Answer:
What sets apart the short film from the story is the director's choice of details. The setting seemed to be made as normal as possible, a simple small town in America. He added foreshadowing by doing a close up of Tess Hutchinson's nervous, smiling face and the closeup of rocks in the boy's pocket. He had the benefit of using pauses to increase suspense, and the actress was free to express Tess's outrage at the lottery. The overall visual of the movie is more detailed because we see the expressions of seriousness and unease in each face.
There are plenty of similarities between the story and video as well. They are both heavily suspenseful, the atmosphere appears to be dark, like something doesn't feel right. The moment were the boys are gathering rocks, in both works it was a sign they were up to no good, but the audience was not aware why until the story progressed. Both were true to the simplistic lifestyle of the townspeople, and how casually they carried out this morbid tradition for agricultural purposes.
In conclusion, they both successful covered the themes of the story regarding mob psychology, following traditions blindly, scapegoating, and the reliance chance-based games.
Answer: There was no much emphasis or mention about the cast's cultural background. Certain aspects are based on assumptions. I feel that the historical background is seen most important, to understand the cast's behavior.
Explanation:
Russian author Varlam Shalamov wrote a short story on Condensed Milk. Shalamov spent 15 years of life in Gulag, a camp where Russian forced-labor was being operated. This story narrates his terrifying experiences.
He was a political person, which shows that he was not a regular criminal but has been arrested as a thief. The treatment given to a thief was better than what he has been through. He was arrested based on suspicion as the Stalin Government found him as a threat though he was considered an enemy amongst the people. This is because of expressing his opinion that the Soviet Regime considered/felt inappropriate. Shalamov demonstrated his brilliance despite his deteriorating health at the camp. He was offered help to escape but wasn't fooled either. He lived amongst people whom he couldn't trust anymore.
While going through a harrowing treatment at the camp, the combatant realized that Shestakov was setting a trap. Shestakov was the only person with an office job with privileges. During those times, being with privileges was considered being good with the government and its people. Shalamov was afraid of Shestakov, as they were the only ones working in the field where Shestakov is trained. Shalamov was incredulous as to who had assigned Sestakov for the training and what he might have been offered?. Everything in the camp had to be paid with either another man's blood or his life.
Answer:
The second sentence
Explanation:
Because in the first phrase the punctuation is not correct
-empathizes with Juan's situation.
The author's empathy for Juan is shown when it says "Poor Juan!". Also it is shown when it says that he is a victim of "one of fate's dirty little tricks." The narrator knows that Juan did not mean to get himself in the situation and feels bad for Juan because Juan is now in a difficult situation that he didn't mean to be in.
Answer:
C. didn't suspect
Explanation:
In the passage, the part saying “didn’t suspect” is wrong. <u>The story is proposing the plan which should be in the future. All the rest of the passage uses future simple tense</u> – verb to be in the future form (will) and the verb in the infinitive.
“Didn’t suspect” is written in the form of past simple tense. This tense is used when some event has already happened.
<u>As the surprise party did not happen yet, but will in the future, this part has also to be written in the future simple tense.</u>
<u>The correct sentence should be ”He won’t suspect a thing”. </u>Won’t is a short form of will not – a negative form for future simple tense.
