Anglais : correction d'un essai

Sujet : If you were a film director would you choose a drama or a comedy to tackle a touchy subject ? (150 words)

Je souhaiterai vous posez quelques questions que je me suis posées en faisant mon essai :

-Comment se forme en anglais le participe présent ? En mangeant, en chantant...

-Comment traduit-on « faire rire » ? Je l’ai écrit « to do laugh » mais je ne pense pas que ce soit ça.
Et enfin « faire attention à » ? que j’ai traduit « to do attention »

Merci beaucoup pour l’aide que vous m’apporterez.

Pourriez-vous m'aider à corriger mon essai

If  I were a film director I choose a comedy to tackle a touchy subject for many reasons.
Firstly, literature uses many stylistic devices for people laugh on touchy subject, for example Molière criticizes false pious people (faux dévot), in his book “Tartuffe” whereas it is a comedy. Molière uses more play on words for to do laugh. So I think that the films can also uses comedy for to do laugh on a touchy subject like Begnini in his film “La vie est belle”. Begnini tackles of the World War Two to try to do reflect and laugh the audiences.

Secondly humour must not offend the spectators because they are differents and a touchy subject can shok a person who lived this situation, so, as for me have to (il faut) to do attention when we write a screenplay (scenario) of comedy.

To conclude a comedy does to react people on a touchy subject but a comedy must not offend the audiences.

Merci infiniment pour votre aide.

Anglais : correction d'un essai

Bonjour. Je suis de langue maternelle anglaise. j'ai vite jeté un coup d'oeil sur tes questions et voici quelques suggestions:

-Comment se forme en anglais le participe présent ? En mangeant, en chantant...

While eating, while singing.

Comment traduit-on « faire rire » ? Je l’ai écrit « to do laugh » mais je ne pense pas que ce soit ça.

To make (someone/the audience) laugh...

Et enfin « faire attention à » ? que j’ai traduit « to do attention »

To take care (to do something) (e.g. the narrator takes care to illustrate his theme...)

If  I were a film director I choose a comedy to tackle a touchy subject for many reasons.

If I were a film director I WOULD choose comedy to tackle a touchy subject for several reasons.

Firstly, literature uses many stylistic devices to make people laugh about a touchy subject: for example Molière criticizes falsely pious people in his play "Tartuffe," which is a comedy. Molière frequently plays on words to make his audience laugh. So I think that films can also use comedy to make people laugh about a sensitive issue (faut varier, ne pas tjrs répeter touchy subject). Begnini's film “La vie est belle” illustrates this. Begnini deals with the Second World War (faut pas préciser que c'est sur les camps de concentration?) in such a way that makes his audience think and laugh at the same time.

Secondly humour should (plutôt que must) not offend the spectators because they are all different. (Je ne suis pas ta pensée, car on risque toujours de heurter les sensibilités de quelqu'un?) A sensitive subject can affect a person who HAS lived through this kind of experience, so, in my view, one should take carre when writing the screenplay for a comedy.

To conclude, (ou bien in conclusion) a comedy can make people think about, and react to, a touchy subject, but it should not offend an audience.

Anglais : correction d'un essai

Merci beaucoup pour ton aide précieuse.

Anglais : correction d'un essai

Bonjour,

J'ai un petit service J'ai un essai a faire sur "in ure opinion, which professional is more useful to society, the doctor or the historian?"
et jai besoin de votre aide
Voila ce que jai ecrit pr linstant:


For sure, the doctor is immidiately more useful to society thant the historian.
In so far as he’s able to save lives, the doctor’s usefulness is instantly visible and no one would deny it.
The historian, on the opposite, has no such obvious handiness. People would rather see him as a burden, a searcher for whom the taxpayer supports the charges every month.
Talking about Humanitarian aid, we all think about doctors providing medicines and food, and the presence of an historian would nearly seem intrusive!
Concluding that a doctor is more useful to society at large, would be a short-sighted view.
The historian has more of a long-term usefulness.
Historians are able to furnish us a historical consciouness that prevent us from repeating the past mistakes




Merci d'avance pour votre aide