial instruments value purchased at dissimilar times in determining the risks and value of financial instruments range (Landsman, 2006, pp.4-5) Fair value accounting also comprises of the significance and probability of all promising future cash flows and brings up to date the sharing of cash flows in future for fresh information regularly. Consequently, stakeholders and capital providers become more up to date when there is an adverse sharing of cash flows in future. Fair value accounting

Socrates and Plato's Apology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Socrates and Plato's Apology - Essay Example Much of this trial is known through Plato’s Apology (Plato, 2009). Socrates is however, innocent of the charges that are levied against him since his beliefs are a practice of his own philosophy, something that was permitted in ancient Greece, and they accept and celebrate the existence of god and the choice of people to follow him or not. His actions, thus, in no way do any harm to the religious structures of Greece. The right to dissent within certain structures was allowed and it is only this right that Socrates exercises in his life and he upholds this right throughout the trial. According to Plato’s Apology, the reason that Socrates cites for his actions is the declaration of the Oracle at Delphi of his superior wisdom over other people. By making this clear, Socrates makes clear his belief in god. The god who is associated with the Oracle of Delphi, moreover is one that is a part of the Greek pantheon of gods. The Oracle of Delphi was associated with Apollo, the s un-god of the Greek pantheon and a very important figure in the mythology of the Greeks. This would make the charges of Socrates’ atheism baseless. By asserting the wisdom of god and his lack of the same, Socrates is able to prove his innocence when faced with the charges of atheism. Socrates points out to the jury that his quest for knowledge and wisdom was essentially based on his belief in his ignorance. This ignorance presented him with a paradox when viewed in the light of the predictions of the Oracle at Delphi (Plato, 2009). An attempt to solve this paradox does not necessarily constitute an offence against god or the laws of ancient Greece. The ideas that Plato and Socrates held regarding ideas and forms entailed the superiority of what lay in heaven rather than what was present on earth (Plato, 2004). This meant that they did not malign god or question the existence of god. What they did during their lives was to affirm the presence of god in a way that was in a lot of ways, scarcely different from existing perceptions. The charges of atheism that were leveled against them were thus, not true and were based on an incorrect or incomplete understanding of their philosophies and theories. Another aspect of the case against Socrates was the allegation that he corrupted the youth with the power of his ‘sophistry’, which in those days meant a glib manner of talking that was designed to persuade a person to perform certain actions. It also had negative connotations in those times. Sophistry was considered to be the practice of the orators of those times who sought to sway the masses and the jury for their own purposes. Socrates distances himself from such accusations right at the beginning by appealing to the jury to look at not his eloquence but at the truth of his statements. Socrates counters this claim successfully by appealing to the jury to look only at the truth of his statements and not at the manner in which it was communicated. He also points out that the perception of his sophistry was built up as a result of the works of people like Aristophanes who sought to mock him with what he perceived to be cheap attempts at comedy. A brief look at the works of Aristophanes would make it clear that the claims made by Socrates in the trial regarding the attempts of people to paint him and his followers in a negative light are true. The novelty of the ideas that Socrates thought of

Sonata Allegro :: essays research papers

Sonata Allegro form was a development of the classical era. It represents a more open form than many of the earlier Baroque forms such as fugues, rondeau form, etc. While there is a formula that can be applied, there was not a rigid, formal concept for the form. Rather it evolved over the classical era and beyond. Haydn was one of the early exponents of this form. It was named "Sonata Allegro," because the final Allegro movement of a Sonata was most often created in this form. It is by no means restricted to this general rule, however. In fact there are no hard and fast rules in writing a Sonata Allegro form. However many trends can be attributed to the form, generally, Sonata Allegro form can simplistically be described as an "ABA'" form. The first A section is called the "Exposition." ( This section is repeated verbatim in classical performance, actually making the overall form "AABA'"). The B section, or "Development" follows the Exposition. It usually uses some material from the Exposition, but in a more or less radically altered way. In the A' section or "Recapitulation," the A material returns relatively intact. Each of these sections has a relatively complex internal pattern as follows: The Exposition states the main thematic elements and has its own internal form as follows: 1) A Primary key section which contains: a. the Principal or Primary Theme which is a phrase or more in length and establishes home key, b. a Transition between the Primary Theme and the Related key section. The transition can modulate to the new key, develop ideas of first theme, change mood in preparation for related key section through mood metamorphsis, introduce new material, possibly contrasting with both primary and related key sections, anticipate of ideas in second theme, be omitted, produce a deceptive modulation, or be non-modulatory if in major. 2) A Related key section which contains the Secondary or Subordinate Theme which is most often in the dominant or relative key, and can be similar or contrast in content to the Primary Theme, the Closing section, which confirms the new key, and may be derived from other themes. Next comes The Development. This is an open and free-form section of the Sonata Allegro movement, usually based on thematic materials from the Exposition. The Development can be varied in length, sometimes short and little more than a re-transition to principal theme, sometimes a large dramatic section containing a theatrical climax, sturm und drang.

