题目内容
In the United States, the first day nursery was opened in 1854. Nurseries were established in various areas during the (1) half of the 19th century; most of (2) were charitable. Both in Europe and in the U. S. , the day-nursery movement received great (3) during the First World War, when (4) of manpower caused the industrial employment of unprecedented numbers of women. In some European countries nurseries were established (5) in munitions (军火)plants, under direct government sponsorship. (6) the number of nurseries in the U.S. also rose (7) , this rise was accomplished without government aid of any kind. During the years following the First World War, (8) , Federal, State, and local governments gradually began to exercise a measure of control (9) the day nurseries by (10) them and by inspecting and regulating the conditions within the nurseries.The (11) of the Second World War was quickly followed by an increase in the number of day nurseries in almost all countries, as women were (12) called upon to replace men in the factories. On this (13) the U. S. government immediately came to the support of the nursery schools, (14) $6,000,000 in July, 1942, for a nursery school program for the children of working mothers. Many States and local communities (15) this Federal aid. By the end of the war, in August, 1945, more than 100,000 children were being cared (16) in day-care centers receiving Federal (17) Soon afterward, the Federal government (18) cut down its expenditures for this purpose and later (19) them, causing a sharp drop in the number of nursery schools in operation. However, the expectation that most employed mothers would leave their (20) at the end of the war was only partly fulfilled. （16）处填入（）。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Practically speaking, the artistic maturing of the cinema was the single-handed achievement of David W. Griffith (1875-1948). (46)Before Griffith, photography in dramatic films consisted of little more than placing the actors before a stationary camera and showing them in full length as they would have appeared on stage. From the beginning of his career as a director, however, Griffith, because of his love of Victorian painting, employed composition. He conceived of the camera image as having a foreground and a rear ground, as well as the middle distance preferred by most directors. By 1910 he was using close-ups to reveal significant details of the scene or of the acting and extreme long shots to achieve a sense of spectacle and distance. His appreciation of the camera’ s possibilities produced novel dramatic effects. (47) By splitting an event into fragments and recording each from the most suitable camera position, he could significantly vary the emphasis from camera shot to camera shot.Griffith also achieved dramatic effects by means of creative editing. By juxtaposing images and varying the speed and rhythm of their presentation, he could control tile dramatic intensity of the events as the story progressed. (48) Despite the reluctance of his producers, who feared that the public would not be able to follow a plot that was made up of such juxtaposed images, Griffith persisted, and experimented as well with other elements of cinematic syntax that have become standard ever since. These included the flashback, permitting broad psychological and emotional exploration as well as narrative that was not chronological, and the crosscut between two parallel actions to heighten suspense and excitement. In thus exploiting fully the possibilities of editing, Griffith transposed devices of the Victorian novel to film and gave film mastery of time as well as space.Besides developing the cinema’s language, Griffith immensely broadened its range and treatment of subjects. (49) His early output was remarkably eclectic: it included not only the standard comedies, melodramas, westerns, and thrillers, but also such novelties as adaptations from Browning and Tennyson, and treatments of social issues. As his successes mounted, his ambitions grew, and with them the whole of American cinema. When he remade Enoch Arden in 1911, he insisted that a subject of such importance could not be treated in the then conventional length of one reel. Griffith’ s introduction of the American-made multi-reel picture began an immense revolution. Two years later, Judith of Bethulia, an elaborate historic philosophical spectacle, reached the unprecedented length of four reels, or one hour’ s running time. (50) From our contemporary viewpoint, the pretensions of this film may seem a little ridiculous, but at the time it provoked endless debate and discussion and gave a newintellectual respectability to the cinema. By splitting an event into fragments and recording each from the most suitable camera position, he could significantly vary the emphasis from camera shot to camera shot.
