Last PLP field study ever. This time, it is to a place where I did not expect a field study to go. Cuba, a land of revolution, culture, cigars and rum is where we went. Let me be clear in the fact that we did not go to study rum and cigars. We went to study the revolution through a series of questions come up by groups. We were then in charge of writing a sort of “coffee table” book answering our questions.

Before we delve into the assignment at hand, I would like to talk a little about Cuba itself. On our trip, we visited the renown cities of Havana, Cienfuegos, Trinidad, Santa Clara, Vinalles, and Varadero. The culture of Cuba flows through each of these cities very much (except Varadero).

Cuba in Reflection:

Cuba is one of very few countries to be communist and be only 90 miles off the coast of America, the juxtaposition of Communism. Throughout the years since its solidarity from Spain, it has gone through a couple of governments including united states control, a dictatorship, and now communist. All these changes seem to have had an adverse affect on all parts of Cuba including how 1950’s cars still roaming the streets of Cuba alongside Soviet Ladas to almost causing world war 3.

Chiefly among these quirks of Cuba is their unwillingness to work. Infrastructure is slow to change, government run concession stands refuse to sell, Cubans generally being always late, are among somethings that do not really work well in Cuba. I suppose this is mainly centered around government operated services where they do not make more money by serving people anyways, hence their lackluster attitude to provide service.

While talking to a local on the Malacon of Havana and a tour guide later on, I found out that there were many people with relatives outside of Cuba. During the exodus of Cubans leaving Cuba in the hopes of a brighter future elsewhere through the Mariel boatlift or US dry foot policy, many people where separated from their families. While some send money back after they achieve financial success, it is very difficult for their relatives in Cuba to visit because of the high cost and time to get a visa. This leaves many people away from the rest of the families for decades.

Something I found very interesting is the existence of a China town nestled deep in Cuba. Not seeing any sort of evidence that there are Chinese people with Cuban nationalities around, it is extremely strange that a Chinatown has a reason to exist there. I later found out that there was a small population of Chinese people here used for slave labor a long time ago. Their descendants in Cuba are virtually nonexistent anymore because of the years of mixing with Cubans.

We participated in the May day parade which was very cool. We paraded past Revolution Square where we got to see Raul Castro himself and his successor to president of Cuba Miguel Díaz-Canel. While there seemed to be a lot of people at the parade, we saw numerous government organizations parading rather than normal citizens which we expected would make up the majority of this parade. Even our home stay people did not come which must mean that the hype of what May Day represents is gone. Some do not really cares about the celebration of the workers anymore and want to just get by.

I have always known that Varadero is the little safe bubble for tourists that come to Cuba to relax rather than to for the culture. I did not know it was really sheltered and sectioned off from the rest of Cuba. Being 2 hours from Havana probably already discouraged Cubans anywhere near the place. The added toll to get into the vicinity of Varadero probably gave a reason for everyday Cubans not to go. The area of Varadero is really only for resorts and foreigners. There are no residential districts that regular Cubans could reside in there. It is probably like this because the whole point of Varadero is to attract tourists to feed the 2nd most profitable business in Cuba.

Back to the Project:

The question that my group (Chloe T and I) Answered was how what were the cause and consequences of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba.

Below will be attatched the book that we have written on the subject.

Another day, another stab at leading my own learning. Facilitation Friday is where someone presents on a topic that they have researched. They are to teach a bit of this topic to the classmates and then throw some though provoking questions which should spark some huge debate or deep thoughts.

Me, presenting an event in the 1990’s decided to choose something close to my 2nd home town. Hong Kong caught my eye again as the prevailing topic that I want to discuss with my classmates. I decided to pick the Hong Kong handover to China event with an emphasis on the rise of Chinese power. Little did I know that this topic would draw blanks from all my classmates

I presented the topic with a summary of the events leading up to it and some significant points on how other countries viewed China after. I felt my presentation ok with some fumbling of words. As I asked my questions like “Was the handover a signal of rising Chinese power, or fading British strength”. Everyone drew a blank. I suppose it is hard for them to think deeply when we have not even learned about the topic in class yet. Then the class and I realized I was supposed to present the next week after the 1990s have been taught. I am a buffoon. Luckily some of my classmates were able to deduce some things about the event and form an answer to my questions. At the end, Mr Hughes offered a significant point, no one wanted to fight each other for the sake of the possession of Hong Kong.

