Building the Mind of the Future

Mrs. Redding’s English 1102 class

By: Brittany Evans

Building the Mind of the Future

Brittany Evans

Mrs. Karen Redding

English 1102

2 May 2012

English 1102 Final Portfolio Title

Table of Contents

Analytical Cover Letter…………………...……………………………………………...……1

Quality Comparison……………………………………………………………………...……2

Least Successful Paper (The original final draft submitted to me) ……………...……2

Most Successful Paper (The original final draft submitted to me)….……………...…7

"What’s the Difference?" Paragraphs…………………………………………………..10

Revision Samples……………………………………………………………...………………11

Least Successful Paper (with mark-up) ……………………………...………….……11

Least Successful Paper (new final version) …………..……………...………….……15

Most Successful Paper (with mark-up) ……………………………...………….……19

Most Successful Paper (new final version) …………..……………...………….……22

Free Choice Essay (with mark-up) ……...…………………………...………….……25

Free Choice Essay (new final version) …….………………………...………….……28

May 2, 2012

Karen P. Redding, M.A. Assistant Professor of English Gainesville State College Oconee Campus 304 Oconee Classroom 1202 Bishop Farms Parkway Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Dear Mrs. Redding, My name is Brittany Evans and I am a freshman at Gainesville State College. As I look back at my pieces of writing during my English 1102 class, I see how much my writing has changed. I have learned a lot and have improved my writing extensively. I have gathered pieces of my writing that I have done over the spring semester and organized it into this final portfolio. Looking through the pieces you can see how my writing has changed since English 1101. In English 1101 I was taught to focus on the “big picture” and to go into extensive detail when writing. I felt that my writing did not improve from the class and it was hard to because I never felt that my writing was good enough. I also had trouble with my grammar and was never taught how to correctly fix my grammatical errors. Since taking English 1102, I have become more confident as a writer and it has made me actually enjoy writing more. You have indicated for me to pay more attention to the subjects I am to relating to. My least successful essay was “Socially Derived Monsters.” Although this essay had a unique topic, it lacked attention of common grammatical errors. My most successful essay was “Who Can Be Trusted.” I chose this essay because I felt had a great theme and made it really fun to write about. This piece made me proud of my writing.

I feel that it is necessary for you to read my portfolio in order to fully recognize how much this class has improved as a writer and how hard I am willing to work as a student. I have editing skills to critique and improve my writings as best as I can. Once you view my portfolio you will see how much hard work I have put into your class. Thank you for the knowledge and criticism you have given me to make me a better writer. Sincerely, Brittany Evans

Least Successful Paper Original

“Societal Derived Monsters”

There are many ways our generation today has formed our own idea of

“monsters.” Monsters can be identified as the scary creatures you see in horror films or

television shows, someone convicted of statutory rape or even a homeless man on the

street with nothing but a ragged green jacket and ratty untied Converses. Steven Asma

and Edward Ingebretsen’s articles, “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion” and

“Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” you are told of how the general public today

looks towards and creates monsters to combat its own fears and battles with reality. In

today’s generation we go back and forth with their existence. Mainly society does not

want any association with monsters due to their position on the social order and the fact

that we are repulsed and scared by them. Although we may run from them, we also like

the idea of monsters because they allow us to set ourselves free from reality and expand

our imagination to envision life through another set of eyes.

In the article, “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Steven Asma discusses why

people are so intrigued with monsters. Asma states that the interest of monsters has

amplified in the twenty-first century and has extremely progressed with the anxiety

following the tragic events of 9/11, the demise of the economy, and even the conflict in

Iraq (1). Since the beginning of these three events, movies, books and television shows

about monsters have become extremely popular, “people can’t seem to get enough of

vampire lately” (Asma 1). Being a part of any monstrous kind allows us to take a walk on

the wild side and free ourselves from the everyday normalcies (Asma 1). Our generation

is infatuated with watching scary movies or reading books because it makes us visualize

and question what we would do in that same terrifying life or death situation (Asma 1).

