Reaction Paper on The Rhetoric of Cancer, a BBC Podcast

                I’ve become used to hearing people talk about cancer as some sort of battle, where the cancer patient is a brave, strong warrior, fighting against an entity that’s taking over his/her body. At the same time, I’ve also learned that cancer cells are actually cells that are produced by our own bodies, abnormal cells that never went through the normal cell’s life cycle, multiplying and sucking nutrition until the body gives up. I went on accepting these two things as they are. That was until this podcast challenged me to see these two things as pieces that don’t fit.

                Since cancer cells are cells that were once part of your body, shouldn’t battling against cancer mean waging a war against yourself?

                This was the question that remained in my mind the most as I listened through the recording.

                In the podcast ‘The Rhetoric of Cancer’, the speaker Andrew Graystone, who was also diagnosed with cancer, was “struggling to find a good language to describe what was going on”. He said that he found most of the words used as a “masculine, military-sort of language”. He went to ask various people who had an encounter with cancer to discover the rhetoric that they use to talk about this condition.  

                He first went to meet Dr. Wendy Makin, a Macmillan consultant in palliative care and oncology in Christie Hospital in Manchester, where Graystone got his cancer treatment. Dr. Makin said that “media sensationalism” would be mostly behind the phrases “losing the battle against cancer”. She said that the phrase may also be used by the patient’s family, friends and relatives to recognize the person’s bravery in dealing with his/her cancer. What struck Andrew the most was the phrase “living alongside cancer” that Dr. Makin used, which is quite contrary to the disproportionate fear of cancer that the media have instilled in the public. I think I agree with Graystone’s view that this whole thing against cancer is like a “bogeyman that we have created”. He also made me believe that cancer ought to be seen differently, that seeing it as an enemy would be declaring a civil war in your body. Nobody should hate their own body.

                He then met with Natasha Hill at Cancer Research UK to find out what language they use to convince people to support cancer research. According to Hill, they adopted a stance where they view cancer as an enemy, turning it into a “thing that you want to fight directly”. The people generally liked this way of campaigning, though Hill and her co-workers use a different language when addressing elderly patients. I listened as the two gave their opposing views about cancer: while Andrew said that he didn’t want to fight a part of his body (he said that he couldn’t fight his cancer), Natasha said that to most cancer patients, viewing cancer as some sort of enemy is like a motivation for them to stay strong with the treatments, a source of will that eventually help them survive. She has a point—cancer cells may be a part of our body, but the fact that these cells are working against us should be reason for us to keep them from doing so.

                Graystone also went to University of Birmingham’s School of Cancer Sciences to talk with Professor Michael Overduin. Out of all the interviews he did, Overduin’s was the one I liked the most. 

                Their talk focused on the small proteins that are involved in how cells grow and multiply. As scientists, according to him, they study how these molecules work, how they behave and how to stop them from misbehaving (like in the case of cancer). The idea of a battle, according to Professor Overduin, is a peculiar one, because scientists tend to be objective. But since they work alongside companies who make “warheads” against cancer, they use the term “warheads” as metaphors to refer to drug molecules that attack a certain “target”, a specific protein, while avoiding all the other 20,000 proteins that are functioning properly. The use of metaphors adds drama according to him, to the dry terms of science, and it also simplifies things. Graystone understood when Overduin said it’s “difficult to be at war against yourself” and how it seemed “counterintuitive, almost wrong”. It’s an interesting thing how the scientists view the whole thing as a series of proteins, away from the negative labels and metaphors, how they see proteins as “switches” that should be either turned on or turned off, and how they work together. Instead, Andrew suggested an orchestra as another analogy, that when one instrument goes out of tune, the scientists “fix” or “tune” them to make the symphony sound beautiful again.

