WOMEN BEHIND THE SCREEN

This article talks about the presence of women behind the screen in the movies. The actress Brie Larson, who plays a role in the recent movie of Kong, has declared that it's not enough seeing female characters on screen, but they should be also out of the screen. In fact, in 2016 the number of strong female characters in movies increased regarding the previous year, with movies such as Arrival, Hidden Figures or Ghostbusters, but although it is a big step, Larson still things more things have to change. The actress says that a way of making a change is having more female film directors.

In her new film, Kong, Larson plays the role of a strong female character, who is compassionate and who doesn't try to hurt anybody, some features that she thinks that unite people. In the article, they also explain some details about the shooting and preparation of the film, as well as the relationship and co-starring of the two main characters. It also talks about the variety of roles actors like to play.

Related to this same topic, I found another article in which Mildred Iatrou Morgan and Ai-Ling Lee, two sound cinema producers, talk about the same issue. These two women have been the first female team to be nominated for an Oscar for the film La La Land. They were interviewed about the topic, and they both, along with the Moonlight editor Joi McMillon, agreed that kids should be exposed to the world of cinema production earlier, because many kids don't even think about this options and it could be something they would be really passionate about. Among other questions, the interview asked for an advice they had been given from another woman in the field, and Iatrou Morgan said that she was adivced to ask. She said that if you want something, you have to ask for it, whether you are a male or a female, or otherwise you won't get it magically. 

PERSONAL OPINION:

Since this week we celebrated the Working Women's Day, I have chosen articles that talk about this topic, and also because I'm interested in the field of cinema and it is something I may want to work in. I agree with what these women say, that maybe female film directors are not as common as male directors, and this is maybe because they are not considered the same way. But also, I agree with what Iatrou Morgan says, that you have to go for what you want. Because what we can't do is to complain about females not getting jobs in the industry, but then see females waiting for their offers to come, just for the fact that they are women. 

VOCABULARY:

· Blockbuster: èxit a les taquilles

· Drafted: reclutat

· Seminal: influent

LINK: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39206726

INTERACTING WITH YOUR CHILDREN

This news talks about the signs a school in Middlesbrough, England, has hanged on the school gates. These signs say "Greet your child with a smile, not a mobile", and they have been hanged to make the parents of the children aware of the importance of talking with them and to avoid spending many hours on the phone instead of paying attention to them. This situation, says the headmistress of the school, is sometimes quite common: parents pay more attention to their mobile phones than to their children in a moment such as when they pick them up from school.

To try to get this situation better, they have hanged these signs, which are simple but clear. During the past years, in this school, St. Joseph 's RC Primary School, they have experienced cases of children not being able to hold a conversation or without the necessary socializing skills. The cause of this problem can be the lack of socialization and communication there is at home, which can be caused by the reliance parents have on their phones, that makes them socializing everytime less with the family, including their children.

The parents have given their opinions about the signs and they're are different points of view, although the majority thinks it is a good idea. They have described it as "great" and "brilliant", but some have pointed out that it'll be useless if it makes the parents converse more with their children not only when they pick them up from school, but also at home. Just a few considered these signs were kind of stupid. Some students have also given their opinions, saying that it's not pleasant to see your parents all the time on the phones, and that it's good to make the parents aware of it. 

PERSONAL OPINION:

I think that what the signs say is quite obvious, but if they have felt the need to hang the signs it must be because of something. It is a good way to make the parents think about it, and maybe some parents are not aware they do it and with this signs they will realise about it and try to be more attentive with their children. And also, there are probably parents that don't do this, but it's also good to make them think about the situation and it can help them to improve their relationship with their children in other aspects. 

VOCABULARY:

· Engrossed: absort 

· To crack down: prendre mesures, posar-se més estricte

· Daft: estúpid, tonto

LINK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/09/school-bans-parents-using-phones-school-gate-urging-greet-children/

TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE?

