How did Mia feel about her test?

She was nervous but thought it was easier than she expected.

She didn't care about it at all.

She was excited and wanted to play.

What did Mia do to prepare for the test?

She read the book as quickly as possible.

What did Tom say about tests compared to playing outside?

Tests are more fun than playing outside.

Tests are the only thing that matters.

Dialogue: At the School Library Tom: Hi Mia! How was your day today? Mia: Hi Tom! My day was a little different than usual. I had a test, so I was nervous. Tom: Oh, I know. Tests are not as fun as playing outside, right? Mia: Yes! But this test was easier for me than I thought. I studied hard. Tom: That’s great! What did you do to prepare for the test? Mia: I read the book as quickly as possible because I wanted to understand it before class. Tom: Wow, you must be smart! I found out that the test was about animals. Did you like it? Mia: Yes, I like animals. I think I did well. Tom: Me too! Let’s go to the library to study for the next test. Mia: Good idea! Let’s go!

🚗 Dialogue: At the Garage Student: Hello, madam. Is my bike ready? Garage Worker: Hello! Yes, madam. The mechanics worked hard on it. Student: I brought it here yesterday. Do you remember? Garage Worker: Yes, I remember now. You brought it in the morning. Student: Have the mechanics finished? Garage Worker: Yes, they finished it an hour ago. Student: Tell me the truth — is it working? Garage Worker: Yes, I’m telling you the truth. It works perfectly! Student: Thank you, madam!

French dialogue at a restaurant. I want to test the students' vocabulary and grammar in functional sentences

Auteur Theory is a way of looking at films that state that the director is the “author” of a film. A film is a reflection of the director’s artistic vision; so, a movie directed by a given filmmaker will have recognizable, recurring themes and visual queues that inform the audience who the director is (think a Hitchcock or Tarantino film) and shows a consistent artistic identity throughout that director’s filmography. The 3 Components of Auteur Theory Andrew Sarris, film critic for The New York Times, expanded on Truffaut’s writing and set out a more comprehensive definition for auteurs according to three main criteria: technical competence, distinguishable personality, and interior meaning. 1. Technical competence: Auteurs must be at the top of their craft in terms of technical filmmaking abilities. Auteurs always have a hand in multiple components of filmmaking and should be operating at a high level across the board. 2. Distinguishable personality: What separates auteurs from other technically gifted directors is their unmistakable personality and style. When looking at an auteur’s collected works, you can generally see shared filming techniques and consistent themes being explored. One of the primary tenets of auteur theory is that auteurs make movies that are unmistakably theirs. This is in sharp contrast with the standard studio directors of the era who were simply translating script to screen with little interrogation of the source material or editorial input. 3. Interior meaning: Auteurs make films that have layers of meaning and have more to say about the human condition. Films made by auteurs go beyond the pure entertainment-oriented spectacles produced by large studios, to instead reveal the filmmakers unique perspectives and ruminations on life. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/film-101-what-is-an-auteur#3ClNjwO6Gkgjd8ix2Cm5qI Who is the author of a TV program? It seems like it ought to be an easy question to answer, but it is not. There are, of course, scriptwriters, who are the literal authors of episodes in the sense of generating words that an actor eventually speaks, but in a soap opera or a sitcom there may be a dozen or more scriptwriters working on dialogue as the months go by. Is any one of them truly responsible for the overall tenor of the show, or are they just following rigid guidelines set down by other scriptwriters ahead of them? And the script is just the blueprint of an episode anyway. Actors, production designers, directors, videographers, editors, and on and on, are all necessary to construct an episode from that blueprint. Should we call one of them the author? And, at a more basic level, should we even bother looking for authors in television? Do viewers need to know who created a program in order to enjoy it? What does it add to our appreciation or understanding of television if we assign authorship of a program to an individual? In the closely related medium of the cinema, questions such as these have been answered by the auteur theory, which stems from the French word for “author,” auteur. Its basic precept is that a single individual is, and should be, the “author” of a work in order for it to be a good, artistically valuable work. A book, poem, film, or television show should express this individual’s personality, his “vision” (the masculine pronoun is significant; auteurist studies almost all focus on men). This notion stems from the nineteenth-century Romantic image of the author as a figure who sits alone in a dingy room, scratching out angst-ridden poems with a quill pen. The tormented, misunderstood author or artist is a cherished character type that can be traced back to the poet Lord Byron (1788–1824) and observed in numerous portrayals of demented painters, musicians, and writers in television programs and other media. Consider this: Have you ever seen or read a story about a creative person who wasn’t somehow strange or crazy? The auteur theory originated in French film criticism of the 1950s, where it was initially theorized that auteurs could be drawn from the ranks of producers, directors, scriptwriters, actors, and other filmmaking personnel.1 However, the vast bulk of auteurist film criticism has been about directors: Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Quentin Tarantino, among many others.

