BURSACH,+Nicole


__**Monday, March 30 --- A8 Annotated Bibliographies**__ --- **CHECK-PLUS** Cohen, Shaul E. "Israel's West Bank Barrier: An Impediment to Peace?." __Geographical Review__ Oct 2006: 682-695.

Cohen, an associate professor of geography at the University of Oregon, examines the implications of the Israel wall near the West Bank. Cohen offers a unique perspective on the morality of Israel’s wall that separates the West Bank from Jerusalem. The physical wall has effectively stopped the West Bank terrorists, but underground tunnels and rocket attacks from the Gaza strip are undermining the wall’s success. Cohen suggests creating two separate states – Israel and Palestine – separated by the Green Line. However, Cohen understands that this will not solve the conflict altogether, due to the fact that there are many Palestinians eager to see Israel cease to exist.

Peraino, Kevin. "Jerusalem Up Against the Wall." __Newsweek.com__ 11 Aug. 2008. 27 Mar. 2009



Kevin Peraino, a reporter for __Newsweek__, takes a look at the problems that the West Bank wall is causing. Although it has ceased the movement of Arabs from the West Bank into Jerusalem, the wall is causing internal problems, mainly among the 250,000 Arabs that enjoy significantly more freedom than their West Bank counterparts in East Jerusalem. Peraino specifically takes a look at a particular Arab family in East Jerusalem whose son used his backhoe to overturn and crush cars at a traffic light. Similar instances of Arab violence in East Jerusalem are becoming more frequent as the result of the wall construction.

Gans, Chaim. __A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State__. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Chaim Gans, a member of the Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University, looks to explain why Zionism (establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine) – despite being contested – could be entirely just. However, Gans sees Zionism as having many flaws, partly arising from current situations under which its implementation has been distorted. Gans sees the state of Israel and Zionism as “projects in need of repair,” and suggests changing the Jewish relationship with the Palestinians as well as limiting the Jewish dominance over the Arab people.

 __**A7 --- Topic Proposal/Research Questions**__ --- //**Nicole -- I think you are right that your second question might be difficult to research and write about. You will probably have a lot more luck with your first question; therefore, I advise that you go with that one. I'm glad that the topic is connected to what you are studying in another class. Few students realize (until way late in their student careers) that education, really, is all about connections. Whenever you can do a "crossover" project like this, go for it. It's sort of like killing two academic birds with one stone, but you actually learn a lot more when you look for links among fields of study. Anyway...sounds good. Go for it.** How can the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved? // 
 * There are a ton of solutions that have been proposed to this conflict, but nobody can seem to decide on which is best. I wanted to research the pros and cons of each solution to decide which one I think could solve the conflict. I don’t know much about the nature of the conflict and I thought this research could be helpful for my ethnic politics class that I am currently taking.

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri;">//<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">What motivates someone to become a martyr or a terrorist? // <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">
 * <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">Once again, there are many thoughts of why this happens, but I want to research each one of them in depth to find out where I stand on the issue. This is a largely theoretical question with no definite answer so it may be hard to write about. Regardless, it is a very controversial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I am very curious about. If I were to write about this question, I would use some information from my Religion and Economics class – are the causes of this because of a religion or is it a rational choice that is made?

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> Nicole Bursach English 101.16 – Leah Vetne Paper 3 – Film Review 16 March 2009 __Into the Wild__ Film Review

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Have you ever felt the strong urge to drop out of society and live secluded in the wilderness? If you have, you will enjoy __Into the Wild__. If you have not felt that urge, you will after watching this film. __Into the Wild__ is full of courage and adventure thanks to great acting, a true storyline, and underlying yet obvious theme.

__Into the Wild__ is written and directed by actor Sean Penn. It is a drama that is based from a novel by Jon Krakauer that tells the true story of a young man, Chris McCandless, who is troubled by his parents’ success and materialism and gives up his life’s savings to Oxfam and decides to make his way to the Alaskan wilderness shortly after graduating from Emory University. He travels by car until he cannot go any farther, burns his money, and begins hitchhiking north towards Alaska. Along his journey, he meets several people who feed and shelter him, but as their attachments become stronger to Chris, he flees to resist their companionship. Meanwhile, his parents and sister do not learn of his disappearance until their letters come back to them in a bundle from the post office. It turns out to be impossible to locate Chris – he is already two months into his journey by the time his parents receive their letters. Little to their knowledge, Chris’ parents and sister would never hear from him again.