Looking back on Facilitation Friday, I realized that this was more of a debate exercise devised by the teachers. I assume they wanted us to adopt different views and challenge each other with words until anyone gave up. The teachers let us know about this too but we are way too nice to question each others beliefs.

What would have changed if Nixon was in charge of the Bay of Pigs invasion? The Bay of Pigs invasion is widely known to have failed because of the lack of US support during the invasion. Kennedy, seeking a way to limit his administration’s ties to the invasion in case it failed, called off all air support which caused the loss. However, I believe if Nixon was in charge when the invasion happened, the invasion would have succeeded. Nixon’s aggression in the Vietnam war facing similar circumstances showed that he is more willing to invest force like to bombing of Hanoi to get results. This event promotes his willingness because it happened during Nixon’s Vietnamization phase which pulled out US support of the South Vietnamese. Kennedy, being a new kind of president with a different agenda than his predecessors like seeking out peace with the USSR bolstered his anti invasion decision.

Some sources:

Matthews, Christopher. “A Bay of Pigs Connection to Watergate.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 7 Feb. 2012, www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-Bay-of-Pigs-connection-to-Watergate-3112357.php.

Voss, Michael. “Bay of Pigs: The ‘Perfect Failure’ of Cuba Invasion.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Apr. 2011, www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-13066561.

In the History 12 course of PLP, it is about that time of year to blitz through nearly 100 years on history in around 2 months. In true PLP fashion of promoting learning through interest, the teachers have used a song. Its contents spell out nearly every major event that has happened in the 1900’s. This is quite incredible when the song makes sense just by spouting out headlines. From this song, we were to choose one of the headlines and answer a question that we would come up with. I decided to pick the line “China’s under martial law” from the song.

First of all, I believe this to be in direct reference to the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989. I protest for more democracy in the Chinese government by students from university. In a nutshell, the Tienanmen Square protests was caused by a myriad of reasons but the biggest of them all was students of China being exposed to the good side of democracy after suffering through economic and social hardships. Matched with the death of a prominent proponent of democracy Hu Yaobang which many students believed in a more democratic China admired to protest. Over a million people gathered into Tienanmen Square to protest. After two weeks and insistent calls for dispersal by the Chinese government, martial law was declared. Soon after, the military rolled in and pacified anyone who got in their way of dispersing the protest. People who stood in the way of the army were gunned down or rolled over by tanks.

What I really want to explore about this topic is how both the west and the Chinese turned this event into a political tool to deface each other. And finally, the unfortunate side effect it has.

The Chinese interpretation:

Immediatly after the attacks, the Chinese government gave its own perception of the events that transpired. They spoke of men armed with molotov cocktails destroying chinese vehicles and the eventual killing of these individuals out of self defense of the Chinese army. Key words are used like “Counter revolutionary” to describe the students. This was probably done to label the people who were killed as an outsider to the revolution that is communist china. Also used to describe the west, the word was also used to shove some of the blame of the riot over to the west. Another way the Chinese perceived the event was how they turned the west’s interpretation on its head. In the infamous tank man video featuring a lone student  standing infront of a column of chinese tanks. While the West declared this as a stand against the iron fist that is the chinese government, the chinese government had a different idea. Using the rest of the video which showed the column of tanks trying to drive around the man, it showed the restraint that the chinese army supposedly used and instead puts the student in the role of the one getting in the way of the right which is the government.

The above video show the Chinese tanks trying to maneuver around the man to avoid his death.

The West’s interpretation:

The west seemed to want to do at that time was see how the riot ended in a negative way. Deaths were either inflated or truthfully reported as in the thousands while the Chinese state reported a couple hundred. The west interpreted this as what seemed to be another Woodstock, a band of people gathering for a common goal of promoting their vision of life. I believe this is why the west usually condemns this event and goes to varying lengths like portraying the tank man video their way in order to promote their way of life.

A quote from the US State Department sums up the views of the event very well.

How the GPRC [government of the People’s Republic of China] decides to deal with those of its citizens involved in recent events in China is, of course, an internal affair. How the USG [United States of America government] and the American people view that activity is, equally, an internal affair. Both will be governed by the traditions, culture, and values peculiar to each.