To vote or not to vote? That is the question. When there have been elections, I've heard many times people saying things like: "Oh, I'm not going to vote, because I don't like any of the candidates." or "I won't vote because is going to win the same party as always.". And that's a wrong decision. Both statements are understandable, because it's true that maybe there is not any candidate or party with which you agree completely, and that even if you vote, it is possible that the party that usually wins, wins again. But, anyways, this shouldn't be a reason for not voting.

First of all, if everyone thinks the same as you, that their vote is not going to make a difference and, therefore, they don't vote, then they'll be right: there's not going to be a difference and the same party will win. But is not only one person who thinks like this, there are plenty of them, so, if they all voted instead of complaining and don't wanting to know about voting, they could actually make a difference, even if it's just a little one. And the party who wins is important, but it is also important the seats on the government and the partys that take them up. Thus, maybe by voting you won't get to change the president of your country, but maybe you can change a little bit the situation in the government for a better one. 

Secondly, is very difficult to find a party that you like 100%, because all of them have good and bad things, but this is not an excuse for not voting. I'm sure there is one party you like more than the other, and if it's not like this, I guess it is because you haven't taken your time to read and get information about any of them. Sometimes you won't vote one party because you truly like their electoral programme, but to avoid that party you don't like at all winning. But at least you voted, and you took part in the election of the party that is going to rule your country for some years.

In conclusion, if you care about politics in your country, which you ought to, you should always vote. In case you are happy with the situation, to maintain it, and in case you don't, to try to change it, instead of complaining and not doing anything on that subject, expecting that it will change on its own. 

20th ANNIVERSARY OF THE CLONING OF A SHEEP

This news talks about the cloning of a sheep, due to the 20th anniversary of this experiment  being carried out and about what has science learned after the experiment.

First of all, it explains how the experiment went 20 years ago. Some scientists had already been able to clone adult animals, such as frogs, but they hadn't been able to clone mammals, thinking that their genetic material presented problems in the cloning. However, the scientists in the Roslin Institute in Scotland achieved their objective and finally were able to produce a clone of an adult sheep, which they called "Dolly". They announced this sucess months after it happened, because they needed to gather enough information about the experiment. 

The announcement had a big impact on different aspects, and it called up several scientists groups to research other ways to modify cells and it was good news in the field of the stem cells, which scientists, after Dolly's birth, believed could repair damaged human tissues, and in the field of genoma editing. The announcement had also an impact on the general public, who, according to the director of the Division of Genomics and Society at the NGHRI, Lawrence Brody, started to talk about science and became interested on the topic.This also lead to debates about the ethical and moral issues in cloning. 

Dolly died at the age of 6, while average sheeps die at the age of 10 or 12, so both her "cloned sisters" and her lived shorter than an average sheep does. The sheep became a model of cloning, and after her, other mammals such as mice, deers or horses could be cloned.  

PERSONAL OPINION:

Even though it happened many years ago, it still seems surprising to me the fact that scientists were able to clone a mammal such as a sheep, that is quite big. And of course, that was a big step in the scientific field. About the ethical and moral debates, I think it's good to know how to clone because, as I say, it represents an important step in science and it can maybe be useful to investigate other issues, but I don't think it should be something avaialable to many people, because it is not a natural thing and it can lead to important problems.

VOCABULARY:

· Traced: rastrejat
· Groundwork: treball preparatori
· Batch: tanda, lot

LINK: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/24/20-years-after-dolly-sheep-what-have-learned-about-cloning.html

NEW POSSIBLE HABITABLE PLANETS FOUND

This news talks about the new discovery the NASA has made: they've found 7 planets that are similar to the Earth, which means that could contain liquid water and, therefore, life. 

The planets are orbiting around a star called Trappist-1, which forms a system that is about 40 light-years away from the Earth. But this star is not like our sun, it is a dwarf star, so it's much smaller compared to it. Although, planets still can orbit around it and the experts have said that three of the seven planets are in the called "habitable zone", which means they are highly likely to contain water, while on the other four, it depends on the composition of their atmospheres.They believe all the planets are rocky, just like the Earth, so it is another reason to think that there might be life in them. 

