Pleasure reading (50-55)(conclusion)

Emma had seveal problems about marriage with Mr. Knightle. The first one is her father and another is Harriet Smith. Emma could not marry Mr. Knightley when her father was alive. She also did not know how to talk with Harriet about this. Mr. Knightley and Emma discussed Frank Churchill's letter and came to the same conclusion: Frank Churchill did not behave well enough, but he was justified, especially as there had been no harm from his side. They also spoke about Emma’s father. Harriet finally learned about Emma and Mr. Knightley and was calm.Mrs. Weston gave birth to Anna. Harriet Smith was married to Robert Martin. Emma was disappointed by Harriet’s decision.Harriet had learned the truth about her parents.Her father was a respectable tradesman. Emma met Robert Martin and became sure that Harriet wold be happy with him. Harriet married Robert Martin, Frank Churchill married Jane Fairfax, and later Emma married Mr. Knightley.

Pleasure reading (41-49)

Mrs. Elton planned the picnic, and Mr. Knightley offeed Donwell Abbey as the place fo this occasion. During the picnic, Emma saw Mr. Knightley and Harriet together, she found this stange. Jane Fairfax left early when Frank Churchill came late. Frank was in a bad mood during the party andsaid that he wanted to leave England. The next day, the party goes to Box Hill for a picnic. Frank Churchill's mood became better when he spoke with Emma. Later on, Emma, Jane and Frank discuss marriage. Jane told that marriages can be saved and Frank asked Emma to choose a wife for him. Emma again thought about Frank and Harriet.When Emma came back home, she Mr. Knightley and Harriet had arrived. He told Emma that he left for London in order to spend time with John and Isabella. The next day Mrs. Churchill died.
Mrs. Weston said to Emma that Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax had been secretly engaged. Emma told Mrs. Weston that she was interested in Frank, but that interest soon ended.  Emma finally decided that nobody should marry Mr. Knightley except for Emma , and that she made Harriet to believe that Mr. Knightley could be in love with her. Emma hoped that Mr. Knightley was in love with her. Mr. Knightley stopped by Hartfield to see Emma, and they discussed Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. Emma scaed that he would mention Harriet, but Mr. Knightley then confessed his love for Emma. 

Pleasure reading (31-40)

Emma realized that she is not in love to her beloved and thought about Frank and Hariet as a couple.
Mrs. Elton did a great fancy to Jane Fairfax but she refused an invitation to join the Campbells, and Emma thought that she had some other motive. Mrs. Weston said that Mr. Knightley spent too much time thibking of not being in love with Jane Fairfax that he would probably end in marriage.Emma decided to have a ball for the Eltons in order to hide her negative to the couple. Emma invited Mr. Knightley, the Westons, and Jane Fairfax.Emma's thought that Fank was still in love with her. When he returned, Emma was surprised that he visited her once in ten days.Frank Churchill behaved stange with Emma at the ball at the Crown Inn. When Mrs. Weston suggested Mr. Elton to dance with Harriet, he refused. To recover Harriet's dignity, Mr. Knightley asked her to dance. After the ball, Mr. Knightley told Emma that the Eltons' intention was to wound both Emma and Harriet. They could not forgive her for wanting Harriet to marry Mr. Elton.A group of gypsies approached Harriet and chased her. Harriet visited Emma and gave her a parcel with items that remindher of Mr. Elton. Harriet said that she would never marry the person who is too great for her .

Pleasure reading (20-30)