Alexander Hamilton, a key figure in the founding of the United States, served as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. Aaron Burr, on the other hand, was the sitting Vice President under Thomas Jefferson at the time of the duel. The animosity between Hamilton and Burr was well-documented, stemming from political disagreements and personal slights over the years. The Duel Date and Location: The duel took place on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey, a common site for duels due to its less strict enforcement of anti-dueling laws compared to New York. Cause: The immediate cause of the duel was a series of letters and meetings between intermediaries after Hamilton allegedly insulted Burr at a dinner, which was later reported in a newspaper. Burr demanded an apology; Hamilton refused, leading to the challenge. The Event: On the morning of the duel, both men, along with their seconds and a doctor, rowed across the Hudson River to the dueling ground. The exact events are a matter of historical debate, but it is generally believed that Hamilton fired his shot into the air, adhering to a principle of honor without intent to kill. Burr, however, aimed directly at Hamilton, hitting him in the abdomen. Outcome: Hamilton was severely wounded and transported back to New York City, where he died the following day, surrounded by family and friends5. Aftermath Public Reaction: The news of Hamilton's death caused widespread grief and indignation. Angelica Schuyler Church, Hamilton's sister-in-law, expressed the communal sorrow in a letter, highlighting the shock and consternation that gripped the town5. Impact on Burr: Although Burr was never tried for the duel, his political career suffered greatly. He became a pariah in many circles and faced various legal and financial troubles in the years that followed. Historical Significance: The duel is often cited as a turning point in American political culture, highlighting the dangers of political rivalry and the need for civility in discourse. Conclusion The duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr remains a poignant reminder of the intense personal and political conflicts that shaped the early years of the United States. It underscores the tragic potential of unchecked animosity and the importance of reconciliation and dialogue in a democratic society.