                  The last visit was with Jim Cotter, a poet and a priest who was diagnosed with leukaemia. He told of an analogy of cancer about his bone marrow being like a garden invaded by weeds, with the treatment being like a weed killer, but this “weed killer” destroys the whole garden. So in this view, neither the body nor the cells are getting the better of the battle, but ultimately according to Cotter, he had to choose which side he was on. He then gave another analogy of seeing cancer and normal cells as dark and light angels, where the dark angels (cancer) serve as a messenger of death to him. Graystone even added that if anyone says that he lost his battle with cancer, he would personally come and haunt them!

                All in all, I appreciated every analogy that they used in describing cancer (including Andrew’s hitchhiker analogy at the end), and it made me wonder more at this phenomenon of the body. Why do I feel as if these cells in our body have this element that they can use to “self-destruct” people? Why do they suddenly become deadly and kill you from the inside? Is this a reminder of the limits of being human? Something that will always mean that there are things far from our control?

(by 2013-71244)

Reaction on Podcast about Cancer (2013-61222)

Mañalac, Ed Joshua G.

Student Number: 2013-61222

Section: THY

Reaction on Podcast about Cancer

                In our life, we may get sick sometimes but there is Cancer who is hard to fight along the way. What is cancer? For me, cancer is a sick that can kill people or an agent of death. Why? Because in many cases of cancer, cancer cause organ failures which leads to death. From here, we can see that organ failure is the main reason why cancer is a hard opponent.

                In the podcast, they basically discuss on how we should talk or communicate with a person with cancer. Basically they explained to us that we should tell people with the cancer to fight it. Well, for me, this is a nice way to communicate to them, but this is not the only way.

                I could relate very much to the podcast. Why? Because my mom is a cancer patient. When she was on the hospital, I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what to say to her. During those times, I am only a grade 4 student so I really don’t know what to do. But when I saw my mom lying on the hospital bed, I felt loved because I saw in my mother that she is not fighting to defeat the cancer, but instead fighting for her loved ones. She fought for us because she knows that we really need her and love her. I’m saying this because communicating to a cancer patient is a difficult task but one basic thing we should do is to stay by their side because staying by their side make them feel love making them stronger and have the courage to fight the cancer. Also, telling them to fight the cancer is a nice thing to do because I think, these sayings will give them hope and chance to fight. Additionally, telling them to ask for God's and have faith in him is a great factor in giving hope.

               

Reaction Paper: The Rhetoric of Cancer (2013-48674)

MARQUEZ, Kristina Patriz S.
2013-48674
STS-THY
Reaction Paper: The Rhetoric of Cancer

                Cancer. What is the best way to describe this disease? Or the worst? What does it feel like to have one? Or have a family with one?

                “Fight it!” That would be our instinct telling us to fight cancer until it’s gone or at least to live longer. According to Andrew Graystone, the bodies of people with cancer turn into war zones. He argues whether or not people chose to fight, they are conscripted into something often described as a battle but against cancer. So yea, Hey! What if that person doesn’t want to fight? What if this disease was his wish or escape? Of course, no one could take that one important thing that really belongs to him: his decision. All we could do is respect his decision. This decision was not made out of the blue; there will always be a reason, if not many, why a person would choose this and not that. Just like how Andrew felt about his supposed-to-be enemy.

                As humans, we can’t keep our feelings in a box. It always flows or explodes, etc. And so, we tend to feel sorry, to sympathize to those with cancer. Then, we become selfish and think of ourselves; of what would it be to lose someone dear. While we do that, we fool ourselves into thinking that we are doing what is best for them. We don’t really know how they feel, and we might never actually know until we are put in their position. We lose to ourselves, maybe worse than how we think they lose to theirs.

                Everyone has their choice: to be with us, to have fun, to live, or to accept. And maybe, just maybe, these choices are, for them, the only thing that’s left. They didn’t have the choice to have the cancer and most of them hated it. Most of them went through the heartbreak after being diagnosed with the disease that took thousands of lives and counting.  But still, different people have different perspectives and so different languages employed to approach this disease.

Reaction Paper for Time Travelling (2013-61222)

Mañalac, Ed Joshua G.

Student Number: 2013-61222

Section: THY

Reaction on Time Travelling

                Time Travelling Time Travelling Time Travelling, what really is time travelling? When I was a kid, I always wish that I could go to the future or go to the past. Isn’t it amusing to see the future and past? Who could not want that?