Jane Fairfax' mother died when she was a child. Emma felt sorry to Jane however she disliked her . Emma was polite to Jane, despite her jealousy, and she even got some minor information about Frank Churchill. Mr. Knightley thanked Emma for her treatment to Jane Fairfax during the dinner. Jane told Emma that Mr. Elton was married to a Miss Hawkins from Bath. Emma guessed that Mr. Elton's relationship with Miss Hawkins would not be very long. Harriet came to Highbury saying that she had seen Robert Martin and his sister during shopping . Miss Augusta Hawkins a new character introduced by the authorshe was elegant, accomplished and highly amicable, but she had no respectable family connections. Mr. Elton came back to Highbury , Harriet’s mood worsen upon Mr. Elton's return, but she had resumed relationship with Elizabeth Martin. Emma visited Westons. Frank Churchill, a handsome man, came to Highbury, and Emma liked him. Emma was pleased by the beginning of this relationship.Frank Churchill and Mrs. Weston visited Emma.During the visit Frank offered her to hold dances . Jane Fairfax received a new piano from an unknown person. Emma told Frank her suspicions that it was a gift from Mrs. Dixon. He guessed that Mr. Dixon had fallen in love with her. Harriet visited Emma and told her that she thought that Robert Martin was involved with Anne Cox. Miss Bates invited Emma and Harriet to hear Jane Fairfax play at her new piano.
Frank Churchill was amazed by dancing at the Cole's that he planned another one for Highbury.The letter came from Mr. Churchill saying to return because of Mrs. Churchill’s illness. preparations for the ball were stoppe. Frank left the town and Emma was sure that he told her about his love. She convinced herself that she was in love.

Review №2

Anonymous (2011)
Cast : Rhys Ifans,Vanessa Redgrave , Sebastian Armesto, Rafe Spall ,David Thewlis.
Director: Roland Emmerich
Synopsis: Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, is presented as the real author of Shakespeare's works. Edward's life is followed through flashbacks from a young child, through to the end of his life. He is portrayed as a child prodigy who writes and performs A Midsummer Night's Dream for a young Elizabeth I. A series of events sees his plays being performed by a frontman, Shakespeare.
Review: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans ) wants to influence the political situation in England - to ease the impact of the hateful William Cecil (David Thewlis) and his son Robert (Edward Hogg); to make adjustments to the plans of succession. But not by the force of arms, but by the force of the words. Elderly Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave), being a young lady loved literary works written by the count. The count in his turn brings some ideas to the masses by setting his own plays at the theater. Wanting to stay in the background, Oxford hires a playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Fernandez-Armesto) as a dummy author.
One of the main advantages of this film is a good cast, fom the main character to the actors of Shakespeare's theater "Globe". At first I did not understand why two images of Elizabeth I seemed so organically - in old age and in youth. It turned out that the queen is represented by the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave - Joely Richardson. David Thewlis, I would never recognize him in William Cecil, so significantly he is depicted. The young Earl of Oxford is Jamie Campbell Bower, is not vivid, but at the same I can not say anything bad. Perfectly acceptable looked Xavier Samuel and Sebastian Reid starring Henry Risley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex.
The film is great, the action is literally mesmerizing. It conveys the spirit of time. Soundtrack, despite the fact that is stays apart from the film , carefully does his work - to emphasize the right moments, increasing the already ecstatic perception. The cameraman's work is worthy of all praise.  The film is not just entertaining, it is full of meaning. .

Review №1

Factory Girl (2006)
CastCast :Sienna Miller ,Guy Pearce ,Hayden Christensen ,Jimmy Fallon , Jack Huston , Armin Amiri
Director: George Hickenlooper
Synopsis: A beautiful, wealthy young party girl drops out of Radcliffe in 1965 and heads to New York to become Holly Golightly. When she meets a hungry young artist named Andy Warhol, he promises to make her the star she always wanted to be. And like a super nova she explodes on the New York scene only to find herself slowly lose grip on reality...
Review: Andy Warhol(Guy Pearce) was an American artist, designer, writer,producer and film director, an iconic person in the history of pop art movement and contemporary art in general. He worked as an illustrator in the magazine Vogue, at the peak of his career as a photographer and has worked with stars of music and film: Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and Elvis Presley. That time, Andy began to make films and one day at the exhibition he met Edie Sedgwick(Sienna Miller) - a petty young lady from Cambridge, the daughter of an oil magnate, she had come to try a New York bohemian life. Andy, blinded by her grace and elegance, offered her to star in his film, and invited her to his "Factory", where he shot his films, where parties seemed to be everlasting. After trying a bohemian life, she quickly became involved in it, becoming a muse of Andy Warhol's and the star of underground. But Andy considered himself firstly and foremostly as an artist, and then as an ordinary person. He got to the deepest moral wounds of Edie and used them to make a film about moral injuries that happened during her childhood. Edie could not believe in the hypocrisy and cynicism of Warhol, who recently she considered as her best friend and inspiration. Her life destroyed , parents(James Naughton) and friends turned away from her,and Andy refused to pay for her work. Edie fall under the drug addiction and voluntarily went to a psychiatric hospital. Meanwhile, Andy found a new muse(Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who stared in films such as luxurious and glamorous young lady, the next queen underground.
The acting in this documentary film is fascinating so you may not recognize Sienna Miller in Edie Sedgwick as she conveys the image of the real star of pop art very beautiful and organically .Jimmy felony a shocking and crazy Andy Warhol is a combination of the forces of attraction and repulsion at the same time, a collision of vice and innocence, the indifference and overwhelming curiosity.
The story of rapid rise and rapid fall - a fairly common phenomenon among people who dream to achieve easy fame. The film is good because it is completely based on the biography of Andy Warhol and shows the life of high society in crazy 60's - life, where the party never ends. Do you like the film or not - it will surely make a deep impression, and will remain in your heart for a long time.