About three-quarters of Americans, according to surveys, think the country is on the wrong track. About two-thirds of the public disapprove of the job performance of President Bush, and an even higher number disdain Congress. The media are excited about the prospect of a wealthy businessman running for President as an independent who could tap into broad public disgruntlement with the partisan politicians in Washington. 2007 Yes. But also 1992. The main difference between the two situations is that Michael Bloomberg is richer—and saner—than Ross Perot. But one similarity might be this: the American people were wrong then and may be wrong now. The widespread pessimism in the early 1990s about the course of the country turned out to be unwarranted. The rest of the decade featured impressive economic growth, a falling crime rate, successful reform of the welfare system and a reasonably peaceful world. Perhaps the problems weren’t so bad in the first place, or perhaps the political system produced politicians, like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, who were able to deal with the problems. But, in any case, the country got back on course. That’s not to say all was well in the 1990s, especially in foreign policy. Responsibilities in places ranging from Bosnia to Rwanda to Afghanistan were shirked, and gathering dangers weren’t dealt with. Still, the sour complaints and dire predictions of 1992—oh, my God, the budget deficit will do us in! —were quickly overtaken by events. What’ s more, the fear of many conservatives that we might be at the mercy of unstoppable forces of social disintegration turned out to be wrong. Indeed, the dire predictions were rendered obsolete so quickly that one wonders whether we were, in 1992, really just indulging in some kind of post-cold-war victory. Sometimes the public mood is…well, moody. Today we’re moody again. We are obviously fighting a difficult and, until recently, badly managed war in Iraq, whose outcome is uncertain. This accounts for much of the pessimism. It also doesn’t help that the political system seems incapable of dealing with big problems like immigration, an energy policy and health care. Still, is the general feeling that everything is going to the dogs any more justified today than it was 15 years ago Not really. Think of it this way: Have events in general gone better or worse than most people would have predicted on Sept. 12, 2001 There’s been no successful second attack here ill the U. S. —and very limited terrorist successes in Europe or even in the Middle East. We’ve had 5 1/2 years of robust economic growth, low unemployment and a stock-market recovery. Social indicators in the U. S. are mostly stable or improving—abortions, teenage births and teenage drug use are down and education scores are up a bit. As for American foreign policy since 9/11, it has not produced the results some of us hoped for, and there are many legitimate criticisms of the Bush Administration’s performance. But, in fact, despite the gloom and doom from critics left and right (including, occasionally, me), the world seems to present the usual mixed bag of difficult problems and heartening developments. The key question, of course, is the fate of Iraq. A decent outcome—the defeat of al-Qaeda in what it has made the central front in the war on terrorism and enough security so there can be peaceful rule by a representative regime—seems to me achievable, if we don’ t lose our nerve here at home. With success in Iraq, progress elsewhere in the Middle East will be easier. The balance sheet is uncertain. But it is by no means necessarily grim. The author’s attitude towards the present situation in the US is
In the United States, the first day nursery was opened in 1854. Nurseries were established in various areas during the (1) half of the 19th century; most of (2) were charitable. Both in Europe and in the U. S. , the day-nursery movement received great (3) during the First World War, when (4) of manpower caused the industrial employment of unprecedented numbers of women. In some European countries nurseries were established (5) in munitions (军火)plants, under direct government sponsorship. (6) the number of nurseries in the U.S. also rose (7) , this rise was accomplished without government aid of any kind. During the years following the First World War, (8) , Federal, State, and local governments gradually began to exercise a measure of control (9) the day nurseries by (10) them and by inspecting and regulating the conditions within the nurseries.The (11) of the Second World War was quickly followed by an increase in the number of day nurseries in almost all countries, as women were (12) called upon to replace men in the factories. On this (13) the U. S. government immediately came to the support of the nursery schools, (14) $6,000,000 in July, 1942, for a nursery school program for the children of working mothers. Many States and local communities (15) this Federal aid. By the end of the war, in August, 1945, more than 100,000 children were being cared (16) in day-care centers receiving Federal (17) Soon afterward, the Federal government (18) cut down its expenditures for this purpose and later (19) them, causing a sharp drop in the number of nursery schools in operation. However, the expectation that most employed mothers would leave their (20) at the end of the war was only partly fulfilled. （1）处填入（）。
In the United States, the first day nursery was opened in 1854. Nurseries were established in various areas during the (1) half of the 19th century; most of (2) were charitable. Both in Europe and in the U. S. , the day-nursery movement received great (3) during the First World War, when (4) of manpower caused the industrial employment of unprecedented numbers of women. In some European countries nurseries were established (5) in munitions (军火)plants, under direct government sponsorship. (6) the number of nurseries in the U.S. also rose (7) , this rise was accomplished without government aid of any kind. During the years following the First World War, (8) , Federal, State, and local governments gradually began to exercise a measure of control (9) the day nurseries by (10) them and by inspecting and regulating the conditions within the nurseries.The (11) of the Second World War was quickly followed by an increase in the number of day nurseries in almost all countries, as women were (12) called upon to replace men in the factories. On this (13) the U. S. government immediately came to the support of the nursery schools, (14) $6,000,000 in July, 1942, for a nursery school program for the children of working mothers. Many States and local communities (15) this Federal aid. By the end of the war, in August, 1945, more than 100,000 children were being cared (16) in day-care centers receiving Federal (17) Soon afterward, the Federal government (18) cut down its expenditures for this purpose and later (19) them, causing a sharp drop in the number of nursery schools in operation. However, the expectation that most employed mothers would leave their (20) at the end of the war was only partly fulfilled. （10）处填入（）。
微信支付 
支付宝支付