Rendering 11 (Cinema)

The article I’d like to analyze is taken from The Guardian and is entitled “Pedro Almodóvar backs wave of Spanish protests over family evictions.” It was published by Giles Tremlett on 27 April 2013 and quotes some extracts from the interview with the celebrated Spanish film-maker.

Generally, the present-day situation in Spain is largely discussed here. Thus, according to the author of the article, Almodóvar has warned of an increasingly violent mood in his recession-hit country, as he throws his weight behind a popular movement determined to stop banks evicting vulnerable people who can no longer pay their mortgages. It should be mentioned that the film director himself is of the opinion that everyone should react, but in the most peaceful way possible.  Like many other Spaniards, Almodóvar is also frustrated with a double-dip recession that started four years ago: it’s necessary to note that the crisis has hit young people hard, with unemployment for those aged under 25 running at 57%. In this connection, Almodóvar speaks for new laws badly needed to protect the vulnerable, while any delay is fraught with serious consequences. One more fact commented in the article is, for instance, that 80 Spanish families a day are having their homes repossessed in a country where four out of five people live in homes owned by their family, while campaigners complain that a new law going through parliament only permits that in rare cases. In the director’ opinion, the country is socially conservative, and this worries him a lot, for he cannot stay indifferent.

There is no mention about Giles Tremlett’s own point of view, but it’s made quite clear, for he evidently shares the one of Almodóvar and criticizes the government’s passiveness and unwillingness to solve acute social problems. I have never been to Spain and haven’t seen if local people are really suffering, but I’m quite sure such troubles are almost the same in different parts of the world. Besides, I wonder if Pedro Almodóvar has ever been to Russia, for I believe living conditions the Spaniards consider unbearable are regarded as very favourable in our country.

Rendering 10 (Cinema)

The article under study is taken from The New York Times and is published under the title “Ja, That Manly Raft Trip, Blond Manes a-Whipping.” it was contributed by Manohla Dargis on April 25, 2013, and contains the review of the new film ‘Kon-Tiki,’ directed by Joachim Roenning and Espen Sandberg.

As the film is based on real historical events, first of all it’s necessary to provide some facts and to mention that in 1947, a Norwegian zoologist and adventurer, Thor Heyerdahl (Pal Sverre Hagen), set sail for Polynesia from Peru in a balsa-wood raft that he called Kon-Tiki, after a sun god. Through his studies had developed some unorthodox ideas about early migrations to the islands. Unlike other researchers, who embraced the theory that Polynesia had been populated by way of Asia, Heyerdahl argued that the islanders originated in South America. To prove his theory, the scientist built the kind of raft that he believed early South American seafarers might have constructed, and set sail with five other men. After 101 days they landed on the Raroia Atoll in the Tuamotu Archipelago.

The film under discussion, “Kon-Tiki,” is, according to the author, instead a stolidly old-fashioned and manly hair-in-the-wind entertainment of the sort that could have filled out the bottom of a studio double bill. To say specifically, the men are handsome, the sea is pretty and if the sharks look rubbery, at least they add some drama to what otherwise proves a dull affair. In addition, Manohla Dargis adds skeptically that it’s also a distracting affair because, in a misguided move, the filmmakers have the men speak in English; there’s also a Norwegian-language version.

The author concludes by saying that if this movie is to be believed, brave Thor Heyerdahl’s voyage was largely bereft of tension and interesting conversation; besides, Dargis compares this movie quite unfavourably to Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi,” which, however flawed, lyrically conveyed the beauty and madness of a long journey into both the world and the soul. As for me, I’ve by no means heard about the famous Norwegian scientist and seafarer, and it’s a pity there hasn’t been shot any good film about his adventures yet and all we have now are only pitiful attempts to show the significance of his discoveries.