For example, would you run or hide is someone was chasing you. To show the

differences between being a monstrous and being non-monstrous, Asma tells two stories

of men. Both men were classified as monsters due to their erratic behavior, but only one

man truly is a monster. The first story is of Bruce Shapiro who walked into a coffee bar

with friends and within a matter of minutes, chaos had broken loose. Shapiro found

himself, like a spectator at the cinema, watching a man, Daniel Sylvia, fly around the

room killing everyone in his path. When the Shapiro tries to leave, Sylvia stabs him in

the back. Presumably the first thought is that Sylvia is of course a monster, but in

actuality he is just a “mentally ill man who snapped” (Asma 3). This example goes to

show sometimes we mistake something as monstrous that is indeed ill. The second story

is about a male teacher in Afghanistan whose home is broken into by four armed men

who then force his wife and children watch as they murder him. Unlike Sylvia, the four

armed men are indeed monsters. Asma shows that monsters today are still a well-

known topic and that they “cannot be erased from our language and thinking” (4).

Monsters have been positioned as “symbols of human vulnerability and crisis and as

such they play imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace” (Asma

1). These examples allow you to envision what your response would be if you were faced

with the same problem. We learn that this thinking amplifies our entire imagination and

leads us wanting more. As a whole, the concept of monsters helps us face obstacles in

real life, such as overcoming our fears by learning what our reactions would be in

unknown situations.

Throughout Edward Ingebretsen’s article, “Monster Making: A Politics of

Persuasion,” it states that as a society today we use monsters as persuasive tools and

civil agents to reflect the scapegoat upon which social order is formed. Today monsters

have a wide range of classifications; it can be the poor man on the corner, a jailed man,

etc. They are created as civil agents by media and politics to spark an interest for the

public. Ingebretsen states that “the ongoing stability of any society depends upon the

presence of monsters” (25). Although they serve as a danger at times, they also serve as

a sense of security and comfort. In the article, Ingebretsen frequently uses the life of

Jeffrey Dahmer, Susan Smith, and other social monsters to serve as examples of

behavior that is socially acceptable. Hearing the stories of their lives and deaths, show

the public how to be appropriate in society and what happens when you are not.

Through the example of Dahmer, Ingebretsen states that the scenes of villain venturing

usually provide ways in which the societal body achieves a cleansing by ridding

themselves of the “diseased or undesired elements” (26). The media placed Dahmer as a

monster, knowing that he must die for his wrongful doings and that it cannot be our

fault. Classifying him as a monster expresses to us not what he is about but what we, as

audience and citizen wannabes, are about (Ingebretsen 28). As a whole, monsters show

us who we are by demonstrating what we would be if we fail to keep our necessary social

performance as humans (Ingebretsen 29). We place monsters in a negative light for this

reason; we all want liked and be lawful human beings. Although sometimes the

classification is not fair, we are forced to put it aside and do what is classified to our

social body as right.

The two articles have shown that as a generation we are fighting a continuous

battle with monsters. On one hand we are repulsed by them and look to them to feel

better about our own mistakes in life. By this we result in saying, “well I did wrong but

what he did was worse.” On the other hand they indulge our curiosity, relieve us from

stress and leave us wanting more in exploring our imagination. Ultimately monsters are

personal; they are us and our failed selves.

Works Cited

Asma, Stephen T. Monsters and the Moral Imagination. Print.

Rubin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State

University Press. Pg. 115 – 124.

Most Successful Paper Original

Who Can Be Trusted?

By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will be

able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to

control devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology

continues to advance further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of

what the future holds with these advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion

within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of lighting and camera angles

in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the general population and

specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.

An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie.

The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much of a

bigger light is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the

artificial lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling

that life in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the

audience envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling

of mistrust on technology.

In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James

Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where

detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies

him as the focal point in the scene. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram

look extremely real, as if Dr. Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real

world holograms do not exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the

feel of uncertainty with technology.

Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks

to Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera

zooms in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face.

Proyas continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and

the room is shown to actually appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on

Robertson’s face continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to

show the audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson.

Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of

certain characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in,

Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the

character itself. Proyas demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget

Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When

the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in extremely close and gives the database a

powerful and almost intimidating quality. This perspective gives the viewers a thought

that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies the idea of VIKI having artificial

intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film leading up to Dr.

Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the robots and other

technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and almost like the

technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand.

When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between

two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays

intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the

audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the

robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film

technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce

this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the

robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower

and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though

it was acting out of obedience and trying to help its owner. The closer Spooner gets to

the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This

growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the

thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well.

Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several

uncertainties about it being used. No matter how smart and more advanced technology

may become, it can never differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since

technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen

through the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be

trusted and the advancements in the future must be watched upon exceptionally close.

Quality Comparison

Reviewing essays from the beginning of the semester can be exciting. Since taking

my English 1102 class, I have learned so much more over the semester then I knew the

first day of class. I find it funny looking back at my essays and comparing them to the

comments that were made. When a person first submits a paper, they think that all of

the errors are fixed and the paper is perfect, but when a teacher’s eyes wander over it

and make changes, the writer begins to see places where the paper needed work. I

looked back at my first essay, “Socially Derived Monsters” and also my second essay,

“Who Can Be Trusted.” I chose my first essay as my least successful essay and chose my

second essay as my most successful. Although, both papers had flaws in each, overall my

second paper had a better theme and idea.

Both essays had flaws in each. A common mistake I used was using “my voice” and the

words, what and is throughout my essays. For example, from my first essay, “Socially

Derived Monsters,” I continually used my voice in the sentence, these examples allow

you to envision what your response would be if you were faced with the same problem”

(Dahmner, Essay 1) Revising this essay, I mainly kept “my voice” or my opinion when

analyzing the text. I had to watch carefully since it is a common I make. In my second

essay, “Who Can Be Trusted,” the main problem I faced when writing this essay was

using the form of be, is, too much. Almost every paragraph I used the word, is. It was

difficult trying to go back and fix the sentences without them. Also in this essay, I used

unnecessary words to try and complete the sentence. For example, “he filmmakers use

bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate that a bigger light is shown on

technology” (Essay 2).

Although, there were errors in each essay, both had perfections as well. In my first essay,

“Socially Derived Monsters” had a great thesis. For example, “Although we may run

from them, we also like the idea of monsters because they allow us to set ourselves free

from reality and expand our imagination to envision life through another set of eyes”

(Essay 2) I was really proud of this thesis and gave me the confidence when I wrote my

second essay. In my second essay, “Who Can Be Trusted,” I wrote an introduction

sentence to immediately grab the reader’s attention. For example, “by the year 2020, the

first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves,

broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips

implanted into our brains” (Essay 2). Having good introduction sentences and

paragraphs, allows you to continue great writing throughout the paper.

Both, “Socially Derived Monsters” and “Who Can Be Trusted” were carefully thought out

and edited. I chose my first essay as my least because it needed the most grammatical

work. My second essay I thought overall had a great central idea and only had a few

grammatical errors. I related closely with it. After revisiting and revising both essays

errors, I composed two new essays. Having written an essay a while back and then

coming back to it with a fresh set of eyes, allow you to recognize the errors you would

not have noticed originally.

Evans1

Brittany Evans

English 1102 / Redding

Synthesis: Final Draft

31 January 2012

“Societal Derived Monsters”

There are many ways our generation today has formed our own idea of

“monsters.” Monsters can be identified as the scary creatures you see in horror films or

television shows, someone convicted of statutory rape or even a homeless man on the

street with nothing but a ragged green jacket and ratty untied Converses. Steven Asma

and Edward Ingebretsen’s articles, “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion” and

“Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” you are told of how the general public today

looks towards and creates monsters to combat its own fears and battles with reality. In

today’s generation we go back and forth with their existence. Mainly society does not

want any association with monsters due to their position on the social order and the fact

that we are repulsed and scared by them. Although we may run from them, we also like

the idea of monsters because they allow us to set ourselves free from reality and expand

our imagination to envision life through another set of eyes.