When it was his turn to speak, Adam Malik, Presidium Minister for Political Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, recalled that about a year before, in Bangkok, at the conclusion of the peace talks between Indonesia and Malaysia, he had explored the idea of an organization such as ASEAN with his Malaysian and Thai counterparts. One of the “angry young men” in his country’s struggle for independence two decades earlier, Adam Malik was then 50 years old and one of a Presidium of five led by then General Soeharto that was steering Indonesia from the verge of economic and political chaos. He was the Presidium’s point man in Indonesia’s efforts to mend fences with its neighbors in the wake of an unfortunate policy of confrontation. During the past year, he said, the Ministers had all worked together toward the realization of the ASEAN idea, “making haste slowly, in order to build a new association for regional cooperation.” Adam Malik went on to describe Indonesia’s vision of a Southeast Asia developing into “a region which can stand on its own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region.” Such a vision, he stressed, was not wishful thinking, if the countries of the region effectively cooperated with each other, considering their combined natural resources and manpower. He referred to differences of outlook among the member countries, but those differences, he said, would be overcome through a maximum of goodwill and understanding, faith and realism. Hard work, patience and perseverance, he added, would also be necessary. The countries of Southeast Asia should also be willing to take responsibility for whatever happens to them, according to Tun Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, who spoke next. In his speech, he conjured a vision of an ASEAN that would include all the countries of Southeast Asia. Tun Abdul Razak was then concurrently his country’s Minister of Defence and Minister of National Development. It was a time when national survival was the overriding thrust of Malaysia’s relations with other nations and so as Minister of Defence, he was in charge of his country’s foreign affairs. He stressed that the countries of the region should recognize that unless they assumed their common responsibility to shape their own destiny and to prevent external intervention and interference, Southeast Asia would remain fraught with danger and tension. And unless they took decisive and collective action to prevent the eruption of intra-regional conflicts, the nations of Southeast Asia would remain susceptible to manipulation, one against another. “We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia,” Tun Abdul Razak said, “must get together and form by ourselves a new perspective and a new framework for our region. It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together and unless we prove by deeds that we belong to a family of Southeast Asian nations bound together by ties of friendship and goodwill and imbued with our own ideals and aspirations and determined to shape our own destiny”. He added that, “with the establishment of ASEAN, we have taken a firm and a bold step on that road”. For his part, S. Rajaratnam, a former Minister of Culture of multi-cultural Singapore who, at that time, served as its first Foreign Minister, noted that two decades of nationalist fervor had not fulfilled the expectations of the people of Southeast Asia for better living standards. If ASEAN would succeed, he said, then its members would have to marry national thinking with regional thinking. “We must now think at two levels,” Rajaratnam said. “We must think not only of our national interests but posit them against regional interests: that is a new way of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and sometimes they can conflict. Secondly, we must also accept the fact, if we are really serious about it, that regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.” S. Rajaratnam expressed the fear, however, that ASEAN would be misunderstood. “We are not against anything”, he said, “not against anybody”. And here he used a term that would have an ominous ring even today: balkanization. In Southeast Asia, as in Europe and any part of the world, he said, outside powers had a vested interest in the balkanization of the region. “We want to ensure,” he said, “a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast Asia. And those countries who are interested, genuinely interested, in the stability of Southeast Asia, the prosperity of Southeast Asia, and better economic and social conditions, will welcome small countries getting together to pool their collective resources and their collective wisdom to contribute to the peace of the world.” The goal of ASEAN, then, is to create, not to destroy. This, the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Thanat Khoman, stressed when it was his turn to speak. At a time when the Vietnam conflict was raging and American forces seemed forever entrenched in Indochina, he had foreseen their eventual withdrawal from the area and had accordingly applied himself to adjusting Thailand’s foreign policy to a reality that would only become apparent more than half a decade later. He must have had that in mind when, on that occasion, he said that the countries of Southeast Asia had no choice but to adjust to the exigencies of the time, to move toward closer cooperation and even integration. Elaborating on ASEAN objectives, he spoke of “building a new society that will be responsive to the needs of our time and efficiently equipped to bring about, for the enjoyment and the material as well as spiritual advancement of our peoples, conditions of stability and progress. Particularly what millions of men and women in our part of the world want is to erase the old and obsolete concept of domination and subjection of the past and replace it with the new spirit of give and take, of equality and partnership. More than anything else, they want to be master of their own house and to enjoy the inherent right to decide their own destiny …” While the nations of Southeast Asia prevent attempts to deprive them of their freedom and sovereignty, he said, they must first free themselves from the material impediments of ignorance, disease and hunger. Each of these nations cannot accomplish that alone, but by joining together and cooperating with those who have the same aspirations, these objectives become easier to attain. Then Thanat Khoman concluded: “What we have decided today is only a small beginning of what we hope will be a long and continuous sequence of accomplishments of which we ourselves, those who will join us later and the generations to come, can be proud. Let it be for Southeast Asia, a potentially rich region, rich in history, in spiritual as well as material resources and indeed for the whole ancient continent of Asia, the light of happiness and well-being that will shine over the uncounted millions of our struggling peoples.” The Foreign Minister of Thailand closed the inaugural session of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations by presenting each of his colleagues with a memento. Inscribed on the memento presented to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was the citation, “In recognition of services rendered by His Excellency Adam Malik to the ASEAN organization, the name of which was suggested by him.” And that was how ASEAN was conceived, given a name, and born. It had been barely 14 months since Thanat Khoman brought up the ASEAN idea in his conversations with his Malaysian and Indonesian colleagues. In about three more weeks, Indonesia would fully restore diplomatic relations with Malaysia, and soon after that with Singapore. That was by no means the end to intra-ASEAN disputes, for soon the Philippines and Malaysia would have a falling out on the issue of sovereignty over Sabah. Many disputes between ASEAN countries persist to this day. But all Member Countries are deeply committed to resolving their differences through peaceful means and in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Every dispute would have its proper season but it would not be allowed to get in the way of the task at hand. And at that time, the essential task was to lay the framework of regional dialogue and cooperation. The two-page Bangkok Declaration not only contains the rationale for the establishment of ASEAN and its specific objectives. It represents the organization’s modus operandi of building on small steps, voluntary, and informal arrangements towards more binding and institutionalized agreements. All the founding member states and the newer members have stood fast to the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. Over the years, ASEAN has progressively entered into several formal and legally-binding instruments, such as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. Against the backdrop of conflict in the then Indochina, the Founding Fathers had the foresight of building a community of and for all Southeast Asian states. Thus the Bangkok Declaration promulgated that “the Association is open for participation to all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes.” ASEAN’s inclusive outlook has paved the way for community-building not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the broader Asia Pacific region where several other inter-governmental organizations now co-exist. The original ASEAN logo presented five brown sheaves of rice stalks, one for each founding member. Beneath the sheaves is the legend “ASEAN” in blue. These are set on a field of yellow encircled by a blue border. Brown stands for strength and stability, yellow for prosperity and blue for the spirit of cordiality in which ASEAN affairs are conducted. When ASEAN celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1997, the sheaves on the logo had increased to ten – representing all ten countries of Southeast Asia and reflecting the colors of the flags of all of them. In a very real sense, ASEAN and Southeast Asia would then be one and the same, just as the Founding Fathers had envisioned. This article is based on the first chapter of ASEAN at 30, a publication of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in commemoration of its 30th Anniversary on 8 August 1997, written by Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad.