                I had watched films regarding time travelling but the most interesting was the film presented in the class. The scientists in the film presented different ideas regarding time travelling. Each of them gave us a peak of their study. While I am watching the film, I felt amazed seeing their studies to find a way to time travelling.

                One concept that really struck me is the concept of parallel universe. Ever since I was a teenager, I thought what it would feel like to have someone to be exactly the same me. There were many explanations regarding this to me ever. There was this person who told me a story that there exist another universe where it is an exact replica of our universe.

                If you think it thoroughly, Science had a great leap in proving time travelling, but there are so many questions that popped in my mind regarding this time travelling. First and foremost, what is the reason why they want to show that time travelling can be done? Is it just for mere science? What can we gain from seeing the future? Yeah, we would gain knowledge to prevent something that happens on the future but isn’t that going to make life pointless? Where will the thrill go if we know our future? Now on the past, even though we time travel to the past, there’s nothing we can do to change the past. Things happen for a reason. Even though we have the power to change the past, I would not alter the past because all things that happened molded me to become the person now. Also, many things that happened in the past are better left unknown than knowing.

               

Reaction Paper: Naked Science-Time Machine (2013-48674)

MARQUEZ, Kristina Patriz S.
2013-48674
STS-THY
Reaction Paper: Naked Science-Time Machine

                Time travelling, which is known to involve warping time, is one of the famous science fiction of all times. It has always been a wonder to us and so has caught our interest. Travelling through time, forward and backwards: how cool is that, right? Most of us probably want to travel through time to explore, to correct things, to avoid things, or maybe to have a better “future”.

                In the Naked Science’s episode, Time Machine, physicists claim that time travelling is possible. Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku presented different theories about time travelling and on making a time machine, a device that would make time travelling a science fiction no more.

                One of the theories that caught me the most was the one with parallel universe. First, because this is not the first time I’ve thought about it and not the first time I’ve encountered it. I have watched and read anime with parallel universe in their general plots. I have also wondered about it after I’ve watched the movie Mr. Nobody. In this movie, an infinity of possibilities rise from the protagonist’s decision and as long as he doesn’t choose, anything is possible.

                Parallel universe is the hypothetical or fictional self-contained separate reality coexisting with one's own. It is a set of possible universes that together compromise everything that exist and can exist: time, space, matter, etc. This is actually interesting. Even though, still not proven and I still can’t imagine how one would prove it, it might actually be true or possible.

                Time travelling may be possible, but we still don’t know the consequences of warping time.  What would it really take to make a time machine? And what would it take to travel through time or what would happen after going to the past or even future? Would we be able to change the past, present, and future? The idea of parallel universe may also solve this but of course, there will be a hand full of ethical arguments.

Reaction Paper-Podcast 2013-72071

Name: Fabia, Bianca Anne M.

Student No.: 2013-72071

Section: THY

Reaction Paper for the podcast about the rhetoric of cancer

            Cancer is a disease that has claimed a lot of lives these past couple of years. I noticed that more and more people get this disease nowadays than in the past. I guess that because of our lifestyle, we’re more prone to develop it.

            My grandfather was the closest person to me whose life was cut short, in my opinion, because of cancer. I saw how he coped with it and what he went through while living with cancer. And since he lived with us, I was able to witness how he managed to live with it.

            In the podcast, the issue they were mainly discussing about was how to best talk to a person with cancer about the disease. The guy in the podcast was able to talk to different experts about it and he was able to get an idea on how people, in general, view cancer.

            The usual thing that they say to people with cancer is that they should fight it like you’re going to war against it. I don’t really like this view because I feel like it is set to make them feel worse in the end; it pressures them into fighting it instead of letting them feel all these emotions that come with finding out that you have this disease. In my psychology class, we talked about these five steps in accepting or dealing with death; it works both ways for the dying person and the person who would be left behind. The five steps were denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance; of course, every human being would experience them in different ways and paces but I think that all of us deserve to be given time to accept this possibility of dying. So what’s my point in bringing this up? My point is that if you pressure the cancer victims into fighting, even if it wasn’t intentional, then you somehow deprive them of really feeling or accepting the disease and the fact that they may be dying.

