The end of the fun***in world reparto
On July 28, 1914, one of the bloodiest and most brutal conflicts in the history of mankind officially began. It ended on November 11, 1918, when Germany asked for an armistice and later on June 28, 1919, the warring countries signed the Treaty of Versailles. In what was also known as the Great War, more than 10 million people died, being a conflict of dimensions unknown until then.
Was the attack against the Archduke of Austria or noble motivations of peace, democracy and freedom the cause of the First World War? No, answers writer and historian Jacques Pauwels. The great world powers had wanted this war for a long time in order to take over the colonies and to put an end once and for all to the revolutionary ideas that were advancing more and more throughout Europe.
«The great industrial powers, the big banks and big business wanted new colonies (or semi-colonies over which they would exercise indirect control) because of their raw materials, their cheap labor and their investment possibilities. Undoubtedly, one of the main reasons for the war lies in this». Let us look at the explanation.
Between irony and the logic of the coming new world, their old system was blown to smithereens precisely as a consequence of ambitions on their own continent. The backdrop, however, was the inability to reach an international cooperation for the domination of the colonies, which deprived them of their greatest achievements of the empires then: global expansion, international trade, wealth and prosperity that Europe was beginning to taste as a result of progress in science, medicine, industry… after several centuries of wars, as the well-meaning and naive Norman Angell pointed out in ‘The Great Illusion’, published in 1909.
If Austria-Hungary opened Pandora’s box in the Balkans, especially during the period 1908-1914 with its stubborn opposition to Serbia – which it instrumented with the annexation of Bosnia (1908) and the creation of the independent state of Albania after the London Conference (1913) – all with the aim of isolating it, it did so knowing that it was the foundation of a confrontation with the Russian Empire of the Czar and with all the probabilities of unleashing the world conflagration.
The social links historically constructed between work, free time and leisure have been, since the end of the 19th century, stimulating studies and reflections by some authors, being the researches and investigations intensified with the passing of the 20th century, evidencing that the subject has great complexity and dynamism. Thus, this article aims to understand some dimensions of the themes of work, free time and leisure in contemporary times, highlighting some of the contradictions and challenges verified in our society. To contextualize the discussion, the text begins with a rereading of the thinking of some authors who analyze the category of work. It then questions the thesis that leisure time is being progressively expanded, proposes to rethink the question of the centrality of work in today’s society and the role that leisure is able to develop in our social life. These discussions are considered important for the understanding of the relationships between work, free time and leisure in our context, especially in today’s Latin American societies.
World war i
Then, between the first and second act, he disappears, but Ali is still present in the film even after his departure. Ali is both the tragic, paternal image of manhood and the first man worthy of Chiron’s love.
SCOTT I would almost go so far as to say that the acting is the opposite of the film. Ali is dashing, witty and self-aware, while Green Book is awkward, wisecracking and fails to distinguish his own brutalities. I’m not sure if any other actor could have handled the famous fried chicken scene with such dignity. That Green Book: A Friendship Without Borders and Moonlight won Best Picture reflects the contradictions of our cultural moment, but that Ali’s subtle craft and unflinching charisma can sustain two such divergent films is a testament to his talent.
MANOHLA DARGIS When we critics analyze comedic actors like Melissa McCarthy in detail, we often address familiar qualities like timing, grace and a malleable physiognomy, but we also talk about acting. Since making the transition from television to film, McCarthy has repeatedly demonstrated her acting range and has exhilaratingly helped to tear down retrograde ideas about who can be a movie star. No film has benefited her as much as Spy: A Clueless Spy (2015) in which she plays Susan, a shy Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst who is sent on a quirky mission that allows McCarthy to walk daintily at first and then wiggle beautifully.