Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer till inlägget (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Denna blogg används inom kursen engelska C på gymnasiet för att eleverna skall dela med sig av sitt skrivande, inspireras av andra och som en del i processkrivningen.
The Teacher
Net addresses
- BBC Learning English - watch and listen
- English C Kursmål och betygskriterier
- The Corpus of Contemporary American English
- The British National Corpus
- The Collins Wordbank Online English Corpus
- Kiosken - newspapers
- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - online search
- The Free dictionary eng/eng
- CAE Tests
- CBS and CNN Stories
- Free practice tests for learners of English
- The English page - Free online English lessons
- Cambridge ESOL
13 kommentarer:
My reflections on the Simon Steven lecture:
The overall impression I got was that it was a lecture worth attending. The subject was interesting, something I haven’t actually thought about before.
However, I thought the lecture was a bit incoherent. He didn’t seem to have a red line through his lecture. I could make out the introduction of the subject but couldn’t really find a conclusion or a summary. I also got some kind of feeling he stayed on the same “level” throughout the lecture, he didn’t seem to go deeper into the subject. But instead of going deeper he went wider! He started talking about things beside the subject, such as the English identity, which I think were interesting but not really that relevant to the subject. On the other hand, it made the lecture informative.
Occasionally Simon talked quite fast, which I think he did unwittingly as he seemed to be a spontaneous person. He was open for input from the audience and seemed well prepared. Would be nice however, if he (or someone) could give a proper introduction of himself, things like his profession, his relationship with the subject and why he’s giving lectures on the subject, are interesting to know.
Henrik
My reflections on the Simon Stevens lecture:
I believe it was an interesting lecture on the whole, although a bit unclear at times.
Firstly, it was an interesting subject which touched on facts that I haven’t reflected upon before and will likely notice in the future while watching films. Stevens was rather well prepared and it was clear that he did not rely on cue cards.
I agree with Henrik that the lecture was lacking a red thread to keep it all together; this made it quite hard to follow at times. I also agree upon the fact that he seemed to go over the same things over and over again. He clearly stated that English people are portrayed in a certain way in Hollywood films, however in my opinion he should have analysed WHY he thought it was like that. I also felt that the lecture didn’t progress; he seemed to get hung up on one aspect of the subject and as a result he lost some of my attention.
Malin
When listening to Simon Stevens I thought that he had a quite interesting perspective on how they use the British in Hollywood films since I have never thought about it in that kind of way. In my opinion I thought that he put the British stereotypes in all the categories such as the nerd, the villain, the evil genius, the comedian and the romantic good-looking guy. I mean, there’s nothing special about that if they are playing almost every role that you can play?
Furthermore, one positive thing was that the subject that he was talking about was something unusual, something that I haven’t really heard about before which made it interesting to hear what he had to say about it. One other thing was that he tried to be quite funny at times by liven up the lecture with personal stories which was pretty good. The fact that he was using pictures while speaking was a big plus because then the lecture didn’t get too boring.
Afterwards, the lecture itself gave me something to think about next time I’m watching a film. Who knows, maybe I will try to spot all the stereotypes being played by British actors/actresses. I have to say that I don’t really remember everything that he was talking about. Actually, all the things he brought up didn’t stay in my memory for so long but I do have a vague idea about the whole lecture. Maybe that’s a sign that shows that he didn’t try hard enough to make it stay in your head.
I am having a really hard time trying to write this "reflection".
I cannot come up with anything since there are no specifications on what we are supposed to reflect on. Am I reflecting on what the lecture was about, what he tried to present, how he did his presentation, my own thoughts about the lecture, if and how he used his body-language?
I am completely blocked since I, obviously, haven't understood the task assigned to us.
Simon Stevens is, according to me, a very good speaker with the ability to capture the interest of his audience. Although he follows an extraordinary line of reasoning at times, he still manages to keep the crowd alert by asking questions and telling stories from his own life. He speaks without any notes or cue cards and there for he also comes across as a more spontaneous and sincere person. One thing I found very positive was that he tried to create a dialogue with the audience.
Although Stevens’s spontaneity was his biggest strength it was also his biggest weakness. Unfortunately it also was a bit annoying when he jumped from one thing to another. This lack of structure became very clear when he used pictures of famous actors. He did not have the pictures in order and therefore he had to browse through all of them every time he wanted to show something. This I thought gave an unprofessional impression which could have easily been avoided.
Nevertheless, the subject of the lecture was very appropriate considering the audience. Hollywood film is something that most teenagers can easily relate to and therefore it becomes more fascinating. Stevens opened my eyes to how a language can be used to mediate so much more than just words. Stevens ideas are no doubt very interesting and I am sorry to say I felt he did not really come to a conclusion. Unfortunately he tip toed around the core of the subject and he did not get deeper into it. A more thorough analysis would have been preferable.
In conclusion my overall impression of the lecture was very positive. It was entertaining, whilst interesting and I very much enjoyed listening to Sevens accent. Although a bit repetitive and unstructured at times I would gladly listen to a lecture by Simon Stevens again.
Simon first caught my attention with the subject he had chosen, it was rather interesting and unusual.
Unfortunately my excitement stopped at that level. It was an interesting observation by him and I will certainly think about this the next time I watch a movie, but I was a little disappointed that there was no conclusion on the lecture...
ps. loved his accent though!
According to my opinion Simon Stevens’ lecture was worth attending. Before I listened to his speech I thought the heading “English in Hollywood films” sounded quite boring. “What can he do with this subject?”, I asked myself.
After the speech I was impressed of what he had said and realized that he had touched upon things that I hadn’t thought of before. Such as the bad guys are usually played by English actors while the goodies are played by Americans. This presumably states that the Americans haven’t forgotten their past rivalry against the Englishmen.
Furthermore, it seemed like Simon had a great passion for the subject. That and his spontaneous way of speaking made the speech amusing and easy to follow.
Finally, I would like to say that even if he was gabbing about things that weren’t 100% relevant to the subject he gave us an eye-opener.
Over all I thought it was a good lecture. It was a interesting object, which I think attracts young listener. It was also an objekt that I had never thought about which made it even more interesting and he pointed out some things that I really will be looking for in the future.
On the other hand, I have to agree with many of the others. It felt like the lecture was lacking in structure with kind of made me lose interest. It also felt like he was repeating the same things over and over again.
However over all it was a good lecture.
My overall impression on the Simon Stevens lecture was he was very well prepared and that his subject (english as they are depictured in holliwoodtilms)is something that he is realy interested in.
However to my mind he spent to much time deskribing individula actors. If you are not interested im movies and celeberaties you would find it hard to understand the importense of what he was saying.Furthermore he seamed unable to keep to one subject for to long and he was cnostantly going back and forth in his notes.
Personally i have never noticed the acsent of different actors and that sertan caracters often is played by englishmen. Althoug i will probably se it in the future.
At first I was a bit sceptical about the subject, "English in Hollywood suonded rather dul to me. However that was not the case. The lecture was interesting in the first 35 or 40 minutes but then he seemd unable to move on, push the subject and do some analysis on the matter.
He seemed to be speaking outside his manus some times, but he did it in a good way even though he strayed a bit to far from the subject some times.
Personally I'm not interested in actors/actresses so it was a bit hard to follow sometimes, ecpecially if I hadn't seen the moive that he was talking about.
Overall though I think it was a lecture worth of attending despite certain shortcomings.
Skicka en kommentar