Stalin: Movie Review

Yousef Khalil Modern World History Research Paper Stalin Hollywood seems to portray most of the historical movies it produces inaccurately in order for them to sell. Movie producers twist the original story and make up some facts, translated into scenes, which would attract the audience to a particular movie. But should we blame Hollywood, or the audience for being less aware of our history, and just pay to watch movies for the sake of entertainment, not caring on how historically inaccurate it is?The idea of historical events literally being rewritten for the sake of an almost fictional retelling is something that can be regarded as controversial, but the fact of the matter is that Hollywood and film writers will always be able to take a historical story and spice it up simply for the sake of creating drama and subsequent revenue as a result. These films often contain the â€Å"based on a true story† message, but as long as it is not actually classed as a factual film, there is essentially nothing wrong with taking a historical event an re-telling it for the sake of a film.Not every event in history contained enough drama to be made into a film, but as long as the general basis of the event had the potential to create drama. Hollywood will always be able to take the story and make it into a blockbuster masterpiece just as they have done in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. As long as they continue to do so, the concept is something that will continue to be shrouded in controversy from both historical enthusiasts and film critics alike. Stalin (1992) was the movie of my choice that I think has the closest historically accurate content than any other movie.Narrated by Stalin's daughter Svetlana, this begins with Stalin joining Lenin and the Bolsheviks in their fight against the government, eventually setting up their own government themselves. Most of his biography is well known to us, however this movie brings out the chara cter of Stalin as a psycho villain who did not trust a single person, not even his associates, and took extreme measures to exterminate all of them. His ego and paranoia alienated him from his friends and his family, even to the point where his wife Nadya (Julia Ormond) commits suicide and young Svetlana hates him.But in the end, he does not change, and this leads to his downfall and death. This movie really wasn’t a cinema film, but a television movie that wasn’t going to play neither in theaters nor around the world, which might count for something. This film would have been ruined by a big studio production. There is no way to â€Å"Hollywoodize† Josef Stalin. He was perhaps the worst and most brutal tyrant of the 20th century. Estimates range from 20-40 million deaths he was responsible for (Rummel, 2006) He was in no way a nice man. In him there was not an ounce of decency, only a vast void of feeling that Robert Duvall conveyed very well.The film itself al most seemed hollow or lifeless at times, and generally moved slowly. Passer's meticulous method pays off, however, with powerful performances from Plowright, Schell, and Ormond complimenting Duvall's brilliance. My whole point is Duvall is â€Å"Stalin’s† embodiment. This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. Most comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing very specific. The film is a broad overview of the life of Stalin and could never include every element of his life.All the important historical is there: the Revolution, the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, Stalin's rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges and WWII. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. Many of the other characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially about Stalin and w hat made him tick, not about the intricate backgrounds of other revolutionaries and supporters. If the viewers don't come away from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then they simply missed the point.The way that he treated his family, friends and so-called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film. The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact: under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a nuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US (Brainerd, 2002). The film brings up the critical question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR.That is a powerful and thought provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers in the viewers mind and makes them think has merit. Is it a perfect film? No. Is it historically inaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not. Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster. But this is one of the rare biopics that offers fewer opinions and more facts. Over three hours long, the movie covers the dictator's life from his exile in Siberia, when he took the name Stalin, up to his death in 1953.It does not try to feature the then world politics and even contemporary Russia as a whole, nor does it waste further screen time on the social reaction to Stalin's policies too much. It features Stalin and only Stalin. It focuses exclusively on his personal life (naturally, since the movie is narrated by his daughter Svetlana) and his take on the fellow comrades of the party. The filmmakers remain more-or-less true to the facts, giving neither imaginative shock moments nor just plain history. Stalin’s wife committed suicide, which made me think whether that affected him psychologically later on.It is h ard to know what effect did the death of Stalin’s wife had on him. Clearly the film needed an overarching plot structure to attempt an explanation of a complex man. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get inside Stalin's head. If anything, the man was driven by hatred and little else, a hatred that is difficult to articulate, but which was at least admirably displayed in the film. The portrayals of Stalin's wife and some of his associates were less convincing. This is the fault of the script or the direction or both, not the actors.For example, Stalin's second wife Nadya was not quite the principled heroine seen here who apparently took her own life because she saw no other escape from the evil that her husband was bringing to the country. The real Nadya brought some of her own problems to her marriage and these contributed to her death. (Marsolais, 2010) Bukharin, wretched in his final weeks, may have been the best of them but that was saying little. He was not quite the nobl e, tragic ‘swan' portrayed. He was prone to hysterics, about his own problems primarily. The suffering millions could suffer as long as he was approved of.During his final imprisonment, Bukharin wrote to Stalin offering to do anything, put his name to anything, if only Stalin would be his â€Å"friend† again. (Marsolais, 2010) Stalin takes all the heat and deserves plenty, but many of the rest of the people around him seem like innocents, fooled by him, finding out too late that they were caught up in his evil and were either corrupted or destroyed by it. But Stalin, like Hitler and any other dictator, was only possible because those around him saw advantage for themselves in supporting him. If there's a problem with this film it's that it lets some of Stalin's minions off the hook.It settles for extremes: Stalin and his chiefs of secret police on the one hand, and the good or loyal but naive on the other. But the only innocents were the people of the former Soviet Unio n, those far from power whose lives were destroyed according to the requirements of a command economy. So many deaths and so many slaves were required from every walk of life, like so many tons of iron, to meet quotas. They are acknowledged in the film's dedication. Those around Stalin, however, were all up to their elbows in blood just as he was, obsessed with their own positions, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev included.This is perhaps something to bear in mind in watching a generally excellent and historically accurate film. When evaluating Stalin, I think of it in comparison to Nixon, another biopic with similar scope and ambition. And, quite honestly, this film comes out streets ahead, for one single reason: it tries to explain what Stalin was, but not ‘why’ he was like it. There is no feeble psychoanalysis, no looking inside his mind, and no needless and questionable reconstructions of his own self-reflections. What you see in this movie is the director's interpre tation of what you might have seen if you'd followed Stalin around.He gives you the dots. You can then join them by drawing your own conclusions. It works because Duvall is fantastic at Stalin, both in terms of appearance, voice characterization, and his general manner. Having read about Stalin for some years, I had no trouble accepting that the man on the screen was the ‘Man of Steel'. The film is essentially reconstructed from the diaries of Stalin's daughter, Nadya, and therefore some aspects are historically questionable. But as historic epics go it follows the research and convention thinking quite closely; it doesn't digress into wild peculation like Stone, and doesn't propagandize either. It does make the error of dichotomizing characters into ‘good' and ‘bad' – Bukharin, for example, is portrayed as something of a great man in this film, then again, that seems to be the standard modus operandi of historical films these days. The biggest problem anyon e making a film about a tyrant will face, is exactly how much they know (or don't know) about the atrocities their regimes commit, and to what extent do they get involved: do they sit, aloof, like Hitler at Bertchesgarten. Or do they lead slaughter brigades like Amin?Stalin seems to be quite detached from it all, even when on a train travelling through the freezing, starving villages of the steppes. A rabid paranoia about being overthrown, a distrust of others, and a fierce, almost inhumane determination to meet goals were at the core of Stalin's despotism. People meant little to Stalin: they were expendable, disposable and unreliable, even his wife and children, and this idea comes through loud and clear in this well put together and quite entertaining biographical epic. Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership.The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Sovi et leadership ladder, until he becomes the â€Å"feared leader of Russia. † What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinist politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror, the funeral scene at the conclusion of the film drips with irony.Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership. The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the â€Å"feared leader of Russia. † What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinistic politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monument al device of terror.Works Cited: Brainerd, Elizabeth. Reassessing the standard of living in the Soviet Union: an analysis using archival and anthropometric data. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2006. â€Å"How Many Did Stalin Really Murder? † The Distributed Republic. 09 Dec. 2010 ;lt;http://www. distributedrepublic. net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/;gt;. Marsolais, By Jesse. â€Å"Facing Up to Stalin – Magazine – The Atlantic. † The Atlantic — News and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and food – TheAtlantic. com. 09 Dec. 2010 ;lt;http://www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2004/07/facing-up-to-stalin/3390/;gt;. Stalin: Movie Review Yousef Khalil Modern World History Research Paper Stalin Hollywood seems to portray most of the historical movies it produces inaccurately in order for them to sell. Movie producers twist the original story and make up some facts, translated into scenes, which would attract the audience to a particular movie. But should we blame Hollywood, or the audience for being less aware of our history, and just pay to watch movies for the sake of entertainment, not caring on how historically inaccurate it is?The idea of historical events literally being rewritten for the sake of an almost fictional retelling is something that can be regarded as controversial, but the fact of the matter is that Hollywood and film writers will always be able to take a historical story and spice it up simply for the sake of creating drama and subsequent revenue as a result. These films often contain the â€Å"based on a true story† message, but as long as it is not actually classed as a factual film, there is essentially nothing wrong with taking a historical event an re-telling it for the sake of a film.Not every event in history contained enough drama to be made into a film, but as long as the general basis of the event had the potential to create drama. Hollywood will always be able to take the story and make it into a blockbuster masterpiece just as they have done in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. As long as they continue to do so, the concept is something that will continue to be shrouded in controversy from both historical enthusiasts and film critics alike. Stalin (1992) was the movie of my choice that I think has the closest historically accurate content than any other movie.Narrated by Stalin's daughter Svetlana, this begins with Stalin joining Lenin and the Bolsheviks in their fight against the government, eventually setting up their own government themselves. Most of his biography is well known to us, however this movie brings out the chara cter of Stalin as a psycho villain who did not trust a single person, not even his associates, and took extreme measures to exterminate all of them. His ego and paranoia alienated him from his friends and his family, even to the point where his wife Nadya (Julia Ormond) commits suicide and young Svetlana hates him.But in the end, he does not change, and this leads to his downfall and death. This movie really wasn’t a cinema film, but a television movie that wasn’t going to play neither in theaters nor around the world, which might count for something. This film would have been ruined by a big studio production. There is no way to â€Å"Hollywoodize† Josef Stalin. He was perhaps the worst and most brutal tyrant of the 20th century. Estimates range from 20-40 million deaths he was responsible for (Rummel, 2006) He was in no way a nice man. In him there was not an ounce of decency, only a vast void of feeling that Robert Duvall conveyed very well.The film itself al most seemed hollow or lifeless at times, and generally moved slowly. Passer's meticulous method pays off, however, with powerful performances from Plowright, Schell, and Ormond complimenting Duvall's brilliance. My whole point is Duvall is â€Å"Stalin’s† embodiment. This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. Most comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing very specific. The film is a broad overview of the life of Stalin and could never include every element of his life.All the important historical is there: the Revolution, the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, Stalin's rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges and WWII. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. Many of the other characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially about Stalin and w hat made him tick, not about the intricate backgrounds of other revolutionaries and supporters. If the viewers don't come away from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then they simply missed the point.The way that he treated his family, friends and so-called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film. The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact: under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a nuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US (Brainerd, 2002). The film brings up the critical question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR.That is a powerful and thought provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers in the viewers mind and makes them think has merit. Is it a perfect film? No. Is it historically inaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not. Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster. But this is one of the rare biopics that offers fewer opinions and more facts. Over three hours long, the movie covers the dictator's life from his exile in Siberia, when he took the name Stalin, up to his death in 1953.It does not try to feature the then world politics and even contemporary Russia as a whole, nor does it waste further screen time on the social reaction to Stalin's policies too much. It features Stalin and only Stalin. It focuses exclusively on his personal life (naturally, since the movie is narrated by his daughter Svetlana) and his take on the fellow comrades of the party. The filmmakers remain more-or-less true to the facts, giving neither imaginative shock moments nor just plain history. Stalin’s wife committed suicide, which made me think whether that affected him psychologically later on.It is h ard to know what effect did the death of Stalin’s wife had on him. Clearly the film needed an overarching plot structure to attempt an explanation of a complex man. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get inside Stalin's head. If anything, the man was driven by hatred and little else, a hatred that is difficult to articulate, but which was at least admirably displayed in the film. The portrayals of Stalin's wife and some of his associates were less convincing. This is the fault of the script or the direction or both, not the actors.For example, Stalin's second wife Nadya was not quite the principled heroine seen here who apparently took her own life because she saw no other escape from the evil that her husband was bringing to the country. The real Nadya brought some of her own problems to her marriage and these contributed to her death. (Marsolais, 2010) Bukharin, wretched in his final weeks, may have been the best of them but that was saying little. He was not quite the nobl e, tragic ‘swan' portrayed. He was prone to hysterics, about his own problems primarily. The suffering millions could suffer as long as he was approved of.During his final imprisonment, Bukharin wrote to Stalin offering to do anything, put his name to anything, if only Stalin would be his â€Å"friend† again. (Marsolais, 2010) Stalin takes all the heat and deserves plenty, but many of the rest of the people around him seem like innocents, fooled by him, finding out too late that they were caught up in his evil and were either corrupted or destroyed by it. But Stalin, like Hitler and any other dictator, was only possible because those around him saw advantage for themselves in supporting him. If there's a problem with this film it's that it lets some of Stalin's minions off the hook.It settles for extremes: Stalin and his chiefs of secret police on the one hand, and the good or loyal but naive on the other. But the only innocents were the people of the former Soviet Unio n, those far from power whose lives were destroyed according to the requirements of a command economy. So many deaths and so many slaves were required from every walk of life, like so many tons of iron, to meet quotas. They are acknowledged in the film's dedication. Those around Stalin, however, were all up to their elbows in blood just as he was, obsessed with their own positions, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev included.This is perhaps something to bear in mind in watching a generally excellent and historically accurate film. When evaluating Stalin, I think of it in comparison to Nixon, another biopic with similar scope and ambition. And, quite honestly, this film comes out streets ahead, for one single reason: it tries to explain what Stalin was, but not ‘why’ he was like it. There is no feeble psychoanalysis, no looking inside his mind, and no needless and questionable reconstructions of his own self-reflections. What you see in this movie is the director's interpre tation of what you might have seen if you'd followed Stalin around.He gives you the dots. You can then join them by drawing your own conclusions. It works because Duvall is fantastic at Stalin, both in terms of appearance, voice characterization, and his general manner. Having read about Stalin for some years, I had no trouble accepting that the man on the screen was the ‘Man of Steel'. The film is essentially reconstructed from the diaries of Stalin's daughter, Nadya, and therefore some aspects are historically questionable. But as historic epics go it follows the research and convention thinking quite closely; it doesn't digress into wild peculation