-Declassified USA State Department document entitled “Themes” dated June 29, 1989.

In terms of the side affect that the two parties have caused, it is how the truth seems to be ever changing. I have determined this after speaking with many people from both parties. Even Chinese nationals have different interpretations of what conspired during the event, some take the hardliner Chinese government view. Others mix and match from both sides to form an answer which is acceptable because the facts it contains are from both sides. All in all, because of these sides agendas, the truth will probably be hidden and completely forgotten before long.

In conclusion, both sides did their best to skew the event their way to push a political agenda. The Chinese did it to keep the severity of the event down, the West used it to step on communism and further promote democracy in the east. The truth will never be told because at this point,  no one really knows anymore what is right or wrong in the stories people give each other. This is all due to the West and the Chinese validating their contradicting stories.

The deeper we go into this history topic, the more I am beginning to dislike the projects PLP gives. For this post, I will be making a Snap Shot Autobiography. I will take four memorable moments from my life and create a snapshot of it with a visual. One of these memories will be have an interview of someone who saw the moment from a different perspective. This will be used to show how historic thinking can affect what people think of their past memories. I will then apply the historical questions from my previous post to each scenario.

First Memory:

The first memory was decided by the teachers to be my birth which I find odd as no one remembers exactly what happened at their birth. I was only able to grab my mothers perspective on the matter. The doctor asked her if I was to be born on the 6th or 5th. My mother said the 6th because even numbers were lucky. When the doctor took me out of my mothers womb, I was apparently a bit long, had a really big head, and I was also born a bit late. She thinks maybe I was a bit too comfortable inside so I stayed longer. Reflecting upon the time of when this event happened, I wonder what I thought during that time and also if my thinking capacity was even functioning. After finding out about these facts, I find it very significant that to realize the details of my birth. The evidence is all there from the primary source of my mother. Has it changed me in some significant way? No. I do not see a point in changing myself, I would rather keep them as just interesting facts. I have no historical perspective on the matter because I do not remember that time. I do believe that my mother found it very life changing at the time and still feels its effects in the same way today.

Second Memory:

This memory is about the time I received my pay and spending it. I remembered working for a garage and all the while concentrating on learning about cars than expecting my paycheck to arrive. I had to be reminded by my mother to check my back account which is strange because I usually have high regards for money. Upon checking my account, I realized that this money was made by me and not given by my relatives out of good will or Chinese New Year. I could do what I want with it within reason and my parents would not be able to say that in reality, when I buy things it is actually them buying it for me. Being audiophile, I went out and bought a very expensive pair of earphones. Probably not the best use of my money and it was definitely frowned upon by my parents, but what can they do. I felt great when my parents could do nothing about the purchase. The proof of this happening is the headphones themselves, I have them and there’s picture below. Making money has changed me a lot because I am finally able to have the freedom to do things I want to do. When I first bought the headphones, I thought there would be nothing more expensive I could buy. Nowadays, the price I paid for those headphones seems quite insignificant to the money I have spent on my car. Was it ethical? Maybe. In the wise words of the group who presented ethical judgement of history to me, there is no right or wrong answer. In my opinion, I believe it was justified.

Below is a very accurate reenactment of how I was sold into buying the headphones.

Third Memory:

My first week of high school is a memory that I will always remember. I walked to my new school with a pretty good idea of how things would go. It was applying what I have learned to those expectations that was shockingly hard. I always forgot my locker combination and where it was which caused me to pull out that locker info sheet every hour. The order of the classes was also confusing as none of the grade really knew how to read the schedule which led me to walk to some classes that had the right subject but not the right teacher. I know look back at that time and kind of laugh at myself for panicking so much. I suppose that the older I got, the more used to I got to the system. I believe that my reaction back at that time was justified because everything was so new to me. There was no way that I could get used to all immediately.

Below is a pie chart of my confusion at school.

