The Godfather

The Godfather-1972

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

America loves a bad guy. While that may be evident today, it wasn’t always necessarily true. One movie contributed to anti-hero adoration unlike any other: The Godfather. To see this film is to love it. It took the American “Goomba” and added depth, character, and integrity to a lifestyle commonly associated with highly questionable morality. If you don’t absolutely adore this photodrama, then maybe you should “Sleep with the fishes”.

Francis Ford Coppola’s name today is associated with quality film making and artistic storytelling. That wasn’t always so, but The Godfather made believers of the faithless. This was the first in a series of hit films in his portfolio.  Nominated for a whopping 11 academy awards, a feat rarely mimicked, it commanded attention from critics and fans alike. It went on to win 3 of those academy awards for Best Picture, Best Actor for the work of Marlon Brando, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Looking at the cast today, it was a star studded affair.  With names like Brando, Caan, Pacino, Duvall (a personal favorite), Keaton, and Shire it’s a who’s who of classic film greatness.




Business

What makes this film so deep is its ability to make us root for the nasty. The Corleones are in the business of crime, but it comes off as hard day’s work, a job, a business. Coppola had strong material to work with. The films are based on the works of Mario Puzo; the themes resonate with its audiences.

These men are murderers, racketeers, and intimidation artists; but we absolutely love them. We view the world from their perspective, almost believing for ourselves that they commit “victimless” crimes. By revealing a lighter side to these typically dark men Godfather humanized the mob, allowing us to see some of ourselves in them. By making the opposing crime families ruthless and lacking any code of honor we view the Corleones as men of integrity, sympathizing with their actions.

Look at some of the classic films in attempt to compare that style of violence to what you see in Coppola’s epic and what do you get? Two incredibly different degrees of what a violent act is. In traditional films, say the early westerns, a man can be shot, with absolutely no blood. His reaction: to place a hand over the wound and keel over almost telegraphing the pain.  Now look at the classic scene with Michael (Al Pacino) taking his revenge on a corrupt Police officer and the man behind his father's assassination. The result is a bloody shot to the neck, followed by another directly to the skull, ensuring a man’s demise. Gory depictions of death (23 in total) can be seen, but it is also truer to life. if we decide to be honest with ourselves then we can admit the violence also appeals to our baser instincts, we may cringe, but our eyes are glued to the screen.  




The Corleones-a beautiful family

With all the crime and murder what ties us emotionally to these people is “family” in every sense of the word. They are fathers, sons, cousins and lovers. We see them amidst all the traditions life has to offer. The wedding of Vito’s only daughter, the Baptism of Michael’s nephew, and countless scenes filled  with them sitting together over a meal together. They may not be perfect, but they are more like us then some care to admit. We witness their story unfold from within, making viewers a member of this unconventional yet compelling family.  
  

Article: The Godfather

By Paul Tatara
Link- http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/140791%7C0/The-Godfather.html

Paul Tatara’s article basically summarizes all the turmoil that plagued the film. The thing about movies, even these timeless classics, is that you can’t guarantee success. You can never fully know what you have in your hands. The process is daunting, full of complexities, and time consuming. The Godfather is one of those films with a huge amount of hype, and it lives up to it. There will always be reasons not to see a goal through the end, but you only need one good reason to accomplish it.




Coppola on set

One anecdote in particular encompasses the doubt that filled this movie. Coppola had heard of rumors that paramount intended to replace him. On one bad day he made a trip to the restroom. While conducting “business” on the stall two crew members entered. While washing their hands they vented about his incompetence. Embarrassed, Coppola lifted his legs up in fear that the men may recognize his shoes. That is what crew members thought of Coppola’s work.

Coppola himself was doubtful of the film. He was reluctant to accept the job only doing so to work off a $300,000 debt to Warner Bros. after his production company’s most recent failure. “That was fine with Paramount - several name directors had already turned them down, and they basically approached Coppola because they knew he was Italian. After all, somebody had to direct it,” (Tatara).  He finally changed his mind when he saw the film in a new light; as a family drama and examination of the American corporate structure.