In the news, they explain how the star was find, and it was actually because of its dimness. When they find a star that is temporary not shining, it is probably because a planet is orbiting in front of it, so it's a way to find the planets, even though it doesn't work with the small ones. 

The astronomers believe that by 2018 a new telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope will be launched and it will have the ability to examine the atmospheres, so in case it finds gases like oxygen, ozone or methane, life could exist in those planets. 

They actually announced the discovery of the three planets that are most likely to be habitable, but now they've found four more of them. This discovery is promising, because it gives a lot of new chances to find life outside the Earth. And also, astronomers say that there are many stars like Trappist-1, so it enlarges the possibilities.

PERSONAL OPINION:

I found this news very interesting, and it's related to a topic that has always seemed curious to me. I believe there is life somewhere else apart from the Earth, because the universe is infinite, so I don't think it is possible to be the only ones in all of it. So, the discovery of planets that may have similar features as the Earth is very promising and could lead to the discovery of life in other planets, which I think it would be amazing. 

VOCABULARY:

· Dimness: penombra, foscor

· Washed out: difuminats

· Yield: cedir, donar pas 

LINK: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/22/14698030/nasa-seven-exoplanet-discovery-trappist-1

ONLINE SHOPPING

Internet is everytime offering more and more facilities, which can lead to a point in which we will be able to do anything through it.  Shopping is one of the activities that is becomind more popular to do online, but is it really an adavantadge or it has more cons than pros?

On the one hand, shopping on the Internet can be a good option in terms of convenience

because you don't need to leave your house and this can be useful for people who don't have much time or for who it it difficult to go and buy in the shops for any other reason. Also it broadens your possibilities, because it allows you tu buy things that are not sold close to where you live. This means you can get to products you would only be able to get to moving to the place it is sold, which can sometimes be so far away. 

Also, on the Internet you can sometimes find the products cheaper than they are in a regular shop, so you can save some money. Even though you may have to pay the shipping costs, in some cases it can still end up being cheaper, because you haven't had to pay for the transport to go to the shop, that sells the product at a higher price than online. 

On the other hand, however, shopping online can be a risky. In the first place, you can't be sure if the web page in which you are shopping can be trustable. It can be a good online shop and you can get your products perfectly the way you wanted, but there's also the possibility you pay and then you never get your purchase and you have no way to have your money back. In the second place, shopping online doesn't allow you to really see what you are buying. On the Internet there will be a photo, but it can be retouched or it can be a photo of a totally different product. And also, even though the photo is real, you can only see the product through a photo, you cannot see it and judge it in real life. This means that when you get the product it might not be what you were expecting as it can't turn out to be a different thing or maybe the quality is a lot worse than you expected.

Furthermore, buying on the Internet stops you from going to regular shops, which means that those business are losing money and this leads to the reduction of jobs and the clousure of the little shops that maybe have been opened for generations. 

In conclusion, I do agree in the convenience online shopping offers, as well as all the different possibilities and advantadges, but it is also important to keep in mind all the disadvantadges it has and its consequences. From my point of view, it's okay to buy some things on the Internet, but not everything. This way you keep buying things that are not necessary to be bought online in regular shops. On the Internet you can buy, for example, things that maybe only sell in a different country of far away from where you live, or things that can be trustable, for example books, that you can be sure it will be the same quality as if you buy it in a shop. But in other cases, I think it's better to buy them on a regular shop, so you can exactly see and be aware of what you are buying. 

TDR ABSTRACT

EDGAR ALLAN POE ON SCREEN

We all watch films, but what's the process behind them? The main objective of this project is to produce a short film, based on one of the most famous Edgar Allan Poe's takes, "The Oval Portrait", in order ti see, bit by bit, all the necessary steps that finally allow us to enjoy the film. 

