Crazy Sexy Cancer. Dir. Kris Carr. Perf. Kris Carr. Cactus Three, 2007. DVD. Crazy Sexy Cancer. The
Learning Channel (TLC), 2001. Web. 25 May 2013.
Crazy Sexy Cancer is a film that tells the story of resilient Kris Carr's battle with epithelioid hemangioendothelioma cancer, a vascular cancer in the lining of the blood vessels in her liver and lungs. Kris's life is turned upside down after a trip to the doctor's, where she learned she had a rare and incurable cancer. Despite its rarity, Kris is told by the doctor to wait and monitor the cancer for two months to see if the tumors grow and metastasize or remain the same. Even after this devastating piece of news, Kris refuses to accept this piece of news as the end-all-be-all and decides to explore other alternative methods to fight her cancer. The documentary shows the progression, not just of the status of the cancer, but also of Kris Carr's mindset, starting from sad and hopeless to excited and optimistic.
Although Crazy Sexy Cancer is directed by Kris Carr, herself, and is ultimately about her personal journey, this documentary includes anecdotes that better help characterize who Kris Carr really is. She mentions her past-self as the crazy, carefree girl, landing gigs such as one for a Superbowl commercial. By Kris sprinkling little pieces of herself here and there in the film, the audience members are allowed to see a more rounded person, not just Kris Carr, the girl with cancer. We get to see Kris Carr, the party-er, Kris Carr, the daughter, and so on.
Throughout the documentary, especially in tough moments, Kris Carr is often found asking herself rhetorical questions. Questions along the lines of "am I really gonna die?", "will I be able to find love with this cancer?" These rhetorical questions, though Kris asks herself, forces the audience to ponder these questions as well, even though most of them probably do not have cancer. By Kris Carr asking such questions, the audience is able to sympathize with her and imagine a scenario in which the audience members are in similar situations and how they would feel and react to this news.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
TOW 30: Reflection
Looking back and reading three TOW's from three different marking periods, I have noticed a progression in my writing. In the beginning, I was so bent on following the requirements exactly as it stated on the paper, it showed through my writing: rigid, choppy, too formal. But as the months passed and I became used to writing a TOW assignment each week, I slowly abandoned the requirements paper, summarizing, adding the author's purpose, integrating the rhetorical devices used, and began posting true "blog" posts. Comparing my first post about a murder to my most recent post about how to anger New Yorkers, the tone of the writing has become much more casual and fluid yet informative, nonetheless.
After writing nearly thirty TOW's, I think I have mastered the "blog"-like aspect of my writing. The posts are similar in style to that of professional writers who post things on their own websites. My writing has loosened up and it has a more conversational tone, which makes the reading less boring and more enjoyable to read, yet I am able to add the necessary pieces that make a TOW, TOW. However, there are still many things I can improve upon. After working with rhetorical devices throughout the year, I have familiarized myself with new rhetorical terms and devices; however, I am still shaky when it comes to identifying less obvious devices in news articles, videos, and political cartoons. I tend to revert back to using the "easy" devices, like rhetorical questioning, parallel structure, or one of the three, overused ethos, logos, pathos.
In my opinion, I felt that the purpose of the TOW assignments (and what I got out of them) was to broaden our (the students') horizon in terms of reading materials. Most of us have a preference when it comes to genres and we usually stick to them. But these TOW assignments, I feel like, have forced me to seek non-fiction material that would not only help us in our AP exam, but also make us more aware and participating citizens of our community.These assignments were beneficial and I feel as though I got my purpose out of doing these every week. It helped me not only with my writing but also with my awareness of what is going on in the world.
After writing nearly thirty TOW's, I think I have mastered the "blog"-like aspect of my writing. The posts are similar in style to that of professional writers who post things on their own websites. My writing has loosened up and it has a more conversational tone, which makes the reading less boring and more enjoyable to read, yet I am able to add the necessary pieces that make a TOW, TOW. However, there are still many things I can improve upon. After working with rhetorical devices throughout the year, I have familiarized myself with new rhetorical terms and devices; however, I am still shaky when it comes to identifying less obvious devices in news articles, videos, and political cartoons. I tend to revert back to using the "easy" devices, like rhetorical questioning, parallel structure, or one of the three, overused ethos, logos, pathos.
In my opinion, I felt that the purpose of the TOW assignments (and what I got out of them) was to broaden our (the students') horizon in terms of reading materials. Most of us have a preference when it comes to genres and we usually stick to them. But these TOW assignments, I feel like, have forced me to seek non-fiction material that would not only help us in our AP exam, but also make us more aware and participating citizens of our community.These assignments were beneficial and I feel as though I got my purpose out of doing these every week. It helped me not only with my writing but also with my awareness of what is going on in the world.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
TOW 29: How To Piss Off Every New Yorker in 36 Seconds
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
TOW 28: Cheating
"Coffee on a Tuesday and Vlog twenty-six!"
So starts another vlog (video blog), this time, with Evan Puschak, web producer for MSNBC, talking about cheating. Evan's main thesis for this vlog is simple and true: we are cheaters because of society's expectations of us and therefore the phrase, "cheaters never win" is utterly and absolutely incorrect. Evan conveys this sad truth with the use of credible sources, citing Rutgers University's 1997 study on cheating as well as providing a concise and easy to understand analysis of his evidence. His target audience, subscribers of his Youtube channel (Theenerdwriter1), is given a reality check and then urged to ponder this case. He does not ask us to change as he probably knows that no one will ever stop cheating, whether it be on a test, paper, or even significant other. Evan ends the video, just asking as rhetorical question to make us think about this even after the video is over.
So starts another vlog (video blog), this time, with Evan Puschak, web producer for MSNBC, talking about cheating. Evan's main thesis for this vlog is simple and true: we are cheaters because of society's expectations of us and therefore the phrase, "cheaters never win" is utterly and absolutely incorrect. Evan conveys this sad truth with the use of credible sources, citing Rutgers University's 1997 study on cheating as well as providing a concise and easy to understand analysis of his evidence. His target audience, subscribers of his Youtube channel (Theenerdwriter1), is given a reality check and then urged to ponder this case. He does not ask us to change as he probably knows that no one will ever stop cheating, whether it be on a test, paper, or even significant other. Evan ends the video, just asking as rhetorical question to make us think about this even after the video is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)