It’s hard to picture anyone other than Brando or Pacino playing the father and son Godfathers. Surprisingly, casting these two roles was Coppola’s biggest struggle. Brando was known for being the monkey wrench in his own films. His utter lack of professionalism was well known. Producers were openly against his casting. They finally gave way to Coppola on the condition that Brando receives a portion of the profits and no direct salary, followed by a humbling screen test. Coppola obliged and made his way to Brando’s home where the test began, never actually using the words “Screen Test” to describe the exercise. Brando’s transformation was remarkable and won him the role. Pacino was considered “too Italian” for a member of the family that should be americanized. One producer was said to referred to Pacino as “runty”. There were many who held their reservations, but no one else could have filled these shoes. He manages to balance the innocence of the character early on with the ruthlessness and ability to command we witness by the time that office door closes upon Kate.

3) Apply the article to the film screened in class

With nearly every film I’ve come to witness this semester the behind-the-scenes revelations have surprised me. Years ago I was first introduced to Brando through this film, and was surprised to see that he was considered a ladies man in his hey-day. Most shocking is that this world famous actor could be such an abysmal person to work with. This amazing actor behind such amazing films like On the Waterfront and A Street Car Named Desire was a difficult man to work with. Eccentric doesn’t begin to describe him, yet his performance was phenomenal. It hard for us to see someone on-screen and picture their actual personality off of it, but that may be a very good thing. Brando’s performance was outstanding regardless of his on-set antics (he was said to have enjoyed mooning the crew on several occasions). When you think of the Godfather you can’t help but picture Vito with that puffy jaw line and unique cadence.




Brando as Vito

It also surprises me to know that Coppola was so averse to signing on for this film. From the cast to the crew, the doubt that loomed over the making of Godfather is almost unbelievable. One story tells that upon viewing the dailies one producer joked “it’s too dark, but other than that it’s magnificent”. Yet critics praise the opening scene. There is a contrast from the dimly lit office of the don conducting his “dark” business and the brightly lit outdoor wedding full of life and vigor. It is beautifully done; this provides an inspiring thought. Sometimes it is best to deny the naysayers and continue on your desired path.

Godfather has come under the gun for romanticizing gangsters. The real mob isn’t as strict to abide by any code. That may be true, but that’s the beauty of film. It allows us to see viewpoints and worlds we know nothing of from a new light. That is what the Godfather does so well. Most would consider the “mafia” (a word rarely said in the film) as nothing more than an amoral crime syndicate. That is not how most people view themselves. Rarely does a criminal consider himself to be the villain but just misunderstood.

The film pays just as much attention to their everyday life as it does their criminal activity; from their violent tendencies to their loving sides. They kiss their mother on the cheek, respect their father regardless of age or position, and we witness a tender moment between Grandfather and Granchild. The first time I saw the Godfather I was roughly 12 years old. I had always heard so many things about this movie and wanted to understand what all the praise was about. Even at that young age I was blown away. Did I focus on how dated the film was, or lack of  high definition? No, I was amazed with these people and the lives they lived. Most us tend to have core values or a fear of authority that prevents us from conducting our lives like a Corleone. What the film does so well is allow us to live vicariously through the atypical yet relatable domestic unit.

One of my favorite aspects is Michael’s transformation. He is an honest war hero turned mafia don, the successor to the throne. prior to this dark metamorphasis he tells Kate “That’s my family, that’s not me”. I can’t say clearly if this powerful character turn was inevitable. Did Michael always have the Mafioso in him or did his father’s attempted murder act as the catalyst to his moral 180? Just as audiences came to understand these men and what drives their  decisions... so did Michael. He lost his brother and his wife Appolonia, maybe assuming the position of the head of the family was in a way, his manner of taking control of the world he lives in. A world thrust into chaos. The Mantle of the Godfather wasn't merely granted, he takes the reigns and never looks back.



The new King

The Godfather is a standout film from start to finish; with every viewing you gain a greater respect for the film. I think if comes as no surprise that this film with its themes of crime, family, and capitalism is hands down my favorite film this semester. I think most would agree. Even in 2013 the Godfather is not be missed, take a chance and become a Corleone for 3 hours.

Casablanca

 

Casablanca-1942

Directed By Michael Curtiz

 

 

 

 

1) Relate what was discussed in class or the text to the screening.

