The Society Of Will Writers Proposal Acceptance: Fill & Download for Free

A typical story telling experience should follow above graph and Nagraj Manjule the Director and Writer did a great job in crafting his story on above lines.For those who haven't watched the movie, the film is about a Boy- Parshya and a Girl- Archie in a village Bitter Gaon and their journey in life from a teenage inter-caste lovers to a lovely and fateful parents. A highly unpredictable and gripping story.I can plot exact scenes and plots of the movie along the above graph touch points:Nagraj’s vision was to create a story to entertain you and at the same time leaves you questioning your status-quo. He had to make sure the film reaches larger audience unlike his previous film.Parshya dreaming about his crushHow Parshya works towards getting his feelings across her and how they fall in love and accept each otherThey further dream about their marriage, own house, their living togetherHow their families react to their union, especially Archie's father and brother, the society and their journey to elope from their clutches and then arrive in a neighbouring city HyderabadBoth of them are now in Hyderabad facing harsh realities which they never imagined back home. Roaming around the streets, A place to stay, a rape attempt, a job, food to eat.After having helped by a lady onlooker, who had gone through all this shit before, they were finally starting to settle down in her shanty. And then we see Parshya's insecurity about Archie's fling with her boss. Their on road fight and later realizing their mistake only to get married. They now have their own son- AkshayThe movie was almost nearing to its end and as usual a happy end. But 4-5 mins left for the movie, Nagraj shows us the true color of the society and in reality not all eloped couples marrying out of their caste have a happy ending. Akshay's parents are no more.Nagraj decides to show us the last scene in MUTE. No background music, no talking just moving visuals. and then a black screen. END. We could literally hear audience hisses in those last minutes. That was a one of the kind experience. The story ends at a very depressing note and we cannot blame Nagraj for this. The movie makes us realize what a shitty society we are part of. The audience saw the two unknown souls falling in love, going through all the shit and then let them die in front of them. You feel so miserable as a part of upper caste society to let the story end that way.Nagraj and team were to display newspaper clippings and statistics on honour killing before movie credits but eventually they didn't to avoid diluting the impact on the audience.Other good points to note:Had it not been the music, the movie would have not garnered so much acceptance and publicity. Along with the lyrics and melody the visuals of the songs were great. More than listening I enjoyed watching the songs. Guess 1/4th of the movie story resides in the songs. No usual group dancers behind the lead characters, no exotic locations, no vulgarity like in item songs. The songs took the story narration experience to the next level.The lead actors were not well-known and not at all like stereotyped hero/heroines. They were facing the camera for the first time and they acted and portrayed themselves as ordinary couple. Audience could see themselves in the characters and hence enjoyed the story. They were not watching the story but living the characters for 3 hours. He also chose a teenage couple as they are unknown to the caste-ism and unspoken division of the society which adults usually bear in mind.Nagraj gave us a fresh content here and hats-off to his Direction. It was not usual boy chasing a girl romance. Even the chase was quite unique for me. Nagraj through his camera cleverly showed us differences in their living standards, family profession, their houses and and somewhere the audience is expecting these differences will come their way ahead.A strong and at the same time vulnerable girl character- Archie. Be it proposing her love, shooting her body-guard, Standing against her parents for Parshya and his family, deciding to elope with bagful of valuables with Parshya, leaving all her comforts back home to live her own life and at the same time her fight for her father’s acceptance. Archie’s character pulled in all those crazy boys in theatre.The first audience reaction and then the word of mouth was so strong, we had a Siarat-II being circulated on Whatsapp. Word of mouth publicity can beat any marketing and promotion strategy. There was equal participation from villages coming into multiplex for the first time, who whistled, laughed and broke as against silent reaction of urban audience. It takes your movie watching experience to next level when audience reacts to the scenes without thinking of etiquette.As stated earlier the visuals were great and communicated the story without any dialogues. Cinematographer- Sudhakar Reddy knows his skill and gave the audience a real experience. The village scenes made us go wow, their class differences were visible from where they lived, family profession, initial reactions to their dwelling place in Hyderabad etc. A frame showing Parshya drinking water in a mug and Archie in bottled water just made us restless for what lies ahead for them. The visuals brought out the required feelings among us. Stories which shows rather than talk has a deep impact on the audience.And I would end it by saying, no where the film blames any specific caste or class. Nagraj has taken a inter-caste marriage as a background to show ill acts of society. It lets audience to take their own decision. It precisely puts that question- Is caste division in our society a hero or villain in our society.