In the article, “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Steven Asma discusses why

people are so intrigued with monsters. Asma states that the interest of monsters has

amplified in the twenty-first century and has extremely progressed with the anxiety



about monsters have become extremely popular, “people can’t seem to get enough of

vampire lately” (Asma 1). Being a part of any monstrous kind allows us to take a walk on

Comment: Socially

Comment: PR #29

Comment: Careful – your audience comes from a range of generations.

Comment: What do you mean?

Comment: Lovely thesis!

Comment: PR #36

Evans2

the wild side and free ourselves from the everyday normalcies (Asma 1). Our generation

is infatuated with watching scary movies or reading books because it makes us visualize

and question what we would do in that same terrifying life or death situation (Asma 1).

For example, would you run or hide is someone was chasing you. To show the

differences between being a monstrous and being non-monstrous, Asma tells two stories

of men. Both men were classified as monsters due to their erratic behavior, but only one

man truly is a monster. The first story is of Bruce Shapiro who walked into a coffee bar

with friends and within a matter of minutes, chaos had broken loose. Shapiro found

himself, like a spectator at the cinema, watching a man, Daniel Sylvia, fly around the

room killing everyone in his path. When the Shapiro tries to leave, Sylvia stabs him in

the back. Presumably the first thought is that Sylvia is of course a monster, but in

actuality he is just a “mentally ill man who snapped” (Asma 3). This example goes to

show sometimes we mistake something as monstrous that is indeed ill. The second story

is about a male teacher in Afghanistan whose home is broken into by four armed men

who then force his wife and children watch as they murder him. Unlike Sylvia, the four

armed men are indeed monsters. Asma shows that monsters today are still a well-

known topic and that they “cannot be erased from our language and thinking” (4).

Monsters have been positioned as “symbols of human vulnerability and crisis and as

such they play imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace” (Asma

1). These examples allow you to envision what your response would be if you were faced



real life, such as overcoming our fears by learning what our reactions would be in

unknown situations.

Comment: Is this a quotation?

Comment: Why? Explain how this fits (it does, but be explicit for your audience)

Comment: slang

Comment: ?

Comment: Why? Explain the difference? (it’s significant!)

Evans3























The two articles have shown that as a generation we are fighting a continuous

battle with monsters. On one hand we are repulsed by them and look to them to feel

Comment: Transition needed.

Comment: This is a good example of how to synthesize these two articles: both discuss the problem of socially acceptable behavior and “norms”

Comment: Are these direct quotations??

Comment: Overgeneralization – not necessarily true

Comment: Good point.

Evans4

better about our own mistakes in life. By this we result in saying, “well I did wrong but

what he did was worse.” On the other hand they indulge our curiosity, relieve us from

stress and leave us wanting more in exploring our imagination. Ultimately monsters are

personal; they are us and our failed selves.

Brittany,

Your thesis is just marvelous, and your concluding paragraph sums up a potential synthesis beautifully. In fact, much of the evidence and many of the ideas in the body paragraphs show insight and thoughtfulness. Right now, however, you’ve simply separated two analyses and combined them only at the beginning and the end. For a synthesis, integrate the two articles together to support the same ideas – you have shown that you can identify these similarities, but now you need to reorganize your body paragraphs for coherence to that thesis. (Does that make sense?) As to your writing, you clearly have made effort to have your own “voice,” and you have several instances of just lovely prose. I want you to redouble your efforts towards clarity of structure and vividness of diction. Watch out for those “question words” (PR #28) and the to be verbs and the passive construction (PR #24 & 25) to add energy and power to your language. I very much look forward to your next paper!

Works Cited

Asma, Stephen T. Monsters and the Moral Imagination. Print.

Rubin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State

University Press. Pg. 115 – 124.

Comment: Great concluding sentence.