 Casablanca rests comfortably at number 3 among AFI’s (American Film Institute) “Top 100 Films of All Time”. Unlike other films that master cinematography Casablanca doesn’t stand out for its innovative manipulation of camera work or uncommon themes. What marks this film with prominence its pure heart. It is an everlasting story of love, honor, and self-sacrifice in the midst of a globe-spanning war. Rick and Ilsa have chemistry and a love that is destined to never to find solace, but inspires none the less.
 

The story, written by Julius J, Philip G. Epstein, and Howard Koch is derived from an unproduced play called “Everybody Comes to Ricks”. What it lacks in cinematography and scale, it more than makes up for with quality story-telling. Some films garner critical praise whilst others gain acceptance from the masses, Casablanca is adored by both parties for its cocktail like blend of romance, suspense, and comedy.

Do awards determine the significance of a film? Not necessarily, but they do allow us to pay respect to its worthy attributes. Casablanca earned its place in the hearts and minds of audiences, and received 7 Academy Award nominations. On Oscar night it received 3 wins for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.

 

The film characters are as memorable as the many famous lines that have seeped their way into pop culture. It’s common for someone to be using a popular phrase from Casablanca without being aware of the phrases origin. “I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship” has been uttered countless times in film and television; one such example would be on the long-lasting Simpsons sitcom.

 

 

Claude Rains as Captain Louis Renalt

Rick, Ilsa, and Sam are central to the film’s plot. Sam is a physical extension of the couple’s time in Paris, but more importantly he is a loyal companion and confidante to Rick. Captain Louis Renalt was played to perfection by Claude Rains, successfully earning him a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Renalt is dastardly, selfish, and corrupt. Flawed as he may be he still manages to be an appealing character by movies end. He readily delivers quips that bring a smile to ones face. Like Rick, by the time the credits roll this self-serving bureaucrat ultimately has a pleasant character turn; inspired by Rick’s gallant decision on that airport runway.

 

2)  Find a related article and summarize the content.  

 

http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_films_casablanca.cfm

Behind the Scenes of Casablanca

By the Picture Show Man

 

It’s no surprise that I’m a sucker for behind the scenes information in any form. Bogey and Bergman barely got to know one another, a character was disliked by the actor portraying him, and classic tune nearly nearly met its demise.
 

Casa Blanca was a film so rich with potential, but if any one person can be given credit for the film it should be Executive Producer Hal Wallis. He was responsible for “selecting the manuscript “Everybody Comes to Rick’s”, assigned the writers, decided what to film, hired the director and cast, approved every aspect of the production, and even wrote the final line,” (PSM).

 

Bogey and Burgman

During shooting Ingred Bergman and Humphrey Bogart didn’t seem to connect, failing to get to know one another. Bergman considered Bogart “standoffish” and was quoted as saying “I kissed him, but I never knew him”. To compensate for the lack of congeniality Bergman viewed The Maltese Falcon  repeatedly in order to gain a greater understanding of Bogart’s acting style and a sense of his on-screen image.

 

Victory Lazlo was despised by Paul Henreid. He initially turned down the role mocking the character, “"an underground leader who appeared in a white tropical suit and hat in a famous nightclub and talked openly with Nazis was ridiculous and redolent of musical comedy." Yet to no surprise he agreed to the part after an increase in the role and top billing, nothing like feeding an actor’s ego to gain his acceptance.

 

Considering the lack of respect African American entertainers received at the time it should come as no surprise that Dooley Wilson was among the lowest paid members of the cast. He only garnered a wage of $150 a week, even though his role was larger and more valuable than that of other cast members. Peter Lorre earned $1,750 and Sydney Greenstreet $3,750 even with less screen time and less importance to the core story.

 

The now classic “As Time Goes By” was meant to be cut from the film.  Max Steiner, the creator of the films musical Score didn’t like the song, it was agreed the song would be taken out. The song was mentioned so often in the film that reshoots would be necessary. Ingred Bergman had cut her hair for her next role in “For whom the Bell Tolls” making retakes impossible. It was a haircut that saved of one of cinemas most memorable scores from hitting the cutting room floor.

 

As Time Goes by sung by Dooley Wilson 

 

 

 

3) Apply the article to the film screened in class.

 



Ricks



The article makes a second viewing of the film more interesting. For example Rick’s café consumed nearly half the films budget, resulting in many of the sets being borrowed from other films. The Paris train station was the same one used in “Now, Voyager”. The Blue parrot café and the Black Market were the exact sets from “The Desert Song”.