Fourth Memory:

My final memory that I would snapshot is the first time I drove unsupervised in a car that I owned. I have had my N for a while now and finally bought out a car from a family friend. I felt surprisingly free as I realized that there was no one to nag me about my skill and destinations. I was alone in a machine that could take me to wherever I wanted to go as long as I went home at an expected time. After the official purpose of the trip had been completed, I immediately took the car on a celebratory run to a destination. With the sense of happiness also came a sense of responsibility because I was now responsible for any danger that would happen to me and other people. Again, whether or not it was an ethical decision to drive and own a car is up in the air. I think its ethical because it has been an absolute treat. Below is what my mother thought of the situation. I think that we both shared the same concerns and thoughts regarding the matter. Even though her perspective is different it was a significant to her as it was to me, there was definitely evidence to show I did it, the changes of responsibility were agreed upon, and it was ethical for both of us.

After writing all these posts, I never thought that while writing them, I was kind of already answering some of the historical questions from my previous blog post that I had to answer. I suppose that people already do some of the same analysis we learned on the previous project.

After the Dystopia unit, we have finally moved towards history. With this new unit, we learned the concepts needed to think about history in a way that divides the thinking into 6 categories. Answering what these categories present to people analyzing history will give them a very clear and accurate understanding of an event in history. These categories were named,

Historical Significance: What and who should be remembered in history?

Evidence and Interpretation:Is the evidence adequate to support the conclusions reached?

Continuity and Change: How are lives and conditions alike over time and how have they changed?

Cause and Consequence : What are the range of factors that contributed to the event?

Historical Perspective: Are interpretations of the event different from the past and present day?

Ethical Judgement: Is what happened right and fair?

Our first project for this unit is to choose one of the 6 concepts and provide a presentation to the class on what the concept was and give to apply it to an historic event. Each of the groups were to provide some parameters and questions to ask when answering these questions to give a a good answer. This is something put together by me that summarizes what should be asked when answering the 6 concepts. I call it the Historic Poppy.

We were then instructed to apply all of these words of wisdom into interpreting an event of our choosing. I chose the event where Hong Kong was ceded back to China in 1997.

First, some background knowledge. Way back in in 1839, the British invaded China any opposition to their interference of Chinese economic, social, and political affairs. Hong Kong, an island with few people living on it was occupied by the British. After the Convention of Chuenpi was between the Chinese and the British, parts of Hong Kong was ceded over to the British. In 1898, all of the Hong Kong region was leased to the British, Ever since, it has become a major trading center from the Europeans to the East. As the treaty came to an end ion 1997, Hong Kong was returned to China but retained a majority of the British political and social structure.

Time to answer some questions.

Historical Significance: The event must have been very well known during the time because it directly involved the British Empire and China. Two powerful countries over a territorial dispute is something no one misses especially when the Chinese leader threatens to take Hong Kong by force when negotiations turn sour and Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain says “there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”. This all implies that the handover was a closely observed topic because of who was involved. Although the world may have watched it from far away, the people of Hong Kong found the event very significant because some interpreted it as a symbol of reunification with their countrymen in China under one system. Some others interpreted it as a dismal event because some were happy with British rule and had a bad perception of the ruling of Communist China.

British PM Margaret Thatcher with Chinese Chairman Deng Xiaoping

Evidence and Interpretation: My example of evidence will be from The Guardian newspaper. The paper here provides perfectly relevant evidence and indirectly mentions the event in question. As for if the source can be trusted, that would be a yes. The Guardian is a long standing newspaper company in the United Kingdom that has roots back to the 1800’s. I am sure if their credibility was ever questioned badly, they would have shutdown by now. The evidence supports the topic through mentioning the downfall of the British Empire through the loss of Hong Kong. This definitely is relevant to Britain losing Hong Kong.

Continuity and Change: After Hong Kong was handed over to China, some changes were made but there were definitely continuities. An example of continuity was the decision by the Chinese leader to let Hong Kong’s economic and political systems stay the same. This was to last for 50 years from 1997 and it is definitely for the better because an overnight switch over to the socialism would not have gone down very well with a population that was content with capitalism. Among the many changes was how Hong Kong was directly represented by China. Some found it satisfying because they are represented by their original country while others found communism revolting and were rushing to immigrate away. In terms of this change, it negatively impacted the population of Hong Kong.