Rendering 5

The article "Bruce Norris: 'I think we are doomed ' " was published on the website telegraph.co.uk on  07 Mar 2013.
The article carries a lot of comment on Uncompromising American playwright Bruce Norris.
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that Norris’s speciality is pointing a finger at his well-heeled, self-satisfied audience,for Cooke’s swansong — and Norris’s first Court commission — the playwright has chosen to alight on the era’s defining theme: money. This time he is going for broke.
In addition the author of the article mentions that not that Norris has any faith in mankind’s ability to evolve, his theory is that we’ve never really left the cave and that the amoral law of the free market “is the law that we obeyed when we had hair all over the majority of our bodies and hunted and gathered” ,and in plays that sucker audiences as laughs make way for gasps, Norris has taken it upon himself to point this out.
Analyzing the situation it's necessary to emphasize that Norris looks like one of those springy bantamweights who lands jabs and cuts rather than haymakers ,his sharp, alert features are framed by a geekier brand of spectacles, and his mordant drawl suggests perpetual bafflement.
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that his playwriting mostly in the not-for-profit sector — the Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago has put on seven of his plays – has not made him wealthy, he insists.
Speaking of this situation it is also interesting to note that  he had throughout his whole life a complete disregard for anything like the financial section of a paper,this is incredibly arrogant and a pretentious for him.
The authoR concludes the article by  Norris’s  quote  : " As soon as the lights come up, you hear the actual things that people think. If I felt that what I was hearing was actual critical analysis of something I’d written, I’d listen attentively. But generally I try to walk out of the theatre when the conversation unfolds because the mundane nature of it is sometimes too much to take. It’s too great a distance from your optimistic expectation of the conversation that you would provoke. I mean generally it’s like, 'Huh, I didn’t like that as much as the play we saw last night, so where are we going for dinner?’”
As fo me I think that this article shows us the point of view of playwright who has his own vision on the current situation in the world. I agree that amoral law takes place in our life , and that many people appreciate only money , but it is the reality and it is unfortunately too late to change something especially by means of playwriting.

Pleasure reading (10-19)

Emma and Harriet visited a poor family in Highbury.
Emma realised that she would never get married as it would be difficult to find someone superior to herself.
Mr. Weston invited members of Highbury society to dine with his family at Randalls on Christmas Eve. Despite Emma's negative attitude, Mr. Elton visited Mr. Woodhouse .
Mr. John Knightley noted how Mr. Elton seemed to be in love with Emma.
During the visit Mr. Elton tried to be near Emma. Emma started to think about Frank Churchill in a better way and began to think about the possibility of the elationship.
By the end of the visit it had started to snow, and Mr. Woodhouse was affraid that they couldn't leave Randalls.
Emma founds herself in the same carriage as Mr. Elton, who told her about his love . When Emma started to speak about Harriet Smith, he blamed her for her low social status so Emma rejected Mr. Elton.
Emma decided to tell Harriet Smith about Mr. Elton's behavior. Harriet reacted better than Emma expected.
Emma and Harriet spoke with Mrs. and Miss Bates. Miss Bates about Jane who would probably visit them next week. Emma began to think that Jane Fairfax had close relationship with a married man Mr. Dixon.