 

“As time goes by” is beautifully rendered; once you hear it you can’t help but hum it throughout the entirety of your day. To think that it was nearly lost to audiences (it was in the play) is surprising. The song is one of the core elements in Casablanca, it would have been outrageous to make the film without it.

 

The most powerfully compelling part of Casablanca is whether or not Rick and Ilsa’s love will prevail. They make an amazing couple, yet they were barely acquainted off screen. There are quite a few stories of actors finding love on set, this most definitely no one of those stories. Casablanca revolves around the love they had and that very loves impact on where their lives have led. Incredibly their onscreen desire comes off as genuine and intense.

 

 

 

4) Write a critical analysis of the film, including your personal opinion, formed as a result of the screening, class discussions, text material and the article

 

A big budget does not mark a good film. Many of today’s summer blockbusters may be visual spectacles, but tend to lack quality story telling (cough…Transformers). The sets provide a good example of a small budgeted movie that still strikes a chord. That is the power of film, when properly done you can find yourself so caught up in the story and characters that you accept the reality they provide you. Many of Casablanca’s scenes are surrounded by fog, but the actual desert it mimics is rarely, if ever, fog covered. Yet, the audience doesn’t care, and the film makers are aware. The fog provides dramatic effect and lends itself to the emotion of the moment.  

 

The best way to summarize Casablanca is “heart”. It’s has romance, fun quips, and includes politics intrigue. Women adore this film, and men may not be so obvious to admit it, but they love it just the same.     

 

Those final moments, when Rick is willing to sacrifice his love for Ilsa in order to provide her with a better life doesn’t fit into the typical Hollywood ending. America had come to rely on that happy ending where all the pieces fit neatly into place. Ilsa may be married but we want her and Rick together. That finish didn’t alienate audiences, instead it was a testament to Rick’s selflessness, a sign of his growth from the narcissistic man who doesn’t “stick his neck out for anyone” to the man of integrity we witness with back turned walking into the distant fog of the Casablanca night.

 

It’s a wonderful story, worth seeing with a loved if the opportunity should arise.   

 

A Beautiful Friendship

 

Plagiarism Statement:  Attach this statement to the end of each journal assignment. CHECKLIST FOR PLAGIARISM

1) ( x ) I have not handed in this assignment for any other class.

2) ( x ) If I reused any information from other papers I have written for other classes, I clearly explain that in the paper.

3) ( x ) If I used any passages word for word, I put quotations around those words, or used indentation and citation within the text.

4) ( x ) I have not padded the bibliography. I have used all sources cited in the bibliography in the text of the paper.

5) ( x ) I have cited in the bibliography only the pages I personally read.

6) ( x ) I have used direct quotations only in cases where it could not be stated in another way. I cited the source within the paper and in the bibliography.

7) ( x ) I did not so over-use direct quotations that the paper lacks interpretation or originality.

8) ( x ) I checked yes on steps 1-7 and therefore have been fully transparent about the research and ideas used in my paper.

Name: Benjamin Novoa     Date: 4/30/13

 



Citizen Kane



Citizen Kane- 1941

Directed by Orsen Welles

1) Relate what was discussed in class or the text to the screening 

Citizen Kane is a film greatly appreciated for its artistry after the fact.  Since 1998 “Kane” has stood atop AFI’s (American Film Institute) greatest American films of all time. It stands as Orsen Welles greatest critical success, taking all the positive reactions later in its life cycle into account. Citizen Kane’s release resulted in conflicting reactions. It stood tall among all the Oscar contenders that year with an outstanding nine nominations, but only took home one for Best Screenplay, yet received many jeers among the attending audience. It is revered as one the greatest films of all time, yet was a commercial failure, very nearly being unreleased by RKO. The film, like Kane, is perceived differently dependent on whom you ask. Welles was never given as much control for any other film as he was with Kane, exemplifying the “auteur” approach. At the young age of 24, Welles crafted a cinematic masterpiece known for it thought provoking themes and cinematic artistry.  