Least Successful Paper Final Version

“Socially Derived Monsters”

Our generation today has formed our own idea of “monsters.” Monsters can be

identified as the scary creatures seen in horror films or television shows, someone

convicted of statutory rape or even a homeless man on the street with nothing but a

ragged green jacket and ratty un-tied Converses. Steven Asma and Edward

Ingebretsen’s articles, “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion” and “Monsters and

the Moral Imagination,” tell of how the general public today looks towards and creates

monsters to combat its own fears and battles with reality. In today’s generation we go

back and forth with their existence. We do not want any association with monsters due

to their position on the social order and the fact that we are repulsed and scared by

them. Although we may run from them, we also like the idea of monsters because they

allow us to set ourselves free from reality and expand our imagination to envision life

through another set of eyes.

In the article, “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Steven Asma discusses the

reason people are so intrigued with monsters. Asma states that the interest of monsters

has amplified in the twenty-first century and has extremely progressed with the anxiety



about monsters have become popular, “people can’t seem to get enough of vampire

lately” (Asma 1). Being a part of any monstrous kind allows us to take a walk on the wild

side and free ourselves from the everyday normalcy's (Asma 1). Our generation is

infatuated with watching scary movies or reading books because it makes us visualize

and question how we would react in the same terrifying life or death situation (Asma 1).

For example, would a person run or hide if another person was chasing them. To show

the differences between being monstrous and being non-monstrous, Asma tells two

stories of men. Both men were classified as monsters due to their erratic behavior, but

only one man truly is a monster. The first story is of Bruce Shapiro who walked into a

coffee bar with friends and within a matter of minutes, chaos had broken loose. Shapiro

found himself, like a spectator at the cinema, watching a man, Daniel Sylvia; fly around

the room killing everyone in his path. When the Shapiro tries to leave, Sylvia stabs him

in the back. Presumably the first thought is that Sylvia is of course a monster, but in

actuality he is just a “mentally ill man who snapped” (Asma 3). This example shows that

as people, we sometimes mistake a person as monstrous who in actuality is ill. The

second story is about a male teacher in Afghanistan whose home gets broken into by

four armed men who then force his wife and children watch as they murder him. Unlike

Sylvia, the four armed men are indeed monsters because they knowingly kill a man and

are not diagnosed as ill. Asma shows that monsters today are still a well-known topic

and that they “cannot be erased from our language and thinking” (4). Monsters have

been positioned as “symbols of human vulnerability and crisis and as such they play

imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace” (Asma 1). These

examples allow his audience to envision what their response would be if they were faced



real life, such as overcoming our fears by learning the reactions they would have in

unknown situations.























The two articles have shown that as a generation we are fighting a continuous battle

with monsters. On one hand we are repulsed by them and look to them to feel better

about our own mistakes in life. By this we result in saying, “well I did wrong but what he

did was worse.” On the other hand they indulge our curiosity, relieve us from stress and

leave us wanting more in exploring our imagination. Ultimately monsters are personal;

they are us and our failed selves.

Brittany Evans

Macie McCannon

English 1102/Redding

Synthesis: Final Draft

288 February 2012

Who Can Be Trusted?

By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will

be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to control

devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology continues to advance

further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of what the future holds with these

advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas

uses the focus of lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology

by the general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.

An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie. The

filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much of a bigger light is

shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the artificial lighting in the

movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life in the future is not

what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience envision life as more

modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of mistrust on technology.


Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where detective

Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies him as the focal

point in the scene. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as

Comment [kpr1]: Really? Or just in that film? If the former...wild! What is your source for that information?

Comment [kpr2]: Dangling preposition

Comment [kpr3]: PR 15

Comment [kpr4]: Well said.

Comment [kpr5]: Do you mean “excessive”?

Comment [kpr6]: …for what purpose? Set up your paragraph more explicitly here.

Comment [kpr7]: wordy

Comment [kpr8]: can you provide a specific example from the film to support this idea?

Comment [kpr9]: How are the scenes numbered?

Comment [kpr10]: Okay – why is that important with regards to your thesis?

if Dr. Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not exist

and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with technology.

Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to

Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms in on

Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas continues to

directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room is shown to actually

appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face continuously throughout

the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the audience that there is also mistrust with

Robertson.

Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of certain

characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits

either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas

demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and

Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in

extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This

perspective gives the viewers a thought that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies

the idea of VIKI having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance

film leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the

robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and almost

like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand. When Proyas

chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between two characters, either during

a conversation or during an action scene, it displays intensity as well as reinforcing reactions

and emotions between the characters and the audience. He demonstrates this technique when

Comment [kpr11]: Good.

Comment [kpr12]: Do you also mean “artificial”? I wonder if you can elucidate further on the difference or correlation between the two (unrealistic and artificial) to further develop your ideas.

Comment [kpr13]: PR 24

Comment [kpr14]: Interesting. Why does it imply that mistrust? (I think you have a point, I just want you to clarify)

Comment [kpr15]: As do all filmmakers – can you revise this to be specific to this film and your thesis?

Comment [kpr16]: Yes…and? Your audience understands the general purpose of zooming, etc, but they’re curious about your take on it in this film.

Comment [kpr17]: Good!

Comment [kpr18]: Try “This perspective implies/suggests that she has a mind of her own”

Comment [kpr19]: Word choice

Comment [kpr20]: Great!

Comment [kpr21]: See my comment kpr 16

Detective Spooner chases after the robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him.

Proyas uses the film technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To

reinforce this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the

robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower and

concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though it was acting

out of obedience and trying to help it’s owner. The closer Spooner gets to the robot, the shorter

the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This growing shortness of lengths

displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the thought that the technology gives an

uneasy feeling as well.

Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several uncertainties

about it being used. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may become, it can

never differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since technology is based on

statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen through the film techniques

demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be trusted and the advancements in the

future must be watched upon exceptionally close.

Macie and Brittany,

It’s interesting to read this paper after the speaking with you in class about your struggles

with the thesis and your evidence in support of that controlling idea. I’ll be honest: this paper

was worth the hard work! It’s well-organized and engagingly written. Your evidence is clear and

relates to your thesis quite nicely. Well done!

I’ve offered a few suggestions for further development as you revise for your portfolio,

and I want you to really challenge yourselves to revise your language even more for specificity

and vividness (get rid of all the passive voice and the “to be” verbs). Thank you both!

Comment [kpr22]: Nice.

Comment [kpr23]: Awkward.

Comment [kpr24]: ? do you mean “in theory”?

Comment [kpr25]: Well…never say never, right?

Comment [kpr26]: I’m not sure what you mean by this statement…

Comment [kpr27]: I don’t know if he’s making an argument against technology in general…only inside the world of his film.

1

Most Successful Paper Final Version

Who Can Be Trusted?

In an article written by MSNBC, by the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain

will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live

holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips implanted into our

brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that

knowledge in mind, the thought the future holds with these advances frightens and

creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of

lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the

general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.

An excessive amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie.

The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate that a bigger light

is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie shows darker, the artificial

lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life

in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience

envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of

mistrust on technology. We used the scene selection part on the DVD to know the

number of each scene.




him as the focal point in the scene, to show that he is the most important object in the

room. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as if Dr.

Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not

2

exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with

technology.

Proyas also uses artificial lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to

Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms

in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas

continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room

shows to appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face

continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the

audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson.

Alex Proyas, including all other filmmakers, use various camera angles and

shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film.

When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the

characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this

technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective

Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in


perspective implies that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then gives the idea of VIKI

having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film

leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the

robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and

almost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper

hand.



3












In theory, although technology looks safe and reliable, there are several

uncertainties about its usage. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may

become, it can may or may not be able to differentiate between right and wrong as

humans do. Since technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative

outcome. Seen by the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology

cannot be trusted.

Free Choice Essay Original

Watkinsville, Georgia

Imagine a town where everyone waves to each other, whether from in the yard

or when driving down the street, where safety is a custom and anyone needing a cup of

sugar does not have any hesitation about walking across the street to ask a neighbor.