            All in all, my view on it could be wrong for some since I know that most people would like to look at cancer as something to be fought and conquered; I think that everyone has their own opinions about it and that that should be respected since people cope in different ways.

Reaction Paper-Time Travel 2013-72071

Name: Fabia, Bianca Anne M.

Student No.: 2013-72071

Section: THY

Reaction Paper for the film about time travel

            In the short film, the different scientists were able to explain that time travel could be possible through different ways. They were able to see the things that are occurring in nature or in the universe. Then they studied it to come up to a conclusion that relates what they’ve observed to time travel.

            Before the film, I’ve already thought about the possibility of time travel but I disregarded it because I thought that even if people were fascinated with its possibilities too but since it’s not a naturally occurring phenomenon then it might not be possible.

            After watching the film, I realized that what I have thought was wrong and that maybe it is possible since there are people who study the universe and see things that could be copied to replicate a thing that would make time travelling possible if not now maybe in the future.

Among the many theories mentioned in the film, the one that I was most interested in was the one about the parallel universe. I think that it piqued my interested because I’ve been thinking about it before. I’ve also heard about it and reflected upon its existence.

Basically, they said that parallel universe was about what if there’s more than one of each of us and that version of us was living in another setting or time. I became interested in it because what if that’s true and we find out that there are more versions of us than what we expect and that we’re not really unique. Since we grew up thinking we’re all special and unique, how would we fare when we find out about that?

After the film, I realized that if more scientists would study about time travel the same way that the scientists in the film did, time travel could be possible in the future. 

Trip to the Moon in 1902 and Me

By Nicah Santos

2012-63269

As I imagine myself to be a young movie-goer in 1902 watching Trip to the Moon for the first time, I imagine feeling the same amazement and thrill I get from watching films like “Avatar” and “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”. Trip to the Moon was the most technologically advanced film of its time as the two films I just mentioned are the most advanced of our time.

I imagine I would talk to my friends and peers about the movie weeks after watching it, discussing with them the plot and the artistry that went into producing it. I would daydream about it and at odd parts of the day; recall scenes that caught my eye. If I could afford it, I would probably watch it more than once. Great art really excites me, and I don’t think my opinion of good workmanship would have been any different if I’d been born in a different age.

Just like I often wonder today, I would probably reflect upon the possibilities of future film technology. I would try to imagine what processes and equipment went into producing such a film, and I would find those ideas difficult to fathom. The mystery behind the craftsmanship of such a work of art would absorb my thoughts and leave me hoping for even more in the future.

After having seen Trip to the Moon and knowing myself as an appreciator of motion pictures and art, I truly believe that a version of me in 1902 would be completely blown away by this production. She would do research and make inquiries about the process and the people involved in it, and she would maybe even aspire to be one of the actresses or crewmen for Méliès’ next film. I just know that something that beautiful and advanced in terms of technology would just consume me and change my expectation of the world.

All the Time reaction paper

2013-14710

BACONGUIS, Liana Isabelle T.

STS THY 7

Twilight Zone reaction paper

The Twilight Zone episode Time Enough at Last focuses on chirpy banker Henry Bemis, whose love for the written word impedes his work and home life. One day he gets locked in a bank vault. By the time he wakes up, a nuclear war has devastated the world and he finds himself the only human left. He finds himself succumbing to despair and is on the brink of suicide when he finds a library with every book he’s ever wanted to read. Declaring that he’s got time enough at last to read all he wants, his glasses break, leaving him blind, alone, and purposeless.

Now that nuclear war is no longer as big a threat as it was at the time of the episode’s airing, having nuclear war as the threat would seem quite outdated. If I were to adapt it to the modern day with its disasters increasing in scale, perhaps I’d use a series of national disasters to wipe out humanity. But with the resurgence in books lately, I’d perhaps have him as technologically up-to-date – he’d be addicted to gaming, for example, relating to the fictional characters in his games as Bemis relates to those in his books.