Pleasure Reading: "To Kill a Mockingbird"

Summary 2

1. The three friends tried to get into the Radley house, but the sight of somebody in a hat approaching them scared the children. 2. When climbing the fence, Jem’s pants caught on a nail and were left here; however, when the boy returned for them, the clothes were hanging on the same place mended accurately, and that was one more mystery. 3. One more strange case happened later, after Scout was woken up at night to leave the house, as Miss Maudie’s one next to them was on fire. 4. The brother and sister stood aside, looking at the grown-ups putting the fire down and feeling cold, and didn’t notice when a woolen blanket was wrapped round them. 5. Yet, there was another problem for the children to handle, as their father was criticized by the majority for the defence of Tim Robinson, an Afro-American falsely charged with the rape of a white girl. 6. Jem and Scout found it difficult to be proud of their parent, who in addition didn’t possess the qualities of a good sportsman or hunter, so highly appreciated in their neighbourhood. 7. Nevertheless, when a mad dog dropped in their town, it was Atticus who shot it dead. 8. It appeared that the man had earlier been the best rifleman in Maycomb County and only concealed this fact from his children now.

Pleasure Reading "To Kill a Mockingbird"

Summary 1

1. A small girl Scout Finch, on whose behalf the narration is carried, lives together with her father Atticus, elder brothe Jem and their family cook Calpurnia in Maycomb, Southern United States. 2. The town is not very big, and its dwellers are rather conservative and superstitious: thus, there're bad rumours about the so-called Radley Place, whose host once confined his only insane son in the cellar, so that the young man became a kind of ghost. 3. Everybody avoids this house, but it's also not allowed to make fun of the Radleys, for it may have serious consequences. 4. Scout and Jem believe in this story and so are very afraid to visit this house. 5. It's only their new friend Dill who makes them walk near and even play in front of the building; but sometimes the girl hears some strange sounds coming from inside. 6. Yet, it's high time for her to go into the first grade, and here at school she faces new problems, for instance, in the person of her teacher Miss Caroline, who is not pleased by Scout's ability to read and write, as some special program for her will be needed. 7. However, the young educator is just a newcomer here and also has problems with her new pupils and their morals and manners.

Rendering 9 (Cinema)

The article I’m going to analyze is taken from The Guardian and is entitled "Oblivion – review.” It was published by Peter Bradshaw on 10 April 2013 and takes a critical view of the new film “Oblivion” starring Tom Cruise.

According to the movie’s plot, here the famous actor plays Jack Harper, a tough and self-reliant soldier in the late 21st century, tasked to monitor what remains of Earth prior to humanity's final emigration, and to supervise a fleet of pilotless drone craft which hunt down hostile "scavs", or scavengers, hiding out on the surface. In the author’s words, Cruise’s role-model appears to be Wall-E, or the diminutive cartoon automaton left behind on a wrecked planet Earth to clean up. Sadly enough, there's none of Wall-E's spark in this bafflingly solemn, lugubrious and fantastically derivative sci-fi which serves up great big undigested lumps of Total Recall, AI, Planet of the Apes – with little snippets of Top Gun.

Speaking of the movie on the whole, it’s necessary to note that it has some beautiful images of planetary ruin and huge tracts of desert and forest with the bits of famous buildings poking up. There are futurist aircraft whooshing through the mist, or being accepted into the bosoms of colossally large mother-ships out in space, like the photorealist cover-designs of a classic SF novel. But, Bradshaw says, the story itself feels numbed, directionless and dull; Morgan Freeman is entirely wasted in a sketchily conceived supporting role and Tom Cruise is allowed to play to his weaknesses. Then, the author compares this film with “The Mission Impossible,” and this comparison is not in “Oblivion’s favour, as there is little of humour and fun. Besides, Tom Cruise is a bit cardboard: sometimes he will do his relaxed face, periodically he will do his uxorious-romantic smile.

In resolute outspoken terms the author expresses the view that “Oblivion” looks like a very expensive movie project that has been written and rewritten many times over, and it is a shame: Cruise, Riseborough and Kurylenko as the last love triangle left on Planet Earth should have been quite interesting. As for me, I don’t watch films like this, primarily because of the genre, not the cast. I can’t understand what makes talented, already popular actors agree to roles in all these commonplace blockbusters; still it’s their choice