Rendering 4

The article "Paintings From Garage Find Appreciation in Gallery" was published on the website nytimes.com on March 8, 2013.
The article carries a lot of comment on the works of Arthur Pinajian, a reclusive artist whom the art world had not known much about.
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that for years, his paintings languished in a Long Island garage, old canvasses piled in a stack and then they came close to being thrown into a garbage truck.
In addition the author of the article mentions that 14 years after his death, he has fans who mention him in the same sentence as Gauguin and Cézanne ; the art historian William Innes Homer wrote that Mr. Pinajian had pursued art with “the single-minded focus” that those other painters had shown and that “Pinajian was a creative force to be reckoned with.”
Analyzing the situation it's necessary to emphasize that with the attention comes the possibility of something Mr. Pinajian never enjoyed in life: serious money for his paintings, among the 34 works at the gallery are two oil paintings from 1960: No. 638, on the market for $87,000, and No. 3868, for $72,000.
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that the paintings in the gallery show, which is scheduled to run through Sunday at Antiquorum Gallery, at 41 East 57th Street, near Madison Avenue, fall into the first category, not the erotic images of the second, Peter Hastings Falk, an art historian and appraiser who coordinated the show, said the paintings on view followed the artist from Woodstock, N.Y., to Long Island, where Mr. Pinajian painted “from the same vantage points” around Bellport as William Glackens, an American realist painter.
Speaking of this situation it is also interesting to note that on Long Island, Mr. Pinajian had an 8-foot-by-8-foot studio in a little house owned by his sister, Armen, who supported him for much of his life and his death in 1999 led to the discovery of the paintings. Peter Najarian, a cousin of the Pinajians who helped with the cleanup, explained in Mr. Homer’s monograph how he had defied Ms. Pinajian’s orders.
In conclusion the author of the article expresses the view that  Mr. Pinajian remained unknown, but not completely,for a while he kept up with a cousin who had been hired to teach at the Pratt Institute by George McNeil, an Abstract Expressionist painter and founder of the American Abstract Artists group,that brought him into a circle of the well-known artists of his generation, like Franz Kline, Philip Guston and Jacob Lawrence, and into the bars they frequented on DeKalb Avenue in Brooklyn and in Greenwich Village.
As for me I think that many artists suffer the same fate : they remain unknown till the death. This happened with many talented people and but on the other hand  Arthur Pinajian  is lucky enough that the world can appreciate his works of art even after his death.

Rendering 3

The article "Giving Castoffs a Second Life" was published on the website nytimes.com on March 7, 2013.
The article carries a lot of comment on the various works on display in Shinique Smith's current solo exhibition at the James Cohan Gallery in Chelsea.
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that items might get swept up into multipatterned sculptures of castoff clothing bound with rope in monumental bales or cloudlike bundles dangling from the ceiling, or else collaged into exuberant paintings with calligraphic graffiti and colorful fields of pigment and fabric.
In addition the author of the article mentions that “It’s a constant dance between chaos and order,” Shinique Smith  said of the tension within each cacophonous piece, the relationship between paintings and hanging sculptures in the first two rooms of the gallery shifts visual between a harmonic balance and a more dissonant struggle, escalating in the third room to a constellation of buoyant sculptures suspended in midair.
Analyzing the situation it's necessary to emphasize that Ms. Smith, 42, draws bountifully on her formative experiences with dance, graffiti, Tibetan culture and fashion, synthesized with influences that range from Jean-Michel Basquiat to Japanese calligraphy,while her work shares certain attributes with Abstract Expressionism, she says she’s coming from a very different place.
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that Since gaining notice in “Frequency,” a survey of emerging African-American artists at the Studio Museum in Harlem in 2005 Ms. Smith has made installations around the country incorporating materials collected from communities and thrifts shops: clothes, toys and other ephemera.
Speaking of this situation it is also interesting to note that   Shinique Smith  said that she liked that the garments were subsumed in a composition of color, shape and form while still retaining their associations. “I think the consumerism, the clothing, the trappings, the shedding skins, the little bits make us who we are,” she added. “I try to string it all together.”
In conclusion the author of the article expresses the view that Shinique  so often takes bits and pieces from things that might be discarded and creates something very beautiful, which is exactly what Mother Clara Hale did with children whose lives were broken. When we took it to the community, they really knew this was a gift for them.
As for me I think that it is no matter how you produce your art , it is important to  put your heart (and soul) into your work.  Shinique Smith is a great example of such strange but beautiful art and I really like it. 