The project is divided in a theoretical part which involves different aspects related to Poe's literature, the cinema and the connection between both topics; and a practical part that consists in the production of the short film, bearing in mind the previously treated aspects. 

TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION BAN KEEPS IRANIAN FILM DIRECTOR FROM THE OSCARS

Recently, the US president Donald Trump applied an immigration ban, which doesn't allow citizens of seven different countries in which Muslims mean the majority of the population. 

This news talks about Asghar Farhadi, an Iranian filmdirector and an Oscar nominee for the foreign language film award for his movie "The Salesman". Iran is one of the countries featuring in the list of the seven countries whose citizans can get into the US, which means he won't be able to attend the Oscar ceremony due to this policy.

Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, used his case to illustrate the situation of the Iran and the other six countries citizens, and she claimed that there is no way Trump is doing an exception for Farhadi. 

The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, responsible of the Oscars, protested saying the ceremony celebrated "the achievement in the art of filmmaking" in spite of the procedence of the nominees, so they were in completely disagreement with Trump's policy, as well as the TriBeCa Film Festival, which also state its disagreement through twitter. 

Parsi, convinced Farhadi, who had already won an Oscar in 2012, is not going to be able to attend the ceremony, only wishes the winner speaks about it and expresses the injustice of this event.

The director of the film is not the only one who has been on the news, one of the main actresses of "The Salesman" Taraneh Alidoosti, before the policy was officialy applied, already said she wouldn't be attending the Oscar's ceremony as a sign of protest.

PERSONAL OPINION:

I think the Trump's immigration policy is horrible: it is racist and it is like we are going back in time and letting go all the progress that has been made in this field. I think the case of the director, Farhadi, has to work as an example of the situations of many citizens. The fact that he can't attend the Oscars is not as important as the fact that many people are being banned from a country, which means, discriminated, only for their origin or their religion.

VOCABULARY: 

· To be barred: tenir l'entrada prohibida

· Boundary: límits

· Behalf: en nom de

LINKS: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/28/media/asghar-farhadi-academy-awards/index.html 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/26/media/iran-trump-oscar-boycott/index.html

SELF EVALUATION OF THE ORAL PRESENTATION ABOUT MY RESEARCH PROJECT

This week I presented my Research Project (TdR), entitled Edgar Allan Poe on screen, in front of my class. In the presentation I explained a little bit what was the project about, my objectives, the different parts it had and the conclusions I got to after finishing the project. 

To start with, I used several visual resources to make the presentation more visual and agile. I used a Prezi to present the content of the presentation, and I also added two videos: one was to illustrate the process and objective of the animated storyboard and the other one was the short film I created, which was an important part of the project. About the body language, I think I did it well: I didn't read my notes, I tried to look at everyone in the audience and I also tried not to stand still and to move a little bit while I was explaining. 

I think the structure was also good: I started explaining what the project was about and its objectives, then I explained the theoretical part which was followed by the practical part, and finally I talked about the conclusions. And about the content, I tried not to explain too many things about the content of the project. With this I mean that I focused more on explaining the different parts of the project and a brief information about each of them than, for example, in giving information about Edgar Allan Poe. I did this because I thought it was more interesting for the audience. However, I also tried not to focus a lot on the theoretical 

part and to explain more the practical part, because I think it is the most interesting.

Finally, about the language, I tried to use voacbulary related to the topic, but I could have improved using more complex grammar, richer vocabulary and more sentence connectors. I think the pronunciation was quite good and I tried to use a good intonation.

In conclusion, I am happy with the result of the presentation, although some things can be imporved.

EMPOWER YOUNG CHILDREN

This news talks about the assumption, either of boys and girls, about boys being smarter than girls, at a very young age.

The journal Science realized a study on five-year-old children, boys and girls, and all of them encouraged their own gender, showing girls saw themselves like as good as boys.

One year later, with six-year-old children, the results weren't so satisfying. Both boys and girls saw only the boys as powerful and strong, a fact experts think can be a result of the influence of media, teachers and even parents.

