- Please discuss four or more characteristics of sixth generation film and/or film makers and comment on how they see themselves as distinct from fifth generation film makers. (based on reading in Chinese National Cinema, pp. 289-91) Do you see any of these characteristics in Jia Zhangkeâs Still Life? Based on your own experience viewing fifth and sixth generation films, how do you think they compare to one another?
- According to Shelly Kracier, how does Jia develop the film’s narrative? What are the preoccupations of Jiaâs camera, and how does his camera move? Also, how does Kracier interpret the symbols Jia uses in the film, and what is unique about the HD images he uses? What is the relationship between documentary and fiction in the film? (based on Shelly Kraicer, âChinese Wasteland: Jia Zhangkeâs Still Life,” available online at Canvas under the link for “Still Life”)
Please write 1-2 pages (more is also welcome) in response to the above questions.
Optional Bonus (You can either upload with your homework or email me in a separate attachment.)
Please read pp. 100 to 118 of Li “Home and Nation in Rubble,” which you can find online under the link for Still Life, and write a page or more in response to the following questions:
- According to Li, what four similarities and what differences exist between Li Bai’s poem and Jia Zhangke’s filmic representation of the Three Gorges?
- Why did Jia incorporate the young boy who sings in the film?
- How does Li interpret Jia’s use of the four “still life” objects of liquor, tea, cigarettes, and coffee?
Sample Solution
n this paper, I will start by clarifying what the principle of revival is and what issue it involves. From this, I will show David Hershenov’s model of restoration. This, he accepts illuminates the issue of restoration. He contends that we can endure holes in our reality. I will display his psychological studies to delineate his cases. At long last, I will exhibit a genuine risk to his model which I contend demonstrates that his model doesn’t take care of the issue of revival rather it raises more worries based on our issue covering with everybody else’s. In the first place, I will clarify what the principle of revival includes. This is the possibility that life doesn’t end at real demise. The case is that there is quantitative character, implying that the body you have now with every one of the a throbbing painfulness is the body that will be restored. Nonetheless, the convention involves a quandary, by what means would god be able to restore a dead body? In probably a few cases the passing of somebody is hard to envision an individual is being revived for example if the body is singed or cleaved to pieces. The issue is that it’s the natural body that is restored yet the natural body is infection ridden, so how on earth is God going to revive that precise physical stuff? So as to introduce David Hershenov’s answer for this predicament, I will show his test to Peter Van Inwagen’s case. Hershenov needs to challenge Van Inwagen’s case that if God restores the dispersed matter of a crushed body for instance, reassembling the fiery debris from incineration, the revived human would not be the human that had kicked the bucket but instead a copy (Hershenov,2003,24) On Van Inwagen’s record, right now amazing, replaces the recently dead body with a simulacrum and stores the safeguarded body some place for the restoration. On the off chance that the body is decimated and regardless of whether the issue is gathered up, this would be a copy. Regardless of whether made up of a similar issue this doesn’t ensure character. This has God associated with body grabbing. (Hershenov,2003,25) Hershenov conveys another view which keeps away from Van Inwagen’s orderly body grabbing. He gives a safeguard of a reassembly account. In his new see, we need to surrender the possibility that causal starting points matter for character, rather what makes a difference is the digestion of parts. This is the possibility that as long as we are made of a similar issue, it at that point doesn’t make a difference in the event that our reality contains holes; that you were pulverized at that point revived. It very well may be reliable for us to come all through presence. As it were, he accepts that the body can be dismantled at that point set up back together and continue as before body as long as it gets exactly the last known point of interest. As per Hershenov, the principle of revival just stresses us since we see bodies being pulverized. In any case, we can>
n this paper, I will start by clarifying what the principle of revival is and what issue it involves. From this, I will show David Hershenov’s model of restoration. This, he accepts illuminates the issue of restoration. He contends that we can endure holes in our reality. I will display his psychological studies to delineate his cases. At long last, I will exhibit a genuine risk to his model which I contend demonstrates that his model doesn’t take care of the issue of revival rather it raises more worries based on our issue covering with everybody else’s. In the first place, I will clarify what the principle of revival includes. This is the possibility that life doesn’t end at real demise. The case is that there is quantitative character, implying that the body you have now with every one of the a throbbing painfulness is the body that will be restored. Nonetheless, the convention involves a quandary, by what means would god be able to restore a dead body? In probably a few cases the passing of somebody is hard to envision an individual is being revived for example if the body is singed or cleaved to pieces. The issue is that it’s the natural body that is restored yet the natural body is infection ridden, so how on earth is God going to revive that precise physical stuff? So as to introduce David Hershenov’s answer for this predicament, I will show his test to Peter Van Inwagen’s case. Hershenov needs to challenge Van Inwagen’s case that if God restores the dispersed matter of a crushed body for instance, reassembling the fiery debris from incineration, the revived human would not be the human that had kicked the bucket but instead a copy (Hershenov,2003,24) On Van Inwagen’s record, right now amazing, replaces the recently dead body with a simulacrum and stores the safeguarded body some place for the restoration. On the off chance that the body is decimated and regardless of whether the issue is gathered up, this would be a copy. Regardless of whether made up of a similar issue this doesn’t ensure character. This has God associated with body grabbing. (Hershenov,2003,25) Hershenov conveys another view which keeps away from Van Inwagen’s orderly body grabbing. He gives a safeguard of a reassembly account. In his new see, we need to surrender the possibility that causal starting points matter for character, rather what makes a difference is the digestion of parts. This is the possibility that as long as we are made of a similar issue, it at that point doesn’t make a difference in the event that our reality contains holes; that you were pulverized at that point revived. It very well may be reliable for us to come all through presence. As it were, he accepts that the body can be dismantled at that point set up back together and continue as before body as long as it gets exactly the last known point of interest. As per Hershenov, the principle of revival just stresses us since we see bodies being pulverized. In any case, we can>