like Stone, and doesn't propagandize either. It does make the error of dichotomizing characters into ‘good' and ‘bad' – Bukharin, for example, is portrayed as something of a great man in this film, then again, that seems to be the standard modus operandi of historical films these days. The biggest problem anyon e making a film about a tyrant will face, is exactly how much they know (or don't know) about the atrocities their regimes commit, and to what extent do they get involved: do they sit, aloof, like Hitler at Bertchesgarten. Or do they lead slaughter brigades like Amin?Stalin seems to be quite detached from it all, even when on a train travelling through the freezing, starving villages of the steppes. A rabid paranoia about being overthrown, a distrust of others, and a fierce, almost inhumane determination to meet goals were at the core of Stalin's despotism. People meant little to Stalin: they were expendable, disposable and unreliable, even his wife and children, and this idea comes through loud and clear in this well put together and quite entertaining biographical epic. Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership.The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Sovi et leadership ladder, until he becomes the â€Å"feared leader of Russia. † What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinist politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror, the funeral scene at the conclusion of the film drips with irony.Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership. The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the â€Å"feared leader of Russia. † What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinistic politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monument al device of terror.Works Cited: Brainerd, Elizabeth. Reassessing the standard of living in the Soviet Union: an analysis using archival and anthropometric data. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2006. â€Å"How Many Did Stalin Really Murder? † The Distributed Republic. 09 Dec. 2010 ;lt;http://www. distributedrepublic. net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/;gt;. Marsolais, By Jesse. â€Å"Facing Up to Stalin – Magazine – The Atlantic. † The Atlantic — News and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and food – TheAtlantic. com. 09 Dec. 2010 ;lt;http://www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2004/07/facing-up-to-stalin/3390/;gt;.

What Marriages And Families Written By Kunz Provides Great...

Families have been an essential necessity in society for a very long time. In a perfect world, families are composed by a strong providing father, a loving and caring mother, and their obedient children. However, this is not always the case. As time, has progressed, family structures and characteristics have certainly changed. Change comes with time as well as with various situations that families might face. Not all families react the same way to all scenarios. In fact, most families are put to test with situations which causes stress in the family. Stress is a common, yet harmful thing to deal with at home and/ or at work. Stressors are obstacles that people go through that causes stress within. Stressors can affect families in many†¦show more content†¦In the textbook Kunz says, that woman’s economic status declines whereas men go through a smaller reduction in economic status if any. The reasons for this difference are unequal wages, gender division of labor, and low level child support. In today’s world, we see that typically, unless proven unfit to take care of the child, the mother usually wins custody all the time. Woman’s economic income is less than a men and therefore she has to work harder to provide and maintain stability for her child. This can be a hard task when you are seen the weaker sex. As children of divorced parents, coping can be very difficult This is why personal adjustment can be a hard task. According to Kunz, there were recaches that have shown that children from divorced families have a higher tendency to have more psychological problems than whole family children. An example of this could be when thinking that the child was not enough for both parents creating psychological problems within. On the other hand, it is also important to know that those situation can also force and make children to mature fast than anyone else would. Adjusting can be harder for children who do not see their noncustodial parent with the same frequency as children who regularly see the other parent. These are all strains that cause stress in a family and make it harder to juggle, dailyShow MoreRelatedThesis, Term Paper, Essay, Research Paper21993 Words   |  88 Pagespress 2003). The differences in incidence of teenage pregnancy among racial and ethnic groups result from socio-economic factors. Teenage pregnancy is prevalent in societies characterised by poverty, low education, fewer job opportunities and families headed by mothers who gave birth to their first children in adolescence (Dryfoos, 1996; Macleod, 1999). Teenage pregnancy is also associated with other problematic behaviour such as alcohol and drug use, and early initiation of sexual activity, which