Desktop.

Also: My desktop for the day.



I like it.

boobiequeen made an icon for me. It's fantastic and I'm using it right now. Thanks, Danielle. You're a sweetie. ^__^

Two-dollar words.

So my political science instructor graded my media evaluation. This assignment, I should mention, was a pain in the butt to do. This assignment was to (and I quote):

After viewing the media programming or film, students must present a two (2) page summary and anaylsis of the content of the programming or film. The analysis should explore the objectivity and fairness of the programming/film as well as the bias and ideological nature of the commentary. For example, the students should view the material with a critical eye toward biased comments or gestures by the host/actors/writers. How much time is spent criticizing one political party at the expense of the other? What did you learn about the political system from your viewing of the programming/film?

In short, I had to watch a movie and evaluate it from a political standpoint. Sound easy? Oh, no. My first problem with the assignment was the movie. The professor provided a list of films, many of which sounded interesting. I, however, live in what can be summed up as "the rural suburbia". Emphasis on rural. Ie, there are more cows than people. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The closest Walmart is about twenty minutes away. The cows can be very cute, especially when they're little. See? All good. Except the cows smell and renting movies has become a little inconvenient since the Roundabout Video closed a few years back. Renting movies. Back on subject.

As I was saying. The professor provided a list of movies from which we, the students, could pick and chose. Many of the movies sounded rather good. My selection of movies, however, was limited to whatever I could find at the local library. After an extensive search, I found two movies: JFK, starring Kevin Costner, and Three Days of the Condor, starring Robert Redford.

Needless to say, I watched and wrote about Three Days of the Condor.

The movie itself was a little dry. Robert Redford is a wonderful actor, but the movie was very cut-throat and didn't do much for me. Everything was explained in the last five minutes and, really, I could have easily written my entire paper based on the final scene. The paper was hard to write; the movie did not really analyze the government all that much, except to voice its concerns with the trustworthiness and intelligence of the institution. I eventually churned out a two-page report and turned it in.

Before I continue, I would like to rewind back to my class orientation. I attended it, like a good student, and introduced myself to everyone. He then had us write down our names, majors, and goals. I did that. He proceeded to read these aloud. I was the second-to-last person. He read my name, my goals, and then expressed interest in the fact that I am an English major with a focus on Creative Writing. I laughed and told him that "I need to know a little bit of everything if I want to write well", to which he responded "Indeed you do! I once tried to write a novel, but..." And we had a ten minute conversation, during which the rest of the class glanced at their watched and edged toward the door. The man kept the papers -- I saw him file them and put them in his case. This, I thought to myself, is a man who wants to remember us even though he'll probably never see our faces again. I have since learned that he's a little bit of a bumblehead, and yes, I did just make that word up. Nonetheless, I discussed my major and my intentions for a novel with him for well over half an hour after the orientation ended. We also talked about it briefly over the class board, while I was complaining about the electoral college and the involvement of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election.

Anyway. I got back my media evaluation -- the Condor paper -- this evening. I received a thirty-eight out of forty -- not at all bad, since the class average was a thirty-five. What gets me is one of the man's comments.

My opening paragraph reads as follows:

The movie 'Three Days of the Condor', starring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway, is a meticulously plotted mystery that winds the viewer through its serpentine twists while maintaining suspense and compelling characters. Joseph Turner (Redford), code-named Condor, is a sheepish CIA librarian who stumbles onto a government conspiracy to pillage the oil fields of the Middle East and then fortuitously misses a mass assassination of everyone in his office while he is "literally out to lunch". The assassination, ordered by an opposing clique within the agency itself, pushes Condor into a state of justifiable paranoia as he flees what seems to be a juggernaut force. Formerly a man who is able to trust people, Condor can no longer tell the 'good guys' from the killers and becomes a man who is unable to trust anyone. Three Days of the Condor is not just an adrenaline-laced thriller: it is a political drama and a scathing condemnation of the CIA, the government, and the American political system.

...to which my professor replied:

wow... some of those are fancy words. :)

Uh. Yeah. English major.

He then went on to say:

A solid analysis; well-written also 38/40

This made me feel a little less bitter about his 'fancy words' comment. I blame all the movies I've been watching about suspected plagiarism lately. -_- (Finding Forrester, anyone? I hate that movie, but I use my TV as background noise when I write/do homework/etcetera, and it's been out for two weeks now. I've been popping movies in instead, but it's harder to tune those out... and static makes awful background noise.)

...that is one funny looking penguin.