A piece that’s sung as opposed to played. Answer: Cantata A hymn tune of the Lutheran church. Answer: Chorale A part for keyboard (harpsichord or organ) and cello or bass. The keyboard player reads the cello line and provides an accompaniment based on the figured Bass. Answer: Basso continuo The numbers written under the cello part indicating chords and their positions to the keyboard player. Answer: Figured Bass A piece for choir. Answer: Chorus A style of singing that is more related in pitch and rhythm to speech than song. In the 18th Century it was used extensively in Opera as “Dialogue” between Characters. Answer: Recitative (Dry) Accompanied only by continuo. Answer: Recitativo secco More expressive and accompanied by the orchestra. Answer: Recitativo stromentato Contrapuntal device whereby a motif or phrase is presented successively by different voices. Answer: Imitation To turn a motif or phrase “up-side down”. Answer: Inversion A song for 1 or more voices, popular in Opera and Cantata as a contrast with Recitative. Answer: Aria A type of piece that was written as a set of variations on an Ostinato. Answer: Chaconne A musical idea repeating many times. Answer: Ostinato A sustained or repeated note over which the harmonies change. Answer: Pedal Point Point of rest. Answer: Cadence Change of key. Answer: Modulation Where the composer gives prominence or illustrates words in musical terms. Answer: Word Painting A motif that has more than 1 note per syllable is said to be melismatic. Often used as word painting. Answer: Melisma Where 1 note per syllable is used. Answer: Syllabic A polyphonic composition in which a part is imitated by 1 or more parts so that successive statements of the melody overlap. Answer: Canon Any rhythmically independent movement between parts. Answer: Polyphony A combination of 2 or more independent melodies. Answer: Counterpoint A structure consisting of 3 sections-ABA. Answer: Ternary Form Back to the beginning as in the Da Capo Aria. Answer: Da Capo (D.C.) Back to the sign. Answer: Dal Segno (D.S.) A motif which is repeated at a different pitch in the same part. Answer: Sequence

Related quizzes

Related quizzes