Bemis would find a video game testing facility somehow spared by the series of natural disasters, and his delight at this would only be destroyed by the realization that there’s nobody to play with anymore, reaffirming the  original story’s meaning that activities are meaningless when there’s nobody to do them with. 

Time Enough at Last also stands out as one of the more pessimistic Twilight Zone episodes, about how you can still be a decent person and still have bad things continuously happen to you. It also presents a particularly dark "be careful what you wish for" aesop, as Bemis's character continuously gripes about not having enough time for his true love, reading -- and when he finally has enough time, it is suddenly both within his reach and impossible to grasp, after all.

Jayvee R. Marjes
2013-13902

Trip to the Moon

This film is all about a bunch of people wanting to go to the moon. They were just talking about it and made it a reality. They managed to build a cannon that will blast them towards the moon. While on the moon, they have discovered a lot of places and plants. And they also encountered what you call an “alien”. They’ve been captured but they managed to escaped and find their way back.

The film reflected the belief of the people years ago about what the moon is like. I think that it was very creative and it has portrayed the beliefs on the past. For them, the moon is just like the Earth, where they can live. It portrayed a moon just like Earth but with craters and aliens.

When I was watching, I was bored on the beginning, but it became interesting until the very end. Even though it was just a silent movie, the actions of the characters were enough to portray and express what they were supposed to say. The director made it a little comedy to make it not boring. I was shocked seeing them being sent to the moon with a giant cannon. I can’t believe the creativeness of the writer or the director.

The film has a lot of meaning for me. Watching the film made me realize that we already have a lot of great scientists ever since. 

Jayvee R. Marjes
2013-13902

All the time

This was a story of Henry, who was a man who loves reading books more than anything. He would choose to read a lot of books rather than going out of his friends and his wife. This has made his wife angry of him reading books all the time. He didn't have any time for anything except reading.

One day on his day on the bank, during his lunch break, he locked himself up to a vault for him to read his books with no one to interrupt him. While reading his books, Henry saw on the newspaper that there will be an atomic bomb that will hit their place. Then after a few minutes, an explosion happened. It was caused by the atomic bomb.

After the explosion caused by the atomic bomb, he was then alone by himself. He didn’t have any acquaintances to talk, to work, and to argue with. His life became miserable and lonely, with nothing to do. After walking quite some time on the wasteland he was on, he managed to find the library of his town. He became very happy because he can read all the books he want anytime. But when he was starting to read a book, he accidentally broke his glasses, making him unable to read any books.

If I were to write an update of this story, it would be the life of a normal person. We all know that when a person was just a baby, he has all the energy and time, but not money. When a person gets older and manage to have a job, he will have a lot of energy and money, but not time. And when he became old, he will have a lot of time and money, but not a lot of energy. It just goes to show that in this world, we can’t have everything. All that we have to do is just enjoy all the things we have before it is all gone.

All the Time reaction paper

ALL THE TIME REACTION PAPER

2013-68149 STS THY

Mr. Henry Bemis works in a bank but has this obsession in books. He wanted to just read but is forbidden by the bank president, Bemis’s wife, and time. But as the saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for...” because as you may have all the time in the world, you will suddenly realize something is still lacking.

I cannot really quite connect to the show maybe because I am not a bookworm. But when I change to addiction to social networking sites, I surely would feel guilty. So, if I were to make an adaptation, I will change Henry’s addiction to books to addiction to social networking sites. I want to change it to a female protagonist because I think it’s more effective (guys are usually more into computer games). I wish to show to the audience how she’s having messed up priorities from family to academics to friends. The ending was exaggerated but I think it works, though. I would not change it. She will suffer from bad grades which effects to her family reprimanding her and to losing her friends. By “friends” I meant her real friends and not just anyone she met on Facebook or Twitter. After that, she starts to hate them and wish for all the time in the world. Instead of the broken glasses, I want it to be a broken computer to represent technology. And since, no one exists except her; therefore she has no one to talk to in social networking sites.