This study consisted in different experiments. One of them consisted in telling the children a story with a “really, really smart” main character, but in which the character's identity isn't shown clearly. Then, they asked the children who they though the character was, and the results were quite surprising: the five-year-old children answers are more or less equalized between saying it was a boy and saying it was a girl; but in the six-year-old children's case, practically all of them answered it was a boy.

This study reveals that it is at the age of six when girls start to underrate themselves in many aspects, a fact that surprised many people. For example, Laura Lund, a primary teacher, who was shocked when she knew this happened at a such young age. She, talking about her experience with children, doesn't think this happens at this age, but she agrees with the fact that it happens, and that we should teach girls to value themselves.

A good way to do it is through books, as it explains in this article. Books can have a big influence on children, that's why it is important that they teach girls not to underrate themselves. The article gives a list of some books that can help empower young girls at a young age, and then it talks about an activity held in a school. It consisted in rewriting Cinderella's story to make it “more equal between women and men”. The report says that kids enjoyed very much the activity and that they were so enthusiastic.  

PERSONAL OPINION:

As the article says, I think it is important to teach girls the value they have, and it surprised me that it is at this age when they start to underrate themselves. I also agree with using books as a way to show this to the children, and not only in books destined to girls, but also in books for boys. Because girls guessed that a “really, really smart” character had to be a boy, but boys also thought that, and I think we should try to get to a point in which both, girls and boys, see that a girl can be as smart as a boy. And also the other way, with things that normally are identified with girls. For example, if they had said that the character was very beautiful, maybe all of them would have guessed it was a girl. So it is important to teach children that both, girls and boys, can be smart and beautiful. 

VOCABULARY:

· Bias: preferència, inclinació

· Loafer: mocassí

· Nurture: criar, criar

LINK: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38770936 

ARE SELFIES ART?

I have recently found an article which talks about an exhibition that is going to be held in the London's Saatchi Gallery and which will include selfies combined with other kind of portraits considered art, like Van Gogh's or Rembrandt's self-portraits.

I don't really know what people think about it, but I'm sure there is going to be people who will be against this exposition, saying that selfies are not art at all and can't be compared to works by artists like Van Gogh. But, from my point of view, it is an original idea.

As it says in the news, nowadays it is very common to see people taking selfies, anywhere and anytime, so I think we can all agree in saying that selfies have become an all-time present phenomenon in our lifes. And also, whether we like it or not, there are some selfies that have become very influential or famous, so much that are almost like icons. For example, the famous selfie some actors took at the Oscar's ceremony in 2014, or some selfies taken by celebrities or influencers that have become viral. Also, I think selfies can also be a kind of art. I don't think the last Kim Kardashian's selfie can be considered art, but I do think that as photographs by photophers are considered a way of expression and even a source of beauty, selfies can also be extremely creative and became the same: a way to express feelings, points of view or just something beautiful. That's why I think it is not such a harebrained idea to feature selfies in an exhibition.

Maybe the controversy lies in combining them with classical self-portraits created by recognized artists. About this, I don't think it is a bad idea, as long as people don't mix the concepts up. The exhibition needs to be clear enough to make a difference between the two types of self-images and to highlight that those are two different ways and types, which can't be compared. But I think it is a good idea to combine selfies and portraits in a same exhibition, because it is a way to show the contrast between the world nowadays and how it was years and centuries ago. And it is a shocking contrast.


Saying this I don't mean that selfies need to be placed in the same level as self-portraits by artists, because I really think that portraits have a greater value and a lot of work behind, more than a regular selfie. What I want to say with this is that selfies shouldn't be undrvalued just because they are easy to take or because everyone can do it. Selfies can be as complex as portraits, and I think it would be great if we took this into account and bared it in our minds. And also, it would be fantastic if we all tried to be more creative with our selfies, because we could create even works of art. (maybe saying "works of art" is too much, but who knows what can selfies become).