Watkinsville, Georgia, is my home town. It is more than just a random, small country

town with farms and country folk. It has generations and generations of close families

and businesses. My town is a crowned jewel to its people. Growing up in my town is

perfect, compared to a city such as Atlanta, Georgia. Crime, traffic, and noise are not

issues families have to worry about. People know their neighbors, and everyone is

friendly. I think my hometown is a wonderful safe environment for children to be raised

in.

Growing up in a small rural town has several advantages. Among them are

safety and security. Because Watkinsville is smaller and less populated, everyone knows

everybody and the sense of being safe is established early on. With a police station right

down the street, policemen consistently patrol around town checking the surrounding

neighborhoods. The constant surveillance gives the community a further sense of

protection. As a child, every day after homework was finished; neighborhood friends

and I had the freedom of playing hide and seek all over the neighborhood. Because of

the safety us kids could travel to each other’s yards even blocks away and not worry

about a thing. The one rule we had to follow was to come home before dinner or at least

before dark. Continuing into my early teen years, my friend Macie and I would ride our

bikes and walk around our neighborhood or in town. We would go to Sweet Retreat, the

ice cream shop in the town plaza, the park located a few blocks away or one of the locally

owned restaurants for an afternoon snack. As our parents repeatedly let us travel on our

own, we also gained independence. With young children playing outside, a safe

community is a must.

Another significant characteristic about my home town is the closeness of the

community. During my senior year in high school, several community changing events

occurred. We had a precious boy lose his life and another discover he had cancer. The

first occurrence was November 6, 2010, when Jordan Ellis, a senior at North Oconee

High school was in a tragic car accident with four of his other classmates. Sadly, his life

was taken. From the day the news spread, our entire community began to change. A

rivalry established between our two schools, Oconee and North Oconee High school, got

set aside, and together we became one family. Wanting to show the impact Jordan had

on everyone’s lives, parents and family’s made t-shirts, jerseys, wristbands, and car

decals. A grand slam band concert and an annual rodeo were established by close

friends to help raise money for the Jordan Ellis Memorial Fund. To show support for

North Oconee, my school held a scrimmage baseball game in Jordan’s honor where we

sold barbeque plates. All of the money raised between the two was given to Jordan’s

fund. Through this, the community became stronger and closer.

A few months before my 2011 class’ graduation, a doctor diagnosed Matt Bell, a

fellow student, with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [A condition marked by an enlargement of

the lymph nodes, spleen, and liver]. Sadly, Matt was unable to finish his senior baseball

season because of his chemo treatments. In support of him, our class wore lime green

ribbons at school and on our robes at graduation. Luckily, in August 2011, Matt was

cured of his cancer.

Today, we still feel the bond of closeness we established from the shaped

experiences with Jordan and Matt. This bond reminds us that when tragic events occur,

we are there for each other and together we will make it through the hard times that

follow. Having the safety, security, the friendly faces and the compassion of the

community in times of need, are requirements of a community where a child is raised.

Having these characteristics in my town has made me a better person in life and has

allowed me to be friendly to people whom I see on the street in other towns. It has

allowed me to have a safe and secure childhood, free from crime, drugs and other

misfortunes that children are surrounded by when raised in a large city. In addition,

having watched our community recover from these tragic events, I could not imagine

greater people to be surrounded by. The lessons I have been taught will be with me

throughout my life. Watkinsville, Georgia, is a wonderful town for children to grow up

in.

Free Choice Essay Final Version

Watkinsville, Georgia

Imagine a town where everyone waves to each other, whether from in the yard

or when driving down the street, where safety is a custom and anyone needing a cup of

sugar does not have any hesitation to walk across the street and ask a neighbor.

Watkinsville, Georgia, is my home town. It is more than just a random, small random

town on a map; it is a crowned jewel to its people. Growing up in my town is perfect,

compared to a city such as Atlanta, Georgia. Crime, traffic, and noise are not issues

families have to worry about. People know their neighbors, and everyone is friendly. I

think my hometown is a wonderful safe environment for children to be raised in.