Sometimes even the simplest things are the most dangerous ones. An addiction turned obsession is something serious. We need to know our priorities. Yes, we can have a little fun, but we must never forget the things we want to achieve in life. A little something to look forward to when we age.

A Trip to the Moon reaction paper

A TRIP TO THE MOON REACTION PAPER

2013-68149 STS THY

“A Trip to the Moon” is an old silent movie about a group of astronomers travelling to the moon and discovering and facing a lot of challenges throughout the whole adventure. They were able to come across planets, goddesses, and aliens.

I think it was a trip to their idea of the moon. This film showed how people back in the old times perceive the moon. What they think life is like there, what they can see. I believe that this movie is pure imagination. A product of curiosity. If I were present during the first screening, I would think of it as imaginative, well thought of, and absurd.

This movie was made in 1902 and I believe the only thing people know about the moon back then is that it can be seen at night and it vanishes during the day. So, to be able to think that a life can actually exist there is something new, and weird. I would think of the concept as cute and purely fictitious because of their costumes and basically how they move and react in front of the camera. The film was meant to be light and fun.  Its plot is not even close to the sci-fi genre. It is a mix of scientific (although I think it was not meant to be it) and mythical (goddesses and aliens) elements. It was imaginative and well thought of. It was something futuristic. Who would have thought of a transport mechanism to go to the moon? They surely did with their idea of a rocket ship.

Overall, it was a really good movie. It just amazes me how people before make good use of the technology they have. Who knows? Maybe in the near future we can have real-life transformers or talking/flying cars. Everything is a product of imagination.

Gravity: Trip to the Moon Reaction Paper

2013-14710

BACONGUIS, Liana Isabelle T.

STS THY 7

Reaction Paper: Trip to the Moon

With all the advances filmography has taken in the last century Georges Melies’s short films might not look like much to the modern viewer – Trip to the Moon’s hand-moven props and hand-painted sets have nothing on today’s CGI. 

But to someone in the early 20^th century, when radio was the main form of mass communication, then a short film of that calibre would certainly have me lining up to the premiere. Trip to the Moon, centering around a group of astronauts on a rocket to the moon and get into conflict with the moon-dwellers, is heavily fantastical – it’s a cheery, upbeat film with handmade props and well-placed pyrotechnics for special effects.

The conflict with the moon-dwellers might be a commentary on imperialism at the time. As World War I approached, public view on imperialism grew increasingly negative, and Melies shows this in the moon natives driving out the astronauts seeking to make contact. All of the scientists are rescued and brought back home, but they might not come back.

Of course, since we know a lot about the moon now, it’s obvious Melies has taken much artistic license – the moon is incapable of supporting bacteria, let alone a civilization of territorial, warlike beings, and of course the scientists wouldn’t be able to walk around without highly specialized suits. But back then, space travel was unheard of. It is a testament to Melies’s highly creative imagination, and the film’s success speaks of humanity’s curiosity to explore the unknown.  

Reaction Paper for A Trip to the Moon

2013-71244

If I were there at the first screening of the movie (of course no man has ever been on the moon during that time), maybe I would also let my imagination wander about life-forms in the moon.

But of course, even I am not sure of how I'd react--I might be still as skeptical as I've always been, and never consider it at all, and just appreciate the movie as an entertaining piece of fiction.

Even so, I like the creative way the moon was thought of in this movie. We already know by now that the moon is dead and without life-form (or water, or snow) and there can never be giant mushrooms and green people underground (wait..what if there are?). I felt sorry for the poor Moon whose face got hit by the rocket.

I'll see this movie then as an evidence of the human desire to explore the unknown. Humans love discovering new things and telling them to others--they never get tired of wondering what things beyond Earth are like. I will also see it as proof that we've always believed that we can never be alone--the universe is too big for a small amount of human beings--surely there must be other "people" out there, and surely they must be wondering whether we exist as well.