Charles Foster Kane, the central character who passes away in the opening minutes (not a spoiler) is based loosely on William Randolph Hearst. Both men were newspaper moguls, Xanadu the reclusive mansion built by Kane was a take on San Simeon, Hearst’s far from humble abode. Even Kane’s second wife Susan Alexander was modeled after Marion Davies, the actress Hearst was involved with. All these “coincidental” similarities didn’t sit well with Hearst, who was 76 when the film released, refused to publish any reviews or ads for it. The film isn’t simply a parallel of Hearst’s life. “The easiest way to draw parallels between Kane and other famous publishers is not to see the picture,” (Orsen Welles). The rich dominant newspaper head serves to tell the tale of one man’s struggle with himself. Is it power that defines him? Or the people he loved? For all his valuables and grandiose globe spanning collections it is the memories of others that survive. With each new flashback the audience gets more details on a man that was complex, hated, loved, admired, and ridiculed.

Welles had never made a movie prior to Citizen Kane, yet the film is celebrated for its cinematography and innovation. Sound and lighting were put to effective use conveying the story line of power and corruption. Similar to classic film noire lighting and shadows can be used to express emotion and tone. A high key lighting is used for moments of elation, like in Kane’s youth, provoking a positive response. Shadows were used in contrast, such as in the “Declaration of Principles” scene. Here we find Kane’s face cast in heavy shadows, providing an ominous and eerie feeling, and foreshadowing things to come. Deep focus, provided by wide angle lenses, was another means to an end. It exaggerates the distance between two people, both physically and emotionally. Shots from below, or a “Worms eye view” give a sense of power to the subject, while a “Birds eye view” can have the opposite effect.

A montage can be used to condense time in a story, providing large chunks of information in what can be only minutes in real time. The best example is “Kane’s” breakfast scene. In just a short period of time, the audience comes to see Kane with his first wife as time passes. The characters clearly begin to age, the lighting grows darker with each passing year, and we witness the degradation of a marriage. An entire story of a love shattered, or maybe one that never truly was, told in mere minutes.

Young vs. Old, Masculinity vs. Femininity, and recurring motifs were all tools used to tell of a man’s unrestrained lifestyle. Told in a series of flashbacks, we see these aged characters after a lifetime of “lessons learned” before delving into their younger selves. The idea of financial success and power seem to represent masculinity, which at odds throughout this film when genuine love and selflessness, associated with femininity. Then there’s the Snow globe, a representation of a better time and happiness, which purposely is reflective of Kane’s childhood. In the early scenes we see Kane playing the in the snow before being dragged away to a world where the almighty dollar is king.

It’s fairly easy to see why Citizen Kane receives such prominent word-of-mouth and critical acclaim. Rather than be a film whose own hype and expectations undermine it, it lives up to what you've come to expect, and can provide an intimate look at who we are beyond the archetypes were given. “Greatest movie ever made” may not a be a guarantee, but it will always be mentioned in the same breath as any other film even considered.

2)  Find a related article and summarize the content

ORSON WELLES explains the meaning of Rosebud in CITIZEN KANE

Link = http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=187

By Orsen Welles

The article is actually a press release regarding Citizen Kane’s comparisons to Hearst, supplied by Welles prior to the film’s release. It was issued to the press in January, 1942, and is an excerpt from Citizen Welles, a biography on Welles by Frank Brady.

In the release he goes on to say how he came to choose a newspaper man over other prestigious and public careers. He did so for a few reasons. First, he sought to show how widely opinions of a person’s character can vary from person to person. The film wasn’t a typical narrative, but an examination from character. A typical American citizen wouldn’t provide his intentions any purpose. So he decided the protagonist should be an important public figure. Second, he stories told from his friends and lovers would shed light on his career. This led him to choose a newspaper, a powerful form of communication (especially for the time). Rather than have the film be a success story he provided the character with money at an early age.  In that way it is a question of how a man decides to use his wealth and power, rather than a quest to attain it. “It was also much better for the purpose of my narrative since the facts about a philanthropist would not make as good a picture as a picture about a man interested in imposing his will upon the will of his fellow countrymen”, (Welles).



Kane himself-Orsen Welles

He also goes on to explain the significance of “Rosebud”. “In his subconscious it represented the simplicity, the comfort, above all the lack of responsibility in his home, and also it stood for his mother's love which Kane never lost”, (Welles). This in turn led to him making the character such an avid collector. He didn’t want to simply have the newspaper man bluntly tell the audience rosebud was his childhood sled. That moment at the end, where the camera tells the story and we witness the sled being burned is far more powerful than a simple reveal. So he had to provide the character with wealth, make him a collector of all things, and provide him with a massive home to contain all these lavish items. The collection also serves to show all the things that would reflect a public career. That is things are beautiful, ugly, and useless. For all his money and power, he couldn’t control the world around him (people included) and Xanadu was the “ivory tower” in which Kane dominated.