I can understand why there could be a few objections to this film. Frederica Mathewes-Green writes in her //Christianity Today// review, “It would have been just that much better if it had given us to see the real, flawed Chris McCandless, rather than a version made over into Shirley Temple” (par. 8). I disagree with Mathewes-Green. The film managed to show the real impact Chris had on the people he met as he traveled due to Emile Hirsch’s excellent acting. Hirsch accurately portrayed Chris as who he really was, in part due to Krakauer’s extended research to find the people that Chris met. The actors that played the people he met – Jan and Rainey, Wayne, and Ron Franz – provided additional support to Hirsch’s character. The strong bond between the characters was developed around the film’s central theme and Chris’ own words <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(“Happiness is only real when shared”) [WHY DID YOU PUT THIS IN PARENTHESES? SEEMS LIKE AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE SENTENCE. DASHES INSTEAD?] ** further shows that despite Chris’ impact he made on other lives, he wasn’t perfect. His biggest flaw was rejecting the notion that happiness must be shared. For these reasons, I would say that Chris had his flaws and was a very real person. <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[THIS PARAGRAPH COULD USE MORE SUPPORT, LIKE MORE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FROM THE MOVIE THAT HIGHLIGHT THE CHARACTER AND HIRSCH'S TALENTED ACTING.] ** I personally like how Peter Travers, in his Rolling Stone review of __Into the Wild__, who divides the readers of Krakauer’s book into two camps, "If you read the book and pegged Chris as a wacko narcissist who died out of arrogance and stupidity, then Penn’s film version is not for you. If, like Penn, you mourn Chris’ tragedy and his judgment errors but also exult in his journey and its spirit of moral inquiry, then this beautiful, wrenching film will take a piece out of you" (par.1). I identify myself with those who mourn, mainly because I don’t think he was stupid in any way because I also have felt the sudden urge to give up my life and live off the land. I think that there are sometimes circumstances or accidents outside of anyone’s control, like Chris’ death, that are unavoidable. <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[YOU HAVE NOT YET EXPLAINED HOW HE DIED.] ** I agree yet again with Travers when he says, “But __Into the Wild__ celebrates the person, not the myth. Mistakes didn’t make Chris unique, his courage did” (par. 3). The film was centered on Chris’ courage, not the mistakes he made – particularly because Penn doesn’t focus on them nearly as much as Krakauer does in his book. I think by focusing on the courage of Chris, we get a real idea of who this young man really was<span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW CHRIS WAS COURAGEOUS?] ** The first quality I like about the movie is the true storyline. Chris’ story is real for so many people, whether they actually went to the wilderness or not. This is particularly true for Roger Ebert, who makes __Into the Wild__ personal. He suggests that the movie is great because it means so much for not only the writer and director, but it also has meaning for many audience members as well, including himself. Ebert claims that “Certain young men, of which I was one, lecture patient girlfriends about how such a life of purity and denial makes perfect sense. Christopher McCandless did not outgrow this phase” (par. 1). Ebert continues by revealing a personal story about a neighbor boy who acted similarly to Chris, who left his home without a word. His body was later discovered in Nicaragua and was identified as a Sandinista freedom fighter. Ebert says, “From a nice little house surrounded by evergreens at the other end of Washington Street, he left to look for something he needed to find. I believe in Sean Penn’s Christopher McCandless. I grew up with him” (par. 10). <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[AGAIN, SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE FILM WOULD BE GOOD HERE. FOR EXMPLE, SOME ELEMENTS OF THE STORY THAT ARE TRUE TO CHRIS'S LIFE AND THE BOOK.] ** What makes the movie’s storyline so realistic and true is the actors. Christopher McCandless is played well by Emile Hirsch, who dropped an astonishing forty pounds during filming to play the role. Peter Travers from //Rolling Stone// <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[BE CONSISTENT WITH TITLES -- SOMETIMES YOU UNDERLINE, SOMETIMES YOU ITALICIZE.] ** even goes so far as to say, “Following Penn’s lead, Emile Hirsch gets so far into Chris’ skin that they seem to share the same nerve endings” (par. 2). Hirsch is supported by Hal Holbrook, who plays the memorable widower Ron Franz; Catherine Keener, who plays the mother-like figure of Jan to Hirsch’s character; Kristen Stewart, Chris’ potential love interest named Tracy; and William Hurt, Chris’ stone-faced father who shows a softer side after his son’s disappearance. Once again, each of these characters epitomizes the film’s central theme – happiness is only real when shared. Jan and Rainey develop a relationship with Chris when they pick him up as a hitchhiker. Jan is concerned for Chris and his estrangement from his parents – particularly because her own son had done the same to her. Chris leaves when he sees the love and attachment between Rainey and Jan rekindle. Tracy falls in love with Chris, but her happiness is quickly shattered when Chris decides it’s time for him to move on to Alaska. Ron is an old man who lost both his wife and son in a tragic car accident and develops a fondness for Chris. He asks to adopt Chris, like a grandson, but Chris quickly tells Ron they would have to discuss it when he returned from Alaska. Chris and his sister Carine (Jena Malone) had a deep bond with one another particularly because of their so-called illegitimacy. They told each other everything – which is why it was hard on Carine when Chris left with never telling her where he was going. All the characters show Chris’s eagerness to strip his life of all personal attachments and live his life in the wilderness. <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[ALL GOOD EXAMPLES, BUT SOME EXPLANATION OF HOW AND WHY THE ACTOR(S) MADE THE CHARACTERS BELIEVEABLE WOULD STRENTHEN THIS.] ** I think that the theme or message of the movie is exactly what Chris writes in the book at the end of the movie – Happiness is only real when shared. The theme, I believe, is expressed well throughout the storyline. The film constructs all its meaning through the characters and their actions – particularly Chris’s interactions with the people he meets as he travels. Each of those characters leads up to the final realization for Chris when he discovers that leaving the bus would be impossible and that it would be his final place. <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);">**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED "THE BUS" -- WHERE IT IS, HOW HE ENDS UP THERE, ETC. REMEMBER TO ASSUME THAT YOUR READER HAS NOT SEEN THE FILM OR READ THE BOOK.] ** The theme is not so obvious until almost to the end when Chris begins to feel lonely and expresses that through reading and writing such words in his books and talking to himself. The characters all form a similar attachment to Chris and despite his rejection of these people, in the end he realizes that he can only be happy if he shares happiness with others. The theme of the movie is stated perfectly by Chris when he is leaving Ron: “I will miss you too, but you are wrong if you think that the joy of life comes principally from the joy of human relationships. God's place is all around us, it is in everything and in anything we can experience. People just need to change the way they look at things” (__Into the Wild__).