This movie is just one of the first alien movies that will continue until the present day. It makes me wonder though, that in every alien movie I see, there never was a movie where the aliens and humans weren't belligerent. It interests me that even though humans want to find other beings in the universe (and in the movies, they assume that aliens wanted the same as well), when they finally meet they couldn't stand each other. So, does that mean that life-forms want to find other life-forms for the purpose of killing them off, so only a single life-form will perpetuate? In the end, is it just a competition of greedy beings that desire to claim the whole universe to themselves?

That's a very big plate to keep to oneself.

Reaction Paper for The Twilight Zone's "Time Enough at Last"

2013-71244

I must say that I understand Henry Bemis in a great level.

Well, not that I am being purposely hindered by others from reading my beloved books, but I have a big desire to grasp time--well, all of it. I have a problem with time management and I can't seem to do much about it. Time,  right now, is my natural enemy, and I'm losing the race against it. If only I could have all the time in the world... to do everything I want...

Isn't that what this episode showed about? Henry Bemis is a man who only wanted to do one thing--that is, to read books--but the people around him wouldn't let him, and all he wanted was to be alone and be free to read, without being restrained by anyone, not even time. The way his dominating wife ruined his book of poetry struck me cruelly and I sympathized with him (and I also sympathized with the book--those babies shouldn't be treated that way--whoever does things like that to books should be burned alive! Just joking.).

Then suddenly an H-bomb exploded, killing everyone in the world, except for Bemis, who was reading inside a bank vault. This was the time he finally became alone--no, lonely. He was about to commit suicide then if it weren't for him seeing the library (a TOTAL book paradise, free to feast on to your heart's content!). But then his glasses fell off and shattered. It was over.

It's ironic how the old (the books) battled with the new (technology) and how Bemis preferred the former, but when books were left to themselves (he got what he wanted), losing his glasses made him realize that he still needed technology to read his books. Also, I'd like to add that part about human beings' tendency to "self-destruct"--they made an H-bomb to kill themselves, and Henry Bemis tried to commit suicide. And of course, the lesson "be careful what you wish for". Well, I still wanted time after watching that (I don't have glasses so it wouldn't matter... okay, I know that's not the point).

If I were to make an adaptation fitting for the present, I would make the same flow of story, the same bookworm character, but I would make him hide in his special underground place (with food) as he reads his books, then I will make a nuclear bomb exterminate all mankind. He still continues to read on his gadget (yes, he'll be using e-books) but then it loses battery power. Alone, with limited food supply and no more e-books to read, he still spends the rest of his time buried alive with time, but with nothing else to do. It's morbid, I know, but that's the best I've got.

Still, having enough time is a wonderful thing.

Old and the New

2013-23838

STS THY - Group 7

All the Time Reaction Paper

A Trip to the Moon would be one of the films I would be lining up to for its first screening even if it would take me hours just standing and waiting. After watching the film, I would watch it for the second time around even if I have to wait in line again. Why? The plot of the film was not the typical plot you see every day. It was futuristic. It featured a dream dreamt by many, to fly to the moon. It was a grandiose dream and the film showed a possibility of what could happen when we get on the moon. Not only the plot was interesting, but the film was comical which was impressive because it was a silent film. Another plus of the film was the showmanship of the actors and actresses, they moved extravagantly so as to compensate the non-conversational film.

Although I would have been amazed by such a film during the time it was screened, the film would probably not gain as much positive reaction from me now. The standards of film have become so much better that if I compare the films from then to now; there was no really no competition. With todays, graphics and effects, I would not want to blink during an entire film. Of course, one thing that could be highlighted from A Trip to the Moon is the plot. Since it was made a long time ago, the plot was original and something I would look forward to. Now, most plots are just replicas of old films. There is less originality. Most films now are just compensated by the effects and although there are many great actors and actresses today, some just can't pull off the characters.

Comparisons are made so we could appreciate what is good from what is great. The filmmakers of today should keep looking back to the old films and then maybe, they can still learn a thing or two. Nothing beats the original.