Cause and Effect: The people who were involved were China, Britain, and Hong Kong. Since Britain and China are the belligerents in this event, they were the ones providing the action for the event to happen. As mentioned in the background knowledge section, Britain had leased and taken the Hong Kong area in the 1800’s. Through the 99 year lease of the Hong Kong, the event came to be because the lease was about to expire in 1997. This event definitely would not have happened because if Britain had never taken Hong Kong, then China would have held onto it and never had to take it back from anyone. It was definitely intended for Hong Kong to be returned to China with several concessions from China but there were some unintended consequences. These consequences were mainly protests that grew in size and number every time the happened. An example would be the Umbrella Movement of 2014 This was also a significant turning point in history as it is often marked as the end of the British Empire.

The Umbrella Movement seized control of major intersections of Hong Kong in protest against the Chinese government’s interference with the Hong Kong election process.

Historical Perspective: From a present perspective, I do believe there is an equal amount of criticisms and applause for this act. On one hand, people like the handover because of Hong Kong returning to the people that owned it in the first place and also how Hong Kong is ruled by an Asian country again. Others feel that the action was misguided because of their hatred towards the Chinese government and how it is communist. I do believe peoples perspective on the matter is slightly guided by the fact that democracy is considered superior in many ways than communism which makes them question the handover.

Ethical Judgement: I strongly believe that the event happened in the most ethical way possible because of all the precautions taken that would prevent anything unethical from happening. Things like the decision to let Hong Kong stay unchanged for 50 years and many other continuities support this. These ethical decisions and continuities were all justified because the shock of removing these ethical things would have made the people of Hong Kong very unhappy which would be unethical. In the end, there is no way of saying that an event is right or wrong because peoples interpretations change.

The reason I chose this topic is because I am from Hong Kong myself. I felt confident I could answer all the questions of the 6 key historical thinking concepts because I had primary sources by my side in the form of my parents. Researching about this event also gave me a little lesson on the history of Hong Kong and an understanding as to where all the anti communistic feelings come from. This has definitely enriched how I will study history in the future.

As my class’s curriculum starts to move into the the direction of Dystopias and Utopias, we started exploring famous works of literature in this area. Among some of the works we read include the book 1984 by George Orwell and Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. As we progressed in this subject, it really got me thinking as the deeper meanings of what the definition of a Dystopia or Utopia could be to some people.

An assignment that was assigned was definitely an interesting piece of craft that I have not done in a while. To be completed in a group, we were supposed to create a paper cutout of an assigned character from the book 1984. The cutout was to include illustration of whatever we want that we felt represented a certain aspect of the character. There is also a backdrop that we needed to create using a green screen.

Our group chose the character called Mr. Charrington. He is a man of the lower class that runs a small antique store in the slums of London. The world in the story has been carved up into three different gigantic countries, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The story happens in Oceania which encompasses all of the Americas, some of Africa, and all of Australia. What makes the country seem despotic is from the society within it. The population is ruled over by Big Brother, the all seeing and glorious leader with an administration that skews history to their liking by changing every single piece of literature as they see fit to show that they are always right. The government runs by three tenets. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. The irony of these statements shows how power of the government in changing what the population thinks is very high. Basically demanding complete obedience from its population or be killed or rehabilitated, and with Three-Year Plans being part of the government’s agenda, and mentions of comrade as a substitute for a name, it is reminiscent to the ideals of certain communist states at the time the book was written albeit with some exaggeration. Coming back to Mr. Charrington, he fits into society as an old antiques shop keeper as part of the lower class later revealed to be an undercover agent for the government. He is responsible for the snuffing out of rebels against the government and has a large part in the arrest of the two main characters of the story. What I think he represents is a society without safety, where people have to always watch their backs. His presence as an old man and later turning into a secret agent must have shocked readers back in 1954 when the book was written because someone as harmless as an old man could potentially have a hand in people’s capture and sometimes, death. No one is safe in this society and the government is always watching. That is what I believe George Orwell wanted Mr. Charrington to represent and also identify in a communist regime.

Below is the cutout of Mr. Charrington that my group made complete with the items that we believe represent his aspects.

Let me provide an explanation to the items.

The Divided Body:

We believe this represents how Mr. Charrington is a secret agent and is double faced. On one side he is a harmless old man that runs an antiques shop while on the other side of him, he is an agent of the government. His change of face is also a representation of how he changes from an old man to a rendition of what think is the face of Big Brother. This is because Mr. Charrington is ultimately an extension of Big Brothers will.