__Into the Wild__ is a drama full of great acting, a fulfilling storyline, and a strong message. Ebert sums the film up well, “Two of the more truthful statements in recent culture are that we need a little help from our friends, and that sometimes we must depend on the kindness of strangers” (par. 9). It will be difficult to find another director that can exemplify Chris’ motto and lesson – Sean Penn has done an excellent job transforming a book into a classic film. Finally, a film has been made well enough that I can say it was much better than the book. <span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//**Great draft, Nicole. Look for places in your paper where you can add details from the film, especially towards the beginning. (Your descriptions are more detailed and vivid in the latter half of your paper.**// <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">__**Friday, March 13 --- A6 Analysis of Outside Reviews**__ --- In reading the review of __Into the Wild__ by Frederica Mathewes-Green in //Christianity Today//, she claims the movie was worthwhile only because the actors made it so. I agree greatly with her on this point – all the actors were chosen wisely and their talent immensely added to the movie by making the real-life characters all the more real. However, I disagree with her when she says that the movie would be much better if those watching the movie could see the real and flawed Chris McCandless. In Krakauer’s book, the interviews of the people that Chris met while going across the country were fairly similar to the way that he was portrayed in the movie. I feel the McCandless is just as real and flawed as any other person, but when Mathewes-Green says she doesn’t believe in his abilities to make people feel happier as a result of meeting him, I think she is wrong. Given the evidence from the people who actually met him, I’d say it’s possible for him to be real and flawed, but have some qualities that make him seem supernatural.

Roger Ebert’s review of __Into the Wild__ was spot-on. There wasn’t anything in the review that I had an opposing opinion to. I fully agree when he says “Sean Penn’s spellbinding film adaptation of this book stays close to the source.” I was honestly very surprised when I was watching the movie at how well it matched the book. Sean Penn didn’t make anything up and just told the story how it was meant to be told. I really enjoyed that Roger Ebert was able to connect this film’s story not only to the writer-director, but to himself as well. I feel, as well as Ebert, that this is primarily what makes the movie so strong – it is a testament of all the young people who have felt like they wanted to get away from society at least once in their life.

I personally like how Peter Travers, in his //Rolling Stone// review of __Into the Wild__, who divides the readers of Krakauer’s book into two camps: those who saw McCandless as a “wacko narcissist who died out of arrogance and stupidity” or those who “mourn Chris’ tragedy and his judgment errors but also exult in his journey and its spirit of moral inquiry.” I identify myself with those who mourn, mainly because I don’t think he was stupid in any way because I also have felt the sudden urge to give up my life and live off the land. I think that there are sometimes circumstances or accidents outside of anyone’s control, like Chris’ death, that are unavoidable. I also agree with Travers when he says that Penn was insistent on the actual locations of Chris’ travels for filming. They are crucial to understanding why Chris did what he did – they are absolutely beautiful places with significant meaning to his story. I agree yet again with Travers when he says, “But //Into the Wild// celebrates the person, not the myth. Mistakes didn’t make Chris unique, his courage did.” The film was centered on Chris’ courage, not the mistakes he made – particularly because Penn doesn’t focus on them nearly as much as Krakauer does in his book. I think by focusing on the courage of Chris, we get a real idea of who this young man really was. <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);"> <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Seems like you have some good quotes picked out that could fit nicely into your paper. //**