Whether or not all this justifies the similarities between Kane and Hearst, or is just Welles way of striking back at the doubters I honestly can’t say. I only know the set up for the character serves to tell a wonderfully thought out story. Often real life trumps fiction, can it be so bad to build upon what already was?

3) Apply the article to the film screened in class.    

To no surprise, the two films I came to enjoy the most throughout the semester are Stagecoach and Citizen Kane. It is said that Welles watched Stagecoach over 40 times when preparing to make Citizen Kane. In my view, that doesn’t take away from anything Welles had done. Rather than see it as stealing ideas, it should be viewed as a source of inspiration.

This is why I don’t care whether or not Kane was based on Hearst or not. If he wasn’t then the sheer coincidence is amazing, hey, life is full of them. If it was, and to be honest I genuinely believe it was, then he took the existence of real man and provided the world with an outstanding story derived from it never the less.



The Many Collections of Charles Foster Kane

I also came to look at what Orsen Welles himself saw the movie as. It is a “failure story” and an “examination of character”. It looks at a man who truly wants to be loved by the world, yet has no true understanding of the concept. For new and rare collector’s item obtained, there is another relationship lost.

His life is full of accomplishment career-wise, but fraught with disaster personally. It isn’t until he loses Susan that he utters the words “Rose bud”, which represents innocence, love lost, and a happier time. Coming to see Welles perspective gives a second viewing of the film merit. Now that you know the narrative watching it again can provide greater insight to a classic.

4) Write a critical analysis of the film, including your personal opinion, formed as a result of the screening, class discussions, text material and the article

Movies can serve a wide variety of purposes. Sometimes were just seeking escapism, and a story that takes us away to worlds only found in the imagination. Or it can be that tear jerker on a first date, maybe even a shoot-em-up action flick. And sometimes…it can be so many things at once. A cautionary tale, an observation on life, or a metaphor for the something greater can be extracted from cinema. Citizen Kane seems to accomplish so many things at once.

Citizen Kane is about wealth, power, a lifetime of reflection, innocence lost, and where a person finds/loses happiness. "Rosebud" is the trade name of a cheap little sled on which Kane was playing on the day he was taken away from his home and his mother. Innocence lost is a prevailing theme in Kane, among many. Men and women from any background can relate. As the old adage goes “hind sight is 20/20”. Child hood is that time when the worries of the world are meaningless. Responsibility is at a minimum, the thoughts of others seem to have little effect, and rather than plague yourself with what comes next you live in the moment.  



Xanadu

Stylistically it did so many things right. Lighting was put to wonderful use displaying the sentiments of Kane visually. The sound such as the echoing whispers of Kane as he says “Rosebud”, are masterful. Sets were designed to reflect the characters and capture moment. For example the grand hall Kane and Susan bickered in were beautiful to behold, but full of loneliness and lacked warmth.

 Citizen Kane is a movie I have heard so much about in the past. I even knew was Rosebud was before the big reveal. It didn’t lessen the impact the film had on me. I understand why Citizen Kane is considered such a masterpiece, and I’m not surprised by its influence on future film.

Plagiarism Statement:  Attach this statement to the end of each journal assignment. CHECKLIST FOR PLAGIARISM

1) ( x ) I have not handed in this assignment for any other class.

2) ( x ) If I reused any information from other papers I have written for other classes, I clearly explain that in the paper.

3) ( x ) If I used any passages word for word, I put quotations around those words, or used indentation and citation within the text.

4) ( x ) I have not padded the bibliography. I have used all sources cited in the bibliography in the text of the paper.

5) ( x ) I have cited in the bibliography only the pages I personally read.

6) ( x ) I have used direct quotations only in cases where it could not be stated in another way. I cited the source within the paper and in the bibliography.

7) ( x ) I did not so over-use direct quotations that the paper lacks interpretation or originality.

8) ( x ) I checked yes on steps 1-7 and therefore have been fully transparent about the research and ideas used in my paper.

Name: Benjamin Novoa              Date: 4/8/2013