It is impossible to give an exact year. As I discuss in great detail in this article I published February 2019, it has been continuous common knowledge in the western world ever since roughly the end of the fifth century BC that the Earth is roughly spherical. The Athenian philosopher Plato (lived c. 428 – c. 347 BC) references the sphericity of the Earth in his dialogue Phaidon 108a as common knowledge.Meanwhile, Plato’s student Aristotle of Stageira (lived 384 – 322 BC), whose writings were widely studied during the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, argues in favor of the sphericity of the Earth in Book Two of his treatise De Caelo. At no point was knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth ever forgotten among educated people; throughout the entirety of the Middle Ages, it remained a well-known fact that the Earth was a sphere.Nevertheless, there have always been ignorant and contrarian people who have insisted that the Earth is flat. One of the most famous flat-Earthers in antiquity was the Christian theologian Lactantius (lived c. 250 – c. 325 AD), who mocks the idea of a spherical Earth in his treatise Divine Institiones. Lactantius, though, was absolutely an outlier; the vast majority of early Christian writers completely accepted the sphericity of the Earth. The English historian Bede (lived c. 672/3 – 735 AD) not only describes the Earth as a sphere in his treatise De Temporum Ratione, but accurately describes the angle of the Earth’s ecliptic as the cause of the seasons.There have always been flat-Earthers, but the modern flat Earth theory arguably began in the early nineteenth century with the eccentric English writer Samuel Birley Rowbotham (lived 1816 – 1884), a fundamentalist Protestant, who published a pamphlet in 1849 titled Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe. He later expanded this pamphlet into a book, which he published in 1865. In this book, Rowbotham proposed a model of a flat Earth centered around the North Pole, with Antaractica around the edges with walls of ice keeping anyone from falling off the edge of the Earth.The first modern flat-earth society was the Universal Zetetic Society, founded in the late nineteenth century by Lady Elizabeth Blount. The society published a magazine titled The Earth Not a Globe Review. The Universal Zetetic Society went defunct in the early twentieth century, but the Flat Earth Research Society was founded in 1956 by Samuel Shenton as its successor organization. The Flat Earth Research Society went defunct in around 2001. In 2004, a man named Daniel Shenton (no known relation of Samuel Shenton) founded the Flat Earth Society. In 2013, another Flat Earth Society was founded online by former members of Shenton’s 2004 Flat Earth Society.Flat-Earthism has always been around in some form or another and it probably always will be. Quite frankly, some people are just idiots. In any case, though, the idea that the Earth might be flat has been almost universally seen as a joke by intelligent, educated people in the west since around the late fifth century BC.ABOVE: Image of the logo of the modern Flat Earth Society

I am conflicted on this one.I think I speak for many when I say that Little Women’s conclusion did not do justice to a lot of its characters. And for that reason, the novel has not aged well. To paraphrase Mr. Knightley from Emma, the finale was “badly done”.I am not sure if I have a problem with Alcott’s decision to end Little Women with Jo’s marriage. It was the 19th century after all, and though wealthy spinsters (like Jane Austen and Alcott herself) could live on their own terms, society was, in general, less than accommodating to middle class young unmarried women. What I do have a problem with is that Alcott transforms her protagonist to such an extent that the Jo who marries Professor Bhaer has almost nothing in common with the independent Jo who rejected Laurie’s proposal.Little Women opens with Mrs. March (I refuse to call her ‘Marmee’, so get over it) and her four daughters living in a world of their own. Devoid of male figures and free from the influences of a patriarchal society, this environment is necessary for the girls’ secure emotional and intellectual development. But they cannot remain secluded for ever. Their transformation from little ‘girls’ to little ‘women’ will invariably bring them in contact with the world of men.Meg, Beth, and Amy are typical Victorian women.Jo is a social outcast — rebellious and assertive. She desires to be independent, both financially and emotionally. This longing for independence is what leads her to reject Laurie. She neither loves nor respects him enough to marry him. (Recall that she addresses him as ‘Teddy’. Though a term of endearment, it diminishes the young man’s stature. For Jo, Laurie will always be the boy who came to the March household seeking comfort and emotional support.)Contrast young and impetuous Laurie to the older and dignified Professor Bhaer. Jo respects him, partly due to the fact that he is an educated man who can help her realize her potential greatness. Remember that at this point of time, Jo is just beginning her journey as a writer, and future success is not guaranteed. If we believe the truism that long lasting love begins with mutual respect, and if both the partners can bring out the best in each other, then maybe marriage is not such a bad idea.So where is the problem then?The problem lies with Alcott’s characterization of the Professor. Apart from being poor (which is not a flaw in and of itself), he is an arch-conservative, bordering on puritanical. He is also a man, which means that he can’t understand the importance of money for Jo. He fails to comprehend that financial independence is much more important for an unmarried young woman in the society they are living in. Thus, when he berates Jo for writing the sensational Penny Dreadfuls, he demonstrates his skewed outlook towards reality. It can also be argued that he cherishes the idea of Jo more that Jo herself.What is even more baffling is how easily Jo accepts his reprimands. In effect, Professor Bhaer becomes the father figure who was absent during much of Jo’s life. And when Jo accepts his marriage proposal, it almost felt as if her rebelliousness was tamed by the Professor’s unyielding but stern affection.I can only assume that Alcott was cornered into marrying Jo off by her publishers, but she could have made this marriage a more egalitarian union, and not a partial self-realization on Jo’s part that it appeared to be.