“It occurred to Winston that for the first time in his life he was looking, with knowledge,  at a member of the Though Police”

Police Badge and Shoulder patch:

These items represents his position in the government. He is a man of the law.

The cane, background and item in hand:

The cane represents his supposed old age which we find out later he is relatively young thus losing the cane on the other side of the body. The item is also a representation of the antique store that he runs. The background is also a representation of his shop.

“Mr Charrington, it seemed, was a widower aged sixty-three had inhabited this shop for thirty years”

The Tears on his Face:

The tears represent his sadness of losing his wife.

Heart of Big Brother:

Within his act of being an old shop owner, we believe that his heart is still fully with Big Brother and he holds him in high regard. So high that Big Brother is within his heart while also keeping his job to Big Brother important.

“He gave Winston a single sharp glance, as though verifying his identity, and then paid no more attention to him”

Ball with Chains:

We picked the ball and chains because Mr. Charrington is only one of many people who cannot the clutches of Big Brother or Oceania. This is because Big Brother requires the complete obedience and loyalty of its agents. This really applies to everyone in Oceania.

The Red Fist:

The group picked this because we believe that Oceania and all it stands for is fundamentally communism. Since Mr. Charrington is such an integral part of the government in Oceania, we believe he is deserving of the label of Communism.

Overall an interesting project, I do believe picking a different character could have expanded our choice if items as Mr. Charrington served a pretty linear role. Thanks PLP for reviving something that I last did in elementary school.

Another year, another full class movie. In correlation to our horror unit, this film is to be horrific, bloody, and comment on an aspect of contemporary society. Our field study to Seattle’s MoPoP for their horror exhibit and haunted house has prepared us to make this movie. Watching the movies “Halloween” by John Carpenter and “The Exorcist” by William Peter Blatty gave us a sense as to what horror should look like.

The movie was to be produced like an actual film with all the roles and positions. Maria, Michael F, and I were in charge of the storyboards.  We would draw out the scenes to be shot and the directors would follow these drawings to make filming quick and orderly. We initially thought about doing each story together so our styles would not clash if we had drawn different scenes. But time restraints led us to just assigning ourselves different scenes to draw so we would have all the drawings done in time for producer Teva’s aggressive timeline.

PLP students during filming.

In terms of the effectiveness of my work, I found that it grew as the project progressed.  Initially, I did not know what I was doing, my drawings were pretty bland and left quite a bit up to the director’s imagination. Eventually my storyboards grew more concise and clear. This led to my scenes finally showing up in the film! In contribution, it was really up to the directors, the people in the same position as I faced a similar fate as many times, we found that our storyboards had been largely ignored because of reasons unknown to us. We asked the directors but they could not give a coherent response. Therefore, our contribution was limited.

The special effects team pulls through again.

Another aspect of my work is to act, I had a small role as a janitor because I had dressed up as a car mechanic and the producer decided I would be a good janitor (for some reason). I gave acting my all and I believe my acting was convincing. Some editing problems caused some confusion as to who I was in the film, and some of my actions in the film. Regardless, I believe my acting was effective and contributed to the project.

As a work of art, are movie fell short in many aspects but the biggest was the failure to comment on an aspect on contemporary society. The script did feature what seemed to be a message about the dangers to posting to the internet but it was barely made relevant in the later part of the movie therefore making it unimportant in the film. It is troubling when members of the production team do not know what comment we are trying to make. Some good parts include most of the acting according to the directors and script. Even when it did not make sense at times, the actors still did very and acted convincingly. In regards to the horror, there were a couple of scenes that we the screenwriters wrote that made it into the film that were somewhat horrific. These scenes in particular were the death scenes and in my eyes, they were done well. Everything in between seemed a bit vague and lacked direction and logic. In the end, he horror was overruled by the weaker parts of the story that were not as horrific. Special effects again came through like the last film project and did a great job. I would have liked to see a bit more blood to fully capture the horror that was excessive blood.