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">__**Monday, March 9 --- A5 Critical Viewing and Preliminary Analysis ---**__ <span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Candara','sans-serif';"><span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">The storyline of //Into the Wild// is separated into four chapters: childhood, adolescence, adulthood and wisdom. The tales of his cross-country travels are broken up with Chris McCandless’ time in the Alaskan wilderness. I enjoyed the flow of the film, although I feel like it could have been confusing at times to someone watching the movie who has never read Krakauer’s book. There wasn’t much explicit explanation for much of the story, unless the narrator was speaking. The narrator (Chris’s sister) was important and solidified the storyline, particularly because she explained much of what she thought Chris might have been feeling at the time. She was very credible because of the relationship she had shared with her brother. They were very close to one another. The storyline was so strong that I felt it was much easier to grasp the lesson that McCandless learned – that happiness is only real when shared – than by reading the book alone.

The first image of the movie is very powerful – Chris’ mother wakes in the middle of the night to his voice, distraught that she cannot help him. You immediately get the notion that despite the family’s turmoil and his parents’ materialistic personalities; there truly was a strong bond the family shared. Next, we see Chris’s journey by train to the Alaskan wilderness and his hitchhike towards Fairbanks. Words move across the screen – a postcard to Wayne, whom he worked for in South Dakota. He signs off with, “You’re a great man.” All of these are signs of the ominous future that holds for Chris – his eventual death by accident in the Alaskan wilderness.

The characters of the story are played well by all actors. You get a strong sense of the effect that this young man had on the people that he came in touch with as he went across the country on his way to Alaska. Chris is played well by Emile Hirsch – particularly because he looks so strikingly similar to the real Chris McCandless. Jan and Rainey, Tracy, Wayne, Ron, and Carine are all supporting characters that individually contribute to the overarching theme – happiness is only real when shared. Jan and Rainey develop a relationship with Chris when they pick him up as a hitchhiker. Jan is concerned for Chris and his estrangement from his parents – particularly because her own son had done the same to her. Chris leaves when he sees the love and attachment between Rainey and Jan rekindle. Tracy falls in love with Chris, but her happiness is quickly shattered when Chris decides it’s time for him to move on to Alaska. Ron is an old man who lost both his wife and son in a tragic car accident and develops a fondness for Chris. He asks to adopt Chris, like a grandson, but Chris quickly tells Ron they would have to discuss it when he returned to Alaska. Chris and his sister Carine had a deep bond with one another particularly because of their so-called illegitimacy. They told each other everything – which is why it was hard on Carine when Chris left with never telling her where he was going. All the characters show Chris’s eagerness to strip his life of all personal attachments and live his life in the wilderness.

I think that the theme or message of the movie is exactly what Chris writes in the book at the end of the movie – Happiness is only real when shared. The theme, I believe, is expressed well throughout the storyline. Each of those characters leads up to the final realization for Chris when he discovers that leaving the bus would be impossible and that it would be his final place. The theme is not so obvious until almost to the end when Chris begins to feel lonely and expresses that through reading and writing such words in his books and talking to himself. The film constructs all its meaning through the characters and their actions – particularly Chris’s interactions with the people he meets as he travels. They all form a similar attachment to Chris and despite his rejection of these people, in the end he realizes that he can only be happy if he shares happiness with others. The theme of the movie is stated perfectly by Chris when he is leaving Ron: “I will miss you too, but you are wrong if you think that the joy of life comes principally from the joy of human relationships. God's place is all around us, it is in everything and in anything we can experience. People just need to change the way they look at things.”

The music of the film was written by Michael Brook and Eddie Vedder. The score was done by Michael Brook and most of the songs in the film were written and performed by Pearl Jam member Eddie Vedder. I think both musicians added to the movie in their own way. Eddie’s provided the mood for the movie in his words about Chris personal struggles – “don’t come closer or I’ll have to go” (from the song Guaranteed) – during his journey to find himself. Who better to sing of personal struggles than Eddie Vedder? Michael Brook also brings an interesting mix to the film. They arouse feelings in you at particular points in the movie and tear at your heartstrings. When you hear the familiar melodies, memorable scenes come to mind. The music played while Chris is dying is especially beautiful. It is incredibly full of sorrow and emotion for Chris. <span style="color: rgb(255, 118, 0);"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Nicole -- your analysis is interesting, but could be more detailed -- particularly your commentary on the music. For example, why is Eddie Vedder the perfect guy to sing about struggle? // **