Growing up in a small rural town had several advantages. Among them are

safety and security. Because Watkinsville is a smaller town and less populated, everyone

knows everybody and the sense of being safe is established early on. With a police

station right down the street, policemen consistently patrolled around town checking

the surrounding neighborhoods. The constant surveillance gave the community a

further sense of protection. As a child, every day after homework was finished;

neighborhood friends and I had the freedom of playing hide and seek all over the

neighborhood. Because of the safety us kids could travel to each other’s yards even

blocks away and not worry about a thing. The one rule we had to follow was to come

home before dinner or at least before dark. Continuing into my early teen years, my

friend Macie and I would ride our bikes and walk around our neighborhood or in town.

We would go to Sweet Retreat, the ice cream shop in the town plaza, the park located a

few blocks away or one of the locally owned restaurants for an afternoon snack. As our

parents repeatedly let us travel on our own, we also gained independence. With young

children playing outside, a safe community is a must.

Another significant characteristic about my home town is the closeness of the

community has with one another. During my senior year in high school, several tragic

events occurred. We had a precious boy lose his life and another discover he had cancer.

The first event was November 6, 2010, when Jordan Ellis, a senior at North Oconee

High school was in a tragic car accident with his other classmates. Sadly, his life was

taken. From the day the news spread, our entire community began to change. A rivalry

established between our two schools, Oconee and North Oconee High school, got set

aside, and together we became one family. Wanting to show the impact Jordan had on

everyone’s lives, parents and family’s made t-shirts, jerseys, wristbands, and car decals.

A grand slam band concert and an annual rodeo were established by close friends to

help raise money for the Jordan Ellis Memorial Fund. To show support for North

Oconee, my school held a scrimmage baseball game in Jordan’s honor where we sold

barbeque plates. All of the money raised between the two was given to Jordan’s fund.

Through this, the community became stronger and closer.

A few months before my 2011 class’ graduation, a doctor diagnosed Matt Bell, a

fellow student, with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [A condition marked by an enlargement of

the lymph nodes, spleen, and liver]. Sadly, Matt was unable to finish his senior baseball

season because of his chemo treatments. In support of him, our class wore lime green

ribbons at school and on our robes at graduation. Luckily, in August 2011, Matt was

cured of his cancer.

Today, we still feel the bond of closeness we established from the shaped

experiences with Jordan and Matt. This bond reminds us that when tragic events occur,

we are there for each other and together we will make it through the hard times that

follow.

Having the safety, security, the friendly faces and the compassion of the

community in times of need, are requirements of a community where a child is raised.

Having these characteristics in my town has made me a better person in life and has

allowed me to be friendly to people whom I see on the street in other towns. It has

allowed me to have a safe and secure childhood, free from crime, drugs and other

misfortunes that children are surrounded by when raised in a large city.

In addition, having watched our community recover from these tragic events, I

could not imagine greater people to be surrounded by. The lessons I have been taught

will be with me throughout my life. Watkinsville, Georgia, is a wonderful town for

children to grow up in.

Most Successful Paper Final Version

Who Can Be Trusted?

In an article written by MSNBC, by the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain

will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live

holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips implanted into our

brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that

knowledge in mind, the thought the future holds with these advances frightens and

creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of

lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the

general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner.

An excessive amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie.

The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate that a bigger light

is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie shows darker, the artificial

lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life

in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience

envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of

mistrust on technology. We used the scene selection part on the DVD to know the

number of each scene.




him as the focal point in the scene, to show that he is the most important object in the

room. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as if Dr.

Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not

exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with

technology.

Proyas also uses artificial lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to

Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms

in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas

continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room

shows to appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face

continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the

audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson.

Alex Proyas, including all other filmmakers, use various camera angles and

shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film.

When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the

characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this

technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective

Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in


perspective implies that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then gives the idea of VIKI

having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film

leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the

robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and

almost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper

hand.














In theory, although technology looks safe and reliable, there are several

uncertainties about its usage. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may

become, it can may or may not be able to differentiate between right and wrong as

humans do. Since technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative

outcome. Seen by the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology

cannot be trusted.

Building the Mind of the Future

Documents

Transcript of Building the Mind of the Future