So far, this post is pretty neutral on whether or not this project was a success or not. In my opinion, although a complete movie was made, it failed artistically. Some of the mistakes committed in the Macbeth movie project reappeared in this movie. Lack of communication, big egos, ineffective time management, woeful continuity, abysmal quality control, and shoddy editing because of our time left all contributed to this failure. I believe that the doubling of roles in the executive team was a massive mistake. I suggested to them that the two directors and producers should split and film different scenes or have only a producer and director film and the others to assist the other aspects. All of this could have saved time but non of it was applied. What manifested no action was the two directors who lacked a common goal trying to work together. This why the film is disjointed and why the plot is shallow. The two producers barely worked together with one not being able to do much. The potential power of the partnerships were therefore wiped out. When the big management shakedown happened, putting in an inexperienced director proved to be a massive mistake as quality suffered dramatically. Last but not least is the editor, he did strung everything together well, but lacked the time to fully edit everything making for all the mistakes that occurred in the final product. To say that I am unsatisfied with this project is a understatement. I am bitter, bitter of the fact that the mistakes happened from the previous movie were committed again. Bitter of the fact that our redemption to movie making was flushed down the toilet. Unsatisfied with many decisions made by the management team. I feel like I should be a bit more lenient towards us as we are only 17 years old, but this project calls for more.

Looking at this project in full, there were some good parts but the mistakes were too glaring to make this a good film. I believe that our team gave a solid effort and most of us did our work effectively. I really wanted this to be a good project but in the end, we fell short again. I really do praise the acting and all the work the production team put into this short film. I am happy for us being able to finish this film. Hopefully, we learn the lessons that this project teaches us. Many of which are essential to joining the actual workforce in the future, and being an adult.

Here is the film that took us 2 weeks to produce. I hope everyone that sees not only sees the various mistakes, but also the excellent acting.

Fear, something that I have never really thought about and when I did, I found it fascinating in every way. In this unit of fear, we explored it with the perception of nuclear technology. Anything we did with fear, the teachers connected it to the fear of nuclear technology expressed by historical fears and also current fears.

Some of the most notable assignments was watching the film “The China Syndrome” and the documentary, “Nuclear Nightmares”. After this, we came up with a question that was connected, I came up with the question of how nuclear disasters affect decision making.

The field study for this unit was the best of the two that I have been on. All the attractions, from the AMARC boneyard to the Mob Museum in Las Vegas were interesting and well chosen. Lots of destinations really got me hyped and interested like the Pima air and space museum and the Hoover Dam. I never thought that Las Vegas had anything else other than adult entertainment. The main highlight for me on this that is also beneficial to my final project is the visit to the Titan II Missile Museum. Seeing a Cold War era missile that could cause the end of the world is a chilling and awesome sight. Realizing the significance of how it can also explode within the United States was also key to my final project as the driving question centers upon it.

For my final project, I worked with a friend Luciano who did not go on the trip. The project was to answer develop and answer a question in relation to something we saw on the trip. The question went through many revisions and even another one after the trip. The final question came to how safe were these nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles stored in their silos. Our answer to this was that while there are many safeties to activating the nuclear warhead on these missiles, there is always a chance that another part of the missile can fail and inadvertently detonate the nuclear warhead. Using this question, we determined that the fuel, flaws in building the warhead, and the missile being a target for preemptive disarming of the American arsenal by the Soviets could cause a nuclear detonation on the United States. Video below,

This project was a very big hassle as our driving was revised after the trip which basically made my interviews and footage useless. Luckily there were some pictures and videos that our class took. In the spirit of my growth mindset, I tried to use Adobe Premiere Pro to put together project. I realized later that I may have went to deep and went a program too complicated to learn in the span of time that we had to put this project together but I did it anyways. The video lacks the finesse of any of the other PLP students but hopefully now that I have learned the program, I can use it more effectively in the future. Editing took a surprisingly long amount of time because I had no help from my partner who did not have a computer to do the work. The audio had many issues where I had to balance it all out because the recording hardware was different between Luciano and I. Something I learned from this project is to be happy with what I have got and not nitpick too much because sometimes the part but we wanted to change it all again because the changes did not make the desired effect.

In the end, the trip through this project was gruelling, partly because the video took a long time to make and I had to learn a new program. The end result is a video that I have tried very hard on among all the other things I had going on. It is something that I have to be proud I made it.