Rendering 2

The article "An Artist Reluctant to Sell Himself" was published on the website nytimes.com on March 7, 2013.The article carries a lot of comment on Neil Jenney who "follows his own lights, makes his own rules and essentially creates his own frame of reference".
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that Mr. Jenney burst on the scene in the late 1960s and early ’70s, in order to go his own way, outside the dictates of the prevailing art trends.
In addition the author of the article mentions that  his “Bad Paintings”  bypassed the Abstract Expressionist and Photo-Realist fashions then current in favor of canvases that showed figurative images (people, fighter planes, fences, fish and oxen) set against backgrounds painted in broad, sloshy brush strokes of brown, green and blue acrylic;he gave these works elementary, allegorical titles like “Tools and Task,” “Sawn and Saw,” “Girl and Doll” and were originally left unframed.
Analyzing the situation it's necessary to emphasize that in some ways the story of Neil Jenney might be said to be the story of what did not happen after this opening salvo; in the ensuing years he continued to evolve as an artist, moving on to create meticulously painted and tightly cropped luminous bits of landscapes and skies (referred to as “Good Paintings”), which he painted in oil on board , he also built large, sculptural frames for them, stenciling titles directly onto the frames,as with the “Bad Paintings” he gave them simple but effective titles like “Meltdown Morning” and “Window #6” that pointed to the social concerns behind the art (later he added similar frames to the earlier paintings) .
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that in interviews he came across as a homespun philosopher, sounding a utopian note as well as issuing ornery statements about art and life, including “Art is a social science,” and “No real artist would ever use a camera,” critics generally responded well; in The New York Times in 1981 Hilton Kramer called Mr. Jenney “a very political artist” and “a very talky artist — quite the talkiest of his generation,” while another critic later referred to him as a descendant of the Hudson River School “by way of Pop,” but for various reasons, including his habit of keeping much of his work scarce (“It took me so long to make my stuff,” he said of his paintings, “it’s hard to let go. They’re like my kids.”), Mr. Jenney did not go on to become a household name like, say, by his onetime college roommate William Wegman, and his paintings have never sold for the stratospheric prices commanded by the work of some of his peers, like Andy Warhol. (Mr. Jenney’s paintings sell at auction in the respectable six figures, with the highest price on record being $590,500 for the sale of his “Girl and Vase” at Christie’s in May.)
In conclusion the author of the article expresses the view that part of the problem, is that Mr. Jenney, now 67, has never wanted to relinquish the handling of his career to anyone but himself. It probably hasn’t helped his reputation with critics or his visibility in the larger world that he has not been formally associated with a gallery since 1970, although he has frequently shown with Barbara Mathes and in 2001 the Gagosian Gallery put on a show called “The Bad Years, 1969-70.” Or, for that matter, that he declined a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in the late 1980s (Mr. Jenney said that William Rubin, the museum’s director at the time, agreed in a phone call to postpone the opening so that he could finish two paintings for the show, but that two months later Rubin was gone from the scene.)
As for me I think that the art world has always laid claim to its share of oddballs and mavericks, and I'm sure that Neil Jenney is really talented person , he has vivid imagination , his own point of view and what is more important he is not addicted to fame and money. He paints what's going on around him but not what is popular at the very moment I believe he is worth to admire.